"Toxic 100" list of corporate air polluters, prepared by Univ. of Massachusetts research institute (PERI): Alcoa in top 10.

Get RSS feed of these results

All components of this story

Company response
25 May 2006

Response of Ford to “Toxic 100” ranking [USA

Author: Ford Motor Company

Ford Motor Company is committed to meeting or exceeding all state and federal regulatory and permit requirements at our operating facilities. We continually monitor our environmental performance and are fully committed to reducing the overall environmental impact of our manufacturing operations.

Read the full post here

Company response
24 May 2006

Response by Tyson: "Toxic 100" list of corporate air polluters, prepared by Univ. of Massachusetts research institute (PERI): Tyson in top 10 (but likely to be eliminated): [Note: Statement provided by PERI said that Tyson is to submit revised data...

Read the full post here

Company response
23 May 2006

Response of Alcoa to “Toxic 100” ranking

Author: Alcoa

Operating in a manner that protects and promotes the health and well-being of the environment is a core value to Alcoa. In 2001, we developed an initial set of long-range goals to be achieved by 2020, with routine measurement to track our progress. We updated these goals in early 2006 as part of a larger initiative to enhance Alcoa's sustainability framework... We have made significant progress against many of our goals... For more detailed information on Alcoa's sustainability programs and performance please visit our website http://www.alcoa.com/global/en/about_alcoa/sustainability/home.asp

Read the full post here

Company response
23 May 2006

Response of Archer Daniels Midland to “Toxic 100” ranking

Author: Archer Daniels Midland

The reported emissions used for this ranking system are from 2002. In 2003, ADM [Archer Daniels Midland] commenced a 10-year program to reduce emissions from its major U.S. facilities by approximately 65,000 tons per year over a period of ten years. As those reductions are realized, ADM’s score will be greatly reduced under the methodology used by the Institute. Notably, emissions of a single compound at a single facility account for nearly 70% of ADM’s total score. However, when the controls planned for that facility are completed, those emissions will be reduced by greater than 95% and may be reduced to nearly zero...

Read the full post here

Company response
23 May 2006

Response of General Electric to “Toxic 100” ranking

Author: General Electric

GE has a comprehensive EHS (environment, health & safety) management system that operates globally. Since 1987, GE has reduced its emissions by more than 85%, despite greatly expanding its production. We continually evaluate opportunities to further reduce our emissions. The US Environmental Protection Agency has stated that the model used by PERI is properly used for screening purposes only and it is not a quantitative risk assessment model and thus not independently meaningful.

Read the full post here

Company response
22 May 2006

Response of Eastman Kodak to “Toxic 100” ranking

Author: David M. Kiser, Director, Health, Safety and Environment & Vice President, Eastman Kodak

Quite simply, the information relative to Kodak is inaccurate and misleading. First, the report used old data from 2002. Since that time, Kodak has reduced air emissions by about one-third. Even more significantly, the analysis performed by PERI was flawed and overestimated the concentration of Kodak emissions by a factor of more than 50 times. The PERI report is based on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Risk Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) model, which is a preliminary screening tool with a number of technical limitations. (The EPA has clearly identified some of these limitations – see http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/rsei/faqs.html .) We recently held discussions with EPA concerning the use of RSEI by PERI, and the agency has acknowledged that the database is not intended to be used in this manner and is working with Kodak and others to prevent such flawed analyses in the future.

Read the full post here

Company response
19 May 2006

Response of United States Steel to “Toxic 100” ranking

Author: United States Steel

Your alleged ranking of toxic air releases is based upon 2002 TRI reports, however you have assigned to United States Steel Corporation emissions from facilities which U. S. Steel did not own or operate in 2002. These are the Granite City Works in Granite City, Illinois; the Great Lakes Works in Ecorse and River Rouge, Michigan; and, the Midwest Plant in Portage, Indiana. According to your listing, these three facilities account for 35% of the score you have assigned to U. S. Steel. If you are going to base your report on 2002 data, you should only look at those facilities which U. S. Steel owned and operated in 2002.

Read the full post here

Company non-response
5 January 2006

ExxonMobil did not respond to: Toxic 100 list of corporate air polluters, prepared by Univ. of Massachusetts research institute (PERI): ExxonMobil in top 10.

Company non-response
24 May 2005

ConocoPhillips did not respond to: "Toxic 100" list of corporate air polluters, prepared by Univ. of Massachusetts research institute (PERI): ConocoPhillips in top 10.