Whitford Corporation
Box 2347, West Chester, PA 19380-0110
Tel: (610) 296-3200 • Fax: (610) 647-4849
Shipping: 33 Sproul Road (Rie.#352), Frazer, Pennsylvania, USA 19355
Email: sales@whitfordww.com • Website: www.whitfordww.com
April 28, 2006 via Federal Express
Mr. James TerBush
Elverson, Pennsylvania 19520
Dear Mr. TerBush:
This letter is offered in response to your email to Elverson Borough Council dated
March 17th and April 14th, 2006. The Borough was kind enough to share your
correspondence with us so we might address the issues you've identified.
First, we understand your concern. The arrival of any manufacturer who utilizes
chemicals in their manufacturing processes merits the scrutiny of the community's
residents. Let me assure you that Whitford has always conducted its operations
(administrative, manufacturing, and research and development) as a responsible
member of the community and in an environmentally-responsible manner.
Whitford is not managed by absentee owners. The Company's majority shareholders
live in Chester County (and have for 40 years), as do most of the Company's managers
and employees. Several live within minutes of the 47 Park Avenue site. We intend to
be good neighbors.
Since you have alluded to our"... past environmental track record", allow us to share a
bit of our corporate history with you. Whitford commenced operations in West Chester
in 1969 and operated there for 17 years. As the business grew and the need for more
space became evident, we purchased the facility we currently occupy in Frazer in 1985
and began manufacturing here in 1986.
The Frazer site is located in a mixed-usage area (business and residential). There
is a residential subdivision no more than 150 yards from our manufacturing building.
We have been the sole occupant and operator of this site for 20 years. During nearly
37 years of continuous operation in Chester County, first in West Chester, more recently
in Frazer, we have never had a single complaint from any neighbor, residential or
corporate, for any reason. Not one. We intend to conduct our business in exactly
the same responsible manner when operations commence in Elverson later this year.
Whitford's current location is in East Whiteland Township. Our facility and operations
are inspected annually by East Whiteland Township's Fire Marshall to ensure safe
operation and compliance with the National Fire Prevention Code. Upon completion of
a successful inspection, we are issued a Hazardous Operations Permit
********************************************************************************
April 28, 2006
Mr. James TerBush
Elverson, Pennsylvania
Page 2 of 7
(certifying that Whitford fulfilled the requirements of the Code and is in compliance with
the Township's requirements). We have always passed East Whiteland Township's
inspections and have never been denied a Hazardous Operations Permit.
We are also subject to unannounced inspections by the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PA DEP), and we comply with all applicable PA DEP
regulations. In fact, as a result of your actions, we were subject to an unannounced
inspection on Tuesday, April 25th, by Mr. Kevin T. McLemore, PA DEP Air Quality
District Supervisor. We were found to have no violations.
In your email of March 17th, you express concern about toxic chemicals which may
be released into the community's air, land, and groundwater. We will address your
concerns first by stating that chemicals are not inherently toxic - they are potentially
toxic, i.e., a chemical must first enter the body to cause adverse health effects (the
pathways are termed routes of exposure). We manage the chemicals we use in our
processes so that they cannot escape from our facility to enter the body via the
recognized routes of exposure. We offer the following examples.
• We do not store any chemicals outside. This practice eliminates the possibility
of rain, floodwater, heat, wind, other acts of God, or sabotage from damaging
or rupturing containers and spilling (releasing) chemicals into the environment.
• We have a long-standing corporate policy that dictates no chemicals or wastewaters
may be discharged to sanitary sewer systems ("Public-Owned Treatment Works" or
"POTW"), irrespective of the fact that such discharges may be perfectly legal and
permitted by the local authority. All wastes are collected, segregated by type,
manifested, then transported and disposed of in compliance with all applicable
laws and regulations.
• All processing areas are fitted with either containment devices or berms at doorways
to contain potential spills within a given area so chemicals cannot be released
into the environment.
• You will find no floor drains in our manufacturing areas. All have been plugged or
capped. This is another "best practice" that eliminates the potential for a spill to be
released into the environment via a sanitary sewer system or a POTW.
********************************************************************************
April 28, 2006
Mr. James TerBush
Elverson, Pennsylvania
Page 3 of 7
The 6000 pounds of Methyl ethyl ketone (commonly known as MEK) cited in your email
and discharged to the environment in 2003 are known as fugitive emissions. (Our 2004
combined total for all on-site and off-site disposal and aH air emissions [fugitive and
point-source] of TRI-listed chemicals was 623 pounds.) The emissions are caused by
chemical transfer operations (loading and unloading processing vessels) and when
batches are stirred. (Reduced to the simplist equation, we are a paint manufacturer,
thus the references to mixing and stirring operations.)
To the extent possible, we use closed-loop processes and covered processing vessels,
however, some evaporative losses are unavoidable. While 6000 pounds of MEK
emissions may seem like a large amount, we assure you that this amount is miniscule
when compared to emissions from other industry sources. We offer the following
examples, derived from the same EPA TRI public data base that you used for your
research.
• In 1996, Graco Children's Products, Inc., Elverson, PA (probably their last year of
operation at the 47 Park Avenue site), reported total air emissions of 26,330 pounds.
• In 2004, Metech, Inc., Elverson, PA, reported total on-site disposal or other releases
of lead compounds of 348 pounds.
• In 2004, Morgan Corporation, Morgantown, PA, reported total air emissions of
143,396 pounds. This total includes 136,570 pounds of fugitive air emissions
of Chlorodifluoromethane.
• In 2004, Occidental Chemical Corporation, Pottstown, PA, reported total air
emissions of 206,994 pounds.
• In 2004, Carpenter Technology Corporation. Reading, PA, reported total on-site
disposal or other releases of 1,221,930 pounds. This total includes 1,156,962
pounds of nitrate compounds discharged to surface water.
Indeed, we use MEK, in part, because of its lack of toxicity. To illustrate this point, we
offer the facts that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has removed MEK
from two separate lists of toxic chemicals and instructed the regulated community that
reporting MEK under these statutes is no longer required. Details follow.
• SARA Title 313 Toxic Release Inventory (TRI): Because of a court order removing
MEK from the TRI, the EPA agreed that facilities that manufacture, process, or use
MEK are no longer required to report annual releases that occurred during the
2004 reporting year or for activities in the future.
********************************************************************************
April 28. 2006
Mr. James TerBush
Elverson, Pennsylvania
Page 4 of 7
• Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPS): On December 13th, 2005, the EPA signed a
Final Rule removing MEK from the list of hazardous air pollutants which appeared
in section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act. In its ruling, the EPA announced that it will
no longer regulate MEK as a hazardous air pollutant because it has determined
after nine-plus years of research and analysis that the substance "may not
reasonably be anticipated to cause human health or environmental problems".
Regarding the PFOA information that appears on our web site (Coating World. Issue #3,
20 February 2006), you use the words "noise", "fuss", and "hoopla" in your email to
Elverson Borough Council, however, the context in which those words were used was
not mentioned. As you will learn by reading any authoritative document on the subject
of PFOA and nonstick cookware, the "noise" in the media has been significantly louder
than the truth merits. Without intending to offend, we believe it is disingenuous to cite
three words from a text of nearly one thousand words, as if those words represented
our corporate stance on this issue. Council members could well be left with a false
impression of our stance on environmental issues, not having had the opportunity to
read about the twelve legitimate issues discussed therein.
The brochure's audience is clearly intended to be consumers. The summary message
is that we (nonstick coating manufacturers) do not use PFOA to make nonstick
coatings, and that nonstick coatings and nonstick cookware continue to be safe and
desirable products. The EPA and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have
both made recent statements to this effect.
PFOA is a polymerization aid used by the companies that manufacture fluoropolymers.
(Fluoropolymers are the engineering plastics that impart nonstick properties into
nonstick coatings.) We neither use PFOA in our operations nor add PFOA to our
products. There are trace amounts of PFOA in one of the raw materials used as a
formulated component; however, this PFOA is volatilized and/or destroyed when our
nonstick coatings are fused to metal cookware during processing cycles of 10 minutes
at ~800°F. (We know that >99.9 of PFOA is thermally degraded in less than 1 second
at 662°F.) So, the "noise" the media has made regarding the safety of nonstick coatings
and nonstick cookware is just that - much ado about nothing, because consumers are
not exposed to PFOA by the use of nonstick cookware.
We do not make light of the PFOA issue. Our entire industry has worked diligently with
the EPA to determine the sources of PFOA in the environment and reduce or eliminate
those sources, and the EPA has commended our industry for its efforts.
********************************************************************************
April 28, 2006
Mr. James TerBush
Elverson, Pennsylvania
Page 5 of 7
To illustrate the industry's progress, in 2005, the level of PFOA in fluoropolymer
dispersions from our suppliers was ~ 0.2. In 2006, our suppliers have succeeded
in reducing the level of PFOA in these dispersions by 99, to ~ 0.02. About forty
percent of our fluoropolymer dispersion purchases are now of the low-level PFOA
materials, and a PFOA content of 0.02 will be the industry's gold standard by the
end of calendar year 2006.
As our industry continues to work toward the goals of eliminating emissions of PFOA to
the environment and removing it from industrial and consumer products, let us not lose
sight of the fact that there is still no evidence that PFOA causes any adverse health
effects in humans.
Addressing the final issue cited in your letter of April 14th, soil contaminated with
dichlorobenzene and VOCs at our Frazer facility, you will be surprised to learn that it
was not Whitford's operations that contaminated the soil. The soil was contaminated
by the site's previous owner / operator.
We discovered the contaminated soil (including bags full of chemicals and other debris
that were buried) while conducting excavations and improvements to the property
(hookup to the public sanitary sewer, improved storm water control). We immediately
reported our findings to the PA DEP, submitted a remediation plan to them, then
cleaned up the entire site. We also removed a number of underground storage tanks
that had been abandoned by the site's previous owner / operator. When this project
was completed, the PA DEP thanked us for a job well done. A copy of their letter is
included with the enclosures.
The environmental history of the Elverson site shares similarities with the Frazer
site in that the previous owners / operators of both sites engaged in practices that
contaminated the soil and / or water and endangered human health and the
environment. We are proud of our environmental record in Frazer. We have
remediated every location on this site where contaminants were discovered
(none were our doing), and as we prepare to leave Frazer, we know that our efforts
have returned this property to a state akin to its condition prior to any manufacturing
activities that were conducted here.
If you have researched the history of the Elverson site, you will have discovered that
environmental investigations have identified contamination in site soils, groundwater,
and surface water. Contamination of the aquifer has resulted in migration of
contaminants off-site and resultant contamination of wells. Residents who relied on
wells as their source of potable water had to abandon them in favor of public water.
********************************************************************************
April 28, 2006
Mr. James TerBush
Elverson, Pennsylvania
Page 6 of 7
Graco Children's Products, Inc. and their successor, Newell Rubbermaid, Inc., (and
briefly, Zenith Properties) the site's previous owners / operators, are monitoring and
remediating the site, and will continue to do so until the level of contaminants meets
Act 2 Remediation Standards. (The Pennsylvania Land Recycling and Environmental
Remediation Act, became law in August, 1997. The primary goal of this Act is to
encourage reuse of orphaned and contaminated industrial and commercial properties,
thereby preserving green space from development).
This is exactly what Whitford intended, and our occupation of the site will benefit the
Elverson community. We know that approximately $1,000,000 has already been spent
on environmental activities at the site, and we will continue to monitor the progress of
remediation efforts there and hold the previous occupants accountable for their actions.
During our environmental audit of the site prior to purchase, we identified a number of
areas of concern, including abandoned underground and above-ground storage tanks
(USTs and ASTs). We successfully negotiated the decommissioning, excavation,
removal, and recycling of 1 UST and 2 ASTs before they leaked and, by doing so,
prevented further contamination of soil, groundwater, and surface water. This is an
excellent example of how our presence will benefit the community.
In closing, we trust that we have succeeded in addressing your concerns. But rather
than having you view our operations from a distance, we invite you to become an
informed partner as we become a member of the Elverson community. You are
welcome to visit us in Frazer at any time so you can see our operations firsthand and
meet many of the individuals who are, in sum, Whitford. We ask only for the courtesy of
a telephone call in advance of your visit (my number is 610-296-3200 x 265).
Likewise, you are invited to visit our Elverson site now or at any time in the future.
Again, we ask only for the courtesy of advance notification so we may make your
visit meaningful. As the site is now undergoing new construction as well as other
renovations and improvements, it is a "hardhat" site, and protective boots, eyewear,
and head protection will be required. (We can provide eye protection and a hard hat.)
We hope you will accept our invitation in the spirit of cooperation in which it is offered.
We look forward to receiving your reply.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Trout
Manager, Regulatory Affairs
********************************************************************************
April 28, 2006
Mr. James TerBush
Elverson, Pennsylvania
Page 7 of 7
Enclosures: Whitford literature; Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection,
Act 2 Approval Letter, June 14, 2000.
C: Messrs. David Willis, Michael Miller, and Anthony Weir, Whitford Corporation;
Mr. Jack McEwen, Borough Manager, Elverson, PA
********************************************************************************
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Lee Park, Suite 6010
555 North Lane
Conshohocken, PA 19428
June 14, 2000
Southeast Regional Office 610-832-5949
Fax 610-832-6143
Mr. Robert L. Trout
Manager, Regulatory Affairs
Whitford Corporation
Box 2347
West Chester PA 193 80-0110
Re: Act 2 - Approval of Report
ID No. 1-15-925-28223
Whitford Corporation
33 Sproul Road
East Whiteland Township, Chester County
Dear Mr. Trout:
Please be advised that the Final Report titled "Site Remediation Report for the Excavation and
Removal of Contaminated Soils", pertaining to the subject site has been approved by the Department of
Environmental Protection, in accordance with the provisions of the Land Recycling and Environmental
Remediation Standards Act (Act 2). The liability protections for attainment of the selected cleanup
standard are set forth in Chapter 5 of Act 2.
The Final Report contains a demonstration of attainment of an Act 2 standard for soil. The
facility has attained a Used Aquifer, Residential State Wide Health standard for 1,2-, 1,3-, and 1,4-
dichlorobenzene in soil at Excavation Areas 1 and 2.
Thank you for your cooperation in working with the Department in the remediation of this site. If
you need any additional information regarding this matter, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Bruce D. Beitler
Regional Manager
Environmental Cleanup
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer http://www.dep.state.pa.us Printed on Recycled Paper
