TRI National Analysis 2014: Pollution Prevention and Waste Management
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalvsis
Updated January 2016
Pollution Prevention and Waste Management
The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) collects information from facilities on the quantities of toxic
chemicals they recycle, combust for energy recovery, treat for destruction, and dispose of or
otherwise release on- and off-site. These quantities, in aggregate, are collectively referred to as the
quantity of production-related waste managed.
Looking at production-related waste managed over time helps
track progress in reducing waste generation and moving
toward preferred waste management practices. EPA
encourages facilities to first eliminate waste at its source. For
waste that is generated, the preferred management method is
recycling, followed by burning for energy recovery, treating,
and, as a last resort, disposing of or otherwise releasing the
waste into the environment. These waste management
priorities are illustrated in the waste management hierarchy
established by the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990. The
goal is that, when possible, facilities will shift over time from
disposal or other releases toward the preferred techniques in
the waste management hierarchy. For the graphs depicting TRI trends over time, 2003 is used as
the base year because it is the earliest year in which the reporting requirements are nearly
consistent with the current reporting year.
&EPA
Source Reduction
Recycling
Energy Recovery
Treatment
7
l
-------
v>EPA
TRI National Analysis 2014: Pollution Prevention and Waste Management
www.eDa.gov/trinationalanalvsis
Updated January 2016
Waste Management Trends
Production-Related Waste Managed,
2003-2014
30 | 1 30
"'liliiim
11III III
^ ^ ^ ^
Year
Click on legend items below to customize items displayed in the chart
I Recycled Energy Recovery Treated
I Disposed of or Otherwise Released Reporting Facilities
From 2003 to 2014:
• Production-related waste managed by TRI facilities declined by 4% (1.09 billion pounds).
• Disposal and other releases decreased by 661 million pounds (-14%).
• Treatment decreased by 538 million pounds (-7%).
• Energy recovery and recycling held steady with each method changing by less than 2%.
• The number of facilities that report to the TRI Program declined by 12% since 2003,
although the count has remained steady at about 21,800 facilities since 2010.
• Since 2009, production-related waste managed has generally been increasing as the U.S.
economy has improved.
• Quantities of waste managed in 2014 are similar to what they were in 2007, with little
overall change within any waste management method.
2
-------
TRI National Analysis 2014: Pollution Prevention and Waste Management
www.eDa.gov/trinationalanalvsis
Updated January 2016
Waste Management by Industry Sector
Trend in waste managed by industry sector
£EPA
Production-Related Waste Managed by Sector,
2003-2014
Click on legend items below to customize items displayed in the chart
Chemicals H Primary Metals ¦ Metal Mining Electric Utilities
Petroleum H Food/Beverage/Tobacco ¦ Paper HI All Others
30.000
in
¦u
E
3
O
O.
25,000
20.000
O 15.000
i/i
E
O
= 10,000
¦ ! ¦ !
5,000
lllllliilill
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Year
This figure shows the seven industry sectors with the most waste managed reported for 2014.
From 2003 to 2014:
• The contribution of each of the top sectors to production-related waste managed has
remained relatively constant since 2003.
• Of the seven sectors illustrated above, three increased their quantity of waste managed:
metal mining, petroleum, and food/beverages/tobacco.
• Generated waste in some industries fluctuates considerably from year to year, due to
changes in production or other factors (e.g., quantities reported by metal mining facilities
can change significantly based on changes in the composition of waste rock).
From 2013 to 2014:
• Sectors with the greatest reported increases in overall waste quantities since 2013 are:
o Petroleum, which increased by 333 million pounds (+28%)
o Fabricated metals, which increased by 243 million pounds (+40%)
o Cement, which increased by 165 million pounds (+52%)
3
-------
v>EPA
TRI National Analysis 2014: Pollution Prevention and Waste Management
www.eDa.gov/trinationalanalvsis
Updated January 2016
Economic and Waste Management Trend for Manufacturing
Production-Related Waste Managed and
Value Added by the Manufacturing
Sectors, 2003-2014
25
20
i/i
T3
o 15
o
IA
CO
10
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
<
w
c
n
>
a
a
n>
a
ro
$1,000 =
$500
$0
a
o
5T
-i
i/i
Year
Click on legend items below to customize items displayed in the chart
Production-Related Waste Managed Value Added
It is important to consider the influence the economy has on production and production-related
waste generation. This figure presents the total pounds in production-related waste managed as
reported by the manufacturing sectors each year from 2003-2014 and the manufacturing sector's
"value added" (as shown by the solid black line). "Value added" information is obtained from
the Bureau of Economic Analysis and is used here as a proxy for production within the
manufacturing sectors. "Value added" measures the contribution of manufacturing to the nation's
Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which represents the total value of goods and services produced
annually in the United States.
in 2014:
• While not all of the facilities that report to the TRI Program are in the manufacturing sector,
most (88%) are. The manufacturing sector includes sectors such as chemical
manufacturing, metals processing, and pulp and paper manufacturing, but excludes mining,
electric utilities, and waste management facilities.
• TRI manufacturing facilities accounted for 81% of the reported production-related waste
quantities managed.
4
-------
TRI National Analysis 2014: Pollution Prevention and Waste Management
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalvsis
Updated January 2016
From 2003 to 2014:
• Value added by the manufacturing sectors (adjusted for inflation) decreased by 4%.
• Since waste is decreasing at a rate not proportional to changes in production, as shown in
the graph, factors other than production may be contributing to the reductions in production-
related waste managed.
o Other factors such as source reduction and pollution prevention (P2) practices that
may have influenced the quantities of production-related waste managed are
discussed in the Source Reduction/Pollution Prevention section.
More information on production trends for individual sectors, including the electric utility and metal
mining sectors, which are not included in the manufacturing sectors, can be found in the industry
sector profiles.
5
-------
v>EPA
TRI National Analysis 2014: Pollution Prevention and Waste Management
www.eDa.gov/trinationalanalvsis
Updated January 2016
Source Reduction/Pollution Prevention
Source Reduction Activities Reported
Newly Implemented Source Reduction Practices,
2014
Facilities Reporting to TRI
Source Reduction Activities Reported
Facilities
That Did
Not Report
Source Reduction!
Facilities That
Reported Sourc
Reduction:
13%
39%
Good Operating Practices
Spill and Leak Prevention
Inventory Control
Cleaning and Degreasing
Process Modifications
Raw Material Modifications
Product Modifications
Surface Preparation and Finishinc
Note: Facilities report their source reduction activities by selecting from activities that fall
into one of the eight categories listed in the graph legend. "Good Operating Practices" are
defined by four codes in the Reporting Forms and Instructions, which facilities select when
submitting their forms.
In 2014:
• 2,732 facilities (13% of all facilities that reported to the TRI Program) reported initiating a
total of 8,388 source reduction activities.
• Note that facilities may have ongoing source reduction activities initiated in previous years
that are not included in the figure. You can find information on previously implemented
source reduction activities by using the TRI P2 Search Tool.
6
-------
v>EPA
TRI National Analysis 2014: Pollution Prevention and Waste Management
www.eDa.gov/trinationalanalvsis
Updated January 2016
Estimated Release Reduction from Source Reduction
Source Reduction Activities and Estimated
Decrease in Waste, 2014
Good Operating Practices
Spill and Leak Prevention
Inventory Control
Cleaning and Degreasing
Process Modifications
Raw Material Modifications
Product Modifications
Surface Preparation and Finishing
l/l
5
-u
Q)
>0% but <25%
'Z >25% but <50%
~o
o
L_
D.
C
OJ
i/l
(0
QJ
1_
U
OJ
Q
T3
OJ
w
U
QJ
a
x
>50% but <100%
100%
II
¦
i mi
mi
¦ii
¦1
mm
¦i
hi
20%
403
60%
80S
100%
Frequency With Which Each P2 Category Was Reported for Eac
Estimated Decrease in Waste
New in Reporting Year 2014, facilities can now provide an estimate of the resulting reduction in the
annual amount of the chemical managed as waste (i.e., recycled, treated, used for energy recovery,
or released) for each source reduction activity. This figure shows the association between the
source reduction activities implemented in 2014 and the estimated annual reductions in chemical
waste that facilities expect to achieve in Reporting Year 2015, which varies by activity:
• 30% of the activities reported that were estimated to achieve 100% reduction were Raw
Material Modifications (e.g. increasing the purity of raw materials).
• Almost half of the activities expected to achieve less than a 25% reduction were reported as
Good Operating Practices.
7
-------
v>EPA
TRI National Analysis 2014: Pollution Prevention and Waste Management
www.eDa.gov/trinationalanalvsis
Updated January 2016
Barriers to P2
If a facility did not implement new source reduction activities, they can optionally provide
information about barriers they faced to source reduction. In 2014, the most common barriers
reported were:
• the lack of a substitute or alternative for a chemical or process (41%) and
• previous implementation of source reduction with additional reductions not feasible (20%).
Reported Barriers to Source Reduction, 2014
41 %
> No known substitutes or alternative
technologies (41%)
> Pollution prevention previously implemented -
additional reduction does not appear technically or
economically feasible (20%)
> HI Concern that product quality may decline as a
result of source ("eduction (13%)
> H Insufficient capital to install new source
reduction equipment or implement new source
reduction activities/initiatives (5%)
> Specific regulatoiy/permit burdens (2%)
> M Require technical information on pollution
prevention techniques applicable to specific
production processes (1%)
> H Source reduction activities were implemented
but were unsuccessful (1%)
> ¦ Other, including customer demand (18%)
No known substitutes or alternative technologies (41%)
Example: A battery manufacturer produces nickel-cadmium batteries and as a result cannot
eliminate nickel compounds from their product. [Facility Detailsl
Pollution prevention previously implemented - additional reduction does not appear technically or
economically feasible (20%)
Example: A fabricated metal manufacturer had previously reformulated their paint booth linings and
optimized their paint guns to decrease phenol waste. In order to further reduce waste, the facility
would need to replace the paint booth linings entirely, which is a significant economic burden that
would require additional permitting. [Facility Detailsl
Concern that product quality may decline as a result of source reduction (13%)
Example: A steel foundry uses a topping agent that contains aluminum dust, which allows the risers
on the casting to stay hot (liquid) long enough to prevent vacuum shrinkage. Using less of the
topping agent would negatively impact the casting quality. [Facility Detailsl
Insufficient capital to install new source reduction equipment or implement new source reduction
activities/initiatives (5%)
13 %
20%
8
-------
TRI National Analysis 2014: Pollution Prevention and Waste Management
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalvsis
Updated January 2016
Example: A firearms manufacturer has looked into an alternative for their cleaning and degreasing
operations, but has found the associated costs to be prohibitive. The alternatives would be either
expensive fluorinated solvents or aqueous cleaning, which the facility has insufficient capital.
[Facility Detailsl
Specific regulatory/permit burdens (2%)
Example: Because of FDA requirements, a pharmaceutical manufacturer is unable to modify their
processing methods. [Facility Detailsl
Require technical information on pollution prevention techniques applicable to specific production
processes (1%)
Example: A leather tanning facility is preparing to test a filtering system that would allow recycling of
chromium. Although these types of systems have not been effective in the past, the facility
continues to investigate the options. [Facility Detailsl
Source reduction activities were implemented but were unsuccessful (1%)
Example: A dairy facility attempted to substitute citric acid for nitric acid, but citric acid has a high
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) content which overwhelmed the POTW where they transferred
their waste. As a result, the POTW requested that the facility switch back to nitric acid for their
neutralization operations. [Facility Detailsl
Other, including customer demand (18%)
Example: An electrical equipment manufacturer has already substituted lead solder with tin solder
for their newly produced circuit boards. However, they are required to produce lead soldered boards
to support older systems under warranty. [Facility Detailsl
9
-------
v>EPA
TRI National Analysis 2014: Pollution Prevention and Waste Management
www.eDa.gov/trinationalanalvsis
Updated January 2016
Chemicals with Greatest Decreases in Waste Managed
Percentage Change for Chemicals With Largest
Decrease in Quantities Managed as Waste,
2010-2014
-30%
Benzo(g,h,i)- Cobalt and Antimony and Hydrochloric Barium and
perylene Cobalt Antimony Acid Barium
Compounds Compounds Compounds
Note: Limited to chemicals with at least 25 forms reporting source reduction and 100 total
Form Rs in ?014
Source reduction activities implemented by facilities play a significant role in reducing waste
generation, although it's important to note that decreases in reported waste management
quantities may be caused by many factors, including changes in production levels or estimation
methods.
From 2010 to 2014:
The relationship between source reduction, changes in total waste generation, and chemical
releases varies from chemical to chemical. This figure shows the chemicals with the greatest
percentage decrease in waste quantities.
• Reducing the generation of total waste through source reduction can also decrease the
amount of chemical ultimately released to the environment, as was the case for all of the
chemicals shown in the graph with the exception on benzo(g,h,i)perylene.
o Production-related waste for benzo(g,h,i)perylene decreased by 29% (327 thousand
pounds), but releases for this chemical increased by 91 thousand pounds (+143%),
driven by releases from one-time events.
• Cobalt (a carcinogen) is managed almost exclusively through recycling at TRI facilities, so
source reduction reduces the amount of total chemical waste but does not significantly
10
-------
TRI National Analysis 2014: Pollution Prevention and Waste Management
www.eDa.gov/trinationalanalvsis
Updated January 2016
decrease chemical releases. While the total quantity of cobalt waste decreased by 20%,
releases declined by only 6%.
• Production-related waste of hydrochloric acid decreased by about 15% while releases
decreased by 42%, as facilities switched from releasing hydrochloric acid to preferred
management methods, such as treatment, and also undertook source reduction activities.
Source Reduction Activities by Chemical
£EPA
Number of Newly Implemented Source Reduction
Activities for Top Chemicals by Percentage Decrease
in Quantities Managed as Waste, 2010-2014
Click on legend items below to customize items displayed in the chart
Good Operating Practices Process Modifications
Hi Spill and Leak Prevention Raw Material Modifications
HI Inventory Control ¦ Product Modifications
¦ Cleaning and Degreasing H Surface Preperation and Finishinc
-o
2 600
L.
O
o.
* 100
ai
J3
E
¦z
0
Benzo(g.h.i)-
perylene
% Decrease in
Waste Managed
2010-2014
Cobalt and
Cobalt
Compounds
Antimony and Hydrochloric Acid
Antimony
Compounds
Barium and
Barium
Compounds
-29%
-20%
-16%
-15%
-11%
Notes: 1) Limited to chemicals with at least 25 forms reporting source reduction and 100 total
forms in 2014. 2) Facilities report their source reduction activities by selecting from activities that
fall into one of the eight categories listed in the graph legend. "Good operating practices" are
defined by four codes in the Reporting Forms and Instructions, which facilities select when
submitting their forms.
From 2010 to 2014:
• The chemicals with the greatest percentage decrease in production-related waste managed
are benzo(g,h,i)pery!ene, cobalt and cobalt compounds, antimony and antimony compounds,
hydrochloric acid, and barium and barium compounds.
• The type of source reduction activity implemented for these chemicals varies depending on
their use in industrial operations and the chemical's characteristics. For example, some
types of source reduction activities relate to:
11
-------
TRI National Analysis 2014: Pollution Prevention and Waste Management
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalvsis
Updated January 2016
o Spill and leak prevention, which is commonly reported as a source reduction activity
to reduce waste of benzo(g,h,i)perylene, a persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT)
chemical constituent in petroleum products. Common spill and leak prevention
activities for this chemical include improving procedures for loading, unloading, and
transfer operations at petroleum bulk terminals, and installing overflow alarms or
automatic shutoff valves at asphalt product manufacturing facilities,
o Product modifications, such as modifying the design or composition of the product, is
commonly implemented for antimony or barium compounds, which are incorporated
into the product, than for the other chemicals shown.
Facilities may also report additional details to the TRI Program about their source reduction,
recycling, or pollution control activities.
Examples of additional pollution prevention-related information for 2014:
• Benzo(g,h,i)perylene: A medical instrument manufacturer eliminated fuel oil use in an effort
to reduce emissions. The change was made in 2014 and resulted in a 10% reduction in
benzo(g,h,i)perylene emissions from the previous year. The facility expects they will not have
any benzo(g,h,i)perylene emissions in 2015. [Facility Detailsl
• Cobalt and Cobalt Compounds: A metalworking machinery manufacturer initiated a program
to reduce scrap generated by decreasing billet size and forming a crack reduction team.
[Facility Detailsl
• Antimony and Antimony Compounds: A plastics film manufacturer removed Antimony
Trioxide from several products to reduce emissions and decrease costs. [Facility Detailsl
• Hydrochloric Acid: An electric utility installed a selective catalytic reduction system and lime
spray dryer halfway through 2014, resulting in a 66% decrease in releases. [Facility Detailsl
• Barium and Barium Compounds: An organic chemical manufacturer changed its processing
reactions to improve yield and reduce filtration loss. [Facility Detailsl
You can view all reported pollution prevention activities and compare facilities' waste management
methods and trends for any TRI chemical by using the TRI P2 Search Tool.
12
-------
v>EPA
TRI National Analysis 2014: Pollution Prevention and Waste Management
www.eDa.gov/trinationalanalvsis
Updated January 2016
Sectors with Greatest Decreases in Waste Managed
Percentage Change for Sectors with Largest
Decrease in Quantities Managed as Waste,
2010-2014
-3596
Chemical Printing & Electrical Machinery Textiles
Wholesalers Publishing Equipment
Note: Limited to sectors with at least 25 forms reporting source reduction and 100 total Form Rs
in 2014.
From 2010 to 2014:
• The sectors with the greatest percentage decrease in overall waste managed are chemical
wholesalers, printing and publishing, electrical equipment, machinery, and textiles.
• With the exception of the machinery sector, releases and other production-related waste
managed decreased in the other four sectors, whereas the machinery sector had an
increase in releases.
o Releases for the machinery sector make up a small portion (less than 5%) of
production-related waste. The increase in releases was driven primarily by a 241,000
pound increase of disposal to landfills, but during the same time period, the sector
decreased total production-related waste by 32 million pounds.
For many sectors, source reduction activities, which reduce or eliminate waste generation at its
source, have contributed to substantial decreases in both the amount of waste generated and
releases. Source reduction activities reported by these five industries are discussed further in
the next figure.
13
-------
v>EPA
TRI National Analysis 2014: Pollution Prevention and Waste Management
www.eDa.gov/trinationalanalvsis
Updated January 2016
Source Reduction Activities by Sector
Number of Newly Implemented Source Reduction
Activities for Top Sectors by Percentage Decrease in
Quantities Managed as Waste, 2010-2014
Click on legend items below to customize items displayed in the chart
Good Operating Practices Process Modifications
¦ Spill and Leak Prevention Raw Material Modifications
¦ Inventory Control ¦ Product Modifications
I Cleaning and Degreasing H Surface Preperation and Finishinc
2 1,600
0
Q.
01
tc
1.400
2 1.200
< 1.000
c
o
3
T3
V
UL
3
o
1/1
.fi
E
800
600
400
200
Chemical
Wholesalers
Printing &
Publishing
Electrical
Equipment
Machinery
Textiles
-34%
-32%
-27%
-18%
-14%
% Decrease in
Waste Managed
2010-2014
Notes: 1) Limited to sectors with at least 25 forms reporting source reduction and 100 total
forms in 2014. 2) Facilities report their source reduction activities by selecting from activities that
fall into one of the eight categories listed in the graph legend. "Good operating practices" are
defined by four codes in the Reporting Forms and Instructions, which facilities select when
submitting their forms.
From 2010 to 2014:
• The five sectors with the greatest percentage decrease in overall waste managed
are chemical wholesalers, printing and publishing, electrical equipment, machinery, and
textiles.
• The types of source reduction activities vary significantly by industry, as shown. For example,
many chemical wholesalers reported inventory control (e.g., instituting clearinghouses to
exchange materials that otherwise would be discarded), while electrical equipment and
machinery manufacturers frequently reported modifications to their raw materials and
processes, often associated with the elimination of lead solder.
Facilities may also report additional details to the TRI Program about their source reduction,
recycling, or pollution control activities.
Examples of additional pollution prevention-related information for 2014:
14
-------
TRI National Analysis 2014: Pollution Prevention and Waste Management
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalvsis
Updated January 2016
• Chemical Wholesalers: A facility changed composition of products in order to reduce or
eliminate multiple hazardous chemicals, including methanol. [Facility Detailsl
• Printing & Publishing: A gravure printing facility reduced certain glycol ethers releases by
replacing solvent-based digital inks with UV ink technology. [Facility Detailsl
• Electrical Equipment: A facility converted its manufacturing process to use lead-free solders
starting in 2013, resulting in an 87% decrease in lead releases in 2014 [Facility Detailsl
• Machinery: An HVAC equipment manufacturer reduced copper scrap releases and overall
use by purchasing new tooling for copper bending equipment to improve part quality.
[Facility Detailsl
• Textiles: Through an employee recommendation, one facility installed a spill tank to
capture zinc liquid material from overflows which decreased releases by 28%. [Facility
Detailsl
You can view all reported pollution prevention activities and compare facilities' waste management
methods and trends for any TRI chemical by using the TRI P2 Search Tool.
15
-------
TRI National Analysis 2014: Pollution Prevention and Waste Management
www.eDa.gov/trinationalanalvsis
Updated January 2016
Example of a "Zero Releaser"
The waste management hierarchy emphasizes the preferred waste management techniques that
facilities can utilize to reduce the quantities of toxic chemicals they release or otherwise manage as
waste. For example, some facilities may be able to completely eliminate all releases of TRI
reportable chemicals while still managing other production-related waste. These "zero releasers"
are able to do so by implementing a variety of alternative waste management techniques. An
example of a facility that followed the waste management hierarchy and no longer releases certain
chemicals is shown below. This example illustrates one of the many ways that facilities can improve
current pollution prevention and waste management practices. Find additional examples pertaining
to TRI reportable chemicals or sectors by using the TRi P2 Search Tool.
Management of Chromium at American NTN
Bearing Manufacturing Corp, 2003-2014
UnHithn
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Year
Click on legend Items below to customize items displayed in the chart
¦ Recycled ¦ Disposed of or Otherwise Released
American NTN Bearing Manufacturing Core (owned by NTN USA Corp.) manufactures ball and roller
bearings In 2012, they implemented a recycling process for the chips and debris generated as part
of the metal grinding process. By 2012, releases of chromium had been reduced to zero and all
other chromium waste was recycled.
£EPA
6,000
T3
c
rtJ
2
ra
£
4,000
2,000
16
-------
TRI National Analysis 2014: Pollution Prevention and Waste Management
www.eDa.gov/trinationalanalvsis
Updated January 2016
Waste Management by Parent Company
Parent companies with the most production-related waste managed
Parent Companies that Managed the Greatest
Quantities of Production-Related Waste in 2014
Teck American, Inc
2014
2013
Incobrasa Industries Ltd
2014
2013
The Dow Chemical Co
2014
2013
Koch Industries Inc
2014
2013
Honeywell International Inc
2014
2013
PBF Energy
2014
2013
BASF Corp
2014
2013
Syngenta Corp
2014
2013
The Renco Group Inc
2014
2013
Ascend Performance Materials
Holdings Inc 2014
2013
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Millions of Pounds
¦ Recycling Energy Recovery Treated H Releases
Notes: 1) For TRI reporting, the parent company is the highest level U.S. company which directly
owns at least 50 % of the voting stock of the company. This figure uses EPA's standardized parent
name. 2) To view facility counts by parent in 2013 or 2014. mouse over the bar graph. 3) One
facility, Incobrasa industries Ltd. does not report a parent company, but it is listed in this table
because it has a comparable quantity of total production-related waste managed.
Vlany of the facilities that report to the TRI Program are owned by parent companies that also own
other facilities that report to TRI. Facilities that report are asked to provide information on their
parent company, if they have one. For TRI reporting purposes the parent companies must be
located in the United States.
This figure shows the parent companies whose facilities reported the greatest quantities of
production-related waste for 2014. These parent companies vary in size and in the sectors in which
£EPA
17
-------
TRI National Analysis 2014: Pollution Prevention and Waste Management
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalvsis
Updated January 2016
they operate. The number of facilities owned by these companies that reported to the TRI Program
for 2014 ranges from 1 to 130.
The parent companies' TRI-reporting facilities operate in the following sectors:
• Metal mining: Teck American
• Soybean processing: Incobrasa
• Multiple sectors, e.g. pulp and paper, petroleum refining, and chemicals: Koch Industries
• Chemical manufacturing: Dow Chemical, Syngenta, Honeywell International, BASF, and
Ascend Performance Materials
• Petroleum refining: PBF Energy
• Metal smelting: The Renco Group
Most of these top parent companies reported implementing one or more new source reduction
activities in 2014. Some of these companies also reported additional (optional) information to TRI
about their pollution prevention or waste management activities.
Examples of additional pollution prevention-related information for 2014:
• A Syngenta facility that manufactures pesticides eliminated use of more than 200,000
pounds/year of naphthalene by purchasing a solvent that does not contain the chemical.
(Raw Material Modification) [Facility Detailsl
• A BASF organic chemical manufacturing plant changed a manufacturing process from high
temperature, high pressure to an ambient temperature reaction, which reduced VOC
emissions that included acrylonitrile by over 99%. (Process Modification) [Facility Detailsl
To conduct a similar type of parent company comparison for a given sector, chemical, or geographic
location, use the TRI P2 Search Tool.
18
-------
TRI National Analysis 2014: Pollution Prevention and Waste Management
www.eDa.gov/trinationalanalvsis
Updated January 2016
Source Reduction Activities by Parent Company
Top 10 Parent Companies Based on Newly
Implemented Source Reduction Activities, 2013-2014
Koch Industries Inc
2014
2013
The Valspar Corp
2014
2013
Global Partners LP
2014
2013
3M Co
2014
2013
Shell Oil Co
2014
2013
Nexeo Solutions Holdings LLC
2014
2013
Northern Tier Energy LLC
2014
2013
Silgan Holdings Inc
2014
2013
Chevron Corp
2014
2013
Nucor Corp
2014
2013
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Number of Source Reduction Activities Reported
Good Operating Practices
¦
Process Modifications
¦
Spill & Leak Prevention
¦
Raw Material Modifications
¦
Inventory Control
¦
Product Modifications
¦
Cleaning & Degreasing
¦
Surface Preperation & Finishing
Notes: 1) For TRI reporting, the parent company is the highest level U.S. company which directly
owns at least 50?o of the voting stock of the company. This figure uses EPA's standardized parent
company names. 2) Facilities report their source reduction activities by selecting from activities
that fall into one of the eight categories listed in the graph legend. "Good Operating practices" are
defined by four codes in the Reporting Forms and Instructions which facilities select when
submitting their forms. 3) To view facility counts by parent in 2013 or 2014. mouse over the bar
graph.
The parent companies that implemented the most source reduction activities in 2014 are shown in
the graph.
The parent companies' facilities that reported to the TRI Program primarily operate in the following
industries:
• Multiple sectors, e.g. pulp and paper, petroleum refining, and chemicals: Koch Industries
19
£EPA
-------
TRI National Analysis 2014: Pollution Prevention and Waste Management
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalvsis
Updated January 2016
• Chemical manufacturing sector: Valspar and 3M
• Petroleum refining: Northern Tier Energy
• Bulk petroleum industry (store and distribute crude petroleum and petroleum products):
Global Partners
• Multiple petroleum-related sectors, e.g. petroleum refining, bulk petroleum, chemicals: Shell
Oil and Chevron
• Chemical wholesaler: Nexeo Solutions
• Metal containers: Silgan Holdings
• Steel manufacturing: Nucor
Good operating practices, such as improving maintenance scheduling and installation of quality
monitoring systems, are the most commonly reported source reduction activities for these top
parent companies. Spill and leak prevention and process modifications are also commonly
reported.
Some of these parent companies submitted additional text to EPA with their TRI reports describing
their pollution prevention or waste management activities.
Examples of additional pollution prevention-related information for 2014:
• A Nucor facility worked with a vendor to purchase higher purity steel in response to
customer demand for steel with lower residual copper. (Raw Material Modification) [Facility
Detailsl
• By implementing new adiponitrile (ADN) process technology, a Koch Industries chemical
manufacturing facility improved yield and reduced the amount of hydrogen cyanide required
for processing. (Process Modification) [Facility Detailsl
• Through an employee recommendation, a 3M plastics manufacturer decreased its use of
several solvents, including certain glycol ethers, by sequencing changeovers to reduce the
amount of cleanings needed. (Good Operating Practices) [Facility Detailsl
You can find P2 activities reported by a specific parent company and compare facilities' waste
management methods and trends for any TRI chemical by using the TRI P2 Search Tool.
20
------- |