| i TRI National Analysis 2019
/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021
Pollution Prevention and Waste Management
Each year, the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) collects information from more than 21,000
facilities on the quantities of TRI-listed chemicals they recycle, combust for energy recovery,
treat for destruction, and dispose of or otherwise release both on and off site as part of their
normal operations. These quantities are collectively referred to as the quantity of production-
rej a ted. wa ste. m a nag ed.
Looking at production-related waste managed over
time helps track facilities' progress in reducing the
amount of chemical waste generated and in
adopting waste management practices that are
preferable to disposing of or otherwise releasing
waste into the environment.
Pollution prevention is an essential component of
sustainable manufacturing practices. EPA
encourages facilities to first to reduce or eliminate
the use of TRI-listed chemicals and the creation of
chemical waste through source reduction activities such as material substitutions and process
modifications. For waste that is generated, the preferred management method is recycling,
followed by combusting for energy recovery, treatment, and, as a last resort, disposing of or
otherwise releasing the chemical waste into the environment in a safe manner. This order of
preference is consistent with the national policy established by the Pollution Prevention Act
(PPM of 1990. This waste management hierarchy is illustrated in the graphic above. While not
specifically mentioned in the PPA of 1990, energy recovery is a preferred practice over
treatment and disposal and is included in the hierarchy.
Waste Management Hierarchy
Source Reduction
Recycling
Energy Recovery
Treatment
TRI Data Considerations
As with any dataset, there are several factors to consider when using the TRI data. Key factors associated
with data used in the National Analysis are summarized in the Introduction. For more information see
Factors to Consider When Using Toxics Release Inventory Data.
1
-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019
/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021
Source Reduction Activities Reported
Facilities are required to report new source reduction activities that they initiated or fully
implemented during the year. Source reduction (also referred to as pollution prevention)
includes activities that eliminate or reduce the use of TRI-listed chemicals and the generation of
chemical waste. Other waste management practices, such as recycling and treatment, refer to
how chemical waste is managed after it is generated and are not considered source reduction
activities. The source reduction information the TRI Program collects can help facilities learn
from each other's best practices and potentially reduce their own chemical releases.
For more information, see the TRI Source Reduction Reporting Fact Sheet.
Source Reduction Activities Reported, 2019
Good Operating Practices
¦ Process Modifications
¦ Spill and Leak Prevention
40% ¦ Inventory Control
¦ Product Modifications
¦ Cleaning and Degreasing
¦ Raw Material Modifications
¦ Surface Preparation and
Finishing
Note: Facilities report their source reduction activities by selecting codes that describe their activities. These codes are
organized into eight categories listed in the graph legend and are defined in the TRI Reporting Forms and Instructions.
• In 2019, 1,325 facilities (6% of all facilities that reported to TRI) implemented a
combined 3,285 new source reduction activities.
• On their reporting forms, facilities select from 49 types of source reduction activities
across the 8 categories shown in the graph. The most reported source reduction
category is Good Operating Practices.
o For example, a fabricated metal parts manufacturer used an automated system
for applying sulfuric acid which improved operating efficiency and minimized
sulfuric acid usage in the plating process. fClick to view facility details in the TRI
P2 Search Tooll
2
-------
v>EPA
TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021
• Facilities also report the methods by which source reduction activities are identified. In
2019, the most commonly reported method for identifying source reduction
opportunities was participative team management. Internal pollution prevention audits
and vendor assistance were also commonly reported.
Additional Resources
• See the TRI P2 Data Overview Factsheet for more information on source reduction
reporting in recent years.
• Note that facilities may have implemented source reduction activities in earlier years
which are ongoing or completed projects. To see details of source reduction activities
implemented for this year or in previous years, use the TRI P2 Search Tool.
3
-------
oEPA
TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021
Source Reduction Activities by Chemical
For the chemicals with the highest source reduction reporting rates over the last 5 years, this
figure shows the number and types of activities implemented.
Newly Implemented Source Reduction Activities by Chemical, 2015-2019
Good Operating Practices
I Spill and Leak Prevention
I Inventory Control
I Surface Preparation and Finishing
Process Modifications
Raw Material Modifications
I Product Modifications
I Cleaning and Degreasing
~o
cu
4->
I—
o
Q.
(D
C
o
3
~a
(D
3
O
-------
v>EPA
TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021
• Chemicals with the highest source reduction reporting rates were styrene, antimony and
antimony compounds, N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP), dichloromethane (DCM, also
known as methylene chloride), and trichloroethylene (TCE).
• The type of source reduction activities implemented for these chemicals varied
depending on their use in industrial operations and the chemical's characteristics. For
example:
o Raw material modifications include the use of alternative materials in the
manufacturing process, such as replacing styrene, a chemical used to make
plastics such as polystyrene, and antimony compounds, which are used in
electronics, batteries, and as a component of fire retardants.
o Cleaning and degreasing activities, including changing to water-based
cleaners, are implemented to reduce wastes of industrial solvents, such
as trichloroethylene (TCE).
o Process modifications, including optimizing reaction conditions and modifying
equipment, layout, or piping, can help reduce the amount of solvents such as
dichloromethane (DCM) needed for a process.
Facilities may also report additional details about their source reduction activities in an optional
text field of the TRI reporting form.
Examples of optional source reduction information for 2019:
• Styrene: With supplier assistance, a fiberglass manufacturing facility began using gel
coats with lower styrene content which reduced the facility's overall usage of styrene.
TCIick to view facility details in the TRI P2 Search Tooll
• Antimony and antimony compounds: A ceramic tile manufacturer added dry cutting
lines so that antimony compounds which would otherwise be handled as waste could be
recirculated within the system, reducing material usage. fClick to view facility details in
the TRI P2 Search Tooll
• N-Methyl-2-pyrrolidone: A paint and coating manufacturing facility implemented
better monitoring of shelf life and improved its "first-in, first-out" inventory method,
which reduced the quantity of N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone waste generated. The facility also
began manufacturing some products on demand rather than stocking inventory. fClick
to view facility details in the TRI P2 Search Tooll
5
-------
v>EPA
TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021
• Dichloromethane: A laboratory instrument manufacturing facility revised its rinse
procedures to reduce waste and replaced dichloromethane with hexane, a less toxic
chemical, in some processes. fClick to view facility details in the TRI P2 Search Tooll
• Trichloroethylene: A metal heat treating facility installed a newer degreaser with a
lower temperature surface vapor control and a smaller surface which reduced
trichloroethylene waste. fClick to view facility details in the TRI P2 Search Tooll
You can compare facilities' waste management methods and trends for any TRI chemical bv
using the TRI P2 Search Tool.
6
-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019
/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021
Source Reduction Activities by Industry
For the industries with the highest source reduction reporting rates over the last 5 years, this
figure shows the number and types of activities these sectors implemented.
Newly Implemented Source Reduction Activities by Industry, 2015-2019
Good Operating Practices
I Spill and Leak Prevention
I Inventory Control
I Surface Preparation and Finishing
Process Modifications
Raw Material Modifications
I Product Modifications
I Cleaning and Degreasing
1,200
Note: 1) Limited to industries with at least 100 source reduction activities reported from 2015-2019. 2) Facilities report their source
reduction activities by selecting codes that describe their activities. These codes fall into one of eight categories listed in the graph
legend and are defined in the TRI Reporting Forms and Instructions.
From 2015 to 2019:
• The five industry sectors with the highest source reduction reporting rates were
computers and electronic products, miscellaneous manufacturing (e.g., medical
equipment), furniture manufacturing, textiles, and textile products.
• For most sectors, "Good operating practices" was the most frequently reported type of
source reduction activity. Other commonly reported source reduction activities varied by
7
-------
v>EPA
TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021
sector. For example, computers and electronic products manufacturers frequently
reported modifications to their raw materials and products, often associated with the
elimination of lead-based solder.
Facilities may also report additional details to TRI about their source reduction activities, as
shown in the following examples.
Examples of optional source reduction information for 2019:
• Computers and Electronic Products: A printed circuit board manufacturer switched
from a spray application, which generated an aerosol, to a flooded application of
hydrochloric acid which flows solution on the product and reduces emissions. \Click to
view facility details in the TRI P2 Search Tooll
• Miscellaneous Manufacturing: A casket manufacturing facility reduced its usage of
certain glycol ethers by reducing the number of times clear coat is applied during the
rerun process. \Click to view facility details in the TRI P2 Search Tooll
• Furniture Manufacturing: A wood cabinet manufacturer installed a point-of-use
injection system which uses less 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene in their process. fClick to view
facility details in the TRI P2 Search Tooll
• Printing: A printing facility focused on running similar jobs on the press to minimize
downtime and reduce toluene waste. fClick to view facility details in the TRI P2 Search
Tooll
• Textiles: A fabric coating mill reduced antimony usage by re-evaluating product
specifications and removing antimony from products that were initially over-engineered.
fClick to view facility details in the TRI P2 Search Tooll
You can view all reported pollution prevention activities and compare facilities' waste
management methods and trends for any TRI chemical bv using the TRI P2 Search Tool.
8
-------
oEPA
TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021
Green Chemistry Activities
Green chemistry is the design of chemical products and processes that use safer inputs and
minimal energy while preventing the generation of waste. In the pollution prevention hierarchy,
green chemistry is a way to achieve source reduction. Advancements in green chemistry allow
industry to prevent pollution at its source by, for example, designing manufacturing processes
that reduce or eliminate the use of TRI chemicals.
Six of the TRI source reduction codes facilities can choose from are specific to green chemistry
activities, although green chemistry practices may also fit under other codes. This figure shows
the chemicals for which the highest number of green chemistry activities were implemented
over the last 5 years and the sectors that reported those activities.
Green Chemistry Activities for Top Chemicals, by Industry, 2015-2019
Methanol
Lead
Toluene
Zinc
Ammonia
20 40 60 80
Number of Green Chemistry Activities Reported
100
120
Chemical Manufacturing
I Transportation Equipment
I Computers and Electronic Products
I Fabricated Metals
I Plastics and Rubber
All others
Note: In this figure, metals are combined with their metal compounds, although metals and compounds of the same metal are
listed separately on the TRI list (e.g. lead is listed separately from lead compounds).
9
-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019
/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021
• Since 2015, facilities have reported 1,233 green chemistry activities for 115 TRI
chemicals and chemical categories.
o Green chemistry activities were reported most frequently for methanol, lead
and lead compounds, toluene, zinc and zinc compounds, and ammonia.
o The chemical manufacturing, fabricated metals, and transportation
equipment manufacturing sectors reported the highest number of green
chemistry activities.
• Chemical manufacturers used green chemistry to reduce or eliminate their use of TRI
solvent and reagent chemicals, such as methanol, toluene, and ammonia. For example:
o An organic chemical manufacturing facility installed catalyst reduction
equipment which decreased methanol usage. fClick to view facility details in
the TRI P2 Search Tooll
• Fabricated metal producers and transportation equipment manufacturers applied green
chemistry techniques to reduce or eliminate their usage of metals such as lead and zinc.
For example:
o A fabricated metal product manufacturer enhanced process monitoring and
quality control which improved resource utilization and decreased waste
generation, including metal waste. fClick to view facility details in the TRI P2
Search Tooll
Additional Resources
Source reduction activities such as green chemistry are the preferred way to reduce the
creation of chemical wastes. Find more information on green chemistry using these resources:
• EPA's TRI P2 Industry Profile Dashboard: green chemistry examples for a specific
chemical and/or industry.
• EPA's Green Chemistry program: information about green chemistry and EPA's efforts to
facilitate its adoption.
• EPA's Safer Choice program: information about consumer products with lower hazard.
• For more details on the types of green chemistry activities reported to TRI and trends in
green chemistry reporting, see The Utility of the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) in
Tracking Implementation and Environmental Impact of Industrial Green Chemistry
Practices in the United States.
10
-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019
/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021
Reported Barriers to Source Reduction
Facilities that did not implement new source reduction activities for a TRI chemical have the
option to tell EPA about any barriers that prevented them from doing so. Analyzing the source
reduction barriers reported to TRI helps identify where more research is needed, for example,
to address technological challenges or promote development of viable alternatives. It may also
allow for better communication between those that have knowledge of source reduction
practices and those that are seeking additional help. This figure shows the types of barriers that
facilities reported for metals and for all other (non-metal) TRI chemicals.
Barriers to Source Reduction Reported for Metals and All Other
Chemicals, 2015-2019
0%
Metals Non-metals
¦ Source Reduction Unsuccessful
Regulatory Barriers
¦ Reduction Not Technically Feasible
¦ Other Barriers
¦ No Known Substitutes
¦ Technical Information Needed
¦ Insufficient Capital
¦ Product Quality Concerns
¦ Further Source Reduction Not Feasible
Note: Facilities report barriers to source reduction by selecting from nine codes. These codes are defined in the TRI Reporting
Forms and Instructions.
11
-------
v>EPA
TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021
From 2015 to 2019:
• Facilities reported barriers to source reduction for 321 chemicals and chemical
categories.
• While no known substitutes was the most frequently reported barrier for both metals
and non-metals, it accounted for almost half (48%) of the barriers reported for metals
but made up a smaller portion (37%) of barriers reported for non-metals.
• For the no known substitutes barrier for metals, many facilities reported the presence of
the TRI metal in their raw materials (e.g., metal alloys) as the reason they did not
implement source reduction activities. Examples include:
o A nonferrous metal forge reported that lead is present as a trace contaminant in
the raw aluminum and there are no known alternatives for purchasing aluminum
without the lead. \Click to view facility details in the TRI P2 Search Tooll
o A printing facility reported that it continues to consider alternatives to lead
anodes for hard chrome plating, but feasibility, testing, and quality standards
would need to be met prior to implementation. fClick to view facility details in
the TRI P2 Search Tooll
• Further source reduction not feasible was the next most commonly reported barrier for
both metals and non-metals. Facilities select this barrier code when additional reductions
do not appear feasible. For example:
o A powder metallurgy part manufacturing facility previously implemented
practices to minimize the use of bulk ammonia in furnace operations. The facility
reported that further source reduction is not feasible because the alternative to
ammonia requires the storage of hydrogen gas, an extremely flammable
material. fClick to view facility details in the TRI P2 Search Tooll
• You can view source reduction barriers for any TRI chemical bv using the TRI P2 Search
Tool.
12
-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019
/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021
Waste Management Trends
Facilities report the quantities of TRI-listed chemicals that they dispose of or otherwise release
into the environment as a result of normal industrial operations. In addition, facilities report the
quantities of these chemicals that they manage through preferred methods including recycling,
combusting for energy recovery, and treating for destruction. This figure shows the trend in
these quantities, collectively referred to as production-related, waste .managed.
Production-Related Waste Managed
35
30
25
o 20
Q-
O
to
C
o
5
15
10
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Year
Disposal or Other Releases Treatment Energy Recovery Recycling # Facilities
Note: For comparability, trend graphs include only those chemicals that were reportable to TRI for all years presented.
From 2007 to 2019:
• Production-related waste managed decreased during the recession from 2007 to 2009.
Since 2009, production-related waste managed has generally increased as the U.S.
economy has improved.
• Since 2007, production-related waste managed increased by 5.4 billion pounds (23%),
driven by increased recycling.
o Disposal and other releases decreased by 874 million pounds (-20%).
o Treatment decreased by 887 million pounds (-11%).
o Energy recovery increased by 124 million pounds (5%).
13
-------
oEPA
TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021
o Recycling increased by 7.1 billion pounds (78%), a trend largely driven by three
facilities in the chemical manufacturing sector that each reported recycling one
billion pounds or more annually in recent years.
The number of facilities that report to TRI has declined by 9% since 2007. Reasons for
this decrease include facility closures, outsourcing of operations to other countries, and
facilities reducing their manufacture, processing, or other use of TRI-listed chemicals to
below the reporting thresholds.
Please note that the most recent TRI dataset reflects chemical waste management
activities that occurred during calendar year 2019, and therefore does not indicate any
potential impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, which began in the U.S. in early 2020.
Facilities report both on- and off-site waste management. The following chart shows the relative
quantities of on-site and off-site waste management methods for 2019.
On-site and Off-site Waste Managed, 2019
10%
I Off-site Recycling
I On-site Recycling
Off-site Energy Recovery
I On-site Energy Recovery
Off-site Treatment
On-site Treatment
Off-site Releases
I On-site Releases
24%
45%
For 2019, 88% of production-related waste was managed on site.
• Most production-related waste managed off site is recycled. Most of this recycling is
reported by the primary and fabricated metals sectors. Facilities in these sectors often
send scrap metal off site for recycling.
• The 2019 distribution of waste managed on site and off site is similar to previous years.
14
-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019
/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021
Production-Related Waste Managed by Chemical
This figure shows the chemicals that were managed as waste in the greatest quantities from
2007 to 2019.
Production-Related Waste Managed by Chemical
¦ Methanol Toluene BCumene HZinc ¦ Lead
¦ Hydrochloric Acid ¦ Ethylene ¦ Copper ¦ Dichloromethane HAII Others
35
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Year
Note: 1) For comparability, trend graphs include only those chemicals that were reportable to TRI for all years presented. 2) In this
figure, metals are combined with their metal compounds, although metals and compounds of the same metal are listed separately
on the TRI list (e.g. lead is listed separately from lead compounds).
From 2007 to 2019:
• Facilities reported production-related waste managed for more than 500 chemicals and
chemical categories from 2007 to 2019. The nine chemicals for which facilities reported
the most production-related waste managed, shown above, represent 50% of the total
production-related waste reported.
• Of the chemicals shown above, facilities reported increased quantities of waste managed
for: dichloromethane (methylene chloride), lead and lead compounds, cumene, and
ethylene.
o Waste managed of ethylene increased by 701 million pounds (66%).
15
-------
v>EPA
TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021
o Dichloromethane waste managed increased over 10-fold, due to 2 facilities that
started recycling large quantities of the chemical, one starting in 2013 and the
other starting in 2018.
o Cumene recycling increased eight-fold, mostly driven by one facility reporting
recycling over 3.4 billion pounds of cumene annually from 2014 to 2019. I"Click to
view facility details in the TRI P2 Search Tooll
From 2018 to 2019:
• Quantities of TRI chemical waste decreased for numerous chemicals, including:
o Lead and lead compounds decreased by 186.4 million pounds (-14%)
o Methanol decreased by 58.8 million pounds (-3%)
o Hydrochloric acid decreased by 26.4 million pounds (-3%)
o Copper and copper compounds decreased by 26.4 million pounds (-3%)
• Dichloromethane waste managed decreased by 475 million pounds (-14%), mostly
driven by one plastic manufacturing facility reporting a decrease of 367 million pounds
of dichloromethane recycling from 2018 to 2019. \Click to view facility details in the TRI
P2 Search Tooll
• Quantities of TRI chemical waste managed increased for other chemicals including:
o Toluene increased by 95 million pounds (6%)
o Ethylene waste managed increased by 232 million pounds (15%)
16
-------
| j TRI National Analysis 2019
1 www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021
Production-Related Waste Managed by Industry
This figure shows the industry sectors that managed the most TRI chemical waste from 2007 to
2019.
Production-Related Waste Managed by Industry
¦ All Others I Petroleum Products Manufacturing ¦ Food Manufacturing
¦ Paper Manufacturing Electric Utilities ¦ Metal Mining
¦ Primary Metals I Chemical Manufacturing
35
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Note: For comparability, trend graphs include only those chemicals that were reportable to TRI for all years presented.
From 2007 to 2019:
• The percent contribution of each of the top sectors to production-related waste
managed has remained relatively constant since 2007.
• Of the sectors shown in the graph, four increased their quantity of waste managed:
o Chemical manufacturing increased by 6.6 billion pounds (65%)
o Metal mining increased by 291 million pounds (23%)
o Food manufacturing increased by 456 million pounds (46%)
o Petroleum products manufacturing increased by 185 million pounds (16%)
• The quantity of waste generated in some industries fluctuates considerably from year to
year, due to changes in production or other factors. For example, quantities of waste
17
-------
v>EPA
TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021
managed reported by metal mining facilities can change significantly based on
differences in the composition of waste rock.
From 2018 to 2019:
• Industry sectors with the greatest reported changes in waste management quantities
were:
o Chemical manufacturing decreased by 501 million pounds (-3%)
o Petroleum products manufacturing decreased by 260 million pounds (-11%)
o Metal mining decreased by 226 million pounds (-13%)
18
-------
v>EPA
TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021
Waste Management by Parent Company
Facilities that report to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) provide information on their parent
company. For TRI reporting purposes, the parent company is the highest-level company located
in the United States. This figure shows the parent companies whose facilities reported the most
production-related waste managed for 2019. Facilities outside of the manufacturing sector, such
as electric utilities and coal and metal mines, are not included in this chart because those
sectors' activities do not lend themselves to the same types or degree of source reduction
opportunities as the activities at manufacturing facilities.
Note that these manufacturing facilities manage the majority of their waste through EPA's
preferred waste management methods-recycling, energy recovery, or treatment-rather than
releasing it into the environment.
19
-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019
/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021
Production-Related Waste Managed by Parent Company
Advansix Inc
2019
2018
Sabic US Holdings LP
2019
2018
Incobrasa Industries Ltd
2019
2018
Dow Inc
2019
2018
PBF Energy Inc
2019
2018
Syngenta Corp
2019
2018
Bridgestone Americas Inc
2019
2018
¦
Koch Industries Inc
2019
¦ii
2018
1
Westlake Chemical Corp
2019
¦
2018
¦ ¦
Honeywell International Inc
2019
2018
0 12 3 4
Billions of Pounds
¦ Disposal or Other Releases ¦ Treatment ¦ Energy Recovery ¦ Recycling
Notes: 1) This figure uses EPA's standardized parent company names. 2) To view facility counts by parent company in 2018 or
2019, mouse over the bar graph. 3) One facility, Incobrasa Industries Ltd, does not report a parent company but it is included in
this figure because it has a comparable quantity of production-related waste managed. 4) Thirty of the facilities that submitted
"Dow Inc" as their parent company name for 2019 submitted "DowDuPont Inc" as their parent company for 2018. Production-
related waste for 2018 from these facilities is included in the figure above under "Dow Inc."
20
-------
v>EPA
TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021
These parent companies' TRI-reporting facilities operate in the following industry sectors:
• Chemical manufacturing: Advansix Inc, Dow Inc, Syngenta Corp, Honeywell
International Inc, Sabic US Holdings LP, Westlake Chemical Corp
• Soybean processing: Incobrasa Industries Ltd
• Multiple sectors, e.g. pulp and paper, petroleum refining, and chemicals: Koch
Industries Inc
• Tires and rubber products: Bridgestone Americas Inc
• Petroleum refining: PBF Energy Inc
Five of these top parent companies reported implementing new source reduction activities in
2019. Some of these companies reported additional (optional) descriptive information about
their pollution prevention activities.
Examples of additional pollution prevention-related information for 2019:
• A Koch Industries chemical manufacturing facility implemented process modifications
that resulted in a 64% reduction in the site's air emissions of methanol. fClick to view
facility details in the TRI P2 Search Tooll
• A plastic products manufacturing facility owned by Westlake Chemical Corporation
reduced its usage of chromium compounds through reformulation and substitution of
the products they use. fClick to view facility details in the TRI P2 Search Tooll
To conduct a similar type of parent company comparison for a given sector, chemical, or
geographic location, use the TRI P2 Search Tool.
21
-------
v>EPA
TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021
Source Reduction Activities by Parent Company
This figure shows the parent companies whose facilities implemented the most source reduction
activities during 2019. Facilities outside of the manufacturing sector, such as electric utilities
and coal and metal mines, are not included in this chart because those sectors'activities do not
lend themselves to the same source reduction opportunities as the activities at manufacturing
facilities. For example, metal mining involves dislodging and moving large volumes of earth that
contain metals included on the TRI chemical list from below ground or from a mining pit to the
surface to get to the target metal ore. This activity, which metal mines report as a release of
the TRI chemicals, is inherent in mining operations.
Facilities report their source reduction activities by selecting codes that describe their activities.
These codes fall into one of eight categories listed in the graph legend and are defined in the
TRI Reporting Forms and Instructions.
22
-------
oEPA
TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021
Source Reduction Activities for Top Parent Companies
3M Co
2019
2018
Axalta Coating Systems...
2019
2018
Shell Oil Co
2019
2018
Silgan Holdings Inc
2019
2018
Superior Essex Inc
2019
2018
Nucor Corp
2019
2018
Koch Industries Inc
2019
2018
Lyondellbasell Industries
2019
2018
Hexpol Holdings Inc
2019
2018
Ergon Inc
2019
2018
0
80
20 40 60
Number of Source Reduction Activities Reported
Good Operating Practices ¦ Process Modifications
Spill and Leak Prevention ¦ Raw Material Modifications
Inventory Control ¦ Product Modifications
Cleaning and Degreasing ¦ Surface Preparation and Finishing
100
Notes: 1) This figure uses EPA's standardized parent company names. 2) To view facility counts by parent company in 2018 or
2019, mouse over the bar graph.
23
-------
v>EPA
TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021
These parent companies' facilities primarily operate in the following industries:
• Chemical manufacturing: 3M Co, Axalta Coating Systems LLC, Lyondellbasell
Industries
• Steel manufacturing: Nucor Corp
• Plastics and rubber manufacturing: Hexpol Holdings Inc
• Fabricated metals manufacturing: Silgan Holdings Inc
• Wire and cable manufacturing: Superior Essex Inc
• Petroleum products manufacturing: Shell Oil Co
• Multiple sectors, e.g. pulp and paper, petroleum refining, and chemicals: Koch
Industries Inc, Ergon Inc
Good operating practices, such as improving maintenance scheduling and installation of quality
monitoring systems, are the most commonly reported types of source reduction activities for
these parent companies. Spill and leak prevention and process modifications are also commonly
reported.
Some of these parent companies submitted additional optional text on their TRI reporting forms
describing their pollution prevention activities.
Examples of additional pollution prevention-related information for 2019:
• A chemical manufacturing facility owned by Koch Industries Inc. began collecting
styrene from line breaks, sampling activities, or line bleedings to use as feedstock in
other processes. The styrene collected from these activities would have historically been
treated as waste. fClick to view facility details in the TRI P2 Search Tooll
• A 3M facility participated in a water waste reduction project which resulted in fewer
changeovers and cleanings between products. This reduced the amount of barium
compounds landfilled. fClick to view facility details in the TRI P2 Search Tooll
You can find P2 activities reported bv a specific parent company and compare facilities' waste
management methods and trends for any TRI chemical bv using the TRI P2 Search Tool.
24
------- |