2019 Toxics Release Inventory National Analysis

Introduction to the 2019 TRI National Analysis

Industries and businesses in the United States (U.S.) use many chemicals to make the products
we depend on, such as pharmaceuticals, computers, paints, clothing, and automobiles. While
most chemicals on the Toxics Release Inventory fTRD chemical list are managed by these
facilities in ways that minimize releases into the environment, releases still occur as part of
normal business operations.

It is your right to know what TRI chemicals are being used in
your community, how chemical waste is managed including
how much is released into the environment, and whether
such quantities are increasing or decreasing over time.

The TRI tracks the management of certain chemicals from
the information reported to EPA each year by facilities
located in the U.S. in industry sectors such as manufacturing,
metal mining, electric utilities, and hazardous waste
management. The data reported to TRI are compiled in a
publicly available EPA database. For calendar year 2019,
more than 21,000 facilities reported to EPA's TRI Program,
Please note that the

most recent TRI dataset reflects chemical waste
management information, including releases, that
occurred during calendar year 2019, and therefore does
not indicate any potential impacts from the COVID-19
pandemic, which began in the U.S. in early 2020.

Each year, in support of its mission to protect human
health and the environment, EPA analyzes the most
recent TRI data and publishes its findings in the TRI National Analysis.

Watch a short video about the TRI Program and your right to know.

Overview of the 2019 TRI data

The two pie charts below summarize the most recent TRI data: 1) on how facilities managed
production-related TRI chemical wastes through recycling, energy recovery, treatment, and
disposal or other releases; and 2) for the quantities of the TRI chemical wastes released to the
environment, the proportions released to air, water, and land.

-------
Production-Related Waste Managed, 2019

Disposal or Other Releases

3.4 billion pounds

30.7 billion pounds

Energy Rpcnuprv
1C

Off-site Disposal or
Other Releases: 13%

On-site Air
Releases: 18%

On-site Surface Water
Discharges: 6%

Note: To avoid double counting, the Disposal or Other Releases pie on the right excludes quantities of TRI chemicals
that are transferred off site from a TRI-reporting facility and subsequently released on site by a receiving facility that
also reports to TRI. Percentages do not sum to 100% due to rounding.

• Facilities reported managing a total of 30.7 billion pounds of TRI-listed chemicals as
production-related waste during 2019. Production-related waste is the quantity of TRI
chemicals in waste generated from routine operations at facilities. This includes TRI
chemicals in wastes that are recycled, combusted for energy recovery, treated, disposed of,
or otherwise released into the environment.

o Of this total, 89% was recycled, combusted for energy recovery, or treated. Only
11% was disposed of or otherwise released into the environment.

• For chemical wastes that were disposed of or otherwise released, facilities also reported
whether the wastes were released to air, water, or land, the quantities released, and the
locations of the releases. Most releases occur on site at facilities, but chemical waste may
also be shipped off site for disposal, such as to a landfill. As shown in the pie chart on the
right, most waste was disposed of to land, which includes landfills, underground injection,
and other land disposal.

• To view these data in a table, see Quick Facts under TRI Data Considerations.

-------
Where are the Facilities that Reported to TRI for 2019 Located?

Click on any of the locations to see a facility's TRI information.

View Larger Map

-------
TRI Data Considerations

As with any dataset, there are several factors to consider when reviewing results or using
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data. Key factors associated with the data presented in the TRI
National Analysis are summarized below; for more information see Factors to Consider When
Using Toxics Release Inventory Data.

• Covered chemicals and sectors. TRI includes
information reported by many industry sectors on
the quantities of certain chemicals that are released
into the environment or otherwise managed as
waste through recycling, combustion for energy
recovery, or treatment. However, the TRI does not
contain information on all chemicals, nor is every
facility or every industry sector within the U.S
required to disclose information on TRI chemicals. A
list of the chemicals reportable to the TRI Program
as well as a list of the sectors covered bv the TRI
Program is available on the TRI webpage. Facilities
in covered sectors that manufacture, process, or
otherwise use TRI-listed chemicals above listed
threshold quantities must also employ at least ten
full-time equivalent employees to be required to
report to the TRI Program. For most TRI chemicals,
the thresholds are 25,000 pounds of the chemical manufactured or processed, or 10,000
pounds of the chemical otherwise used during a calendar year.

• TRI trends. The TRI chemical list has changed over the years. To make sure year-to-
year data are comparable, trend graphs in the TRI National Analysis include only
chemicals that were reportable for the entire time period presented. Results which focus
only on the year 2019 include all chemicals reportable for 2019. Thus, results for the
2019 analyses may differ slightly from the results presented in trend analyses, which
include 2019 and previous years.

• Data quality. Facilities use the best readily available data to determine the quantities
of chemicals they report to TRI. Each year. EPA conducts an extensive data Quality
review that includes contacting facilities concerning potential errors in reported
information. This data quality review process helps ensure that the TRI National Analysis
is based on accurate and complete information.

TRI Renoi'tins: is Retiuired

TRI reporting is required for
facilities that meet the reporting
criteria under Section 313 of the
Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act
fEPCRA). EPA investigates cases
of EPCRA non-compliance and
may issue civil penalties, including
monetary fines. Since the TRI
Program's creation, EPA has taken
more than 3,400 TRI-related
enforcement actions. For more
information, see the TRI
Compliance and Enforcement
webpage.

-------
• Risk. TRI data can be a useful starting point to evaluate whether TRI chemical releases
pose a risk to human and environmental health. However, the quantity of a TRI
chemical released is not necessarily an indicator of exposure to the chemical, or the
health or environmental risks posed by the chemical after its release. In particular, note
that:

o The extent of human and environmental exposure to a chemical depends on
many factors such as the where the chemical is released, the environmental
media to which it is released (i.e., air, water, or land), the chemical's properties,
and the chemical's environmental fate and movement, and

o TRI-listed chemicals vary in their toxicity

Therefore, judgements about the potential health risks of chemical releases must
consider all this information, in addition to the quantity released. For more information
on the use of TRI data in exposure and risk evaluations, see the TRI and Estimating
Potential Risk webpaae and Hazard and Potential Risk of TRI Chemicals in the Releases
section.

• COVID-19. The most recent TRI dataset reflects chemical waste management activities,
including releases, that occurred during calendar year 2019. Therefore, none of the trend
information or changes in waste management or release quantities from 2018 to 2019
indicate any potential impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, which began in the U.S. in early
2020.

-------
•	Late submissions, revisions and withdrawals.

TRI reporting forms submitted to EPA or revised
after the July 1 reporting deadline may not be
processed in time to be included in the National
Analysis. After EPA's data quality review, the TRI
data are frozen in October and this dataset is used
to develop the National Analysis. Any revisions or
late submissions received after this date, or
withdrawals made after this date, will not be
reflected in the National Analysis but are
incorporated into the TRI dataset during the spring
data refresh and will be reflected in next year's
National Analysis where the data for that reporting
year are referenced.

•	Double counting. The National Analysis presents
summaries of many quantitative data elements
including releases to the environment, which occur
on site and off site after chemical wastes are
transferred to other businesses for further waste
management. When aggregating releases across
facilities, such as national totals, EPA adjusts off-site
releases to eliminate double counting of releases if
the receiving facility also reports to TRI.

Impact of Late
Submissions and Revisions
on the National Analysis

Comparing the 2018 TRI data
available in October 2020 to those
that were available a year earlier
when the 2018 dataset was frozen
reveals the impact on the 2018
TRI National Analysis from
facilities that submitted late or
revised TRI reporting forms after
the data freeze. With the updated
data, waste managed and release
quantities are lower than
originally reported: releases are
2.0% lower (primarily driven by
one mining facility's revisions) and
waste managed is 0.5% lower
than was shown in the 2018 TRI
National Analysis. While overall
totals are lower when the updated
data are considered, looking at
the data by environmental
medium reveals that releases to
air are 3.5% (21 million lb)
higher with the updated data.
This increase is primarily due to
two facilities' revisions to their air
releases of ammonia-one with a
14.5-million-pound increase and
the other with a 5-million-pound
increase.

-------
Quick Facts for 2019

2019 TRI Quick Facts

Production-Related Waste
Managed: 30.7 billion lb

Treatment:
8.03

Disposal or Other Releases:
3.43 billion lb

1 . ¦'	' •jNjjE

't,	¦ », . jSHBc

T*' i

		v" jl

TRI Facilities:
21,393

Total:

3.40 billion lb

Total Disposal
or Other
Releases



Off-site:
0.43 billion lb

Water:
0.20 billion lb

o

On-site:
2.96 billion lb

Land:

2.16 billion lb



60 billion lb



In the figure, the value for "Disposal or Other Releases" in the production-related waste
managed pie chart (3.43 billion lb) is greater than the value for "Total Disposal or Other
Releases" (3.40 billion lb). There are several reasons that these quantities differ slightly,
including:

• Double counting. Total disposal or other releases (3.40 billion pound value in the
figure) removes "double counting" that occurs when a facility that reports to the TRI
Program transfers waste to another TRI-reporting facility. For example, when Facility

-------
A transfers a chemical off site for disposal to Facility B, Facility A reports the
chemical as transferred off site for disposal while Facility B reports the same
chemical as disposed of on site. In processing the data, the TRI Program recognizes
that this is the same quantity of the chemical and includes it only once in the total
disposal or other releases metric. The production-related waste managed metric in
TRI, however, considers all instances where the waste is managed (first as a
quantity sent off site for disposal and next as a quantity disposed of on site), and
reflects both the off-site transfer and the on-site disposal. Typically, double counting
accounts for most of the difference between the two release quantities in the 2019
TRI Quick Facts figure.

• Non-production related waste. Non-production-related waste refers to quantities
of TRI chemical wastes that result from one-time events, rather than standard
production activities. These events may include remedial actions, catastrophic
events, or other events not associated with normal production processes. Non-
production-related waste is included in a facility's total disposal or other releases but
is not included in its production-related waste managed.

For more information on TRI, the chemicals and industry sectors it covers, the reporting

requirements, and to access TRI data, visit the TRI website.

-------
| 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.

-------
| 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

-------
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

4->
I—

3
~a

-------
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

-------
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.

-------
| 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

-------
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.

-------
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).

-------
| 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.

-------
| 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

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.

-------
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.

-------
| 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

o 20

Q-

to
C

o
5

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%).

-------
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.

-------
| 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

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%).

-------
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%)

-------
| 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

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

-------
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%)

-------
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.

-------
| 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

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."

-------
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.

-------
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.

-------
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

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.

-------
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.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

Releases of Chemicals

Release or disposal of chemical waste into the environment occur in several ways. Facilities may
release chemical waste directly into the air or water or dispose of it on land, or ship (transfer)
wastes that contain TRI chemicals to an off-site location for disposal. Release and disposal
practices are subject to a variety of regulatory requirements and restrictions designed to
minimize potential exposure or harm to human health and the environment.

Facilities are required to report the quantities of TRI-listed chemicals they released to the
environment. Evaluating release data can help to:

• identify potential concerns in communities,

• better understand potential risks chemical releases may pose, and

• identify opportunities for government and communities
to work with facilities to reduce chemical releases and
potential associated risks.

It is important, however, to understand that the quantity of
releases is not necessarily an indicator of health impacts posed
by the chemicals. Potential risks to human health from releases
of TRI chemicals are determined by many factors, as discussed
in the Hazard and Potential Risk of TRI Chemicals section.

The following graph shows the change in total disposal or other
releases of TRI chemicals (also referred to as "total releases")
over time. Many factors can affect trends in releases at facilities,
including production rates, management practices, the
composition of raw materials used, and the installation of
control technologies.

Helpful Concepts

What is a release?

In the context of TRI, a "release"
of a chemical generally refers to a
chemical that is emitted to the air,
discharged to water, or disposed
of in some type of land disposal
unit. The majority of TRI releases
happen during routine production
operations at facilities. To learn
more about what EPA is doing to
help limit the release of TRI
chemicals into the environment,
see the EPA laws and regulations
webpaae.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

Total Disposal or Other Releases

c
o

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year

On-site Air Releases
i On-site Land Disposal
¦Reporting Facilities

i On-site Surface Water Discharges
Off-site Disposal or Other Releases

Note: For comparability, trend graphs include only those chemicals that were reportable to TRI for all years presented.

From 2007 to 2019:

• Total disposal or other releases of TRI chemicals decreased by 19%.

o Excluding the metal mining sector, releases decreased by 37%.
o Reduced hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions, such as hydrochloric acid,
from electric utilities were the most significant contributor to the decline.

• Releases to air decreased by 57%, discharges to surface water decreased by 16%, and
off-site disposal decreased by 21%.

• Releases to land, driven by the metal mining sector, increased by 7%.

• The number of facilities that reported to TRI declined by 9%.

From 2018 to 2019:

• Total disposal or other releases decreased by 9%.

o On-site land disposal decreased by 13%, which is the main driver for the

decrease in total releases,
o Quantities released to air on site decreased slightly, while quantities discharged
on site to surface water and transferred off site for disposal increased slightly.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

• 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.

TRI Data Considerations

Factors to Consider When Using Toxics Release Inventory Data.

-------
TRI National Analysis 2019
ajWa L- I. www.epa.qov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Releases in 2019

Use the interactive chart below to explore the 2019 TRI chemical releases by industry sector,
chemical, or state/territory. Visit the full TRI National Analysis data visualization dashboard to
explore even more information about releases of chemicals.

No selections applied

Industry

Chemical

State/Territory

Total Disposal or Other Releases, 2019
3.40 billion pounds

Of-siti Disposal or
Other Releases:

13%

On-site Land Disposal:

64%

On-site Air Releases:

13%

On-site Surface Water
Discharges:

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Releases by Chemical

Release quantities of 8 chemicals made up 74% of total releases.

Total Disposal and Other Releases by Chemical, 2019
3.40 billion pounds

Zinc:

.19%

All Others

26%

Barium:
5%

Copper:
5%

Ammonia:

Manganese:
7%

.Lead:
19%

Nitrate
-Compounds:
9%

Note: 1) 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). 2) Percentages do not sum to 100% due to
rounding.

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Releases by Industry

The metal mining sector accounted for 44% of releases (1.49 billion pounds), which were
primarily in the form of on-site land disposal. Learn more about this sector in the Metal Mining
profile.

Total Disposal or Other Releases by Industry, 2019
3.40 billion pounds

All Others: 10%

Hazardous Waste
Management: 4%

Food Manufacturing:

Paper
Manufacturing: 5%

Electric Utilities: 8%

Primary Metals: 10%

Metal Mining: 44%

Chemical
Manufacturing: 15%

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100% due to rounding.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

Hazard and Potential Risk of TRI Chemicals

The chemical release data collected and made publicly available in the Toxics Release Inventory
(TRI) are reported in pounds, with the exception of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds, which
are reported in grams. Pounds or grams of releases, however, is not necessarily an indicator of
environmental or human health impacts posed by the chemical releases, as described in EPA's
Factors to Consider When Using Toxics Release Inventory Data. Although TRI data generally
cannot indicate to what extent individuals have been exposed to chemicals, TRI can be used as
a starting point to evaluate exposure and potential risks to human health and the environment.

Human health risks that may result from exposure to chemicals are determined by many
factors, as shown in the figure below. TRI contains some of this information, including what
chemicals are released from industrial facilities; the amount of each chemical released; and the
amounts released to air, water, and land.

Overview of Factors that Influence Risk

• TRI • Air • Inhalation • Chemical • Individual Exposed

• Non-TRI • Water • Ingestion Concentration • Timing of Exposure

• Land • Dermal • Chemical • Duration of Exposure

Properties

It is important to keep in mind that while TRI includes information on many chemicals used by
industry, it does not cover all facilities, all chemicals, or all
sources of TRI chemicals in communities. Other potential
sources, such as exhaust from cars and trucks, chemicals in
consumer products, and chemical residues in food and
water, are not tracked by TRI.

To provide context on the relative hazard and potential for
risks posed by certain waste management activities of TRI
chemicals (e.g., from releases to the environment), the TRI
Program uses EPA's Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators
fRSED model.

RSEI is a screening-level model that provides additional context for human health impacts from
TRI release data by considering chemical toxicity, the fate and transport of the chemical

Helpful Concepts

The hazard of a chemical is its
inherent ability to cause an adverse
health effect(s) (e.g., cancer, birth
defects).

The likelihood that a toxic chemical
will cause an adverse health effect
following its release into the
environment is often referred to as
risk. Risk is a function of hazard and
exposure.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

through the environment, and potential human exposure. For chemicals reported to TRI as
released to air or water, transferred to publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs), or transferred
off site for incineration, the model produces a RSEI Score, which is a numerical descriptor that
provides a relative estimate of potential human health risk to help identify situations of greatest
potential risk and evaluate trends over time. RSEI does not currently model other waste
management activities or release pathways reported to TRI, such as those associated with land
disposal. In addition to RSEI Scores, the model produces RSEI Hazard estimates, also called
toxicity-weighted pounds.

• RSEI Hazard estimates consist of the pounds
released multiplied by the chemical's toxicity
weight. They do not include any exposure
modeling or population estimates.

• A RSEI risk Score is an estimate of relative
potential human health risk. It is a unitless value
that accounts for the magnitude of the release
quantity of a chemical, the fate and transport of
the chemical throughout the environment, the
size and locations of potentially exposed
populations, and the chemical's inherent toxicity.

Important notes about RSEI:

• RSEI is not a stand-alone source of information for making conclusions or decisions
about the risks posed by any particular facility or environmental release of a TRI
chemical.

• RSEI does not assess risk. It provides relative risk rankings from air emissions and water
discharges of TRI-listed chemicals.

• RSEI results should not be used to determine whether a facility is in compliance with
federal or state regulations.

• RSEI results should only be used for screening-level activities, such as:

o trend analyses comparing potential relative risks from year to year, and
o ranking and prioritizing chemicals, industry sectors, or geographic regions for
strategic planning.

• RSEI can be used with other data sources and information to help policy makers,
researchers, and communities establish priorities for further investigation and to look at
changes in potential human health impacts over time.

• RSEI can help identify situations of greatest potential risk and evaluate trends over time.

RSEI: Risk-Screening
Environmental Indicators

• RSEI Hazard results consider:
o Quantity of the chemical

released
o Toxicity of the chemical

• RSEI Scores consider:

o Quantity of the chemical

released
o Toxicity of the chemical
o Location of releases
o Environmental fate and

transport
o Human exposure pathway

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

Hazard Trend

RSEI Hazard estimates provide greater insight on the potential impacts of TRI chemical releases
than consideration of the release quantities alone. RSEI Hazard is calculated by multiplying
release and certain transfer quantities by the toxicity weight of the chemicals. The following
graph shows the trend in RSEI Hazard compared to the trend in the corresponding pounds of
TRI chemical releases that are included in the RSEI model. Modeled releases include on-site
releases to air and water, and off-site transfers to POTWs or incineration.

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

RSEI Hazard and Corresponding Releases

2,500

500

2,000 =

1,500

1,000 ¦—

¦a
c

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year

¦a
c

Air Releases (Hazard) I

Transfers to POTWs (Hazard) I
¦Corresponding Pounds Released

l Water Releases (Hazard)
I Off-site Incineration (Hazard)

Note: For comparability, trend graphs include only those chemicals that were reportable to TRI for all years presented.

From 2007 to 2019:

• The overall RSEI Hazard estimate decreased by 66%, while corresponding pounds
released decreased by 40%. Thus, in recent years, TRI-reporting facilities are not only
releasing fewer pounds of TRI chemicals, they may be releasing proportionally fewer
pounds of the more toxic TRI chemicals relative to the less toxic TRI chemicals.

• The decrease in the RSEI Hazard estimate from 2008 to 2009 was driven by a large
decrease in chromium releases to air from three facilities.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

Risk-Screening Trend

EPA's RSEI model also provides risk "scores" that represent relative human health risk from
long-term exposure to TRI chemicals. These scores can be compared to RSEI-generated risk
scores from other years. RSEI Scores are different from RSEI Hazard estimates in that RSEI
Scores consider the location of the release, chemical fate and transport throughout the
environment, and the route and extent of potential human exposure. The following graph
shows the trend in the RSEI Score compared to the trend in the corresponding pounds of TRI
chemical releases that are included in the RSEI model. Modeled releases include on-site
releases to air and water, and off-site transfers to POTWs or incineration.

1,200.00
1,000.00

RSEI Score and Corresponding Releases

2,500
2,000

(u
&_
o

600.00

X 400.00

200.00

0.00

1,500 c

3
O
Q_

Ctf)

1,000 ~

500

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year

Air Releases (Score) I

Transfers to POTWs (Score) I
¦Corresponding Pounds Released

I Water Releases (Score)
I Off-site Incineration (Score)

Note: For comparability, trend graphs include only those chemicals that were reportable to TRI for all years presented.

From 2007 to 2019:

• The overall RSEI Score estimate decreased by 67%, while corresponding pounds
released decreased by 40%.

• Of the types of releases modeled by RSEI, air releases, by far, contributed the most to
the RSEI Scores.

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

• RSEI Scores for releases to water have increased in recent years, due in part to
increased releases of mercury to water.

RSEI Dashboard

• Use the EPA's Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators fRSEII EasvRSEI dashboard to
view the national trend in RSEI Hazard and RSEI Score, or use the Dashboard's filter
capabilities to view RSEI information for a specific chemical or location of interest.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

Air Releases

Emissions of TRI chemicals to air continue to decline, serving as a primary driver of decreased
total releases. Releases to air include both fugitive aj.r emissions and stack air emissions.

This graph shows the trend in the pounds of chemicals released to air. EPA regulates air
emissions under the Clean Air Act, which requires major sources of air pollutants to obtain and
comply with an operating permit.

Air Releases (Pounds Released)

1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0

(9 Pounds Released
O RSEI Score

Mill

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year

Fugitive Air Emissions ¦ Stack Air Emissions

Note: For comparability, trend graphs include only those chemicals that were reportable to TRI for all years presented.

From 2007 to 2019:

• Releases to air decreased by 57% (-756 million pounds).

o Since 2007, hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, hydrogen fluoride, methanol,
toluene, and xylene had the greatest reductions in releases to air.

o The decrease was driven by electric utilities due to: decreased emissions of
hydrochloric acid and sulfuric acid; a shift from coal to other fuel sources (e.g.,
natural gas); and the installation of pollution control technologies at coal-fired
power plants.

¦ Note that only those electric utilities that combust coal or oil to generate
power for distribution into commerce are covered under TRI reporting
requirements. Therefore, electric utilities that shift from combusting coal

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

or oil to entirely using other fuel sources (such as natural gas) are not
required to report to TRI.

• Air releases of chemicals classified as carcinogens by the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) also decreased; see the Air Releases of OSHA Carcinogens figure.

• For trends in air releases of other chemicals of special concern, including lead
and mercury, see the Chemicals of Special Concern section.

In 2019:

• The TRI chemicals released in the largest quantities were ammonia and methanol.

• Releases of TRI chemicals to air decreased by 3.7% since 2018.

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

This graph shows the trend in the RSEI Scores for TRI air releases.

Air Releases (RSEI Score) O p™"ds

(§) RSEI Score

1,200
1,000

0 800

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

Air Releases by Chemical and Industry

Air Releases by Chemical

This pie chart shows which TRI chemicals were released to air in the greatest quantities during
2019.

On-site Air Releases by Chemical, 2019
600.03 million pounds

All Others:.
35%

Styrene:

Hydrochloric Acid.
5%

n-Hexane:
6%

.Ammonia:
23%

.Methanol:
16%

.Sulfuric Acid:
9%

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100% due to rounding.

• Facilities that manufacture nitrogen-based fertilizers accounted for more than one third
of the quantities of ammonia released to air, as reported to TRI for the past eight years

• Releases of methanol to air were primarily from facilities in the paper manufacturing
sector and have decreased by 26% since 2007.

• Air releases of /7-hexane were primarily from food manufacturing facilities. Air releases
of /7-hexane have increased by 6% since 2007.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

• In 2019, 79% of sulfuric acid and 29% of hydrochloric acid emissions to air were

reported by facilities in the electric utilities sector. The quantities of these two chemicals
released to air by electric utilities have decreased considerably since 2007. One reason is
the increase in the use of natural gas as a fuel for electricity generation. Power plants
that combust only fuels other than coal or oil, such as natural gas, are not required to
report to TRI.

Air Releases by Industry

This pie chart shows the TRI-covered industry sectors that reported the largest releases of TRI
chemicals to air during 2019.

Air Releases by Industry, 2019
600.03 million pounds

All Others: 16%

Plastics and
Rubber: 5%

Primary Metals:

Petroleum
Products
Manufacturing:

Food
Manufacturing:

Electric Utilities
12%

Chemical
Manufacturing:
28%

Paper
Manufacturing:
20%

• The chemical manufacturing, paper manufacturing, and electric utility sectors accounted
for the largest releases of TRI chemicals to air during 2019, although air releases of TRI
chemicals by these industries have decreased since 2018:

o Chemical manufacturing: 2.2 million pound decrease (-1%)

o Paper manufacturing: 4.1 million pound decrease (-3%)

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

o Electric utilities: 10.5 million pound decrease (-13%)

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Water Releases

Releases of TRI chemicals to water typically occur as direct discharges to streams or other
water bodies. Surface water discharges are often regulated by other programs and require
permits such as Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System rNRDESI
permits.

The following graph shows the trend in the pounds of TRI chemical waste discharged to water
bodies.

300

250

200

150

100

Surface Water Discharges

@Pounds Released
O RSEI Score

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year

Note: For comparability, trend graphs include only those chemicals that were reportable to TRI for all years presented.

From 2007 to 2019:

• Discharges of TRI chemicals to surface water decreased by 38 million pounds (-16%).

Most of this decline was due to reduced releases of nitrate compounds to water.

o Nitrate compounds are often formed as byproducts during wastewater treatment
processes such as when nitric acid is neutralized, or when nitrification takes
place to meet standards under EPA's effluent guidelines. More pounds of nitrate
compounds are released to water than any other TRI chemical.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

In 2019:

• Nitrate compounds alone accounted for 89% of the total quantity of all TRI chemicals
discharged to surface waters.

The following graph shows the trend in the RSEI Scores for TRI chemicals released to water
bodies.

Surface Water Discharges (RSEI Score) pounds Released

(§) RSEI Score

lull

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year

• The biggest contributor to RSEI Scores for releases to water from 2007 to 2018 was
arsenic compounds. For 2019, the largest contributor to RSEI Scores for releases to
water was mercury compounds.

• The high RSEI Score for discharges to water in 2008 includes a large one-time release of
arsenic compounds due to a coal fly ash slurry spill, and a release of benzidine, which is
highly toxic (benzidine is known to cause cancer in humans).

• The increase in RSEI Score for releases to water beginning in 2017 is driven in part by
an increase in discharges of mercury compounds to water by a mining facility in Florida.

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

• For a complete, step-by-step description of how RSEI derives RSEI Scores from surface
water discharges of TRI chemicals, see "Section 5.4: Modeling Surface Water Releases"
in Chapter 5 ("Exposure and Population Modeling") of EPA's Risk-Screening
Environmental Indicators fRSEH Methodology, RSEI Version 2.3.8.

• For general information on how RSEI Scores are estimated, see Hazard and Potential
Risk of TRI Chemicals.

-------
TRI National Analysis 2019
ajWa L- I. www.epa.qov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Water Releases by Chemical

This pie chart shows which TRI-listed chemicals were released to water bodies in the largest
quantities during 2019.

Note: 1) In this chart, metals are combined with their metal compounds, although metals and compounds of the same metal are
listed separately on the TRI list (e.g. manganese is listed separately from manganese compounds). 2) Percentages do not sum to
100% due to rounding.

• Nitrate compounds accounted for 89% of the total quantity of TRI chemicals released to
water in 2019. Nitrate compounds dissolve in water and are commonly formed as part of
facilities' on-site wastewater treatment processes. The food manufacturing sector
contributed 39% of total nitrate compound releases to water, due to the treatment
required for biological materials in wastewater, such as from meat processing facilities.

o While nitrate compounds are less toxic to humans than many other TRI
chemicals, in nitrogen-limited waters, nitrates have the potential to cause
increased algal growth leading to eutrophication in the aquatic environment. See

EPA's Nutrient Pollution weboaae for more information about the issue of
eutrophication.

Water Releases by Chemical, 2019

201.25 million pounds

18%

25%

All Others
Methanol
Zinc

Ammonia
Sodium Nitrite

¦ Manganese

¦ Nitric Acid

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

• Ammonia, manganese compounds, and methanol were the chemicals released in the
next-largest quantities, and, in terms of combined mass, accounted for 7% of the
chemicals released to water.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

Water Releases by Industry

This pie chart shows the TRI-covered industry sectors that reported the greatest releases of TRI
chemicals to water bodies during 2019.

Water Releases by Industry, 2019
201.25 million pounds

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100% due to rounding.

• The food manufacturing sector accounted for 35% of the total quantity of TRI chemicals
released to water during 2019, which was similar to its contribution over the past 10
years.

o Nitrate compounds accounted for 99% of the total quantity of TRI chemicals
released to water from the food manufacturing sector. Nitrate compounds are
relatively less toxic to humans than many other TRI chemicals discharged to
surface waters but are formed in large quantities by this sector during
wastewater treatment processes due to the high biological content of
wastewater.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

Land Disposal

Land disposal includes disposal of TRI chemicals in landfills, underground injection wells, or to
other types of containment. Land disposal of chemicals is often regulated by EPA under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act fRCRAY

This graph shows the trend in chemicals reported to TRI that were disposed of to land on site.
The metal mining sector accounts for most of this disposal.

•*. ¦ -i ¦ (8) Land Disposal, All Sectors

On-site Land Disposal w

O Lanc' Disposal, Excluding Metal Mining

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year

¦ All Other Land Disposal ¦ RCRA Subtitle C Disposal ¦ Underground Injection

Note: For comparability, trend graphs include only those chemicals that were reportable to TRI for all years presented.

From 2007 to 2019:

• On-site land disposal increased by 7% (from 2.0 to 2.2 billion pounds).

• Recent fluctuations were primarily due to changes in TRI chemical quantities disposed of
on site to land by metal mines.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

• "All Other Land Disposal" in the figure includes
disposal: in landfills and surface impoundments that
are not regulated under RCRA Subtitle C; to soil (land
treatment/application farming); and any other land
disposal. Most of the TRI chemical quantities
reported as "other land disposal" were from the
disposal of TRI chemicals contained in waste rock at
metal mines.

In 2019:

Trends in land disposal were largely driven by the metal
mining sector, which accounted for 69% of land disposal
quantities. Select the "Land Disposal, Excluding Metal
Mining" button to view the land disposal trend without data
from metal mines.

o Most of the land disposal quantities from the
metal mining sector were made up of either
lead compounds (39%) or zinc compounds (31%).

Metal mining facilities typically handle large volumes of material. In this sector, even a small
change in the chemical composition of the mineral deposit being mined can lead to big changes
in the amount of TRI-listed chemicals reported. Besides production volume, one factor
commonly cited by facilities as a contributor to the changes in quantities of waste managed is
the chemical composition of the extracted ore, which can vary substantially from year to year.
In some cases, small changes in the ore's composition can impact whether TRI chemicals
in ore qualify for a concentration-based exemption from TRI reporting in one year but not in the
next year or vice versa.

Regulations require that waste rock, which contains TRI chemicals, be placed in engineered
piles, and may also require that waste rock piles, tailings impoundments, and heap leach pads
be stabilized and re-vegetated to provide for productive post-mining land use.

For more information on the mining industry, see the Metal Mining sector profile.

Helpful Concepts

What is underground injection?

Underground injection involves placing fluids
underground in porous formations through
wells.

What is RCRA Subtitle C
disposal?

The RCRA Subtitle C Disposal category in TRI
includes disposal to landfills and surface
impoundments authorized to accept
hazardous waste under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). RCRA
design standards include a double liner, a
leachate collection and removal system, and a
leak detection system. Operators must also
comply with RCRA inspection, monitoring, and
release response requirements.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

This graph shows the trend in chemicals reported to TRI that were disposed of to land on site,
excluding quantities reported by the metal mining sector._The metal mining sector accounts for
most of the TRI chemical quantities disposed of to land.

O Land Disposal, All Sectors

On-site Land Disposal Excluding Metal Mines ® Land Disposal,ExcludingMetai Mining

1,000

800

-a
c
3

Q? 600

<4-

c
o

= 400

200

lllliii

i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year

¦ All Other Land Disposal ¦ RCRA Subtitle C Disposal ¦ Underground Injection

Note: For comparability, trend graphs include only those chemicals that were reportable to TRI for all years presented.

From 2007 to 2019:

• Total on-site land disposal for all industries other than metal mining decreased by 23%.

• The decrease in land disposal for industries other than metal mining was driven by
reduced releases to land from electric utilities, chemical manufacturing facilities, and
hazardous waste management facilities.

In 2019:

Excluding the quantities of TRI chemicals disposed of on site to land at metal mines, the
chemicals disposed of to land in the largest quantities were: barium and barium
compounds (17%), manganese and manganese compounds (13%), and zinc and zinc
compounds (10%).

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

• Excluding the quantities of TRI chemicals disposed of on site to land at metal mines,
most land disposal quantities were reported by the chemical manufacturing, electric
utilities, primary metals, and hazardous waste management sectors.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

Land Disposal by Chemical

This pie chart shows the chemicals disposed of to land on site in the greatest quantities during
2019. The metal mining sector accounts for most of this disposal. To view the chemicals
disposed of to land by sectors other than metal mining, toggle to the "Land Disposal, Excluding
Metal Mining" chart.

On-Site Land Disposal by Chemical, 2019

2.16 billion pounds ® Land Disposal, All Sectors

1 1 Land Disposal, Excluding Metal Mining

Note: In this chart, 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). Percentages do not sum to 100% due to rounding.

The metal mining sector alone was responsible for 94% of the lead and lead compounds and
87% of the zinc and zinc compounds disposed of to land in 2019. Annual fluctuations occur in
land disposal quantities reported by metal mines because even a small change in the chemical
composition of the mineral deposit being mined can lead to big changes in the amount of TRI-
listed chemicals reported nationally.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

This pie chart shows the chemicals disposed of to land on site in the greatest quantities during
2019, excluding quantities disposed of by facilities in the metal mining sector.

On-Site Land Disposal Excluding Metal Mining, by

Chemical, 2019 Land Disposal, All Sectors

678 million pounds ® Land DisP°sal' E*c|ud'ngMeta| Mining

Nitrate
Compounds 7%

From 2007 to 2019:

• Barium: Releases decreased 40%.

• Manganese: Releases decreased 23%.

• Zinc: Releases decreased 55%.

In 2019:

• When the metal mining sector is excluded, a wider variety of chemicals contribute to
most of the land releases. Seven different chemicals, for example, comprised 64% of
land releases, as opposed to three chemicals comprising a comparable 62% of releases
when metal mining is included.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

Land Disposal by Industry

This pie chart shows the TRI-covered industry sectors that reported the greatest quantities of
on-site land disposal of TRI chemicals during 2019.

On-site Land Disposal by Industry, 2019
2.16 billion pounds

Chemical

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100% due to rounding.

• The metal mining sector accounted for most of the TRI chemicals disposed of to land in
2019, mostly due to TRI chemicals contained in waste rock.

• The relative contribution by each industry sector to on-site land disposal has not
changed considerably in recent years.

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Chemicals of Special Concern

In this section, we take a closer look at some Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) chemicals that are
of special concern due to their potential effects on human health and the environment: 1)
persistent bioaccumulative toxic (PBT) chemicals; and 2) known or suspected human
carcinogens.

Chemicals designated as PBTs are toxic and remain in the environment for a long time where
they tend to build up in the tissues of aquatic or other organisms throughout the food web.
These organisms serve as food sources for other organisms, including humans, that are
sensitive to the toxic effects of PBT chemicals.

Reporting thresholds for the 16 chemicals and 5 chemical categories designated as PBTs on the
TRI chemical list are lower than for other TRI chemicals. Thresholds vary by chemical but range
from 10 pounds to 100 pounds for most PBTs, or 0.1 grams for dioxin and dioxin-like
compounds. This section focuses on the following PBT chemicals: lead and lead compounds;
mercury and mercury compounds; and dioxin and dioxin-like compounds.

There are also chemicals on the TRI chemical list that the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) includes on its list of carcinogens. This section presents the trend in air
emissions for the OSHA carcinogens reported to TRI and one OSHA carcinogen, ethylene oxide,
is highlighted individually. A list of the TRI carcinogens can be found on the TRI basis of OSHA
carcinogens webpaae.

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Lead Releases Trend

This graph shows the trend in the pounds of lead and lead compounds disposed of or otherwise
released by facilities in all TRI reporting industry sectors including metal mines, manufacturing
facilities, hazardous waste management facilities and electric utilities.

Total Disposal or Other Releases of
Lead and Lead Compounds

(§) All Sectors
( Excluding Metal Mining

1,250

„ i.ooo

-a
c
3

£ 750

(/)

o 500

250

T 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year

On-Site Air Releases
On-site Land Disposal

i On-site Surface Water Discharges
Off-site Disposal or Other Releases

From 2007 to 2019:

• Releases of lead and lead compounds rose and fell between 2007 and 2019, with an
overall increase of 26%.

• The metal mining sector accounts for most of the lead and lead compounds disposed of
on site to land, driving the overall trend. For 2019, for example, metal mines reported
94% of total lead and lead compounds disposed of to land on site.

From 2018 to 2019:

• Total releases of lead and lead compounds decreased by 26% (221 million pounds),
driven by a 215-million-pound decrease in releases of lead compounds from the metal
mining sector.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

This graph shows the trend in lead and lead compounds disposed of or otherwise released, but
excludes quantities reported by the metal mining sector.

¦S 60 f
c

O 50 - —

c
o

40
30
20
10
0

Total Disposal or Other Releases of
Lead and Lead Compounds, Excluding Metal Mining

0 All Sectors

(§) Excluding Metal Mining

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year

On-Site Air Releases ¦ On-site Surface Water Discharges

¦ On-site Land Disposal ¦ Off-site Disposal or Other Releases

From 2007 to 2019:

• Among sectors other than metal mining, releases of lead and lead compounds have
decreased by 28% (19.7 million pounds).

• Among sectors other than metal mining, most releases of lead and lead compounds
were from the primary metals and hazardous waste management sectors.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

Lead Air Releases Trend

This graph shows the trend in the pounds of lead and lead compounds released to air.

Air Releases of Lead and Lead Compounds

1,250

1,000

750

« 500

250

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year

Fugitive Air Emissions ¦ Stack Air Emissions

From 2007 to 2019:

• Air releases of lead and lead compounds decreased by 64%. The primary metals and
electric utilities industry sectors have driven this decrease.

• The primary metals sector, which includes iron and steel manufacturers and smelting
operations, reported the greatest quantities of releases of lead and lead compounds to
air.

From 2018 to 2019:

• Air releases of lead and lead compounds decreased by 9%. This is largely due to a
single facility in the primary metals sector, although air emissions of lead and lead
compounds decreased in most sectors.

• In 2019, 41% of air releases of lead were from the primary metals industry sector.

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Mercury Air Releases Trend

This graph shows the trend in the pounds of mercury and mercury compounds released to air
by facilities that reported to TRI.

Air Releases of Mercury and Mercury Compounds

O
Cl

M—

to
T3
C
(0

150

125

100

| ¦ ¦ ¦,
Hill

III!

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year

Fugitive Air Emissions ¦ Stack Air Emissions

From 2007 to 2019:

• Releases of mercury and mercury compounds to air decreased by 73%.

• Electric utilities drove the decline in mercury air emissions, with a 91% reduction
(-86,000 pounds).

From 2018 to 2019:

• Releases of mercury and mercury compounds to air decreased by 6%.

• The primary metals sector, which includes iron and steel manufacturers and smelting
operations, accounted for 37% of the air emissions of mercury and mercury compounds
reported to TRI for 2019.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

Dioxins Releases Trend

Dioxin and dioxin-like compounds ("dioxins") are persistent bioaccumulative toxic (PBT)
chemicals characterized by EPA as probable human carcinogens. Dioxins are the byproducts of
many forms of combustion and several industrial chemical
processes.

TRI requires facilities to report data on the 17 individual
members, or congeners, that make up the TRI dioxin and
dioxin-like compounds category. While each of the dioxin
congeners causes the same toxic effects, they do so at different
levels of exposure, as indicated by their varying toxic potencies.

As a result, the mix of dioxins from one source can have a very
different toxic potency than the same total amount of a different
mix of dioxins from another source.

EPA accounts for the differences in toxic potency of the dioxin
congeners using Toxic Equivalency (TEQ) values. TEQs help the public better understand the
toxicity of dioxins releases and are useful when comparing disposal or other releases of dioxins
from different sources or different time periods, where the mix of congeners may vary.

This graph shows the trend in the grams of dioxins disposed of or otherwise released by TRI-
reporting facilities from 2010 to 2019. Note that the dioxins chemical category is reported to
TRI in grams while all other TRI chemicals are reported in pounds. A shorter timeframe is
presented for the dioxins release trend than for other trend graphs because of the limited
availability of TEQ information prior to 2010.

Helpful Concepts

Toxic Equivalent Factor (TEF)

Each dioxin congener is assigned a TEF that
provides that compound's toxicity relative to
the most toxic compound in the dioxin and
dioxin-like compounds category.

Toxic Equivalency (TEQ)

A TEQ is calculated by multiplying the
reported grams released of each congener by
its corresponding TEF and summing the
results, referred to as grams-TEQ.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

Total Disposal or Other Releases, Dioxin
and Dioxin-like Compounds

120,000

to
UJ

80,000 J- \|^| l l

frit I iTTTl

1,200

800

400 ™

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year

On-site Air Releases On-site Surface Water Discharges

i On-site Land Disposal Total Off-site Disposal or Other Releases

¦Grams-TEQ

From 2010 to 2019:

• Dioxin releases increased by 157%. This increase was largely driven by three facilities
that together released 67% of all TRI-reported dioxins.

o Increases in off-site releases of dioxins were largely driven by the same three
facilities, two basic organic chemical manufacturing facilities and one smelting
and refining facility.

o Toxicity-equivalents (grams-TEQ) increased by 43%, indicating that releases of
the less potent dioxin congeners increased more than the releases of the more
potent dioxin congeners from 2010 to 2019.

From 2018 to 2019:

• Releases of dioxins increased by 9%.

o On-site disposal to land increased by 57% and was driven by two facilities. One
of these facilities is in the primary metals sector and regularly reports large year-
to-year variance in its releases of dioxins. The other is a hazardous waste

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

management facility, which reported receiving a dioxin-contaminated debris
stream in 2019.

o Toxicity-equivalents (grams-TEQ) increased by 2%.

• In 2019, most of the TRI-reported dioxin quantity released was disposed or otherwise
released off site (54%) or disposed of on site to land (44%).

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Dioxins Releases by Industry

The following two pie charts show: 1) the TRI-covered industry sectors that reported the
largest releases of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds in grams, compared to 2) the industry
sectors that reported the greatest releases of grams in toxicity equivalents (grams-TEQ). Note
that only data from those TRI reports that included the congener detail for calculating grams-
TEQ are included in these charts.

-------
TRI National Analysis 2019
ajWa L- I. www.epa.qov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Releases of Dioxin and Dioxin-like Compounds
by Industry, 2019

Grams

All Others:
1%

Hazardous Waste
Management:
11%

Primary Metals:
27%

Chemical
.Manufacturing:
61%

Grams-TEQ

All Others:

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100% due to rounding.

• Various industry sectors may dispose of or otherwise release very different mixes
of dioxin congeners.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

• The chemical manufacturing industry accounted for 61% and the primary metals sector
for 27% of total grams of dioxins released.

• However, in terms of toxicity equivalents the primary metals sector accounted for 70%
and the chemical manufacturing sector for 12% of the total grams-TEQ.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Carcinogens Air Releases

Among the chemicals that are reportable to the TRI Program, some are also included on OSHA's
list of carcinogens. EPA refers to these chemicals as TRI OSHA carcinogens. This graph shows
the trend in the pounds of TRI-reported OSHA carcinogens released to air.

120

Air Releases of OSHA Carcinogens

100

^ 80

O 60

i= 40

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year

Fugitive Air Emissions ¦ Stack Air Emissions

Note: For comparability, trend graphs include only those chemicals that were reportable to TRI for all years presented.

From 2007 to 2019:

• Releases of these carcinogens to air decreased by 38%.

• The long-term decreases in releases of OSHA carcinogens to air were driven by
decreases in releases of many chemicals across multiple sectors. Almost every TRI-
covered industry sector decreased its releases of carcinogens to air from 2007 to 2019.

• In 2019, releases of OSHA carcinogens to air consisted primarily of styrene (47% of the
air releases of all OSHA carcinogens), acetaldehyde (12%) and formaldehyde (8%).

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

Ethylene Oxide Releases Trend

In 2019, EPA announced a suite of actions to address emissions of ethylene oxide, an OSHA
carcinogen, from some types of industrial facilities. The figure below presents the trend in
releases of this chemical, as reported to TRI.

Releases of Ethylene Oxide

350,000
300,000

"S 250,000

¦5 200,000

-a 150,000

o 100,000

Q_ 7

50,000
0

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year

On-site Air Releases ¦ On-site Water Releases ¦ On-site Land Disposal ¦ Off-site Disposal or Other Releases

• From 2007 to 2019, releases of ethylene oxide decreased by 86.9 million pounds
(-29%), driven by reductions in releases to air.

• For 2019, the increase in off-site transfers was driven by one hazardous waste
management facility. This facility originally claimed it transferred over 30,000 pounds of
ethylene oxide off site for disposal in landfills. EPA questioned this claim, and the facility
indicated that the quantity transferred off site was not exclusively ethylene oxide gas,
and the quantity of ethylene oxide manufactured, processed, or otherwise used in 2019
was less than the TRI threshold quantity. The facility indicated that they intend to
withdraw their TRI report for ethylene oxide. As of January 4th, 2021, the facility has not
done so.

• For 2018, one chemical manufacturer in Texas reported a one-time (not production-
related) air release of ethylene oxide. This release drove an increase in total releases of
ethylene oxide from 2017 to 2018 and drove the decrease in total releases of ethylene
oxide from 2018 to 2019.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

Non-Production-Related Waste

Non-production-related waste refers to quantities of Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) chemicals
disposed of or released, or transferred off site, as the result of one-time events, rather than due
to standard production activities. These events may include remedial actions, catastrophic
events such as natural disasters, or other one-time events not associated with normal
production processes. Non-production-related waste is included in a facility's total disposal or
other releases but is not included in its production-related waste managed. The following graph
shows the quantities of non-production-related waste reported to TRI for 2019.

Non-Production-Related Waste Managed by Industry, 2019

7.0 million pounds

• For 2019, 551 facilities reported a total of 7.0 million pounds of one-time, non-
production-related releases of TRI chemicals. This represents 0.02% of total waste
managed in 2019.

• Non-production-related waste from all facilities was below 35 million pounds every year
since 2007, except for 2013 when one facility reported a one-time release of 193 million
pounds.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

Comparing Industry Sectors

This section examines how different industrial sectors manage their TRI chemical waste. This
sector-specific approach can highlight progress made in improving environmental performance,
identify emerging issues, and reveal opportunities for better waste management practices.

Industries subject to TRI reporting requirements vary substantially in size, scope, and business
type. As a result, the amounts and types of chemicals used, generated, and managed by
facilities across industrial sectors often differ. For facilities in the same sector, however, the
processes, products, and regulatory requirements are often similar, resulting in similar
manufacture, processing, or other use of chemicals. This section presents trends in key sectors'
production-related, waste .managed which includes TRI chemical releases to the environment.

For analytical purposes, the TRI Program has aggregated the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) codes at the 3- and 4-digit levels, creating 29 industry sector
categories. To learn more about which business activities are subject to TRI reporting
requirements, see this list of covered NAICS codes.

The following pie chart shows the quantities of TRI chemical waste managed through recycling,
energy recovery, treatment, and disposal or other releases. For more details on quantities
released, toggle to the "Releases only" figure.

Production-Related Waste Managed by Industry, 2019

30.7 billion pounds

®A"

All others

(ig) All Production-Related Waste
(^) Releases only

Electric Utilities:

Paper Manufacturing:
4%

Food Manufacturing: i

5% I

Chemical
Manufacturing:
55%

Metal Mining:
5%

Petroleum Products Manufactur
7%

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Seven industry sectors reported 88% of the TRI production-related waste managed in 2019.
The majority of this waste originated from the chemical manufacturing sector (55%).

The following pie chart shows the industry sectors that reported the most releases for 2019.
Total Disposal or Other Releases by Industry, 2019

3.40 billion pounds Q a|| Production_Re|ated Waste

(^) Releases only

All Others: 10%

Hazardous Waste
Management: 4%

Food
Manufacturing: 5%

Paper
Manufacturing: 5%

Electric Utilities: 8%

Metal Mining: 44%

Primary Metals:^
10%

Chemical
Manufacturing:
15%

This pie chart shows that 4 of the 29 TRI sectors accounted for 77% of the quantities of TRI
chemicals disposed of or otherwise released: metal mining (44%), chemical manufacturing
(15%), primary metals (10%), and electric utilities (8%).

For more details on how the amounts and proportions of TRI chemicals managed as waste have
changed over time, see the production-related waste managed bv industry trend graph.

For more information on the breakdown of these releases by environmental medium, see air
releases bv industry, water releases bv industry and land disposal bv industry.

TRI Data Considerations

Factors to Consider When Using Toxics Release Inventory Data.

-------
kvEPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Manufacturing Sectors

This section examines how TRI chemical wastes are managed in the manufacturing sectors
(defined as facilities reporting their primary NAICS codes as 31-33).

What the Sector Does

The manufacturing sectors are goods-producing
industries that transform materials into new
products. These sectors include businesses
involved in the production of food,
textiles, paper, chemicals, plastics,
petroleum products, metal
products, electronics,
furniture, vehicles,
equipment, and
other products.

THE SECTOR

EMPLOYS

11.7 MILLION

PEOPLE

U.S. Census Annua! Survey of Manufactures
2018 data

THE SECTOR

CONTRIBUTES
2.4 TRILLION

TO U.S. GDP

(n va/uc added. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Year 2019 data.

19,146 facilities in the sector report to TRI

U.S. EPA TRI, Reporting Year 2019

This map shows the locations of the manufacturing facilities that reported to TRI for 2019, sized
by their relative releases. Click on a facility for details on its TRI reporting.

-------
TRI National Analysis 2019
ajWa L- I. www.epa.qov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Outfttefi

OF'UiHklu

HOflDtn.ti

r.iinl-Mi.il-i' Ie.jiKtj.llpi

Sources: Esri, HERE. Qf/piin. Intermap, increment PCorp.. GEBCO. USGS. FAO, NPS. MRCAN. GeoBase,
IGN Kadaster NL, Ordnance Sli1V&V>ESfi Ifa'fcan. METl, Esri China {Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreelWap
eonlnbutors, and the G!S User CoWlmOrtify1

Manufacturing Facilities Reporting to TRI, 2019
View Larger Map

For 2019, nearly 90% of the facilities that reported to TRI were in a manufacturing sector. The
manufacturing sectors accounted for most (88%) of the 30.7 billion pounds of production-
related waste managed reported to TRI for 2019. Two subsectors of manufacturing, chemical
manufacturing and fabricated metals, are highlighted in more detail later in this section.

The TRI-covered industry sectors not categorized under manufacturing include metal mining.
coal mining, electric utilities, chemical wholesalers, petroleum terminals, hazardous waste
management, and others.

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Manufacturing Waste Management Trend

The following graph shows the annual quantities of TRI chemical waste managed through
recycling, energy recovery, treatment, and disposal or other releases by the manufacturing
sectors. For more details on quantities released, toggle to the "Releases only" graph.

Production-Related Waste Managed:
Manufacturing Sectors

©All Production-Related Waste
(^) Releases only

o
a.

¦5 20

= 10 —

III I III I III I I

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year

$2,500

$2,000

$500

<
Q>

$1,500

>
Q.
Q.
(D
Q.

$1,000 =

N>
O

lO
1A

1 Disposal or Other Releases Treatment

Energy Recovery Recycling

¦Value Added (billions, 2019 Dollars)

Note: For comparability, trend graphs include only those chemicals that were reportable to TRI for all years presented.

From 2007 to 2019:

• Quantities of production-related waste managed by the manufacturing sectors
decreased through 2009, following the trend of reduced production resulting from the
economic recession. Since 2009, quantities of waste managed have increased.

o Quantities of waste released and treated decreased, while quantities combusted
for energy recovery and recycled increased.

• It is important to consider the influence the economy has on production and production-
related waste generation. This figure includes the trend in the manufacturing sectors'

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

value added (represented by the black line as reported by the Bureau of Economic
Analysis, Value Added bv Industry). Since 2007, value
added by the manufacturing sectors increased by
27%.

o Production-related waste managed by the
manufacturing sectors increased by 30% since
2007, driven by increased recycling. The large
increase in recycled chemical waste starting in
2014 was primarily due to an increase in the quantity of cumene recycled by one
facility and dichloromethane (methylene chloride) recycled by two other facilities.

From 2018 to 2019:

• Production-related waste managed decreased by 996 million pounds (-4%), while value
added increased slightly. Annual changes in production-related waste quantities are
driven by a few facilities.

• In 2019, 5% of the manufacturing sectors' production-related waste generated was
released into the environment, while the rest was managed through treatment, energy
recovery, and recycling.

What is Value Added?

An industry's value added is the market
value it adds in production; it is the
difference between the price at which it
sells its products and the cost of the
inputs it purchases. Value added for all
U.S. industries combined is equal to the
nation's gross domestic product.

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Manufacturing Releases Trend

The following graph shows the annual quantities of TRI chemicals released by the
manufacturing sectors.

Total Disposal or Other Releases: O AN production Related waste
Manufacturing Sectors ® Releases oniY

O
a.

i/i

2,000

1,500 -

1,000

= 500

¦ 111! 11111

111 ¦ 111111

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year

On-site Air Releases
i On-site Land Disposal

i On-site Surface Water Discharges
Off-site Disposal or Other Releases

Note: For comparability, trend graphs include only those chemicals that were reportable to TRI for all years presented.

From 2007 to 2019:

• TRI chemical releases by the manufacturing sectors decreased by 21%. This is primarily
due to a reduction in air emissions and off-site disposal or other releases.

• Releases to water also declined, while on-site land disposal increased by 7%.

From 2018 to 2019:

• Releases decreased by 36 million pounds (-2%). This is largely due to a decrease in on-
site land disposal reported by facilities in the chemical manufacturing sector.

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Source Reduction in the Manufacturing Sectors:

In 2019, 7% of manufacturing facilities initiated nearly 3,000 source reduction activities to
reduce TRI chemical use and waste generation. The most commonly reported types of source
reduction activities were good operating practices and process modifications. For example:

• A circuit board manufacturing facility established new criteria for bath changes to extend
bath life, reducing the amount of certain glycol ethers waste generated. \Click to view
facility details in the TRI P2 Search Tooll

• A rubber products manufacturer modified loss-in-weight feeders with pipe-in-pipe and
flexible rubber boot systems to keep transferred material contained, reducing their
releases of zinc compounds. fClick to view facility details in the TRI P2 Search Tooll.

You can learn more about pollution prevention opportunities in this sector bv using the TRI P2
Search Tool.

-------
kvEPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Chemical Manufacturing

This section examines how TRI chemical wastes are managed in the chemical manufacturing
sector (defined as facilities reporting their primary NAICS code as 325).

111 LL

What the Sector Does

Chemical manufacturers convert raw materials
into thousands of different products, including
basic chemicals, products used by other
manufacturers (such as synthetic
fibers, plastics, and
pigments),
pesticides, and
cosmetics, to
name a few.

THE SECTOR

EMPLOYS

757,000

PEOPLE

U.S. Census Annual Survey of Manufactures
2018 data

THE SECTOR

CONTRIBUTES
$393 BILLION

TO U.S. GDP

t value-added. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Year 2079 data

3,416 facilities in the sector report to TRI

U.S. EPA TRI, Reporting Year 2079

This map shows the locations of the chemical manufacturing facilities that reported to TRI for
2019, sized by their relative releases. Click on a facility for details on its TRI reporting.

-------
TRI National Analysis 2019
ajWa L- I. www.epa.qov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

MEXICO

5 .Ml Lu

OwrtUfo *

Meifeo Cfl». opuol.fj

|\MAK\ I (AH?

run

HONDURAS

i" . le.jiKi j j|p»

Sources: Esri, HERE. Of/piio. IrUermap, inaemeni PCorp.. GEBCO. USGS. FAO, NPS. NRCAN. GeoBase,
IGN Kadaster NL, Ordnance Su!V6y>E£fr IfaVian. METl, Esri China {Hong Kong), {c) OpenStreeJMap
eonlnbutors, and ihe G1S User CoaWifQrtity'

Chemical Manufacturing Facilities Reporting to TRI, 2019
View Larger Mao

For 2019, more facilities reported to TRI from the chemical manufacturing sector than any other
TRI-covered industry sector (3,416; 16% of facilities that reported for 2019). This sector
reported 55% of all production-related waste managed, more than any other sector.

This large and diverse sector includes facilities producing basic chemicals and those that
manufacture products through further processing of chemicals. The chart below shows the
number of facilities by chemical manufacturing subsectors that reported to TRI for 2019.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

Chemical Manufacturing Facilities by Subsector, 2019
3,416 total facilities

Pharmaceuticals

Pesticides and
fertilizers:

Basic chemicals:
33%

Cleaning and
personal care,
products:

Resins and synthetic
rubber:

12%

Coatings and
adhesives:
15%

Other Chemical
Products
20%

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Chemical Manufacturing Waste Management Trend

The following graph shows the annual quantities of TRI chemical waste managed through
recycling, energy recovery, treatment, and disposal or other releases by the chemical
manufacturing sector. For more details on quantities released, toggle to the "Releases only"
graph.

All Production-Related Waste

Production-Related Waste Managed <§>
Chemical Manufacturing

o
5

run rlttitl

llllll llll 1

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year

Disposal or Other Releases Treatment

Energy Recovery Recycling

9 Production

Note: For comparability, trend graphs include only those chemicals that were reportable to TRI for all years presented.

1-+

a>
x

From 2007 to 2019:

• Quantities of production-related waste managed by the chemical manufacturing sector
increased by 65%, while production volume (represented by the black line as reported
by the Federal Reserve Board, Industrial Production Indexl decreased by 14%. In recent
years, production has been fairly constant, with an increase from 2017 to 2018.

o The large increase in chemical waste recycled starting in 2014 compared to
previous years was primarily due to increased quantities of recycling reported by
chemical manufacturers, with an increase in the quantity of cumene recycled by

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

one facility and dichloromethane (methylene chloride) recycled by two other
facilities.

• Quantities of TRI chemicals treated or combusted for energy recovery decreased, while
the quantities of TRI chemicals recycled increased. There was very little change in the
quantities of TRI chemicals released.

From 2018 to 2019:

• Production-related waste managed at chemical manufacturing facilities decreased by
501 million pounds (-3%), driven by a reduction in quantities recycled by three facilities
in the sector.

• In 2019, 3% of this sector's waste was released into the environment, while the rest
was managed through treatment, energy recovery, and recycling.

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Chemical Manufacturing Releases Trend

The following graph shows the annual quantities of TRI chemicals released by the chemical
manufacturing industry.

600

500

Total Disposal or Other Releases: A" Production Related waste
Chemical Manufacturing ® Releases only

-S 400

o 300

200

100

it! ! rt

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year

On-site Air Releases
i On-site Land Disposal

i On-site Surface Water Discharges
Off-site Disposal or Other Releases

Note: For comparability, trend graphs include only those chemicals that were reportable to TRI for all years presented.

From 2007 to 2019:

• TRI chemical releases by the chemical manufacturing sector increased by 2%.

• The proportions of on-site land releases and off-site disposal increased during this time,
while air releases now make up a smaller fraction of total releases.

From 2018 to 2019:

• Releases decreased by 39 million pounds (-7%). This trend is driven by large decreases
in land disposal for numerous facilities.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

• For 2019, the chemical manufacturing sector reported larger air release quantities than
any other sector, accounting for 28% of all reported quantities of TRI chemicals emitted
to air.

• For 2019, the basic chemicals manufacturing subsector accounted for 51% of chemical
manufacturing releases. This subsector includes facilities manufacturing products such
as organic and inorganic chemicals, industrial gases, and petrochemicals.

Chemical Manufacturing Sector Releases by Subsector, 2019

508.9 million pounds

Cleaning and personal
care products: 1%

Coatings and adhesives: 1%
Pharmaceuticals: 1%

Other chemical,
products: 5%

Resins and,
synthetic
rubber: 15%

Basic chemicals: 51%

Pesticides and
fertilizers: 26%

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Source Reduction in the Chemical Manufacturing Sector:

Although the chemical manufacturing sector has consistently managed the most production-
related waste of any TRI-covered sector, 284 facilities (8% of facilities) in this sector initiated
source reduction activities in 2019 to reduce their TRI chemical use and waste generation. The
most commonly reported types of source reduction activities were good operating practices and
process modifications. For example:

• A paint and coatings manufacturing facility reduced xylene waste by scheduling batches
to minimize waste produced during cleanouts between batches. I"Click to view facility
details in the TRI P2 Search Tooll

• An organic chemical manufacturing facility reduced its use of diphenylamine by changing
the reaction formulation to increase batch yield and minimize the amount of unreacted
material produced as waste. I"Click to view facility details in the TRI P2 Search Tooll

Additional Resources

EPA's Smart Sectors Program is partnering with chemical manufacturing trade associations to
develop sensible approaches to industrial operations that better protect the environment and
public health.

TRI's P2 Industry Profile Dashboard can help you learn more about releases, other waste
management trends, and pollution prevention opportunities in this sector.

For more information on how this and other industry sectors can choose safer chemicals, visit
EPA's Safer Choice Program pages for Alternatives Assessments and the Safer Choice
Ingredients List.

-------
TRI National Analysis 2019
ajWa L- I. www.epa.qov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Fabricated Metals Manufacturing

This section examines how TRI chemical wastes are managed in the fabricated metal product
manufacturing sector (defined as facilities reporting their primary NAICS code as 332).

What the Sector Does

The fabricated metals sector
manufactures metal products through
processes such as forging, stamping,
machining, welding, and assembling.
The sector also conducts surface
treatment activities such
as coating and
electroplating.

THE SECTOR

EMPLOYS

1.4 MILLION

PEOPLE

U.S. Census Annua.1 Survey of Manufactures
2018 dntn

THE SECTOR

CONTRIBUTES
$166 BILLION

TO U.S. GDP

/iii value-added. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Year 2019 data

2,914 facilities in the sector report to TRI

U.S. ERA TRI, Reporting Yedr 2019

This map shows the locations of the fabricated metal product manufacturing facilities that
reported to TRI for 2019, sized by their relative releases. Click on a facility for details on its TRI
reporting.

-------
TRI National Analysis 2019
ajWa L- I. www.epa.qov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

v1"1 ¦

-
*¦

* - > 'JS . .

j'"V*V#v;rv #-

"'b#* )PI«ulcn *•% He« OilqUi* •

MEXICO

5 .Ml Lu

OwrtUfo *

Meifeo Cfl». opuol.fj

Pfl« Mi Ix WaiAR

run:. REPUBLIC

lAM.MCV 11\til* SUtC rUERnAlCC

KBijpion t'-imuvi'i

COATfMAlA

HONDURAS

i" .leijiKiJJlpi

Sources: Esri, HERE. Qfj7"in. Intermap, increment PCorp.. GEBCO. USGS. FAO, NPS. NRCAN. GeoBase,
IGN Kadaster NL, Ordnance SutV&'yM=£fi IfaVian. METl, Esri China {Hong Kong), {c) OpenStreeJMap
eonlnbutors, and ihe G!S User CoaWifQrtity'

Fabricated Metals Manufacturing Facilities Reporting to TRI, 2019
View Larger Map

For 2019, 2,914 facilities in the fabricated metal product manufacturing sector reported to TRI,
more than any other sector except chemical manufacturing.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

Fabricated Metals Manufacturing Waste Management Trend

The following graph shows the annual quantities of TRI chemical waste managed through
recycling, energy recovery, treatment, and disposal or other releases by facilities in the
fabricated metal product manufacturing sector. For more details on quantities released, toggle
to the "Releases only" graph.

©All Production-Related Waste

Production-Related Waste Managed: q Re,eases on,y
800 Fabricated Metals 120

i: iiiiiliiiiiii -f

100

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year

Disposal or Other Releases Treatment

Energy Recovery Recycling

9 Production Index

Note: For comparability, trend graphs include only those chemicals that were reportable to TRI for all years presented.

From 2007 to 2019:

• Quantities of production-related waste managed by the fabricated metal product
manufacturing sector decreased by 65 million pounds (-9%), while production volume
(represented by the black line as reported by the Federal Reserve Board, Industrial
Production Indexl decreased by 10%. In recent years, production has been increasing.

• Quantities of TRI chemical waste managed through recycling, combustion for energy
recovery, treatment, and release all decreased.

From 2018 to 2019:

• Production-related waste managed at fabricated metal product manufacturing facilities
decreased by 26 million pounds (-4%), while production volume increased by 1%. This

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

decrease in production-related waste managed was driven by decreased recycling and
treatment.

• During 2019, 8% of this sector's waste was released into the environment, while the
rest was managed through treatment, energy recovery, and recycling.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

Fabricated Metals Manufacturing Releases Trend

The following graph shows the annual quantities of TRI chemicals released by the fabricated
metal product manufacturing industry.

Total Disposal or Other Releases: O'« w,s„

Fabricated Metals ®Releaseson'v

M'iiiiiiiiiii

10 — -

0 H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year

On-site Air Releases ¦ On-site Surface Water Discharges

¦ On-site Land Disposal i Off-site Disposal or Other Releases

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Note: For comparability, trend graphs include only those chemicals that were reportable to TRI for all years presented.

From 2007 to 2019:

• TRI chemical releases by the fabricated metals manufacturing sector decreased by 8.3
million pounds (-14%).

o The decrease was driven by releases to air, which decreased by 12 million
pounds from 2007 to 2019.

o Off-site disposal quantities increased, driven by off-site releases of nitrate
compounds, which increased by 5 million pounds from 2007 to 2019.

o On-site releases to water decreased by 1.3 million pounds (-68%) and on-site
land releases increased by 87,000 pounds (160%). On-site releases to water and
land combined make up 3% of all releases from the fabricated metal product
sector.

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

From 2018 to 2019:

• Releases increased by 0.4 million pounds (1%).

• For 2019, 14% of all facilities reporting to TRI were in the fabricated metals sector, but
facilities in this sector accounted for less than 2% of all releases reported to TRI. On
average, facilities in this sector reported fewer releases per facility than facilities in most
other TRI-covered sectors.

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Source Reduction in the Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing Sector:

For 2019, 188 facilities in this sector (6% of facilities) reported implementing 500 new source
reduction activities. Several facilities in this sector reported initiating source reduction activities
to reduce scrap generation. Note that minimizing the generation of scrap metal is a source
reduction activity, while recycling scrap metal is a waste management practice. Examples of
source reduction activities reported by the sector include:

• A machine shop reduced chromium compounds in waste by installing new racks which
reduce damage to parts in production. fClick to view facility details in the TRI P2 Search

• A plumbing fixture manufacturer began using one copper part in two places instead of
creating two separate parts, reducing copper residue and saving money. fClick to view
facility details in the TRI P2 Search Tooll

Additional Resources

• TRI's P2 program "Spotlights" feature pollution prevention activities by the fabricated
metals and other sectors in reducing organic solvents and metal waste.

• TRI's P2 Industry Profile Dashboard can help you learn more about releases, other
waste management trends, and pollution prevention opportunities in this sector.

Tooll

-------
TRI National Analysis 2019
ajWa L- I. www.epa.qov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Metal Mining

This section examines how TRI chemical wastes are managed in the metal mining sector
(defined as facilities reporting their primary NAICS code as 2122).

o
z

What the Sector Does

The metal mining sector extracts and
processes ores (metal-bearing rock) to
refine the valuable target metals. The
portion of the metal mining sector
covered by TRI reporting requirements
includes facilities mining
copper, lead, zinc, q
silver, gold, V
and several

other metals. A.

THE SECTOR

EMPLOYS 1

35,000 1

PEOPLE

U.S. Census County Business Patterns
20 J 8 data

•••
If

VALUE OF MINE

PRODUCTION W*
$28 BILLION JBI

USGS Mineral Commodities Summary 2019 data ®

Note: Both metrics include aJJ meta/ m/nr'ng sectors; not /rmrtecf to
those covered by TRI.

82 facilities in the sector report to TRI

US. EPA TRI, Reporting Year 2019

This map shows the locations of the metal mining facilities that reported to TRI for 2019, sized
by their relative releases. Click on a facility for details on its TRI reporting. Mines are shown on
this map based on their longitude/latitude, which may be miles from the city identified on the
mine's TRI reporting forms. Mines can qualify their location relative to the city by noting the
distance in the street address data field of their TRI reporting forms.

-------
TRI National Analysis 2019
ajWa L- I. www.epa.qov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

CANADA

Vancouver „
. ••

4L' f r

Ottawa Montreal
• "" " Tworto#

GREAT PLAINS Cttcaoo oB®"0"

« UNITED

STATES

Boston

• ^ New Yotk

^Philadelphia
rVashirvjIon

tea Angel^

3c c

Dallas

Houston ~

o 9

Sources Esri HERE. GanWrf IVile'rrbap, increment P Corp GEBCO, USGS.'?A\3jNPS. NRCAN, GeoBase,
IGN, Kadaster NL. Ordnance Survey. Esri Japan. MET1, Esri China (Hong KongJ.^cfcOpenStreetMap
contributors, and the GIS'WSJ?'So'fnVnunity

Metal Mines Reporting to TRI, 2019
View Larger Map

For 2019, 82 metal mining facilities reported to TRI. They tend to be in western states where
most of the copper, silver, and gold mining occurs; however, zinc and lead mining tend to occur
in Missouri and Tennessee. Metals generated from U.S. mining operations are used in a wide

range of products, including automobiles, electric and
industrial equipment, jewelry, and decorative objects.
The extraction and processing of these minerals generate
large amounts of on-site land disposals, primarily of
metal-bearing rock (called ore) and waste rock containing
TRI-covered metals. To learn more about metal mining
operations and their TRI reporting, explore the interactive
metal mining diagram. Metal mining operations are subject to federal and state regulations.

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Metal Mining Waste Management Trend

The following graph shows the annual quantities of TRI chemical waste managed by the metal
mining industry from 2007 to 2019, mainly in the form of on-site land disposal. The nature of
metal mining operations limits the feasibility of other methods of waste management. For more
details on quantities released, toggle to the "Releases only" graph.

Production-Related Waste Managed: @ All Production-Related Waste
Metal Mining Releases only

2,500

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year

m Disposal or Other Releases m Treatment

Energy Recovery m Recycling

< Mine Production

Note: For comparability, trend graphs include only those chemicals that were reportable to TRI for all years presented.

From 2007 to 2019:

• While metal mining production (as reported in the United States Geological Survey1)
remained relatively steady, the quantity of waste managed fluctuated.

• Besides production volume, one factor commonly cited by facilities as a contributor to
the changes in quantities of waste managed is the chemical composition of the
extracted ore, which can vary substantially from year to year. In some cases, small
changes in the ore's composition can impact whether TRI chemicals in ore qualify for a

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

concentration-based TRI reporting exemption in one year but not in the next year or
vice versa.

From 2018 to 2019:

• The quantity of TRI chemical waste managed by this sector decreased by 227 million
pounds (-13%) between 2018 and 2019.

• During 2019, 95% of the metal mining sector's production-related waste generated was
disposed of or otherwise released. Most of this waste consisted of metals, which were
primarily disposed of to land on site at the mine.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

Metal Mining Releases Trend

The following graph shows the annual quantities of TRI chemicals released by the metal mining
industry, primarily through on-site land disposal.

2,500

2,000

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

• The quantity of TRI chemicals released is not an indicator of health risks posed by the
chemicals, as described in the Introduction. For more information, see the TRI
document, Factors to Consider When Using Toxics Release Inventory Data.

In 2019:

• The metal mining sector reported the largest quantity of total disposal or other releases,
accounting for 44% of total TRI releases and 63% of on-site land disposal for all
industries.

Source Reduction in the Metal Mining Sector:

One metal mining facility reported initiating source reduction activities for TRI chemicals in
2019, replacing a component used in grinding with one containing less nickel and chromium.
Unlike manufacturing, the nature of mining—the necessary movement and disposal of large
volumes of rock containing TRI chemicals to access the target ore—does not lend itself to
source reduction. TRI's P2 Industry Profile Dashboard can help you learn more about releases,
other waste management trends, and pollution prevention opportunities in this sector.

EPA's Smart Sectors Program is partnering with the mining sector to develop sensible
approaches to better protect the environment and public health.

-------
kvEPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Electric Utilities

This section examines how TRI chemical wastes are managed in the electric utilities sector
(defined as facilities reporting their primary NAICS code as 2211).

What the Sector Does

Electric utilities generate, transmit, and
distribute electric power. Electric-generating
facilities use a variety of fuels to generate
electricity; however, only those electricity
generating facilities that combust
coal or oil to generate
power for distribution
in commerce are
subject to TRI reporting
requirements.

THE SECTOR

EMPLOYS

510,000

PEOPLE

US. Census County SusVies* Patterns 2018 data. Includes all PueJ types
for electricity generation; not /imited la 'hose (nets covered by TRi

•••
Iff

THE SECTOR

GENERATES
736 MILLION

MWH

U.S. Department: of Energy 2019 data by electric utilities that
combust coal or oil for electricity generation

437 facilities in the sector report to TRI

U.S. EPA TRI[ Reporting Year 2019

This map shows the locations of the electric utilities that reported to TRI for 2019, sized by their
relative releases. Click on a facility for details on its TRI reporting.

-------
TRI National Analysis 2019
ajWa L- I. www.epa.qov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

% .

•—*. ¦ ... mr '

» • • • • •

| m • t rn .... - #

WoMIHO. • ^ • #ftaclie»l« / #,

e,.y ,1... . ;

• • *„M united** ' ^ •

»• STATES J. «f J.,W , -Jti* , Jff—

¦ » //*--

_ *»¦¦.J-

. • • o«w • »« . ••T. -

•• .'¦¦uf fk API KA S • « C,r*«vdl6 • •

* • • • •. .... > mfc*

• W liiriiTTT® A , • m*

. W flu:/,* W

T» Ep„» • »• ¦'«"» • •

raw v m 1 .

««" •>» • • -

' _ • — floium fun.,Ik

¦umai, »j..«niBj... • 4 «*» Oih ¦' n • •

CluhUahiM J ^ ^ «'iii i.|

M«il» >-11,. opu«ili»

|A»IAKA UM11 Siwo I'Ull

Kttl&KMi tvunlnji

(UnimiLA

HONDURAS
GuiM«*mM ,JeoiKi|»a|pa

Sources: Em HERE. Qa/jmin, Intermap, inaemenl PCorp., GEBCO. USGS. FAO, NPS. NRCAN. GeoBase,
IGN ftadaster NL, Ordnance SuYJif) Eifi !/aVan. METl, Esri China {Hong Kong). (c> QpenSlreelMap
contnbuiors, and the GSS User CosrWrfbrtify'

Electric Utilities Reporting to TRI, 2019
View Larger Map

For 2019, 437 electricity generating facilities reported to TRI. Facilities in the sector use
different fuels to generate electricity. Only those facilities that combust coal or oil to generate
electricity for distribution in commerce are subject to the TRI reporting requirements.

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Electric Utilities Waste Management Trend

The following graph shows the annual quantities of TRI chemical waste that electric utility
facilities managed, primarily through treatment or release. For more details on quantities
released, toggle to the "Releases only" graph.

2,500
2,000

\r>

•a
c

§ 1,500

Q-

0.3 S

0.0

Disposal or Other Releases
Energy Recovery
¦Electricity Generation

Treatment
i Recycling

Note: For comparability, trend graphs include only those chemicals that were reportable to TRI for all years presented.

From 2007 to 2019:

• Quantities of production-related waste managed decreased by 804 million pounds (-
42%) since 2007, driven by reduced releases.

• Net electricity generation by electric utilities from coal and oil fuels decreased by 52%
(as reported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration1).
The recent production decrease (beginning in 2014) was driven by the industry's

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

transition to natural gas. Note that only facilities that combust coal or oil to generate
electricity are covered under TRI reporting requirements.

• Nearly three-quarters of the sector's production-related waste generated was treated,
while approximately one-quarter was released to the environment.

o This contrasts with 2007, when over half of the waste from this sector was
released. This trend is due in part to increased installation of air pollution control
devices that destroy TRI-reportable chemicals, reducing the quantities of
chemicals that would otherwise be released into the air.

• 52 fewer facilities in the sector reported to TRI in 2019 than had reported in 2018, an
11% drop. Based on data from the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information
Administration, most of these facilities were either no longer operating in 2019 or were
no longer combusting coal or oil to generate electricity.

• Data from the Energy Information Administration indicate that the mix of energy sources
for U.S. electricity generation has changed over time, especially in recent years. Natural
gas and renewable energy sources account for an increasing share of U.S. electricity
generation, while coal-fired electricity generation has declined. Use of oil for electric
power generation continues to contribute a small percentage of total U.S. electricity
generation.

In 2019:

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Electric Utilities Releases Trend

The following graph shows the annual quantities of TRI chemicals released by electric utilities.

Total Disposal or Other Releases: O A" production Related waste

Electric Utilities ©Releases only

1,250

1,000

P 750

Q-

E
O

500

250

¦ I i

'J-M-liii

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

On-site Air Releases
i On-site Land Disposal

Year

i On-site Surface Water Discharges
Off-site Disposal or Other Releases

Note: For comparability, trend graphs include only those chemicals that were reportable to TRI for all years presented.

From 2007 to 2019:

• Releases from the electric utilities sector decreased by 731 million pounds (-72%). This
decrease was driven by a 567 million pound (-89%) decrease in on-site air releases. On-
site land disposal and off-site disposal also decreased, but to a lesser extent.

From 2018 to 2019:

• Releases by electric utilities decreased by 53 million pounds (-16%). This decrease was
driven by reductions in on-site land disposal of barium compounds and reduced air
releases of sulfuric and hydrochloric acid.

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Source Reduction in the Electric Utilities Sector:

In the electric utilities sector, 6 facilities (1% of the electric utility facilities reporting to TRI)
initiated source reduction activities in 2019 to reduce their use of TRI chemicals and generation
of wastes that contain TRI chemicals. Examples include reducing fuel use by increasing the heat
rate capacity, and experiementing with renewable biomass fuels. TRI's P2 Industry Profile
Dashboard can help you learn more about releases, other waste management trends, and
pollution prevention opportunities in this sector.

EPA's Smart Sectors Program is partnering with this sector to develop sensible approaches to
industrial operations that better protect the environment and public health.

-------
TRI National Analysis 2019
ajWa L- I. www.epa.qov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Federal Facilities

The 1993 Executive Order 12856, "Federal Compliance with Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution
Prevention Requirements," established the requirement that all federal facilities, including
facilities operated by the EPA, the Department of Defense, and the Department of the Treasury,

are subject to the TRI reporting requirements, regardless of the type of operations at the
facility (as described by their NAICS code). This executive order has been reaffirmed by
subsequent administrations.

This map shows the locations of 441 federal facilities that reported to TRI in 2019, sized by
their relative releases. Click on a facility for details on its TRI reporting.

ufclk.

L*
" •

GREAT P L A I^N $ Chtca^

II N I T i?D
STATES

«vjMA cVwa. A" V

*. • a

•»

Twaoft *

• • . _ • "V" • ,'L - •
. • ~ .• # •

• .i* t ••••'%•-¦< a • . •

m t

. VjA v.#-

9 •

tote**

MEXICO

S.»ti lu

Hwico cii ? ofuHila

Port-041 lxv*OKlC\«

I'nuc. KETUBUC

|4HUJA WAIr? ;„4, n't ki'~kiii

Kindlon i in in;

Sources: Esr«, HERE. Q^jpin. Intermap, Increment P Corp., GEBCO. JSGS. FAO, NPS. NRCAN. GeoBase,
IGN. Kadaster NL, Ordnance SuYJhf) ESri l/a^an, METl, Esn China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenS(ree(Map
contnbulors, and the GJS User CofrfAftSftfy'

Federal Facilities Reporting to TRI, 2019
View Larger Map

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

Federal Facilities by Industry

The following chart shows the number of federal facilities reporting to TRI by sector for 2019.

Federal Facilities by Sector, 2019
441 facilities

All Others: 15%

Correctional
Institutions (e.g.,
federal prison): 11%

Electric Utilities: 3%

Police Protection,
(e.g., firing range):
6%

National Security
(e.g., US Army
Base): 65%

For 2019, 441 federal facilities in 38 different types of operations (based on their 6-digit NAICS
codes) reported to TRI. Almost two-thirds of these facilities were in the National Security sector,
which includes Department of Defense facilities such as Army and Air Force bases. Since all
federal facilities are subject to TRI reporting requirements regardless of industry sector, for
some sectors, the TRI database only includes data from federal facilities. Most federal facilities
are in such sectors, including Military Bases; Correctional Institutions; and Police Protection,
such as training sites for Border Patrol stations.

As with non-federal facilities, the type of activities at federal facilities determine the types and
quantities of chemical waste managed and reported to TRI. Some of the activities occurring at
federal facilities that are captured by TRI reporting are similar to those at non-federal facilities,
such as electric utilities. In other cases, federal facilities may report waste managed from
specialized activities that do not usually happen at non-federal facilities. For example, all of the
federal facilities included under Police Protection and Correctional Institutions only reported lead
and lead compounds, likely due to the use of lead ammunition on their firing ranges.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

Waste Management by Federal Facilities

The following pie chart shows the percentages of TRI chemical waste managed through
recycling, energy recovery, treatment, and disposal or other releases by federal government
organizations in 2019. For more details on quantities released, toggle to the "Releases only"
graph.

Production-Related Waste Managed by ® AN Production Re|ated Waste

Government Organization, 2019 OReleases on|v

145.1 million pounds

All Others:

thp

Department of

Defense:

Tennessee Valley —-— H

59%

Authority: H

34% m

• The types of waste reported by federal facilities vary by the type of operation.

o The Tennessee Valley Authority is a government-owned electric utility that
provides power to southeastern states. Over 80% of its reported waste was
hydrochloric and sulfuric acid aerosols, which were mostly treated on site.

o The Department of the Treasury facilities reporting to TRI are mints for

manufacturing currency and, accordingly, they report metals (e.g., copper and
nickel) to TRI. Almost all of their metal waste was recycled off site.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

Federal Facilities Releases Trend

The following graph shows the percentages of TRI chemicals released by federal government
organizations in 2019.

Total Disposal or Other Releases by Oa»

Government Organization, 2019 {^Releases only
45.9 million pounds

• Most of the Department of Defense's releases were on-site releases of nitrate
compounds to water and on-site land disposal of metals and metal compounds.

• The chemicals released by the Tennessee Valley Authority are similar to the chemicals
released by other electric utilities that report to TRI. On-site land disposal of barium
compounds and air releases of sulfuric acid make up a large portion of releases from the
Tennessee Valley Authority and other electric utilities.

Source Reduction at Federal Facilities:

Federal facilities' operations are diverse and few focus on manufacturing processes. Due to this
variety of functions, operations at some federal facilities are better suited to source reduction
strategies than others. For the 2019 reporting year, 21 federal facilities (5%) reported
implementing source reduction activities.

Federal facilities have often reported difficulties when trying to reduce their use of lead because
it is contained in ammunition used at National Security and Park Service facilities. For 2019,

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

several federal facilities reported using "green" ammuntion in accordance with National Park
Service policy to use non-lead ammunition where feasible. To find more examples of federal
facilities' source reduction activities and the source reduction barriers they face, visit TRI's P2
Search Tool and select industry sectors such as National Security, Correctional Institutions or
Police Protection from the dropdown menu under "search criteria."

-------
kvEPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

EPA Regional Profiles

This section of the National Analysis looks at releases and other production-related waste
management activities of Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) chemicals at the EPA regional level
during 2019. EPA has 10 regional offices, each of which is responsible for multiple states and in
some cases, territories and tribes.

MT
WY

CO
NM

NHl

vt.7^ me

O L

KS MO

Qpm

O ^ &

< CT

r pw,

0 DE

wv VA v md

NY
PA

PR -

EPA regions vary significantly in many important characteristics, including size, population, and
the types of facilities located in each region. These factors result in significant differences
between national and regional trends in TRI chemical waste management. For example, certain
activities such as metal mining are geographically concentrated and generate large quantities of
TRI chemical waste. As a result, release trends in regions with many metal mines often do not
mirror national release trends.

The charts below show: 1) production-related TRI chemical waste managed, which includes
management through recycling, combustion for energy recovery, treatment, and disposal or
other release; and 2) the portion of production-related waste that is released, by EPA region.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

Production-Related Waste Managed
by Region, 2019

Region 4

Region 10

Releases by Region, 2019

Region 6

Region 3

Region 7
Region 8
Region 9

Region 2
Region 1

Region 5

Region 1

Region 5

Region 6

Region 9

Region 10

The relative amounts of production-related waste managed compared to releases in each region
is largely explained by the types of industry located in each region. For example:

o In Regions 8, 9 and 10, metal mines accounted for more releases than any other
sector. Metal mines tend to have high releases due to the large quantities of metals
disposed of on site to land. For quantities of waste managed through treatment, energy
recovery and recycling, metal mines rank lower than almost all other sectors, resulting in
lower production-related waste managed in regions with substantial metal mining
operations.

o Region 6 had the largest quantity of production-related waste managed, driven by
facilities in the chemical manufacturing sector treating chemicals on site, such as
ethylene, toluene, and propylene.

o Quantities of production-related waste managed in Regions 3, 4 and 5 were largely
from the chemical manufacturing sector. Each of these regions include one chemical
manufacturing facility that reported high quantities of chemicals recycled on site. For
example, in Region 3, one facility reported 3.6 billion pounds of cumene recycled, and in
Regions 4 and 5, one facility in each region reported recycling over one billion pounds of
dichloromethane (methylene chloride). The recycling quantities at these individual
facilities are major contributors to the large quantities of TRI production-related waste
managed in these regions.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

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.

-------
kvEPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Regional Profile for EPA Region 1

This section ©(amines TRI reporting in EPA Region 1. Region 1 includes Connecticut, Maine,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, and 10 tribes.

Region 1 serves 6 states
and 10 tribes

REGION 1'S
POPULATION IS

14.8 million

PEOPLE

U.S. Census Annua/ Estimates of the Resident Population: July 1, 2019

The Sectors with the greatest TRI releases are:

• Paper manufacturing

• Food manufacturing

The tri chemicals released in the greatest
quantities are:

• Nitrate compounds

• Zinc compounds

U.S. EPA TRI, Reporting Year 2019

950 facilities in the region report to TRI

U.S. EPA TRI, Reporting Year 2019

Region 1 covers 4% of the U.S. population and includes 4% of all facilities that report to TRI.
For state- and tribe-specific TRI data, see the Where You Live section and the Tribal
Communities section. Although Region 1 includes 10 tribes, no facilities located on tribal lands
in the region reported to TRI for 2019.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

Industry Sectors

This chart shows the industry sectors with the most TRI-reporting facilities in Region 1.

Facilities Reporting to TRI by Industry in Region 1, 2019

.Fabricated Metals:

All Other Sectors:
28%

Plastics and Rubber:
5%

Electrical
Equipment: 5%

Petroleum Products.
Manufacturing: 5%

Chemical
Manufacturing: 14%

Transportation
Equipment: 6%

Products: 6%

Computers and
Electronic Products:
7%

Primary Metals: 6%

In 2019:

• 950 facilities in Region 1 reported to TRI, similar to reporting for 2018. These facilities
were most commonly in the fabricated metals (i.e., manufacture of metal products) or
chemical manufacturing sectors.

• While the figure shows the sectors with the most TRI facilities in the region, the sectors
that reported the largest TRI releases in Region 1 were the paper manufacturing, food
manufacturing, fabricated metals, and chemical manufacturing sectors. Note that
relatively few facilities in the paper manufacturing and food manufacturing sectors
reported to TRI in this region and those sectors are included in "All Other Sectors" in the
pie chart above.

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

o Nationwide, the metal mining, chemical manufacturing, primary metals (including
iron and steel manufacturing, and foundries), and electric utilities sectors
reported the largest quantities of releases.

For information on the Region 1 facilities with the largest releases, see the Region 1 TRI
factsheet.

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Region 1 Waste Management Trend

The following graph shows the annual quantities of TRI chemicals in production-related, waste
managed by facilities located in Region 1. For more details on quantities released, toggle to the
Releases graph.

©All Production-Related Waste

Production-Related Waste Managed, EPA Region 1 Q Releases only

350
300

-a 250

a- 200

150
100
50
0

1111 iThTTTil

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year

Disposal or Other Releases Treatment

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

era

600

qj
o_

400

n>'

200

Energy Recovery
• Reporting Facilities

Recycling

Note: For comparability, trend graphs include only those chemicals that were reportable to TRI for all years presented.

In 2019:

Facilities in Region 1 managed 309 million pounds of production-related waste, 95% of
which was recycled, combusted for energy recovery, or treated. Only 5% was disposed
of or otherwise released into the environment in Region 1, compared to 11% nationally.
Since 2018, quantities of production-related waste managed in the region increased by
56%, driven by a large increase in recycling, which more than doubled from 2018 to
2019.

o The increase for 2019 is due to increased recycling of methanol by a single
chemical manufacturing facility in Connecticut. I"Click to view facility details in the
TRI P2 Search Tooll.

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

From 2007 to 2019:

• Production-related waste managed increased by 63.9 million pounds (26%), driven by
the 2019 increase in recycling.

o Nationally, quantities of production-related waste managed increased by 23%
since 2007, driven by increased recycling.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

The following graph shows the annual quantities of TRI chemicals released by facilities located
in Region 1.

Total Disposal or Other Releases, EPA Region 1 [^Ml Productlon Related Waste

(•) Releases only

IlllllllllMl

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year

On-site Air Releases ¦ On-site Surface Water Discharges

¦ On-site Land Disposal ¦ Off-site Disposal or Other Releases

Note: For comparability, trend graphs include only those chemicals that were reportable to TRI for all years presented.

In 2019:

• Facilities in Region 1 reported releasing 16.2 million pounds of
TRI chemicals.

• The chemicals released in the largest quantities by medium
were:

o To air: methanol and ammonia;
o To water: nitrate compounds;
o To land: zinc compounds and manganese compounds;
and

o Transferred off site for disposal: zinc compounds and nitrate compounds

• Since 2018, releases in Region 1 decreased by 2.3 million pounds (-13%). On-site
releases to air and water and off-site transfers for disposal decreased while releases to
land increased. Nationally, releases decreased by 9%.

• Contributions by state to TRI releases in Region 1 were: Maine (58%), Massachusetts
(19%), Connecticut (15%), Rhode Island (2%), New Hampshire (2%), and Vermont
(2%).

~o
c

o 15

¦2 10

Regional Highlight

Since 2007, releases in
Region 1 have decreased
by 42%, driven by
reductions in releases to
air reported by electric
utilities.

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

• To consider the potential health risk from chronic exposure to these releases, EPA
provides a risk-screening score from the RSEI model. Contributions by state to the RSEI
Score for Region 1 were: Connecticut (66%), Massachusetts (32%), Maine (1%), Rhode
Island (<1%), New Hampshire (<1%), and Vermont (<1%).

o The RSEI model accounts for factors such as chemical properties and population
density in addition to the pounds of TRI chemicals released. Additionally, RSEI
does not model land disposal quantities. These factors can lead to significant
differences between a state's contribution to regional releases and its
contribution to the regional RSEI Score.

From 2007 to 2019:

• Releases in Region 1 decreased by 11.5 million pounds (-42%), driven by reduced air
releases from electric utilities. Nationally, releases decreased by 19%.

• Quantities of chemicals released to air, water and land decreased, while quantities of
chemicals transferred off site for disposal increased.

Source Reduction

In 2019, 9% of facilities in Region 1 (82 facilities) reported implementing new source reduction
activities. Source reduction reporting rates were among the highest in the computer/electronic
products sector, in which 22% of facilities reported source reduction activities. For example,
one circuit board manufacturer reduced its use of formaldehyde by optimizing the process
control module that analyzes bath conditions and monitors the chemistry needed to maintain
proper conditions. fClick to view facility details in the TRI P2 Search Tool!.

-------
TRI National Analysis 2019
ajWa L- I. www.epa.qov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Regional Profile for EPA Region 2

This section ©(amines TRI reporting in EPA Region 2. Region 2 includes New Jersey, New York,
Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, and 8 tribes.

REGION 2'S
POPULATION IS

31.5 million

PEOPLE

US. Census Annual Estimates of the Resident Population: July 1, 2019

The sectors with the greatest TRI releases are:

• Chemical manufacturing

• Petroleum products manufacturing

The tri chemicals released in the greatest
quantities are:

• Nitrate compounds

• Zinc and compounds

U.S. EPA TRI, Reporting Year 2019

1,040 facilities in the region report to TRI

U. S. E PA TRI, Reporting Year 2019

Region 2 covers 10% of the U.S. population and includes 5% of all facilities that report to TRI.
For state- and tribe-specific TRI data, see the Where You Live section and the Tribal
Communities section. Although Region 2 includes 8 tribes, no facilities located on tribal lands in
the region reported to TRI for 2019.

US VI

'=0 C3

Region 2 serves 2 states,
2 territories,
and 8 tribes

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

Industry Sectors

This chart shows the industry sectors with the most TRI-reporting facilities in Region 2.

Facilities Reporting to TRI by Industry in Region 2, 2019

All Other Sectors:

31% \

Electric Utilities: 5%_/

Petroleum Bulk
Terminals: 5%

Computers and
Electronic Products:
6%

Primary Metals: 7%

Chemical
Manufacturing: 19%

Fabricated Metals:
1/ 12%

V Nonmetallic Mineral
Products: 8%

Food
Manufacturing: 7%

In 2019:

• 1,040 facilities in Region 2 reported to TRI, similar to reporting for 2018. These facilities
were most commonly in the chemical manufacturing or fabricated metals (i.e.,
manufacture of metal products) sectors.

• While the figure shows the sectors with the most TRI facilities in the region, the sectors
that reported the largest TRI releases in Region 2 were the chemical manufacturing,
petroleum products manufacturing, hazardous waste management, primary metals
(including iron and steel manufacturing, and foundries), and electric utilities sectors.
Note that relatively few facilities in the petroleum products and hazardous waste
management sectors reported to TRI in this region and those sectors are included in "All
Other Sectors" in the pie chart above.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

o Nationwide, the metal mining, chemical manufacturing, primary metals, and
electric utilities sectors reported the largest releases.

For information on the Region 2 facilities with the largest releases, see the TRI Region 2 TRI
factsheet.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

Region 2 Waste Management Trend

The following graph shows the annual quantities of TRI chemicals in production-related, waste
managed by facilities located in Region 2. For more details on quantities released, toggle to the
Releases graph.

Production-Related Waste Managed, EPA Region (g)Aii Production-Related waste

300 ( ) Releases only

700 H H ¦ 1,750

100 ^ 250

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year

Disposal or Other Releases Treatment Energy Recovery

Recycling Reporting Facilities

Note: For comparability, trend graphs include only those chemicals that were reportable to TRI for all years presented. Total
production-related waste managed reported for 2019 in Region 2 was higher than shown here due to large treatment quantities of
hydrogen sulfide, which was not TRI-reportable until 2012.

In 2019:

• Facilities in Region 2 managed 821 million pounds of production-related waste, 95% of
which was recycled, combusted for energy recovery, or treated. Only 5% was disposed
of or otherwise released into the environment in Region 2, compared to 11% nationally.
The 821 million pounds of production-related waste includes all chemicals reported for
2019, while for comparability over time, the trend chart excludes chemicals that were
added to the TRI list after 2007. For Region 2, the difference for 2019 is primarily due to
the quantity of hydrogen sulfide treated which is included in the 821 million pound total
for 2019 but is excluded from the trend chart. TRI reporting of hydrogen sulfide began
in 2012.

• The chart above shows a 2% decrease in production-related waste managed since 2018.

This excludes chemicals that were added to the TRI chemical list after 2007. Including

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

those chemicals, quantities of production-related waste managed in Region 2 increased
by 64 million pounds (9%) since 2018, driven by increased treatment of hydrogen
sulfide.

From 2007 to 2019:

• Production-related waste managed decreased by 97.8 million pounds (-15%). Quantities
of waste treated, combusted for energy recovery, and disposed of or otherwise released
decreased, while quantities recycled increased. Nationally, quantities of production-
related waste managed increased by 23%.

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

The following graph shows the annual quantities of TRI chemicals released by facilities located
in Region 2.

. | _ | (~~^) All Production-Related Waste

Total Disposal or Other Releases, EPA Region 2 ^

(g) Releases only

90
80
¦S 70

i 60

£ 50

40
J 30

1 20
10

lllllllllll

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year

On-site Air Releases ¦ On-site Surface Water Discharges

¦ On-site Land Disposal ¦ Off-site Disposal or Other Releases

Note: For comparability, trend graphs include only those chemicals that were reportable to TRI for all years presented.

In 2019:

• Facilities in Region 2 reported releasing 39.3 million pounds of TRI
chemicals.

• The chemicals released in the largest quantities by medium were:

o To air: ammonia and sulfuric acid;
o To water: nitrate compounds;
o To land: asbestos; and

o Transferred off site for disposal: zinc compounds and nitrate
compounds.

• Since 2018, releases decreased slightly (by less than 1%). Water releases and off-site
transfers for disposal increased, while air releases and land releases decreased.
Nationally, releases decreased by 9%.

• Contributions by state or territory to TRI releases in Region 2 were: New York (48%),
New Jersey (36%), Puerto Rico (15%), and U.S. Virgin Islands (<1%).

Regional Highlight

Variability in TRI
chemical releases in
Region 2 is due to
changes in releases
reported by hazardous
waste management
facilities, where release
quantities can vary
widely year to year.

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

• To consider the potential health risk from chronic exposure to these releases, EPA
provides a risk-screening score from the RSEI model. Contributions by state or territory
to the RSEI Score for Region 2 were: New Jersey (56%), New York (35%), Puerto Rico
(9%), and U.S. Virgin Islands (<1%).

From 2007 to 2019:

• Releases in Region 2 decreased by 22.4 million pounds (-36%), driven by reduced
releases from electric utilities. Nationally, releases decreased by 19%.

• Quantities of chemicals released to air, water, and land decreased, while off-site
transfers for disposal increased.

• The increased releases for 2015 shown in the graph were caused by off-site transfers for
disposal of several chemicals from a hazardous waste management facility in Kearny,
New Jersey. fClick to view facility details in the TRI P2 Search Tool!.

Source Reduction

In 2019, 9% of facilities in Region 2 (95 facilities) reported implementing new source reduction
activities. Source reduction reporting rates in the region were among the highest in the
miscellaneous manufacturing sector, where 14% of facilities reported source reduction
activities. As one example of source reduction in Region 2, a facility began monitoring
operations to improve material yields and reduce waste. fClick to view facility details in the TRI
P2 Search Tool!.

-------
kvEPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Regional Profile for EPA Region 3

This section ©(amines TRI reporting in EPA Region 3. Region 3 includes Delaware, the District
of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia.

Region 3 serves 5 states and
District of Columbia

REGION 3'S
POPULATION IS

30.9 million

PEOPLE

|V t|

U.S. Census Annua/ Estimates of the Resident Population: July 1, 2019

The sectors with the greatest TRI releases are:
» Electric utilities

• Primary metals

The tri chemicals released in the greatest
quantities are:

• Nitrate compounds

• Sulfuric acid

U.S. EW TRI, Reporting Year 2019

1,905 facilities in the region report to TRI

US. EPA TO, Reporting Year 2019

Region 3 covers 9% of the U.S. population and includes 9% of all facilities that report to TRI.
For state-specific TRI data, see the Where You Live section.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

Industry Sectors

This chart shows the industry sectors with the most TRI-reporting facilities in Region 3.

Facilities Reporting to TRI by Industry in Region 3, 2019

Fabricated Metals:
16%

All Other Sectors:
27%

Transportation.
Equipment: 4%

Wood Products: 4%

Machinery: 4%

Plastics and Rubber:

Chemical
Manufacturing: 14%

Manufacturing: 7%

Primary Metals:
10%

Nonmetallic Mineral
Products: 9%

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100% due to rounding

In 2019:

• 1,905 facilities in Region 3 reported to TRI, similar to reporting for 2018. These facilities
were most commonly in the fabricated metals (i.e., manufacture of metal products) or
chemical manufacturing sectors.

• While the figure shows the sectors with the most TRI facilities in the region, the sectors
that reported the largest TRI releases in Region 3 were the electric utilities, primary
metals (including iron and steel manufacturing, and foundries), and petroleum products
manufacturing. Note that relatively few facilities in the electric utilities and petroleum
products sectors reported to TRI in this region and those sectors are included in "All
Other Sectors" in the pie chart above.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

o Nationwide, the metal mining, chemical manufacturing, primary metals, and
electric utilities sectors reported the largest releases.

For information on the facilities with the largest releases in the region, see the Region 3 TRI
factsheet.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

Region 3 Waste Management Trend

The following graph shows the annual quantities of TRI chemicals in production-related, waste
managed by facilities located in Region 3. For more details on quantities released, toggle to the
Releases graph. ^

(®)AII Production-Related Waste

Production-Related Waste Managed, EPA Region 3 - Releasesonly

7 2,500

2,000

rd
¦a

1'500 1.

1,000 q

42 5

CO 2

1111111

500

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year

Disposal or Other Releases Treatment Energy Recovery

Recycling ^^^Reporting Facilities

Note: For comparability, trend graphs include only those chemicals that were reportable to TRI for all years presented.

In 2019:

• Facilities in Region 3 managed 5.8 billion pounds of production-related waste, 81% of
which was recycled, compared to 53% nationally.

• Since 2018, production-related waste managed in the region decreased by 324 million
pounds (-5%), driven by reductions in the quantities of waste recycled and treated.

From 2007 to 2019:

• Total production-related waste managed increased by 2.9 billion pounds (117%), driven
by one facility which reported that it recycled over 3 billion pounds of cumene each year
from 2014 to 2019. I"Click to view facility details in the TRI P2 Search Tool!.

o Excluding this facility, production-related waste managed in the region decreased

by 699 million pounds (-28%).
o Nationally, quantities of production-related waste managed increased by 23%
since 2007, driven by increased recycling.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

The following graph shows the annual quantities of TRI chemicals released by facilities located
in Region 3.

. | _ | C~") All Production-Related Waste

Total Disposal or Other Releases, EPA Region 3 ^

(jg) Releases only

450
400

^35° l ¦

I 300

I 250 I I

ii 111

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year

On-site Air Releases ¦ On-site Surface Water Discharges

¦ On-site Land Disposal ¦ Off-site Disposal or Other Releases

Note: For comparability, trend graphs include only those chemicals that were reportable to TRI for all years presented.

In 2019:

• Facilities in Region 3 reported releasing 124 million pounds of
TRI chemicals.

• The chemicals released in the largest quantities by medium
were:

o To air: sulfuric acid;
o To water: nitrate compounds;
o To land: lead compounds and manganese compounds;
and

o Transferred off site for disposal: zinc compounds and manganese compounds.

• Since 2018, releases decreased by 11.4 million pounds (-8%), primarily driven by air
releases and off-site transfers for disposal, though releases to land and water also
decreased slightly. Nationally, releases decreased by 9%.

• Contributions by state to TRI releases in Region 3 were : Pennsylvania (41%), Virginia
(28%), West Virginia (22%), Delaware (5%), and Maryland (4%).

Regional Highlight

The decrease in chemical
releases for 2019 in
Region 3 was driven by a
reduction in releases to air
and off-site transfers for
disposal from the electric
utilities sector.

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

• To consider the potential health risk from chronic exposure to these releases, EPA
provides a risk-screening score from the RSEI model. Contributions by state to the RSEI
Score for Region 3 were: Pennsylvania (62%), Virginia (14%), West Virginia (9%),
Delaware (8%), and Maryland (1%).

From 2007 to 2019:

• Releases in Region 3 decreased by 270 million pounds (-69%), compared to a 19%
decrease nationally.

• Quantities of chemicals released to air, water, and land, and transfers off-site for
disposal all decreased, with a 181-million-pound reduction in air releases driving the
overall decrease.

Source Reduction

In 2019, 7% of facilities in Region 3 (130 facilities) reported implementing new source
reduction activities. Source reduction reporting rates in the region were among the highest in
the plastics/rubber manufacturing sector, where 14% of facilities reported source reduction
activities. For example, a foam products manufacturer implemented spill prevention solutions to
reduce the loss of nitrate compounds through spills or leaks. The facility also began
electronically tracking maintenance activities to improve scheduling and recordkeeping
procedures. fClick to view facility details in the TRI P2 Search Tool!.

-------
TRI National Analysis 2019
ajWa L- I. www.epa.qov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Regional Profile for EPA Region 4

This section ©(amines TRI reporting in EPA Region 4. Region 4 includes Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and 6 tribes.

Region 4 serves 8 states and
6 tribes

REGION 4'S
POPULATION IS

66.9 million

PEOPLE

U.S. Census Annual Estimates of the Resident Population: July 7, 2019

The sectors with the greatest TRI releases are:

• Chemical manufacturing

• Paper manufacturing

The tri chemicals released in the greatest
quantities are:

• Nitrate compounds

• Zinc compounds

U.S. EPA TRI, Reporting Year 2019

4,586 facilities in the region report to TRI

U.S. EPA TRI, Reporting Year 2019

Region 4 covers 20% of the U.S. population and includes 21% of all facilities that report to TRI.
For state- and tribe-specific TRI data, see the Where You Live section and the Tribal
Communities section. One facility located on tribal land in Region 4 reported to TRI for 2019.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

Industry Sectors

This chart shows the industry sectors with the most TRI-reporting facilities in Region 4.
Facilities Reporting to TRI by Industry in Region 4, 2019

Nonmetallic Mineral

l"ooa Equipment: 8%

Manufacturing: 7%

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100% due to rounding

In 2019:

• 4,586 facilities in Region 4 reported to TRI, similar to reporting for 2018. These facilities
were most commonly in the nonmetallic mineral products (including cement and
concrete manufacturing) or chemical manufacturing sectors.

• While the figure shows the sectors with the most TRI facilities in the region, the sectors
that reported the largest TRI releases in Region 4 were the chemical manufacturing,
paper manufacturing, electric utilities, and primary metals (including iron and steel mills
and foundries) sectors. Note that relatively few facilities in the paper manufacturing and
electric utilities sectors reported to TRI in this region and those sectors are included in
"All Other Sectors" in the pie chart above. Nationwide, the metal mining, chemical

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

manufacturing, primary metals, electric utilities, and paper manufacturing sectors
reported the largest releases.

For information on the Region 4 facilities with the largest releases, see the Region 4 TRI
factsheet.

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Region 4 Waste Management Trend

The following graph shows the annual quantities of TRI chemicals in production-related, waste
managed by facilities located in Region 4. For more details on quantities released, toggle to the
Releases graph.

(S)AII Production-Related Waste

Production-Related Waste Managed, EPA Region 4 oRe|easeson|y

-a 5

„ 3

111111111 ¦ I

2
1

0 M M m m m m m m u u u u u 0

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year

Disposal or Other Releases Treatment

Energy Recovery Recycling

^^•Reporting Facilities

Note: For comparability, trend graphs include only those chemicals that were reportable to TRI for all years presented.

In 2019:

• Facilities in Region 4 managed 5.72 billion pounds of production-related waste, 92% of
which was recycled, combusted for energy recovery, or treated. Only 8% was disposed
of or otherwise released into the environment in Region 4, compared to 11% nationally.

• Since 2018, quantities of production-related waste managed in the region decreased by
9%, with reductions in every waste management method (i.e., recycling, energy
recovery, treatment, and releases).

From 2007 to 2019:

• Production-related waste managed increased by 576 million pounds (11%), driven by
one facility that reported recycling over 1.5 billion pounds of dichloromethane
(methylene chloride) during 2018 and 2019. fClick to view facility details in the TRI P2

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Search Tool"!. Excluding this facility, production-related waste managed in the region
decreased by 1.1 billion pounds (-22%), and quantities of waste managed by every
method (i.e., recycling, treatment, energy recovery, and disposal and releases)
decreased.

o Nationally, quantities of production-related waste managed increased by 23%,
driven by increased recycling.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

The following graph shows the annual quantities of TRI chemicals released by facilities located
in Region 4.

Total Disposal or Other Releases, EPA Region 4 Oa" Pr°d,",i™Waste

(W) Releases anly

900
800
700

| 600
o

500

£ 400
o

= 300
200

100

¦¦¦III

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year

On-site Air Releases
I On-site Land Disposal

I On-site Surface Water Discharges
Off-site Disposal or Other Releases

Note: For comparability, trend graphs include only those chemicals that were reportable to TRI for all years presented.

In 2019:

Facilities in Region 4 reported releasing 462 million pounds of TRI
chemicals.

The chemicals released in the largest quantities by medium were:
o To air: methanol and ammonia;
o To water: nitrate compounds;

o To land: manganese compounds and zinc compounds; and
o Transferred off site for disposal: zinc compounds and
manganese compounds.

Since 2018, releases decreased by 25.4 million pounds (-5%),
driven by decreased releases to land and air. Nationally, releases decreased by 9%.
Contributions by state to TRI releases in Region 4 were: Tennessee (18%), Alabama
(17%), North Carolina (12%), Mississippi (12%), Florida (12%), Georgia (11%),
Kentucky (10%), and South Carolina (8%).

Regional Highlight

On-site releases to air in
Region 4 decreased by
65% since 2007. The
largest decrease in was
reported by electric
utilities, which continued
to report decreased
releases to air from 2018
to 2019.

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

• To consider the potential health risk from chronic exposure to these releases, EPA
provides a risk-screening score from the RSEI model. Contributions by state to the RSEI
Score for Region 4 were: Tennessee (24%), Florida (18%), Alabama (14%), Georgia
(13%), North Carolina (12%), Kentucky (10%), South Carolina (8%), and Mississippi
(2%).

From 2007 to 2019:

• Releases in Region 4 decreased by 392 million pounds (-47%), compared to a 19%
decrease nationally.

• Quantities of chemicals released to air, water, and land, and transferred off-site for
disposal all decreased, with the largest reduction in releases to air.

Source Reduction

In 2019, 6% of facilities in Region 4 (257 facilities) reported implementing new source
reduction activities. Source reduction reporting rates in the region were among the highest in
the computers/electronic products manufacturing sector, in which 19% of facilities reported
source reduction activities. As one example of source reduction in Region 4, an electronic
assembly facility reported that current mass production units are no longer manufactured using
lead solder and that lead waste is contained in a limited number of service parts. Production of
these service parts has decreased in the last year. \Click to view facility details in the TRI P2
Search Tool!.

-------
kvEPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Regional Profile for EPA Region 5

This section examines TRI reporting in EPA Region 5. Region 5 includes Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin, and 35 tribes.

Region 5 serves 6 states
and 35 tribes

REGION 5'S
POPULATION IS

52*5 million

PEOPLE

U.S. Census Annua/ Estimates of the Resident Population: July 1, 2019

The Sectors with the greatest TRI releases are:

• Primary metals

• Electric utilities

The tri chemicals released in the greatest
quantities are:

• Zinc compounds

• Nitrate compounds

U.S. EPA TRI, Reporting Year 2019

5,330 facilities in the region report to TRI

U. S. E PA TRI, Reporting Year 2019

Region 5 covers 16% of the U.S. population and includes 25% of all facilities that report to TRI.
For state- and tribe-specific TRI data, see the Where You Live section and the Tribal
Communities section. Five facilities located on the land of two different tribes in Region 5
reported to TRI for 2019.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

Industry Sectors

This chart shows the industry sectors with the most TRI-reporting facilities in Region 5.

Facilities Reporting to TRI by Industry in Region 5, 2019

All Other Sectors:
21%

Nonmetallic Mineral
Products: 5%

Machinery: 6%

Plastics and Rubber:
7%

Food
Manufacturing: 7%

Fabricated Metals:
19%

Chemical
_ Manufacturing: 15%

Primary Metals:
10%

Transportation
Equipment: 9%

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100% due to rounding

In 2019:

• 5,330 facilities in Region 5 reported to TRI, similar to reporting for 2018. These facilities
were most commonly in the fabricated metals (i.e., manufacture of metal products) or
chemical manufacturing sectors.

• While the figure shows the sectors with the most TRI facilities in the region, the sectors
that reported the largest TRI releases in Region 5 were the primary metals (including
iron and steel manufacturing, and foundries), electric utilities, chemical manufacturing,
and hazardous waste management sectors. Note that relatively few facilities in the
electric utilities and hazardous waste management sectors reported to TRI in this region
and those sectors are included in "All Other Sectors" in the pie chart above.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

o Nationwide, the metal mining, chemical manufacturing, primary metals, and
electric utilities sectors reported the largest releases.

For information on the Region 5 facilities with the largest releases, see the Region 5 TRI
factsheet.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

Region 5 Waste Management Trend

The following graph shows the annual quantities of TRI chemicals in production-related, waste
managed by facilities located in Region 5. For more details on quantities released, toggle to the
Releases graph. ^

(W) All Production-Related Waste
( j Releases only

Production-Related Waste Managed, EPA Region 5

5 5

.2 3

iWTTTTTl

7,000
6,000
5,000 g>

4,000 3-.

3,000 S1

r-h

2,000 $'

± 1,000

0UWmmmmmmmummw0

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year

Disposal or Other Releases Treatment Energy Recovery

Recycling Reporting Facilities

Note: For comparability, trend graphs include only those chemicals that were reportable to TRI for all years presented.

In 2019:

• Facilities in Region 5 managed 5.87 billion pounds of production-related waste, 65% of
which was managed through recycling, compared to 53% nationally.

• Since 2018, quantities of production-related waste managed in the region decreased by
8%.

From 2007 to 2019:

• Total production-related waste managed increased by 1.1 billion pounds (23%), driven
by one plastics manufacturing facility that reported recycling more than a billion pounds
of dichloromethane (methylene chloride) annually from 2013 to 2019 \Click to view
facility details in the TRI P2 Search Tool!. Excluding this facility, production-related
waste managed in the region decreased by 387 million pounds (-8%).

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

o Nationally, quantities of production-related waste managed increased by 23%
since 2007, driven by increased recycling.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

The following graph shows the annual quantities of TRI chemicals released by facilities located
in Region 5.

. | _ | . ( All Production-Related Waste

Total Disposal or Other Releases, EPA Region 5 ^

(jj>) Releases only

1,000

900

800

700

600

<4—

500

400

300

200

100

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

2013
Year

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

On-site Air Releases ¦ On-site Surface Water Discharges

¦ On-site Land Disposal ¦ Off-site Disposal or Other Releases

Note: For comparability, trend graphs include only those chemicals that were reportable to TRI for all years presented.

In 2019:

Facilities in Region 5 reported releasing 464 million pounds of TRI
chemicals.

The chemicals released in the largest quantities by medium were:
o To air: sulfuric acid, ammonia, and /7-hexane;
o To water: nitrate compounds;

o To land: barium compounds, manganese compounds, and

zinc compounds; and
o Transferred off site for disposal: zinc compounds and
manganese compounds.

Since 2018, releases decreased by 49.2 million pounds (-10%).
Decreases occurred across many sectors, with the largest decreases
waste management and electric utilities sectors. Releases decreased
water, which increased. Nationally, releases decreased by 9%.

Regional Highlight

Releases in Region 5
have decreased by
almost 400 million
pounds since 2007.
Releases from the
electric utilities, primary
metals and hazardous
waste sectors decreased
the most, together
decreasing by 374 million
pounds.

in the hazardous
to all media except

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

• Contributions by state to TRI releases in Region 5 were: Indiana (27%), Ohio (23%),
Illinois (22%), Michigan (16%), Wisconsin (7%), and Minnesota (5%).

• To consider the potential health risk from chronic exposure to these releases, EPA
provides a risk-screening score from the RSEI model. Contributions by state to the RSEI
Score for Region 5 were: Ohio (33%), Illinois (30%), Indiana (16%), Michigan (12%),
Wisconsin (5%), and Minnesota (4%).

From 2007 to 2019:

• Releases in Region 5 decreased by 399 million pounds (-46%), driven by reduced
releases from electric utilities and the primary metals sector. Nationally, releases
decreased by 19%.

• Releases to air, water, land, and transferred off site for disposal all decreased.

Source Reduction

In 2019, 7% of facilities in Region 5 (373 facilities) reported implementing new source
reduction activities. Source reduction reporting rates in the region were among the highest in
the computers/electronic products manufacturing sector, in which 23% of facilities reported
source reduction activities. For example, a circuit board manufacturer reduced its copper usage
by installing a new copper etcher that is more efficient than the previous equipment. fClick to
view facility details in the TRI P2 Search Tool!.

-------
TRI National Analysis 2019
ajWa L- I. www.epa.qov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Regional Profile for EPA Region 6

This section ©(amines TRI reporting in EPA Region 6. Region 6 includes Arkansas, Louisiana,
New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, and 66 Tribes.

Region 6 serves 5 states
and 66 tribes

REGION 6'S % %

POPULATION IS ¦ #

42.7 million

PEOPLE ¦

U.S. Census Annua/ Estimates of the Resident Population: July 1, 2019

The sectors with the greatest TRI releases are:

• Chemical manufacturing

• Paper manufacturing

The tri chemicals released In the greatest
quantities are:

• Ammonia

• Methanol

U.S. EPA TRI, Reporting Year 201 9

2,956 facilities in the region report to TRI

US. EPA TRI, Reporting Year 2019

Region 6 covers 13% of the U.S. population and includes 14% of all facilities that report to TRI.
For state- and tribe-specific TRI data, see the Where You Live section and the Tribal
Communities section. Three facilities located on the land of two different tribes in Region 6
reported to TRI for 2019.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

Industry Sectors

This chart shows the industry sectors with the most TRI-reporting facilities in Region 6.

Facilities Reporting to TRI by Industry in Region 6, 2019

All Other Sectors: 26%

Primary Metals: 5%.

Plastics and Rubber: _/
5%

Machinery: 5%

Petroleum Products
Manufacturing: 6%

Chemical
Manufacturing: 21%

Nonmetallic Mineral
Products: 14%

Fabricated Metals: 12%
od Manufacturing: 6%

In 2019:

• 2,956 facilities in Region 6 reported to TRI, similar to reporting for 2018. These facilities
were most commonly in the chemical manufacturing or nonmetallic mineral products
(including concrete manufacturing) sectors.

• While the figure shows the sectors with the most TRI facilities in the region, the sectors
that reported the largest TRI releases in Region 6 were the chemical manufacturing,
paper manufacturing, petroleum products manufacturing, and electric utilities sectors.
Note that relatively few facilities in the paper manufacturing and electric utilities sectors
reported to TRI in this region and those sectors are included in "All Other Sectors" in the
pie chart above.

o Nationwide, the metal mining, chemical manufacturing, primary metals (including
iron and steel manufacturing, and foundries), and electric utilities sectors
reported the largest releases.

For information on Region 6 facilities with the largest releases, see the Region 6 TRI

factsheet.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

Region 6 Waste Management Trend

The following graph shows the annual quantities of TRI chemicals in production-related, waste
manas.ed.by facilities located in Region 6. For more details on quantities released, toggle to the
Releases graph.

@AII Production-Related Waste

c 6

£ 5

(~ ) Releases only

3,200
2,800

2,400

20
n>

2,000

1,600

era

1,200

800

n>'

400

tn 4

o ^

2
1
0

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year

Disposal or Other Releases Treatment Energy Recovery

Recycling —^—Reporting Facilities

Note: For comparability, trend graphs include only those chemicals that were reportable to TRI for all years presented.

In 2019:

• Facilities in Region 6 managed 8.05 billion pounds of production-related waste, 41% of
which was treated and 34% of which was recycled. Nationally, 26% of production-
related waste was managed through treatment and 53% was recycled. The 8.05 billion
pounds of production-related waste includes all chemicals reported for 2019, while for
comparability over time, the trend chart excludes chemicals that were added to the TRI
list after 2007.

• Since 2018, quantities of production-related waste managed in the region increased by
3%.

From 2007 to 2019:

• Production-related waste managed increased by 770 million pounds (11%), largely
driven by one facility which reported 477 million pounds of recycling for 2019, compared

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

to 6 million pounds recycled in 2007. Excluding this facility, quantities of production-
related waste managed in the region increased by 303 million pounds (4%) since 2007.
o Nationally, quantities of production-related waste managed increased by 23%
since 2007, driven by increased recycling.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

The following graph shows the annual quantities of TRI chemicals released by facilities located
in Region 6.

. | _ | . (~~~) All Production-Related Waste

Total Disposal or Other Releases, EPA Region 6 i

600
500

tn
¦a

i 400
o

o 300

= 200
100
0

Year

On-site Air Releases ¦ On-site Surface Water Discharges

¦ On-site Land Disposal I Off-site Disposal or Other Releases

Note: For comparability, trend graphs include only those chemicals that were reportable to TRI for all years presented.

In 2019:

• Facilities in Region 6 reported releasing 429 million pounds of TRI
chemicals. The 429 million pounds of releases includes all
chemicals reported for 2019, while for comparability over time, the
trend chart excludes chemicals that were added to the TRI list
after 2007.

• The chemicals released in the largest quantities by medium were:

o To air: ammonia and methanol;
o To water: nitrate compounds;

o To land: ammonia, barium compounds, and formaldehyde;
and

o Transferred off site for disposal: manganese compounds and methanol.

• Since 2018, releases decreased by 25.9 million pounds (-6%). Releases to air and land
decreased, while water discharges and off-site transfers for disposal increased.

Nationally, releases decreased by 9%.

• Contributions by state to TRI releases in Region 6 were: Texas (45%), Louisiana (32%),
Arkansas (12%), Oklahoma (7%), and New Mexico (4%).

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Regional Highlight

Releases to air decreased
by 5.4 million pounds
from 2018 to 2019,
driven by reductions in
the chemical
manufacturing, electric
utilities, and petroleum
product manufacturing
sectors.

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

• To consider the potential health risk from chronic exposure to these releases, EPA
provides a risk-screening score from the RSEI model. Contributions by state to the RSEI
Score for Region 6 were: Texas (75%), Louisiana (16%), Arkansas (6%), Oklahoma
(4%), and New Mexico (<1%).

From 2007 to 2019:

• Releases in Region 6 decreased by 50.7 million pounds (-11%), compared to a 19%
decrease nationally.

• Quantities of chemicals released to air and land decreased, while releases to water and
off-site transfers for disposal increased.

Source Reduction

In 2019, 5% of facilities in Region 6 (153 facilities) reported implementing new source
reduction activities. As one example of source reduction in Region 6, a motor vehicle parts
manufacturer updated the zinc rinse system with automated equipment, which reduced zinc
waste by improving the overall effectiveness of the system. \Click to view facility details in the
TRI P2 Search Tool!.

-------
kvEPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Regional Profile for EPA Region 7

Region 7 serves 4 states
and 9 tribes

REGION 7'S
POPULATION IS

14.1 million

PEOPLE

U.S. Census Annua/ Estimates of the Resident Population: July 1, 2019

The Sectors with the greatest TRI releases are:

• Food manufacturing

• Electric utilities

The tri chemicals released in the greatest
quantities are:

• Nitrate compounds

• Barium compounds

U.S. EPA TRI, Reporting Year 2019

1,515 facilities in the region report to TRI

U. S. E PA TRI, Reporting Year 2019

Region 7 covers 4% of the U.S. population and includes 7% of all facilities that report to TRI.
For state- and tribe-specific TRI data, see the Where You Live section and the Tribal
Communities section. Although Region 7 includes 9 tribes, no facilities located on tribal lands in
the region reported to TRI for 2019.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

Industry Sectors

This chart shows the industry sectors with the most TRI-reporting facilities in Region 7.
Facilities Reporting to TRI by Industry in Region 7, 2019

Chemical

Nonmetallic Mineral
Products: 11%

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100% due to rounding.

In 2019:

• 1,515 facilities in Region 7 reported to TRI, similar to reporting for 2018. These facilities
were most commonly in the chemical manufacturing or food manufacturing sectors.

• While the figure shows the sectors with the most TRI facilities in the region, the sectors
that reported the largest TRI releases in Region 7 were the food manufacturing, electric
utilities, chemical manufacturing, and metal mining sectors. Note that relatively few
facilities in the electric utilities and metal mining sectors reported to TRI in this region
and those sectors are included in "All Other Sectors" in the pie chart above. Nationwide,
the metal mining, chemical manufacturing, primary metals (including iron and steel
manufacturing, and foundries), and electric utilities sectors reported the largest releases.

For information on the Region 7 facilities with the largest releases, see the Region 7 TRI
factsheet.

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Region 7 Waste Management Trend

The following graph shows the annual quantities of TRI chemicals in production-related, waste
managed by facilities located in Region 7. For more details on quantities released, toggle to the
Releases graph.

(^)AII Production-Related Waste

Production-Related Waste Managed, EPA Region 7 Releases only

1,200

1,000

~o
c

800

600

= 400

200
0

I I I I I I I I I

1,600
1,400
1,200

¦o

1,000 S

800 era

Tl
CD

600 g.

r-h

400
200
0

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year

Disposal or Other Releases Treatment Energy Recovery

Recycling —•—Reporting Facilities

Note: For comparability, trend graphs include only those chemicals that were reportable to TRI for all years presented.

In 2019:

• Facilities in Region 7 managed 1.01 billion pounds of production-related waste, 89% of
which was recycled, combusted for energy recovery, or treated. 11% was disposed of or
otherwise released into the environment, which is consistent with the proportion of
production-related waste released into the environment nationally. The 1.01 billion
pounds of production-related waste includes all chemicals reported for 2019, while for
comparability over time, the trend chart excludes chemicals that were added to the TRI
list after 2007.

• Since 2018, quantities of production-related waste managed in the region decreased by
8%, which was driven by reduced waste combusted for energy recovery.

From 2007 to 2019:

• Production-related waste managed decreased by 92.6 million pounds (-9%). Quantities
of waste recycled, treated, and disposed of or otherwise released all decreased, while

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

quantities of waste combusted for energy recovery increased. Nationally, quantities of
production-related waste managed increased by 23%, driven by increased recycling.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

The following graph shows the annual quantities of TRI chemicals released by facilities located
in Region 7.

Total Disposal or Other Releases, EPA Region 7 C J AI1 Production Related waste

Releases only

250

tn
~o

200

150

<4—

tn
c

100

lllllllll

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year

On-site Air Releases
I On-site Land Disposal

I On-site Surface Water Discharges
Off-site Disposal or Other Releases

Note: For comparability, trend graphs include only those chemicals that were reportable to TRI for all years presented.

In 2019:

Regional Highlight

Releases in Region 7
decreased from 2018 to
2019 primarily due to
reduced releases from
the electric utilities and
metal mining sectors.

Facilities in Region 7 reported releasing 138 million pounds of TRI
chemicals.

The chemicals released in the largest quantities by medium were:
o To air: ammonia and n-hexane;
o To water: nitrate compounds;
o To land: lead compounds and barium compounds; and
o Transferred off site for disposal: nitrate compounds.

Since 2018, releases decreased by 7.0 million pounds (5%). Releases increased to all
media except land. Nationally, releases decreased by 9%.

Contributions by state to TRI releases in Region 7 were: Missouri (40%), Iowa (29%),
Kansas (18%), and Nebraska (13%).

To consider the potential health risk from chronic exposure to these releases, EPA
provides a risk-screening score from the RSEI model. Contributions by state to the RSEI
Score for Region 7 were: Missouri (34%), Kansas (33%), Iowa (27%), and Nebraska
(6%).

o The RSEI model accounts for factors such as chemical properties and population
density in addition to the pounds of TRI chemicals released. Additionally, RSEI

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

does not model land disposal quantities. These factors can lead to significant
differences between a state's contribution to regional releases and its
contribution to the regional RSEI Score.

From 2007 to 2019:

• Releases in Region 7 decreased by 86.9 million pounds (-39%). This decrease was
driven by a reduction in releases from the primary metals and metal mining sectors.
Nationally, releases decreased by 19%.

• Quantities of chemicals released to air, water, and land, and transferred off site for
disposal all decreased.

Source Reduction

In 2019, 4% of facilities in Region 7 (65 facilities) reported implementing new source reduction
activities. Source reduction reporting rates in the region were among the highest in the
electrical equipment sector, where 16% of facilities reported source reduction activities. For
example, a carbon fiber manufacturer reduced its styrene usage by moving to smaller bath
sizes which reduced the amount of resin used and limited losses during production. I"Click to
view facility details in the TRI P2 Search Tool!.

-------
kvEPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Regional Profile for EPA Region 8

This section ©(amines TRI reporting in EPA Region 8. Region 8 includes Colorado, Montana,
North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming and 27 tribes.

Region 8 serves 6 states
and 27 tribes

REGION 8'S
POPULATION IS

12*3 million

PEOPLE

U.S. Census Annua/ Estimates of the Resident Population: July 1, 2019

The Sectors with the greatest TRI releases are:

• Metal mining

• Electric utilities

The tri chemicals released in the greatest
quantities are:

• Lead compounds

• Copper compounds

U.S. EPA TRI, Reporting Year 2019

718 facilities in the region report to TRI

U.S. EPA TRI, Reporting Year 2019

Region 8 covers 4% of the U.S. population and includes 3% of all facilities that report to TRI.
For state- and tribe-specific TRI data, see the Where You Live section and the Tribal
Communities section. Two facilities located on the land of two different tribes in Region 8
reported to TRI for 2019.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

Industry Sectors

This chart shows the industry sectors with the most TRI-reporting facilities in Region 8.
Facilities Reporting to TRI by Industry in Region 8, 2019

Nonmetallic

Manufacturing: 6% Metals: 9%

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100% due to rounding.

In 2019:

• 718 facilities in Region 8 reported to TRI, similar to reporting for 2018. These facilities
were most commonly in the nonmetallic mineral products (including concrete
manufacturing), chemical manufacturing, or food manufacturing sectors.

• While the figure shows the sectors with the most TRI facilities in the region, the sector
that reported the largest TRI releases in Region 8 was the metal mining sector, which
accounted for 53% of releases reported in the region. After metal mining, the electric
utilities, primary metals (including smelters), and chemical manufacturing sectors
reported the largest releases. Note that relatively few facilities in the metal mining and
primary metals sectors reported to TRI in this region and those sectors are included in
"All Other Sectors" in the pie chart above.

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

o Nationwide, the metal mining, chemical manufacturing, primary metals, and
electric utilities sectors reported the largest releases.

o Metal mining facilities typically handle large volumes of material. In this sector,
even a small change in the chemical composition of the mineral deposit being
mined can lead to large changes in the amount of TRI-listed chemicals reported.
Therefore, releases in Region 8, where 11 metal mines reported to TRI for 2019,
may differ from national trends. For more information on the metal mining
sector, see the metal mining sector profile.

For information on the Region 8 facilities with the largest releases, see the Region 8 TRI
factsheet.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

Region 8 Waste Management Trend

The following graph shows the annual quantities of TRI chemicals in production-related, waste
managed by facilities located in Region 8. For more details on quantities released, toggle to the
Releases graph.

(^)AII Production-Related Waste

Production-Related Waste Managed, EPA Region 8 Releases only

1,400 800

1,200 * |

!: mImmImIIi I

: IIIIIIIIIIIII

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year

Disposal or Other Releases Treatment Energy Recovery

Recycling Reporting Facilities

Note: For comparability, trend graphs include only those chemicals that were reportable to TRI for all years presented.

In 2019:

• Facilities in Region 8 managed 945 million pounds of production-related waste, 38% of
which was disposed of or otherwise released, compared to 11% nationally. Metal mines
drive the quantity of production-related waste released in Region 8. For 2019, metal
mines in the region disposed of 95% of their waste on site to land.

• Since 2018, quantities of production-related waste managed in the region decreased by
11%, driven by reduced disposal or other releases from metal mines.

From 2007 to 2019:

• Production-related waste managed increased by 126 million pounds (16%). Quantities of
waste combusted for energy recovery, treated, and disposed of or otherwise released
increased, while quantities recycled decreased.

o Nationally, quantities of production-related waste managed increased by 23%,
driven by increased recycling.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

The following graph shows the annual quantities of TRI chemicals released by facilities located
in Region 8.

. | _ | _ (~) All Production-Related Waste

Total Disposal or Other Releases, EPA Region 8 ^

(jjf) Releases only

700
600

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year

On-site Air Releases
I On-site Land Disposal

I On-site Surface Water Discharges
Off-site Disposal or Other Releases

Note: For comparability, trend graphs include only those chemicals that were reportable to TRI for all years presented.

In 2019:

Facilities in Region 8 reported releasing 363 million pounds of TRI
chemicals.

The chemicals released in the largest quantities by medium were:
o To air: ammonia
o To water: nitrate compounds
o To land: lead compounds and copper compounds; and
o Transferred off site for disposal: barium compounds
Since 2018, releases decreased by 86.7 million pounds (-19%), driven
by reduced releases to land. Nationally, releases decreased by 9%.

Contributions by state to TRI releases in Region 8 were: Utah (55%),

Montana (17%), North Dakota (13%), Colorado (8%), Wyoming (5%), and South
Dakota (2%).

To consider the potential health risk from chronic exposure to these releases, EPA
provides a risk-screening score from the RSEI model. Contributions by state to the RSEI
Score for Region 8 were: Utah (80%), Colorado (14%), Montana (3%), North Dakota
(2%), South Dakota (<1%), and Wyoming (<1%).

Regional Highlight

For 2019, 53% of total
disposal or other releases
reported in Region 8
were from the metal
mining sector, down
from 64% in 2018. The
decrease in releases was
driven by one copper
mine in Utah h/iew
facility detailsl.

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

o The RSEI model accounts for factors such as chemical properties and population
density in addition to the pounds of TRI chemicals released. Additionally, RSEI
does not model land disposal quantities which drive the high release quantities
for Utah. These factors can lead to significant differences between a state's
contribution to regional releases and its contribution to the regional RSEI Score.

From 2007 to 2019:

• Releases in Region 8 increased by 66.1 million pounds (22%), driven by increased land
disposal by the metal mining and primary metals sectors. Nationally, releases of TRI
chemicals decreased by 19%.

• Quantities of chemicals released to water and transferred off site for disposal decreased,
and releases to air and land increased.

Source Reduction

In 2019, 5% of facilities in Region 8 (35 facilities) reported implementing new source reduction
activities. For example, a wood cabinet manufacturer replaced its primer coat with a conversion
varnish that uses less xylene per gallon, reducing the facility's overall xylene use. fClick to view
facility details in the TRI P2 Search Tool!.

-------
TRI National Analysis 2019
ajWa L- I. www.epa.qov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Regional Profile for EPA Region 9

This section ©(amines TRI reporting in EPA Region 9. Region 9 includes Arizona, California,
Hawaii, Nevada, the Pacific Islands (American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana
Islands), and 148 Tribes.

REGION 9'S
POPULATION IS

51.3 million

PEOPLE

U.S. Census Annual Estimates of the Resident Population: July 1, 2019

The sectors with the greatest TRI releases are:

• Metal mining

• Primary metals

The tri chemicals released in the greatest
quantities are:

• Arsenic compounds

• Lead compounds

U.S. Em TRI, Reporting Year 2019

1,641 facilities in the region report to TRI

US. EPA TRI, Reporting Year2019

Region 9 covers 15% of the U.S. population and includes 8% of all facilities that report to TRI.
For state- and tribe-specific TRI data, see the Where You Live section and the Tribal
Communities section. Thirteen facilities located on the land of six different tribes in Region 9
reported to TRI for 2019.

Region 9 serves 4 states,
Pacific Islands, and 148 tribes

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

Industry Sectors

This chart shows the industry sectors with the most TRI-reporting facilities in Region 9.

Facilities Reporting to TRI by Industry in Region 9, 2019

Nonmetallic Mineral
Products: 16%

All Other Sectors:
35%

Plastics and Rubber:

Petroleum Products
Manufacturing: 5%

Chemical
Manufacturing: 14%

Manufacturing: 6%

Fabricated Metals:
12%

Computers and
Electronic Products: 7%

In 2019:

• 1,641 facilities in Region 9 reported to TRI, similar to reporting for 2018. These facilities
were most commonly in the nonmetallic mineral products (including concrete and
cement manufacturing) or chemical manufacturing sectors.

• While the figure shows the sectors with the most TRI facilities in the region, the most
TRI releases in Region 9 were from the metal mining sector, which accounted for 78%
of the region's releases for 2019. After metal mining, the primary metals (including
smelting), hazardous waste management, and petroleum products manufacturing
sectors reported the largest releases. Note that relatively few facilities in the metal
mining, primary metals, and hazardous waste management sectors reported to TRI in
this region and those sectors are included in "All Other Sectors" in the pie chart above.

o Nationwide, the metal mining, chemical manufacturing, electric utilities, and
primary metals sectors reported the largest releases.

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

o Metal mining facilities typically handle large volumes of material. In this sector,
even a small change in the chemical composition of the mineral deposit being
mined can lead to large changes in the amount of TRI-listed chemicals reported.
Therefore, releases in Region 9, where 42 metal mines reported to TRI for 2019,
may not follow national trends. For more information on the metal mining sector,
see the metal mining sector profile.

For information on the Region 9 facilities with the largest releases, see the TRI Region 9
factsheet.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

Region 9 Waste Management Trend

The following graph shows the annual quantities of TRI chemicals in production-related, waste
managed by facilities located in Region 9. For more details on quantities released, toggle to the
Releases graph.

(^) All Production-Related Waste

Production-Related Waste Managed, EPA Region 9 O Re|easeson|y

1,400 .. 2,000

1,200

-a 1,000

S. 800

4—

C 600

^ 400
200
0

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year

Disposal or Other Releases Treatment Energy Recovery

Recycling ^^^Reporting Facilities

Note: For comparability, trend graphs include only those chemicals that were reportable to TRI for all years presented.

In 2019:

• Facilities in Region 9 managed 908 million pounds of production-related waste, 51% of
which was disposed of or otherwise released, compared to 11% nationally. Metal mines
drive the quantity of production-related waste released in Region 9. For 2019, metal
mines in the region disposed of 90% of their waste on site to land.

• Since 2018, quantities of production-related waste managed in Region 9 increased by
3%, driven by increased production-related waste managed in the electrical equipment
and metal mining sectors.

From 2007 to 2019:

• Total production-related waste managed decreased by 89.8 million pounds (-9%),
driven by decreased recycling in the primary metals sector. In contrast, nationally,
quantities of production-related waste managed increased by 23%, driven by increased
recycling.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

The following graph shows the annual quantities of TRI chemicals released by facilities located
in Region 9.

Total Disposal or Other Releases, EPA Region 9 IJA"Productlon RelatedWaste

(flft) Releases only

800
700
» 600

I 500

o 400

J 300

: I II

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year

On-site Air Releases ¦ On-site Surface Water Discharges

¦ On-site Land Disposal ¦ Off-site Disposal or Other Releases

Note: For comparability, trend graphs include only those chemicals that were reportable to TRI for all years presented.

In 2019:

• Facilities in Region 9 released 465 million pounds of TRI
chemicals.

• The chemicals released in the largest quantities by
medium were:

o To air: ammonia and sulfuric acid;
o To water: nitrate compounds;
o To land: arsenic compounds and lead
compounds; and

o Transferred off site for disposal: nitrate compounds and manganese compounds

• Since 2018, releases stayed about the same, while nationally, releases decreased by
9%.

• Contributions by state to TRI releases in Region 9 were: Nevada (72%), Arizona (18%),
California (8%), Hawaii (<1%), and the Pacific Islands (<1%).

• To consider the potential health risk from chronic exposure to these releases, EPA
provides a risk-screening score from the RSEI model. Contributions by state to the RSEI

Regional Highlight

42 metal mines in Region
9 reported to TRI for
2019, more than in any
other region, accounting
for 78% of the region's
releases. Most of the
mining releases were
reported by gold mines in
Nevada.

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Score for Region 9 were: California (43%), Nevada (40%), Arizona (15%), Hawaii
(<1%), and the Pacific Islands (<1%).

From 2007 to 2019:

• Releases in Region 9 increased by 114 million pounds (32%), driven by increased
releases from the metal mining sector, in which releases often vary substantially from
year to year. In comparison, nationally, total releases of TRI chemicals decreased by
19%.

o Excluding the metal mining sector, releases in Region 9 increased by 5 million
pounds (5%).

• Quantities of chemicals released to air and water decreased, while land disposal and off-
site transfers for disposal increased.

Source Reduction

In 2019, 6% of facilities in Region 9 (105 facilities) reported implementing new source
reduction activities. Source reduction reporting rates in the region were among the highest in
the electrical equipment sector, in which 22% of facilities reported at least one source reduction
activity. For example, an electrical equipment manufacturer replaced a wave solder machine
with a new selective solder machine that helped reduce the amount of lead used in the process.
fClick to view facility details in the TRI P2 Search Tool!.

-------
kvEPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

Regional Profile for EPA Region 10

This section ©(amines TRI reporting in EPA Region 10. Region 10 includes Alaska, Idaho,
Oregon, Washington, and 271 tribes.

Region 10 serves 4 states
and 271 tribes

REGION 10'S
POPULATION IS

14.4 million

PEOPLE

U.S. Census Annua/ Estimates of the Resident Population: July 1, 2019

The Sectors with the greatest TRI releases are:

• Metal mining

• Chemical manufacturing

The tri chemicals released in the greatest
quantities are:

• Zinc compounds

• Lead compounds

U.S. EPA TRI, Reporting Year 2019

752 facilities in the region report to TRI

U.S. EPA TRI, Reporting Year 2019

Region 10 covers 4% of the U.S. population and includes 4% of all facilities that report to TRI.
For state- and tribe-specific TRI data, see the Where You Live section and the Tribal
Communities section. Sixteen facilities located on the land of five different tribes in Region 10
reported to TRI for 2019.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

Industry Sectors

This chart shows the industry sectors with the most TRI-reporting facilities in Region 10.

Facilities Reporting to TRI by Industry in Region 10, 2019

All Other Sectors:
20%

Petroleum Products
Manufacturing: 5%

Computers and
Electronic Products:
5%

Plastics and Rubber:
5%

Primary Metals:

Transportation
Equipment: 7%

Nonmetallic Mineral
Products: 13%

Wood Products: 11%

Food Manufacturing:
10%

Fabricated Metals:

Chemical
Manufacturing: 9%

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100% due to rounding.

In 2019:

• 752 facilities in Region 10 reported to TRI, similar to reporting for 2018. These facilities
were most commonly in the nonmetallic mineral products (including concrete
manufacturing) or wood product manufacturing sectors.

• While the figure shows the sectors with the most TRI facilities in the region, the most
TRI releases in Region 10 were from the metal mining sector, which accounted for 93%
of the region's releases for 2019. After metal mining, the chemical manufacturing, food
manufacturing, and paper manufacturing sectors reported the largest releases. Note
that relatively few facilities in the metal mining sector or paper manufacturing sectors
reported to TRI in this region and those sectors are included in "All Other Sectors" in the
pie chart above.

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

o Nationwide, the metal mining, chemical manufacturing, electric utilities, and
primary metals (including iron and steel manufacturing, and foundries) sectors
reported the largest releases.

o Metal mining facilities typically handle large volumes of material. In this sector,
even a small change in the chemical composition of the mineral deposit being
mined can lead to big changes in the amount of TRI-listed chemicals reported.
Therefore, releases in Region 10, where 10 metal mines reported to TRI for
2019, may not follow national trends. For more information on the metal mining
sector, see the metal mining sector profile.

For information on the Region 10 facilities with the largest releases, see the Region 10 TRI
factsheet.

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

Region 10 Waste Management Trend

The following graph shows the annual quantities of TRI chemicals in production-related, waste
managed by facilities located in Region 10. For more details on quantities released, toggle to
the Releases graph.

@AII Production-Related Waste

Production-Related Waste Managed, EPA Region 10 Releases only

1,800 900

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Year

¦ Disposal or Other Releases Treatment Energy Recovery

Recycling ^^^Reporting Facilities

Note: For comparability, trend graphs include only those chemicals that were reportable to TRI for all years presented.

In 2019:

• Facilities in Region 10 managed 1.25 billion pounds of production-related waste, 74% of
which was disposed of or otherwise released, compared to 11% nationally. Metal mines
drive the quantity of production-related waste released in Region 10. For 2019, metal
mines in the region disposed of more than 99% of their waste on site to land. The 1.25
billion pounds of production-related waste includes all chemicals reported for 2019,
while for comparability over time, the trend chart excludes chemicals that were added to
the TRI list after 2007.

• Since 2018, quantities of production-related waste managed in the region decreased by
9%, driven by decreased releases from metal mines. Excluding metal mines, production-
related waste managed in Region 10 decreased by 9 million pounds (-3%).

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2019
www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
January 2021

From 2007 to 2019:

• Total production-related waste managed increased by 161 million pounds (16%), driven
by increased releases reported by metal mines. Nationally, quantities of production-
related waste managed increased by 23%, driven by increased recycling,
o Excluding metal mines, production-related waste managed in the region
decreased by 78.4 million pounds (-19%).

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

The following graph shows the annual quantities of TRI chemicals released by facilities located
in Region 10.

Total Disposal or Other Releases, EPA Region 10 Oa" Production-Related waste

(^) Releases only

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

tn
c

600

400

200

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

On-site Air Releases I

¦ On-site Land Disposal

2013 2014
Year

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

I On-site Surface Water Discharges
Off-site Disposal or Other Releases

Note: For comparability, trend graphs include only those chemicals that were reportable to TRI for all years presented.
In 2019:

o
o
o
o

Regional Highlight

TRI chemical releases in
Region 10 are dominated
by one metal mine. For
2019, the Red Dog mine
in Alaska reported 83%
of the region's releases
rview facility details!.

Facilities in Region 10 reported releasing 932 million pounds of
TRI chemicals.

The chemicals released in the largest quantities by medium
were:

ammonia and methanol to air;
nitrate compounds to water;
zinc compounds and lead compounds to land; and
nitrate compounds and ethylene glycol transferred off
site for disposal.

Since 2018, releases decreased by 128 million pounds (-12%), compared to a 9%
decrease nationally. The decrease in Region 10 releases was driven by the metal mining
sector.

o Excluding metal mining, releases decreased by 855,000 pounds (-1%) since
2018.

Contributions by state to TRI releases in Region 10 were: Alaska (91%), Idaho (4%),
Washington (3%), and Oregon (2%).

-------
| i TRI National Analysis 2019

/ www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis/
\/CrM January 2021

• To consider the potential health risk from chronic exposure to these releases, EPA
provides a risk-screening score from the RSEI model. Contributions by state to the RSEI
Score for Region 10 were: Oregon (84%), Washington (15%), Idaho (<1%), and Alaska
(<1%).

o The RSEI model accounts for factors such as chemical properties and population
density in addition to the pounds of TRI chemicals released. Additionally, RSEI
does not model land disposal quantities, which drive the high release quantities
for Alaska. These factors can lead to significant differences between a state's
contribution to regional releases and its contribution to the regional RSEI Score.

From 2007 to 2019:

• Releases in Region 10 increased by 204 million pounds (28%), compared to a national
decrease of 19%. The increase in Region 10 releases was driven by the metal mining
sector, and if the sector is excluded, releases decrease by 35.3 million pounds (-35%).

• Quantities of chemicals released to every medium except air increased.

Source Reduction

In 2019, 4% of facilities in Region 10 (30 facilities) reported implementing new source
reduction activities. As one example of source reduction in Region 10, a plastics plumbing
fixture manufacturer began using a production line which uses a polymeric thermoset resin that
does not contain styrene. This decreased the facility's styrene usage, waste generated, and air
emissions. \Click to view facility details in the TRI P2 Search Tool!.

-------
Where You Live

Use the geographical selections bar above the map to show the disposal and other releases of
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) chemicals that occurred throughout the United States during
2019.

Legend Data to Display:

[ * Basemap ~

Total Releases

Show map by: ® States O Metropolitan Areas O Watersheds O Tribal

MEXICO
Guadalajara

Havana
o

CUB A

Click on any one of the loca tions on the map to see detailed information.

View Larger Map

In addition to viewing maps based on release quantities, you can also view maps based on risk-
screening scores, which are estimates of potential human health risk generated by EPA's Risk-
Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) model. These unitless scores represent relative
human health risk from chronic exposures to TRI chemical releases and allow one to compare
potential for risk across locations. For more on RSEI, see the Hazard and Potential Risk of TRI
Chemicals section.

-------
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.

-------
States and Metropolitan Areas

ForTRI purposes, "states" includes all U.S. territories. For 2019, facilities located in all 56 states
and territories reported to the TRI Program. Texas, Ohio, and California had the most facilities
that reported to TRI, and together accounted for 20% of the total number of facilities that
reported for 2019.

More than 80% of the United States' population and many of the industrial and federal facilities
that report to the TRI Program are located in urban areas. "Metropolitan statistical areas" and
"micropolitan statistical areas" in the United States are defined by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) and consist of one or more socially and economically integrated adjacent
counties, cities, or towns.

Total Disposal or Other Releases in the 10 Most Populous

MS As, 2019

Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX
Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA
New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX
Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,00010,000
Pounds perSq. Mile

-------
Watersheds

A watershed is the land area that drains to a common waterway. Rivers, lakes, estuaries,
wetlands, streams, and oceans are catch basins for the land adjacent to them. Ground water
aquifers are replenished by water flowing through the land area above them.

Large aquatic ecosystems (LAEs) comprise multiple small watersheds and water resources
within a large geographic area. Currently, EPA defines 10 LAEs. More than 6,000 TRI facilities
are located in these LAEs.

The chart below shows the portion of TRI chemical releases within each LAE that were released
to air, water, or land, or transferred for disposal off site. Discharges of chemicals to water, as
well as releases to air, releases to land, and land disposal, can all affect living resources within
an aquatic ecosystem. For example, some chemicals can persist in the environment and
accumulate in the tissues of fish and other wildlife. A few chemicals can become more
concentrated as predators farther up the food chain eat these organisms, which may ultimately
cause health problems for wildlife and humans.

TRI Disposal or Other Releases within Large Aquatic
Ecosystems, 2019

Air ¦ Water ¦ Land Total Off-site Disposal or Other Releases

Gulf of Mexico (318 million pounds)
Great Lakes (199 million pounds)
Columbia River Basin (105 million pounds)
Chesapeake Bay (35.1 million pounds)
San Francisco Bay Delta (24.6 million pounds)
Puget Sound - Georgia Basin (9.99 million pounds)
Long Island Sound (4.07 million pounds)
South Florida (1.05 million pounds)
Lake Champlain Basin (676 thousand pounds)
Pacific Islands (503 thousand pounds)

III

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Percent of Total

100%

The chart below shows TRI chemical releases per square mile for each LAE. Releases per
square mile are greatest in the Gulf of Mexico watershed in the southeastern US, where many

-------
chemical manufacturing facilities are located. Almost half of the TRI releases from chemical
manufacturing facilities in the US are from facilities located in the Gulf of Mexico watershed.

Total Disposal or Other Releases within Large Aquatic
Ecosystems per Square Mile, 2019

Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Pacific Islands
Puget Sound - Georgia Basin
Chesapeake Bay
Columbia River Basin
San Francisco Bay Delta
Long Island Sound
Lake Champlain Basin
South Florida

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

Pounds perSq. Mile

F
¦

-------
Tribal Communities

Under EPA policy, the Agency works with federally recognized tribes on a government-to-
government basis to protect the land, air, and water in Indian.cou.nt17 and Alaska Native
villages and to support tribal assumption of program authority. Facilities located in Indian
country that meet TRI reporting requirements must indicate the appropriate three-digit Bureau
of Indian Affairs fBIAl tribal code on annual TRI reporting forms. These codes tell the EPA on
which tribal land the facility is located.

In 2019, there were 40 facilities located in the Indian country of 17 different federally
recognized tribes that reported to TRI. These facilities collectively managed nearly 25 million
pounds of production-related waste, 7.4 million pounds of which was disposed of or otherwise
released. Of the releases reported, 99.7% were released on site; 92% of these were on-site
disposal to land from electric utilities and metal mining facilities. These facilities primarily
released metal compounds such as lead, barium, and copper. Lead and copper are often
present in the mineral ore disposed of by metal mines, and barium is present in coal and oil
combusted at electric utilities.

The table below provides more details about various types of releases and other waste
management reported by facilities on federally recognized tribal lands.

Quick Facts for 2019: Facilities on Tribal Lands

Measure

Value

Number of Facilities that Reported to TRI

Number of Tribes with TRI Facilities on Their Lands

Production-Related Waste Managed

24.59 million lb

Recycling

9.00 million lb

Energy Recovery

0.13 million lb

Treatment

8.08 million lb

Disposal or Other Releases

7.38 million lb

Total Disposal or Other Releases

7.38 million lb

On-site

7.36 million lb

Air

0.62 million lb

Water

1.10 thousand lb

Land

6.74 million lb

Off-site

0.02 million lb

-------
The Tribal Communities Dashboard makes it easy to explore information about releases of TRI
chemicals from facilities on or near tribal lands. An example of the type of TRI information in
the Tribal Communities Dashboard is shown in the interactive chart below. Use the buttons in
the top row to filter the data by industry sector, chemical, and/or tribe. Change the data
displayed in the pie chart below using the blue dropdown button on the left.

Select an industry Sector

select a Chemical

Select a Tribe

Select charts from this menu »

Clear Selections

Total Releases on Tribal Lands, 2019

Total Releases for 17 Tribes: 7,382,632 lbs

Puyallup Tribe of the Puyallup Re.
Ute Indian Tribe of the Ui...

Navajo Nation. Arizona. N.

Tohono O'odham Nats..

I Confederated Tribes a...
I Navajo Nation, Arizon...
I Puyallup Tribe of the p.,.
I Tonono O'odham Nati...

ute Indian Tribe of the...
I Others

The interactive table below lists the federally recognized tribes that had at least one TRI-
reporting facility on their lands, along with the total releases reported by facilities, the number
of facilities, and the number of chemicals reported. Click on a column header to change how the
table is sorted.

-------
Total Disposal or Other Releases on Tribal Lands by Tribe, 2019

Tribes in 2819, Sorted by Releases and Number of Facilities

This tabl e is interactive - click the column headers to change the sorting of the table-

Tribe

Total Releases
(lbs)

Number of
Facilities

Fact
Sheet

Totals

7,38^.632

Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona

3,824,068

Link

Navajo Nation, Arizona. New Mexico & Utah

1.965.189

Link

Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah

1.083.652

Link

Puyallup Tribe of the Puyailup Reservation

217.710

Link

Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation

140.259

Link

Coeur DAJene Tribe

115.158

Link

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians

29.083

Link

Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan

3,488

Link

Arapano Tribe of the Wind Rver Reservation, Wyoming

1.611

Link

Onei da Trioe of Indians of Wisconsin

1.086

Link

Colorado River Indian Tribes of the Colorado River Indian
Reservation. Anzona and California

607

Link

Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian
Reservation. Arizona

378

Link

Sait River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River
Reservation, Arizona

306

Link

Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma

Link

Tula!ip Tribes of Washington

Link

SuquamisT Indian Tribe of the Pet Madison Reservation

Link

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon
Reservation. California

Link

Additional resources for tribes are available on the TRI for Tribal Communities weboaae.

including more detailed analyses of TRI data, links to other online tools, and contact
information for EPA's Tribal Program Managers.

-------
TRI and Beyond

This section presents how the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) relates to other EPA
environmental and chemical management programs and laws, and how the TRI serves as a
model for pollutant release and transfer inventories internationally.

The TRI is a powerful resource that provides the public with information about how TRI
chemical wastes are managed by facilities in the United States. Beyond the TRI, there are many
other programs at EPA that also collect, through regulations established under laws, various
types of information about TRI chemicals and other chemicals. The next figure is an overview of
some of the laws that EPA implements, and the industrial activities or processes EPA regulates
under these laws.

While many programs at EPA focus on one medium, i.e., land, air or water, TRI is unique in
that it covers all media, including the release of chemicals to air, water, and land, and waste
transfers. In addition, facilities that are subject to the TRI reporting requirements are required
to submit TRI reports annually. As a result, TRI data are especially valuable, as they are timely
and can be used with data from other datasets to provide a more complete picture of national
trends in chemical use, chemical management, environmental release and other waste
management practices, and environmental performance.

-------
Pollution
Prevention Act
(PPA)

Underground
Injection

• Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA)

¦ Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA)

¦ Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)

Air Emissions

Chemical
Manufacturing
and Processing

Products

Waste
Transfers

Land
Disposal

• Clean Air Act (CAA)

Water
Discharges

¦ Clean Water Act (CWA)

1 Ocean Dumping Act
(ODA)

1 Resource
Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA)

> Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA)

' Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liabilty Act (CERCLA)

1 Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA)

Note: The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) establishes requirements for
emergency planning, preparedness, and reporting on hazardous and toxic chemicals involving air
releases, water releases, land disposal, waste transfers, and the quantities of chemicals on site, the type
and location of storage of those chemicals, and their use.

Offices throughout EPA use TRI data to support their respective missions to protect human
health and the environment. These uses include technical analysis for regulation, informing
program priorities and projects, providing information to internal and external stakeholders, and
many other applications.

-------
More on EPCRA

The TRI was established by the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
(EPCRA) in 1986. The creation of EPCRA was in response to what is widely considered to be the
worst industrial chemical disaster in history. Beginning on December 2, 1984, methyl isocyanate
gas was accidentally released from a chemical plant in Bhopal, India. Thousands of people died
that night and many more were injured. Thousands more died later as a result of their
exposure, and survivors of the accident continue to suffer with permanent disabilities.
Approximately six months later, a similar incident occurred at a facility in West Virginia. These
two events raised concern about local preparedness for chemical emergencies and the
availability of information on toxic chemicals.

EPCRA establishes requirements for federal, state and local governments, Indian tribes, and
industry regarding emergency planning and "Community Right-to-Know" reporting on

hazardous and toxic chemicals. These requirements are specified in EPCRA's four major
provisions as shown in the figure below. Information collected under EPCRA helps states and
communities develop a broad perspective of chemical hazards for the entire community, as well
as for individual facilities. The TRI (also known as EPCRA section 313) contributes to this
broader perspective by making information about the management of chemical waste
generated at facilities available to the public, further supporting informed decision-making by
companies, government agencies, non-governmental organizations, communities, and others.

-------
Key Elements of the Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)

WHO PLANS FOR
EMERGENCIES?

Section 301 of EPCRA established a
structure to help the federal
government, states, tribes, and
communities prepare for emergencies

Q P Upstate Emergency
^O^^^^^Respons^Comm|ssioi^

TP Pf*Tribal Emergency
I L Response Commission

I pj pf* Local Emergency
Lbiv Planning Committee

TP Tribal Emergency
I Cl Planning Committee

cttfi

Designate
emergency
planning
districts

K3k

Members
include local
officials, facility
representatives,
community
groups, and
media

302-303

EMERGENCY PLANNING
NOTIFICATION AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE PLANS

EMERGENCY RELEASE
NOTIFICATION

Develop

Disseminate

emergency

information

response

to public

plans and

about

review them

chemicals

annually

present in

community

311-312

HAZARDOUS
CHEMICAL INVENTORY
REPORTING

313

TOXICS RELEASE
INVENTORY

CERCLA

(E)HS

SDS

TPQ

Comprehensive Environmental Response,

(Extremely) Hazardous

Safety Data Sheet

Threshold Planning Quantity

Compensation, and Liability Act

Substance

WHAT DO FACILITIES REPORT UNDER EPCRA?

302-303

304

311-312

313

One-time notification of EHS

Emergency notification of

Submit SDSs or a list of

Annual Toxics Release

above TPQ on site within 60

accidental releases

hazardous chemicals;

Inventory report

days of receiving chemicals

required immediately

submit an annual inventory

COVERS

355 EHSs

355 EPCRA EHSs

All hazardous chemicals for

767 chemicals

800+ CERCLA HSs

which an SDS is required by

33 chemical categories

OSHA

THRESHOLDS (TPQ)

THRESHOLDS

1-10,000 lbs.

1-5,000 lbs.

THRESHOLDS

25,000 lbs. manufactured or

The lower of 500 lbs. or TPQ

processed; or 10,000 lbs.

for EHSs. 10,000 lbs. for

otherwise used for most

most other chemicals.

chemicals.

f== I

US EPA

SERC OR TERC & LEPC OR TEPC

WHAT'S IN A
FACILITY'S TRI REPORT?

Section 313 requires facilities that meet the
reporting criteria to submit annual TRI reports
that include data on the quantities of chemicals
they released into four environmental media:

AIR WATER LAND OFF-SITE

In 1990. EPA's Pollution Prevention Act
expanded the TRI report to include information
on facilities' activities to prevent or minimize
waste generation and changes in production.
In addition to releases, facilities are required to
report the quantities of chemical wastes
managed through:

RECYCLING ENERGY TREATMENT RELEASES
RECOVERY

WHAT'S IN AN EMERGENCY
RESPONSE PLAN?

Section 303 requires LEPCs and TEPCs to develop emergency
response plans, which dictate what should happen in the case
of a chemical accident. These plans are reviewed annually and
include:

Facilities with EHSs
above TPQs

Routes for transporting
EHSs

Other facilities at risk
or contributing to risk

Methods to determine
affected area and
population

Methods and timing to
practice response drills

Evacuation plan

Community and facility
emergency coordinator(s)

* / | Training for emergency
fltAA responders

Emergency notification
procedures

IS*

Emergency equipment
with responsible
facilities and persons

-------
TSCA and TRI

This section highlights how TRI information contributes to data used in Toxics Substances
Control Act (TSCA) risk evaluations. TRI data serve as a source of environmental information for
TSCA throughout the three-stage chemical evaluation process. TSCA, as amended by the Frank
R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, is the nation's primary chemicals
management law. TSCA requires EPA to evaluate existing chemicals in commerce and new
chemicals intended for use in commerce for safety. The Agency is required to conduct a
transparent, risk-based process. EPA selects existing chemicals for further evaluation from the
2014 Update to the TSCA Work Plan, which helps to focus and direct EPA's activities.

The three stages of EPA's process for evaluating the safety of existing chemicals are
prioritization, risk evaluation, and risk management. EPA first prioritizes toxic chemicals in
commerce through a screening-level review, evaluates those chemicals to determine if they
present unreasonable risks, and then manages the unreasonable risks of those chemicals to
protect human health and the environment. During both the prioritization and risk evaluation
stages of the process, TRI serves as a source of information as illustrated in the figure below.
TRI data may also be used in the risk management stage of the process.

TRI Data Use in TSCA Chemical Evaluations

PRIORITIZATION

RISK EVALUATION

RISK MANAGEMENT

TRI data can help to inform
prioritization efforts:

EXPOSURE

HAZARD

RISK

• TRI chemical list includes

MANAGEMENT

approximately 2/3 of the TSCA
Work Plan Chemicals
• TRI data are:

—Annual
—Multi-media
—Releases & waste
management activities

General
population

Occupational
Environmental

TRI data (along
with other
sources of
information)

TRI data provides
chemical use information
and both voluntary and
mandatory P2 information

that may help inform risk
management decisions.

—Facility-level

—Certified

Prioritization. Approximately two-thirds of the chemicals identified in the 2014 update of
the TSCA Work Plan are also included on the TRI list of chemicals. TRI data can inform EPA's
prioritization of chemicals for risk evaluation because the data are collected annually and

-------
include the location of facilities and the quantities of TRI chemicals they released to air, water
and land, and transferred to off-site locations. In addition, trend analyses of TRI data can help
identify changes over time in the geographic location and quantities of releases, and the types
of industrial sectors managing these chemicals.

Risk evaluation. A TSCA risk evaluation of a chemical is a comprehensive evaluation of the
risks the chemical poses to human health and the environment. EPA evaluates how the
chemical will be used, which may include manufacturing and import, processing, use,
distribution in commerce, and disposal over the chemical's life cycle. During risk evaluation, EPA
is required to assess exposures to the chemical in the workplace, to the general population and
to environmental (e.g. ecological) receptors. This includes assessment of potentially exposed or
susceptible populations that may be sensitive to the potential hazards posed by the chemical
under review. TRI and other data are used to support these assessments under TSCA.

Risk Management. If EPA determines that a chemical poses an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment under its methods of use, EPA will impose regulatory actions or other
risk management options to effectively manage the identified risk. These regulatory actions and
options may include labeling with warnings and instructions for use, recordkeeping or notice
requirements, restrictions on certain uses or activities to reduce human exposure or
environmental releases, or a ban of the chemical entirely. EPA may use TRI data, such as on
chemical use and pollution prevention practices, to help inform these risk management
decisions.

High-priority Substances for TSCA Risk Evaluation

In 2017, EPA published the scope documents for the initial ten chemicals undergoing risk
evaluation under the amended TSCA in which nine of the ten chemicals are TRI-reportable
chemicals (except for C.I. Pigment Violet 29).

In 2019, EPA announced the next 20 chemicals to undergo risk evaluation. Finalizing this list of
high-prioritv chemicals for risk evaluation establishes the TSCA prioritization queue which
requires ongoing review and selection of priority chemicals as evaluations are completed. This
marks a major milestone for EPA in its efforts to ensure the safety of existing chemicals in the
marketplace through its updated chemical management program. In August 2020, EPA
published the final scope documents for these 20 chemical substances, of which 13 are TRI-
reportable chemicals.

-------
TRI Around the World

In 1986, with the enactment of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
(EPCRA), the TRI was established as the first national Pollutant Release and Transfer Register
(PRTR) in the world. Since then, environmental agencies in other countries have implemented
their own right-to-know PRTR programs modeled after the TRI program. Currently, at least 50
countries have fully established PRTRs or have implemented pilot programs, as shown in the
map below. More countries are expected to develop PRTRs in the future, particularly in Asia,
South America, and Africa.

Source: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe PRTR Global Map

As global PRTR implementation continues to grow, the TRI Program will continue to work with
international organizations to:

• Assist in the development of new PRTR programs,

• Promote data standards and core data elements for greater PRTR comparability and
harmonization, resulting in better global scale analysis capabilities, and

• Showcase PRTR data utility for assessing progress towards sustainability.

As an example, the TRI Program is currently working with the Organization for Economic Co-
operation and Development fOECDI EXIT on a project to use global PRTR data to assess
progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals established in the United Nation's 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development EXIT, as described in the Project Spotlight below. For

-------
information on international PRTR activities, projects and partners, see TRI's International
webpaae.

International Project Spotlight: Using PRTR Data to Assess Progress toward the U.N.
Sustainable Development Goals

Background. The TRI Program is collaborating on an OECD project to use global PRTR data to assess
progress toward the United Nations' (U.N.) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These goals are
designed to "shift the world on to a sustainable and resilient path" by setting targets that encompass
the economic, environmental, and social dimensions of sustainability. As stakeholders act toward
achieving the SDGs, the U.N. will measure progress toward
the Goals using existing data where possible. One such
existing data source for some of the SDGs may be found in
countries' PRTR data.

SDG Target 12.4

Project FOCUS. The U.N. SDG Target 12.4 EXIT was identified as
the target most directly relevant to PRTR data and is the
focus of this initial phase of the project. This target focuses on
reducing chemical releases to the environment.

By 2020, achieve the environmentally
sound management of chemicals and all
wastes throughout their life cycle, in
accordance with agreed international
frameworks, and significantly reduce
their release to air, water and soil in
order to minimize their adverse impacts
on human health and the environment.

Project Status. Global analyses of PRTR data are currently
underway based on aggregated data for multiple chemicals

from multiple countries in order to provide insight into progress toward achieving SDG Target 12.4. The
figure below shows the trend for air and water releases of 14 pollutants from manufacturing facilities as
reported to the 7 PRTRs analyzed in the project.

Next steps. As the project progresses and the methods and metrics are reviewed and refined, the
findings may be included in the next update of the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals Report EXIT.

-------
Change in releases of 14 pollutants, 2008 to 2017 (kg)

2008 ¦ 2017

1*1

Australia

Canada

Chile

E-PRTR

Japan

Mexico

United
States

500,000,000

1,000,000,000

1,500,000,000

2,000,000,000

PRTRs included in the analyses: Australia - National Pollutant Inventory (NPI), Canada - National Pollutant Release Inventory
(NPRI), Chile - Registro de Emisiones y Transferencia de Contaminantes (RETC), European Union - European Pollutant Release
and Transfer Register (E-PRTR), Japan Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (PRTR), Mexico - Registro de Emisiones y
Transferencia de Contaminantes (RETC), United States-Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).

Chemicals included in the analyses: 1,2-Dichloroethane, Benzene, Cadmium, Chromium, Di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate,
Dichloromethane, Ethylbenzene, Mercury, Nickel, Particulate matter, Styrene, Sulfur oxides, Tetrachloroethylene,
Trichloroethylene.

Read more about the TRI Around the World.

-------