2017 Toxics Release Inventory National Analysis

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Introduction to the 2017 TRI National Analysis

Industries and businesses in the United States (U.S.) use chemicals to make the products we
depend on, such as pharmaceuticals, computers, paints, clothing, and automobiles. While the
majority of chemicals included on the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) chemical list are managed
by industrial facilities to minimize releases into the environment, releases do still occur as part
of their normal business operations. It is your right to know what TRI chemicals are being used
in your community, how they are managed, how much is released into the environment, and
whether such quantities are increasing or decreasing over time.

The TRI is a publicly available database maintained by EPA that tracks the management of
certain chemicals. The information contained in the TRI is submitted by facilities in the U.S. in
industry sectors such as manufacturing, metal mining, electric utilities, and commercial
hazardous waste management. Under the Emergency Planning and Community Riqht-to-Know
Act (EPCRA), facilities must report details about their releases of TRI-listed chemicals for the
prior calendar year to EPA by July 1 of each year. The Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) requires
facilities to include in their report submissions information on pollution prevention and other
waste management activities involving TRI chemicals. For calendar year 2017, more than
21,000 facilities submitted TRI data to EPA.

Each year, EPA prepares and publishes the TRI National Analysis. In support of EPA's mission to
protect human health and the environment, the TRI National Analysis summarizes recently
submitted TRI data, explores data trends, and interprets the findings.

Highlights from the 201 7 TRI data

As an overview, the two charts below summarize the most recent TRI data on: 1) how chemical
wastes were managed in 2017; and 2) how the portion of wastes that were disposed of or
otherwise released were handled.

vvEPA

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Production-Related Waste Managed, 2017
30.57 billion pounds

Disposed of or
Otherwise Released:
13%

Energy Recovery:
10%

Recycled:
48%

Total Disposal or Other Releases, 2017
3.88 billion pounds

Off-site Disposal or Other

• Facilities reported managing 30.57 billion pounds of TRI-listed chemicals as production-
related waste. This is the quantity of TRI chemicals in waste that is recycled, combusted for
energy recovery, treated, disposed of, or otherwise released into the environment. In other
words, it encompasses the TRI chemicals in waste generated from the production processes
and operations of the facilities.

o Of this total, 87% was recycled, combusted for energy recovery, or treated. Only
13% was disposed of or otherwise released into the environment.

2

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017

www.epa.gov/trinationalanalvsis/
March 2019

•	For chemical wastes that were disposed of or otherwise released, facilities also reported
where the wastes were released—to air, water, or land (on site or off site). Most waste was
disposed of on site to land (including landfills, other land disposal, and underground
injection).

•	As highlighted in the Releases of Chemicals section, releases to air continued to decline in
2017. Since 2007, air releases reported to TRI have decreased by 57% (757 million
pounds).

Where are TRI Facilities Located?

*>EPA

Calgary

Winnipeg

MONT/

Montreal

Orleans

Mprterrey

Met id j



KSPUBUC

IAWAICA

3

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

What's in the 2017 TRI National Analysis

The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) National Analysis is prepared and published annually, and
the 2017 TRI National Analysis is EPA's summary and interpretation of TRI data reported for
activities that occurred at facilities in the U.S. during 2017. It offers valuable information for
improving our understanding of how the environment and communities may be affected by TRI
chemicals and is a snapshot of the data at one point in time. To conduct your own analysis of
TRI data, use the most recent data available on the TRI Data and Tools webpaqe.

Additional information is presented in the following sections of the TRI National Analysis:

• Pollution Prevention and Waste Management presents the types of pollution prevention
activities that facilities have implemented, and trends on recycling, energy recovery,
treatment, and releases of TRI chemical waste generated and managed as part of
industrial operations.

• Releases of Chemicals presents trends in releases of TRI chemicals to the air and water,
and disposed of to land, including a focus on selected chemicals of special concern.

• Industry Sectors highlights TRI chemical waste management trends for five industry
sectors: manufacturing, paint and coating manufacturing, chemical manufacturing,
metal mining, and electric utilities.

• Where You Live presents analyses of the TRI data specific to U.S. geographic areas:
state, city, county, ZIP code, metropolitan area and micropolitan area, and by Large
Aquatic Ecosystems (LAEs), such as the Chesapeake Bay, as well as information about
facilities in Indian Country.

• TRI and Beyond presents TRI data used in conjunction with data from other
environmental programs, such as chemical production data reported to EPA under the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The use of TRI as a model for other pollutant
release and transfer inventories around the world is also discussed in this section.

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

TRI Data Considerations

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

• Covered sectors and chemicals. TRI includes information reported by many industry
sectors on the quantities of many chemicals that are released or otherwise managed as
waste, but it does not contain such information on all chemicals manufactured, processed
or otherwise used by facilities or from facilities in all industry sectors within the United
States. A list of the sectors covered by the TRI Program is available on the TRI webpage,
as well as a current list of the chemicals reportable to the TRI Program.

• TRI trends. The list of TRI chemicals has changed over the years; as a result, trend
graphs in the TRI National Analysis include only those chemicals that were reportable for
the entire time period presented so that the year-to-year data are comparable. Results
which focus only on the year 2017 include all chemicals reportable for 2017. Thus, the
results for 2017 analyses may differ slightly from results presented in trend analyses,
which include 2017 and previous years.

• Data quality. Facilities determine the quantities of chemicals they report to TRI using
best available data. Each year, EPA conducts an extensive data quality review that
includes contacting facilities to review potential errors in reported information. This data
quality review ensures the National Analysis is based on accurate and useful information.

• Risk. The quantity of TRI chemicals released is not an indicator of health risks posed by
the chemicals. Although TRI data generally cannot indicate the extent to which
individuals may have been exposed to chemicals, TRI data can be used as a starting
point to evaluate the potential for exposure and whether TRI chemical releases might
pose risks to human health and the environment. In particular, note that:

o The level of toxicity varies among the covered chemicals; data on amounts of the
chemicals alone are inadequate to reach conclusions on health-related risks; and
o The presence of a chemical in the environment must be evaluated along with the
potential and actual exposures and the route of exposures, the chemical's fate in
the environment and other factors before any judgements can be made about
potential risks associated with the chemical or a release.

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

For more information on the use of TRI data in exposure and risk analyses, see Factors
to Consider When Using Toxics Release Inventory Data and the Hazard and Potential
Risk of TRI Chemicals in the Releases section.

• Late submissions. TRI reporting forms submitted to EPA after the July 1 reporting
deadline may not be processed in time to be included in the National Analysis. While
revisions can be submitted after the July 1 reporting deadline, the data used to develop
the National Analysis is frozen in mid-October. Therefore, revisions received after this
freeze date will not be reflected in the National Analysis. Those late revisions will be
incorporated into the TRI dataset during the Spring refresh of the data and will be
reflected in next year's National Analysis when it refers to 2017 data.

• Double-counting. The National Analysis presents summaries of many quantitative data
elements (see "Quick Facts" below) including releases to the environment, which occur
on site and off site after 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.

Quick Facts for 201 7

Measure

Value

Number of TRI Facilities

21,456

Production-Related Waste Managed

30.57 billion lb

Recycled

14.69 billion lb

Energy Recovery

2.95 billion lb

Treated

8.98 billion lb

Disposed of or Otherwise Released

3.95 billion lb

Total Disposal or Other Releases

3.88 billion lb

On-site

3.50 billion lb

Air

0.60 billion lb

Water

0.19 billion lb

Land

2.71 billion lb

Off-site

0.38 billion lb

Note that two metrics shown in the Quick Facts box related to disposal or other releases are
similar (3.95 and 3.88 billion pounds), but total disposal or other releases is slightly lower.

vvEPA

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

One of the reasons total disposal or other releases is lower is that it removes "double
counting" that occurs when a facility that reports to EPA's TRI Program transfers waste to
another TRI-reporting facility. For example, when TRI 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 value. The production-related waste value 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.

7

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

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, in total, are collectively referred to as the quantity
of production-related waste managed.

Looking at production-related waste managed over
time helps track progress made by industrial
facilities in reducing the amount of chemical waste
generated and in adopting waste management
practices that are preferable to disposing of or
otherwise releasing waste to the environment. EPA
encourages facilities to first eliminate the creation of
chemical waste through source reduction activities.

For wastes that are generated, the most 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.
These waste management practices are illustrated in the waste management hierarchy image
shown here and discussed in the Pollution Prevention Act fPPAl of 1990. One goal of the PPA is
that over time facilities will shift from disposal or other releases toward the more preferred
techniques in the waste management hierarchy that do not result in releases to the
environment.

Also note that the list of TRI chemicals has changed over the years. For comparability, trend
graphs include only those chemicals that were reportable for all years presented. Figures that
focus only on the year 2017 include all chemicals reportable for 2017, therefore, values for a
2017-only analysis may differ slightly from results for 2017 in a trend analysis.

vvEPA

Source Reduction

Recycling

Energy Recovery
Treatment

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Source Reduction Activities Reported

Facilities are required to report to TRI new source reduction activities that they started or fully
implemented during the year. Source reduction includes activities that eliminate or reduce 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.

Source Reduction Activities Reported

Good Operating Practices
Process Modifications

¦ Spill and Leak Prevention

¦ Inventory Control
Raw Material Modifications

¦ Product Modifications

¦ Cleaning and Degreasing

¦ Surface Preparation and
Finishing

Note: 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.

Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

In 2017:

• 1,581 facilities (7% of all facilities that reported to TRI) initiated or implemented a total
of 3,994 new source reduction activities.

• Note that facilities may have ongoing source reduction activities initiated in previous
years that are not included in this figure. You can find information on previously
implemented source reduction activities bv using the TRI Pollution Prevention fP21
Search Tool.

vvEPA

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Green Chemistry Activities

Green chemistry is a discipline within the field of chemistry which seeks to prevent formation of
pollution through the design and implementation of manufacturing syntheses that use safer
reagents (e.g., green solvents) or feedstocks, use minimal energy, and produce the desired
product in high yield without forming unwanted byproducts or wastes. It is based on the
premise that the best way to deal with pollution is to not generate it in the first place. In the
pollution prevention hierarchy green chemistry is a means to achieve source reduction.
Advancements in green chemistry allow industry to reduce or even prevent pollution at its
source by, for example, designing manufacturing processes that use or produce fewer
quantities of TRI chemicals, or no TRI chemicals at all. Starting with the 2012 reporting year,
EPA added six green chemistry activities to its list of source reduction activities so that facilities
could indicate the green chemistry practices they implemented. This figure shows the chemicals
for which the most green chemistry activities were implemented and the sectors that reported
those activities.

vvEPA

Green Chemistry Activities for Top Chemicals, by Industry, 2012-2017

LEAD AND LEAD COMPOUNDS

METHANOL

TOLUENE

COPPER AND COPPER COMPOUNDS

CHROMIUM AND CHROMIUM COMPOUNDS

AMMONIA

20	40	60	80 100 120 140

Number of Green Chemistry Activities Reported

Chemical Manufacturing ¦ Fabricated Metals
(Transportation Equipment Machinery

Computers and Electronics
All others

160 180

• Since 2012, facilities have reported 2,226 green chemistry activities for 147 TRI
chemicals and chemical categories. Green chemistry activities were reported most
frequently for lead and lead compounds, methanol, toluene, copper and copper

10

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

compounds, chromium and chromium compounds, and ammonia. The sectors reporting
the highest number of green chemistry activities were chemical manufacturing,
fabricated metals, and computers and electronics.

• 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 A pharmaceutical manufacturing facility scaled up a process to increase
product yields. The facility also modified a process for production qualification
to reduce raw material needs and toluene waste generated per pound of
product produced. fClickto view facility details in the Pollution Prevention
TP21 Tool!

• Fabricated metal producers applied green chemistry techniques to reduce their usage of
metals including lead, copper, and chromium. For example:

o A metal coating and engraving facility increased their use of chromium-free
treatment chemicals. fClick to view facility details in the P2 Tooll

• Computer and electronic products manufacturers reduced or eliminated their use of
lead, such as lead found in solder. For example:

o To meet European restrictions on lead in electronics, an electronics
manufacturer redesigned its printed circuit assemblies to use lead-free
solder. fClick to view facility details in the P2 Tooll

vvEPA

Green Chemistry Resources

Source reduction activities such as green chemistry are the preferred way to reduce formation
of chemical wastes. Find more information on green chemistry using the following resources:

• EPA's TRI Pollution Prevention fP21 Search Tool to find green chemistry examples for a
specific chemical and/or industry.

• EPA's Green Chemistry program for information about green chemistry and EPA's efforts
to facilitate its adoption.

• EPA's Safer Choice program for 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 Toxic Release Inventory CTRII in
Tracking Implementation and Environmental Impact of Industrial Green Chemistry

Practices in the United States. EXIT

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Reported Barriers to Source Reduction

Facilities that did not implement new source reduction activities for a TRI chemical have the
option to disclose any barriers that prevented them from implementing source reduction. Since
2014, TRI reporting forms include barrier codes, which enable reporting and analysis of
obstacles that facilities may be experiencing. This figure shows the types of barriers that
facilities reported for metals and for all other (non-metal) TRI chemicals.

vvEPA

Barriers to Source Reduction Reported for Metals and All Other

Chemicals, 2014-2017

T3
CD
+j

k_

O
Q.

CD

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Metals

I Source reduction unsuccessful
Regulatory barriers
I Product quality concerns
I Other barriers

Non-metals
I Technical information needed
I Insufficient capital
I Further source reduction not feasible
I No known substitutes

From 2014 to 2017:

•	Facilities reported barriers to source reduction for 345 chemicals and chemical
categories.

•	The most frequently reported barriers for both metals and non-metals were no known
substitutes or alternative technologies and further source reduction not feasible. This
excludes other barriers, a catch-all category available to facilities.

12

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.Qov/trinationalanalysis/

March 2019







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 (38%) 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 An iron foundry reported that the premium grade scrap iron they purchase to
melt contains a trace amount of lead as an undesirable contaminant. \Click to
view facility details in the Pollution Prevention fP2) Tooll

o A steel tubing manufacturer noted that American Society for Testing and

Materials (ASTM) standards require minimum acceptable quantities of chromium,
manganese, and nickel in stainless steel, so they are unable to reduce their use
of these chemicals. \Click to view facility details in the P2 Tooll

Further source reduction not feasible was another commonly reported barrier, especially
for non-metals. Facilities select this barrier code when additional reductions do not
appear technically or economically feasible. For example:

o A die and tooling manufacturing facility previously implemented monitoring and
periodic maintenance activities related to its methanol usage. Further reducing
waste and improving efficiency would require replacing all existing equipment,
which is currently not economically feasible for the facility. fClickto view facility
details in the P2 Tooll

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.

You can view barriers reported for any TRI chemical bv using the TRI P2 Search Tool.

13

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

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, 2013-2017

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

"g 1,000

t
o
a.

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

• The type of source reduction activity implemented for these chemicals varies depending
on their use in industrial operations and the chemical's characteristics. For example:

o Raw material modifications is commonly reported as a source reduction
activity to reduce waste of di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP), a plasticizer;
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, including changing to aqueous cleaners, is
implemented for common 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 to TRI about their source reduction, recycling, or
pollution control activities in an optional text field of the TRI reporting form.

Examples of optional source reduction information for 2017:

• Stvrene: A plastics product manufacturer reduced shutdown waste by placing orders
back to back to keep the line running. fClick to view facility details in the Pollution
Prevention rP21 Tooll

• Dichloromethane: A specialty chemical manufacturer was able to reduce their use of
dichloromethane by substituting a less hazardous solvent. fClick to view facility details in
the P2 Tooll

• Trichloroethylene: A precision turned parts manufacturer purchased a new parts
cleaning system not requiring the use of trichloroethylene. fClick to view facility details
in the P2 Tooll

• Dif2-ethvlhexvQphthalate: A plastic film manufacturer removed the raw material
containing DEHP from their product line in 2017, and they estimate this change will lead
to the elimination of all DEHP waste. fClick to view facility details in the P2 Tooll

• Antimony Compounds: A wire and cable manufacturer attempted to group like
compounds together, minimizing changeovers and helping to eliminate scrap. fClick to
view facility details in the P2 Tooll

You can compare facilities' waste management methods and trends for any TRI chemical bv
using the TRI P2 Search Tool.

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

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, 2013-2017

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

2,800

2,400

u 2,000
<

Plastics and Rubber

Computers and
Electronic Products

Miscellaneous
Manufacturing

Printing

Textiles

Note: 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 in the TRI Reporting Forms and Instructions.

From 2013 to 2017:

• The five industry sectors with the highest source reduction reporting rates are plastics
and rubber, computers and electronic products, miscellaneous manufacturing (e.g.,
medical equipment), printing, and textiles.

• For most sectors, "Good operating practices" is the most frequently reported type of
source reduction activity. Other commonly reported source reduction activities vary by
sector. For example, computers and electronic products manufacturers frequently

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

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,
recycling, or pollution control activities, as shown in the following examples.

Examples of optional source reduction information for 2017

• Plastics and Rubber: By modifying the manufacturing process and conducting
engineering trials, quality testing and product qualifications, a plastics product
manufacturer was able to reformulate the raw materials for their polyester resin to low-
stvrene alternatives. fClick to view facility details in the Pollution Prevention fP21 Tooll

• Computers and Electronic Products: A printed circuit board manufacturing facility
changed their plating process to a chemistry that contains less formic acid and reduced
the amount of formic acid treated and released. fClick to view facility details in the P2
Tooll

• Miscellaneous Manufacturing: A powder processing facility reduced one clean out
per month by changing their processing order to reduce their nickel releases. fClick to
view facility details in the P2 Tooll

• Textiles: A fabric coating mill looked for alternative methods to produce products to
reduce their dependence on solvent chemicals and is engaging in new opportunities that
use water borne or 100% solids technologies. fClick to view facility details in the P2
Tooll

• Printing: A gravure printer reduced toluene use through an initiative with their ink
vendors to eliminate/reduce toluene. fClick to view facility details in the P2 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.

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Waste Management Trends

Facilities report to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) the quantities of TRI-listed chemicals that
they dispose of or otherwise release to 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.

vvEPA

Production-Related Waste Managed

15 ai

U
(0

¦ ¦¦¦¦¦¦MM

~i— —r

t— —r

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year

Disposed of or Otherwise Released Treated

Energy Recovery Recycled

< Facilities

From 2007 to 2017:

• Production-related waste decreased during the recession. Since 2009, production-related
waste managed has generally been increasing as the U.S. economy has improved.

• Since 2007, production-related waste managed increased by 5.3 billion pounds (22%).

o Disposal and other releases decreased by 354 million pounds (-8%).
o Treatment decreased by 38 million pounds (-0.5%).

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

o Energy recovery increased by 76 million pounds (3%).

o Recycling increased by 5.6 billion pounds (62%), a trend mostly driven by one
facility reporting over 3.4 billion pounds of cumene recycled each year from
2014-2017 fClick to view facility details in the Pollution Prevention fP21 Tooll and
another facility reporting 1.5 billion pounds of dichloromethane recycled in 2017
fClick to view facility details in the P2 Tooll.

• The number of facilities that report to TRI has declined by 8% 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
below the reporting thresholds.

vvEPA

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Production-Related Waste Managed by Chemical

This figure shows the chemicals that were managed as waste in the greatest quantities from
2007 to 2017.

Production-Related Waste Managed by Chemical

METHANOL
TOLUENE

I COPPER AND COPPER COMPOUNDS
HYDROCHLORIC ACID
ETHYLENE

ICUMENE

I ZINC AND ZINC COMPOUNDS
I LEAD AND LEAD COMPOUNDS
I AMMONIA
I All Others

30,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

.¦¦¦HI

-I

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year

From 2007 to 2017:

• Facilities reported production-related waste for 563 chemicals and chemical categories.
The nine chemicals for which facilities reported the most production-related waste,
shown above, represent 50% of all production-related waste reported.

• The reported quantities of most of the top chemicals contributing to production-related
waste managed have remained relatively constant since 2007.

• Of the chemicals shown above, facilities reported increased quantities of waste managed
for five: zinc and zinc compounds, lead and lead compounds, cumene. ethylene, and
ammonia.

o Production-related waste of lead and lead compounds increased by 30%.

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

o Cumene waste managed increased eight-fold, mostly driven by one facility
reporting over 3.4 billion pounds of cumene recycled annually during 2014-2017.
TCIick to view facility details in the Pollution Prevention fP21 Tooll

From 2016 to 2017:

• Facilities reported decreases in overall waste quantities for these chemicals:

o Ammonia decreased by 43.5 million pounds (-4%)
o Hydrochloric acid decreased by 9.85 million pounds (-1%)

• The quantities of lead and lead compounds managed as waste increased by 332 million
pounds (29%).

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Production-Related Waste Managed by Industry

This figure shows the industry sectors that managed the most waste from 2007 to 2017.

Production-Related Waste Managed by Sector

I All Others
I Food

I Primary Metals

Petroleum
I Paper

Chemical Manufacturing

Electric Utilities
I Metal Mining

30,000

25,000

20,000

o 15,000

10,000

5,000

m ¦ ¦ ¦ i ¦ ¦ ¦ i ¦

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

From 2007 to 2017:

• 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, five increased their quantity of waste managed:

o Chemical manufacturing increased by 5 billion pounds (51%)

o Metal mining increased by 738 million pounds (58%)

o Paper manufacturing increased by 431 million pounds (28%)

o Food manufacturing increased by 440 million pounds (44%)

o Petroleum products manufacturing increased by 47 million pounds (4%)

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

• 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
managed reported by metal mining facilities can change significantly based on changes
in the composition of waste rock.

From 2016 to 2017:

• Industry sectors with the greatest reported changes in overall waste quantities are:

o Chemical manufacturing increased by 2.5 billion pounds (20%)
o Metal mining increased by 388 million pounds (24%)

vvEPA

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

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 for 2017. Facilities outside of the manufacturing sector, such as
electric utilities and coal and metal mines, are not included in this chart because the nature of
the activities conducted by those sectors do not lend themselves to the same types or degree of
source reduction and waste management activities as manufacturing facilities. Note that almost
all of these companies are largely managing their waste through EPA's preferred waste
management methods-recycling, energy recovery, or treatment-rather than releasing it to the
environment.

Production-Related Waste Managed by Parent Company

Advansix Inc
2017

2016

Sabic US Holdings LP

2017

2016

International Paper Co

2017

2016
DowDuPont

2017

2016

Incobrasa Industries Ltd

2017

2016
PBF Energy Inc

2017

2016

Koch Industries Inc

2017

2016
Syngenta Corp

2017

2016
BASF Corp

2017

2016

Honeywell International Inc

2017
2016

0 12 3 4

Billions of Pounds

¦ Releases ¦ Treated ¦ Energy Recovery ¦ Recycled

Notes: 1) For TRI reporting, the parent company is the highest-level U.S. company which directly owns at least 50% of the voting stock of the company. This figure uses
EPA's standardized parent name. 2) To view facility counts by parent in 2016 or 2017, 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) Graphic Packaging Holding Co. acquired
several International Paper facilities as of January 2018. One of these facilities listed its parent company for reporting year 2017 as Graphic Packaging Holding Co. and was
changed to the 2017 parent, International Paper Co., for this figure. 5) The increases by Sabic Holdings are driven by one facility which reported almost 1.5 billion pounds of 24
dichloromethane recycling in 2017 as well as greatly increased recycling quantities of several other chemicals.

vvEPA

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

These parent companies' TRI-reporting facilities operate in the following industry sectors:

• Chemical manufacturing: Advansix Inc, DowDuPont, BASF, Syngenta, Honeywell
International, Sabic US Holdings LP

• Paper: International Paper

• Soybean processing: Incobrasa

• Multiple sectors, e.g. pulp and paper, petroleum refining, and chemicals: Koch Industries

• Petroleum refining: PBF Energy

Half of these top parent companies reported implementing new source reduction activities in
2017. Some of these companies reported additional (optional) information to TRI about their
pollution prevention or waste management activities.

Examples of additional pollution prevention-related information for 2017:

• A BASF facility installed more accurate feed control valves which reduced excess
ammonia usage. fClick to view facility details in the Pollution Prevention fP21 Tooll

• A paperboard mill owned by Koch Industries upgraded a boiler to eliminate bark
burning. fClick to view facility details in the P2 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 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Source Reduction Activities by Parent Company

This figure shows the parent companies whose facilities implemented the most source reduction
activities during 2017. 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 (e.g.,
the release of TRI chemicals present in large volumes of earth moved from below ground or
metal mining pit to the surface, to get to the target ore) do not lend themselves to the same
source reduction opportunities as the activities at manufacturing facilities.

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Source Reduction Activities for Top Parent Companies

Berkshire Hathaway Inc
2017

2016

Silgan Holdings Inc

2017

2016
Nucor Corp

2017

2016
3M Co

2017

2016

Axalta Coating Systems..

2017

2016
Resinall Corp

2017

2016

Superior Essex Inc

2017

2016

Saint-Gobain Corp

2017

2016

Lyondellbasell Industries

2017

2016

CCL Industries Corp.

2017
2016

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

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

vvEPA

Notes: 1) For TRI reporting, the parent company is the highest-level U.S. company which directly owns at least 50%
of the voting stock of the company. This figure uses EPA's standardized parent company names. 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. 3) One CCL
Industries facility reported no US parent company and was assigned to CCL Industries Corp. 4) To view facility counts
by parent in 2016 or 2017, mouse over the bar graph.

These parent companies' facilities primarily operate in the following industries:

• Chemical manufacturing sector: 3M, Resinall, Lyondellbasell, Axalta

• Multiple sectors: Saint-Gobain Corp, Berkshire Hathaway

• Steel manufacturing: Nucor

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

• Wire and cable manufacturing: Superior Essex

• Metal containers: Silgan Holdings, CCL Industries

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 or waste management activities.

Examples of additional pollution prevention-related information for 2017:

• A 3M facility reduced its use of formaldehyde and phenol by organizing scheduling to
minimize changeovers as much as possible. fClick to view facility details in the Pollution
Prevention rP21 Tooll

• A Berkshire Hathaway facility reduced chromium waste by using pre-manufactured
components that eliminate most of the scrap metal. fClick to view facility details in the
P2 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.

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Releases of Chemicals

Disposal or other releases of Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) chemicals into the environment
occur in several ways. Chemicals may be disposed of on a facility's property by being released
to the air, water or land. Facilities may also ship (transfer) wastes that contain TRI chemicals to
an off-site location for treatment or disposal. Most disposal or other release practices are
subject to a variety of regulatory requirements designed to minimize potential harm to human
health and the environment. To learn more about what EPA is doing to help limit the release of
TRI chemicals into the environment, see EPA's laws and regulations webpaae.

Evaluating releases of TRI-listed chemicals can help identify potential concerns and gain a
better understanding of potential risks that may be posed by the releases. This evaluation can
also help identify priorities and opportunities for government and communities to work with
industry to reduce chemical releases and potential associated risks. However, it is important to
consider that the quantity of releases is not an indicator of health impacts posed by the
chemicals. Human health risks resulting from exposure to TRI chemicals are determined by
many factors, as discussed further in the Hazard and Potential
Risk of TRI Chemicals section.

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.

As with any dataset, there are several factors to consider when
using the TRI data. Key factors associated with data presented
are summarized in the Introduction. For more information see
Factors to Consider When Using Toxics Release Inventory Data. Also note that the list of TRI
chemicals has changed over the years. For comparability, trend graphs include only those
chemicals that were reportable for all years presented. Figures that focus only on the year 2017
include all chemicals reportable for 2017, therefore, values for a 2017-only analysis may differ
slightly from results for 2017 in a trend analysis.

The following graph shows the disposal or other releases of TRI chemicals, including on-site
disposal to land, water, and air, and off-site transfers for disposal.

vvEPA

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.

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Total Disposal or Other Releases

5,000

i nrmrrm

—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year

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

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

10 !S

From 2007 to 2017:

• Total disposal or other releases of TRI chemicals decreased by 7%.

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, with
additional air emission reductions from the chemical and paper manufacturing
sectors.

• On-site air releases (down 57% from 2007), on-site surface water discharges (down
20% since 2007), and off-site releases (down 31% since 2007) declined during this 10-
year period.

• The number of facilities reporting to the TRI Program declined by 8% overall, although
the count has remained relatively steady since 2010.

From 2016 to 2017:

• On-site air releases and on-site surface water discharges decreased while off-site
disposal increased, each with under 5% change. Total releases to the environment
increased by 13%, driven by the 21% increase (433 million pounds) in on-site land
disposal.

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017

LJP# www.epa.gov/trinationalanalvsis/
March 2019

Releases in 2017

Use the interactive chart below to explore how total releases of chemicals that occurred in 2017
Visit the full TRI National Analysis Qlik dashboard to explore even more information about
releases of chemicals.

No selections applied

Industry

ChEmicaf

State/Territory

Total Disposal or Other Releases, 2017
3.83 billion pounds

On-site Land Disposal: 70Wj

Off-site Disposal or Other Releases: 10%

On-srte Air Releases: 1596

On-site Water Releases: 5%

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Releases by Chemical

Release quantities of 8 chemicals comprised 76% of total releases.

Total Disposal and Other Releases by Chemical, 2017
3.88 billion pounds

Ammonia:.
4%

Copper:
4%

Zinc:

Barium:^/ 19%

Arsenic: / -Nitrate

go^ Manganese: Compounds:

6% 6%

All Others:
24%

Lead:

Note: In this figure, metals are combined with their metal compounds, although metals and compounds of the same metal are
usually listed separately on the TRI list (e.g. lead is listed separately from lead compounds).

Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Releases by Industry

The metal mining sector accounted for 50% of releases (1.95 billion pounds), which were
primarily in the form of on-site land disposal.

Total Disposal or Other Releases by Industry, 2017
3.88 billion pounds

All Others: 8%

Food: 3%

Paper: 4%

Hazardous
Waste: 5%

Primary Metals:—|

Metal Mining:
V 50%

Electric
Utilities: 9% J

Chemicals: 13%

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Hazard and Potential Risk of TRI Chemicals

Among other information, the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Program provides data about
environmental releases of TRI chemicals from industrial facilities throughout the United States,
measured in pounds. Pounds of releases, however, is not an indicator of health risks posed by
the chemicals, 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 TRI chemicals pose to human health and the environment.

The human health risks resulting 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. For example, potential sources of exposure to chemicals not tracked by TRI
include exhaust from cars and trucks, chemicals in consumer products, and chemical residues in
food and water.

To provide information on the potential hazard and risk
posed by disposal or other releases of TRI chemicals, the
TRI Program uses EPA's Risk-Screening Environmental
Indicators fRSED model. RSEI is a screening-level model
that uses simplifying assumptions to fill data gaps and
reduce the complexity of calculations to quickly evaluate
large amounts of data. RSEI includes TRI data for on-site
releases to air and water, transfers to Publicly Owned

vvEPA

Helpful Concepts

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

The risk of a toxic chemical is the
chance of adverse health effects
occurring as a result of exposure to
the chemical. Risk is a function of
hazard and exposure.

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Treatment Works (POTWs), and transfers for off-site incineration. RSEI does not currently
model other release pathways, such as land disposal.

RSEI produces hazard estimates and unitless risk "scores," which represent relative risks to
human health following chronic exposure to a TRI chemical. Each type of result can be
compared to other results of the same type.

• 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 potential risk
to human health. 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.

Note that the RSEI model should only be used for screening-level activities such as trend
analyses that compare potential relative risks from year to year, or ranking and prioritization of
chemicals or industry sectors for strategic planning. RSEI does not provide a formal risk
assessment, which typically requires site-specific information, more refined exposure
information, and detailed population distributions.

vvEPA

RSEI: Risk-Screening
Environmental Indictors

RSEI results consider more than just
chemical quantities released.

• RSEI hazard results also
consider:

o Toxicity of the chemical

• RSEI scores also consider:
o Location of releases

o Toxicity of the chemical
o Fate and transport
o Human exposure pathway

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Hazard Trend

RSEI hazard estimates provide greater insight on potential impacts of the quantities of releases
of TRI chemicals than the mass quantities alone. RSEI hazard considers the amounts of
chemicals released on site to air and water by TRI facilities or transferred off site to Publicly
Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) or incinerators, and the toxicity of the chemicals. The
following graph shows the trend in RSEI hazard compared to the trend in the corresponding
pounds of TRI chemical releases.

vvEPA

35
30
25

= 20
o

£ 15
tT

is 10

ro
X

5
0

RSEI Hazard and Corresponding Releases

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year

Air Releases (Hazard) Water Releases (Hazard)

Off-site Incineration (Hazard) 9 Millions of Pounds Released

2,500
2,000
1,500 |

1,000 w

500

Transfers to POTWs (Hazard)

From 2007 to 2017:

• The overall RSEI hazard estimate decreased by 65%, while corresponding pounds
released decreased by 44%. This indicates that the facilities that reported to TRI from
2007 through 2017 may be releasing fewer pounds of chemicals that have greater
toxicities.

• The decrease in the hazard estimate from 2008 to 2009 is driven by a large decrease in
chromium releases from three facilities.

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Risk Trend

EPA's RSEI model also estimates risk "scores" that represent relative human health risk from
chronic exposure to TRI chemicals. These risk 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, its fate and transport through 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.

vvEPA

RSEI Score and Corresponding Releases

u
l/l

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

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year

Air Releases (Score) Water Releases (Score)

¦ Off-site Incineration (Score) 9 Millions of Pounds Released

2,500
2,000
1,500 |

1,000 «r

¦a

500

Transfers to POTWs (Score)

From 2007 to 2017:

• The overall RSEI score estimate decreased by 62%, while corresponding pounds
released decreased by 44%.

• Of the types of releases modeled by RSEI, air releases, by far, contribute the most to
the RSEI scores.

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

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.

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Air Releases

Air emissions reported to TRI continue to decline, serving as a primary driver of decreased total
releases. Air releases include both fugitive axemjssions and pojnt.source.air emissions. This
graph shows the trend in the pounds of chemicals released to air.

vvEPA

Air Releases (Pounds Released)

Fugitive Air Emissions ¦ Stack Air Emissions

(0
T3

O
Q.

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

11111111

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year

From 2007 to 2017:

• Air releases declined significantly, serving as a primary driver of decreases in total
releases.

• Air releases decreased by 57% (757 million pounds).

o Hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, hvdroaen fluoride, methanol, toluene, and
stvrene were the chemicals with the greatest reductions in air releases since
2007.

o The decrease is driven by electric utilities due to: decreased emissions of
Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs), such as hydrochloric acid; a shift from coal to
other fuel sources (e.g., natural gas); and the installation of 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

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

coal or oil to entirely using other fuel sources (such as natural gas) no longer
report to TRI.

o Electric utilities accounted for 92% of nationwide reductions in air releases of
hydrochloric acid and sulfuric acid from 2007 to 2017.

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

• Air releases of other chemicals of special concern, including lead and mercury, also
decreased; see the Chemicals of Special Concern section.

• Air releases are often regulated by other programs as well, such as under Title V of the
Clean Air Act, which requires major sources of air pollutants to obtain and comply with
an operating permit.

• Ammonia, followed by methanol, accounted for the greatest air releases of TRI
chemicals.

• Since 2016, air releases decreased by 2%.

In 2017:

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

This graph shows the trend in the RSEI Score for air releases.

Air Releases (RSEI Score)

1 nnn

¦ Stack Air Releases "F

-ugitive Air Releases

ftnn

c
o

= mn -

8 400 ¦
w

linn

0£

200 ¦
n -

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year

• The top chemicals by RSEI score for air releases were chromium and ethylene oxide.

• Stack air releases tend to contribute relatively less to the RSEI score than fugitive
releases because chemicals released through stacks tend to get dispersed over a wider
area than fugitive air releases, resulting in lower average concentrations.

• For a complete, step-by-step description of how RSEI models air releases and derives
RSEI Scores from stack air emissions and fugitive air emissions, see "Section 5.3
Modeling Air Releases" in Chapter 5 ("Exposure and Population Modeling") of EPA's Risk-
Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) Methodology. RSEI Version 2.3.6.

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

vvEPA

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Air Releases by Chemical

This pie chart shows which TRI chemicals were released to air in the greatest quantities during
2017.

On-site Air Releases by Chemical, 2017

600.57 million pounds Ammonia:

/ 20%

• Facilities manufacturing nitrogen fertilizers accounted for about one third of the air
releases of ammonia reported to TRI for the past five years.

• Air releases of methanol are primarily from pulp, paper, and paperboard mills and have
decreased by 24% since 2007.

• Thirty-four percent of hydrochloric acid and 79% of sulfuric acid emissions result from
generating electricity from combustion of coal and oil. Air releases of these two
chemicals reported to TRI have decreased consistently since 2007. One reason for the
decrease in air releases of these chemicals is the increase in the use of natural gas as a
fuel for electricity generation. Natural gas power plants are not required to report to
TRI.

vvEPA

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Air Releases by Industry

This pie chart shows the TRI-covered industry sectors that reported the greatest releases of TRI
chemicals to air during 2017.

Air Releases by Sector, 2017
600.57 million pounds

All Others:

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

vvEPA

• Chemical manufacturing, paper manufacturing, and the electric utility sectors accounted
for the greatest releases to air in 2017. Air releases in these three industries have
decreased since 2016:

o Chemicals: 4% decrease (7.1 million pounds)
o Paper: 2% decrease (2.5 million pounds)
o Electric utilities: 5% decrease (4.4 million pounds)

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Water Releases

Facilities are required to report the quantity of Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) chemicals they
release to receiving streams or other water bodies. The following graph shows the trend in the
pounds of chemicals released to water bodies as reported to TRI.

From 2007 to 2017:

• Surface water discharges decreased by 20% (49 million pounds). Most of this decline is
due to reduction in releases of nitrate compounds to water, which decreased by 21%
(44 million pounds).

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. Nitrate compounds are
released to water in quantities that are larger than any other TRI chemical
released to water.

• Surface water discharges are often regulated by other programs and require permits
such as the Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System fNPDES)
permits.

Surface Water Discharges (Pounds Released)

300

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

In 2017:

Nitrate compounds alone accounted for 90% of the total quantity of all TRI chemicals
discharged to surface waters.

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

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

Surface Water Discharges (RSEI Score)

(0
c
o

o
o
w

ijj
w
a.

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year

The biggest contributor to RSEI water scores is arsenic compounds.

The high RSEI score for water discharges 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
has a relatively high toxicity.

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 (RSEI) Methodology, RSEI Version 2.3.6.

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

-------
&EPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Water Releases by Chemical

This pie chart shows which TRI-listed chemicals were released to water bodies in the greatest
quantities during 2017.

Water Releases by Chemical, 2017

190.56 million pounds

17%

28%

All Others
Sodium Nitrite

Manganese
Zinc

Ammonia
Barium

Methanol

Note: In this chart, metals are combined with their metal compounds, although metals and compounds of the
same metal are usually listed separately on the TRI list (e.g. lead is listed separately from lead compounds).

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

• Nitrate compounds accounted for 90% of the total quantities of TRI chemicals released
to water in 2017. Nitrate compounds are soluble in water and commonly formed as part
of facilities'on-site wastewater treatment processes. The food manufacturing sector
contributed 40% of total nitrate compound releases to water, due to the treatment
required for large quantities of biological materials in wastewaters 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 webpaae for more information about the issue of
eutrophication.

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Manganese and manganese compounds, ammonia, and methanol are the next most
commonly released chemicals, and, in terms of combined mass quantities, account for
7% of releases to water.

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

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 2017.

Water Releases by Industry, 2017
190.56 million pounds

All Others: 12%

Paper: 10%

Primary Metals: 13%

Food:36%

Chemicals: 13%

Petroleum: 16%

The food manufacturing sector accounted for 36% of the total quantities of TRI
chemicals released to water during 2017, which is similar to its contribution over the
past 10 years.

Nitrate compounds accounted for 99% of the total quantities 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.

Surface water discharges are often regulated by other EPA programs, such as the
program established under the Clean Water Act that issues National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System fNPDESI permits.

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Wastewater Treatment Methods

In 2017, one-third of TRI facilities reported that their operations generated wastewater.
Importantly, facilities treat their wastewater prior to discharging it into nearby waterways or
sending it to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) where further treatment occurs. The
treatment techniques they use are designed to reduce the concentration of chemicals in the
wastewater and can even eliminate chemicals in discharges altogether. Facilities reporting to
TRI are required to provide details on the types of treatment techniques they use and to also
estimate the removal or destruction efficiency of treatment.

In 2017:

• Eighteen different types of physical, chemical, and biological treatment methods were
reported, with two-thirds of facilities reporting they used multiple treatment methods
(up to 11) for the same waste stream.

• The most common wastewater treatment methods were:

o physical separation techniques (settling or clarification and phase separation),
which remove both solids and TRI chemicals from the wastewater;

Wastewater Treatment Methods Used, 2017

Adsorption Air or Steam Stripping

1 I

Reduction— I

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

o chemical treatment such as neutralization, which alters extreme pH values,
rendering the wastewater less acidic or alkaline and thus less damaging to the
ecosystems of receiving waters and biological treatment systems at POTWs; and

o biological treatment, during which bacteria are used to digest and break down
organic chemicals.

The types and efficacy of wastewater treatment methods used by each industry sector differ
according to the chemicals and other pollutants in the wastewater. For example, neutralization
was the most prevalent type of treatment in the Food Processing sector, likely due to
operations that involve neutralizing the acids (e.g., nitric acidl used for cleaning and sanitation.
In contrast, wastewater from Petroleum Refining is more often subject to phase separation and
air or steam stripping, two processes that involve physically separating chemicals and other
pollutants from the wastewaters generated during removal of water from crude petroleum.

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Land Disposal

This graph shows the trend in the pounds of chemicals reported to TRI as disposed of to land.
The metal mining sector accounts for most of the TRI chemical quantities disposed of to land.

3,000

¦S 2,000
c

3
O
Q.

M-

(/)
c

¦9 1,000

Year

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

From 2007 to 2017:

• On-site land disposal increased by 35% (from 2.0 to 2.7 billion pounds).

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

• "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

vvEPA

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

treatment/application farming); and any
other land disposal. Most of the TRI
chemical quantities reported as "other land
disposal" are from the disposal of waste
rock at metal mines.

• Disposal to land is often regulated by other
programs such as the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act fRCRAl.

In 2017:

• Land disposal trends are largely driven by
the metal mining sector, which accounted
for 72% of land disposal quantities. Select
the "Land Disposal, Excluding Metal Mining"
button to view the land disposal trend with
metal mines excluded from the analysis.

o Most of these quantities were made up of either lead and lead compounds (35%)
or zinc and zinc compounds (23%).

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. In recent years mines have cited changes in
production of waste rock, changes in the chemical composition of waste rock, and the closure
of a heap leach pad as the primary reasons for the reported variability in land disposal of TRI
chemicals. Changes in waste rock composition can have an especially pronounced effect on TRI
reporting because of a regulatory exemption that applies based on a chemical's concentration in
the rock, regardless of total chemical quantities generated.

Regulations require that waste rock, which contains contaminants, 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.

vvEPA

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 Recourse 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.

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

On-site Land Disposal Excluding Metal Mines

1,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year

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

From 2007 to 2017:

• Total on-site land disposal for all industries other than metal mining decreased by 13%.

In 2017:

• Excluding releases reported by metal mines, the chemicals disposed of to land in the
largest quantities are: barium and barium compounds (18%), manganese and
manganese compounds (13%), and zinc and zinc compounds (11%).

• While disposal to land has decreased in many sectors, the metal mining sector drives
overall land disposal trends. See the graphic Land Disposal bv Industry for more
information.

vvEPA

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Land Disposal by Chemical

This pie chart shows the chemicals disposed of to land on site in the greatest quantities during
2017.

On-Site Land Disposal by Chemical, 2017
2.71 billion pounds

\_Zinc:
23%

The metal mining sector alone was responsible for 87% of the total quantities of zinc and 96%
of the total quantities of lead disposed of to land in 2017. 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.

vvEPA

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

On-Site Land Disposal Excluding
Metal Mining, by Chemical
761 million pounds

From 2007 to 2017:

• Barium: Releases decreased 28%.

• Manganese: Releases decreased 5%.

• Zinc: Releases decreased 10%.

In 2017:

• When the metal mining sector is excluded, a wider variety of chemicals contribute to
most of the land releases. Excluding metal mining, eight different chemicals comprised
68% of land releases, as opposed to three chemicals comprising a comparable 66% of
releases when mining is included.

vvEPA

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Land Disposal by Industry

This pie chart shows the TRI-covered industry sectors that reported the greatest quantities of
TRI chemicals disposed of to land on site during 2017.

On-site Land Disposal by Sector, 2017
2.71 billion pounds

vvEPA

• The metal mining sector accounted for most of the TRI chemicals disposed of to land in
2017, mostly due to 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 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Chemicals of Special Concern

In this section, we take a closer look at some Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) chemicals that are
of special concern: 1) persistent, bioaccumulative, and 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 tissue of 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 requirements for the 16 chemicals and 5 chemical categories designated as PBTs on
the TRI chemical list for Reporting Year 2017 are more stringent than for other TRI chemicals.
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 included on the TRI chemical list that the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) includes on its list of carcinogens. These chemicals also have
different TRI reporting requirements. This section presents the trend in air emissions for the
OSHA carcinogens reported to TRI. A list of these chemicals can be found on the TRI basis of
OSHA carcinogens webpaae.

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Lead Releases Trend

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

vvEPA

Total Disposal or Other Releases of
Lead and Lead Compounds

1,250

1,000

¦a

O
O.

750

<4-

500

250

i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year

On-Site Air Releases
i On-site Land Disposal

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

From 2007 to 2017:

• Releases of lead and lead compounds rose and fell between 2007 and 2017, with an
overall increase of 94%.

• The metal mining sector accounts for most of the lead and lead compounds disposed of
on site to land, driving the overall trend. For 2017, for example, metal mines reported
94% of total lead and lead compound releases.

From 2016 to 2017:

• Total releases of lead and lead compounds increased by 47% (310 million pounds).

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

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

T3
C
3
O
O.

<4-

c
o

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10

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

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year

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

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

From 2007 to 2017:

• Metal mining accounts for the majority of lead and lead compounds disposed of to land.

• Releases of lead and lead compounds have decreased by 13% (8.4 million pounds)
among the other sectors. The increase in 2015 was primarily due to one hazardous
waste management facility that reported releases of 24.9 million pounds of lead
compounds, compared to less than 0.5 million pounds for 2014 and 2016.

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Lead Air Releases Trend

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

On-Site Air Releases of Lead
and Lead Compounds

1,250

1,000

§ 750

Q-
M—

(/)

1 500

l/>

3
O

250

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year

¦ Fugitive Air Emissions ¦ Stack Air Emissions

From 2007 to 2017:

• Air releases of lead and lead compounds decreased by 66%. 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 2016 to 2017:

• Air releases of lead and lead compounds decreased by 1%.

• In 2017, 30% of air releases of lead were from the primary metals industry sector.

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/

March 2019

Mercury Air Releases Trend

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

Air Releases of Mercury and Mercury Compounds

V)
T3
c
3
O

CL
M—

to
T3
C
(0
to
3
O

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year

¦ Fugitive Air Emissions ¦ Stack Air Emissions

From 2007 to 2017:

• Releases of mercury and mercury compounds to air decreased by 68%.

• Electric utilities are driving the decline in mercury air emissions, with an 89% reduction
(83,000 pounds).

From 2016 to 2017:

• Air releases of mercury and mercury compounds decreased by 9%.

• The primary metals sector, which includes iron and steel manufacturers and smelting
operations, accounted for 34% of the air emissions of mercury and mercury compounds
reported to TRI for 2017.

vvEPA

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Dioxin and Dioxin-like Compound Releases Trend

This graph shows the trend in the grams of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds disposed of or
otherwise released by TRI-reporting facilities from 2010 to 2017.

Disposal or Other Releases, Dioxin
and Dioxin-like Compounds

120,000

80,000

40,000

iiillll

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year

On-Site Air Releases
i On-site Land Disposal

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

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

From 2010 to 2017:

• Since 2010, dioxin releases increased by 102%.

o This increase in dioxin releases is largely driven by increased on-site land
disposal from a non-ferrous metal smelting and refining facility.

From 2016 to 2017:

• Releases of dioxins decreased by 6%.

• In 2017, most (52%) of the quantity released was disposed on site to land.

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Dioxins Releases by Industry

TRI also requires facilities to report data on 17 types, or congeners, of dioxin. These congeners
have a wide range of toxic potencies. The mix of dioxins from one source can have a very
different level of toxicity than the same total amount, but different mix, from another source.
These varying toxic potencies can be taken into account using Toxic Equivalency Factors
(TEFs), which are based on each congener's toxic potency. EPA multiplies the total grams of
each congener reported by facilities by the associated TEF to obtain a toxicity weight and sums
all congeners for a total of grams in toxicity equivalents (grams-TEQ). Analyzing dioxins in
grams-TEQ is useful when comparing disposal or other releases of dioxin from different sources
or different time periods, where the mix of congeners may vary.

The following two pie charts show: 1) the TRI-covered industry sectors that reported the
greatest 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 those TRI reports that included the congener detail for calculating grams-TEQ are
included in these charts.

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Releases of Dioxin and Dioxin-like Compounds
by Industry, 2017

Grams

Grams-TEQ

All Others:

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

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

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

The chemical manufacturing industry accounted for 51% and the primary metals sector
for 42% of total grams of dioxins released.

However, when TEFs are applied, the primary metals sector accounted for 81% and the
chemical manufacturing sector for just 11% of the total grams-TEQ released.

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

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 chemicals that are OSHA carcinogens released to air.

Air Releases of OSHA Carcinogens

1 ->n

100 _

-a

| 80
£

0 60

| 40

20
0

2007

1111111111

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year

1 Fugitive Air Emissions ¦ Stack Air Emissions

From 2007 to 2017:

• Air releases of these carcinogens decreased by 37%.

• The long-term decreases in air releases of OSHA carcinogens were driven mainly by
decreases in releases of stvrene to air from the plastics and rubber and transportation
equipment industries.

• In 2017, air releases of OSHA carcinogens consisted primarily of stvrene (43% of the air
releases of all OSHA carcinogens), acetaldehvde (13%) and formaldehyde (8%).

vvEPA

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

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, 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 not as
part of its production-related waste managed. The following graph shows the annual quantities
of non-production-related waste reported to TRI.

Non-Production-Related Waste

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year

Non-production-related waste from all facilities was below 35 million pounds in all years
except for 2013 when a mining facility reported a one-time release of 193 million
pounds. The facility reported zero releases in 2014 and has not reported to TRI since.

For 2017, facilities reported 13 million pounds of one-time, non-production-related
releases of TRI chemicals.

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Comparing Industry Sectors

This section examines which sectors contributed the most to production-related waste managed
in 2017 and highlights several industry sectors to show trends occurring over time. It also
discusses the trends among federal facilities, which report to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
regardless of sector. For analysis 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 industries that are 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 within a given industry sector often differ greatly from those of facilities in
other sectors. 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. Looking at chemical waste management trends within a sector can highlight
progress made in improving environmental performance, identify emerging issues, and reveal
opportunities for better waste management practices.

vvEPA

Production-Related Waste Managed by Industry, 2017
30.57 billion pounds

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

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Seven industry sectors reported 89% of the quantities of TRI chemicals managed as
production;related waste in 2017. A majority of TRI chemical waste managed originated from
the chemical manufacturing sector (51%).

vvEPA

Total Disposal or Other Releases by Industry, 2017
3.88 billion pounds

All Others: 8%

Food: 3%

Paper: 4%

Hazardous Waste:
5%

Primary Metals: 8%

Electric Utilities: 9%

Chemicals:

Metal Mining: 50%

This pie chart shows that 80% of the quantities of TRI chemicals disposed of or otherwise
released originated from 4 of the 29 industry sectors that are subject to the TRI reporting
requirements: metal mining (50%), chemical manufacturing (13%), electric utilities (9%), and
primary metals (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 medium, see land disposal bv
industry, air releases bv industry, and water releases bv industry.

As with any dataset, there are several factors to consider when using the TRI data. Key factors
associated with data presented are summarized in the Introduction. For more information see

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Factors to Consider When Using Toxics Release Inventory Data. Also note that the list of TRI
chemicals has changed over the years. For comparability, trend graphs include only those
chemicals that were reportable for all years presented. Figures that focus only on the year 2017
include all chemicals reportable for 2017, therefore, values for a 2017-only analysis may differ
slightly from results for 2017 in a trend analysis.

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Manufacturing Sectors

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

11.1 MILLION

PEOPLE

U.S. Census Annual Survey of Manufactures 2016 data

THE SECTOR

CONTRIBUTES
$2.4 TRILLION

TO U.S. GDP

In value-added. U.S. Census Annual Survey of Manufactures 2016 data

This map shows the locations of the manufacturing facilities that reported to TRI for 2017. Click
on a facility for details on their TRI reporting.

-------
kvEPA

TRI National Analysis 2017

www.epa.gov/trinationalanalvsis/
March 2019

Edmonton

Winnipeg

Tofortoo.

states i-JtAjnS,

Orleans

Torroon

San Lu
Polosi

>uadala|ara

RETimUC

Sarto
Domingt

Kingsion

Manufacturing Facilities Reporting to TRI, 2017

For 2017, nearly 90% of the facilities that reported to TRI were in a manufacturing sector. The
manufacturing sector accounted for most (86%) of the 30.6 billion pounds of TRI production-
related waste reported to TRI for 2017. Two of the manufacturing sectors (paint and coating
and chemicals') 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 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Waste Management Trend

The following graph shows the annual quantities of TRI chemicals managed as waste by the
manufacturing sectors.

Production-Related Waste Managed:
Manufacturing Sectors

\r>
"O

O
CL

M-

O
\n
c
o

<
9L
c
n>

>
Q.
Q.

N>
O

vl
W

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year

Disposed of or Otherwise Released ^MTreated
Energy Recovery Recycled

> Value Added (billions, 2017 Dollars)

From 2007 to 2017:

• 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 the quantity of waste
combusted for energy recovery and waste recycled increased.

• It is important to consider the influence the economy has on production and production-
related waste generation. This figure also includes the trend in manufacturing sectors'
"value added" (represented by the black line as reported by the Bureau of Economic
Analysis, Value Added bv Industry). Value added is a measure of production that is
defined as the contribution of these manufacturing sectors to the national gross
domestic product.

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

o Production-related waste managed by the manufacturing sectors increased by
26%, while value added by the manufacturing sectors increased by 2%. The
large increase in recycled waste starting in 2014 was primarily due to an increase
in the quantity of cumene recycled by one facility and dichloromethane recycled
by another facility. Excluding these amounts, the total quantities of the
manufacturing sectors' production-related waste decreased by 1% since 2007,
even as value added increased.

From 2016 to 2017:

• Production-related waste managed increased by 12% (2.65 billion pounds). This
increase is largely due to a single facility that reported recycling 1.5 billion pounds of
dichloromethane on site in 2017. This facility did not previously report recycling this
chemical on site. Excluding this amount for 2017, the total quantity of the
manufacturing sectors' production-related waste increased by 5%.

• In 2017, only 6% of the manufacturing sectors' waste was released into the
environment, while the rest was managed through treatment, energy recovery, and
recycling.

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Manufacturing Releases Trend

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

Total Disposal or Other Releases:
Manufacturing Sectors

2,000

T3
C
3
O
O.

<4-

c
o

1,500

1,000

500

.¦¦¦¦III

¦ I I I I I I I

I I

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year

On-site Air Releases
i On-site Land Disposal

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

From 2007 to 2017:

• Total releases by the manufacturing sectors decreased by 25%. 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 12%.

From 2016 to 2017:

• Total releases decreased by 1% (18 million pounds).

• On-site land disposal, releases to air, and off-site disposal or other releases all
decreased.

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Source Reduction in the Manufacturing Sectors:

In 2017, 8% of manufacturing facilities initiated more than 3,500 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 writing products manufacturing facility installed a level detection device such that
transfer pumps will shut down in case of high levels in the butanol tank, which
decreases the chances for spills and overflows. fClick to view facility details in the
Pollution Prevention rP21 Tooll

• A plastics and resin manufacturing facility reduced its methanol usage by changing its
mold release solvent and cleaning solvent from methanol to isopropyl alcohol. fClick to
view facility details in the P2 Tooll

You can learn more about pollution prevention opportunities in this sector bv using the TRI
Pollution Prevention fP21 Search Tool.

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Paint and Coating Manufacturing
What the Sector Does

The paint and coating sector
manufactures products that protect
and beautify the surfaces to which
they are applied
from homes, cars,
and manufactured
products to _ _

bridges and V f

other structures.

surfaces to which

THE SECTOR

EMPLOYS Mil

34,000 If

PEOPLE

U.S. Census Annual Survey of Manufactures 2016 data

THE SECTOR

CONTRIBUTES
$13 BILLION

TO U.S. GDP

In value-added. U.S. Census Annual Survey of Manufactures 2016 data

This map shows the locations of the paint and coating manufacturing facilities that reported to
TRI for 2017. Click on a facility for details on their TRI reporting.

-------
kvEPA

TRI National Analysis 2017

www.epa.gov/trinationalanalvsis/
March 2019

Winnipeg

Sacramento
San •

Resno L» Ve^

^^ngsles
San Diego (I

_SILoi«5 *®

Ml- •- OUR • e ) *

• L'tii'^ill-

T'hlladdphla

_• •

• ffiVaihiriglon

Nashville* Kno*ille»
Memphis TENNESSEE

f.*>4

• Richmond Norfolk
9 Raleigh

¦NA -1
^lew Orleans

Tormon

Monterrey

MEXICO

San Luis
Polost

Guadalajara

Mofer

Mexico City "Puebla

Prince REPUmiC San lit

I amaka HArrf samo ruutri^ico

Kingston Domingo

Paint and Coating Manufacturing Facilities Reporting to TRI, 2017

Paint and Coating Manufacturing Waste Management Trend

The following graph shows the annual quantities of TRI chemicals managed as waste by the
paint and coating manufacturing industry.

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Production-Related Waste Managed:
Paint and Coating Manufacturing

140

120

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year

Disposed of or Otherwise Released
Energy Recovery
•Production

Treated
i Recycled

From 2007 to 2017:

• Production-related waste managed by the paint and coating sector decreased from 2007
through 2009, following the trend of reduced production resulting from the economic
recession. Since 2009, quantities of waste managed increased through 2014, at which
point production-related waste began to decrease. Overall, waste quantities have
decreased by 22%.

• Production (represented by the black line as reported by the Federal Reserve Board,
Industrial Production Index) increased by 2%.

From 2016 to 2017:

• Production-related waste decreased by 14% (16 million pounds). This is driven by one
facility that reported no recycling of methanol for 2017 but had reported over 15 million
pounds recycled per year in prior years.

• In 2017, only 4% of the sector's waste was released into the environment, while the
rest was managed through treatment, energy recovery, and recycling.

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Paint and Coating Manufacturing Releases Trend

The following graph shows the annual quantities of TRI chemicals released by the paint and
coating manufacturing industry.

Total Disposal or Other Releases:

Paint and Coating Manufacturing

-a
c

3 4

<4-

J 2

lli¦iI¦iiIi

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year

On-site Air Releases
On-site Land Disposal

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

From 2007 to 2017:

• The sector's total disposal or other releases decreased by 26% (1.3 million pounds)
since 2007. This is primarily due to reductions in releases to air.

From 2016 to 2017:

• Total releases decreased by 11% (0.5 million pounds), driven by continued reductions in
air emissions.

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Solvent Use in the Paint and Coating Manufacturing Sector

Certain volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) are used in the paint and coating sector as solvents.
Solvents are used to dissolve or suspend other chemicals, such as pigments in paint. Organic
solvents are often used because they dry quickly when exposed to air, a property desirable for
most paint and coating applications. Many organic solvent chemicals used by the Paint and
Coating Manufacturing sector are included on the TRI chemical list. For years, the sector has
been implementing efforts to reduce the use and release of solvents. This graph shows the
trend in air releases of five solvents that this sector reported releasing in the largest quantities.

vvEPA

Air Releases of Key Solvents:
Paint and Coating Manufacturing

Year

Air releases • Production

Includes releases of xylene (mixed isomers), toluene, methanol, n-butyl alcohol, and 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene.
Production Index source: Federal Reserve Board

• Total releases of these five key solvents from the paint and coating industry have
dropped by 842 thousand pounds (37%) since 2007. This is largely due to a reduction in
air releases, which decreased 42% since 2007.

• Many facilities in this industry reported changing cleaning solvents or reformulating
products to reduce their use of TRI-reportable hazardous solvents. Facilities gave
various reasons for these changes, including VOC regulations, industry trends toward
lower-VOC products, and a continuing desire to reduce toxics in their products.

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Lead in the Paint and Coating Manufacturing Sector

Although lead was banned from consumer paints in the U.S. in 1978, it may still be used in
some paints and coatings, such as those for industrial use. Lead use by the paint and coating
sector has greatly declined over several decades, with continuing reductions in recent years.

vvEPA

Lead and Lead Compounds Released by Paint and

Coating Facilities

35,000

~o
c

Q-

30,000

25,000

o
o

20,000

¦a

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

In 2017:

• 59% of all lead releases in the sector were from facilities owned by PPG. PPG has
announced plans to phase out lead from its industrial paints bv 2020.

Source Reduction in the Paint and Coating Sector:

Eleven percent of paint and coating manufacturing facilities initiated source reduction activities
in 2017. The most commonly reported types of source reduction activitites were process
modifications and good operating practices. For example:

• A paint manufacturing facility reduced the amount of solvent used in its raw materials
and replaced it with more environmentally friendly material. \Click to view facility details
in the Pollution Prevention fP21 Tooll

• A coating manufacturer has seen decreases in its releases of lead compounds as it has
moved customers away from the use of leaded pigments. fClick to view facility details in
the P2 Tooll

You can learn more about pollution prevention opportunities in this sector bv using the TRI
Pollution Prevention fP21 Search Tool.

-------
kvEPA

TRI National Analysis 2017

www.epa.gov/trinationalanalvsis/
March 2019

Chemical Manufacturing

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

745,000

PEOPLE

U.S. Census Annual Survey of Manufactures 2016 data

THE SECTOR

CONTRIBUTES
$400 BILLION

TO U.S. GDP

In value-added. U.S. Census Annual Survey of Manufactures 2016 data

This map shows the locations of the chemical manufacturing facilities that reported to TRI for
2017. Click on a facility for details on their TRI reporting.

-------
kvEPA

TRI National Analysis 2017

www.epa.gov/trinationalanalvsis/
March 2019

* m .-v—

MEXICO

San Luis
Polosi

Ouerfila.o .

Mexico Crty oPuebla

Pnnce MTUHUC San.

u<£* HArrf sanio rui

Kingston Domingo

Chemical Manufacturing Facilities Reporting to TRI, 2017

For 2017, the chemical manufacturing sector had the most facilities (3,449, 16% of facilities
that reported for 2017) report to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) and reported 51% of all
production-related waste managed, more than any other sector.

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Chemical Manufacturing Waste Management Trend

The following graph shows the annual quantities of TRI chemicals managed as waste by the
chemical manufacturing industry.

vvEPA

Production-Related Waste Managed:
Chemical Manufacturing

18,000

O
Q_

o 9,000

c
o

= 6,000
3,000
0

H III

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year

Disposed of or Otherwise Released Treated

Energy Recovery Recycled

Production

120

105 ?
o

90 =

75 =

Tj
o
o

30 ii

l->

o
o

15 3

From 2007 to 2017:

• Production-related waste managed by the chemical manufacturing sector increased by
51%, while production (represented by the black line as reported by the Federal
Reserve Board, Industrial Production Indexl decreased by 19%.

o The large increase in recycled waste starting in 2014 was primarily due to an
increase in the quantity of cumene recycled by one facility and dichloromethane
recycled by another facility.

o Excluding those two facilities, total production-related waste managed by the
sector decreased by 6%.

• Quantities of TRI chemicals released, treated, or combusted for energy recovery
decreased, while the quantities of TRI chemicals recycled increased.

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

From 2016 to 2017:

• Production-related waste managed at chemical manufacturing facilities increased by 2.5
billion pounds (20%), largely due to a 1.5 billion pound increase in the quantity of
dichloromethane recycled by one plastics manufacturing facility.

• In 2017, only 3% of this sector's waste was released into the environment, while the
rest was managed through treatment, energy recovery, and recycling.

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Chemical Manufacturing Releases Trend

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

600

500 g ¦ | I l I I | |

100

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

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year

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

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

From 2007 to 2017:

• Total releases by the chemical manufacturing sector decreased by less than 1%.

• The distribution of releases has changed during this time period with reduced releases
to air and increased disposal to land. This change has been driven largely by decreased
air releases of common chemicals including methanol, carbonvl sulfide, and hydrochloric
acid, and increased land disposal of many metal compounds such as barium compounds
and zinc compounds.

From 2016 to 2017:

• Total releases decreased by 0.5 million pounds (<1%).

• For 2017, the chemical manufacturing sector reported larger air release quantities than
any other sector, accounting for 25% of all reported quantities of TRI chemicals emitted
to air.

vvEPA

Total Disposal or Other Releases:
Chemical Manufacturing

¦ ¦ i i j I i i i i

H+hHH+HH

i 1 1 1 1 1 r

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Source Reduction in the Chemical Manufacturing Sector:

Although chemical manufacturing has consistently been the sector with the most production-
related waste managed, 10% of facilities (over 300 facilities) in this sector initiated source
reduction activities in 2017 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,

• An artificial and synthetic fibers and filaments manufacturing facility reduced waste by
changing from soft water to demineralized water in a process solution bath. The
previous water supply was found to be high in sulfates, which interfered with reactivity
and catalysis, and the change improved bath solution quality and efficiency. fClick to
view facility details in the Pollution Prevention rP21 Tooll

• A synthetic dye and pigment manufacturing facility reduced its nitrate compound use by
developing a new dissolution process replacing nitric acid with hydrochloric acid. fClick
to view facility details in the P2 Tooll

Resources

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

TRI's Pollution Prevention Search Tool can help you learn more about 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.

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Metal Mining

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,
silver, gold,

and several A

other metals. ©

THE SECTOR

EMPLOYS

38,000

PEOPLE

U.S. Census County Business Patterns 2016 data

VALUE OF MINE

PRODUCTION
$26 BILLION

USGS Mineral Commodities Summary 2017 data

Note: Both metrics include all metal mining sectors; not limited to
those covered by TRI.

This map shows the locations of the metal mining facilities that reported to TRI for 2017. Click
on a facility for details on their TRI reporting. Mines are shown on this map based on their
longitude/latitude which may be miles from the city 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 reports.

-------
kvEPA

TRI National Analysis 2017

www.epa.gov/trinationalanalvsis/
March 2019

• •• ¦

Lake City

•;B *.»»

Milwaukee gi.ui'J Rapidt.

Delioil-.

• Philadelphia
o^aihir

Fresno L?s Vefja:.

• 0

Los Angeles
San Diegoo. *

r'„ Raleigh
Chalolle ,> NORTH

MEXICO

San Luis
Polosi

® Jacksonvil
Oilarelo

0.„«U,o '

Mexico City nPuebla

Rtrumic San j

Samo ruutromco
Domingo

Metal Mines Reporting to TRI, 2017

For 2017, 85 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, as well as Alaska. Metals generated from U.S. mining operations are
used in a wide range of products, including automobiles and electric and industrial equipment,
as well as jewelry and decorative objects. The extraction and beneficiation or other processing
of these minerals generate large amounts of on-site land disposals, primarily of metals included
on the TRI list of chemicals contained in the ore and waste rock. Metal mining operations are
subject to federal and state regulations.

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Metal Mining Waste Management Trend

The following graph shows the annual quantities of TRI chemicals managed as waste by the
metal mining industry from 2007 to 2017, mainly in the form of on-site land disposal.

2,500

Production-Related Waste Managed,
Metal Mining

3.0 e.

2.4 o

1.8

1.2

-- 0.6 y

0.0 ?.

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year

m Disposed of or Otherwise Released Treated

¦ Energy Recovery Recycled

•—Mine Production

From 2007 to 2017:

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

• Besides production, 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 and waste rock, which can vary substantially from year to year. In some cases, small
changes in the waste rock's composition can impact whether chemicals in waste rock
qualify for a concentration-based exemption from TRI reporting in one year but not in
the next year or vice versa.

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

From 2016 to 2017:

• The quantity of TRI chemical waste disposed of or otherwise released by this sector
increased by 434 million pounds (29%) between 2016 and 2017, largely driven by a 326
million pound increase reported by one facility.

• During 2017, 97% of the metal mining sector's production-related waste was disposed
of or otherwise released. The majority of this waste consisted of metals, which were
primarily disposed of to land on site.

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

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.

Total Disposal or Other Releases,
Metal Mining

2,500

2,000

o 1,500

Q-

O 1,000

500

~i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year

On-site Air Releases
i On-site Land Disposal

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

From 2007 to 2017:

More than 99% of the metal mining sector's releases were in the form of on-site land
disposal. The quantity of on-site land disposal by metal mines has fluctuated in recent
years.

Several mines have reported that changes in production and changes in the chemical
composition of the deposit being mined are the primary causes of fluctuations in the
amount of chemicals reported as disposed of on site.

Metal mining facilities typically handle large volumes of material, and even a small
change in the chemical composition of the deposit being mined can lead to big changes
in the amount of TRI chemicals reported.

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.

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

In 2017:

• The metal mining sector reported the largest quantity of total disposal or other releases,
accounting for 50% of total TRI releases and 72% of on-site land disposal for all
industries.

Source Reduction in the Metal Mining Sector:

None of the 85 metal mining facilities reported initiating source reduction activities for TRI
chemicals in 2017. Unlike manufacturing, the nature of mining—the necessary movement and
disposal of TRI chemicals present in large volumes of earth to access the target ore—does not
lend itself to source reduction. TRI's Pollution Prevention Search Tool can help you learn more
about pollution prevention opportunities in this sector.

-------
kvEPA

TRI National Analysis 2017

www.epa.gov/trinationalanalvsis/
March 2019

Electric Utilities

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

507,000

PEOPLE

U.S. Census County Business Patterns 2016 data. Includes all fuel types
for electricity generation; not limited to those fuels covered by TRI

THE SECTOR

GENERATES
909 MILLION

MWh

U.S. Department of Energy 2017 data by electric utilities that combust
coal or oil for electricity generation

This map shows the locations of the electric utilities that combust coal or oil to generate power
for distribution in commerce and reported to TRI for 2017. Click on a facility for details on their
TRI reporting.

-------
kvEPA

TRI National Analysis 2017

www.epa.gov/trinationalanalvsis/
March 2019

mmM''

0Min^ea|0^.£

•; • #

% ifhwaiikae Grand Rapid'. .

• • i a a

T0f0rt0o^j«> Qnl*/-n

* #Rochatler .*

Lake City

(

• V

GREAT PLAINS • ^ChlcagOo 9

NEBRASKA £ | £ Clwaah#© ^ j -

UNITED •• '

«*.#• T..... s£r

MLS • • Greenville" *

j^illadelphla
lUitjjglon

if onmA
Fresno' L« Vegas*

Los Angeles
San Diegoa.

I m •Boston

Plioenl*

CA*
SanAnt^io ^

* •

lorreon

Mprterrey

MEXICO

San Lias
Polosi

Guadalajara

n DallaW^

» tife • Atlanta

bust on

Pack>onville

• V

r,a

assr*

Mexico Crty nPuebla

Prince. REPUBLIC Son Juai

iamaica HArrf Santo rut

Kingston Domingo

Electric Utilities Reporting to TRI, 2017

For 2017, 474 electricity generating facilities that combust coal or oil reported to TRI.

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/

March 2019

Electric Utilities Waste Management Trend

The following graph shows the annual quantities of TRI chemicals electric utility facilities
manage as waste.

vvEPA

Production-Related Waste Managed,
Electric Utilities

1.5

1.2

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year

Disposed of or Otherwise Released Treated
Energy Recovery Recycled

< Electricity Generation

0.9

0.6 £

-o
-*
o

-- 0.3

0.0

From 2007 to 2017:

• Production-related waste managed decreased by 557 million pounds (29%) since 2007,
driven by reduced releases.

• Net electricity generation decreased by 41% (in terms of electricity generated by electric
utilities using coal and oil fuels 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 transition to natural gas, as only facilities that combust coal or
oil to produce power are covered under TRI reporting requirements.

In 2017:

• Approximately three-quarters of the production-related waste was treated, while one-
quarter was released to the environment.

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

o This is in contrast to 2007, when over half of the waste was released. This trend
is largely due to an increase in scrubbers at electric utilities that treat (or
destroy) TRI-reportable acid gases that would otherwise be released on site to
the air.

vvEPA

100

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Electric Utilities Releases Trend

The following graph shows the annual quantities of TRI chemicals electric utility facilities
released or disposed.

Total Disposal or Other Releases:

Electric Utilities

1,250

IS)

1,000

O
O.

750

<4-

IS)

500

250

Hi.

UJill

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year

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

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

From 2007 to 2017:

• Releases from the electric utilities sector decreased by 66%. This decrease was driven
by an 87% decrease in on-site air releases. On-site land disposal, on-site surface water
discharges, and off-site disposal also decreased, but to a lesser extent.

From 2016 to 2017:

• Releases by electric utilities decreased by 6% (20 million pounds). This decrease was
driven by reductions in on-site land disposal, off-site disposal, and continued reductions
in air emissions.

101

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Source Reduction in the Electric Utilities Sector:

In the electric utilities sector, 10 facilities (2% of the electric utility facilities reporting to TRI)
initiated source reduction activities in 2017 to reduce their use of TRI chemicals and generation
of wastes that contain TRI chemicals. Note that adding treatment equipment is considered a
control technology for TRI chemical waste that is generated, and is not a source reduction
activity that prevents waste from being generated. The most commonly reported types of
source reduction activities for this sector were good operating practices and spill and leak
prevention. TRI's Pollution Prevention Search Tool can help you learn more about pollution
prevention opportunities in this sector.

102

-------
kvEPA

TRI National Analysis 2017

www.epa.gov/trinationalanalvsis/
March 2019

Federal Facilities

This map shows the locations of the federal facilities that reported to Toxics Release Inventory
(TRI) in 2017. Click on a facility for details on their TRI reporting.

% f, f—O

ft.

° r.

• •

Monti ea I

Minneapolis — ibka Ottawa

. ^ ,

• o Rochest«r ^ " a *#
Buflalo * • . B-l

Salt Mf f)HA .ka * * C lev Ian do a* * • • •P|'vl<'Qnc

LJ,e#lU * * . OH.O h h <*. -

i„ uN.TfD lu*"i'L» , cZL " ^ °

STATES ....c, c"JL V"

?». • ; • •. r *

. :*r ~ ui '¦

— . «w.*

'• . . . .v.,/' •

' "h®* «.««.*.~ • * - •••

'i . " - '•

s"nD,°M^^- 'V * »" *• "°°M" ' •

. • El.Pasfc# ••

> TEXtS» . * . <

Austin 7*.-una - . •- •• "

> •*

MEXICO

<£» ear*

aiico Cifyi opuebla _ _ ^^J,nce 'fta>UBUC San Ji

|AMAI£A ll.Vrrf sarto l'UniT<*Kll O

Federal Facilities Reporting to TRI, 2017

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 U.S. EPA, are subject to the Toxics Release Inventory (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.

103

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Federal Facilities by Industry

The following chart shows the number of federal facilities reporting to TRI by sector for 2017.

Police Protection
(e.g., firing range):
5%

Correctional
Institutions (e.g.,
federal prison):
13%

Federal Facilities by Sector, 2017
458 facilities

Electric Power
Generation (e.g.,
coal power plant):

3% \

All Others: 17%

National Security
(e.g., US Army
Base): 63%

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

For 2017, 458 federal facilities in 39 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. All federal
facilities are subject to TRI reporting requirements regardless of their sector. Therefore, for
some industry sectors, the TRI database only includes data from federal facilities. More than
three-quarters of federal facilities are in such sectors, including Military Bases (63%);
Correctional Institutions (13%); and Police Protection, such as training sites for Border Patrol
stations (5%).

As with non-federal facilities, activities at federal facilities drive the types and quantities of
waste managed that is reported. Some of the activities at federal facilities that are captured by

104

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

TRI reporting are similar to those at non-federal facilities, such as hazardous waste treatment.
In other cases, federal facilities may report waste managed from specialized activities that are
not usually performed by non-federal facilities. For example, all of the federal facilities included
under Police Protection and Correctional Institutions only reported for lead and lead
compounds, likely due to the use of lead ammunition on firing ranges at these facilities.

105

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Waste Management by Federal Facilities

The following pie chart shows the percentages of TRI chemicals managed as waste by federal
government organizations in 2017.

Production-Related Waste by
Government Organization, 2017
146.8 million pounds

All Others:

Department of
the Treasury:
11%

Tennessee Valley.
Authority:

40%

Department of
Defense:
47%

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

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

o The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is a government-owned electric utility that
provides power to southeastern states. Out of the 18 TVA facilities that reported
to TRI for 2017, virtually all of the TRI production-related waste comes from the
fossil fuel plants that report in the Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation sector.
Nearly 80% of their 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
nickeO to TRI. All of their metal waste is recycled off site.

106

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Source Reduction at Federal Facilities:

Since federal facilities are subject to TRI reporting regardless of their industry sector
classification, their operations are diverse and few focus on manufacturing processes. Due to
their unique functions, some federal facilities may face challenges in implementing source
reduction strategies to reduce chemical waste. For the 2017 reporting year, 13 federal facilities
(3%) reported implementing source reduction activities.

Federal facilities have often indicated barriers in reducing use of lead because it is contained in
ammunition used at National Security and Park Service facilities. In 2017, several federal
facilities reported using green ammuntion in accordance with National Park Service policy to use
nonlead ammunition where feasible. To find more examples of federal facilities' source
reduction activities and the barriers they face to implementing source reduction, visit TRI's
Pollution Prevention Search Tool and select industry sectors such as National Security,
Correctional Institutions or Police Protection from the dropdown menu under "search criteria."

107

-------
kvEPA

TRI National Analysis 2017

www.epa.gov/trinationalanalvsis/
March 2019

Where You Live

This section of the National Analysis looks at disposal and other releases of Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI) chemicals that occurred at various geographic levels throughout the United
States during 2017.

Legend Data to Display:

H " Basemap ~

Show map by: ® States O Metropolitan Areas O Watersheds O Tribal

108

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

States and Metropolitan Areas

For TRI purposes, "states" includes all U.S. territories. For 2017, all 56 states and territories had
facilities that reported releases to the TRI Program. Texas, Ohio, and California had the most
facilities that reported to TRI, and together accounted for 20% of total TRI-reporting facilities in
2017.

More than 80% of the United States' population and many of the industrial 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.

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 based on water flowing down through the land area above them.

Large aquatic ecosystems (LAEs) comprise multiple small watersheds and water resources
within a large geographic area. The Large Aquatic Ecosystems Council was created by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency in 2008 to focus on protecting and restoring the health of
critical aquatic ecosystems. Currently, there are 10 LAEs in this program.

Water pollution, surface runoff, contaminated sediment, discharges of chemicals, and air
emissions can affect the quality of the land, water, and living resources within an aquatic
ecosystem. Persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals can be especially problematic in
aquatic ecosystems because pollutants can accumulate in sediments and may bioaccumulate in
aquatic organisms and the tissues of fish and other wildlife within the food chain to
concentrations many times higher than in the water or air, which ultimately may cause
environmental health problems for humans and wildlife.

109

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Total Disposal or Other Releases within Large Aquatic
Ecosystems, 2017

Air

i Water

Land

Gulf of Mexico (337

lion

lb)

Great Lakes (222

lion

lb)

Columbia River Basin (97

lion

lb)

Chesapeake Bay (35

lion

lb)

San Francisco Bay Delta (16

lion

lb)

Puget Sound - Georgia Basin (6

lion

lb)

Long Island Sound (3

lion

lb)

South Florida (2

lion

lb)

Lake Champlain Basin (741 thousand lb)
Pacific Islands (512 thousand lb)

Total Off-site Disposal or Other Releases

i I I i

0% 20% 40% 60%

Percent of Total

80%

100%

Total Disposal or Other Releases within Large Aquatic
Ecosystems per Square Mile, 2017

Gulf of Mexico
Great Lakes
Pacific Islands
Chesapeake Bay
Columbia River Basin
Puget Sound - Georgia Basin
San Francisco Bay Delta
South Florida
Long Island Sound
Lake Champlain Basin

500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Pounds perSq. Mile

2,500 3,000

3,500

110

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

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 Indjan.country 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 2017, there were 41 facilities located in the Indian country of 18 different federally
recognized tribes. These facilities collectively reported 31 million pounds of production-related
waste and 10 million pounds of releases (total disposal or other releases). Of the releases
reported, 96% of the TRI releases in Indian country occurred on site, and 90% of these
releases were disposal to land reported by electric utilities and metal mining facilities. In 2017,
these facilities primarily released metal compounds such as lead and barium. Lead is 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 waste management
reported by facilities on federally recognized tribal lands.

Quick Facts for 2017: Facilities on Tribal Lands

Measure

Value

Number of Facilities that Reported to TRI

Number of Tribes with TRI Facilities

Production-Related Waste Managed

30.84 million lb

Recycled

12.15 million lb

Energy Recovery

3.19 million lb

Treated

5.36 million lb

Disposed or Otherwise Released

10.14 million lb

Total Disposal or Other Releases

10.14 million lb

On-site

9.76 million lb

Air

0.60 million lb

Water

1.22 thousand lb

vvEPA

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Measure

Value

Land

9.16 million lb

Off-site

0.37 million lb

The interactive chart below lists the federally recognized tribes with at least one TRI-reporting
facility on their lands, and includes various data related to TRI releases by the facilities located
on those lands. Use the buttons in the top gray row to filter the data by industry sector,
chemical, and/or tribe. The blue dropdown button on the left allows you to view the data
differently by changing which chart is displayed. Visit the TRI for Tribal Communities Olik
dashboard to explore even more information about releases of chemicals on or near tribal
lands. Additional information about all TRI facilities is also available in the full 2017 TRI National
Analysis Olik dashboard.

vvEPA

112

-------
kvEPA

TRI National Analysis 2017

www.epa.gov/trinationalanalvsis/
March 2019

Select an Industry Sector

Select a Chemical

Select a Tribe

Select charts from this menu

Clear Selections

Releases by Tribe

Number of Facilities by Tribe Total Releases by Tribe, 2017

Releases by Facility
Releases by Chemical
Releases by Industry Sector
Releases by Media and Year

Total Releases for 18 Tribes: 10,143.007 lbs

Ute Indian Tribe of th...

49.555 Tohono O'Qdham N.„

Coeur D'Alene Tribe {p..
Navajo Nation, Arizon...
Puyallup Tribe of the P..
Tohono O'odham Nati...
Ute Indian Tribe of the..
Others

23.41

N avail

Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah

Tribe: ¦ Navajo Nation, Arizona,

New Mexico & Utah
Releases (lbs): 2,373,268

Share: 23.4%

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 a link to a fact sheet with more information about TRI facilities on each tribe's
land. Click on a column header to change the sorting of the table.

113

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017

www.epa.gov/trinationalanalvsis/
March 2019

Total Disposal or Other Releases on Tribal Lands by Tribe, 2017

Tribes with TRI Facilities Located on or Within 10 Miles of Their Tribal Lands in 2017

This table is interactive - click the column headers to change the sorting of the table.

Tribe Q.

Total Releases (lbs)

Number of Facilities

Fact Sheet

Totals

10,143,007

Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona

5,021.595

Link

Navajo Nation, Arizona. New Mexico & Utah

2.373,268

Link

Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah

1,911,791

Link

Puyallup Tribe of the Puyaliup Reservation

565,960

Link

Coeur D'Alene Tribe (previously listed as the Coeur D?Alene Tribe of the Coeur D'Alene
Reservation, Idaho)

117,441

Link

Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation

108,934

Link

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians

37,315

Link

Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming

2,741

Link

Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan

2,437

Link

Colorado River Indian Tribes of the Colorado River Indian Reservation, Arizona and
California

766

Link

Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin

314

Link

Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona

290

Link

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona

118

Link

Tulalip Trides of Washington (previously listed as the Tulalip Tribes of the Tulatip
Reservation. Washington)

Link

Nez Perce Tribe (previously listed as Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho)

Link

Chickasaw Nation

Link

Suquamish Indian Trihe of the Port Madison Reservation

Link

Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma

Link

Additional resources for tribes are available on the TRI for Tribal Communities weboaae. The
webpage includes more detailed analyses of TRI data, links to other online tools, and Tribal
Program Manager contact information.

*>EPA

114

-------
kvEPA

TRI National Analysis 2017

www.epa.gov/trinationalanalvsis/
March 2019

TRI and Beyond

The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is a powerful resource that provides the public with
information about how TRI chemicals are managed by facilities in the United States. However,
there are many other programs at EPA that collect information about chemicals and the
environment.

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 area, TRI covers releases of chemicals to air, water, and land; waste transfers; and waste
management activities. As a result, TRI data are especially valuable, as they can be utilized with
many 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.

- Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA)

U u

- Clean Air Act (CAA)

- Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA)

- Federal Insecticide.
Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act fFIFRA)

- Resource Conservation
Recovery Act (RCRA)

- Clean Water Act (CWA)

- Ocean Dumping Act
fODA)

- Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA)

- Comprehensive Environmental
Response. Compensation, and
Liability Act ICERCLAi

- Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act fRCRAl

Note: The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCFLA) establishes requirements
for emergency planning, preparedness, and reporting on hazardous and toxic chemicals involving
air releases, water releases, land disposal, waste transfers, and waste management.

115

-------
v>EPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Throughout EPA, offices use TRI data to support their mission to protect human health and the
environment. These uses include analyzing TRI data to inform decisions such as when setting
program priorities, providing information to stakeholders such as when working with
communities toward a common goal, and many other applications.

This section of the National Analysis highlights how TRI data complement Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) data and risk evaluations, and how TRI has served as a model for other
pollutant release and transfer inventories around the world.

116

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

TSCA and TRI

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA1. as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical
Safety for the 21st Century Act, is the nation's primary chemicals management law. Under
TSCA, existing chemicals in commerce and new chemicals intended for use in commerce are
reviewed for safety through a risk-based process with increased public transparency.

The three stages of EPA's process for evaluating the safety of existing chemicals are
prioritization, risk evaluation, and risk management. During both the prioritization and risk
evaluation stages of the process, TRI serves as a source of information, as illustrated in the
figure below.

vvEPA

PRIORITIZATION

RISK EVALUATION

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
—Facility-level

General
population

TRI data provides
chemical use information

Occupational
Ecological

1 1 1

and both voluntary and
mandatory P2 information

that may help inform risk
management decisions.

—Certified

Multiple sources
of information
(including TRI data)

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 is well suited to help inform
prioritization of chemicals for risk evaluation because TRI data contain information on release
quantities of TRI chemicals to air, water and land, and the locations of these releases, and are
submitted annually. Note that designation as a TRI chemical by itself does not determine high
or low priority for a chemical.

117

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Risk evaluation. A TSCA risk evaluation of a chemical is a comprehensive evaluation of the
risk the chemical poses to human health and the environment over the chemical's life cycle. The
conditions of use for the chemical are evaluated, which may include manufacturing and import,
processing, use, and disposal. During risk evaluation, EPA is required to assess occupational
exposure, as well as general population exposure, and exposure to ecological receptors that
may be sensitive to the potential hazards posed by the chemical under review. The TRI is a
useful source of information for assisting in estimating these exposures, as it contains release
quantities of TRI chemicals to air, water, and land, the locations of these releases, as well as
information on use and waste management practices that may lead to exposure.

EPA uses TRI data as an information source to estimate and analyze environmental releases
from industrial uses of the chemical in the risk evaluation. The figure below provides an
example of a water release assessment for a chemical throughout the multiple phases of its
industrial life cycle. At each life cycle phase, both the number of sites and quantity released are
determined based on the TRI data. The release assessment estimates the amount of the
chemical entering the environment, which can subsequently be used to model exposures of
general populations and environmental species for each condition of use. To complete the risk
evaluation stage, EPA makes a risk determination stating whether a chemical substance
presents an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment under its conditions of use.

vvEPA

Release Assessment

for Perchloroethylene

rrrm

ill

MANUFACTURING

REACTANT / INTERMEDIATE

INDUSTRIAL USES

WASTE HANDLING, DISPOSAL, TREATMENT

2 sites, 33 Ib/yr released to water

8 sites, 414 Ib/yr released to water

17 sites, 207 Ib/yr released to water

8 sites, 1,179 Ib/yr released to water

Surface

Water

Non-POTW WWT

Surface Water POTW

( POTW Non-POTW WWT

96%

80% 20%

60% 40%

18% 82%

i—

! ! 1 1 1 I

IMPORT / REPACKAGING

INCORPORATION INTO FORMULATION

1 site, 615 Ib/yr released to water

3 sites, 3,701 Ib/yr released to water

Non-POTW WWT

POTW Non-POTW WWT

100%

6% 94%

f r

Creation

Processing

(fi
CO

Disposal

Management. If EPA determines that a chemical presents an unreasonable risk to human

health or the environment, EPA will evaluate options for mitigating the risks. EPA is required to
implement, via regulation, restrictions on the manufacture, processing, distribution, use and/or
disposal of the chemical to eliminate the unreasonable risk. EPA is given a range of risk

118

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

management options under TSCA, including labeling, recordkeeping or notice requirements,
actions to reduce human exposure or environmental release, or a ban of the chemical or of
certain uses of the chemical. TRI data, such as on chemical use and pollution prevention, may
be used to inform these risk management decisions.

vvEPA

119

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Chemicals to be Evaluated under TSCA

In 2017, EPA published the scope of the risk evaluations to be conducted for the initial ten
chemicals undergoing risk evaluation under the amended TSCA. Of these ten chemicals, seven
are fully covered on the TRI list of chemicals, two are partially covered by TRI, and one is not
on the TRI chemical list. For the TRI-listed chemicals, TRI can provide valuable information to
the TSCA assessment process and serves as a tool for tracking the nation's progress toward
reduced environmental releases. This figure shows the trend in TRI-reported releases of the
TSCA chemicals currently undergoing risk evaluation that are fully TRI-listed.

vvEPA

Total Disposal or Other Releases, by Chemical

10.0

/V /

hemicals
ids)

/ N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone

J Dichloromethane

Trichloroethylene

O 5

n §.

CD O 3.U

if) (/)

4— C

o o
cn =
CD P
03 w

- 25

T etrachloroethylene
1.4-Dioxane

Carbon tetrachloride

0.0

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

TRI reporting for 1-Bromopropane began in Reporting Year 2016.

120

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Source Reduction Activities for Chemicals to be Evaluated under
TSCA

In addition to information on release quantities, TRI contributes information on the types of
source reduction activities implemented by facilities to reduce the quantity of the chemical
generated as waste. This figure shows the source reduction activities reported to TRI for the
initial ten chemicals undergoing risk evaluation under the amended TSCA.

vvEPA

Newly Implemented Source Reduction Activities for TRI Chemicals to be Evaluated under

TSCA, 2013-2017

400

T3
0)

-t—'

O 350

CD
CC

IS 300

Good Operating Practices

¦ Spill and Leak Prevention

¦ Inventory Control

¦ Surface Preparation and Finishing

Process Modifications
Raw Material Modifications
I Product Modifications
Cleaning and Degreasing

341
activities

256
activities

178
activities

118
activities

activities

N-Methyl-2-Pyrrolidone Dichloromethane Trichloroethylene Tetrachloroethylene 1-Bromopropane*

activities

Carbon Tetrachloride

*TRI reporting for 1-Bromopropane began in Reporting Year 2016

Note: 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.

121

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Barriers to Source Reduction for Chemicals to be Evaluated under
TSCA

Facilities that report to TRI have the option to describe barriers that have prevented the
implementation of source reduction activities. The figure below shows the barriers reported to
TRI for the initial ten chemicals undergoing risk evaluation under the amended TSCA.

vvEPA

300

(U 250

200

™ 150

100

Reported Barriers to Source Reduction for TRI Chemicals to be Evaluated under TSCA,

2014-2017

¦ Insufficient capital ¦ Technical information needed

¦ Product quality concerns I Source reduction unsuccessful
Regulatory barriers ¦ Further source reduction not feasible

¦ No known substitutes ¦ Other barriers

283
barriers

rs 60

barriers

bamers barrjers

N-Methyl-2-Pyrrolidone Dichloromethane Trichloroethylene Tetrachloroethylene 1,4-Dioxane 1-Bromopropane* Carbon Tetrachloride

*TRI reporting for 1-Bromopropane began in Reporting Year 2016

Note: Facilities optionally report their barriers by checking boxes that describe barriers to source reduction that they
faced. They may also provide text information related to the barrier.

122

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017

LJP# www.epa.gov/trinationalanalvsis/
March 2019

TRI Around the World

In 1986, the TRI Program was established as the first national Pollutant Release and Transfer
Register (PRTR) in the world. Since then, environmental agencies around the world have been
increasingly implementing their own PRTR programs with the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
serving as a model. Currently, at least 50 countries have fully established PRTRs or have
implemented pilot programs, as shown in the map below. More are expected to be developed
over the coming years, particularly in Asian, South American, and African countries.

No Information

Source: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, 2016

As global PRTR implementation continues to grow, the TRI Program will continue to work with
international organizations to:

• Assist in the development of PRTR programs in other countries

• Encourage other countries to develop initiatives aimed at making existing PRTR data more
comparable to allow better analysis of the data on a global scale

• Make PRTR data more useful for assessing progress towards sustainability

For information on international PRTR activities, projects and partners, see TRI's International
weboaae As an example, the TRI Program is currently working with the Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development (PECD) 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.

123

-------
TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

International Project Spotlight:

Using PRTR Data to Assess Progress toward the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals

Background. The TRI Program is participating in a project to use global PRTR data to assess progress
toward the United Nations' fU.N.I Sustainable Development Goals fSDGsl. 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 countries and stakeholders
take action 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' established PRTR data.

Project Objectives. The project applies and demonstrates the utility of PRTR data to inform SDGs and
has three complementary objectives:

• Developing approaches for using PRTR data for global-scale sustainability analyses,

• Assessing progress towards meeting specific SDG targets through examination of global
chemical pollution trends, and

• Accelerating progress towards meeting specific SDG targets by investigating the drivers of
observed trends and providing an opportunity for knowledge transfer among countries facing

similar chemical pollution challenges.

Initial Focus. The U.N. SDG
Target 12.4 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.

Project Status. Global analyses of PRTR data are currently underway to aggregate data for multiple
chemicals from multiple countries in order to recommend possible metrics to track progress in
reducing chemical releases to the environment. A sample figure below shows the trend for 14
pollutants as reported to 7 PRTRs.

Releases by Industry (kg): 7 PRTRs, 14 pollutants

(III))!))

¦ B-Mining and quarrying ¦ C-Manufacturing B q_Electricity, gas. steam M X-AII other industries

vvEPA

SDG Tarset 12.4

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.

124

-------
oEPA

TRI National Analysis 2017
www.epa.aov/trinationalanalysis/
March 2019

Next steps. As the project progresses and the methods and metrics are reviewed and refined, ideally
the findings would be included in the next update of the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals
Report exit.

Read more about the TRI Around the World.

125

-------