Reported Barriers to Source Reduction in the 2015 TRI National Analysis
See Other Graphics in this Section
If a facility did not implement new source reduction activities, they can optionally provide information about barriers they faced to source reduction.
In 2015:
- Barriers were reported for 263 chemicals.
- The most common barriers were:
- the lack of a substitute or alternative for a chemical or process; and
- previous implementation of source reduction with additional reductions not feasible.
To see examples of reported barriers to source reduction, click on the color-coded legend.
No known substitutes or alternative technologies (44%)
Example:
A hardwood flooring manufacturer is unable to eliminate lead waste because trace lead is found naturally in the trees they use as a raw material. [Click to view facility details in the Pollution Prevention (P2) Tool]
Pollution prevention previously implemented - additional reduction does not appear technically or economically feasible (19%)
Example:
A fabricated metal manufacturer had previously implemented several source reduction activities to reduce chromium waste including storm water pollution prevention practices, inventory control, scrap minimization, and engineering design changes to optimize raw material usage. [Click to view facility details in the P2 Tool]
Concern that product quality may decline as a result of source reduction (12%)
Example:
An aircraft instrument facility found that lead-free solder forms tin whiskers on their circuit cards, which compromises product performance of flight critical hardware. [Click to view facility details in the P2 Tool]
Insufficient capital to install new source reduction equipment or implement new source reduction activities/initiatives (5%)
Example:
An electroplating facility releases lead compounds from anode dissolution during the chrome plating process. The alternative technology, platinum anodes, are cost prohibitive and have not been shown to increase product quality. [Click to view facility details in the P2 Tool]
Specific regulatory/permit burdens (2%)
Example:
In order to comply with air permit limits, a food manufacturing facility uses ammonia to reduce NOx emissions from their boiler stacks. [Click to view facility details in the P2 Tool]
Require technical information on pollution prevention techniques applicable to specific production processes (1%)
Example:
A diagnostic substances manufacturer plans to implement a Green Chemistry team to research alternatives to dichloromethane. [Click to view facility details in the P2 Tool]
Source reduction activities were implemented but were unsuccessful (1%)
Example:
A paint and coating manufacturer uses a component raw material that contains xylene. In previous years, the facility implemented source reduction by improving operating procedures, but the effort did not yield any measured reduction. The facility was also unsuccessful in getting suppliers to make modifications. [Click to view facility details in the P2 Tool]
Other, including customer demand (16%)
Example:
A piano string manufacturer generates copper waste when the facility recycles the old strings that customers send them for the facility to duplicate and replace. [Click to view facility details in the P2 Tool]
This page was published in January 2017 and uses the 2015 TRI National Analysis dataset made public in TRI Explorer in October 2016.