United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
National
f Environmental
—I PerformanceTrack
U.S f-nviron mental Protection Agency
ERFORMANtlEiTRAGK
rz.\
IRTH ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT ,•:•
-------
PERFORMANCE TRACK MEMBERS
As of March 1, 2006
173rd Fighter Wing, Kmgsley Field, Air
National Guard
3M Alexandria
3M Brownwood
3M Company - Austin Research
Boulevard Site
3M Company - Valley
3M Company - Aberdeen
3M Company - Brookings
3M Decatur
3M Eau Claire
3M ESPE
3M Gum
3M Menomome
3M Nevada
3M New Ulm
3M Optical Systems
3M Unitek Corporation
Aaron Oil Company, Inc.
Acushnet Rubber Co, D/B/A PRECIX,
Inc.
Advanced Sterilization Products
AFCO - Associated Fuel Pump Systems
Corporation
Airtex Products, LP
Akzo Nobel Aerospace Coatings, Inc.
ALZA Corporation - Bay Area R&D
Operations
ALZA PSGA EVRA
American Synthetic Rubber Company,
LLC
Amphenol TCS
Andersen Corporation
Applied Materials
Arizona Chemical - Pensacola
Arizona Chemical - Port St. Joe Plant
Arizona Chemical Company - A
Company of International Paper
Arizona Chemical Company - A
Division of IP
Arizona Chemical Company - Valdosta
Arizona Chemical - Dover
ASMO North Carolina, Inc.
Automotive Components Holdings,
LLC - Sheldon Road Plant
Badlands Inn, LLC
Badlands Lodge, LLC
BAE SYSTEMS Controls
BAE SYSTEMS Information and
Electronic Systems Integration
Baker Petrolite - Houston Blend Plant
Baker Petrolite - Rayne Blend Plant
Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp.
BASF Corporation
Bath Iron Works
Battelle Columbus Ohio
Baxter Healthcare - Cleveland
Baxter Caribe, Inc.
Baxter Fenwal Division
Baxter Healthcare - McGaw Park
Baxter Healthcare - Round Lake
Technology Park
Baxter Healthcare Corporation of
Puerto Rico
Baxter Healthcare Corporation
- Irvine, CA
Baxter Healthcare Corporation
- Mountain Home, AR
Baxter Healthcare Corporation of
Puerto Rico - Jayuya Facility
Baxter Transfusion Therapies
Bell Helicopter Textron Amanllo
BFGoodnch Tire Manufacturing
- Opelika
BFGoodnch Tire Manufacturing
- Tuscaloosa
Big Bend Resorts/Chisos Mountains
Lodge
Biosense Webster, Inc.
Black Canyon Willow Beach River
Adventures, LLC
Blue Ridge Paper Products, Inc.
BMW Manufacturing Co. LLC
Boston Scientific - Maple Grove
Weaver Lake Campus
Bndgestone Firestone North American
Tire, LLC - OCK Plant
Bndgestone Firestone North American
Tire, LLC - Warren County
Sridgestone Firestone North American
Tire, LLC - Wilson
Bndgestone Firestone North American
Tire, LLC - Bloomington
Bridgestone Firestone North American
Tire, LLC - LaVergne
Bridgestone Firestone - South Carolina
Brmker's Fuel
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Bristol-Myers Squibb PRI - Wellington
Brookhaven Navy Yard Cogeneration
Partners
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Callville Bay Resort & Marina
Capulin Volcano National Monument
Cardone Industries, Inc
The Cavern Supply Co. Inc.
Centocor, Inc.
Chicago White Metal Casting, Inc.
Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corporation
City of Eugene, Wastewater Division
City of Manassas Maintenance Garage
City of Scottsdale
Coca-Cola North America - Columbus
Syrup Plant
Coca-Cola North America - Lehigh
Valley Plant
Coca-Cola North America - Ontario
Syrup Plant
Collins & Aikman Floorcovermgs
Colonial Acres Golf Course
Columbia Vista - Fruit Valley
Columbia Vista Corporation
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Consumer Products Company
Cordis Corp. - Warren
Cordis Corp. - Miami Lakes
Cordis Neurovascular, Inc.
Cottonwood Cove Resort & Marina
Covanta Haverhill, Inc.
Covanta Hempstead Company
Covanta Mid-Connecticut, Inc.
CYRO Industries
Cytec Olean, Inc.
Dana Corporation - Commercial
Vehicle Systems Division
Dassault Falcon Jet Corp. - Little Rock
Defense Supply Center Richmond
Delta Faucet Company of Tennessee
Delta House Boat Rentals
DENSO Manufacturing Michigan, Inc.
Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc. - New
Bedford
DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. - Raynam
DePuy, Inc.
Dinosaur National Monument
Dow West Virginia Operations, South
Charleston Site
DuPont - Spruance Plant
DuPont - EKC Technology
DuPont - Fort Madison Plant
DuPont - Front Royal
DuPont - Mt. Clemens Plant
DuPont Stine Haskell Research Center
Durango-McKmley Paper Company
Eaton Corporation
Eaton Hydraulics
EMCO Enterprises, Inc.
Endicott Interconnect Technologies,
Inc.
EPA Mid-Atlantic Regional Office
Facility
Epic Resins
Epson Portland Inc
Ethicon - San Angelo
Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. -
Albuquerque
Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. - Cincinnati
Ethicon LLC
Ethicon, Inc - Somerville
Ethicon, Inc - Cornelia
Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation
Fairholme Store & Marina
Federal-Mogul - Boyerton
Firestone Agricultural Tire Company
Ford Atlanta Assembly Plant
Forever Resorts
Forever Resorts Fun Country Marine
West
Forever Resorts Fun Country Marine
Industries
Fort Lewis Public Works
Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.
FUJI Hunt Photographic Chemicals
- Dayton
FUJI Hunt Photographic Chemicals, Inc
- Rolling Meadows
FUJI Hunt Photographic Chemicals, Inc.
- Orange Park
Georgia-Pacific Resins, Inc. - Vienna
Georgia-Pacific Resins, Inc. - Conway
Georgia-Pacific Resins, Inc
- Russellville
Georgia-Pacific Resins, Inc.
- Columbus
Georgia-Pacific Resins, Inc. - Albany
The Gillette Company - Andover
Manufacturing Center
Grand Canyon National Park
Grand Teton Lodge Company
Grundfos Pump Manufacturing
Corporation
Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd.
Hartford Processing and Distribution
Center
Hartford Vehicle Maintenance Facility
Health Care Systems, Inc.
Henkel Corporation
Henkel Loctite
Henkel Technologies - Industry
California
Hewlett Packard - San Diego
Hewlett Packard - Boise Site
Hewlett Packard - Caribe BV
Hewlett Packard - Corvallis Oregon
Site
Hitachi Automotive Products
Honeywell Engines, Systems and
Accessories
Hunter Douglas Tupelo Center
Hurricane Ridge Lodge
IBM - Thomas J. Watson Research
Center
Continued on inside back cover
-------
Executive Summary
Leading Change
Ensuring Change
Recognition and Awareness
Awards
Corporate Leaders
Corporate Social Responsibility
CONTENTS
Learning Network
Regulatory and Administrative Incentives
Reporting and Monitoring
Charting Progress
Highlights of Current Members' Commitments
Highlights of Members' Results Reported in 2005
Caveats to the 2004 Results
8
-.
-
• i
12
12
13
14
1 5
15
15
21
Conclusion
23
-------
"We see Performance Track as a win for Minnesota's environment:
continuous improvement strategies drive better results. We also see it as
a win for Minnesota business: Performance Track provides new marketing
opportunities, branding, and real bottom-line savings."
SHERYL CORRIGAN
Commissioner, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S National
Environmental Performance Track program (Performance Track)
is helping to lead change within EPA and state environmenta
agencies, as well as among facilities in virtually every manufac-
turing sector in the United States. The program uses a range
of positive incentives and benefits to motivate facilities to go
beyond legal requirements.
This report describes the program's progress during 2005,
as well as the environmental
achievements of members in
2004, reported to EPA in 2005.
In 2005, Performance Track
focused on building support
for its approach and the imple-
mentation of its incentives, both
within EPA and in state envi-
ronmental agencies. Program
staff and members met with
senior managers of EPA's Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, and the Office of Air
and Radiation, to discuss key
issues and possible future incen-
tives. A similar meeting with the
Office of Water was held in the autumn of 2004. Each of these
meetings generated specific action steps and follow-up meetings
to pursue new incentives for these high-performing facilities.
In response to a request from former EPA Administrator
Mike Leavitt, the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS)
prepared a report for EPA in January, 2005, on state interest in
and commitment to Performance Track and other environmen-
Performance Track
Fast Facts
At the end of 2005, the program had 371 members in 46
states and Puerto Rico.
Since the program's inception, Performance Track members
have collectively reduced their water use by nearly 1.9
billion gallons—enough to meet the water needs of Atlanta,
Georgia, for more than two weeks. Members have conserved
close to 9,000 acres of land and have increased their use of
recycled materials by nearly 120,000 tons.
In 2004 (the most recent year for which data are available),
Performance Track members collectively reduced their water use
by more than half a billion gallons, reduced their generation of
hazardous waste by 800 tons, and reduced their use of non-
renewable transportation fuels by more than 43,000 gallons.
tal leadership programs. Workgroups composed of EPA and
state officials met throughout the year to develop strategies
for addressing issues raised in the report. The workgroups pre-
sented their recommendations at a public meeting in Chicago
in October, 2005. EPA will use the feedback discussed there,
along with comments submitted by stakeholders, to fine-tune
the recommendations and begin implementation.
2005 was a significant year of growth for Performance
Track, with a total of 93 new
members joining the program
(a 33 percent increase). Eighty-
two percent of the members
whose three-year terms
expired in 2005 submitted
applications to renew their
membership. The program
also announced its first three
Corporate Leaders, a new
designation recognizing com-
panies that demonstrate an
exceptional corporate-wide
commitment to environmental
stewardship and continuous
environmental improvement.
With the help of its dedicated members and partners,
Performance Track is poised to continue leading the way
toward a new model for environmental protection, one that
creates a compelling business case for continuous environmen-
tal improvement, environmental excellence, and community
outreach.
-------
"The Performance Track program provides the opportunity for high
performing businesses to partner with the states and EPA for superior
environmental results, a regulatory environment that is responsive to specific
needs, and a better bottom line."
DAVID PAYLOR
Director, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
rear
-------
LEADING CHANGE
EPA'S NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE TRACK
program (Performance Track) plays a leading role in the
Agency's effort to change business-as-usual approaches to
environmental protection. By offering positive reinforcement
through public recognition, regulatory and administrative incen
tives, and other benefits, Performance Track motivates facilities
to go beyond legal requirements. The program improves on
the level of environmental protection achievable by regulations
alone; yields results in areas
that are not regulated, such
as energy use, greenhouse
gas emissions, and water con-
sumption; and fosters continu-
ous improvement.
The Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) is the
national non-profit, non-partisan association of state and terntoria
LEADING
INNOVATION
AT EPA
As Performance Track
grows in scope and mem-
bership, it is helping to lead
change within EPA and among
state environmental agencies. Departing from traditional
models of regulation, Performance Track aims to create a more
collaborative, performance-based system of environmental
protection in which top performers are treated differently. This
approach benefits EPA and state agencies as well as regulated
facilities. It is a way for the Agency and states to prioritize
limited resources—turning some of their attention to facilities
outside of Performance Track, those that present greater envi-
ronmental risk.
Performance Track was designed to focus foremost on
performance, with stringent entry criteria that admit only facili-
ties with a strong past history of compliance and systems in
environmental agency leaders.
ECOS works to improve the capability of state environmental
agencies and their leaders to protect and improve human health
and the environment, and aims to facilitate a quality relation-
ship between federal and state agencies in the fulfillment of that
mission. ECOS and EPA have a long and rich history of collabora-
tion. For more information, visit www.ecos.org.
The January, 2005, report prepared by ECOS for EPA, entitled
"Survey of State Support for Performance-Based Environmental
Programs and Recommendations for Improved Effectiveness,"
is available at www.epa.gov/performancetrack/downloads/
ECOS^Report_Final_01 -13-05.pdf
place to ensure continuous improvement, annual reviews of
members' performance, and periodic site visits of selected facili-
ties. Performance Track facilities are not immune from inspec-
tions, and their Environmental Management Systems receive
close scrutiny from EPA during site visits. All new and renewing
applicants must have an assessment of their Environmental
Management System performed by an independent party,
using the Performance Track Independent Assessment Protocol
or one of equivalent rigor.
Performance Track
members must have a record
of compliance with environ-
mental laws, be in compliance
with all applicable environ-
mental requirements, and also
commit to maintaining the
level of compliance needed to
qualify for the program. When
facilities apply for acceptance
to the program, they are sub-
jected to a thorough compli-
ance screen. First, relevant EPA
databases are examined for information on the applicant. Then,
Performance Track regional coordinators consult with enforce-
ment staff in their offices and state environmental agencies to
verify the applicant's current compliance status. Performance
Track also checks with the Department of Justice on actions it
may have taken or is considering. The final step is to consult
with EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(OECA) on whether the applicant has met the screening cri-
teria. OECA has concurred with every decision regarding the
acceptance and renewal of Performance Track members.
Performance Track relies on compliance screening criteria that
were developed for all EPA voluntary programs—criteria that
-------
PERFORMANCE TRACK FOURTH ANNUAL PROGRE
^ Twenty-three organizations work with
•* Performance Track to promote the
^ program and its benefits. Current
M partners include
• Academy of Certified Hazardous
J Materials Managers
• American Chemistry Council
• American Home Furnishings Alliance
• American Iron and Steel Institute
~ • The Associated General Contractors
of America
X
^ • The Auditing Roundtable
• Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition
• Global Environmental & Technology
Sl Foundation & Public Entity EMS
Resource Center
• Greening of Industry Network
• International Carwash Association
J • National Association of Chemical
— Distributors
^ • National Defense Industrial
— Association
• National Paint and Coatings
j Association
• National Pollution Prevention
Roundtable
• National Ready Mixed Concrete
Association
• National Stone, Sand, and Gravel
Association
• • NORA, an Association of Responsible
~J Recyclers
_ • North American Die Casting
Association
_^ • Specialty Graphic Imaging
.2 Association
m
^ • Steel Manufacturers Association
03
£ • Synthetic Organic Chemical
>£ Manufacturers Association
&
_f± • Voluntary Protection Program
Participants' Association
^ • Wildlife Habitat Council
SS REPORT
were strengthened for Performance Track. For more on these
criteria, see: www.epa.gov/performancetrack/program/
sustain.htm.
During the past year, Performance Track staff and
program partners intensified their efforts to promote delivery
of Performance Track incentives at the state level as well as
the development of new incentives within key EPA program
offices to encourage more beyond-compliance behavior.
Performance Track managers and invited members met
with two EPA program offices to share ideas on incentives
and discuss priority issues: the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (March, 2005) and the Office of Air and
Radiation (September, 2005). These meetings, both of which
led to follow-up activities to pursue new incentives, provided
opportunities for Performance Track members to discuss prior-
ity environmental issues directly with program office managers
and to raise awareness of and support for the program within
the program offices. Summaries of these meetings are avail-
able at www.epa.gov/performancetrack/benefits/
regadmin.htm.
Changing Relationships with
States
State governments are vital partners in Performance Track.
Many of the program's regulatory and administrative ben-
efits are implemented at the state level, and EPA collaborates
closely with states on policy matters, site visits, and admissions
decisions on facilities applying to Performance Track. EPA and
states also work together to coordinate Performance Track with
similar performance-based programs at the state level. Twenty-
five states currently have some form of environmental perfor-
mance-based program. As of the end of 2005, EPA has signed
Memoranda of Agreement with 10 states (Colorado, Georgia,
Maine, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia,
Washington, and Wisconsin) to provide a framework for joint
recruitment, admissions, and delivery of incentives to program
members.
EPA has been working with states at a high level, with the
expectation that changes will provide on-the-ground benefits
-------
PERFORMANCE TRACK FOURTH ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT 7
to Performance Track members. Such benefits include wider
recognition of Performance Track by regulators and more con-
sistent implementation of Performance Track incentives at the
state level.
FORGING AHEAD WITH
THE HELP OF MEMBERS
AND PARTNERS
2005 was a landmark year in the evolution of Performance
Track's relationship with states. In January, the Environmental
Council of the States (ECOS) prepared a report for EPA on
state interest in and commitment to environmental leadership
programs. The report, developed in response to a request from
former EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt at the ECOS fall meeting
in October, 2004, made a number of recommendations for
improving the effectiveness of performance-based environmen-
tal programs. Throughout 2005, two workgroups composed
of EPA and state officials met to develop specific recommenda-
tions in the areas of integration and incentives.
The integration workgroup focused on ways to link state
performance-based environmental programs with EPA's plan-
ning and budgeting priorities, along with ways to acknowledge
states for achievements attained through such performance-
based programs. The incentives workgroup developed recom-
mendations for a stronger incentives system, proposed several
incentives that could be implemented rapidly, and evaluated
regulatory and statutory options for improving the delivery of
incentives at the federal and state levels.
The two workgroups presented their recommendations at
a public meeting in Chicago on October 19, 2005. EPA is using
the feedback discussed there, along with the formal written
comments submitted by stakeholders, to fine-tune the recom-
mendations and begin implementation.
The Performance Track Participants' Association (PTPA),
an independent nonprofit organization of Performance Track
members, is also playing a key role in building support for
Performance Track in states. PTPA has established workgroups
in 15 states to date, with the goal of mobilizing Performance
Track members to work with state agencies to integrate state
performance-based programs. PTPA workgroups held successful
meetings with high-level state officials in Florida and Illinois in
2005, leading to a number of follow-up activities in both states.
"In terms of bottom line impact, we really weren't looking for a monetary
from the program. But we have seen monetary payback, certainly,
from reduced energy usage and water usage, for example."
JACK BLACKMER
Environmental Coordinator, Novozymes North America
-------
8
ENSURING CHANGE
PERFORMANCE TRACK MOTIVATES FACILITIES to go above and
beyond environmental requirements by providing positive incen-
tives, setting challenging entry criteria, and making members'
results available to the public.
RECOGNITION AND
AWARENESS
In a survey of Performance Track members conducted
by EPA in 2004, members ranked recognition from EPA and
improved reputation from public awareness of their envi-
ronmental efforts among their top four reasons for joining
Performance Track (along with opportunities to develop col-
laborative relationships with EPA and states, and opportuni-
ties to improve environmental performance). EPA recognizes
Performance Track members and helps them with publicity in a
variety of ways:
• When members are accepted to the program, EPA issues
press releases to a wide variety of targeted news media. EPA
also distributes press releases via CSRwire, a globally syndi-
cated social responsibility news service.
• Members are recognized by senior EPA officials at the
Performance Track Annual Members' Event, and receive a
framed certificate of membership.
• The Agency works with trade publications and other media
to place articles about the program and its members. In
2005, Performance Track was profiled in articles reaching a
circulation of more than 2 million readers.
• Members are listed on the Performance Track website, which
has received more than 3 million hits since its inception and
currently averages more than 100,000 hits per month.
• Performance Track members may use and display the
Performance Track logo, ensuring that employees, customers,
and members of the surrounding community know that the
facility is a top environmental performer.
AWARDS
Performance Track members that achieve particularly out-
standing results or make exceptional efforts to promote the
program are eligible for special recognition.
• The Performance Track Environmental Performance
Award recognizes members that have demonstrated exem-
Spotlight on
J&J's Corporate Environmental Assessment Program
Johnson & Johnson, a Performance Track Corporate Leader,
uses a three-phase Management Awareness and Action Review
System (MAARS) to assess its operating companies' environmental
performance and drive continuous improvement. Through this
system, the operating companies and the parent corporation work
together to proactively identify and eliminate environmental compli-
ance risks.
Under the first phase of MAARS, each operating company
conducts ongoing self-assessments for its environmental, health,
safety, sterilization, and quality programs throughout the year. In the
second phase, the operating company incorporates the results of
its self-assessments into a Management Action Plan, signed by the
business leader, that identifies potential regulatory non-compliances,
deviations from internal standards, and related corrective actions. In
the third phase, corporate and site representatives jointly evaluate
compliance and management systems during site visits.
In addition to implementing MAARS, all J&J manufacturing and
R&D companies are required to conduct a third-party compliance
audit once every three years, and to be certified to ISO 14001, a
process that entails third-party assessments of their Environmental
Management Systems.
-------
PERFORMANCE TRACK FOURTH ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT 9
plary environmental performance during their participation in
the program.
• The Performance Track Outreach Award recognizes current
members that make a special effort to inform the public
about what it means to be a member.
• The Performance Track Director's Award recognizes
members that the director has selected for outstanding
achievements in any one of several areas, including mentor-
ing, recruiting, public outreach, and community leadership.
2006 PERFORMANCE AWARD
WINNERS
Performance Track's 2006 Environmental Performance
Awards recognize members that have demonstrated exemplary
environmental performance during their participation in the
program, particularly during the 2004 calendar year.
Through an analysis of the annual performance reports
of the more than 250 facilities that have been members for at
least two years, Performance Track staff selected award winners
for the categories of "large facility" (50 or more employees),
"small facility," and "public facility." The principal evaluation
criteria for this award were progress made toward performance
goals and the breadth and challenge level of the member's
performance commitments. This evaluation was supplemented
with consideration of the member's annual performance report
quality, compliance history, and community outreach efforts.
Large Facility Category
Rohm and Haas Electronic Materials, LLC of
Marlborough, Massachusetts, supplies specialty chemicals to
the electronics industry. During its charter membership and
again in its second term, this facility demonstrated its dedica-
tion to reducing pollution
at its source. In 2004, the
facility made major reduc-
tions in the use of hazardous
materials. Through pollution
prevention techniques, it
improved its per-batch use
of acetone by a third, and improved its per-batch ethyl lactate
use by 16 percent, creating more efficient cleaning schedules
and internally recycling the material. The facility also reduced its
greenhouse gas releases by 9 percent on a normalized basis by
retrofitting lighting fixtures and installing more efficient cooling
units. In its first three years of membership, the facility achieved
impressive improvements in water use, energy use, hazardous
materials use, and hazardous waste.
Small Facility
Category
Norco Cleaners, Inc. is
a drycleaning, wetcleaning,
and laundering operation in
Dolton, Illinois. As a small
business, Norco Cleaners
needed only to commit to two
environmental performance
improvements, but this facility
elected to make four challeng-
ing commitments on key environmental issues, including haz-
ardous materials use, emissions of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), and energy use, during both its charter and renewal
membership periods in Performance Track.
Between 2001 and 2003, the facility used a pre-filtering
system to reduce its hazardous waste by 25 percent (in normal-
ized terms) and to stretch the use of a cleaning solvent by 47
percent. In that same period, Norco improved its energy effi-
ciency by nearly 50 percent—and then, in its renewal applica-
tion, committed to further reducing its energy use by another
4 percent. In 2004, the first year of Norco's second term of
membership, the facility used a wetcleaning process for a higher
percentage of textiles it received for cleaning. This led to a 41
percent drop in the use of napthol spirits and a similar drop in
VOC emissions (in terms of pounds of textiles cleaned).
The annual performance reports that Norco Cleaners pre-
pared for Performance Track provided many details about the
activities that it conducted to achieve improvements, thus aiding
other facilities in their environmental benchmarking efforts.
-------
1 0 PERFORMANCE TRACK FOURTH ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT
Public Facility Category
The Naval Air Engineering Station of Lakehurst, New
Jersey, provides program management, logistical, engineering,
prototyping, and testing services for the air launch, air recovery,
and aviation support systems used by naval aviators, sailors,
and marines. This facility was accepted to Performance Track in
2001 and is now in its second term of membership. Its current
commitments are notable for the facility's aggressive goals to
reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and water use. In
2004 alone, the facility reduced its NOX emissions by 21 tons (a
43 percent reduction) and its water use by 7.4_million gallons
(an 8 percent reduction). In its
first three years of member-
ship, this facility reduced its
water use by nearly 53 million
gallons, solid waste gen-
eration by 20 tons, and NOX
emissions by 14.6 tons. It also created 123 acres of grassland
bird habitat.
2006 Outreach Award Winners
Colonial Acres Golf Course in Glenmont, New York, is
a 9-hole, semi-private golf course situated on 33 1/2 acres.
Colonial Acres has an environmental information board in its
pro shop, where members, employees, and guests can learn
about the facility's membership in Performance Track. It also
publishes an annual newsletter with updates of environmen-
tal improvements related to the facility's commitments under
Performance Track. In 2005, Colonial Acres gave a presen-
tation about Performance Track to the New York Turfgrass
Association, and hosted an awards ceremony in the fall of
2004 with EPA Regions 2 and 1 at the Area Superintendents'
Tournament to encourage participants to join Performance
Track. Following Colonial Acres' lead, another golf course has
started the Performance Track application process. Colonial
Acres' membership in Performance Track has also led to
partnerships with Audubon International and New York
Environmental Leaders.
Johnson & Johnson, headquartered in New Brunswick,
New Jersey, manufactures health care products for the
consumer, pharmaceutical, and professional markets. A
Performance Track Corporate Leader, Johnson & Johnson regu-
larly distributes news about Performance Track electronically to
keep member facilities (and other Johnson & Johnson facilities
that are interested in joining) engaged and reminded of the
value of Performance Track membership. The Performance
Track flag and membership materials were displayed at Johnson
& Johnson's Global Environmental Health and Safety Summit
Conference held in 2005. The company has made presenta-
tions and provided information about Performance Track to
other businesses, both directly and through recruitment work-
shops. Business cards that promote Performance Track are pro-
vided to Johnson & Johnson member facilities.
Rockwell Collins'C Avenue facility, located in Cedar
Rapids, Iowa, manufactures advanced communication and
aviation electronics for military markets and for aircraft manu-
facturers and airlines. Rockwell Collins, a Performance Track
Corporate Leader, has developed a strategic plan to encourage
other facilities to join Performance Track and provided guidance
to internal ISO-certified facilities. The corporate office provides
additional guidance during the Performance Track application
and annual performance reporting processes. Performance
Track facilities receive special recognition during the company's
annual Environmental Safety and Health conference, and press
releases are issued each time a Rockwell Collins facility joins
Performance Track. Several facility managers have volunteered
to serve as mentors for other facilities interested in joining the
program. The Performance Track logo is prominently displayed
on both the Rockwell Collins external and internal websites,
and Performance Track flags have been presented to each
Rockwell Collins Performance Track facility.
The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is a U.S. Department
of Energy complex of four sites created in deep underground
salt caverns along the Texas and Louisiana Gulf Coast that
hold emergency supplies of crude oil. The reserve, head-
quartered in New Orleans and managed by DynMcDermott
Petroleum Operations Company, is a charter member of
-------
PERFORMAI
Performance Track. DynMcDermott has given presentations
about Performance Track to the Energy Facility Contractors'
Organization, promoted Performance Track at impor-
tant industry events, and participated in regional outreach
events to promote the program to prospective members.
DynMcDermott is largely responsible for helping at least one
other facility join Performance Track. Each of its sites proudly
flies the Performance Track flag, and hardhat stickers bearing
the Performance Track logo were issued to all employees in
2005 to remind them of their commitment to the program.
DynMcDermott displays the Performance Track logo on its
website, and the company has committed to 100 percent par-
ticipation in Performance Track for all its facilities.
LEADING CHANGE
AT THE CORPORATE LEVEL
In 2004, EPA established the Performance Track Corporate
Leader designation to recognize companies that have multiple
facilities in Performance Track and that demonstrate an excep-
tional corporate-wide commitment to environmental steward-
ship and continuous improvement. EPA will designate a select
number of Performance Track Corporate Leaders each year
for a five-year membership. The first three Performance Track
Corporate Leaders, announced by EPA in early 2005, are Baxter
Megan Trempe, environmental engineer with 3M E5PE Dental
Products, receives a 2005 Performance Track Outreach Award
from EPA Region 9 Administrator Wayne Nastri.
3M ESPE Dental Products of Irvine,
California, a division of 3M Healthcare
Markets, employs nearly 300 people
and manufactures more than 700
products used by dentists and dental
laboratories around the world, such
as restorative, adhesive, and crown
and bridge materials. The 3M ESPE
Dental Products Irvine facility received
ISO 14001 certification m 1996 and
has been continuously committed to
industrial health and safety. The facility
is a Charter Member of Performance
In its original application (in 2000)
to the Performance Track program,
the facility committed to reducing
its emissions of the volatile organic
compounds methanol and acetic acid
by 5 percent in terms of pounds of
dental product produced. By 2003, the
facility instead reduced these emissions
by 50 percent. It accomplished this
reduction through source substitution,
by installing technology to capture
emissions and, in 2002, launching a
new dental restorative product that
is produced using technologies that
condense and capture vapors. The new
product allowed the facility to retire
an older, less environmentally friendly
product.
In 2004, 3M ESPE Dental Products
renewed its membership in Performance
Track and identified further areas of
environmental improvement in reducing
discharges to water, hazardous waste,
fl
water use, and
packaging materials
-------
FORMANCE TRACK FOURTH ANNUAL Pf
International Truck and Engine
Corporation, located in Melrose Park,
Illinois, employs more than 1,000
people and has produced more than
1 million diesel engines to date. The
facility achieved ISO 14001 Certification
in 1999 and has been a member of
Performance Track since 2001.
In an effort to eliminate chlorinated
paraffin, a hazardous chemical, the
facility introduced a new tapping
machine that uses an alternative
process to provide lubrication and
cooling of taps, reducing chlorinated
paraffin from 15,000 pounds per year
in 1999 to zero by 2003. The facility
has also eliminated its use of toluene, a
toxic chemical used to clean equipment.
International Truck and Engine
Corporation renewed its Performance
Track membership in 2004, and
continues to seek methods to reduce
its volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions, as well as continuing to
implement programs that reduce the
use of hazardous materials.
SS REPORT
The Performance Track
Participants' Association
In 2001, Performance Track members formed a private,
independent membership association that provides a forum
for members of the program. Performance Track Participants'
Association (PTPA) members exchange information and bench-
mark best practices with each other, provide suggestions to EPA
about the development and implementation of Performance
Track incentives, educate and inform the public and other
stakeholders of the work being done by Performance Track
members, and work on educating policy makers of the impor-
tant role that Performance Track plays in improving the environ-
ment. For more information, visit the association's website at
www.ptpaonline.org.
Healthcare Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, and Rockwell
Collins. For more information, including selection criteria, see
www.epa.gov/performancetrack/corporateleaders/.
CORPORATE SOCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY
The socially responsible investment community has taken
an interest in Performance Track as an indicator of a company's
environmental performance and commitment to environmen-
tal excellence. Several leading social investment advisory firms
include membership in Performance Track among the factors
they consider in their rating analysis of companies. For more
information, see www.epa.gov/performancetrack/benefits/
investing.htm.
LEADING CHANGE THROUGH
THE LEARNING NETWORK
Performance Track is leading change at facilities by
helping members learn from each other and from experts in
the field. The program is one of the first at EPA to document
and share the best practices of top environmental performers.
Performance Track's learning network provides opportunities
for face-to-face meetings, topical seminars and meetings,
member-to-member mentoring, and access to online tools
and resources.
-------
PERFORMANCE TRACK FOURTH ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT 1 3
Annual Members' Event
Each year, Performance Track members and EPA officials
gather for award ceremonies, panel discussions, and breakout
sessions on topics important to Performance Track facilities and
partners. This meeting provides opportunities for members
to meet EPA Performance Track staff, network with their col-
leagues, learn about program developments, and share their
experiences. The 2005 event, held in Chicago in conjunction
with the National Environmental Partnership Summit, was
attended by more than 750 people from industry, government,
academia, and the non-profit sector.
Regional Meetings
The 10 regional offices hold periodic meetings for
Performance Track members. Some regions also host recruit-
ment workshops for facilities interested in learning more about
the program, and several have organized special events to
recognize top environmental performers. During 2005, EPA
Regions 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10 held Performance Track meetings.
Region 6's planned meeting was postponed due to Hurricane
Katrina.
Telesem i na rs
All Performance Track members are invited to attend
bimonthly seminars, conducted by conference call, on timely
and relevant topics. In 2005, teleseminars were held on Life-
Performance Track Members
and Hurricane Katrina
After Hurricane Katrina tore through Louisiana, Mississippi,
and Alabama in late August, Performance Track facilities in the
region pitched in to help. Baker Petrolite's Rayne Blend facil-
ity in Rayne, Louisiana supplied containers for gasoline, diesel,
and water to members of its business community for transport
to the relief efforts. "Our main concern at this point is helping
those who have come here from further south," said Chris
Colburn, environmental health and safety manager at Hunter
Douglas Tupelo Center, in Tupelo, Mississippi. "We are all
pulling together in a great way. The damage to our state is ter-
rible, but the great American spirit is alive and well."
Cycle Assessment, the Green Suppliers Network, the benefits
of using green power, strategies to help renewing members
develop new Performance Track commitments, details on
RCRA and related Performance Track incentives, and how
Performance Track members reached agreement with their
permit officials for reduced monitoring frequencies under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
Online Newsletter
P-Track News is a newsletter that keeps Performance Track
members and key stakeholders informed of new program
developments, member achievements, news from the EPA
regions, a calendar of upcoming events, and other information
of interest to members. Formerly published every two months,
P-Track News switched to a monthly schedule in 2005. The
newsletter now reaches an audience of more than 800 readers.
Resource Center and
Case Studies
Performance Track's website provides a Resource Center to
help existing and prospective members learn more about EMSs,
Performance Track's environmental improvement categories,
industry-specific environmental performance resources, and
more. The Resource Center also provides case studies highlight-
ing the achievements of selected Performance Track members.
The Resource Center is available at: www.epa.gov/perfor-
mancetrack/tools/index.htm.
REGULATORY AND
ADMINISTRATIVE INCENTIVES
EPA provides a range of regulatory and administrative
incentives to Performance Track members that increase the
value of the program to members without reducing environ-
mental protection. These benefits help Performance Track facili-
ties focus on continuous improvement by reducing some of the
routine administrative costs of regulation, and by allowing them
additional procedural flexibility in certain cases. Performance
Track regulatory and administrative incentives can also help reg-
ulatory agencies focus their assistance, inspection, and enforce-
-------
14 PERFORMANCE TRACK FOURTH ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT
ment resources on higher priorities, such as facilities outside of
the program that may require closer oversight.
Progress on Incentives in 2005
Within the Agency, Performance Track staff continued to
develop relationships with EPA's program offices, holding meet-
ings that led to follow-on activities to pursue specific incentives,
partnerships, and issues raised by Performance Track members.
Performance Track staff worked with regulatory officials at EPA
headquarters and regional offices to help spread implementation
of the first Performance Track Rule, and program staff partici-
pated frequently in conference calls among RCRA permit writers
and regional air toxics coordinators to provide regular updates
and encourage them to consider incentives for members.
During 2005, Performance Track and other EPA staff
worked extensively with key external organizations, such as
ECOS and PTPA, to build support for Performance Track at the
state and local level.
Visit www.epa.gov/performancetrack/benefits/
regadmin.htm for the latest information on regulatory and
administrative incentives, including details on adoption and
implementation of incentives at the state level.
REPORTING AND MONITORING
Transparency and sound measurement are underlying prin-
ciples of Performance Track. As a condition of their membership
in the program, Performance Track facilities report annually—
and publicly—on their results and major activities undertaken
as part of their Environmental Management System (EMS). In
addition to monitoring performance through extensive reviews
of these annual reports, EPA Performance Track staff and state
officials visit a number of the program's member facilities each
year. A site visit allows EPA to verify information presented in
a facility's application, such as the quality of its EMS, and to
review progress toward its performance commitments. EPA pro-
vides the facility with an assessment of its performance relative
to other facilities in the program, and may suggest opportuni-
ties for improvements or partnerships with other technical assis-
tance providers. The site visit also helps EPA and states establish
a relationship with the facility's key environmental staff and
top management, which may facilitate discussion on ways to
improve Performance Track. Performance Track conducted 31
site visits in 2005.
To date, Performance Track has removed a total of 49 facili-
ties from the program: 34 facilities during their membership
(22 for reasons related to deficient EMSs and 12 for failing to
submit Annual Performance Reports); an additional 15 facilities
were not accepted during renewal (8 for non-compliance, 4 for
insufficient environmental commitments, 1 due to a deficient
EMS, and 2 for other reasons).
-------
1 5
CHARTING PROGRESS
WHEN FACILITIES APPLY TO JOIN PERFORMANCE TRACK, they
commit to at least four quantitative environmental goals (two
for small facilities) that they aim to meet within the three-year
term of their membership in the program. They then report
annually on their progress toward those commitments, in both
actual and normalized terms.
Applicants choose from a
range of indicators (shown in
Figure 1) in setting their com-
mitments. The indicators are
designed to allow facilities to
make environmental improve-
ments at any stage in the life-
cycle of their products or services,
from upstream (e.g., improving
the environmental performance
of suppliers) to inputs and non-
product outputs (e.g., decreasing
the use of energy or the genera-
tion of waste), to downstream
improvements, such as decreas-
ing the expected lifetime energy
use of products made at the facility.
HIGHLIGHTS OF CURRENT
MEMBERS' COMMITMENTS
Table 1 summarizes the commitments of facilities accepted
into Performance Track by the end of 2005. Collectively, these
facilities have pledged to:
• Reduce their materials use by 465,874 tons;
• Reduce their water use by 60.7 billion gallons;
• Reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by more than
81,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent;
i Reduce their discharges to water by more than 18,000 tons;
Reduce their hazardous and non-hazardous waste by
nearly 418,000 tons; and
Protect nearly 35,000 acres of land for conservation.
FIGURE 1 . Performance Track Environmental Performance Indicators
upstream
materials procurement
• recycled content
• hazardous components
suppliers' environmental performance
• any relevant indicator from the
inputs or nonproduct outputs stages
V
inputs
material use
• materials used
• hazardous materials
used
• ozone-depleting
substances used
• packaging materials
used
energy use
• non transportation
energy use
* transportation
energy use
nonproduct outputs
air emissions noise
• greenhouse gases
• VOCs
•NOx
. PM-10
e carbon monoxide
• air toxics
• Odor
- radiation
. dust
• notse
vibration
waste
• non-hazardous
waste generation
• hazardous waste
generation
*1 water
^^ • water
k?
downstream
UM
land and habitat
• land and habitat
conservation
^ __
y\mm
mt^^ 1 I
• • 1 ••
products
• expected lifetime energy use
• expected lifetime water use
• expected lifetime waste (to ait
water, land) from product use
• waste to air. water, land from
disposal or recovery
discharges to water
. crtermcat oxygen demand
• biological oxygen demand
• toxics
- suspended solids
• nutrients
. sediment from runoff
• pathogens
Applicants to the program chose from among these
indicators when setting their performance goals.
HIGHLIGHTS OF MEMBERS'
RESULTS REPORTED IN 2005
In 2005, Performance Track members reported on their
environmental achievements during 2004. The results dem-
onstrate once again that Performance Track members are
dynamic, innovative facilities. Although their environmental
performance declined in absolute terms in several areas, such
as energy and materials use, they continued to show improve-
-------
16 PERFORMANCE TRACK FOURTH ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT
TA B L E 1 . Performance Track Members' Commitments Accepted Through 2005
Categories and Indicators
Stage: Upstream
Material Procurement
Recycled content
Hazardous/toxic components
Suppliers' Environmental Performance
Packaging materials
Hazardous materials
Land and habitat conservation
Stage: Inputs
Materials Use
Hazardous materials
Ozone-depleting substance
Packaging materials
Materials used
Water Use
Total water use
Energy Use
Non-transportation energy use
Transportation energy use
Land and Habitat
Land and habitat conservation
Stage: Nonproduct Outputs
Air Emissions
Stage: Downstream
Products
Expected lifetime waste (to air, water, land)
Waste to air, water, land from disposal or recovery
Number of Members
with Goals'
45
8
1
1
1
74
5
12
63
165
196
12
45
Projected Annual Improvement
by Year 3 of Membership
82,807 tons (increase)
70 tons
56 tons
0.28 ton
3,270 acres
8,449 tons
103 tons
258 tons
465,874 tons
60.68 billion gallons
38.5 million MMBtus*'
83,503 gallons
34.737 acres (increase)
Greenhouse gases
Volatile organic compounds
Nitrogen oxides
Sulfur oxides
Paniculate matter (PM-10)
Carbon monoxide
Air toxics
Ozone
Discharges to Water
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
Chemical oxygen demand
Total suspended solids
Toxics
Nutrients
Sediment from runoff
Waste
Non-hazardous waste
Hazardous waste
Noise
Noise
43
59
22
11
9
3
22
2
8
1
10
16
2
2
233
137
15
81,058 metric tons of CO2 equivalent
951 tons
1,755 tons
891 tons
309 tons
39 tons
125 tons
0.87 ton
1,965 tons
1 ton
14,930 tons
1,092 tons
1 5 tons
300 tons
405,708 tons
12,071 tons
242 dBa"'
169 tons
501 tons
' Values shown in this column represent the number of members whose goals for an indicator were included in the calculations for projected
reductions. Some goals were excluded from the calculations due to missing or nonstandard data.
" MMBTUs = million British thermal units.
'" A-weighted decibels, an expression of the relative loudness of sounds in air as perceived by the human ear.
-------
PERFORMANCE TRACK FOURTH ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT 17
ments in eco-efficiency. * Note that because Performance Track
members report on progress toward their beyond-compliance
commitments, any declines in their performance do not imply
non-compliance with environmental regulations.
Performance Track facilities are constantly changing and
growing as they respond to demand and corporate restructur-
ing. Although some of their environmental results for 2004
may appear to head in the wrong direction, closer examination
reveals that these facilities are achieving dramatic environmental
improvements while simultaneously growing in size. A facility's
environmental footprint may increase as the facility grows, but
its efforts to make environmental improvements reduce signifi-
cantly the size of the footprint per unit of production. Table 2 on
page 18 shows the aggregate changes in performance during
2004 by members in those areas where they have made com-
mitments to improve their performance. The actual numbers
show changes in footprint; they are not indexed to production
changes. A separate column shows the avoidance levels; these
are based on changes in environmental performance per unit
of production. The concept of avoidance is illustrated in Figure
2. Performance Track members used 528 million fewer gallons
of water in 2004 than in 2003, but in fact they would have
increased their water use by 4.3 billion gallons (due to increases
in production) if they hadn't made efforts to use water more
efficiently.
Note that the aggregate numbers are disproportionately
affected by the results of a few facilities of larger-than-average
size. An overall decline in performance for a given indica-
tor thus does not necessarily imply that all or even most
Performance Track facilities reported declines in performance.
The discussion below presents results for the 10 environ-
mental indicators that were chosen by the largest number of
Performance Track facilities (i.e., at least 20 facilities reporting).
Use of Recycled Materials
Members increased their use of recycled materials by
42,000 tons in 2004, due in part to their increased focus on
working with suppliers to encourage and make possible the use
of recycled materials in the making of products. For example,
Madison Chemical Company of Madison, Indiana, entered into
a contract with a company to accept used sulf uric acid as a
substitute for the virgin acid that the facility had been using to
neutralize its wastewater. Madison Chemical also installed dif-
ferent equipment so it could accept the used material.
Material Use
Eighty-five percent of the members that reported on
material use commitments showed an improvement in their
eco-eff iciency; i.e., they used a lower quantity of materials (or
of the specific material being measured) per product produced
in 2004 than in 2003. The results show that these facilities
increased their material use by 125,000 tons in 2004. When
production changes are taken into account, however, the facili-
ties actually avoided the use of nearly 4,000 tons of materials in
2004 through improvements in technologies and practices.
Hazardous Material Use
The results indicate that Performance Track facilities
increased their use of hazardous materials in 2004. However,
73 percent (51 out of 70) of reporting facilities showed that
they reduced their hazardous material use per unit of produc-
tion and in fact avoided the use of 11,000 tons of hazardous
materials. The actual results were skewed by the impact of
a single facility, a chemical manufacturer that increased its
production by 22 percent in 2004, leading to a 28,000-ton
increase in its use of sodium hydroxide. Even in this case, the
increase was much less than it would have been had the facility
not made some important process changes that avoided the
use of 11,000 tons of the material.
Wafer Use
Performance Track members report that they decreased
their water use by 528 million gallons in 2004, despite increases
in production. In fact, when changes in production are taken
into account, members report that they avoided the use of
more than 4 billion gallons of water (see Figure 2). Seventy-
Eco-efficiency involves producing less waste and fewer emissions per unit of production or other output
-------
1 8 PERFORMANCE TRACK FOURTH ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT
TABLE 2 . Performance Track Members' Results in 2004
Category and Indicator
Material Procurement
Hazardous/toxic components
Suppliers' Environmental Performance
Suppliers' hazardous materials use
Suppliers' packaging use
Material Use
Materials use
Hazardous materials use
Ozone-depleting substances
Total packaging materials used
Use of reused/ recycled materials
Water Use
Total water use
Energy Use
Energy use (non-transportation)
Transportation energy use
Land and Habitat
Land & habitat conservation
Air Emissions
Greenhouse gases
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
Nitrogen oxides (NOX)
Sulfur oxides (SOX)
Paniculate matter
Carbon monoxide
Air toxics
Ozone depleting gases (ODGs)
Discharges to Water
Discharges of BOD, COD, TSS, nutrients,
sediments to water
Discharges of toxics to water
Waste
Non-hazardous waste generation
Hazardous waste generation
Noise
Noise
Products
Expected lifetime waste (to air, water,
land) from product use
Waste to air, water, land from disposal
Improvements
made in 2004'
53
0.030
12
(125.468)5
(32,579)
30
(87)
42,287
527,936,376
(21,925,739)
43,362
1,106
3,933
(36)
1,862
1,440
84
0.080
63
0.65
7,390
129
(21,745)
791
10
20
140
Avoidance2
50
0.030
18
3,763
10,912
28
915
N/A
4,305,206,523
18,935,094
27,752
N/A
66,147
253
2,038
1,196
173
0.080
97
0.62
14,154
224
180
114
4
1
2
Units
tons
tons
tons
tons
tons
CFC-116
equivalent tons
tons
tons
gallons
MMBtus
gallons
acres
MTC02E
tons
tons
tons
tons
tons
tons
tons
tons
tons
tons
tons
dBA
tons
tons
Number of
results3
3
1
1
49
70
3
15
39
108
147
5
30
37
40
21
13
5
2
18
2
19
9
180
114
4
1
2
Number of
normalized
improvements1
1
1
1
36
51
3
8
N/A
80
96
3
N/A
28
30
20
10
4
1
12
2
12
7
116
71
N/A
1
2
'Values shown in this column represent the number of members whose goals for an indicator were included in the calculations for projected reductions. Some goals
were excluded from the calculations due to missing or nonstandard data.
" A-weighted decibels, an expression of the relative loudness of sounds in air as perceived by the human ear.
' Represents the difference between 2003 and 2004 actual quantities. The one exception is for Round 7 members. Their baseline year is 2002 and their first-year
results actually show the annual differential between 2002 and 2004.
2 "Avoidance" is the difference between the actual 2004 level of environmental performance and that which would have resulted if the facilities had not imple-
mented any improvements, i.e., if they had not achieved any improvements in eco-efficiency It is calculated by multiplying the 2003 level of environmental perfor-
mance by a factor that represents the change in economic activity between 2003 and 2004, and then by subtracting the actual level of performance in 2004.
3These numbers represent the number of commitment results included in the analysis, rather than the total number of commitments under the particular indicator.
Some members' results are not included in the analysis because their 2004 Annual Performance Reports were not completed by the cut-off date. Other results were
excluded from the calculations due to missing or nonstandard data.
'These numbers represent the number of results that represented an improvement in eco-efficiency. A lack of improvement can mean the facility's performance either
remained unchanged for the year or declined in terms of efficiency.
5 Numbers in parentheses indicate an overall increase irrespective of production. Numbers in the avoidance column indicate improvements in efficiency.
6CFC-11=trichlorofluoromethane (CCI3F); MMBtus=million British thermal units; MTC02E=metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent; BOD=biochemical oxygen
demand; COD=chemical oxygen demand; TSS=total suspended solids; dBA=decibels (acoustic).
-------
PERFORMANCE TRACK FOURTH ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT 1 9
FIGURE 2 . Performance Track Members'
Water Use and Avoidance in 2004*
50 ,
Gallons of water used
Gallons of water use avoided through
improvements in eco-effidency
' Based on water use from 108 members.
four percent of reporting facilities showed an improvement in
water use efficiency. Two major contributors to these results
were Freescale Semiconductor of Austin, Texas, which avoided
the use of 630 million gallons of water, largely through addi-
tions and improvements to its water reclamation system, and
International Paper Texarkana Mill in Queen City, Texas, which
avoided 889 million gallons through a series of water conserva-
tion and management practices.
Energy Use
One hundred forty-seven members reported results on this
indicator, the second most frequently chosen environmental
commitment after non-hazardous waste generation. Again, this
is an indicator where the absolute results belie the efficiency
improvements achieved by members. Members that commit-
ted to reducing their energy use avoided the use of 19 million
MMBtus (19 trillion Btus) in 2004. Members described a myriad
of ways in which they reduced their energy demands, such as
installing energy-efficient lighting (Interface Flooring Systems,
LaGrange, Georgia); installing a heat recovery system on machine
exhaust systems (Nexfor Fraser Papers, Madawaska, Maine);
reestablishing vent settings for steam-fired pressure vessels
(Firestone Agricultural Tire Company, Des Moines, Iowa); install-
ing a more efficient compressed air system, reducing cooling
tower blowdown, and replacing a leaking underground steam
line with an insulated above-ground line (Pfizer Incorporated of
Terre Haute, Indiana); and installing newer generation variable
frequency drives on treated water loop and conservation devices
on vending machines (IBM Burlington, Essex Junction, Vermont).
Emissions of Greenhouse Gases
In 2004, members with commitments to reduce green-
house gases showed an aggregate, actual reduction of 4,000
metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCC^E). With pro-
duction taken into account, the results show an avoidance of
66,000 MTC02E.
In the 2004 reporting period, Performance Track began
tracking the greenhouse gas emissions associated with
members' energy use commitments. (Those commitments
not only reflect changes in energy use, but also may show
facilities' increased purchase of renewable fuels.) Those com-
mitments, based on 61 of the facilities that reported energy
results in 2004, showed 143,440 MTCC^E in avoided emis-
sions. When combined with the results of the greenhouse
gas commitments, members avoided a total of 209,587
MTCC^E—the equivalent of removing more than 22,000 cars
from the road.
Emissions of Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs)
Seventy-five percent of members with VOC commit-
ments showed eco-efficiency improvements in this area. While
overall emissions increased by 36 tons, these members avoided
emitting 253 tons of VOCs. Yamaha Motor Manufacturing
Corporation of America in Newnan, Georgia, and Ball Metal
Beverage Container Corporation in Golden, Colorado, are two
facilities that reduced their VOC emissions on both an actual
and a production-adjusted basis. Yamaha Motor decreased
VOC emissions related to painting by reducing the amount
of paint rework needed, decreasing the length of the paint
-------
20 PERFORMANCE TRACK FOURTH ANNUAL PROGRI
SS REPORT
SEH America of Vancouver, Washington
produces high-purity silicon wafers for
use in the semiconductor industry. The
facility has been a Performance Track
member since 2002.
Between 2001 and 2004, the facility
reduced its NOX emissions from
35,175 pounds to 17,042 pounds (a
51 percent decrease) and, when the
increases in wafer production are taken
into account, showed a 64 percent
improvement in NOX efficiencies. Over
the course of those first three years of
its membership, the facility achieved
continual improvement by upgrading
NOX monitoring systems, improving
the efficiency of its scrubber systems,
and implementing boiler conservation
improvements.
In its 2005 renewal application to
the program, SEH America made
aggressive commitments to reduce
its use of energy by 11 percent (from
approximately 1 million MMBTUs to
896,715 MMBTUs), water use by 5
percent (from approximately 1.05
billion gallons to 1.00 billion gallons),
isopropanol use by 52 percent (from
125.5 tons to 60 tons), and the use
of chromium (baseline level of 691
pounds) entirely.
line, and increasing the use of robotic painting. The Ball Metal
Beverage Container facility's improvement activities included
substituting materials containing lower amounts of VOCs and
installing a new, more efficient regenerative thermal oxidizer.
Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides
Members reduced their NOX emissions by 1,900 tons in
2004. Moreover, 95 percent (20 out of 21) of the facilities
reporting on this indicator showed eco-efficiency improve-
ments. The largest contributor to the total 2004 tally was Blue
Ridge Paper Products of Canton, North Carolina. This facility
reduced its NOX emissions by 1,423 tons by converting the
burners in two boilers to Iow-N0x models.
Non-Hazardous Waste Generation
One hundred eighty facilities reported on their efforts to
reduce their non-hazardous waste, more than for any other
indicator. While the total amount of solid waste for these facili-
ties increased in aggregate by 22,000 tons, members reported
an avoidance of 451,000 tons. This indicator provides another
example of the effect that one or two facilities can have on the
overall results of the program. One large facility's increase in
production led to a 222,000-ton increase in its waste, although
in eco-efficiency terms it reported an avoidance of 103,000
tons. Similarly, another facility increased its total waste by
53,000 tons, but avoided 39,000 tons. These facilities produced
a great deal more product in 2004 than in 2003, but with sig-
nificantly lower incremental impact on the environment.
Hazardous Waste Generation
Performance Track members reduced their hazardous
waste in both footprint (791 tons reduced) and eco-efficiency
terms (2,232 tons avoided). Endicott Interconnect Technologies
in Endicott, New York, achieved its goal for reducing hazardous
waste by such projects as improving the nozzle configuration
in its screen cleaner tool and using a closed loop system for the
use of cupric chloride.
-------
CAVEATS TO THE
2004 RESULTS
1. While data are self-reported by member facilities and
not verified by EPA, members are expected to apply appropriate
monitoring and measurement techniques and are required to
sign off on the validity of their performance reports.
2. Although EPA asks for exact figures, some facilities
submit rounded data.
3. The avoidance figures in the summary of 2004 results
are based on the normalizing factors calculated and provided
by individual facilities. A facility's avoidance figures for 2004
were calculated by dividing the 2004 normalizing factor by the
2003 normalizing factor, multiplying that result by the 2003
performance level, and then calculating the difference between
that product and the actual 2004 results. Thus, the accuracy
of the avoidance figures depends on both the accuracy of the
reported actual results and the reported 2003 and 2004 nor-
malizing factors. Normalizing is an inexact science. Normalizing
factors often tell an incomplete story about changes in produc-
PERFORMANCE TRACK FOURTH ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT 21
tion in a facility, and they often fail to explain fully the causes of
environmental pollution or resource consumption.
4. Approximately 8 percent of member facilities' commit-
ments re ate to a specific process rather than to the facility as
a whole. For example, a facility may have committed to reduc-
ing its VOC emissions from a particular production line by 50
percent. The numbers reported in this document thus reflect the
commitments made and the results relevant to those commit-
ments. Therefore, it would be a misinterpretation of the data to
assume that a demonstrated improvement represents, or could
be projected to represent, the performance of entire facilities.
5. Similarly, facilities' commitments may relate to one
"component" of an environmental indicator rather than to
the indicator as a whole. For example, a facility may commit
to reducing one particular waste stream or one particular toxic
air emission rather than to reducing its total solid waste or all
releases of toxic chemicals. The parameters of each facility's
commitments may be determined by viewing its application
and/or annual performance reports at www.epa.gov/perfor-
mancetrack/particip.
-------
"Going beyond compliance to achieve our environmental goals establishes
a collaborative relationship with our regulators. It establishes a climate of
respect and trust with the community. It keeps the people who live near you
comfortable that you are not polluting."
WALLY DOWS
Representative, Marathon Ash/and Petroleum, LLC, Garyville Refinery
-------
23
CONCLUSION
THROUGHOUT 2005, PERFORMANCE TRACK FOCUSED ON
leading change within EPA and state environmental agencies
by building support for the program's innovative approaches,
broadening the implementation of its incentives, and increas-
ing the value that members and partners, such as states, can
expect to get from their investment of time and resources. As
more states begin to implement Performance Track incentives,
the business case for participating in the program becomes
more compelling, and more facilities will be motivated to
improve their performance beyond environmental requirements.
Membership in the program grew by 33 percent in 2005,
and members reported another year of impressive voluntary
environmental achievements. The results reported in 2005
(for the 2004 reporting year) highlight the complex challenges
faced by facilities in meeting their Performance Track commit-
ments when their production increases. Many of the commit-
ments made by members, such as improvements in energy
and water use, or the generation of solid waste, are tied directly
to production. In most cases, Performance Track members suc-
ceeded in improving their eco-efficiency, producing less waste
and fewer emissions per unit of production and thus avoiding
many tons of pollution than otherwise would have occurred.
Looking ahead, Performance Track and its partners will
continue to build a stronger coalition of support and a more
solid base for continued growth and development. The
program will also work with members to continue to improve
measurement and transparency, along with an increased focus
on environmental priorities. Performance Track goes into the
new year as a healthy and maturing program, prepared to
continue leading EPA toward new models of environmental
protection.
-------
24
ABOUT PERFORMANCE TRACK
LAUNCHED IN JUNE OF 2000, the National Environmental
Performance Track ("Performance Track") is a partnership
program that recognizes and rewards private and public
facilities that demonstrate strong environmental performance
beyond current requirements. Performance Track promotes
a collaborative, performance-based system of environmental
protection in which top performers are treated differently, and
is designed to augment the existing regulatory system by creat-
ing additional incentives for facilities to achieve environmental
results beyond those required by law.
To qualify, applicants must have implemented an indepen-
dently assessed Environmental Management System, have a
record of sustained compliance with environmental laws and
regulations, commit to achieving measurable environmental
results, and provide information to the local community on
their environmental activities. They must pass a careful evalua-
tion process, which includes a thorough compliance screening
More than
1,000 employees
(26%)
by EPA, the states in which the applicant is located, and the
Department of Justice; additionally, EPA regional offices and
the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance concur
in every decision made regarding membership in the program.
Members are subject to the same environmental performance
requirements as other regulated facilities. In some cases, EPA
and states have reduced routine reporting or given some flex-
ibility to program members in how they meet regulatory require-
ments. This approach is recognized by more than 20 states that
have adopted similar performance-based leadership programs.
At the end of 2005, Performance Track had 371 members
in 46 states and Puerto Rico. Member facilities represent virtu-
ally every manufacturing sector, as well as public-sector facilities
at the federal, state, and local levels.
Arts, Recreation
and Entertainment
Chemical Products
Energy Utilities and
Sanitary Services
Pharmaceuticals
Medical Equipment
and Supplies
Metal Products
Other Manufacturing
Other
Non-manufacturing
Research and
Education
Rubber and Plastics
Transportation
Equipment
Wholesale. Retail, and
Shipping
Wood Products, Paper
and Printing
6 9
Number of members
12
15
The program is operated by a core staff in EPA's Office of
Policy, Economics, and Innovation, and by Performance Track
coordinators in each of the Agency's 10 regional offices. EPA
staff work with state environmental agencies to review applica-
tions for the program, conduct site visits at member facilities,
promote Performance Track and similar state performance-
based programs, and develop program policy.
Any facility, large or small, public or private, in the
United States and its territories may apply for membership in
Performance Track. The program accepts applications twice
per year, from April 1 to May 31, and from September 1 to
October 31.
For more information, visit the program's website at
www.epa.aov/Derformancetrack.
-------
PERFORMANCE
As of March 7, 2006
(continued from inside front cover)
IBM - Burlington
Ideal Jacobs Corporation
IMCO Recycling - Saginaw, A
Subsidiary of Aleris International,
Inc.
Indiantown Cogeneration, LP.
Infineon Technologies Richmond, LLP
Intel Arizona - Ocotillo Campus
Intel Corporation - Colorado
Intel Massachusetts, Inc.
Interface Fabrics, Inc. - East Douglass
Facility
Interface Fabrics, Inc. - Guilford
Facility
Interface Flooring Systems, Inc.
International Paper - Pine Bluff Mill
International Paper - Bucksport Mill
International Paper - Franklin Mill
International Paper - Vicksburg Mill
International Paper - Courtland Mill
International Paper - Eastover Mill
International Paper - Georgetown Mill
International Paper - Androscoggm
Mill
International Paper - Mansfield Mill
International Rectifier HEXFET America
Facility
International Rectifier - El Segundo
International Truck and Engine
Corporation
INX International Ink Co.
Itron, Inc.
Janssen Ortho, LLC
Janssen Pharmaceutica
Jefferson County Commission General
Services Department
John C. Stennis Space Center
John Deere Davenport Works
John Zmk Company, LLC
Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical
Research & Development, LLC - La
Jolla
Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical
Research & Development, LLC
- Spring House
Johnson & Johnson World
Headquarters
J&J Merck
Karl Schmidt Unisia, Inc. - Fort Worth
Facility
Kodak Colorado Division
LA-Z-BOY UTAH
Lafarge Aggregates SE - Douglasville
Quarry
Lafarge Building Materials
Lake Amistad Resort & Marina
Lake Crescent Lodge
Lake Don Pedro Marina, LLC
Lake of the Ozarks Marina
Lansing Cleaners
LifeScan LLC
LifeScan, Inc.
Lincoln Plating
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Company - Marietta
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Company - Palmdale
Lockheed Martin Maritime System
and Sensors - Moorestown
Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems
and Sensors - Baltimore
Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems
and Sensors - Liverpool
Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems
and Sensors - Manassas
Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire
Control
Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire
Control - Dallas Operation
TRACK MEMBERS
Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire
Control - Orlando
Lockheed Martin Space Systems
Company - Waterton Plant
Lockheed Martin Systems Integration
- Owego
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation
- Carthage OSB Plant
Louisiana-Pacific - Hmes Engineered
Wood Products
Louisiana-Pacific - Houlton OSB
Louisiana- Pacific - Jasper OSB
Louisiana-Pacific - Roxboro
Louisiana-Pacific - Tomahawk,
Engineered Wood Siding
Louisiana-Pacific - Two Harbors,
Engineered Siding
Louisiana-Pacific - Wilmington EWP
Louisiana-Pacific - Middlebury
Madison Chemical Co., Inc.
Madison Precision Products
Majestic Metals, Inc.
Mammoth Cave Hotel
Management and Engineering
Services, LLC
Marathon Petroleum Company
- Louisiana Refinery Division
Marathon Petroleum Company, LLC
- Corporate Office
Marina at Lake Meredith
McNeil Consumer S Specialty
Pharmaceuticals - Las Piedras
McNeil Consumer & Specialty
Pharmaceuticals - Fort Washington
MD Anderson Cancer Center
Mead Westvaco Corporation
Consumer and Office Product
Group
Michelm NA - Sandy Springs
Michelm NA - Starr
Michelm North American -
Spartanburg Manufacturing
Michelm North America, Inc.
- Ardmore
Michelm North America, Inc - Dothan
Michelm North America, Inc. -
Greenville Manufacturing Facility
Mitek Products (West)
Moccasin Point Marina, LLC
Mohawk Paper Mills
Monsanto Company - Augusta
Monsanto Company - Lulmg, LA
Facility
Monsanto Company - Muscatme,
Iowa Plant
Montenay Bay, LLC
Montenay Energy Resources of
Montgomery County. Inc.
Montenay York Resource Energy
Systems, LLC
Motorola GTSS - Ocotillo
Motorola IL02
Motorola, Inc. - Fort Worth Facility
Motorola, Inc. - Plantation
Motorola, Oak Hill
MT Picture Display Corporation of
America
NASA Ames Research Center
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Naval Air Depot - Cherry Point NC
Naval Air Depot - North Island Naval
Air Station
Naval Air Engineering Station
Naval Undersea Warfare Center
Division
Nestle USA - Danville
New Hampshire Ball Bearings, Inc.
- Peterborough
New Hampshire Ball Bearings, Inc.
- Chatsworth
New Hampshire Ball Bearings, Inc.
- Astro Division
Nexfor Fraser Papers, Inc.
Nitinol Devices and Components
Noramco-Athens
Norco Cleaners, Inc.
Novozymes North America, Inc.
Nucor Steel Auburn, Inc.
Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics - Raritan
Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics - Rochester
Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical
Ortho Biologies, LLC
Ortho- Pharmaceutical, a Division of
OMJ Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Osram Sylvama Products Inc.
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
PerkinElmer Optoelectronics
Pfizer Global Manufacturing
Pfizer Incorporated Terre Haute
Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, LLC
- Barcelonetta
Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, LLC - Cruce
Davilla Facility
Pfizer Pharmaceuticals LLC - Vega Baja
Pfizer, Inc - Lincoln
Pfizer, Inc - White Hall
Pfizer, Inc - Lititz
Pfizer, La Jolla Laboratories
Pmewood Cove Resort
Plastech Engineered Products, Inc
Port of Houston Authority Barbours
Cut Terminal
Port of Houston Authority Central
Maintenance Facility
PPG Industries Inc.
Pratt & Whitney - HMI - Clayville
Pratt & Whitney - North Berwick Parts
Center
Pratt & Whitney/ Pratt & Whitney
Rocketdyne
PRIZIM, Inc.
PRO-TEC Coating Company
Raytheon, Aurora
Republic Metals Corporation
Ricoh Electronics, Inc. - OMG
Ricoh Electronics, Inc. - RSG/TMG
Rockwell Collins
Rockwell Collins - Atlanta Service
Center
Rockwell Collins Avionics - Melbourne
Campus
Rockwell Collins, Inc. - Wichita Service
Center
Rockwell Collins, Inc. - 35th Street
Operations
Rockwell Collins, Inc. - Bellevue
Operations
Rockwell Collins, Inc. - C Avenue
Operations
Rockwell Collins, Inc. - Coralville
Operations
Rockwell Collins, Inc. - Decorah
Operations
Rockwell Collins, Inc. - Manchester
Operations
Rocky Mountain Park Company/
Holiday Inn Rocky Mtn. Park
Rohm and Haas - La Mirada Plant
Rohm and Haas - Kankakee Polymer
Plant
Rohm and Haas Electronic Materials,
LLC
Ryder Transportation Services, Inc.
- Beaumont
Ryder Transportation Services, Inc.
- Channelview
Ryder Transportation Services, Inc
- Houston
Ryder Transportation Services, Inc.
- Houston-Wallisvile
San Antonio Missions National
Historical Park
Sanmina - SCI Corporation Plant
Schering-Plough Animal Health
Corporation - Baton Rouge
Schering-Plough Products, LLC - Las
Piedras Operations
SEH America
SEMASS Resource Recovery Facility
Sharp Manufacturing Company of
America
Signal Mountain Lodge
Siltronic Corporation
Simpson Tacoma Kraft Company
Smithfield Transportation Co.
- Smithfield Division
Southeastern Connecticut Resource
Recovery Facility
Southfork Asset Management
Spartech Plastics - Paulding
Spartech Plastics - Arlington Texas
Spartech Plastics, LLC - Muncie
Spartech Polycom-Lockport, NY
Spartech Polycom Donora Plant 1
Stanley Fastening Systems
Stanley Furniture Company - Martmsville
Division
Stanley Tools - Pittsfield Plant
Stora Enso North America Duluth Paper
Mill and Recycled Pulp Mill
Taft Manufacturing Company
Tate & Lyle Sucralose, Inc.
TDK Components USA, Inc.
Temple Inland-Maysville Paper Mill
Teradyne, Inc. - NR
Texas Instruments Incorporated, Sensors
& Controls
Tomah Reserve, Inc.
The Top-Flite Golf Company
Torque-Traction Manufacturing
Technologies, Inc.
TransCanada Hydro Northeast Inc.
Trinity Lake Resort & Marina
United Waste Water Services. Inc.
UPM - Blandm Mill
U.S. Borax - Wilmington Operations
U.S. Borax, Inc. - Boron Operations
U.S. Borax, Inc. - Valencia Corporate
Facility
U.S. Borax, Inc. - Owens Lake Operations
U.S. Coast Guard Air Station Cape Cod
US Department of Energy &
DynMcDermott Petroleum Operations
Company
U.S. Department of Energy, West Valley
Demonstration Project
U.S. Steel Clairton Works
Vectron International, A Dover Company
Verkamp's, Inc.
Vistakon
Wafertech LLC
Wallowa Whitman National Forest
Washington State University
Webasto Roof Systems Inc.
Webco Industries, Inc.
Weyerhaeuser Structurwood, Grayling
World Resources Company, Pottsville,
PA
Xanterra at Mt. Rushmore National
Memorial
Xanterra Parks & Resorts at Bryce
Canyon Lodge
Xanterra Parks & Resorts at Grand
Canyon Lodge
Xanterra Parks & Resorts at
Yellowstone National Park
Xanterra Parks & Resorts at Zion Lodge
Xanterra South Rim, LLC
Xerox Oklahoma City Supplies
Manufacturing Plant
Yamaha Motor Manufacturing
Corporation of America
Yankee Freedom II - Dry Tortugas
National Park Ferry
YH America, Inc.
YSI Incorporated
------- |