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

-------