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 ------- |