Performance Track
Third Annual Progress Report
, -'ip
. Growth^
RenewSf
*1 National
^ Environmental
f. PerformanceTrc
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
Location of Performance Track members
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
1
Introduction 3
About Performance Track
4
Members' Commitments and Performance Improvements
8
Knvironmental Commitments
8
Knvironmental Performance Improvements
8
Member Achievements in 2003
10
Cumulative Achievements, 2000-2003
12
Charter Members' Achievements
12
Caveats to the 2003 Results
13
Member Services and Incentives
14
Public Recognition
14
Special Recognition Within Performance Track
IS
Corporate Leaders
15
Regulatory and Administrative Incentives
16
Networking and Learning Opportunities
18
Performance Track Partnerships
21
Partnerships with States
21
Partnerships with Other KPA Voluntary Programs
22
Performance Track Network Partners
23
The Performance Track Members' Survey
24
Conclusion
26
-------
-------
Executive Summary
For the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's National
Environmental Performance
Track program (Performance
Track), 2004 was a year
of growth, renewal, and
the achievement of several
important milestones:
The program's charter members
completed their first three-year
term in the program, and more
than 75 chose to renew their
membership.
Former KPA Administrator Mike
I.eavitt signed the first Performance
Track Rule, which provides regula-
tory and administrative incentives
to members.
Administrator I.eavitt met with
state officials in October, 2004
to discuss their support for
Performance Track and other
performance-based programs.
The meeting led to a state-by-
state survey by the Knvironmental
Council of the States and an
action plan to implement recom-
mendations.
Performance Track created a
new Corporate Leader designa-
tion to recognize companies
that demonstrate an exceptional
corporate-wide commitment to
environmental stewardship and
continuous improvement.
Senior managers from KPA's
Office of Water and Performance
Track met in September with
25 Performance Track members
to share ideas on incentives.
Performance Track also worked
with the Office of Water to develop
incentives tied to the review of
National Pollutant Discharge
Klimination System permits, the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
program, and the effluent guideline
planning process.
Three KPA regions developed
Performance Track challenge
commitments, specific goals that
members may choose to adopt in
order to help address regional envi-
ronmental priorities.
Performance Track members
reported another year of outstand-
ing results, with especially sig-
nificant reductions in energy and
water use, the generation of solid
waste, and emissions of hazardous
air pollutants.
Kighty-six percent of members
reported that they are satisfied with
the level of recognition they have
received from Performance Track.
Performance Track worked with
its trade association Network
Partners to build interest in
Performance Track through work-
shops, articles in magazines, and
coordinated communications.
KPA signed an agreement with the
American Chemistry Council and
the Synthetic Organic Chemical
.Manufacturers' Association to
achieve closer collaboration
between Performance Track and
Responsible Care".
The Performance Track
Participants Association (PTPA),
an independent association
for members of the program,
Performance Track
Fast Facts
The program currently has 351
members in 46 states and Puerto Rico
To date, Performance Track
members report that they have
collectively reduced their water use
by more than 1 3 billion gallons
enough to meet the water
needs of New York City's 8 million
inhabitants for a day
Members report that they have
cut their generation of solid waste
by nearly 600,000 tons, and have
decreased their energy use by more
than 8 4 trillion British Thermal Units
(BTUs), enough to power more than
80,600 homes for a year
In 2003 alone, Performance Track
members report that they collectively
reduced their energy use by 5 3 tril-
lion BTUs, water use by 566 3 million
gallons, and solid waste by nearly
300,000 tons
held meetings and maintained
ongoing communications with
Administrator I.eavitt and head-
quarters staff, KPA regional offices,
and states to help build support for
Performance Track.
None of these accomplishments
would have been possible without the
partnerships that Performance Track
has forged with members, states,
industry groups, and PTPA, all of
which are working hard to build the
program's value to members and the
environment. This year of growth
and renewal for Performance Track
has strengthened the program, added
new incentives for facilities to go
beyond compliance with environmen-
tal laws, and set the stage for a suc-
cessful future.
1
-------
-------
Introduction
To the Maori of New
Zealand, the curled emerg-
ing frond of a tree fern
symbolizes growth and
renewal, new life rising in a
perpetual cycle. The koru,
as the unfurling frond is
known, is an apt depic-
tion of EPA's National
Environmental Performance
Track (Performance Track)
program at the current stage
of its development. At the
end of 2003, Performance
Track's charter members
completed their first three-
year term in the program,
and more than 75 percent of
them applied to renew their
membership. Many of these
facilities brought others with
them to join the program for
the first time.
The first renewal season was
an important milestone for
Performance Track, as well as a
litmus test. The decision of so many
members to renew is a testament
to the programs ability to attract
and retain the nation's top environ-
mental performers. It also speaks to
member facilities' belief in the basic
tenets of the program and to their
faith that the program will continue
to grow and flourish, providing new
benefits and incentives to strengthen
the business case for participation.
To that end, KPA added a number
of important new benefits for
Performance Track members in
2004, including the signing of the
first Performance Track Rule by
Administrator I.eavitt in April and a
notice of proposed rulemaking that
would add regulatory and admin-
istrative incentives for Performance
Track members under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). KPA estimates that the first
Performance Track Rule will save
eligible Performance Track members a
total of more than $700,000 by 2007.
The Agency also took new
steps to encourage states to adopt
Performance Track incentives,
with positive results in a number
of states. KPA signed Memoranda
of Agreement with four additional
states in 2004, for a total of nine,
to coordinate Performance Track
with state performance-based pro-
grams and initiatives. The Agency
also negotiated an agreement with
the American Chemistry Council
and the Synthetic Organic Chemical
.Manufacturers Association to
streamline the Performance Track
application process for Responsible
Care "-certified facilities.
Performance Track created a new
Corporate Leader designation to
recognize companies that demon-
strate an exceptional corporate-wide
commitment to environmental stew-
ardship and continuous improve-
ment. The program also conducted
its first survey of members to assess
the value that they perceive from
w The Performance
Track program
encourages
companies to
set their own
environmental
goals and stretch
themselves to meet
them. Performance
Track promotes
a more beneficial
relationship with
regulatory agencies,
as it moves away
from command-
and-control
measures and
holds companies
accountable for
achieving their own
targets."
Shannon Cox
Environmental Specialist
Interface Fabrics Group
3
-------
Figure 1: Performance Track Environmental Performance Indicators
Applicants to the program choose from among these indicators when setting their performance goals. See the description on page 5.
upstream
materials procurement
recycled content
hazardous components
suppliers' environmental performance
any relevant indicator from the
inputs or nonproduct outputs stages
inputs
material use
materials used
hazardous materials used
ozone-depleting substances used
packaging materials used
energy use
non transportation
energy use
transportation _ ฆฆ
energy use
water use
water used
fi land and habitat
Ljฃ land and habitat
8ฎ' conservation
nonproducr ourpurs
air emissions
greenhouse gases
VOCs
NOx
SOx
PM-10
carbon monoxide
air toxics
odor
radiation
dust
noise
noise
waste
non-hazardous waste generation
hazardous waste generation
r^Tl
ownstream
products
expected lifetime energy use
expected lifetime water use
expected lifetime waste (to air,
water, land) from product use
waste to air, water, land from
disposal or recovery
discharges to water
chemical oxygen demand
biological oxygen demand
toxics
suspended solids
nutrients
sediment from runoff
pathogens
acronyms
VOCs = Volatile Organic Compounds
f JO = nitrogen oxides
SO = sulfur oxides
PM-10 = particulate matter
rhe program. Seventy-six percent of
current members responded to rhe
survey, providing valuable feedback
that will help KPA focus irs efforrs
on future benefits.
About
Performance Track
Now in irs fifth year, Performance
Truck recognizes and rewards facili-
ties that consistently exceed regula-
rory requirements, work closely
with their communities, and excel
in protecting rhe environment and
public health.
KPA provides exclusive regula-
tory and administrative benefits
to members, places them at low
priority for routine inspections, and
offers public recognition, network-
ing opportunities, and other bene-
fits. But Performance Track facilities
do nor rest on their laurels: among
rhe criteria for membership are a
commitment to challenging envi-
ronmental goals and a dedication to
continuous improvement. Members
report annually on progress toward
their goals.
This report presents rhe achieve-
ments of Performance Track
members for rhe year 2003, along
with cumulative results since
rhe programs inception in 2000
and final results from rhe charter
members' first full three-year cycle.
It also describes rhe programs new
benefits, services, and incentives,
including those announced during
rhe first three months of 2005,
along with key findings from rhe
Performance Track member survey.
4
-------
Program Structure
Performance Thick is operated
by a core stuff in KPA's Office of
Policy, Kconomics, and Innovation,
and by Performance Track coordi-
initors in each of the Agency's 10
regional offices. HPA staff work
with state environmental agencies to
review applications for the program,
conduct site visits at member facili-
ties, promote Performance Track and
similar state performance-based pro-
grams, and develop program policy.
Membership Criteria
Any facility, large or small, public
or private, in the United States and
its territories may apply for mem-
bership in Performance Track. The
program accepts applications twice
per year, from February 1 to April
30, and from August 1 to October
3 1. An online application form is
available at www.cpa.gov/pcrfor-
mancctrack/apps/app.htm.
To be eligible for membership,
facilities must have:
1.A comprehensive, indepen-
dently assessed Knvironmental
Management System (K.V1S)
2. A record of sustained compliance
with environmental laws
3. A commitment to continual envi-
ronmental improvement
4. (/immunity outreach activities
In meeting the third criterion,
applicants commit to four quan-
titative goals for improving their
environmental performance. Small
facilities commit to two goals.
Applicants choose their commit-
ments from among the indicators
listed in Figure 1 (page 4), such as
materials use, air emissions, or land
conservation. Commitments can
include upstream improvements,
such as increasing the recycled
content of purchased materials
or improving the environmental
performance of suppliers; improve-
ments to inputs, such as decreasing
the use of energy and water; reduc-
tions in nonproduct outputs such
as air emissions, waste, and dis-
charges to water; and downstream
improvements, such as decreasing
the expected lifetime energy or
water use of products. Kach facil-
ity chooses its commitments based
on its individual environmental
impacts.
In 2004, Performance Track
instituted a "challenge commit-
ment" policy to encourage members
to address specific regional envi-
ronmental priorities. Kach HPA
region decides whether to create a
Performance Track challenge com-
mitment, which is made available
only to facilities within that region.
Challenge commitments count as
two performance commitments;
thus, members that adopt a chal-
lenge commitment need only set
three environmental performance
commitments rather than four.
To date, HPA Regions 1, 2, and 6
have set challenge commitments.
Region 1 (Connecticut, Maine,
.Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, and Vermont) chal-
lenges New Kngland Performance
Track facilities to commit to reduc-
ing their energy use and associ-
ated greenhouse gas emissions by
5 percent. Region 2 (New Jersey,
New York, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin
Islands) challenges members to
reduce energy use or air emissions
from mobile sources by 10 percent,
or reduce air emissions from non-
mobile sources by 20 percent.
Region 6 (Arkansas, Louisiana,
New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas) has
created an air emissions challenge
commitment for facilities in ozone
non-attainment areas, challeng-
Environmental
Management Systems
An Environmental Management
System (EMS) is a continual cycle of
planning, implementing, reviewing
and improving the processes and
actions that an organization under-
takes to meet its business and envi-
ronmental goals EMSs are designed
to identify, assess, and reduce facili-
ties' environmental impacts
Most EMSs are built on a "Plan, Do,
Check, Act" model, which leads to
continual improvement based on:
Planning, including identifying
environmental indicators and
establishing goals,
Implementing, including training
and operational controls,
Checking, including monitoring
and corrective action, and
Reviewing, including progress
reviews and acting to make neces-
sary changes to the EMS
Facilities applying to Performance
Track certify that they have adopted
and implemented an EMS, and that
it has undergone an independent
assessment Details on the EMS
criteria for Performance Track are
available at www.epa.gov/perfor-
mancetrack/program/ems.htm.
5
-------
Featured Facility
U.S. Steel
Clairton Works
U.S. Steel Clairton Works of Clairton,
Pennsylvania, employs 1 224 people and is
the largest metallurgical coke plant in the
country. Built in 1901, it was the first coke
plant in the world Major products include
blast furnace coke, coke oven gas, light oil,
anhydrous ammonia, elemental sulfur, and
crude coal tar
Clairton Works was the first U S "smoke-
stack" facility to become ISO 14001 certified
When the facility joined Performance Track
in 2001, it committed to reducing its steam
use from 764,400 MMBtus to 752,400
MMBtus per year during its three-year
membership period The facility reduced its
steam use each year, and in 2003 showed
a particularly impressive reduction from
728,532 to 664,100 MMBtus a level far
beyond the facility's initial commitment The
accomplishments in 2003 resulted from a
series of efforts to identify opportunities
to reduce steam use, followed by a variety
of energy conseivation projects, such as
repairing steam leaks One benefit of these
reductions was that more of the coke oven
gas produced at this facility can be used to
replace the use of natural gas at sister plants
in the area
In 2004, the Clairton Works facility renewed
its membership in Performance Track
Between now and 2007, the facility intends
to further reduce energy use by installing
variable frequency drives and better metering
systems
ing facilities to make at least a 15
percent reduction of N()x
or VOCs.
Facilities are accepted into
Performance Track for a three-year
period, after which they may apply
to renew their membership and
select a new set of commitments.
Reporting, Monitoring,
and Site Visits
For each year of their member-
ship, Performance Track members
submit an annual performance
report documenting their results and
major activities undertaken as part
of their K.V1S. This report is due on
April 1 for the preceding calendar
year. KPA reviews each report to
monitor performance and continued
conformance with the programs
criteria.
In addition to monitoring perfor-
mance through annual reports, KPA
Performance Track staff and state
officials visit a number of the pro-
gram's member facilities each year.
A site visit allows KPA to verify
information presented in a facility's
application, such as the quality of
its K.V1S, and to review progress
toward its performance commit-
ments. KPA provides the facility
with an assessment of its perfor-
mance relative to other facilities
in the program, and may suggest
opportunities for improvements or
partnerships with other firms and
sources of technical expertise. The
site visit also helps KPA and states
establish a relationship with the
facility's key environmental staff and
top management, which may facili-
tate discussions on ways to improve
Performance Track and its benefits.
Beginning in Kebruary, 2004,
Performance Track established a cri-
terion that all new applicants must
have had an independent assessment
of their K.V1S within the three-year
period prior to the date of applica-
tion. Because this criterion did not
apply to existing Performance Track
facilities, KPA focused the majority
of its site visits in 2004 on facilities
that had not had an independent
assessment at the time of their appli-
cation.
KPA conducted site visits at 25
Performance Track facilities in
2004. Twenty-two of the visits were
"traditional" site visits, focusing
on whether the facility's K.V1S met
the Performance Track criteria and
how the facility was progressing
on its performance commitments
and public outreach activities.
The remaining three facilities were
visited for the purpose of testing a
different direction in assessments,
focused on evaluating data quality
and whether the implementation
of an K.V1S resulted in measurable
improvements in environmental
performance. As KPA becomes
confident that the new independent
assessment criterion provides assur-
ance that applying facilities have a
working K.V1S in place, the Agency
will conduct more of these perfor-
mance-based site visits and fewer
traditional site visits.
Of the 22 traditional visits con-
ducted, only four facilities were
ISO-certified (the International
Organization for Standardization's
environmental management stan-
dard). Of the remaining IX facilities,
half had self-assessed their K.VISs
and half had a third party but
not necessarily an independent one
assess their K.VISs. KPA found
areas for improvement at 10 of the
IX non-ISO facilities, and these 10
facilities have agreed to implement
these improvements. KPA asked two
of the IX facilities to withdraw from
the program due to severe deficiencies
6
-------
associated with their K.VlSs. Overall,
the findings from KPA's 2004 site
visits are once again consistent with
previous years' results, in which the
Agency found that most K.V1S issues
were associated with non-ISO facili-
ties or facilities whose K.V1S was not
certified by a third party. This finding
led to the implementation of the
independent assessment requirement
described above.
Membership Profile
Performance Track currently
has 35 1 members in 46 states and
Puerto Rico. Members represent vir-
tually every manufacturing sector, as
well as public-sector facilities at the
federal, state, and local levels.
By the end of February, 2005,
Performance Track had reviewed
nine rounds of applications, receiv-
ing 601 applications and accepting
4X2. A total of 131 facilities have
left the program since its inception.
Facilities may be removed from
Performance Track at their own
request, for failing to continue to
meet the program entry criteria,
or for failing to submit a complete
annual performance report. The
most common reasons for leaving
were KMS deficiencies found during
site visits; facility closure, sale, or
reorganization; and failure to submit
Figure 2: Size of Performance Track Facilities
than
7% 50 employees
50-99
employees
Figure 3: Distribution of Performance Track
Members Across Sectors
S"
Medical
Equipment
and Supplies
and Entertainment
an annual performance report. Some
members also chose not to renew
their membership upon comple-
tion of their three-year membership
term. In all cases, KPA encourages
facilities to reapply to Performance
Track when they are again able to
meet the program criteria.
7
-------
Members' Commitments and
Performance Improvements
Performance Track
members are at
the forefront of
innovation and
environmental
stewardship,
fundamentally
strengthening
the relationship
between business
and government."
Stephen L Johnson
Acting Administrator, U S EPA
Performance Track facilities
have set challenging envi-
ronmental commitments
and achieved impressive
results. Manv members
~
have managed to improve
their performance well
bevond the levels in their
~
commitments.
Performance Track is a beyond-
compliance program: improvements
reported by members exceed those
required by law. In addition, many
members choose to reduce impacts
in areas that are essentially unregu-
lated, such as materials use, water
use, energy use, habitat preserva-
tion, and greenhouse gas emissions.
One of Performance Tracks key
environmental benefits is its ability
to promote voluntary progress on
these and other unregulated issues.
Here we present the commitments
of current members, environmental
results reported for 2003, cumula-
tive results for Performance Track
since its inception, and the cumula-
tive achievements of the program's
charter members, who completed
their first three-year term in the
program during 2003. The results
are based on members' annual per-
formance reports for 2003, submit-
ted to KPA in 2004 and available
online at www.cpa.gov/pcrforman-
cctrack/particip/indcx.htm.
Environmental
Commitments
Performance Track members
commit to at least four environmen-
tal goals (two for small facilities)
that they aim to meet within the
three-year term of their membership
in the program. Table 1 summa-
rizes the commitments of facilities
accepted into Performance Track by
the end of 2004. Collectively these
members have pledged to:
Increase their use of recycled
content in purchased materials by
137,493 tons;
Reduce their use of hazardous
materials by 20,46X tons;
Reduce their water consumption
by 4.16 billion gallons;
Reduce their non-transportation
energy use by 36.4 trillion British
Thermal Units (BTUs);
Kxpand the area of land set aside
for conservation by 20,270 acres;
Reduce their greenhouse gas emis-
sions by 49,X66 metric tons of
carbon dioxide equivalents;
Reduce their total discharges to
water by 22,X 19 tons; and
Reduce their generation of haz-
ardous and non-hazardous waste
by 235,570 tons.
Environmental
Performance
Improvements
Kach year, Performance Track
members submit a report on their
environmental performance and
other achievements during the previ-
ous year. KPA reviews each report to
monitor performance and continued
conformity with Performance Track
membership criteria.
8
-------
Table 1: Current Performance Track Members' Commitments
Accepted Through 2004
Categories and Indicators
Materials Procurement
Recycled content
Hazardous/toxic components
Suppliers' Environmental Performance
Packaging materials
Hazardous materials
Materials Use
Hazardous materials
Ozone-depleting substances
Packaging materials
Water Use
Total water use
Energy Use
Non-transportation energy use
Transportation energy use
Land and Habitat
Land and habitat conservation
Air Emissions
Greenhouse gases
Volatile organic compounds
Nitrogen oxides
Sulfur oxides
Particulate matter (PM-10)
Carbon monoxide
Air toxics
Radiation
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
Products
Expected lifetime waste (to air, water, land)
Number of Members With Goals*
Upstream
44
5
1
1
Inputs
69
3
15
128
153
7
29
Nonproduct Outputs
28
46
21
13
7
2
17
1
7
2
7
9
4
1
191
121
Downstream
Projected Annual Improvement
by Year 3 of Membership
137,493 tons (increase)
79 tons
56 tons
0.28 tons
20,468 tons
33 tons
358 tons
4.16 billion gallons
36.4 million MMBTUs
90,241 gallons
20,270 acres (increase)
49,866 metric tons of CO2 equivalent
700 tons
2,406 tons
1,646 tons
88 tons
0.13 ton
293 tons
1,117 Curies
1,056 tons
7,444 tons
14,075 tons
130 tons
14 tons
100 tons
225,492 tons
10,078 tons
108 dBa**
751 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
**A-weighted decibels, an expression of the relative loudness of sounds in air as perceived by the human ear
-------
Featured Facility
Henkel Loctite
Henkel Loctite in Olean, New York,
manufactures electronic encapsulants,
including molding powders, coating
powders, and formulated liquids, such as
urethane and epoxy systems Henkel Loctite
is a recent recipient of the Good Neighbor
Award for the Environment from the Greater
Olean Area Chamber of Commerce
This Performance Track member facility,
which has 228 employees, is committed to
dramatically reducing the amount of non-
contact cooling water used in its production
processes Since 2000, the facility has
improved the water use efficiency of these
processes by 61 percent Henkel Loctite
achieved this result by installing closed-loop
chiller systems on the process equipment and
a cooling tower for the chiller systems
Featured Facility
Andersen
Corporation
Andersen Corporation of Bayport, Minnesota,
employs about 3,500 people at this location to
manufacture windows and patio doors One
of its four commitments during its first three
years as a Performance Track member was to
reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds
(VOCsi During calendar years 2001 through
2003, Andersen reduced its VOC emissions
from 1,775 tons to 1,391 tons by improving the
efficiency of its wood treating processes and by
incorporating a slower evaporating solvent into
its window paint line pretreatment process
The facility plans to reduce its VOC emissions
by at least another 200 tons during its next
three-year commitment (2004 through 2006)
through process improvements to solvent-borne
preservative and coating operations Andersen
continues to implement process improvement
projects that align with the principles of lean
manufacturing, including projects to increase
transfer efficiencies in its paint line coating
processes and alternative technologies and
process improvements to reduce solvent-based
wood preservation treatment
In many cases, the results reported
by Performance Track members
tell only part of the story. Some
member facilities have improved
their "eco-efficiency" by reducing
their environmental impacts per unit
of production. When these facilities'
production increases, they avoid
impacts that otherwise would have
occurred. For example, Performance
Track facilities reported an absolute
reduction in water use of 566.3
million gallons in 2003, but when
improvements in eco-efficiency are
taken into account, they actually
avoided using more than 1.9 billion
gallons of water. These avoidance
figures are calculated by apply-
ing a normalizing factor (taking
into account changes in produc-
tion) to the actual impact during
the baseline year to estimate what
the impact would have been in the
reporting year without environmen-
tal improvements. The reported
actual environmental impact is
then subtracted from this estimate,
yielding the environmental impact
avoided through the facility's envi-
ronmental performance improve-
ments. Please note that the tables
in this section present only actual
reported results, not normalized
estimates. The summary below dis-
cusses actual results except where
indicated.
The aggregated results of
members' performance reports for
the environmental indicators shown
here may be strongly influenced by
improvements or declines in perfor-
mance at large Performance Track
facilities such as a major reduc-
tion or increase in energy use at a
large, energy-intensive factory.
Although FPA works closely
with members to standardize their
reporting, not all data submitted
by members could be standardized
before this report went to print. The
tables and graphs in this section
indicate how many commitments
contributed to the results shown.
Member
Achievements
in 2003
Performance Track facilities
achieved outstanding results in
2003, especially for their reductions
in energy use, water use, emissions
of hazardous air pollutants, and
solid waste. However, there was an
overall increase in members' use of
materials and hazardous materials
in 2003, and an increase in certain
discharges to water.
Energy Use
Performance Track members
reported an overall 2.5 percent
decrease in energy consumption
between 2002 and 2003, saving
more than 5.3 trillion BTUs. On
a normalized basis, taking into
account changes in facilities'
production, Performance Track
members avoided 14.X trillion BTUs
of energy use in 2003, equivalent
to the amount used by more than
140,000 average homes in a year.
Water Use
Members reported a 1.25 percent
decrease in water use between
2002 and 2003, saving more than
566 million gallons of water. As
with energy, the amount of water
use avoided by improvements in
eco-efficiency is much larger: on a
normalized basis, members avoided
using more than l.X billion gallons
of water.
10
-------
Air Emissions
Air emissions reported by
Performance Track members
decreased in 2003, with a 37
percent reduction in emissions of
hazardous air pollutants (air toxics),
a 16 percent reduction in volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), a 14
percent decrease in nitrogen oxides
(N()x), and a 12 percent reduction
in sulfur oxides (S()x).
Solid and
Hazardous Wastes
Performance Track members
reported a 14 percent decrease in
their generation of solid waste in
2003, a reduction of nearly 300,000
tons. Hazardous waste generation
decreased by 1,763 tons, a 4.5
percent reduction.
Land and Habitat
Conservation
Members preserved or restored an
additional 3,3X6 acres of habitat in
2003, an area four times the size of
New York City's Central Park.
Materials Use
In the aggregate, members showed
an increase in materials use in 2003.
This was due largely to a 42 percent
increase in production at one large
facility. Not surprisingly, that facil-
ity showed an increase in materials
use, but also showed an increase
in materials efficiency. In fact, with
production changes taken into
account, members showed an aggre-
gate improvement in their efficiency
of materials use, avoiding 1,046
tons of materials use in 2003.
1 1
Table 2: Performance Track Members'
Results for 2003
Indicator
Improvements
made in 20031
Units
Number of
results2
Energy use
5,327,423
MMBTUs
131
Water use
566,290,593
gallons
98
Materials use
(26,01 If
tons
47
Hazardous
materials use
(1,576)
tons
47
Use of reused/
recycled materials
62,933 (increase)
tons
46
Greenhouse gases
28,103
metric tons of
CO2 equivalent
42
Volatile organic
compounds (VOCs)
565
tons
48
Air toxics
175
tons
19
Nitrogen oxides (NOx)
1,746
tons
19
Ozone-depleting
substances
11
tons
5
Particulate matter
55
tons
12
Sulfur oxides (SOx)
2,635
tons
8
Solid waste
295,815
tons
160
Hazardous waste
1,763
tons
103
Land & habitat
conservation
3,386 (increase)
acres
27
Discharges of BOD,
COD, TSS, nutrients
to water4
(13,932)
tons
19
Discharges of toxics
to Water
(5,489)
tons
12
Product packaging
163
tons
6
1 Represents the difference between 2002 and 2003 actual quantities
2 These 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
2003 Annual Performance Reports were not completed by the cut-off date
3 Numbers in parentheses indicate an overall decline in performance
4 BOD=biochemical oxygen demand, COD=chemical oxygen demand, TSS=total suspended solids
Hazardous Materials Use
Hazardous materials use increased
in 2003, despite the fact that more
than half of the members with
commitments to reduce their use
of hazardous materials showed
improvements in efficiency. The
-------
Table 3: Performance Track Members'
Cumulative Results, 2000-2003
Indicator
Cumulative
Reductions
Units
Number of
Results1
Energy use
8,466,262
MMBTUs
131
Water use
1,341,708,688
gallons
98
Materials use
74,562
tons
47
Hazardous
materials use
16,420
tons
47
Use of reused/
recycled materials
76,695 (increase)
tons
46
Greenhouse gases
Not available2
tons
42
Volatile organic
compounds (VOCs)
1,017
tons
48
Air toxics
209
tons
19
Carbon monoxide
16
tons
2
Nitrogen oxides (NOx)
3,898
tons
19
Ozone-depleting
substances
7 7
tons
5
Particulate matter
69
tons
12
Sulfur oxides (SOx)
16,257
tons
8
Solid waste
582,213
tons
160
Hazardous waste
8,321
tons
103
Land & habitat
conservation
7,871 (increase)
acres
27
Discharges of BOD,
COD, TSS, nutrients
to water4
(12,530)3
tons
19
Discharges of
toxics to Water
(1,345)
tons
12
Product packaging
1,829
tons
6
1 These 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
2003 Annual Performance Reports were not completed by the cut-off date
2 Cumulative results for greenhouse gases are not available due to a change in reporting after 2002 In 2001 and 2002,
all members reported total tons of greenhouse gas emissions, after 2002 the program began a transition to reporting
emissions in terms of CO2 equivalents
3 Numbers in parentheses indicate an overall decline in performance
4 BOD=biochemical oxygen demand, COD=chemical oxygen demand, TSS=total suspended solids
result am he attributed almost com-
pletely to three facilities that, despite
very good overall performance
records, showed some negative fluc-
tuations in hazardous materials use
in 2003.
Discharges to Water
The results of commitments to
reduce discharges to water were
dominated by a decline in per-
formance at two large facilities.
Discharges increased by 19,421
tons in 2003.
Cumulative
Achievements,
2000-2003
Since the inception of the
program, Performance Track
members have:
Reduced their energy use by
nearly X.5 trillion BTUs, enough
to power X0.5 million homes
for a year;
Reduced their water use by more
than 1.3 billion gallons, enough to
meet all of New York City's water
needs for a day;
Reduced their generation of solid
waste by nearly 600,000 tons;
Reduced their generation of haz-
ardous waste by X,32 1 tons;
Reduced their use of materials by
74,562 tons;
Reduced their use of hazardous
materials by 16,420 tons; and
Set aside 7,X71 acres of land for
conservation, an area larger than
7,000 football fields.
Charter Members'
Achievements
During Performance Track's first
year, it accepted 253 facilities into
the program. The results reported
by these facilities, which completed
their three-year term of membership
in 2003, are presented here. These
results represent the achievements of
Performance Track's first complete
membership cycle.
Among these members' notable
achievements were a reduction in
energy use of more than 1 trillion
12
-------
BTUs enough to power nenrly
1 (),()()() households for a yenr
and a reduction in water use of 1.9
billion gallons, enough to supply the
water needs of more than 66,000
homes for a year.
Caveats to the
2003 Results
1. Data arc self-reported by member
facilities anil nor verified by FPA.
2. Although KPA asks for exact figures,
some facilities appear to submit
rounded data.
3. The baseline year for members that
entered the program in Rounds 4 and
5 is 2001. Their results actually rep-
resent changes occurring over a two-
year period.
4. The avoidance figures in the summary
of 2003 results are based on the
normalizing factors calculated and
provided by individual facilities.
A facility's avoidance figures for
2003 were calculated by dividing
the 2003 normalizing factor by the
2002 normalizing factor, multiplying
that result by the 2002 performance
level, and then calculating the dif-
ference between that product and
the actual 2003 results. Thus, the
accuracy of the avoidance figures
depends on both the accuracy of
the reported actual results and the
reported 2002 and 2003 normalizing
factors. Normalizing is an inexact
science. Normalizing factors often tell
an incomplete story about changes
in production in a facility, and they
often fail to explain fully the causes of
environmental pollution or resource
consum prion.
5. Approximately 15 percent of member
facilities' commitments relate to a spe-
cific process rather than to the facility
as a whole. For example, a facility may
have committed to reducing its VOC
emissions from a particular produc-
tion line by 50 percent. The numbers
reported in this document thus reflect
the commitments made and the
results relevant to those commitments.
Therefore, it would be a misinterpreta-
tion of the data to assume that a dem-
onstrated improvement is, or could be
projected to, represent the performance
of entire facilities.
(>. Similarly, facilities' commitments
13
Table 4: Performance Track Charter
Members' Cumulative Results1
Indicator
Cumulative
Reductions
Units
Number of
Results2
Energy use
1,038,815
MMBTUs
77
Water use
1,932,873,264
gallons
67
Materials use
65,137
tons
35
Hazardous
materials use
1,015
tons
29
Use of reused/
recycled materials
147,255 (increase)
tons
23
Greenhouse gases
39,337
tons
41
Volatile organic
compounds (VOCs)
850
tons
33
Air toxics
(2,418)3
tons
8
Nitrogen oxides (NOx)
2,030
tons
9
Particulate matter
36
tons
9
Solid waste
518,069
tons
95
Hazardous waste
(157,958)
tons
64
Land & habitat
conservation
5,492 (increase)
acres
20
Discharges of BOD,
COD, TSS to water4
(2,041)
tons
9
1 These figures reflect the cumulative results from charter members and the second round of applicants,
1 e , all facilities accepted in the first year of Performance Track
2 These numbers represent the number of charter member commitment results included in the analysis,
rather than the total number of commitments under the particular indicator
3 Numbers in parentheses indicate an overall decline in performance
4 BOD=biochemical oxygen demand, COD=chemical oxygen demand, TSS=total suspended solids
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 chemi-
cals. The parameters of each facility's
commitments may be determined by
viewing its application and/or annual
performance reports at www.cpa.gov7
performancetrack/particip.
-------
Member Services
and Incentives
; We have demonstrated
that we are on a track
toward continuous
improvement
and success in
environmental
performance. Joining
Performance Track
was another way
of challenging us
to continue those
successes."
Ken Gallant
Environmental Supervisor
International Paper-Bucksport
EPA offers exclusive ben-
efits to Performance Track
members in three kev areas:
~
public recognition, regula-
tory and administrative
~
incentives, and networking
opportunities. The Agency
added a number of new ben-
efits in 2004, and continues
to develop additional incen-
tives to attract and retain
facilities in the program.
Public Recognition
When KPA publicly recognizes a
Performance Track facility for its out-
standing environmental performance,
the facility's reputation is enhanced
among its regulators, peers, inves-
tors, customers, employees, and local
hornier hl'A Administrator Mike I .eavitt speaks about Performance Track
at Hoorcr Dam, October, 2004.
community. The Agency recognizes
Performance Track members through
a variety of means.
Upon request, Hl'A notifies elected
officials at the local, state, and
national levels when it selects
new members for participation in
Performance Track.
The Agency works with trade
publications, Performance Track
Network Partners, and local
media to place articles about
members and the program. In
2004, X 1 publications carried
articles about Performance Track,
reaching a circulation of more
than 2 million people.
Facilities admitted to the program
are recognized by senior Hl'A
officials at the Performance Track
Annual Members' Hvent, and they
receive a framed certificate of
membership suitable for display.
Performance Track members may
use and display the Performance
Track logo. The program's
Member Services site provides
art files for hardhat stickers, fleet
signage, and a flag. Some facilities
have produced caps, shirts, and
other items using the logo.
Members are listed on the
Performance Track website (vvvvvv.
cpa.gov/pcrformancctrack), which
has received more than 2 million
visits since it was launched in 2000.
Several leading social investment
advisory firms, including Calvert
(iroup, Innovest Strategic Value
Advisors, and KI.I) Research and
Analytics, include membership
in Performance Track among
14
-------
the factors they consider in their
rating analysis of companies.
KPA also distributes Performance
Track press releases via CSRwire,
a globally syndicated social
responsibility news service.
Special Recognition
Within Performance
Track
Performance Track members that
achieve particularly outstanding
results or make exceptional efforts
to promote the program may be eli-
gible for special recognition.
The Performance Track
Environmental Performance Award
recognizes members that have dem-
onstrated exemplary environmental
performance during their participa-
tion 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 of
the Performance Track program.
The Performance Track Director's
Award recognizes members that
the director has selected for out-
standing achievements in any one
of several areas, including mentor-
ing, recruiting, public outreach,
and community leadership.
Corporate Leaders
In 2004, Performance Track added
the Performance Track Corporate
Leader designation to recognize
companies that have multiple facili-
ties in Performance Track and that
demonstrate an exceptional corpo-
rate-wide commitment to environ-
mental stewardship and continuous
improvement. KPA will designate a
select number of Performance Track
Corporate Leaders each year for a
five-year membership.
Performance Track Corporate
Leaders meet all of the following
criteria:
At least five of the company's
facilities are members of
Performance Track;
The company's facilities that are
enrolled in Performance Track
and/or in similar state perfor-
mance-based programs represent
at least 25 percent of its U.S.
operations, based on the number
of facilities or employees (alterna-
tively, the company has at least 25
facilities in Performance Track);
The company commits to increas-
ing its level of Performance Track
membership to at least 50 percent
of its U.S. operations within five
years of designation (alternatively,
the company commits to having at
least 50 of its facilities enrolled in
Performance Track and/or similar
state programs within that period).
The company makes environ-
mental issues a priority at the
corporate level and uses a system
to identify, prioritize, manage,
measure, review, and continuously
improve environmental perfor-
mance throughout operations;
The company demonstrates a
strong compliance record with
environmental regulations; and
The company commits to improve
its environmental performance
and that of its suppliers and/or
customers.
The first three Performance Track
Corporate Leaders, selected by
KPA and announced in early 2005,
are Baxter Healthcare, Johnson &
Johnson, and Rockwell Collins. Lor
more information, see wvvw.cpa.
gov/pcrformancctrack/corporatc-
lcadcrs/
Performance Track
Award Winners,
2004-2005
Environmental Performance Awards
2004
Baxter Healthcare, Inc.,
Guayama, Puerto Rico
Pfizer, Inc., Lititz, Pennsylvania
Bridgestone/Firestone South Carolina,
Graniteville, South Carolina
The City of Scottsdale,
Scottsdale, Arizona
2005
Durango-McKinley Paper Company,
Prewitt, New Mexico
Ideal Jacobs Corporation,
Maplewood, New Jersey
Rohm and Haas - La Mirada Plant,
La Mirada, California
3M Nevada, Nevada, Missouri
Director's Award for
Mentoring, 2004
New Hampshire Ball Bearings, Inc.,
Peterborough, New Hampshire
Director's Award for
Corporate Outreach, 2005
3M Corporation, St. Paul, Minnesota
Outreach Awards
2004
American Ref-Fuel Company of
Hempstead, Westbury, New York
DuPont-Spruance Plant,
Richmond, Virginia
Pfizer, Inc.-Lincoln Operations,
Lincoln, Nebraska
Texas Instruments-Sensors and
Controls, Attleboro, Massachusetts
2005
International Paper, Franklin, Virginia
Motorola GTSS Ocotillo,
Chandler, Arizona
Pfizer, Inc., Terre Haute, Indiana
3M ESPE Dental Products,
Irvine, California
Special Commendation for
Outstanding Achievement in
Enviromental Management and
Wildlife Habitat Restoration, 2004
Monsanto Company, Monsanto, Iowa
(conferred jointly by Performance Track
and the Wildlife Habitat Council)
15
-------
Performance Track
Corporate Leaders
Baxter Healthcare Corporation, a
global medical devices, pharmaceu-
ticals, and biotechnology company,
has eight of its 16 major facilities and
two smaller facilities in Performance
Track Among Baxter's future com-
mitments as a Corporate Leader are
further reductions in energy use,
further reductions in solid waste,
and increasing the number of its key
suppliers participating in EPA's Green
Suppliers Network
Johnson & Johnson is a healthcare
products and services company
More than three-quarters of its 46
major facilities and 15 of its smaller
ones are members of Performance
Track As a Corporate Leader, J&J
has pledged to further reduce its
greenhouse gas emissions and water
use, and increase its use of paper
packaging derived from sustainably
managed forests or with recycled
content
Rockwell Collins provides design,
production, and support of com-
munications and aviation electronics
Eight of its 14 major facilities and
two of its smaller ones are Perfor-
mance Track members Among its
commitments as a Performance Track
Corporate Leader are a pledge to
purchase 10,000 Megawatt-hours
of renewable energy certificates per
year, improving the environmental
performance of key suppliers, and
reducing its purchase of chemicals
State Support for the
Performance Track Rule
Eleven states report that they have
adopted the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) provisions
of the first Performance Track Rule,
including Colorado, Florida, Georgia,
Idaho (adopted but not yet final-
ized), Maryland, New Jersey, North
Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee,
Virginia, and Washington The rule
also is available in states or territories
where EPA administers the RCRA
program, including Alaska, Iowa, and
Puerto Rico
Regulatory and
Administrative
Incentives
Performance Track members'
history of strong compliance, com-
mitment to measurable improvement,
and effectiveness in environmental
management set them apart from
other facilities. Accordingly, KPA
believes they should be eligible for
exclusive regulatory and adminis-
trative benefits. These benefits help
Performance Track facilities 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 incen-
tives can also help regulatory agencies
focus their assistance, inspection, and
enforcement resources on higher pri-
orities, such as facilities that require
closer oversight.
Developing and
Institutionalizing
Incentives
KPA's general approach to devel-
oping regulatory and administrative
incentives for Performance Track is
to focus first on policy or adminis-
trative changes and then regulations.
Within these broad categories, the
Agency works to develop innova-
tive incentives that are available to
Performance Track members; that
reduce burden, increase flexibility,
and streamline and expedite pro-
cesses; and that will be applicable
widely among existing and likely
future member facilities.
The process to develop, propose,
and finalize changes in a federal
regulatory program typically takes
at least two years. Once finalized,
each state must first adopt the
changes and then reapply for autho-
rization to implement the regulatory
program. This stage of development
varies across states and according to
the media covered by the regulation,
such as air or water. States are not
required to adopt federal regulations
for Performance Track because it is
a voluntary program.
Progress on Incentives
in 2004
KPA has made considerable
progress during the past year to
advance Performance Tracks
ability to deliver quality incentives
to members. On Karth Day, 2004,
former KPA Administrator Mike
I.eavitt signed the first Performance
Track Rule. This rule provides ben-
efits to eligible Performance Track
facilities under the Clean Air Act
and the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), described
in the air and waste sections below
under "Current Regulatory and
Administrative Incentives."
Within the Agency, Performance
Track staff have continued to
develop relationships with KPA's
program offices. In September,
senior managers from the Office
of Water and Performance Track
met with 25 Performance Track
members to share ideas on incen-
tives and discuss key water program
issues. Performance Track also
worked with the Office of Water
to develop incentives tied to the
Clean Water State Revolving Kund
program and the effluent guideline
planning process.
Performance Track staff interact
with regulatory officials at KPA
headquarters and regional offices
to help spread implementation of
the first Performance Track Rule,
and program staff participate fre-
quently in conference calls among
16
-------
(ieoff (irubbs, director of h.l'A's (office of Science and Technology, addresses
Performance Track's September, 2004 meeting with the Office of Water.
RCRA permit writers and regional
air toxics coordinators to provide
regular updates and encourage them
to consider incentives for members.
Finally, Performance Track and
other KPA staff have been working
externally with key organiza-
tions, such as the Knvironmental
Council of States (HCC)S), the
Association of State and Territorial
Solid Waste Management
Officials, the Association of State
and Interstate Water Pollution
Control Administrators, and the
Performance Track Participants'
Association to build support for
Performance Track incentives at the
state and local level.
Current Regulatory and
Administrative Incentives
Low priority for
routine inspections
Since the beginning of the
Performance Track program, KPA
has placed members at a low pri-
ority for routine inspections. This
benefit has been successfully imple-
mented at the federal level in each
of KPA's 10 regions. Twelve states
have adopted this policy to date,
and the Agency continues to encour-
age broader state support for this
important benefit of membership in
Performance Track.
Air incentives
The first Performance Track Rule
reduces the frequency of reports
required under the Maximum
Available Control Technology
(MACT) provisions of the Clean Air
Act such that semi-annual reports
may be submitted annually, and in
certain cases members may submit an
annual certification for these require-
ments in lieu of an annual report.
Performance Track has made
progress on developing new air
incentives since last year's report. At
that point KPA was developing flex-
ible permits for major air sources.
These permits typically include
provisions that approve in advance
process changes that would other-
wise require major permit modifica-
tions. These types of permits have
been found to save facilities and
states substantial time and money
over the life of the permit, and lead
to more significant reductions in air
emissions. Klexible permits are cur-
rently in the final stages of develop-
ment at three Performance Track
facilities, and will be available for
public review and comment in the
spring of 2005.
Waste incentives
Under the first Performance Track
Rule, KPA allows Performance
Track members that are large-
quantity generators of hazardous
waste up to 1X0 days (instead of the
normal 90 days) to accumulate their
hazardous waste without a RCRA
permit or interim status.
Spotlight on
Performance Award
Recipients, 2004
Baxter Healthcare Corporation's
facility in Guayama, Puerto Rico,
reduced its hazardous waste by
195,000 pounds in its first two years
of membership, along with reducing
its energy use by 57,000 MMBTUs
It also reduced its generation of solid
waste by 62 percent and its biologi-
cal oxygen demand (BOD) discharges
to water by 95 percent
Pfizer Global Manufacturing in Lititz,
Pennsylvania, reduced its total solid
waste by 820 tons and its hazard-
ous waste by 780 tons during its
first two years in Performance Track
It reduced its total energy use by
more than 3 6 million kilowatt-hours,
and cut BOD discharges to water by
82,000 pounds
Bridgestone-Firestone South Caro-
lina, in Graniteville, South Carolina,
avoided the generation of 22 million
pounds of solid waste over two years
and improved its energy use effi-
ciency by 19 percent
The City of Scottsdale, Arizona,
reduced its total energy use by
more than 300,000 kilowatt-hours
and its emissions of volatile organic
compounds by nearly 6,000 pounds
The city also reduced its generation
of solid waste by 4,188 tons, a 31
percent improvement
17
-------
EPA Acting Administrator Stephen
Johnson praised the tremendous
accomplishments of Performance
Track members during the 2004
Annual Members' Event in Baltimore.
Water incentives
As a followup to the September,
2004 meeting with KPA's Office
of Water and Performance Truck
members, Performance Truck
stuff worked with the Office of
Water to develop a process to
expedite the review of National
Pollutant Discharge Hlimination
System (NPDHS) permits held by
Performance Track members. This
process will be finali/ed in 2005.
In 2004, KPA began encourag-
ing states to provide more favor-
able terms to Performance Track
facilities in their Clean Water State
Revolving Fund (CWSRF) pro-
grams. CWSRh" programs provide
loans for a variety of water quality
projects, including municipal
wastewater treatment projects, as
well as nonpoint sources, water-
shed protection or restoration, and
estuary management. The CWSRF
loans can help Performance Track
facilities achieve environmental
commitments that are important
to state and local environmental
priorities. The support also could
encourage facilities to increase their
community involvement, perhaps
linking facilities with watershed
groups. Working with Performance
Track facilities also allows states to
support activities that are beyond
regulatory requirements. More
information is available in HPA's
CWSRt- fact sheet at vvvvvv.cpa.gov/
ovvm/cvvfinancc/cvvsrf/pcrformancc-
track.pdf.
Finally, in its analyses to deter-
mine whether to develop or revise
effluent guidelines for various indus-
try sectors, the Office of Water con-
siders the sectors' voluntary efforts
to reduce water pollution, such as
facility improvements through pro-
grams like Performance Track.
Looking Ahead
KPA is developing a new
Performance Track rule for RCRA
and expects to propose it in 2005.
The Agency is also expected to final-
ize a new RCRA Burden Reduction
Rule that contains several provisions
available exclusively to Performance
Track facilities. In addition, KPA has
proposed a hazardous air pollutants
rule that provides compliance alter-
natives under \1A(T with special
provisions for Performance Track
members.
Performance Track's work with
the KPA Office of Water has moved
forward with developments in expe-
dited permitting, and KPA expects
further developments in the coming
year. In addition, Performance Track
is working closely with the Air
Office to develop more incentives
for members, and to develop a rule
for flexible air permitting.
Networking
and Learning
Opportunities
Performance Track offers valu-
able opportunities for its members
to learn from each other and share
best environmental practices. The
program also offers opportunities
for members to meet KPA officials
from national headquarters and
regional offices.
Annual Members' Event
Kach year, Performance Track
members and KPA officials gather
for award ceremonies, panel dis-
cussions, and breakout sessions on
topics important to Performance
Track facilities and partners. This
meeting is an excellent opportu-
nity for members to meet KPA
Performance Track staff, network
18
-------
with their colleagues, learn about
program developments, and share
their experiences.
Regional meetings
Kach of KPA's 10 regional
offices holds periodic meetings for
Performance Track members in
its region. Some regions also have
hosted recruitment workshops for
facilities interested in learning more
about the program, and several
regions have organized special
events to recognize top environmen-
tal performers.
Teleseminars
All Performance Track members
are invited to attend bimonthly
seminars, conducted by conference
call, on timely and relevant topics.
In 2004, teleseminars were held on
topics such as intangible drivers
that link environment, health, and
safety performance to shareholder
value; efforts by Performance Track
members to work on watershed
issues; and an information session
on the Chicago Climate Hxchange.
Past teleseminars have focused on
such topics as lean manufacturing,
the business case for including a
wildlife habitat commitment under
Performance Track, community
involvement strategies, and flexible
permitting.
Online Newsletter
P-Track News is a bimonthly
newsletter that keeps Performance
Track members informed of new
program developments, member
achievements, news from the KPA
regions, a calendar of upcoming
events, and other information of
interest to members.
Performance Track members in h.l'A Region .? received certificates in October, 2004
for renewing their membership in the program. Left to right: Marie Holman, U.S.
h.l'A Region .? Performance Track C.oordmator; C.harles Sanders, Pfizer (ilobal
Maniifaeturing; Tom Murphy, Montenay Energy Re'Soiirce'S of Montgomery ('ฆ(>.; C.olle'e
Daris, U.S. Ste'el C.lairton Works; Joe l.oschiaro, Dnl'ont Spruance; I'hil Dahhn,
Johnson 6y Johnson, McNeil C.onstimer & Specialty Pharmaceuticals.
Resource Center and.
Case Studies
Performance Tracks website
provides a Resource Center to help
existing and prospective members
learn more about Knvironmental
\lanagement Systems, Performance
Tracks environmental improvement
categories, industry-specific envi-
ronmental performance resources,
and more. The Resource Center also
provides case studies highlighting the
achievements of selected Performance
Track members. The Performance
Track Member Services site includes
a series of Innovative Practices
Spotlight articles that describe par-
ticularly innovative approaches that
Performance Track members have
developed to address environmental
challenges. The Resource Center is
available at: www.cpa.gov/pcrfor-
mancctrack/tools/indcx.htm.
Spotlight on
Performance Award
Recipients, 2005
Durango-McKinley Paper Company,
in Prewitt, New Mexico, exceeded
its materials use reduction goal by
1,000 tons and showed a 20 percent
improvement in materials efficiency
during its first three years of mem-
bership in Performance Track It
reduced its water use by 2 million
gallons per year and its landfill waste
by more than 3,200 tons
Ideal Jacobs Corporation, in Maple-
wood, New Jersey, reduced its solid
waste to a mere 6 percent of its
2001 levels in part by directly linking
waste amounts to employees' salaries
and responsibilities
Rohm and Haas's plant in La
Mirada, California, decreased its
annual energy use by nearly 10,000
MMBTUs and its generation of
hazardous waste by more than 10
tons It also improved its water use
efficiency by 7 percent in 2002 and 8
percent in 2003
3M Nevada, in Nevada, Missouri,
has reduced its energy use by nearly
50,000 MMBTUs, and cut its emis-
sions of volatile organic compounds
and toxic emissions by 57 percent
-------
Featured Facility
Arizona Chemical
Arizona Chemical of Pensacola, Florida, a
facility with 43 employees, manufactures
terpene-phenolic and polyterpene resins that
are used in hot-melt adhesives, box-sealing
adhesives, book bindings, chewing gum, and
inks and coatings This facility committed to
reduce its toxic air emissions of xylene and
ethylbenzene By the end of its first year
of participation in Performance Track, the
facility had reduced its emissions of these
two chemicals from 19,334 pounds to 9,258
pounds Reductions projects included tying in
emissions from the distillation column to an
existing vapor condenser, modifying the vent
header, and installing equipment to remove
toxics from wastewater, thus reducing air
emissions from wastewater trenches and
process sewers
Performance Track
Participants' Association
Performance Track members
have formed a private, indepen-
dent membership association that
provides a forum for members of
the program. Performance Track
Participants'' Association (PTPA)
members exchange information and
benchmark best practices with each
other, work closely with KPA in 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 toward educat-
ing and informing policy makers of
the important role that Performance
Track plays in improving the envi-
ronment. PTPA organized the 2004
Annual Members' Kvent in coopera-
tion with KPA, and has held meetings
and maintained communications with
the KPA Administrator and head-
quarters staff, KPA regional offices,
and states to help build support for
Performance Track. Kor more infor-
mation, visit the association's website
at vvvvvv.ptpaonlinc.org.
20
-------
Performance Track Partnerships
EPA partners with states,
trade associations, and other
public- and private-sector
organizations to promote
Performance Track and col-
laborate with other perfor-
mance-based programs.
Partnerships
with States
KPA and suite governments
;ire partners in implementing
Performance Truck and delivering
benefits to member facilities. KPA
works with the states to advance
the principle that high-performing
facilities should be recognized and
rewarded for their accomplishments
by enabling them to focus more on
environmental progress than on
process.
Performance Track comple-
ments and builds on the successful
environmental performance pro-
grams launched by the programs
state partners. Some of these pro-
grams were established prior to
Performance Tracks inception and
served as models for the national
program, which in turn helped to
spur the development of additional
state programs. Although some state
programs are rooted in K.VISs and
others in pollution prevention, they
all support environmental perfor-
mance that goes beyond compliance.
KPA and the states believe they can
achieve more by working together
than by pursuing their goals inde-
pendently. Therefore, representatives
of KPA and state agencies are in
frequent contact as they coordinate
the development and implementa-
tion of their programs. KPA consults
with states on policy issues such as
member implementation of K.VISs.
States participate in site visits to
Performance Track facilities, as well
as in Performance Track member
events at the national and regional
levels. KPA considers state input
crucial to its decisions on facilities
applying to Performance Track.
To further facilitate this partner-
ship, each year KPA organizes a
conference for state and regional
officials to discuss topics that
are important to their varied,
but aligned, performance-based
programs. Sessions range from
brainstorming the development of
new incentives to presentations by
program members, with a focus on
providing an opportunity for par-
ticipants to benefit from problem-
solving discussions and exposure to
state-of-the art approaches to mea-
suring performance.
Progress in 2004
In some respects, the most sig-
nificant work between KPA and
the states has taken place during
the past year. On October 4,
2004, former KPA Administrator
Mike I.eavitt hosted a discussion
at the Knvironmental Council of
States (KCOS) 2004 fall meeting in
Oklahoma City. The Administrator
invited senior managers from strong
partner states as well as from KPA
Headquarters and regional offices.
I.eavitt and state officials discussed
the value of performance-based pro-
grams and the elements of these pro-
" Before we started
in Performance
Track, we'd
reached a
plateau in our
environmental
improvement at
some of our plant
locations. Now
we're leveraging
Performance
Track to help
us with further
improvements
in reducing our
environmental
footprint."
Sara Ethier
Director, Environmental Operations
3M
21
-------
Featured Facility
Johnson & Johnson
Pharmaceutical
Research and
Development
Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical
Research & Development, LLC of Spring
House, Pennsylvania, is a campus of
1,100 employees conducting research
and development from laboratory-scale
drug discovery to pilot-scale chemical
development Between 2000 and 2003,
the facility reduced its annual solid waste
by eight tons, despite a 22 percent growth
in the number of employees, by making
changes to its animal caging system,
capturing waste from overspray powders
and enzyme bead, and reselling it for reuse
by an off-site third party, and implementing
Design for the Environment principles, a
systematic process to identify and minimize
the environmental impacts of products and
processes across their entire life cycle
When this facility renewed its membership
in 2003, it committed to making further
reductions in waste generation and other
improvements in waste management
practices
grams rhar are important to future
success. He then asked the states to
advise him if they were interested in
engaging in the necessary steps to
support and meaningfully expand
these leadership programs.
In response to this challenge, rep-
resentatives from KCOS conducted
a nationwide survey, polling states
on their support for Performance
Track and state performance-based
programs. With responses from 4 1
of the 50 states, KCOS was able to
formulate goals and objectives for the
coming year. The results showed that
many states are interested in perfor-
mance-based leadership programs and
in learning how to improve them.
Another aspect of the KCOS
research included a meeting of
officials from KCOS, KPA, and the
Performance Track Participants''
Association to obtain input
from the perspective of perfor-
mance-based program members.
Participants in this meeting agreed
to continue to work together to
identify and target new states in
the effort to expand the reach of
performance-based programs.
On January 13, 2005, KCOS
issued its final report, which focused
on recommendations for improving
the effectiveness of performance-
based environmental programs.
The report made several specific
recommendations: 1) to support
state programs and state efforts to
work with Performance Track; 2)
to assure program support from all
KPA program offices; 3) to provide
incentives to participants faster; and
4) to conduct more strategic mar-
keting and education to promote the
programs. These recommendations
have been transformed into action
plans that will be addressed by
senior KPA management and KCOS
representatives, with participation
by members of Performance Track
and state programs. This group will
work toward meeting the action
plans' goals during 2005.
Agreements With States
States that wish to maximize the
coordination of their performance-
based incentive programs with
Performance Track may enter into a
\lemorandum of Agreement (\1()A)
with KPA. To date, KPA has signed
\l()As with nine states: Colorado,
(ieorgia, Maine, Massachusetts,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia,
and Washington. KPA is currently
working to develop agreements
with several other states. These
MOAs provide a framework for
joint recruitment, admissions, and
delivery of incentives to program
members. Through KPA's MOA
with Texas, for example, Texas and
KPA have worked together on a
plan to integrate their performance-
based programs. That plan has been
implemented on an incremental
basis throughout 2004.
KPA and the states continue to
work together to enhance perfor-
mance-based programs and reward
program members for their leader-
ship in environmental protection.
Kach step forward serves to affirm
the growing strength of the federal-
state partnership the benefits of
which will be reaped by the American
public and the environment.
Partnerships
with Other EPA
Voluntary Programs
Many other KPA voluntary pro-
grams share Performance Tracks
goal of achieving continuous envi-
ronmental improvement. The Sector
Strategies program works closely
with 12 industry sectors to promote
the use of KMSs, overcome regula-
tory and other barriers to environ-
mental improvement, and improve
the ability to measure performance.
22
-------
Released in June 2004, the Sector
Strategies Performance Report docu-
ments the environmental results that
are being achieved in each of these
12 sectors. This report can he found
online at vvvvvv.cpa.gov/scctors/
pcrformancc.html. Several current
members of Performance Track
among them Chicago White Metal,
Bath Iron Works, Baker Petrolite,
and the Port of Houston built
their qualifications for Performance
Track by participating in the Sector
Strategies program.
Members also are finding value
in linking their Performance Track
efforts with other KPA voluntary pro-
grams. For example, the Corporate
Leaders are expanding their involve-
ment in KPA's (ireen Suppliers
Network, as a way to influence the
environmental performance of their
supply chain. Many members also
are linking their participation in pro-
grams such as Climate Leaders and
the Resource Conservation Challenge
with Performance Track. More infor-
mation on the wide range of KPA
voluntary programs is available at
vvvvvv.cpa.gov/partncrs/programs/.
Performance Track
Network Partners
Performance Track Network
Partners are national trade associa-
tions, non-governmental organiza-
tions, and professional organizations
that work in partnership with
Performance Track to promote the
program and its benefits. There are
currently 22 partners in the program.
KPA recognizes partners by
acknowledging their efforts in pub-
lications and at Performance Track
events. The Agency provides part-
ners with materials to assist them in
marketing Performance Track, and
KPA representatives may be avail-
able to speak about Performance
Track at partners' conferences
and meetings. If a partner has its
own voluntary environmental per-
formance initiative, KPA works
with the partner to identify simi-
larities to Performance Track and
potential opportunities for further
collaboration. The Agency peri-
odically arranges opportunities for
roundtables and other information
exchanges involving network part-
ners, agency decision makers, and
KPA subject matter experts.
In June, 2004, KPA signed a
\lemorandum of Agreement
with two network partners, the
American Chemistry Council
(ACC) and the Synthetic Organic
Chemical .Manufacturers Association
(SOCMA), to achieve closer collabo-
ration between Performance Track
and Responsible Care". The new
agreement will streamline the KMS
component of the Performance Track
application process for Responsible
Care-certified facilities, including
members of ACC, SOCMA, and
ACC Responsible Care Partners.
KPA also will coordinate with ACC
and SOCMA on the scheduling
of site visits to Responsible Care/
Performance Track facilities, minimiz-
ing disruption by combining the two
programs' site visits and audits wher-
ever possible. In addition, KPA, ACC,
and SOCMA will collaborate to share
lessons and ideas on performance
measurement between Performance
Track and Responsible Care to
increase awareness of Performance
Track within the chemical industry.
In November, 2004, Performance
Track and another network partner,
the Wildlife Habitat Council (WHC),
held a joint technical workshop at
WHC's 16th Annual Symposium in
Baltimore, \laryland. During the
workshop, KPA and WHC recog-
nized a number of companies and
facilities for their participation in both
Performance Track and WHC. The
Performance Track
Network Partners
Academy of Certified Hazardous
Materials Managers
American Chemistry Council
American Furniture Manufacturers
Association
The Associated General
Contractors of America
The Auditing Roundtable
Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition
Global Environmental &
Technology Foundation & Public
Entity EMS Resource Center
Greening of Industry Network
International Carwash Association
National Association of Chemical
Distributors
National Defense Industrial
Association
National Paint and Coatings
Association
National Pollution Prevention
Roundtable
National Ready Mixed Concrete
Association
National Stone, Sand,
and Gravel Association
NORA, an Association of
Responsible Recyclers
North American Die Casting
Association
Screenprinting & Graphic Imaging
Association International
Steel Manufacturers Association
Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturers Association
Voluntary Protection Program
Participants' Association
Wildlife Habitat Council
facilities received a joint certificate of
recognition for their commitment to
outstanding environmental perfor-
mance and wildlife habitat enhance-
ment and restoration. Performance
Track and WHC also conferred a
special commendation to Monsanto
Company's facility in Muscatine,
Iowa, for its outstanding achieve-
ments in environmental management
and wildlife habitat restoration.
23
-------
The Performance Track
Members' Survey
" The Performance
Track program
makes sense
from a business
perspective. Not
only in terms of
costs vs. benefits,
but also from a
general public
perception
standpoint, by
improving your
image within your
local community."
Leah Wood
Environmental Counsel
Associated General Contractors
of America
During the summer of 2004,
Performance Track con-
ducted an online survev to
~
determine how members
value the services provided
by the program. Seventy-
six percent of current
Performance Track members
responded to the survey, pro-
viding valuable information
that will help EPA determine
the future benefits offered to
members. Eighty-six percent
of respondents reported that
thev are satisfied with the
~
recognition they receive from
Performance Track.
The survey produced the following
key findings:
The most important reason
members join and stay in
Performance Track is the oppor-
tunity for a collaborative relation-
ship with KPA and the states.
Members want state buy-in of
Performance Track.
Members want to publicize their
Performance Track membership
to the local community and local
regulatory agencies.
Although regulatory incentives are
not the primary reason for joining
or continuing in Performance
Track, members want to see the
regulatory incentives expanded.
Members are aware of, and in
general find useful, the services
offered by Performance Track.
Performance Track staff created
a workgroup to develop an action
plan that would address the surveys
findings. The actions are organized
around cultivating more collabora-
tive relationships, encouraging state
support of the program, increasing
community outreach, and continu-
ing to expand incentives.
Among the action items in the
plan are:
Hold meetings on Performance
Track incentives with each KPA
program office and conduct
follow-up;
Develop new case studies that
show how Performance Track
contributes to environmental pro-
tection goals;
Better publicize online tools for
member community outreach; and
Set up meetings with regional admin-
istrators and state commissioners to
discuss Performance Track.
KPA staff have begun to work
on a number of the goals and will
continue to work toward achiev-
ing all goals in order to improve the
program for each member. The action
plan is available online at vvvvvv.cpa.
gov/pcrformancctrack/downloads/
survcy_action_plan.pdf.
24
-------
Figure 4: Top-ranked motivating factors in facilities' decision to join Performance Track
Collaborative relationship
v/ith EPA and states
Improved reputation from
public av/areness
Opportunities to improve
environmental performance
Recognition from EPA
Potential for regulatory incentives
Lov/ priority for routine inspections
Netv/orking v/ith top environmental performers
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
I most important second-most important third-most important
Figure 5: Survey respondents' ranking of benefits that Performance Track
might provide to better complement their business goals or mission
w The best thing
about Performance
Track is that it's
truly a partnership
between businesses
and EPA; it's a
great approach to
address common
environmental
issues."
Steve Green
Environmental Manager
Nucor Steel Auburn, Inc
MP
9%
learning
opportunities
6%
miscellaneous
5%
financial
iri' 'jntives
/%
inreach
5%
networking
between members
4%
program policies/
reporting
3%
other services
from EPA
Figure 6: Survey respondents' recommendations for ways
Performance Track could improve the recognition members receive
1 1 ()/ 1 0"/<) oo/
I I /<> EPA promotional r__i'
general media products/events general S'Zo
ป-ปiiPPซp . 1^ซ.ป!ปf.ซiitiers/
chain
3%
EPA inreach/
awareness
I'**1* *ซซ,al government
state awareness or awareness
Performance
Track
25
-------
Conclusion
"As aggressive and
proactive stewards
of the environment,
we are honored
to be a part of the
program. That's
why we added
the Performance
Track logo to
our company
letterhead."
Rex Query
Vice President and General Manager
Nucor Steel
With the successful comple-
tion of its first three-vear
~
membership period and
its first renewal season,
Performance Track has
passed an important mile-
stone in its growth and
development. By renewing
their membership, more
than three-quarters of
Performance Track's charter
facilities demonstrated that
they value the recognition
and other benefits thev
~
receive from the program.
At the same time, EPA and
its partners worked hard
to strengthen the business
case for membership in
Performance Track bv devel-
~
oping new incentives and
encouraging broader support
of Performance Track incen-
tives bv states.
~
The member survey conducted
during the summer of 2004 pro-
vided KPA with its first in-depth
look at how members view the
program. It helped the Agency iden-
tify the features that members value
most, and provided clear direction
for the steps that should be taken to
add to that value in the future.
Performance Track launched a
new Corporate Leader designation
in 2004 to recognize companies
that have multiple facilities in the
program and that demonstrate an
exceptional corporate-wide commit-
ment to environmental stewardship.
Looking ahead, Performance
Track will continue working to
broaden and deepen its member-
ship, enhance its business value and
appeal as a standard of achieve-
ment, and increase the environ-
mental value of the program. In
March, 2005, KPA announced that
it had selected 54 new Performance
Track members in the most suc-
cessful recruiting round since 2000.
The Agency and its partners look
forward to another year of growth
and renewal for Performance
Track as the program builds on the
achievements and promise of 2004.
26
-------
Notes
m'ft:
r'2Sl
-------
Notes
28
-------
Notes
iMllM
ฆ|^B
i
1
iSll
M
Maawfcf
SB
ฆ
WmSimMm
ฆฆ111
SKSSBlllll
WKt
III
mm
-------
-------
-------
------- |