-

- - -

Office of Policy, Economics, 

and Innovation (MC 1807 T) 

EPA 100 R 06 001 

www.epa.gov/performancetrack 

April 2006 

Recycled/Recyclable

Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper 

(Minimum 50% Postconsumer) Process Chlorine Free 
L E A D I N G C H A N G E 

PERFORMANCE TRACK 

FOURTH ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT 
P E R F O R M A N C E T R A C K M E M B E R S

As of March 1, 2006 

173rd Fighter Wing, Kingsley 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 Guin 

3M Menomonie 

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 Amarillo 

BFGoodrich Tire Manufacturing

– Opelika 

BFGoodrich 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 

Bridgestone Firestone North American

Tire, LLC – OCK Plant 

Bridgestone Firestone North American

Tire, LLC – Warren County 

Bridgestone Firestone North American

Tire, LLC – Wilson 

Bridgestone Firestone North American

Tire, LLC – Bloomington 

Bridgestone Firestone North American

Tire, LLC – LaVergne 

Bridgestone Firestone – South Carolina 

Brinker’s Fuel 

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company 

Bristol-Myers Squibb PRI – Wallington 

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 Floorcoverings 

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-McKinley 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 
Recognition Recognition and Awareness 8

Awards 8

Corporate Leaders 11

Corporate Social Responsibility 12

E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y 3 

L e a d i n g C h a n g e 5 

E n s u r i n g C h a n g e 8 

Recognition and Awareness 

Awards 

Corporate Leaders 

Corporate Social Responsibility 

Learning Network 12 

Regulatory and Administrative Incentives 13 

Reporting and Monitoring 14 

C h a r t i n g P r o g r e s s 1 5 

Highlights of Current Members’ Commitments 15 

Highlights of Members’ Results Reported in 2005 15 

Caveats to the 2004 Results 21 

C o n c l u s i o n 2 3 

8 

8 

11 

12 

C O N T E N T S 
“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.”

 S H E R Y L C O R R I G A N

Commissioner, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
3

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY’S National 

Environmental Performance Track program (Performance Track) 

is helping to lead change within EPA and state environmental 

agencies, as well as among facilities in virtually every manufacturing 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 

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 presented 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 

achievements of members in 

2004, reported to EPA in 2005. 

In 2005, Performance Track 

focused on building support 

for its approach and the implementation of its incentives, both 

within EPA and in state environmental 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 incentives. A similar meeting with the 

P e r f o r m a n c e Tr a c k 

F a s t F a c t s 

n At the end of 2005, the program had 371 members in 46 

states and Puerto Rico. 

n 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. 

n 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. 

members joining the program 

(a 33 percent increase). Eightytwo 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 companies that demonstrate an 

exceptional corporate-wide 

commitment to environmental 

stewardship and continuous 

environmental improvement. 

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 environmenWith 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 environmental 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.” 

D AV I D PAY L O R 

Director, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 
5

L E A D I N G C H A N G E

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 incentives, 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 

place to ensure continuous improvement, annual reviews of 

members’ performance, and periodic site visits of selected facilities. Performance Track facilities are not immune from inspections, 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. 

that are not regulated, such 

as energy use, greenhouse 

gas emissions, and water consumption; and fosters continuous improvement. 

L E A D I N G 

I N N O V A T I O N 

AT E PA 

The Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) is the 

national non -profit, non -partisan association of state and territorial 

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. 

Performance Track 

members must have a record 

of compliance with environmental laws, be in compliance 

with all applicable environmental 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 subjected to a thorough compliance screen. First, relevant EPA 

As Performance Track 

grows in scope and membership, 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 environmental risk. 

Performance Track was designed to focus foremost on 

performance, with stringent entry criteria that admit only facilities with a strong past history of compliance and systems in 

databases are examined for information on the applicant. Then, 

Performance Track regional coordinators consult with enforcement 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 criteria. 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 
-

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

’

•

6 P E R F O R M A N C E T R A C K F O U R T H A N N U A L P R O G R E S S R E P O R T 

N

E

T

W

O

R K 

P

A

R

T

N

E

R

STwenty three organizations work with 

Performance Track to promote the 

program and its benefits. Current 

partners include 

Academy of Certified Hazardous 

Materials Managers 

American Chemistry Council 

American Home Furnishings Alliance 

American Iron and Steel Institute 

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

Specialty Graphic Imaging

Association

Steel Manufacturers Association 

Synthetic Organic Chemical

Manufacturers Association

Voluntary Protection Program

Participants Association

Wildlife Habitat Council

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 priority 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 available at www.epa.gov/performancetrack/benefits/ 

regadmin.htm. 

C h a n g i n g R e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h 

S t a t e s 

State governments are vital partners in Performance Track. 

Many of the program’s regulatory and administrative benefits 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. Twentyfive states currently have some form of environmental performance-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 
P E R F O R M A N C E T R A C K F O U R T H A N N U A L P R O G R E S S R E P O R T 7 

to Performance Track members. Such benefits include wider 

recognition of Performance Track by regulators and more consistent implementation of Performance Track incentives at the 

state level. 

F O R G I N G A H E A D W I T H 

T H E H E L P O F M E M B E R S 

A N D PA R T N E R S 

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 environmental programs. Throughout 2005, two workgroups composed 

of EPA and state officials met to develop specific recommendations in the areas of integration and incentives. 

The integration workgroup focused on ways to link state 

performance-based environmental programs with EPA’s planning and budgeting priorities, along with ways to acknowledge 

states for achievements attained through such performancebased programs. The incentives workgroup developed recommendations 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 recommendations 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 

payback from the program. But we have seen monetary payback, certainly, 

from reduced energy usage and water usage, for example.” 

J A C K B L A C K M E R 

Environmental Coordinator, Novozymes North America 
8

E N S U R I N G

PERFORMANCE TRACK MOTIVATES FACILITIES to go above and 

beyond environmental requirements by providing positive incentives, setting challenging entry criteria, and making members’ 

results available to the public. 

R E C O G N I T I O N A N D 

A WA R E N E S S 

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 environmental efforts among their top four reasons for joining 

Performance Track (along with opportunities to develop collaborative relationships with EPA and states, and opportunities 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 syndicated social responsibility news service. 

C H A N G E

• 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. 

A WA R D S 

Performance Track members that achieve particularly outstanding 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 exemS p o t l i g h t o n

J & J ’ s C o r p o r a t e E n v i r o n m e n t a l A s s e s s m e n t P r o g r a m

Johnson & Johnson, a Performance Track Corporate Leader, its self-assessments into a Management Action Plan, signed by the 

uses a three-phase Management Awareness and Action Review business leader, that identifies potential regulatory non-compliances, 

System (MAARS) to assess its operating companies’ environmental deviations from internal standards, and related corrective actions. In 

performance and drive continuous improvement. Through this the third phase, corporate and site representatives jointly evaluate 

system, the operating companies and the parent corporation work compliance and management systems during site visits. 

together to proactively identify and eliminate environmental compli- In addition to implementing MAARS, all J&J manufacturing and 

ance risks. R&D companies are required to conduct a third-party compliance 

Under the first phase of MAARS, each operating company audit once every three years, and to be certified to ISO 14001, a 

conducts ongoing self-assessments for its environmental, health, process that entails third-party assessments of their Environmental 

safety, sterilization, and quality programs throughout the year. In the Management Systems. 

second phase, the operating company incorporates the results of 
P E R F O R M A N C E T R A C K F O U R T H A N N U A L P R O G R E S S R E P O R T 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 mentoring, recruiting, public outreach, and community leadership. 

2 0 0 6 P E R F O R M A N C E A WA R D 

W I N N E R S 

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. 

L a r g e F a c i l i t y C a t e g o r y 

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 dedication to reducing pollution 

at its source. In 2004, the 

facility made major reductions 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. 

S m a l l F a c i l i t y 

C a t e g o r y 

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 challenging commitments on key environmental issues, including hazardous 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 normalized terms) and to stretch the use of a cleaning solvent by 47 

percent. In that same period, Norco improved its energy efficiency by nearly 50 percent—and then, in its renewal application, 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 prepared 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 P E R F O R M A N C E T R A C K F O U R T H A N N U A L P R O G R E S S R E P O R T 

P u b l i c F a c i l i t y C a t e g o r y 

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 membership, this facility reduced its 

water use by nearly 53 million 

gallons, solid waste generation by 20 tons, and NOx 

emissions by 14.6 tons. It also created 123 acres of grassland 

bird habitat. 

2 0 0 6 O u t r e a c h A w a r d W i n n e r s 

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 environmental improvements related to the facility’s commitments under 

Performance Track. In 2005, Colonial Acres gave a presentation 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 regularly 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 presentations and provided information about Performance Track to 

other businesses, both directly and through recruitment workshops. Business cards that promote Performance Track are provided 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 manufacturers 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, headquartered in New Orleans and managed by DynMcDermott 

Petroleum Operations Company, is a charter member of 
P E R F O R M A N C E T R A C K F O U R T H A N N U A L P R O G R E S S R E P O R T 1 1 

Performance Track. DynMcDermott has given presentations 

about Performance Track to the Energy Facility Contractors’ 

Organization, promoted Performance Track at important 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 participation in Performance Track for all its facilities. 

L E A D I N G C H A N G E 

AT T H E C O R P O R AT E L E V E L 

In 2004, EPA established the Performance Track Corporate 

Leader designation to recognize companies that have multiple 

facilities in Performance Track and that demonstrate an exceptional corporate-wide commitment to environmental stewardship 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 ESPE Dental 

Products, receives a 2005 Performance Track Outreach Award 

from EPA Region 9 Administrator Wayne Nastri. 

F

E

A

T

U

R

E D 

F

A

C I L I T

Y3M 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 in 1996 and 

has been continuously committed to 

industrial health and safety. The facility 

is a Charter Member of Performance 

Track. 

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, 

water use, and 

packaging materials 

use. 
1 2 P E R F O R M A N C E T R A C K F O U R T H A N N U A L P R O G R E S S R E P O R T 

F

E

A

T

U

R

E D 

F

A

C I L I T

YInternational 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. 

T h e P e r f o r m a n c e Tr a c k

P a r t i c i p a n t s ’ A s s o c i a t i o n

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 benchmark 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 important role that Performance Track plays in improving the environment. 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/. 

C O R P O R AT E S O C I A L 

R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y 

The socially responsible investment community has taken 

an interest in Performance Track as an indicator of a company’s 

environmental performance and commitment to environmental 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. 

L E A D I N G C H A N G E T H R O U G H 

T H E L E A R N I N G N E T W O R K 

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. 
P E R F O R M A N C E T R A C K F O U R T H A N N U A L P R O G R E S S R E P O R T 1 3 

A n n u a l M e m b e r s ’ E v e n t 

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 colleagues, 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. 

R e g i o n a l M e e t i n g s 

The 10 regional offices hold periodic meetings for 

Performance Track members. Some regions also host recruitment 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. 

Te l e s e m i n a r s 

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 LifeP e r f o r m a n c e Tr a c k M e m b e r s 

a n d H u r r i c a n e K a t r i n a 

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 facility 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 terrible, 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. 

O n l i n e N e w s l e t t e r 

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. 

R e s o u r c e C e n t e r a n d 

C a s e S t u d i e s 

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 highlighting the achievements of selected Performance Track members. 

The Resource Center is available at: www.epa.gov/performancetrack/tools/index.htm. 

R E G U L AT O R Y A N D 

A D M I N I S T R AT I V E I N C E N T I V E S 

EPA provides a range of regulatory and administrative 

incentives to Performance Track members that increase the 

value of the program to members without reducing environmental protection. 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 incentives can also help regulatory agencies focus their assistance, inspection, and enforce-
1 4 P E R F O R M A N C E T R A C K F O U R T H A N N U A L P R O G R E S S R E P O R T 

ment resources on higher priorities, such as facilities outside of 

the program that may require closer oversight. 

P r o g r e s s o n I n c e n t i v e s i n 2 0 0 5 

Within the Agency, Performance Track staff continued to 

develop relationships with EPA’s program offices, holding meetings 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 participated 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. 

R E P O R T I N G A N D M O N I T O R I N G 

Transparency and sound measurement are underlying principles 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 provides the facility with an assessment of its performance relative 

to other facilities in the program, and may suggest opportunities for improvements or partnerships with other technical assistance 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 facilities 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

C H A R T I N G P R O G R E S S

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 commitments. The indicators are 

designed to allow facilities to 

make environmental improvements at any stage in the lifecycle of their products or services, 

from upstream (e.g., improving 

the environmental performance 

of suppliers) to inputs and nonproduct outputs (e.g., decreasing 

the use of energy or the generation of waste), to downstream 

improvements, such as decreasing the expected lifetime energy 

use of products made at the facility. 

H I G H L I G H T S O F C U R R E N T 

M E M B E R S ’ C O M M I T M E N T S 

Table 1 summarizes the commitments of facilities accepted 

into Performance Track by the end of 2005. Collectively, these 

facilities have pledged to: 

n Reduce their materials use by 465,874 tons; 

n Reduce their water use by 60.7 billion gallons; 

n Reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by more than 

81,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent; 

n Reduce their discharges to water by more than 18,000 tons; 

n Reduce their hazardous and non-hazardous waste by 

nearly 418,000 tons; and 

n Protect nearly 35,000 acres of land for conservation. 

H I G H L I G H T S O F M E M B E R S ’ 

R E S U LT S R E P O R T E D I N 2 0 0 5 

In 2005, Performance Track members reported on their 

environmental achievements during 2004. The results demonstrate 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-

�������������������

������������������������

��������������������������

��������

������������������

�����������

����������������������

�����������

��������

������������������������������

�����������������������������

����������������������������������

�������������������������������

��������������������������������

��������������������

�������������

������������������

������

�����

�����

�������

�����������������

������������

������

�����������

������

������������������

�����

����������������

������������������

������������������

������������

�����

�������

���������

�����������

������

���������������������

������������������

����������������������

������������������������������������

���������������������������������

�����������������������������������

������������

����������������

����������������������

������

������������������

�����������������

����������������������

������

����������

���������������������

����������

�����������������

����������

���������

������������

����������������

������������������

������������

F I G U R E 1 . Performance Track Environmental Performance Indicators 

Applicants to the program chose from among these 

indicators when setting their performance goals. 
TA B L E 1 . Performance Track Members’ Commitments Accepted Through 2005

Number of Members Projected Annual Improvement Categories and Indicators *

with Goals* by Year 3 of Membership

Stage: Upstream

Material Procurement

Recycled content 45 82,807 tons (increase) 

Hazardous/toxic components 8 70 tons 

Suppliers’ Environmental Performance

Packaging materials 1 56 tons 

Hazardous materials 1 0.28 ton 

Land and habitat conservation 1 3,270 acres 

Stage: Inputs

Materials Use

Hazardous materials 74 8,449 tons 

Ozone-depleting substance 5 103 tons 

Packaging materials 12 258 tons 

Materials used 63 465,874 tons 

Water Use

Total water use 165 60.68 billion gallons 

Energy Use

Non-transportation energy use 196 **38.5 million MMBtus** 

Transportation energy use 12 83,503 gallons 

Land and Habitat

Land and habitat conservation 45 34,737 acres (increase) 

Stage: Nonproduct Outputs

Air Emissions

Greenhouse gases 43 81,058 metric tons of CO2 equivalent 

Volatile organic compounds 59 951 tons 

Nitrogen oxides 22 1,755 tons 

Sulfur oxides 11 891 tons 

Particulate matter (PM-10) 9 309 tons 

Carbon monoxide 3 39 tons 

Air toxics 22 125 tons 

Ozone 2 0.87 ton 

Discharges to Water

Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) 8 1,965 tons 

Chemical oxygen demand 1 1 ton 

Total suspended solids 10 14,930 tons 

Toxics 16 1,092 tons 

Nutrients 2 15 tons 

Sediment from runoff 2 300 tons 

Waste

Non-hazardous waste 233 405,708 tons 

Hazardous waste 137 12,071 tons 

Noise

Noise 15 ***242 dBa*** 

Stage: Downstream

Products

Expected lifetime waste (to air, water, land) 2 169 tons 

Waste to air, water, land from disposal or recovery 3 501 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. 

1 6 P E R F O R M A N C E T R A C K F O U R T H A N N U A L P R O G R E S S R E P O R T 
*

P E R F O R M A N C E T R A C K F O U R T H A N N U A L P R O G R E S S R E P O R T 1 7 

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 restructuring. 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 significantly 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 commitments 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 indicator 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 environmental indicators that were chosen by the largest number of 

Performance Track facilities (i.e., at least 20 facilities reporting). 

U s e o f R e c y c l e d M a t e r i a l s 

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 sulfuric acid as a 

substitute for the virgin acid that the facility had been using to 

neutralize its wastewater. Madison Chemical also installed different equipment so it could accept the used material. 

M a t e r i a l U s e 

Eighty-five percent of the members that reported on 

material use commitments showed an improvement in their 

eco-efficiency; 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 facilities actually avoided the use of nearly 4,000 tons of materials in 

2004 through improvements in technologies and practices. 

H a z a r d o u s M a t e r i a l U s e 

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 production 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. 

W a t e r U s e 

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. 
*

TA B L E 2 . Performance Track Members’ Results in 2004 

Category and Indicator Improvements 

made in 20041 Avoidance2 Units Number of results3

Number of 

normalized 

improvements4

Material Procurement

Hazardous/toxic components 53 50 tons 3 1 

Suppliers’ Environmental Performance

Suppliers’ hazardous materials use 0.030 0.030 tons 1 1 

Suppliers’ packaging use 12 18 tons 1 1 

Material Use

Materials use (125,468)5 3,763 tons 49 36 

Hazardous materials use (32,579) 10,912 tons 70 51 

Ozone-depleting substances 30 28 CFC-116 

equivalent tons 3 3 

Total packaging materials used (87) 915 tons 15 8 

Use of reused/ recycled materials 42,287 N/A tons 39 N/A 

Water Use

Total water use 527,936,376 4,305,206,523 gallons 108 80 

Energy Use

Energy use (non-transportation) (21,925,739) 18,935,094 MMBtus 147 96 

Transportation energy use 43,362 27,752 gallons 5 3 

Land and Habitat

Land & habitat conservation 1,106 N/A acres 30 N/A 

Air Emissions

Greenhouse gases 3,933 66,147 MTCO2E 37 28 

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (36) 253 tons 40 30 

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) 1,862 2,038 tons 21 20 

Sulfur oxides (SOx) 1,440 1,196 tons 13 10 

Particulate matter 84 173 tons 5 4 

Carbon monoxide 0.080 0.080 tons 2 1 

Air toxics 63 97 tons 18 12 

Ozone depleting gases (ODGs) 0.65 0.62 tons 2 2 

Discharges to Water

Discharges of BOD, COD, TSS, nutrients, 

sediments to water 7,390 14,154 tons 19 12 

Discharges of toxics to water 129 224 tons 9 7 

Waste

Non-hazardous waste generation (21,745) 180 tons 180 116 

Hazardous waste generation 791 114 tons 114 71 

Noise

Noise 10 4 dBA 4 N/A 

Products

Expected lifetime waste (to air, water, 

land) from product use 20 1 tons 1 1 

Waste to air, water, land from disposal 140 2 tons 2 2 

1 8 P E R F O R M A N C E T R A C K F O U R T H A N N U A L P R O G R E S S R E P O R T 

*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. 

1 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 implemented any improvements, i.e., if they had not achieved any improvements in eco-efficiency. It is calculated by multiplying the 2003 level of environmental performance 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.

3 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 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. 

4 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. 

5Numbers in parentheses indicate an overall increase irrespective of production. Numbers in the avoidance column indicate improvements in efficiency. 

6CFC-11=trichlorofluoromethane (CCl3F); MMBtus=million British thermal units; MTCO2E=metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent; BOD=biochemical oxygen 

demand; COD=chemical oxygen demand; TSS=total suspended solids; dBA=decibels (acoustic). 
�

��

��

��

��

��

����������������������������

Gallons of water used 

Gallons of water use avoided through 

improvements in eco-efficiency 

** Based on water use from 108 members. 

F I G U R E 2 . Performance Track Members’ 

Water Use and Avoidance in 2004* 

P E R F O R M A N C E T R A C K F O U R T H A N N U A L P R O G R E S S R E P O R T 1 9 

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 additions 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 conservation and management practices. 

E n e r g y U s e 

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 committed 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); installing 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). 

E m i s s i o n s o f G r e e n h o u s e G a s e s 

In 2004, members with commitments to reduce greenhouse gases showed an aggregate, actual reduction of 4,000 

metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2E). With production taken into account, the results show an avoidance of 

66,000 MTCO2E. 

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 commitments, based on 61 of the facilities that reported energy 

results in 2004, showed 143,440 MTCO2E in avoided emissions. When combined with the results of the greenhouse 

gas commitments, members avoided a total of 209,587 

MTCO2E—the equivalent of removing more than 22,000 cars 

from the road. 

E m i s s i o n s o f Vo l a t i l e O r g a n i c 

C o m p o u n d s ( V O C s ) 

Seventy-five percent of members with VOC commitments 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 
-

2 0 P E R F O R M A N C E T R A C K F O U R T H A N N U A L P R O G R E S S R E P O R T 

F

E

A

T

U

R

E D 

F

A

C I L I T

YSEH 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. 

E m i s s i o n s o f N i t r o g e n O x i d e s 

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 improvements. 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 low-NOx models. 

N o n - H a z a r d o u s W a s t e G e n e r a t i o n 

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 facilities 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 significantly lower incremental impact on the environment. 

H a z a r d o u s W a s t e G e n e r a t i o n 

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. 
P E R F O R M A N C E T R A C K F O U R T H A N N U A L P R O G R E S S R E P O R T 2 1 

C AV E AT S T O T H E 

2 0 0 4 R E S U LT S 

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 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 consumption. 

4. Approximately 8 percent of member facilities’ commitments relate to a specific process rather than to the facility as 

a whole. For example, a facility may have committed to reducing 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 commitments. 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/performancetrack/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.” 

WA L LY D O W S 

Representative, Marathon Ashland Petroleum, LLC, Garyville Refinery 
2 3

C O N C L U S I O N

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 increasing 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 commitments when their production increases. Many of the commitments 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 succeeded 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. 
����������������

�����������������

�����������������

��������������������

�����������������

���������������

�����������������

������������

��������������

�������������������

������

�����������������

������������

���������

�������������������

���������������

���������

����������������������

��������

��������������������

������������

� � � � �� ��

�����������������

����

�����

����������

����������

�������������

�����

���������� ����������

����������������

�����

�������

����������

�����

���������

�����

2 4

A B O U T P E R F O R M A N C E T R A C K

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 creating additional incentives for facilities to achieve environmental 

results beyond those required by law. 

To qualify, applicants must have implemented an independently 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 evaluation process, which includes a thorough compliance screening 

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 flexibility to program members in how they meet regulatory requirements. 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 virtually every manufacturing sector, as well as public-sector facilities 

at the federal, state, and local levels. 

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 applications for the program, conduct site visits at member facilities, 

promote Performance Track and similar state performancebased 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.gov/performancetrack. 
P E R F O R M A N C E T R A C K M E M B E R S 

As of March 1, 2006 

(continued from inside front cover)

IBM – Burlington 

Ideal Jacobs Corporation 

IMCO Recycling – Saginaw, A 

Subsidiary of Aleris International, 

Inc. 

Indiantown Cogeneration, L.P. 

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 – Androscoggin 

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 Zink 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 

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 – Hines 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 & Specialty 

Pharmaceuticals – Las Piedras 

McNeil Consumer & Specialty 

Pharmaceuticals – Fort Washington 

MD Anderson Cancer Center 

Mead Westvaco Corporation 

Consumer and Office Product 

Group 

Michelin NA – Sandy Springs 

Michelin NA – Starr 

Michelin North American – 

Spartanburg Manufacturing 

Michelin North America, Inc. 

– Ardmore 

Michelin North America, Inc – Dothan 

Michelin North America, Inc. – 

Greenville Manufacturing Facility 

Mitek Products (West) 

Moccasin Point Marina, LLC 

Mohawk Paper Mills 

Monsanto Company – Augusta 

Monsanto Company – Luling, LA 

Facility 

Monsanto Company – Muscatine, 

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 Biologics, LLC 

Ortho- Pharmaceutical, a Division of 

OMJ Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 

Osram Sylvania 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 

Pinewood 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 – Martinsville 

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 – Blandin 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 

U.S. 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