PROGRESS REPOR 

PERFORMANCE TRACK 

T 

Top Performers. 

Solid Results. 

PERFORMANCE TRACK 

PROGRESS REPOR T 

Top Performers. 

Solid Results. 
Location of Performance Track Members 
1 

Executive Summary 2 

Why Performance Track? 3 

Building on Experience 3 

Program Structure and Criteria 4 

The First Year of Progress 7 

Performance Track Member Goals 7 

Performance Track Member Achievements 7 

Promoting Continuous Improvement 15 

Working with State Partners 19 

Performance Track Assistance 21 

Looking Forward 22 

T ABLE OF CONTENTS 
EXECUTIVE SUMMAR Y


This report describes the mission and activities of Performance Track, its members’ 

achievements to date, and the goals for the future of the program. 

In the less than three years since it was launched, Performance Track has: 

•	 Grown to include over 300 members, from among the more than 

400 that have applied; 

•	 Enlisted broad corporate support from such leaders as Johnson & Johnson, 

IBM, 3M, International Paper, Lockheed Martin, and Rockwell Collins; 

•	 Engaged 19 trade, professional, and environmental organizations in the 

Performance Track Network; 

•	 Improved environmental management systems at member facilities 

through site visits; 

• Advanced environmental performance measurement; 

•	 Created a learning community of members, government, associations, 

and prospective members; 

•	 Strengthened links among federal and state performance-based 

excellence programs; and 

•	 Developed proposals for regulatory and policy changes that allow for better 

environmental and business performance. 

Commitment to continuous environmental improvement is a core value of 

Performance Track. In their first year of participation, Performance Track members 

have gone beyond legal requirements to reduce: 

• Energy use by 1.1 million mmBtus 

• Water use by 475 million gallons 

• Hazardous materials use by 908 tons 

• Emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by 329 tons 

• Emissions of air toxics by 57 tons 

• Emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) by 152 tons 

•	 Discharges to water of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen 

demand (COD), and total suspended solids (TSS) by 1,327 tons 

• Toxic discharges to water by 5,543 tons 

• Solid waste by 150,000 tons 

• Hazardous waste by 692 tons 

Members also increased their use of reused and recycled materials by 10,823 tons 

and preserved or restored 2,698 acres of habitat. 

EPA will continue to build Performance Track by increasing the environmental and the 

business value of the program, increasing membership, and expanding program ownership 

among Agency programs, states, corporations, and trade and environmental groups. 

2

WHY PERFORMANCE TRACK? 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Environmental Performance “ Performance 

Track (Performance Track) program recognizes and rewards facilities that consistently Track gives 

exceed regulatory requirements, work closely with their communities, and excel in protecting the environment and public health. us recognition for 

Performance Track is based on the premise that government should complement the good work 

existing programs with new tools and strategies that not only protect people and the we are doing 

environment, but also capture opportunities for reducing costs and spurring tech- and encourages 

nological innovation. The program’s mission is to improve environmental performance, employees transform relationships, and encourage innovation. Performance Track encourages 

performance improvements by supporting environmental goals that go beyond compli- to do more.” 

ance, offering recommendations during site visits, and providing opportunities for the 

Evet L. Vera sharing of information among members. The program transforms the relationship Baxter Healthcare/ 

between regulators and regulated facilities to make them more collaborative, cooperative, Aibonito, P.R.


and focused on results. Innovation is encouraged through peer networking, regulatory


changes, and the program’s focus on fostering a culture of continuous improvement.


Launched in June 2000, the program has more than 300 members in 41 states and 

Puerto Rico, representing virtually every manufacturing sector as well as facilities in the 

public sector. All U.S. facilities, large and small, public and private, may apply to 

Performance Track. Participants must meet a set of criteria to be accepted into the program. Once accepted, members receive a range of benefits and incentives to motivate 

and enable them to make further improvements. 

EPA is pleased to present this first progress report, which describes the mission and 

activities of Performance Track, its members’ achievements to date, and the goals for the 

future of the program. 

Size of Building on Experience Performance Track 

Performance Track builds on lessons that EPA has learned from Facilities 

state environmental leadership programs and from its own efforts, such 

as the Common Sense Initiative, the Environmental Leadership 

Program, and EPA Region 1’s Star Track program. Through these early 

initiatives, EPA learned the importance of keeping program design simple, keeping transaction costs low, and delivering measurable results. 

EPA’s initial proposal to develop Performance Track was published in its July 1999 report, Aiming for Excellence. The Agency 

consulted extensively with stakeholders and state environmental 

agencies to develop and refine the proposal. The program was 

launched officially on June 26, 2000. EPA accepted 228 facilities as 

Charter Members during its first round of applications, welcoming 

them at a ceremony in Washington, DC, on December 13, 2000. 

More than 1,000 

employees 

23% 

Fewer than 50 

employees 

13% 

50-99 

employees 

9% 

100-499 

employees 

32% 

500-1,000 

employees 

22% 

3

In early 2001, incoming Administrator Christie Whitman reaffirmed support for the 

Performance Track program. “Performance Track is an important public/private partnership 

that encourages environmental excellence, involves communities in environmental protection, and focuses on measurable results,” she said in a letter to new members. Since then, 

Administrator Whitman has welcomed new members to Performance Track personally. 

By the end of February 2003, Performance Track had held five rounds of applications, receiving 421 applications and accepting 345. The program currently has 

304 members. 

Program Structure and Criteria 

The Performance Track application can be found at 

http://www.epa.gov/performancetrack/apps/app.htm. 

The application was designed to be as clear and user-friendly as possible while gathering enough information to demonstrate that an applicant meets Performance Track’s 

criteria in four key areas: 

1. Establishing and maintaining a comprehensive environmental 

management system (EMS); 

2. Going beyond legal requirements as evidence of its commitment 

to continuous environmental improvement; 

3. Informing and seeking input from its local community about the 

facility’s environmental performance; and 

4. Maintaining a record of sustained compliance with 

environmental requirements. 

In meeting the second criterion, applicants commit to four quantitative goals for 

improving their environmental performance. Small facilities commit to two goals. 

Facilities choose these goals from among the categories listed in Table A, such as water 

use, hazardous waste, or nitrogen oxide emissions. 

Facilities are accepted into Performance Track for a three-year period, after which they 

can renew their membership by committing to four new goals (or two, for small facilities). 

Chemical 

Products 

13% 

Medical 

Equipment 

and Supplies 

11% Electronic 

and Electrical 

Equipment 

14% 

Public 

Facilities 

7% 

Other 

Non-manufacturing 

8% 

Wholesale, 

Retail, 

Shipping 

4% 

Energy, 

Utilities, 

Sanitary 

Services 

6% 

Other 

Manufacturing 

7% 

Machinery 

4% 

Transportation 

Equipment 

5% 

Pharmaceuticals 

6% 

Printing 

7% 

Distribution of 

Performance 

Track Members 

Across Sectors 

Wood Metal 

Products, Products 

Paper, and 8% 

The structure of Performance Track consists of a core staff in 

EPA’s Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation and regional 

Performance Track Coordinators in each of the Agency’s 10 

regional offices. EPA staff work with state environmental agencies 

to review applications to the program, conduct site visits at member facilities, promote Performance Track and similar state performance-based programs, and develop program policy. 

Performance Track accepts applications twice each year: 

from February 1 to April 30 and from August 1 to October 31. 

4

TABLE A: Categories and Aspects of Performance Track Member Goals 

Category Aspect 

Energy Use Total Energy Use 

Water Use Total Water Use 

Materials Use	 Total Materials Use 

Hazardous Materials Use 

Recycled/Reused Materials Use 

Air Emissions Emissions of Greenhouse Gases 

(Including Motor Vehicles)	 Emissions of Ozone-Depleting Gases 

Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 

Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 

Emissions of Sulfur Dioxide 

Emissions of Particulate Matter 

Emissions of Carbon Monoxide 

Emissions of Toxics 

Waste	 Total Solid Waste 

Hazardous Waste 

Habitat Preservation/Restoration	 Removal 

Remediation 

Habitat Impacts 

Discharges to Water	 Discharges to Water: Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 

Discharges to Water: Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) 

Discharges of Toxics to Water 

Discharges of Total Suspended Solids to Water 

Discharges of Pathogens to Water 

Discharges of Nutrients to Water 

Sediment from Runoff 

Accidental Releases	 Release History 

Vulnerability and Potential for Releases 

Product Performance	 Expected Lifetime Energy Use of Product 

Expected Waste (to Air, Water, Land) of Product 

Packaging Materials Used in Product 

Waste to Air, Water, Land from Disposal or 

Recovery of Product 

Other	 Noise 

Odor 

5

Each year, members submit an annual performance report documenting progress 

toward meeting their goals and major activities undertaken as part of their EMS. This 

report is due on April 1 for the preceding calendar year. Results from the first set of 

annual performance reports are presented on pages 9–14. 

EPA designed Performance Track’s admission process to be simple and low in cost 

to both the Agency and facilities. Because the process does not include a site visit before 

each facility is selected into the program, EPA Performance Track staff and state officials 

visit a portion of Performance Track member facilities each year. A site visit provides EPA 

with the opportunity to verify the information presented in a facility’s application, par

ticularly the quality of its EMS, and progress toward its performance goals. EPA provides 

an assessment of the facility’s programs and progress relative to other facilities in the 

Performance Track program and may suggest opportunities for improvements or part

nerships with other firms and sources of technical expertise. The site visit also helps EPA 

and states to establish a relationship with the facility’s key environmental staff and top 

management. These relationships then can facilitate an ongoing dialogue between EPA 

and facilities on ways to improve Performance Track and its benefits. 

Through December 2002, EPA had conducted site visits at 79 Performance Track 

facilities. Sixty-eight percent of the site visits have shown that the member facility fully 

met all program criteria, often in exemplary ways. The facility was implementing an 

effective EMS, making progress toward its performance goals, reaching out to its com

munity, and complying with legal requirements. Thirty-two percent of the site visits 

revealed areas for improvement. Some of these facilities continued to meet basic program criteria but were advised to strengthen their EMS, revise their performance goals, 

or improve their public outreach programs. However, 22 of these facilities had more sig

nificant issues and fell short of meeting program criteria. EPA asked these facilities to 

withdraw from the program, and they are no longer members of Performance Track. 

A total of 41 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: EMS deficiencies found during site 

visits (22 facilities), facility closure or reorganization (6 facilities), and failure to submit 

an annual performance report (5 facilities). Eight facilities have left the program for 

other reasons. In all cases, EPA encourages facilities to reapply to Performance Track 

when they are able to meet the program criteria. 

6

THE FIRST YEAR OF PROGRESS


Performance Track members commit to attain performance goals within three years. 

Facilities commit to at least four environmental goals (two for small facilities), which they 

select from the categories and aspects shown in Table A on page 5. Each facility chooses its 

goals based on its individual environmental impacts. For example, paper mills use large 

amounts of water, so many of the paper mills in Performance Track have committed to 

reducing water discharges. Facilities that use large amounts of solvent often commit to 

reducing their use of hazardous solvents or to reducing solvent emissions. 

Performance Track Member Goals 

Table B (see page 8) presents the goals set by Performance Track members that 

were accepted through 2002. By fulfilling these goals, Performance Track members 

collectively will within three years: 

Reduce their emissions of volatile organic compounds 

by 460 tons, equivalent to the effect of taking nearly 

30,000 cars off the road; 

Reduce their annual energy consumption by 

2.3 million mmBtus, equivalent to the energy used by 

approximately 22,200 households in a year; 

Reduce their generation of solid waste by 202,655 tons, 

equivalent to the amount generated by some 257,069 

Americans each year; 

Reduce their water consumption by 2.5 billion gallons, 

enough to fill 2,500 Olympic-size swimming pools; and 

Increase preserved or restored habitat by 3,600 acres, 

an area equivalent to that of 3,267 football fields. 

Performance Track Member Achievements 

Performance Track facilities improved their environmental performance significantly 

during their first year in the program. All improvements reported to the program 

exceeded those required by law. Some of these achievements were in areas such as air 

pollution, water pollution, and solid waste, which have been the focus of environ

mental regulations and industry efforts for many years. Other achievements reduced 

impacts in areas that are recent or emerging environmental priorities and are essentially 

unregulated, such as materials use, water use, energy use, and habitat preservation. 

This report presents the results from the first annual reports submitted by member 

7

TABLE B: Performance Track Members’ Goals Accepted through 2002 

Number of Members 

With Goals In Year 3 of Membership 

Projected Reduction 

Energy Consumption 110 2.3 million mmBtus1 

Water Consumption 117 2.5 billion gallons2 

Materials Use 

Total Materials Use 84 31,200 tons3 

Hazardous Materials Use 36 6,700 tons4 

Recycled/reused Materials Use 33 140,000 tons (increase)5 

Air Emissions 

Greenhouse Gases


Volatile Organic Compounds


Air Toxics


Nitrogen Oxides


Particulate Matter


Sulfur Dioxide


Ozone-depleting Compounds


Carbon Monoxide


Other


58 14,870 tons6 

44 460 tons7 

20 160 tons8 

14 2,600 tons 

5 19 tons9 

4 8,200 tons 

4 9 tons 

1 1 ton 

1 

Solid Waste Generation 179 202,655 tons10 

Hazardous Waste Generation 94 5,599 tons11 

Habitat Preservation and Restoration 21 3,600 acres (increase)12 

Discharges to Water 

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), 

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), 

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 20 26.3 million pounds13 

Toxics 17 39.8 million pounds 

Product Packaging Materials Use 

1	 Represents commitments from only 97 members due 

to missing or nonstandard data. 

2 Represents commitments from 63 members (“). 

3 Represents commitments from 33 members (“). 

4 Represents commitments from 31 members (”). 

5 Represents commitments from 29 members (”). 

6 Represents commitments from 53 members (“). 

7 Represents commitments from 42 members (”). 

12 1,300 tons14 

8 Represents commitments from 19 members (”). 

9 Represents commitments from 3 members (”). 

10Represents commitments from 94 members (“). 

11Represents commitments from 90 members (“). 

12Represents commitments from 17 members (”). 

13Represents commitments from 18 members (”). 

14Represents commitments from 11 members (”). 

8

facilities, representing their first year of progress toward their three-year goals. The 

reports covered performance during the 2001 calendar year. Only members admitted by 

the end of 2001, a total of 247 facilities, were required to report. EPA received reports 

from 227 facilities; the remaining 20 facilities have left the program. 

EPA received data on progress on 22 types of environmental impacts. Aggregate 

performance improved in the following areas: 

•	 Air emissions (volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, 

sulfur oxides, air toxics, particulate matter, ozone-depleting chemicals); 

•	 Discharges to water (suspended solids, biochemical oxygen demand, chemical 

oxygen demand, toxics); 

• Hazardous and nonhazardous waste; 

•	 Consumption of energy, water, hazardous materials, recycled/reused materials, 

and packaging materials; and 

• Habitat preservation and restoration. 

Aggregate performance declined in two areas, greenhouse gas emissions and total 

materials use. The data suggest that the increases in materials use and greenhouse gas 

emissions are due largely to increases in production at many member facilities. 

Performance data on accidental releases could not be aggregated because of the variety 

of measurements used. 

The graphs in this section may understate the aggregate achievements of 

Performance Track members. They do not include some results reported in nonstandard 

terms that could not be converted to common measures. For example, one member 

more than halved the amount of materials used in its product packaging, but was 

unable to convert its measurement units from cubic feet to a standard weight-based 

measure. EPA worked closely with many members to standardize their reporting so that 

their achievements could be included in this report, but not all data could be standardized before the report went to print. The graphs starting on page 11 show how many 

facilities contributed to the results shown. 

In addition to aggregate data, this section also presents achievements of individual 

Performance Track facilities that have reduced their environmental impacts per unit of production. A facility that reduces its environmental impact per unit of production is becoming 

more “eco-efficient.” For example, member facility BMW Manufacturing of Greer, South 

Carolina, increased its production of vehicles by 137 percent between 1999 and 2001 while 

its energy use increased by only 20 percent. The energy use per vehicle was reduced by 

approximately 50 percent, representing a substantial improvement in eco-efficiency. 

Performance Track members showed eco-efficiency improvement in 72 percent of the 

impacts included in their 2001 reports. In 67 percent of the cases, they showed absolute 

9

reductions in impacts. Note that a facility with increasing production could increase its 

eco-efficiency while also increasing its environmental impact. 

Each facility’s Annual Performance Report is available at the Performance Track Web site 

http://www.epa.gov/performancetrack/particip/index.htm. The following pages present 

Performance Track members’ progress during 2001 by type of environmental impact. The 

aggregate goals used here only include commitments from those facilities admitted to the 

program in 2001. These goals differ from the aggregate goals presented on page 7, which 

also include commitments from facilities admitted in 2002. 

Energy Use 

Members reported an overall 6 percent decline in energy consumption during 

their first year, putting them two-thirds of the way toward their three-year goal. 

Water Use 

Members reported a 5 percent decline in water use, putting them one-third 

of the way toward their three-year goal. 

Materials Use 

Members reported a 5 percent increase in materials use. This is due in large part to production increases at many facilities. Members reported an 11 percent decrease in the use of 

hazardous materials, and an 81 percent increase in the use of recycled or reused materials. 

Air Emissions 

Members reported decreases in all air emissions except for greenhouse gases, which 

increased. This is due in large part to production increases at many facilities. In addition 

to the results shown here, three members reduced their emissions of particulate matter 

by 5 percent, one member reduced its emissions of sulfur dioxide by 28 percent, four 

members reduced emissions of ozone-depleting compounds by 33 percent, and one 

member reduced carbon monoxide emissions by 67 percent. 

Solid Waste 

Members reported an 11 percent reduction in the generation of solid waste, exceeding their three-year goal in their first year. In addition to the results shown here, three 

members reduced their use of packaging materials in the first year by 53 percent. 

Hazardous Waste 

Members reduced their generation of hazardous waste by 8 percent, putting them 

20 percent of the way toward their three-year goal. 

10

Habitat Preservation and Restoration 

Members preserved or restored an additional 2,698 acres of habitat in their first 

year, putting them 90 percent of the way toward their three-year goal. 

Discharges to Water 

Members reported decreases in discharges to water, as measured by reductions in 

biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), total suspended 

solids (TSS), and toxics. 

FEA TURED F ACILITY 

Baxter Caribe 

Baxter Caribe, an inhalation 

anesthetics facility with 206 

employees in Guayama, 

Puerto Rico, is one of Baxter 

Healthcare’s 250 facilities 

worldwide. In its first year as 

a member of Performance 

Track, the facility cut its use 

of solvents to reduce its hazardous waste per pound of 

product by 33 percent. In 

doing so, the facility surpassed its already ambitious 

goal to reduce hazardous 

waste by 30 percent per 

pound of product over three 

years. Baxter Caribe also 

reported progress on its 

reduction of VOCs, even 

though it had made no goals 

to reduce those emissions 

under Performance Track. 

The facility reduced emissions 

by closing inefficient operations and integrating production in a modern facility. 

First-Year Reductions 

In Energy Use* 

19.8 18.7 

18.1 

Goal for 


Third Year


(9% Reduction 


From Baseline)


Members reduced 

energy use by 1.1 

million mmBtus. 

Baseline Year 1 

*Based on data received from 73 members 

First-Year Changes 

In Total Materials Use* 

315.2 317.4 

303 

Goal for 


Third Year


(4% Reduction 


From Baseline)


10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

First-Year Reductions 

In Water Use* 

9.8 

10.3 

8.8 

Goal for


Third Year


(15% Reduction


From Baseline)


Members reduced 

their water 

consumption 

by 475 million 

gallons. 

Baseline Year 1 

*Based on data received from 53 members 

First-Year Reductions 

Thousands of Tons of Materials Millions of mmBtus 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

Tons of Hazardous Materials 

Billions of Gallons of Water Used 

In Hazardous Materials Use* 

8000 

6,309 

7,869 

8,777 

pr

Materials use 6000 Goal for 

Third Year 

increased by (28% Reduction 

2,200 tons due From Baseline) 

mainly to 4000 Members reduced 

oduction their use of 

increases at hazardous materials 

many facilities. by 908 tons. 

2000 

0 

Baseline Year 1 Baseline Year 1 

*Based on data received from 30 members *Based on data received from 23 members 

11

First-Year Changes


In Greenhouse Gas Emissions*


First-Year Increases in 

Recycled/Reused Materials Use* 

FEA TURED F ACILITY 

Naval Air 

Engineering Station 

The Naval Air Engineering 

Station, located in Lakehurst, 

New Jersey, is one of a growing number of public-sector 

facilities that have been 

accepted to Performance 

Track. Part of the U.S. Navy’s 

Naval Air Systems Command, 

the facility employs 4,100 

people. In its first year of 

membership, the station 

exceeded two of its four 

three-year targets, reducing 

water use per employee by 

22 percent (its three-year 

goal was for a 5 percent 

reduction) and NOx emissions 

by 36 percent per square 

foot of heated space (with a 

three-year goal of a 35 percent).The facility also drafted 

a master plan outlining areas 

where grassland habitat will 

be preserved and managed, 

and plans to increase its current allocation of 1,102 acres 

of preserved land to 1,225 

acres in 2003. 

161.8 

156 

Goal for


Third Year


(4% Reduction


From Baseline)


Greenhouse gas 

emissions 

increased by 

7,600 tons 

due mainly to 

increases in 

production at 

many facilities. 

25000 24,789 Goal for 


Third Year


(83% Increase


Over Baseline)


160 24,405 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

Tons of Air Toxics (Hazardous Air Pollutants) Thousands of Tons of Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

20000 

Tons of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) Tons of Recycled/Reused Materials

Members 

increased their 

use of recycled 

or reused 

materials by 

10,823 tons. 

15000 

13,582 

10000 

5000 

0 0 

Baseline Year 1 

*Based on data received from 21 members 

First-Year Reductions 

In VOC Emissions* 

Baseline Year 1 

*Based on data received from 21 members 

First -Year Reductions 

In Air Toxics Emissions* 

2,970 300 3000 

2,641 270 250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

2500 

2000 

1500 

1000 

500 

2,591 

Goal for 


Third Year


(13% Reduction 


From Baseline)


Members 

reduced 

emissions of 

volatile organic 

compounds 

by 329 tons. 

145 

Goal for


Third Year


(46% Reduction


From Baseline)


Members 

reduced 

emissions of air 

toxics by 57 

tons. 

0 0 

Baseline Year 1 

*Based on data received from 36 members 

Baseline Year 1 

*Based on data received from 16 members 

12

First-Year Reductions First-Year Reductions 

In NOx Emissions* In Solid Waste*

1.67 

6000 Goal for 

Third Year 

1.5 Third Year 

(6% Reduction 

(12% Reduction From Baseline) 

From Baseline) 

Members 

4000 

Members 

reduced NOx 

1.0 reduced solid 

waste by 

emissions by 150,000 tons. 

152 tons. 

6,399 1.65 

1.80 

Goal for 

2000 

7,268 

0.5 

0 0.0 

Baseline Year 1 Baseline Year 1 

*Based on data received from 8 members *Based on data received from 86 members 

First-Year Reductions First-Year Increases in 

In Hazardous Waste Preserved/Restored Habitat* 

16,396 8000 9,133 

16.081 Goal for 

15000 Third Year 

(23% Increase 

Over Baseline) 

13,383 

6000 5,814 Members Goal for 

Third Year 10000 preserved or 

4000 

(36% Reduction 

From Baseline) restored 2,698 

additional acres 

Members cut of habitat. 

their generation 5000 of hazardous 2000 

waste by 692 

tons. 

0 0 

Baseline Year 1 Baseline Year 1 

*Based on data received from 76 members *Based on data received from 10 members 

FEA TURED F ACILITY 

Lansing Cleaners 

One of Performance Track’s 

smaller member facilities, 

Lansing Cleaners of Lansing, 

Illinois, employs 130 people. 

It specializes in dry-cleaning 

and restoring fire-damaged 

garments. The company has 

reduced its use of perchloroethylene, a toxic air 

pollutant, by 44 percent per 

pound of clothes cleaned 

between 1999 and 2001, 

and reduced its generation of 

hazardous waste by 55 percent per pound of clothes 

cleaned. Lansing Cleaners 

also replaced two vans in its 

fleet with models that run on 

compressed natural gas, 

reducing NOx emissions by 

45 percent. 

FEA TURED F ACILITY 

Wacker Siltronic 

Wacker Siltronic makes 

silicon wafers in Portland, 

Oregon, where it employs 

approximately 1,500 people. 

The facility cut its production 

of solid waste by 59 percent 

per unit of production, a 

reduction of nearly 1.5 million pounds, by reusing and 

recycling materials such as 

pallets, scrap wood, sludge, 

plastic films, and plastic 

drums. The plant also 

reduced its emissions of 

volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs) by 13 percent per 

unit of production by reducing the use of VOC-based 

wax in a polishing process. 

Tons of Hazardous Waste Tons of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 

Acres of Habitat Millions of Tons of Soild Wastes 

13

FEATURED FACILITIES 

Rockwell Collins 

With four of its Iowa facilities 

enrolled in Performance 

Track, the communication 

and aviation electronics manufacturer Rockwell Collins is 

an example of a company 

that has committed to 

Performance Track at the corporate level. The four facilities reduced their total waste 

by more than 19 percent in 

their first year of membership 

by adopting a comprehensive 

recycling program for paper, 

notebooks, metals, plastics, 

toner cartridges, and other 

materials. Two of the facilities, in Decorah and 

Manchester, Iowa, have 

reduced their use of toluene, 

a toxic chemical used in 

industrial spray painting, by 6 

percent. The Manchester 

facility reduced its generation 

of hazardous waste by purchasing a drum compactor, 

which saved the facility nearly $12,000 in disposal costs. 

The company’s facility in 

Bellevue, Iowa, reduced its 

use of soap by 72.5 percent, 

far exceeding its goal, and 

the Bellevue and Coralville 

facilities outperformed their 

goals to reduce water use. 

BOD, COD, TSS (Tons) 

First-Year Reductions First-Year Reductions 

In BOD, COD, and TSS* In Toxic Discharges to Water* 

20000 

18000 

16000 

14000 

12000 

10000 

8000 

6000 

4000 

2000 

0 

Baseline Year 1 

16,352 

17,679 

*Based on data received from 12 members 

(BOD=Biochemical Oxygen Demand; 

COD=Chemical Oxygen Demand; 

TSS=Total Suspended Solids) 

35000 

30000 

25000 

12,321


Goal for 20000


Third Year


(30% Reduction 


From Baseline) 15000


Members reduced 11,302 

discharges to water 10000 Goal for 

by biochemical 5000 From Baseline) 

oxygen demand, Members reduced 

Third Year — as measured 

31,188 

(64% Reduction 

chemical oxygen 0 toxic discharges to demand, and total Baseline Year 1 water by 5,543 suspended solids — *Based on data received from 14 members tons, an 18 percent 

by 1,327 tons. decrease. Tons of Toxics 

14

PROMOTING CONTINUOUS 

IMPROVEMENT 

EPA seeks to establish Performance Track as a “gold standard” for environmental 

performance — a standard that facilities will strive to attain. To encourage facilities to 

aim for this standard, EPA adds value to Performance Track membership through recognition, networking, and regulatory and administrative incentives. 

Recognition and Awareness 

With today’s heightened awareness of environmental concerns, facilities value their 

environmental reputations among their regulators, peers, investors, customers, employees, and local communities. Performance Track provides recognition for facilities, raising 

their environmental profile among these key constituents. 

Facilities admitted to the program are recognized by the EPA Administrator at the 

Performance Track Annual Members Event in Washington, DC. They receive a certificate 

from the Administrator and may use the Performance Track logo to boost their public 

and employee relations. Many members display the logo on a flag outside their facility, 

and some facilities have produced caps, shirts, and other Performance Track logo items 

for their employees. 

EPA highlights members’ participation in Performance Track in letters sent to elected officials at the local, state, and national levels. Members’ achievements also appear in 

trade publications read by facilities’ peers and customers. To date, articles in 47 trade 

“ We wanted to be part 

of an elite group of 

companies being 

recognized nationally 

for exemplary 

environmental 

performance.” 

David Korman


Skanska USA Building, Inc.


publications have featured Performance Track members. 

EPA is “branding” Performance Track by marketing the 

program at important industry conferences, distributing 

media kits and video segments, and holding regional workshops. The program was featured on public television’s 

“Environmental Review Series with Morley Safer.” 

EPA established the Performance Track Network, 

which currently has 19 partners. Partner organizations 

endorse the principles of Performance Track, promote the 

concept of continuous environmental improvement to 

their members, and inform their members about the 

opportunities offered by Performance Track. More information 

about the Performance Track Network is available at 

http://www.epa.gov/performancetrack/partners/trade.htm. 

NUCOR Bar Mill-Auburn facility 

highlights its environmental 

achievements. 

15

Membership and 

Partnership Services 

Members of Performance 

Track benefit from a number 

of services: 

• Bimonthly Tele-Seminars 

— enable members to 

discuss timely issues, techniques for furthering environmental performance, 

and important regulatory 

changes. 

•	 Regional Events — 

facilitate networking 

among members and 

provide a forum to 

recognize facilities for 

their achievements. 

• EPA Roundtables — 

with representation by 

state and EPA officials, 

enable members to meet 

with regulators to discuss 

Performance Track, related 

issues and concerns. 

• Annual Member Event 

— provides a forum for 

recognition, networking, 

and workshops. 

Creating a Learning Network 

The Performance Track program helps members share best practices and lessons 

learned, effectively creating a learning network. 

Each EPA regional office holds meetings during which members exchange ideas with 

each other and with regional administrators and staff. These meetings also generate 

feedback and suggestions for improving and expanding the Performance Track program. 

Performance Track also holds tele-seminars to feature member facilities’ best practices. 

For example, International Paper recently presented the business case for participation 

in Performance Track, and Baxter International presented the financial and other benefits of pursuing sustainable development. 

The program is working with the National Environmental Education and Training 

Foundation to develop a Leadership Practices Database that will help facilities share 

information and learn from one another to improve their environmental performance. 

Every two months, EPA e-mails “P-Track News” to members and other stakeholders. 

This electronic newsletter contains program updates, member achievements, and information on EPA activities of interest to members. 

Performance Track members have formed a private, independent membership association, the Performance Track Participants’ Association, that provides a forum for members, trade associations, and public entities dedicated to improving their environmental 

performance. Additional information on the Performance Track Participants’ Association 

may be found at http://www.ptpaonline.org. 

Regulatory and Administrative Incentives 

Members clearly value the recognition, networking, and learning benefits of participating in Performance Track. The program goes further, however, by incorporating 

Performance Track into EPA’s regulatory programs and policies and by providing incentives for Performance Track members. This enables them to focus on continuous 

improvement by reducing some of the routine administrative costs of regulation and 

allowing them additional administrative flexibility in certain cases. These benefits allow 

the facilities to operate more efficiently and to respond more rapidly to changes in their 

business environment. The benefits also enable members to dedicate more of their 

efforts to developing best practices and identifying opportunities for innovation. Given 

their history of strong compliance, commitment to measurable improvement, and effectiveness in environmental management, Performance Track members have distinguished 

themselves from other regulated facilities. 

Regulatory changes (described below) benefit government as well as members of 

Performance Track. They enable agencies to focus their assistance, inspection, and 

16

enforcement resources on other facilities that require closer oversight. These agencies may 

exchange certain kinds of routine information (which is necessary for facilities with less 

exemplary records and capabilities) for information related to performance and management that may offer more value for government, customers, communities, and others. 

Low Priority for Routine Inspections 

Over the past year EPA has worked to develop and implement incentives that recognize members’ commitment to compliance and environmental stewardship. This commitment is demonstrated by certain Performance Track program elements, including the 

implementation of an EMS that requires a commitment to compliance, periodic audits 

of the EMS and environmental compliance, and an annual certification of compliance. 

In recognition of these and other program elements, facilities in Performance Track are 

given a low priority for routine inspections by EPA. 

Proposed Performance Track Rule 

Reduces Burden of Regulations 

EPA also has begun a long-term process of modifying its regulatory programs and 

policies as they apply to members. Under the first Performance Track rulemaking, proposed in August 2002, member facilities would be allowed to store hazardous waste onsite for 180 days or more, rather than the current 90 days. This benefit could reduce 

waste disposal costs at 34-43 member facilities, saving them a total of $60,000 annually. 

In addition, members subject to the Clean Air Act’s Maximum Available Control 

Technology (MACT) requirements could report annually rather than semiannually. Other 

provisions of the proposed rule could reduce reporting costs at publicly owned treatment works. The rule will be finalized during the summer of 2003. 

Performance Track Integrated into Other EPA Rules 

EPA has proposed to reduce the burden of compliance for all facilities subject to the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). A final rule based on this proposal 

will be issued during the summer of 2003. Under this rule, Performance Track members 

may see additional reductions in burden beyond those available to other facilities. 

Under proposed changes to MACT, all facilities would be able to apply for less-burdensome alternative compliance options when they use pollution prevention measures 

to reduce their emissions below a threshold level. Members would be given a shorter 

review time by the Agency and provided with a designated point of contact to assist 

them in the process. 

“I am impressed with 

the tremendous 

enthusiasm and 

support that 

Performance Track 

members are 

showing for this 

program.” 

EPA Region II Administrator 

Jane Kenny 

17

18 

Permitting, Reporting, and Recordkeeping 

Additional regulatory changes that would apply to Performance Track members will 

address permitting, reporting, and recordkeeping. EPA is evaluating mechanisms for 

making innovative air permitting options available to members. Pilot studies have 

shown that such options reduce costs and increase flexibility for facilities while leading 

to reduced emissions over time. Since states generally are the permitting authorities, 

EPA is working closely with several states to implement this proposal. Other permitting 

initiatives that would reduce processing time and increase regulatory certainty for members also are under consideration with several states. 

EPA currently is developing a proposal that would eliminate or reduce the frequencies for member facilities. 

agement and performance. These changes are expected to result in significant efficiency of several categories of routine reporting from Performance Track facilities, as a measure of the Agency’s greater degree of confidence in Performance Track members’ man­
WORKING WITH STATE PARTNERS


EPA and state governments are partners in implementing the Performance Track 

program and delivering benefits to member facilities. EPA 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. 

Recommendations from the states are crucial to EPA’s decisions to admit facilities 

into Performance Track. State governments implement and enforce many environmental requirements and frequently have greater knowledge of potential member facilities 

than EPA does. 

Performance Track complements and builds on the successful environmental performance programs launched by the program’s state partners. Some of the state programs were established prior to Performance Track’s inception and served as models for 

the national program. The establishment of Performance Track then helped to spur the 

development of additional state programs. In Performance Track’s initial year, EPA 

awarded 21 states a total of $500,000 to support the development of state performancebased programs. Although some state programs are rooted in EMSs and others in pollution prevention, they all support environmental performance that goes beyond compliance. The table on page 20 lists state programs, the years they began, and the number 

of members in each program as of February 2003. 

Both EPA and the states believe they can achieve more by working together than by 

pursuing their goals independently. Therefore, representatives of EPA and state agencies 

are in frequent contact as they coordinate the development and implementation of their 

programs. EPA consults with states on policy issues such as member implementation of 

EMSs. States also participate in site visits to Performance Track facilities, as well as in 

Performance Track member events at the national and regional levels. 

States that wish to maximize the coordination of performance-based incentive programs with EPA may enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). EPA has signed 

MOAs with five states: Colorado, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia, and is 

working with several others to develop state-specific agreements. These MOAs provide a 

framework for joint recruitment, admissions, and delivery of incentives to program 

members. The agreements also affirm the intention of both EPA and the states to communicate the measurable environmental results achieved by their programs. 

19

State Environmental Performance Programs 

•	 Colorado: Environmental Leadership 

Program 1999, 21 members 

•	 Florida: Partnership for Ecosystem 

Protection Program 2000, 10 members 

• Idaho: GEMStars, 1998, 10 members 

•	 Illinois: Regulatory Innovation Pilot 

Program 1995, 3 members 

•	 Louisiana: Environmental Leadership 

Pollution Prevention Program 1995, 

90 members 

•	 Maine: Smart Tracks for Exceptional 

Performers and Upward Performers 

(STEP-UP) 2000, 7 members 

•	 Massachusetts: Environmental 

Stewardship Program 2002, 

5 members 

•	 Michigan: Clean Corporate Citizen 

2000, 52 members 

•	 New Mexico: Green Zia Environmental 

Excellence Program 1999, 24 members 

•	 North Carolina: Environmental 

Stewardship Initiative 2002, 

26 members 

•	 Oregon: Green Permits Program 1997, 

3 members 

•	 South Carolina: Environmental 

Excellence Program 1997, 

59 members 

•	 Tennessee: Pollution Prevention 

Partnership 2000, 51 members 

•	 Texas: Clean Texas Leaders 1999, 

216 members 

•	 Utah: Clean Utah expected in 2003, 

no members yet 

•	 Vermont: Business Environmental 

Partnership 1996, 60 members 

•	 Virginia: Environmental Excellence 

Program 2000, 117 members 

•	 West Virginia: Sustainable Business 

Program expected in 2003, 

no members yet 

•	 Wisconsin: Green Tiers expected in 

2003, no members yet 

20

PERFORMANCE TRACK ASSISTANCE


EPA is in the process of creating an “on-ramp” to Performance Track to help facilities 

qualify for membership. Performance Track works with other EPA programs and with 

state programs to build capacity among facilities interested in improving their environmental performance, compliance, and management. Through this assistance, businesses 

may, over time, qualify for higher-level tracks in state programs and for membership in 

Performance Track. 

The Performance Track Assistance Project (PTAP) helps trade associations work 

with their members to develop “better than compliance” EMSs that will meet the 

criteria of Performance Track as well as reduce facilities’ costs and increase competitiveness. These efforts are focused particularly on trade associations that work with 

small businesses. As a result of this work, several trade associations have decided to 

modify their EMS guidelines so that they meet the Performance Track EMS criteria. 

The Performance Track Assistance Project coordinates these efforts with state partners and with EPA’s Small Business Office, the Office of Environmental Policy and 

Innovation, the Design for the Environment Program, the Sector Strategies Program, 

and the Compliance Assistance Office. 

EPA’s Sector Strategies Program works closely with industry sectors to find solutions 

to the particular environmental challenges faced by facilities in each sector. These sector 

strategies often involve strengthening facilities’ EMSs, compliance records, community 

outreach, and continuous improvement efforts — the same qualifications needed for 

Performance Track membership. The Sector Strategies Program thus helps to nurture 

and identify good candidates for Performance Track. 

The new Performance Track Mentoring Program assists facilities as they prepare 

their Performance Track application. Mentors, who are Performance Track members, 

help candidate facilities identify appropriate beyond-compliance goals, develop measures of progress, describe community outreach, and otherwise demonstrate that they 

meet Performance Track criteria. 

The American Furniture 

Manufacturers Association 

has developed a program 

entitled “Enhancing 

Furniture’s Environmental 

Culture (EFEC).” EPA and 

the Association are working together to harmonize 

this program with 

Performance Track, so that 

EFEC members will meet 

Performance Track criteria 

for the EMS. This work 

will help ensure that 

Association facilities in 

EFEC are better prepared 

to qualify for national 

recognition under 

Performance Track. 

21

LOOKING FOR W ARD


The National Environmental Performance Track is entering a new stage of growth 

and development. During its first two years, the program defined its purpose, basic policies, and core functions. It built a substantial membership base, name recognition, and 

support from federal and state agencies and industry. With this solid foundation in 

place, the program now is ready to broaden and deepen its membership, enhance its 

value and appeal as a standard of achievement, and expand its efforts to promote innovative performance-based approaches to protecting the environment. In the year ahead, 

Performance Track will concentrate on four goals that support its mission. 

Goal 1: Increase environmental value 

The experience, knowledge, and ingenuity of Performance Track members are a 

tremendous resource. EPA wants to help put that resource to work in a broader context, 

with members helping both current and potential members find new ways to improve 

environmental performance. EPA also wants to continue to expand ownership of environmental performance beyond the member facility to its surrounding community. 

Accordingly, Performance Track plans to work toward the following goals in the year 

ahead: 

• Improve the ability to measure performance over time and across facilities; 

• Build a learning community that facilitates better environmental performance; 

•	 Encourage innovative approaches and sharing of best practices 

among members; 

• Improve management systems through site visits and other efforts; and 

• Increase performance accountability to communities and others. 

Goal 2: Increase business value 

EPA recognizes that Performance Track must offer tangible, quantifiable value for its 

members. The program is building on its existing benefits and incentives while creating 

new ones that will bring additional value to membership in Performance Track. In the 

year ahead, Performance Track will work to: 

•	 Implement regulatory and policy changes that reduce costs and 

enhance flexibility; 

• Promote dialogue among government, business, and communities; 

• Continue to increase the “brand value” of the program; and 

• Strengthen networks and opportunities for sharing information. 

22

Goal 3: Increase program membership 

Growth in membership adds environmental value as new members commit to 

improve their environmental performance. Growth also adds business value by increasing opportunities for the sharing of information and solutions among members. Finally, 

growth reinforces the institutionalization of Performance Track, building recognition for 

the program and demonstrating its long term value. During the coming year, 

Performance Track aims to: 

• Maintain at least a 25 percent annual growth rate in applications; 

•	 Work collaboratively with states and EPA programs to build capacity 

for new members; 

• Engage environmental leaders in the government and nonprofit sectors; and 

• Increase opportunities for corporate commitments to the program over time. 

Goal 4: Expand ownership of the program 

Performance Track needs the support and endorsement of a variety of stakeholders, 

including trade and environmental groups, state agencies, other EPA program offices, 

and corporate officials. EPA will pursue activities with each of these stakeholders to 

expand ownership of Performance Track. In the year ahead, Performance Track will: 

• Engage nongovernmental organizations that stress partnerships with business; 

• Strengthen and expand the Performance Track Network; and 

• Continue to build linkages with state excellence and leadership programs. 

23

24 

NOTES 
Office of Policy, Economics, 

and Innovation (MC 1808T) 

EPA-100-R-03-004 

www.epa.gov/performancetrack 

April 2003 

Recycled/Recyclable 

Printed with Vegetable Oil-Based Inks on Recycled Paper 

(Minimum 50% Postconsumer) Process Chlorine Free 

Office of Policy, Economics, 

and Innovation (MC 1808T) 

EPA-100-R-03-004 Recycled/Recyclable www.epa.gov/performancetrack Printed with Vegetable Oil-Based Inks on Recycled Paper

April 2003 (Minimum 50% Postconsumer) Process Chlorine Free