[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Justification of P2 services

See the Alabama and Tennessee Studies on our web site publications page:
They show documented savings of 50:1 and 36:1 for money spent
identifying  P2 opportunities  that were implemented.

>From: 	Janet Clark[SMTP:Clarkjan@turi.org]
>Sent: 	Wednesday, January 07, 1998 4:11 PM
>To: 	p2tech@great-lakes.net
>Subject: 	Re: Justification of P2 services
>At 01:24 PM 12/23/97 -0600, you wrote:
>>Does anyone know of data supporting the need for P2?  This needs to
>>include cost justification.  We are trying to justify a Pollution
>>Prevention outreach program.
>>Thanks in advance.
>>Happy Holidays.
>>Kent Peetz
>>Environmental Engineer
>>Arkansas Center for Technology Transfer
>>700 W. 20th
>>Fayetteville, AR   72701
>>Phone: (501) 575-6180
>>Fax:     (501) 575-6615
>>Email:  kpeetz@actt.engr.uark.edu
>Hi Kent,
>May I send you the cost benefit analysis of the Massachusetts program,
>completed last summer?
>Janet Clark
>Technology Transfer Manager
>MA Toxics Use Reduction Institute
>University of Massachusetts
>One University Ave.
>Lowell, MA  01854-2866
>Tel 978-934-3346
>Fax 978-934-3050
>email clarkjan@turi.org
>TURI has a new web site at http://www.turi.org or http://turi.uml.edu
>Featured are projects, P2Gems http://www.turi.org/P2GEMS, the Surface
>Cleaning Lab http://cleaning.org, our publications list and more.