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

RE: Measuring pollution prevention performance: metrics

Jeanna- It sounds like we should have a session at next years NPPR on the methods states are using to measure P2. It wasn't clear to me whether you need to measure progress on a facility of state-wide level. I'll focus my final comment on the state-wide issue.
*	Like Mark Boylan says, tying inputs to product and non-product outputs works well within a facilities walls and is our preferred method for case studies.
*	Using the Baldrige program can work (I'm an Evaluator for the baby-Baldrige, Minnesota Quality Award Program which uses the same criteria.) It does use the same questions for all facilities but I am dependant upon the facilities willingness to use the criteria and that is far from a slam-dunk. It is not a data base. (But I am looking forward to seeing Bob P and Pat G at next weeks roundtable.)
*	I am totally envious of the use data Massachusetts gets because it can so effectively be used with TRI. I didn't realize it also gives them amounts of products produced, so now I am even more envious. (Currently, we're glad to hand on to our existing funding, let alone get something like TURA)
*	Hats off to DEF for their performance measures. I used the information they did on vehicle assembly (with MI DEQ Auto P2 Project info) with a Minnesota assembly plant. It's a great source for BMP's (and yes I'm a member). You still have to get data for your individual facilities to evaluate their P2.
*	In terms of a readily available data base you can use to evaluate state progress in P2, we are having best luck with the work Melissa W and Tim G did, and I encourage you to order their report. There are problems as Bob said with using the Production Ratio as reported in TRI, but they provide a good strategy for facilities to use. One benefit is that it's the facilities job to supply their most accurate production ratio. not ours. We are using it in our 2000 P2 report to show  progress our top reporters are making in P2, and these facilities have shown remarkable interest in providing good information. As another non-labor intensive effort, we are using annual industrial sales data by 3 digit SIC and contrast it with their waste gen. numbers. Granted it is a coarse method to evaluate p2 (waste gen per sales $ for individual SICs) as compared to the date we can get from case studies, but the data is readily available to all states. We describe both methods in our 2000 report which will be on our web site http://www.moea.state.mn.us in May. Check it out and let me know if you hear of a better way to evaluate state-wide P2 that calls for no additional funding.
Great discussion.

Best regards to all- Ken Brown MN OEA

> ----------
> From: 	Jenna Latt[SMTP:LATTJ@state.mi.us]
> Reply To: 	Jenna Latt
> Sent: 	Wednesday, March 15, 2000 10:35 AM
> To: 	p2tech@great-lakes.net
> Subject: 	Measuring pollution prevention performance: metrics
> I was wondering whether anyone have information on corporate or state programs that are measuring pollution prevention progress or performance. Usually this is referred to as environmental performance indicators or metrics and goes beyond the traditional SARA TRI data reporting, "pounds released" or emissions reporting. For example, measurements used can be "amount of constituent reduced per amount of product produced," or some other similar metrics. I am particularly interested in what state programs are doing in this area.
> Are there any websites or reports (specifically report names) I can be referred to? I have already checked www.epa.gov and the EPA P2 site but I may have missed a particular report.
> Thanks,
> Jenna Latt
> Pollution Prevention Section 
> Environmental Assistance Division
> Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality