Anticipated Superior Environmental Performance Sample Clauses

Anticipated Superior Environmental Performance. The use of the P2 Framework by PPG through this Agreement will help to xxxxxx the development of new “environmentally-preferable” product development processes at PPG as well as in other chemical producing companies. As a result, it is anticipated that manufacturing processes and waste handling processes will operate at higher levels of environmental performance in the pollution prevention hierarchy (source reduction vs. reuse, recycling, treatment or disposal). Each year approximately two thousand (2000) TSCA Section 5 notifications are received by EPA. These chemical substances often are developed to optimize product performance. In general, very little health or environmental data exist concerning such new substances. Chemical substances selected for commercialization based only on performance features might have varying degrees of environmental risk. The P2 Framework provides a mechanism to promote data analysis beyond what is currently available by incorporating the following parameters (among others) into chemical development: structure activity relationships, a cancer expert system, property estimation techniques, and exposure assessment methodologies. The P2 Framework then generates important risk related parameters of chemical substances based on an analysis of chemical structure. The Framework is quick and easy to use, is relatively inexpensive, and can be applied before a chemical substance is synthesized. The use of an inexpensive system of assessing risk early in the product development process, where environmental data are very limited, allows health and environmental performance to be factored into the product design. This XL Project seeks to demonstrate the source reduction and P2 benefits of moving the chemical substance evaluation process “upstream” in the product development process to a point where there are frequently multiple materials, which could eventually become final products. In moving upstream, the information supplied by using the P2 Framework can be used to differentiate among otherwise equivalent chemical substance alternatives based on risk-related considerations. Comparing alternatives based on risk allows companies to select chemical substances that are less hazardous for use in final products and can be used to identify and avoid the generation of hazardous waste. In addition, the P2 Framework can be used at other times when companies must make chemical substance decisions, but lack health and safety data on product alte...
Sample 1Sample 2
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Anticipated Superior Environmental Performance. It is anticipated that the Superior Environmental Performance (SEP) from this project will result from egg producing facilities participating in a more comprehensive program that is based not only on: 1) compliance with an NPDES general permit, including appropriate land application of manure; 2) voluntary development and implementation of a multi-media EMS that helps reduce environmental impacts from regulated activities and activities that are not regulated under conventional NPDES permits; and 3) ongoing audits of EMSs by an independent third party, in addition to routine NPDES compliance inspections. The third party auditing/ EMS requirements of this project will help egg-laying facilities remain in compliance and improve on areas of their production that need attention. It will also help to ensure that well-functioning facilities continue to perform at high levels and continue to address environmental issues of concern to their neighbors, not just those related to water quality. By utilizing the services of trained independent auditors, more oversight of egg producing facilities can take place than would likely be possible with existing federal and state resources. However, States and/or EPA are not precluded in any way from continuing to perform their ongoing compliance and enforcement functions, with appropriate biosecurity considerations, nor is the right of citizens to bring lawsuits against a particular facility limited in any way under this project. Results from audits will be publicly available, and EPA or States could require facilities to obtain an individual NPDES permit at any time if they failed to remain in compliance or successfully implement their EMS. Other benefits will be realized as well. Currently, only a portion of egg producing operations are fully inspected by regulatory agencies. Facilities participating in this program will be audited on a regular basis. The results of these audits, including areas where improvements are needed, will be shared by UEP with other smaller facilities that may fall below the regulatory threshold but nonetheless could use this information to reduce their environmental impacts. If these audits, along with inspections conducted by regulatory authorities indicate that a participating facility is not remaining in compliance with the general permit or failing to maintain its EMS, the facility could be required to apply for an individual NPDES permit.
Sample 1Sample 2
Anticipated Superior Environmental Performance. This Project is expected to reduce, and eventually eliminate, the ocean disposal of dredged material off the coast of Florida from NS Mayport maintenance dredging. Further, NS Mayport will demonstrate through the testing and evaluation of the finished product - construction blocks and artificial reef material - that the materials provide a safe environment for both humans and marine life. Lastly, this Project recycles dredged material into a beneficial product for both humans and marine life.
Sample 1Sample 2
Anticipated Superior Environmental Performance. The primary goal of this XL Project is to develop an innovative state-of-the art monitoring system. Therefore, the primary environmental benefit is the increased information on environmental emissions, particularly particulate emissions. Table 1 shows existing pollutant monitoring requirements for the WFI as specified in the IP’s license issued by ME DEP. As shown, when the PEMS is in place, monitoring frequency for particulate matter will increase significantly. For particulate matter, implementation of PEMS will result in an increase to approximately 480,000 data points (8,000 hours/year (this assumes down-time of 10%) x 60 data points/hour) from the currently-required four. This improved information on PM emissions represents a significant contribution to increasing emission information on a commonly-emitted pollutant. In addition, monitoring requirements and emission predictions for CO and CO2 increase from none to continuous. Monitoring frequency would remain the same for NOx and SO2. Table 1 Pollutants Current Monitoring Methodolog y Current Monitoring Frequency PEMS Output Frequency Change in Frequency Additional Info Provided by PEMS System have been, and continue to be, met by IP. ME DEP will submit a SIP amendment to close out this decree, even if this project does not result in a SIP amendment for the PEMS. Particulate Matter Annual Stack Test (comprised of ) 4 one-hr tests/yr Approx. 8000 hrs x 60 data points/hr Increases to 480,000 data points from 4 Minute-by-minute operational and emissions data Nitrogen Oxides CEM and RATA Continuous,* end-of-pipe Continuous* Remains the Same Minute-by-minute operational data Sulfur Dioxide CEM and RATA Continuous,* end-of-pipe Continuous* Remains the Same Minute-by-minute operational data Carbon Monoxide Stack Test Annual Approx. 8000 hrs x 60 data points/hr Increases to 480,000 data points from 4 Minute-by-minute operational and emissions data Carbon Dioxide None** N/A Approx. 8000 hrs x 60 data points/hr Increases to 480,000 data points from 0 Minute-by-minute operational and emissions data (*) CEMs data is collected in one minute increments and this frequency would likely be continued when converted over to PEMS. (**) not monitored Currently applicable requirements require traditional end-of-pipe periodic stack testing and CEMs which are designed to record both compliance and non-compliance with permit limits when a violation actually occurs. With this system, there is no opportunity to prevent or lower...
Sample 1
Anticipated Superior Environmental Performance. This pilot project is expected to provide superior environmental performance because it will encourage coal operators to undertake remining projects which otherwise would have been too risky or expensive because of the potential to incur liability for the treatment of preexisting acidic discharges. In return for this lessening of liability to the reminers, the reminers will implement more reclamation activities in the watershed than existing Pennsylvania regulations require. In the Surveyor Run pilot, the operator is also reclaiming a former coal preparation facility and refuse disposal area, which is adding acid loading to Surveyor Run. This additional reclamation is not required under current state or federal law. Remining (with reclamation to present-day standards) is an effective way to reclaim abandoned mine lands and improve water quality, at little or no cost to taxpayers. These pilots are designed to increase the number of remining operations providing reclamation and to enhance the degree of reclamation and AMD-abatement measures taken on remining operations. The source of the water discharging from acid mine drainage seeps or point sources is water infiltrating from the surrounding land area or watershed. If one or more BMPs are applied to the watershed they should have a positive effect on the rates, quantities and loading of chemical, physical, biological, and other constituents which are discharged from point sources in the watershed. PADEP has an extensive body of scientific knowledge and experience in successfully remining and reclaiming abandoned mine lands to eliminate acid mine drainage. A recent study by PADEP of 116 completed remining operations with 233 discharges or hydrologic units showed that approximately 47% of the projects resulted in statistically significant April 6, 2000 Draft FPA File Name: fpa3drft.wpd water quality improvements while less than 1% resulted in degraded water quality. Although the balance of the remining discharges may not have shown any statistically significant improvement in water quality, no degradation occurred and many other public safety and environmental improvements were implemented with the remining. These included removal of dangerous highwalls, pits and ponded water; sealing mine openings, and regrading and vegetating abandoned mine lands. Overall, remining on these 116 sites reduced acidity load by 15,918 lbs/day (61%), iron load by 517 lbs/day (35%), manganese load by 31 lbs/day (13%), and alumin...
Sample 1
Anticipated Superior Environmental Performance. The primary goal of this XL Project is to demonstrate that through reallocation of existing resources, NBC can achieve measurable improvements in the environmental performance levels of Tier II companies while encouraging and assisting Tier I companies to maintain or improve their current level of superior environmental performance. The following table (Table 3) compares the goals and activities that will be performed with and without Project XL. It describes the shift in resources that would be implemented through Project XL. Resources used for inspections and sampling of Tier 1 companies will be redirected to Tier 2 companies.
Sample 1
Anticipated Superior Environmental Performance. It is anticipated that the Superior Environmental Performance (SEP) from this project will result from egg producing facilities voluntarily participating in a more comprehensive program that is based not only on compliance with a general permit, but also on successfully implementing a multi-media EMS that helps reduce environmental impacts from both regulated and unregulated activities on a continuing
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Anticipated Superior Environmental Performance. This project will likely produce superior environmental results as compared to open burning for several reasons. The major benefit to the environment will be from reduced air emissions due to the minimization of open burning of hazardous waste. The company estimates that it has open burned 183,557 lbs. of pyrotechnic material that were not able to be recovered or recycled during 1998 and 1999. The uncontrolled particulate emissions are a point of concern for all parties involved. Although open burning is an approved method for destruction of pyrotechnic wastes it does not utilize any air pollution controls. The same pyrotechnic materials, if processed at the MRF, would pass through an extensive air pollution control system rather than being emitted, thus achieving a significant reduction of air pollutants released to the environment, accomplishing superior environmental performance compared to open burning. The company projects that it can eliminate the open burning of 158,000 lbs. of waste pyrotechnic material in the first year of project participation. It also estimates that a net reduction of 22,876 lbs./yr of particulate emissions would be accomplished. Additional environmental benefits are achievable due to the fact that certain pyrotechnic formulations contain materials (e.g., copper) that could be potentially recovered in the slag as well as in the baghouse. These materials could then be recycled back to Autoliv’s raw material suppliers. The distinctive properties of the waste pyrotechnic materials enable these materials to be treated more efficiently and in a manner that creates fewer air emissions than open burning which precludes recycling or recovery of any kind. The specifications governing the air bag industry are very stringent and do not allow the use of toxic materials. The major gases produced by gas generants are water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen. The percentage of each of these gases can vary depending on the formulation but a typical analysis would be approximately 40% nitrogen, 40% water, and 20% carbon dioxide. Other gaseous and particulate (metal) compounds are present at ppm levels. These include gaseous carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), nitric oxide (NO), and ammonia (NH3), and particulate matter containing the metals copper, cobalt, boron, and aluminum. The MRF is presently permitted by Utah (DAQE-549-97) to operate 24 hours/day, 365 days/year. Actual operation is estimated to be 50 percent of the permitted productio...
Sample 1

Related to Anticipated Superior Environmental Performance

  • Continuing Performance (a) The obligations under this Agreement continue until satisfied in full and do not merge with any action performed or document executed by any Party for the purposes of performance of this Agreement. (b) Any representation in this Agreement survives the execution of any document for the purposes of, and continues after, performance of this Agreement. (c) Any indemnity given by any Party under this Agreement: (i) constitutes a liability of that Party separate and independent from any other liability of that Party under this Agreement or any other agreement; and (ii) survives and continues after performance of this Agreement.

  • Employee Performance Review When a formal review of an employee’s performance is made, the employee concerned shall be given an opportunity to discuss, sign and make written comments on the review form in question and the employee is to receive a signed copy to indicate that its contents have been read. An employee shall be entitled to a minimum of two (2) work days to review the performance review prior to providing any response to the Employer, verbally or in writing, with respect to the evaluation.

  • EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE REVIEW AND EMPLOYEE FILES 19.01 (a) When a formal assessment of an employee’s performance is made, the employee concerned must be given an opportunity to discuss and then sign the assessment form in question upon its completion to indicate that its contents have been read. A copy of the assessment form will be provided to the employee at that time. An employee’s signature on his or her assessment form will be considered to be an indication only that its contents have been read and shall not indicate the employee’s concurrence with the statements contained on the form.

  • Monitoring of Contract Performance The Contractor shall comply with the monitoring arrangements set out in the Monitoring Requirements Schedule including, but not limited to, providing such data and information as the Contractor may be required to produce under the Contract.

  • Quarterly Contractor Performance Reporting Customers shall complete a Contractor Performance Survey (Exhibit I) for each Contractor on a Quarterly basis. Customers will electronically submit the completed Contractor Performance Survey(s) to the Department Contract Manager no later than the due date indicated in Contract Exhibit D, Section 17, Additional Special Contract Conditions. The completed Contractor Performance Survey(s) will be used by the Department as a performance-reporting tool to measure the performance of Contractors. The Department reserves the right to modify the Contractor Performance Survey document and introduce additional performance-reporting tools as they are developed, including online tools (e.g. tools within MyFloridaMarketPlace or on the Department's website).

  • Performance Assessment 6.1 The Performance Plan (Annexure A) to this Agreement sets out key performance indicators and competencies that needs to be evaluated in terms of – 6.1.1 The standards and procedures for evaluating the Employee’s performance; and 6.1.2 During the intervals for the evaluation of the Employee’s performance. 6.2 Despite the establishment of agreed intervals for evaluation, the Employer may in addition review the Employee’s performance at any stage while the contract of employment remains in force; 6.3 Personal growth and development needs identified during any performance review discussion must be documented in a Personal Development Plan as well as the actions agreed to and implementation must take place within set time frames; 6.4 The Employee’s performance will also be measured in terms of contributions to the goals and strategies set out in the Employer’s Integrated Development Plan (IDP) as described in 6.6 – 6.13 below; 6.5 The Employee will submit quarterly performance reports (SDBIP) and a comprehensive annual performance report at least one week prior to the performance assessment meetings to the Evaluation Panel Chairperson for distribution to the panel members for preparation purposes; 6.6 Assessment of the achievement of results as outlined in the performance plan: 6.6.1 Each KPI or group of KPIs shall be assessed according to the extent to which the specified standards or performance targets have been met (qualitative and quantitative) and with due regard to ad-hoc tasks that had to be performed under the KPI; 6.6.2 A rating on the five-point scale described in 6.9 below shall be provided for each KPI or group of KPIs which will then be multiplied by the weighting to calculate the final score; 6.6.3 The Employee will submit his self-evaluation to the Employer prior to the formal assessment; 6.6.4 In the instance where the employee could not perform due to reasons outside the control of the employer and employee, the KPI will not be considered during the evaluation. The employee should provide sufficient evidence in such instances; and 6.6.5 An overall score will be calculated based on the total of the individual scores calculated above.

  • School Performance The School shall achieve an accountability designation of Good Standing or Honor on each of the three sections of the Performance Framework. In the event the School is a party to a third party management contract which includes a deficit protection clause, the School shall be exempt from some or all measures within the financial portion of the Performance Framework. In accordance with Charter School Law, the Authorizer shall renew any charter in which the public charter school met all of the terms of its performance certificate at the time of renewal.

  • Historical Performance Information To the extent agreed upon by the parties, the Sub-Advisor will provide the Trust with historical performance information on similarly managed investment companies or for other accounts to be included in the Prospectus or for any other uses permitted by applicable law.

  • EVALUATING PERFORMANCE 7.1 The Performance Plan (Annexure A) to this Agreement sets out: 7.1.1 the standards and procedures for evaluating the Employee’s perfor- xxxxx; and 7.1.2 the intervals for the evaluation of the Employee’s performance. 7.2 Despite the establishment of agreed intervals for evaluation, the Employer may in addition review the Employee’s performance at any stage while the contract of employment remains in force. 7.3 Personal growth and development needs identified during any performance review discussion must be documented in a Personal Development Plan as well as the actions agreed to and implementation must take place within set time frames. 7.4 The Employee’s performance will measured in terms of contributions to the goals and strategies set out in the Employer’s IDP. 7.5 The annual performance appraisal will involve: 7.5.1. Assessment of the achievement of results as outlined in the perfor- xxxxx plan: (a) Each KPA should be assessed according to the extent to which the specified standards or performance indicators have been met and with due regard to ad hoc tasks that had to be performed under the KPA. (b) An indicative rating on the five-point scale should be provided for each KPA. (c) The applicable assessment rating calculator (refer to paragraph 7.5.3. below) must then be used to add the scores and calculate a final KPA score.

  • CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE AUDIT The Contractor shall allow the Authorized User to assess Contractor’s performance by providing any materials requested in the Authorized User Agreement (e.g., page load times, response times, uptime, and fail over time). The Authorized User may perform this Contractor performance audit with a third party at its discretion, at the Authorized User’s expense. The Contractor shall perform an independent audit of its Data Centers, at least annually, at Contractor expense. The Contractor will provide a data owner facing audit report upon request by the Authorized User. The Contractor shall identify any confidential, trade secret, or proprietary information in accordance with Appendix B, Section 9(a), Confidential/Trade Secret Materials.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!