Cost Savings and Paperwork Reduction Sample Clauses

Cost Savings and Paperwork Reduction. While MSD has seen a short term increase in costs (collection system monitoring, receiving stream monitoring, administration and stakeholder interaction) during the initiation of this project, the following cost savings and reinvestments are expected over the long-term: Cost Savings/Paperwork Reduction Reinvestments Less permitting Additional monitoring Fewer inspections Source identification Less data entry Special investigations Less time spent on compliance Pollution prevention issues Reductions in monitoring, sampling, reporting for selected users Outreach, technical assistance and education Watershed management
Sample 1Sample 2See All (4)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Cost Savings and Paperwork Reduction. Laboratory waste management currently accounts for the most substantial expense for environmental, health and safety programs at the XL Participants. This University Laboratory XL Project will allow academic institutions to more effectively promote and implement waste minimization programs in laboratories. This will result in reduced waste disposal costs and reduced chemical purchasing costs without diminishing the level of environmental protection associated with the proper handling and/or disposal of hazardous laboratory wastes. The opportunity to develop a systematic, planned procedure for the pickup, consolidation and disposal of laboratory wastes will also enable participating institutions to more effectively utilize their EH&S staff for proactive activities. However, since RCRA requirements will remain in full effect at the institutional level, the XL Participants do not expect to significantly reduce the paperwork associated with compliance.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3
Cost Savings and Paperwork Reduction. This project will provide savings from both financial burden and paperwork. Without XL flexibility, the implementation of comprehensive Storm Water Program compliance activities would require the City of Xxxxxx to encumber the cost of developing an additional department or division. Without a relaxation of the programmatic activities associated with the City of Xxxxxx Pretreatment Program Monitoring and Enforcement schedule as approved in 1993, the efforts of staff to accomplish any Storm Water activities is significantly reduced. The reapportionment of City of Xxxxxx staff and resources and the combined involvement of UNT students and staff will allow the initiation of an innovative approach toward the accomplishment of Storm Water program requirements. The use of electronic remote monitoring and data transmission provides significant paperwork reduction.
Sample 1Sample 2
Cost Savings and Paperwork Reduction. Granting of a process exemption for the copper plating rinsewaters and the resulting declassification of the wastewater treatment sludges results in several benefits to IBM, USEPA, and the State of Vermont.
Sample 1Sample 2
Cost Savings and Paperwork Reduction. Utilities will realize direct cost savings and, through the need for reduced resources, time and paperwork, indirect savings. DEC and USEPA will also realize indirect savings through reduced resource demands, time saved (including computer time), and reduced paperwork. Utilities will realize direct cost savings in many ways, including the following:
Sample 1
Cost Savings and Paperwork Reduction. Granting an exemption for the copper metallization process and the resulting declassification of the wastewater treatment sludges results in reduced costs and administrative burdens to IBM, EPA and VTDEC. Specifically:
Sample 1
Cost Savings and Paperwork Reduction. Cost Savings A number of cost savings may be realized from the implementation of this F006 sludge recycling project. In summary, these would include: Disposal Costs – In calendar year 1998, the IBM East Fishkill facility disposed of over 800 tons of F006 sludge generated from its B/690 and B/386 operations via landfilling. Prior to landfilling, the sludge is stabilized as required by the Land Disposal Restrictions. Assuming that IBM generates approximately 300 tons of F006 sludge at its B/690 F/HM Wastewater Treatment Facility, and it currently costs approximately $95 per ton to dispose of the material, this project could realize a disposal cost saving of up to $28,500 per year. Transportation Costs - IBM spends approximately $35 per ton to transport its F006 sludge to a permitted landfill in Canada. The specific transportation related costs are a function of the ultimate location of the kiln. While the kiln will likely accept the material at no cost, it is unlikely that the kiln will pay the transportation cost. Therefore, in reality the transportation component of the cost analysis may not realize any savings. However, as stated above, since the kiln utilized to recycle the F006 sludge will likely be located in closer proximity to the IBM East Fishkill facility relative to the existing landfill utilized for ultimate disposal, some transportation cost savings will likely be realized. Avoided Costs The following presents a discussion of the potential “avoided” costs associated with the recycling of F006 sludge as an ingredient in the manufacture of cement. The discussion has been organized into “paperwork costs,” “disposal costs” and “regulatory costs.” Paperwork - As discussed earlier, the F006 sludge generated at the IBM East Fishkill facility is transported to Canada for ultimate disposal in a permitted landfill. Under this disposal scenario, costs are incurred by IBM related to the completion of “paperwork” required at the federal and New York State levels of government. In addition, costs associated with government representatives at the federal and state levels reviewing and monitoring that paperwork for accuracy, completeness and regulatory compliance are needed. Specific examples of such avoided “paperwork costs” include the following: • Export Notification - In accordance with the RCRA hazardous waste management regulations, hazardous waste generated in the United States and transported to Canada must comply with a sophisticated export notificatio...
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Cost Savings and Paperwork Reduction

  • Cost Savings Developer shall work cooperatively with Architect, Construction Manager, subcontractors and District, in good faith, to identify appropriate opportunities to reduce the Project costs and promote cost savings. Any identified cost savings from the Guaranteed Maximum Price shall be identified by Developer, and approved in writing by the District. In the event Developer realizes a savings on any aspect of the Project, such savings shall be added to the Contingency and expended consistent with the Contingency. In addition, any portion of Allowance remaining after completion of the Project shall be added to the Contingency. If any cost savings require revisions to the Construction Documents, Developer shall work with the District and Architect with respect to revising the Construction Documents and, if necessary, obtaining the approval of DSA with respect to those revisions. Developer shall be entitled to an adjustment of Contract Time for delay in completion caused by any cost savings adopted by District pursuant to Exhibit D, if requested in writing before the approval of the cost savings.

  • COMMUTE TRIP REDUCTION AND PARKING 24.1 The Employer will continue to encourage but not require employees to use alternate means of transportation to commute to and from work consistent with the Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) law and the needs of the Employer and the community.

  • Paperwork Reduction Act The collection of information in this final rule has been reviewed and, pending receipt and evaluation of public comments, approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 44 U.S.C. 3507 and assigned control number 1545-1675. The collection of information in this regulation is in Sec. 1.860E-1(c)(5)(ii). This information is required to enable the IRS to verify that a taxpayer is complying with the conditions of this regulation. The collection of information is mandatory and is required. Otherwise, the taxpayer will not receive the benefit of safe harbor treatment as provided in the regulation. The likely respondents are businesses and other for-profit institutions. Comments on the collection of information should be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for the Department of the Treasury, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC, 20503, with copies to the Internal Revenue Service, Attn: IRS Reports Clearance Officer, W:CAR:MP:FP:S, Washington, DC 20224. Comments on the collection of information should be received by September 17, 2002. Comments are specifically requested concerning: Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Internal Revenue Service, including whether the information will have practical utility; The accuracy of the estimated burden associated with the collection of information (see below); How the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected may be enhanced; How the burden of complying with the collection of information may be minimized, including through the application of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of service to provide information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget. The estimated total annual reporting burden is 470 hours, based on an estimated number of respondents of 470 and an estimated average annual burden hours per respondent of one hour. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.

  • PERSONNEL REDUCTION Section 1 In the event of layoffs in connection with decreasing the work force, and the recall to work of people so laid off, the following consideration shall govern. Skill and ability as determined by reference to the employee's work record, and length of service shall be the determining factors; however, employees shall be laid off by category of seniority. There shall be three (3) seniority categories: probationary, 1 year to 5 years seniority, and over 5 years seniority. In case of layoff, all employees in the lowest seniority category shall be laid off before proceeding to layoff of anyone in a more senior category. Where skill and ability within a category are approximately equal, length of service shall govern. Employees having the same seniority within a category shall draw lots to determine the order of layoff. No new employees shall be hired until all laid off employees have been given the opportunity to be re-hired. Employees who have been laid off will be offered re-employment in the inverse order of layoffs when they are needed again, provided they are physically qualified and possess sufficient training and experience to perform the duties of the available work. The City shall give laid off employees ten (10) days notice of its intention to rehire. The employees shall within ten (10) days period notify the City of their intention to, or not to, return to the employ of the City, and shall report to work no later than fifteen (15) days from receipt of said notice to rehire. If an employee fails to notify the City within the ten (10) calendar day period of his/her intentions to return to work, or fails to report to work within fifteen (15) calendar days from the date of notice, he/she shall be considered permanently severed from the employ of the City. At the time of a layoff the City shall provide all laid off employees with a complete physical examination. At the time of rehire, the City may require a physical examination prior to the employee's return to duty, and it is expressly understood that any employee found physically unfit to return to duty may be refused re-employment and removed from the employment list. The City shall not be obligated to rehire laid off employees who have been laid off for five (5) or more consecutive calendar years, beginning from the date of layoff.

  • REDUCTION IN WORK FORCE 19.01 In the event of a reduction in the work force, regular employees shall be laid off in reverse order of seniority, provided that there are available employees with greater seniority who are qualified and willing to do the work of the employees laid off.

  • WORKFORCE REDUCTION In the event that funding reductions or shortfalls in funding occur in a department or are expected, which may result in layoffs, the department will notify the union and take the following actions:

  • Reduction in Force Procedure Should a situation arise which could result in a layoff of Faculty Members, the District shall provide the Federation with a written statement of the basis for the decision with supporting data and projected reductions that may be needed. Upon the request of either party, the District and the Federation shall meet promptly to discuss the impact of such action and any possible alternative courses of action. In the case of a reduction in force, the District shall notify the Federation in writing of the names of all Faculty Members to be laid off. This notice shall be given simultaneously with notification to the affected Faculty Members. This procedure shall also include all notifications of re-employment following a layoff.

  • REDUCTION IN WORKFORCE 16.01 The employer will layoff employees in reverse order of seniority within the classification provided those retained have the ability to do the work. No new employee will be hired until all those qualified employees with recall rights have been given the opportunity to return to work and have failed to do so.

  • Reduction in Force and Recall In the event a RIF (reduction in force) is necessary, any employee who is laid off and is a member of the retirement plan may withdraw the employee's total contribution without forfeiture of the employee's vested portion of the City's contribution. The vested portion of the City's contribution must remain in the employee's account with the carrier of the retirement plan or roll that vested portion over into an authorized XXX plan.

  • Workforce Adjustment (a) The Parties recognize that workforce adjustment may be necessary due to the elimination of positions resulting from a reduction in the amount of work required to be done by the Commission, reorganization or program termination.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.