Measuring Sustainability: The Industrial Footprint Project

1. Measuring Sustainability: The Industrial Footprint Project Washington State Department of Ecology, and Boise Inc.’s Footprint Presentation for EPA Performance Track Meeting October 2008

2. Project Goals • Complete a comprehensive analysis of an industrial facility’s impact on its community • Develop an analysis for the industry sector • Complete a carbon challenge • Evaluate transferability to another industrial sector • Complete waste stream reduction research that specifically identifies opportunities to reduce wastes • Write a final report that assess the success of the tool and identify next steps

3. Carbon Footprint Challenge(using International Council of Forest Products Association/World Resources Institute GHG tool) • Most of Pulp and Paper industry was using primarily carbon neutral (biomass) fuels • Measuring purchased fuel and electric power consumption

4. Indicator Definition An indicator is a quantitative measure of a specific condition or circumstance that affects the overall impact of an industrial facility within the economy, society, and environment.

5. 18 Social Indicators 5 Sets • Community Involvement • Environmental Nuisance • Health and Safety • Human Rights • Employee Relations • Lots of discussion between the mills and the consultants on what indicators to measure and paring it down.

6. 30 Environmental Indicators 9 Sets-can be challenging to collect historical data • Air Quality • Energy Consumption • Environmental Management • Raw Materials • Regulatory Compliance • Waste Disposal • Water Intensity • Water Quality • Biodiversity Conservation

7. 12 Economic Indicators 4 Sets • Economic Impact-Mills sensitive to disclosing financial data. • Community Involvement-Little historical data, also in kind (paper donation) hard to quantify. • Jobs • Customer Satisfaction-Sensitive information, not disclosed

8. Footprint Project-Industry Prospective • Initially, involvement not supported by trade association. Fear footprint data would be misinterpreted like the TRI data has been. • Mill responded to a personal invitation from Carol Kraege, Industrial Section Manager at the time. • Mill’s perspective was that the winds were blowing towards an interest in footprinting, and it was better to help shape it as a team, then complain about it later.

9. The Footprint Project Mills wanted to ensure tool not used to compare one facility to another, but rather used to compare how the facility’s footprint changes over time. Why mills cannot be compared: Bleached vs unbleached, purchased pulp, fillers, number of machines, market pulp vs finished paper, cogen vs no power generated etc.

10. Participating Team • Boise Incorporated, Wallula • Simpson Tacoma Kraft • Grays Harbor Paper, Hoquiam • Nippon Paper Industries U.S.A, Port Angeles • Port Townsend Paper Company • Carol Kraege, Marc Crooks, Angie Fritz- Dept of Ecology

11. Team cont. • James Pittman, Earth Economics • John Talberth, Redefining Progress and Center for Sustainable Economies • David Batker, Earth Economics

12. Objectives- Ecology • Develop and apply a tool that measures progress toward economic, social, and environmental sustainability for industrial facilities. • Develop and apply a stakeholder involvement process that allows communities a voice in establishing indicators.

13. Objectives- Boise Inc • Develop and apply a tool that measures progress toward economic, social, and environmental sustainability for industrial facilities. That can be used to guide environmentally responsible decisions. • Normally, social issues are not considered by the facility or ecology, only media and pollutants

14. Objectives- Boise Inc • Examples: Used oil-Better to produce PAH’s or stop the use, which in turn, reduces demand, which results in reduced collection of used oil-where would this oil go? Tire Derived Fuel-Better to allow tires to be landfilled/stockpiled and breed West Nile mosquitoes, or burn them, reduce fossil fuel use but discharge lead and zinc into air and water? Same lead and zinc are sent to landfill.

15. Lessons Learned • The biggest positive impact of the program on our facility was the positive PR, and improved working relationship with Ecology. This is the biggest bang for the buck for others looking at starting these types of programs. • This proved to be a major reason for another facility joining. • Public wanted the ability for input, but did not attend the public meeting. • Much interest in the local community, including the Mid-Columbian Sustainability Network.

16. What will this project get us? • Identify beyond compliance opportunities • Measure improvements • Base decisions on comprehensive data • Identify unintended consequences • Develop Ecology staff priorities- and work together on them • Objective basis for incentives (for example, in the Ecology proposed legislation for Pollution Prevention for the next legislative session, participation in the Industrial Footprint Project will be included as an option to doing Pollution Prevention Planning, such as having an Environmental Management System in place)

17. The future of footprinting • Footprinting, like Performance track, will allow for government and industry to work on geographically sensitive projects where wholesale regulation changes to address issues is not practical. • Footprint/PT programs allow the facilities to avoid the mismanagement of resources and funds. • Footprint/PT programs allow both sides to understand barriers and the logic behind regulatory issues. • Odor vs Thermal Loading.

18. Web Page http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/swfa/industrial/IndFootprint.html • Background information • Most recent Quarterly Report to EPA • Full milestone chart

19. Questions?