[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 120 (Tuesday, June 23, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34161-34170]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16398]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-6113-5]
Solicitation of Additional Pilot Projects Under Project XL; June
12, 1998
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice; solicitation of additional pilot projects under project
XL to ``Reinvent'' Environmental Regulations and Policies.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Project XL, which stands for ``eXcellence and Leadership,'' is
a national pilot program that provides a unique opportunity to test
innovative ways of achieving better and more cost-effective public
health and environmental protection. Under Project XL, EPA offers
flexibility in its regulations, policies, procedures, processes and
guidance, as well as other benefits to encourage companies, communities
and other project sponsors to develop and test ``cleaner, cheaper and
smarter'' alternatives to the current system. As of May 1998, seven
pilot projects are being implemented and 20 more are in development.
Several project sponsors have already achieved a number of significant
benefits by participating in XL, including substantial cost savings,
increased operational flexibility, better stakeholder relationships,
increased environmental protection, and the ability to adapt processes
and products more quickly to changes in consumer demand.
One company, for example, in just the first year of its pilot
project, was able to consolidate a number of routine reports into two
per year and use alternative means to meet air pollution control
technology requirements. In addition, the company was able to achieve
substantial environmental improvements while saving nearly $176,000 in
operating costs. The company is also expecting to avoid $10 million in
future capital spending.
Another company--also just in its project's first year--has avoided
millions of dollars worth of production delays by eliminating 30-50
permit reviews while substantially increasing recycling, reducing solid
and hazardous
[[Page 34162]]
waste, and applying stricter air pollution controls. For other
examples, please refer to Project XL's Web site at: www.epa.gov/
ProjectXL
In developing innovative proposals, project sponsors, regulators,
and stakeholders alike must be willing to make resource and time
commitments commensurate with designing and implementing new approaches
in a multi-stakeholder environment. For some projects, resource
commitments have been significant. However, as current project sponsors
are eager to attest, the reward lies in the outcome: superior
environmental results for the facility and the community, and
substantial operational and financial benefits for the project sponsor.
The Agency, its co-regulators, and other XL partners have been and are
continuing to work hard on streamlining the proposal development
process and reducing ``transaction costs.'' EPA has learned a great
deal from the first set of proposals that has gone through the process,
and as one of the lessons learned, urges potential project sponsors to
discuss their idea with Agency and State staff as early as possible.
Substantive and process issues can then be raised and addressed early
before substantial time and resource investments have been made.
This Federal Register document is organized into four sections
which have the following purpose: Section A--to clarify the role of
regulatory and policy flexibility in XL pilot projects; Section B--to
solicit additional ideas for experimental projects under XL (please
note that no funding is associated with this solicitation); Section C--
to stimulate ideas through a list of optional Project XL themes (note
that the suggested themes are entirely optional, and have the sole
purpose of conveying a sample of general areas of innovation EPA and
others in the regulated and environmental community are interested in
exploring under Project XL); and Section D--to describe key elements of
good XL proposals that increase EPA receptivity and make the review
process easier and faster.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 23, 1998; an open solicitation with no set end
date; project sponsors may submit more than one proposal.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
(1) For XL projects for private and federal facilities, states, and
industrial sectors: Contact Christopher Knopes, Office of Reinvention
Programs, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Room 1029, 401
M Street SW, Mail Code 1802, Washington, DC 20460. The telephone number
for the Office is (202) 260-5754; the facsimile number is (202) 401-
6637.
(2) For XL projects for communities: Contact Kristina Heinemann,
Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities, USEPA, 401 M Street
SW, Mail Code 2182, Washington, DC, 20460. The telephone number is
(202) 260-5355; the facsimile number is (202) 260-7875.
(3) Additional information on Project XL, including documents
referenced in this document, other EPA policy documents related to
Project XL, EPA regional contacts, application information, and
descriptions of existing XL projects and proposals, is available via
the Internet: For private and federal facilities, states, and sectors
at ``http://www.epa.gov/ProjectXL''; and for communities at http://
www.epa.gov/ProjectXLC. Faxed information is also available via an
automated fax-on-demand menu at (202) 260-8590 both for XL facilities
and communities.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: President Clinton announced on March 16,
1995, a portfolio of reinvention initiatives to be implemented by the
Environmental Protection Agency as a part of its efforts to achieve
greater public health and environmental protection at a more reasonable
cost. Project XL is one of these reinvention priorities. Through a
series of site-specific agreements with project sponsors, EPA expects
to gather data and experiences that will help the Agency make
improvements in the current system of environmental protection. Project
XL conducts experiments in four areas: facilities, sectors, federal
facilities, and communities. State projects are also welcome.
XL projects directly benefit the local environment, participating
facilities--both public and private--and their communities. But the
benefits of Project XL extend beyond its participants, because EPA,
working with state environmental agencies, intends to incorporate
successful approaches into the current system of environmental
protection.
Much information on Project XL has been provided in previous
Federal Register documents. In Project XL's first Federal Register
document on May 23, 1995 (60 FR 27282), EPA described Project XL as a
program that offers a balanced set of benefits to the environment, the
regulated community and the public, and issued a general solicitation
for proposals. In that document, Project XL also defined the following
eight criteria by which proposals are selected for participation. The
criteria help evaluate whether the project can:
Produce superior environmental results;
Produce benefits such as cost savings, paperwork
reduction, and operational flexibility;
Garner stakeholder involvement and support;
Achieve innovation and multi-media pollution prevention;
Be transferable to other facilities, sectors, communities,
etc.;
Be feasible (technically and administratively);
Identify monitoring, reporting, accountability, and
evaluation methods; and
Avoid shifting the risk burden.
A successful project sponsor must also have a solid record of
compliance. For more detailed descriptions and definitions of these
criteria, please refer to the Federal Register documents of May 23,
1995 (60 FR 27282) and April 23, 1997 (62 FR19872).
Because community-based XL projects differ from projects sponsored
by other public or private-sector facilities and sectors, EPA addressed
the distinction in a separate Federal Register document on November 1,
1995 (60 FR 55569). In addition to the criteria listed above, the
November 1, 1995, Federal Register document included several unique
criteria for XL community-sponsored projects. XL for Communities
encourages projects that:
Build capacity for community participation;
Create economic opportunity; and
Promote community planning.
In another Federal Register document on September 11, 1996 (61 FR
47929), EPA supplemented the general solicitation with an invitation
for projects specifically aimed at creating innovative environmental
technologies. EPA retains a strong interest in proposals in this area.
An April 23, 1997, Federal Register document (62 FR 19872) more
clearly defined the criteria of superior environmental performance,
regulatory flexibility, and stakeholder involvement. In addition, the
document identified several more potential project themes that are
important to pursue in the context of testing innovations for 21st
century environmental protection. It also included revisions to the
process by which an idea becomes an XL project. Emphasis is placed on
pre-proposal planning and communication with stakeholders, on EPA's
improved internal management of project reviews, and on the need for a
close partnership with the states.
Since Project XL is continuously evolving, EPA is always open to
and
[[Page 34163]]
welcomes comments on the various aspects of the program.
(A) The Role of Flexibility in XL Pilot Projects
Flexibility is an important and essential component of Project XL.
As an incentive to undertake an XL project, EPA is offering project
sponsors flexibility in regulations, policies, guidance, procedures and
processes, provided the flexibility does not violate statutory
requirements. Please note that regulatory flexibility is only one kind
of flexibility offered as a benefit. It can be granted through site-
specific rules that replace otherwise applicable requirements; existing
waiver mechanisms; alternative permits; and generally applicable
interpretive statements. Other tools may be identified on a case by
case basis as projects are developed. (For more details, please refer
to the Federal Register document of April 23, 1997 (62 FR 19872). Cost
savings and burden reduction are other examples of incentives and
benefits to a project sponsor. Communities may be particularly
interested in visibility and recognition for innovative ideas and
superior environmental performance that can result from participation
in Project XL. To date, XL has implemented projects that take advantage
of each type of flexibility and benefit offered.
In summary, XL is about testing new approaches which:
--May require regulatory flexibility or involve changes to policy,
guidance, procedures, or processes; and
--Test a different way of doing something, even if EPA already has
the authority to do so under the current system, but is not doing
it.
Whenever a project also meets the other applicable XL facility or
community decision criteria, EPA will aggressively offer the necessary
flexibility to produce superior environmental performance and promote
greater accountability to stakeholders.
(B) Solicitation of Additional Ideas for Pilot Projects
EPA encourages private and public sector facilities, sectors,
states, local governments, and communities to use this opportunity to
sponsor projects that can truly reinvent the way they conduct
environmental management. EPA is also interested in having stakeholders
not directly connected with regulated facilities come forward with XL
proposal ideas or co-sponsor projects with companies, local
governments, or other community organizations. Project XL offers
environmental leaders and average performers alike a tremendous
opportunity to think ``outside the box'' of our current system and to
find solutions to obstacles that limit environmental performance.
To stimulate new XL project ideas, EPA is publishing the optional
project themes listed in the next section. Because the total number of
projects is limited to 50, it is vital that each project test new ideas
with potential for wide application and broad environmental benefits.
EPA is promoting XL projects, both for facilities and communities,
which test the following:
Broader concepts, e.g. projects defined on a geographic
basis; projects involving a larger number of facilities; projects which
demonstrate Community-Based Environmental Protection (CBEP); projects
with a broader, more comprehensive scope. This does not exclude
smaller, more incremental, yet significant ideas;
New strategies, e.g., market-based incentives, paperwork
reduction, and environmental information and management systems;
New tools and technologies, e.g. performance measurement
tools and innovative environmental technologies; and
Approaches for dealing with new environmental challenges,
such as control of non-point sources, urban sprawl, and ecosystem
protection.
(C) List of Optional New Themes for XL Projects
The potential themes listed below are entirely optional and have
the sole purpose of conveying which general areas of innovation EPA and
others in the regulated and environmental community are interested in
exploring under Project XL. In category I below, EPA is suggesting a
number of fairly detailed, program-specific themes. In category II,
several ideas are listed that have been suggested by outside
organizations as worth testing under Project XL and are not explored at
the same level of detail. This should in no way discourage
consideration of these less developed themes.
In considering XL projects for selection, EPA makes a determination
of whether a proposal presents a new approach that EPA wants to test.
Proposals which address any of the themes in category I below have the
advantage that the Agency has already made that determination. While
these proposals must still meet the XL criteria for facilities or for
communities and go through a review and negotiation process like other
proposals, EPA is committed to streamlining the processing of proposals
submitted under any of the themes in category I.
It is important to emphasize again, that this list of themes in no
way precludes any other innovative ideas to be tested under Project XL
facilities and XL communities, as long as they meet the XL criteria,
have a solid compliance record, and can produce ``cleaner, cheaper, and
smarter solutions.''
The themes are organized into two broad categories, as summarized
below:
Category I: Themes Developed by EPA
Testing New Strategies
(in alphabetic order:)
1. Air: Existing Preconstruction Requirements for Major Sources of Air
Pollution in Attainment Areas
2. Air: U.S.-Mexico Border Emissions Trading
3. Environmental Management Systems (EMS)
4. Hazardous Waste: Reduction of Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic
(PBT) Chemicals in Hazardous Waste
5. Permitting
6. Superfund Cleanup: Innovative Contracting Approaches
7. Superfund Cleanup: Partnering with Industry to Enhance Completion of
Cleanup at Hazardous Waste Sites
8. Superfund Cleanup: Sustainable Reuse--``Recycling'' of Superfund
Sites
9. Sustainability of Natural Ecosystems
10. Water: Environmental Performance Measures for Waste Water
Pretreatment Programs
Developing New Tools and Technologies
(in alphabetic order)
11. Air: Continuous Monitoring Units for Radionuclides
12. Air: Leak Detection Technology
13. Air: Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) for the Coke Oven
Push and Quench Process
14. Multi-media Pollution Prevention: Using the Pollution Prevention
(P2) Assessment Framework to Assess Manufacturing Processes
Category II: Themes Suggested by External Organizations
The first group of themes below include brief descriptions, while
the ideas in the second group were suggested merely as topics to be
explored: (in alphabetic order):
Administrative Paperwork Reduction
Community-Based Water Protection
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
[[Page 34164]]
Hazardous Waste: Land Disposal Restrictions Regulations
Market-Based Approaches
Multi-facility and Multi-media Projects
Multi-media Pollution Prevention: Using ``Green Chemistry'' To
Make Manufacturing Processes ``Greener''
Other ideas suggested by external organizations that the Agency
considers worthy of further exploration:
Alternatives for reducing persistent toxins in the Great Lakes
Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem
services
Energy conservation
Environmental consequences of urban sprawl
Global warming/climate change
Green spaces
Habitat preservation
Improved management of timberland
Watershed management
The full write-ups of the themes follow:
Category I: Themes Developed by EPA
Testing New Strategies
The themes below would test strategies that could help EPA move
toward a new system of environmental protection or make improvements in
the current system.
1. Air: Existing Preconstruction Requirements for Major Sources of Air
Pollution in Attainment Areas
Background: Currently, before beginning construction of a major new
air pollution source or a major modification at an existing source in
an attainment area, the source must undergo preconstruction review
pursuant to the applicable Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) program (see, e.g., 40 CFR 52.21). This review, which involves
permitting, technology requirements, and air quality monitoring and
analysis, is time and resource intensive. The monitoring responsibility
imposes a significant time restriction on when a source can begin
construction and, in turn, start operations. The impact of this delay
can be of particular concern in northern areas where the construction
season is limited.
Idea or approach to be tested: This idea is aimed at reducing the
preconstruction waiting period in exchange for corresponding benefits
to the environment. The premise is simple: to ascertain if the EPA and
permitting agencies can predict whether certain types of construction
will adversely impact air quality. This would allow for confirmatory
monitoring rather than monitoring in advance of construction. At this
time, EPA is only soliciting comment on the concept and determining the
level of interest in such a study. If EPA determines that there is
sufficient interest to proceed, it will issue a more detailed
description of the study and solicit requests from sources wishing to
participate. At that time, the Agency will discuss in more detail the
possible mechanisms for implementing the study, including whether a
rulemaking will be required. This XL concept is also discussed in more
detail in a memorandum available on the Internet. For further
information, please review the memorandum available on the XL homepage
at ``http://www.epa.gov/ProjectXL or at www.epa.gov/TTN/OARPG
Regulatory or other flexibility needed: By providing superior
benefits to the environment and agreeing to offset any adverse impacts
on air quality, a participant in the study could obtain a PSD permit
and begin construction prior to completing all air quality analysis,
which can take up to twelve months or more. This could occur as long as
the source: (1) satisfied all other applicable PSD permitting
requirements, including installation and operation of the best
available control technology (BACT), as agreed to by EPA and the
permitting authority; (2) agreed to purchase impact offsets if the
completed monitoring or modeling demonstrated a violation of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards or exceedance of any applicable
increments; and (3) agreed to superior environmental performance that
would at a minimum include the installation and operation of continuous
emissions monitors. Although the source would still be required to
obtain the necessary monitoring data, it would not need to complete the
monitoring prior to the permit issuance and beginning of construction.
Thus, in exchange for undertaking some superior environmental
performance and agreeing to offset any prohibited impacts on air
quality through the purchase of offsets, a source could begin
construction and start operations up to a year earlier than currently
allowed under existing regulations. At this time, the Agency
anticipates applying at least the following restrictions to
participation: (1) the project would not extend to sources in
nonattainment areas, areas considered unclassifiable, or sources that
may require Class I impact analysis; (2) EPA would not select sources
that are in violation of the PSD program; (3) EPA believes that the
study should include only participants for which the relevant state and
EPA agree that the proposed construction is not likely to improperly
exceed available air quality increments or violate the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards.
For more information on this particular theme, please refer to
EPA's Project XL home page at http://www.epa.gov/ProjectXL.
2. Air: U.S.-Mexico Border Emissions Trading
Background: The border between the U.S. and Mexico runs through the
center of the sister cities El Paso and Ciudad Juarez. This common
airshed does not meet U.S. standards for ozone, PM and CO. The air
pollution problem will not be solved by the U.S. side alone--
significant reductions from Mexican sources will be required. Business,
environmental and community groups from both sides of the border have
been working together to develop solutions to the air pollution
problem, including market incentives.
Idea/approach that could be tested: U.S.-Mexico Border emissions
trading.
Technology that could be tested: Retrofit technologies (including
conversions to natural gas) for older vehicles and brick making
facilities.
Possible superior environmental performance: A source facing a
pollution control requirement in El Paso could probably achieve far
more reductions at lower cost and with greater environmental benefit to
El Paso by cleaning up sources in Mexico.
Regulatory or other flexibility needed: The trading requirements
that credits be surplus and enforceable would be the most difficult to
comply with in a U.S.-Mexico emissions trading program. EPA's revised
Economic Incentives Program will help with determination of surplus
credits. Mexican environmental law contains provisions for enforcement.
Work with our Mexican counterparts on enforcement is ongoing and would
be further benefited by an XL project. (Legal analysis is available)
Possible candidate applicants: Utility companies along the U.S.-
Mexico border.
3. Environmental Management Systems (EMS)
Background: EPA recently published a position statement on EMSs in
the Federal Register (63 FR 10294, March 12, 1998), in which it
encouraged the use of EMSs in general, and especially those that
address overall environmental performance and compliance. It also
encouraged the inclusion of stakeholders in EMS development. That
statement described a data-gathering effort that EPA is
[[Page 34165]]
undertaking, along with a number of states, to evaluate the effect of
EMSs.
Today's solicitation of XL proposals in the EMS area is distinct
from the data-gathering effort described in the Federal Register
mentioned above, although a facility participating in that effort could
also participate in Project XL. As in all XL projects, EPA would expect
a commitment not simply to adopt an EMS, but to attain environmental
results better than those that would occur without the project. EPA
would be most interested in proposals that involve an exceptionally
high quality EMS that appears likely to provide substantial
environmental improvements.
Idea/approach to be tested: The purpose of this initiative would be
to test the use of comprehensive EMSs, including those based on the ISO
14001 International EMS Standard that can also meet the criteria for
Project XL, such as superior environmental results and stakeholder
involvement. Organizations or communities interested in these projects
would be asked to collect information and report on implementation of
the EMS in a number of key areas, like environmental performance for
both regulated and unregulated activities, compliance, pollution
prevention, EMS costs and benefits, and, where feasible, changes in
environmental conditions. The value of third-party certification of
EMSs and how certification relates to environmental performance may be
another area to test.
Regulatory or other flexibility needed: An EMS must achieve
compliance, but since XL projects are designed to test new approaches,
EPA would consider streamlining or otherwise modifying existing
regulatory requirements to achieve the superior environmental
performance objectives established through an EMS. Any proposals for
regulatory relief should be linked to exploring ways in which an EMS
may create opportunities for transferable improvements in the
regulatory system (e.g. by simplifying reporting or procedural
requirements).
Possible superior environmental performance: A project might, for
example, provide superior environmental results by committing to a
reduction in emissions that was expected to result from implementation
of the EMS.
4. Hazardous Waste: Reduction of Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic
(PBT) Chemicals in Hazardous Waste
Background: The Agency is committed to working with the States and
regulated community to reduce by the year 2005 50% of the most
persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals contained in
industrial hazardous waste. Many of the approximately 25,000 companies
regulated as large quantity generators under the RCRA hazardous waste
laws have demonstrated that reduction of hazardous chemicals at the
source of production, using pollution prevention and recycling
technology, is in the long run more cost-effective than end-of-the-pipe
waste treatment and disposal methods, and that pollution prevention
rather than treatment and disposal provides more enhanced protection of
human health and the environment and relief from liability than
traditional end-of-pipe methods. EPA's Waste Minimization National Plan
lays out a strategy for a voluntary program that carries these efforts
to the 50% reduction goal by the year 2005.
Idea/approach that could be tested: EPA invites companies to
explore experiments in regulatory reinvention that promote pollution
prevention technologies over waste treatment and disposal technologies.
For example, a company may wish to pursue process redesign, equipment
modifications, or materials substitutions that would reduce PBT levels
in hazardous waste to an extent that would render wastes non-hazardous,
reduce the level of treatment needed, and/or reduce the amount of
treatment capacity needed--however, compliance requirements for other
regulations (e.g. permit modification schedules, effective dates for
Land Disposal Restrictions standards, trial burns for combustion units)
may impede or preclude achieving this objective.
Possible superior environmental performance: Earlier and more cost-
effective methods for achieving compliance and reducing risks posed by
hazardous waste.
Regulatory or other flexibility needed: We would be willing to
consider changes to existing policies, procedures, and other
requirements to make this possible.
Possible candidate applicants: ``Good citizen'' companies,
preferably those managing or influencing numerous sites, who have
provided leadership in cooperating with other companies and
facilitating issue resolution on their own.
5. Permitting
Background: EPA believes that innovative technologies and
alternative strategies are stepping stones to cleaner, cheaper, smarter
environmental management. Elements of some permit programs may,
however, impede use of innovative technologies or alternative pollution
prevention strategies. Efforts to streamline permitting may be adding
further complications by favoring ``routine'' permit actions that may
be faster and easier to process over permit actions that involve
innovative technologies or alternative strategies. The Agency is
looking for approaches that create and maintain enough flexibility
within the permitting process to support continued innovation. EPA has
already tested some approaches to permit flexibility for innovative
technologies, and some permit programs (e.g. the prevention of
significant deterioration program for air pollutants, 40 CFR 52.21 (v))
already have approval processes for alternative technologies. The
Agency is interested in testing additional techniques.
Idea/approach to be tested: EPA is interested in developing a menu
of potential permit conditions that could encourage innovation and
accommodate the possibility that an innovative or alternative strategy
may not perform as expected. Adequate safeguards would be built in to
fully protect human health and the environment, and stakeholders would
have a role in the decision making.
Possible superior environmental performance: Development of more
effective environmental technologies and strategies.
Regulatory or other flexibility needed: EPA would be willing to
consider options, such as compliance schedules providing enough time to
get new technologies up and running, offset by interim emissions
reductions or decreased emissions over the long term; a reasonable time
frame for reinstalling traditional controls if a new technology fails
to perform; provisions for reopening the permit; or alternative
strategies for sharing legal and financial risks. In return for a
superior environmental outcome, EPA would also be willing to consider
providing flexibility in areas such as consolidating or streamlining
certain administrative requirements, expediting the permitting process,
pre-approving certain process changes in lieu of permit modifications,
or experimenting with alternative monitoring strategies.
Possible candidate applicants: Public and private sector permitted
entities.
6. Superfund Cleanup: Innovative Contracting Approaches
Background: The FY 1998 House Appropriations Committee Report
expressed interest in using fixed-price, ``at-risk contracting'' for
the cleanup of an ``orphan'' Superfund site. (``Orphan sites'' are
sites where there are no viable
[[Page 34166]]
responsible parties able to do necessary cleanup. EPA uses money from
the Superfund Trust Fund to clean up these sites.) The appropriations
language indicated a belief that this type of contracting, once tested,
holds potential for speeding up site cleanup and reducing related
costs.
Idea/approach that could be tested: A cleanup contractor would
submit to EPA a complete cost package based on completion of the Record
of Decision, which identifies the cleanup remedy selected for a
specific site. The contractor would guarantee a fixed price for
implementing the remedy selected by EPA and would absorb any cost
overruns.
To the extent permitted by law, EPA would select the cleanup
contractor at a pilot site based on the best combination of reasonable
cleanup costs and economic reuse of the site.
Possible superior environmental performance: Linking site cleanup
and site economic reuse assures that cleanup decisions provide maximum
protection of workers during cleanup and construction of the intended
reuse of the site, and for the public living in proximity to the site
and frequenting the site after development. Cleanup decisions are made
up-front, with input from the developer, the community, local
government, State government, as well as the Federal government.
Controlling costs at individual sites will allow EPA to eliminate risks
at more sites more quickly.
Regulatory or other flexibility needed: EPA would be willing to
consider addressing potential Superfund liability concerns regarding
waste existing at the site; participating in cleanup costs necessary
for reuse which are not inconsistent with the cleanup specified in the
Record of Decision, and modifying existing procurement procedures
consistent with such a test of an alternate procurement process.
Anticipated future change in EPA's approach to environmental
protection: The Congress, in the FY 1998 House Appropriations Committee
Report, appears to encourage EPA's investigation of more fixed-price
contracts in an effort to better contain cleanup costs, and the use of
``at-risk contracting'' where the government does not bear all the
risks associated with hazardous site remediation. Both these efforts
are intended to control the cost of Superfund cleanups and add an
additional contracting mechanism.
Possible candidate applicants: Cleanup contractors, real estate
developers, or a joint venture of several companies would be likely
candidates for this project. Eligible sites include those on the
National Priority List which lack viable responsible parties to
implement the necessary cleanup.
7. Superfund Cleanup: Partnering With Industry To Enhance Completion of
Cleanup at Hazardous Waste Sites
Background: With sufficient funding from Congress, the President
has committed to enhance protection of human health and the environment
by completing cleanup construction at a greatly accelerated rate. More
than two-thirds of Superfund sites are being cleaned up by potentially
responsible parties (PRPs). The program is faster, fairer, and more
efficient due in part to the administrative reforms instituted by the
Agency. EPA must continue to find better ways to identify and resolve
scientific and technical problems, legal and policy issues, or other
potential impediments that may delay the completion of construction at
National Priority List sites in order to expedite cleanups that protect
human health and the environment.
Idea/approach that could be tested: Taking care not to interfere
with ongoing enforcement, EPA would partner with companies and affected
states to develop new mechanisms for early resolution of potential
problems. EPA would also like to find ways to promote waste
minimization strategies and innovative cleanup technologies, examine
``batching of remedies'' for certain technologies to enable larger-
scale (and lower-priced) approaches to cleanup, and collaborate on
research related to hazardous waste cleanup methodologies to facilitate
cleanup.
Possible superior environmental performance: Earlier elimination of
threats to human health and the environment related to risks posed by
hazardous waste sites; ``smarter cleanup solutions'' which make
treatment cost-effective by optimizing remedy costs over multiple
sites, increasing the volume of waste to be treated, or blending waste
from multiple sites to make treatment operations more efficient; and
greater use of innovative and more effective cleanup technologies.
Regulatory or other flexibility needed: EPA would be willing to
consider changes to existing policies, procedures, and other
requirements to make this possible, being mindful of limitations posed
by existing settlements or orders for the performance of work.
Anticipated future change in EPA's approach to environmental
protection: More collaborative and efficient partnership with PRPs in
getting Superfund sites cleaned up in a timely manner. This may have
broader application to other environmental cleanup programs.
Possible candidate applicants: ``Good citizen'' companies,
preferably those managing or influencing numerous sites who have
provided leadership in cooperating with other companies and
facilitating issue resolution that have resulted in expeditious site
cleanup.
8. Superfund Cleanup: Sustainable Reuse-``Recycling'' of Superfund
Sites
Background: EPA has made substantial progress in speeding cleanup
at Superfund sites, but until cleaned-up sites are put back into
productive use, the nation will fail to reap the full benefits of the
Superfund program. Brownfields programs have successfully leveraged
resources from a wide range of stakeholders to clean up properties to
facilitate their redevelopment, but these programs have been limited to
sites that are not on the Superfund National Priority List.
Idea/approach that could be tested: EPA would consider offering
procedural flexibility and addressing potential Superfund liability to
facilitate redevelopment of cleaned-up Superfund National Priority List
sites. EPA would also be willing to offer technical expertise to
support local efforts, advice in involving the community, use of
helpful information resources, and coordination of access to other
agencies and resources.
Possible superior environmental performance: Converting cleaned-up,
but otherwise underused properties into valuable community assets. In
addition, incorporating redevelopment considerations into the cleanup
process can (1) lead to faster cleanups with consequent faster
environmental protection as parties take voluntary actions to achieve
the desired redevelopment use; (2) ensure binding agreements are in
place to monitor institutional controls that are necessary at sites
with waste left on-site, and (3) in many cases, result in environmental
enhancements that are associated with the reuse (e.g., cleanup of
nearby creeks to support fishing and recreation).
Regulatory or other flexibility needed: EPA would be willing to
consider changes to its existing policies, procedures, and guidance in
order to minimize or eliminate, where appropriate, barriers to the
redevelopment of cleaned-up Superfund National Priority List sites
posed by the potential applicability of the Federal Superfund statute
and regulations. EPA may also consider expediting the release of parts
of sites from the Superfund process if they would be returned to
productive use through redevelopment.
[[Page 34167]]
Cleanups consistent with the National Contingency Plan would still be
required.
Anticipated future change in EPA's approach to environmental
protection: Removal or minimization of barriers to returning cleaned-up
Superfund sites to productive use. This may have broader application to
other environmental cleanup programs.
Possible candidate applicants: Companies with expertise in
redeveloping properties, communities interested in regional
redevelopment opportunities or in combining multiple sites for economic
and environmental master plans, and Community Development Corporations.
9. Sustainability of Natural Ecosystems
Sustainability is a concept that describes the balance between
conservation of natural resources and economic development. The
following is a possible project scenario for testing an approach that
includes sustainability as a key feature.
Background: In an effort to address threats to ecosystem viability
arising from sedimentation and non-point source runoff caused by local
farming in river watersheds, EPA is interested in testing the idea of
stakeholders developing and implementing resource plans for watersheds.
Idea/approach that could be tested: Restoration approaches through
community planning and local involvement. A planning committee of local
farmers, landowners, and environmentalists could be formed. That
committee would develop a resource plan that identifies a vision for
the restoration and protection of the area that includes the type of
future conditions they want to obtain and target for restoration. They
also could identify issues of concern including ecological diversity,
erosion, open dumping, and ground and surface water quality, and seek
to address these issues in a manner compatible with a healthy economy
and high quality of life. Issues of concern could be identified through
committee discussions, watershed assessment field trips, and public
meetings. Representatives from conservation organizations and local
universities could also support the committee. Ultimately, this effort
could provide a model for partnerships between EPA and local
communities to solve long-term ecosystem problems.
Technology that could be tested: Community visioning and long-term
planning for preservation of local natural resources and a sustainable
economy that integrates economic, social, and environmental goals.
Planning that involves a diverse cross-section of the community.
Citizen monitoring of water quality and tracking of results.
Possible superior environmental performance: Preservation of an
ecosystem important to the local community both for quality of life and
economic reasons.
Regulatory or other flexibility needed: The community may desire
flexibility in an area being addressed by the project or in another
area where federal or state regulations, policies, guidance or Agency
standard operating procedure present obstacles to achieving better
environmental results.
Possible candidate applicants: Communities--local governments,
community organizations, regional planning associations, and any other
interested public or private entity. Projects addressing this theme
could also be implemented through regional or ecosystem-scale
initiatives like some of the National Estuary Projects that have
resulted in comprehensive conservation and management plans, and other
efforts such as the work in EPA's Atlanta Office (Region IV) with the
Southern Appalachia Project that could result in recommendations that
could be implemented through XL.
10. Water: Environmental Performance Measures for Waste Water
Pretreatment Programs
Background: The Pretreatment Program is a cooperative effort of
federal, state, and local regulatory environmental agencies established
to protect water quality. Generally, the Program is implemented by
Publicly-Owned Treatment Works with the objective of reducing the
amount of pollutants discharged by industry and other non-domestic
wastewater sources into municipal sewer systems, and thereby, reducing
the amount of pollutants released into the environment from wastewater
treatment plants.
Idea or approach that could be tested: EPA is interested in
exploring alternative environmental performance-based pretreatment
programs on a pilot basis. The intent of this effort is to investigate
ways of increasing the effectiveness of the pretreatment program and
thus obtain greater environmental benefit. Please refer to a separate
segment of this Federal Register Notice, in which the Agency announces
and describes its interest in exploring alternatives in this area in
much greater detail. It is also available from Patrick Bradley,
telephone number 202-260-6963.
Regulatory or other flexibility needed: EPA would be willing to
provide POTWs regulatory relief from certain programmatic requirements
(e.g., specific monitoring frequencies, specific control mechanism
issuance requirements, etc.), so that they could implement alternative
programs that would increase the environmental benefits. EPA is willing
to consider various concepts of what an adequate environmental
performance-based program might be, what POTWs would qualify for
administering such a program, and what existing pretreatment program
requirements would not be applicable to approved pilot programs.
Developing New Tools and Technologies
The themes listed below suggest ways that could help EPA improve
current monitoring, measurement, and assessment tools and technologies.
1. Air: Continuous Monitoring Units for Radionuclides
Background: DOE is planning to use mixed waste incinerators to
process high BTU content waste. Process pollution control equipment,
when operating properly, captures most of the radionuclides. To
determine if there are any releases, a filter is examined and tested on
a daily or weekly basis to gather data. Many gases (CO, NOX,
SOX) are monitored real or near real time, but radionuclides
are monitored periodically. Thus, incinerators may potentially expose
individuals to radionuclides during the time elapsed between periodic
testing and actions taken to shut down the incinerator.
Idea/approach that could be tested: Continuous monitoring units for
radionuclides. On time reporting of this information to the public
could be another dimension of this project.
Technology that could be tested: A real or near real time monitor
for radionuclides.
Possible superior environmental performance: A rugged and reliable
unit which provides continuous real time monitoring data would allow
almost simultaneous shut down of the incinerator if radionuclides are
emitted. Thus, potential exposure to radionuclides should be reduced.
Regulatory or other flexibility needed: Radionuclide emissions from
DOE facilities are regulated under 40 CFR part 61, subpart H
(radionuclides NESHAPs). Subpart H allows use of environmental
measurements to demonstrate compliance under certain conditions and
with prior EPA approval. The project would require EPA flexibility in
granting prior
[[Page 34168]]
approval to test the units and possibly relaxing the criteria for
approval.
12. Air: Leak Detection Technology
Background: The chemical and petroleum refinery industries have to
deal with a large number of potential emission points and a personnel-
intensive approach to monitoring them under the Leak Detection and
Repair provisions of current air rules (CAAA section 111 and 112). The
number of components requiring emissions monitoring at refineries can
range from 60,000 at small facilities to 500,000 at large facilities.
While these provisions were developed via regulatory negotiation with
industry and environmentalists, there may be alternative approaches to
reduce emissions from these sources that are less burdensome and
potentially more productive.
Idea/approach that could be tested: The Consolidated Air Rule and
the Petroleum Refinery subcommittee of EPA's Common Sense Initiative
are both exploring the question of whether industry can demonstrate
that certain valves, pumps or seals do not leak as much as others and
thereby reduce the frequency that they must be monitored. However,
there will always be some amount of monitoring required.
Independent studies conducted by the Petroleum Refining Common
Sense Initiative (CSI) Subcommittee and the American Petroleum
Institute (API) suggest that the incidence of leaks in the population
of refinery equipment is ``essentially random in well-controlled
plants'' and that chronic leakers of regulatory significance (>10,000
ppm) are difficult, if not impossible to identify.
This XL project would explore whether there are other monitoring
technologies that may be equally or more effective at identifying leaks
than EPA's rules require, but that may be cheaper and easier to use for
industry. Another aspect of this project may be to verify the CSI and
API studies by exploring how much a component may leak and use that
information to target the big leakers.
Technology that could be tested: There are new advances in leak
detection that could be explored for industry use. One leak detection
technology currently under development is a periodically-poled lithium
niobate (PPLN) laser imaging system which, if proven effective, could
be used to identify Volatile Organic Compound emissions from groups of
components. Based on information provided by the Petroleum CSI
Subcommittee, the CSI Council has recommended that the Agency prepare
to engage in a process to test, verify, and approve this new leak
detection technology that might be proposed as an alternative to
current monitoring requirements. Subcommittee members informed the
Council that the U.S. Department of Energy has pledged financial
support for the development of a PPLN laser imaging system prototype.
Industry, through API, has pledged in-kind services in terms of
facilities and personnel to field test the technology. The CSI
Subcommittee plans to fund an evaluation of the pilot test.
Possible superior environmental performance: If leaking components
can be more effectively identified, overall emissions to the
environment can be reduced. At the same time, EPA could potentially
reduce burden and cost to industry.
Regulatory or other flexibility needed: EPA would need to allow
participating plants the flexibility to use monitoring approaches other
than the prescribed rule approach.
Possible candidate applicants: Any of the Consolidated Air Rule
participants in the chemical industry, American Petroleum Institute, or
the National Petroleum Refiners Association may be interested.
13. Air: Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) for the Coke Oven
Push and Quench Process
Background: The coke oven push and quench process is a listed
source category to be regulated under Title III. EPA is required to
promulgate a final Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT)
standard by November 2000. The push and quench operations deal with the
removal and cooling of coke from coke ovens. Once the coal to coke
conversion is complete inside of the coking ovens, the hot coke is
pushed by a ram from the oven into a quenching car. The quenching car
of hot coke is moved by rail to the quench tower, where several
thousand gallons of water are used to cool the coke. The push and
quench process at coke oven facilities is a very large source of
fugitive dust (PM10, PM2.5) organic Hazardous Air
Pollutants (HAPs) and waste water. Conventional control technologies
(i.e., localized hooding and control) are only marginally successful
due to technical and economical limitations. As such, the MACT for this
significant source category, if based on conventional technologies,
will result in minimal benefits.
Technology that could be tested: The Kress Indirect Dry Cooling
(KIDC) System replaces the quenching car with a box that is slightly
wider and deeper than the coke charge. A carrier positions the box
flush against the coke oven where the box can receive the push. After
the push is complete and the pusher ram is withdrawn, the KIDC box's
guillotine door closes. Fugitive dust is nearly eliminated from the
push operation. VOCs which continue to offgass from the coke are
controlled by a flare at the rear of the box. Following the push, the
carrier moves the box to the quench station, and onto a cooling rack.
Cooling water runs over the box to cool the coke indirectly. In
addition to the environmental benefits, the KIDC system is intended to
improve coke quality due to the indirect cooling.
In 1990, EPA/ORD began a demonstration of KIDC system at the
Bethlehem Steel Coke Plant at Sparrows Point, Maryland. Unfortunately,
the demonstration was interrupted and not completed for reasons
unrelated to the KIDC system. However, preliminary data received from
the demonstration were promising. Based on visible emission
observations, emissions of particulate from the pushing operations were
reduced by roughly 75% while emissions during quenching were virtually
eliminated.
Possible superior environmental performance: The KIDC system has
the potential to greatly reduce the air and water pollution resulting
from the coke oven push and quench processes.
Emissions, based on AP-42 emission factors and the preliminary data
for KIDC, are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSP Conventional KIDC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coke Pushing.................... 2.0 lb/ton........ 0.5 lb/ton.
Quenching....................... 1.0 lb/ton........ 0.0 lb/ton.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC Conventional KIDC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coke Pushing.................... 0.2 lb/ton........ 0.15 lb/ton.
Quenching....................... Unknown........... 0.00 lb/ton.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory or other flexibility needed: Substantial capital and
time would be required to modify an existing facility and install the
demonstration equipment. There are no guarantees that the equipment
will work as planned (although the design indicates that it would
likely be superior to the technology upon which the MACT standard would
be based) or that the demonstration would be complete by the MACT
standard compliance date. For these reasons, the facility would need
some guarantee of relief from the MACT standard for a defined period of
time, in order to protect the facility's capital investment in the
demonstration project.
[[Page 34169]]
Possible candidate applicants: Other integrated steel mills.
14. Multi-media Pollution Prevention: Using the Pollution Prevention
(P2) Assessment Framework to Assess Manufacturing Processes
Background: When designing an industrial process and producing new
chemicals (in the form of new products or waste), industry often does
not have any guidance from EPA to help them assess the potential
regulatory burden associated with products of a new process. The
Pollution Prevention Assessment Framework (P2 Assessment Framework),
developed by EPA, packages a number of hazard, exposure and risk
assessment methodologies that EPA uses in evaluating chemicals for
which there are little or no data. The goal of the P2 Assessment
Framework is to provide industry with methodologies that can identify
problematic chemicals early in the design or manufacturing stage, or to
assess the risk of chemical options for a specific purpose. The P2
Assessment Framework can aid industry in fostering pollution prevention
as well as saving time and money, as demonstrated by a pilot project
with the Eastman Kodak Company. Kodak recently issued a press release
describing the business benefits of using EPA's P2 Assessment
Framework. Kodak's press release indicated that the P2 Framework ``. .
. saved Kodak tens of thousands of dollars in development costs . . .
with each one tested.'' EPA is interested in doing further testing of
the tool in addition to the Kodak pilot.
Idea or approach to be tested: The P2 Assessment Framework can help
industry practice cost-effective pollution prevention by reducing the
regulatory burden associated with the production or use of new or
existing high-risk chemicals. A wide array of chemicals can be screened
quickly, thereby saving time and money by identifying potentially
problematic chemicals early in the process, and finding more benign
substitutes for them.
Possible superior environmental performance: Prevention of the
production of potentially more hazardous chemicals (either as product
or waste) from a production facility.
Regulatory or other flexibility needed: We would consider changes
to existing policies, procedures, or permitting requirements to make
this possible.
Possible candidate applicants: Any company developing new chemical
substances, reformulating existing products or processes, or choosing
among competing chemical substances for product development and
manufacturing.
Category II: Themes Suggested by External Organizations
To stimulate additional ideas, EPA is including some themes in this
Notice that were suggested as good ideas for Project XL pilots by
representatives of public and private sector organizations during
numerous meetings around the country. These ideas are briefly described
below and, based on Agency review, are considered worthy of further
exploration.
Administrative Paperwork Reduction
Record-keeping and reporting-burden reductions could be achieved
through projects that provide EPA with the same information but in
formats and ways that are more useful to EPA and less burdensome to the
regulated entity. For example, EPA might agree to drop requirements for
hard copy reporting of data in exchange for electronic submission of
data. Superior environmental performance could be achieved, for
example, by reinvesting cost savings in other areas that produce such
results.
Community-Based Water Protection
Municipalities are required to implement multiple water protection
programs, most notably the operation of publicly-owned treatment works,
the storm water program and pretreatment programs, and in some cases
combined sewer overflow programs. In many cases, these programs are
implemented independently with little or no coordination or
communication between them. In some communities, non-point sources that
are not addressed by these programs may pose significant threats to
water quality. The suggestion is to explore possible ways of
integrating multiple water protection programs.
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
Nationally there are approximately 7,000 concentrated animal
feeding operations (CAFOs). Under the Clean Water Act, CAFOs are
``point sources'' and subject to the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permitting requirements. The largest
operations are also subject to the feedlots requirements under the
Effluent Limitation Guidelines. The current technology standard
specifies ``no discharge.'' The applicable NPDES and Effluent Guideline
regulations have not kept pace with technology improvements nor the
changing nature of the animal agriculture industry. Potential projects
could test innovative approaches, such as watershed permits, or
innovative technologies for the management of animal manure.
Hazardous Waste: Land Disposal Restrictions Regulations
Industry has often suggested that if they had more time to come
into compliance with new land disposal restriction regulations that
they would be able to make significant steps towards waste
minimization, potentially even eliminating a particular waste stream.
Companies may be able to develop approaches that allow complete
elimination of a waste stream, specifically under the technology-based
treatment standards that hazardous waste must meet before being placed
in or on the land.
Market-Based Approaches
Economic and market incentives could be developed for better
environmental performance, including exploring financial instruments;
the insurance industry; lenders, (e.g. for the redevelopment of
brownfields); ways to combine sources of funding to help pay for the
development and testing of new technologies; and ways to provide
economic incentives for environmentally beneficial behavior, e.g.
credits for using solar power.
Multi-facility and Multi-media Projects
Projects might test strategies for large companies that have many
site locations or manufacturing and supplier chains; or strategies for
related industries in different geographic locations, such as hazardous
waste disposal and treatment companies; or auto companies, body shops,
and paint shops. An example might be: Establishing a network of
preconstruction air monitoring for a group of facilities giving relief
from individual monitoring requirements. Even though these types of
projects are very broad and may pose considerable management and
implementation challenges, EPA is eager to entertain ideas along these
lines as opportunities for truly innovative environmental protection
approaches.
Multi-media Pollution Prevention: Using ``Green Chemistry'' To Make
Manufacturing Processes ``Greener'
The Green Chemistry program is designed to foster chemical methods
that reduce or eliminate the use or generation of toxic substances
during the design, manufacturing, and use of chemical products and
processes. A part of the Green Chemistry program promotes partnership
with industry in developing green chemistry
[[Page 34170]]
technologies. A possible XL project may involve the use of green
chemistry that would make a production process cleaner, and reduce the
regulatory burden that would be required of the production facility.
Other Ideas Suggested by External Organizations that the Agency
Considers Worthy of Further Exploration:
These ideas were proposed merely as topics that would need to be
fleshed out. (in alphabetic order)
Alternatives for reducing persistent toxins in the Great Lakes
Conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem
services (for example, pollination, natural pest control, natural water
flow management, and natural filtering and breakdown processes of
pollutants)
Energy conservation
Environmental consequences of urban sprawl
Global warming/climate change
Green spaces
Habitat preservation
Improved management of timberland
Watershed management
(D) Key Elements of Good XL Proposals
A successful project sponsor must have a solid record of compliance
and demonstrate that the proposed XL project meets the eight XL
criteria, as discussed in previous Federal Register documents and
summarized in the ``Supplementary Information'' section in the
beginning of this document. The review process will be easier and EPA,
States, and other stakeholders will be more receptive to proposals if
they:
Clearly lay out what is innovative about the approach to
be tested and the potential benefits of applying the approach to other
facilities, sectors, or communities, i.e. its transferability;
Clearly identify the area(s) of flexibility needed in EPA
regulations, policies, and/or procedures;
Be as clear as possible about the benefits the project
sponsor will derive from implementing the project, such as
environmental improvements at the facility and in the community, worker
health protection improvements, time-to-market savings and/ or
paperwork reductions. EPA is also very interested in measurements of
resources and cost savings.
Avoid being focused primarily on the requirement the
project sponsor wants to avoid, but focus instead on the new approach
to be tested;
Have early stakeholder support and a well-developed plan
for facilitated stakeholder involvement;
Plan your idea in pre-proposal discussions before the
actual proposal is formally submitted; pre-proposal discussions with
EPA, States and other stakeholders go a long way toward reducing
``transaction costs'' (i.e. time and resources) in the selection and
negotiation of projects;
Lay out a plan for how environmental baselines will be
measured and superior environmental performance achieved. For more
information on baselines, please refer to the Federal Register document
(62 FR 19872) issued on April 23, 1997.
Propose a workable schedule for the development of a
final project agreement and a plan for how the project will be managed.
EPA encourages potential project sponsors to talk early to EPA
before submitting a formal proposal. This allows the Agency to help
develop the proposal and to explain the process. The Agency recognizes
that community project sponsors may require special assistance from EPA
in developing proposals and any resulting projects. This assistance
could include working with community project sponsors to help identify
additional resources to support development and implementation of XL
projects.
Proposals, in brief, will go through the following process: EPA
will evaluate all proposals with input from relevant EPA and State
offices to determine whether a proposal has the potential of meeting
Project XL's set of criteria for facilities and/or communities, and
whether it contains environmental, regulatory, and policy concepts
worth testing in Project XL. If the Agency and the relevant State(s)
determine that it is appropriate to proceed with proposal development,
the project sponsor then leads a process involving all affected
stakeholders to develop an agreement on the project.
Conclusion
Project XL presents a unique opportunity for private and public
sector facilities, states, sectors, and local communities to design and
test alternative approaches, while deriving substantial benefits for
themselves and the communities around them. 27 facilities, sectors,
states, and communities are already implementing or developing such
innovations. EPA has integrated many ``lessons learned'' into its
regulatory and policy-setting system. In addition, the Agency has
learned how to process XL proposals with greater efficiency and
efficacy. EPA's goal of implementing 50 XL pilot projects will provide
the Agency with a range of innovations that can create a better system
of protecting our environment and our health in the 21st century.
Dated: June 11, 1998.
J. Charles Fox,
Associate Administrator, Office of Reinvention.
[FR Doc. 98-16398 Filed 6-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P