Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 120 /Tuesday, June 23, 1998 / Notices 34161

application directly from the applicant.

Any of these documents must be filed

by providing the original and the

number of copies required by the

Commission’s regulations to: The

Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,

Washington, DC 20426. An additional

copy must be sent to Director, Division

of Project Review, Office of Hydropower

Licensing, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, at the above address. A

copy of any protest or motion to

intervene must be served upon each

representative of the applicant specified

in the particular application.

David P. Boergers,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–16608 Filed 6–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

Notice of Application Tendered for

Filing with the Commission

June 17, 1998.

Take notice that the following

hydroelectric application has been filed

with the Commission and is available

for public inspection:

a.Type of Application: Minor license.

b. Project No.: P–11616–000.

c. Date Filed: June 1, 1998.

d. Applicant: City of Portland,

Michigan.

e. Name of Project: Portland

Municipal Hydroelectric Project.

f. Location: On the Grand River in

Ionia County, Michigan.

g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power

Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)–824(r).

h. Applicant Contact: Robert

Masselink, P.E., Glen Hendrix, Earth

Tech, Inc., 5555 Glenwood Hills Pkwy,

Grand Rapids, MI 49588, (616) 942–

9600.

i. FERC Contact: Michael Spencer at

(202) 219–2846.

j. Comment Date: 60 days from the

date of filing of the application.

k. Description of Project: The

constructed project consists of a dam

and reservoir, a forebay and powerhouse

located at the south abutment

containing two turbine-generator units

with a total installed capacity of 375

kilowatts, and appurtenant facilities.

The project will generate about 1,572

megawatt-hours per year.

l. With this notice, we are initiating

consultation with the MICHIGAN

STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION

OFFICER (SHPO), as required by § 106,

National Historic Preservation Act, and

the regulations of the Advisory Council

on Historic Preservation, 36 CFR 800.4.

m. Pursuant to Section 4.32(b)(7) of 18

CFR of the Commission’s regulations, if

any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or

person believes that an additional

scientific study should be conducted in

order to form an adequate factual basis

for a complete analysis of the

application on its merit, the resource

agency, Indian Tribe, or person must file

a request for a study with the

Commission not later than 60 days from

the date of filing of the application, and

serve a copy of the request on the

applicant.

David P. Boergers,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–16609 Filed 6–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Project No. 1759]

Wisconsin Electric Power Company;

Notice of Meetings

June 17, 1998.

From July 14 to July 16, 1998, the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

staff will be meeting with Wisconsin

Electric Power Company (WE) and the

Collaborative Team to identify and

discuss non-project uses of project lands

and waters and related issues

concerning the Way Dam and

Michigamme Reservoir Project (Project

No. 1759), which is located on the

Michigamme River near Crystal Falls,

Michigan. The Way Dam impounds the

approximate 6,400-acre Michigamme

Reservoir. The Michigamme Reservoir

operates as a storage basin for high

spring and fall flows, which are released

during periods of lower flow in the

summer and winter. The meetings will

be conducted at WE’s office, located at

800 Industrial Park Drive, Iron

Mountain, Michigan 49801. On July 14,

the meeting will be conducted at 8 a.m.,

and on July 15 and 16, 1998, the

meetings will be conducted at 9 a.m.

If you would like more information

about the Upper Menominee River

Basin Projects, in which the Way Dam

and Michigamme Reservoir Project is

part of, please contact one of the

individuals:

Patti Leppert-Slack, Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, 888 First

Street, NE Rm 72–33, Washington, DC

20426, (202) 219–2767, E-mail:

patricia.leppertslack@ferc.fed.us

Rita Hayen, Wisconsin Electric Power

Company, 333 W. Everett Street,

Milwaukee, WI 53203, (414) 221–

2413, E-mail:

rita.hayen@wemail.wisenergy

David P. Boergers,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–16610 Filed 6–22–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

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 costeffective 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
34162 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 120 /Tuesday, June 23, 1998 / Notices

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 multimedia 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 preproposal 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 120 /Tuesday, June 23, 1998 / Notices 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
34164 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 120 /Tuesday, June 23, 1998 / Notices

• 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 120 /Tuesday, June 23, 1998 / Notices 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-thepipe 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 endof-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 nonhazardous, 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 costeffective 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
34166 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 120 /Tuesday, June 23, 1998 / Notices

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 twothirds 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 largerscale (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 costeffective 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 120 /Tuesday, June 23, 1998 / Notices 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 crosssection 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 PubliclyOwned 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 performancebased 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
34168 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 120 /Tuesday, June 23, 1998 / Notices

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 personnelintensive 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 inkind 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 120 /Tuesday, June 23, 1998 / Notices 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
34170 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 120 /Tuesday, June 23, 1998 / Notices

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, timeto-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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6113–6]

Pretreatment Program Reinvention

Pilot Projects under Project XL

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; Solicitation of Local

Pilot Pretreatment Program Proposals

under Project XL.

SUMMARY: Publicly Owned Treatment

Works (POTWs) regulated under the

National Pretreatment Program are

required to identify industrial users,

issue permits to these users, monitor

industrial user activities through on-site

sampling and inspections, and carry out

other administrative functions involving

extensive recordkeeping and reporting.

Many POTWs have mastered the

programmatic aspects of their

pretreatment programs, and a number of

these POTWs feel that their programs

should be measured against

environmental results rather than strict

adherence to procedural and

administrative requirements. These

POTWs have expressed an interest in

being allowed to focus their resources

on activities that they believe will

provide greater environmental benefits

than are achieved by complying with

the current requirements.

The Project XL program, which is

discussed in greater detail in another

document in today’s Federal Register,

was implemented to provide the

flexibility to conduct innovative pilot

projects to develop and test ‘‘cleaner,

cheaper and smarter’’ programmatic

alternatives that could yield greater

environmental results than those

achieved under the current regulatory

system. EPA is interested in exploring

alternative environmental performancebased pretreatment programs on a pilot

basis under the Project XL program.

Today, EPA is requesting that POTWs

interested in pursuing a program based

on environmental performance

measures submit preliminary, one to

two page proposals explaining what

they would include in their Local Pilot

Pretreatment Programs. These short

proposals must include a clear

description of the alternative program

the POTW plans to implement, the

environmental benefits to be gained by