United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of the Administrator (1802) EPA 100-R-99-007 September 1999 www.epa.gov/reinvent to ------- C7ntroductlorv. ....... , , ............................... . ...................... ..... ........ . .................... "1 •How Project X-L Works [[[ 2 WKy Project X-L? [[[ 2 TJKe Challenge of ^Experimentation ........... . .................................. . ............... 2 CTmproving tke ^-nvironment and Changing "How £P;A Works ............. . ..... 3 Project X-L Accomplishments ................................. . .................. . .......... ....... .3 XL- Projects in Brief. [[[ 4- od -f-oi- Business ....................................... • .......................... ...... .................. O od for1 Communities ................................ . ............... • ............. • ...................... ' ing -How ^RA Works [[[ 8 Waiting A^oi'e Flexible "Rules and "Regulations ................................................. 8 "UaUinq FVesK jAppfoacKes to Permitting ............................................... • ......... S .Making Jnfoi-mation Less Burdensome and A^oce LAndecstandable ................. 9 ^.Xplo>*i^9 7N)e\v Jdeas in <£njot*ceme.nt and (Compliance >\ssurance ............... 9 Promoting 7\)ew Concepts in ^Environmental StewardsKip ............................. 10 ------- "Do we need more common sense and fairness in our regulations? \/ou bet we do. But we can Kave common sense and still provide saje drinking water. We can Kave fairness and still clean up toxic waste dumps. d we ougnt to do it." n March 1995, President Clinton and / Vice President Gore charged the ^-^ federal government with finding ways to improve the way we manage the environment. They called for building upon the strengths of the cur- rent system, while overcoming its limitations. They promised to reform the system, while retaining its commitment to protect human health and to safe- guard the environment. Project XL is one way the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is living up to that promise. Under Project XL, EPA made this offer to facili- ties, sectors, states, and communities: lf\on have an idea that offers better results than what would he achieved under current requirements, then we will work with you and other interested parties i<> inn those ideas to the lest. Project XL encourages environmental excellence and Leadership by those who must comply with EPA regulations and policies. Its experiments are testing new ways of achieving environmental pro- tection — methods that are better for the environ- ment, better for project sponsors, and better for citizens. These experiments are helping EPA ad- just to a changing world and prepare for the 21"' century. This report briefly summarizes the progress we have made to date. For more detailed information, see the Project XL 1999 Comprehensive Report pre- pared by EPAs Office of Policy and Reinvention. ------- How Project Project XL is finding ways to improve our envi- ronmental regulatory system, including the way EPA operates. It is based on a simple idea: project sponsors can try new approaches if they can prom- ise better environmental results than would be ex- pected under the current regulatory regime. Project sponsors must involve states, tribes, local govern- ment, citizens, and others with a stake in the "ex- periment" being tested. Criteria for Project XL • Superior environmental protection • Increased flexibility, cost savings and reduced paperwork • Stakeholder involvement • Innovation/pollution prevention • Transferability • Feasibility • Monitoring, reporting and evaluation • No shifting of risk burden WKy Project Since the early 1970's, environmental laws and regulations have given us dramatic improvements in public health and environmental quality. More U.S. streams are fishable and swimmable. Our air is cleaner. The bald eagle, once near extinction, has been removed from the endangered species list. But as we achieved these successes, we learned that prescriptive regulations can have unintended results. Sometimes, they can require greater costs for smaller returns, or even discourage technolo- gies that are cleaner and cheaper. The world marketplace also has changed. Com- panies need to get new products to their custom- ers faster than ever before. Yet the wait for envi- ronmental permits sometimes slows down their ability to launch new products or react to market demands. Today's industry leaders also realize that preventing pollution and recycling raw materials can save them money in the long run. In the midst of this change, Project XL gives EPA and its stakeholders an opportunity to: • Experiment with new approaches to environmental protection with the meaningful involvement of interested parties: • Test ideas that break down barriers within the nation's separate air, water and waste regulations; • Try out technologies that provide better options for meeting or exceeding environmental standards; • Use the knowledge, experience, and resources of all stakeholders to find better federal approaches to environmental problems; • Shi ft from pollution control to pollution prevention ; • Ensure environmental equity; and • Find more sustainable solutions. X eri mentaf ion The first few XL projects posed many challenges. EPA had never attempted this type of experiment. As a regulatory agency, we were cautious in the early stages. We and others had concerns about how to test new approaches, yet maintain the same level of protection that the current regulatory sys- tem provides. We had to learn as we went along. Project sponsors, regulators, and citizens alike in- vested significant resources and time in XL's cre- ative and complex experiments. After gaining ex- perience, the Agency had a better idea of what in- formation was important in a proposal and how decisions should be made. In 1998, we worked hard with our partners to streamline Project XL so ------- negotiations would go more smoothly, quickly, and predictably. We now expect this new process to yield agreements for most projects in six months to a year, compared to 24 months or longer under the old process. For example, the Atlantic Steel project, in Atlanta, GA has already shown results hy producing a signed project agreement for phase one just eight months after initial pre-proposal dis- cussions. The Agency also developed several guides to help project sponsors, EPA staff, and citizens create successful projects. Technical assistance is made available to stakeholder groups participating in project negotiations. EPA also contracts with pro- fessional facilitators to get stakeholder discussions and internal EPA teams off on the right track. PVoject tk< H ow <£PA As of August 1 999, XL sponsors were implement- ing 14 projects, while 3 1 other project ideas were being developed or negotiated, and a number of additional concepts were also being discussed. Seven projects have been in place for a year or more. All were showing noteworthy benefits to the environment, project sponsors, and stakehold- ers. These benefits include: superior results for the local environment and communities, and sub- stantial operational benefits or cost savings for project sponsors. However, the value of this pro- gram goes beyond the benefits derived from each project. Project XL's greatest value lies in its po- tential for revealing improvements that can be made in the current system of environmental protection. Already, EPA has begun incorporating XL's suc- cessful innovations and flexibility into regulations, permits, and other core functions. Because of XL, we are also changing EPA's internal culture to sup- port the challenges facing EPA staff and meet the needs of our partners. In this way, XL has begun to encourage and reward excellence and leader- ship throughout the country. iskmervts Project XL has a growing track record of produc- ing benefits for the environment, participating project sponsors, and the communities in w hich they are located. Each XL experiment is tackling significant environmental problems in a new way. giving EPA. states, businesses, and communities knowledge needed for the 21" century. All 14 projects in implementation are presented on pages 4-5. As a whole, these XL projects are exceeding their environmental commitments. The benefits of individual XL projects are summarized on pages 6-7, using data primarily from the seven projects that have been in implementation since December 1 997 or earlier (Intel, Weyerhaeuser, Vandenberg AFB, HADCO, Witco, Merck, and Jack M. Berry). The results from the seven projects in op- eration for just one year show significant benefits. As we move from seven to 50 projects, from one year of operation to several, and as we broadly apply the lessons learned throughout EPA, the ben- efits of Project XL should increase exponentially. k' ------- Intel Corporation ned: November 19,1996) Intel is testing a facility-wide pollution cap that ensures its . will remain a minor source of air pollutants. EPA. Arizona, and Maricopa County agreed to ..ange equipment and processes and build new facilities without air permit reviews, as long as reduce wastewater discharges, air emissions, and solid waste generation. In exchange, EPA and Georgia allowed process modifications without prior approval, streamlined the wastewater permit renewal process. eliminated unnecessary sampling, and allowed annual certification to replace monthly reporting. The agreement also reduces allowable air emissions by 60 percent using two emission caps: one for the plant's four major air pollution sources and another for the remaining sources. (signed: November 3,1997) Vandenberg has agreed to reduce its annual emissions of o/one-causing chemicals by 10 tons or more group different activities on the base as separate minor sources. This new method of grouping activities allows the base to comply with rules that entail significantly less administrative burden. The money saved will be used to reduce emissions by boilers and other pollution sources. These steps may help prevent Santa Barbara County. 3A, where the base is located, from becoming a non-attainment area for ozone. (signed: October 2, 1997) HADCO is testing whether copper-rich sludge from its printed wiring boards manufacturing operations can be recycled more easily by removing hazardous waste pretreatment requirements. The low toxicity of the sludge made HADCO eligible for either a solid waste variance or conditional delisting at facili- ties in New Hampshire and New York. HADCO expects to implement reclamation of 100 percent copper drilling, sawing, and edging dusts, and to use its cost savings to increase pollution prevention and recycling. (signed: October *-• , •: 7,1997) Witco's chemical plant in Sistersville, WV is testing pollution r prevention, waste minimization, and alternative methods for reducing air emissions. Witco has installed an incinerator that will destroy 98 percent of the air emissions from a process unit and recover some 500,000 pounds of *»»^ methanol per year from a wastewater treatment unit. In exchange, EPA and West Virginia are deferring hazardous waste air emission standards for Witco's two RCR surface impoundments. Witco also conducted a study to identify additional '" duction opportunities and is implementing many of the study recommendation ;ned: December 15,1997) Merck & Co., Inc. will reduce sulfur dioxide and en oxide emissions at its Elkton. VA pharmaceutical plant to protect visibility and reduce acid rain in ,.^c« .y Shenandoah National Park. EPA and Virginia agreed to a facility-wide air pollution cap that will ensure that Merck's emissions remain at least 20 percent below 1992 and 1993 levels and eliminate the need for permit reviews for every process change. Merck is converting its coal-fired powerhouse to cleaner-burning natural gas, a $ 10 million capital investment not required by regulations. (signed: August 8. 1996; project closed June 2, 1999) This project was designed to produce a comprehensive operating permit to better integrate operation and compliance procedures at the company's citrus juice-processing facility in LaBelle, FL. A 1997 change in operational management at the facility led to termination of the agreement. The new permit would have relieved Berry of multiple permit renewal applications. Although the permit was not completed, Berry did meet commitments to reuse wastewater, reduce air pollution emissions, and reduce solid waste disposal. (signed: August 8. 1998) Molex is focusing on improving metal recovery by upgrading the wastewater treatment facility at its electroplating facility in Lincoln. NE. The new ------- treatment system generates separate sludge for nickel, copper, and tin/lead, although at higher operational and compliance costs. Previously, these metal-bearing wastewater streams were combined for treatment. By keep- ing them separate. Molex expects to reduce metal loadings to Lincoln's wastewater treatment plant by 50 percent and sell the sludge directly to recyclers. Nebraska has granted Molex a temporary exemption from hazardous waste storage, handling, and shipment rules. (signed: August 19, 1998) Lucent's Microelectronics Group is testing whether a comprehensive environmental management system (EMS) can produce superior performance in a more efficient, transparent, understandable and flexible manner. The EMS will consolidate all federal and state requirements into one permit. Regulators will participate in setting environmental goals and tracking performance, with input from environmental organizations, community groups, requirements for entire small business sectors, such as dry cleaners, photo processors, and printers. DEP's Environmental Results Program replaces individual permits with a facility-wide, perfor- mance-based, self-certification program. Company executives can certify annually that they are meeting environmental performance standards. In exchange, each sector is expected to achieve superior environmental performance through pollution pre- turn a 138-acre brownfielcl site previously owned by Atlantic Steel into a mixed business/residential development. This development, located in downtown Atlanta, would include a bridge that would link motorists to an interstate highway, and bicyclists, and pedestrians to a nearby passenger rail system, thereby reducing traffic. However, because Atlanta does not meet certain clean air standards, the city cannot receive federal fund- ing or approval for transportation projects. EPA has agreed to measure the project's benefits to clean air by comparing this site's benefits to simi- lar likely sites in the region, thereby allowing construction of the bridge. An EPA analysis shows that absorbing some of Atlanta's future growth ' the Atlantic Steel site would mean fewer emissions resulting from less auUj mobile traffic. (signed: May 25.1999) Exxon is implementing a cleanup of the Sharon Steel Superfund site in Fairmont, WV in half the time a normal cleanup would take. In exchange, Exxon has asked for streamlined hazardous waste removal processes and flexibility in wetlands mitiga- tion, reporting requirements, and risk assessment criteria and analyses. Exxon also will work with stakeholders and community groups to find developers interested in commercial or industrial redevelopment of the site. (signed: June 30, 1999) Andersen will test innovative performance requirements linked to production rates at its window and patio door manufacturing plant in Bayport, MN. Andersen's per-unit air emission rate will be tied to incentives that penalize higher emissions and reward reductions in volatile organic compounds. In exchange for accepting these per-unit emission limits, Andersen can make production changes without obtaining prior approval. If successful, ni™iii/*t;™-i;r»L-.^i iiw-^ntiv,^ m;iv chnnoe how EPA regulates emissions from certain industries. :ned:July 12, 1999) New York's Department of Environmental Conservation proposes to allow public utilities to centralize management of hazardous wastes generated at remote locations (such as manholes), thus removing wastes from remote locations more quickly, minimizing unnecessary paperwork, and saving time and labor. Hazardous waste laws require that all wastes, no matter how small, be transported directly to a permitted treatment, storage, and disposal facility within 90 days. Record-keeping is linked to each site of generation. By centralizing collection, record-keeping and management of these wastes. New York hopes to increase public safety and reduce traffic problems around these sites. Uep; ------- XL projects have reduced air pollution, wastewa- ter discharges, and disposal of solid and hazard- ous wastes. The figures below show some of the cumulative environmental benefits of only three projects underway in 1997 and 1998. Putting some of these gains into an everyday context, in one year, these three XL projects have conserved enough water to fill more than 1,300 Olympic-size swim- Combined Intel, Weyerhaeuser and Witco Results for 1997-1998 • Eliminated 20,853 tons of criteria air pollutants (nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, paniculate matter, and carbon monoxide) • Recycled 2,089 tons of solid waste • Recycled 690 tons of non-hazardous waste * Recycled 613 tons of hazardous waste • Reused ] ,069 million gallons of water " Eliminated 2.19 pounds per air-dried metric ton of biological oxygen demand in wastewater discharges ming pools. They have reduced volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions equivalent to taking more than 160,000 cars off the road for a year. And they have recycled enough solid waste to fill 167 average-size garbage trucks—a convoy that would stretch for nearly three-quarters of a mile. For some projects, the sponsors must make sig- nificant capital investments before they can realize the experiment's full environmental benefits. There- fore, as existing experiments mature and new projects begin, XL's positive environmental impact will continue to grow. In fact, the gains demon- strated so far are small compared to the environ- mental benefits that will accrue over time. K* usme.ss Project sponsors are reducing costs and improv- ing their competitiveness through XL's operational flexibility. Sponsors are benefitting from expedited or consolidated permitting, reduced record-keep- ing and reporting, and the flexibility found through facility-wide emission caps, hi addition, sponsors have enjoyed improved administrative efficiency, industry recognition, better relationships with their communities and stakeholders, better use of em- ployee expertise, and improved relationships with regulators. Many of these benefits also improve the bottom line. For example: /ii/ie/continues to avoid millions of dollars worth of production delays in the competitive quick-to- market semi-conductor industry by eliminating 30 to 50 permit reviews a year. Weyerhaeuser expects to avoid $10 million in future capital spending, is now saving $200,000 a year by recovering and reusing lime muds, and will continue to save $176,000 annually by consolidat- ing reporting requirements. Witco expects to save $800,000 over five years through its negotiated hazardous waste deferral. Merck expects to avoid millions of dollars in pro- duction delays by eliminating repetitive permit re- views and getting its products to market more quickly. In addition, within the first year of its XL project HADCO saved transportation costs by reducing sludge shipments as a result of installing a new sludge dryer. Vandenberg AFB reduced costs by testing each air pollution source using a less expensive pro- tocol negotiated with the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District. 6 ------- for- (Sonantunities Project XL was designed to increase understand- ing between regulated industries and the communi- ties and citizens they affect. Although not always easy, efforts to reach out to environmental groups and community stakeholders have yielded many rewards. Companies are reporting information in new ways to increase community understanding and trust, and stakeholders have had real input into project agreements. Benefits to communities in- clude: • Creating a cleaner local environment; • Forging a real, informed trust with the project sponsor: • Offering input into a company's environmental decisions: • Improving access to information through the Internet, direct reports from the facililx. or local library holdings: • Receiving reports in eas\ -to-undersiand formats; • Understanding a local facility's operations better, and sometimes those of an industry as a whole; and « Receiving help with community projects. such as computer donations, property set- backs, and ride-reduction programs. EPA is proud of Project XL's track record of pro- ducing meaningful benefits. Even at this early stage. XL has shown that prudent experimentation and regulatory flexibility can yield economic gains for businesses and government, better understanding bv citizens, and a cleaner environment. *1-Voject ^.L. must succeed! giving us a place, at the table as decisions are made tKat a|^ect our com- munities has proven to be HigMy beneficial—-not only fo r co m m uniti es b ut fo »* j n- dustj'y as welI,w • , ,\1- ------- "H ow Wo^Us While individual XL projects have produced mean- ingful results, Project XL's value goes far beyond the immediate environmental gains and cost sav- ings to individual project sponsors. The innovative ideas being tested are also helping EPA to reex- amine how it regulates and to find better ways of encouraging environmental improvements. In order to transfer these ideas, EPA is changing some of its everyday functions, such as permitting, rulemaking, and information management Although it is early, Project XL is definitely influencing the way EPA thinks about the next generation of envi- ronmental protection. Project XL is allowing EPA to test new approaches that might not otherwise be considered in federal regulations, and to test and confirm the flexibility that already exists in environmental rules. The Weyerhaeuser project allowed EPA to design and test two additional compliance options in a new air and wastewater regulation affecting the pulp and paper industry (the Pulp and Paper Cluster Rule). One option allows mills to meet stricter wastewa- ter discharge limits by installing advanced technolo- gies. In exchange, mills can receive public recog- nition; additional compliance time; and reduced monitoring, inspections, and penalties. Another option allows kraft pulping operations to eliminate specific requirements for production vents if they clean up condensates in other parts of the mill. Many of the air pollutants that come from production vents originate in these condensates. If the condensates are cleaner, air coming out of the vents will be cleaner, too. We expect this new rule to eliminate 59 percent of toxic air emissions from U.S. pulp, paper, and paperboard mills. Chloroform dis- charges to water will fall 99 percent; dioxin and furan discharges will be reduced by 96 percent. 3M Idea Impacts EPA Rule Although ^Ni Corporation's XL proposal did not reach final agreement, one of its ideas was incorporated into federal rules ("or magnetic tape manufacturers. Based on the 3M proposal and other industry input, EPA decided to offer companies an alternative compliance option lor balancing hazardous air pollutant emissions from solvent storage tanks with emissions from other process equipment. The Molex and HADCO experiments are testing several waste reduction and metal recyling and re- covery options that are now restrained by RCRA regulations. Many printed wiring board manufac- turers and electroplating facilities face similar envi- ronmental constraints. As a result of these experi- ments, EPA may learn how problems can be ad- dressed throughout these industrial sectors. to T-Wmitfincj Permits are EPA's primary tool for translating envi- ronmental statutes and regulations into the require- ments a facility must follow. Although they are suc- cessful tools for protecting the environment, op- portunities to improve on their limitations are ex- amined in four of the initial seven XL projects: Intel, Weyerhaeuser, Merck, and Jack M. Berry. Facility-wide Limits: Merck, Intel, and Weyerhaeuser each are testing facility-wide per- mits that limit their total emissions. During 1997 and 1998, Weyerhaeuser remained under its caps, reducing by 12 to 20 percent its actual emissions of particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen ox- ides, carbon monoxide, and VOC's. Meanwhile, Merck's facility-wide air permit allows its Stone- wall Plant to change operations without having to wait for individual permit reviews. Merck also has the option of reducing its facility-wide caps instead of implementing specific control technologies that might be prescribed by future regulations. Taking 8 ------- a lesson from the Merck experiment, EPA allowed limited pre-approval for some types of production changes in 1998 regulations for controlling air emis- sions from pharmaceutical plants. The Agency is considering using pre-approval and "cap permits" more extensively in the future. Consolidated Permits: The Jack M. Berry facil- ity must contend with separate air. water, and con- sumptive use regulations, including separate com- mitments to EPA. the Florida Department of Env i- ronmental Protection, and the South Florida Wa- ter Management District. Berry's XL project pro- posed to consolidate these permitting requirements into a single comprehensive operating permit. Al- though the project has been closed due to a change of the plant's operational management, the Berry concept and process are being documented here so that other interested parties can consider this approach for further testing under Project XL. ^notion JL ess The EPA of tomorrow will rely on environmental data and information that is less burdensome for facilities to collect and report, easier for regulators to review, and easier for citizens to obtain and un- derstand. XL experiments are yielding lessons that can help guide the Agency's new information man- agement office and its efforts to improve environ- mental information. Better Public Access: Intel is improving public access to information by: ( 1 ) using stakeholder in- put to redesign reports on its environmental per- formance: and (2) making these reports publicly available on the Internet. Based on Intel's suc- cess. we are asking future XL projects to develop similar Internet reporting with interested stakehold- ers. Streamlined Reporting: EPA. states, and local regulators routinely collect data from companies to ensure compliance with the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and other environmental laws. Under XL, Intel is consolidating routine reporting into quar- terly reports and an annual report. Weyerhaeuser has consolidated federal, state, and local air and water reporting into two reports a year. Merck's requirements for recordkeeping and reporting grow more stringent as its actual emissions approach the facility-wide cap. Berry would have been allowed to use simpler, non-standard forms to report its en- vironmental performance to multiple jurisdictions. poncj /sJ w n ana (Somplicmce y\ss u One of EPA's most important responsibilities is ensuring that companies comply with the laws that protect human health and the environment. Through Project XL, we are testing new tools, such as self- certification, to encourage the regulated commu- nity to move beyond compliance with environmen- tal laws. Weyerhaeuser's XL agreement allows the paper and pulp mill to provide an annual compliance self- certification report instead of monthly discharge monitoring reports for its wastewater permit. EPA provided this flexibility because the company had established a 10-year history of meeting all required discharge levels, and because of its commitments to superior environmental performance. In Massachusetts' Environmental Results Program. printing and photo process ing representatives have helped create a self-certification program linked to stringent state performance and operating stan- ------- dards. Certifications are signed by the company owner, president, CEO, or other high-ranking offi- cial and are subject to penalties for perjury if the facility is not in compliance. Facilities not in com- pliance will be required to specify interim milestones toward achieving compliance by a certain date. This will give companies more flexibility to choose cost-effective compliance, strategies that can fur- ther improve environmental performance and pre- vent pollution. Meanwhile, all companies partici- pating in the Environmental Results Program will remain subject to regular state inspections and en- forcement. PVomotincj /\)ew Concepts in ^Environmental .Stewardship XL is testing environmental management systems, and promoting pollution prevention and recycling as new ways for showing a company's commit- ment to environmental stewardship. Environmental Management Systems (EMS): An EMS can be used to manage compliance, help boost efficiency, cut waste, improve worker safety, and bring attention to environmental matters not covered by regulations. Weyerhaeuser's XL ex- periment is using an EMS and standard work pro- cedures that will take steps toward creating a "Minimum Impact Mill." Lucent's EMS provides a platform from which a consolidated multimedia permit can be developed, and it allows regulators to participate in setting annual goals and targets. Pollution Prevention and Recycling: Witco is implementing a waste minimization/pollution pre- vention plan that will identify additional pollution prevention opportunities. Witco also is generating less sludge by reusing and recycling methanol. Else- where, Vandenberg Air Force Base is reducing its air emissions through a performance-based EMS and pollution prevention techniques. lAnderstandingf tke 7\)eeds of AWtiple Stakeholders Stakeholder involvement has proven to be one of the most challenging features of Project XL. EPA and project sponsors are learning valuable lessons about opening up the decision-making process and inviting stakeholders to participate. Environmental advocates, community groups, and individual citi- zens have told us what does and does not promote meaningful participation. Among their views: • The project sponsors and stakeholders must establish clear ground rules for their roles and responsibilities. • EPA must clarify its role, as well as the role of the sponsor, in managing a stakeholder group. • Project sponsors should identify local and national stakeholders' needs early in the project's development. • Local groups and national environmental groups should work together early in the process to define their roles as participants in the XL project. These early discussions should help to avoid disconnects later in the process. Witco Corporation Waste Minimization/Pollution Prevention Solutions at Sistersville, West Virginia Plant Activity One-time pollution prevention projects (1998) Methanol recycling Other pollution prevention options TOTAL savings potential annually Potential Cost Savings $42,000 (one-time) $16,000/year $620,000/year* $636,000/year* Potential Waste Reductions 26,000 Ibs. (one-time) 1, 100,000 lbs./year 730,000 lbs./year 1, 830,000 lbs./year *Witco has not yet assigned the expense of implementing these projects; when it does, the net savings will be less. 10 ------- ".Absolutely key to [^PA's] suc- cess is forging strong partner- ships—businesses/ communities/ environmentalists/ public KealtK groups/ government at all levels— pooling time/ talent/ and re- sources to find protective/ com- mon-sense/ cost-effective solu- tions.* — Carol The lessons learned from XL projects will assist EPA as we increase opportunities for stakeholders to be involved in our programs, improve stake- holder processes throughout the Agency, and share information about successful stakeholder involve- ment strategies. to While EPA has made many improvements over the years in how we manage internal processes. Project XL has revealed additional opportunities for im- proving the way EPA operates. By beginning to address some of the internal challenges. Project XL has helped to increase EPA's capacity to innovate. Already. Project XL has led to discreet changes in internal guidance and operating procedures. These changes support EPA's commitment to test and in- corporate innovative solutions to environmental problems. For example, to further senior management involve- ment in advancing innovative efforts, EPA estab- lished the Reinvention Action Council (RAO. This senior-level body was created to ensure quick de- cision-making and adequate resources to move projects along. The RAC's success in resolving problems in Project XL led to expanded responsi- bilities for the council. Today, the RAC helps ad- vance progress for new and existing reinvention pri- orities. To address state concerns, EPA and the Environ- mental Council of the States (ECOS) negotiated an agreement that provides a way to test innova- tive ideas based on state interests and priorities. The ECOS-EPA agreement outlines principles and a process to clarify how EPA and states will put these good ideas to the test, outside of Project XL. EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance As- surance (OECA) set up a streamlined process for screening the compliance history of companies that want to participate in Project XL. The new screen- ing guidance ensures that EPA and project spon- sors are not simultaneously in cooperative and adversarial positions. The Project XL experience helped to develop the screening guidance now used by the growing number of voluntary programs throughout EPA. In the past. EPA offices have been organized along "media lines." working separately to carry out air, water, waste and toxics programs. Project XL. however, requires a "multi-media" approach. To bridge these gaps. EPA has created a new model for Project XL intra-agency teams. EPA's new pro- cess for operating in these teams is set forth in the Manual for EPA Project XL Teams. This system has helped teams make decisions faster. These les- sons will guide EPA as we continue to experiment with solutions that cross traditional media lines. ------- Since it was announced. Project XL has been held to a very high standard. Expectations were great for this program, which attempts to venture into the future of environmental protection. Despite the challenges, it has grown into an efficient and effec- tive program that is pnxlucing environmental, eco- nomic, and community benefits. Although we are approaching our goal of running 50 different XL experiments. EPA's need to test new tools and new solutions will not end. Our stakeholders will continue to have innovative ideas for achieving cleaner, cheaper, and smarter envi- ronmental protection. And EPA is committed to providing a vehicle for testing and implementing those concepts. Meanwhile, we will be hard at work testing, evalu- ating, and judging the success of the XL experi- ments and incorporating their lessons into EPA's daily work. This important phase of Project XL coincides with a renewed Agency-wide effort to learn from this and other reinvention efforts and open new doors for experimentation. FVom Pilot to 1~Yc\crfL~tn Project XL's greatest opportunity, and its greatest challenge, is taking successful ideas from individual pilot projects to system-wide practice. From its inception. XL was designed to use site-specific ex- periments to produce new solutions with broad applicability. EPA is now focused on identifying successful inno- vations learned from Project XL and making changes in our current system of environmental pro- tection that help put Project XL's lessons into full practice. EPA is also developing the next phase of Project XL. This "second generation" of the XL program will continue to be shepherded by EPA's Office of Policy and Reinvention, but will continue to reflect the Agency-wide commitment to adopt and imple- ment these innovative ideas. This next-generation system of environmental protection will provide even stronger incentives for high performance and going beyond compliance by developing ap- proaches such as a new "performance track." Lessons learned in Project XL will be integral to developing these high-performance alternatives. (Soul iiAuiiAC) to ^c1.. u4c~l\ for y\Je.w Solutions Since its inception. Project XL has had to adapt to meet the needs of the environment. EPA. and all stakeholders. Despite achieving the goal of 50 projects, EPA will still retain the capacity to do in- tra-Agency, cross-media experimentation and re- tain the Office of Policy and Reinvention as a pri- mary gateway into EPA for new ideas that improve environmental protection. As we design the program's next phase, we will take into account the current program's advantages, successes, and hard-earned lessons. We will build on our experience to identity and use the most com- pelling incentives for participation, and the best in- ternal mechanisms for testing new environmental solutions. EPA remains committed to the basic principles of Project XL. Project XL results indicate that we can create better environmental outcomes when all affected parties work together toward a common goal. EPA will continue to provide opportunities for testing environmental solutions that can address complex issues and result in higher quality public- health and environmental protection. ------- "Wkat C7 see in Project XJ- is a real paradigm skift- ~Tke old way of doing business was tkat gove»»Kv- dictates eve»*y Knove a business must take to protect tke environment. ke new systein/ as envisioned by Project is to work cooperatively and focus on tke results: a cleaner environment; a faster, less costly system; and more input from tke community." / Chairman ------- |