United States
                         Environmental Protection
                         Agency
                         Research and Development
           Risk Reduction
           Engineering Laboratory
           Cincinnati, OH 45268
           EPA/600/S-92/025   Aug 1992
&EPA     ENVIRONMENTAL
                         RESEARCH   BRIEF
          Waste Reduction Activities and Options for a Nuclear Powered
                               Electrical Generating Station
                                Patrick Eyraud and Daniel J. Watts*
Abstract
The U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency (EPA) funded a
project with the New  Jersey  Department of  Environmental
Protection and Energy (NJDEPE) to assist in conducting waste
minimization assessments at 30 small- to medium-sized busi-
nesses in the state of New Jersey. One of the sites selected
was a nuclear powered electrical generating station. A site visit
was made in 1990 during which several opportunities for waste
minimization were identified. The assessment identified waste
oil and  oil/water mixtures,  coatings, solvents, grease, and
laboratory reagents as significant contributors to the facility's
waste stream. Options identified for waste reduction included
strengthened inventory controls, encouragement of "just-in-time"
delivery  of supplies, direct charge back of waste treatment
expenses to the unit  or project responsible for the waste,
encouragement of the use of materials with reduced hazard
level, and change of the frequency or material used for coating
of surfaces. Implementation of the identified waste minimization
opportunities was not part of the  program. Percent waste
reduction, net annual savings, implementation costs and pay-
back periods were estimated.


Introduction
The environmental issues facing industry today have expanded
considerably  beyond traditional concerns. Wastewater, air
emissions, potential soil and groundwater contamination, solid
waste disposal, and employee health and safety have become
increasingly important  concerns. The  management and dis-
posal of hazardous substances, including both process-related
wastes and residues from waste treatment, receive significant
attention because of regulation and economics.

* This Research Brief was developed by the Principal Investigators and EPA's Risk
  Reduction Engineering Laboratory in Cincinnati, OH, to announce key findings of
  this completed assignment.
As environmental issues have become more complex,  the
strategies for waste management and control have become
more systematic and integrated. The positive role of waste
minimization and pollution prevention within industrial operations
at each stage of product life is recognized throughout  the
world. An ideal goal is to manufacture products while generat-
ing the least amount of waste possible.

The Hazardous Waste Advisement  Program (HWAP) of  the
Division of Hazardous Waste Management, NJDEPE, is pursu-
ing the goals of waste minimization awareness and program
implementation in the state. HWAP, with the help of an EPA
grant from the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, con-
ducted an Assessment of Reduction  and Recycling Opportuni-
ties for Hazardous Waste (ARROW) project. ARROW was
designed  to assess waste minimization  potential across a
broad range of New Jersey industries. The project targeted 30
sites to perform waste minimization assessments following the
approach outlined in EPA's Waste  Minimization Opportunity
Assessment Manual (EPA/625/7-88/003). Under contract to
NJDEPE, the Hazardous Substance Management Research
Center at the New Jersey Institute of Technobgy (NJIT) assisted
in conducting the assessments. This research brief presents
an assessment of a nuclear powered electrical generating
station (1 of the  30 assessments performed) and  Provides
recommendations for waste minimization options resulting from
the assessment.


Methodology of Assessments
The assessment process was coordinated by a team of techni-
cal  staff from NJIT with experience in process operations,
basic chemistry, and environmental  concerns and needs.  Be-
cause the EPA waste minimization manual is designed to be
primarily applied by the in-house staff of the facility, the degree
of involvement of the NJIT team varied according to the ease

                             Printed on Recycled Paper

-------
with which the facility staff could apply the manual. In some
cases, NJIT's role  was to provide advice. In  others, NJIT
conducted essentially the entire evaluation.

The goal of the project was to encourage participation in the
assessment process by  management and staff at the  facility.
To do this, the participants were encouraged to proceed through
the organizational steps outlined in the manual. These steps
can be summarized as follows:

  • Obtaining corporate commitment to a waste minimization
    initiative
  • Organizing  a task force or similar group to carry  out the
    assessment
  • Developing a policy statement  regarding waste minimiza-
    tion for  issuance by  corporate management
  • Establishing tentative waste reduction  goals to be achieved
    by the program
  • Identifying waste-generating sites and processes
  • Conducting a detailed  site inspection
  • Developing a list  of  options which may lead to the waste
    reduction goal
  • Formally analyzing the feasibility of the various options
  • Measuring the effectiveness of  the options and continuing
    the assessment.

Not every facility was  able to follow these steps as presented.
In each case, however,  the identification  of waste-generating
sites and processes, detailed site inspections, and development
of options was carried out. Frequently, it was  necessary for a
high degree of involvement by NJIT to accomplish these steps.
Two common reasons for needing outside participation were a
shortage of technical  staff within the  company and a need to
develop an agenda for technical action before corporate com-
mitment and policy statements could be obtained.

It was not a goal of the ARROW project to participate in the
feasibility  analysis or implementation steps.  However,  NJIT
offered to provide advice for feasibility analysis if requested.

In each case, the NJIT team  made several site visits to the
facility. Initially, visits  were made to explain the EPA  manual
and to encourage the facility through the organizational stages.
If delays and complications developed, the team offered assis-
tance in the technical review,  inspections, and option develop-
ment.


Nuclear Powered Generating Facility
At this facility, there was enthusiasm for the assessment both
on the part of  the technical staff and  on the  part of the
management. The pollution prevention team had been formed
prior to the arrival of the NJIT team and most of the gathering
of data was carried out by the team at the facility. The develop-
ment of  options for additional pollution prevention was done
jointly by the group from  the  facility and the personnel from
NJIT.

At this facility, electrical  energy is  produced  by a  nuclear
generator. This type of facility  presents an unusual subject for
a waste  reduction study. The product of the facility is  energy.
Hazardous  wastes are  generated predominantly during the
times when power generation is not in operation. (Radioactive
wastes are  not included in this study.) Moreover, it is apparent
from the results of the  assessment that the  bulk of the hazardous
waste from  the  facility is produced from construction  and
maintenance activities largely when the energy generation ac-
tivity is in an outage.


Manufacturing Process
This facility produces electrical  energy by a  process  which
depends upon heating water by a  nuclear source. The operation
of the facility results in the formation of radioactive waste which
is managed according to the appropriate federal regulations.
The high costs of waste management for this type of waste has
encouraged significant waste reduction  efforts  in this area
throughout the  industry. The focus  of this assessment (non-
radioactive waste) has similarly benefited from waste reduction
efforts, although the assessment has identified additional options
which could be implemented. Three departmental  operations
have  been  found  to be associated  with the generation of
waste: Maintenance, Site Services, and Operations. In addition,
a significant source  of waste for disposal is off-specification
and partially used  materials which are not easily associated
with any specific operation or job process.

Major waste streams identified were:
    Oil and Oil/Water Mixtures
    Coatings (Paints, Epoxy, Enamels)
    Solvents
    Grease
    Laboratory Reagents
Much of the waste oil stream results from a remediation project
at the site and not directly from the operation of the facility, the
other materials result frequently from regular equipment and
facility repair and upgrade activities. Significant quantities of
off-specification and partially used containers of materials are
presented for waste management or disposal.


Existing Waste Management Activities
The facility has implemented several effective steps to reduce
waste generation at the facility including:

  •  Making surplus materials available to employees for their
     personal use.
  •  Selling surplus materials to commercial users.
  •  Improving ordering and warehouse procedures to reduce
     overstocking and surplus materials.
  •  Innovative material handling procedures such as purchas-
     ing materials in large containers and dispensing them in
     "just the right amount" containers.

The waste streams that  are  generated  are sent offsite  for
disposal.


Waste Minimization Opportunities
The type  of waste  currently  generated by the facility, the
source of the waste, the quantity of the waste, and the annual
treatment and disposal costs (where  known and available) are
given in Table 1.

Table 2 presents the opportunities for  pollution prevention
which were  identified during  the  assessment.  The type of
waste, the minimization opportunity, and the possible waste
reductions, are presented  in the table.  When available or esti-
mable, the associated saving,  and  implementatbn costs  along
with  payback times are also give.   However,  because the
feasibility analysis was to be carried  out by the staff of the
facility, that information is not always readily available.

-------
Table 1.  Summary of Generated Wastes
Waste Generated
Oil, OilWaterand
Oily Soil
Coatings (Paint,
Epoxy, Enamels)
Solvents
Grease
Laboratory Reagents
Surplus Materials
Source of Waste
Equipment oil change
Oil spill cleanup
Remediation activities
Surface Repair and
maintenance
Degreasing, paint
thinning
Maintenance of
machinery
Water quality tests
Outdated and off-
Annual Quantity
Generated
10,000 gal
1,200 gal
1,400lb
50 gal
2 drums
90 drums
Annual
Costs
$2,000
$4,800
$2,100
$400
$600
$27,000
                                   specification
                                   supplies usually
                                   from the warehouse
Table 2.  Summary of Waste Minimization Options Identified
Waste Generated
                      Minimization Opportunity
Annual Waste Reduction         Net       Implementation      Payback
Quantity        Percent  Annual Savings       Cost           Years
                                                                                                                      immed
Oil and Oil/Water       Implement procedures to              2000 gal       20%          $8400          $1600          0.2
Mixtures               minimize oil spills and
                      leaks. Review equipment
                      specifications to determine
                      if frequency of oil changes
                      is appropriate. Consider
                      improved oil/water separation
                      technology.

Coatings              Consider specifying coatings           600 gal         50%          $3600            -0-
                      with reduced hazard levels
                      compared with present materials.
                      Reconsider the frequency of
                      application of coatings.
                      Encourage use of water-based
                      coatings rather than solvent-
                      based versions. Investigate
                      alternative uses for surplus
                      coatings such as parking lot
                      striping.

Solvents               Consider use of aqueous              200 Ib           14%           $294           $1,200          4.0
                      surfactant solutions rather
                      than solvents for cleaning.
                      Use of water-based paints will
                      reduce need for thinners.

Surplus and           Identify alternative beneficial           22 drums       25%          $5,400         $15,000          3.0
Off-spec Materials      uses for out-of-date materials.
                      Make surplus materials available
                      to other company owned facilities.
                      Purchase appropriately sized
                      containers of materials. Determine
                      whether materials discarded during
                      clean-ups are truly waste and revise
                      procedures appropriately. Review
                      shelf life dates for possible exten-
                      sion.
                                                                              &U.S. GOVERNMENT PUNTING OFFICE: NM - 5S4MM7/MM9

-------
Additional Options Identified
In addition to the options previously discussed other options
were suggested. It was observed that occasionally containers
of hazardous waste are found on the site away from the active
secured sections which cannot be identified according to source.
It is presumed that these materials are discarded by contrac-
tors or other non-employees. It is suggested, therefore, that
vehicles entering the facility be  examined to assure that they
do not leave such containers at the site.

A clear  correlation was observed  between the amount of full
containers and  usable materials presented for waste disposal
and the scheduled inspections of  the facility.  It is postulated
that such  materials are discarded in order to demonstrate a
neater appearance to the inspection team.  Alternate storage
arrangements for such situations should be developed.


Regulatory Implications
There seem to be no regulatory  issues which would impede
the implementation of additional pollution prevention initiatives
at this facility.  The staff and management of the facility are
well  informed  about  environmental and radioactivity-related
regulations.   However, it should be well recognized that be-
cause nuclear regulators have great influence over the opera-
tion of this type of facility, if any pollution prevention option
entails any sort of risk which may cause difficulty with fulfilling a
nuclear regulation, the pollution prevention option will not be
implemented.   This is an  example of potentially conflicting
jurisdictions which  may inhibit changes in industrial behavior.
Situations such as this raise the need  for coordination of  all
regulations if pollution  prevention is to become efficient and
effective throughout the industrial world.

This Research Brief summarizes a part of the work done under
cooperative  Agreement No. CR-815165 by the  New Jersey
Institute of Technology under the sponsorship  of the  New
Jersey  Department of Environmental  Protection  and  Energy
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The  EPA  Project Officer was Mary Ann Curran.  She  can  be
reached at:

        Pollution Prevention Research  Branch
        Risk ReductionEngineering Laboratory
        U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency
        Cincinnati, OH 45268
 ' Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement
  or recommendation for use.
   United States
   Environmental Protection Agency
   Center for Environmental Research Information
   Cincinnati, OH 45268

   Official Business
   Penalty for Private Use
   $300
                                    BULK RATE
                              POSTAGE & FEES PAID
                                        EPA
                                  PERMIT No. G-35
   EPA/600/S-92/025

-------