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
------- |