Process Engineering for Pollution Control and Waste Minimization_9 potx

The size and nature of the waste streams was quantified and the waste streamswere prioritized for minimization or prevention action... At level two, detailed process maps for the waste s

T ABLE 1 Waste Minimization Initiatives

Reduce “junk mail.” Develop a centralized stop-mail service for “junk mail.”

Evaluate pilot results;

determine if results justify expense.

Ongoing Pilot test:

completed

Base program Source reduction,

4.4 MT/year Eliminate paper phonebooks.

Delivery of US West phone directories is restricted;

Tele-employees are requested to use the “on-line” directory instead Approximately 22 MT

of waste per year can be avoided in this way.

Continue restricted livery in future years.

22 MT/year

Include additional items in paper recycle system Include other paper products (mail items) in the program.

This option is being evaluated.

Increase use of MS A1000.

Although MS A1000 is widely used as a means of recycling various materials, many em- ployees are still unaware of its existence This program within the laboratory will en- courage use of this program.

A publicity campaign will be developed to increase awareness.

Self-inking stamps (with the A1000 logo) will also be distrib- uted to each mail stop.

particular process, and safety of the processes A matrix similar to the one shownpreviously can be constructed and weights assigned to each of the factors Issuesfrequently arise when trying to determine weights for the particular factors, and

it is best to agree early about any constraints that must be applied Typicalconstraints include the stipulation that the chosen process must be at least as safeand efficient as the process it will replace Once weights are assigned to thevarious factors, the roadmapping team must meet with the technology advocatesand the operations personnel to quantify the factors

Since each technology is likely to have advocates and detractors, it isimportant to gather information on each technology from all concerned parties,including operators Even then, it may be impossible to reach a consensus viewwith respect to all the relevant factors For this reason, it is important to decide

in advance how conflicts will be resolved Normally, the roadmapping teamresolves conflicts after gathering information from the technology advocates.After the factors have been quantified, one of several algorithms can be used toevaluate each of the competitive technologies In this way technologies can bedifferentiated with regard to deployment in a particular process step and a basisfor an action decision is established

4 USING THE COMPLETED ROADMAP

To review briefly:

At level zero, the overall system operation was mapped and waste types

were identified Frequently this step is left out if waste types are well known or

if only one waste type is of interest

At level one, each of the waste types was broken down into waste streams.

The size and nature of the waste streams was quantified and the waste streamswere prioritized for minimization or prevention action

Process 1 Process 2

Segregate Inflows

Path A

Path B

Process A1

Process B1 Process B21

Path A Waste Stream

Path B Waste Stream

F IGURE 5 Conceptual technology process map.

At level two, detailed process maps for the waste streams were prepared,

points of intervention were defined, and initiatives for minimization or prevention

at these points were identified Data were prepared for each of the initiatives toform a foundation for decision making

At this point, a number of paths forward are possible The zero level andlevel one maps are useful for many purposes, including education, training, andmonitoring The level two maps are normally used to enhance decision makingand monitoring progress

Part of the decision-making process involves developing an investmentstrategy An investment strategy involves four items:

1 A decision about priorities and which waste streams should be dressed first with respect to minimization or prevention

ad-2 A decision about which initiatives should be pursued first for thehigh-priority waste streams

3 An allocation of resources against the selected initiatives

4 Development of a fallback or contingency position for the initiatives,particularly those that require development and/or deployment of newtechnologies

Finally, a schedule for implementing the initiatives is developed andoverlaid on the process map

The schedule is normally prepared by redrawing the process map torepresent the end state that will result from the implementation of selectedinitiatives The redrawn map element includes an earliest start/latest finish date

in the appropriate process nodes A project control chart is frequently included aspart of the revised process flow chart The project control chart can include many

or few schedule and control parameters such as start date, finish date, cost, andany other desired parameters The redrawn process flow chart shown in Figure 5would then look like Figure 6

Clearly, if there are several initiatives in the same waste stream, theroadmap element can become complicated In that case, it is usually easier toredraw a revised map element for each initiative so that the complete data on eachinitiative in a particular waste stream are located on its own map element Theredrawn map elements can be retained in one location for ease of review

In addition, some roadmap developers include risk as part of the revisedmap element The risk may be technical risk, programmatic risk, cost risk, orfunding risk The risk is usually specified as the risk of not being able to movesuccessfully from one process node to the next The risk is then associated withthe link between nodes and aggregated along all pathways in the revised mapelement In this way, risk to the project can be assessed, the sources of greatestrisk can be identified, and contingency plans can be developed for those areas

Process 1 Process 2

SegregateInflows

Path A

Path B

Process A1

Modified Process B1

Process B2

Path A Waste Stream

Path B WasteStreamEarliest start

Latest finish

Activity B Activity N FIGURE 6 Redrawn process map element for project control.

Estimation of risk is necessarily subjective and cannot be taken too literally.The risk estimates serve simply as a guide to controlling risk.

Planning is a dynamic activity Since pollution prevention operationschange, hopefully in response to good planning, it is necessary to update theroadmaps periodically The usual period for updates is yearly, but this can beadjusted to reflect the actual rate of changes in the system

5 CONCLUSIONS

Roadmaps are useful tools for systematically evaluating the generation of wasteand pollution in virtually any type of operation, large or small For large systemslike Los Alamos National Laboratory, the roadmap can be extensive The LosAlamos ESO roadmap can be found online at http://emso.lanl.gov/publications.Roadmaps provide a mechanism for evaluating the current state in detail,for deciding how to move toward a desired end state, for assessing the effective-ness of alternative options in moving toward the end state, for making investmentdecisions, and for controlling risk More detailed information on the variousaspects of roadmapping, as applied by a variety of institutions and industries, can

be found in the bibliography that follows

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

The following bibliography presents further information on roadmap constructionand use and contains examples of different types of roadmaps The Kostoffcitation contains an exhaustive bibliography

Aerospace Industries Association of America, Detailed Technology map for Superconductivity Washington, DC: AIAA, SuperconductivityCommittee, 1992

Road-D Barker, and Road-D Smith, Technology Foresight Using Roadmaps Long Range Planning, vol 28, no 2, pp 21–29, 1995.

Electronic Industry Environmental Roadmap, available from MCC ration, 3500 West Balcones Center Drive, Austin, TX 78759, 1998

Corpo-M P Espenschied, Graphical Status Monitoring System for Project agers Pretoria, South Africa: National Institute for Aeronautics andSystems Technology, Funder: National Aeronautics and Space Adminis-tration, Washington, DC, Report CSIRNIAST817, 1981

Man-J H Gurtcheff, US Strategic Nuclear Strategy and Forces: A Roadmap forthe Year 2000 Study Project Carlisle Barracks, PA: Army War College,1991

R N Kostoff, Science and Technology Roadmaps, http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/kostoff/Mapweb2I.html

ORNL, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Technology Logic Diagram ume 1, Technology Evaluation: Part A, Decontamination and Decom- missioning Oak Ridge K-25 Site, TN, Report ORNLM2751V1PTA,

Vol-1993

R B Pojasek, P2 Programs, Plans and Projects: Some Thoughts on Making

Them Work Pollution Prevention Review, vol 9, no 2, 1999.

U.S Department of Energy, National TRU Waste Management Plan, DOE/NTP-96-1204, Revision 1, 1997

REFERENCES

1 R N Kostoff, Science and Technology Roadmaps, http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/kostoff/

Mapweb2I.html.

2 R B Pojasek, P2 programs, Plans and Projects: Some Thoughts on Making Them

Work Pollution Prevention Review, vol 9, no 2, 1999.

Pollution Prevention and DFE

Terrence J McManus

Intel Corporation, Chandler, Arizona

1 BASIC PRINCIPLES OF POLLUTION PREVENTION AND

WASTE MINIMIZATION

Beginning in the mid-1970s, environmental management of industrial air sions and wastewater discharges focused on end-of-the-pipe or end-of-the-stacktreatment technologies Both the Clean Air Act of 1970 and the Federal WaterPollution Control Act of 1972 (now called the “Clean Water Act”), as well as theparallel regulatory structures set up at state and local levels, required newtreatment technologies to be developed to manage air emissions and wastewaterdischarges But none of these early statutes and regulations mandated thatcorporations minimize the amount of waste generated or prevent pollution duringmanufacturing

emis-With the passage of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

in 1976, the government for the first time defined “hazardous waste” and began

to focus on waste minimization, rather than just waste treatment Large-quantitygenerators [producing more than 1000 kg (2200 lb) per month of hazardouswaste] were required to ship waste to an approved treatment, storage, and disposalfacility (TSDF), using a formal document known as a waste manifest Becausethe new regulations were very strict, however, many off-site TSDFs had to closedown, resulting in a sharp decrease in the supply of such facilities

To reduce demand for the facilities, beyond the sharp rise in costs for TSDFservices, Section 3000(b) of the RCRA requires that large-quantity generatorswho transport waste off-site must certify on the manifest that they have estab-lished a “program in place” to reduce the volume or quantity and toxicity ofhazardous waste generated—to the extent economically practicable For owners/operators who manage hazardous waste on-site in a permitted TSDF, Section3005(h) similarly requires annual certification that a waste minimization program

be in place and maintained in the facility’s operating records These two ments put the burden of proof on generators or an owner/operators of TSDFs toshow that they are implementing waste minimization strategies

require-Small-quantity generators, who produce between 100 and 1000 kg permonth of hazardous waste, are required to certify on their hazardous wastemanifests that they have also “made a good faith effort to minimize” their wastegenerators (51 FR 35190; October 1, 1986)

Together, the large- and small-quantity generator requirements for wasteminimization affect more than 95% of the hazardous waste generated in theUnited States The primary mechanism for achieving such minimization is toidentify the various hazardous waste streams and determine if it is possible toreduce the volume and/or toxicity of each (1)

The U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also collects data, ally, on the emissions and disposal of a specific list of chemical compounds.Manufacturers who exceed certain thresholds have to inform the EPA as towhether the chemicals were released into the environment (air, water, or land) ortransferred to another facility for management The EPA, in turn, maintains adatabase known as the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), which is one of the bestdata sources to review emissions performance on an industry sector basis Thefirst year for data reporting to EPA’s TRI inventory was 1987 The database tends

annu-to be about two years behind in its reporting, however, as the reports are not dueuntil July, and loading and analyzing the data takes about a year

2 ROLE OF POLLUTION PREVENTION AND DESIGN FOR

THE ENVIRONMENT

As methodologies for waste minimization improved in the 1980s, industrieslooked to more comprehensive approaches, such as pollution prevention (P2)and design for the environment (DFE) In 1990, the U.S Congress passedthe Pollution Prevention Act, which specifically required the evaluation ofnew opportunities and approaches to eliminate the generation of emissionsand waste

Under Section 6602(b) of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, Congressestablished a policy that:

Pollution should be prevented or reduced at the source wherever feasible.Pollution that cannot be prevented should be recycled in an environmentallysafe manner, wherever feasible.

Disposal and/or release into the environment should be employed only as

a last resort and should be conducted in an environmentally safe manner.The EPA established an operating definition for P2 as part of the agency’s

1991 Pollution Prevention Strategy That definition makes clear that prevention

is the first priority within an environmental management hierarchy, whichincludes:

1 Prevention

2 Recycling

3 Treatment

4 Disposal or releaseThe EPA also recognized that any P2 strategy needs to be flexible Any P2option today, in fact, depends on three factors: legal requirements, levels of risk

or toxicity reduction that can be achieved, and cost

As with waste minimization, P2 typically focuses on existing ing processes, by applying the prevention hierarchy to the various waste streams.When new manufacturing processes are developed, some corporations apply newenvironmental management techniques to reduce/eliminate waste generation aspart of their manufacturing process design This approach has been commonlycalled design for the environment (DFE)

manufactur-Different people have defined DFE in different ways For instance, the EPAdefines a DFE program as “a voluntary partnership-based program that worksdirectly with companies to integrate health and environmental consideration inbusiness decisions (2) Intel Corporation has defined it as “a methodology todevelop environmentally compatible products and processes, while maintainingdesirable product price/performance and quality characteristics.”

3 ENVIRONMENTAL FRAMEWORK

How do all these environmental components or programs work together to form

a unified environmental management system (EMS)? Figure 1 presents a tual model of the environmental framework This framework also demonstratesthe evolution of environmental management over time, with waste treatmentbeginning at the center, as the earliest management technique, and current andfuture management approaches extending from there

concep-Indeed, waste treatment is the fundamental environmental managementtechnology applied over many decades The progression to each succeeding

Raw Materials Process Design Product Design

WASTE TREATMENT

WASTE

WASTE MINIMIZATION

POLLUTION PREVENTION DESIGN

FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

FIGURE 1 Environmental management evolution.

environmental management approach highlights the fact that both the number ofchoices and their scope and complexity are continually increasing.

4 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

At the current outer edge of the framework is sustainable development One way

to achieve sustainable development is for many companies and their localcommunities to each adopt DFE strategies In other words, sustainable develop-ment is the integration of many DFE programs, from many different entities, over

a large geographic area or region Such a unified approach is necessary because

a single entity cannot provide all the components necessary to prevent pollutionand recycle all recyclable materials For example, a semiconductor manufacturingfacility can establish programs to collect and recycle aluminum cans, papermaterials, and chemicals However, the company must rely on the aluminumindustry, the paper recycle industry, and the chemical producers also to implementrecycling in order to use the necessary recycle technology and/or effective andefficient economies of scale When a region can develop such an integratedapproach to the environment, the details can be presented in a “green plan.”

In June 1993, President Clinton formed the President’s Council on able Development (PCSD) to develop and recommend a national strategy forimplementing sustainable development This council consisted of leaders fromindustry, government, nonprofit organizations, and Native American groups In

Sustain-1996, the PCSD published the report, Sustainable America, which contained the

following vision statement:

Our vision is of a life sustaining earth We are committed to theachievement of a dignified, peaceful and equitable existence A sustain-able United States will have a growing economy that provides equitableopportunities for satisfying livelihoods and a safe, healthy, high quality

of life for current and future generations Our nation will protect itsenvironment, its natural resource base and the functions and viability ofnatural systems upon which all life depends (3, p IV)

In support of this vision, the Council also recorded 16 beliefs that set thebasis for implementing the strategy The following four beliefs (3, pp v–vi) referspecifically to industrial development:

To achieve our vision of sustainable development, some things mustgrow—jobs, productivity, wages, capital and savings, profits, informa-tion, knowledge, and education—and others—pollution, waste, and pov-erty must not

The United States made great progress in protecting the environment in thelast 25 years and must continue to make progress in the next 25 years

We can achieve that goal because market incentives and the power of theconsumers can lead to significant improvements in environmental per-formance at less cost.

Environmental progress will depend on individual, institutional, and rate responsibility, commitment and stewardship

corpo-Steady advances in science and technology are essential to help improveeconomic efficiency, protect and restore natural systems, and modifyconsumption patterns

In May 1999, the PCSD published a second progress report, entitled

Towards a Sustainable America As part of this effort, the council focused

specifically on the following issues (4, p 3)

1 Policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

2 The next steps in building the new environmental management systemfor the twenty-first century

3 Policies and approaches to build partnerships to strengthen ties

communi-4 Policies to foster U.S leadership in international sustainable ment policy, particularly in international capital flow

develop-In the area of environmental management, it was very clear to the PCSDthat most recent environmental reforms have not really focused on the objective

of promoting sustainable development This is partly because current definitions

of environmental pollution, management, and protection are too narrowly scoped,with significant emphasis on point source emissions Therefore, the solutions tend

to be focused on single pollutants within a single media from a single source.Very little effort has been focused on aggregating and understanding environmen-tal risks and impacts across a broader ecosystem basis A similar conclusion wasreached by the EPA Science Advisory Board’s (SAB) Integrated Risk Project Inessence, the SAB believes that environmental management efforts to date havetypically worked on targeted pollutants from single sources, and resulted inimprovements in environmental performance over very localized areas Specific-ally, SAB stated that the effort must be more holistic:

Concern for the environment has become an important part of theAmerican value system We care about the environment as it relates tohuman health, the viability of ecosystems, and our children’s future Wecare about the quality of life, today and in the future, and in theinterconnected environmental conditions that play such an importantrole in determining life’s quality (5)

Ultimately, the vision and environmental goals must be to protect theoverall health of all people and the long-term viability of whole ecosystems That

means that risk reduction must be designed to control more than one pollutant at

a time, to protect more than one human or ecological receptor, and thus to realizebroader benefits of environmental improvement, at a lower cost

The model for such integrated environmental decision making is presented

in Figure 2 The three major components for the decision-making framework areProblem formulation

Analysis and decisionmakingImplementation and performance evaluationEach of these steps requires constant feedback of information to both improveand optimize the specific measures implemented, yet some of the advantages ofusing an integrated decision-making model include:

An increase in the probability of focusing on the highest risks/most tant issues

impor-A methodology that includes both human health and ecological risks

PROBLEM FORMULATION Risk Comparison Goal Setting Preliminary Options Analysis Deliberations

ANALYSIS & DECISION-MAKING Risk Assessment Screening/Selection Options Analysis Deliberation Performance Measures

IMPLEMENTATION and PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Implementation Monitoring Reporting and Evaluation

Report Card

Meeting Objectives?

Source: Integrated Environmental Decision-making

in the 21st Century - EPA/SAB

F IGURE 2 Integrated environmental decision-making framework.