TABLE 1 Waste Minimization Initiatives Initiative or project Action/milestone Status Funding source Waste avoided 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 Tele- phone directories is restricted; 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 de- livery in future years. Ongoing Base program Source reduction, 22 MT/year Include additional items in paper recycle system . Include other paper products (mail items) in the program. This option is being evaluated. Not funded Increased recycle 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. Ongoing Base program Increased recycle Copyright 2002 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved. particular process, and safety of the processes. A matrix similar to the one shown previously can be constructed and weights assigned to each of the factors. Issues frequently arise when trying to determine weights for the particular factors, and it is best to agree early about any constraints that must be applied. Typical constraints include the stipulation that the chosen process must be at least as safe and efficient as the process it will replace. Once weights are assigned to the various factors, the roadmapping team must meet with the technology advocates and the operations personnel to quantify the factors. Since each technology is likely to have advocates and detractors, it is important to gather information on each technology from all concerned parties, including operators. Even then, it may be impossible to reach a consensus view with respect to all the relevant factors. For this reason, it is important to decide in advance how conflicts will be resolved. Normally, the roadmapping team resolves conflicts after gathering information from the technology advocates. After the factors have been quantified, one of several algorithms can be used to evaluate each of the competitive technologies. In this way technologies can be differentiated with regard to deployment in a particular process step and a basis for 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 streams were prioritized for minimization or prevention action. Process 1 Process 2 Segregate Inflows Path A Path B Process A1 Process B1 Process B2 1 Path A Waste Stream Path B Waste Stream FIGURE 5 Conceptual technology process map. Copyright 2002 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 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 to form a foundation for decision making. At this point, a number of paths forward are possible. The zero level and level one maps are useful for many purposes, including education, training, and monitoring. The level two maps are normally used to enhance decision making and monitoring progress. Part of the decision-making process involves developing an investment strategy. An investment strategy involves four items: 1. A decision about priorities and which waste streams should be ad- dressed first with respect to minimization or prevention 2. A decision about which initiatives should be pursued first for the high-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 new technologies Finally, a schedule for implementing the initiatives is developed and overlaid on the process map. The schedule is normally prepared by redrawing the process map to represent the end state that will result from the implementation of selected initiatives. The redrawn map element includes an earliest start/latest finish date in the appropriate process nodes. A project control chart is frequently included as part 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, and any other desired parameters. The redrawn process flow chart shown in Figure 5 would then look like Figure 6. Clearly, if there are several initiatives in the same waste stream, the roadmap element can become complicated. In that case, it is usually easier to redraw a revised map element for each initiative so that the complete data on each initiative in a particular waste stream are located on its own map element. The redrawn map elements can be retained in one location for ease of review. In addition, some roadmap developers include risk as part of the revised map element. The risk may be technical risk, programmatic risk, cost risk, or funding risk. The risk is usually specified as the risk of not being able to move successfully from one process node to the next. The risk is then associated with the link between nodes and aggregated along all pathways in the revised map element. In this way, risk to the project can be assessed, the sources of greatest risk can be identified, and contingency plans can be developed for those areas. Copyright 2002 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Process 1 Process 2 Segregate Inflows Path A Path B Process A1 Modified Process B1 Process B2 Path A Waste Stream Path B Waste Stream Earliest start Latest finish Activity A Start Finish Man-hours Cost ETC… Activity B . . . Activity N FIGURE 6 Redrawn process map element for project control. Copyright 2002 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 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 operations change, hopefully in response to good planning, it is necessary to update the roadmaps periodically. The usual period for updates is yearly, but this can be adjusted to reflect the actual rate of changes in the system. 5 CONCLUSIONS Roadmaps are useful tools for systematically evaluating the generation of waste and pollution in virtually any type of operation, large or small. For large systems like Los Alamos National Laboratory, the roadmap can be extensive. The Los Alamos 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 investment decisions, and for controlling risk. More detailed information on the various aspects 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 construction and use and contains examples of different types of roadmaps. The Kostoff citation contains an exhaustive bibliography. Aerospace Industries Association of America, Detailed Technology Road- map for Superconductivity. Washington, DC: AIAA, Superconductivity Committee, 1992. D. Barker, and D. Smith, Technology Foresight Using Roadmaps. Long Range Planning, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 21–29, 1995. Electronic Industry Environmental Roadmap, available from MCC Corpo- ration, 3500 West Balcones Center Drive, Austin, TX 78759, 1998. M. P. Espenschied, Graphical Status Monitoring System for Project Man- agers. Pretoria, South Africa: National Institute for Aeronautics and Systems Technology, Funder: National Aeronautics and Space Adminis- tration, Washington, DC, Report CSIRNIAST817, 1981. J. H. Gurtcheff, US Strategic Nuclear Strategy and Forces: A Roadmap for the 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. Copyright 2002 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved. ORNL, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Technology Logic Diagram. Vol- ume 1, Technology Evaluation: Part A, Decontamination and Decom- missioning. Oak Ridge K-25 Site, TN, Report ORNLM2751V1PTA, 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. Copyright 2002 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 14 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 emis- sions and wastewater discharges focused on end-of-the-pipe or end-of-the-stack treatment technologies. Both the Clean Air Act of 1970 and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (now called the “Clean Water Act”), as well as the parallel regulatory structures set up at state and local levels, required new treatment technologies to be developed to manage air emissions and wastewater discharges. But none of these early statutes and regulations mandated that corporations minimize the amount of waste generated or prevent pollution during manufacturing. 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-quantity generators [producing more than 1000 kg (2200 lb) per month of hazardous waste] were required to ship waste to an approved treatment, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF), using a formal document known as a waste manifest. Because the new regulations were very strict, however, many off-site TSDFs had to close down, resulting in a sharp decrease in the supply of such facilities. Copyright 2002 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved. To reduce demand for the facilities, beyond the sharp rise in costs for TSDF services, Section 3000(b) of the RCRA requires that large-quantity generators who 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 of hazardous waste generated—to the extent economically practicable. For owners/ operators who manage hazardous waste on-site in a permitted TSDF, Section 3005(h) similarly requires annual certification that a waste minimization program be in place and maintained in the facility’s operating records. These two require- ments put the burden of proof on generators or an owner/operators of TSDFs to show that they are implementing waste minimization strategies. Small-quantity generators, who produce between 100 and 1000 kg per month of hazardous waste, are required to certify on their hazardous waste manifests that they have also “made a good faith effort to minimize” their waste generators (51 FR 35190; October 1, 1986). Together, the large- and small-quantity generator requirements for waste minimization affect more than 95% of the hazardous waste generated in the United States. The primary mechanism for achieving such minimization is to identify the various hazardous waste streams and determine if it is possible to reduce the volume and/or toxicity of each (1). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also collects data, annu- ally, on the emissions and disposal of a specific list of chemical compounds. Manufacturers who exceed certain thresholds have to inform the EPA as to whether the chemicals were released into the environment (air, water, or land) or transferred to another facility for management. The EPA, in turn, maintains a database known as the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), which is one of the best data sources to review emissions performance on an industry sector basis. The first year for data reporting to EPA’s TRI inventory was 1987. The database tends to be about two years behind in its reporting, however, as the reports are not due until 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, industries looked to more comprehensive approaches, such as pollution prevention (P2) and design for the environment (DFE). In 1990, the U.S. Congress passed the Pollution Prevention Act, which specifically required the evaluation of new opportunities and approaches to eliminate the generation of emissions and waste. Under Section 6602(b) of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, Congress established a policy that: Copyright 2002 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Pollution should be prevented or reduced at the source wherever feasible. Pollution that cannot be prevented should be recycled in an environmentally safe 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, which includes: 1. Prevention 2. Recycling 3. Treatment 4. Disposal or release The EPA also recognized that any P2 strategy needs to be flexible. Any P2 option 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 manufactur- ing processes, by applying the prevention hierarchy to the various waste streams. When new manufacturing processes are developed, some corporations apply new environmental management techniques to reduce/eliminate waste generation as part of their manufacturing process design. This approach has been commonly called design for the environment (DFE). Different people have defined DFE in different ways. For instance, the EPA defines a DFE program as “a voluntary partnership-based program that works directly with companies to integrate health and environmental consideration in business decisions (2). Intel Corporation has defined it as “a methodology to develop environmentally compatible products and processes, while maintaining desirable 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 concep- tual model of the environmental framework. This framework also demonstrates the evolution of environmental management over time, with waste treatment beginning at the center, as the earliest management technique, and current and future management approaches extending from there. Indeed, waste treatment is the fundamental environmental management technology applied over many decades. The progression to each succeeding Copyright 2002 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Raw Materials Process Design Product Design WASTE TREATMENT WASTE WASTE MINIMIZATION POLLUTION PREVENTION DESIGN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT FIGURE 1 Environmental management evolution. Copyright 2002 by Marcel Dekker, Inc. All Rights Reserved. [...]... Quantities of waste solvent reduced or eliminated Reduction in toxicity Environmental impacts of the remaining materials /waste Health and safety advantages and disadvantages for implementing the proposed option 5 Select the best option for each solvent waste stream and implement 6 Track performance of the implemented option and compare the data with original projections 7 Reassess the option implemented and. .. hundreds of primary and secondary wastewater treatment facilities have been built; land disposal of untreated hazardous waste has largely stopped, hundreds of hazardous waste sites have been identified and targeted for cleanup, and the use of many toxic substances has been banned Together, these actions have had a positive effect on the nation’s environmental quality and have set an example for nations every-... improvements in environmental performance and natural resource protection The broad categories that industries focus on and try to manage are Solid and hazardous waste generation Chemical use Air emissions Water use Wastewater discharge quantity and quality Electrical use Each category includes specific manufacturing operations that use natural resources or produce emissions and that therefore need the corporation’s... for waste solvent generation illustrates this approach for an individual manufacturing facility The basic methodology for implementing either pollution prevention or design for the environment includes: Copyright 2002 by Marcel Dekker, Inc All Rights Reserved 1 Identify which areas/manufacturing operations generate emissions and/ or consume natural resources (waste solvent generation is selected for. .. government, states, and industry in controlling waste emissions which have resulted in a healthier environment, the further improvement of the environment has slowed This led to the realization that a new paradigm was needed for environmental protection Starting in the mid-1980s, pollution prevention was seen by visionaries as the way to go beyond such command and control approaches Pollution prevention... decommissioning and disposal The equipment manufacturer should consider resource conservation, including: Water reuse/recycling Reduce consumption of chemicals, energy, and water Reduce resource requirements for equipment maintenance and reduction in packaging requirements The use of chemicals for processing, maintenance, and utilities must consider chemical use effectiveness, environmental impacts, toxicity, waste. .. the volumes and heavy metal concentrations of wastewater generated during metal plating One of the concerns for this industry is that the heavy metals contained in the wastewater frequently discharge to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) and accumulate in the municipal treatment plant’s sludge or pass through the facility and discharge with the treated effluent Therefore, significant effort has been... and water (from 1992 levels) (b) 50% reduction in land disposal of hazardous sludges and a reduction in sludge generation (from 1992 levels) (c) Reduction in human exposure to toxic materials in the facility and the surrounding community, clearly demonstrated by actions selected and taken by the facility Such actions may include, for example, pollution prevention, use of state-of-the-art emission controls... also recorded 16 beliefs that set the basis for implementing the strategy The following four beliefs (3, pp v–vi) refer specifically to industrial development: To achieve our vision of sustainable development, some things must grow—jobs, productivity, wages, capital and savings, profits, information, knowledge, and education and others pollution, waste, and poverty must not The United States made great... prevent pollution and recycle all recyclable materials For example, a semiconductor manufacturing facility can establish programs to collect and recycle aluminum cans, paper materials, and chemicals However, the company must rely on the aluminum industry, the paper recycle industry, and the chemical producers also to implement recycling in order to use the necessary recycle technology and/ or effective and . metals from this industry sector. SOURCE: EPA TRI Database ( 198 7 -97 ); Dataquest (June 199 9) 198 7 198 8 198 9 199 0 199 1 199 2 199 3 199 4 199 5 199 6 199 7 0 1 2 3 4 FIGURE 5 HAPs release by U.S. semiconductor. Semiconductor Industry ( 198 7– 199 7) Year HAPs emissions (million pounds) 198 7 3.85 198 8 4.76 198 9 4.30 199 0 3.43 199 1 2.82 199 2 2.21 199 3 1. 39 199 4 1.12 199 5 0.88 199 6 0.77 199 7 0.55 Source: EPA Toxins. Table 2 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90 % 100% Q 198 Q 298 Q 398 Q 498 Q 199 Q 299 Q 399 Q 499 Q100 Q200 Q300 Q400 0.35um 0.25um 0.18 um Source: Intel TWO YEARS Forecast Data CPU Units Shipped (%) FIGURE