Re[2]: The real definition -Reply -Reply -Reply

[lbrown@ensafe.com]

Sorry to be defensive, but in the before situation at this site the
emplyee/management awareness regarding chemical use seemed to be
high.  The company was a small quantity generator and had no immediate
regulatory pressure to change (this was nine years ago).   They were
being pro-active and the major root cause of waste seemed to be military
specs on their original product.  I learned a valuable lesson on the
importance of training.  BTW as an EPA employee at the time I was
amazed that a small company would invite me in to their plant to help
them set up an evaluation of potential solvent substitutes.  

Now I feel better,
Lisa 

>>> "butner@battelle.org" 05/02/97 07:18pm >>>
In a rare fit of ideological purity, I would argue that Lisa's example is an 
illustration of failing to address the root causes of the waste (lack of 
employee/management awareness regarding chemical use, regardless
of toxicity), and focusing instead on the almost-trivial symptoms (ie.,
solvent substitution).

As such, it merely underscores the importance of tackling organizational
culture in P2.  As a chemical engineer, it pains me to say this, but
sometimes technology just ain't enough.

OK.  I feel better now.

Scott Butner
rs_butner@pnl.gov

Maybe Mike should have said more conscientious users of materials.  I  
understand what he is saying.   A shop I worked with replaced TCA with
d-limonene in a cleaning operation.  When using TCA the TCA was well
controlled, after switching to d-limonene for that one operation shop
personnel started using the d-limonene for every cleaning situation.  
The fragrance was overpowering  when I revisited the shop.  I'm not       
saying that overall situation is not better, just that their chemical      
handling became more relaxed.