RE: The real definition -Reply

[David Williams <WILLIAD7@py.AHP.COM>]

In response to Janet's comments and at risk that I may have missed
something in the conversation thread:

I have not read the referenced article, but it would appear that there is a
"classic" difference of opinion regarding definitions of pollution
prevention, etc.  Having been responsible for managing a major
corporation's P2 program for five years and trying desperately to gain
support for the program, I am of the opinion that definitions are probably
the least important aspect of the P2 equation.  What is important is getting
individuals to think about P2 opportunities as part of their jobs and to 
collectively make progress toward reducing all forms of pollution from
manufacturing and R&D activities.

A simple definition of P2, as proposed by Bob Pojasek, is something that I
use in training and awareness sessions.  It is brief and to the point.  The
other concepts of P2 can be reinforced through examples when using a
simple definition.  For example, worker exposures, when viewed in the
context that emissions are a form of waste, would be addressed by the
statement that P2 is "eliminating all wastes from all business practices".

A simplistic definition may need extrapolation to illustrate a point or
address a particular situation, but it may be more effective than an overly
complex definition that attempts to address all issues, permutations, etc.
and is so incredibly complex or verbose that one needs to have it written
on a laminated card in order to remember and use it.

In many respects, P2 has been a failure because those charged with
promoting it have not been able to effectively demonstrate that it is just
plain old good business and should not be viewed any differently than
any other business function, such as paying taxes or performing QA/QC
on raw materials.  Integrating P2 into business functions and not having it
administered and championed as a separate, stand-alone program and
process is probably the only way that the full benefits of this powerful
idea will be realized.

There are countless opportunities for integrating P2, as well as other
EH&S issues, into business functions.  The key to success is identifying
and seizing those opportunities.

David Williams - Project Manager
American Home Products Corporation
1 Campus Drive
Parsippany, NJ  07054
(201) 683-2269
Williad7@ahp.com 

>>> Janet Clark <clarkjan@turi.org> 05/02/97 01:29pm >>>
Hi guys,

Joel Hirschhorn's article "Why the P2 Revolution Failed..." in the winter
1977 issue of P2 Review offers a summary of the semantic confusion
and
"subversion" issue on page 14. He attributes the most P2 integrity to
"source reduction" and "toxics use reduction"  (which I have understood
to
be synonymous), less P2 integrity to "waste reduction", "waste
minimuzation", "waste prevention", "clean technology", "clean
production",
and "cleaner production".  The highest potential for subversion of P2
concepts is found in discussions using the terms "environmentally
conscious
manufacturing", "environment by design", life-cycle analysis",
"eco-labeling", "green products", "industrial ecology", "industrial
metabolism", "eco-audits", "environmental audits", "environmental
accounting","sustainable growth","sustainable design",and "total quality
environmental management." 

Bob's proposed definition, below, doesn't deal with input materials
transport, worker exposure, and final products containing toxic materials
that become waste eventually -- always.

Pollution Prevention is a powerful ideal. Keep the faith.


At 04:40 AM 4/30/97 -0700, rpojasek@sprynet.com wrote:
>The people who specialize in Just-In-Time define their field as "The
elimination 
>of ALL wastes from ALL business practices."  This is real simple to
understand 
>and does not kill trees!  Perhaps we could use it in pollution prevention. 
By 
>the way, a great book on JIT is "Just-In_Time Manufacturing in
Perspective" by 
>Alan Harrison. Prentice Hall (paperback) 1992.  ISBN 0-13-514175-3. 
The
chapter 
>on the Five S's is terrific.
>
>Bob Pojasek
>Cambridge Environmental Inc.
>58 Charles St.
>Cambridge, MA 02141
>(617) 225-0812
>(617) 225-0813 (Fax)
>rpojasek@sprynet.com
>
>

Janet Clark
Technology Transfer Manager
MA Toxics Use Reduction Institute
University of Massachusetts
One University Ave.
Lowell, MA  01854-2866
Tel 508-934-3346
Fax 508-934-3050
email clarkjan@turi.org


*****************************************
TURI has a new web site at www.turi.org or //turi.uml.edu  Projects,
P2Gems,
Surface Cleaning Lab, publications list all featured.