[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Proactive Hazardous Material Management



At 07:47 AM 7/18/97 -0700, you wrote:
>     Does anybody know of examples of companies who have adopted proactive 
>     hazardous material management programs.  By proactive, I mean programs 
>     that place more emphasis on avoiding the use of hazardous materials, 
>     where appropriate, than on merely controlling the hazards associated 
>     with use of such materials; programs that encourage source reduction 
>     and product substitution during every stage of the requisitioning 
>     process (e.g., during product  specification, procurement, 
>     review/approval).  What works and what doesn't work?  I'd appreciate 
>     any input.
>     
>     Ron Del Mar
>     Fluor Daniel Northwest
>     P.O. Box 1050
>     Richland, WA 99252
>     (509) 376-1967
>     (509) 373-9519 (fx)
>     ronald_a_del_mar@rl.gov 
>
I have worked with several companies, beginning in 1986, that have reduced
their use of hazardous chemicals for a variety of reasons, including cost
avoidance, avoiding regulatory interactions (CESQGs are rarely inspected),
eliminating other requirements (e.g., air or water permits), and just good
old concern for efficient use of resources as a way of protecting their host
planet.

1.  Printer went from using metals containing inks to organic inks.  Clean
up with water, with discharge of biodegradable inks and paper residues to
sewer.  Avoided $1,000,000 investment in waste treatment plant, regulation
as a waste generator and wastewater treater, etc.  Cost of change:  Less
than $10,000 with a quality improvement, as well as improved customer
relations.  Time frame:  1986-1987.

2.  Aluminmu can manufacturer eliminated solvent used to clean jets used in
printing on the cans (the cans are really "printed" rather than "painted").
Motivation was avoidance of large non-haz waste stream becoming haz waste
with TCLP advent (from $200/wk to $4000/wk expected cost increase).  Bought
additional parts, sonic sink, citrus based cleaners, etc.  Eliminated
chlorinated, then flammable solvent from plant, reducing haz waste
generation from over 1000 kg/mo to less than 100 kg/mo (almost none, in
fact).  Reduced insurance premium for fire hazard.  Increased productivity
more than 15 percent since change shortened color change time.  Total cost:
About $15,000.  Payback period:  Less than six weeks.

3.  Manufacturing plating shop eliminated rinse water to treat and dispose.
Installed counterflow rinse system (3 tanks each rinse).  Replaced tap and
DI water with RO water (eliminating some chemical usage).  Rinse now is make
up into plating tanks.  Plating tanks made up with RO water and with only RO
water drag in last 5-6 times as long as before.  Eliminated major waste
stream (rinse water to be treated) and sludge from rinse water;
significantly reduced (to about 20% of previous generation rate) waste
stream consisting of spent plating solutions.  Capital costs:  about
$150,000.  Payback period, less than four months.  Improved quality
significantly, improved productivity a small, but measurable, amount.

I could give you about ten more examples, but I have to take my son to his
baseball game.

Ralph

Ralph E. Cooper, Ph.D.
3475 Norwood, Suite N
Shaker Heights, OH 44122-4975
e-mail:	rec3@po.cwru.edu
Voice:	216-991-6837 (w/voice mail)
Fax:	216-991-6849