[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Source Reduction in the Paint/Adhesive Industry:Wastewater
- Subject: Source Reduction in the Paint/Adhesive Industry:Wastewater
- From: "Richard Illig (717) 327-3568" <ILLIG.RICHARD@a1.pader.gov>
- Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 07:43:01 -0400 (EDT)
- List-Name: P2Tech
- Posting-Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 09:58:00 -0400 (EDT)
- Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sensitivity: Company-Confidential
- Ua-Content-Id: D168ZXESE92PI
I do not wish to mention specific companies/contacts however there
are several areas inwhich wastewater reduction or potable water
demand reduction may be achieved.
One company reduced water demand (partially close-looping a
system) by using wastewater treatment effluent in air scrubbers.
Scrubbers can use quite a bit of water over a year's time.
Another facility achieved a sizable reduction in waste water
generation by using scrubber waste water as a water feed back into
the same process (again replacing the need for potable water and
saving on some raw material captured by the scrubber).
Cleaning reaction vessels (in adhesive production)(I would think
there is a parallel to the paint industry) can be a major source
of wastewater (or spent solvent or spent corrosive) generation.
The use of "standard operating procedures" not only insures a
quality product, but may also insure that a minimum of waste is
generated in the cleaning process. Comparing waste generation
between operators or crews performing the same task, or between
work shifts, or between supervisors, may often reveal
significantly different levels of waste generation while
maintaining the same level of production.
Cleaning the general work area may be another source of wastewater
generation. Are water hoses used rather than a mop and bucket or
squeegee? Are the hoses left leaking or do fixtures leak? Again,
operators left to their own methods will perform differently and
not generally worry about minimizing waste. Facility maintenance
practices may either add to the problem or make matters worse.
Possibly the facility (mentioned in the original message) already
implements a sound p2 program and simply does not realize just how
efficiently they may already operate. Have they ever compared the
ratio of "unit of waste to unit of production" or determined the
"cost of unit waste per unit production" and compared to other
similar facilities (or a sister facility if possible)?
Occasionally a seasoned work force performs very conscientiously.
If the facility manager doesn't look for or believe there may be
opportunities to improve (I'll see it when I believe it" attitude)
reality may hit pretty hard one day soon ("I'll believe it when I
see it" attitude, which may be too late).
Energy efficiency may be another avenue inwhich a p2 point may be
initially made. If the facility has room for E2 improvements in
lighting, motors (reportedly accounts for over one half of
electricity used in the USA), or HVAC, improved payback times on
E2 projects may catch the interest of management. Their buy-in
for any project will most likely be focused on $$$$$$ and not