Re: (All) Waste Prevention Technology

["Michael Keefe" <keefem@psinet.com>]

I'll throw in another couple of cents regarding this dialogue, consistent
with the M. Callahan's recent response...  I don't know that narrow focus on
"waste prevention technology" as defined in this dialogue really gets you
anywhere since it seemingly rests on an assumption that there is such a
thing as a zero-discharge/zero waste process, which I've never seen and I
believe would challenge some fundamental laws of thermodynamics.  Our goal,
in practice, is risk reduction.  Sure, there may be some wastes associated
with P2 techniques/technologies, such as powder coating, but, the waste
volume or toxicity is lower and more often than not substantiated by total
cost savings.  I hate to sound like an "incrementalist" but that's where the
"rubber meets the road".

Michael Keefe
Tetra Tech EM Inc.
keefem@psinet.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Callahan, Mike <Mike.Callahan@jacobs.com>
To: 'p2tech@great-lakes.net' <p2tech@great-lakes.net>
Date: Friday, January 09, 1998 8:29 PM
Subject: RE: (All) Waste Prevention Technology


>I'll throw in my two cents,
>
>No technology "prevents" waste unless you limit your discussion to a
>specific waste you are trying to prevent.  Powder coatings eliminate
>solvent fumes and liquid wastes but they create dust and solid waste.
>Solvent coatings can be air dried while powder coatings must be heated
>to effect cure.  Powder coatings also require a much cleaner surface so
>that cleaning wastes may be greater.
>
>Every change has its trade-offs of benefits and disadvantages.  If we
>could sum them all up and establish one numeric rating of "pollution",
>then we could determine if a given technology actually prevented
>pollution compared to another for a given unit of production.
>
>Since there is no easy indicator, industry relys on the costs society
>places on each raw material and waste stream.  In Europe at the turn of
>the century, raw materials were scarce and labor was cheap.  That's why
>so many inventions focused on ways to save material.  In the US, the
>opposite was true.  Most inventions were labor saving devices because
>labor was scarce.
>
>Given a certain set of raw material, labor, energy, and disposal costs,
>an engineer will seek out the optimum mix (i.e., the lowest cost per
>unit of production).  Many of the P2 successes we are now finding are
>not so much due to any new technology but are a response to changing
>constraints and costs.  As waste treatment and disposal costs increase,
>the optimum setting may allow for more usage of labor and/or energy to
>offset these increased costs.
>
>Just a few thoughts,
>
>Mike.callahan@jacobs.com
>> ----------
>> From: rpojasek@sprynet.com[SMTP:rpojasek@sprynet.com]
>> Sent: Friday, January 09, 1998 4:37PM
>> To: p2tech@great-lakes.net
>> Subject: Re: (All) Waste Prevention Technology
>>
>> Many companies switched to powder paints to get away from the VOC and
>> Title V
>> regs only to have large quantities of waste powder paiint to dispose
>> of.  P2TECH
>> archives tell the story of the frustrating time these firms have had
>> disposing
>> of these wastes.  I am not familiar with UV coatings.  How many firms
>> have been
>> sold a solution to their air problem,only to be given a
>> solid/hazardous waste
>> problem?    Are UV coatings free of worker health and safety problems?
>> Have
>> these coatings taken over a large share of the market because they are
>> "waste
>> free?"  Have they been developed by people in the industry as
>> improvements to
>> the line or are they developed by people seeking to change the
>> marketplace?  I
>> do not know if this is a good example.  Does anyone else know more
>> about these
>> to help me believe that they are indeed waste PREVENTERS?
>>
>> Bob Pojasek
>> rpojasek@sprynet.com
>>