Re[2]: (All) Waste Prevention Technology

[RMichalo@conorpac.com (Robert Michalowicz)]

     The discussion about the prevention of waste prompts me to ask several 
     questions:
     
     1.    Does anyone have a good definition of waste?
     
     My best definition of waste (so far) has been: "Any materials or forms 
     of energy received which do not become a part of a desirable product 
     or byproduct must, by default, be waste."  With this definition, I 
     can't think of any technology which completely prevents waste.  There 
     are of course many which are significant improvements over existing 
     practices.  One might describe these as quantum leaps versus 
     incremental improvements.
     
     2.   Someone said zero discharge/zero waste would challenge the laws 
     of thermodynamics.  Does anyone know of any work done on the 
     thermodynamics of waste generation?  The second law of thermodynamics 
     states that all finite processes result in a universe which is more 
     disordered.  I interpret this to mean that all processes have some 
     thermodynamic inefficiency.  Is this another possible definition of 
     waste?, i.e. waste is the thermodynamic inefficiency of a process.  
     
     This may sound theoretical, but if we estimated the thermodynamic 
     inefficiencies of processes, we could know which are the most truly 
     inefficient ones and which have the potential for the greatest improvement. 
     Therefore we could target research in P2 technologies to address the most 
     inefficient processes and generate ideas as to how to reduce waste.
     
     3.  Someone also mentioned risk.  Does anyone know of any risk assessment 
     work used to prioritize P2 technology, technology development, government 
     programs or regulatory initiatives?
     
     Thanks,
     
     Robert Michalowicz
     Conor Pacific Environmental
     Toronto, Canada
     rmichalo@conorpac.com

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: (All) Waste Prevention Technology
Author:  mail@ih (Michael Keefe) {keefem@psinet.com} at MHS
Date:    1/9/98 9:57 PM


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
>>