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

Re: Re[2]: (All) Waste Prevention Technology

At 12:11 on Jan. 12, Robert Michalowicz wrote:
>>     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."   ... <snip> ...

And at 10:07 on Jan. 16, Steve J. Hillenbrand wrote:
>IF IT'S NOT A PRODUCT IT'S A WASTE !!!   I define a product as raw
>material (any media including labor and energy) that you are not getting
>more than you paid for it.  Under this definition, recycled material
>usually is a waste.    ... <snip> ...

 I agree wholeheartedly with both definitions even though they would
probably be unenforcable in law. I live in a country where waste has always
been very poorly regulated. A couple of major waste generators here for many
years put out the fiction that they were "zero waste" on the reasoning that
their solid waste, which they put onto an onsite dump, was "a resource
awaiting a use". They also chose not to regard material emitted to the
atmosphere or exported in waste water effluents as waste.

Graham Noble
Noble Environmental c.c.            gnoble@global.co.za
261 Brook Street, Brooklyn 0181, Pretoria, South Africa
Tel: +27 12 362-2607/362-0102      Fax: +27 12 362-2607
>>     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
>>"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
>>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
>>"rubber meets the road".
>>Michael Keefe
>>Tetra Tech EM Inc.
>>-----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,
>>>> ----------
>>>> 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