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

RE: Questioning the P2 Hierarchy



P2 hierarchy:
Source Reduction
Recycling
Treatment
Disposal
How about Energy recovery, Oh, lets not forget the DOE most recent
addition of SEGREGATION!
complete isn't it?

Oscar Valero
Waste Management Hanford



> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Ralph Cooper [SMTP:rec3@po.cwru.edu]
> Sent:	Thursday, October 22, 1998 6:57 AM
> To:	Callahan, Mike; 'Kevin Dick'
> Cc:	'P2Tech'
> Subject:	Re: Questioning the P2 Hierarchy
> 
> I began working on P2 in 1985, shortly after helping write HSWA as a
> representative of my employer and trade association.
> 
> There really is no P2 'hierarchy' except in the minds of some who
> haven't
> really thought through the issue.
> 
> The goal of the entire activity is to reduce the costs (to society,
> the
> world, the locality and the business entity) of the needs met by the
> products produced by the business entity.
> 
> Sometimes a greater cost reduction, in all terms (including
> environmental
> effect) can be achieved by what is called treatment.  An example that
> occasionally works that way is fuel substitution -- burning for fuel a
> waste
> and thereby NOT burning coal or oil.
> 
> Sometimes it is achieved by efficient use of the material in the first
> place, so that there is little or no waste.
> 
> Sometimes it is achieved by changing the product (note the lack of
> chrome
> bumpers on automobiles -- that was an effective, if unintended,
> pollution
> prevention).
> 
> Sometimes it could be achieved (but rarely is) by changing the
> perceived
> needs of the clients or customers of the manufacturer.
> 
> A corollary problem is that we need to consider the reduction in the
> risk of
> spills and other accidental releases, the lifecycle effects of the
> product
> and associated costs, and so forth, when we determine the optimal
> pollution
> prevention in a particular circumstance.
> 
> By doing a complete analysis, sometimes we find that the best outcome
> is
> treatment, but not often.
> 
> The point is, there is no overall best solution.  Each specific
> situation
> requires a broad analysis that is open to a variety of solutions and
> which
> favors none but the one that results in the best outcomes for all of
> the
> interests involved -- the environment, the client/customer, the
> manufacturer
> or producer, the employees, and the locality/society, etc.
> 
> Ralph
> Ralph E. Cooper, Ph.D.
> J.D., Class of 1999
> Case Western University School of Law
> Cleveland, Ohio
> 216-991-6837
> 
> Reply to rec3@po.cwru.edu
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Callahan, Mike <Mike.Callahan@jacobs.com>
> To: 'Kevin Dick' <dick@unr.edu>
> Cc: 'P2Tech' <p2tech@great-lakes.net>
> Date: Wednesday, October 21, 1998 9:24 PM
> Subject: RE: Questioning the P2 Hierarchy
> 
> 
> >In the early days (@1984-86), there was much discussion over
> definitions
> and
> >hierarchy as it related to waste minimization.  Waste minimization
> split
> >into source reduction (product changes and source control) and
> recycling
> >(reuse and reclamation).  Source reduction was ranked higher over
> recycling
> >in terms of environmental desirability.
> >
> >In simple terms, it's reduce, reuse, recycle.  For the non-purist,
> you can
> >add treat to the end of this list.  As you move down the chain, your
> energy
> >and environmental impacts go.   The recycling of a waste material
> takes
> more
> >energy than if you can reuse it as is, and the reuse of a waste
> material
> >takes more energy than if you reduce the initial generation of waste.
> >
> >What amazes me is that someone thinks this is worth a masters degree.
> I
> >believe all these relationships were discussed in the USEPA Report to
> >Congress (EPA/530-SW-86-033) back in 1986.  A little digging through
> the
> >popular literature around 1988-92 would uncover many pertinent
> articles.
> >
> >The law of entropy is not the issue.  The needed study is why do
> people
> tend
> >to think in the reverse order ?  Recycling may use more energy than
> source
> >reduction but it tends to take less brain power and dedication.  Its
> easy
> to
> >throw something in a still and push a button, but to eliminate the
> use of
> >some material takes creative effort.  This is not an engineering
> problem,
> >it's a social problem.
> >
> >Just my two cents,
> >
> >Mike.callahan@jacobs.com
> >
> >> ----------
> >> From: Kevin Dick[SMTP:dick@unr.edu]
> >> Reply To: Kevin Dick
> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 1998 9:47 AM
> >> To: p2tech@great-lakes.net
> >> Cc: tw1712@erols.com
> >> Subject: Re: Questioning the P2 Hierarchy
> >>
> >> What P2 Hierarchy??
> >>
> >> The Pollution Prevention Act includes an environmental management
> >> hierarchy which identifies source reduction (P2) as the preferred
> >> environmental management technique.  To call this a P2 hierarchy
> trashes
> >> the whole concept of pollution prevention.  Not that it hasn't been
> >> done, but it certainly shouldn't be referred to as a P2 hierarchy
> in a
> >> masters thesis.
> >>
> >> Kevin Dick
> >> BEP-UNR
> >> (702) 689-6677
> >>
> >