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

RE: FW: Dirty Mop Water



Bob:	This person asked a number of very good questions.  Questions that as
a good engineer could only be responded to with just a little more
information.  

Many of the comments received demonstrated a good source of blinders still
exists.  Preaching one solution at the exclusion of all others is ill
advised.    

Solutions for these kinds of problems come from many different sources.
Prevention is a very important one but absolutely not the only one.  That
comment comes from one with 20+ years of doing it, not talking about or
writing about it.  

Solutions are global in nature.  Profits of the business must carry weight.
If installing a faucet will cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars and
a five dollar bucket will give the same end results, then it comes as a no
brainer to me.  For those that have never been around very large equipment,
a seal or minor repair can be very expensive.  Why do you think I asked the
question about the size of the parts being machined, and the size of the
equipment.  One comment I read talked about drip pans and you could take
that to drip channels.  The person that wrote that appeared to have done
and not just written.      

If we are only talking about a few gallons of water per week, then why
would I want to take the most expensive solution possible.  Expensive
solutions come from those having no insight into the bottom line of the
business.  

Never heard of a Poke Yoke.  I do know that I would not want this material
in my yellow bellied sump sucker.  I do know that during the problem
solving process I would want to look at the coolant and possible
substitutions.  Might even evaluate making chips with dry cutting.  On many
non-ferrous parts, the process is dry and not wet.  

I would like to know what is hazardous and what is not with respect to this
waste stream.  

I am working on a dirty mop water problem right now.  Has a little lead in
it.  Guess what the water is used for.  To mop the floor when it is dirty.
This particular facility likes having clean floors.  The solution will come
within the parameters of what works for this business, what is achievable,
what can we afford, what will be required to stay well within the
boundaries of the regulations, and probably a hundred other considerations
before we are done.  

We are not going to stop mopping the floor.  We are going to make the best
decisions possible for the business.  Prevention is a piece of that
decision.  Prevention does not stand by itself.

I have spent much more time writing about this this morning than I could
have ever possibly spared.  

I have pollution prevention to go do, not write about.  

    


At 01:28 PM 1/5/99 -0800, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>I agree wholeheartedly that prevention is the way to go.  However, no
matter how good your processs or how well designed you plant is, there are
going to be leaks at some point in time.  As far as I know, any plant that
has never had a machine leak, or never needed to clean up a spill, is
likely not running.  In those cases, I'd recommend a sqeegee approach is a
good alternative, as long as it is feasible, then mopping.  I don't think
we should avoid providing a reasonable suggestion to situtations that we
know are going to happen, and advocate prevention as the only answer.  The
best laid plans...
>
>cmd
>
>----------
>From:  Robert B. Pojasek[SMTP:rpojasek@sprynet.com]
>Sent:  Tuesday, January 05, 1999 1:10 PM
>To:  p2tech@great-lakes.net; Catherine Dickerson
>Subject:  Re: FW: Dirty Mop Water
>
>What happened to prevention?  If the material did NOT LEAK it would not
>need to be cleaned up.  The coolant is best used to cool parts not to
>lubricate the floor.  Let's hear instead from shops practicing Poka-Yoke
>and PREVENTING the spills and leaks, not cleaning them up after the fact
>and worring about disposing the squeege residues or the mop water.  I am
>sure Ralph Cooper would agree with this.
>
>
>
>At 08:24 AM 1/5/99 -0800, you wrote:
>>Just forwarding this to the list serve - I think it was supposed to land
>there.
>>
>>----------
>>From:  Mike[SMTP:mail115460@pop.net]
>>Sent:  Monday, January 04, 1999 1:25 PM
>>To:  Catherine Dickerson
>>Subject:  RE: Dirty Mop Water
>>
>>It would be interesting to know the size of the machine tools and the size
>>of the parts being handled.  If we are talking about parts that weigh a few
>>pounds, then many of the comments are quite valid.  If we are talking about
>>parts that weigh many tons, typically found in heavy manufacturing
>>operations, then use of a manual mopping operation may still be the most
>>cost effective.  I would think that you only need to test every 6 to 12
>>months.  How much water is generated.  Depending on volume, and cost, you
>>may already have the best solution.  
>>
>>What has not been brought up is the safety factor associated with mopping
>>floors with cutting fluids.  This is the slickest stuff I have ever tried
>>to work or walk on.  To me, the safety of the worker and its influence on
>>the final decision should carry considerable weight compared to P2
>>considerations and the potential savings of a few dollars.  
>>
>>Older factories in America used for years something called wood block
>>flooring.  It is not very pretty, but after 20+ years in most kinds of
>>manufacturing operations, I have concluded that it is a good and effective
>>solution for this kind of problem in select applications.
>>
>>Need to go back to work.  With more technical details maybe there is a
>>absolute answer to this problem that plagues so many shops.
>>
>>I currently work with 4 to 500 auto repair type shops.  We use in many
>>applications, sweeping, squeege, and even a wet vac to pick up this kind of
>>material.  The volume is much less and source is not nearly as persistent
>>as what you may be dealing with.
>>
>>If this water has ever tested hazardous then we should know what for.  That
>>would influence the final decision.  
>>
>>Ralph Cooper are you out there.  I would think you have a few thoughts on
>>this.  I have by the way started a conversation with Kin Slaughter.  Thanks
>>for the introduction.
>>  
>>
>>      
>>
>> 
>>At 09:24 AM 1/4/99 -0800, you wrote:
>>>Mary,
>>>
>>>Maybe mopping a bit less and targeted cleanups would help some.  While we
>>were putting together some information for auto repair shops, one of the
>>shop owners I talked to said that they no longer mop their floors.
>>Instead, they rely on sweeping and "squeegee-ing" up spills.  You could try
>>using a squeegee and a dustpan to "sweep" up the spill.  Then, add the
>>liquid to the
>>>appropriate waste container.  Just a thought.
>>>
>>>cmd
>>>
>>>----------
>>>From:  Betsch, Mary D[SMTP:Mary_D_Betsch@apimc01.rl.gov]
>>>Sent:  Monday, January 04, 1999 6:32 AM
>>>To:  'p2tech@great-lakes.net'
>>>Subject:  Dirty Mop Water
>>>
>>>I am working with a machine shop to minimize mop water contaminated with
oil
>>>and coolant.
>>>
>>>Coolant, chips, and oil collect around machinery from spills and leaks.
>>>Absorbents are sometimes used for small leaks.  However, usually the spills
>>>and leaks are mopped up and the mop water is collected in 55-gallon drums.
>
>>>The mop water is sampled and ultimately dispositioned as hazardous or
>>>non-hazardous waste, depending on the test results.  The mop water
cannot go
>>>through the recycling unit (Yellow Bellied Sump Sucker) because of the
>>>bacteria that accumulates.  The shop floor is mopped once a week and it
>>>follows the same disposal process.
>>>
>>>The coolant used is Trimsol E-190, the metal is mostly non-ferrous, and the
>>>oil varies.
>>>
>>>If anyone has any suggestions for applicable waste reduction techniques I'd
>>>love to hear from you!
>>>
>>>Thank you!!
>>>
>>>Mary
>>>
>>>Mary Betsch
>>>Waste Management Hanford
>>>P.O. Box 700, H6-06
>>>Richland, WA  99352
>>>Phone (509) 372-1627
>>>Fax (509) 373-0743
>>>Mary_D_Betsch@rl.gov
>>> 
>>Michael R. James
>>James Environmental Management, Inc.
>>2007 North Mays  Ste 101
>>Round Rock,  TX  78664
>>512-244-3631
>>512-244-0853 fax
>> 
>Bob
>
>Dr. Robert B. Pojasek 
>Pojasek & Associates 
>P.O. Box 1333 
>E. Arlington, MA 02474-0071
>(781) 641-2422 
>(617) 788-0288 (FAX)
>
>http://www.PollutionPrevention.com
>rpojasek@PollutionPrevention.com
>