In an EPA-funded project, teams conducted waste minimization assessments of several medium-sized manufacturing plants. Table 17.5 provides a breakdown of the measures for two plants, the first a paint factory and the second a factory producing oil coolers for heavy equipment. The engineering teams’ recommendations ranged from simple “housekeeping” measures, such as putting a lid on a degreasing tank, to more complex process innovations, such as switching from a solvent-based to a vacuum-cleaning

Table 17.5

method. For the two plants, waste reduction ranged from 4% to 99%, while the
average payback period was well under one year. The biggest waste reducers also
generate the largest annual savings—for example, using ultrasonic degreasing in plant.
And even though such measures have the longest payback periods, they are probably
the most profitable investments because of the large cost savings.
1. Is “waste reduction” a clean technology?
2. If we believe the evidence in this table, why are these manufacturing firms
leaving money on the table? Why don’t waste reduction survey companies
make a living consulting with companies to show them how to cut pollution
and make money at the same time?

Transcribed Image Text:

TABLE 17.5 Waste Reduction in Two Manufacturing Plants Plant Problem 1 Pipe rinse water 1 Solvent disposal Mercury in bactericide 2 Vapors from degreaser 1 2 Recycling contaminants 2 Sludge from salt baths 2 2 Paint-contaminated cardboard Paint-contaminated filters Recommendation Use foam plugs for dry wipe Recycling Use organic substitute Install cover or use ultrasonic cleaning Reduce lubricants Use mechanical method or use vacuum method Reduce paint loss with air jets Electrostatic spray control Annual Waste Reduced ($1,000/yr) 1,780 gal/yr 11 5 6 17 20 1 3,300 gal/yr 3,100 gal/yr Annual Payback Savings Period (yrs) 50% 99% 20% 4% 80% 22% 36% 20 203 4 11 0.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.3 2.1 3.5 0.6 1.2