In an EPA-funded project, teams conducted waste minimization assessments of several medium-sized manufacturing plants. Table 18.5 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 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 18.5 Waste Reduction in Two Manufacturing Plants Annual Waste Annual Payback Savings Period Plant Problem Recommendation Reduced ($1,000/yr) (yrs) 1 Pipe rinse water Use foam plugs for dry wipe 1,780 gal/yr 11 0.2 1 Solvent disposal Recycling 3,300 gal/yr 5 0.9 1 Mercury in bactericide Use organic substitute 3,100 gal/yr 6 0.0 2 Vapors from degreaser Install cover or 50% 17 0.0 use ultrasonic cleaning 99% 20 2.4 2 Recycling contaminants Reduce lubricants 20% 1 0.3 2 Sludge from salt baths Use mechanical method or 4% 20 2.1 use vacuum method 80% 203 3.5 2 Paint-contaminated Reduce paint loss with air jets 22% 4 0.6 cardboard 2 Paint-contaminated Electrostatic spray control 36% 11 1.2 filters