page 21 |
Previous | 1 of 6 | Next |
|
|
Loading content ...
3 PLANNING FOR SUCCESS IN INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAMS Constantine Yapijakis, Professor and Lab Director, Environmental Engineering The Cooper Union, New York, New York 10003 INTRODUCTION In the 1960s, with the surge in the environmental movement in developed countries regulatory agencies and the industry co-operated to achieve pollution reduction at the "end of the pipe" only to discover that the solution begot the transfer of pollutants from one medium to another, such as air emissions to sludge. In the 1970s, realizing this, the US Congress passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) which established a new federal approach to the regulation of solid and hazardous waste management. However, it was not until RCRA was strengthened with the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA), that waste minimization was first introduced as a national policy. The EPA elaborated on this concept in its 1986 Report to Congress, which defined this method of pollution prevention as one that reduces generation and discharge of hazardous waste as its source to avoid subsequent handling, treatment and disposal.' In 1989, the EPA provided the public with the first report which showed that industry was the source of 18 out of the over 20 billion pounds of toxic emissions to the land, air, ans water (Table I). In fact, many companies had already focused on the reduction and generation of hazardous waste at "the source", to the extent economically practicable, as the best way to meet legal obligations, to improve their public image, and also to save money. These savings could be considerable, given the fact that industry picks up the bill for nearly two thirds of the estimated $70 billion per year the US spends on pollution control.2 In January 1989, EPA published a proposed policy statement covering its philosophy on pollution prevention or waste minimization.3 The policy focuses primarily on the prevention of pollution through the multi-media reduction of pollutants at the source, the promotes secondarily environmentally sound recycling. EPA and other federal agencies and all 50 states of the US are involved in waste minimization program definition, implementation, and research/demonstration funding.4 Several of these programs are already producing quite excellent results. Source reduction and recycling are defined as the only waste minimization techniques out of the hazardous waste management categories shown in Figure l.5 WASTE MINIMIZATION BENEFITS It has been demonstrated conclusively that there are a number of compelling incentives for and benefits from minimizing/eliminating waste, both for industry and for society at large. Cost savings that may be directly or indirectly associated with pollution prevention can result from reduced spending in a wide variety of areas. Such savings can result from reduced storage and handling costs, reduced waste transport or disposal or recycling costs, reduced raw materials costs, and from income Table I. Toxic Chemical Release Statistics for 1987 Air Releases —44% Water Releases—10% Land Disposal— 11% Off-Site Disposal-12% Underground Injection—15% Sent to Publicly-Owned Treatment Works-8% 100% Note: Chemical and Allied Product Manufacturers were responsible for 54% of all releases. Paper and Primary Metals Manufacturers were responsible for 24% of all releases. 47th Purdue Industrial Waste Conference Proceedings, 1992 Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan 48118. Printed in U.S.A. 21
Object Description
Purdue Identification Number | ETRIWC199203 |
Title | Planning for success in industrial pollution prevention programs |
Author | Yapijakis, Constantine |
Date of Original | 1992 |
Conference Title | Proceedings of the 47th Industrial Waste Conference |
Conference Front Matter (copy and paste) | http://e-archives.lib.purdue.edu/u?/engext,43678 |
Extent of Original | p. 21-26 |
Collection Title | Engineering Technical Reports Collection, Purdue University |
Repository | Purdue University Libraries |
Rights Statement | Digital object copyright Purdue University. All rights reserved. |
Language | eng |
Type (DCMI) | text |
Format | JP2 |
Date Digitized | 2009-12-10 |
Capture Device | Fujitsu fi-5650C |
Capture Details | ScandAll 21 |
Resolution | 300 ppi |
Color Depth | 8 bit |
Description
Title | page 21 |
Collection Title | Engineering Technical Reports Collection, Purdue University |
Repository | Purdue University Libraries |
Rights Statement | Digital copyright Purdue University. All rights reserved. |
Language | eng |
Type (DCMI) | text |
Format | JP2 |
Capture Device | Fujitsu fi-5650C |
Capture Details | ScandAll 21 |
Transcript | 3 PLANNING FOR SUCCESS IN INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAMS Constantine Yapijakis, Professor and Lab Director, Environmental Engineering The Cooper Union, New York, New York 10003 INTRODUCTION In the 1960s, with the surge in the environmental movement in developed countries regulatory agencies and the industry co-operated to achieve pollution reduction at the "end of the pipe" only to discover that the solution begot the transfer of pollutants from one medium to another, such as air emissions to sludge. In the 1970s, realizing this, the US Congress passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) which established a new federal approach to the regulation of solid and hazardous waste management. However, it was not until RCRA was strengthened with the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA), that waste minimization was first introduced as a national policy. The EPA elaborated on this concept in its 1986 Report to Congress, which defined this method of pollution prevention as one that reduces generation and discharge of hazardous waste as its source to avoid subsequent handling, treatment and disposal.' In 1989, the EPA provided the public with the first report which showed that industry was the source of 18 out of the over 20 billion pounds of toxic emissions to the land, air, ans water (Table I). In fact, many companies had already focused on the reduction and generation of hazardous waste at "the source", to the extent economically practicable, as the best way to meet legal obligations, to improve their public image, and also to save money. These savings could be considerable, given the fact that industry picks up the bill for nearly two thirds of the estimated $70 billion per year the US spends on pollution control.2 In January 1989, EPA published a proposed policy statement covering its philosophy on pollution prevention or waste minimization.3 The policy focuses primarily on the prevention of pollution through the multi-media reduction of pollutants at the source, the promotes secondarily environmentally sound recycling. EPA and other federal agencies and all 50 states of the US are involved in waste minimization program definition, implementation, and research/demonstration funding.4 Several of these programs are already producing quite excellent results. Source reduction and recycling are defined as the only waste minimization techniques out of the hazardous waste management categories shown in Figure l.5 WASTE MINIMIZATION BENEFITS It has been demonstrated conclusively that there are a number of compelling incentives for and benefits from minimizing/eliminating waste, both for industry and for society at large. Cost savings that may be directly or indirectly associated with pollution prevention can result from reduced spending in a wide variety of areas. Such savings can result from reduced storage and handling costs, reduced waste transport or disposal or recycling costs, reduced raw materials costs, and from income Table I. Toxic Chemical Release Statistics for 1987 Air Releases —44% Water Releases—10% Land Disposal— 11% Off-Site Disposal-12% Underground Injection—15% Sent to Publicly-Owned Treatment Works-8% 100% Note: Chemical and Allied Product Manufacturers were responsible for 54% of all releases. Paper and Primary Metals Manufacturers were responsible for 24% of all releases. 47th Purdue Industrial Waste Conference Proceedings, 1992 Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan 48118. Printed in U.S.A. 21 |
Resolution | 300 ppi |
Color Depth | 8 bit |
Tags
Comments
Post a Comment for page 21