Environmental protection costs

G>al Waste ECT Costs Incorporated in Overall Environmental Protection Costs... 

In summary, the biocatalytic process reduces raw material costs by a factor of four and the percentage of process costs for environmental protection (incineration, waste water treatment and waste gas cleaning) is cut down considerably from 21% to 1%. Compared with the chemical process the environmental protection costs were reduced by about 90% per ton of 7-ACA. 

The fraction of the process costs used for environmental protection is reduced from 21 to 1%. This fraction includes the cost of the additive environmental protection (waste incineration and purification of wastewater and waste gas). Thus, the absolute environmental protection costs are reduced by 90% per tonne of 7-ACS. 

In new plants the process design would include the en ironmental protection measures in all process units with the need for high efficiency and productiwty however, environmental protection costs can hardly be expected to be lower than 10% of total investment and operation costs. 

Environmental protection costs of selected processes for regenerated cellulose fibres. ... 

The manufacturing cost consists of direct, indirect, distribution, and fixed costs. Direct costs are raw materials, operating labor, production supervision, utihties, suppHes, repair, and maintenance. Typical indirect costs include payroll overhead, quaHty control, storage, royalties, and plant overhead, eg, safety, protection, personnel, services, yard, waste, environmental control, and other plant categories. However, environmental control costs are frequendy set up as a separate account and calculated direcdy. The principal distribution costs are packaging and shipping. Fixed costs, which are insensitive to production level, include depreciation, property taxes, rents, insurance, and, in some cases, interest expense. 

M. Gans and B. J. Ozero, Hydrocarbon Process. 55(3), 73 (1976) B. DeMaghe, Hydrocarbon Process. 55(3), 78 (1976) D. E. Field and co-workers. Engineering and Cost Study ofAirPollution Controlfor the Petrochemical Industry, Vol. 6, EPA Report No. EPA-450/3-73-006-1, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., June, 1975. 

Despite the attractions of economic forces driving environmental protection, some cautions and failures have been noted. Firstly, the export of hazardous waste to countries where costs for treatment are lower enhances environmental risks during transport and has the potential for transboundary export in the event of pollution. At the same time, the loss of raw material may deprive the home market of an adequate supply of feedstock for the home-based industry. Secondly, there is considerable scepticism that self-regulation of TBT-based antifoulants could be achieved in a timely manner by the shipping industry. This is an instance where the cost benehts to one industry are born by another commercial sector, notably aquaculture. Thus, protection of the marine environment is likely to be aided by economic factors but the role of government, via taxation and standard setting, is not likely to be usurped. Public education and, in turn, pressure, can promote and support corporate environmentalism. 

As environmental protection and recycling become more important, dumping and recycling charges and taxes will be used to control environmental pollution in the future. For the plant owner, this means an increase in the decommissioning costs. 

In addition to the solid waste problem, we can also expect that with expanding population or expanding demands of a static population, there will be societal pressure to reduce material usage over and above cost factors. These pressures could result in legislation to expand the environmental protection philosophy. For example, since plant materials are a renewable resource as well as readily recyclable, we may expect forced increases in paper-based packages. 

Shallow innovation can appear to be an attractive strategy. Particularly where a specific ingredient is a cause for concern, finding a substitute looks like the quickest and most cost-effective solution. Organisations like the Environmental Protection Agency in the US have collated tables of known substitutes for materials where the environmental or health and safety profile have caused concern. This approach is particularly used for solvents, and has been quite effective. ... 

Water for injection (WFI) is the most widely used solvent for parenteral preparations. The USP requirements for WFI and purified water have been recently updated to replace the traditional wet and colorimetric analytical methods with the more modern and cost-effective methods of conductivity and total organic carbon. Water for injection must be prepared and stored in a manner to ensure purity and freedom from pyrogens. The most common means of obtaining WFI is by the distillation of deionized water. This is the only method of preparation permitted by the European Pharmacopoeia (EP). In contrast, the USP and the Japanese Pharmacopeias also permit reverse osmosis to be used. The USP has also recently broadened its definition of source water to include not only the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Primary Drinking Water Standards, but also comparable regulations of the European Union or Japan. 

EPA/625/4-87/018, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, 1987. a Costs were converted from 1979 USD to 2007 USD using U.S. ACE Yearly Average Cost Index for Utilities.10... 

---