Pollution prevention piping

Reduced wa.ste-treatment co.sts. As discussed in reason no. 5 of the dirty dozen, the increasing costs of traditional end-of-pipe waste-management practices are avoided or reduced through the implementation of pollution-prevention programs. 

List several reasons why pollution prevention tends to be more cost-effective than end-of-pipe treatment. Be specific with some concrete examples. 

It should be emphasized, however, that pollution prevention techniques are, nevertheless, often more cost-effective than pollution reduction through end-of-pipe treatment technologies. A case study based on the Amoco/EPA joint study claimed that the same pollution reduction currently realized through end-of-pipe regulatory requirements at the Amoco facility could be achieved at 15% of the current costs using pollution prevention techniques. 

Pollution prevention is always preferred to the use of end-of-pipe pollution control facilities. Therefore, every attempt should be made to incorporate cleaner production processes and facilities to limit, at source, the quantity of pollutants generated. The choice of flash smelting over older technologies is the most significant means of reducing pollution at source. Sulfur dioxide emissions can be controlled by ... 

Although it is generally thought of as typical end-of-pipe treatment technology, the maimer in which it can be applied enables it to be used in pollution prevention applications. Figure 9 shows an installation in a steel mill operation. 

Condensation scrubbing systems are a relatively new technology and are not yet generally commercially available. It may be argued that this is a pollution prevention type of technology since it replaces other approaches to controlling very fine PM, although the primary role is end-of-pipe treatment. 

The CAA compliance deadline may cause companies to install simple end-of-pipe emissions controls, instead of pollution prevention process changes. In order to limit this practice and encourage waste minimization, U.S. EPA allows owners and operators of combustion facilities to request a one-year extension to the compliance period in cases where additional time is needed to install pollution prevention and waste minimization measures that reduce the amount of hazardous waste entering combustion feedstreams.16 Requests for a one-year extension must reasonably document that the waste minimization measures could not be installed in time to meet the three-year compliance period. Decisions to grant the extensions will be made by U.S. EPA or authorized state programs. 

Jendrucko, R.J., Myers, J.A., Thomas, T.M., and Looby, G.P. Pollution Prevention Assessment for Manufacturer of Stainless Steel Pipes and Fittings, Report No. EPA-600/S-95/017, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, August 1995. 

As Geiser stated (Geiser, 1998), the P2 movement differed dramatically and fundamentally from the conventional command and control, end-of-pipe, media-specific, compliance and enforcement system that was dominant in environmental protection policy during the 1980s. The P2 movement has been slow to develop the internal capacities that would promote the environmental successes that the pollution prevention concept offers. Geiser laid out five uncompleted tasks in the promotion of pollution prevention (Geiser, 1995). The current text seeks to address only one of these the chemical substitutes for existing chemicals. 

This study identifies and examines source reduction, recycling, and treatment strategies for reducing California s metal-bearing waste streams. All of the strategies examined are alternatives to land disposal of the wastes. The methodologies stressed in the report are those that prevent the generation of hazardous wastes. Pollution prevention is preferable to "end-of-the-pipe treatment or recovery. 

AQUATECH Systems is a state-of-the-art bipolar membrane separation technology which exemplifies "pollution prevention" technology rather than "end of the pipe" regulation compliance. Consistent with SARA s definition of treatment, AQUATECH Systems is a technology "that in whole or in part will result in a permanent and significant decrease in the toxicity, morbidity or volume" of a hazardous waste material. 

The first and second major drivers for pollution prevention, as described above, are regulations and laws and the cost of waste treatment. Extrapolation of the two curves in Fig. 6 would imply that future laws and regulations will be even more stringent and, if solved by end-of-pipe treatment, even more costly. 

Quick definition of the cost for end-of-pipe treatment, which subsequently becomes the incentive for more cost-effective pollution prevention solutions. 

There are several ways to determine the incentive for pollution prevention. The choice will depend on particular circumstances that is, does a waste treatment or abatement system already exist or is a new treatment or abatement system required Three approaches to determine the incentive for pollution prevention are described below. They are the incentive based on new end-of-pipe treatment, raw material costs, and cost of manufacture. Each of these approaches is discussed in detail below. 

Identify the highest volume materials (often these are diluents, such as water, air, a carrier gas, or a solvent) because these materials or diluents often control the investment and operating costs associated with end-of-pipe treatment of the waste streams. Determine the sources of these diluents within the process. Then develop pollution prevention options to reduce the volume. 

Four case studies are presented below which exemplify the role of the structured pollution prevention program methodology, the value of quickly defining the incentive for pollution prevention using the cost of end-of-pipe treatment, and the benefits of using the waste stream and process analyses to parse the problem at hand. Five case studies are also presented illustrating pollution prevention results at each of the stages described in Fig. 11. 

---