New findings on the generation of waste and emissions, and a modified cleaner production assessment approach - Illustrated by leather production

Journal of Cleaner Production

Volumn 5, Issue 4, 1997, Pages 291-300

  Schramm, Wilhelm ^a  

^a ERICH SCHMID INSTITUTE OF MATERIALS SCIENCE   (Austria)

Author keywords

Cleaner production; Cleaner production assessment; Cleaner production diffusion; Environment; Industry; Leather production

Indexed keywords

CHEMICAL CLEANING; INDUSTRIAL EMISSIONS; INDUSTRIAL WASTES;

CLEANER PRODUCTION; CLEANER PROTECTION DIFFUSION;

LEATHER;

EID: 0031345314     PISSN: 09596526     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/s0959-6526(97)00052-8     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. US Environmental Protection Agency, Waste Minimization Opportunity Assessment Manual, Hazardous Engineering Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH, 1988.
2. US Environmental Protection Agency, Facility Pollution Prevention Planning Guide, Pollution Prevention Research Branch, Cincinnati, OH, 1988.
3. Nielson, B., Christiansen, K., Doelman, P. and Schellman, F., Waste Management: Clean Technologies - Up-date on Situation in Member States. Commission of the European Union DGXI, 1994.
4. Schramm, W., Operationalisierung des Konzepts Cleaner Production am Beispiel der Ledererzeugung (in English: Systematisation of the cleaner production concept as illustrated by leather production), report to the Austrian Ministry of Environment, Institute for Technology Assessment of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, May 1995.
5. Since in the ideal case cited there are no waste and emissions released, the toxicity of the processed materials at the production level (not at the product level) has no effect on the environment.
6. For the USA see, e.g. the literature in Refs. 1 and 2; for Europe sec. e.g. the literature in Ref. 3; for UNEP see. e.g. van Berkel, R. UNEP Industry and Environment, January-March 1995, 8-15.
7. See, e.g. van Berkel, R. UNEP Industry and Environment, January-March 1995, 8-15; or Pojasek, R.B. and Cali, L.A., Pollution Prevention Review, 1991, I(3), 225-235.
8. See, e.g. van Berkel, R. UNEP Industry and Environment, January-March 1995, 8-15; or Pojasek, R.B. and Cali, L.A., Pollution Prevention Review, 1991, I(3), 225-235.
9. Branchenkonzept für die ledererzeugenden Betriebe Österreichs (in English: Sector-specific manual for the Austrian tanners), Austrian Ministry of Environment. Youth and Family, Vienna, December 1992.
10. Substituting the raw materials and additional materials (category 1) not only reduces the level ol hazards of the generated waste and emissions in the unit operation considered, but also changes the composition of waste and emissions that occur at a later stage of the product life cycle, particularly at the waste disposal of the products. In contrast to this, substituting auxiliary materials (category 2) only reduces the hazards of the generated waste and emissions in the unit operation considered.
11. Only rarely is substituting the input materials used to achieve the objective of reducing (or minimising) the amount of generated waste and emissions, and thus correspondingly the level of resources used. An example of this is to substitute raw materials with others that have a higher proportion of useahle components (such as iron ore with a higher content of iron).
12. In this context it is worth noting that the US EPA. that is considered internationally as a pioneer in the field of cleaner production, does not take this into account in their basic literature given in Refs. 1 and 2.
13. The literature in Ref. 4 gives a detailed description of each potential measure and the results.