GAIAMalaysiaCleanPro duction

50 %
50 %
Information about GAIAMalaysiaCleanPro duction
Education

Published on February 13, 2008

Author: Biaggia

Source: authorstream.com

How to demand Clean Production in incineration campaigns:  How to demand Clean Production in incineration campaigns Case studies of 4 campaigns and a short history of cleaner production - Beverley Thorpe, Clean Production Action BevCpro@aol.com What Is Clean Production?:  What Is Clean Production? It promotes renewable energy, non toxic materials in a closed loop and sustainable product design It is rooted within circular concepts of the product life cycle It is based on the Precautionary Principle Clean Production is different to current linear production systems:-- it is circular:  Clean Production is different to current linear production systems:-- it is circular UNEP Cleaner Production Definition (1990):  UNEP Cleaner Production Definition (1990) For PRODUCTION PROCESSES Cleaner Production includes: conserving raw materials and energy; eliminating toxic raw materials reducing the quantity and toxicity of all emissions and wastes before they leave a process UNEP CP Definition:  UNEP CP Definition For PRODUCTS …. the strategy focuses on reducing impacts along the entire life cycle of the product….from raw material extraction to the ultimate disposal of the product Visit www.unepie.org/ for information on their case studies and reports. Products need to be considered in their life cycle – current production is too linear and generates hazardous wastes:  Products need to be considered in their life cycle – current production is too linear and generates hazardous wastes UNEP’s life cycle:  UNEP’s life cycle Why does industry produce incinerable waste streams?:  Why does industry produce incinerable waste streams? 1. The PRODUCT itself is hazardous (eg PVC plastic) therefore the process and byproducts are hazardous This applies to all halogenated products (using chlorine, bromine, fluorine, iodine) 2. The PROCESS uses toxic materials which generates by-products and waste Some incineration campaigns which pushed clean production:  Some incineration campaigns which pushed clean production Global Ocean Incineration campaign Washington Toxics Coalition campaign against proposed haz incinerators Campaign against sewage sludge incinerator Toronto, Canada Anti-incineration campaigns, California Ocean Incineration campaign (1986-1990) put focus on solvents and PVC:  Ocean Incineration campaign (1986-1990) put focus on solvents and PVC Large dioxin releases in EDC tars from PVC production were dumped at sea, then incinerated at sea…now incinerated on land or dumped down mine shafts Perchloroethylene= a byproduct of PVC The PVC link to ocean incineration realized:  The PVC link to ocean incineration realized Global campaign highlighted risks of transporting and burning chlorinated wastes at sea; targets were the Association of Maritime Incinerators and North Sea governments. Achieved a global ban on ocean incineration (1993) Conference on ‘Alternatives to Incineration at Sea of Organohalogen Wastes’(1990) highlighted the importance of PVC as the source of these hazardous wastes PVC= toxic lifecycle:  Chlorine HCL Dioxin (production, accidental fires, landfill fires, incineration, metal recycling) Stabilisers: e.g. Pb, Cd (0,1-2,5 %) Plasticiserse.g. DEHP (10-60%) Cl-polymer (Cl-content 14-53%) Additives (content 7-75 %) EDC VCM PVC Production Use - Disposal PVC= toxic lifecycle PVC – the chlorine trap:  PVC – the chlorine trap Pure PVC consists of 57% chlorine All precursors (ethylene-dichloride, vinyl-chloride monomer) are highly toxic Combustion leads to HCl and dioxins PVC biggest source of chlorine in municipal waste stream – arguably most important source of dioxins to environment today PVC common in products:  PVC common in products Second most common plastic When incinerated, 1 kg PVC produces 1kg or more of hazardous waste residues (see photo of bags of incineration ash in Dk) - European Commission 2001 :  When incinerated, 1 kg PVC produces 1kg or more of hazardous waste residues (see photo of bags of incineration ash in Dk) - European Commission 2001 PVC in incinerators creates acidic emissions along with dioxins; neutralizing these emissions generates as much waste as original waste stream…which then needs to be landfilled creating future toxic leaks and emissions. Incineration is NOT the solution Why pvc will lead to MORE incineration in future:  Why pvc will lead to MORE incineration in future PVC IS INCREASING GLOBALLY- former long life products about to enter current waste stream …and it cannot be recycled (contrary to vinyl industry statements):  …and it cannot be recycled (contrary to vinyl industry statements) European Union Studies on PVC (2000) - Conclusions:  European Union Studies on PVC (2000) - Conclusions Amount of PVC waste to double in next 20 years Mechanical recycling will not contribute significantly to management of PVC post-consumer wastes; reaching at best 18% of the total in 2020 Landfilling releases hazardous phthalate softeners and will contribute to formation of dioxins in accidental landfill fires PVC waste crisis will demand more incineration- BIG DIOXIN THREAT:  PVC waste crisis will demand more incineration- BIG DIOXIN THREAT “…the future will see a major increase in the recycling of PVC through energy recovery by incineration. This is because mechanical recycling levels appear to have peaked with no obvious hope of an increase to come. -Occidental Chemical spokesman, 1997 The only solution is to BAN all PVC use:  The only solution is to BAN all PVC use …and it can happen if we use non PVC-eco-labels, government and industry green procurement, local government bans, extended producer responsibility for all products that could contain PVC, eco-taxes, taxes on PVC products… and other strategies to implement Clean Production Non PVC substitutes exist for all uses:  Non PVC substitutes exist for all uses For more information::  For more information: ‘PVC-Free Future: A Review of Restrictions and PVC free Policies Worldwide’ visit www.greenpeace.org/~toxics General PVC info visit: http://archive.greenpeace.org/~toxics/html/content/pvc_hearbackground.html PVC and incineration visit: http://archive.greenpeace.org/~toxics/reports/reportsdate.html Health Care Without Harm: www.hcwh.org GAIA incineration network: www.no-burn.org Healthy Building Network: www.hbn.org …and remember: the Stockholm Convention on POPs could be a major opportunity…or major loss::  …and remember: the Stockholm Convention on POPs could be a major opportunity…or major loss: Will Dioxin inventories reflect PVC as precursor for dioxins in hospital, municipal incinerators, landfill fires? Will National Implementation Plans focus on PVC phase out to achieve dioxin elimination?? Do countries realize the dioxin burden they are building up by allowing PVC production and use?? Washington Toxics Coalition campaign against proposed haz incinerators, 1991:  Washington Toxics Coalition campaign against proposed haz incinerators, 1991 SMOKESCREEN The Myth of Incinerator Need SMOKESCREEN: THE MYTH OF INCINERATOR NEED :  SMOKESCREEN: THE MYTH OF INCINERATOR NEED Findings of research by Washington Toxics Coalition (WTC), 1992 Three companies were seeking permits to build large commercial hazardous waste incinerators in the state. Companies supplied no meaningful information on what they intended to burn. WTC examined 27 separate waste steams to determine if incineration was needed Findings of research:  Findings of research 1. Projections that waste could only be reduced by 50% underestimated potential 2. Other alternatives existed within industrial processes. Waste was overestimated::  Waste was overestimated: The state’s largest waste stream is aluminum potliner wastes (viewed as available for incineration) Aluminum industry (Reynolds) has now modified a bauxite processing kiln for processing potliners. Waste streams from automobile shops (solvents, spent rags) increasingly recycled or substituted. Boeing Company, a major state waste generator engaged in numerous pollution prevention projects. Without Boeing’s wastes, commercial incinerators would not be economically viable in the region. Serious flaws in waste data and assumptions:  Serious flaws in waste data and assumptions 3. Assumptions and waste data innacurate Some proposed waste streams were one-off wastes that would not be generated regularly 23% of waste streams contained metal – not suitable for incinerator Waste soon-to-be-recycled were also counted Corrosive wastes better handled using Best Available Technology (non incineration) Conclusions:  Conclusions 1. No proof was given for incinerator need Incinerator would have to import or burn inappropriate wastes remain economically viable. 2. Serious problems with hazardous waste collection and management in the state Waste generation data is out of date and non specific Incinerator proponents provided no information on what they intend to burn; No integration with waste prevention programmes and assumptions of incinerator ‘need’ Public access to information seriously limited 3. Incineration proponents actively avoid and discourage public discussions of need Recommendations:  Recommendations 1. Moratorium of at least 10 years on incinerator construction and permitting 2. Governments should put in place better toxic waste data systems 3. Make data publicly available to better assess source reduction/cleaner production alternatives 4. Members of public should insist that proponents of incinerators provide full information on wastes they may burn Recommendations…cont’d:  Recommendations…cont’d 5. Government departments should adopt strong policies to ensure source reduction is maximized This to include: bans on toxic material use, eg replacement of chlorine processes in pulp and paper goal of 100% source reduction in companies mandatory planning in companies, financial assistance and incentives for toxic use reduction denial of permits to treatment and disposal facilities for which need has not been demonstrated. Providing technical and research help to companies Outcome of WTC’s campaign:  Outcome of WTC’s campaign “Eastern Washington Incinerator Plans Crash and Burn” A new hurdles facing a hazardous waste incinerator proposed for Eastern Washington has environmental advocates celebrating what they hope is the dawn of a new era of enviornmental protection and waste management. On Sept 30, Gov. Mike Lowry and state Ecology Director Mary Riveland dealt what may be a fatal blow to plans by Rabanco and the Swiss Von Roll corp. to build a 50,000 ton a year incinerator in Grant County…the project may not be able to recover from Riveland’s decision to stop reviewing Von Roll/Rabanco’s application for the incinerator Observations of WTC:  Observations of WTC Because of legislation to require “proof of need”neither of the incinerators were ever built. One of the proponents threatened to sue the state over the thousands of dollars spent into writing permit applications Coalition with Eastern Washington farmers and the threats to sales of their wheat and other products made this a good alliance Asking the right questions::  Asking the right questions: Trying to deal with hazardous waste once it has been generated is asking the wrong question. The right questions are: Why is industry generating hazardous waste in the first place? What safer alternatives are there? Now for a little history….:  Now for a little history…. 1985. Office of Technology Assessment, USA introduced term ‘reduction at source’ “in-plant practices that reduce, avoid or eliminate the generation of hazardous waste so as to reduce risks to health and the environment”.” This was the first time focus was put on process inside the company (not pollution control or outside recycling and disposal) More history..:  “The major obstacles to increased waste reduction are institutional and behavioral rather than technical.” --Serious Reduction of Hazardous Waste. US Congress. 1986 OTA estimated at least 10 percent reduction of wastes/year possible for next five years They found that industries had no idea how much waste they produced More history.. Case study. 1986. Cutting Chemical Waste study in the USA :  Case study. 1986. Cutting Chemical Waste study in the USA A review of 29 chemical companies in the USA in 1986 by the research group INFORM showed that: less than 1% of companies had any waste reduction initiatives at all any efforts to reduce waste was caused by regulations not one company had done a waste audit and not one company knew how much waste they produced in total Results of INFORM study:  Results of INFORM study The researchers found significant potential for waste reduction and in some cases up to 80 percent of emissions could be avoided. Many did not need sophisticated techniques. New study 2 years later found even more waste reduction opportunities Recommendations of INFORM (1986):  Recommendations of INFORM (1986) Political action was necessary The government needed to close cheap disposal options The companies needed to accept increased liability The public needed more access to information about emissions from each company Companies needed to set timelines and goals to reduce their waste generation Late 1980s saw increasing interest in cleaner production/first legislation on public right to know:  Late 1980s saw increasing interest in cleaner production/first legislation on public right to know Toxic Use Reduction Act in Massachusetts, USA 1989 UNEP global Cleaner Production Programme 1990 Also first Community Right to Know Act in USA 1986 established Toxic Release Inventory (mandatory reporting by companies of their emissions) Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production defined in national and international bodies:  Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production defined in national and international bodies “Pollution Prevention reduces the amount of any hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminants entering any waste stream or otherwise released into the environment (including fugitive emissions) prior to recycling, treatment, or disposal.” US Pollution Prevention Act, 1990 Pollution Prevention became defined as source reduction or any practice which prevented hazardous emissions before they were created. The same year, 1990-- UNEP established its Cleaner Production Programme Toxics Use Reduction – A SUCCESS STORY FROM THE USA “Massachusetts is cleaner and safe today than it was a generation ago.” Toxic Use Reduction Institute:  Toxics Use Reduction – A SUCCESS STORY FROM THE USA “Massachusetts is cleaner and safe today than it was a generation ago.” Toxic Use Reduction Institute In the late 1980s environmental health leaders (academics, NGOs, government officials) in the state of Massachusetts in the USA established Toxics Use Reduction (TUR) as a priority. TUR focuses on the reduction and elimination of the USE of toxic chemicals in industrial processes. Initial state goal: 50% reduction of toxic chemical use within 10 years What is toxic use reduction?:  What is toxic use reduction? Toxics Use Reduction Act (1989): “any practice which reduces the amount of any hazardous substances, pollutant, or contaminants entering any waste stream or otherwise released into the environment (including fugitive emissions) prior to recycling, treatment, or disposal; and that reduces the hazards to public health and the environment associated with the release of such substances, pollutant, or contaminants.” How is this done?:  How is this done? Toxic chemical substitution Production process modification Finished product reformulation Product modernization Improvements in operations and maintenance In-process recycling of production materials if in closed pipe. Each company must do a material flow audit:  Each company must do a material flow audit What is a material flow audit?:  What is a material flow audit? Accounts for every kilo of a chemical shipped to the process> created in or destroyed in the process;>delivered as product from the process> and wasted. All releases to air, water, product, land, shipped off site must be quantified. Toxic Use reduction plans:  Toxic Use reduction plans Mandatory to do the plan but up to company to implement it! Vast majority of companies did execute plans due to cost savings and environmental benefits Plans certified by Toxic Use Reduction planners; public has access to summaries Assistance is key to success:  Assistance is key to success TURI (Toxic Use Reduction Institute) Financed by fees based on Toxic Release Inventory data for each company Fees used only to help companies reduce their toxic use Many company employees take course and become Toxic Use Reduction Planners Results of TURA (1990-2000):  Results of TURA (1990-2000) Companies have reduced toxic waste by 41%. Companies achieved an 80% reduction in toxic emissions. Companies have reduced the use of toxic chemicals by 33%. Companies saved over $15 million while reducing hazards from facilities. No need to consider future incinerator proposals. The ‘need’ has disappeared. Toxic Use Reduction:  Toxic Use Reduction  Healthy Hair Campaign  •  The Environmentally Preferable Janatorial Cleaning Project •  Drycleaning and Toxics Use Reduction •  Educating Workers and Unions about Toxics Use Reduction •  TUR in Food Service •  Healthy Cosmetology • Wastewater Treatment  • Healthy Hair Poster •  Chemicals in Beauty Products • Beauty Shop Precautions • Janitorial Cleaning • Green Cleaning Resources • TUR Booklet • Lexington's Food Est. project   •   Pollution Prevention (P2) Clearinghouse   •  On-Site Assistance   •  P2 Gems      Automotive      Dry cleaning      Health Care      Hospitality      Metal Finishing      Laundry      Painting and Coating      Printing        Toxics Use Reduction Institute Visit www.turi.org Many case studies Model legislation Description of Toxic Use Reduction Act Similar results in Europe: Landskrona, Sweden 1989:  Similar results in Europe: Landskrona, Sweden 1989 Seven SME (small and medium enterprises) targeted for clean technology potential Waste reduction audits performed by university consultants in conjunction with firms ’process engineers Mass Balances drawn up Plant walk-throughs conducted with workers Results: safer substitutes show the way to avoid incineration Landskrona company avoids incineration after clean tech audit:  Landskrona company avoids incineration after clean tech audit One company that manufactured lighting fixtures had air pollution and worker exposure problem with degreasing operation using trichloroethylene and from organic solvents from painting operations Eliminated use of trichloroethylene. Petroleum based products substitutes with vegetable-based, biodegradable oils which did not need toxic solvent. Now uses only mild alkaline rinse. Savings of 10,000 SEK for trichloroethylene, 50,000 for labour costs and one time savings of 17,000 in equipments costs plus safer working conditions Company eliminated need for incinerator and saved money::  Company eliminated need for incinerator and saved money: SOLVENT BASED PAINTING SEK Paint + solvent 388,000 Cleaning (labour cost – 6 persons x 1 day/month x 11) 16,900 Hazardous waste (transport + destruction) 42,200 Pump station (working cost) 30,400 Cleaning equipment (cost of support combustion) 38,800 Labour need (4 painters) 202,400 Total 718,600 --------------------------------------------------------- POWDER PAINTING Paint 202,400 Labour need (2 painters) 101,200 Total 303,600 One recurring complaint from clean production specialists:  One recurring complaint from clean production specialists “We show time and time again that cleaner production is feasible and cost effective yet industries do not take up our offer of help.” Campaign against sewage sludge incinerator, Toronto, Canada 1995:  Campaign against sewage sludge incinerator, Toronto, Canada 1995 Sewage sludge incinerator focus of Toronto community campaign Lobbied for land application but sludge not safe due to industrial emissions into sewer WWF and Clean Production Action drew up city legislation based on TURA legislation; had city lawyers write it Toronto By-law adopts TURA-type legislation:  Toronto By-law adopts TURA-type legislation Campaign worked with sewage plant union workers who would benefit from less toxic exposure in treatment plant Toronto By-law makes planning mandatory (but not the implementation) Dentists opposed; printers supporter Result: major decline in mercury emissions to Lake Ontario one year after implementation (1999) California focus on ‘waste minimization catalyzes source reduction in multi sectors:  California focus on ‘waste minimization catalyzes source reduction in multi sectors history of strong anti-incineration campaigns in California State legislation (1990) required waste audits at each facility, a plan and documentation to indicate how and when the facility will minimize the generation and, upon demand, must present proof of compliance with the plan Subsequent California workshop demonstrates many case studies:  Subsequent California workshop demonstrates many case studies Incinerable Hazardous Waste Minimization Workshops conducted by California Dept of Health Services (1991) Source reduction case studies given by Petroleum Refineries, Electronics, Aerospace, Chemical and Paint manufacturing sectors Payback less than two years Much avoidance of incineration achieved through process change (phase out of chlorinated solvent use for aqueous washing, terpene biodegradable oils, segregation of oily wastes, substitution of safer chemicals) Source reduction works:  Source reduction works County government of Ventura California – waste reduction programme: between 1984 to 1986 the main 95 generators in the county cut wastes by 70% Helped provide impetus for state legislation five year later Why did companies change?:  Why did companies change? “The regulatory drivers for waste reduction are familiar to most by now, and may be summarized into three categories of legislation: 1) inventory reporting, 2) emission reporting, and 3) employee exposure levels. Anticipation of future restrictions was a decisive factor in this project.” - Aeroject Propulsion Division Why did companies change?:  Why did companies change? In the earlier years, most of the hazardous waste reduction was achieved by treatment or off-site recycling. And where possible, waste was incinerated or, as a last resort, sent to a class I landfill. Disposal then was relatively cheap and there seemed to be plenty of capacity. But times have changed and so have we. IBM. Incinerable Waste Case Studies at IBM. 1991 The view from IBM in 1991:  The view from IBM in 1991 …Industry is working hard to reduce usage or eliminate chemicals and waste from existing products and processes. But few of use want to continue this approach forever. What is needed at all levels in a business, is people who realize that the next generation of products and processes must be designed to eliminate negative impact on the environment..that many wastes can be recycled, often within the same process that generated them and processes can sometimes be designed to work with much less chemical. We need designers, engineers and managers who believe this and know how to implement the concept. Extended Producer Responsibility gains popularity in late 1990’s:  Extended Producer Responsibility gains popularity in late 1990’s Slide69:  DONOR ORGANIZATIONS   ADB US-AEP CIDA CDG EA DANIDA JICA Joanneum UNCTAD UNIDO UNEP UNDP more... latest CP Activities...   UNEP website full of info:  UNEP website full of info Visit www.unepie.org/ for information on their case studies and reports. National Cleaner Production Centres in many countries Many Industries still do not know how much waste they generate:  Many Industries still do not know how much waste they generate If they don’t measure it they can’t reduce it -- That is why mandatory audits are critical Do companies in your country do mandatory audits with a goal to reduce toxic materials in their process? Does your government have a clean production plan in place? Do you have access to information and community right to know laws? Malaysia:  Malaysia Denmark finances incinerators in Malaysia based on Kummunekemi design. “When the plant was being designed, Malaysia drew up legislation”on hazardous waste. The Act was prepared with Danish assistance and based on Danish legislation “Companies are now required to inform the authorities about hazardous waste and whether there is a need for associated collection, storage and processing. (companies have to pay for this service) Kommunekemi – Danish flagship incinerator:  Kommunekemi – Danish flagship incinerator More than 10,000 kg of organic substances and 2,000 kg of heavy metals blown from stack each year. Since 1975 when plant first opened over quarter million tonnes of fly and baghouse ash deposited in landfill by the sea the leachate from which has caused significant heavy metal contamination to nearby fisheries 700 gm of dioxins at the dumpsite and 70 gm per year dioxins emitted from the stack. Greenpeace Denmark report on Kommunekemi, 1989 ..while Denmark tries to stop PVC from entering its incinerators back home:  ..while Denmark tries to stop PVC from entering its incinerators back home Where is clean technology advice from Denmark? Denmark leads the way on green procurement, research on safer substitutes to PVC and brominated flame retardents Why are they exporting the bad instead of the good? Israel:  Israel “in July 2001 a national Clean Production center was established in Israel. It is very small – one person who is the manager and the only full-time employee of the center.” “In its first action the center issued a call for factories, to join its programs and sent letters to the 1700 factories which are members in the industrial association. All the center got was 40 responses.” Other country responses:  Other country responses “Government considers Best Available Technology to be incineration” “We have no definition of hazardous waste in our country” “Our government has no idea how much waste is generated” “I don’t know what waste goes to the incinerator; the data is vague” Thailand:  Thailand In 1997 the Industrial Works Department hired the CMS Engineering and Management Company and Rust International Inc of the USA to analyze and predict the increases in industrial waste over next 10 years. This estimation is used to draw up a Master Plan for The Elimination of Hazardous Waste by establishing an industrial waste management center in a province. The Ministry of Industry emphasized an incineration of hazardous waste as its components. The cost…will be 220 million Baht and estimate of 10,000-50,000 tons of waste could be burnt per year.” Malaysian initiative on CP:  Malaysian initiative on CP “I, Thaya of Greenfields Consulting and Jenny Tan of the Centre for Env Tech and another lady got together in 1997 to initiate and form a voluntary interest group. The CP Interest Group was, however, limited in its activities, it being voluntary. We organised our 1st Malaysian CP Conference in July 1999 and had a number of annual CP seminars. Someday we hope there will be a Malaysian CP Centre funded by our government or an international agency.” Points to discuss::  Points to discuss: Do you want to push clean production in parallel with your incineration campaigns? If so what do you need-- Information/networks?, training?, funding? Time? Strategies? Would you find a toolkit useful? If not, what prevents you from pushing clean production strategies? Thank you! :  Thank you! And stay tuned for our new website: www.cleanproduction.org to be launched next month

Add a comment

Related presentations