Airborne Particulate Matter: Pollution Prevention and Control

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Airborne Particulate Matter: Pollution Prevention and Control Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook WORLD BANK GROUP Effective July 1998 Airborne Particulate Matter: Pollution Prevention and Control Airborne particulate matter (PM) emissions can Fuel Cleaning be minimized by pollution prevention and emis- sion control measures. Prevention, which is fre- Reduction of ash by fuel cleaning reduces the quently more cost-effective than control, should generation of PM emissions. Physical cleaning of be emphasized. Special attention should be given coal through washing and beneficiation can re- to pollution abatement measures in areas where duce its ash and sulfur content, provided that care toxics associated with particulate emissions may is taken in handling the large quantities of solid pose a significant environmental risk. and liquid wastes that are generated by the clean- ing process. An alternative to coal cleaning is the Approaches to Pollution Prevention co-firing of coal with higher and lower ash con- tent. In addition to reduced particulate emissions, Management low-ash coal also contributes to better boiler performance and reduced boiler maintenance Measures such as improved process design, op- costs and downtime, thereby recovering some eration, maintenance, housekeeping, and other of the coal cleaning costs. For example, for a management practices can reduce emissions. By project in East Asia, investment in coal clean- improving combustion efficiency, the amount of ing had an internal rate of return of 26% (World products of incomplete combustion (PICs), a Bank 1991). component of particulate matter, can be signifi- cantly reduced. Proper fuel-firing practices and Choice of Technology and Processes combustion zone configuration, along with an adequate amount of excess air, can achieve lower The use of more efficient technologies or process PICs. changes can reduce PIC emissions. Advanced coal combustion technologies such as coal gas- Choice of Fuel ification and fluidized-bed combustion are ex- amples of cleaner processes that may lower PICs Atmospheric particulate emissions can be re- by approximately 10%. Enclosed coal crushers duced by choosing cleaner fuels. Natural gas and grinders emit lower PM. used as fuel emits negligible amounts of particu- late matter. Oil-based processes also emit signifi- Approaches to Emission Control cantly fewer particulates than coal-fired combustion processes. Low-ash fossil fuels con- A variety of particulate removal technologies, tain less noncombustible, ash-forming mineral with different physical and economic character- matter and thus generate lower levels of particu- istics, are available. late emissions. Lighter distillate oil–based com- Inertial or impingement separators rely on the bustion results in lower levels of particulate inertial properties of the particles to separate emissions than heavier residual oils. However, them from the carrier gas stream. Inertial sepa- the choice of fuel is usually influenced by eco- rators are primarily used for the collection of nomic as well as environmental considerations. medium-size and coarse particles. They include 235 236 PROJECT GUIDELINES: POLLUTANT CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES settling chambers and centrifugal cyclones Their efficiency in removing toxic metals such as (straight-through, or the more frequently used arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, and nickel is reverse-flow cyclones). Cyclones are low-cost, greater than 99% (Moore 1994).1 They also have low-maintenance centrifugal collectors that are the potential to enhance the capture of sulfur di- typically used to remove particulates in the size oxide (SO2) in installations downstream of sor- range of 10–100 microns (mm); see Henderson- bent injection and dry-scrubbing systems (Stultz Sellers (1984). The fine-dust-removal efficiency and Kitto 1992). They typically add 1–2% to the of cyclones is typically below 70%, whereas elec- capital cost of new power plants. trostatic precipitators (ESPs) and baghouses can Wet scrubbers rely on a liquid spray to remove have removal efficiencies of 99.9% or more. Cy- dust particles from a gas stream. They are pri- clones are therefore often used as a primary stage marily used to remove gaseous emissions, with before other PM removal mechanisms. They typi- particulate control a secondary function. The cally cost about US$35 per cubic meter/minute major types are venturi scrubbers, jet (fume) flow rate (m3/min), or US$1 per cubic foot/ scrubbers, and spray towers or chambers. Ven- minute (cu. ft/min); see Cooper and Alley (1986). turi scrubbers consume large quantities of scrub- Electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) remove par- bing liquid (such as water) and electric power ticles by using an electrostatic field to attract the and incur high pressure drops. Jet or fume scrub- particles onto the electrodes. Collection efficien- bers rely on the kinetic energy of the liquid cies for well-designed, well-operated, and well- stream. The typical removal efficiency of a jet or maintained systems are typically in the order of fume scrubber (for particles 10 mm or less) is 99.9% or more of the inlet dust loading. ESPs are lower than that of a venturi scrubber. Spray tow- especially efficient in collecting fine particulates ers can handle larger gas flows with minimal and can also capture trace emissions of some toxic pressure drop and are therefore often used as metals with an efficiency of 99% (Moore 1994). precoolers. Because wet scrubbers may contrib- They are less sensitive to maximum temperatures ute to corrosion, removal of water from the ef- than are fabric filters, and they operate with a fluent gas of the scrubbers may be necessary. very low pressure drop. Their consumption of Another consideration is that wet scrubbing re- electricity is similar to that of fabric filters (see sults in a liquid effluent. Wet-scrubbing technol- Table 1). ESP performance is affected by fly-ash ogy is used where the contaminant cannot be loading, the resistance of fly ash, and the sulfur removed easily in a dry form, soluble gases and content of the fuel. Lower sulfur concentrations wettable particles are present, and the contami- in the flue gas can lead to a decrease in collection nant will undergo some subsequent wet process efficiency (Stultz and Kitto 1992). ESPs have been (such as recovery, wet separation or settling, or used for the recovery of process materials such neutralization). Gas flow rates range from 20 to as cement, as well as for pollution control. They 3,000 m3/min. Gas flow rates of approximately typically add 1–2% to the capital cost. of a new 2,000 m3/min. may have a corresponding pres- industrial plant. sure drop of 25 cm water column (Bounicore and Filters and dust collectors (baghouses) collect dust Davis 1992). by passing flue gases through a fabric that acts as a filter. The most commonly used is the bag Equipment Selection filter, or baghouse. The various types of filter media include woven fabric, needled felt, plas- The selection of PM emissions control equipment tic, ceramic, and metal (Croom 1993). The oper- is influenced by environmental, economic, and ating temperature of the baghouse gas influences engineering factors: the choice of fabric. Accumulated particles are Environmental factors include (a) the impact of removed by mechanical shaking, reversal of the control technology on ambient air quality; (b) the gas flow, or a stream of high-pressure air. Fab- contribution of the pollution control system to ric filters are efficient (99.9% removal) for both the volume and characteristics of wastewater and high and low concentrations of particles but are solid waste generation; and (c) maximum allow- suitable only for dry and free-flowing particles. able emissions requirements. Airborne Particulate Matter: Pollution Prevention and Control 237 Economic factors include (a) the capital cost of For gases containing soluble toxics and where the control technology; (b) the operating and the gas flow rate is less than 3,000 m3/min, wet maintenance costs of the technology; and (c) the scrubbers may be used. Cyclones and mechani- expected lifetime and salvage value of the equip- cal separators should be used only as precleaning ment. devices upstream of a baghouse or an ESP. Engineering factors include (a) contaminant characteristics such as physical and chemical Key Issues for Pollution Prevention properties—concentration, particulate shape, size and Control Planning distribution, chemical reactivity, corrosivity, abrasiveness, and toxicity; (b) gas stream charac- The principal methods for controlling the release teristics such as volume flow rate, dust loading, of particulate matter are summarized here. temperature, pressure, humidity, composition, viscosity, density, reactivity, combustibility, • Identify measures for improving operating corrosivity, and toxicity; and (c) design and per- and management practices. formance characteristics of the control system • Consider alternative fuels such as gas instead such as pressure drop, reliability, dependability, of coal. compliance with utility and maintenance require- • Consider fuel-cleaning options such as coal ments, and temperature limitations, as well as washing, which can reduce ash content by up size, weight, and fractional efficiency curves for to 40%. particulates and mass transfer or contaminant • Consider alternative production processes and destruction capability for gases or vapors. technologies, such as fluidized bed combus- Table 1 presents the principal advantages and tion, that result in reduced PM emissions. disadvantages of the
Recommended publications
  • National Air Quality Status and Trends Through 2007
    National Air Quality STATUS AND TRENDS THROUGH 2007 Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable process chlorine-free paper with 100% post-consumer fiber using vegetable-oil-based ink. National Air Quality STATUS AND TRENDS THROUGH 2007 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Air Quality Assessment Division Research Triangle Park, North Carolina EPA-454/R-08-006 November 2008 Table of Contents Highlights ... 1 Air Pollution ... 4 Six Common Pollutants ... 10 Ground-Level Ozone ... 14 Particle Pollution ... 19 Lead ... 26 Nitrogen Dioxide ... 27 Carbon Monoxide ... 27 Sulfur Dioxide ... 27 Toxic Air Pollutants ... 28 Atmospheric Deposition ... 32 Visibility in Scenic Areas ... 34 Climate Change and Air Quality ... 36 International Transport of Air Pollution ... 38 Terminology ... 40 Web Sites ... 41 HIGHLIGHTS This summary report highlights EPA’s most recent ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). Ground- evaluation of the status and trends in our nation’s air level ozone and particle pollution still present quality. challenges in many areas of the country. LEVELS OF SIX COMMON POLLUTANTS • Though PM2.5 concentrations were higher in 2007 CONTINUE TO DECLINE than in 2006, partly due to weather conditions, annual PM2.5 concentrations were nine percent • Cleaner cars, industries, and consumer products lower in 2007 than in 2001. have contributed to cleaner air for much of the U.S. • 8-hour ozone concentrations were fi ve percent • Since 1990, nationwide air quality for six air lower in 2007 than in 2001. Ozone levels did not pollutants for which there are national standards improve in much of the East until 2002, after has improved signifi cantly.
    [Show full text]
  • HEPA) Filter - Ultra Low Penetration Air (ULPA) Filter (Also Referred to As Extended Media
    EPA-452/F-03-023 Air Pollution Cocntrol Technology Fact Sheet Name of Technology: Paper/Nonwoven Filter - High Efficiency Particle Air (HEPA) Filter - Ultra Low Penetration Air (ULPA) Filter (also referred to as Extended Media) Type of Technology: Control Device - Capture/Disposal Applicable Pollutants: Submicron Particulate Matter (PM) greater than or equal to 0.3 micrometer (µm) in aerodynamic diameter, and PM greater than or equal to 0.12 µm in aerodynamic diameter that is chemically, biologically, or radioactively toxic; hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) that are in particulate form, such as most metals (mercury is the notable exception, as a significant portion of emissions are in the form of elemental vapor). Achievable Emission Limits/Reductions: HEPA and ULPA filters are classified by their minimum collection efficiency. Many international standards and classes currently exist for high efficiency filters (Osborn, 1989). In general, HEPA and ULPA filters are defined as having the following minimum efficiency rating (Heumann, 1997): HEPA: 99.97% efficiency for the removal of 0.3 µm diameter or larger PM, ULPA: 99.9995% efficiency for the removal of 0.12 µm diameter or larger PM. Some extended media filters are capable of much higher efficiencies. Commercially available filters can control PM with 0.01 µm diameter at efficiencies of 99.99+% and PM with 0.1 µm diameter at efficiencies of 99.9999+% (Gaddish, 1989; Osborn, 1989). Several factors determine HEPA and ULPA filter collection efficiency. These include gas filtration, velocity, particle characteristics, and filter media characteristics. In general, the collection efficiency increases with increasing filtration velocity and particle size.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 7 Pollution Prevention
    This guidance is not a regulatory document and should be considered only informational and supplementary to the MPCA permits (such as the construction storm water general permit or MS4 permit) and local regulations. CHAPTER 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 7.00 POLLUTION PREVENTION..............................................................................................7.00-1 7.01 Nonstructural Practices: PLAN DEVELOPMENT.....................................................7.01-1 7.02 Nonstructural Practices: EMPLOYEE TRAINING....................................................7.02-1 7.03 Nonstructural Practices: INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE ............................7.03-1 7.04 Nonstructural Practices: MONITORING AND EVALUATION ...............................7.04-1 7.20 GENERAL PRACTICES.....................................................................................................7.20-1 7.22 General Practices: SPILL PLANS...............................................................................7.22-1 7.23 General Practices: LITTER CONTROL .....................................................................7.23-1 7.24 General Practices: LAWN MANAGEMENT.............................................................7.24-1 7.25 General Practices: DUST CONTROL ........................................................................7.25-1 7.26 General Practices: EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL...................................7.26-1 7.27 General Practices: STREET SWEEPING...................................................................7.27-1
    [Show full text]
  • WHO Guidelines for Indoor Air Quality : Selected Pollutants
    WHO GUIDELINES FOR INDOOR AIR QUALITY WHO GUIDELINES FOR INDOOR AIR QUALITY: WHO GUIDELINES FOR INDOOR AIR QUALITY: This book presents WHO guidelines for the protection of pub- lic health from risks due to a number of chemicals commonly present in indoor air. The substances considered in this review, i.e. benzene, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, naphthalene, nitrogen dioxide, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (especially benzo[a]pyrene), radon, trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethyl- ene, have indoor sources, are known in respect of their hazard- ousness to health and are often found indoors in concentrations of health concern. The guidelines are targeted at public health professionals involved in preventing health risks of environmen- SELECTED CHEMICALS SELECTED tal exposures, as well as specialists and authorities involved in the design and use of buildings, indoor materials and products. POLLUTANTS They provide a scientific basis for legally enforceable standards. World Health Organization Regional Offi ce for Europe Scherfi gsvej 8, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark Tel.: +45 39 17 17 17. Fax: +45 39 17 18 18 E-mail: [email protected] Web site: www.euro.who.int WHO guidelines for indoor air quality: selected pollutants The WHO European Centre for Environment and Health, Bonn Office, WHO Regional Office for Europe coordinated the development of these WHO guidelines. Keywords AIR POLLUTION, INDOOR - prevention and control AIR POLLUTANTS - adverse effects ORGANIC CHEMICALS ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE - adverse effects GUIDELINES ISBN 978 92 890 0213 4 Address requests for publications of the WHO Regional Office for Europe to: Publications WHO Regional Office for Europe Scherfigsvej 8 DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark Alternatively, complete an online request form for documentation, health information, or for per- mission to quote or translate, on the Regional Office web site (http://www.euro.who.int/pubrequest).
    [Show full text]
  • An Ounce of Pollution Prevention Is Worth Over 167 Billion* Pounds of Cure: a Decade of Pollution Prevention Results 1990
    2418_historyfinal.qxd 2/3/03 4:38 PM Page 1 January 2003 National Pollution Prevention Roundtable An Ounce of Pollution Prevention is Worth Over 167 Billion* Pounds of Cure: A Decade of Pollution Prevention Results 1990 - 2000 2418_historyfinal.qxd 2/3/03 4:38 PM Page 2 January 28, 2003 Acknowledgements NPPR would like to thank EPA’s John Cross, Acting Produced by the National Pollution Prevention Division Director for U.S. EPA’s Pollution Prevention Roundtable (NPPR) with funding provided by Division, Cindy McComas, Director - Minnesota the United States Environmental Protection Technical Assistance Program (MNTAP) and Ken Agency’s Office of Prevention Pesticides and Zarker, NPPR Board Chair (Texas Commission on Toxics’ Pollution Prevention Division and NPPR. Environmental Quality), for all of their support and input into this seminal document. NPPR hopes that this paper becomes the starting point as well as launching pad for further work measuring pollution prevention successes across the country and globally. This report was researched and prepared by: Steven Spektor, NPPR staff Natalie Roy, NPPR Executive Director P2 Results Advisory Group Co-Advisory Chair Cindy McComas (MNTAP) Co-Advisory Chair Ken Zarker (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality) Melinda Dower, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJ DEP Terri Goldberg, Northeast Waste Management Officials’ Association (NEWMOA) Tom Natan, National Environmental Trust (NET) On the cover: The National Pollution Prevention Roundtable, The number in the report’s title, 167 billion pounds, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, is the largest includes the data from the air, water, waste, combined membership organization in the United States and electricity column of Table 1.4.
    [Show full text]
  • Pollution Prevention
    Unit 4: Pollution Prevention TABLE OF CONTENTS UNIT SUMMARY 1 CERTIFICATION CHECKLIST 2 STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES 10 LESSON PLAN 10 LESSON 1: HOW TO PREVENT POLLUTION AT SCHOOL 11 LESSON 2: CLEAN AND GREEN 19 LESSON 3: PROMOTE POLLUTION PREVENTION AT SCHOOL! 25 MATERIALS NEEDED 26 Unit 4: Pollution Prevention Unit Summary This unit will show your green@school team how to ensure that your school is doing its best to prevent pollution on your school site. Students will learn ways to protect our shared air, water, and soil resources at school and at home. They will also evaluate your school’s practices around a number of potential sources of pollution. Actions 1. Become campus pollutant and chemical detectives—explore your Here are some actions you will take to classrooms, bathrooms, offices, janitorial closets, cupboards, the staff room, complete the green@school checklist and and even the cafeteria kitchen to find potential pollutants and chemicals. reduce your school’s environmental 2. Interview relevant school and district staff to find out what type of impact. products are purchased and how potential pollutants are disposed of or recycled. 3. Investigate existing indoor and outdoor cleaning practices, field management, and pest control methods at your school and evaluate safe practices and where there is room for improvement. 4. Improve existing or implement new pollution prevention practices at your school and/or recommend actions to your district. 5. Determine how well Boltage is working. Find out what alternative transportation practices are in place and how your school can further reduce vehicle emissions. Campaign Opportunities 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Emission Control Technology for Masonry Fireplaces
    Revolutionary Emission Control System for Masonry Fireplace Retro-Fits from FMI Products Emission Control Technology for Masonry Fireplaces Wood smoke emissions are currently one of the most significant health risks in the US. New regulatory standards for wood burning fireplaces are being passed to reduce smoke and particulate emissions nationwide. Wood burning fireplaces are being restricted by Clean Air Regulators in almost every state. The PureFire Wood Burning Fireplace PureFire™ Technology is designed to solve this problem. Fireplace Technology FMI Products has successfully developed a wood burning fireplace emission control technology that reduces particulate emissions by 80%. The PureFire™ system reduces airborne PM2.5 particulates in masonry fireplaces to 4.3 g/kg. This is well below the EPA Phase 2 emissions limit of 5.1 g/kg. The PureFire™ system is catalytic and uses a patented hood device to isolate the offensive pollutants and wood smoke. The particulates are then destroyed by a state-of-the-art catalytic system. The PureFire™ System can be installed in less than an hour, it doesn’t require any power or connections, it is maintenance free and it is affordable to the homeowner. The US Environmental Protection Agency promotes fireplace technologies that meet the Phase 2 emission limit of 5.1 g/kg. Existing fireplaces currently emit 12-15 g/kg of particulate pollution. There hasn’t been a technological solution for masonry wood burning fireplaces to meet the new EPA Phase 2 emissions limit. UNTIL NOW! The PureFire™ System was tested to stringent EPA requirements at Omni Test Laboratory in Portland OR.
    [Show full text]
  • Indoor Air Quality in Commercial and Institutional Buildings
    Indoor Air Quality in Commercial and Institutional Buildings OSHA 3430-04 2011 Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 “To assure safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women; by authorizing enforcement of the standards developed under the Act; by assisting and encouraging the States in their efforts to assure safe and healthful working conditions; by providing for research, information, education, and training in the field of occupational safety and health.” This publication provides a general overview of a particular standards-related topic. This publication does not alter or determine compliance responsibili- ties which are set forth in OSHA standards, and the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. More- over, because interpretations and enforcement poli- cy may change over time, for additional guidance on OSHA compliance requirements, the reader should consult current administrative interpretations and decisions by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission and the courts. Material contained in this publication is in the public domain and may be reproduced, fully or partially, without permission. Source credit is requested but not required. This information will be made available to sensory- impaired individuals upon request. Voice phone: (202) 693-1999; teletypewriter (TTY) number: 1-877- 889-5627. Indoor Air Quality in Commercial and Institutional Buildings Occupational Safety and Health Administration U.S. Department of Labor OSHA 3430-04 2011 The guidance is advisory in nature and informational in content. It is not a standard or regulation, and it neither creates new legal obligations nor alters existing obligations created by OSHA standards or the Occupational Safety and Health Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Diffuse Pollution, Degraded Waters Emerging Policy Solutions
    Diffuse Pollution, Degraded Waters Emerging Policy Solutions Policy HIGHLIGHTS Diffuse Pollution, Degraded Waters Emerging Policy Solutions “OECD countries have struggled to adequately address diffuse water pollution. It is much easier to regulate large, point source industrial and municipal polluters than engage with a large number of farmers and other land-users where variable factors like climate, soil and politics come into play. But the cumulative effects of diffuse water pollution can be devastating for human well-being and ecosystem health. Ultimately, they can undermine sustainable economic growth. Many countries are trying innovative policy responses with some measure of success. However, these approaches need to be replicated, adapted and massively scaled-up if they are to have an effect.” Simon Upton – OECD Environment Director POLICY H I GH LI GHT S After decades of regulation and investment to reduce point source water pollution, OECD countries still face water quality challenges (e.g. eutrophication) from diffuse agricultural and urban sources of pollution, i.e. pollution from surface runoff, soil filtration and atmospheric deposition. The relative lack of progress reflects the complexities of controlling multiple pollutants from multiple sources, their high spatial and temporal variability, the associated transactions costs, and limited political acceptability of regulatory measures. The OECD report Diffuse Pollution, Degraded Waters: Emerging Policy Solutions (OECD, 2017) outlines the water quality challenges facing OECD countries today. It presents a range of policy instruments and innovative case studies of diffuse pollution control, and concludes with an integrated policy framework to tackle this challenge. An optimal approach will likely entail a mix of policy interventions reflecting the basic OECD principles of water quality management – pollution prevention, treatment at source, the polluter pays and the beneficiary pays principles, equity, and policy coherence.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Effects of Ozone Depletion and Its Interactions with Climate Change: 2010 Assessment
    University of Wollongong Research Online Faculty of Science - Papers (Archive) Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health 2010 Environmental Effects of Ozone Depletion and its Interactions with Climate Change: 2010 Assessment Sharon A. Robinson University of Wollongong, [email protected] Stephen R. Wilson University of Wollongong, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/scipapers Part of the Life Sciences Commons, Physical Sciences and Mathematics Commons, and the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Robinson, Sharon A. and Wilson, Stephen R.: Environmental Effects of Ozone Depletion and its Interactions with Climate Change: 2010 Assessment 2010. https://ro.uow.edu.au/scipapers/456 Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected] Environmental Effects of Ozone Depletion and its Interactions with Climate Change: 2010 Assessment Abstract This quadrennial Assessment was prepared by the Environmental Effects Assessment Panel (EEAP) for the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. The Assessment reports on key findings on environment and health since the last full Assessment of 2006, paying attention to the interactions between ozone depletion and climate change. Simultaneous publication of the Assessment in the scientific literature aims to inform the scientific community how their data, modeling and interpretations are playing a role in information dissemination to the Parties
    [Show full text]
  • Cleaner Production : Basic Principles and Development
    Michael Overcash 1 Cleaner Production : Basic Principles And Development Michael Overcash* *Pollution Prevention Research Center Chemical Engineering Department Raleigh, North Carolina, 27695-7905 Tel :919~515-2325, Fax : 919-515-3465, E-mail :[email protected] ABSTRACT : Cleaner production is of substantial importance in changing the environmental approach within advanced industrialized countries. The critical principles involve fund교 mental understanding of diverse industrial processes, adherence to the easiest techniques of a hierarchy for reducing wastes, and utilization of an underlying thought process to achieve pollution prevention successes that are both technically feasible and cost-effective. Chemical engineering has played a major and unique role in this environmental field. Improving the sustainability of cleaner production will rest on including this subject in the curriculum of university engineering. 1. INTRODUCTION began in U.S. industry and policy during the late 1970's. While examples of improved efficiency and No single dimension of environmental solutions has hence less waste had existed since the start of the captured the imagination of engineers, scientists, policy Industrial Revolution, the distinct explosion of successes -makers, and the public like pollution prevention. In the in pollution prevention did not occur until the 1980's. space of 10 years (1980-1990), the philosophical shift Fig. 1 is an approximate time line of this period [1,2]. and the record of accomplishment have made cleaner The early creation at the 3M Corporation of money production a fundamental means for environmental saving innovations that reduced chemical losses to air, management. This decade began with pollution prevent water, or land was widely publicized [3].
    [Show full text]
  • Guides to Pollution Prevention Municipal Pretreatment Programs EPA/625/R-93/006 October 1993
    United States Office of Research and EPA/625/R-93/O06 Environmental Protection Development October 1993 Agency Washington, DC 20460 Guides to Pollution Prevention Municipal Pretreatment Programs EPA/625/R-93/006 October 1993 Guides to Pollution Prevention: Municipal Pretreatment Programs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development Center for Environmental Research Information Cincinnati, Ohio Printed on Recycled Paper Notice The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (EPA). This document has been reviewed in accordance with the Agency’s peer and administrative review policies and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. ii Acknowledgments This guide is the product of the efforts of many individuals. Gratitude goes to each person involved in the preparation and review of this guide. Authors Lynn Knight and David Loughran, Eastern Research Group, Inc., Lexington, MA, and Daniel Murray, U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Research Information were the principal authors of this guide. Technical Contributors The following individuals provided invaluable technical assistance during the development of this guide: Cathy Allen, U.S. EPA, Region V, Chicago, IL Deborah HanIon, U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC William Fahey, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Boston, MA Eric Renda, Massachusetts
    [Show full text]