A Big Picture Approach to Sustainability for Manufacturers
by Jenni Carter, Managing Principal, EORM, Inc.
Sustainability is defined as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”1 Just a few years ago, sustainability was promoted mostly by socially-conscious eco-friendly non-governmental organizations. The perception, at least in the US, was that only a few companies in a handful of industries jumped on the bandwagon. But the issue is now front page news for nearly all segments of industry. One is hard pressed to pick up any major news publication without finding a sustainability-related article on the popularity of hybrid vehicles, alternative energy markets, green marketing versus “green washing,” or dozens more issues.
 |
|||||
Also Recommended |
|||||
|
|||||
 |
|||||
Excusing the pun, the “hottest” sustainability issue is global warming and the greenhouse gas (GHG)2 emissions which contribute to it. By all accounts, emerging State and Federal legislation will lead to a more “carbon constrained” world for manufacturers. Generically, this means reducing energy use (e.g., direct fuel consumption such as boilers, energy purchased from utilities, and energy used in transportation) and modifying processes that emit GHGs. It may eventually require the purchase of carbon offsets if you are unable to sufficiently reduce your consumption. Current voluntary participation in GHG emission inventories (telling the world your “carbon footprint”) will become mandatory for more industry segments. Even if the regulatory net does not catch you, the investment community may knock on your door asking about your carbon performance (such as the Carbon Disclosure Project, which represents 385 institutional investors and over $57 trillion dollars of investment capital).
Although much legislative activity focuses on “carbon footprint,” sustainability as already defined by the investor community requires attention to overall environmental footprint, considering not only energy use and GHG emissions but also impacts to other natural resources. For products, this includes not only the environmental impacts of manufacturing, but also the impacts of raw material acquisition, impacts to the environment during (product) use, and impacts of disposal at the end of the useful product life.
Focusing on the manufacturing stage of this life cycle, environmental footprint reduction would minimize equipment energy use, process waste generation (and the relative impact of that waste), water use, wastewater generation (and water quality impacts), air emissions (beyond GHG), and land impacts. This would require process design teams to identify and manage environmental impacts as early in the design stage as possible. For many companies, this is a huge shift from their current practice of enlisting environmental specialists only to obtain permits after the process design is set in stone. By then it is just too late to affect the environmental impact without very expensive control measures.
So what about existing plants operating equipment that is already specified and in place? What if your process design is already set? On an older manufacturing floor, sustainability improvements might still be achieved by:
-
Assessing and then optimizing energy use patterns – for example, reducing the amount of ventilation required (always an energy hog) on certain parts of the manufacturing floor by consolidating equipment requiring additional ventilation, or by modifying that equipment.
-
Assessing each waste-generating unit operation for source reduction opportunities, then in turn for waste reuse or recycling opportunities, such as fuel blending.
-
Segregating process wastewaters based on reuse opportunity.
Let’s take an example specifically related to parts cleaning. Taking an overall “environmental footprint reduction” approach would mean (in a design stage) assessing the effectiveness of various mechanical vs. chemical methods, manual vs. automated controls, etc., to identify those which are effective but which have the least environmental impact. This would often require assessing alternative chemistries for cleaning agents. From a waste source reduction perspective, this might include weighing the longevity of one agent against the recyclability of the other. However, you would also need to consider differences in rinse water requirements (both the quantity needed and the quality of wastewater generated) for the agents. And if one cleaning agent would require elevated temperature to attain an effectiveness equivalent to the other, the energy use (and associated GHG emission) would need to be considered as well. It’s like a jigsaw puzzle, where each piece needs to be placed correctly to see the big picture.
For existing systems with somewhat fixed chemistry, there may be an opportunity to extend bath life (and therefore improve the environmental footprint) by the addition of contaminant removal peripherals (or even periodic manual processes).
The good news is that nearly everything which reduces environmental footprint (reduced waste, reduced energy use, less hazardous waste, less water use) creates cost savings. This way, we actually enhance our sustainability definition. Not only does it “meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs,” it also “ensures the long-term viability and integrity of your business by optimizing resource needs.”
This article was first published in the May/June 2008 issue of Process Cleaning Magazine and is reprinted here with permission. Visit the Process Cleaning Magazine website at www.processcleaning.com for selected online articles and subscription information.
More Information:
- Contact an EORM consultant to learn how our services will benefit your company.
- View the current issue of Priority Press.
- View previous issues of Priority Press.
- Subscribe to Priority Press.
- Send us your comments or suggestions.