The Federal Clean Air Act mandates permitting as a Title V source for any stationary source that emits (i) more than 100 tons of any pollutant per year, (ii) more than 10 tons per year of any hazardous pollutant, or (iii) more than 25 tons per year of a combination of hazardous pollutants.
Progressive technologies, such as vacuum infusion, offer the opportunity to dramatically reduce emissions of cancer-causing agents like styrene, while also positively impacting production by reducing labor costs, reducing cost associated with waste disposal, and increasing unit through-put per production hour. Considering the relative inefficiency of open-mold processing, the exposure risk it poses to laborers, and the resulting environmental emissions, its unfortunate that manufacturers continue to file for Title V status as their production capacity increases, rather than choosing to adopt advanced processes that pose long-term economic gains and reduce pollution.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The comments about laborers' exposure to styrene reminds me of several people I knew who worked in the local shipbuilding industry years ago. They worked on naval warship projects in the 60's and 70's and had a great deal of exposure to asbestos. They all died from lung cancer.
Anyway, the short-term fincancing cost of conversion, for a moderate to large shipbuilder, from open-mold to closed-mold could be prohibitive. How do you counter that objection?
From a boatbuilder's perspective, one of the biggest perceived costs of conversion would probably be new tooling. However, the boatbuilder needs to recognize that it is possible to convert a tool used in open-mold processing to a tool suitable for closed-mold processing. It may be feasible to simply add flanges to an existing tool, allowing a boatbuilder to drastically reduce the perceived cost of conversion.
Post a Comment