| Financial analysis: |  |
| Environmental impact analysis: | --- |
| Waste management/P2: | |
| Environmental cost listing/database: | --- |
| Cost estimation: | --- |
| Alternative product/process comparison: | |
| Financial analysis: | |
| Environmental impact analysis: | --- |
| Waste management/P2: | |
| Environmental cost listing/database: | --- |
| Cost estimation: | --- |
| Alternative product/process comparison: | |
This report replaces the term "Process Waste Assessment" that was used in the previous report, with the term, "Pollution Prevention Opportunity Assessment" (PPOA). The new term was applied to stress that assessments should address all releases rather than be limited to process wastes. A PPOA documents the amount of material that is disposed of as waste during operations. It provides a summary of material usage, process by-products, and waste generation. It targets processes and operations that require improvement or replacements in order to promote waste minimization or pollution prevention.
The report first describes a graded approach to prioritize efforts, using priority material/waste stream lists developed according to DOE guidelines. It further discusses organization of PPOA teams, assessment of activities and waste streams, development and evaluation of options, and recommendations. The appendices contain information on general considerations for prioritizing waste streams, sources of material balance information, an example PPOAs for Levels I,II, and III, and model worksheets.
| Raw material acquisition | --- |
| Manufacturing stage | |
| Use/reuse/maintenance | |
| Recycle/waste management | |
The method mainly considers the manufacturing and waste management stages of the life-cycle by assessing processes and their associated waste streams. The use/reuse portion may be considered through use/reuse/maintenance of materials and chemicals in the facility. In the options generation portion, the method suggests considering waste minimization methods (good operating practices) and recycling and use/reuse of materials.
| Conventional | |
| Potentially hidden | |
| Contingent | |
| External | --- |
The method takes implementation, incremental operating savings/costs, and incremental intangible costs (hidden and liability) into account. The intangible costs include penalties and fines, future liabilities, and other costs. The manual provides a worksheet that allows for weighted sum options evaluation, based on weights assigned to criteria such as regulatory compliance, employee health and safety, etc. This allows users to do rough comparisons of the different options based on internal, less-tangible factors. Social (external) costs are not quantified. The level of detail and the types of costs considered will depend on the level of the assessment.
The manual does not provide any cost data, and all costs have to be estimated by users. It does not provide information on how this cost data can be collected, or how costs such as liability costs, may be estimated.
| Net present value (NPV) | --- |
| Payback period | |
| Internal rate of return (IRR) | --- |
| Benefits cost ratio | --- |
| Other | --- |
The manual describes financial analysis of projects using the payback period as an indicator.
The manual takes to account the difficulties in data collection and detailed analysis for projects. It attempts to counter this problem by providing simplified methodologies through prioritization of projects, a graded approach, and a weighted sums approach for less-tangible factors. The approaches and methodologies can easily be transferred for applications other than manufacturing as well.
Training classes on opportunity assessment are provided for the DOE and DOE contractors on site. Others may be admitted into the class on a limited basis. Attendees are provided with software (available only through the class) to complete the worksheets.
Users are not provided information on method of cost estimation, such as for estimating liability costs. External costs are not taken into account. The payback period is suggested for use as a financial indicator. This indicator often (incorrectly) does not favor pollution prevention projects that typically have longer gestation periods.
Return to the Table of Contents