CASE STUDY # 107
1. Headline: Material substitution in the manufacturing of
home appliances.
2. Background: See below.
3. Cleaner Production Principle: material substitution
4. Description of Cleaner Production Application: Scovill
reduced the quantity of waste generated and the amount of
raw materials it purchases. The quantity of 1,1,1
trichloroethane used for degreasing was reduced by
substituting a water soluble synthetic cleaner for the
solvent in many of the degreasing operations. The 1,1,1
trichloroethane that is recovered off-site is reused at
the facility. To further reduce operating costs and waste
generation, Scovill has instituted an employee-incentive
cost-saving program. Teams of employees are formed to
make recommendations and the team responsible for the
greatest annual cost savings receives a bonus check.
The use of water-soluble synthetic cleaner resulted in an
annual cost savings of $12,000 in reduced raw material
costs. Recycling and reusing 1,1,1 trichloroethane
degreasing solvent reduced raw material costs by 34
percent and provided an annual savings of over $5,000.
Additionally, waste disposal costs have been reduced by
over $3,000 per year.
Material/Energy Balance and Substitution
FEEDSTOCKS: Spent solvent (1,1,1-trichloroethylene)
WASTES: Spent water soluble cleaner, 1,1,1
trichloroethylene
MEDIUM: Liquid
5. Economics
CAPITAL COST: $3,250
OPERATION/MAINTENANCE: $100/year
SAVINGS: (1986 dollars)
6. Advantages
FEEDSTOCK REDUCTION: $17,320/year
WASTE PRODUCTION: $3,040/year saved, 38,000 lb/year
reduction in waste
IMPACT: After substituting a water-based synthetic
cleaner for a solvent-based one, introducing solvent
recycling, and initiating an employee incentive cost
saving program, the volume of hazardous waste generated
was reduced as were raw materials costs and waste disposal
costs.
7. Constraints: No information provided.
8. Contacts and Citation:
Accomplishments of North Carolina Industries - Case
Summaries, Hunt, G. et al., North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development, January 1986,
p. 25 A presentation of this case study can also be found
in: "Proven Profit from Pollution Prevention," D.
Huisingh, L. Martin, H. Hilger, N. Seldman, The Institute
for Self-Reliance 2425 18th Street, N.W., Washington,
D.C., 1985, case study 29, Page 115.
Name and Location of Company
North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
United States
TEL:1 (919) 733-7015
9. Keywords: United States, USA, home appliance, material
substitution, good housekeeping, trichloroethane,
degreasing, solvent, synthetic cleaner, trichloroethylene,
ISIC 3634.
10. Reviewer's Comments: This case study was originally
abstracted for the United States Environmental Protection
Agency's Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse.
It underwent a UNEP IE funded technical review in 1994 for
quality and completeness. It was edited for the ICPIC
diskette in July 1995.
( Docno: UNEP02.52 034-010-A-170 )