Cleaner Production:

A profitable road for sustainable development of Australian industry

Cleaner Production:

A profitable road for sustainable development of Australian industry

C.W.M. VAN BERKEL

Abstract

Cleaner Production is a comparatively new approach to dealing with environmental concerns and
grasping the opportunities arising from those challenges. It aims at avoiding the generation of
waste and emissions, by making more efficient use of materials and energy, through
modifications in the production processes, input materials, operating practices and/or products
and services. Although Cleaner Production was pioneered by large processing industries, it has
become evident that it is likewise applicable to small to medium sized enterprises in
manufacturing, construction and service industries. This paper illustrates how selected industries
in different industry sectors were able to implement Cleaner Production practices and
technologies. A division in four categories is used to show that Cleaner Production projects can
range from technical simplicity to complexity, and might be driven by environmental
considerations only, or be the intended spin-off from innovation in products and processes.

Introduction

Cleaner Production has gained world acclaim for its proven ability to reduce industry’s environmental
burden while simultaneously improving industry’s bottom line (UNEP, 1994; OTA, 1995; USEPA, 1997).
The concept was pioneered by 3M and a few other large USA based processing industries that realised in
the mid 1970’s that it makes far more sense - and money - to prevent waste and emissions in the first
place, rather than treat and control waste and emissions after these have been generated. Although it took
until the mid 1980’s before attempts were made to transfer the experience to small to medium sized
enterprises, Cleaner Production practices and technologies for small to medium sized enterprises
developed and disseminated rapidly since then, in particular in Europe, North America, and more recently
as well in Australia, New Zealand and South and East Asia.

The Australian Governments recognise the importance of Cleaner Production. A national Cleaner
Production strategy has been developed by the Australian and New Zealand Environment and
Conservation Committee (ANZECC) and was launched in December 1998 (ANZECC, 1998). The
National Strategy mandates from the states and territories that Cleaner Production fostering strategies and
policies will be implemented and progress reported annually. The state governments have adopted Cleaner
Production for curbing industrial waste and emissions, largely led by the successful initial programs in
Victoria. Most government activity currently targets small to medium sized enterprises, in recognition of
the fact that major larger corporations have apparently initiated Cleaner Production activities on their own.

This paper seeks to contribute to the application of Cleaner Production practices and technologies in
Australian industry. First, a brief overview is given of the underlying concepts and methodology of
Cleaner Production. Next, opportunities and benefits for industry are addressed, by reviewing selected
company experiences from different industry sectors on the adoption of Cleaner Production. A conceptual
division in four types of Cleaner Production projects is used to demonstrate different levels of

Published in Clean Air, Volume 33, No4, pg 33-38, November 1999.

Page 1
 Cleaner Production:
A profitable road for sustainable development of Australian industry

sophistication and complexity in Cleaner Production projects, and of management incentives for the
development of these projects.

Concept and Methodology

Cleaner Production refers to the continuous application of an integrated preventive environmental strategy
to processes, products, and services to increase eco-efficiency and reduce risks to humans and the
environment (UNEP, 1994 (1)). It aims in particular at:
• production processes: conserving raw materials and energy, eliminating toxic raw materials, and
reducing the quantity and toxicity of all emissions and wastes before they leave the process;
• products: reducing the environmental impact along the life cycle of a product, from raw materials
extraction to its ultimate disposal;
• services: incorporating environmental concerns into designing and delivering services.
Cleaner Production requires changing attitudes, responsible environmental management and evaluating
technology options.

Table 1: Illustrative Cleaner Production Options for the Metal Products Industry (modified
from Van Berkel, 1996; Beherendt et all, 1997; O’Leary et al, 1997).

Type of prevention Typical low/no cost examples
practice
1. Product • Make product easy to clean by choosing
Modification smooth and robust surfaces, and by
avoiding small crevices, dead corners and
inaccessible inner spaces
2. Input Substitution • Replace cyanide based electroplating
processes by cyanide free processes (e.g.
alkaline and acid zinc plating)
• Replace solvent based paints by high solids
or water based paints
3. Technology • Application of photosensors to shut off
Modification equipment or rinses in case no objects are
being handled
4. Good • Application of floating balls to reduce
Housekeeping evaporation and heat loss from hot process
baths
• Reduce hoist speed to improve parts
drainage, and thereby minimise drag over
of chemical solution to next process bath
• Minimise bath chemical concentration to
reduce chemicals consumption and thereby
minimise drag over of chemicals to next
process bath
5. On Site Recycling • Counter-current use of rinse water in
multiple rinse processes
Typical medium/high cost examples
• Design for product reuse by adopting a
modular product design, ensuring easy
access to components and reducing wear to
individual components
• Replace solvent-based coatings by powder
coatings
• Replace hexavalent chromium for trivalent
chromium for passivating and plating
• Apply ultrasonic or hydrosonic agitation in
alkaline degreaser baths to improve
degreasing and extend service lifetime of
degreaser baths
• Apply Expanded Pattern Casting
technology (lost foam process) in foundry
operations to eliminate waste casting sand
• Standardise chemicals and coolants being
used in different machines to optimise
chemicals use and to allow for recovery and
reuse
• Recovery and reuse of metal working fluids
(‘coolants’) through application of ultra-
filtration
• Electrolytic recovery of metals from
process waste water from electroplating
operations.

1
This definition has also recently been adopted in Australia’s National Cleaner Production Strategy (ANZECC, 1998).

Published in Clean Air, Volume 33, No4, pg 33-38, November 1999.

Page 2
 Cleaner Production:
A profitable road for sustainable development of Australian industry

Cleaner Production aims at making more efficient use of natural resources (raw materials, energy and
water) and reducing the generation of wastes and emissions at the source. This can be achieved in various
ways. A division in five prevention practices is most common: product modification; input substitution;
technology modification; good housekeeping and on site recycling and reuse (e.g. UNEP, 1994). Table 1
has some illustrative examples of each prevention practice for the metal products industry.

Experience from a growing number of companies shows that there are in general four important elements
for the successful start of a company Cleaner Production program (e.g. Dorfman, 1992; Van Berkel, 1996;
DeSimone and Popoff, 1998).
• Management commitment: plant management has to set the stage for a Cleaner Production activity, in
order to ensure collaboration and participation from the different departments in the Cleaner
Production exercise. Management commitment may be reflected in environmental policy statements,
but in particular in small to medium sized operations, the actual behaviour of the management is at
least equally important as written statements.
• Employee involvement: management should set the stage, but whether or not smart Cleaner Production
opportunities are found is largely dependent on the collaboration of employees. Employees, in
particular those involved in the daily operations and maintenance on the shop-floor, have often a good
understanding of why wastes and emissions are generated, and are often able to come up with smart
solutions.
• Cost awareness is important in the sense that proper cost information can convince management as
well as employees that producing cleaner can make money. Unfortunately, many companies, in
particular small to medium sized enterprises, do not know how much money they are wasting.
Typically only costs charged by external waste contractors are taken into consideration, but actual
waste costs are often a multitude thereof.
• An organised approach is necessary to organise the smooth identification, evaluation and
implementation of Cleaner Production opportunities. Cleaner Production assessments are undertaken
with a view to seek ways to avoid or at least reduce the generation of waste and emissions. Moreover,
it is expected that these contribute to changes in the management and information systems that can
support and facilitate further Cleaner Production activities.

Industrial Practice

Another way of looking at the diversity of technical solutions under the Cleaner Production strategy is
shown in table 2 (Van Berkel, 1996). The Cleaner Production solutions developed and adopted by
companies, are classified on two criteria, ‘primacy of the environmental motivation’ (for the company
adopting the Cleaner Production solution) and ‘technological sophistication’ (in comparison with the
general level of technology in the company adopting Cleaner Production). This results in four Cleaner
Production technology types:
• Type I: ‘business driven’ projects: involve fairly sophisticated production technologies that are
primarily adopted so as to improve production efficiency and quality, improve competitiveness or
lower production costs and that, also, improve environmental performance, but only as a secondary or
unintended benefit;
• Type II: ‘ cleaner’ technology projects: based on the adoption of fairly sophisticated production
technologies that are manufactured or employed for the primary purpose of improving environmental
performance;
• Type III: ‘appropriate’ technology projects: based on the implementation of fairly simple technologies
that improve environmental performance, but are adopted primarily for economic development or for
other purposes that are not primarily environmental;
• Type IV: ‘low hanging fruit’ projects: involve fairly simple technologies that add to or modify
existing production technologies so as to improve environmental performance.

Published in Clean Air, Volume 33, No4, pg 33-38, November 1999.

Page 3
 Cleaner Production:
A profitable road for sustainable development of Australian industry

Table 2: Classification of Cleaner Production projects (derived from Van Berkel, 1996).

Sophistication Primacy of Environmental Motivation

of Technology Low high
high Type I: Business Driven Projects Type II: Cleaner Technology Projects
Features: Typical examples: Features: Typical examples:
• Innovative • Environmental product (re)- • Sophisticated • Application of new separation
• Environment only one – and development • Environmental performance is technologies (physical,
not the most important - of the • New production routes that most important motivation biochemical, etc.) to recover
development objectives use less material, are less • Medium cost investment with valuable components
• High cost investment for more reliant on hazardous significant savings on previously lost in waste streams
competitive product, process or substances, consume less environmental costs • Replacement of hazardous
service energy, are less vulnerable to • Introduces new process steps auxiliaries (e.g. Voice’s,
• Change in core production changing process conditions cyanide, toxic metals).
system (e.g. production route or or apply environmentally
product concept) preferred materials
• Miniaturisation and
dematerialization
low Type III: Appropriate Technology Projects Type IV: ‘Low Hanging Fruits’ Projects
Features: Typical examples: Features: Typical examples:
• Smart but conceptually simple • Better, more energy-, • Common sense • Spill and leak prevention
• Environment not the most material- or water-efficient • Environmental performance is • Better inventory management
important motivation equipment only motivation • Better production planning
• Moderate cost investment for • More efficient or more • Small investment for significant • Better operating and
increased process efficiencies durable process auxiliaries savings on input expenditures maintenance practices
• Better performance of existing • Optimised process • Ignored past wasteful practices • Water or heat cascading
process steps flow/appropriate lay out (resulting from lacking
• Smart engineering and management attention and cost
instrumentation insight, tradition, habits, etc.)

Published in Clean Air, Volume 33, No4, pg 33-38, November 1999.

Page 4
 Cleaner Production:
A profitable road for sustainable development of Australian industry

Example projects for each category are given below, starting with those projects that are
generally considered the easiest (type IV), and gradually moving towards those that are more
complicated and innovative and generally regarded as the more powerful for reducing
environmental impact and improving business performance (type I).

Getting Started: Low Hanging Fruit Projects

Low hanging fruit projects are typically dealing with the prevention of spills and leaks, the
improvement of inventory management, operating and maintenance practices and production
planning, and cascading of water and heat. Although based on the application of common sense,
and often highly cost efficient for a comparatively small investment, low hanging fruit projects
may still be fairly difficult to implement and sustain over time, as illustrated by the following
company examples.

Nestle Amsterdam (The Netherlands)

Nestle Amsterdam was one of the 11 Nestle plants producing the Maggi product family of soups
and sauces. In 1989 the company undertook a wastewater reduction audit in collaboration with
the University of Amsterdam. The preliminary review of water flows already revealed
opportunities for the set up of an internal water cascade, in which clean mains water is only used
in critical applications (with product contact) and then reused for non critical applications. In
particular the water having passed through the various vacuum pumps could be reused as feed for
the gas scrubbers. This reduced water consumption by 120,000 kl/yr., roughly one third of the
plant’s total water consumption. The investment in piping and modified sprinklers had a value of
about U$ 15,000, with the savings mounting up to U$ 90,000 annually. The case exemplified that
technical staff was still not worried about water consumption, given the abundant and cheap
availability in the past. The old belief that water was too cheap to be taken care of, hindered the
development of water conservation options (Crul et al, 1991).

Tunisie Porcelaine (Tunisia)

Tunisie Porcelaine, located in one of the industrial zones of Tunis, Tunisia, produces annually
2,200 ton of decorated porcelain, for the domestic hospitality industry and the European
consumers market. The company has an ISO 9001 certified quality management system. In 1997,
the company received assistance for a Cleaner Production audit. This addressed the production of
white porcelain only. Management had already put in much effort in improving the decoration
departments, as most of the value added is created there. A low hanging fruit project was
identified and implemented in the product formation department. Drains were largely closed to
collect porcelain paste. Tiles were placed under the forming equipment, to avoid contamination of
porcelain paste lost in the operations. Moreover, procedures for stacking products in the oven
trolleys were improved. As a result 470 ton porcelain paste is now being recovered and reused
annually. The environmental impact is the reduction of porcelain paste consumption by 470 tons,
and reduction of suspended solids load of the wastewater by roughly the same amount. The
necessary investment was only about U$ 2,000, less than 1 % of the annual savings worth U$
290,000. The case exemplifies that management’s focus on optimisation and loss reduction in the
key value adding parts of the operations (in this case the decoration department), could easily lead
to ignorance of more profitable options in other parts of the operations (Van Berkel et al, 1999).

Published in Clean Air, Volume 33, No4, pg 33-38, November 1999.

Page 5
 Cleaner Production:
A profitable road for sustainable development of Australian industry

CSR Timber Products (Australia)

CSR Timber Products is a medium-scale plywood production unit, owned by the CSR group,
located in Raymond Terrace, NSW. In the mid 1990’s the company underwent several
downsizing operations, as the plant could not longer meet the competition from overseas
suppliers and other materials. CSR decided to participate in the Australian National Cleaner
Production Demonstration project, in order to explore whether or not efforts to reduce its solid
waste generation could revitalise the plants economic performance. The solid waste reduction
plan developed was largely based on optimisation of the process conditions. First of all the
machine speed was reduced by 12.5 %. Process consistency and output were improved as a result
thereof. Moreover, the quality of incoming wood was reassessed in light of the suitability of
different wood species for plywood manufacture. This led to a reduced list of approved species,
and incoming goods inspection was strengthened accordingly. Moreover, a system was
introduced to monitor rejects and process conditions manually for each shift, as opposed to earlier
reject monitoring on a monthly production basis. This optimisation program lead to a 17 %
increase of the production output, with the same material input. The implementation of this
optimisation program did not involve any hardware investments. The implementation costs were
estimated to be A$ 100,000, spent on trial runs, staff time, training etc.. The savings are estimated
to mount up to A$ 750,000. The case study exemplifies that high machine speeds, commonly
associated with high productivity, may be counterproductive, by increasing reject rates, extra
machine down time etc. (http://www.environment.gov.au/epg/environet/eecp/industry.html).

Cutting Environmental Costs: Cleaner Technology Projects

Projects ranked as Cleaner Technology projects generally deal with the adoption of new, and
comparatively sophisticated, process steps and technology with the primary objective of curbing
waste and emission generation. The following companies demonstrate that medium level
investments are generally needed, which generate significant savings on environmental costs.

Alumet (The Netherlands)

Alumet is a medium sized aluminium anodising company in Etten Leur, The Netherlands. The
annual production is approximately 1 million square meters, predominantly of long length
profiles for the construction and transportation industry. The main production steps are a caustic
etch followed by anodising in sulphuric acid. Both these processes consume large volumes of
chemicals and dissolve large amounts of aluminium in the process solutions and rinse waters. A
wastewater audit was conducted, and identified acid retardation and caustic regeneration as best
technical solutions for respectively the anodising and etching processes. The dissolved aluminium
from the process baths is thereby transformed in a useful by-product (aluminium hydroxide). The
two systems reduced caustic consumption and discharge by 80 % (equivalent to 130 tons
annually) and sulphuric acid consumption and discharge by 70 % (equivalent to 170 tons
annually). Aluminium discharges were reduced by 40 %. The economics were at first sight not
particularly motivating with an investment of U$ 530,000 U$ and annual savings of only U$
75,000. However, these figures did not include possible future revenues from sales of by-product
for instance to the ceramic tile industry. The options were implemented because these turned out
to be the cheapest options to comply with anticipated environmental regulations, and since the
investment could benefit from an environmental tax break introduced in The Netherlands (Molier
et al, 1995).

Published in Clean Air, Volume 33, No4, pg 33-38, November 1999.

Page 6
 Cleaner Production:
A profitable road for sustainable development of Australian industry

VHSP (Australia)

VHSP Pty Ltd (Laverton, Vic) built its tanning plant in 1987 using the environmentally preferred
Sirolime Process for chrome tanning of cattle hides. This Sirolime process removes hair intact
from the hide, rather than the conventional method of dissolving hair in lime/sulphide solutions.
This allows separation, by filtration, of the hair from the dehairing liquor, thus allowing recycling
of the solution. Moreover, ammonia salt is replaced by carbon dioxide in the deliming process to
eliminate discharge of ammonia to the effluent. Typically, the Sirolime process reduces effluent
loadings (BOD, SS and Sulphur) by 70 to 75 %, while the wastewater volume is reduced by
approximately 13 %. Finally, the Sirolime process in principle allows for recycling of chrome
tanning liquors. However, VHSP found that this in practice was faced with serious problems due
to the build up of fats in the chrome tanning liquor, leaving the chrome recycling rate in practice
well below 40 %. A new Cleaner Production initiative was started and found a viable option in
the separation of fats from the recycled chrome tanning liquor. A hydro-cyclone was installed to
recover fat in the form of a high-energy stock feed additive and to increase the chrome-recycling
rate to well above 95 %. The chrome sludge generation was expected to be reduced by roughly 90
%. The investment of A$ 123,000 generated annual savings up to A$ 314,000
(http://www.environment.gov.au/epg/environet/eecp/industry.html).

DuPont (USA)

At its Chambers Works plant in Deepwater, New Jersey, DuPont produces a specialised polymer
used in aerospace and automotive applications. The polymer is made in a pressurised reaction
vessel that has an internal agitator and baffles to promote complete mixing of the ingredients. In
the course of the manufacture, some of the polymer sticks to all surfaces - the sides, baffles and
agitator - and must be removed periodically. In addition, the vessel must be cleaned between
production runs of different polymer types. On average, the vessel at Chamber Works was
cleaned every two weeks. For 30 years, the cleaning agent was a flammable organic solvent. The
solvent was pumped into the vessel, agitated and drained through a bottom flange into 50-gallon
drums for incineration. This was repeated several times, resulting in 5,000 pounds of waste per
wash, in fugitive emissions and in a dozen drums that were handled partially by hand. The wash
cycle took 24 to 32 hours, and the solvent didn’t remove all of the polymer. A project team was
formed to assess Cleaner Production opportunities for reduction of waste and emissions from the
cleaning operation, while reducing down time and possibly even improving cleaning efficiency.
Manual cleaning, vessel coating and/or solvent distillation would all reduce waste, but not reduce
downtime nor raise cleanliness. Water jet cleaning was identified as an alternative, albeit faced
with technical and safety problems. The water jets are used to cut rocks and steel, and operate at
about 250 times the pressure of a household shower. Intensive collaboration between DuPont and
a water jet engineering company, lead to the development of special nozzle, mounted on a
rotating lance inside the vessel, and controlled remotely. Cleaning takes only 4 hours, cutting
total turn around time by 90 % and increasing manufacturing capacity by 8 percent. The solvent
is eliminated, reducing waste generation by 98 %. The system has been progressively installed in
reaction vessels since 1992 (CMA, 1995).

Doing It Right the Fist Time: Appropriate Technology Projects

The third group of Cleaner Production projects – appropriate technology projects – is best
characterised as doing it the first time right, by using equipment and technology that best suits the
manufacturing process and by making the process smarter. There is normally a moderate cost
involved, with savings largely originating from better performance – higher process efficiencies –
of the existing process steps.

Published in Clean Air, Volume 33, No4, pg 33-38, November 1999.

Page 7
 Cleaner Production:
A profitable road for sustainable development of Australian industry

Lovink Terborg (The Netherlands)

Lovink Terborg is a comparatively large iron foundry located in Terborg, The Netherlands. The
plant is specialised in large series of small castings, produced for various customers in the
automotive, machinery and household appliances sectors. The daily gross capacity is 120 tons
iron. The largest environmental concerns are energy consumption and solid waste generation.
Casting sand is the single largest waste stream, approximately 12,500 tons annually. The plant
uses a ‘green’ sand system (bond with clay) and a chemical resin bond sand system. The resin
bond sand system is by far the smallest, and the plant therefore mixes used sand from both
systems in the sand reclamation system. The build-up of acidity in the reclaimed casting sand, as
a result of the use of phosphoric acid as resin catalyst, turned out to be a limitation for further
increase of the internal sand reuse rate. The compatibility of the sand systems was improved by
changing to an organic acid catalyst. The acid evaporates and burns during casting, thereby
avoiding build up of acidity. Moreover an extra sand cooler was installed to reduce the heat stress
on the green sand upon addition of the used resin bound sand. The environmental benefit was
substantial. The resin bond sand internal reuse rate could be increased from 50 % to 85 %,
eliminating 1800 tons of solid waste. The investment of U$ 30,000 generates annual savings
worth U$ 140,000. The project was suggested by he company’s quality circle in the course of its
assessment of the workflow in the plant’s forming areas (Van Berkel, 1996).

DSM Resins (The Netherlands)

DSM Resins operates an alkyd- and poly-ester resin production facility in Hook of Holland
(greater Rotterdam industrial zone (The Netherlands)). The plant produces a total of 45,000 ton
resins annually, divided in several dozens of product grades. Sampling from the reactors and
mixers was a major bottleneck, given the existence of pressurised conditions in the reactors.
Large samples (11 kg/sample) had to be taken and were disposed of as hazardous waste after
testing. The plant’s technical department worked with operators and supervisors to find a smarter
engineering solution for the sampling. A mechanism for feeding back the excessive part of the
sample was adopted. This allows for an 80 % reduction of the average sample size. Once
implemented for all reactors, 30 tons of hazardous waste is eliminated annually and the
production output increased by the same figure. The economics turned out to be acceptable. Each
reactor required an investment of U$ 35,000 that would generate annual savings worth U$
15,000. The plant’s management decided to gradually introduce the modified sampling system as
part of scheduled major maintenance activities for all reactors. The fact that the new system
would reduce risk, was an important consideration for this decision (Crul et al, 1991).

Dow Corning (USA)

Dow Corning wanted to expand several processes in its Midland, Michigan (USA) plant, but
could not because of methyl chloride emission levels from existing processes. The plant makes
intermediate products called alkoxy silanes, used in a variety of end products, such as sealants,
rubber, adhesion promoters, waterproofers and carpet and antifreeze treatments. Methyl chloride
is used as a coolant to purify hydrogen chloride produced in the alkoxylation process. Both the
methyl chloride and the hydrogen chloride are recovered in a subsequent gas recovery system.
However, during start up and shut down, the gas mixture is vented to water scrubbers. The
scrubbers clean the hydrogen chloride but leave methyl chloride that is vented to the atmosphere.
The lack of vent reduction technology posed a big problem to environmental standards and to
future business plans. A team was formed in 1992 to tackle the issue. Pilot efforts demonstrated
that using a balanced equilibrium heat source - hot hydrogen chloride - at the bottom of the

Published in Clean Air, Volume 33, No4, pg 33-38, November 1999.

Page 8
 Cleaner Production:
A profitable road for sustainable development of Australian industry

methyl condenser would effectively allow start up and shut down without venting methyl chloride
to the scrubber. This new hot hydrogen chloride purge system was implemented in 1993. The net
results: methyl chloride emissions were reduced from 4.1 tons/year to zero and the capacity for
Dow Corning’s global sealants business increased 60 percent (CMA, 1995).

Benefiting from Innovation: Business-Driven Projects

Business-driven Cleaner Production projects are best characterised as process and product
innovations in which environmental considerations were an integral part of the development
efforts rather than added on once the product or process had been conceptualised. The
environmental benefits are achieved by substitution of a process or product, by a new process or
product that is also superior to the old one on non-environmental dimensions, such as quality,
price or functionality.

Ciba Geigy (USA)

Optical brighteners for use in detergents and in paper and textiles are the primary products at Ciba
Geigy’s Brightener Business Unit in McIntosh, Alabama (USA). An important intermediate
chemical is DAS or di-amino stilbene di-sulfonic acid. DAS is formed through three different
chemical reactions that enhance the ability to absorb light. In the first reaction, sulfonation,
sulphuric acid was generated at one and three quarters pounds per pound of product. Disposal
costs ran U$ 150,000 annually. In the second reaction, oxidation, bleach was used as an oxidiser
and catalyst. This step was inefficient in addition to producing waste. The harsh bleach destroyed
part of the product, resulting in only a 75-percent yield. In the third reaction, iron was used,
leaving iron sludge in its wake, at about one and three quarters pounds per pound. In 1987 the
McIntosh plant set out to reduce the wastes through process changes and spent the next five years
overhauling the process to achieve the waste minimisation objectives. In revamping the process, a
continuous sulfonation loop was installed, 65 percent oleum replaced the 25 percent used before,
and a purification step could be eliminated. The changes increased the concentration of the
reaction solution, and as a result, sulphuric acid was eliminated and capacity increased by 30
percent. Using a different solvent allowed bleach to be replaced by air oxidation utilising a
catalyst. TOC levels decreased by 70 percent, production yield increased by 17 percent and
capacity was increased as well. In the last change, hydrogenation was substituted for iron
reduction, producing water as by-product instead of iron sludge. This step realised a 20 percent
increase in capacity and a 20 percent return on investment. In sum, Ciba was able to produce a
more competitive product with better yields and expanded plant capacity and with less waste at
every stage.

Australian Dyeing Company (Australia)

Australian Dyeing Company is a medium sized commission dye-house in Melbourne. The

company is specialised in dyeing of cotton and cotton blends, both woven and knitwear, in
particular for the garment industry. The company was about to invest in a new dyeing line for
knitwear dyeing, and decided to search for world class best available techniques. A combination
was made between pad batch equipment, a very water and energy efficient dyeing process, but
still largely constrained to dyeing of woven fabrics, and environmentally improved dyestuffs with
higher dyebath exhaustion levels. The new knitwear dyeing process had a much better
environmental performance with water use reduced by 45 %, steam use by 48 %, electricity
consumption by 33 % and salt use eliminated. The investment mounted up to 0.5 million A$, with
an anticipated pay back within 2 years. The new knitwear dyeing process had better quality
specifications, and as a result thereof, the Australian Dyeing Company could increase its market

Published in Clean Air, Volume 33, No4, pg 33-38, November 1999.

Page 9
 Cleaner Production:
A profitable road for sustainable development of Australian industry

share for knitwear dyeing with 25 %

(http://www.environment.gov.au/epg/environet/eecp/industry.html).

Hewlet Packard (USA)

An interesting example of product innovation is also found at Hewlet Packard. It developed the
HP OfficeJet Series 500 of office equipment that combines the functionality of a printer, fax,
scanner and copier. Environmental attributes designed into the HP Office Jet Series 500 products
include:
• achieved USA energy star requirements for energy efficiency and overall environmental
performance standards of the German Blue Angel environmental label
• eliminated plastics flame-retardants by using a metal chassis and power supply enclosure
• chosen light emitting diodes (LEDs) instead of mercury lamp for the scanner
• eliminated batteries by using flash memory technology
• facilitated recycling by marking all plastics according to ISO 11469 and by moulding user
instructions into the plastic instead of using a paper label
The HP OfficeJet Series 500 received a prestigious IDEA98 award from the Industrial Designers
Association of America. The award aims to foster business and public understanding about the
impact of industrial design excellence on the quality of life and the economy. Products were
judged on design innovation, benefit to the user, benefit to the client/business, ecological
responsibility, and appropriate aesthetics and appeal (http://tbe.mit.edu/gallery).

Closing Remarks

Cleaner Production has proven in practice to be a very valuable tool for abating industrial wastes
and emissions. It makes far more sense to try to eliminate or reduce waste and emissions at their
source rather than to recover and recycle wasted materials or to eliminate the noxious effects of
already generated waste streams. And generally economic benefits can be achieved from
preventing waste and emissions in the first place, as raw materials, energy and water are saved
and waste disposal costs are minimised. Small to medium sized enterprises may face particular
problems in adopting Cleaner Production, due to their limited staff, technical and financial
resources. However the business examples reviewed here clearly illustrate that these problems are
surmountable, and, more importantly, significant financial and environmental benefits are
achievable.

The experiences with the implementation of Cleaner Production in Australia so far appear to be
positive. Environment Australia’s Cleaner Production database contains well over a hundred case
studies that document substantial reductions of environmental impacts coupled with financial
benefits for the respective companies. Little is however known about the actual implementation
of Cleaner Production throughout industry. With Cleaner Production activities being developed,
in for instance Western Australia, it has become clear that several industries, most often medium
to large enterprises, have implemented projects in the recent past that might well be categorised
as Cleaner Production albeit not intended to be so right from the start. Solarhart, winner of the
1999 industrial energy efficiency award, for instance implemented a series of changes in its
working practices and modified equipment, thereby conserving energy as well as reducing waste
and emissions (for instance rinse water and overspray). CSBP installed a scrubber liquor
recycling unit for its superphosphate plant, which reduced the phosphorous and fluoride load of
the wastewater of its entire Kwinana site by respectively 80 % and 97 %, and generated annual
savings worth $ 400,000 at an investment of $ 1.55 million. And there are more good examples,
generally falling in either the ‘clean technology’ or ‘low hanging fruit’ types of Cleaner

Published in Clean Air, Volume 33, No4, pg 33-38, November 1999.

Page 10
 Cleaner Production:
A profitable road for sustainable development of Australian industry

Production projects. Most often these examples did not come from a systematic investigation of
Cleaner Production opportunities, and therefore more emphasis for Cleaner Production would
certainly lead to the identification of additional Cleaner Production opportunities. As evidenced
by the American and European experience, universities can take a leading role in mainstreaming
Cleaner Production in industry. They can do so by educating the future business and industry
leaders and engineers (e.g. Curtin University of Technology, Swinburne University), and by
actually assisting companies and organisations to implement Cleaner Production practices and
policies (e.g. Curtin University of Technology and Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology)

Author

Professor C.W.M (Rene) VAN BERKEL holds the inaugural position as CSBP Chair in Cleaner
Production at the John Curtin International Institute – Curtin University of Technology. Professor
van Berkel heads the Centre of Excellence in Cleaner Production, which has been established
with support from the West Australian Waste Management and Recycling Trust Fund to promote
Cleaner Production technologies and practices in small to medium sized enterprises. He has been
working for over a decade in fostering the uptake of Cleaner Production in various industry
sectors around the globe. Contact: John Curtin International Institute, Curtin University of
Technology, GPO Box U 1987, Perth WA 6845, Phone (08) 9266 4240, Fax (08) 9266 4071,
Email: vanberkr@resources.curtin.edu.au

References

ANZECC 1998, Towards Sustainability: Achieving Cleaner Production in Australia, Australia

and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, ACT.
Beherendt, S. et al (eds.) 1997, Life Cycle Design for Small and Medium Sized Enterprises,
Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany.
CMA 1995, Profiles in Pollution Prevention: case histories of pollution prevention in the
chemical industry, Chemical Manufacturers Association, Washington DC, USA.
Crul, M. et al (eds.) 1991, PREPARE: Manual and Experiences Kit, Ministry of Economic
Affairs, The Hague, The Netherlands.
DeSimone, L and F. Popoff, 1998, Eco Efficiency: the business links to sustainable
development, MIT Press, Cambridge, USA.
Dorfman, M. et al 1992, Environmental Dividends: cutting more chemical waste, INFORM,
New York, USA.
Environment Australia 1996, Environment and Business Profiting from Cleaner Production:
Summary Report, Cleaner Production Manual and 10 Company Case Study Reports,
Environment Protection Group, Environment Australia, ACT.
Molier, T. et al 1995, Competitive and Employment Effects of Cleaner Production, Working
Report, IVAM Environmental Research, Amsterdam.
O’Leary, E. et al 1997, The Use of Cleaner Production Technologies in Metal Finishing and
Electronics Industries, Environmental Protection Agency, Ardcavan, Ireland.
OTA 1995, Technology, Industry and the Environment: competitive challenges and business
opportunities, Office of Technology Assessment, US Congress, Washington DC, USA.
UNEP,1994, Government Strategies and Policies for Cleaner Production, UNEP Industry &
Environment, Paris.
USEPA, 1997, Pollution Prevention 1997, United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington DC, USA

Published in Clean Air, Volume 33, No4, pg 33-38, November 1999.

Page 11
 Cleaner Production:
A profitable road for sustainable development of Australian industry

Van Berkel, R. 1996, Cleaner Production in Practice: methodology development for

environmental improvement of industrial production and evaluation of practical experiences,
University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Van Berkel, R. et al, 1999, Integration of Cleaner Production in Industry Modernisation
Programs: experiences from Tunisia, UNIDO Cleaner Production and Environmental
Management Systems Branch, Vienna, Austria.

Published in Clean Air, Volume 33, No4, pg 33-38, November 1999.

Page 12