1. Please write an article addressing the following:

    

   How important is corporate philosophy to a company’s pollution prevention efforts? Please use an example of one or more companies to support your position.

    

Must be a minimum of 4-5 pages in length, not including the title page and reference page. should have a minimum of three sections: an introduction, a body, and a conclusion. A minimum of three references should be used, and at least one of these must be from a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal. All sources used must be referenced; paraphrased and quoted material must have accompanying citations.

1. Address both of the following writing prompts. Your responses to both of the prompts should be at least 500 words each. No title page is needed, but be sure to indicate which writing prompts you are addressing at the top of each response. Each response needs its own reference page.

Writing Prompts (respond to both):

a. Review the Reading Assignment titled as “Designing a Low-Cost Pollution Prevention Plan to Pay Off at the University of Houston” by Bialowas, Sullivan, and Schneller.  In your review, describe:

• Why the university developed a P2 plan,

• The process of bulking hazardous wastes, fume hood modifications, and cost savings,

• Silver recovery and cost savings,

• Oil reclamation plan and cost savings, and

• Your overall thoughts about the university’s P2 program.

b. Review the Reading Assignment titled as “Effectiveness of State Pollution Prevention Programs and Policies” by Donna Harrington. (Attached with this document) In your review, describe:

• The three objectives of the study,

• The Toxic Releases Inventory (TRI) and its impact on P2,

• The empirical model (framework) used in the study,

• Costs of P2 programs, and

• The article’s conclusions and your thoughts about the conclusions.

   

   

3.  Address both of the following writing prompts. Your responses to both of the prompts should be at least 500 words each. No title page is needed, but be sure to indicate which writing prompts you are addressing at the top of each response. Each response needs its own reference page.Writing Prompts (respond to both):

a. Review the Reading Assignment titled as “The Greening of a Pulp and Paper Mill” by Hill, Saviello, and Groves.  In your review, describe:

• The history of the Androscoggin Mill, including when it was built, the strike, number of employees, and amount of paper produced,

• The kraft pulping process,

• Pollution problems prior to 1990,

• P2 methods implemented after 1990, best available technologies, and economics, and

• Key actions by the 1990s management team that changed the mill from an environmental problem to an environmental success.

b. Review the Reading Assignment titled as “Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Opportunities for Concrete Pavements” by Santero, Loojos, and Ochsendorf.  In your review, describe:

• Greenhouse gas production from construction and operation of pavements,

• How each of the following reduces greenhouse emissions: embodied emissions, albedo, carbonation, and vehicle fuel consumption,

• The five greenhouse gas emissions strategies starting on page 861,

• Best available technologies related to concrete paving, and

• The Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) presented in the article.

1. Address all three of the following writing prompts. Your responses to the three prompts should be at least 350 words each. No title page is needed, but be sure to indicate which writing prompts you are addressing at the top of each response. Each response needs its own reference page.

    

   Writing Prompts (respond to all three):

    

   a. Review the Reading Assignment titled as “Pollution Prevention Practices in Oregon’s Electronics Industry” by Harding and Jones.  In your review, include:

    

• An overview of the article,

• Benefits of using pollution prevention in the electronics industry,

• Specific process modifications discussed in the article,

• Chemical substitutions mentioned in the article,

• Economics of making the suggested changes, and

• Reasons companies might not embrace pollution prevention.

   

b. Review the Reading Assignment titled as “Optimal Deployment of Emissions Reduction Technologies for Construction Equipment” by Barl, Zietsman, Quadrifoglio, and Farzaneh.  In your review:

• Write an overview of the article.

• Describe hydrogen enrichment (HE), selective catalytic reduction (SCR), and fuel additive (FA) technologies.

• Describe the advantages and disadvantages of HE, SCR, and FA, including a discussion of costs.

• Does the computer model do a satisfactory job of determining the best technology? Explain.

• What would be your recommendations as far as which technology (HE, SCR, and/or FA) should be used, or should none be used?

c. Review the Reading Assignment titled as “Flue Gas Desulfurization: The State of the Art” by Srivastava and Jozewicz.  In your review:

• Write an overview of the article.

• Describe flue gas desulfurization (FGD) at coal-fired power plants and why it is used.

• Explain the details of one once-through process and one regenerable process.

• Summarize the section titled “The MEL [magnesium enhanced slurry] Cost Model.”

• Discuss how the article is useful to a pollution prevention manager.

• Conduct an Internet search to explain the concept of Best Available Technology (BAT) and whether any of the FGD processes described in the article are considered BATs.

5. Write an essay about pollution prevention in the dry cleaning and hydraulic fracturing industries. Include the following items:

1. One-paragraph introduction;

2. Five-paragraph review of the Sinshelmer, Grout, Namkoong, Gottlieb, and Latif (2007) dry cleaning article, including an explanation of the common dry cleaning process using perchloroethylene (PCE), problems with PCE, and a review of options to PCE presented in the paper;

3. Five-paragraph review (total—not five paragraphs for each article) of the Heywood (2012) article and the Chen, Al-Wadei, Kennedy, and Terry (2014) article on hydraulic fracturing, including environmental issues with hydraulic fracturing and the P2 solutions presented in each of the two articles (include the use of liquid carbon dioxide);

4. Five-paragraph review of the Taylor, Carbonell, and Desimone (2010) article on using liquid carbon dioxide for P2, focusing on how liquid carbon dioxide can be used as a substitute in the dry cleaning industry and in the hydraulic fracturing industry; and a