Corporate Responsibility in Practice: Co-processing …
293
screening from the generating source when people send less organic and hazardous
waste is that the association would become more efficient since currently, the separation of tailings does not bring gains for the association and some materials are
contaminated which damages the work environment.
Many of the materials that are sent to landfill by the association are recyclable
but do not have a market or their value is very low, making it disadvantageous to
the association their separation since it depends on time and space. Co-processing
these materials could be positive since cement companies could generate energy
and replace raw material without generating ash, rather than sending the material
to landfills. Sending this material for co-processing becomes a smarter alternative,
bringing savings and reducing much of the environmental impact and liabilities.
One of the limitations of this paper was to obtain the exact data. Since the organization did not have any records, we had to do the study from samples. Another
one is that the 4 associations of Campo Largo were not the same, but for this paper
and calculations we considered them equal. Co-processing tailings proved to be
a more sustainable and lower cost alternative compared to sending the waste to
landfills. It brings advantages to the municipality of Campo Largo and for ARLeV
association in addition to an 82% gain related to the cost reduction with transport
and landfill charges. This gain was calculated from the quantity that is currently
spent, R$15,597.47, and with the quantity that the association would spend on the
implementation of the proposal, which is R$2741.07. It will be necessary to instruct
recycling associations, so that they adapt to this new process and instruct the population on the correct destination of waste, increasing gains from co-processing even
more.
Appendix 1: Arlev Association Questionnaire
Appendix 1 Questions for ARLeV
1
What are the classifications of recyclables?
2
What are the destinations of recyclable material?
3
How much health residue is received?
4
What is the destination of the health residue?
5
How much tailings/organic?
6
How many lamps?
7
Total amount of residue received per day
8
Amount of plastic separated per day
9
Amount of paper separated per day
10
Amount of metal separated per day
11
Amount of glass separated per day
(continued)
293
screening from the generating source when people send less organic and hazardous
waste is that the association would become more efficient since currently, the separation of tailings does not bring gains for the association and some materials are
contaminated which damages the work environment.
Many of the materials that are sent to landfill by the association are recyclable
but do not have a market or their value is very low, making it disadvantageous to
the association their separation since it depends on time and space. Co-processing
these materials could be positive since cement companies could generate energy
and replace raw material without generating ash, rather than sending the material
to landfills. Sending this material for co-processing becomes a smarter alternative,
bringing savings and reducing much of the environmental impact and liabilities.
One of the limitations of this paper was to obtain the exact data. Since the organization did not have any records, we had to do the study from samples. Another
one is that the 4 associations of Campo Largo were not the same, but for this paper
and calculations we considered them equal. Co-processing tailings proved to be
a more sustainable and lower cost alternative compared to sending the waste to
landfills. It brings advantages to the municipality of Campo Largo and for ARLeV
association in addition to an 82% gain related to the cost reduction with transport
and landfill charges. This gain was calculated from the quantity that is currently
spent, R$15,597.47, and with the quantity that the association would spend on the
implementation of the proposal, which is R$2741.07. It will be necessary to instruct
recycling associations, so that they adapt to this new process and instruct the population on the correct destination of waste, increasing gains from co-processing even
more.
Appendix 1: Arlev Association Questionnaire
Appendix 1 Questions for ARLeV
1
What are the classifications of recyclables?
2
What are the destinations of recyclable material?
3
How much health residue is received?
4
What is the destination of the health residue?
5
How much tailings/organic?
6
How many lamps?
7
Total amount of residue received per day
8
Amount of plastic separated per day
9
Amount of paper separated per day
10
Amount of metal separated per day
11
Amount of glass separated per day
(continued)