Improving Environmental Performance of a Primary Lead and Zinc Smelter
Non-ferous smelters have a bad reputation for their negative impact on the environment, particulary as a result of heavy metal emissions. In this paper a case study is made of a combined lead/zinc smelter, describing the most important sources of heavy metal emissions in the smelter plant. The suggested solutions include technical as well as non-technical measures, the latter category being concerned with management procedures, organization, planning etc. This type of measures, aimed at commitment to pollution prevention in all levels of the organization, is an essential element of any cleaner production programme. As the concept of cleaner production is largely based on more efficient use of raw materials and energy, significant economic benefits may be gained according to the principe Pollution Prevention Pays. Cleaner production requires a systematic approach, tracing the sources of wastes and emissions and defining realistic and measurable goals for structural waste and emission reduction. Monitoring programmes are needed to check the effectiveness of measures taken. Protective health care programmes are strongly recommended with a view to the occupational and public health risks posed by heavy metal emissions.
KeywordsNickel Magnesium Mercury Lymphoma Ferrite
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Suggestions for Further Reading
- 1.Harrison R.M., Laxen, D.P.H., Lead pollution: Causes and Control; Chapman and Hall Ltd. (1981)Google Scholar
- 2.Morgan, S.W., Zinc and its alloys and compounds. Ellis Horwood Ltd (1985)Google Scholar
- 3.Freeman, H. (Ed.), Hazardous Waste Minimization, McGraw-Hill (1990)Google Scholar
- 4.Pojasek, R.B., For Pollution Prevention: be descriptive, not prescriptive. Chemical Engineering, Sept. 1991Google Scholar
- 5.Bencko, V., Wagner, V., Wagnerova, M., Reichrtova, E. Immuno-biochemical findings in groups of individuals occupationally and non-occupationally exposed to immission containing nickel and cobalt. Journal of Hygiene, Epidemiology, Microbiology and Immunology, 27, 1983, 1983, No.4 387–394.Google Scholar