201. One-Day Hazardous Waste Remediation Projects and Potential Exposure to Harmful Substances

1999 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Soucy ◽  
G. Burdge
Author(s):  
Anagi M. Balachandra ◽  
Nastaran Abdol ◽  
A.G.N.D. Darsanasiri ◽  
Kaize Zhu ◽  
Parviz Soroushian ◽  
...  

The article analyzes the air protection measures of LLP «Asphaltbeton» demonstrated the disadvantages of the efficacy of the purification system for calculating waste emissions and scattering of atmospheric contaminants, as the concentration of sludge substances (dust) is 2.5 times more than 1.206 mg/m3, and nitrogen, the concentration of carbon dioxide and the amount of hydrocarbons in the sanitary dimensions and according to it. The effectiveness of purification of exhaust gas from the asphalt mixer D-645 with the CF-10 chain filter allowed the choice of more systems. The calculations in the FTS-10 showed that it is possible to efficiently clean gas emissions from 95% to 95% by removing the waste from gaseous waste. When preparing asphalt concrete, harmful substances such as dust, oxides, nitrogen and carbon, hydrocarbon are distributed. Therefore, the permissible threshold for all hazardous waste recycling sites has been identified (DHM, mg/m3), which prevents the dust, steam, gas workers from exposing the flu or fluid to the workplace while maintaining a working life of less than 8 hours per day.


Author(s):  
Richard S. Newman

Although known as “Mr. Clean” for his longtime environmental advocacy, Edmund Muskie had little knowledge of the American hazardous waste grid until 1978. A congressional sponsor of the landmark Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, the senator from Maine epitomized environmental politics. In fact, a few months before the Love Canal crisis unfolded, Muskie proposed yet another federal environmental law: a “comprehensive scheme to assure full protection of our national resources” in the wake of oil drilling disasters, tanker spills and toxic train derailments. Yet Muskie soon realized that his plan omitted something important: hazardous waste dumps. Love Canal had illuminated the toxic perils many Americans faced in their own neighborhoods. With an EPA study showing that tens of thousands of old toxic sites had yet to be contained, it was clear that the everyday landscape of homes, playgrounds, and schools needed environmental protection too. “In our society,” Muskie told an interviewer in the late 1970s, ...we are discovering almost every day, in almost every day’s newspaper, new hazards that have been released into the atmosphere over the period of our industrial revolution. [They] suddenly crop up in Love Canal, up in New York State … to create enormous hazards to public health, property values, to people. So we are constantly dealing with problems that [we] were not anticipating, which suddenly create almost insoluble problems for people and communities … [A]ll of these poisons and toxic materials were buried in landfill sites here, there, and elsewhere and sadly begin leaking in underground water, or into lakes and rivers, streams[,] only to rise up to hit people in the face with disease, with cancer, declining property values so on.... For Muskie, Love Canal was revelatory. It showed that federal law lagged behind the mounting problem of hazardous waste. After hearing Love Canal residents’ testimony, he believed that the time had come for a national statute governing toxic waste remediation—what he would refer to as a “clean land” law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document