Category: Hazardous Waste

Definitions and concepts

Since the end of Second World War, huge volumes of hazardous chemical wastes have been generated by developed nations across the globe. Today, it is believed that more than 4 million tons of industrial wastes are produced each year by the US and other developed nations. This is a major global issue as it has the effect of causing environmental injustice or inequality.

Environmental justice is a branch of environmental science which is aimed at ensuring that all segments within a population are treated in an equitable manner with regards to the environmental issues. In the US, the environmental movement has over the years focused on conservation of resources and preservation of species while global efforts have been directed towards the concept of environmental justice.

Environmental justice usually involves coming up with appropriate measures that rectifies the disproportionate burdens that the poor communities have suffered in the past following the placement of hazardous wastes in places where they live. This movement ensures that the minority groups and the poor receive fair treatment as far as environmental rights are concerned.

According to the United States Environmental Agency, air treatment means that no group of people should be subjected to harsh environmental conditions as a result of its racial, ethnic and socio-economic basis (Santoler, Theodore, & Reynolds, 2000, P.305). Environmental injustice refers to the acts whereby many poor communities are exposed to all manner of environmental hazards ranging from wastes and dangerous emissions more than the rich communities.

Today, environmental discrimination has remained a fact of life to the poor communities across the globe. Environmental discrimination has been caused by discriminatory practices on housing opportunities .In United States, the black communities have been a victim of environmental discrimination.

The poor communities in the United States usually have their housing located near smelter operations, paper mills, garbage dumps and chemical plants. Over the past two decades, environmental injustice has intensified as industries have opted to dump their wastes in politically and economically poor communities (Santoler, Theodore, & Reynolds, 2000, P.305-306).

Statement of the Problem

This study explores the environmental justice concerns i.e. the location of hazardous waste facilities in poor communities. This study is important because it recognizes environmental inequity as a major challenge on poor communities.

Though several studies about environmental justice concerns in United States and other developed countries exist, little effort has gone into studying the government decisions to put up waste facilities in poor communities in the United States. This neglect exists despite the fact that wastes whether liquid or solid in poor community has health and environmental effects. In todays world, the government should carry out its rightful role in ensuring that there is effective waste management process in order to protect its people and the environment.

A study which was done by OECD-Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development: OECD (2002) suggests that, the government has the role of providing the local communities with education regarding waste management. The government should carry out its rightful role of ensuring that waste is effectively disposed.

According to OECD-Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the government has the role of making arrangement for wastes to be collected on a regular basis from peoples homes. Also, the government is vested with the responsibility of storing, recycling and disposing waste properly.

Purpose and objective of the study

The purpose of this study is to examine the role of government and people with regards to managing wastes. The specific objectives arising from the overall purpose is; to determine the effects of waste materials on environment and peoples health and to establish the governments role in managing both solid and liquid wastes in poor communities.

Literature Review

The Environmental Justice Movement came into existence in early 1980s following the increased awareness of the inequalities with regard to waste sites, distribution and the general environmental degradation that was common among the minority and poor communities across the United States. The protests by black Americans against the erection of a toxic dump site in North Carolina in 1982 marked the beginning of Environmental Justice Movement throughout the United States.

The Environmental Justice Movement was enhanced by such aspects as the presence of a vibrant civil society, the founding of antitoxic movements, traditional environmentalists, scholars and theorists of environmental studies, presence of labor movements among others. Together, these aspects played an important role in creating a unified front that struggled against environmental injustices.

This struggle saw residents in poor communities in the United States such as Ketleman City unite against past social injustice that had been committed unto them by using such techniques as coalition building, litigation and direct participatory democracy. These techniques were crucial because they helped to redefine both the meaning of environment and the ecological awareness in poor communities (Faber, 1998, P.109).

Causes of the location of hazardous waste facilities in poor communities

The main cause of hazardous waste facilities in poor communities in United States is due to lack of adequate education by the poor people. Poor communities do not receive good education as compared to the rich and middle income people through out the United States. This is because poor people lack time and the resources required to acquire good education.

For instance, many residents of Louisianas Cancer Alley have been exposed to hazardous wastes over the past decades. The region releases toxics which causes adverse health consequences on people. In Louisiana, more than 30 percent of the total population is poor.

A research done by the Environmental Protection Agency showed that, more than 30 million tons of hazardous wastes are released annually in this region. The releases are mainly done in two residential areas that are mainly inhibited by Black-Americans.

According to a research done by Rankin, Karen, and London (2005) poor people are usually found in areas with hazardous wastes and toxic areas as compared to the rich as a result of lack of proper education.

The high unemployment rate among the poor in the United States implies that they are more likely to be pre-occupied in low-level employments such as factory work, construction and mining which exposes them to toxic and hazardous wastes.

Historically, poor communities in the United States mainly the blacks find jobs in agricultural and industrial sectors which are more hazardous .The blacks in turn settled in areas where pollution occurred most likely as a result of such reasons as social, cultural and economic (Hanks, 2010, P.474).

In the United States, many poor communities are victims of hazardous wastes due to oppression. The black people are usually subjected to insidious form of racism in the United States.

This insidious form of racism usually manifests itself in that, polluting industries are disproportionately situated and also, hazardous waste sites are located where the poor communities live. This thus routinely exposes them to health and safety hazards. Documentations have detailed the disproportionate effects of toxics and hazardous wastes on poor communities in the United States.

For istance, the report by a United States General Accounting Office showed that majority of the United States landfills is situated in locations where poor people are found. Such land fills includes the Chem Waste Management facility, Alabamas waste dump among others. A report by the Commission for Racial Justice of US in 1987 reported that uncontrolled toxic and hazardous waste sites are found in areas that are mostly inhibited by the poor communities.

The impact of hazardous wastes and toxics on poor communities have been brought about by the long history of oppression ranging from slavery and colonization to the newest form of institutionalized racism (Levenstein & Wooding, 1997, P.322).

The other reason that causes the location of hazardous waste facilities in poor communities is economic reasons. Most industries in the United States opt to locate their businesses in areas that are inhibited by poor communities .This is due to the fact that, poor communities provide these industries with cheap labor.

These industries usually threaten poor communities with job cutbacks as well as plant showdowns when they challenge them for their practices. The desire by most industries to maximize profits makes hazardous waste facilities to be located in areas where poor communities live. Usually, poor communities are found in areas where the land as well as the sites is relatively cheaper. Less expensive sites are often targeted for construction of waste sites.

Likewise, poor communities are found in areas with existing landfills and therefore, the property values are already low and thus, their residential areas are more likely to be targets for new landfills. In United States, hazardous waste facilities are mainly located in those communities that have high percentages of elderly, poor and black people. Unwarranted amounts of hazardous wastes are usually found in towns and cities that have a high number of the minority community.

Large hazardous waste landfills are located in the Southern Black Belt region which is mainly inhibited by the poor communities. United States biggest hazardous waste facility is situated in Emelle area of Alabama where the poor are the majority with 80 percent of the total population. Poor infrastructural facilities ranging from lack of water treatment facilities to access to poor road networks is another cause of the location of hazardous waste facilities in poor communities throughout the US.

Poor communities are exposed to environmental inequity because they dont have choices concerning where to live as opposed to the rich and middle income people. The poor communities cannot afford to pay extra money in order to live in areas that have good infrastructural facilities and thus they are forced to live in areas that are environmentally degraded.

Also, poor communities lack the capacity to struggle against the imposition of hazardous waste facilities near their residential places. The poor communities are generally found in such places as garbage damps and areas that are prone to toxics. In Texas, poor communities are located in areas that have poor infrastructural facilities. Most of these people usually suffer from poisoning as a result of environmental racism (Murdock, 1999, P.125).

Lack of political will is another factor that causes hazardous waste facilities to be located in places where poor communities live. Following the introduction of discriminatory laws in the United States, the minority communities have found themselves with no political power i.e. power has been bestowed on the major communities over the years.

The political clout has been the reason why minority communities have been environmentally discriminated. Poor communities especially black people in the United States lacks the political will needed to resist inequitable distribution of waste sites.

Usually, black people fail to overcome environmental injustices because they do not garner adequate support mainly from the mainstream environmental organizations. There are only a few representatives from the poor communities who serve in the mainstream environmental organizations board.

The managerial and supervisory positions at the mainstream environmental organizations are mainly held by non-minority communities. As a result of being subjected to poverty, the poor communities lack the capacity to fight back the decision processes. Sitting a hazardous waste facility has been a major political issue throughout the United States.

This has seen poor communities especially the black people become the dumping grounds as far as toxic materials and household garbage are concerned. Black neighborhood in the United States has been over burdened with disproportionately share of hazardous waste disposal facilities. This unequal landfill sitting pattern is best illustrated in Houston City. Houston is United States fourth largest city and has a population of 2 million people.

Houston City is the city that has the largest number of black people with 50 percent of the citys population being comprised of blacks. However, the black people have been residentially segregated throughout history. From the period 1920s to the 1970s, the city had five functional hazardous waste disposal facilities. All the five landfills were situated in black neighborhoods.

Although the blacks formed the majority of the population, the government was unfair in treating them as all the landfills were located near their neighborhoods .Protests by black communities were also not heeded by the government of the day (Nebel & Wright, 1993, P.330).

The effects of the location of hazardous waste facilities in poor communities

The following are the main sources that produce hazardous wastes i.e. landfills, paper mills, funeral homes, metal manufacturers and hospitals. Communities that live near hazardous wastes are usually exposed to serious health problems. Hazardous waste facilities have a major effect on peoples health.

Hazardous waste usually causes some of the worst human disorders. Some of the major ailments that are associated with hazardous waste facilities includes birth defects, cancer and gene alterations. Other minor ailments that are caused by hazardous waste facilities include nausea, migraine headaches and skin alterations. Also, Waste facilities expose the poor communities to noise and nuisances. Exposure to toxics can arise from air, groundwater and soil.

In the United States, more than 800,000 inner-city children have been suffering from lead poisoning which is caused by hazardous wastes. Half of these children are mainly from the poor communities. While all children whether from poor communities or from rich communities are at risk, those from poor communities are at a greater risk of suffering from lead poisoning.

This is due to the following reasons; they are usually located in neighborhoods with hazardous wastes, poor families lack finances of removing hazards from their households, they do not have much access with regards to healthcare facilities among others (Murdock, 1999, P.125).

Hazardous waste facilities cause the property values to decline in the surrounding area. Properties that are at close range to landfills or hazardous waste facilities are eventually devalued. The closeness of the property to hazardous waste facility, the activeness of the site and the disposing off of waste plays a greater role in determining whether the value of the property will decline or not (Bullard, 1993, P.97).

The governments role in managing hazardous wastes in poor communities

Poor communities are faced with particular challenges in the United States with regards to hazardous waste facilities. Hazardous waste facilities in poor communities are a major environmental concern that should be fully addressed.

In order to minimize health and environmental issues that arises from hazardous waste facilities that are located near poor peoples residential places, the government should adopt a holistic approach and involve all the stakeholders who are involved e.g. the business communities. The poor communities that live near the hazardous waste facilities do not have much control with regards to exposure reduction.

The government should develop short band long term environmental strategies to address the fate of poor communities who lives near hazardous waste facilities. These strategies should incorporate the collection of accurate data concerning the poor communities and also, the government should collaborate with nongovernmental organizations with a view to fully address this environmental concern (Bryant, & Mohai, 1992, P.28).

The government has the role of overseeing its people are not exposed to dangerous chemicals as a result of waste sites that have been located in areas where they live. The government should carry out its rightful role of regulating the disposal of hazardous waste facilities in poor communities.

This is important as it will ensure that environmental injustice does not occur. This can be achieved by the government limiting the number of waste industries in a given region. The government should also act to break down hazardous chemicals into less-toxic chemicals.

Also, the government can store hazardous wastes in a manner that they do not get into contact with the environment. The government can also provide incentives to those industries that do not create much waste. The government should also foster public awareness and public participation (Bryant, & Mohai, 1992, P.82).

The poor communities can also play an important role in managing the hazardous wastes. They can facilitate waste management by choosing not to purchase those goods which are produced through hazardous processes.

Summary/conclusions

The conclusions that are made in this section are based on research findings. The following is the explanation on the location of hazardous waste facilities in poor communities. From the research study, the lack of adequate education is the main factor that exposes the poor communities in the United States to hazardous wastes.

Other factors include oppressions by the majority group, economic reason, poor infrastructural facilities and lack of political will. Hazardous waste facilities have an effect on both environments and on peoples health.

Hazardous waste facilities causes the property values to decline in the surrounding area .The government can solve hazardous waste facilitys issue through such measures as fostering public participation and awareness, providing industries with incentives not to produce much hazardous waste among others.

Reference List

Bryant, B & Mohai, P. (1992). Race and the incidence of environmental hazards: a time for discourse. Boulder: Westview Press.

Bullard, R. (1993).Confronting environmental racism: voices from the grassroots. New York: South End Press.

Faber, D. (1998).The struggle for ecological democracy: environmental justice movements in the United States. New York: Guilford Press.

Hanks, C. (2010). Technology and Values: Essential Readings. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons.

Levenstein, C & Wooding, J. (1997). Work, health, and environment: old problems, new solutions. New York: Guilford Press.

Murdock, S. (1999). Hazardous wastes in rural America: impacts, implications, and options for rural communities. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.

Nebel, B & Wright and R.1993. Environmental science: the way the world works. London: Prentice Hall Professional.

OECD-Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development: OECD. (2002). Towards Sustainable Household Consumption? Trends and Policies in OECD Countries. New York: ABC Publishing.

Rankin, S, Karen, D and London, F. 2005. Patient education in health and illness. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Santoler, J, Theodore, L & Reynolds, J. (2000). Introduction to hazardous waste incineration. New York: Wiley-IEEE.

Introduction

The environmental protection goes beyond the boundaries of the government responsibilities. It is also the duty of the businesses as well as every citizen of the state. The corporations are socially responsible for the decrease in the pollution and the implementation of the environmentally safe technologies of production. As an employee of Bechtel Corporation, one of the biggest construction firms in the United States, I was delegated to verify the compliance of the nominated facilities with the relevant legislation and ensuring that the constructed object is able to dispose waste in a responsible manner. The purpose of this report is to present the results of the investigation of the Hanford vitrification plant, a construction projct of Bechtel Corporation.

The Description of the Facility

Hanford vitrification plant is the new waste treatment facility constructed by Bechtel Corporation. The firm is undergoing a review of its environmental performance and has to prove that the objects of construction are environmentally safe. Hanford vitrification plant was ordered by the U.S. Department of Energy. It was constructed by Bechtel Corporation in Richland, Washington. The US law on the hazardous waste regulation provides the list of the wastes, their characteristics and norms for their identification, classification, generation, management and disposal (Hazardous waste regulations 2012).

The Hanford vitrification plant is aimed at disposing the hazardous radioactive waste. The object was constructed on the place of the nuclear plant, which was out of operation. The leak of the radioactive substances from the former nuclear plant led to the pollution of the surrounding area. In particular, the results of the investigation indicated to the significant pollution of the Columbia River. The construction of the Hanford vitrification plant was aimed at processing the hazardous waste and reducing the environmental pollution. Its construction site spans 65 acres (26 hectares) and includes facilities for pretreatment, low-activity waste vitrification, and high-level waste vitrification, as well as an analytical laboratory (Hanford vitrification plant 2013, par.4).

The Functions of the Plant

The principles of Hanford vitrification plant ensured the maximum diversion from landfill. The purpose of the facility is the disposal of the waste stored at the Hanford site (Hanford vitrification plant 2013). The construction of the project required the total investment of $12.2 billion. The newest technologies were used to build the plant. In particular, the company used the vitrification technologies and glass-forming materials to combine with the stainless steel (Hanford vitrification plant 2013). The research on the benefits from the implementation of the vitrification technologies was conducted by the Department of Energy. According to the obtained results, the potential benefits included the increase in the safety level, the reduction of the costs, the simplification of the process of the waste disposal, and the improvements in meeting the Waste Acceptance Criteria for off-site treatment of disposal (Hnat et al. 2000).

The use of the vitrification technologies represent the innovative step taking to minimise the impact of the operations on the environment and on the working conditions of the plants personnel as well. The plant is processing and stabilizing 53 million gallons (200 million liters) of radioactive and chemical waste (Hanford vitrification plant 2013, par. 1). All these wastes are acceptable for treatment at the facility.

The specialized US Commission released its opinion on the current American legislation regulating the disposal of the radioactive waste. It stated that the American nuclear waste management policy is o soft and requires the implementation of the changes (Immediate action needed on US waste policy 2012). Lisa T. Belenky discusses the provision of the US and international law on the hazardous waste disposal indicating to the contradiction between the stated aim of the US law to ensure that the American hazardous waste is disposed domestically and the implications of the tightening of the regulation, which leads to the increase in the cost of the domestic disposal and encourages the companies and other entities to export its hazardous waste to the countries with less strict rules (Belenky 1999). At the same time, the countries often do not have the technologies for the safe disposal of the wastes. As a result, the tightening of the regulation in the countries, which possess the necessary technologies for the safe disposal, indirectly leads to the pollution of the Earth. The vitrification technologies used in the construction of the plant allows the US Department of Energy to process the radioactive waste without abnormal costs.

Recommendations

I would recommend the utilization of the facility. I think that the Bechtel Corporation has the substantial experience in the construction of such type of projects. The knowledge and technology base of the company allows it to participate in the construction of the hazardous waste disposal plants in other areas of the country.

Conclusion

In order to summarize all above mentioned, it should be said that Hanford vitrification plant is the state-of-the-art facility for the processing and disposing of the nuclear waste. The technologies used in the construction of the plant allow its safe and economically efficient utilization. In addition, they contribute to the improvements in the meeting of the Waste Acceptance Criteria.

References

Belenky, L 1999, Cradle to border: U.S. hazardous waste export regulations and international law, Berkley Journal of International Law, vol. 17. no. 1, pp. 1-43.

Hanford vitrification plant. 2013. Web.

Hazardous waste regulations. 2012. Web.

Hnat, J, Pineda, M, Detwiler, D, & Schaffer, M 2000, Innovative pretreatment and vitrification technology for waste remediation. Web.

Immediate action needed on US waste policy. 2012. Web.

Introduction/Overview

Waste Management in the United States is in an incomprehensibly worrying state. Total waste generated each year is in tons of millions, with arguably very ineffective and disproportionate waste management shipping in various states. Regardless, The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) working with the various States periodically gathers data regarding hazardous waste regulation, in line with Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)-1976, to promote responsible waste management (Kunz, 2010). This report highlights the findings of the recent report on data on waste management in various States. The report particularly mirrors the relationship of the number of waste generators and total hazardous waste generated by the state, generators versus waste generated, and waste shipped versus a number of regions within the States.

Hazardous Waste Generated

In total, the total hazardous waste generated by all the American states stood at 53754191 tons. The states that topped were as follows: Louisiana (15892592 tons), Texas (13272307 tons), California (608654 tons), Arkansas (495754 tons), and Michigan (2397357 tons). At the bottom was South Dakota at 750 tons (EPA, 2010)

Relationship Number of Generators and Total Hazardous Waste Generated by State

Surprisingly, the number of generators versus the amount of hazardous waste generated was not congruent. For instance, while Louisiana had only 336 generators, it had the highest amount of waste generated. California on the other hand recorded hazardous waste of 608654 tons. Ohio with 953 generators recorded 1608186 while Oklahoma generating 134426 tons had 164 generators (EPA, 2010)

Hazardous Waste Shipped Versus Regions

An analysis of the data collected shows a disproportionate relationship between waste shipped and the number of regions within a state.

For instance, the amount of waste shipped in the states of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, and Arkansas stood at 206103 tons against 4 regions, 2126 tons against 10 regions, 54031 tons against 9 regions, and 324355 tons against 6 regions respectively (EPA, 2010).

The Difference (Margin) Between Hazardous Waste Generated and Waste shipped

In most states, the amount of waste shipped was less than the waste generated. Colorado for instance generated 54921 tons and shipped 39961 tons of wastes, while Delaware generated 19743 and shipped 19374. Indiana generated 958019 tons and shipped 404761 tons; Iowa generated 49013 tons and shipped 48771 tons. Maine generated 5305 tons and shipped 5101 tons. On the other hand, Michigan State was one of the exceptions. It generated 2397357 tons and shipped 277122. The other exception was New Jersey whose generation stood at 596130 yet shipped a higher amount of 596791. New York City also followed the same abnormality by generating 1267648 tons while shipping 274622. North Carolina generated 96009 and shipped 102711 tons. Washington was the state with the highest disparity. The waste generated stood at 147246 tons and those shipped amounted to 65674 tons (EPA, 2010)

Recommendations

The few Recommendations outlined below may have been noted elsewhere. This only shows that they have a stronger empirical grounding. Here they go:

1. Municipal waste management should be emphasized to deal with contextual waste management.
2. Waste disposal bans should be implemented in all states.
3. Taxes on disproportionateness of waste generated against those shipped by specific states should be raised.

References

EPA (2011). National Analysis: Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report. EPA

Kunz, R (2010). Environmental Calculations: A Multimedia Approach. New York: Wiley and Sons.

Definitions and concepts

Since the end of Second World War, huge volumes of hazardous chemical wastes have been generated by developed nations across the globe. Today, it is believed that more than 4 million tons of industrial wastes are produced each year by the US and other developed nations. This is a major global issue as it has the effect of causing environmental injustice or inequality.

Environmental justice is a branch of environmental science which is aimed at ensuring that all segments within a population are treated in an equitable manner with regards to the environmental issues. In the US, the environmental movement has over the years focused on conservation of resources and preservation of species while global efforts have been directed towards the concept of environmental justice.

Environmental justice usually involves coming up with appropriate measures that rectifies the disproportionate burdens that the poor communities have suffered in the past following the placement of hazardous wastes in places where they live. This movement ensures that the minority groups and the poor receive fair treatment as far as environmental rights are concerned.

According to the United States Environmental Agency, air treatment means that no group of people should be subjected to harsh environmental conditions as a result of its racial, ethnic and socio-economic basis (Santoler, Theodore, & Reynolds, 2000, P.305). Environmental injustice refers to the acts whereby many poor communities are exposed to all manner of environmental hazards ranging from wastes and dangerous emissions more than the rich communities.

Today, environmental discrimination has remained a fact of life to the poor communities across the globe. Environmental discrimination has been caused by discriminatory practices on housing opportunities .In United States, the black communities have been a victim of environmental discrimination.

The poor communities in the United States usually have their housing located near smelter operations, paper mills, garbage dumps and chemical plants. Over the past two decades, environmental injustice has intensified as industries have opted to dump their wastes in politically and economically poor communities (Santoler, Theodore, & Reynolds, 2000, P.305-306).

Statement of the Problem

This study explores the environmental justice concerns i.e. the location of hazardous waste facilities in poor communities. This study is important because it recognizes environmental inequity as a major challenge on poor communities.

Though several studies about environmental justice concerns in United States and other developed countries exist, little effort has gone into studying the government decisions to put up waste facilities in poor communities in the United States. This neglect exists despite the fact that wastes whether liquid or solid in poor community has health and environmental effects. In today’s world, the government should carry out its rightful role in ensuring that there is effective waste management process in order to protect its people and the environment.

A study which was done by OECD-Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development: OECD (2002) suggests that, the government has the role of providing the local communities with education regarding waste management. The government should carry out its rightful role of ensuring that waste is effectively disposed.

According to OECD-Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the government has the role of making arrangement for wastes to be collected on a regular basis from people’s homes. Also, the government is vested with the responsibility of storing, recycling and disposing waste properly.

Purpose and objective of the study

The purpose of this study is to examine the role of government and people with regards to managing wastes. The specific objectives arising from the overall purpose is; to determine the effects of waste materials on environment and people’s health and to establish the government’s role in managing both solid and liquid wastes in poor communities.

Literature Review

The Environmental Justice Movement came into existence in early 1980s following the increased awareness of the inequalities with regard to waste sites, distribution and the general environmental degradation that was common among the minority and poor communities across the United States. The protests by black Americans against the erection of a toxic dump site in North Carolina in 1982 marked the beginning of Environmental Justice Movement throughout the United States.

The Environmental Justice Movement was enhanced by such aspects as the presence of a vibrant civil society, the founding of antitoxic movements, traditional environmentalists, scholars and theorists of environmental studies, presence of labor movements among others. Together, these aspects played an important role in creating a unified front that struggled against environmental injustices.

This struggle saw residents in poor communities in the United States such as Ketleman City unite against past social injustice that had been committed unto them by using such techniques as coalition building, litigation and direct participatory democracy. These techniques were crucial because they helped to redefine both the meaning of environment and the ecological awareness in poor communities (Faber, 1998, P.109).

Causes of the location of hazardous waste facilities in poor communities

The main cause of hazardous waste facilities in poor communities in United States is due to lack of adequate education by the poor people. Poor communities do not receive good education as compared to the rich and middle income people through out the United States. This is because poor people lack time and the resources required to acquire good education.

For instance, many residents of Louisiana’s Cancer Alley have been exposed to hazardous wastes over the past decades. The region releases toxics which causes adverse health consequences on people. In Louisiana, more than 30 percent of the total population is poor.

A research done by the Environmental Protection Agency showed that, more than 30 million tons of hazardous wastes are released annually in this region. The releases are mainly done in two residential areas that are mainly inhibited by Black-Americans.

According to a research done by Rankin, Karen, and London (2005) poor people are usually found in areas with hazardous wastes and toxic areas as compared to the rich as a result of lack of proper education.

The high unemployment rate among the poor in the United States implies that they are more likely to be pre-occupied in low-level employments such as factory work, construction and mining which exposes them to toxic and hazardous wastes.

Historically, poor communities in the United States mainly the blacks find jobs in agricultural and industrial sectors which are more hazardous .The blacks in turn settled in areas where pollution occurred most likely as a result of such reasons as social, cultural and economic (Hanks, 2010, P.474).

In the United States, many poor communities are victims of hazardous wastes due to oppression. The black people are usually subjected to insidious form of racism in the United States.

This insidious form of racism usually manifests itself in that, polluting industries are disproportionately situated and also, hazardous waste sites are located where the poor communities live. This thus routinely exposes them to health and safety hazards. Documentations have detailed the disproportionate effects of toxics and hazardous wastes on poor communities in the United States.

For istance, the report by a United States General Accounting Office showed that majority of the United States’ landfills is situated in locations where poor people are found. Such land fills includes the Chem Waste Management facility, Alabama’s waste dump among others. A report by the Commission for Racial Justice of US in 1987 reported that uncontrolled toxic and hazardous waste sites are found in areas that are mostly inhibited by the poor communities.

The impact of hazardous wastes and toxics on poor communities have been brought about by the long history of oppression ranging from slavery and colonization to the newest form of institutionalized racism (Levenstein & Wooding, 1997, P.322).

The other reason that causes the location of hazardous waste facilities in poor communities is economic reasons. Most industries in the United States opt to locate their businesses in areas that are inhibited by poor communities .This is due to the fact that, poor communities provide these industries with cheap labor.

These industries usually threaten poor communities with job cutbacks as well as plant showdowns when they challenge them for their practices. The desire by most industries to maximize profits makes hazardous waste facilities to be located in areas where poor communities live. Usually, poor communities are found in areas where the land as well as the sites is relatively cheaper. Less expensive sites are often targeted for construction of waste sites.

Likewise, poor communities are found in areas with existing landfills and therefore, the property values are already low and thus, their residential areas are more likely to be targets for new landfills. In United States, hazardous waste facilities are mainly located in those communities that have high percentages of elderly, poor and black people. Unwarranted amounts of hazardous wastes are usually found in towns and cities that have a high number of the minority community.

Large hazardous waste landfills are located in the Southern Black Belt region which is mainly inhibited by the poor communities. United States biggest hazardous waste facility is situated in Emelle area of Alabama where the poor are the majority with 80 percent of the total population. Poor infrastructural facilities ranging from lack of water treatment facilities to access to poor road networks is another cause of the location of hazardous waste facilities in poor communities throughout the US.

Poor communities are exposed to environmental inequity because they don’t have choices concerning where to live as opposed to the rich and middle income people. The poor communities cannot afford to pay extra money in order to live in areas that have good infrastructural facilities and thus they are forced to live in areas that are environmentally degraded.

Also, poor communities lack the capacity to struggle against the imposition of hazardous waste facilities near their residential places. The poor communities are generally found in such places as garbage damps and areas that are prone to toxics. In Texas, poor communities are located in areas that have poor infrastructural facilities. Most of these people usually suffer from poisoning as a result of environmental racism (Murdock, 1999, P.125).

Lack of political will is another factor that causes hazardous waste facilities to be located in places where poor communities live. Following the introduction of discriminatory laws in the United States, the minority communities have found themselves with no political power i.e. power has been bestowed on the major communities over the years.

The political clout has been the reason why minority communities have been environmentally discriminated. Poor communities especially black people in the United States lacks the political will needed to resist inequitable distribution of waste sites.

Usually, black people fail to overcome environmental injustices because they do not garner adequate support mainly from the mainstream environmental organizations. There are only a few representatives from the poor communities who serve in the mainstream environmental organizations board.

The managerial and supervisory positions at the mainstream environmental organizations are mainly held by non-minority communities. As a result of being subjected to poverty, the poor communities lack the capacity to fight back the decision processes. Sitting a hazardous waste facility has been a major political issue throughout the United States.

This has seen poor communities especially the black people become the dumping grounds as far as toxic materials and household garbage are concerned. Black neighborhood in the United States has been over burdened with disproportionately share of hazardous waste disposal facilities. This unequal landfill sitting pattern is best illustrated in Houston City. Houston is United States’ fourth largest city and has a population of 2 million people.

Houston City is the city that has the largest number of black people with 50 percent of the city’s population being comprised of blacks. However, the black people have been residentially segregated throughout history. From the period 1920s to the 1970s, the city had five functional hazardous waste disposal facilities. All the five landfills were situated in black neighborhoods.

Although the blacks formed the majority of the population, the government was unfair in treating them as all the landfills were located near their neighborhoods .Protests by black communities were also not heeded by the government of the day (Nebel & Wright, 1993, P.330).

The effects of the location of hazardous waste facilities in poor communities

The following are the main sources that produce hazardous wastes i.e. landfills, paper mills, funeral homes, metal manufacturers and hospitals. Communities that live near hazardous wastes are usually exposed to serious health problems. Hazardous waste facilities have a major effect on people’s health.

Hazardous waste usually causes some of the worst human disorders. Some of the major ailments that are associated with hazardous waste facilities includes birth defects, cancer and gene alterations. Other minor ailments that are caused by hazardous waste facilities include nausea, migraine headaches and skin alterations. Also, Waste facilities expose the poor communities to noise and nuisances. Exposure to toxics can arise from air, groundwater and soil.

In the United States, more than 800,000 inner-city children have been suffering from lead poisoning which is caused by hazardous wastes. Half of these children are mainly from the poor communities. While all children whether from poor communities or from rich communities are at risk, those from poor communities are at a greater risk of suffering from lead poisoning.

This is due to the following reasons; they are usually located in neighborhoods with hazardous wastes, poor families lack finances of removing hazards from their households, they do not have much access with regards to healthcare facilities among others (Murdock, 1999, P.125).

Hazardous waste facilities cause the property values to decline in the surrounding area. Properties that are at close range to landfills or hazardous waste facilities are eventually devalued. The closeness of the property to hazardous waste facility, the activeness of the site and the disposing off of waste plays a greater role in determining whether the value of the property will decline or not (Bullard, 1993, P.97).

The government’s role in managing hazardous wastes in poor communities

Poor communities are faced with particular challenges in the United States with regards to hazardous waste facilities. Hazardous waste facilities in poor communities are a major environmental concern that should be fully addressed.

In order to minimize health and environmental issues that arises from hazardous waste facilities that are located near poor people’s residential places, the government should adopt a holistic approach and involve all the stakeholders who are involved e.g. the business communities. The poor communities that live near the hazardous waste facilities do not have much control with regards to exposure reduction.

The government should develop short band long term environmental strategies to address the fate of poor communities who lives near hazardous waste facilities. These strategies should incorporate the collection of accurate data concerning the poor communities and also, the government should collaborate with nongovernmental organizations with a view to fully address this environmental concern (Bryant, & Mohai, 1992, P.28).

The government has the role of overseeing its people are not exposed to dangerous chemicals as a result of waste sites that have been located in areas where they live. The government should carry out its rightful role of regulating the disposal of hazardous waste facilities in poor communities.

This is important as it will ensure that environmental injustice does not occur. This can be achieved by the government limiting the number of waste industries in a given region. The government should also act to break down hazardous chemicals into less-toxic chemicals.

Also, the government can store hazardous wastes in a manner that they do not get into contact with the environment. The government can also provide incentives to those industries that do not create much waste. The government should also foster public awareness and public participation (Bryant, & Mohai, 1992, P.82).

The poor communities can also play an important role in managing the hazardous wastes. They can facilitate waste management by choosing not to purchase those goods which are produced through hazardous processes.

Summary/conclusions

The conclusions that are made in this section are based on research findings. The following is the explanation on the location of hazardous waste facilities in poor communities. From the research study, the lack of adequate education is the main factor that exposes the poor communities in the United States to hazardous wastes.

Other factors include oppressions by the majority group, economic reason, poor infrastructural facilities and lack of political will. Hazardous waste facilities have an effect on both environments and on people’s health.

Hazardous waste facilities causes the property values to decline in the surrounding area .The government can solve hazardous waste facility’s issue through such measures as fostering public participation and awareness, providing industries with incentives not to produce much hazardous waste among others.

Reference List

Bryant, B & Mohai, P. (1992). Race and the incidence of environmental hazards: a time for discourse. Boulder: Westview Press.

Bullard, R. (1993).Confronting environmental racism: voices from the grassroots. New York: South End Press.

Faber, D. (1998).The struggle for ecological democracy: environmental justice movements in the United States. New York: Guilford Press.

Hanks, C. (2010). Technology and Values: Essential Readings. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons.

Levenstein, C & Wooding, J. (1997). Work, health, and environment: old problems, new solutions. New York: Guilford Press.

Murdock, S. (1999). Hazardous wastes in rural America: impacts, implications, and options for rural communities. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.

Nebel, B & Wright and R.1993. Environmental science: the way the world works. London: Prentice Hall Professional.

OECD-Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development: OECD. (2002). Towards Sustainable Household Consumption? Trends and Policies in OECD Countries. New York: ABC Publishing.

Rankin, S, Karen, D and London, F. 2005. Patient education in health and illness. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Santoler, J, Theodore, L & Reynolds, J. (2000). Introduction to hazardous waste incineration. New York: Wiley-IEEE.

Introduction

Waste can be defined as unwanted or useless materials which are supposed to be discarded because they have no use; the large amount of waste in today’s environment can be directly attributed and linked to human activities are either technological, economical and social ( Melfort p.8-9).

On the other hand Hazardous waste can be defined as waste which has the potential to adversely threaten human health life or the environment within a very short period of time due to their toxic nature. Hazardous wastes are not ordinarily supposed to be released directly into the environment but rather disposed by very special techniques that are scientifically tested and proven to neutralize their effects (Murphy 45).

The aim of this essay is to take a critical look how certain regions/nations have put into place legal mechanisms that are supposed to stop the act of importation and in particular dumping of hazardous materials such as nuclear wastes. The Bamako convention is one such treaty that has been instrumental in securing African countries from being dumping ground of hazardous wastes that are imported from foreign countries.

The composition of dissimilar waste depends on time, the nature of the industry and even location and hence this is why some waste can be considered as very dangerous while other are less dangerous.

With rapid industrial development and innovation in the business industry and government activities being openly linked to waste materials, many governments around the world have resulted to developing appropriate waste management policies and legal frameworks with the aim of encouraging sustainable development practices (Douglas p.78-79).

An appropriate example includes the ban of nylon plastics usage and high levels of regulation nuclear technology industry which requires those within the industry to appropriately discard radioactive materials without interfering with human health and the environment.

In some cases certain components of waste may poses economical value and hence they are reusable but in other instances some waste may end up being to dangerous to be used therefore they require special methods of discarding them (Risoluti p.4-8).

Waste can be classified as bio chemical waste, hazardous waste, and municipal waste. Nuclear waste are considered as very dangerous waste and when it comes to disposing them organizations which are liable for creating the waste are required to use special techniques that are most of the time quite expensive to dispose nuclear waste in an appropriate manner (Feustel p.37).

Hazardous waste/Nuclear Waste

Toxic Wastes that are considered as hazardous waste, radioactive materials which are usually by-products of nuclear power generation within various countries which have the capacity to develop nuclear plants. Although nuclear power is highly appropriate the downside is that it requires a lot of expertise and careful handling otherwise the waste could be extremely dangerous and harmful not only to humans but the environment (Melfort p.64).

Apart from nuclear power generation, nuclear waste can also arise out of nuclear fission research and experiments or even in hospital x-ray departments and other medical procedures that involve use of radioactive medicine. Radioactive waste substances are very harmful to human health and the environment, and are often regulated by government and international treaties so that individuals in this industry can follow well set and scientifically approved guidelines to dispose of nuclear waste (Risoluti p.4-8).

Radioactive materials are dangerous due to the fact that even after disposing radioactive materials, dangerous levels of radioactivity in radioactive substances such as Uranium and radium diminish over time (Risoluti p.62-66).

This timeframe is known as the half life of radioactive materials this hence means that by inappropriately disposing radioactive isotopes they may continue to emit radio harmful radioactive waste for many years and pose a major threat to the surrounding environment before they become harmless (Liberatore & Lewanski p.55).

Additionally, different procedures are followed while disposing different types of radioactive isotopes this hence means that the actual time frame that waste must be stored depends on the particular radioactive isotope that is in question in this case materials that have low levels of radiations especially those used in small laboratories such as hospitals and those used for medical purpose may be required to be stored for relatively shorter periods before they become harmless (Douglas 78-79).

Conversely radioactive materials that are used in nuclear plants are considered as very dangerous and often waste management experts have to use special techniques to dispose them over very long periods of time sometimes even for thousands of years (Risoluti p.144).

Local and international nuclear disposal policy frameworks act as a clear set of acceptable guidelines that regulate how the nuclear industry define and dispose all radioactive waste materials. International treaties governing the disposal of radioactive material serve as a robust assessment framework system under which experts in the field of nuclear material can make reference to especially when it comes to the handling of nuclear waste (Melfort p.94).

This way experts can refer to well established guidelines and be able to successfully establish and stick to priority sectors, products and materials as required by the legal framework within their industry, moreover well laid procedures enable experts in this field to dispose tonnages of waste using the most acceptable techniques in order to avoid harming future generations, nuclear wasteland is developed countries such as the U.S.A. is done in the specially selected areas in the desert, this locations are specially selected locations that are away from any forms of life.

Additionally, individuals are able to take responsibility of their actions and experts in this industry operate with a culture of responsibility extra care and accountability knowing the adverse effects of radioactivity (Murphy 46).

In the recent past, many countries have been accused of damping hazardous waste in the form of nuclear waste in various parts of the world especially oceans and in third world countries this trend is becoming dangerous and it threatening to destruct the balance in nature (Douglas 78-79). Damping of waste is highly dangerous especially if the required protocol that is set when damping hazardous materials such as nuclear waste is not followed then the environment will eventually degrade.

When companies decide to save on costs and use compromised containers to store and dump these waste the eventuality is that they will leak and consequently then the immediate environment is more likely to be destroyed. One such case is the case of Italy taking advantage if a poor third world country such as Nigeria and dumping waste in the country (Dufour & Denis 76).

Italy produces closed to over 50 million tons of hazardous waste annually with a good proportion of these wastes being hazardous waste such as radioactive nuclear waste. Italy has been accused of exporting some of its dangerous hazardous waste to developing countries (Liberatore & Lewanski p.55).

One of the most notable cases included a case whereby the country signed an illegal treaty with a Nigerian businessman whereby the country was allowed to store over 15,000 drums of hazardous radioactive waste in his farm, Italy agreed to pay the business man around $100 a month (Douglas 78-79). The truth about the matter was that such a practice was in breach of international waste management protocols because the manner in which the materials were disposed was posing a threat to the immediate environment.

This has not been the only case of irresponsible management of hazardous waste by developed countries records indicate that deadly waste dumping in developing countries began back in the 1970’s and nations such as France was were among the nations that took advantage of their former colonies by entering into deals with current regimes in order to gain space of damping hazardous unwanted materials (Glover p.20; Paul p.54).

The U.S.A has also been among countries whose companies which have been responsible of damping waste in developing countries in the year 1979 it was discovered that American company, Nedlog Technology Group, Inc., the government of Sierra Leone approximately $30 million to use its territory for waste disposal (Tiersten p.116-117).

The President of Sierra Leone but pressure from neighboring countries and the international community forced the government of Sierra Leone to back out of the deal. The increased damping of hazardous waste which includes radioactive materials has hence become a very huge concern in the international community forcing various arms of the United Nations and concerned stakeholders to come up with necessary mechanisms to discourage this behavior (Puckett, Stirling & and Vallette p.26-31).

The Bamako Convention

After many instances of developed countries taking advantage of developed countries by importing waste materials across borders the African Union was forced to call urgency meetings and urge all African states to develop the necessary mechanisms to an a legal framework in the form of a convention in order manage the movement of hazardous waste materials across borders ( Risoluti p.4-8).

There are a number of treaties/international conventions that were developed tom govern the move of wastes and hazardous wastes across borders some of these conventions include the Stockholm convention, the Bamako convention, the Basel and Rotterdam conventions. The main aim of these conventions is to ensure that individuals who exist in industries producing a lot of hazardous wastes create the necessary facilities to handle waste material appropriately without compromising the environment.

The international community decided to for these conventions due to the fact that numerous cases and uproars concerning dumping hazardous and dangerous substances was taking place in large scale in a transnational scale (Schissel p.47-49). One such treaty is the Bamako Convention (Bamako Convention on the ban on the Import into Africa and the Control of Trans-boundary Movement and Management of Hazardous Wastes within Africa) that came into effect into force in 1998.

Previous cases of dumping hazardous waste by developed countries such as Italy, France and organizations from the united states prompted the international community to come together and negotiate this treaty in order to save the environment and enforce more responsibility when it comes to damping hazardous waste (Liberatore & Lewanski p.55).

Convention was signed and eventually adopted by 51 African Countries at an environment conference by government representatives Bamako, Mali, back in the year 1991.The treaty later came into force in the year 1998 and only African counties are expected to abide by it (Risoluti p.25).

The range of the Bamako Convention is restricted to issues that concern the handling of hazardous wastes such as nuclear material but not hazardous wastes that may often arise out of ship discharges/leakages that are covered by other international conventions. Hazardous such as nuclear materials are particularly banned, within the signatory states and it is hence an offence for the citizens of these countries to enter into such contract that will foreign states to import waste materials into their land.

Radioactive wastes also encourage signatory states to put in place necessary parliamentary statutes that will be used by Parties are to enforce a complete ban on hazardous waste importation that come from neighboring states or even developed countries. The action of dumping of hazardous wastes at sea’s also discouraged because it poses a threat the ability of nations to create new water resources.

Additionally signatory countries are expected to establish the appropriate monitoring and regulatory that will carefully monitor trans-boundary proliferation of hazardous wastes Moreover governments through regulatory agencies are expected regularly to exchange relevant information on incidents of hazardous wastes so that the necessary legal action can be taken against those who are responsible for dumping hazardous wastes in particular areas.

The main aim of this convention was to ensure that the importation of hazard waste from other regions of the world intro Africa was put into an end (Schissel p.47-49). The previous cases that had featured on world headlines prompted the African Union to lobby support from other international bodies’ in order to bring an end to the careless dumping of hazardous waste into African territory and taking advantage of poor African countries (Melfort p.54).

Additional the treaty put a ban on dumping hazardous wastes into ocean disposal and dictates that all African countries Parties reduce intra-African waste trade. All African countries and their trade partners are require to engage in environmentally sound waste management practices and ensure that the discarding of hazardous wastes is carried out in a manner that the ensures the safety concern of the environment and communities within dumping regions is not affected (Odauran p.56).

The advantage about the Bamako Convention is that it is a treaty that provides well-built legal prohibitions and guidelines that aim to put an end to irresponsible damping of hazardous waste that are imported into the African continent by developed countries and multinational corporations that want to take advantage of the poverty situation and the corrupt regimes of the African continent (Odauran p.57).

The act of damping was declared as an illegal and criminal act and all signatories were urged to further incorporate then elements of the convention into their country laws in order to harmonies anti-dumping laws all over Africa (Porter p.74). The ban further more is applicable to products which have been deregistered in various regions of the world due to environmental and health concerns.

Moreover the Bamako convention does not allow Member states to engage in hazardous waste incineration at sea and oceans. The convention furthermore urges member states to come up with industrial activities that do not produce a lot of hazardous wastes by perusing sustainable business practices that have the environment and the health of the society as a primary concern (Schissel p.47-49).

Conclusion

Waste management poses a huge challenge in various regions of the world many individuals, organizations and this has forced governments to develop sound practices, and be particularly weary of the threats that irresponsible waste management poses to the environment and to living organisms.

Situations whereby developed counties simply dump hazardous materials in poorer and less fortunate countries is now a forbidden practice of the past that is illegal. Every nation and organization is now required to develop the appropriate waste management techniques and systems that are able to cater for their industrial activities because when dealing with hazardous materials there are a lot of dangers that the environment, other animals and human beings are exposed to.

The Bamako convention’s main aim was to protect human health and also ensure that the environment is free from the dangers that normally emanate from damping and importing hazardous waste and up to this day it has been successful in reducing instances of waste importation.

The convention has enabled various African countries easily come up with a legal framework that has discouraged developed countries from approaching them and offering them money in order to dump dangerous waste in their territories. The effect of trans-boundary damping among signatory states has therefore as a result drastically dropped leading to a less polluted environment within Africa.

References

Douglas H., 1992. “Toxic Banking.” The Nation. Vol 254, pp. 78-79.

Dufour, J.P. & Denis, C., 1998. “The North’s Garbage Goes South.” World Press Review. Vol 35 pp.30-32.

Feustel, S.,1988. “E.C. Pushes New Rules on Toxic Waste Exports” 282, pp.32-46.

Glover, J., 1991. “Italian Industry Aims To Get Greener, But on Its Own Terms.” Chemical Week. 14/5, pp. 20.

Liberatore, A. & Lewanski, R.,1990.” The Evolution of Italian Environmental Policy.” Environment 32.pp 115-116.

Melfort, S.W., 2003. Nuclear waste disposal: current issues and proposals. New York: Nova Science Publishers.

Murphy, S. D., 1993. “The Basel Convention on Hazardous Wastes.” Environment 35 pp.42-44.

Odauran, A. B., 1989. “Education against Environmental Pollution in Nigeria” Convergence 22/4, pp 55-60.

Paul R., 1988. “Toxic Terrorism Invades Third World Nations.” Black Enterprise 19, pp. 54-56.

Porter R.C.,2002. The economics of waste. Washington: RFF Press book.

Puckett, J., Stirling, A & and Vallette, J.,1990. “Preventing the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Including Nuclear Wastes in the Mediterranean Region — A Call for a Legal Instrument within the Barcelona Convention.” Greenpeace International, Waste Trade Campaign (September 14, 1990): pp 1-44.

Risoluti, P.,2003. Nuclear waste: a technological and political challenge. New York: Springer

Schissel, H., 1988.”The Deadly Trade: Toxic waste dumping in Africa.” Africa Report 33, pp 47-49.

Tiersten, S., 1998. “Toxic Waste Poisons the Soil: And Property Deals.” Electronic Business, pp116-118.

Proper management of hazardous wastes is an essential factor affecting the environment and human health. However, the process of waste disposal formulates financial expenditures, and sometimes, company managers try to get around the legislature in order not to pay for disposal. It may include the illegal storage of waste under the guise of valuable materials or the illegal dumping of refuse into surroundings. Such actions have a negative impact on the company’s employees, the environment, and the people. In this regard, one should consider two cases of illegal waste management to analyze their impact.

The first situation articulates the illegal storage of hazardous waste in unacceptable conditions causing harm to the company’s employees. In this case, the owner of an electroplating business, to save finances, stated that the hazardous waste remaining in the enterprise still has value in use (VanGuilder, 2018). After the officer with the search warrant visited the facility, a number of violations of chemical storage were discovered. Several hazardous materials were kept in improper conditions, namely in drums on the enterprise’s premises. Besides, it was found that an acid bath was contained on one side and a cyanide solution on the other in a tank divided by a steel plate (VanGuilder, 2018). The mixing of these substances causes a chemical reaction which results in the release of materials hazardous to health.

The company owner argued that this waste has value and can potentially be used in the future, which makes it consumables, not waste. However, the analysis showed that these materials have exhausted the limit of their use and can no longer be applied in any processes. Thus, the contents of the containers are considered hazardous waste and must be transported to specialized centers for disposal and destroyed. However, such a procedure involves financial costs, although it is mandatory. In addition, the enterprise employees complained about the deterioration of breathing and well-being, which characterizes a direct violation of working conditions.

The following situation is similar to the one mentioned above and includes the illegal storage and release of hazardous materials into the environment. Thus, in the city of Pasir Gudang, Malaysia, tons of hazardous wastes were illegally stored and hereafter disposed into the Kim Kim River (Ibrahim et al., 2021). Materials include toluene, ethylbenzene, acrolein, benzene, methane, and hydrogen chloride (Ibrahim et al., 2021). As a result of the release, about a thousand students in nearby territories experienced symptoms of a respiratory illness. It was caused by the getting of toxic substances into the body of students and subsequent poisoning. Thus, the situation articulates the importance of the correct handling of toxic materials due to their destructive effects on people and the environment. In addition, it also articulates the need to rework the existing types of waste management safety control in this region.

To conclude, the two situations described above demonstrate how business owners violate the rules of hazardous waste management in order to save money. It has been identified as including the illegal storage of toxic waste under the guise of valuable materials that can be used. In addition, one also illegally dumps poisonous substances into the surroundings in order to avoid spending on their disposal. All this has a negative impact on both the company’s employees and the environment. Moreover, one may notice the large-scale consequences of the illegal dumping of poisonous substances on the example of the last case.

References

Ibrahim, M. F., Hod, R., Toha, H. R., Nawi, A. M., Idris, I. B., Yusoff, H. M., & Sahani, M. (2021). The impacts of illegal toxic waste dumping on children’s health: A review and case study from Pasir Gudang, Malaysia. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 18(5).

VanGuilder, C. (2018). Hazardous waste management: An introduction. Mercury Learning & Information.

Introduction

When most people think of hazardous trash, they see massive industrial firms releasing rubbish that looks like those awful photos of waste barrels abandoned in a neighborhood creek and leaking poison into our backyards. However, our own houses generate a large amount of hazardous garbage. Household waste can come from a wide range of residential settings, from single-family homes to hotels with a significant number of transient tenants. Since waste items are chemical, they can poison, corrode, explode, or burn easily when mishandled or tossed; as a result, domestic garbage is considered hazardous waste. Materials may be recycled, repurposed, reused, and disposed of correctly to achieve the most secure and risk-free final result possible. Proper waste disposal has a tremendous impact on the quality of our environment.

Hazardous Waste Disposal Strategies

It is common practice to dispose of potentially dangerous things at home in trash cans used daily, despite not being the correct method. The primary reason for this is that most individuals are either ignorant of the fact that the items in question are dangerous and do not understand how to dispose of them appropriately. Batteries, paint, lawn chemicals, microwaves, and other common household products are some of the items that fall into this category. Due to technological advancement, our homes are now more attractive and free of pests, and we can eat our meals in a matter of seconds. However, if they are not disposed of properly, they have the potential to constitute a danger to either human health or the environment.

Educating and Enlightening the Community

The disposal of hazardous waste varies depending on the location and availability of disposal facilities. Nonetheless, most areas get government assistance. The programs can range from educating the public about the risks of household chemicals to constructing a domestic hazardous waste-collection facility; the more complex programs are best suited for larger communities with existing facilities, such as a municipal solid waste collection area (Ferronato & Torretta, 2019). Despite the necessity of all of the above, education is the first stage of any home hazardous waste (HHW) program. Before hazardous trash collection begins, municipalities could distribute educational materials, include them in utility bills, or even host seminars informing residents of less-hazardous options The proper disposal of waste is taught to the general population as part of a waste management strategy that does its job effectively. People are informed about the area of the collection facilities and the types of materials that are permissible and inadmissible at the collection site. It helps achieve the desired end in the disposal of hazardous waste.

A range of organizations and institutions, including local or regional chemical producers, firms with local branches, civic groups, the government, and private grant-giving organizations, may be able to provide financial assistance. Even while these organizations provide financial aid to help offset the costs, the individual may still be responsible for paying part of the remaining costs. When dropping off household trash at certain sites, service fees may be required, while other areas may incorporate the cost of HHW disposal into municipal or state taxes.

Incineration, Underground Disposal, and Ocean Dumping

Incineration and chemical treatment are two methods that may be utilized to deactivate the toxic components that are present in the material that is regarded as hazardous waste from residential sources. These components are present in the garbage that is generated in residential settings. Other waste disposal methods include dumping hazardous materials underground or into the oceans, requiring the materials to be treated first to protect marine life (Singh & Yadav, 2022). Underground disposal involves putting hazardous materials at an abandoned mining site, while ocean dumping requires treating the materials before dumping them into oceans.

Recycling of Household Hazardous Waste

Electronic devices are one of the most widespread sources of hazardous waste produced by society in the modern era. To maintain the quality of the program, it will be necessary to recycle several electronic pieces of equipment (Awasthi & Li, 2018). By retrieving valuable resources such as precious and semi-precious metals for application in manufacturing brand-new consumer items, recycling helps divert these materials from the trash stream, where they would otherwise be hazardous.

Impacts and Significance of Proper Household Waste Disposal

When hazardous wastes from homes are disposed of correctly, there is no risk of contamination from water or soil caused by leaks or spills. Toxic waste thrown out with ordinary rubbish runs the risk of causing harm that cannot be repaired. In most cases, the risks associated with improperly disposing of hazardous waste are not immediately obvious. However, certain types of household hazardous waste have the potential to cause physical injury to sanitation workers (Xu et al., 2018). Contaminate septic tanks, polluted bodies of water, contaminate groundwater, and surface water that is used as a source of drinking water are harmful if they are sent to landfills that are not adequately protected from contamination (Bakyayita et al., 2019). Hazardous waste reuse, recycling, and reclamation can help to safeguard rare natural resources, generate economic advantages, and lessen the country’s dependency on raw materials and energy.

The environmental impact of mining may be reduced by reducing the need for extraction, which recycling minerals can accomplish from the garbage. It takes far more energy to process and transport raw materials than to recycle rubbish. The processing and transportation of raw materials involve fossil fuels, which contribute to the overall amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. A substance’s carbon footprint may be reduced by cutting down on the energy needed to get the resources used in the production of goods (Ferronato & Torretta, 2019). In addition, the treatment of hazardous waste, transportation of that trash, and disposal of that waste all produce additional pollutants. Since these toxins harm the air, water, and soil, recycling helps to reduce the amount of these pollutants and creates a healthier environment in which to live.

Recycling hazardous trash can improve production efficiency while simultaneously lowering costs connected with acquiring raw materials and managing waste. Recycling can save businesses money and help them avoid regulatory fines and costs for garbage disposal (Okan et al., 2018). The quantity of pollution in the air, water, and soil may all be reduced due to recycling, which is beneficial to society as a whole. If people can breathe clean air, drink clean water, and grow their food in healthy soil, then the incidence of illnesses caused by contamination will decrease. Not only does it cut down on the expense of medical treatment, but it also makes people in the community happier and healthier, leading to increased economic activity.

Conclusion

As we have discovered, human activity is responsible for a significant amount of the damage that has been done to the natural world. However, we have also realized that we can constructively use our knowledge and technology. An excellent action plan will emphasize education as the primary driving force behind the program’s continued development. To achieve the objective as effectively as possible, the priority should be placed on fostering regional collaboration, public education and outreach, and the responsible use of public funds. The primary goal should be to attract as many residents of the community to participate as possible. It may be accomplished via various methods, from distributing flyers to developing an online outreach curriculum incorporating social media to educate society on household hazardous wastes.

References

Awasthi, A. K., & Li, J. (2018). Assessing resident awareness on e-waste management in Bangalore, India: A preliminary case study. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(11), 11163–11172.

Bakyayita, G. K., Norrström, A. C., & Kulabako, R. N. (2019). Assessment of levels, speciation, and toxicity of trace metal contaminants in selected shallow groundwater sources, surface runoff, wastewater, and surface water from designated streams in Lake Victoria Basin, Uganda. Journal of Environmental and Public Health, 2019, 1–18.

Ferronato, N., & Torretta, V. (2019). Waste mismanagement in developing countries: A Review of Global Issues. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(6), 1060.

Okan, M., Aydin, H. M., & Barsbay, M. (2018). Current approaches to waste polymer utilization and minimization: A Review.Journal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology, 94(1), 8–21.

Singh, G., & Yadav, P. K. S. (2022). Hazardous waste characteristics and standard management approaches. Hazardous Waste Management, 145–164.

Xu, Y., Xue, X., Dong, L., Nai, C., Liu, Y., & Huang, Q. (2018). Long-term dynamics of leachate production, leakage from hazardous waste landfill sites and the impact on groundwater quality and human health.Waste Management, 82, 156–166.

Introduction

A hazardous waste refers to a material that possesses potential or substantial threat to the environment or public health. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) is the body charged with the responsibility of managing hazardous waste in the United States. In this respect, RCRA is involved in the regulation of the treatment, storage, as well as proper disposal of hazardous waste (Rushton 184). The RCRA categorizes hazardous waste as either characteristic hazardous wastes or listed hazardous wastes.

Upon testing, characteristic hazardous wastes are known to exhibit such hazardous traits as reactivity, corrosivity, ignitability, and toxicity (Clark University para. 4). On the other hand, listed hazardous waste are those material defined by regulatory authorities as emanating from discarded chemical products or specific sources (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency para. 3). Owing to their reactive and toxic nature, it is important to ensure that hazardous wastes are handled and disposed of in the right manner.

Our homes can also be a source of hazardous wastes. For example, we might find bug spray cans, old batteries, and paint thinner in our garbage, and these wastes qualify as hazardous wastes. Other examples of hazardous wastes include waste oil, waste solvents, and waste asbestos. Households, the agricultural sector, and factories make use of hazardous materials extensively (Environment Canada para. 5). At the same time, there has been a rapid increase in the consumption and effect of hazardous materials, in recent years.

Factories have continued to use hazardous materials without taking into account the proper effective control measures and this has led to increased deaths from accidents and increased employee injuries. Employees who are exposed to hazardous waste are also more vulnerable to contracting chronic diseases.

When hazardous wastes are not disposed of properly, this not only endangers human health, but also pollutes the environment (Rushton 189). The main sources of hazardous wastes are domestic, industries, and hospitals. Under domestic hazardous wastes, we have insecticides, batteries, and herbicides. On the other hand, industrial hazardous wastes include heavy metal, solvent, sludge chemicals, and batteries, among others. Hospital hazardous wastes include pharmaceutical wastes, infectious wastes, and sharps.

The objective of the paper is to investigate the effects of hazardous wastes on human health and the environment shall also be explored. The paper will also attempt to assess the effects of the Gulf oil spills on human health and the ecosystem. Moreover, the issue of identifying hazardous waste and how to manage it shall also be examined. Finally, the paper will endeavor to highlight some of the solutions that can be used by households and the industry to reduce hazardous waste.

Causes of hazardous wastes

Hazardous wastes could be produced either on a small scale or a large scale, depending on the source. The main sources of hazardous wastes include households, the hospital settings, and industries. Regardless of the source, these wastes could be very dangerous to our health and the environment as well.

The main reason why there is an abundance of hazardous waste is because we have failed to realize that it is a very large problem that needs our attention. Since we can easily have wastes removed from our households or business premises and have it sent to a landfill, we rarely stop to ponder on the level of toxicity of such wastes, and whether it could have any effects on our health and environment (Indiana University Office of Environmental, Health, and Safety Management 7).

Most governments and industry have created crude landfills for purposes of stowing waste, with waste chemicals often being dumped into the neighboring water bodies. Most of the industrial chemicals in use today constitute a very dangerous type of waste. In the recent past, there has been a rapid increase in the amount of such dangerous chemicals, following the manufacturing of new products and an increase in the levels of industrialization.

With over 80,000 various types of chemicals being used across different industries in the world, it would be very expensive and difficult to store and dispose of such chemicals in a manner that will not in any way pose a danger to either the environment or human life. Although some of these chemicals pose no harm to humans and the environment, majority of them can potentially cause serious problems (Indiana University Office of Environmental, Health, and Safety Management 8).

Across the globe, vast amounts of hazardous waste are accumulated every year. Instead of ensuring that such waste is stored or cleaned up more carefully, if we can reduce the levels of producing such waste, we shall have avoid a major catastrophe from happening.

Effects of hazardous wastes on human health and the environment

There has to be effective control with regard to the generation, storage, as well as the treatment of hazardous wastes, if at all we wish to ensure proper environmental and health protection. Such measures also need to be taken into account when we are reusing, recycling, recovering, transporting, and disposing hazardous wastes. To achieve all this, there has to be active participation and cooperation of all the parties involved notably, the industry players and the government.

The increased production of hazardous waste is taking its toll on human health and the environment. Specifically, improper production, use, and disposal of hazardous waste results in the degradation of the environment (Harding and Greer 6). There is need therefore to increase information and knowledge regarding the economics of management and prevention of hazardous wastes, taking into account the how they relate to environmental and employment benefits.

This was, the government would be in a better position to plan and execute effective capital investment strategies via programmer meant to bring economic incentive not just to the community but to the country as well. Minimization still remains a priority in as far as the management of hazardous waste is concerned.

Minimization entails changing consumer patters and industrial processes by preventing pollution and by encouraging cleaner production strategies (Harding and Greer 7).The recovery and transformation of the various hazardous wastes into useful materials is a fundamental element of these strategies. The application of new technology, development, and modification of novel low-waste technologies therefore remains a key focal point for the minimization of hazardous wastes.

The daily production of hazardous wastes from commercial, industrial, and personal practices endangers both the ecosystem and public health. If this form of waste is not managed properly, it may result in contaminated soil, water, and air.

The U.S. Environmental protection Agency (USEPA) opines that for every four American, one of them lives very near to a hazardous waste deposit. More than 90 percent of such sites are a threat to not just the health of thee Americans, but also to the surrounding environment (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency para. 7).

Exposure to hazardous waste could lead to birth defects, reproductive disorders, neurological effects, chronic illness (for example, respiratory illnesses and cancer), and weakened immunity. An inventory carried out by the Toxic Substances Control Act noted that there are more than 72,000 substances. Although many of these agents are actively controlled and regulated, the treatment options, public health effects and exposure levels of majority of these chemicals are not fully understood (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency para. 7).

Both the USEPA and the National Response Center gets more than 15,000 oil spills and 5,000 chemical accidents every year (Reynolds para. 3). Even as the USEPA is committed to reducing such accidents by at least 80 percent nonetheless, we need to note that majority of these sites are already contaminated. It is important to note that the disposal of underground hazardous compounds endangers groundwater, and nearly half of the Americans rely on ground water as a source of drinking water.

Exposure of several predatory birds to dioxin during the 1950s and 1960s led to a dramatic reduction in their population. At low levels of exposure to DDT, the chemical was found to affect the calcium deposition of their eggshells (Fry 166). As a result, they became thin and fragile and their parents would often crush them in the nest.

When mining operations are not properly managed, they are likely to emit toxic effluents and this could pose a serious threat to the health of humans, not to mention that it would affect the wildlife seriously. In addition, wildlife and marine ecosystems have also suffered a lot of damage following oil spills due to accidents to huge ocean-going tankers.

Hazard wastes have certain safety related properties, including the tendency to explode, corrode, cause or burn chemical reactions. At the same time, there are numerous hazardous wastes associated with their safety effects, including death and injury from fire outbreaks, explosion, or chemical reactions. Also, hazardous wastes can also affect the physical environment and property mainly through damage to property and this can lead to explosion and fires (Vrijheid 102).

. The improper management of hazardous wastes can therefore cause accidents that emit hazardous substances to the surface and in case people inhale them, they are likely to suffer deleterious health effects. The emissions into the atmosphere of hazardous wastes can lead to various forms of adverse health effects such as damage to the skins, eyes, and breathing passages.

It could also have negative effects on the lungs, kidneys, and the nervous system. In addition, such an exposure has the potential to cause impairment to learning ability, neurological functions, and cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases (Vrijheid 103).

The most notable public health risks are those linked to an exposure to metals in airborne fine particulate matter and mercury in food. Coal fired power plants are known to emit most of these hazardous air pollutants. At the same time, these power plants have been noted to contribute significantly to the deposition of mercury in water and soil.

A study carried out in eastern Ohio near a coal mine revealed that nearly 70 percent of the mercury found in rainfall was attributed to coal combustion. In the same area, most of the power plants were located not more than 1 mile from where the rain samples were collected (Johnson 293). In this case, 42 percent of the mercury found in the rainfall was linked to these emissions.

The presence of mercury deposits in the air is a health hazard because in case it deposits on the earth surface as it often does, there is a likelihood of the substance penetrating into the waterways where it gets converted into methymercury upon its reaction with microorganisms. This is a very toxic form of mercury and can be quite injurious to the health of individual consuming the contaminated water.

Studies conducted by the EPA show that when humans are exposed to various forms of fine particulate matter, this could result in the development of cardiovascular diseases, leading to death (Johnson 293). There is a strong link between on the one hand, the development of cardiovascular and lung diseases and on the other hand, interaction with such heavy metals as selenium, nickel, chromium, and lead.

Emissions of hazardous wastes in the form of air pollutants can also have a negative impact on the environment. For example, it can result in the bioaccumulation of toxic metals, reduced visibility owing to haze, environmental acidification, contamination of lakes, oceans, and rivers, as well as the degradation of culturally important buildings and monuments (Kelly 11).

Effects of the Gulf oil spills on human health and the ecosystem

It is now nearly two years since the Gulf oil spill took place but still, we are yet to determine the full magnitude of the environmental, human heal and economic effects of this disaster. In spite of the growing literature that addresses the effects of oil spills on the environment and human health, responding to a majority of the questions raised by the public and clinicians about the Gulf oil spills and future related accidents is an uphill task (Goldstein, Osofsky and Lichtveld 1336).

There are four categories to which we can group potential health implications of oil spills. Those linked to worker safety, those with toxicological impacts on workers, those related to mental health effects as a result of economic and social disruptions, and those that affect the ecosystem.

Following the oil spill at the Gulf of Mexico, over 30 workers sustained serious injuries, while 11 of them died (Goldstein et al 1336). To gain an understanding into the health effects of the workers and community members at the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, we need to draw our attention to previous related disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina on the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

In all these cases, tens of thousands of community members and workers were put at risk by these events with majority of them having to live with long-term health consequences compared with the rest of the population.

With regard to the toxicological consequences of oil spills on human health, the public and clinicians are mainly concerned with the short-term chemical effects following an oil spill. These may include dermal and respiratory irritation, eye irritation, headaches, dizziness, and nauseas (McCoy and Salerno 6). In order to predict longer-term and shorter-term toxicological effects, there is need to have an in-depth understanding of the contaminants in question, exposure pathways, as well as the vulnerable groups.

Community members and response workers have been noted to present with mental health symptoms following an oil disaster. After the oil spill at the Gulf of Mexico, there was an increase in the number of calls made to domestic violence and mental health hotlines, following increased incidents of mental illness, domestic violence, and substance abuse (Zock and Rodriguez-Trigo et al. 243). This is a clear sign that oil spill impacts negatively on the mental health of the victims and the community members.

At the same time, an oil spill translates into negative consequences on the ecosystem. It is important to note that the Gulf of Mexico acts as a good source of seafood. As such, the Gulf oil spill became a national seafood-safety issue. This compelled the government agencies to start monitoring such seafood as shrimp, crabs, and fish, in addition to restricting the harvesting of seafood on some areas.

There is still a lot of pressure regarding drilling restrictions and seafood harvesting, and there is a chance that some individuals are still undertaking fishing in the region. Studies conducted after the Prestige and Erika oil spills indicates that the biomagnifications and bioaccumulation of crude-oil components (and more so PAHs), could take place in seafood (Zock and Rodriguez-Trigo et al. 246).

Although it is still not clear what role is played by dispersants and oil in the otherwise complex Gulf ecosystem, there is compelling evidence that these components can algal blooms, in addition to initiating the production of brevetoxin, a harmful toxin. Also, when marine risk gets coated with oil, this affects the absorption of arsenic, thereby helping to increase the levels of arsenic in seafood. If consumed, such seafood can have deleterious effects on the health of consumers.

Identifying hazardous wastes

The Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure (TCLP) is a tool often used to determine if waste produced by individuals, industries, or hospitals is toxic. This tool has proved quite useful in the identification of hazardous wastes.

In addition, one can also be very effective in the identification of hazardous wastes. In addition, one can also determine hazardous wastes through what is known as generator knowledge. This is simply being aware that the waste produced by various processes in the industry, at the household level, or in hospitals is hazardous (Environmental Health & Safety Online para. 5).

Nonetheless, written documentation is normally required for the non-hazardous as well as the hazardous wastes, in case you decide to use generator knowledge in the identification of hazardous wastes. The EPA has also developed a table of the typical hazardous wastes as generated by various businesses. In this case, the table provides the type of business, the forms of wastes most likely to be generated by such a business, and the manner in which that waste is generated.

In addition, the table also provides waste codes for the different types of wastes. This table can be very useful in helping us to distinguish hazardous wastes from non-hazardous wastes (Environmental Health & Safety Online para. 5). The table can also be very useful when we want to develop a program for managing the hazardous waste.

Managing hazardous waste

One way of ensuring that we minimize hazardous waste as much as possible is stress on waste recycling and reduction. This way, it becomes easier to reduce the cost of having to treat a lot of waste. It is also important to take an inventory of all you chemicals. This way, you can know the ones that need replacement once they are finished and how best to dispose of them in a safe manner.

Whenever possible ensure that you replace hazardous materials with less hazardous ones (Rushton 186). We have many alternatives for some of the commonly used chemicals that could be hazardous, and most of them have proven to be less toxic. It is also important to ensure that non-hazardous wastes are not mixed with hazardous wastes.

In case we mix the two, there is the likelihood of non-hazardous wastes becoming hazardous themselves. Also, by mixing large quantities of non-hazardous waste with even the minutest volume of hazardous waste, this effectively increases the amount of hazardous waste generated. In the same way, we should ensure that low concentration waste is not mixed with high concentration waste (Rushton 187).

Prior to treating any waste, it is always important to first establish whether the material in question can be recycled or used, or if it is a hazardous waste. Once we have established that the material is indeed a waste, we must then evaluate the level of hazard, along with the most suitable disposal route to adopt.

Most household and small businesses have the tendency to let hazardous waste accumulate on-site for a given period of time, after which they will then have it shipped off for purposes of storage, treatment, and disposal off-site.

It is important to note that letting hazardous waste to accumulate on-site could pose danger to both the environment and human health. Compliance with the established basic waste management requirements is mandatory. This is important in order to avoid accidents from occurring. It also makes it easier to respond quickly in case of emergencies in keeping with state and federal laws.

The treatment of most hazardous wastes demands that they first comply with treatment standards before they can be land disposed. We have in place the Land Disposal restrictions (LDR) program that demands that such waste be treated first as a way of possible hazardous constituents to the established levels by the EPA (U.S Environmental Protection Agency para. 1). Alternatively, the LDR can give the mandate for the use of a specific technology in treating such waste.

We all called upon to ensure that the waste that we generate for purposes of treatment is in keeping with the established treatment standards by the LDR, prior to land disposal. In case a company decides to treat its own waste, it needs to comply with other requirements such as making the proper notifications to the right authorities, making use of waste analysis plans, and obtaining the right certifications.

Since we tend to encounter hazardous wastes almost every day, it is important that we form the habit of following the established guidelines regarding the identification and safe disposal of such wastes. For example, we need to label, package and store unwanted products as well as hazardous waste in line with the available procedures.

Conclusion

As individuals and industry continue to ignore the potential dangers of not minimizing and properly disposing of hazardous waste, levels of such wastes continues to pile up with potential deleterious effects on both the environment and human health. Consequently, many industries and individuals are no longer actively involved in the quest for preventing the accumulation of hazardous wastes in the first place, not to mention that they have little concern about reducing the potential negative effects of producing this form of waste.

Not many people stop to think that some of the materials that they are throwing out could end up in a landfill, and that its improper disposal could affects both humans and the environment negatively. Regardless of where individuals throw out such wastes, chances are high that it will end up on a landfill and ultimately, find its way into our bodies, in effect endangering our bodies.

Many organizations do not want to incur the costs ensuring that they do not let hazardous waste to accumulate. As a result, most of them end up letting such waste to accumulate in landfills on site, upon which they fill such sites with wastes. Alternatively, they could pay someone or an organization to have the waste removed.

Usually, these individuals and organizations end up transporting the hazardous wastes to areas that will accept it in exchange for money, without little regard about how such waste is eventually treated. It could become quite hard to minimize hazardous waste in the immediate future. This is because unlike the other problems that affect our environment, most people are not bothered at all about waste creation.

It is important therefore that the government agencies and other relevant authorities take charge of the situation before it is too late and compel people to reduce their rates of generating hazardous wastes. This can be done by imposing laws that restrict not only the consumption and use of materials with properties of hazardous wastes, but also to ensure that such waste is disposed of properly.

Solutions

We seem to be privy to majority of the negative effects of hazardous wastes. Although we seem to give a lot of attention to other environmental threats at the expense of hazardous waste, nonetheless, we can still make use of a number of successful solutions in a bid to reduce the ramifications of this problem.

The government can play a very crucial role in helping to minimize hazardous waste by increasing regulations governing the disposal of such waste. To do so, the government can limit the volumes of wastes produced at the household or industrial level. As much as possible, households and industries should be encouraged to minimize the production of waste. A threshold should be established for the maximum amount of waste that can be produced and in case it is exceeded, a heavy fine should be imposed.

Incentives to produce less waste should also be provided to industries and households, such as issuing a certificate of recognition to those industries that reuse and recycle their waste. to minimize hazardous waste, industries can ensure that chemicals compounds meant for disposal has been broken down into a form that is less dangerous to human health and the environment. Alternatively, such wastes may be stored in such a manner as to ensure that the environment and humans are not exposed to it.

The solutions to minimizing hazardous waste should be embraced by individuals and industries alike. Both parties can make a decision that they will not purchase products that normally produce hazardous waste. Policymakers can also play a crucial role in helping to minimize hazardous wastes by passing the relevant laws.

Individuals and industries can also make a commitment to produce less waste. If at all we are to eliminate this problem, we need a concerted effort of the individuals, industries, policymakers, and the government. In addition, the existing technologies can be used to reduce hazardous waste even as we continue to develop more efficient processes.

Works Cited

Clark University. n. d. Characteristics of Hazardous Waste. Web.

Environment Canada. 1997. Household Hazardous Wastes. 1997. Web.

Environmental Health & Safety Online. 2011. The EPA TCLP: Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure and Characteristic Wastes (D-codes). 2011. Web.

Fry, Michael. Reproductive Effects in Birds Exposed to Pesticides and Industrial Chemicals. Environ Health Perspect, 103.7(1995):165-171. Print.

Goldstein, Bernard, Osofsky, Howard and Lichtveld, Maureen. “The Gulf Oil Spill.” N Engl J Med, 364(2011):1334-1348. Print.

Harding , Anna, Greer, Marsha. “The Health Impact of Hazardous Waste Sites on Minority Communities: Implications for Public Health and Environmental Health Professionals.” Journal of Environmental Health, 55.7(1993): 6-7. Print.

Indiana University Office of Environmental, Health, and Safety Management. 2001. Hazardous Waste Management Guide. 2001. Web.

Johnson, Barry. Impact of hazardous waste on human health: Hazard, health effects, equity, and communications issues, Boca Raton, Fla: Lewis Publishers, 1999. Print.

Kelly, Kathryn. 1995. Health effects of hazardous waste incineration. 1995. Web.

McCoy, Margaret and Salerno, Judith. 2010. “Assessing the effects of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill on human health. 2010. Web.

Reynolds, Kelly. Bioremediation: using microbes to clean up hazardous waste. WCP, 44.9(2002):

Rushton, Leslie. “Health hazards and waste management.” Br Med Bull, 68.1(2003): 183-197. Print.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. Listed wastes. 2011. Web.

U.S Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. LDR Phase IV: Treatment Standards Set for Toxicity Characteristic (TC) Metal Wastes, Mineral Processing Wastes and Contaminated Soils. 2011. Web.

Vrijheid, Martine. “Health effects of residence near hazardous waste landfill sites: a review of epidemiologic literature.” Environ Health Perspect, 108.1( 2000): 101 – 112. Print.

Zock, Jan-Paul and Rodriguez-Trigo, Gema et al. “Long-term health effects of the

Prestige oil spill (Galicia, Spain).” Epidemiology 20.6(2009): S242-S243. Print.

An Overview of the Report

This report is about an industrial site that has been used for discarding wastes by two companies. The companies have been operating for a period close to sixty years. The site is situated on the upper side of a residential area and separated by an approximate distance of one mile.

Running through the site is a stream that serves the community in some ways. First, the stream is an income-generating source as it is a prominent fishing ground.

There is an underground water withdrawal point at the site that is used to bring in water to the residents. The villagers pump water from the stream to their nearby farms for irrigation.

There are however, few environmental negative aspects noted at the waste site. Approaching the site, a strong pungent smell from chemicals released by the two companies hits the air. A critical evaluation of the site reveals that there one hundred drums that unfortunately are not marked.

The drums are rusting and most of them have cracked. Further evaluation leads to the finding of various hazardous wastes that include PCBs, Chromium wastes, Acrylamide and Toluene Diisocynate (DTI).

Thesis Statement

This report was written after a visit to the site and it seeks to analyze the environmental conditions at the site, find the toxicants, their routes of exposure along with the mechanisms of toxicity.

The report makes recommendations on the actions that should be taken to avert an epidemic and other toxicological effects that could be caused by toxicants. This is after an analysis of the exposure limits of the toxicants and the assessment of the risks at the site.

Analysis of the Wastes

The hazardous wastes found at site are industrial products discarded by the companies and by-products of the manufacturing processes. The wastes are a mixture of solids, gases, sludge, and liquids. The wastes are dangerous and harmful to the environment and human health.

PCBs

These are the Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) wastes. They are compounds of hydrocarbons and are mainly synthetic (Deng, 1990). Their level of toxicity varies and widely ranges depending on their color i.e. whether they are yellow, black, waxy solids or if they are light-colored liquids.

They are common in industries because they are the main components of insulators. Industrial products that contain PCBs include most electrical equipment such as capacitors, electromagnets, voltage regulators, transformers, and reclosers.

Cable insulators and other materials that make thermal insulators such as foam, fiberglass, and felt also have PCB.

The PCBs at the site are exposed to the environment during the manufacturing processes. This is in addition to the poor mechanisms of dumping wastes used by the companies. The maintenance of the site is poor. This increases the exposure levels making the wastes more hazardous.

Keen observation of the site also revealed that there were leaches streaming into the site. This could only mean that the companies have some of their waste storage tanks poorly maintained.

PCBs do not rot. They create a cycle around the soil, air, and water for many years. They are carried as loads and moved to far of distances if found in water Just like other toxicants, PCBs have bioaccumulative effects. This is mainly in animals and crops used for human consumption.

At the site fish from the stream and the irrigated crops have huge amounts of the toxicant. The toxicological effects of PCBs are many and varied (Flora, 1987). A part from causing cancer, they impair the nervous system, endocrine system, and the reproductive system.

Research by health practitioners confirms that PCBs have both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects. The most common PCB mixture associated with cancer is bioaccumulative in fish. Residents therefore, feed on fish that is exposed to PCB. They are at a greater risk than the workers in the two companies are.

Exposure to PCB cuts the power of the body to respond to environmental stimulants. It also decreases the power of the body to resist Epstein-Barr virus. PCB is likely to cut the size of thymus gland.

From the reproductive front, they cut the weight of the offspring at birth, men can also experience low sperm count and a shorter gestation age in women. The manufacture of PCBs was however, banned in 1979 and the government does not allow any exposure limits.

Chromium Waste

The second hazardous waste discovered at the site was chromium waste. Chromium is a steel metal that is hard and gray in color.

The industries using the site as a waste site have for more than sixty years used Chromium in the manufacture of Stainless steel and as a component of other alloys of metals because it does not rust even at high temperatures. The companies also use it in getting average paint pigments be it yellow, green, or even red (Gosselin, 1984).

It is also used in the treatment of wood along with making chrome plates. In small amounts, the companies use it in catalysts, water treatment, making magnetic tapes and photographic chemicals. Chromium is useful to the human body as it strengthens insulin and eases the metabolism of glucose and other sugars.

The companies release Hexavalent Chromium and other Chromium wastes to the site. The wastes have carcinogenic effects. The exposure of Chromium wastes to the environment usually contaminates the air. Combustion activities within the two companies led squarely to this.

Elements of Chromium wastes react with dust particles from the environment to form very toxic substances with the potential to damage the health of residents. The leaches from waste storage tanks that are poorly maintained by the company directly mixes with water in the stream.

The solids wastes are discarded improperly at the site and they contaminate stream water used for fishing and irrigation. The leaching waste contaminates drinking water in the area.

Further exposure of Chromium waste to people near the site comes from the waste slag. This is inhaled as it comes by wind erosion. They also consume fish that is exposed and through skin contact with soils as they use the steam water during irrigation.

The environment in this area and its vicinity provides the largest exposure source to Chromium wastes. This includes chemical effluents, airborne emissions, and asbestos linings.

In general, it could be said that Chromium gets into the human body through consumption of fish, inhalation of emissions from the companies and skin absorption during irrigation. The regulations guiding Chromium by the government are meant to protect the public from its unpleasant effects.

The government through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) restricts to a maximum of eight hours exposure limits to five micrograms of Chromium per cubic meter of air. This cuts down the industrial risk to health impairment.

The risks include developing asthma and damaging both the skin and nasal epithelia. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has regulated the amount of Chromium emissions into the air from 1990 to date.

Acrylamide

Acrylamide has carcinogenic effects and is a reproductive toxin. Its components are found in liquid form at the site and in the stream. It is highly toxic in this form as it can be inhaled; absorbed through the skin as residents work on their farms using contaminated water and consumed when the residents feed on fish.

The companies use Acrylamide in the manufacture of plastic polymers in addition to synthesizing dyes and construction of tunnels that serve to dispose their by-products to the dumping site.

The exposure of Acrylamide is largely through wastes as the companies’ use it in sieving industrial wastes to remove solids (Manahan, 1990). In the end, they discard it with water. Acrylamide has a vapour density of 2.5 and very soluble in water.

It contaminates the stream interfering with the living environment for fish. This complements it’s almost colorless nature. Following the unprotected way it is disposed, its effects tend to be very adverse.

Toluene Diisocynate

From the analysis of the site, it is clear that the two companies emit TDI. Its toxicological effect is high, as it does not dissolve in water. The main route of exposure of Toluene is through inhalation.

Small amounts of TDI cause irritation to the lungs and the respiratory tract. OSHA allows its exposure levels to a maximum of 0.02 ppm yet people close to factories can inhale as much as 2.1 ppm. This is one hundred times more than the exposure limits.

Workers in the two companies are at the risk of contacting asphyxiation if their rooms are poorly ventilated. Children in the residential areas are at the receiving end of TDI too. The risks increase because of the economic activities in the area i.e. fishing and irrigation.

Contact with the skin causes irritation and may result in inflammation of the mucous membrane. NIOSH IDLH puts the exposure limits of TDI to a scale of 2.5 ppm as an immediate danger to health and life (Toxic, 2000).

Overall Risk Assessment

An analysis of the above conditions clearly explains that the environment and the residents near the site are at risk. The toxicological effects of the available toxicants are bioaccumulative.

The outbreak of other diseases is eminent and therefore the government ought to take the initiative to avert a looming health crisis. Men, women, and children may contact diseases some of which are contagious.

Recommendation

Based on the research conducted at the site, it is highly recommended that the government health departments put protective measures in place because the residents are exposed to various risks that can cause diseases now and in future.

Other effects could mean that children exposed to the toxicants could develop complications in their late twenties. This report could as well form part of the preliminary research process by the department.

It should move fast and work in collaboration with the two companies and the residents in addressing the hazardous effects of the wastes at the site. This should include taking proper care of the site by first undertaking a thorough cleaning exercise.

This will make sure that fish from the stream is safe for human consumption. Water used for irrigation will also be safe for use, as the mixed chemicals will be removed.

Examining the numerical relationship between the exposure levels and effects of the toxicants it is possible that villagers are exposed to too much toxins.

The government should stop this, as the consequences could be unmanageable. A study should be conducted to show the extent to which the toxicants explained above have affected the environment with corrective measures put in place.

References

Deng, J (1990). Veterinary and Human Toxicology. New York: Oxford Press.

Flora, D (1987). Circadian reduction of Chromium. New York: Oxford Press.

Gosselin, R (1984). Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products. New York: Williams & Wilkins.

Manahan, S (1990). Hazardous Waste Chemistry. New York: CRC-Press.

Toxic, A. (2000). Toxicological profile for Chromium. New York: Government Press.

According to Victoria’s environmental protection laws, hazardous waste, also known as prescribed industrial waste (PIW), is the “hazardous by-product of everyday goods and services, such as the manufacturing of motor vehicles, paint and plastics, dry-cleaning services, fast food outlets, dental surgeries and hospitals” (Environment Protection Authority Victoria 2017, para. 1). The guidelines for handling and disposing of such waste are stipulated in the Environment Protection (Industrial Waste Resource) Regulations 2009. The objectives of these regulations are to assist industry to

(a) Implement the principle of wastes hierarchy as set out in section 1I of the Environment Protection Act 1970; (b) prescribe requirements for assessing, categorizing, and classifying industrial waste and prescribed industrial waste for the purposes of the Environment Protection Act 1970. (c) encourage industry to utilize industrial waste as a resource through exempting material from categorization as prescribed industrial waste where secondary beneficial reuse is established; (d) prescribe requirements for the transport and management of prescribed industrial waste, including requirements for the tracking of prescribed industrial waste (Environment Protection (Industrial Waste Resource) Regulations 2009, para. 2).

This paper discusses the different classes of hazardous wastes and the available methods for treatment or disposal.

Classes of Wastes

Hazardous wastes have the potential to cause adverse damage to human beings and the environment. Such materials could be non-biodegradable, biologically magnified, highly toxic, or lethal even at low concentrations. Characterization of waste depends on the nature of contaminants that are likely to be present. Ultimately, hazardous wastes are classified into four categories – A, B, and C (Environment Protection Authority Victoria 2017). Each category has defining characteristics, which are used to ensure that all hazardous materials are classified appropriately. Category A waste is listed as industrial waste that is classified as dangerous goods. Under the Environment Protection (Industrial Waste Resource) Regulations 2009, dangerous goods are placed into eight classes for easy identification.

Class 1 covers explosives – solid waste that can produce gas to cause damage to the surroundings. Class 4.1 is flammable solids, which are easily combustible. Class 4.2 covers wastes liable to spontaneous combustion, while class 4.3 describes wastes that emit flammable gases when they contact water. Class 5.1 are oxidizing wastes, and class 5.2 are organic peroxide wastes. Class 6.1 is toxic wastes, which can cause infections through microbes. Finally, class 8 describes corrosive wastes with pH values of less than two or higher than 12.5 (Environment Protection Authority Victoria 2009). Category B and Category C wastes are defined using the level of concentration of substances stated in Category A classes. For instance, Category B waste has a higher concentration of substances than Category C but not exceeding that of Category A contaminants.

Treatment and Disposal of Category A Waste

All the waste materials under Category A should be treated before they can be accepted at any disposal facility. Different treatment methods are available for such wastes, including chemical, physical, thermal, and biological options. The selection of the best option for the treatment of hazardous waste depends on the nature of the involved materials or chemicals and the desired properties of the output stream. However, the chemical composition of waste plays a central role in determining the treatment method of choice.

Physical Treatment

Physical treatment of hazardous waste involves subjecting such materials to different processes to immobilize the hazardous elements or prepare if for further treatment. The processes involved in this treatment method do not destroy waste materials. On the contrary, wastes are changed into forms that could be treated further or disposed of. Physical treatment involves different processes depending on the nature of the waste materials under consideration (Muralikrishna & Manickam 2017). For example, encapsulation immobilizes or reduces the toxicity of hazardous materials by containerization. The main wastes treated using this method include organic polymers and asphalt, among other related materials. At times, heat is used to melt encapsulated waste in a process known as thermal encapsulation.

Another physical treatment method is wetting, whereby water is used to prevent the spread of harmful dust or fibers. Other physical methods include filtration, centrifuging, distillation, and flocculation, among others. Additionally, hazardous materials could be broken mechanically through shredding, pelletizing, and ripping (Muralikrishna & Manickam 2017). With the advancement in technology, other physical treatment methods have been invented for better and faster results. For instance, silica microencapsulation (SME) uses an impervious silica matrix to trap the involved waste, thus separating it totally from the environment. One of the advantages of physical treatment is that it is safe because it involves removing hazardous materials from the environment without using dangerous processes such as chemicals and high temperatures. However, this method can only be used with a limited number of hazardous materials. Additionally, it can be time-consuming and thus ineffective in cases where large volumes of waste are involved.

Chemical Treatment

Chemical treatment of materials entails exploiting the different chemical properties of the waste to alter the inherently hazardous nature. Such waste is treated by destroying dangerous materials or producing other compounds, which can be treated or disposed of easily. As such, chemical reactions are involved in this method of treatment. The common chemical reactions used include neutralization, oxidation, reduction, hydrolysis, and precipitation. In neutralization, substances with pH levels of less than two or more than 12.5 are treated to become neutral at a pH closer to 7. For instance, highly acidic wastes are mixed with alkalis, while highly alkaline wastes are treated with acids, and the ultimate product is neutral. In 2014/2015, 27,309 and 9,657 tonnes of acids and alkalis were treated chemically in four states across Australia, including New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, and Western Australia (Blue Environment 2017). Oxidation involves using an oxidizing agent such as hydrogen peroxide to oxidize hazardous compounds, such as cyanide. On the other hand, in reduction, hazardous inorganic substances, such as chrome, are converted into less toxic or mobile forms using reducing agents. In hydrolysis, hazardous organic wastes are decomposed using caustic soda.

Heavy toxic metals are treated through precipitation, whereby they are converted into less mobile and insoluble forms before being disposed into landfills. One major advantage of this treatment method is that it is highly effective and cheap when dealing with compounds with similar chemical properties. However, when applied to waste substances with mixed chemical compositions, side reactions may interfere with the processes, thus reducing their effectiveness (Muralikrishna & Manickam 2017). Such an occurrence may create highly toxic products, thus negating the essence of the treatment in the first place. Other common chemical treatment methods include de-halogenation and catalytic detoxification. In de-halogenation, also known as de-chlorination, chlorine is removed from toxic waste materials, thus making them less harmful. The common wastes treated using this method are contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) and dioxin. Some of the advantages of this method include the contaminated materials could be treated on-site, thus avoiding the dangers of transportation. Additionally, the air is not emitted in the process as the produced gases are collected for further treatment and disposal. However, the lack of information regarding the toxicity of the contaminants and the required reagents may limit the application of this method.

Biological Treatment

In the context of the management of hazardous waste, biological treatment is normally referred to as bioremediation. In this case, waste materials are degraded biologically under controlled environments. This process works by introducing bacteria or enhancing their growth conditions to degrade identified chemicals in hazardous waste (Muralikrishna & Manickam 2017). For instance, bacteria are used to break down chlorinated pesticides. Biodegradation could occur under aerobic or anaerobic conditions in the presence of oxygen or lack of it, respectively. Hazardous wastes contaminated with hydrocarbons are mostly degraded using aerobic bioprocesses. On the other hand, alkylated aromatics and benzene are broken down using anaerobic biodegradation. Bioremediation could be in-situ or ex-situ, depending on the materials being treated. In-situ bioremediation involves the use of naturally occurring microorganisms to treat soils and groundwater. As such, the media used in this form of treatment is not removed from its natural environment and location. In-situ bioremediation requires the supply of oxygen and nutrients for aerobic processes to take place. One of the advantages of this method is that it causes minimal intrusion to structures above the ground, and it is useful in small operational sites. However, it may not be suitable for locations with free phase contaminants.

Ex-situ bioremediation involves relocating the contaminated materials from their natural environments to treatment sites. For example, contaminated soil could be excavated and transported to treatment locations before being disposed of. Additionally, contaminated water could be drawn from underground reservoirs and be placed in bioreactors for biodegradation to take place. Another emerging method for bioremediation is known as in-situ phytoremediation. In this case, higher plants are used to remove contaminants from soil and water. In 2014/2015, 31 tonnes of Category A chemicals used in plating and heat treatment were treated through bioremediation in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, and Western Australia (Blue Environment 2017). One of the main advantages of bioremediation is that it is a natural process. The microorganisms are used to clean up the environment without leaving harmful residuals. Additionally, in-situ bioremediation means that contaminated materials are treated on-site, thus avoiding the dangers that could be associated with transporting such materials. Moreover, this process is less expensive as compared to other methods of treating hazardous waste. However, this method is limited to only biodegradable waste. Additionally, it takes more time as compared to other methods, and thus harmful effects caused by hazardous waste could be felt for a long time. The method is also highly specific, and it may not be applicable in large-scale waste management.

Conclusion

Hazardous waste could cause long-term damage to the environment and human beings if not handled appropriately. Such materials are grouped into three categories – A, B, and C. In Victoria, the handling, treatment, and disposal of these hazardous wastes are guided by the Environment Protection (Industrial Waste Resource) Regulations 2009 S.R. No. 77/2009. Hazardous wastes are treated using physical, chemical, and biological means based on the nature of the contaminants in the materials under consideration. Each treatment method has associated advantages and disadvantages, as discussed in this paper.

References

Blue Environment 2017, Hazardous waste in Australia 2017, Web.

Environment Protection Authority Victoria 2009, Solid industrial waste hazard categorisation and management, Web.

Environment Protection Authority Victoria 2017a, Hazardous waste management in Victoria, Web.

Environment Protection (Industrial Waste Resource) Regulations 2009 S.R. No. 77/2009, Web.

Muralikrishna, I & Manickam, V 2017, Environmental Management: science and Engineering for Industry, Elsevier, Cambridge.