Category: Hazardous Waste

Introduction

Arizona State University possesses multiple research and experiment laboratories that daily produce significant amounts of chemical waste. Some types of waste the University generates are hazardous and may cause a big danger to environmental safety and people’s health. In the contemporary world, the issues related to the production, storage, and disposal of hazardous chemical waste are taken very seriously.

The world still remembers various tragedies caused by leaks, releases, and exposures. Modern science knows enough about the effects that various chemicals have on human bodies and nature around. This is why every research facility that works with dangerous chemicals is obliged to create, maintain, and carefully follow very accurate policy considering operations including hazardous waste, its storage, and disposal.

Arizona State University has staff involved in working with biological pathogens, chemical substances, radioactive and poisonous materials, flammable liquids, explosives, dangerous gases, corrosive, and water-reactive waste. The University has created a very serious and accurate policy towards the operations and manipulations involving hazardous waste.

Besides, the University has multiple programs training the staff to correctly work with hazardous materials, use them properly, dispose them at the right time and in the most careful way, store them without creating more danger and react to various incidents that may happen during such work.

All the hazardous waste is being packaged and stored until the pick-up time. After that, it is transported to licensed waste disposal facilities. The materials that can be recycled are directed to recycling centers.

Use of Language: Issue and Proposed Solution

Understanding the seriousness of the issue and the importance of the correct policy applied towards such aspect of work as hazardous waste management, I have read the policy Arizona State University presents. The University leaders understand that even minor errors in such policy may cause misunderstanding or lead to incidents that will affect not only the staff of the University but may turn out as a disaster on a state level.

In order to avoid dangerous situations, only well-trained professionals and licensed staff are allowed to perform operations including work with hazardous materials.

From Arizona State University’s policy, according to hazardous waste disposal, it is seen that the faculty and staff involved into work with dangerous materials “are encouraged to participate in the one-hour Hazardous Waste Management program” (EHS 401: Hazardous Waste Management, par. 5).

To my mind, this is the passage in the University policy text that I would like to be changed. I suggest replacing the phrase “are encouraged to participate” with the words “are obliged to take the program”.

The staff of the faculty that works with hazardous chemicals has to be prepared to manage those chemicals and be qualified and properly trained to be able to do it the right way. According to my opinion, the polite language of the policy operating such words as “encouraged” or “it is recommended” does not fully reflect the serious attitude that is required for such issues.

Instead, I suggest using words “must” and “with no exceptions.” This will help the reader of the policy understand that all the workers that use store or dispose of dangerous materials are reliable and professional in their field. Such change will make the staff and members of other faculties and laboratories feel safer.

Information: Issue and Proposed Solution

Another change I would like to suggest for Arizona State University’s policy regarding the management of hazardous waste considers the part about responsibilities of the hazardous waste generator. The policy presents a six-point plan or scheme of working with the dangerous materials that every facility member involved in generating hazardous waste must be trained to perform.

It includes the use of instructions from the Environmental Health & Safety Web Site, regulations about the operation, choice, labeling and marking of the containers for the hazardous waste disposal and scheduling an online request for the waste pick-up (EHS 401: Hazardous Waste Management, par. 6). To my mind, it would be appropriate to include a point about the storage of the hazardous waste into this scheme.

As a reader of the policy, I would like to know where the waste goes until the pick-up time. Besides, not all types of waste can be stored together. I think the plan of responsibilities for hazardous waste management presented in the policy should mention that materials that are incompatible with other types of waste must be stored separately.

Conclusion

Overall, the policy considering hazardous waste management reflects all the necessary and most important information and is presented in a logical and clear way. The language is formal and understandable for any reader. The only changes I would like to make in this policy consider the use of certain words and adding more information.

To my opinion, the language used in the policy describing such serious issue as hazardous waste management should be more strict and definite.

The reader of the policy should be able to percept that Arizona State University is a highly professional facility that daily works with very dangerous chemicals, the staff of this facility is well-trained and ready to face complicated situations and solve various issues and that the University treats the requirements of health and safety very seriously.

Works Cited

EHS 401: Hazardous Waste Management. ASU. 2011. Web.

The problem of environmental pollution with hazardous wastes is growing steadily with the development of various industries and chemical production. People rarely pay attention to the labels on their lamps, batteries, cleaning powders, and hobby materials. Nevertheless, all these products can contain hazardous chemicals that can harm animals and plants, and pollute the environment. The purpose of this paper is to analyze two discussions about household hazardous wastes and their treatment in the U.S.

The Environmental Protection Agency (2017) defines hazardous waste as “a waste with properties that make it dangerous or capable of having a harmful effect on human health or the environment” (par. 4). In the modern world of developing industries and chemical production, any artificial materials used by people in their everyday life can contain hazardous substances or produce a harmful effect on the environment if they are not properly utilized. The first discussion pays attention to the treatment of hazardous wastes in the City of Tucson. The authorities of the city use several approaches to address the issue of hazardous wastes utilization. The distribution of information about potentially harmful materials on the Internet helps to enhance the awareness of the citizens about the potential dangers of their household materials. The website of the City of Tucson lists the common products that can contain hazardous substances. People can learn about potential dangers in their homes and use Household Hazardous Waste Program to get rid of hazardous wastes for free without harming the environment. Citizens from other locations can utilize their potentially harmful products for a small payment. Companies and individuals organize hazardous waste collection among their workers or neighbors.

The second discussion examines the treatment of hazardous wastes in Jasper County. The authorities of the county also encourage the citizens to utilize their potentially harmful materials safely on landfills specially designated for this purpose. To reduce the threat of pollution, the county has initiated a Solid Waste Management Plan. According to Jasper County (2012), “The Plan was developed as a planning tool for solid waste management in Jasper County to cover a planning period of at least twenty (20) years” (par. 20). The citizens can utilize only a limited range of hazardous wastes using landfills. Nevertheless, the authorities of the county strive to give opportunities for the safe disposal of a wide variety of products.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2017) claimed that “in the mid-twentieth century, solid waste management issues rose to new heights of public concern in many areas of the United States because of increasing solid waste generation, shrinking disposal capacity, rising disposal costs, and public opposition to the siting of new disposal facilities” (par. 27). The disposal of hazardous wastes alone cannot solve the problem of the pollution caused by the growing amount of chemical substances in modern households. The existing industries should explore the green technologies of production including recycled materials. The rising popularity of organic products can have a positive influence on the current environmental situation.

The pollution of the environment with hazardous wastes is far from being resolved in modern society. Nevertheless, the authorities of the U.S. cities and counties try to encourage their citizens to pay more attention to the materials they use in their households. Various hazardous waste disposal plans can help to raise the awareness of people about potentially harmful materials and give them the possibility to get rid of hazardous wastes.

References

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2017). Learn the basics of hazardous waste. Web.

Jasper County. (2012). Jasper County Solid Waste Management Plan. Web.

In general, the amount of generated household hazardous waste in European countries, Canada, Greenland, India, Japan, Pakistan. And the United States increased from 0,4 to 7,9 kilograms per person annually (Lim-Wavde & Kauffman, n.d.). The major part of the global household hazardous waste stream is electronic waste, as mobile phones became highly affordable.

In the UAE, the management of hazardous waste is constantly developing, while the community members’ level of awareness of waste management is considerably low. According to the research conducted by Al Sha’rawy, et al. (2019), almost 60% of participants reported that “they do not take any precautions when disposing of hazardous products and they just throw them in the general waste” (p. 746). Almost 70% of municipal solid waste, along with hazardous waste, is disposed of in landfills (Al Sha’rawy, et al., 2019).

In the Czech Republic, household hazardous waste comprises 2,047% of the municipal solid waste’s general stream (Adamcová, et al., 2016). Hazardous substances traditionally include paints, mercury-containing waste, vehicle maintenance products, batteries, and pharmaceuticals. As 70% of solid waste is disposed of in landfills, these substances are poorly controlled – they are not collected separately and recycled (Adamcová, et al., 2016).

In China, the rate of household hazardous waste generation has recently been more than 6g per person daily that has accounted for 2,23% of the total household solid waste stream (Gu, et al., 2014). The main categories of hazardous waste include home cleaning products, medicines, and personal care products (Gu, et al., 2014). Single-use products, containers, and packaging accounted for 80% of the total household hazardous waste generation (Gu, et al., 2014).

In Mexico, the rates of household hazardous waste generation considerably vary across the country. In the central region, household hazardous waste totals 1,03% of general municipal solid waste, and it is predominantly represented by cleaning products, self-care products, and insecticides (Delgado, et al., 2007). At the same time, in the country’s northern region, the household hazardous waste’s generation comprises 3,7% of the general municipal solid waste stream with the largest categories of home care products, cleaning products, electronic equipment, and batteries (Delgado, et al., 2007).

References

Adamcová, D., Vaverková, M. D., Stejskal, B., & Břoušková, E. (2016). Household solid waste composition focusing on hazardous waste. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 25(2), 487-493. Web.

Al Sha’rawy, M., Abdin, S., Kourbaj, L., Kamal. L., Abdelkarem> A. R., Ibrahim, R., & Sharif, S. I. (2019). Knowledge, attitude and practice of in-home medication disposal in U.A.E.International Journal of Basic & Clinical Pharmacology, 8(4), 746-751. Web.

Delgado, O. B., Ojeda-Benítez, S., & Márquez-Benavides, L. (2007). Comparative analysis of hazardous household waste in two Mexican regions. Waste Management, 27(6), 792-801.

Gu, B., Zhu, W., Wang, H., Zhang, R., Liu, M., Chen, Y., Wu, Y., Yang, X., He, S., Cheng, R., Yang, J., & Bi, J. (2014). Household hazardous waste quantification, characterization and management in China’s cities: A case study of Suzhou. Waste Management, 34(11), 2414-2423.

Lim-Wavde, K., & Kauffman, R. J. (n.d.). Global garbage cans: Towards better household waste management in developing countries in Asia[PDF document]. Web.

Solid waste has become a major upshot of development and modernization in many countries across the world, and its management continues to present many challenges to the developed nations as well as the developing countries.

However, the greatest challenge of solid waste management is felt in third world countries (Thomas-Hope, 1998), where the existing frameworks of solid waste management coupled with weak or inadequate policies regarding the same and population pressures have aggravated the issue to a point of attracting international attention.

This does not imply that developed countries have won the battle of solid waste management; on the contrary, countries such as China and India often stand accused of implementing improper solid waste disposal practices, thus endangering the health of the community and contributing to environmental degradation. It is the purpose of this paper to discuss the issue of improper trash disposal practices and the human health problems that such practices may cause in the community.

A multiplicity of actions that we engage in on daily basis may in actual sense constitute improper trash disposal practices by the fact that we do not follow the proper procedures to discard the trash, mostly generated from our interactions with the environment (Thomas-Hope, 1998).

At the most basic level, we often drop banana peels in places not designated for garbage disposal, in the process endangering the lives of passersby, who may step on the peel and slip, causing injury. This in itself constitutes an improper trash disposal practice.

At a more specific level, some companies are known to drain chemical byproducts from their manufacturing processes into the nearby rivers, in the process generating a situation which can have far-reaching ramifications for the environment, the aquatic life, and for the public who may end up using such water for domestic purposes (Leach, 2010).

Other waste management practices end up mixing trash that can decompose with others that cannot decompose, resulting in an escalation of the waste disposal problem as seen in most Asian countries that are struggling to clear man-made ‘mountains’ of garbage generated by employing improper trash disposal practices (Thomas-Hope, 1998).

As such, it can be argued that methods and techniques of waste disposal that end up occasioning negative consequences for the environment, natural vegetation, inhabitants (people and animals), and the public health constitutes improper trash disposal practices.

Improper trash disposal practices may lead to a number of human health problems. Indeed, a meta-analysis of several environmental studies done by Thomas-Hope (1998) demonstrates that the consequences of improper disposal of waste causes governments to spend huge sums of money to mitigate against disease outbreaks or in treating individuals whose conditions are largely derived from the poor waste disposal practices.

In the decomposing phase, various types of garbage may combine to form gases and chemicals that are potentially dangerous to the health of individuals. As unpleasant as it may seem, dead animals and raw sewage are among the types of organic waste that may find their way into the ‘mountains’ of garbage in the absence of an effective solid waste management system (Leach, 2010).

Assuming that such an area is hit by a devastating earthquake or rains heavily, the waste and its poisonous emissions and chemicals will be soaked and then carried through the landmass and into the underground water table, which is a fundamental source of the water that we drink and use on daily basis.

These chemicals and compounds can cause irreversible health conditions in people who take such water, and studies have demonstrated that various forms of cancers, tooth decay, stomach problems, and birth defects are often caused by such contamination (Leach, 2010). These medical conditions end up consuming vast financial resources in treatment, but the solution can be readily found in developing and implementing effective trash disposal practices.

As demonstrated in Haiti after the devastating earthquake, disease outbreaks are likely to occur in areas with inadequate mechanisms or frameworks of disposing waste. The open pits and uncollected garbage has caused Haitians untold suffering in cholera outbreaks and diarrhea.

Away from Haiti, it has been observed that Malaria increases in areas where water collects in uncollected plastic bags because mosquitoes find ready bleeding grounds (Leach, 2010). As such, it is imperative to encourage people not to dispose their plastic wrappings and bags in the open fields within the community as this is likely to lead to more health challenges for the people residing in the area.

Lastly, the deterioration of air quality and climate change occasioned by improper trash disposal practices can cause human health problems, some of which may be very difficult to treat (Leach, 2010).

It is well known that the process of waste decomposition generates methane, a greenhouse gas that is considerably responsible for some of the changes in the global temperatures that is being experienced, and which have made many countries to come together to fight global warming. Indirectly, many of the diseases and parasites which threaten the health and wellbeing of individuals are known to thrive well in conditions brought about by global warming.

As such, it can be argued that the production of the methane gas upon decomposition of waste which has been improperly disposed off occasions the right conditions for disease prevalence through global warming. Burning of waste in the open is also an improper waste disposal method since it releases dangerous and toxic chemicals such as dioxin in to the environment (Leach, 2010). Such gases have the capacity to cause serious public health risks.

As such, the focus should be on all the interested stakeholders to develop mechanisms, frameworks, and practices that will necessitate proper trash disposal for the sake of the environment and its inhabitants, and for the sake of our own prosperity and well-being.

Reference List

Leach, M. (2010). Effects of improper solid waste disposal. Web.

Thomas-Hope, E. (1998). Solid waste management: Critical issues for developing countries. Kingston: Canoe Press.

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 plant’s 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.