Waste disposal atmospheric releases

The atmospheric movement of pollutants from sources to receptors is only one form of translocation. A second one involves our attempt to control air pollutants at the source. The control of parhculate matter by wet or dry scrubbing techniques 3delds large quantities of waste materials—often toxic—which are subsequently taken to landfills. If these wastes are not properly stored, they can be released to soil or water systems. The prime examples involve the disposal of toxic materials in dump sites or landfills. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 and subsequent revisions are examples of legislation to ensure proper management of solid waste disposal and to minimize damage to areas near landfills (4). 

The estimated release of 743,015 pounds (337,026 kg) of chlorine dioxide to the atmosphere from over 100 manufacturing, processing, and waste disposal facilities in 2000 accounted for about 72.7% of the estimated total environmental releases (TRIOO 2002). These releases are summarized in Table 6-1. The... 

Critics of waste incineration argue that these plants often create more environmental problems than they solve. They point out, for example, that incinerators are a major source of dioxin, mercury, and halogenated hydrocarbon release into the atmosphere. In addition, incinerators are very expensive to build and to maintain, and they provide fewer jobs to members of the surrounding community than other methods of solid waste disposal. Also, companies have a dismal record of siting incinerators in disadvantaged communities, where residents suffer the worst consequences of incinerator use. Finally, waste-to-energy incinerators are of little value in tropical and subtropical countries, where the cost of plants and the availability of additional energy sources make them impractical. 

Thus, for purposes of waste classification, it appears possible to assess the risk from the intrusion and atmospheric release pathways at a generic hazardous waste disposal site. However, a generic assessment of risk from the water release pathway normally would incorporate assumptions that would be extremely conservative for many sites (e.g., the amount of water infiltration and travel times of hazardous substances to a nearby well). 

Releases of aniline in industrialized countries is considerable. According to the US Toxic Release Inventory, during 1998, eighty-two factories in the US released 1,449,754 lbs. of aniline, 217,223 to the atmosphere, 19,549 to surface waters, 1,161,911 by underground injection, 252 to land and 50,819 to disposal sites. While aniline waste is nowadays subjected to recovery, management, energy recovery and waste treatment, this was not so in the past, when anilines caused environmental injuries. The toxic impact of many dyes, e.g. in waste streams and releases to surface waters, arises from the fact that they are degraded, cleaved or reduced to aromatic amines. 

Dinitrophenols are released to the environment primarily during their manufacture and use, and from waste disposal sites that contain dinitrophenols (Games and Hites 1977 HSDB 1994 McLuckey et al. 1985 Patil and Shinde 1988). Dinitrophenols also form in the atmosphere from the reaction of benzene with NO in ambient air (Nojima et al. 1983). Significant removal of dinitrophenols from the atmosphere due to photochemical or other chemical reactions is not likely. Dry and wet deposition of particulate dinitrophenols are the two significant removal processes in the air (Alber et al. 1989 Capel et al. 1991 Levsen et al. 1990). Neither photochemical nor other chemical processes have been identified that are significant for the transformation/degradation of dinitrophenols in natural waters (Callahan et al. 1979 Lipczynska-Kochany 1992 Tratnyek and Hoigne 1991 Tratnyek et al. 

However, no published literature is available for heavy metal contents contributed by Jua Kali enterprises to the environment. The results of this study will help the National Environmental and Management Authority (NEMA) to set control measures to reduce pollution due to heavy metals released from such sites to water bodies. The mushrooming of Jua Kali metallurgical enterprises in major towns in Kenya is of a major concern as they do not observe or adhere to any strict control in their discharges through effluents, emissions (atmospheric) and solid waste disposal with respect to these metals.The purpose of this paper is to provide evidence that Jua Kali enterprises are a point source of heavy metals to the environment and therefore to recommend that mitigation measures should be put in place to control such pollution. 

The primary remediation activity should be control of atmospheric releases or spills or run-off within the defined containment area, and to make certain that hazardous materials do not enter the sewer system, porous soil, or surface or ground water. This section of the plan should address not only the initial containment activity, but also post-incident clean-up, waste disposal, and environmental restoration. Safe clean-up methods should be outlined in the plan. 

Waste disposal and mining activities are characteristic point sources for environmental pollutants in air, vater, and soil (Table 9.3). Waste incineration typically releases more volatile metals such as mercury, cadmium and lead into the atmosphere emission control, therefore, is not only crucial for smelting activities, but also the decisive prerequisite for all technologies involving higher temperature and vaste materials. Landfill leachates are enriched... 

Fume hoods, the most common source of laboratory releases to the atmosphere, are designed as safety devices to transport vapors away from the laboratory in case of an emergency, not as a routine means for volatile waste disposal. Units containing absorbent filters have been introduced into some laboratories, but have limited absorbing capacity. Redirection of fume hood vapors to a common trapping device can completely eliminate discharge into the atmosphere. (See Chapter 8, sections 8.C. 11 and 8.C.12, for more detail.)... 

The major sources contributing to Tc in the environment are fallout from atmospheric nuclear weapons tests and releases from the nuclear fuel cycle, i.e., authorized or accidental releases from nuclear installations (e.g., reprocessing or enrichment plants, nuclear reactors), releases from waste disposal sites, and from dumping of nuclear materials. Contributions from natural processes, i.e., spontaneous fission of in mineral ores such as pitchblende or nuclear reactions in molybdenum ores irradiated with cosmic-ray neutrons are negligible. 

---