INTRODUCTION+1.+Biodegradable+pollutants.jpg' alt='Environmental Pollution Ppt' title='Environmental Pollution Ppt' />American College of Environmental Lawyers Blog. Since its enactment, the Comprehensive Environmental, Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1. Superfund statute, has probably received more diagnostic attention than any other environmental law. That is not surprising, considering EPA has devoted more resources to the Superfund program than to any other program the agency administers. Matters were not helped by the programs rocky start, with allegations of impropriety swirling around the agency and the head of the Superfund program winding up in jail. Meanwhile, the liability regime designed to fund the Superfund program spawned an avalanche of litigation, resulting in crushing transaction costs. Over the years, the Superfund program has been consistently controversial and has undergone a steady stream of reforms, reports to Congress and GAO studies. The statute itself has also been repeatedly criticized, including by the Supreme Court, for its lack of clarity. As two recently released reports attest, the diagnostic process continues. Both reports should be required reading for Superfund practitioners, but the question remains whether the underlying structural problems of the statute have been, or even can be addressed. The first report is a paper commissioned by the American Council of Engineering Companies, entitled Superfund 2. Cleanup Accomplishments and the Challenges Ahead. The author, Katherine Probst, is a longtime, thoughtful commentator on Superfund matters and was a key member of the Resources for the Future team that issued a 2. Report to Congress, entitled Superfunds Future What Will It Cost A Report to Congress. Her latest effort is largely a report card on the Superfund remedial program, lamenting the lack of sufficient information to conduct a thorough diagnosis. She makes a number of recommendations that the missing information be gathered, following which a new diagnosis would presumably be undertaken. In the meantime, the Probst report makes a number of interesting, but telling observations. For example, right from the start, EPA has struggled to measure the success of the cleanup program, but Probst points out that even though a significant percentage 2. National Priorities List NPL, and another 4. NPL are still characterized as human exposure not under control and another 1. Federal funding for Superfund continues to decline states also face shrinking resources. Not surprisingly, cleanup progress has slowed, not just for lack of funds, but also because the sites in the cleanup program today tend to be far more complex and expensive than the NPL sites of the past. EPA finds itself continuing to implement a prescriptive cleanup program that was not designed for many of the more complex sites on the 2. NPL e. g., mining and contaminated sediment sites. The second document, entitled Superfund Task Force Recommendations, was issued by EPA in June, 2. The Task Force was charged by the Administrator to provide recommendations on an expedited timeframe on how the agency can restructure the cleanup process, realign incentives of all involved parties to promote expeditious remediation, reduce the burden on cooperating parties, incentivize parties to remediate sites, encourage private investment in cleanups and sites and promote the revitalization of properties across the country. These familiar themes led the Task Force to identify five basic goals, forty two recommendations and various strategies for improving the Superfund program. All the goals and recommendations are directed at speeding up the process of cleanup. For example, one strategy advocates the use of adaptive management to expedite cleanup through use of early actions, interim records of decision and removal actions. Another advocates more centralized management of complex sites to assure consistency and aggressive oversight. Even if all the recommendations contained in these two latest reports were to be accepted and implemented, the Superfund program would likely still be highly controversial with many of the challenges identified in the early days of the program still remaining to be solved. Among those challenges are the following          Is the National Contingency Plan NCP still the best cookbook for cleanup  If not, what changes should be considered to achieve cleanup faster and better Is the Superfund program too process heavy  Is amendment of the NCP even politically feasible         How can cleanups be accomplished with less study  Particularly at complex mega sites, NCP compliant studies can take far too long. Is the NCP process too prescriptive and too inflexible          How to measure success  Should the key measurement be construction complete, or deletion from the NPL, or reduction of risk, or something else  Should there be intermediate metrics of success         Should there be greater centralized management of the Superfund program, as the report of the Superfund Task Force appears to advocate  How should that be accomplished  What is the appropriate role for CSTAG and NRRB         How clean is clean  Should the Superfund program chase every last molecule of hazardous substances, or reduce risk as quickly as possible  Should there be greater use of the removal program  As the saying goes, is perfect the enemy of good         What should cost effectiveness mean in context of the Superfund programEnvironmental threats students will consider include vanishing species. B Thermal pollution. Federal authority could call for a conference of interstate water pollution problem. Having begun his career at WPI studying energy efficiency, Robert Cruickshank 83 took a 21year detour into the cable industry, helping create some of the most. Environmental Pollution Ppt' title='Environmental Pollution Ppt' />Should proposed remedies be subjected to a cost benefit analysis         What is the proper role of EPA guidance in implementing the Superfund program  Should guidance be binding on EPA  Could that happen without notice and comment rulemaking         Are the remedies implemented thus far in the Superfund program really effective  For example, many groundwater cleanup programs were projected to have cleaned up contaminated groundwater by now. Has that happened  Can the pumps be turned off         Should federal funds be used to leverage private party investment in cleanups  Does EPAs orphan share policy strike the right balance         Does the statute strike the right balance between the federal and state interests in cleanup  Should EPA and the states be true partners         Should the lapsed Superfund tax be reinstated  If so, in what form         Finally, is there a role for fairness in Superfund  Is the ban on pre enforcement review too harsh a standard As this list of challenges demonstrates, Superfund will almost certainly remain a key subject for continued diagnosis in the future. Noise pollution This era has rightly been called as the era of noise. A. CDCs National Center for Environmental Health NCEH plans, directs, and coordinates a national program to maintain and improve the health of the American people by. Chapter 55 Environmental Pollution Control ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION CONTROL AND PREVENTION. Jerry Spiegel and Lucien Y. Maystre. Over the course of the twentieth. Chlorine, pollution and the environment. The WEN Trust Information. Department answers. For further details contact. Information Co ordinator. Aberdeen Studios. Highbury Grove. printed on 1. Registered Charity. WEN Trust would like to. Foundation and the Folden. Puckham Trust for the work. Chlorine is a naturally occurring. Its manipulation and. In its various artificial forms, chlorine. The. pollution cau sed by its widespread use. Chlorine can exist safely, in the form of. One million tonnes. UK. Most of this. Organochiorines are contained in many. If a product shows a list of its. Many of the. products which we buy are. PVC polyvinylchloride. Some other. plastics which do not contain chlorine. Polychlorinated biphenyls, PCBs. CFCs and DDT. are examples of organochlorine. PCBs and DDT accumulate. The manufacture of organochlorines. Many of these are likely to. In making organochlorine products. PCBs in our bodyfat and in the. Similar major. pollution problems also arise when these. The resulting polluted air. Studies in the US have shown that the. Software Data Mining. PCBs is linked. to nervous system damage in babies. WENs report, Chlorine, Pollution and. Parents of Tomorrow assesses. PCBs in Britain. and concludes that similar effects may. International bodies and scientific. In February 1. 99. President Clinton announced a strategy. Europe have banned PVC and the. Chlorine has such a huge. The dioxins that arefound in our bodies in the UK come mainly from the burning of material containing organochlorines such as PVC and wood treated with PCP. The dioxins are actually created on particles of soot and dust which are then spread efficiently into the air as the hot gases rise from the fire. The airborne dioxins fall on fields over a wide area beyond the burning site, where animals such as cows eat grass and plants contaminated by them. The dioxins stick firmly to fat in the cow, particularly to the milk fat, and to the fatty part of the meat. Since they do not break down, the cow acts as a dioxin concentrator. This also appliesto otheranimals, and is the reason why animal fat is the major source of dioxins for humans. Dioxins in fish come partly from airborne particles falling on the sea, but also from industrial and sewage discharges. Sewage contains dioxins partly originating from the use of PCP wood preservative in homes and wood treatment plants. Municipal incinerator ash is landfilled. The ash from incinerators and fires contains large amounts of dioxins, furans and other toxic substances. Pollutants released from the ash may reach the water supply. The US EPA expects more subtle effects. Recent evidence suggests these effects. Chlorine in swimming pools. The substance used to chlorinate swim. Organochlorines do occur. Plants Vs Zombies Game Of The Year Edition Trainer. Levels of other. organochlorines are higher in people. Better filtration and pool. MAIN FOOD SOURCES OF DIOXINS AND FLURANS. Meat, dairy products and animal fats. UK diet. Fish and eggs. Chlorination of drinking water. The process uses chlorine gas and prduces. A major statistical review of US studies. Alternatives for purifying water such as. Only 2. 5 of the million tonnes. UK is. used to disinfect drinking water. The Womens Environmental Network Guide to Dioxins. Chlorine and Organochlorides. Dioxin and its chemical cousins have been administered, wholesale to everyone. Dr. B. Commoner 2nd Citizens Conference on Dioxin. Chlorine is an element which has always existed on earth, but almost entirely in safe forms such as common salt. Trouble arises when common salt is split in order to make caustic soda, a useful industrial chemical, and elemental chlorine, which is a green gas used as a poison gas in World War I. Chlorine gas is now an important raw material in the chemical industry. Itis combined with organic carbon chemicals from oil and coal to make organochlorines. These include the plastic, PVC, many solvents such as drycleaning fluid, pesticides and wood preservatives such as entachlorophenol PCP, and some disinfectants and drugs. Chlorine gas is also used to disinfect water, but this is a minor use. The use of chlorine to make chemicals increased enormously from around 1. This is mirrored by a huge rise in dioxins in the environment. What are dioxins Unless otherwise stated when we talk about dioxins we include dioxins, furans. PCBs that were. made for use as electrical insulators and in paints. Dioxins are a type of organochlorine, containing carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and. They are unintentional by products of chemical manufacturing proc. They are also created when organochlorines such as. PVC are incinerated or burned. Why are dioxins a problem Dioxins masquerade as hormones in cell processes, which is why they are so toxic. They influence the cellular DNA to produce various substances which control the. Unlike. natural hormones, which are short lived, dioxin activity in the cell is difficult to switch off. Also, they last for years in our fat it takes seven years for most people to even halve their levels of the most toxic dioxin, TCDD. Effects of dioxin like. Immune system damage,especially likely in children. Damage to liver, kidneyand digestive tract. Miscarriage and sterility. Birth defects and behaviouralchanges in offspring. Nervous system damage. Cancer. Chloracne. Endometriosis. Reduced sperm count. From the air to our bodies. In the burning process the dioxins are actually created on particles of soot and dust. They are then spread efficiently into the air as the hot gases rise from the fire. The airborne dioxins fall on fields over a wide area beyond the burning site, where animals such as cows eat grass and plants contaminated by them. The dioxins stick firmly to fat in the cow, particularly to the milk fat, and to the fatty part of the meat. Since they do not break down the cow acts as a dioxin concentrator. This also applies to other animais, and is the reason why animal fat is the major source of dioxins for humans. Dioxins in fish come partly from airborne particles falling on the sea, but also from industrial and sewage discharges. Incinerator ash containing large amounts of dioxins is landfilled and so its pollutants can re enter the environment. Intakes and levels of dioxins. Most industrialised countries have similar levels of dioxins. The levels of dioxins in bodyfat. The US EPA. estimates that Americans have 6. A recent study in Wales found. PCBs, so UK levels. US. Surveys of breastmilk. UK dioxin levels are among the highest. Within the general population, some people will have. Coalite in Der. The United States. Environmental Protection Agency says Some more. All processes involving chlorine and heat are likely to. UK. Contamination. PVC and PGP wood. The leaves of trees absort, organochlorines. However, all these sources will be reduced and eventually. It is sometimes said that known sources only account tora. In 1. 99. 3 the US EPA made an. Production from municipal incinerators. Worth A Crack Nigel Ad. This suggests that the only safe. Major Airborne Sources. Municipal waste incineration. Hospital waste incineration. Other incineration chemical, industrial, cremation etc. Metal reprocessing. Other Airborne Sources. Accidental fires, bonfires and builbing site fires and oil and. Cement kilns which burn hazardous waste. Use of leaded petrol. Chemicals and Chemical Processes. Chlorine bleaching of wood pulp. Manufacture or chlorine gas. Production of PVC plastics, chlorinated solvents, pesticides. Metal extraction processes which use chlorine. End incineration. Begin the planned phase out of chlorine as an industrial. PVC. and solvent production.