Are Environmental Regulations Unnecessary?

[westwall]

Requiring a pool cleaning company to spend 25,000 to clean up a one gallon spill of hydrochloric acid that dropped off of their truck. They had to scrape up several yards of dirt and ship it cross country to a hazardous waste dump. That is the definition of insanity.

Now, you claim to be educated. Why did CA require that level of idiocy?

If they did that, they were just plain stupid. They could have simply neutralized the acidic soil with lime and disposed of it at a sanitary landfill for about $35 per cubic yard. All the landfill would need to know is if it is within the acceptable ranges for reactivity, corrosivity, and ignitability (RCI). If it was, they would have been good to go. RCI defines whether or not material is hazardous.

Well, it looks like you don't know all that much do you. All that was required was to pour water on it. What happens when you pour water on HCl?

Landfills don't accept saturated soils, dude. It has to be dry. Guess you don't know that much after all, do you?

Water poured on HCl results in hydronium (H3O) and Cl-. What is the next step in the process?

HCL dumped into soil reacts with that soil, but not completely. The result is that the soil becomes acidic (and meets the reactivity requirements of hazardous waste). You either have to send it to a hazardous waste landfill, or else neutralize it then sent it to a sanitary landfill. It cannot be simply neutralized with water because landfills don't take wet soils. So you use lime and churn up the soil to neutralize the acid. By the way, even if you had to send it to a hazardous waste landfill, according to your own account we are only talking about "several yards of dirt", so even that little amount going to a hazardous waste landfill is not going to break the bank. Isn't it funny how conservatives rant on about taking personal responsibility in every venue - except when it comes to cleaning up their own messes impacting the environment. End of story.

How much water would need to be used to fully neutralize a gallon of say 7 mole HCl?

 

[martybegan]

The photograph means nothing, and you know it. For all we know that can be fog at dusk or dawn.

Fluff, nothing but.

Either you are a completely ignorant fuck or a purposeful liar. I was born in '43, and I saw the brown air in the cities on the West Coast. Our air and water is far cleaner than than it was from the time I was a child until the regulations began to take effect in the '80's.

No, I am saying that yes the air was bad, but this photograph isn't evidence of it. and good work 40 years ago does not allow over regulation in the current time period.

All of you overregulation whiners have yet to produce a single example of the overregulation you whiners are whining about. Gee, I wonder why that is? The crooks (some of whom saw jail time) who were forced to clean up their hazardous waste sites made the exact same whiny arguments. You didn't know this? Huh.

The high cost of delaying infrastructure repairs - The Washington Post

Red tape can consume nearly a decade on major projects. For example, raising the roadway of the Bayonne Bridge near the Port of Newark, a project with virtually no environmental impact (it uses existing foundations and right of way), required 47 permits from 19 agencies, and a 5,000-page environmental assessment. The approval process took five years. In San Diego, permitting for a desalination plant began in 2003 and was completed, after 14 legal challenges, in 2012. It will start producing fresh water this year — 12 years later.

So now you are promoting infrastructure projects? Considering that it is conservatives who have been holding up vast numbers of infrastructure projects for years, I find your alleged concern disingenuous.

I am all for projects that can get done, and contribute to the well being of the country. I prefer them to be locally funded, but that is the federalist in me. I also noticed you dodging the fact that you call on me to find an example of over regulation, and have failed to acknowledge it.

Poor form.

 

[orogenicman]

If they did that, they were just plain stupid. They could have simply neutralized the acidic soil with lime and disposed of it at a sanitary landfill for about $35 per cubic yard. All the landfill would need to know is if it is within the acceptable ranges for reactivity, corrosivity, and ignitability (RCI). If it was, they would have been good to go. RCI defines whether or not material is hazardous.

Well, it looks like you don't know all that much do you. All that was required was to pour water on it. What happens when you pour water on HCl?

Landfills don't accept saturated soils, dude. It has to be dry. Guess you don't know that much after all, do you?

Water poured on HCl results in hydronium (H3O) and Cl-. What is the next step in the process?

HCL dumped into soil reacts with that soil, but not completely. The result is that the soil becomes acidic (and meets the reactivity requirements of hazardous waste). You either have to send it to a hazardous waste landfill, or else neutralize it then sent it to a sanitary landfill. It cannot be simply neutralized with water because landfills don't take wet soils. So you use lime and churn up the soil to neutralize the acid. By the way, even if you had to send it to a hazardous waste landfill, according to your own account we are only talking about "several yards of dirt", so even that little amount going to a hazardous waste landfill is not going to break the bank. Isn't it funny how conservatives rant on about taking personal responsibility in every venue - except when it comes to cleaning up their own messes impacting the environment. End of story.

How much water would need to be used to fully neutralize a gallon of say 7 mole HCl?

Is completely irrelevant to this situation. How many times do you need to be told that landfills do not allow west soils? Give it up, Wally.

 

[orogenicman]

Either you are a completely ignorant fuck or a purposeful liar. I was born in '43, and I saw the brown air in the cities on the West Coast. Our air and water is far cleaner than than it was from the time I was a child until the regulations began to take effect in the '80's.

No, I am saying that yes the air was bad, but this photograph isn't evidence of it. and good work 40 years ago does not allow over regulation in the current time period.

All of you overregulation whiners have yet to produce a single example of the overregulation you whiners are whining about. Gee, I wonder why that is? The crooks (some of whom saw jail time) who were forced to clean up their hazardous waste sites made the exact same whiny arguments. You didn't know this? Huh.

The high cost of delaying infrastructure repairs - The Washington Post

Red tape can consume nearly a decade on major projects. For example, raising the roadway of the Bayonne Bridge near the Port of Newark, a project with virtually no environmental impact (it uses existing foundations and right of way), required 47 permits from 19 agencies, and a 5,000-page environmental assessment. The approval process took five years. In San Diego, permitting for a desalination plant began in 2003 and was completed, after 14 legal challenges, in 2012. It will start producing fresh water this year — 12 years later.

So now you are promoting infrastructure projects? Considering that it is conservatives who have been holding up vast numbers of infrastructure projects for years, I find your alleged concern disingenuous.

I am all for projects that can get done, and contribute to the well being of the country. I prefer them to be locally funded, but that is the federalist in me. I also noticed you dodging the fact that you call on me to find an example of over regulation, and have failed to acknowledge it.

Poor form.

So you have read the entire 5,000 page environmental assessment and that is how you have come to the conclusion that it is "a project with virtually no environmental impact", right? I doubt that. The fact is that raising the deck of the bridge allows larger ships into the port, which is a prospect that is not without environmental impact.

 

[westwall]

Well, it looks like you don't know all that much do you. All that was required was to pour water on it. What happens when you pour water on HCl?

Landfills don't accept saturated soils, dude. It has to be dry. Guess you don't know that much after all, do you?

Water poured on HCl results in hydronium (H3O) and Cl-. What is the next step in the process?

HCL dumped into soil reacts with that soil, but not completely. The result is that the soil becomes acidic (and meets the reactivity requirements of hazardous waste). You either have to send it to a hazardous waste landfill, or else neutralize it then sent it to a sanitary landfill. It cannot be simply neutralized with water because landfills don't take wet soils. So you use lime and churn up the soil to neutralize the acid. By the way, even if you had to send it to a hazardous waste landfill, according to your own account we are only talking about "several yards of dirt", so even that little amount going to a hazardous waste landfill is not going to break the bank. Isn't it funny how conservatives rant on about taking personal responsibility in every venue - except when it comes to cleaning up their own messes impacting the environment. End of story.

How much water would need to be used to fully neutralize a gallon of say 7 mole HCl?

Is completely irrelevant to this situation. How many times do you need to be told that landfills do not allow west soils? Give it up, Wally.

Is TOTALLY relevant to the situation oreo boy. What does NEUTRALIZE mean?

 

[Crick]

What does "wet soil" mean?

 

[martybegan]

No, I am saying that yes the air was bad, but this photograph isn't evidence of it. and good work 40 years ago does not allow over regulation in the current time period.

All of you overregulation whiners have yet to produce a single example of the overregulation you whiners are whining about. Gee, I wonder why that is? The crooks (some of whom saw jail time) who were forced to clean up their hazardous waste sites made the exact same whiny arguments. You didn't know this? Huh.

The high cost of delaying infrastructure repairs - The Washington Post

Red tape can consume nearly a decade on major projects. For example, raising the roadway of the Bayonne Bridge near the Port of Newark, a project with virtually no environmental impact (it uses existing foundations and right of way), required 47 permits from 19 agencies, and a 5,000-page environmental assessment. The approval process took five years. In San Diego, permitting for a desalination plant began in 2003 and was completed, after 14 legal challenges, in 2012. It will start producing fresh water this year — 12 years later.

So now you are promoting infrastructure projects? Considering that it is conservatives who have been holding up vast numbers of infrastructure projects for years, I find your alleged concern disingenuous.

I am all for projects that can get done, and contribute to the well being of the country. I prefer them to be locally funded, but that is the federalist in me. I also noticed you dodging the fact that you call on me to find an example of over regulation, and have failed to acknowledge it.

Poor form.

So you have read the entire 5,000 page environmental assessment and that is how you have come to the conclusion that it is "a project with virtually no environmental impact", right? I doubt that. The fact is that raising the deck of the bridge allows larger ships into the port, which is a prospect that is not without environmental impact.

I have helped write environmental impact statements, and they have bulked up to the point of being useless. They are filled with standard reviews with standard results, and make projects take way too much time to get off the ground.

And larger ships are more efficient usually, meaning for a given amount of cargo you need less ships, plus more room usually equals less waiting for space to traverse a location, thus less ship idling.

Environmental Impact statements were not supposed to be catch alls, they were supposed to look at direct impacts. BANANA's such as yourself use them to STOP progress, not regulate it.

 

[orogenicman]

All of you overregulation whiners have yet to produce a single example of the overregulation you whiners are whining about. Gee, I wonder why that is? The crooks (some of whom saw jail time) who were forced to clean up their hazardous waste sites made the exact same whiny arguments. You didn't know this? Huh.

The high cost of delaying infrastructure repairs - The Washington Post

Red tape can consume nearly a decade on major projects. For example, raising the roadway of the Bayonne Bridge near the Port of Newark, a project with virtually no environmental impact (it uses existing foundations and right of way), required 47 permits from 19 agencies, and a 5,000-page environmental assessment. The approval process took five years. In San Diego, permitting for a desalination plant began in 2003 and was completed, after 14 legal challenges, in 2012. It will start producing fresh water this year — 12 years later.

So now you are promoting infrastructure projects? Considering that it is conservatives who have been holding up vast numbers of infrastructure projects for years, I find your alleged concern disingenuous.

I am all for projects that can get done, and contribute to the well being of the country. I prefer them to be locally funded, but that is the federalist in me. I also noticed you dodging the fact that you call on me to find an example of over regulation, and have failed to acknowledge it.

Poor form.

So you have read the entire 5,000 page environmental assessment and that is how you have come to the conclusion that it is "a project with virtually no environmental impact", right? I doubt that. The fact is that raising the deck of the bridge allows larger ships into the port, which is a prospect that is not without environmental impact.

I have helped write environmental impact statements, and they have bulked up to the point of being useless. They are filled with standard reviews with standard results, and make projects take way too much time to get off the ground.

And larger ships are more efficient usually, meaning for a given amount of cargo you need less ships, plus more room usually equals less waiting for space to traverse a location, thus less ship idling.

Environmental Impact statements were not supposed to be catch alls, they were supposed to look at direct impacts. BANANA's such as yourself use them to STOP progress, not regulate it.

No doubt YOUR environmental impact statements have been useless. Larger ships are not necessarily more efficient, and are with a doubt more destructive if a spill occurs.

 

[martybegan]

The high cost of delaying infrastructure repairs - The Washington Post

So now you are promoting infrastructure projects? Considering that it is conservatives who have been holding up vast numbers of infrastructure projects for years, I find your alleged concern disingenuous.

I am all for projects that can get done, and contribute to the well being of the country. I prefer them to be locally funded, but that is the federalist in me. I also noticed you dodging the fact that you call on me to find an example of over regulation, and have failed to acknowledge it.

Poor form.

So you have read the entire 5,000 page environmental assessment and that is how you have come to the conclusion that it is "a project with virtually no environmental impact", right? I doubt that. The fact is that raising the deck of the bridge allows larger ships into the port, which is a prospect that is not without environmental impact.

I have helped write environmental impact statements, and they have bulked up to the point of being useless. They are filled with standard reviews with standard results, and make projects take way too much time to get off the ground.

And larger ships are more efficient usually, meaning for a given amount of cargo you need less ships, plus more room usually equals less waiting for space to traverse a location, thus less ship idling.

Environmental Impact statements were not supposed to be catch alls, they were supposed to look at direct impacts. BANANA's such as yourself use them to STOP progress, not regulate it.

No doubt YOUR environmental impact statements have been useless. Larger ships are not necessarily more efficient, and are with a doubt more destructive if a spill occurs.

YOU are the type of person that stops anything from getting done.
And my work is fine, its uneducated obstructionists such as yourself that think the goal of an EIS is to prevent work from happening, not to make sure it's done right.

 

[orogenicman]

So now you are promoting infrastructure projects? Considering that it is conservatives who have been holding up vast numbers of infrastructure projects for years, I find your alleged concern disingenuous.

I am all for projects that can get done, and contribute to the well being of the country. I prefer them to be locally funded, but that is the federalist in me. I also noticed you dodging the fact that you call on me to find an example of over regulation, and have failed to acknowledge it.

Poor form.

So you have read the entire 5,000 page environmental assessment and that is how you have come to the conclusion that it is "a project with virtually no environmental impact", right? I doubt that. The fact is that raising the deck of the bridge allows larger ships into the port, which is a prospect that is not without environmental impact.

I have helped write environmental impact statements, and they have bulked up to the point of being useless. They are filled with standard reviews with standard results, and make projects take way too much time to get off the ground.

And larger ships are more efficient usually, meaning for a given amount of cargo you need less ships, plus more room usually equals less waiting for space to traverse a location, thus less ship idling.

Environmental Impact statements were not supposed to be catch alls, they were supposed to look at direct impacts. BANANA's such as yourself use them to STOP progress, not regulate it.

No doubt YOUR environmental impact statements have been useless. Larger ships are not necessarily more efficient, and are with a doubt more destructive if a spill occurs.

YOU are the type of person that stops anything from getting done.
And my work is fine, its uneducated obstructionists such as yourself that think the goal of an EIS is to prevent work from happening, not to make sure it's done right.

I am the type of person who wants to ensure that projects are done right.

 

[martybegan]

I am all for projects that can get done, and contribute to the well being of the country. I prefer them to be locally funded, but that is the federalist in me. I also noticed you dodging the fact that you call on me to find an example of over regulation, and have failed to acknowledge it.

Poor form.

So you have read the entire 5,000 page environmental assessment and that is how you have come to the conclusion that it is "a project with virtually no environmental impact", right? I doubt that. The fact is that raising the deck of the bridge allows larger ships into the port, which is a prospect that is not without environmental impact.

I have helped write environmental impact statements, and they have bulked up to the point of being useless. They are filled with standard reviews with standard results, and make projects take way too much time to get off the ground.

And larger ships are more efficient usually, meaning for a given amount of cargo you need less ships, plus more room usually equals less waiting for space to traverse a location, thus less ship idling.

Environmental Impact statements were not supposed to be catch alls, they were supposed to look at direct impacts. BANANA's such as yourself use them to STOP progress, not regulate it.

No doubt YOUR environmental impact statements have been useless. Larger ships are not necessarily more efficient, and are with a doubt more destructive if a spill occurs.

YOU are the type of person that stops anything from getting done.
And my work is fine, its uneducated obstructionists such as yourself that think the goal of an EIS is to prevent work from happening, not to make sure it's done right.

I am the type of person who wants to ensure that projects are done right.

By not being done at all. You don't need a 5000 page EIS that goes into impacts on existing historical structures (when none are actually impacted) to raise a freaking bridge.

 

[orogenicman]

So you have read the entire 5,000 page environmental assessment and that is how you have come to the conclusion that it is "a project with virtually no environmental impact", right? I doubt that. The fact is that raising the deck of the bridge allows larger ships into the port, which is a prospect that is not without environmental impact.

I have helped write environmental impact statements, and they have bulked up to the point of being useless. They are filled with standard reviews with standard results, and make projects take way too much time to get off the ground.

And larger ships are more efficient usually, meaning for a given amount of cargo you need less ships, plus more room usually equals less waiting for space to traverse a location, thus less ship idling.

Environmental Impact statements were not supposed to be catch alls, they were supposed to look at direct impacts. BANANA's such as yourself use them to STOP progress, not regulate it.

No doubt YOUR environmental impact statements have been useless. Larger ships are not necessarily more efficient, and are with a doubt more destructive if a spill occurs.

YOU are the type of person that stops anything from getting done.
And my work is fine, its uneducated obstructionists such as yourself that think the goal of an EIS is to prevent work from happening, not to make sure it's done right.

I am the type of person who wants to ensure that projects are done right.

By not being done at all. You don't need a 5000 page EIS that goes into impacts on existing historical structures (when none are actually impacted) to raise a freaking bridge.

It is clear that you don't know what you are talking about. The Louisville East End Bridge across the Ohio River being built today was going to impact historical structures, and they had to place part of the expressway leading up to it inside a tunnel to mitigate impacts to those historical properties.

 

[jc456]

Nough said...

The photograph means nothing, and you know it. For all we know that can be fog at dusk or dawn.

Fluff, nothing but.

You would have to have been born after the 1970s, or else be willfully ignorant not to know how bad the pollution was back then. Take your pick.

excuse my nudge, but, he stated the picture. Can you validate that the picture is of pollution? It's all he said. Now you took that to environment. Is he wrong then?

 

[orogenicman]

Nough said...

The photograph means nothing, and you know it. For all we know that can be fog at dusk or dawn.

Fluff, nothing but.

You would have to have been born after the 1970s, or else be willfully ignorant not to know how bad the pollution was back then. Take your pick.

excuse my nudge, but, he stated the picture. Can you validate that the picture is of pollution? It's all he said. Now you took that to environment. Is he wrong then?

Yes.

 

[jc456]

What does "wet soil" mean?

dirt with water? Mud?

 

[jc456]

Nough said...

The photograph means nothing, and you know it. For all we know that can be fog at dusk or dawn.

Fluff, nothing but.

You would have to have been born after the 1970s, or else be willfully ignorant not to know how bad the pollution was back then. Take your pick.

excuse my nudge, but, he stated the picture. Can you validate that the picture is of pollution? It's all he said. Now you took that to environment. Is he wrong then?

Yes.

hahahahahahhahahahaha, how? YOu can't prove what that picture is.

 

[Wry Catcher]

They are very necessary but it should not be overregulated either.

Who determines what is over regulation? The private sector? The Congress (whose members may receive private sector financial help in keeping their jobs)? The Chief of the EPA?

Let's consider the CV's of the past two Chiefs of the EPA:

Gina McCarthy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"A longtime civil servant, McCarthy held the position of assistant administrator, U.S. EPA from 2009 to 2013. Prior to 2009, she was commissioner, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, 2004–2009. She has held several top positions in the civil service of theCommonwealth of Massachusetts, including deputy secretary, Massachusetts Office of Commonwealth Development, 2003–2004 and undersecretary for policy, Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, 1999–2003.[8]"

and

Stephen L. Johnson - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Johnson began working at the EPA in 1979. He had been working at a private lab, Litton Bionetics Inc., in Washington. Johnson said that a mentor suggested he get a job at the EPA, learn about regulations from inside government, and then return to industry. "Regulations were really frustrating," Johnson told the Philadelphia Inquirer in 2008, recalling his decision to join the EPA. "I wondered if they really understood what it was like to work in a laboratory."[2]

Johnson's rise from career scientist to EPA chief began in 2001, when he made the jump from civil service bureaucrat to political appointee. In January 2001, Johnson was the lead staff toxics official at EPA. His selection as assistant administrator for the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances was set in motion by a Kentucky lobbyist, Charles Grizzle, whose clients have included power companies, hospitals, shopping centers, and a formaldehyde industry association. After the 2000 election, Grizzle called then-senior White House aide Karl Roveand suggested that Rove should take a look at Johnson.[2]

 

[jc456]

2015: hmmmm, still see smog. Dude!!!!!

 

[Wry Catcher]

2015: hmmmm, still see smog. Dude!!!!!

Yeah, NYC is surrounded by coal plants:

Existing U.S. Coal Plants - SourceWatch

 

[jc456]

2015: hmmmm, still see smog. Dude!!!!!

Yeah, NYC is surrounded by coal plants:

Existing U.S. Coal Plants - SourceWatch

funny how you don't get things right? nice how you can't even fathom the point there. It is funny how your stupid pills kicked in.