PROVA ENG AMB MESTRADO - Centro Tecnológico / UFES

UFES / CCHN / DLL – CURSOS DE LÍNGUAS PARA A COMUNIDADE 

PROGRAMA DE PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO EM ENGENHARIA AMBIENTAL 

CERTIFICAÇÃO DE PROFICIÊNCIA EM LINGUA INGLESA 

MESTRADO EM ENGENHARIA AMBIENTAL 

INSCRIÇÃO Nº XXXXXX 

PROVA DE PROFICIÊNCIA - MESTRADO 

LEIA ATENTAMENTE AS INFORMAÇÕES A SEGUIR: 

1. A habilidade avaliada será: LEITURA; 

2. O TEMPO total disponível para a realização da prova é de 3 (três) horas; 

3. O uso de DICIONÁRIO(s) somente será permitido aos candidatos portadores dos mesmos. 

O empréstimo entre candidatos não será permitido. 

4. O CADERNO DE QUESTÕES e a FOLHA DE RESPOSTAS deverão constar o número de 

inscrição conforme seu COMPROVANTE DE INSCRIÇÃO. Ambos devem estar em ordem. 

Caso contrário, o candidato deverá notificar IMEDIATAMENTE o aplicador da prova; 

5. A FOLHA DE RESPOSTAS não pode ser dobrada, amassada ou rasurada; 

6. As respostas das questões dos TEXTOS serão redigidas em PORTUGUÊS; 

7. Será considerado REPROVADO o candidato que: 

- utilizar, durante a realização das provas, de rádios gravadores; headphones; telefones 

celulares ou fontes de consultas; 

- ausentar-se da sala em que se realizam as provas levando consigo o CADERNO DE 

QUESTÕES e/ou a FOLHA DE RESPOSTAS; 

8. O RASCUNHO para respostas está devidamente identificado e NÃO SERÁ CONSIDERADO 

como resposta oficial. 

9. Para a redação oficial das repostas na FOLHA DE RESPOSTAS deverá ser resguardado no 

mínimo 30 (trinta) minutos finais do tempo total. Ao terminar, o candidato entregará o 

CADERNO DE QUESTÕES e a FOLHA DE RESPOSTAS ao aplicador. 

10. Para aprovação, o candidato deverá alcançar no mínimo 70% de compreensão dos textos 

fornecidos, conforme critérios especificados no edital. 

Datas do processo no Centro de Línguas: 

Resultado do teste: 22/07/2011 

Interposição de recursos: 25 a 26/07/2011 

Reposta aos recursos e resultado final: 29/07/2011 

1






HABILIDADE: LEITURA 

De acordo com as informações dos textos, responda as perguntas seguintes: 

TEXTO 1 EFFECT OF POLLUTION ON GROUNDWATER 

A popular misconception is that all water that moves through the soil will be purified “naturally” and 

will emerge from the ground in a pristine condition. Unfortunately, there are limits to what soil can 

remove, and groundwater pollution is becoming an increasing concern throughout the world. 

The agricultural community is becoming more aware of the connection between agricultural 

practices and groundwater pollution. Many states have begun working with dairy owners and 

farmers to develop farm management plans that restrict fertilizer applications to periods of active 

plant growth, which helps prevent groundwater pollution by sequestering nitrate into growing 

vegetation. These farm plans also include surface water pollution prevention techniques such as 

restricting animal access to stream banks, setting maximum animal density goals, requiring 

manure-holding ponds, and revegetating riparian (stream side) areas. 

Other potential sources of groundwater pollution include leaking underground storage tanks, solid 

waste landfills, improperly stored hazardous waste, careless disposal of solvents and hazardous 

chemicals on ground surfaces, and road salts and deicing compounds. Many of the current U.S. 

Superfund sites (see Chap. 17, “Solid and Hazardous Waste Law”) are concerned with the cleanup 

of materials that have contaminated, or have the potential to contaminate, groundwater. 

QUESTÃO 1 

Que ideia popular e errônea é mencionada no primeiro parágrafo? 

QUESTÃO 2 

O que o Estado e os agricultores vêm fazendo para combater a poluição das águas 

subterrâneas? 

QUESTÃO 3 

Quais são as fontes potenciais de poluição das águas subterrâneas? 

TEXTO 2 WASTE PROCESSING AND HANDLING 

Waste processing and handling are key concerns as a hazardous waste begins its journey from 

the generator site to a secure long-term storage facility. Ideally, the waste can be stabilized, 

detoxified, or somehow rendered harmless in a treatment process similar to the following: 

Chemical Stabilization. In this process, chemicals are mixed with waste sludge, the mixture is 

pumped onto land, and solidification occurs in several days or weeks. The result is a chemical nest 

that entraps the waste, and pollutants such as heavy metals may be chemically bound in insoluble 

complexes. Asphalt-like compounds form “cages” around the waste molecules, while grout and 

cement form actual chemical bonds with the trapped substances. Chemical stabilization offers an 

alternative to digging up and moving large quantities of hazardous waste, and is particularly 

suitable for treating large volumes of dilute waste. Proponents of these processes have argued for 

2






building roadways, dams, and bridges with a selected cement as the fixing agent. The adequacy of 

the containment offered by these processes has not been 

documented, however, as long-term leaching and defixation potentials are not well understood. 

Volume Reduction. Volume reduction is usually achieved by incineration, which takes advantage 

of the large organic fraction of waste being generated by many industries, but may lead to 

secondary problems for hazardous waste engineers: air emissions in the stack of the incinerator 

and ash production in the base of the incinerator. Both by-products of incineration must be 

addressed in terms of risk, as well as legal and economic constraints (as must all hazardous waste 

treatment, for that matter). Because incineration is often considered a very good method for the 

ultimate disposal of hazardous waste, we discuss it in some detail later in this chapter. 

Degradation. Methods that chemically degrade some hazardous wastes and render them less 

hazardous exist. Chemical degradation is a form of chemical detoxification. Waste-specific 

degradation processes include hydrolysis, which destroys organophosphorus and carbonate 

pesticides, and chemical dechlorination, which destroys some polychlorinated pesticides. 

Biological degradation generally involves 

incorporating the waste into the soil. Landfarming, as it has been termed, relies on healthy soil 

microorganisms to metabolize the waste components. Landfarming sites must be strictly controlled 

for possible water and air pollution that results from overactive or underactive organism 

populations. 

QUESTÃO 4 

Quais os problemas potenciais de cada um destes métodos de processamento de 

resíduos? 

TEXTO 3 PRODUCT SYSTEM LIFE EXTENSION 

Extending the life of a product can directly reduce environmental impact. In many cases, longerlived 

products save resources and generate less waste because fewer units are needed to satisfy 

the same need. Doubling the life of a product translates into a pollution prevention of 50% in 

process transportation and distribution and a waste reduction of 50% at the end of the product’s 

life. Understanding why products are retired helps designers to extend the product system life. 

Reasons why products are no longer in use include technical obsolescence, fashion obsolescence, 

degraded performance or structural fatigue, (caused by normal wear over repeated use), 

environmental or chemical degradation and damage caused by accident or inappropriate use. 

QUESTÃO 5 

Como o sistema de extensão de vida útil de um produto pode reduzir o impacto ambiental? 

QUESTÃO 6 

Quais são as razões apontadas para o fim da vida de um produto? 

TEXTO 3.1 REMANUFACTURABILITY 

Remanufacturing is an industrial process that restores worn products to like-new condition. In a 

factory, a retired product is first completely disassembled. Its usable parts are then cleaned, 

refurbished, and put into inventory. Finally, a new product is reassembled from both old and new 

parts, creating a unit equal in performance and expected life to the original or currently available 

alternative. In contrast, a repaired or rebuilt product usually retains its identity, and only those parts 

3






that have failed or are badly worn are replaced. Industrial equipment or other expensive products 

not subject to rapid change are the best candidates for remanufacturing. Designs must be easy to 

take apart if they are to be remanufactured. Adhesives, welding, and some fasteners can make this 

process impossible. Critical parts must be designed to survive normal wear. Extra material should 

be present on used parts to allow refinishing. Care in selecting materials and arranging parts also 

helps to reduce excessive damage during use. Design continuity increases the number of 

interchangeable parts between different models in the same product line. Common parts make 

remanufacturing products easier. 

QUESTÃO 7 

Em que consiste a remanufatura como estratégia de fim de vida de um produto? 

TEXTO 4 GAS HYDRATES 

Currently, below the world’s oceans and permafrost lurks a deadly threat – gas hydrates. These 

are a mixture of water and methane, which is sustained as a solid at very low temperatures and 

very high pressures. These gas hydrates are a solid composed of a cage of water molecules, 

which hold individual molecules of methane and other gases. The methane comes from decaying 

organic matter found deep in ocean sediments and in soils beneath permafrost. These gas hydrate 

reservoirs are extremely unstable, as a slight increase in temperature or decrease in pressure can 

cause them to destabilize and thus pose a major risk. The impacts of global warming include the 

heating up of both the oceans and the permafrost, which could cause the gas hydrates to break 

down, pumping out huge amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Methane is a very strong 

greenhouse gas, 21 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. If enough were released it would 

raise temperatures even more, releasing even more gas hydrates – producing a runaway 

greenhouse effect. There are 10,000 gigatonnes of gas hydrates stored beneath our feet 

compared with only 180 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide currently in the atmosphere. 

QUESTÃO 8 

Os hidratos de gás submarino representam que ameaça? 

TEXTO 5 FUKUSHIMA, THREE MILE ISLAND AND CHERNOBYL 

It is already possible to outline key differences that set the current Fukushima situation apart from 

the 1979 Three Mile Island emergency near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and the disaster in 

Chernobyl, Ukraine, that took place seven years later. 

Accident Cause At this point in the Fukushima disaster the tsunami appears to be the immediate 

culprit, since the plants shut down as they were designed to do following the earthquake. When the 

tsunami hit an hour later, it damaged the site infrastructure, he said. So while the earthquake had 

cut the reactors' external power supply, which is needed to keep coolant pumps doing their job, the 

tsunami killed the diesel backup generators needed to provide power for the cooling system. 

Batteries provided power for only up to eight hours. Mobile generators were brought in to take 

over. Still, it's too early to know for sure what sequence of events led to what outcome, said David 

Lochbaum, who directs the Union of Concerned Scientists' Nuclear Safety Program and has 

worked at three nuclear plants in the United States similar to the General Electric plants in Japan. 

According to the 1979 Kemeny Commission report on Three Mile Island—the definitive document 

of that disaster—"equipment failures initiated the event," but "operator error" was the "fundamental 

cause of the accident." Emergency cooling systems were shut down, with dire consequences. 

Three Mile Island would have been a "relatively insignificant incident," the commission found, if the 

4






plant operators (or those who supervised them) had kept the emergency cooling systems on 

through the early stages of the accident. 

At the Chernobyl reactor in Ukraine, an "ill-conceived, badly executed safety test" initiated the 

disaster, said Wilmshurst. A sudden surge of power triggered a steam explosion that ruptured the 

reactor vessel, according to a recent report from the United Nations. This allowed "further violent 

fuel-steam interactions that destroyed the reactor core and severely damaged the reactor building." 

Radiation Containment Like the Three Mile Island plant, the Fukushima reactors have three 

barriers designed to prevent radiation leakage, including metal cladding surrounding the nuclear 

fuel, a reactor pressure vessel, and the primary containment vessel. Chernobyl lacked a 

containment vessel, said Wilmshurst. Once radiation is released into the environment, it can 

contaminate vast areas. "Contamination levels are not linear," said Lochbaum. "Further away you 

don't necessarily get lower doses," he explained. Among other factors, prevailing winds can 

influence what areas are affected. In the Chernobyl accident, some areas 100 miles away from the 

facility had radiation levels higher than areas just 10 or 20 miles away. Ultimately, the radiation 

released as a result of Three Mile Island was not high enough to present detectable health effects 

in the general population. That accident rated as a level 5 of 7 on the International Nuclear Event 

Scale, an "accident with wider [than local] consequence." At Chernobyl, a level 7 "major accident," 

radiation exposure affected thousands of people. Initially, Japanese officials rated the nuclear 

disaster at Fukushima as a Level 4 on the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES). The event 

has since been elevated to a Level 7, a major accident, the highest on the INES. This change of 

rating for the Fukushima incident was a result of the amount of radiation leaked into the 

environment since the crisis began on March 11. The amount of radiation released from 

Fukushima could potentially result in far-reaching health and environmental risks. 

In the United States, the average radiation dose from natural background and man-made sources, 

such as medical procedures and consumer products, is 620 millirems (mrem) per year, according 

to the NRC. One millisievert (mSv) is equal to 100 millirems. The Chernobyl accident caused acute 

radiation sickness in 134 of the 600 workers who were at the site on the morning of the initial 

explosion and received high doses of radiation—80,000 to 1.6 million mrem, From a public health 

perspective, Chernobyl's greatest impact was an epidemic of thyroid cancer (more than 6,000 

cases so far) among children and adolescents exposed to radiation, often by drinking 

contaminated cow's milk. 

QUESTÃO 9 

Quais são as diferenças entre os desastres nucleares de Fukushima, Three Mile Island e 

Chernobyl no que diz respeito à causa e contenção dos acidentes e suas consequências? 

5






RASCUNHO 

6






RASCUNHO 

7






RASCUNHO 

8






RASCUNHO 

9






RASCUNHO 

10

PROVA ENG AMB MESTRADO - Centro Tecnológico / UFES

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?