Difference between revisions of "Risk assessment on Hämeenkyrö municipal solid waste incinerator"

1. Utilitarian optimizing
2. Egalitarian optimizing
3. Elitist optimizing

(Comment: Industry is so dominant in Hämeenkyrö that its emissions are likely the largest. However, this depends on the quality of the technique used. You should ask Marko: he has access to FRES model he told about yesterday.)

(Comment: There might be ready-made plant-specific data in FRES-model. You could talk with Päivi (PM emissions from Hämeenkyrö) and Marko. In addition, the YVA of the MSWI plan, and the other plants, should be available. We should find some numbers that we can use to calculate the exposure.)

Eag = Ca x (Fo + Fi x Finf)

Eag is dominated by home ventilation and are estimated from ambient concentrations (Ca) multiplied by the fraction of time spent outdoors (Fo) and the fraction of time spent indoors (Fi) modified by the particle infiltration efficiency (Finf ).(WHO, 2006.) Mean personal daytime exposure in Helsinki were 19 ug/m3 (Koistinen 2002). In Europe average fairly uniform rural background concentrations were 11-13ug/m3,15-20 ug/m3 in urban background and 20-30 ug/m3 at traffic sites (WHO, 2006.).

Koistinen Kimmo: Exposure of an Urban Adult Population to PM2.5. 2002.

http://www.who.dk/document/E88189.pdf WHO: Health risks of particulate matter from long-range transboundary air pollution. 2006.

http://www.ehponline.org/members/2004/6980/6980.html

Fine particles travel in the atmosphere for several days or weeks, and several hundred or thousand kilometres from the source. Therefore, most of the exposure occurs far from the source, unless the exposure very near (less than 100 m) is very intensive. In the case of a MSWI with a high stack, the exposure very near the source is negligible. This is especially true for secondary particles that only form in the atmosphere during several hours or days.

• 0.6*10^-6 (primary particles)
• less clear but probably lower, maybe in the order of 0.1--0.5*10^-6 (secondary particles)

1. Data needed to model the PM_2.5 concentration distribution around the MSWI:
   1. The emission produced by MSWI
   2. Stack height and location of MSWI in relation to municipality
   3. Meteorological data: average (e.g. daily) temperatures, wind speeds and directions, solar radiation etc.
   4. Geographical data: vegetation, elevations, town build, lakes etc.
   5. ...
2. Data needed to convert exposure to dose:
   1. inhalable fraction of PM_2.5
   2. concentration of PM_2.5 around the person in the locations the person moves in
   3. times spend in different locations
   4. breathing rate of the person
   5. weight of the person
   6. ...

Also required: the background concentration. Some values available for comparison: Urban US highest PM_2.5 concs 20-30 mikrog/m³, concentration in Helsinki over several years 8-11 mikrog/m³, non-urban US concs 1-6 mikrog/m³ (Koistinen 2002). Thus, small Finnish town: maybe 7 mikrog/m³?

D = dose (mg/kg.day)

IR = inhalation rate (m³/h)

P = particle concentration in air (mg/m³)

RF = respirable fraction of particles (dimensioless)

ET = exposure time (hours/day)

EF = exposure frequency (days/year)

ED = exposure duration (years)

BW = body weight (kg)

AT = averaging time (days)(Schwela ym. 2002)

for dose over a lifetime the formula can be simplified to D = (IR)(P)(RF)/BW

Assumptions:

IR = 13 m³/d

P = the background concentration, as the emission caused by the MSWI is distributed wide and thus diluted to negligible, thus 7 mikrog/m³/d = 0,007 mg/m³/d

RF = 0,6

BW = 70 kg

1. Koistinen, Kimmo (2002). Exposure of an urban adult population to PM_2.5. Methods, determination and sources. Publications of the National Public Health Institute A3/2002.
2. Schwela D, Morawska L, Kotzias D (Eds.) 2002. Guidelines for concentration and exposure-response measurement of fine and ultra fine particulate matter for use in epidemiological studies. WHO and JRC Expert Task Force meeting, Ispra, Italy, November 2002.

Concentration-response function needs data from exposure modelling, animal toxicology, small clinical or panel studies, and epidemiological studies.

Exposed population can be subdivided to subpopulations (adults, children, infants, elder people). Exposure is assessed in a certain timeperiod (daily, annual exposure).

Dioxins are produced unintentionally as by-products of many chemical industrial processes and of all combustion processes. Sources include metal industry, power plants, industrial combustion plants, small combustion units (mostly domestic), waste incineration, road transport and mineral products production.

Total dioxin emissions are usually reported in toxic equivalency values (TEQ), which enables comparison of the toxicity of different combinations of dioxins and dioxin-like compounds. A TEQ is calculated by multiplying the actual grams weight of each dioxin and dioxin-like compound by its corresponding toxic equivalency factor (TEF) and then summing the results. The number that results from this calculation is referred to as grams TEQ.

(Comment: The emissions sources of dioxin are known pretty well. Although it is unlikely that these factories have direct dioxin measurements, emission estimates for the sources of this size should be available. You should ask Juhani Ruuskanen (KuY) or Päivi Ruokojärvi (KTL)).

Possible dioxin sources in Hämeenkyrö:

Currently: the local gas power plant, traffic, domestic combustion (cardboard factory, sawmill) D↷

Future: Municipal solid waste incinerator, biofuel power plant

Some national sector emissions in Finland in 2002 (g I-TEQ)

(just to give some indication on the emission levels...)

Public electricity and heat production 3.448

Manufacturing of pulp, paper and print 1.297

Waste incineration 2.544

Road transport:

Passanger cars 0.158

Heavy duty vehicles 0.640

More accurate information to be added later..

http://www.epa.gov/ncea/pdfs/dioxin/2k-update/

http://www.oztoxics.org/ipepweb/library/DioxinInventory.pdf#search=%22dioxine%20emissions%20from%20traffic%22

SYKE 2004. Finnish Environment Institute. Air pollutant emissions in Finland 1990-2002. National inventory report. http://www.ymparisto.fi/download.asp?contentid=13512#search=%22dioxine%20emissions%20from%20traffic%22

Margni and coworkers have estimated an iF for Western European sources. The iF is approximately 3.5.10(-3) for emissions of dioxin in Western Europe. This iF compares well to the traditional non-spatial multi-media/-pathway model predictions of 3.9.10(-3) for the same region and to 2.10(-3) for the USA. Approximately 95% of the intake from Western European emissions occurs within the same region, 5% being transferred out of the region in terms of food contaminants and atmospheric advective transport. (Margni et al., 2004) However, when the emission source is in the North-Eastern corner of Europe like Hämeenkyrö is, the population exposed is likely smaller than on average, especially because the predominant wind direction is from southwest and away from densely populated areas. Therefore, the published value is likely an overestimate.

Bennett DH, Margni MD, McKone TE, Jolliet O. Intake fraction for multimedia pollutants: a tool for life cycle analysis and comparative risk assessment. Risk Anal. 2002 Oct;22(5):905-18.

Here we will use the daily PCDD/F intake estimated for the Finnish population in average as a starting point. In addition, the other variable in this model, "Dioxin emissions in Hämeenkyrö", may affect the estimate of baseline dioxin exposure in Hämeenkyrö.

For the adipose tissue PCDD/F concentration the value estimated for the general population living in Finnish inland is used.

It is noteworthy, that some subgroups within society, such as nursing babies and people consuming lot of fish may be more highly exposed to dioxins than the average people.

PCBs, another group of persistent environmental contaminants, were included as they behave similarly in the food chain and have partly similar health effects as dioxins.D↷

2) Adipose tissue concentration: WHO-TEQ pg/g fat

Average daily intake of PCBs 0.74 pg/kg bw

Average adipose tissue PCDD/F concentration 26.4 pg/g

Average adipose tissue PCB concentration 18.1 pg/g

Note: During the nursing period, the PCDD/F intake of a child can be 1-2 orders of magnitude higher than that of an adult.

Kiviranta H, Ovaskainen ML, Vartiainen T. Market basket study on dietary intake of PCDD/Fs, PCBs, and PBDEs in Finland. Environ Int. 2004 Sep;30(7):923-32.

Kiviranta H, Tuomisto JT, Tuomisto J, Tukiainen E, Vartiainen T. Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, dibenzofurans, and biphenyls in the general population in Finland. Chemosphere. 2005 Aug;60(7):854-69.

Tuomisto et al. 1999. Synopsis on dioxins and PCBs. Publications of the National Public Health Institute B17/1999.

(Comment: This would rather go to the variable Dioxin emissions in Hämeenkyrö).

• In this specific case it is relevant to think about health effects of long-term exposure on human population (see var. 'Health effects of dioxins and PM2.5'). Also the risk of accidental exposure is low; only if the burning process is working improperly the amount of dioxins emissions will increase.
• Dioxins are classified as known human carcinogen by IARC; data exist which supports the hypothesis of hormesis type of dose-responses (Tuomisto et al., 2004) in cancer.
• Effects on development and endocrine functions are of more of concern than cancer. According to animal data, tolerable daily intake (TDI) is set in a range of 1-4 pg TEQs/kg bodyweight/day.

• #Background incidence rates for selected diseases and causes of death in Hämeenkyrö population; susceptible groups, demographic data (Comment: This background variable is actually missing: Anne knows about the population size, but does someone know about the background disease rates?)
• #Population size in Hämeenkyrö
• #Baseline dioxin exposure in Hämeenkyrö

increased lifetime risk per pg/kg body weight OR risk / adipose tissue concentration

(Comment: units are good for exposure-response function (as this variable used to be) but not for health effect (as it currently seems to be)

Tuomisto et al. 1999. Synopsis on dioxins and PCBs. Publications of the National Public Health Institute B17/1999.

van Leeuwen FX et.al. Chemosphere. 2000 May-Jun;40(9-11):1095-101.

Direct or indirect information about the factors affecting peoples living comfortability related to waste management alternatives (disposal site or MSWI). Direct variables are modelled or measured (ie. noise map) and indicators are based on feedback from local people or from other indirect source. If the decision model will be used to analyse alternative scenarios, we have to include both modelled variables and feedback variables here or alternatively define these own variable for the Pyrkilö -model.

Scope: proposal to how to define the scope

Areas related to alternative waste management systems in Pirkanmaa. Thus, focus will be on existing dumping place (Tarastejärvi) and planned MSWI plant in Hämeenkyrö. Modelled variables will be estimated using different time scales (day, month, year). Well-being indicators will be monitored continuosly and summarizing reports can be done monthly and annually. People can also be asked what kind of changes in comfortability factors they believe to happen in future when a certain waste management alternative is implemented.

MSWI and dumping site alternatives have diffent total noise and smell effects for people living near the emission source. Both should be analysed before final solution.

Discription: some ideas of different factors (both a: direct variables and b: indicators)

1 Noise

a) modelled noise maps / control noise measurements in neighborhoods of site based on:

- estimated amount of traffic near waste treatment site

- noise emissions from operating incinerator

- extra noise from birds (near landfill site)

Inputs: waste collection data, emission data from plant, bird invetory and voice emission data

Unit: dB

b) noise distubance asked from local people

- how often people suffer from noise?

- continuous or episodic noise?

Inputs: Indicator data from systematic post questionaries and continuous feedback forms from web-site.

Unit: Index value or classfied indicator (1-5 levels)

2 Smell/odor

a) maps based on odor dispersion models

Inputs: data from waste management processes in landfill site

b) smell information asked from local people

Inputs: questionaries & online feedback forms on the web

Unit: Index value or classfied indicator (1-5 levels)

3 Social factors

b) socioeconomic indicators based on statistics at small area (250x250 m) resolution

- socioeconomic variables (income, unemployment, education) are used to calculate social index

- indicator may be useful information before the decisions, but also for monitoring and forecasting changes in future when plant/landfill site is operating

Inputs: statistics

Unit: index (deprivation index)

4 Scenic values

a) visibility maps calculated using GIS

Iputs: digital elevation model, forest data and other geograpical data

b) scenic values asked from local people

Inputs: questionary

Unit: index

5 Discomfort index

b) index based on several questions from local people about comfortability of area

Inputs: questionary

Unit: index

6 Concern index (Health effects)

b) index based on several questions from local people about concerns their have about the possible health effects

Inputs: questionary

Unit: index

• From the building phase of the municipal solid waste incinerator
• From operation time of the municipal incinerator
• From the traffic
  
• Things that should take account:
  
• Comparing the noise from the incinerator to the noise coming from the birds, the traffic and activities in a landfill
  
• The incinerator has planned to build in the existing industrial place.
  
  • What is the present level of the noise in that site?
    
  • What is the distance from the industrial site to the settlement?
    
• The noise disturbs the comfortability of the living
  

2. The smell:

• Probable less disturbing comparing it to the dump site.
  
• Inhabitants, who live near the landfill, think that the smell decreases the living comfortability a lot.
  

3. The social factors:

• Increasing a employment grade
  
• Decreasing the value of the property (houses, lands, summer cottages)
  
• Fear of the birds (the influenza)
  

4. Landscape:

• A minor effect
  

5. Other things that will not occur with the municipal solid waste incinerator:

• Diseases coming via the rats or birds? (This is a wild assumption)
  
• Hazardous components leaching to the ground water and/or surface water will decrease.(The incinerator processes are controlled and monitored)
  
• The inhabitants can pick berries and mushrooms with good feelings, without the fear of the hazardous components coming from the wastesite (like from the landfill).
  

http://www.ymparisto.fi/default.asp?contentid=168741&lan=fi

http://www.viljakkalanpuolesta.net/lehdista1.html

http://www.ytv.fi/NR/rdonlyres/FDC064707E3A4FF18458C7CDE7B02C01/0/biotuhka_yva05.pdf#search=%22kaatopaikka%20lintuhaitta%22

http://www.eko-kymppi.fi/majasaari/YVA-selostus.pdf#search=%22kaatopaikka%20lintuhaitta%22

http://www.jyvaskyla.fi/paatos/kh/2004/15031400.0/txt121.htm

http://www.tapanila.fi/historia/kaatopaikka.html

• Persons employed
  • gas energy plant (24 person)
  • starting phase of the municipal solid waste incinerator (50 - 60 person-year)
  • working phase of municipal solid waste incinerator (60 - 70 persons)
  • M-Real cardboard factory (335 persons)
  • Finnforest Sawmill (? persons)
• Tax incomes
  • directly to Hämeenkyrö
  • directly to Pirkanmaa
  • indirect taxes (Sawmill, cardboard factory and waste incinerator)

• No waste incinerator or bioplant, shutdown of both factories and gas plant
  • Over 300 person less are employed

Best-case scenario:

• Waste incinerator is builded, both factories and gas plant remains
  • over 70 persons more are employed

OK-case scenario:

• Waste incinerator is builded, both factories remains, gas plant is shut down
  • about 50 persons more are employed

Kyro Power - website [2], accessed in 21.9.2006

Kyro Technologies - website [3], accessed in 21.9.2006

M-Real - website [4], accessed in 21.9.2006

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) is the most toxic PCDD/Fs congener, and it is classified as a known human

carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).

• Health effects related to long-term exposure
  • impairment of the immune system
  • impairment of the developing nervous system
  • impairment of the endocrine system
  • impairment of reproductive functions
  • increased cancer risk

Evidence concerning cancer risk is mainly from animal studies, and dioxins are probably quite weak carcinogens in humans.

Evindence concerning other health effects is inconsistent.

Sensitive subgroups: foetuses, newborns, individuals with high fish consumption, individuals working in incineration plants

etc. (For health effects related to short-term exposure R↻ )

• Dioxin emissions in Hämeenkyrö
• Baseline dioxin exposure in Hämeenkyrö
• Dioxin exposure due to MSWI in Hämeenkyrö

• effective dose resulting in a 0.01 increase in lifetime risk of cancer mortality (ED₀₁): 45 pg/kg body weight

(95% CI 21-324 pg/kg body weight)

• tolerable daily intake (TDI): 1-4 pg/kg body weight

Health Perspectives 111 (5), 681-687.

Kogevinas 2001. Human health effects of dioxins: cancer, reproductive and endochrine system effects. Human Reproduction

Update 7 (3), 331-339.

Tuomisto et al. 1999. Synopsis on dioxins and PCBs. Publications of the National Public Health Institute B17/1999.

• Health effects related to short-term exposure
  • respiratory symptoms
  • adverse cardiovascular effects
  • increased medication usage
  • increased number of hospital admissions
  • increased mortality
• Health effects related to long-term exposure (more relevance to public health)
  • increased incidence of respiratory symptoms
  • reduction in lung function
  • increased incidence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
  • reduction in life expectancy
    • increased cardiopulmonary mortality
    • increased lung cancer mortality

Sensitive subgroups: children, the elderly, individuals with heart and lung disease, individuals who are active outdoors

• PM_2.5 emissions in Hämeenkyrö
• PM_2.5 emissions from MSWI, biofuel plant, and natural gas plant in Hämeenkyrö
• Baseline PM_2.5 exposure in Hämeenkyrö
• PM_2.5 exposure due to MSWI in Hämeenkyrö

• 6% increase in the risk of deaths from all causes (95% CI 2-11%)
• 12% increase in the risk of death from cardiovascular diseases and diabetes (95% CI 8-15%)
• 14% increase in the risk of death from lung cancer (95% CI 4-23%)

per each 10 µg/m³ elevation in PM_2.5 air pollution

pollution in Europe". World Health Organization, 2004. http://www.euro.who.int/document/E83080.pdf

Pope et al. 2002. Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. JAMA 287

(9), 1132-1141.

Pope et al. 2004. Cardiovascular mortality and long-term exposure to particulate air pollution. Circulation (109), 71-77.

Service Contract for Carrying out Cost-Benefit Analysis of Air Quality Related Issues, in particular in the Clean Air for

Europe (CAFE) Programme. Volume 2: Health Impact Assessment. AEA Technology Environment, 2005.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/cafe/pdf/cba_methodology_vol2.pdf

PM_2.5 originating from the Hämeenkyrö municipal solid waste incinerator

• PM_2.5 emissions in Hämeenkyrö
• PM_2.5 emissions from MSWI, biofuel plant, and natural gas plant in Hämeenkyrö
• Baseline PM_2.5 exposure in Hämeenkyrö
• PM_2.5 exposure due to MSWI in Hämeenkyrö
• PM_2.5 exposure-response function on population level

Dioxin variables:

• Dioxin emissions in Hämeenkyrö
• Baseline dioxin exposure in Hämeenkyrö
• Dioxin exposure due to MSWI in Hämeenkyrö
• Dioxin exposure-response function on population level

Health aspects of air pollution. Results from the WHO project "Systematic review of health aspects of air pollution in Europe". World Health Organization, 2004. http://www.euro.who.int/document/E83080.pdf

Kogevinas 2001. Human health effects of dioxins: cancer, reproductive and endochrine system effects. Human Reproduction Update 7 (3), 331-339.

Pope et al. 2002. Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. JAMA 287 (9), 1132-1141.

Pope et al. 2004. Cardiovascular mortality and long-term exposure to particulate air pollution. Circulation (109), 71-77.

Service Contract for Carrying out Cost-Benefit Analysis of Air Quality Related Issues, in particular in the Clean Air for Europe (CAFE) Programme. Volume 2: Health Impact Assessment. AEA Technology Environment, 2005. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/cafe/pdf/cba_methodology_vol2.pdf

Tuomisto et al. 1999. Synopsis on dioxins and PCBs. Publications of the National Public Health Institute B17/1999.

Päijät-Hämeen jätehuolto Oy

- Kujala waste center is located in Lahti

- Population in Päijät-Hämeen jätehuolto Oy area of operation is ~199 000

Kiertokapula Oy

- Two waste centers; Kapula waste center is located in border of Hyvinkää and Riihimäki (wastes from southern parts of the company operation area) and Karanoja waste center in Hämeenlinna (wastes from northern parts of the company operation area)

- Population in Kiertokapula Oy area of operation is ~319 000

Loimi-Hämeen Jätehuolto Oy

- Kiimassuo waste center is located in Forssa

- Population in Loimi-Hämeen Jätehuolto Oy area of operation is ~115 000

1) Kujala waste center

- total amount of municipal solid waste

- amount of municipal solid waste per person

2) Kapula and Karanoja waste center

- total amount of municipal solid waste

- amount of municipal solid waste per person

3) Kiimassuo waste center

- total amount of municipal solid waste

- amount of municipal solid waste per person

- Kujala (Lahti): 45 591 tonnes/year (229 kg/person)

- Kapula (Hyvinkää/Riihimäki) and Karanoja (Hämeenlinna): 42 827 and 43 509 tonnes/year (271 kg/person)

- Kiimassuo (Forssa): 31 083 tonnes/year (270 kg/person)

http://www.phj.fi/downloadable_material/Toimintakertomus.pdf

http://www.kiertokapula.fi/PDF/pdfoppaat/Toimintak_2005.pdf

http://www.l-hjatehuolto.fi/VK2005.pdf

Related to Waste management options: The EU has a framework for coordination waste management within the Community in order to limit the generation of waste (orginal Directive: 75/442/EC): "Member states must prohibit the abandonment, dumping or uncontrolled disposal of waste. They shall promote waste prevention, recycling and processing for reuse." ..."establishing an integrated and adequate network of disposal installations (taking account of the best available technologies)." (1) Related to MSWI: Directive objective is "to prevent or reduce, as far as possible, air, water and soil pollution caused by the incineration or co-incineration of waste, as well as the resulting risk to human health." Limit values for incineration plant emissions to atmosphere in Annex 1. Limit values for co-incineration plant emissions to atmosphere in Annex 2. "The quantity and harmfulness of incineration residues must be reduced to a minimum and residues must, as far as possible, be recycled." (2)

Related to Landfill: "The Directive is intended to prevent or reduce the adverse effects of the landfill of waste on the environment, in particular on surface water, groundwater, soil, air and human health." It introduces stringent technical requirements for waste and landfills. "The Directive sets up a system of operating permits for landfill sites. (3)

Related to landfill: List of technical requirements. (3) Targets to reduce landfilling of biodegradable municipal waste (garden waste, kitchen waste, park waste, paper, cardboard) to 75% of 1995 levels by 2006, 50% by 2009 and 35% by 2016. (5)

(2) Waste incineration. Directive 2000/76//EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste. http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/128072.htm (3) Landfill of waste. Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste. http://europa.eu/scadplus/printversion/en/lvb/121208.htm (4)J. Kunninen. Multilevel governance. The burning issue of waste in Finland. Centre for European Studies University of Helsinki. (5) Briefing Friends of the Earth. Main EU Directives on waste. April 2001.