|
|
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| This page contains the discussions related to a '''risk assessment on Hämeenkyrö municipality solid waste incinenator'''. To start a new discussion, copy the template below into a new place in the edit mode. | | This page contains the discussions related to a '''risk assessment on Hämeenkyrö municipality solid waste incinenator'''. To start a new discussion, copy the template below into a new place in the edit mode. |
|
| |
| {{Resolution
| |
| |Topic =
| |
| |Statement =
| |
| |Outcome =
| |
| |Argumentation =
| |
| }}
| |
|
| |
| ==Objective==
| |
|
| |
| ===Variable: RA of Hämeenkyrö MSWI===
| |
|
| |
| {{Resolution
| |
| |Topic =
| |
| |Statement =
| |
| |Outcome =
| |
| |Argumentation =
| |
| }}
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| =====Discussion on the focus of Hämeenkyrö MSWI risk assessment=====
| |
|
| |
| {{Resolution
| |
| |Topic =
| |
| |Statement =
| |
| |Outcome =
| |
| |Argumentation =
| |
| }}
| |
|
| |
| =====Discussion on the scope of Hämeenkyrö MSWI risk assessment=====
| |
|
| |
| {{Resolution
| |
| |Topic =
| |
| |Statement =
| |
| |Outcome =
| |
| |Argumentation =
| |
| }}
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| ===General variables===
| |
|
| |
| #Precautionary principle (disagreement)
| |
| ## PP based on expected value, general
| |
| ## PP based on worst-case or another 'conservative' scenario, general
| |
| ## PP applied to emissions of municipal solid wasti incinerator (MSWI) in Hämeenkyrö
| |
| #Intake fraction (disambiguation)
| |
| ##iF based on measured concentration fields
| |
| ##iF based on exposure monitoring
| |
| ##iF based on shortcuts
| |
|
| |
| ===Fine particle variables===
| |
|
| |
| ====PM<sub>2.5</sub> emissions in Hämeenkyrö====
| |
| Päivi
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| {{Resolution
| |
| |Topic = Emissions should be given per sector
| |
| |Statement = Emissions should be given per sector
| |
| |Outcome =
| |
| |Argumentation = {{Defend|It is important to be able to compare different risks. Seeing emission values for each sector makes this easier. The new emissions from the plants can then be put into perspective with variables people can perceive: they may have previous experience or a feeling about the amount of smoke coming from homes, or factories.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 06:05, 22 September 2006 (EEST)--[[User:Päivi Roivainen|Päivi Roivainen]] 09:59, 22 September 2006 (EEST)
| |
| }}
| |
| }}
| |
|
| |
| ====PM<sub>2.5</sub> emissions from MSWI, biofuel plant, and natural gas plant in Hämeenkyrö====
| |
| Tommi
| |
|
| |
| =====Discussion on ...=====
| |
|
| |
| {{Resolution
| |
| |Topic =
| |
| |Statement =
| |
| |Outcome =
| |
| |Argumentation =
| |
| }}
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| ====Baseline PM<sub>2.5</sub> exposure in Hämeenkyrö====
| |
| Anne K
| |
|
| |
| =====Discussion on ...=====
| |
|
| |
| {{Resolution
| |
| |Topic =
| |
| |Statement =
| |
| |Outcome =
| |
| |Argumentation =
| |
| }}
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| ====PM<sub>2.5</sub> exposure due to MSWI in Hämeenkyrö ====
| |
| Terhi Y
| |
|
| |
| =====Discussion on ...=====
| |
|
| |
| {{Resolution
| |
| |Topic =
| |
| |Statement =
| |
| |Outcome =
| |
| |Argumentation =
| |
| }}
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| ====PM<sub>2.5</sub> exposure-response function on population level ====
| |
| Sari
| |
|
| |
| =====Discussion on ...=====
| |
|
| |
| {{Resolution
| |
| |Topic =
| |
| |Statement =
| |
| |Outcome =
| |
| |Argumentation =
| |
| }}
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| ===Dioxin variables===
| |
|
| |
| ====Dioxin emissions in Hämeenkyrö ====
| |
| Virpi
| |
|
| |
| =====Should this variable define the current dioxin emissions in Hämeenkyrö, or the possible level of emissions due to different decisions on MSWI?=====
| |
|
| |
| {{Resolution
| |
| |Topic =
| |
| |Outcome =
| |
| |Argumentation =
| |
| }}
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| =====Landfills should be included in the list of dioxin sources=====
| |
|
| |
| {{Resolution
| |
| |Topic = Landfills should be included in the list of dioxin sources
| |
| |Statement = Landfills should be included in the list of dioxin sources
| |
| |Outcome =
| |
| |Argumentation = {{Defend|Dioxins are formed in all combustion in small amounts. Especially when there is chlorine available and the burning temperature is low, the formation of dioxins is high. Even at high burning temperatures, dioxins form when the gases cool down. Uncontrolled burning of landfills is an optimal process for dioxin formation: low temperatures, lack of oxygen which creates large amounts of unoxidised gases and polyaromatic compounds, and abundance of chlorine from salt in food waste. Therefore, landfill fires should be added to the list of dioxin emission sources, and these emissions should be estimated.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 06:30, 22 September 2006 (EEST)}}
| |
| }}
| |
|
| |
| ====Baseline dioxin exposure in Hämeenkyrö ====
| |
| Marjo
| |
|
| |
| =====PCBs should be excluded=====
| |
|
| |
| {{Resolution
| |
| |Topic = PCBs should be excluded
| |
| |Statement = PCBs should be excluded
| |
| |Outcome =
| |
| |Argumentation = {{Defend|PCBs were a group of oily products that were used in sevaral places until 1980's but that were banned due to their persistence and toxicity. Although PCBs are formed in a poorly controlled burning processes in the same way as dioxins, they are much less toxic compared with dioxins. Therefore, the major concern with PCBs is not the formation in burning but the existing PCBs in building materials, transformers, and other places. PCBs do not bring any significant new understanding to the emissions of the different alternatives, and therefore it should be excluded from the risk assessment.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 06:47, 22 September 2006 (EEST)}}
| |
|
| |
| :{{Attack|I agree that the planned MSWI will not have any effect on the PCB exposure of the Hameenkyrö inhabitants and thus PCBs in general do not have to be taken account in this model. However, I think it might be relevant to notify the baseline PCB concentration, calculated as WHO-TEQs, of the people in this model. The reason for this is that when the concentration is expressed as TEQs, it particularly reflects the dioxin-like (AHR-mediated) biological effects of the agent. Thus, equal amount of PCBs (in TEQs) is supposed to have identical biological effects as the same amount of PCDD/Fs (in TEQs). Further, the average fat contents of PCBs and PCDD/Fs (in TEQs) in Finnish people were almost identical. Thus PCBs seem to affect as much as PCDD/Fs the possible dioxin-like health effects caused by the baseline exposure. If the planned MSWI would have a significant impact on the dioxin exposure of the Hämeenkyrö inhabitants and if a threshold for the health effects caused by dioxin-like compounds exists, then certainly the backgound exposure to the PCBs have impact on the health outcome in an individual. |Marjo}}
| |
| }}
| |
|
| |
| ====Dioxin exposure due to MSWI in Hämeenkyrö ====
| |
| Martin
| |
|
| |
| =====Discussion on ...=====
| |
|
| |
| {{Resolution
| |
| |Topic =
| |
| |Statement =
| |
| |Outcome =
| |
| |Argumentation =
| |
| }}
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| ====Health effects caused by dioxin exposure ====
| |
| Sanna
| |
|
| |
| =====Ambiguity with ''Health effects of dioxins and PM2.5''=====
| |
|
| |
| {{Resolution
| |
| |Topic = Ambiguity with ''Health effects of dioxins and PM2.5''
| |
| |Statement = Ambiguity with ''Health effects of dioxins and PM2.5'' must be resolved.
| |
| |Outcome =
| |
| |Argumentation = {{Defend|The variables ''Responses of dioxin exposure on human health at the population level'' (originally ''Dioxin exposure-response function on population level'') and ''Health effects of dioxins and PM2.5'' are ambiguous. Either one should tell about the exposure-response function, i.e. the amount of health effect per unit exposure. The other one should tell the amount of health effect in a given situation and exposure. Taking the two variables together, the dose-response is already well characterized (although childhood effects may need more scrutiny), but the actual health effect estimates for Hämeenkyrö are missing (which is, of course, not an easy question).|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 07:17, 22 September 2006 (EEST)}}
| |
|
| |
| {{Defend| I was thinking, what was the scope of this variable. Anyhow, health effetcs of low doses should be modelled from animal data and use existing human data (eg. Alaluusua et al. 1996). For example, in rats, a bolus dose of 0.05 μg TCDD/kg body weight to pregnant dams on GD15 results in maternal fat tissue concentration of 177 pg/g fat on GD21 (Hurst et al.,2000) and in other study (Miettinen et al. 2005) exposure to 0.5 μg TCDD/kg body weight on GD 15 resulted in maternal adipose tissue concentration 2185 pg/g fat. In that study linear extrapolation of the data predicts a maternal adipose tissue concentration of 100-120 pg/g fat after exposure to 0.03 μg TCDD/kg body weight. This estimated maternal adipose tissue concentration which is sufficient to induce developmental dental defects in offspring, is similar to the highest values measured in the Finnish average population (PCDD/F 145.5 pg WHO-TEQ/g fat). (Miettinen, 2006)|-- [[User:Sanna|Sanna]] 08:32, 22 September 2006 (EEST)}}
| |
|
| |
| {{Defend| Sanna has changed the name of her variable, and now our variables have conflicting names. What was the reason for this change? I think the names should not be changed. Anyhow, if I understand correctly, my variable ''Health effects of dioxins and PM2.5'' should be changed into a summary of the upstream variables - it should be a conclusion. So maybe we do the changes together with Sanna during the finalizing session. But the problem is that I should make the ultimate conclusion... Another thing is that I was not able to find any numerical data about the developmental effects concerning dioxins.| --[[User:Anu|Anu]] 08:52, 22 September 2006 (EEST)
| |
|
| |
| }}
| |
|
| |
| ===Indicator variables===
| |
|
| |
| *Decisions related to Hämeenkyrö case
| |
| *Possible indicators (optimising variables) in Hämeenkyrö
| |
|
| |
| ====Well-being of the population (smells, comfort, noise) ====
| |
| Kari Auri
| |
|
| |
| =====Discussion on ...=====
| |
|
| |
| {{Resolution
| |
| |Topic = Focus: proposal to how to define the focus of this variable
| |
| |Statement = 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.
| |
| |Outcome =
| |
| |Argumentation = 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.
| |
| }}
| |
|
| |
| {{Resolution
| |
| |Topic = Scope: proposal to how to define the scope
| |
| |Statement = 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.
| |
| |Outcome =
| |
| |Argumentation = 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.
| |
| }}
| |
|
| |
| {{Resolution
| |
| |Topic = Discription: some ideas of different factors (both a: direct variables and b: indicators)
| |
| |Statement = Variables
| |
|
| |
| 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
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| |Outcome =
| |
| |Argumentation =
| |
| }}
| |
|
| |
| ====Effects on economy (esp. gas energy plant) ====
| |
| Juha
| |
|
| |
| =====Discussion on effect on economy=====
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| {{Resolution
| |
| |Topic = other effects of MSWI on economical issues
| |
| |Statement = There might be other effects on economy, totally new due to the MSWI
| |
| |Outcome =
| |
| |Argumentation = Probably it could be possible to use also ash produced by MSWI? In Elimäki new factory was started where they produce forest fertilizer from the ash, which means that ash is not waste any longer but can be used (in case it is clear enough to be spread on the ground). -Sanna
| |
| }}
| |
|
| |
| ====Transportation costs of waste ====
| |
| Anne
| |
|
| |
| =====Discussion on ...=====
| |
|
| |
| {{Resolution
| |
| |Topic =
| |
| |Statement =
| |
| |Outcome =
| |
| |Argumentation =
| |
| }}
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| ====Health effects of dioxins and PM<sub>2.5</sub> ====
| |
| Anu T
| |
|
| |
| =====Discussion on short term effects of dioxins=====
| |
|
| |
| {{Resolution
| |
| |Topic = Short term effects of dioxins
| |
| |Statement = Short term effects of dioxins are irrelevant, because the question is not about acute poisonings
| |
| |Outcome = Short term effects of dioxins are irrelevant, because the question is not about acute poisonings
| |
| |Argumentation =
| |
| {{Defend|Short term effects of dioxins only occur when the acute doses exceed the current background exposures by several orders of magnitude. This kind of exposures are not possible in the case of MSWI, and they can be excluded.|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 10:33, 21 September 2006 (EEST), Anu}}
| |
| }}
| |
|
| |
| ===Miscellaneous variables===
| |
|
| |
| *Secondary effects on waste separation, recycling etc.)
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| ====Municipal solid waste production in Häme ====
| |
| Pasi K
| |
|
| |
| =====Discussion on ...=====
| |
|
| |
| {{Resolution
| |
| |Topic =
| |
| |Statement =
| |
| |Outcome =
| |
| |Argumentation =
| |
| }}
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| ====Existing MSWI plants and current plans in southern Finland ====
| |
| Marjaleena
| |
|
| |
| =====Discussion on MSWI contrained by EU-directive=====
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| {{Resolution
| |
| |Topic = MSWI contrained by EU-directive. Insert arrow in scheme.
| |
| |Statement = 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."
| |
| |Outcome =
| |
| |Argumentation = {{Defend|The MSWI in Hämeenkyrö should comply with the Incineration Directive (2000/76/EC)}}
| |
| }}
| |
|
| |
| ====Background of waste production and its relations to EU directive ====
| |
| Eva
| |
|
| |
| =====Discussion on ...=====
| |
|
| |
| {{Resolution
| |
| |Topic =
| |
| |Statement =
| |
| |Outcome =
| |
| |Argumentation =
| |
| }}
| |