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.)

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)

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.

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)

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.

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

Emission levels from some sources:

Traffic

Wood combustion

Waste incineration

http://www.oztoxics.org/ipepweb/library/DioxinInventory.pdf#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.

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.

elimination half life in the body is rather high (~7 years). In the exposure low doses and

high doses cause totally indifferent effects. Most probable exposures for humans from MSWI

are low dioxin exposures for a long period of time, which may affect the population

"background exposure levels" by increasing them. The most susceptible subgroups among human

population are children and young females (women at the childbearing age and before) in

addition to the subgroups in the occupational hazard or those who may get high exposures via

the food (fishermen).

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 concern than cancer

-population; susceptible groups, demographic data -baseline exposure level of the population

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

animal data TDI is set in a range of 1-4 pg TEQs/kg bodyweight/day

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.

• 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

• 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↻ )

PM_2.5 are fine particles less than 2.5 μm in diameter.

• 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
• 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

PM_2.5: increase in the risk of death per each 10 µg/m³ elevation in PM_2.5

• 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

PM_2.5

• 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

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 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.