Risk assessment on Hämeenkyrö municipal solid waste incinerator

Risk assessment on Hämeenkyrö municipal solid waste incinerator contains a structured risk assessment of a plan to build a MSWI in Hämeenkyrö. There will be a public vote related to a city planning decision: whether the municipality should plan an area for the plant or not. The vote will be held in November 19, 2006.

Objective

RA of Hämeenkyrö MSWI

Focus:	Health risk assessment related to the effects of the planned MSWI plant in Hämeenkyrö. (draft) D↷
Scope:	Health of the population in Hämeenkyrö especially, and in Southern Finland in general. Time scope: next 20 years (draft)D↷
Description:
Inputs:
Index:
Definition:
Unit:
Result:
References:

Empty variable template

Focus:
Scope:
Description:
Inputs:
Index:
Definition:
Unit:
Result:
References:

General variables

Optimizing rules

Focus:
Scope:
Description:	Optimizing rules, general (disagreement) Utilitarian optimizing Egalitarian optimizing Elitist optimizing
Inputs:
Index:
Definition:
Unit:
Result:
References:

1. Precautionary principle (disagreement)
   1. PP based on expected value, general
   2. PP based on worst-case or another 'conservative' scenario, general
   3. PP applied to emissions of municipal solid wasti incinerator (MSWI) in Hämeenkyrö
2. Intake fraction (disambiguation)
   1. iF based on measured concentration fields
   2. iF based on exposure monitoring
   3. iF based on shortcuts

Fine particle variables

PM_2.5 emissions in Hämeenkyrö

Päivi

PM_2.5 emissions in Hämeenkyrö

Focus:	Existing PM2.5 emissions from all the sources in Hämeenkyrö.
Scope:	Annual emissions. Emissions from the sources in Hämeenkyrö municipality area only.
Description:	PM2.5 means particles with diameter less than 2,5 µm. Generally the most important sources of these fine particles are domestic combustion and traffic. This is most likely the situation also in Hämeenkyrö which is a town of 10200 inhabitants. Industries and energy production are also important sources. There are some quite large industries and power plants (e.g. M-Real Kyro cardboard factory, Finnforest Oyj sawmill and Kyro gas power plant) that also cause fine particle emissions. (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.)
Inputs:	Baseline PM2.5 exposure in Hämeenkyrö, Well-being of the population (smells, comfort, noise)
Index:
Definition:
Unit:	tonnes/year
Result:	The sum of the emissions from all the sources (trying to find some numbers here)D↷
References:	www.hameenkyro.fi

PM_2.5 emissions from MSWI, biofuel plant, and natural gas plant in Hämeenkyrö

Tommi

Focus:	Gives PM2.5 emissions for the three power plants according to their actual/planned production
Scope:	Annual PM2.5 emissions for each power plant.
Description:	This variable gives the PM2.5 emissions separately for each of the three power plant options to be considered in the Hämeenkyrö case. The emissions are calculated based on annual activities and exact technical configurations of the power plants. The technical data are entered in the FIRE (Factor Information Retrieval) software of the US EPA to obtain Emission Estimation Factors. The annual amounts of activity (in e.g. MWh/a or MSW burned/a) are then multiplied by the EF to get annual emissions from each plant. Note: This formulation leaves room for experimenting with adjustments in the power plants (e.g. if the amount of waste burned increases). Alternatively we can just use predetermined values and calculate one single annual emission figure for each plant. (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.)
Inputs:	Planned or projected activities for each power plant and exact technical configurations of the plants. No such variables are considered in this excercise but the connections are included in the master model. If these values are fixed, these factors can be included in the calculation of this present variable.
Index:
Definition:
Unit:	t a-1
Result:
References:	http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiip/pm25inventory/concepts.html Here you can find and install the FIRE software among other things.

Baseline PM_2.5 exposure in Hämeenkyrö

Anne K

Focus:
Scope:
Description:
Inputs:
Index:
Definition:
Unit:
Result:
References:

Intake fraction for PM_2.5 emissions from Hämeenkyrö

Intake fraction for PM_2.5 emissions from Hämeenkyrö

Focus:	Intake fraction for PM2.5 emissions from Hämeenkyrö
Scope:	Emission from a high stack in Hämeenkyrö, exposed population anywhere in Europe. Exposure within one month from the emission.
Description:	Intake fraction (iF) means the fraction of an emission that is finally inhaled or ingested by a target population. There are several studies about estimates of iF for primary fine particles. These are often in the order of one in a million; values are higher for traffic than for other sources. Tainio and coworkers have estimated iFs for Finnish emissions derived from different source categories, including energy production plants. 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.
Inputs:
Index:	Particle type
Definition:
Unit:	-
Result:	Different particle types: 0.6*10-6 (primary particles) less clear but probably lower, maybe in the order of 0.1--0.5*10-6 (secondary particles)
References:	Tainio et al., Kopra project. Fine-loppuseminaari 3/2006.

Intake fraction for dioxin emissions from Hämeenkyrö

Intake fraction for dioxin emissions from Hämeenkyrö

Focus:	Intake fraction for dioxin emissions from Hämeenkyrö
Scope:	Emission from a high stack in Hämeenkyrö, exposed population anywhere in Europe. Long-term exposure, includes accumulation in food chain. 'Dioxin' means TEQs of all 17 toxic congeners, not only TCDD.
Description:	Intake fraction (iF) means the fraction of an emission that is finally inhaled or ingested by a target population. The exposure to dioxins occur after a multistep process. First, dioxins are emitted into the atmosphere often due to a combustion process. Dioxins are persistent molecules and can transfer hundreds or thousands of kilometres before depositing to water, vegetation, or soil. It absorbs tightly onto surfaces, and therefore it is rather inert if adsorbed to soil. However, when dioxins deposit to water, they enter the aquatic food chain and end up to fish. When they deposit on grass fields or crop, they typically enter the cattle feed and then milk or meat. Because of this long process including accumulation in food chain, the dioxin exposure of a population is mostly derived from other than local sources. 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.
Inputs:
Index:
Definition:
Unit:	-
Result:	3.5*10-3
References:	Margni M, Pennington DW, Amman C, Jolliet O. Evaluating multimedia/multipathway model intake fraction estimates using POP emission and monitoring data. Environ Pollut. 2004;128(1-2):263-77. 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.

PM_2.5 exposure due to MSWI in Hämeenkyrö

Terhi Y

Focus:	Describes the variables affecting the personal exposure to MSWI-produced PM2.5 (and links the exposure to dose)
Scope:	Exact numerical values would require knowledge of the meteorological, geographical etc. data of Hämeenkyrö area and extensive modeling so not included here; certain concentration assumed and dose calculated from it
Description:	Data needed to evaluate the personal exposure Data needed to model the PM2.5 concentration distribution around the MSWI: The emission produced by MSWI Stack height and location of MSWI in relation to municipality Meteorological data: average (e.g. daily) temperatures, wind speeds and directions, solar radiation etc. Geographical data: vegetation, elevations, town build, lakes etc. ... Data needed to convert exposure to dose: inhalable fraction of PM2.5 concentration of PM2.5 around the person in the locations the person moves in times spend in different locations breathing rate of the person weight of the person ... Also required: the background concentration. Some values available for comparison: Urban US highest PM2.5 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?
Inputs:
Index:
Definition:	D = ((IR)(P)(RF)(ET)(EF)(ED))/(BW)(AT) where 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)
Unit:
Result:
References:	List of references does not include articles referred to within the reference... Koistinen, Kimmo (2002). Exposure of an urban adult population to PM2.5. Methods, determination and sources. Publications of the National Public Health Institute A3/2002. 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.

PM_2.5 exposure-response function on population level

Sari

Focus:	Describes the relationship between ambient concentrations of PM2.5 and the frequency of specific health effects in a given timeperiod.
Scope:
Description:
Inputs:
Index:
Definition:
Unit:	increase in adverse health effect/ 1 ug/m3 change in PM 2.5 concentration
Result:
References:

Dioxin variables

Dioxin emissions in Hämeenkyrö

Virpi

Focus:	Dioxin emissions in Hämeenkyrö
Scope:	Annual dioxin emissions in the area of Hämeenkyrö municipality.
Description:	The name dioxin is used for the family of structurally and chemically related polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDD), polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDF), and certain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Some 419 types of dioxin-related compounds have been identified, and about 30 of these are considered to have significant toxicity. 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. Possible dioxin sources in Hämeenkyrö: Currently: the local gas power plant, traffic, domestic combustion (cardboard factory, sawmill) Future: Municipal solid waste incinerator, biofuel power plant Emission levels from some sources: Traffic Wood combustion Waste incineration
Inputs:
Index:
Definition:
Unit:	g I-TEQ/a
Result:
References:	UNEP (1999). United Nations Environment Programme. Dioxin and furan inventories, National and regional emissions of PCDD/PCDF, May 1999. http://www.oztoxics.org/ipepweb/library/DioxinInventory.pdf#search=%22dioxine%20emissions%20from%20traffic%22

Baseline dioxin exposure in Hämeenkyrö

Marjo

Focus:	Baseline dioxin exposure in Hämeenkyrö inhabitants
Scope:	The daily intake and the adipose tissue concentration of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, dibenzofurans (PCDD/Fs) and biphenyls (PCBs) in Hämeenkyrö population
Description:	Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (PCDD/Fs, "dioxins") are ubiquitously present, stable and persistent environmental contaminants. They are fat soluble and thus tend to bioaccumulate in tissue lipid and in the food chain. More than 90 % of the average human intake of dioxins originates from food, especially food of animal origin. In Finland the main source is fish, whose contribution is 72-94 % of the total PCDD/F intake via food. 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.
Inputs:	Dioxin emissions in Hämeenkyrö
Index:
Definition:
Unit:	1) Daily intake: WHO-TEQ pg/kg body weight 2) Adipose tissue concentration: WHO-TEQ pg/g fat
Result:	Average daily intake of PCDD/Fs 0.79 pg/kg bw 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.
References:	Holtta P, Kiviranta H, Leppaniemi A, Vartiainen T, Lukinmaa PL, Alaluusua S. Developmental dental defects in children who reside by a river polluted by dioxins and furans. Arch Environ Health. 2001 Nov-Dec;56(6):522-8. 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.

Dioxin exposure due to MSWI in Hämeenkyrö

Martin

Focus:
Scope:
Description:
Inputs:
Index:
Definition:
Unit:
Result:
References:

Dioxin exposure-response function on population level

Sanna

Responses of dioxin exposure on human health at the population level

Focus:	Determine health effects caused by dioxin exposure
Scope:	Dioxins are persistent environmental contaminants which accumulate and their 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).
Description:	- 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 concern than cancer
Inputs:	-Dioxin emissions and in Hämeenkyrö -population; susceptible groups, demographic data -baseline exposure level of the population
Index:
Definition:
Unit:	increased risk for developmental defects/ pg/kg body weight/ year, increased lifetime risk per pg/kg body weight OR risk / adipose tissue concentration
Result:	the most sensitive endpoints are developmental defects: according the animal data TDI is set in a range of 1-4 pg TEQs/kg bodyweight/day
References:	Tuomisto JT et al. Int J Cancer. 2004 Mar 1;108(6):893-900. 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.

Indicator variables

• Decisions related to Hämeenkyrö case
• Possible indicators (optimising variables) in Hämeenkyrö

Well-being of the population (smells, comfort, noise)

Kari Auri

Focus:	Factors or issues affecting peoples living comfortability in Hämeenkyrö.
Scope:	The basic factors, like a noise, smell, social factors, etc., that affect the comfortability of inhabitants in Hämeenkyrö. Some of these factors can be measured and some are based on a experience and/or common beliefs and thoughts of inhabitants in Hämeenkyrö, like in other places where the municipal solid waste incinerator have been planned earlier (in Viljakkala).
Description:	1.The noise: 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).
Inputs:
Index:
Definition:
Unit:
Result:
References:	YVA-reports and public opinion writings from the internet: 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

Effects on economy (esp. gas energy plant)

Juha

Effects on economy

Focus:	Factors related how plant affects to economy in Pirkanmaa and Kyrönkoski area
Scope:	10 - 20 years?
Description:	How new municipal solid waste incinerator affects to economy? Waste incinerator is going to be a quite significant employer in Hämeenkyrö. It is also noted that price of gas energy is rising so it might be necessary to build the waste incinerator to guarantee low priced energy for M-real cardboard factory and Finnforest sawmill. Shutdown of either of these factory could be devastating to Hämeenkyrö's economy (employs over 300 persons). Shutdown of gas energy plant is not crucial (employs only 24 people).
Inputs:	Data 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)
Index:
Definition:
Unit:	€ or employed persons
Result:	Worst-case scenario: 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
References:

Transportation costs of waste

Anne

Focus:
Scope:
Description:
Inputs:
Index:
Definition:
Unit:
Result:
References:

Health effects of dioxins and PM_2.5

Anu T

Health effects

Focus:	effects of dioxins and PM2.5 on human health
Scope:	potential short-term and long-term health effects among Hämeenkyrö inhabitants caused by dioxins and PM2.5 originating from the Hämeenkyrö municipal solid waste incinerator
Description:	Dioxins are a group of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and dibenzofurans (PCDFs). 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↻ ) PM2.5 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
Inputs:	Fine particle variables: PM2.5 emissions in Hämeenkyrö PM2.5 emissions from MSWI, biofuel plant, and natural gas plant in Hämeenkyrö Baseline PM2.5 exposure in Hämeenkyrö PM2.5 exposure due to MSWI in Hämeenkyrö PM2.5 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
Index:
Definition:
Unit:	Dioxins: increase in lifetime risk per pg/kg body weight PM2.5: increase in the risk of death per each 10 µg/m3 elevation in PM2.5
Result:	Dioxins 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 air pollution
References:	Crump et al. 2003. Meta-analysis of dioxin-cancer dose-response for three occupational cohorts. Environmental Health Perspectives 111 (5), 681-687. 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.

Miscellaneous variables

• Secondary effects on waste separation, recycling etc.)

Municipal solid waste production in Häme

Pasi K

Municipal solid waste production in Häme

Focus:	Total amount of municipal solid waste produced in Häme
Scope:	Describes municipal solid waste production in all over Häme and it's final destination in different parts of the providence
Description:	There is three waste management companies in Häme: 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
Inputs:	Municipal solid waste sited in 2005 to 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
Index:
Definition:
Unit:	tonnes/year and kg/person
Result:	Total municipal solid waste sited to - 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)
References:	http://www.ymparisto.fi/download.asp?contentid=3281&lan=fi http://www.phj.fi/downloadable_material/Toimintakertomus.pdf http://www.kiertokapula.fi/PDF/pdfoppaat/Toimintak_2005.pdf http://www.l-hjatehuolto.fi/VK2005.pdf

Existing MSWI plants and current plans in southern Finland

Marjaleena

Focus:	Existing MSWI plants and current plans in southern Finland
Scope:	Existing and planned MSWI plants that could be optional for Hämeenkyrö MSWI (maximum distance of 250 km)
Description:	Option 0 in the environmental impact assesment for Hämeenkyrö MSWI was not to build the plant but transport the waste to be burned elsewhere. Existing MSWI plant (capacity 50 000 t/a) is in Turku (since 1975), and more burning is planned there for 150 000 t/a. In Riihimäki the construction of 150 000 t/a plant has already begun and further away in Kotka there is environmental permit for a 80 000-100 000 t/a plant. Enviromental permits were complaint about in Lahti, Kerava and Pori and interrupted project for a while. In Jyväskylä and Seinäjoki environmental impact assesments has been done. In Pietarsaari tests for burning RDF in existing plant (refuse derived fuel)with other fuels has been done recently (capacity earlier 80 000 t/a). Also Helsinki Metropolitan Area Council (YTV)has decided to start planning a new MSWI plant, decisions about position, capasity and technique will be made in the near future.
Inputs:	Waste management options
Index:
Definition:
Unit:
Result:
References:	Uusiouutiset Vol 17(2006)2; Regional Environmental Centres (Uusimaa, Southwest Finland, Pirkanmaa, West Finland) www.ymparisto.fi; Western Finland Environmental Permit Authority www.ymparisto.fi, Helsingin sanomat 29.3.2006

Background of waste production and its relations to EU directive

Eva

EU legislation on waste incineration and landfilling. Discussion 1): insert arrow in scheme from MSWI to Constrained by EU directive. 2)insert arrow in scheme from waste management options to Constrained by EU directive. 3)Definition of waste? Defined in Finnish Waste Act(1072/1993) as "all objects or substances which the holder discards, intends to discard, or is legally obliged to discard." (4)

Focus:	Constraints on waste incineration and landfilling by EU legislation
Scope:	Municipal waste. Landfill Directive (99/31/EC). Incineration Directive (2000/76/EC)
Description:	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)
Inputs:	Related to MSWI: Air emission limit values for the incineration and co-incineration of waste. (2) 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)
Index:
Definition:	The Incineration Directive not only applies to facilities intended for waste incineration ("dedicated incineration plants") but also to "co-incineration" plants (facilities whose main purpose is to produce energy or material products and which use waste as a regular or additional fuel, this waste being thermally treated for the purpose of disposal) (2). Discussion: Is the MSWI in Hameenkyro an incineration or co-incineration plant?
Unit:
Result:	All waste disposal installations or areas are submitted to EU legislation and should comply with the imposed standards, limit values. When establishing a new installation or landfill, the application requirements should be carefully considered.
References:	(1) Waste disposal. Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste. http://europa.eu/scadplus/printversion/en/lvb/121197.htm (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.