Hämeenkyrö MSWI risk assessment: Indicators

See the main page of this assessment: Hämeenkyrö MSWI risk assessment: General

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

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

Kari Auri

Well-being of the population (smells, comfort, noise), Kari's proposal

Focus:	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:	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.
Description:	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) b) noise distubance asked from local people how often people suffer from noise? continuous or episodic noise? 2 Smell/odor a) maps based on odor dispersion models b) smell information asked from local people 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 4 Scenic values a) visibility maps calculated using GIS (digital elevation model, forest data and other geograpical data) b) scenic values asked from local people (questionary) 5 Discomfort index b) index based on several questions from local people about comfortability of area (questionary) 6 Concern index (Health effects) b) index based on several questions from local people about concerns their have about the possible health effects (questionary)
Inputs:	waste collection data, emission data from plant, bird invetory and voice emission data, Indicator data from systematic post questionaries and continuous feedback forms from web-site, data from waste management processes in landfill site, questionaries & online feedback forms on the web
Index:
Definition:
Unit:	dB, indices
Result:
References:

Auris proposal

Focus:	Factors or issues affecting people's living comfortability in Hämeenkyrö.
Scope:	The basic factors, like 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.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. 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. 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 http://www.hameenkyronpolttolaitos.net/pdf/sivu2.pdf

Effects on economy (esp. gas energy plant)

Juha

Effects on economy

Focus:	What effects does possible municipal solid waste incinerator have to the economy of Hämeenkyrö
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:	Pirkanvoima - website [1], accessed in 21.9.2006 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

Transportation costs of waste

Changes of waste transportation costs at Hämeenkyrö region

Focus:	We focus on three different scenarios of waste transport at Hämeenkyrö region 1. Current situation: waste is transported to landfill (Tampere) 2. Future situation 1: waste is transported to MSWI elsewhere 3a. Future situation 2: MSWI uses both munispal slod waste and industrial solid waste and purchases the waste material at the shortest possible distance 3b. Future situation 3: MSWI uses only municipal solid waste and purchases the waste material further away
Scope:
Description:	Scenario 1 Assumptions: Pirkanmaan jätehuolto collects the waste at Hämeenkyrö and transports it to landfill at Tampre or at Nokia Scenario 2 Assumptions: Pirkanmaan jätehuolto collects the waste at Hämeenkyrö and transports it to Tampre: nearest MSWI assumed to be built in Tampere Scenario 3a Assumptions: MSWI purchases 100 000 tons of municipal solid waste/year from Pirkanmaan jätehuolto, 20000 tons of industrial waste/year from M-real and 80000 tons of industrial waste /year from solid waste treatment plant at Viljakkala waste collection and transportation costs inside the area of Pirkanmaan jätehuotlo do not change significantly if the waste is transported to Hämeenkyrö instead of Tampere and Nokia transportation costs: 0,12-0,23 €/t/km, waste collection costs inside each municipal are not counted, because they assumed to be constant in all scenarios distance between M-real plant and MSWI: 1,5 km distance between Viljakkala and MSWI : 15 km Uncertainties: this model assumes that waste of M-real plat is transported to MSWI. In reality, that could shorten the existing waste transport route solid waste treatment plant at Viljakkala is not established yet Scenario 3b: Assumptions: Sources of waste: 100 000 tons of municipal solid waste/year from Pirkanmaan jätehuolto, 100 000 tons of municipal solid waste/year from other municipals average transport distance from other municipal centres 109 km long-distance transports made by vehicle of 40 ton capacity transportation costs: 0,12-0,23 €/t/km waste collection costs inside each municipal not counted, because they assumed to be constant in all scenarios: only transportations between municipal centres are counted
Inputs:
Index:
Definition:
Unit:	€/year
Result:	Scenario 1: Waste transport costs do not change in Hämeenkyrö compared to current situation Scenario 2: Waste transport costs do not change in Hämeenkyrö compared to current situation Scenario 3a Assumed that the total municipal solid waste transportation cost does not change inside the region of Pirkanmaa jätehuolto, additional cost of waste transportation would be 0,1-0,3 milj. €/year Number of waste transport vehicles will increase by 61/day (by 122/d to both directions) Scenario 3 b Additional cost of waste transportation would be 1,2-2,4 milj. €/year Number of waste transport vehicles will increase by 53/day (by 106/d to both directions)
References:	http://www.ymparisto.fi/download.asp?contentid=37110&lan=fi http://www.ymparisto.fi/download.asp?contentid=42635&lan=fi#search=%22toivonen%20yhti%C3%B6t%22 http://lipasto.vtt.fi/yksikkopaastot/laskentaperusteet_tavaraliikenne_autoliikenne.htm

Health effects of dioxins and PM_2.5

Anu T

Health effects of dioxins and PM_2.5 (conclusion)

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:	Estimated dioxin and PM2.5 exposure levels among Hämeenkyrö inhabitants are compared with the evidence about exposure-response functions of dioxins and PM2.5. This comparison results in an assessment of the probable health effects among Hämeenkyrö inhabitants if MSWI plant is build.
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:
Result:
References:	see the references of the variables Dioxin exposure-response function on population level and PM2.5 exposure-response function on population level