Hämeenkyrö MSWI risk assessment: Indicators

From Opasnet
Revision as of 21:12, 1 January 2007 by Jouni (talk | contribs) (variables updated to new format)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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 in Hämeenkyrö due to MSWI (smells, comfort, noise)

This variable is under dispute, as there is no agreement on its actual contents. Therefore, it is presented as two different variables first, and then later merged.

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

Scope
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. 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)

Input data needed: 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

Unit

dB, indices

Result

Auris proposal

Scope
Factors or issues affecting people's living comfortability in Hämeenkyrö. 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).


References

YVA-reports and public opinion writings from the internet:

Effects of Hämeenkyrö MSWI on economy

Scope
Effects of Hämeenkyrö MSWI plant on economy. What effects does possible municipal solid waste incinerator have to the economy of Hämeenkyrö within the next 10 - 20 years? (especially gas energy plant)

Description

How does the planned new municipal solid waste incinerator affect the 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).

Input 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)

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

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

Transportation costs of waste transport at Hämeenkyrö region

Scope
Changes of waste transportation costs at Hämeenkyrö region due to the Hämeenkyrö MSWI.

Description

We focus on three different scenarios of waste transport at Hämeenkyrö region:

  • 0. Current situation: waste is transported to landfill (Tampere)
  • 1. Future situation 1: waste is transported to MSWI elsewhere
  • 2. Future situation 2: MSWI uses both munisipal solid waste and industrial solid waste and purchases the waste material at the shortest possible distance
  • 3. Future situation 3: MSWI uses only municipal solid waste and purchases the waste material further away

Scenario 0 Assumptions:

  • Pirkanmaan jätehuolto collects the waste at Hämeenkyrö and transports it to landfill at Tampre or at Nokia

Scenario 1 Assumptions:

  • Pirkanmaan jätehuolto collects the waste at Hämeenkyrö and transports it to Tampre: nearest MSWI assumed to be built in Tampere

Scenario 2 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 3: 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

References

Definition

Unit

€/year

Result

Scenario 0:

  • Waste transport costs do not change in Hämeenkyrö compared to current situation

Scenario 1:

  • Waste transport costs do not change in Hämeenkyrö compared to current situation

Scenario 2

  • 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

  • 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)


Health effects of dioxins due to Hämeenkyrö MSWI

Human health effects of dioxins. Potential short-term and long-term health effects among Hämeenkyrö inhabitants caused by dioxins originating from the Hämeenkyrö municipal solid waste incinerator.

Description

Estimated dioxin exposure levels among Hämeenkyrö inhabitants are compared with the evidence about exposure-response functions of dioxins. This comparison results in an assessment of the probable health effects among Hämeenkyrö inhabitants if MSWI plant is build.

References

See the references of the upstream variables (variables mentioned in the Definition).

Definition

Unit

cases/a

Result

Health effects of PM2.5 due to Hämeenkyrö MSWI

Human health effects of PM2.5. Potential short-term and long-term health effects among Hämeenkyrö inhabitants caused by PM2.5 originating from the Hämeenkyrö municipal solid waste incinerator.

Description

Estimated PM2.5 exposure levels among Hämeenkyrö inhabitants are compared with the evidence about exposure-response functions of PM2.5. This comparison results in an assessment of the probable health effects among Hämeenkyrö inhabitants if MSWI plant is build.


Definition

Unit

cases/a

Result

Retrieved from "https://en.opasnet.org/index.php?title=Hämeenkyrö_MSWI_risk_assessment:_Indicators&oldid=2102"