IEHIA of waste management in Lazio (Italy)
----#: . General comments:
- You should always properly cite the original source: authors, name of article, publisher, website, and a link to the original material.
- You should use the page type templates. In this case, the page is an {{assessment}}.
- First, you can copy-paste and save the text as it was in the source. Then, open the page again start editing and adding formatting. This way, it is easier to see what was changed compared with the original text.
- If possible and practical, use the headings used in Opasnet. Also reorder the text so that it matches the Opasnet structure. --Jouni 15:52, 8 September 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
----#: . Specific comments about the waste management case:
- You should take the material until page 41 (Annex 1 included).
- Although I said that don't include tables, I did not mean the one huge table on pages 6-36. That contains the actual substance of the assessment.
- Take also the following tables that contain key inputs or results: Table 1, Table 3, Table 8, Table 10, Table 11.
- The causal diagram on page 37 is the only essential figure, take that into Opasnet. --Jouni 15:52, 8 September 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)
The potential environmental and health effects of waste management of municipal solid waste (MSW) are poorly understood, especially when the different aspects of the full chain process (waste production, collection, transport, recycling, treatment, disposal) are taken into consideration. A prognostic assessment was carried out in Lazio (a region in Central Italy with about 5.5 million inhabitants including Rome) by comparing two future waste management scenarios based on appropriate sustainable measures to the baseline situation representing the business as usual situation. We evaluated the 2008 baseline scenario (BS) and two alternative 2016 scenarios, Waste Strategy (WS) and Green Policy (GP). In the first alternative scenario (WS), waste management was modified because of an increase in recycling/composting, different waste flows, cleaner transportation, new management plants and no landfilling without pretreatment. In the second alternative scenario (GP), an additional drastic reduction in the total amount of waste was foreseen together with a very high recycling rate.
Result
Waste management and emissions At the baseline the total volume of waste produced was 3.330 mTonnes, of which 0.593 was recycled/composed, 1.902 was landfilled without pretreatment, and 0.835 was managed with Mechanical and Biological Treatment (with production of Refuse Derived Fuels (RDFs) for incineration). Under the Waste strategy, the recycling/composting rate will be increased up to 60% and no landfill will be in use without pre-treatment. Under the Green policy, the amount of waste production will decrease to 15% and recycling/composting rate will increase to 70%. A considerable decrease (up to 90%) will be seen for most of the emitted pollutants (for instance particulate matter (PM) emissions will go from 17.9 to 6.6 and 4.13 tonnes/year for the three scenarios, respectively)
Population A total of 36,191 people were living nearby MSW facilities at baseline (23,917 close
to the two incinerators, 2,345 close to MBTs, and 9,929 close to landfills). With the Waste
strategy, the number of people living close to plants will increase to 51,639 subjects, mainly
due to the introduction of new incinerators (from 23,917 to 39,284 subjects). On the other
hand, the Green policy will decrease to 14,606 the population involved with an important
reduction of people residents close to incinerators and landfills. Important differences by
socioeconomic status were present at baseline, with people of lower socioeconomic status
being relatively more exposed to waste management than more affluent people. In addition to
the general population, waste workers were estimated: about 10,000 for the baseline and the
Waste strategy whereas the number will decrease to about 8,300 workers under the Green
Strategy.
Pollution from transport and management plants. At baseline, a total of 18,916 journeys of
trucks per year were necessary in Rome for the transfer of waste from the resident areas to the
management facilities. Under the baseline scenario, about 10 millions Kilometers per year were
travelled. In the Waste strategy, the number of journeys and the kilometers traveled are reduced of 37.2% and 38.2%, respectively. The reduction was even more radical in the Green
policy scenario, with a reduction of 65.3% in journeys and 64.5% in kilometers travelled. The
contribution of waste transport to the average annual concentration of NO2 in Rome was 0.0199
Cg/m3 at baseline, 0.00198 Cg/m3 with waste strategy and 0.00118 Cg/m3 with the green policy
with an important reduction of the population weighted exposure (-90%, -95 %, respectively).
Estimated annual average concentrations of air pollutants emitted from the plants in the
vicinity of landfills and incineration plants were rather small. The population weighted NO2
(and PM10) exposure levels were also relatively low, ranging from 0.05 to 0.7 Cg/m3for landfills
and 0.03 to 0.06 Cg/m3 for incinerators.
Attributable cases An annual frequency of 243 occupational injuries in the waste sector was
estimated, with 0.8 fatalities each year; the absolute number of accidents will decrease in the
Green Policy because of the reduction of the manpower. The impact of transport of waste on
the population of Rome could be estimated in 561 (related to NO2 exposure) and 14 (related to
PM exposure) Years of Life Lost (YLL) at baseline; the impact as YLLs decreases to 50 and 1
(Waste strategy) and to 29 and 0 (Green policy), respectively. For MBTs, the prevalence of
subjects with severe odours annoyance (about 130 subjects) and the prevalence of people with
respiratory symptoms attributable to the plants (about 500 subjects) was constant in all the
scenarios. For incinerators, the cumulative incidence of attributable cancer cases over the 35
year period was 7.5, 11.7and 2.5 in the three scenarios, respectively. A total of 10 YLL (NO2)
attributable to incinerators were estimated at baseline. The number increased to 15.9 YLL with
the waste strategy and decreased to 9.6 with the green policy. The YLL attributable to PM
were very small. For landfills, low birth weight cumulative incidence was 8.3 newborns
(baseline and waste strategy) and 2.8 in the green policy. The cumulative incidence of
congenital anomalies was of 0.3 subject (baseline and waste strategy) and 0.1 for the green
policy. The health impact of landfills as YLL was 17.9 (NO2) estimated at baseline and with
waste strategy and a decrease to 12.4 with the green policy. The prevalence of severe odours
annoyance and respiratory symptoms assessed for residents at 200 meters from the landfills,
were the same (54 and 424, respectively) at the baseline and with the waste strategy while a
decrease to 19 and 147 were predicted with the green policy.
DALYS The most important health impact of waste management was occupational accidents,
responsible of about 40,000 DALYs for the baseline and the Waste strategy while the impact
decreases to 33,000 DALYs with the Green policy. For the general population, a total of about
3000, 2500, and 1600 DALYs were estimated under the different scenarios, respectively. The
largest contribution to DALYs for the general population was from respiratory symptoms (about
90%) and odour annoyance; the contribution from the other health disorders was small.
Methods
The population under evaluation were residents in Lazio, and, in particular, people living in Rome potentially exposed to exhaust fumes from waste collection and transport. We also considered the population living close to Mechanical and Biological Treatment (MBT) plants (200 meters), landfills (2 km) and incinerators (3 km) as well as workers in the waste industry for the risk of occupational accidents. Pollutants from transport, emissions from incineration, and combustion of landfills biogas were evaluated. Concentrations of specific pollutants (PM10 and NO2) were modeled using ad hoc GIS models and the ADMS-Urban model. Population weighted exposure levels were calculated. Concentration-response functions were derived from systematic reviews of the literature. Cases of specific diseases and disorders attributable to waste management (incidence of cancer, newborns of low-birth weight, congenital anomalies, and prevalence of respiratory disorders and odour annoyance), Years of Life Lost (YLL), and Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) were estimated for the 35-year period from 2016 to 2050.
Boundaries
* Boundaries define which parts of the reality are taken into the assessment and which are excluded within
spatial, temporal and other dimensions.
Scenarios
* Scenarios define particular conditions that are of interest irrespective whether they describe
reality or not (e.g. what-if scenarios).
Intended users
* Intended users are those for whom the assessment is made.
Participants
* Participants are those who may participate in the making of the assessment.
The minimum group of people for a successful assessment is always described.
If some groups must be excluded, this must be explicitly motivated.
Definition
Upload a causal diagram and change the right name here.
Decision variables
* Decision variables: decisions that are considered.
Indicators
* Indicators: outcome variables of interest.
Value variables
* Value variables: value judgements (usually about indicators).
Other variables
* Other variables: any variables that link to the causal network and are within the boundaries of the assessment.
Analyses
* Analyses: statistical and other analyses that contain two or more variables, e.g. optimizing.
Indices
* Indices: lists of particular locations along spatial, temporal, or other dimensions.
Result
* Results of indicators and assessment-specific analyses.
Results
Conclusions
* Conclusions are based on the results, given the scope.