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.
⇤--#: . Although the original document has everything in a huge table, use standard headings instead of a table here. Only Table 1, Table 3, Table 8, Table 10, and Table 11 should be formatted as tables. --Jouni 10:21, 13 September 2011 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
Types of Assesment
Description
Management of municipal solid waste (MSW) can be a significant source of environmental contamination and thus of human exposure to pollutants, especially for those living in close proximity to management plants (i.e. incinerators and landfills). Exposures may also occur more widely as a result of collection and transportation of waste using heavy duty diesel vehicles. The health impact of some exposures has been evaluated in epidemiological studies with controversial results (Porta et al, 2009). In addition, workers may suffer from occupational injuries during the collection and transportation phases, the general population may be annoyed from odours and concerns about health effects may cause environmental worry. Several additional aspects complicate the issue, including compliance with new EU legislation (aimed at waste reduction, reuse, recycling, and landfills closure), conflicting interests of the stakeholders and communities concerns. In the European Union, we can expect substantial changes in the coming years, as government policies need to change and industry and communities will most certainly face new economic circumstances and environmental conditions. Future changes in waste management may therefore have significant implications for human exposure and health, and may raise public anxiety. The key question remain, namely what are the environmental and health impacts for the general population of changes in waste management systems in the European Union over the foreseeable future.
The overall aim of this case study was to assess potential exposures and health effects arising from MSW throughout their lifecycle, from collection to disposal or treatment under different scenarios. Following the methods and the lessons learned in the diagnostic assessment for the year 2001 performed in the three countries(Italy, England and Slovakia) INTARESE study (Forastiere et al, 2009), we have conducted a prognostic assessment in the Lazio region of Italy (about five million inhabitants including the city of Rome). In our assessment model, we evaluated the environmental and health impact of different policies for MSW, considering a baseline scenario for the year 2008 and two alternative scenarios for 2016. In our assessment we evaluate MSW collection and transport, mechanical and biological treatment(MBT) and incineration plants and landfills. In this integrated assessment, different exposures and health effects were under considerations including pollutants from transport, emissions from incineration and combustion of landfills biogas, and occupational injuries.
Type of assessment
A prognostic assessment was carried out by comparing two future waste management scenarios based on appropriate sustainable measure to the baseline situation representing the business as usual situation. The alternative scenarios were based on the assumption that prescriptive norms will change the situation with regards to waste production, collection, transportation, treatment and disposal.
The assessment considered the downstream impacts of these norms and conditions on exposure and health, but did not consider how the conditions would be achieved (e.g. what technological or socio-economic changes would be necessary and their costs), nor the implications of these changes. We focused only on the direct effects of policy actions, but in evaluating the consequence of these actions we developed predictive scenarios with relatively detailed indications of how the system will change under a set of assumptions, in particular environmental conditions, human exposures, health effects.
In Lazio, the baseline scenario (“business as usual”) is the situation in 2008, whereas in the first alternative scenario (Lazio Wastes trategy) management of waste is changed because of increase in recycling/composting rate, different waste flows, new management plants and no landfilling without pre-treatment. In the second alternative scenario (Green policy), an additional drastic reduction in the total amount of waste is foreseen together with a very high recycling rate.
Scenario(s)
The assessment assumes that in Lazio the 2008 baseline situation remains the same in 2016 with identical amount of waste produced with no waste prevention program in operation. Waste collection is performed with highly polluting diesel trucks (Euro 2) using street bins with very low recycling and composting rates. A total of 7 MBTs are operating and 2 incinerators burn refuse-derived fuel (RDF) produced in MBTs; a total of 9 landfills are operating where waste disposal occurs mostly without pretreatment.
The alternative scenario is taken from the regional waste plan proposed by the Regional Government in 2010 (Waste Strategy) which considers the period up to 2016 and foresees an increase in recycling and composting rate up to 60% using door to door collection of waste. The strategy is intended to recover the material (especially paper and glass), and to use various MBT processes to turn mixed wastes into a Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) for energy recovery through incineration/gasification. In 2016, only stabilized organic fraction after composting will reach landfills and iron and metals will be separated. The increasing recovery of materials will reduce the use of landfills and they will not accept waste without pre-treatment. According to the plan, 6 new plants for processing waste (2 gasification plants and 6 new MBTs)will be built by 2016, while the number of landfills will remain unchanged. As for the waste collection system, a “door to door” selective waste collection will be implemented to reduce the unsorted waste production, and to increase the selective waste collection. Regarding waste transportation, special attention will be given to the renewal of the trucks collecting bins that will be smaller and less polluting vehicles. For example, in the historic centre of the city of Rome waste collection will be performed by electric vehicles, while in the remaining parts of the city both natural gas vehicles and low emission diesel vehicles will be used. For a portion of the city of Rome, waste transportation will be performed by trains from an intermediate station to the final destination. Waste collection and treatment can have an effect on occupational health and on injuries rates among workers. In theory, when planning collection systems, special care should will be taken to avoid heavy lifting and strain from handling containers, as well as the prevention of injuries at incineration, composting or recycling plants.
The most sustainable scenario is the Green police where a radical application of the EU waste hierarchy principles of reduction of waste (-15% over baseline), high recycling/composting rates (70%) and progressive closure of landfills are applied. Waste prevention will be a key factor: if the amount of waste generated in the first place is reduced and sorted in the appropriate way for recycling, then disposing of it will automatically become simpler. As a consequence, in the green scenario there will be a reduction in the number of the operating plants: incinerators, landfills and MBTS in Lazio will be 2, 6, and 7, respectively. The criteria for which some plants will be closed are based on the amount of people resident nearby, emission levels, and year of the plant activation. In addition, in the large central area of the city within the railway ring, waste collection and transportation will be performed with electric vehicles.
Table 1: Key aspects of the Lazio Waste Scenarios
| Baseline 2006 | Waste Strategy 2016 | Green policy 2016 |
|---|---|---|
| Waste Prevention: No
Recycling and composting:17.8% |
Waste Recommended: No
Recycling and composting:59.5% |
Waste Prevention: Recommended and Enforced (15% over baseline)
Recycling and composting: 70% |
| Waste Collection System: Mostly by bins and trucks | Waste Collection system: Mostly by bins, trucks and "door to door" | Waste Collection System: Mostly by "door to door" |
| Recycling: Street collection of glass and paper | Recycling: door to door collection of glass and paper | Recycling: door to door collection of glass and paper, centralized collection at recycling centers |
| vehicle fleet: diesel trucks; trains | vehicle fleet: electric and low emissions vehicles; trains. Electric vehicles in the central area (District 1). | vehicle fleet: electric and low emissions vehicles; trains. Electric vehicles in the large central area (Railway ring). |
| Mechanical Biological Treatment: 30.5% | Mechanical Biological Treatment: 100% | Mechanical Biological Treatment: 100% |
| landfill without pretreatment: 69.4% | landfill without pretreatment: 0% | landfill without pretreatment: 0% |
| waste management facilities: 2 incinerators,9 landfills, and 7 MBTs | waste management facilities: 4 incinerators, 9 landfills, and 13 MBTs | waste management facilities: 2 incinerators, 6 landfills, and 7 MBTs |
| occupational health program | Improved occupational health program | Improved occupational health program |
Study area(s)
The study was carried out for the Region of Lazio (Central Italy, it includes the city of Rome) with 5,561,017 inhabitants (as at January 1st 2008). Lazio is characterized by a strong heterogeneity in the distribution of population: more than 75% of residents are concentrated in the province of Rome, particularly in the city of Rome where about 2.7 million people live (49% of regional population). However, most of the municipalities (54% of total) have less than 3.000 inhabitants, with only 13.2% of municipalities having more than 15.000 residents. The Lazio average density is 323 inhabitants/km2, higher than the national density (199inhabitants/km2) Population data at the smallest unit of aggregation for census 2001 were available in Lazio by census block (CB) (total of 27,875 CB (mean 183, SD 234 inhabitants per unit).
The Lazio road system is a radial system with Rome as the central point. A system of crossroads provides interconnection between different parts of the region. The radial structure is also recognizable in the rail network.
Dates/time periods
Since the scenarios will be fully operating in 2016, we decided to perform the assessment considering the 35-year period 2016-2050 for the calculation of the health impact. In particular, for the calculation of the effect of transportation on survival(and Years of Life Lost – YLL- and Disability Adjusted Life Years- DALY), we assumed that the exposure to trucks emissions will be operating for the period 2016-2030 (and health effects were calculated up to 2050). Similarly, we assumed that incinerators/gasification plants operating in 2016 will be operating until 2030 and the health effects were estimated up to 2050. For landfills operating in 2016, we assumed that the emissions will last up to 2045 (30 years) and the effects on newborns were calculated up to then (an assumption in agreement with the available knowledge that land-filled biodegradable waste starts to emit bio-gas a few years after deposit and continues to do so for several decades).
Study population(s)
We performed the assessment for different sectors of the Lazio population. For the effects of emissions of transport, we considered the entire population of the Rome urban area (about 2.5 million inhabitants at the 2001 Census). According to the same 2001 Census data there were 12,041 workers employed in the waste industry in Lazio, and we considered for the baseline evaluation that 80% were blue collar workers (9,633) potentially at risk of occupational injuries. The dimension of this occupational group has been changed for the two alternative scenarios proportionally to the amount of waste produced. For the general population, we considered for the assessment residents living 3 km from incinerators, 2 km from landfills and 200 meters from MBTs. People were identified as living within the census blocks on the basis of the GIS data. Specific sex and age (5 year bands) groups were considered for specific health outcomes and the population was further divided in a five-level areabased index of socioeconomic status (SES). The index was developed by census block using the 2001 census data of Lazio, similar to the method previously developed for the city of Rome (Cesaroni et al, 2006). We considered census information that represented various socioeconomic parameters: occupation, education, housing tenure, family composition, and foreign status. We performed a factor analysis to create a composite indicator, and we used the quintiles of its distribution in census blocks to obtain a 5-level area-based index.
Exposures/risk factors
The following pollutants/factors were included within the scope of this assessment:
- Particulates and gases (PM10, NO2) � from transport, incinerators, landfills engines.
- Dioxins and other combustion products� from incinerators.
- Bioaerosols (endotoxins) to MBTs and landfills