Environmental Health Issues in Solid Waste Management Alan Eschenroeder, Ph.D. and Katherine von Stackelberg, S.M. Harvard School of Public Health 18 November.

Environmental Health Issues in Solid Waste Management

Alan Eschenroeder, Ph.D. and Katherine von Stackelberg, S.M.Harvard School of Public Health

18 November 2002

A Four Step Policy Hierarchy inA Four Step Policy Hierarchy in Municipal Waste Management Municipal Waste Management

Analyses Compare Landfill with CombustionAnalyses Compare Landfill with CombustionTwo size scales; Two technology scenariosTwo size scales; Two technology scenarios

Microscale: Local human health impacts Macroscale: Global climate change impacts Current regulation defines technology level. Pollution prevention determines technology level.

Waste Stream for Both FacilitiesWaste Stream for Both Facilities

Source reduction and recycling are constant. 2000 tpd of MSW stays level through 30 years. Both have a post-closure period of 70 years.

Health Risk MethodologyHealth Risk Methodologyfor Both Facilitiesfor Both Facilities

Identify hazards, and characterize emissions. Assess dose-response relationships. Assess human exposures through various routes. Characterize health risks. Follow EPA protocol for analyzing risk.

Contemporary Landfill Scenarios:Contemporary Landfill Scenarios:Present Regulation: Subtitle D - “dry tomb”Present Regulation: Subtitle D - “dry tomb”

Pollution Prevention: Leachate recycling - “wet cell”Pollution Prevention: Leachate recycling - “wet cell”

Contemporary Combustor Scenarios:Contemporary Combustor Scenarios:Present regulation: Max. Available Control Tech.Present regulation: Max. Available Control Tech.

Pollution Prevention: Energy Answers SystemPollution Prevention: Energy Answers System

The risk analysis includes many pathways.The risk analysis includes many pathways.

The landfill generates gas for a long time.The landfill generates gas for a long time.

How do health risks compare?How do health risks compare?landfill versus combustion assuming equal recyclinglandfill versus combustion assuming equal recycling

Most of the landfill risk is in groundwaterMost of the landfill risk is in groundwater

Compare climate change impactsCompare climate change impacts

Calculate GHG emissions over a 100 year period Model CO2 atmospheric response from IPCC data

CH4, N2O, and CFC removal follow IPCC kinetics

Obtain radiative forcing histories for both facilities

Cases Studied in Climate Change AnalysisCases Studied in Climate Change Analysis

Case 1: Landfill (LF) with no gas collection; neither landfill or resource recovery (RR) is credited for displacing fossil fuel power plants.

Case 2: LF collects its gas; both LF and RR receive fossil fuel emission displacement credits.

Case 3: Identical to Case 1 except both LF and RR receive biogenic carbon discounts.

Case 4: Identical to Case 2 except both LF and RR receive biogenic carbon discounts.

How do IPCC biogenic discounts work?How do IPCC biogenic discounts work?

Materials of recent biogenic origin are credited by assuming that the CO2 emitted cancels out that taken up in the plant of origin

Bioreactive wastes include paper, paperboard, wood products natural fiber, food waste and yard trimmings.

Materials of not-so-recent biogenic origin are not credited. Nonreactive materials include fossil fuels, plastics, synthetic

fibers, rubber and leather [Aren’t cows and rubber trees recent enough?].

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 20 40 60 80 100

Time - yrs

Ann

ual R

adia

tive

For

cing

- w

/km

2̂

LF

RR

Climate Change Comparison: Case 1without energy credits LF/RR=115

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 20 40 60 80 100

Time - yrs

Ann

ual R

adia

tive

For

cing

- w

/km

2̂

LF

RR

Climate Change Comparison: Case 2with energy credits LF/RR=45

Climate Change for Four CasesClimate Change for Four Casesin terms of watt-years/ square kilometerin terms of watt-years/ square kilometer

Case Landfill ResRecov LF/RR

1 2528 22 115

2 635 14 45

3 2523 4.1 613

4 632 2.3 276

Concluding ObservationsConcluding Observations

Health concerns drive opposition to combustion. Health risk usually is not considered for landfills. Combustion wins out over landfills on health risk

especially if groundwater quality is a factor. The climate change impacts of combustors are

significantly less than those caused by landfills. Climate change issues are still being debated.

Environmental Health Research NeedsEnvironmental Health Research Needs

Improved communication of relative risks and social tradeoffs among alternative outcomes

Modeling and risk comparisons for fine particle health impacts of waste management facilities

Gas / particle partitioning of dioxins in plume and ambient environments

Reexamination of global warming potentials under scenarios of continuous rather than puff emissions

Carbon Balance on Landfilled Waste

Carbon Sequestration by Forest Products

Geochemical Carbon Cycle Time Scales