Literature DB >> 17379391

Options for management of municipal solid waste in New York City: a preliminary comparison of health risks and policy implications.

Pearl Moy1, Nikhil Krishnan, Priscilla Ulloa, Steven Cohen, Paul W Brandt-Rauf.   

Abstract

Landfill disposal and waste-to-energy (WTE) incineration remain the two principal options for managing municipal solid waste (MSW). One critical determinant of the acceptability of these options is the different health risks associated with each. In this analysis relying on published data and exposure modeling, we have performed health risk assessments for landfill disposal versus WTE treatment options for the management of New York City's MSW. These are based on the realistic scenario of using a waste transfer station (WTS) in Brooklyn and then transporting the untreated MSW by truck to a landfill in Pennsylvania or using a WTE facility in Brooklyn and then transporting the resultant ash by truck to a landfill in Pennsylvania. The overall results indicate that the individual cancer risks for both options would be considered generally acceptable, although the risk from landfilling is approximately 5 times greater than from WTE treatment; the individual non-cancer health risks for both options would be considered generally unacceptable, although once again the risk from landfilling is approximately 5 times greater than from WTE treatment. If one considers only the population in Brooklyn that would be directly affected by the siting of either a WTS or a WTE facility in their immediate neighborhood, individual cancer and non-cancer health risks for both options would be considered generally acceptable, but risks for the former remain considerably higher than for the latter. These results should be considered preliminary due to several limitations of this study such as: consideration of risks only from inhalation exposures; assumption that only volume and not composition of the waste stream is altered by WTE treatment; reliance on data from the literature rather than actual measurements of the sites considered, assuming comparability of the sites. However, the results of studies such as this, in conjunction with ecological, socioeconomic and equity considerations, should prove useful to environmental managers, regulators, policy makers, community representatives and other stakeholders in making sound and acceptable decisions regarding the optimal handling of MSW.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17379391      PMCID: PMC2262934          DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.01.032

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Environ Manage        ISSN: 0301-4797            Impact factor:   6.789


  10 in total

1.  Health risk assessment of a modern municipal waste incinerator.

Authors:  C Boudet; D Zmirou; M Laffond; F Balducci; J L Benoit-Guyod
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 4.000

2.  Regulatory framework for the thermal treatment of various waste streams.

Authors:  C C Lee; G L Huffman; Y L Mao
Journal:  J Hazard Mater       Date:  2000-08-28       Impact factor: 10.588

3.  Heat treatment of incinerator retired sorbents containing heavy metals.

Authors:  B C Chiang; M Y Wey; S M Huang
Journal:  Sci Total Environ       Date:  2001-06-12       Impact factor: 7.963

Review 4.  Health hazards and waste management.

Authors:  Lesley Rushton
Journal:  Br Med Bull       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 4.291

5.  Blood lead levels in incinerator workers.

Authors:  R Malkin; P Brandt-Rauf; J Graziano; M Parides
Journal:  Environ Res       Date:  1992-10       Impact factor: 6.498

6.  Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin and dibenzofuran concentrations in serum samples of workers at an infectious waste incineration plant in Japan.

Authors:  Shinji Kumagai; Shigeki Koda
Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 2.155

7.  Memory effect on the dioxin emissions from municipal waste incinerator in Taiwan.

Authors:  M B Chang; J J Lin
Journal:  Chemosphere       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 7.086

8.  PCDD/F concentrations in soil and vegetation in the vicinity of a municipal waste incinerator after a pronounced decrease in the emissions of PCDD/Fs from the facility.

Authors:  J L Domingo; M Schuhmacher; J M Llobet; L Müller; J Rivera
Journal:  Chemosphere       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 7.086

9.  Exposure assessment of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (PCDD/Fs) in temporary municipal-waste-incinerator maintenance workers before and after annual maintenance.

Authors:  Tung S Shih; Hsiu L Chen; Yei L Wu; Yun C Lin; Ching C Lee
Journal:  Chemosphere       Date:  2006-02-23       Impact factor: 7.086

10.  Health risk assessment of emissions of dioxins and furans from a municipal waste incinerator: comparison with other emission sources.

Authors:  Montse Meneses; Marta Schuhmacher; José L Domingo
Journal:  Environ Int       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 9.621

  10 in total
  1 in total

1.  Solid waste composition and the properties of biodegradable fractions in Izmir City, Turkey: an investigation on the influencing factors.

Authors:  Ayşenur Bölükbaş; Görkem Akıncı
Journal:  J Environ Health Sci Eng       Date:  2018-09-26
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.