The impact measure of solid waste management on health: the hazard index
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Ann Ist Super Sanità 2010 | Vol. 46, No. 3: 293-298 293
DOI: 10.4415/ANN_10_03_12
The impact measure of solid waste
Environmental Issues of Health Concern
management on health: the hazard index
Loredana Musmeci, Mirella Bellino, Maria Rita Cicero, Fabrizio Falleni,
Augusta Piccardi and Stefania Trinca
Dipartimento di Ambiente e Connessa Prevenzione Primaria, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy
Summary. The risk associated with waste exposure depends on the level of emissions arising from
waste disposal and from the effects of these emissions on human health (dose-reponse). In 2007 an epi-
demiological study was conducted in two Italian provinces of the Campania Region, namely Naples
and Caserta, with the aim of assessing the health effects deriving from exposure to waste. In these
studies, the important aspect is the population exposure assessment, in relation to the different types
of waste disposal. The Regional Agency for Environmental Protection (ARPA Campania) has identi-
fied and characterized the various authorized/unauthorized dumping sites in the provinces of Naples
and Caserta. Most of the waste disposals used are illegal and invisible (sunken or buried); thus, the
toxic substances therein contained are unknown and difficult to identify. In order to locate the possible
areas exposed to a higher waste-related health risk, a synthetical “hazard index” (at the municipality
level) was designed. By means of GIS, the number of waste impact areas was identified for each of
the 196 municipalities in the two provinces; then, Census data (ISTAT 2001) was used to estimate the
proportion of the population living in the impact areas. The synthetical hazard index at municipality
level accounts for three elements: a) the intrinsic characterization of the waste disposal, determining
the way in which the pollutant is released; b) the impact area of the dumping site (within 1 km radius),
same areas are influenced by more than one site; c) the density of the population living in the “impact
area” surrounding the waste disposal site.
Key words: waste disposal, environmental exposure, risk assessment, hazard index.
Riassunto (La misura di impatto della gestione dei rifiuti solidi sulla salute: l’indice di pericolo). Il rischio
correlato all’esposizione a rifiuti dipende dal livello di emissioni, provenienti dai siti di smaltimento e
dagli effetti di tali emissioni sulla salute umana (dose-risposta). Nel 2007 è stato realizzato uno studio
epidemiologico di mortalità nelle due province di Napoli e Caserta (Regione Campania) con lo scopo di
valutare gli effetti sanitari, derivanti dall’esposizione a rifiuti. In questo tipo di studio, un aspetto impor-
tante è la stima dell’esposizione della popolazione in relazione alle diverse tipologie di siti di smaltimento
presenti sul territorio, è stato pertanto elaborato un “indice di pericolo” sintetico (a livello comunale) allo
scopo di localizzare nei 196 comuni delle province di Napoli e Caserta le possibili aree esposte a rischio
sanitario da rifiuti. Nel caso specifico, i siti di smaltimento censiti dall’ARPA Campania, sia di tipo au-
torizzato, sia illegale, di diverse dimensione e contenenti composizioni di rifiuti di varia natura sono stati
classificati in base alla loro potenziale pericolosità. Per mezzo del GIS, per ciascuno dei 196 comuni è
stato individuato il numero di aree di impatto attribuibili ai siti presenti e, usando i dati del Censimento
ISTAT (2001), è stata stimata la percentuale di popolazione residente nelle aree di impatto. “L’indice di
pericolo” a livello comunale è stato determinato sulla base di tre elementi: le caratteristiche intrinseche
del sito di smaltimento; l’area di impatto del sito di smaltimento (entro 1 km di raggio); la densità della
popolazione residente in ciascuna area di impatto.
Parole chiave: smaltimento rifiuti, esposizione ambientale, valutazione del rischio, indice di pericolo.
INTRODUCTION
In recent decades several studies have reported the human health. In addition if the waste disposals are
effects of waste exposure on health. A wide range illegal they are likely to contain highly hazardous
of toxic substances can be released into the environ- compounds resulting from industrial activities (e.g.
ment from waste disposal sites, for example, meth- nuclear discharges, asbestos, lead).
ane, carbon dioxide, benzene and cadmium. Many Two main health outcomes have been found to be
of these pollutants have been shown to be toxic for statistically associated with waste exposure: cancer
Address for correspondence: Loredana Musmeci, Dipartimento di Ambiente e Connessa Prevenzione Primaria, Istituto
Superiore di Sanità, Viale Regina Elena 299, 00161 Rome, Italy. E-mail: loredana.musmeci@iss.it.294 Loredana Musmeci, Mirella Bellino, Maria Rita Cicero, et al.
and congenital malformations. Hazardous waste has nature and dimensions, sometimes very close to
Environmental Issues of Health Concern
been shown to influence the likelihood of develop- each other, in an area characterized by either a
ing lung, brain cancer, bladder and lung cancer [1, 2] high or very high population density. Therefore,
living close to a waste disposal site is also associated our choice criterion was to select population liv-
with a significant increase in congenital anomalies. ing really close to the sites, according to a common
As of late, Campania, a Region of Southern Italy, epidemiological approach to high-risk groups. As a
has been a scene of controversy concerning waste result, an area 1 km in range around each site has
disposal and treatment. Resident people and health been chosen since it ensures an adequate statistical
authorities are more and more worried, while a power.
heavy demand for new plants is in progress. Indeed, Outcomes from the above analysis, performed on
the regional administration is dealing with a rear- all 196 municipalities in the Provinces of Naples and
rangement of the waste-disposal system following Caserta, represented a basis for recent epidemiologi-
recent emergencies. Moreover, the regional terri- cal studies [7, 8] in order to assess adverse effects of
tory houses some areas which have to be reclaimed the presence waste on the environment and resident
as requested by a ministerial decree; precisely, in population.
Agro Aversano and along Domitia-Flegrea seacoast The impact chain starts when waste enters the
various sites of uncontrolled waste-abandonment landfill or is abandoned illegally in the soil or in
have been identified and assessed by the Campania the water. Depending on the intrinsic quality of
Region’s Environmental Protection Agency (ARPA the waste and on the density of the population
Campania) [3, 4]; many of them contain hazardous in the surrounding area, hazardous emission will
industrial substances. Here the spreading of unau- be released into the environment affecting human
thorized dumping sites has started in the ‘80s and health. According to previous studies in Campania,
goes on. the health risk due to environmental hazards aris-
So one important issue in environmental matters ing from waste exposure is confined to the two
is waste disposal. Accordingly it is desirable to start provinces of Naples and Caserta, where most of
assessing possible consequences from population the illegal dumping sites are located. The dumping
exposure to emissions from unauthorized dumping sites in Naples and Caserta differ in dimension and
sites and plants for disposal and treatment of urban composition. In addition, most of these waste dis-
solid waste and hazardous substances. posals are illegal and not visible (sunken or buried)
A working group including World Health organi- thus the toxic substances that the disposals contain
zation (WHO), National Research Council (CNR), are not known and are difficult to identify. In order
Istituto Superiore di Sanità (ISS), Department of to map the possible areas exposed to a higher waste
Civil Protection (DCP), Campania Regional epi- related health risk, a synthetical hazard index (HI)
demiologic Observatory (OER) and Campania was developed.
Region’s Environmental Protection Agency (ARPA
Campania) has been assigned the task of check-
ing whether and how waste treatment in Campania METHODS
could have adverse effects on environment and The analysis of influence of polluting sources on
public health. Its work has partly dealt with epi- the territory and people has been organized into the
demiological investigations on mortality and con- following steps.
genital anomalies in municipalities belonging to
the Provinces of Naples and Caserta. At the same Characterization of waste disposal
time, risk and exposure assessment relative to the and abandonment sources and assignment
presence of storage, treatment, illegal disposal and of a hazard index (HI) to sites
dumping sites of hazardous and urban waste has On the basis of the data regarding waste disposal
been worked out by implementing data dating back plants and unauthorised dumping grounds (from
to the period 1997-2003 and coming from various 1997 to 2003) [3, 4], and after a thorough validation
administrations in a dedicated geo-database, so to of the georeferenciation process, 140 sites were cho-
extract “synthetical descriptive indexes” measuring sen in the province of Caserta and 86 in the province
position-variability of such sites and of their poten- of Naples.
tial health impact. Selected sites have been further classified accord-
The described approach has been used in many ing to their hazard level (HI hazard index) taking
geographical-epidemiological studies on health ef- into account site nature (dumping and storage sites,
fects deriving from the presence of waste; it con- slagheaps, submerged waste, uncontrolled waste
sists in evaluating population exposure on the basis abandonment, etc.), legal status (authorized or non-
of their distance from landfills. Recent specialized authorized sites), waste volume and nature, and pol-
literature suggests that the range of influence con- lutant emission-mode (Figure 1).
sidered varies from 2 to 4 km [2, 5, 6]. But these The assignment criterion rested mainly upon envi-
studies are about dumping sites containing either ronmental impact on water, air and soil of storage-
hazardous or special large-sized waste. We rather treatment-disposal-abandonment fashion concern-
aim to analyze an ensemble of sites, diversified in ing hazardous and urban waste.Hazard index in waste management 295
According to the above-mentioned criteria, Table 1 Identification and characterization
Environmental Issues of Health Concern
shows the HI for various types of waste disposal/treat- of the environmental impact areas and
ment and/or abandonment. assignment of a composite hazard index (CHI)
By means of ArcGIS software-platform [9, 10],
customized through Python and Avenue program-
Table 1 | Hazard indexes (HI) for various waste disposal/ ming languages, a territorial analysis has been per-
treatment and/or abandonment typologies formed in terms of sites and municipalities.
Site-analysis has identified and characterized
TYPE HI
sources, calculating their fallout “areas” (buffer
Submerged waste (lakes) 4 A strips of 1 km from sites). On the other hand, anal-
Slagheaps 3 B
ysis on a municipality-scale needs an identification
and characterization of areas influenced by more
Hazardous waste storage and disposal 3 B than one site, so as to avoid counting population
Abandonment of metal drums 3 B living in one area more than one time; at the same
time, a specific coefficient is needed to describe glo-
Pit slagheaps containing hazardous waste 2 B
bal danger to them. Therefore, a script has been
2 class – type B dumping sites
nd
2 C worked out to pass from “fallout areas” to “envi-
(special/industrial waste) ronmental impact areas”.
Car wrecking and scrapping plants 1 D Selecting a buffer strip 1 km in range around any
potential polluting source, fallout areas have been
Plants for electric and electronic waste reclaim 1 D
identified. These latter have been assigned HIs from
Temporary storage of non-hazardous waste 1 D corresponding sites; then, each area influenced by
Plants for chemical-physical treatment of waste 1 D more than one site has been attributed a multi-code
(CHI) consisting in a series HIs from single sources
Non-hazardous waste reclaim 1 D
lying in the examined area (Figure 2).
Plants for treatment (storage) of special waste 1 D
Computation of a municipal hazard index (MHI)
Special waste incineration and oil reclaim plants 1 D
A potential hazard index (PHI, numeric param-
Uncontrolled RSU dumping sites 1 E eter) has been associated with each CHI (alpha-nu-
Pit large-volume (> 10 000 cc) meric parameter)1; this way a classification of haz-
1 E
non-hazardous slagheaps ard values was made. Consequently, if impact-area
Large-volume (> 10 000 cc) types and surfaces (S) are known for each munici-
1 E pality, then a municipal hazard index (MHI) can be
non-hazardous slagheaps
derived.
Controlled RSU dumping sites –
1 F As a result, the following function has been imple-
authorized inert-waste dumping sites
mented:
Composting plants 1 F
n
Plants for refuse-derived-fuel (RDF) selection MHI = ∑ Si x PHIi
1 F
and production i=1
Refluent-water depuration plants 1 F
n being the number of impact areas in the munici-
Industrial slagheaps 1 F pality under examination.
Computation of population living
The grade consists of an alpha-numeric code in each impact area to assess risk from exposure
where the number increases with hazard and the Then a further hazard index has been introduced,
letter goes A to F at the decreasing of it (A = taking into account information about the distribution
max hazard; F = min hazard). In a few words, the of potentially exposed population; at this aim, popula-
number identifies danger magnitude, while the tion falling in each impact area have been computed,
letter is a multiplication factor related to waste extracting them from ISTAT 2001 census tracts.
intrinsic dangerousness. Analysis steps follow:
Precisely: - c omputation of population density in census tracts:
A: potential hazardous or very hazardous sub- population density in each tract has been obtained
merged waste dividing resident people by tract surface;
B: hazardous waste - intersection of census tracts and impact areas: the
C: potential hazardous emissions from indus- two layers have been intersected, so deriving new
trial special waste
D: potential hazardous emissions from non-
hazardous waste
E: uncontrolled non-hazardous waste 1
In each CHI, frequencies of numbers and letters have been as-
F: controlled non-hazardous waste. signed different statistical weights.296 Loredana Musmeci, Mirella Bellino, Maria Rita Cicero, et al.
polygons. This way attributes associated with the
Environmental Issues of Health Concern
two layers have been spatially combined as well;
- computation of people living in polygons of the new
4A
layer: population falling in each new polygon has
been computed by multiplying population density
3B by polygon surface.
2B
2C omputation of a synthetical waste
C
1D risk index (SWRI)
1E
1F A synthetical-waste risk index (SWRI) has been
derived multiplying surfaces of impact areas falling
in a specific municipality by their PHIs and popula-
tion living in each area (E) and then summing over
the number n of areas included in the municipality
under examination:
n
SWRI = ∑ Si x PHIi x EPi
i=1
RESULTS
So far our approach has allowed us to describe
geographical distribution of waste disposal sites in
terms of their PHIs, in order to identify and char-
Fig. 1 | Characterization of waste disposal and assignment of a acterize, by means of GIS, those areas apt to waste
hazard index (HI) to sites.
contamination, which gather between inshore mu-
Fig. 2 | Identification of environmental-impact areas and assignment of hazard index (HI).Hazard index in waste management 297
Environmental Issues of Health Concern
Potential hazard indicator (PHI) Synthetic waste risk indicator
–0.5 - –0.4 –0.5 - –0.4
–0.4 - –0.3 –0.4 - –0.3
–0.3 - –0.2 –0.3 - –0.2
–0.2 - –0.1 –0.2 - –0.1
–0.1 - 0 –0.1 - 0
0 - 0.1 0 - 0.1
0.1 - 0.2 0.1 - 0.2
0.2 - 0.3 0.2 - 0.3
0.3 - 0.4 0.3 - 0.4
0.4 - 0.5 0.4 - 0.5
0.5 - 1 0.5 - 1 Fig. 3 | Potential hazard index
1-5 1-5
5 - 10 5 - 10 (PHI) and synthetical waste
risk index (SWRI).
nicipalities and those falling north-east of Naples. characterized by high-risk impact areas, which rep-
Mapping of impact areas (Figure 3) by means of resent top targets for reclamation procedures and
their CHIs has enabled us to select those zones ly- further analytical epidemiological studies.
ing in the two Provinces, which are under waste So far, only population living in impact areas around
pressure most [11]. potential polluted sites (computed by means of popu-
A SWRI has been computed for each of the 196 mu- lation density of census tracts) have been taken into
nicipalities under examination, thinking of resident account as a possible target, but, as a second step, fur-
population as a target of contamination. As shown by ther environmental and territorial factors (hydrologi-
the geographical distribution of SWRIs, municipali- cal data, soil exploitation, socioeconomic conditions,
ties on the border between the Provinces of Caserta etc.) are going to be included into the computation of
and Naples and those lying along the Tyrrhenian SWRI.
coast are exposed to risk most. According to epidemi- Geographical distribution of SWRIs is consist-
ological studies, high mortality by cancer and frequent ent with outcomes from epidemiological studies per-
congenital anomalies are typical of such areas as well formed so far. Anyway, many other factors (extensive
[12]. A correlation study is in progress in order to as- agriculture, industrial activities, socioeconomic condi-
sess connection among SWRI, mortality rates from tions, high population density, health conditions) in-
specific causes and congenital anomalies. fluence this territory from an environmental point of
view and have to examined in the context of a multi-
variate analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
The goal of this analysis was trying to give geo-
graphical-epidemiological studies a contribution, Conflict of interest statement
using waste-disposal data collected in Campania to There are no potential conflicts of interest or any financial or per-
derive an exposure index based not only on distance sonal relationships with other people or organizations that could
from dumping sites, but also on characterization of inappropriately bias conduct and findings of this study.
neighbouring areas depending on territorial signifi-
cant elements, as allowed by GIS features.
As a first result, some municipalities along the Submitted on invitation.
coast and north of Naples have been shown to be Accepted on 22 April 2010.
References
1. Griffith J, Duncan RC, Riggan WB, Pellom AC (1989). 3. Angrisani MG, Bianco P, Belluomo R, et al. Emergenza rifiuti
Cancer mortality in U.S. counties with hazardous waste sites Regione Campania, aggiornamento sul censimento dei siti in-
and ground water pollution. Arch Environ Health 44(2):69-74. quinati. Litorale Domitio Flegreo ed Agro Aversano. Napoli:
2. Dolk H, Vrijheid M, Armstrong B, Abramsky L, Bianchi F, ARPA Campania; 2003.
Garne E, Nelen V, Robert E, Scott JE, Stone D, Tenconi R. 4. Agenzia Regionale per la Protezione dell’Ambiente,
Risk of congenital anomalies near hazardous-waste landfill Campania - Ingegneria Ambientale. Valutazione delle pres-
sites in Europe: the EUROHAZCON study. Lancet 1998; sioni ambientali legate allo smaltimento illegale di rifiuti.
352(9126):423-7. Napoli: ARPA Campania; 2003.298 Loredana Musmeci, Mirella Bellino, Maria Rita Cicero, et al.
5. Elliott P, Briggs D, Morris S, de Hoogh C, Hurt C, Jensen causa in un’area della Campania con numerose discariche di
Environmental Issues of Health Concern
TK, Maitland I, Richardson S, Wakefield J, Jarup L. Risk rifiuti. Epidemiol Prev 2004;6:311-21.
of adverse birth outcomes in populations living near landfill 9. Zeiler M. Modeling our world: the ESRI Guide to geodatabase
sites. BMJ 2001;323:363-8- design. Reelands (CA): ESRI Press; 1999.
6. Jarup L, Briggs D, de Hoogh C, Morris S, Hurt C, Lewin A,
Maitland I, Richardson S, Wakefield J, Elliott P. Cancer risks 10. Lang L. GIS for health organizations. Reelands (CA): ESRI
in populations living near landfill sites in Great Britain. Br J Press; 2000.
Cancer 2002;86(11):1732-6. 11. Trinca S, Martini MG, Madeo L, Matteucci M, Musmeci L.
7. Trinca S, Comba P, Felli A, Forte T, Musmeci L, Piccardi A. Messa a punto di un indicatore di “esposizione ai rifiuti” per
Childhood mortality in an area of southern italy with numerous studi di epidemiologia geografica nella Regione Campania.
dumping grounds: application of GIS and preliminary findings. In: XXX Congresso Italiano di Epidemiologia. Palermo, 4-6
In: First European Conference “Geographic Information Sciences Ottobre 2006.
in public Health”. Sheffield, 19-20 September 2001. Sheffield 12. Comba P, Bianchi F, Fazzo L, Menegozzo M, Minichilli F,
(UK): University of Sheffield; 2001. Mitis F, Musmeci L, Pizzuti R, Santoro M, Trinca S, Martuzzi
8. Altavista P, Belli S, Bianchi F, Binazzi A, Comba P, Del Giudice M, Health impact of waste management in Campania working
R, Fazzo L, Felli A, Mastrantonio M, Menegozzo M, Musmeci group. Cancer mortality in an area of Campania (Italy) char-
L, Pizzuti R, Savarese A, Trinca S, Uccelli R. Mortalità per acterized by multiple toxic dumping sites. Ann NY Acad Sci.You can also read
