Health impacts of waste plans:

analysing strategic waste management options (SWMOs)

UKPHA Annual Public Health Forum Presentation 1st- 2nd April 2008

Salim Vohra and Liz Green

Institute of Occupational Medicine and the Welsh Health Impact Assessment Support Unit
 Overview

 Strategic Waste Management Options

(SWMOs)

 Health impacts: the evidence

 Health impacts of SWMOs

 Health impacts of spatial location of

facilities
 Waste plans and planning

 Waste planning:
 is the identification and analysis of the waste disposal needs of a
population at local, regional or national levels,
 Its also about the development of a network of waste
management facilities, identifying suitable sites and the
integrated operation of waste facilities.

 Waste plans are the written outcome of the waste planning

process.

 Waste plans and planning therefore identify and develop

different strategic waste management options involving
different combinations of waste treatment and management
technologies and where they might be located.
 Health impacts:
the evidence on untreated waste
 All waste whether classified as non-hazardous or hazardous:
biological (e.g. food, drink, animal remains); radioactive and
chemical waste (e.g. domestic cleaning fluids, batteries, industrial
chemicals, plastics) can be hazardous if not collected and
managed appropriately.

 The potential human health impacts associated with the

accumulation and decay of both non-hazardous and hazardous
waste can include for example:
 emissions into the air, water and soil;
 odour;
 dust;
 an increase in pests and vermin;
 detraction from the visual aesthetics of the local environment;
 impacts on greenspace;
 impacts on flora and fauna;
 fire hazard;
 infectious diseases (both directly and from transmission by, for
example, flies and rats); and
 chronic diseases e.g. pneumonia, diarrhoea, bronchitis.
 Health impacts: the evidence for SWMOs
 A number of cost-benefit and health assessments of strategic waste
management options have been done at regional and national levels.

 A number of reviews of research have also been undertaken.

 None of these demonstrates a clear best strategic waste management

option from a cost, environmental or health perspective.

 However, they all broadly agree that:

 All SWMOs have strengths and weaknesses from an economic, social,
environmental and health perspective.

 All types of waste treatment facilities now and in the future are likely to have
both some positive and some negative health and wellbeing impacts.

 High rates of reducing, re-using and recycling waste are likely to form the core
of any good strategic waste management option.

 SWMOs that are likely to have the lowest negative impact on health and
wellbeing will have high levels of waste reduction, re-use, recycling and
composting.
 Health impacts:
the evidence on waste collection
 There is little research and evidence to date on the potential health and wellbeing
impacts of waste collection.

 Research to date has focussed on the potential health impacts on waste workers
who collect waste.

 Recently a number of studies have been undertaken to assess the potential impact
of change in waste collection routine and the nature of waste collected

 Positive impacts on health from:

 Employment
 Safe collection of waste for disposal

 Negative impacts on residents:

 quality of life
 psychological: worry, annoyance and stress
 nuisance impacts from: odour, litter and possibly pests and vermin

 Negative impacts on employees :

 from exposure to sharps (broken glass, needles, etc),
 biological waste and bioaerosols which could cause injury, eye and nose irritation, skin
problems, allergies and
 some infectious and chronic diseases e.g. pneumonia, diarrhoea, bronchitis
 Health impacts:
the evidence on newer technologies
 Pyrolysis
 Gasification
 Autoclave

 Anaerobic Digestion

 Mechanical and biological treatment

 Materials recycling facilities

 Open air and in vessel composting

 Waste transfer stations

 Health impacts:
the evidence on incineration
Potential positive health impacts
 The direct positive health impacts are:
 Employment
 Energy and heat from burning waste (combined heat and power)
 Safe disposal of waste
 The indirect positive health impacts are:
 Stimulation of the wider economy through recycling and energy recovery
 Reducing climate change through reductions in greenhouse gases by offsetting
the need for fossil fuels, reducing the amount of waste going to landfill and
reducing the amount of methane produced.

Potential negative health impacts

 The direct negative health impacts come from emissions into the air, water and soil:
 The potential negative health impacts of these emissions that are identified in
the literature include: cancer; adverse, or changes, to reproductive outcomes
(such as birth defects and an increase in twins); cardiovascular and respiratory
symptoms (such as difficulty in breathing and wheezing).
 Adverse incidents and injuries (to employees)
 The indirect negative health impacts are:
 Odour
 Noise
 Reduced quality of life, annoyance and nuisance
 Psychological e.g. concern, stress, worry, stigma
 Fire and explosion
 Health impacts:
the evidence on landfills
Potential positive health impacts
 The direct positive health impacts are:
 Employment
 Energy and heat from burning landfill gas
 Safe disposal of waste
 The indirect positive health impacts are:
 No potential indirect positive health impacts.

Potential negative health impacts

 The direct negative health impacts come from emissions into the air, water and soil:
 The potential health impacts of these emissions that are identified in the
literature include: cancer; renal disease; adverse, or changes, to reproductive
outcomes (such as birth defects, low birth weight babies, infertility and
miscarriage); and general symptoms (such as headache, nausea, skin rashes,
eye irritation and difficulties in breathing).
 Adverse incidents and injuries (to employees)
 The indirect negative health impacts are:
 Odour
 Noise
 Pest and vermin
 Reduced quality of life, annoyance and nuisance
 Psychological e.g. concern, stress, worry, stigma
 Fire and explosion
 Health impacts:
all waste facilities
 Well designed, well managed and well regulated modern
waste facilities can have little or no negative health impacts
on local communities

 The major negatives tend to be quality of life and important

nuisance impacts related to:
 mental wellbeing from worry and concern about the facility
 visual amenity
 noise
 odour
 vermin
 road traffic if that is the main transport link to and from a facility
 Potential health impacts of SWMOs
 Construction phase
 2 positive impacts – employment and economy; education and learning

 5 negative impacts – physical injury, mental health, transport and connectivity, lifestyle
and daily routines, land and spatial

 3 uncertain impacts – social capital and cohesion, energy and waste, housing

 Operational phase
 2 positive impacts – employment and economy, energy and waste

 4 negative impacts – physical injury, mental health, transport and connectivity, lifestyle
and daily routines

 3 uncertain impacts – education and learning social capital and cohesion, land and
spatial

 Decommissioning phase
 3 positive impacts – mental health, social capital and cohesion, land and spatial

 2 negative impacts – employment and economy, transport and connectivity, lifestyle and
daily routines, land and spatial

 1 uncertain impacts – education and learning

Potential health impacts of the spatial location of
facilities

 Needs consideration at local level as actual locations

during strategic planning are not known/agreed

 Key parameters:
 Numbers of facilities
 Size of facilities
 Waste vehicle road transport kilometres

 Index of Deprivation is a good indicator of the general

health and wellbeing of the residents of an area and
can be mapped spatially

 All other things being equal waste movement by water

and rail better than road
 Potential health impacts continued
Wales 3 Regional Waste Plans Strategic HIA

 No significant differences between urban and

rural areas apart from transport links

 Not possible to identify any significant

differences between the Sub-Options within
the main SWMOs

 Not possible to identify any potential

differences between waste regions
 Conclusions: overall health impacts
 At a national/regional level waste treatment facilities have a positive
health and wellbeing impact on society at large

 At a local/neighbourhood level there are likely to be significant/important

nuisance impacts which are likely to have a minor-moderate negative
health impact on health and wellbeing of residents living near a waste
facility (alongside the positive benefits that everyone is likely to share in)

 Mental health and wellbeing effects due to resident’s concerns about the
potential negative effects of a waste facility, particularly incinerators,
gasification and pyrolysis technologies are on balance the most important
negatives

 Given the gaps in the literature and some conflicting evidence there is
likely to be differences of opinion between community and professional
stakeholders (and between different professional stakeholders) which can
generate significant conflict in the decision-making process
 Conclusions: tensions between principles

 Proximity vs Precaution

 Best Environmental/Geotechnical Option vs

Environmental Justice
Conclusions: benefits of doing a strategic HIA

 Strategic understanding of the potential positive and negative health

impacts – the national, regional and local positives need to be balanced
against the largely local negatives health impacts.

 Development of a set of mitigation and enhancement measures that can

be used to inform decision-making at both regional and local levels.

 A resource for local authorities and primary care trusts/health boards

when they start to consider site-specific health and wellbeing issues.

 Gives regional and local waste planners a greater understanding of health

and wellbeing issues and impacts of what/where they are siting facilities

 Demonstration and reassurance to local communities that health and

wellbeing alongside sustainability issues are at the heart of strategic
waste planning and management.