Site specific risk assessment of an energy-from-waste thermal treatment facility in Durham Region, Ontario, Canada. Part A: Human health risk assessment

Abstract

The regions of Durham and York in Ontario, Canada have partnered to construct an energy-from-waste thermal treatment facility as part of a long term strategy for the management of their municipal solid waste. This paper presents the results of a comprehensive human health risk assessment for this facility. This assessment was based on extensive sampling of baseline environmental conditions (e.g., collection and analysis of air, soil, water, and biota samples) as well as detailed site specific modeling to predict facility-related emissions of 87 identified contaminants of potential concern. Emissions were estimated for both the approved initial operating design capacity of the facility (140,000 tonnes per year) and for the maximum design capacity (400,000 tonnes per year). For the 140,000 tonnes per year scenario, this assessment indicated that facility-related emissions are unlikely to cause adverse health risks to local residents, farmers, or other receptors (e.g., recreational users). For the 400,000 tonnes per year scenarios, slightly elevated risks were noted with respect to inhalation (hydrogen chloride) and infant consumption of breast milk (dioxins and furans), but only during predicted 'upset conditions' (i.e. facility start-up, shutdown, and loss of air pollution control) that represent unusual and/or transient occurrences. However, current provincial regulations require that additional environmental screening would be mandatory prior to expansion of the facility beyond the initial approved capacity (140,000 tonnes per year). Therefore, the potential risks due to upset conditions for the 400,000 tonnes per year scenario should be more closely investigated if future expansion is pursued.

Urban soil and human health: a review

“…Many factors, such as the extrapolation of bioavailability from large to small doses in risk assessment, from animal models to human beings, from one single study focused on one specific site, exposure routes, and so on, can affect the uncertainty of assessment of human health risk (Keller et al, 2002;Naidu et al, 2015). More emphasis should be placed on site-specific considerations, which should be incorporated into assessments of health risk (Sipter et al, 2008;Ollson et al, 2014;Zhong & Jiang, 2017) because background concentrations of pollutants, their bioavailability and pollutant types are site specific and can strongly affect the level of risk. The use of site-specific data on the bioavailability of contaminants in urban soils has been encouraged when available; for example, in the recently released National Environmental Protection Measure of Australia (NEPC, 2013).The incorporation of estimates of site-specific bioavailability into risk assessments might reduce uncertainty in determining contaminant risk at a given site and minimize remediation costs.…”

A critical analysis of vulnerable populations in the Durham-York energy-from-waste incinerator human health risk assessment

“…The thermal treatment process will take place after the removal of recyclable materials and any other diversion of material as necessary. The ash that is left over post-incineration, will be disposed of in a landfill or could be used for construction purposes to build roads (Ollson et al, 2014). The maximum design capacity would include two additional waste processing trains (Ollson et al, 2014).…”

Comparing Non-Steady State Emissions under Start-Up and Shut-Down Operating Conditions with Steady State Emissions for Several Industrial Sectors: A Literature Review

“…The first was an energyfrom-waste thermal treatment facility, located in Durham, Ontario, Canada [20]. The second was the Oglethorpe Power Generation facility, which is a biomass-fuelled electricity generating facility, located in Warren County, Georgia, United States [19].…”

“…Table 2 summarizes the normalized (using normal operating conditions) emissions for each contaminant emitted in each of the facilities that comprise this industrial sector. The results show that for all contaminants emitted from the two plants, the emission of each contaminant was higher under start-up conditions than under normal conditions [19,20]. The contaminants emitted are as follows: NH 3 , CO, hydrogen chloride (HCl), hydrogen fluoride (HF), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), SO 2 , metals, chlorinated polycyclic aromatics, chlorinated monocyclic aromatics, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), VOCs, NO x , and (particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter) PM 10 .…”

“…The contaminants emitted are as follows: NH 3 , CO, hydrogen chloride (HCl), hydrogen fluoride (HF), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), SO 2 , metals, chlorinated polycyclic aromatics, chlorinated monocyclic aromatics, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), VOCs, NO x , and (particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter) PM 10 . 10 2.24 (1) 1 [19] Only two facilities were studied under this industrial sector [19,20]. Additionally, only two of the listed contaminants (CO and SO 2 ) were common contaminants emitted by both facilities.…”