International Review of Waste Management Policy - Department of ...

982
29/09/09
credibility. None of the impacts assessed can be said to have been estimated
with a high level of certainty. The standard of proof for disamenity should not,
arguably, have to be any higher. However, in comparing a wider range of
treatments, we have chosen to omit disamenity from the analysis. Our view is
that if disamenity was to be included, incinerators located in dense urban
areas would fare worst, and well-managed biological treatment facilities
(including quality odour treatment) in rural areas would fare best;
� Air emissions other than the following:
• CO2
• CH4
• N2O
• NH3
• VOCs
• PM2.5
• SOx
• NOx
• CO
• Cd
• Cr
• Hg
• Ni
• Pb
• Dioxin
• As
� Bioaerosols
It seems likely that the main risks relate to composting and anaerobic
digestion where the digestion process includes a post-digestion aerobic step.
However, some bioaerosols are likely to be present at all waste facilities. Key
uncertainties which remain to be considered relate to the source factor as it
relates to biowaste treatments (and, importantly, how the source factors might
be reduced) and the exposure response relationship between the microorganisms
which may be released and the population exposed.
� Emissions to land
No emissions to land have been. This almost certainly means that the
treatment of landfills, and processes which lead to landfilling, is too
favourable. Where the application of source separated organic material to land
is concerned, no environmental disbenefit is assumed to occur on the basis
that application rates would not lead to elevated (above prevailing levels)
concentrations of potentially toxic elements. A limitation of life cycle