19.01.2013 Views

AREA A/B ENGINEERING REPORT - Waste Management

AREA A/B ENGINEERING REPORT - Waste Management

AREA A/B ENGINEERING REPORT - Waste Management

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Geosyntec Consultants<br />

impact health when taken in large enough doses, and the “doses” found in leachate from Subtitle-<br />

D landfills are very small.<br />

Epidemiology studies performed to date for landfills have not specifically evaluated modern<br />

MSW landfill facilities. Rather, most studies have investigated hazardous waste sites that were<br />

once landfills (e.g., Superfund sites), old unregulated waste disposal sites (e.g., historically<br />

referred to as “dumps”), hazardous waste landfills, or mixtures of different types of landfills.<br />

Modern MSW landfills permitted under Subtitle-D differ substantially with respect to waste<br />

disposal history, engineering design, and daily operations from these other types of landfills. The<br />

most recent and authoritative epidemiological studies related to MSW landfills are discussed<br />

below. These studies clearly indicate the absence of a link between modern MSW landfills and<br />

health impacts.<br />

Redfearn & Roberts (2002) reviewed the results of 13 single-site epidemiological studies related<br />

to seven landfills and four multiple-site landfill studies. They noted that most of the single-site<br />

studies focused on large, old landfills that had been operated under outdated regulatory<br />

programs or that had received hazardous or liquid chemical wastes. The multi-site studies<br />

focused on mixtures of different types of landfills, including old hazardous waste landfills that<br />

had not been capped or lined. They concluded that the study results were inconsistent with<br />

respect to specific types of health effects, citing that “no association” was a more common<br />

outcome than “positive association”. They also concluded that the studies do not provide<br />

convincing, rigorous evidence for an association between landfills and adverse birth outcomes,<br />

even for the older landfills. More recent studies of congenital anomalies and cancer (Palmer et<br />

al. 2005, Dummer et al. 2003, Irvine 2003, Jarup et al. 2002, Morris et al. 2003b) have similarly<br />

shown that residential proximity to a landfill has not been demonstrated to be associated with<br />

increased risks. A comprehensive review of the health effects of MSW sites conducted by the<br />

Department of the Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in the U.K. “did not detect an<br />

increase in the occurrence of cancer” even in older (operating from 1983 to 1999) landfill sites<br />

(DEFRA, et al, 2004).<br />

Finally, in 1999 the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) initiated<br />

research to evaluate the pathways and fate of active pharmaceutical ingredients from the<br />

consumer to surface waters (PhRMA, 2006). One potential pathway identified by PhRMA was the<br />

disposal of pharmaceutical-containing sources in household trash and in MSW landfills. PhRMA<br />

initiated this study to evaluate surface water exposures through the landfill disposal pathway.<br />

The landfill-to-surfacewater pathway was calculated to account for an average of 0.21 percent<br />

to 0.78 percent of the estimated aggregate annual surfacewater releases for the 23 APIs<br />

evaluated. Thus, over 99.22 percent of pharmaceutical ingredient releases to surface water are<br />

due to services other than landfill disposal.<br />

MD10186.doc 114 29 March 2009

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!