Landfill Failures

The Buried Truth

FactPack – P009

Center for Health, Environment & Justice

P.O. Box 6806, Falls Church, VA 22040-6806
703-237-2249 [email protected] www.chej.org
Landfill Failures
the Buried Truth
Center for Health, Environment & Justice

FactPack - PUB 009
September
+VOF
 2016

2016 by Center for Health,

Copyright 201
Environment & Justice. All rights
reserved. For Permission to reprint, please
contact CHEJ. Printed in the U.S.A.

P.O. Box 6806 Falls Church, VA 22040-6806 703-237-2249 [email protected] www.chej.org

 Center for Health, Environment & Justice
P.O. Box 6806 Falls Church, VA 22040 Phone: 703.237.2249 Fax: 703.237.8389 www.chej.org
l l l l

Mentoring a Movement
Empowering People
Preventing Harm

About the Center for Health, Environment & Justice

CHEJ mentors the movement to build healthier

communities by empowering people to prevent
the harm caused by chemical and toxic threats.
We accomplish our work by connecting local
community groups to national initiatives
and corporate campaigns. CHEJ works with
communities to empower groups by providing
the tools, strategic vision, and encouragement
they need to advocate for human health and the
prevention of harm.

Following her successful effort to prevent further

harm for families living in contaminated Love Canal,
Lois Gibbs founded CHEJ in 1981 to continue the
journey. To date, CHEJ has assisted over
1,000 groups nationwide. Details on CHEJ’s
efforts to help families and communities
prevent harm can be found on www.chej.org.
 Table of Contents

Introduction to Landfill Problems

- The Basics of Landfills: How They Are Constructed and Why They Fail – Environmental 1
Research Foundation
- The Normal Landfill Environmental Research Site; What Happens to Waste in Landfills - USGS 3
- Solid Waste Landfill Technology: A Documented Failure – Blue Ride Environmental Defense League 4
- New Evidence that All Landfills Leak – Rachel’s Environment & Health News 5
- Plastics Part 2: Why Landfill Linters Always Fail – Rachel’s Environment & Health News 7
- Leachate Collection Systems: The Achilles’ Heel of Landfills – Rachel’s Environment & Health News 9
- The Catch-22s of Landfill Design – Rachel’s Environment & Health News 11

Landfill Liner & Leachate Problems

- Emerging Contaminants at a Closed and Operating Landfill in Oklahoma – Groundwater Monitoring 12

And Remediation
- Updated Review of the “Flawed Technology” of US EPA Subtitle D MSW Landfilling – G.Fred 13
Lee and Anne Jones-Lee
- Flawed Technology of Subtitle D Landfilling of Municipal Solid Waste – G. Fred Lee and Anne 15
Jones-Lee
- Detecting Failure of Subtitle D Landfilling Systems – G. Fred Lee 19
- Assessing the Potential of Minimum Subtitle D Lined Landfills to Pollute: Alternative Landfilling 23
Approaches – G. Fred Lee and Ann Jones-Lee
- Impact of Municipal and Industrial Non-Hazardous Waste Landfill on Public Health and the 24
Environment: An Overview – G. Fred Lee and Ann Jones-Lee
- Plastic Dump Liners Have Been Slow in Coming – Wall Street Journal 28
- Unexpected Leakage Through Landfill Liners – Science News 30
- Document Shows Landfill Operator Fined for Design Failures – Hawaii News Now 32
- Health Effects Associated with the Disposal of Solid Waste in Landfills – Swiss School of Public 33
Health
- Effect of Aging on the Leachate Characteristics From Municipal Solid Waste Landfill – Naveen, 44
Sivapullaiah, & Sitharam
- Landfill Leachate Released to Wastewater Treatment Plants and other Environmental Pathways
Contains a Mixture of Contaminants including Pharmaceuticals – USGS Toxic Substances
Hydrology Program 50

Landfill Gas Problems

- Landfill Gas Safety and Health Issues – Agency for Toxic Substances and Diseases Registry 53
- Landfills Make Mercury More Toxic – ScienceNews 58
- Vinyl in Landfills Most Likely to Blame for Toxic Gases – Greenpeace 59
- Old PCs Toxic in Landfill Sites – Galt Global Review 62
- In Our Backyard: Environmental Racism in Dickinson – Colorlines 65
- Landfill Gas-to Energy Project May Release More Greenhouse Gases Than Flaring – Stewart 66

News Articles about Local Landfill Problems

- Court Orders Agency to Address Landfill Emissions– Environment & Energy News 74
- EPA resolves Clean Water Act violations with Honolulu and Waste Management at Waimanalo 76
Gulch Landfill– EPA
- Report identifies factors in Advanced Disposal landfill slope failure that left one dead– Waste Dive 78
- Waste Management reaches $4.1M settlement over Ohio– Waste Dive 81
- DEC Cites High Acres Landfill for Failure to Reduce Odors– New York Department of Environmental 83
Conservation
- AG Koster releases new expert reports concluding radiation and other pollutants have migrated 84
off-site at Bridgeton Landfill – Missouri Attorney General
- Carter’s Valley Landfill Listed as Possible Site for Radioactivity – The Rogersville Review 85
- Australia: Methane gas landfill leak forces residents to evacuate suburb – World Socialist Website 87
- Ombudsman’s Damning Repot on Landfill Leak – Inside Waste Website 90
- Scotland Board Puts End to Landfill Project – Fay Observer 92
- State Officials File Suit Over Dump Site Health Hazards – Salem News 93
- Bird Flu Virus Can Survive Two Years in Landfill – HealthDay News 95
- Nevada Landfill Operator Agrees to $26 Million Plan to Close Landfill Site – USDO 96
- Hazardous Waste Landfills: Some Lessons from New Jersey – Civil Engineering 98

Academic Studies

- Socio-Environmental and Hematological Profile of Landfill Residents– Environmental Research 102

and Public Health
- Morbidity and Mortality of people who live close to municipal waste landfills: a multisite cohort study 114
– Environmental Exposures and Cancer
- Systemic Review of Epidemiologic Studies on health Effects Associated With Management of 124
Solid Waste – Environmental Health
- Health Effects of Residence Near Hazardous Waste Landfill Sites: A Review of the Epidemiological 138
Literature – Environmental Health Perspectives
- Risk of Adverse Birth Outcomes in Populations Living Near Landfill Sites – British Medical Journal 150
- Largest Ever Study Into Health of Populations Around Landfill Sites Published – UK Department 156
of Health
- Health Study of New York City Department of Sanitation Landfill Employees – Journal of 158
occupational and Environmental Medicine
- Relation Between Malodor, ambient hydrogen sulfide and health – Elsevier Environmental Research 159

Reference Material

- Annotated Resources on Landfills and Health Effects 160

- Useful Websites on Landfills 166
- Bibliographic Information 167
 CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pack 1

The Basics of Landfills-

How They Are Constructed And Why They Fail

WHAT IS A LANDFILL?
A secure landfill is a carefully engineered depression in the ground (or built on top of the ground,
resembling a football stadium) into which wastes are put. The aim is to avoid any hydraulic [water-
related] connection between the wastes and the surrounding environment, particularly groundwater.
Basically, a landfill is a bathtub in the ground; a double-lined landfill is one bathtub inside another.
Bathtubs leak two ways: out the bottom or over the top.

WHAT IS THE COMPOSITION OF A LANDFILL?

There are four critical elements in a secure landfill: a bottom liner, a leachate collection system, a
cover, and the natural hydrogeologic setting. The natural setting can be selected to minimize the pos-
sibility of wastes escaping to groundwater beneath a landfill. The three other elements must be engi-
neered. Each of these elements is critical to success.

THE NATURAL HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING:

You want the geology to do two contradictory things for you. To prevent the wastes from escaping,
you want rocks as tight (waterproof) as possible. Yet if leakage occurs, you want the geology to be as
simple as possible so you can easily predict where the wastes will go. Then you can put down wells
and capture the escaped wastes by pumping. Fractured bedrock is highly undesirable beneath a landfill
because the wastes cannot be located if they escape. Mines and quarries should be avoided because
they frequently contact the groundwater.

WHAT IS A BOTTOM LINER?

It may be one or more layers of clay or a synthetic flexible membrane (or a combination of these). The
liner effectively creates a bathtub in the ground. If the bottom liner fails, wastes will migrate directly
into the environment. There are three types of liners: clay, plastic, and composite.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH A CLAY LINER?

Natural clay is often fractured and cracked. A mechanism called diffusion will move organic chemi-
cals like benzene through a three-foot thick clay landfill liner in approximately five years. Some
chemicals can degrade clay.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH A PLASTIC LINER?

The very best landfill liners today are made of a tough plastic fi lm called high density polyethylene
(HDPE). A number of household chemicals will degrade HDPE, permeating it (passing though it),
making it lose its strength, softening it, or making it become brittle and crack. Not only will house-
hold chemicals, such as moth balls, degrade HDPE, but much more benign things can cause it to
develop stress cracks, such as, margarine, vinegar, ethyl alcohol (booze), shoe polish, peppermint oil,
to name a few.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH COMPOSITE LINERS?

A Composite liner is a single liner made of two parts, a plastic liner and compacted soil (usually clay
soil). Reports show that all plastic liners (also called Flexible Membrane Liners, or FMLs) will have
some leaks. It is important to realize that all materials used as liners are at least slightly permeable to
 CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pack 2

liquids or gases and a certain amount of permeation through liners should be expected. Additional
leakage results from defects such as cracks, holes, and faulty seams. Studies show that a 10-acre
landfill will have a leak rate somewhere between 0.2 and 10 gallons per day.

WHAT IS A LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM?

Leachate is water that gets badly contaminated by contacting wastes. It seeps to the bottom of a
landfill and is collected by a system of pipes. The bottom of the landfill is sloped; pipes laid along the
bottom capture contaminated water and other fluid (leachate) as they accumulate. The pumped
leachate is treated at a wastewater treatment plant (and the solids removed from the leachate during
this step are returned to the landfill, or are sent to some other landfill). If leachate collection pipes
clog up and leachate remains in the landfill, fluids can build up in the bathtub. The resulting liquid
pressure becomes the main force driving waste out the bottom of the landfill when the bottom liner
fails.

WHAT ARE SOME OF THE PROBLEMS WITH LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEMS?

Leachate collection systems can clog up in less than a decade. They fail in several known ways:
they clog up from silt or mud; they can clog up because of growth of microorganisms in the
pipes; they can clog up because of a chemical reaction leading to the precipitation of minerals
in the pipes; or the pipes become weakened by chemical attack (acids, solvents, oxidizing
agents, or corrosion) and may then be crushed by the tons of garbage piled on them.

WHAT IS A COVER?
A cover or cap is an umbrella over the landfill to keep water out (to prevent leachate formation). It
will generally consist of several sloped layers: clay or membrane liner (to prevent rain from intrud-
ing), overlain by a very permeable layer of sandy or gravelly soil (to promote rain runoff), over-
lain by topsoil in which vegetation can root (to stabilize the underlying layers of the cover). If the
cover (cap) is not maintained, rain will enter the landfill resulting in buildup of leachate to the point
where the bathtub overflows its sides and wastes enter the environment.

WHAT ARE THE PROBLEMS WITH COVERS?

Covers are vulnerable to attack from at least seven sources: 1) Erosion by natural weathering (rain,
hail, snow, freeze-thaw cycles, and wind); 2) Vegetation, such as shrubs and trees that continually
compete with grasses for available space, sending down roots that will relentlessly seek to pen-
etrate the cover; Burrowing or soil- dwelling mammals (woodchucks, mice, moles, voles), reptiles
(snakes, tortoises), insects (ants, beetles), and worms will present constant threats to the integrity
of the cover; 3) Sunlight (if any of these other natural agents should succeed in uncovering a
portion of the umbrella) will dry out clay (permitting cracks to develop), or destroy membrane
liners through the action of ultraviolet radiation; 5) Subsidence--an uneven cave-in of the cap
caused by settling of wastes or organic decay of wastes, or by loss of liquids from landfilled
drums--can result in cracks in clay or tears in membrane liners, or result in ponding on the surface,
which can make a clay cap mushy or can subject the cap to freeze-thaw pressures; 6) Rubber tires,
which “float” upward in a landfill; and 7) Human activities of many kinds.

Prepared by: Environmental Research Foundation

 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact 3Pact
Fact Pack 3

THE NORMAN LANDFILL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH SITE

WHAT HAPPENS TO THE WASTE IN LANDFILLS?
U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 040-03
August 2003

By Scott C. Christenson and Isabelle M. Cozzarelli

This Factsheet is also available as pdf (949KB).

DO LANDFILLS LEAK?
We call it "garbage" or "trash" but it is "municipal solid waste" to your city government and
the waste industry. Municipal solid waste is a combination of non-hazardous wastes from house
holds, commercial properties, and industries. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) reports that the United States produced about 230 million tons of solid waste in 1999,
about 57 percent of which is disposed of in landfills (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1999).
Disposal of municipal solid waste in landfills was largely unregulated prior to the 1970s.
Most solid waste was deposited in unlined pits. Precipitation and ground water seeping through
this waste produces leachate, which is water contaminated from the various organic and
inorganic substances with which it comes in contact as it migrates through the waste. Leachate
seeping from a landfill contaminates the ground water beneath the landfill, and this
contaminated ground water is known as a plume. The normal movement of ground water causes
the leachate plume to extend away from a landfill, in some cases for many hundreds of meters.
Many studies have shown leachate plumes emanating from old unlined landfills. Estimates for
the number of closed landfills in the United States are as high as 100,000 (Suflita and others,
1992).
Federal and state regulations were passed in the 1980s and 1990s to manage disposal of
solid waste. Those regulations require that most landfills use liners and leachate collection
systems to minimize the seepage of leachate to ground water. Although liners and leachate
collection systems minimize leakage, liners can fail and leachate collection systems may not
collect all the leachate that escapes from a landfill. Leachate collection systems require
maintenance of pipes, and pipes can fail because they crack, collapse, or fill with sediment. The
USEPA has concluded that all landfills eventually will leak into the environment (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1988). Thus, the fate and transport of leachate in the
environment, from both old and modern landfills, is a potentially serious environmental
problem.
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact 4Pact
Fact Pack 4

SOLID WASTE LANDFILL TECHNOLOGY

A DOCUMENTED FAILURE
HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE LINERS (HDPE)
ARE NOT EFFECTIVE BARRIERS TO LANDFILL LEACHATE.

Two major classes of chemicals are responsible for HDPE failure. Aromatic hydrocarbons
such as benzene and naphthalene, “permeate excessively and cause package deformation,”
and halogenated hydrocarbons such as trichlorethylene and methylene chloride can permeate
HDPE and cause,“softening, swelling, and part deformation.”
Marlex Polyethylene TIB 2 Packaging Properties, Plastics Division,
Phillips 66 Company, Bartlesville, OK 74004

The “best demonstrated available technology” for composite liners (clay and plastic) allow
leakage rates from .02 to 1.0 gallons per acre per day. This would result in 730 to 36,500
gallons per year from a 100 acre landfill.
Geoservices Inc. Background Document on Bottom Liner Performance
in Double-lined landfills and Surface Impoundments, April 1987

LANDFILL CAPS ARE SUBJECT TO NATURAL ELEMENTS AND LEAKAGE

Lightning bolts striking the ground typically five million volts and 2,500 to 220,000 amperes
can bore holes in the ground eight inches in diameter and fifteen feet deep. In western North
Carolina, an average number of lightning strikes per hundred acres is 2.96 per year.
AT&T Telecommunication Electrical Protection, AT&T Technologies, Inc. 1985

Burrowing animals can move 5.3 tons of soil to the surface per acre per year. “Similar activity
would have a dramatic impact on landfill cap integrity...synthetic liners, measured in mils are
not likely to impede these same animals.” Clay presents little barrier to such animals.
Johnson & Dudderar, WASTE AGE, March 1988, p.108-111

LEAK TESTING OF NEW LANDFILL LINERS REVEALS MAJOR FLAWS

Tests of the new municipal solid waste liner after burial by an Arizona contractor revealed that
even with the most careful construction and quality assurance testing at every stage of
emplacement, the liners had holes and punctures. American City and County, July 1991

EVEN EPA PREDICTS FAILURE OF THE NEW LANDFILL TECHNOLOGY

“First, even the best liner and leachate collection systems will ultimately fail due to natural
deterioration…” Federal Register p.33345 August 30, 1988

BLUE RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE LEAGUE

POBox88 GlendaleSprings, NorthCarolina 28629 ~ Phone336-982-2691 ~ Fax336-982-2954 ~ Email [email protected] October 2002

www.BREDL.org
Rachel's Environment & Health News CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact 5Pact
Fact Pack 5
#316 - New Evidence That All Landfills Leak
December 15, 1992

Starting in the 1970s and continuing throughout the 1980s, U.S. not well understood, polyethylenes, including HDPE, become
Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] funded research which brittle and develop cracks. A 1990 paper published by the American
showed that burying household garbage in the ground poisons the Society for Testing Materials revealed that HDPE liners have failed
groundwater. On several occasions, EPA spelled out in detail the from stress cracks in only two years of use. Polyethylene pipe,
reasons why all landfills leak. (For example, see RHWN #37, #71, intended to give 50 years of service, has failed in two years. Lee
and #116) and Jones sum up (pg. 22), "While the long-term stability of
geomembranes (flexible membrane liners) in landfills cannot be
Then in late 1991, after several years of deliberation, EPA chief defined, there is no doubt that they will eventually fail to function
William Reilly issued final landfill regulations that allow the as an impermeable barrier to leachate transport from a landfill to
continued burial of raw garbage in landfills. (See RHWN #268.) groundwater. Further, and most importantly at this time, there are
EPA's 1991 regulations require an expensive landfill design: two no test methods, having demonstrated reliability, with which to
liners in the ground and an impervious plastic cover over the evaluate long-term performance of flexible membrane liners."
landfill after it has been filled with garbage. This is "state of the art"
technology, the very best that modern engineers can build. Recent scientific studies of clay indicate that landfill liners of
However, EPA officials still expect such landfills to fail and compacted clay leak readily too. For example, a 1990 study
eventually poison groundwater. concludes,

As early as 1978, EPA knew why all landfills eventually leak. The [I]F A NATURALLY OCCURRING CLAY SOIL IS
main culprit is water. Once water gets into a landfill, it mixes with COMPACTED TO HIGH DENSITY, THEREBY PRODUCING A
the garbage, producing a toxic leachate ("garbage juice"), which is MATERIAL WITH VERY LOW HYDRAULIC
then pulled downward by gravity until it reaches the groundwater. CONDUCTIVITY, AND IF IT IS MAINTAINED WITHIN THE
Therefore, the goal of landfill designers (and regulators) is to keep SAME RANGES OF TEMPERATURE, PRESSURE, AND
landfills dry for the length of time that the garbage is dangerous, CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT, IT WOULD
which is forever. BE EXPECTED TO FUNCTION WELL AS A SEEPAGE
BARRIER INDEFINITELY. IN WASTE CONTAINMENT
Now a 1992 report from a California engineering-consulting firm, APPLICATIONS, HOWEVER, CONDITIONS DO NOT REMAIN
G. Fred Lee & Associates, has examined recent scientific studies THE SAME. THE PERMEATION [PENETRATION] OF A
and has confirmed once again why modern "dry tomb" landfill COMPACTED CLAY LINER BY CHEMICALS OF MANY
technology will always fail and should always be expected to TYPES IS INEVITABLE, SINCE NO COMPACTED CLAY OR
poison groundwater.[1] ANY OTHER TYPE OF LINER MATERIAL IS EITHER
TOTALLY IMPERVIOUS OR IMMUNE TO CHEMICAL
The new report, authored by Fred Lee and Anne Jones, reviews INTERACTIONS OF VARIOUS TYPES
recent evidence--much of it produced by government-funded
research--that landfill liners leak for a variety of reasons; that The 1992 study by Lee and Jones is an excellent resource for anyone
leachate collection systems clog up and thus fail to prevent landfill wanting to understand why landfills always fail. In their footnotes,
leakage; that landfill leachate will remain a danger to groundwater they cite 18 other studies of landfill problems that they themselves
for thousands of years; that even low-rainfall areas are not safe for have authored, so their expertise is unquestionable, their information
landfill placement; that gravel pits and canyons are particularly reliable, their arguments solid.
dangerous locations for landfills; that maintaining a single landfill's
cap for the duration of the hazard would cost hundreds of billions, There has been sufficient scientific evidence available for a decade
or even trillions, of dollars; that groundwater monitoring cannot be to convince any reasonable person that landfills leak poisons into
expected to detect landfill leakage; that groundwater, once it is our water supplies, and are therefore anti-social.
contaminated, cannot be cleaned up and must be considered
permanently destroyed; and that groundwater is a limited and The question remains: what will it take to convince government--
diminishing resource which modern societies grow more dependent specifically EPA--to base policy on its own scientific studies and its
on as time passes. own understanding?
A 1990 examination of the best available landfill liners concluded The new EPA administrator is Carol M. Browner, an avowed
that brand-new state-of-the-art liners of high density polyethylene environmentalist from Florida. Asked to describe Ms. Browner's
(HDPE) can be expected to leak at the rate of about 20 gallons per style, John Sheb, head of Florida's largest business trade
acre per day (200 liters per hectare per day) even if they are association, said: "She kicks the door open, throws in a hand
installed with the very best and most expensive quality-control grenade, and then walks in to shoot who's left. She really doesn't
procedures.[2] This rate of leakage is caused by pinholes during like to compromise."
manufacture, and by holes created when the seams are welded
together during landfill construction. (Landfill liners are rolled out Maybe Ms. Browner could start with a wake-up grenade in the
like huge carpets and then are welded together, side by side, to Office of Solid Waste.
create a continuous field of plastic.) Now examination of actual
landfill liners reveals that even the best seams contain some holes. --Peter Montague

In addition to leakage caused by pinholes and failed seams, new =====

scientific evidence indicates that HDPE (high density polyethylene,
the preferred liner for landfills) allows some chemicals to pass [1] G. Fred Lee and Anne R. Jones, MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
through it quite readily. A 1991 report from University of MANAGEMENT IN LINED, "DRY TOMB" LANDFILLS: A
Wisconsin shows that dilute solutions of common solvents, such as TECHNOLOGICALLY FLAWED APPROACH FOR
xylenes, toluene, trichloroethylene (TCE), and methylene chloride, PROTECTION OF GROUNDWATER QUALITY (El Macero,
penetrate HDPE in one to thirteen days. Even an HDPE sheet 100 Calif.: G. Fred Lee & Associates, March, 1992). Available from: G.
mils thick (a tenth of an inch)--the thickness used in the most Fred Lee & Associates, 27298 East El Macero Drive, El Macero,
expensive landfills) is penetrated by solvents in less than two CA 95618-1005. Phone (916) 753- 9630. 67 pgs.; free.
weeks.
[2] Rudolph Bonaparte and Beth A. Gross, "Field Behavior of
Another problem that has recently become apparent with HDPE Double- Liner Systems," in Rudolph Bonaparte (editor), WASTE
liners is "stress cracking" or "brittle fracture." For reasons that are CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS: CONSTRUCTION,
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact 6Pact
Fact Pack 6
REGULATION, AND PERFORMANCE [Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 26] (New York: American Society of Civil
Engineers, 1990), pgs. 52-83.

CLARIFICATION: RIGHTS OF CORPORATIONS

Last week we suggested the need for a Constitutional amendment
declaring that a corporation is not a natural person and is therefore
not protected by the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment to the
Constitution. Such an amendment would level the playing field
somewhat, giving communities and individuals a greater chance of
controlling anti-social corporate behavior. As we noted in earlier
newsletters (RHWN #308, #309), corporations are now literally out
of control. Shareholders cannot control them; boards of directors
cannot control them; workers cannot control them; in a competitive
world market, even managers have lost control. In some cases, of
course, management doesn't care about the environment or the
community. But even when managers, as individuals, want to do
the right thing, the logic of corporate growth and short-term gain
often dictates choices that do not serve the environment or the
community. Since corporate behavior is at the root of nearly all
environmental problems, stripping corporations of some of their
rights (such as the Constitutional protections guaranteed to
individual citizens, which the Supreme Court extended to
corporations in 1886), would help communities assert control over
corporate behavior. Merely DEBATING such an amendment would
get people thinking about power in the modern world, asking who
has a legitimate right to control what. Ask yourself: who ever gave
private corporations the right to manufacture and sell products that
can destroy the planet as a place suitable for human habitation? In
suggesting such a Constitutional amendment, we omitted reference
to the original source of the idea, author Richard Grossman.

For historical background on control of corporations, get: Richard

Grossman and Frank T. Adams, TAKING CARE OF BUSINESS;
CITIZENSHIP AND THE CHARTER OF INCORPORATION
(Cambridge, Mass.: Charter, Inc., 1992). For a copy, send $4.00
plus a self-addressed, stamped envelope containing 52 cents
postage to: Charter, Inc., P.O. Box 806, Cambridge, MA 02140.
--Peter Montague

Descriptor terms: corporations; constitution; us; landfilling; landfill

liners; leachate collection systems; groundwater; epa; waste disposal
technologies; high density polyethylene; waste treatment
technologies; msw;

Rachel's Environment & Health News is a publication of the Environmental Research Foundation, P.O. Box 160, New
Brunswick, NJ 08903-0160; Phone: (732) 828-9995; Fax (732) 791-4603; E-mail: [email protected]; http://www.rachel.org.
Unless otherwise indicated, Rachel's is written by Peter Montague.
Rachel's Environment & Health News CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact 7Pact
Fact Pack 7
#217 - Plastics -- Part 2: Why Plastic Landfill Liners Always Fail
January 22, 1991

In the landfill business, government and industry say plastic liners people who breathe them), Dr. Wallace included a section on the
are going to save the day. For example, U.S. Environmental makeup of plastics at the molecular level, which helps us
Protection Agency (EPA) and industry both argue that incinerator understand why all plastics eventually fall apart.
ash can be safely "disposed of" in a double-lined ash "monofill." A
"monofill" is a landfill that contains only ash, no raw garbage. Like The building blocks of plastics are found in natural gas, coal, and
any other landfill, the basic design is a bathtub in the ground. The wood, but the major source is oil. Oil (like coal and natural gas) is a
bottom of the bathtub is formed by a huge sheet of plastic. In an mixture of molecules of different sizes and structures. To separate
expensive landfill, you have two sheets of plastic separated by out the different molecules, crude oil is distilled in an oil refinery.
about two feet of sand and gravel--thus creating one bathtub inside The oil is boiled and smaller, lighter molecules are separated from
another bathtub. Therefore, a doublelined ash monofill is a landfill the larger, heavier molecules. The heavier molecules are then
(which is really just a polite word for a dump) in the form of a "cracked" to break up the large, heavy molecules into smaller,
bathtub created by two plastic liners, containing incinerator ash and lighter molecules.
nothing else.
The result of this distillation and cracking is organic chemicals,
The theory behind the monofill is that ash contains only small which is the name for chemicals containing carbon and other
amounts of aggressive organic chemicals that might eat a hole in elements (chiefly hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen). These organic
the plastic liner, so the plastic liner will remain intact and protect us chemicals form the building blocks of pesticides, glues, and
against the lead and cadmium and other toxic metals contained in plastics. Other chemicals (such as chlorine and lead) are added to
the ash. (See RHWN #92.) As always, the key question is: what is give the raw materials new characteristics (strength, stiffness, color,
the duration of the hazard and what is the duration of the protection and so forth).
provided by the plastic liner? (The "cap" or umbrella covering a
landfill will also be made of the same plastic, so a landfill is really a After the building blocks are manufactured, they are turned into
"baggie" in the ground, containing toxins. What is the lifetime of plastic resin by a process called polymerization. A polymer is a
this baggie? How long will it protect us?) large, organic, chain-like molecule made of repeated units of
smaller molecules. Polymerization usually requires heating the raw
What is the duration and nature of the hazard from metals in materials in the presence of helper chemicals called catalysts, until
incinerator ash? As we saw earlier (in RHWN #92) incinerator ash is the building blocks form long chains. Even with the catalysts, a
rich in toxic metals. For example, it typically contains anywhere great deal of heat is used in the polymerization process. "Because of
from 3000 parts per million (ppm) to 30,000 ppm of lead. U.S. this heat, the long chains, even during manufacture, may
Environmental Protection Agency Region (Boston), and the decompose slightly and have defect points along them," Dr.
Harvard University School of Public Health have recommended a Wallace explains. The defect points are in the chemical bonds,
cleanup action level of 1000 ppm for lead in soil--in other words, which absorb the energy used in the manufacturing process. The
they recommended that remedial action, as would be needed at a law of conservation of energy states that the amount of energy in a
Superfund site, should be undertaken wherever lead in soils exceeds system after the reaction is the same as the amount of energy before
1000 ppm.[1] In recommending the 1000 ppm action level, EPA the reaction. The large amounts of energy (heat) thus must go
and Harvard wrote, "While we believe a greater margin of safety somewhere; they go into the bonds between the atoms of the plastic
would be achieved with an action level of 500 ppm, we think it and are stored there. But nature does not favor this gain of
necessary to set priorities for remedial activity." (What they meant energy--nature favors low energy chemical bonds, and high energy
was that there are so many places in urban America where there is bonds tend to release their energy by breaking spontaneously. These
500 ppm lead in soil that EPA would be overwhelmed with work if are defect points. Although polymer scientists have striven to
500 ppm were set as the threshold for remedial action--so 1000 ppm reduce the number of defect points, they have not been able to
is a more "realistic" cleanup action level even though it's not as safe completely eliminate them from synthetic polymers.
as the nation's children really need it to be.)
Dr. Wallace continues, "The physical and chemical defects that are
Given that EPA Region I and the Harvard School of Public Health produced by ordinary processes in the manufacture and use of
have recommended that Superfund-type cleanup be initiated plastics demonstrate the fragile and unstable character of these long
whenever soils contain more than 1000 parts per million (ppm) of chains of molecules that are joined by high energy chemical bonds.
lead, we know immediately that every ash monofill will have to be When the resin is further processed to become the finished
cleaned up at some time in the future because all incinerator ash marketable product, additional defect points are created because the
contains more than 1000 ppm lead. (Ash also contains dangerous product is again heated and handled."
amounts of other toxic metals-- cadmium, arsenic, chromium, and
perhaps others, so lead is not the only reason why a cleanup might As time passes, plastics decompose--their molecules come apart
be needed.) Therefore, when we create ash monofills we know we spontaneously--beginning at the defect points. Polymer scientists
are creating Superfund sites that our children will pay for--either in refer to this decomposition as "aging." All plastics "age" and there
damage to their brains and nervous systems, or in enormous outlays is nothing that can be done about it. Within a few years (at most a
of money--or both. few decades), all plastics degrade, come apart, and fail. They
become brittle, lose their strength, crack, break into fragments. At
Because lead and cadmium and other metals never degrade into that point, any protection the plastic may have afforded against the
anything else, but remain toxic forever, the duration of the hazard is toxic dangers lurking in an ash monofill is gone. By that time, the
perpetual, everlasting, eternal. The danger will never go away. people who created the ash monofill will have taken their profits
and left town, but the deadly residues they leave behind--the
The incineration industry, and its acolytes in government, argue that ash--will remain to plague the community forever, poisoning the
the plastic liners will protect us and our children forever. community's children with toxic lead and other metals.
Unfortunately, this idea is based on a misunderstanding (or more
likely an intentional misrepresentation) of what happens to plastics The only affordable solution to this problem is a simple one: prevent
as they get older. Plastics are not inert; they do not stay the same as the creation of incinerator ash.
time passes. They change. They come apart spontaneously.
--Peter Montague
A recent book by Deborah Wallace, Ph.D., describes this process
well. [2] The book is about the dangers of plastics in fires, but in =====
telling the story of "Why today's fires are so dangerous," (the
answer is because burning plastics give off toxic gases that kill [1] P.L. Ciriello and T. Goldberg, "Lead-contaminated Soil Cleanup
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact 8Pact
Fact Pack 8
Draft Report" which appears as Appendix E in: Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry, THE NATURE AND EXTENT
OF LEAD POISONING IN CHILDREN IN THE UNITED
STATES: A REPORT TO CONGRESS (Atlanta, Ga: Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Public Health Service, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services [1600 Clifton Rd. -Mail
Stop E-33, Atlanta, Ga 30333; phone (404) 639-0730], July, 1988).
Free while supplies last."

[2] Deborah Wallace, IN THE MOUTH OF THE DRAGON

(Garden City Park, NY: Avery Publishing Group [120 Old
Broadway, Garden City Park, NY 11040; phone (516) 741-2155],
1990). $17.95.
Descriptor terms: epa; landfilling; plastic liners; harvard university
school of public health; studies; remedial action; ash monofills;
heavy metals; deborah wallace; polymerization; leaks;

Rachel's Environment & Health News is a publication of the Environmental Research Foundation, P.O. Box 160, New
Brunswick, NJ 08903-0160; Phone: (732) 828-9995; Fax (732) 791-4603; E-mail: [email protected]; http://www.rachel.org.
Unless otherwise indicated, Rachel's is written by Peter Montague.
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact 9Pact
Fact Pack 9
Rachel’s Environment & Health News
#119 – Leachate Collection Systems: The Achilles’ Heel Of Landfills
March 7, 1989

toxic chemicals. (At the wastewater treatment plant, some of the

A landfill is a bathtub in the ground, and a bathtub can leak two
chemicals are released into the air, and the remaining ones are
ways: it can leak through a hole in the bottom (failure of its
collected [they’re now in a mud-like sludge] and they are sent to
bottom liner), or it can fill up with fluid and spill over its sides.
another landfill somewhere.)
Either way, it’s bad news. The basic problem is the fluid. If a
landfill begins to fill up with fluid, the weight of the fluid puts One of the least-studied aspects of landfill design is how to make
pressure on the bottom of the landfill, increasing the likelihood a leachate collection system that will work for many decades
of bottom liner failure, so any fluid inside a landfill is a potential (much less many hundreds of years). The fact is, leachate
source of trouble. collection systems can clog up in less than a decade and, when
that happens, fluids begin to build up inside the landfill—a
To prevent fluid from causing problems, every modern landfill
dangerous situation, as we have noted above.
has a system for draining liquids out of the landfill. This is called
a leachate collection system. What is leachate? Think of a Leachate collection systems fail in several known ways. First,
landfill as being like a drip coffee maker. The dry coffee is the they can clog up from silt or mud. Second, they can clog up
garbage, the water you pour in the top is rainwater, and the dark, because of the growth of microorganisms in the pipes. Third,
brewed coffee dripping out the bottom is leachate. You might they can clog because of a chemical reaction leading to the
want to drink coffee, but you definitely do not want to drink precipitation of minerals in the pipes; anyone who has boiled a
leachate: it has many toxic and dangerous characteristics. It is pot of “hard” water and seen the whitish crusty residue in the
badly polluted with chemicals and with micro-organisms bottom of the pot knows what “precipitated chemicals” look like.
(bacteria and viruses) that would make you sick. Fourth, the pipes themselves can be weakened by chemical attack
(acids, solvents, oxidizing agents, or corrosion) and may then be
The picture below represents a closed landfill; the heavy dark
crushed by the tons of garbage piled above them.
line represents the plastic baggie (bottom liner and top cover)
that is supposed to keep leachate from entering the environment. The book, AVOIDING FAILURE OF LEACHATE
The round circles between the two bottom liners represent COLLECTION AND CAP DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, by Jeffrey
collection pipes which have many holes drilled along their length Bass, discusses these four failure mechanisms. The first problem
(making these pipes resemble a swiss cheese); they are supposed (silt) can sometimes be avoided, or at least reduced, by installing
to collect any leachate that flows to the bottom of the landfill. In a “filter layer” above the leachate collection system. The filter
theory, these pipes carry off the leachate to a wastewater layer may be made up of gravel or of a rug-like plastic material
treatment plant, where the leachate is processed to remove the called “geotextile.” Since the oldest leachate collection systems
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 10 10
date from the early 1970s, humans have very little experience is a good idea. But in the real world, how do you know what’s
with the long-term performance of leachate collection systems. going to be put into your landfill next week? Next year? With
The hope is that a “filter layer” will solve the siltclogging 1000 brand new chemicals being put into commercial use each
problem, but after many decades the entire filter layer itself may year, over the next 10 years, today’s leachate collection pipes
clog. Only time will tell. may come into contact with 10,000 new chemicals that don’t
even exist today. Any of those chemicals may attack the pipes. In
The growth of microorganisms seems to be an uncontrollable
addition, chemicals mixing together inside a landfill will create
problem. The conditions for growth of slime-forming
new chemical combinations that may produce heat or may
microorganisms are not well understood. Even if they were
otherwise attack the pipes.
understood, we could not control chemical and physical
conditions (temperature, pH, etc.) at the bottom of a landfill Mr. Bass’s book is misnamed because it seems to suggest that the
because of the thousands of tons of wastes heaped up in the failure of leachate collection systems can be avoided. However,
landfill. as the text of Mr. Bass’s book makes abundantly clear, if such
failures were to be avoided, it would be by dumb luck, not by
The problem of chemical precipitation also appears to be
engineering design. Only a fool trusts dumb luck.
uncontrollable. The chemical conditions that lead to precipitation
may be knowable, but again the conditions in the leachate Mr. Bass’s book is overpriced at $36.00 from: Noyes Data
collection system cannot be controlled because the system is not Corporation, Mill Road, Park Ridge, NJ 07656. No telephone
accessible once wastes have begun to be dumped into the orders accepted.
landfill.
--Peter Montague
The last problem—chemical attack on the leachate collection
pipes, leading to destruction of the pipes themselves—also
appears to be an unsolvable problem. Mr. Bass suggests, in best Descriptor terms: landfilling; landfill failure mechanisms;
ivory tower fashion, that the way to control chemical attack on leachate collection systems; msw;
the pipes is to select pipes that are resistant to the chemicals that
you know will make their way into the landfill. In principal, this

Rachel’s Environment & Health News is a publication of the Environmental Research Foundation, P.O. Box 160, New Brunswick, NJ
08903-0160; Phone: (732) 828-9995; Fax (732) 791-4603; E-mail: [email protected]; http://www.rachel.org. Unless otherwise
indicated, Rachel’s is written by Peter Montague.
Rachel's Environment & Health News CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 11 11
#109 - The Catch-22s Of Landfill Design
December 25, 1988

The waste hauling industry knows that all landfills will eventually Other physical forces working constantly to destroy a landfill cap
leak because their own industry trade journals are now telling the are freezethaw and wet-dry cycles. Soil shrinkage during dry
story. WASTE AGE is the main magazine for the waste industry. weather can cause cracks. Rain penetrates the cracks. In winter, rain
The editors of WASTE AGE are not sympathetic to environmental freezes to ice and expands, widening the cracks. And so on, year in,
groups. For example, it was in WASTE AGE'S columns that you year out, century after century. The cracks not only let in water,
may have read, they also provide pathways for plant roots and for burrowing
animals.
"The NIMBY [not in my back yard] syndrome is a public health
problem of the first order. It is a recurring mental illness that Catch 22 #2: To minimize soil erosion, and to minimize changes due
continues to infect the public. to wet-dry cycles, you need to establish vegetation on the cap.
However, plants maintain their physical stability, and they gather
"Organizations that intensify this illness are like the viruses and water and nutrients, through roots, which can penetrate a landfill
bacteria which have, over the centuries, caused epidemics such as cap, destroying the cap's integrity. Furthermore, plants provide
the plague, typhoid fever, and polio. cover (and food) for burrowing animals, which then burrow into the
cap, destroying it.
"....It is time solid waste management professionals stopped
wringing their hands and started a campaign to wipe out this A study of a solid radioactive waste landfill reveals that mice,
disease." (WASTE AGE, Mar., 1988, pg. 197.) shrews, and pocket gophers can move 10,688 pounds (5.3 tons) of
soil to the surface per acre per year. "Similar activity would have a
Clearly WASTE AGE is no friend of the grass roots environmental dramatic impact on landfill cap integrity," Johnson and Dudderar
movement. Yet it has been publishing articles that say what we've observe. Burrowing animals of concern include woodchucks,
been saying all along: the security and safety of landfills is badgers, muskrats, moles, ground squirchipmunks, gophers, prairie
dependent upon the landfill cap, and the landfill cap is inevitably dogs and badgers. Clay presents little barrier to such animals;
destroyed by natural forces. "synthetic liners, measured in mils [of thickness], are not likely to
impede these same mammals," Johnson and Dudderar observe.
WASTE AGE has run a series of articles over the past two years Non-mammals are also a problem: crayfish, tortoises, mole
saying why landfills will inevitably leak, and suggesting that the salamanders, and "a variety of worms, insects and other
only solution to the problem is perpetual maintenance of the closed invertebrates" can make holes in a landfill cap.
landfill. Since humans have no experience maintaining anything in
perpetuity, perpetual maintenance is an untested and unproven, and, Earthworms alone can have a devastating impact on a landfill cap.
one can only say, silly non-solution. If we took it seriously, perhaps Earthworms pass two to 15 tons of soil through their digestive tracts
we would develop a large army of landfill maintainers whose only per acre per year. "The holes left as they move through the soil to
job in life will be to maintain the toxic garbage left behind by their feed increase water infiltration," Johnson and Dudderar comment.
parents and their parents' parents and their parents' parents' parents They give evidence that worm channels allowed plant roots to grow
and so on for generation after generation. to a depth of nine feet in Nebraska clay soils.
Despite the silly suggestion that perpetual maintenance of landfill In a section called "The fundamental dilemma," Johnson and
caps is a way out of our present garbage problem, these articles Dudderar sum up:
contain much good information about why landfills leak.
"At this point you may well say: 'If we plant, we're encouraging
Remember, a landfill is nothing more than a bathtub in the ground plant and animal penetration of the clay cap. If we don't plant, we
(perhaps, in the case of a double-lined landfill, one bathtub inside get erosion or freeze-thaw destruction of the cap.'
another). A bathtub will leak if its bottom develops a hole, or it can
simply fill up with water (for example, rainfall) and leak over its "Unfortunately, that is one of the fundamental dilemmas left us by
sides. Either way, a landfill can contaminate the local environment. the normal processes of change in the natural world, be they the
Therefore, a "cap" is placed over the landfill when the landfill is progressive conversion of a grassy field to a forest or the utilization
full. The "cap" is supposed to serve as an umbrella to keep rain out, of cracks in concrete sidewalks by ants and dandelions.
to keep the bathtub from spilling over its sides.
"This same successional development process, so intensively studied
Writing in WASTE AGE, Dr. David I. Johnson and Dr. Glenn R. in the ecological literature, will detrimentally affect long-term
Dudderar of the Michigan State University Department of Fisheries landfill integrity." So there you have it, right from the pages of
and Wildlife, have argued, Waste Age: the forces of nature, left to themselves, will destroy
landfill caps, the key element intended to prevent landfills from
"There is evidence that the engineered integrity of a cap will not be leaking.
maintained over the landfill's extended life." (This is somewhat
fancy language for "All landfills will eventually leak.") What hope is there? Perpetual care. A perfectly silly idea. What
reasonable hope is there? None whatsoever. All landfills will
Johnson and Dudderar go on to say, "Regulations may require eventually leak. Happy new year.
bonding for five to 20 years. Yet from a biological and geophysical
point of view this time period is a totally inadequate maintenance For further information, see: David I. Johnson, "Caps: The Long
requirement." (Translation: It may take nature more than 20 years to Haul," WASTE AGE March, 1986, pgs. 83-89; David I. Johnson,
destroy a landfill cap, but nature has all the time in the world, so "Capping Future Costs," WASTE AGE August, 1986, pgs. 77-86;
you'd better be prepared to maintain a landfill for the long haul-- David I. Johnson and Glenn R. Dudderar, "Can Burrowing Animals
forever.) Cause Groundwater Contamination?" WASTE AGE March, 1988,
pgs. 108-111; see also David I. Johnson and Glenn R. Dudderar,
Catch 22 #1: A landfill cap is intended to be impermeable--to keep "Designing and Maintaining Landfill Caps for the Long Haul,"
water out. This means water is supposed to run off the surface. But JOURNAL OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND
this, in turn, invites soil erosion. "But in the runoff process, cap soil TECHNOLOGY, Vol. 16 (April, 1988), pgs. 34-40. Dr. Johnson
will be carried with the runoff, causing sheet and rill erosion and, [phone 517/353-1997] and Dr. Dudderar [phone 517/353-1990] are
ultimately, gullying of the cap." When you get gullies in the cap, it's with Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State
all over. University, East Lansing, MI 48824.
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 12 12

Emerging Contaminants at a Closed

and an Operating Landfill in Oklahoma
by William J. Andrews, Jason R. Masoner, and Isabelle M. Cozzarelli

Abstract
Landfills are the final depositories for a wide range of solid waste from both residential and commercial sources, and
therefore have the potential to produce leachate containing many organic compounds found in consumer products such as
pharmaceuticals, plasticizers, disinfectants, cleaning agents, fire retardants, flavorings, and preservatives, known as emerg-
ing contaminants (ECs). Landfill leachate was sampled from landfill cells of three different age ranges from two landfills in
Central Oklahoma. Samples were collected from an old cell containing solid waste greater than 25 years old, an intermediate
age cell with solid waste between 16 and 3 years old, and operating cell with solid waste less than 5 years old to investigate the
chemical variability and persistence of selected ECs in landfill leachate of differing age sources. Twenty-eight of 69 analyzed
ECs were detected in one or more samples from the three leachate sources. Detected ECs ranged in concentration from 0.11
to 114 µg/L and included 4 fecal and plant sterols, 13 household\industrial, 7 hydrocarbon, and 4 pesticide compounds. Four
ECs were solely detected in the oldest leachate sample, two ECs were solely detected in the intermediate leachate sample,
and no ECs were solely detected in the youngest leachate sample. Eleven ECs were commonly detected in all three leachate
samples and are an indication of the contents of solid waste deposited over several decades and the relative resistance of some
ECs to natural attenuation processes in and near landfills.

Introduction ECs (Slack et al. 2005). Pharmaceutical compounds may

There are 90,000 to 100,000 closed municipal landfills occur in concentrations of approximately 8.1 mg/kg in
and about 3100 operating landfills (Zero Waste America typical MSW (Musson and Townsend 2009). Having been
2011) in the United States. The closed landfills, many of discarded in landfills, ECs may be degraded/metabolized,
which are unlined and poorly capped, may be sources of adsorbed to solids, or dissolved in leachate (Musson and
a large number of organic compounds known as emerging Townsend 2009). Anaerobic conditions in landfills and
contaminants (ECs) to surrounding groundwater and surface nearby groundwater receiving organic-rich leachate from
water. ECs consist of household and industrial compounds landfills (Cozzarelli et al. 2011) are likely to slow metab-
in wastes and consumer products that include fecal and plant olism/breakdown of organic compounds in leachate and
sterols, pharmaceuticals, food additives, soaps and deter- groundwater compared to aerobic conditions that are more
gents, solvents, cleaning agents, fire retardants, plasticizers, common in shallow groundwater (Bedient et al. 1997). In
perfumes, and pesticides. ECs, although they generally groundwater downgradient from an abandoned unlined
occur in small concentrations in water (<1 mg/L), may sin- landfill near Elkhart, Indiana, detergent metabolites, plas-
gly or in aggregate cause health problems for humans and ticizers, disinfectants, fire retardants, pharmaceuticals, and
wildlife ingesting water containing these compounds. an antioxidant were detectable at concentrations in the low
In 2008, approximately 135 million tons of municipal parts-per-billion range (Buszka et al. 2009). Huset et al.
solid waste (MSW) was deposited in landfills in the United (2011) reported on detection of 24 fluorochemicals in land-
States, making landfilling the most common method of fill leachates, primarily short-chain (C4-C7) carboxylates or
MSW disposal (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sulfonates associated with paper, textiles, and carpets.
2009). Landfills are the final depositories for a large Leaching of organic chemicals from both old and mod-
number of anthropogenic organic compounds, including ern landfills to groundwater and surface water is a poten-
tially important environmental problem, with such chemicals
potentially being toxic, estrogenic, and carcinogenic to both
Ground Water Monitoring & Remediation terrestrial and aquatic organisms (Cozzarelli et al. 2011;
© 2011, National Ground Water Association. Published 2011. Huset et al. 2011; Matejczyk et al. 2011). Some reports
This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public have indicated that mixtures of dilute concentrations of ECs
domain in the USA.
in water may deleteriously affect human health, as had been
doi: 10.1111/j1745–6592.2011.01373.x

120 Ground Water Monitoring & Remediation 32, no. 1/ Winter 2012/pages 120–130 NGWA.org
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Fact
PackPact
13 13
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Fact
Pack Pact
14 14
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Fact
Pack Pact
15 15
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Fact
Pack Pact
16 16
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Fact
Pack Pact
17 17
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Fact
PackPact
18 18
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 19 19

Detecting Failure of Subtitle D Landfill Liner Systems

G. Fred Lee, PhD, PE, DEE

G. Fred Lee & Associates, El Macero, California
November 1999

Periodically landfill applicants and some regulators who want to prove that today's Subtitle D landfills are
protective will assert that there are no recorded failures of Subtitle D landfills. This is an issue that I have
addressed previously in my report, "Detection of the Failure of Landfill Liner Systems," (1996) which is
available from my web site, www.gfredlee.com, in the Landfill section.

The statement about "no recorded failures" of Subtitle D landfills is likely correct. I don't know of any
recorded failures. However, as discussed in my review, except under extremely sloppy construction and
highly lucky groundwater monitoring, the failure of Subtitle D landfills at this time would not be expected
to be detected. This is the result of several situations.

First, Subtitle D landfills have only been used for a few years. It should take about 25 years for leachate
that passes through holes in the flexible membrane liner to pass through the clay liner.

Second, as discussed in the paper, "Deficiencies in Subtitle D Landfill Liner Failure and Groundwater
Pollution Monitoring," (1998) which is also available in the Landfill section of my web site, the typical
groundwater monitoring program allowed by regulatory agencies for Subtitle D landfills involving the use
of monitoring wells at the point of compliance, which have zones of capture of about one foot, but which
are spaced hundreds of feet apart, means that there must be widespread, general failure of the liner system
before these monitoring wells can be expected to detect failure.

The initial failure of the liner system will not be through general leakage throughout the bottom of the landfill,
but will be through holes, rips, tears, or points of deterioration in the plastic sheeting flexible membrane
liner. As discussed by Cherry in 1990, the initial liner failures will produce finger-like plumes of leachate
that will have a high probability of passing between the monitoring wells and not being detected by them.

As discussed in my comprehensive review of the deficiencies in the Subtitle D landfilling approach,

"Assessing the Potential of Minimum Subtitle D Lined Landfills to Pollute: Alternative Landfilling
Approaches," (1998), which is also available from my web site, based on the properties of the wastes
allowed in Subtitle D landfills and the characteristics of the liner systems and groundwater monitoring
systems, there is no question about the fact that for Subtitle D landfills sited at geologically unsuitable sites
where the base of the landfill is connected through a vadose zone to usable groundwaters, it is only a matter
of time until those groundwaters are polluted by landfill leachate, rendering them unusable for domestic and
many other purposes. This is not a debatable issue.

Many of the components of the wastes in Subtitle D landfills will be a threat to pollute groundwaters
forever. The liner systems being allowed at best only postpone when groundwater pollution occurs. The
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 20 20

groundwater monitoring systems being allowed are largely cosmetic in detecting off-site groundwater
pollution before widespread pollution occurs. Anyone who claims otherwise either doesn't understand the
basic issues involved, or is deliberately distorting the readily available information on these issues.

Additional Information on Reliability of Groundwater Monitoring at Subtitle D Landfills

In response to my recently summarizing the fundamentally flawed nature of Subtitle D landfilling of

municipal solid wastes in protecting public health and the environment for as long as the waste in a Subtitle
D landfill will be threat, a “landfill engineer” suggested that the typical groundwater monitoring well array
that is used at Subtitle D landfills will detect leachate-polluted groundwater before off-site adjacent property
pollution of groundwater occurs due to dispersion of the leachate-polluted groundwater plume. While
dispersion plays a role in determining the ability of a monitoring well array to detect a leak from a small area
source, it cannot be relied on to insure with a high degree of reliability that the typical groundwater
monitoring well array that is being used today at Subtitle D landfills will detect groundwater pollution when
it first reaches the point of compliance for groundwater monitoring. Dispersion can be an important factor
for slow-moving groundwater pollution plumes at considerable distances from the source. However,
contrary to the “landfill engineer’s” suggestion, the situation in monitoring around a leaking tank is not the
same as the typical monitoring situation at Subtitle D landfills. It is my experience that rarely are monitoring
wells near a leaking tank somewhat randomly spaced hundreds to a thousand or so feet apart along the
down groundwater gradient edge of the tank, as they are with Subtitle D landfills.

Detection of Leaks from Underground Tanks Versus Detecting Landfill Liner Leaks
When investigating leaking underground storage tanks, the potential source of the leak, i.e., the tank
and its associated plumbing, are confined to a small area. To determine whether a tank has leaked
sufficiently to pollute groundwaters, it is necessary to define, through the use of three monitoring wells, the
direction of groundwater flow. Once this direction has been defined, then the placement of monitoring wells
to detect leaks is usually straightforward for relatively homogeneous aquifer systems. However, for
landfills, which can occupy hundreds to a thousand or more acres, the initial leakage point is unknown.
Therefore, it is not possible to strategically locate monitoring wells downgradient which would reliably
detect the leak when it first reaches the point of compliance for groundwater monitoring.

In accord with Subtitle D regulations, the point of compliance can be no more than 150 meters from
the down groundwater gradient edge of the landfill, and must be on the landfill owner’s property. Since
there are no restrictions on landfilling to the edge of the property, I have repeatedly seen landfills with waste
deposition areas within a few feet of the adjacent property line. Further, in some states, such as California,
the point of compliance for Subtitle D landfill groundwater monitoring is the down groundwater gradient
edge of the waste deposition area. This means that there can be little distance between where leaks can
occur along the down groundwater gradient edge of the landfill, and the point of compliance for
groundwater monitoring. While dispersion might be important for helping to detect leaks from the up
groundwater gradient side of the landfill for slow-moving groundwater pollution plumes, it is of limited value
in detecting leaks on the down groundwater gradient side of the landfill.

2
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 21 21

Dr. Cherry and his associates at the University of Waterloo examined the lateral dispersion that
occurs in a relatively homogeneous aquifer system from a two-foot-long line source of a tracer. This group
found that the two-foot-wide source had spread to about ten feet within 150 meters of the source. This
means that monitoring wells would have to be spaced no more than 10 to 20 feet apart in order to reliably
detect down groundwater gradient side of the landfill leaks. With monitoring wells spaced at least hundreds
of feet apart at distances less than 150 meters from the down groundwater gradient edge of the landfill,
there is appreciable distance between the monitoring wells, where substantial leachate plumes could pass
without being detected.

It is inappropriate to suggest that detecting leaks from underground storage tanks is similar to
detecting liner leaks from municipal landfills. The two situations are obviously significantly different.

Detecting Leaks from Landfills Sited above Fractured Rock Aquifer Systems
There are many Subtitle D landfills sited above fractured rock aquifer systems where it is impossible
to reliably monitor landfill liner leakage, even if the monitoring wells are spaced only a few feet apart.
Under most of these types of situations dispersion will not overcome the fundamental problems of
monitoring the eventual failure of the landfill liner system.

Support of Dr. Cherry’s Conclusions on the Unreliability of Groundwater Monitoring at

FML-Lined Landfills
The work of Dr. John Cherry and his associates at the University of Waterloo has been supported
by a number of competent hydrogeologists with whom I have worked, in review of the potential of
proposed Subtitle D landfills to pollute groundwaters, as well as the ability of a proposed groundwater
monitoring well array to detect this pollution in accord with Subtitle D requirements, when the pollution first
reaches the point of compliance for groundwater monitoring.

Detecting Leaks in Fast and Slow-Moving Plumes

For fast-moving plumes in homogenous aquifer systems, dispersion will not necessarily be adequate
to significantly improve the reliability of the typical Subtitle D monitoring well array. There are many places
within a landfill footprint where leaks could occur and not be detected at the point of compliance for
groundwater monitoring. For slow-moving plumes, there are important questions about whether the
monitoring system will be maintained and operated when these plumes reach the point of compliance for
groundwater monitoring. With no assured post-closure funding after 30 years, there is no assurance that
groundwater monitoring systems will still be maintained and operated when they are needed, when the
slow-moving plume with its dispersion reaches the point of compliance for ground water monitoring.

Recommended Approach for Permitting of Landfills

It has been my recommendation at landfill permitting hearings, that rather than assuming that
arbitrarily spaced groundwater monitoring wells will reliably detect landfill liner leaks in accord with Subtitle
D requirements, i.e., when the leachate-polluted groundwater first reaches the point of compliance for
groundwater monitoring, the landfill applicant should be required to provide reliable information on the

3
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 22 22

monitoring well spacing, considering the site-specific characteristics of the geology-hydrology of the aquifer
system that will be polluted when the Subtitle D liner system fails to prevent significant leakage of leachate
through the liner. The burden of proof for the reliability of the groundwater monitoring system should be
on the landfill applicant and not the public whose groundwater could be polluted if the arbitrarily developed
groundwater monitoring system fails to detect the leachate-polluted groundwater at the point of compliance.
It should be the responsibility of the landfill applicant to define, based on the site-specific characteristics
of the aquifer, the monitoring well array needed to have a 95% probability of detecting one to two-foot-
long rips, tears, or points of deterioration in the landfill FML liner at the point of compliance for
groundwater monitoring, when the leachate-polluted groundwater first reaches this point.

Adopting this approach would quickly show what is well understood, that today’s groundwater
monitoring systems at many Subtitle D landfills are cosmetic and provide little in the way of reliable
monitoring of leachate-polluted groundwaters before widespread liner deterioration occurs. At many
Subtitle D landfills, the leaks through the liners will likely first be detected in off-site production wells, rather
than by the groundwater monitoring system.

4
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 23 23

Assessing the Potential of Minimum Subtitle D Lined

Land lls to Pollute: Alternative Land lling Approaches

G. Fred Lee, PhD, PE, DEE and Anne Jones-Lee, PhD

G. Fred Lee & Associates, 27298 E. El Macero Drive, El Macero, CA 95618
Ph: 530-753-9630; Fx: 530-753-9956; em: [email protected]

March 1998

Abstract

The US EPA Subtitle D regulations specify as a minimum, MSW land lls be lined with a single
composite liner which is part of a leachate collection and removal system. Upon reaching the
land ll capacity, a low-permeability cover is installed. A groundwater monitoring system is used to
detect liner failure during the 30-year mandated post-closure care period. The waste in a minimum
Subtitle D Adry tomb@ land ll will be a threat to pollute groundwaters by leachate, effectively for-
ever. The land ll liner and cover have a nite period of time when they can be expected to function
effectively to keep moisture out of the land ll that generates leachate and to collect leachate formed
within the land ll. The groundwater monitoring systems typically used with monitoring wells hav-
ing zones of capture of about one foot on each side, spaced hundreds of feet apart, have low proba-
bilities of detecting land ll liner failure that leads to groundwater pollution before off-site pollution
occurs. The 30 years of mandated post-closure care is an in nitesimally small part of the time that
the waste in a minimum Subtitle D Adry tomb@ land ll will be a threat to generate leachate that
can pollute groundwater. Fundamentally, the minimum Subtitle D MSW land ll is a technologically
awed approach that, at best, only postpones when groundwater pollution occurs for those land lls
sited at geologically unsuitable sites, i.e. those without natural groundwater quality protection. The
US EPA Subtitle D regulations also fail to address the justi able NIMBY associated with active
life releases (odors, dust, blowing paper, etc.) from the land ll to the surrounding area. This paper
discusses the de ciencies in minimum Subtitle D land lling of MSW and provides guidance on al-
ternative land lling approaches that can protect public health, groundwater resources, environment
and the interests of those within the sphere of in uence of the land ll.
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 24 24

Impact of Municipal and Industrial Non-Hazardous Waste

Land lls
on Public Health and the Environment: An Overview
G. Fred Lee, Ph.D., P.E., D.E.E. and Anne Jones-Lee, Ph.D.
G. Fred Lee & Associates
El Macero, CA 95618
(530) 753-9630

Prepared for California Environmental Protection Agency’s Comparative Risk Project, May (1994).

Executive Summary

Classical unlined sanitary land lls are well-known to release large amounts of hazardous and other-
wise deleterious chemicals to nearby groundwater and to the air, via leachate (“garbage juice”) and
land ll gas. It is known that such releases contain a wide variety of potential carcinogens and poten-
tially toxic chemicals that represent a threat to public health. However, little quantitative informa-
tion exists on the total hazard that land lls represent to those who live or otherwise use properties
near the land ll. Epidemiological studies of the “exposed” populations near land lls and Superfund
sites have not detected a clearly discernable increase in the incidence of cancer in those populations.
This is to be expected because of the insensitivity of epidemiological methods for detecting small
increases in cancer incidence in limited populations over the normal lifetime cancer risk for the US
population of one cancer in three people. It would be rare that a suf cient number of individuals
near Superfund site land lls would experience an average increased cancer risk of 1 in 1,000.

The leachate from MSW land lls is a highly concentrated “chemical soup,” so concentrated that
small amounts of leachate can pollute large amounts of groundwater rendering it unsuitable for use
for domestic water supply. In addition to potential carcinogens and highly toxic chemicals, MSW
leachate contains a variety of conventional pollutants that render a leachate-contaminated ground-
water unusable or highly undesirable due to tastes and odors, reduced service life of appliances
(e.g., dishwashers, hot water heaters, plumbing), fabric (clothes), etc. Furthermore, both gas and
leachate from MSW land lls contain many organic chemicals that have not been characterized with
respect to speci c chemical content or their associated public health or other hazards. These “non-
conventional pollutants” include more than 95% of the organics in MSW leachate.

There are more than 65,000 chemicals in US commerce today; about 1,000 new chemicals are be-
ing developed each year. Of those chemicals, only about 200 are regulated and measured in studies
of MSW land ll leachate-contamination. Given the highly concentrated nature of MSW land ll
leachate, that a large portion of the organics in MSW leachate are of unknown character and hazard,
and that a comparatively few chemicals are regulated, it should not be assumed that the fact that a
leachate-contaminated groundwater meets all drinking water MCL’s (maximum contaminant lev-
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 25 25

els) means that the water should be considered safe to consume. Furthermore, once a groundwater
is contaminated by MSW land ll leachate of the type produced in today’s Subtitle D land lls, it and
the associated aquifer cannot be cleansed so as to render a water that can be considered reliable for
consumption and certain other uses. The contaminated portion of the aquifer must be abandoned
for future use as a domestic water supply source and for conjunctive use storage of surplus surface
waters for use during drought periods. Therefore, it is prudent public health and water resource
management policy to assume that any contamination of groundwater by MSW land ll leachate
represents a signi cant threat to public health and the environment and should cause termination of
the use of the water for domestic water supply purposes.

Land ll gas emissions also contain large amounts of obnoxious and otherwise deleterious chemicals
that are highly detrimental to nearby property owners and users. The methane in land ll gas releases,
while odorless, poses a threat of explosions in enclosed structures and contributes to the greenhouse
gases that promote global warming. Both methane and C02 in land ll gas can also be highly detri-
mental to vegetation on the land ll cover and near the land ll. The obnoxious odors that are emitted
from MSW land lls can persist for a mile or more from the land ll. Such odors provide a tracer for
non-odorous as well as odorous hazardous chemicals in gaseous emissions. Because of the large
amounts of non-conventional pollutants in land ll gas, the detection of land ll odors on offsite prop-
erties should warn of a signi cant public health threat. Odors and other adverse conditions created
by land ll operations cause property values to decrease within a mile or so of the land ll.

New Subtitle D regulations prescribe a “dry tomb” land lling approach in which untreated MSW is
placed in plastic-sheeting- and compacted-soil-lined land lls in an attempt to isolate the wastes from
water for as long as the wastes will be a threat. Evaluation of the character of the systems incor-
porated relative to physical, chemical, and biological processes as they occur in such systems, and
the nature of the materials placed in them shows the “dry tomb” land lling approach to be a awed
technology that will not protect the public health, or groundwater and air resources under and above
the land ll and adjacent properties. At best, it will only postpone the leakage of leachate and gas to
adversely affect public health and environmental quality.

MSW in a “dry tomb” land ll will be a threat to public health, groundwater resources, and the envi-
ronment forever. The effectiveness of Subtitle D land ll liner systems in preventing leachate migra-
tion is compromised after installation, and will deteriorate over time allowing increasing amounts of
leachate to pass through the liner into the groundwater system hydraulically connected to the bottom
of the land ll.

The US EPA and states’ Subtitle D groundwater monitoring approach of using vertical monitor-
ing wells spaced hundreds to a thousand or more feet apart at the groundwater monitoring point of
compliance is grossly inadequate for detecting incipient groundwater pollution from lined land lls.
Unlike leakage from unlined land lls in homogeneous hydrological settings, the initial leakage
from plastic sheeting-lined Subtitle D land lls will be through holes, tears, or imperfections in the
sheeting. Such point-source leakage results in the emanation of “ ngers” of leachate-contaminated
groundwater which are a few feet wide at the point of compliance for groundwater monitoring.
Vertical monitoring wells have effective zones of capture of leachate-contaminated groundwater of
only about one foot around the wells. With the spacing of such wells allowed, the US EPA Subtitle D
groundwater monitoring approach will not detect groundwater pollution, much less incipient land ll
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 26 26

leakage, before widespread groundwater pollution has occurred.

The municipal solid waste stream of today and of the future potentially contains less industry-
de ved hazardous chemicals than the classical sanitary land ll. However, it does, and will continue
to, contain large amounts of highly hazardous and otherwise deleterious chemicals that will render
groundwaters contaminated by such leachate unusable for domestic water supply purposes.

RCRA set forth a minimum post-closure care period of 30 years; that period was also used by the
US EPA in implementing Subtitle D regulations. However, 30 years is an imperceptibly small, and
insigni cant part of the total time that MSW in Subtitle D “dry tomb” land lls will be a threat to
public health, groundwater resources, and the environment. Insuf cient funds are being collected
from waste generators and set aside to meet the inevitable and unending needs for post-closure care
monitoring and maintenance, and groundwater and land ll remediation for Subtitle D land lls. The
Subtitle D land lling approach and requirements adopted by the US EPA are super cial and only
serve as a stop-gap measure for managing MSW. They enable today’s society to continue to enjoy
solid waste “disposal” without the responsibility and expense of preventing them from causing
future problems. This is being enjoyed at the expense of future generations’ public health, ground-
water resources, and welfare.

Contrary to claims made by the US EPA in implementing Subtitle D land ll regulations in October
1991, Subtitle D land ll requirements do not address the justi able “NIMBY” concerns and prob-
lems associated with the active life of land lls or the post-closure care impacts on those who own
or use properties within several miles of the land lls. In not recognizing the potential signi cance
of non-conventional pollutants, the nature of processes within the land lls, the nature and limita-
tions of the liner systems and monitoring approaches, and the perpetual threat of contaminants in
land lls, the US EPA Subtitle D and state regulations do not protect public health or groundwa-
ter resources for as long as the wastes represent a threat. Since Subtitle D land lls only postpone
groundwater pollution, and for many land lls, gas emission problems, Subtitle D land lls do not
signi cantly alleviate the threat of land ll gas and leachate to those who own or use properties
within the sphere of in uence of the land ll. The “dry tomb” land lling approach should be recog-
nized as “temporary” storage for MSW that will ultimately require exhumation and treatment of the
wastes unless groundwaters hydraulically connected to them are to be abandoned as water resourc-
es.

More protective alternatives to US EPA Subtitle D “dry tomb” land lls are available to address both
the near-term and long-term threats that such land lls represent to public health, groundwater re-
sources and the environment, as well as to the welfare of those within the sphere of in uence of the
land ll. The additional costs for such approaches are insigni cant compared to the long-term costs
that will have to be paid by future generations for today’s waste management mistakes. One such
alternative is a fermentation/leaching “wet-cell” approach. In brief, that approach includes the recy-
cling of land ll leachate in a double-composite-lined land ll that contains shredded MSW followed
by a decade or so of clean-water washing (leaching) of the solid waste to produce non-polluting
residues. The lower composite “liner” serves not for last-resort containment, but rather as a lysim-
eter leak detection system for the upper-composite liner. Associated with that waste treatment/man-
agement concept is required the setting aside of suf cient funding in a dedicated trust fund derived
from increased disposal fees to exhume the wastes when leakage through the upper-composite liner
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 27 27

cannot be stopped. To address justi able active-life NIMBY concerns and problems, it is necessary
that the land ll be sited with an adequate land ll owner-owned land buffer of at least one mile about
the outer reaches of the land ll. The land ll buffer would be used to dilute the adverse impacts of
the land ll, such as odors, seagulls, etc. that occur with today’s land lling operations. The estimated
initial cost of this approach is about 10 to 15 cents/person/day more than that paid for solid waste
management in Subtitle D land lls. Expenditures of this amount will not only address justi able
NIMBY issues of today’s land lls, but also signi cantly improve the protection of future generations
from adverse impacts of gaseous and leachate emissions. Further information on each of these issues
is provided in this report and in references contained therein.
Document View

CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 28 28

Plastic dump liners have been slow in coming

Bailey, Jeff. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Nov 14, 1996. pg. A4, 5 pgs

Abstract (Summary)
Five years after federal rules were rolled out aimed at requiring environmental protecting plastic liners under garbage dumps, the
liners are installed at only about one third of the nation's dumps, a consultant's study found. What's more, the EPA is gearing up to
allow increasing varieties and amounts of industrial wastes, some of them formerly channeled to hazardous-waste-only disposal
sites, to go to regular trash dumps.

Copyright Dow Jones & Company Inc Nov 14, 1996

Five years after federal rules were rolled out aimed at requiring environment-protecting plastic liners under garbage dumps, the liners
are installed at only about one third of the nation's dumps, a consultant's study found.

What's more, the Environmental Protection Agency is gearing up to allow increasing varieties and amounts of industrial wastes,
some of them formerly channeled to hazardous-waste-only disposal sites, to go to regular trash dumps.

In addition to raising environmental concerns, these two developments are angering waste-handling companies that compete against
dumps, particularly trash and hazardous-waste incinerators that already have much higher operating costs.

The Integrated Waste Services Association, which represents operators of more than 100 big trash-to-energy plants, objects to what
it considers unequal treatment. The waste-burning plants are just beginning a $400 million retrofit to comply with Clean Air Act
regulations, and some have been suffering because a glut of disposal capacity has driven disposal prices downward in some big
markets.

"It's not fair," said Maria Zannes, president of the Washington-based association. "These guys get all the breaks."

The study was conducted by Environmental Information Ltd., a Minneapolis consulting and publishing concern. The firm has
accepted funding from hazardous-waste handlers to perform other studies, but funded this study entirely on its own, said Jeff Smith,
a senior associate.

According to the study, only 960 of the nation's 2,931 active dumps have synthetic liner systems.

The liner-installation shortfall arose as the EPA delegated to states the implementation of dump rules, and allowed the states to
exempt many disposal facilities from any synthetic-liner requirement. Most commonly exempted were dumps in some remote areas,
those that take smaller volumes of waste, and, those in arid climates where low rainfall reduces the likelihood that water
contaminated by waste would seep into groundwater.

But some large and active dumps, particularly those owned by municipalities, continue to accept waste into unlined areas because
the rules allowed "vertical expansion" to continue on top of older, unlined dump areas.

This shows how even a simple environmental safeguard -- itself far from an absolute protection against fouling groundwater -- ends
up being watered down as the EPA, states, local government and the waste industry all get involved in the implementation of federal
rules.

To be sure, the biggest and busiest dumps in the U.S. tend to have synthetic liner systems, which include piping to extract and treat
garbage juice known as leachate.

Browning-Ferris Industries Inc., the nation's No. 2 dump operator, said 80 of its 82 active U.S. trash dumps have such liner systems.
WMX Technologies Inc., No. 1 among dump operators, said it has synthetic liners in all of its dumps horizontally expanded since
1993 -- about 80% of its more than 100 U.S. sites. Some of the remaining 20%, though not all, also have such liners.

It's not only the big dumps that are of concern. Many of the nastiest Superfund cleanup sites, born during the dump-it-anywhere days
before regulations, were in fact small facilities.

Adding a synthetic liner costs $25,000 or more an acre at dumps, according to the EPA, while cleaning up even small contaminated
dump sites can costs millions of dollars. "The EPA and states seem to prefer a pound of cure to an ounce of prevention,"

1 of 2
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 29 29
Environmental Information's Mr. Smith said.

The EPA itself doesn't keep track of how many dumps have synthetic liners, leaving that to states. "I'm not shocked," said Bob
Dellinger, acting director of the agency's municipal and industrial solid-waste section, of the study's finding about the lack of synthetic
liner systems. Mr. Dellinger said the EPA expected about 800 dumps to qualify under the "small, dry and remote" exemptions, and
that many of the other dumps without liners are probably still piling trash on top of older, unlined areas.

Proximity to groundwater and the mix of wastes that go into a dump are considered by many waste experts to be as important -- or
more so -- than whether a site has a synthetic liner. Mr. Dellinger said the rules and various exemptions were designed to require
liners at dumps that pose greater threats.

Credit: Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal

Indexing (document details)

Subjects: Waste disposal, Landfill, Industrial wastes, Hazardous substances, Federal regulation, Environmental
protection
Companies: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
Author(s): Bailey, Jeff
Document types: News
Publication title: Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: Nov 14, 1996. pg. A4, 5 pgs
Source type: Newspaper
ISSN: 00999660
ProQuest document ID: 10454388
Text Word Count 687

Copyright © 2008 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved.

2 of 2
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 30 30

Unexpected leakage through landfill liners.Janet Raloff. Science News 135.n11 (March
18, 1989): pp164(1). (757 words)

Full Text:COPYRIGHT 1989 Science Service, Inc.

Unexpected Leakage Through Landfill Liners

For years, the standard way to dispose of hazardous chemicals was to bury them in landfills.
Intended as permanent resting places, most of these graves incorporated a bathtub-shaped liner
of compacted clay to keep water -- and buried toxic wastes -- from escaping. While clay does limit
water leaks fairly well, new field research shows it fails to block the major route by which many
toxic chemicals, such as organic solvents, escape.

The researchers say this finding carries grave implications not only for the safety of
hazardous-waste landfills begun prior to 1985, but also for the adequacy of current techniques of
containing landfill leaks and toxic chemicals spilled on land.

Water provides the two primary means by which pollutants move from landfills. Through a
"vehicular" pathway, water can carry dissolved wastes as it flows from areas of high pressure,
such as pools collected on the inside of a landfill, to regions of low pressure, such as drier soils
underneath. A second pathway uses water quite differently -- as a potentially fixed "conduit"
through which dissolved contaminants "diffuse" from regions where their concentrations are
higher to areas where they are lower.

Today, notes Richard Johnson, an environmental scientist at the Oregon Graduate Center in
Beaverton, engineers work at controlling the vehicular pathway only. Until recently, the standard
approach was to line landfills with "impermeable" clay barriers -- ones designed to leak no more
than 89 gallons of water per acre daily, according to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
engineer Kenneth Skahn of Washington, D.C. Diffusion control was all but ignored, Skahn says,
because of a prevailing attitude that "diffusion really will never be much of a factor" in landfill
leaks. Unfortunately, Johnson says, this attitude fostered a false sense of security.

Johnson's research, reported in the March ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

shows significant toxic-chemical diffusion into the barrier of a five-year-old, clay-lined
hazardous-waste landfill in Sarnia, Ontario. As expected, there was wide variability in contaminant
mobility, with the most water-soluble pollutants moving fastest. Chloride ions, for example, had
penetrated about 28 inches into the clay floor. Less water-soluble organic chemicals spent more
of their time preferentially clinging to carbon in the clay. Acetone and ketones, among the more
water soluble of these organics, traveled only about 5 inches -- three to 20 times farther than
would be expected for far less soluble solvents, like benzene and toluene.

Owing to the unusual depth of this landfill's natural clay floor -- about 130 feet -- no contaminant
broke through this barrier. However, Johnson says, if the clay's thickness had been more typical
of hazardous-waste landfills -- perhaps 3 feet -- his data suggest the more mobile contaminants
might have broken through in just five years, and slower ones, like benzene, in 70 years.

So closely do these field data mirror theory, Johnson says, "that if I know what a contaminant's
solubility is, and the [barrier's] organic carbon content, I can now predict how fast a chemical will
[diffuse through]."

Comments Donald H. Gray, a civil engineer at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, "There are

1 of 2
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 31 31
important implications here for the design and construction of containment envelopes around
hazardous-waste landfills." The new findings show that once water permeability is well controlled,
diffusion becomes the dominant exit route for interred wastes.

Since 1985, EPA has banned landfilling of solvents -- like benzene -- and required that new
hazardous-waste landfills use multiple barriers of clay and synthetic materials. Less
water-permeable than clay, plastics also provide a major barrier to diffusion. Thus, Johnson says,
the real concern is with landfills built before 1985. EPA's Robert Landreth says agency officials
don't know how many U.S. hazardous-waste landfills rely on clay barriers, but a good guess might
be "more than 10 and less than 50." Johnson says a more likely estimate is "at least hundreds."

The new findings are relevant also to current containment efforts, says Walter Weber, a colleague
of Gray's at the University of Michigan. Today, engineers commonly cordon off chemical spills in
soil and leaking landfills by digging a thick trench around them, preferably down to a natural clay
deposit, and filling the trench with a slurry of clay and soil. Once it hardens, the slurry wall
becomes relatively impermeable to water. However, this barrier -- often the only one surrounding
the toxic chemicals -- offers little protection from diffusion, Weber notes. So he and Gray are
studying ways to increase its carbon content -- currently by incorporating fly ash -- to slow the
diffusion of trapped organics.

Source Citation:Raloff, Janet. "Unexpected leakage through landfill liners." Science

News 135.n11 (March 18, 1989): 164(1).

Gale Document Number:A7483323

2 of 2
 Document shows landfill operator fined for design failures - Hawaii News Now - KGMB and KHNL Home

CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 32 << Back
32

Document shows landfill operator fined for design failures

Posted: Jan 27, 2011 3:03 AM EST
Updated: Jan 27, 2011 3:45 AM EST

By Ben Gutierrez - bio | email

KAPOLEI (HawaiiNewsNow) - A document has come to light, showing that the operator
of the Waimanalo Gulch landfill and the city were fined $424,000 last year for design
failures at the landfill.

The fine was in a notice of violation issued in May 2010, which contended that Waste
Management and the city failed to follow design specifications for a liner that was
supposed to cover waste, and built the west berm of the landfill too high. According to
the notice, the liner was of a lower quality than specified.

Carroll Cox, of the environmental group EnviroWatch, noted that the company had paid
an even bigger fine. "That comes on the heels of a $2.8 million dollar fine that they
paid earlier, for earlier violations. So this is just a constant dripping, so to speak, of
one big problem after the other," Cox said. Carroll Cox

The huge fine was assessed in 2006; according to the notice of violation, the design
process involved in the latest fine began the same year.

Cox contends that the failure to follow the design contributed to the problems that
arose when floodwaters went through the landfill and spread refuse and medical waste
along the Leeward Oahu coast. "I think I would probably not be here doing this
interview, and we wouldn't see the people of Ko Olina, who are rightfully outraged,"
said Cox. "We wouldn't have the general public querying this one big question: How did
medical waste get into the environment, get into the ocean?"

Ko Olina residents were present at a Kapolei Neighborhood Board meeting Wednesday night to discuss
the problems at the landfill. Meantime, the city announced Wednesday that the landfill would
reopen Friday to allow city crews to dispose of backlogged waste. It will reopen to the general
public next week Wednesday.

Cox says the document also points to continuing problems at Waste Management, which have been
only made worse by the heavy rain.

"What they are really facing now is having to work in the mud now, in that area. Not just from that
storm, but also from water that had gotten behind the liner, and gotten into the cell and presenting
a bigger problem," Cox said.

The city's Environmental Services Department said the fine had been settled with the state
Health Department. But Cox said it's no longer just an environmental cost, but a cost to
taxpayers, because of the fines.

Copyright 2011 Hawaii News Now. All rights reserved.

All content © Copyright 2000 - 2011 WorldNow and KHNL/KGMB, a Raycom Media station. All
Rights Reserved.
For more information on this site, please read our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.
>

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/13917151/document-shows-waste-manage?clienttype=printable [8/8/2011 4:45:38 PM]

 $)&+
-BOEGJMM
'BJMVSFT
'1

CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pact 33
Int J Public Health (2013) 58:725–735
DOI 10.1007/s00038-013-0496-8

REVIEW

Health effects associated with the disposal of solid waste

in landfills and incinerators in populations living in surrounding
areas: a systematic review
Amalia Mattiello • Paolo Chiodini • Elvira Bianco •
Nunzia Forgione • Incoronata Flammia • Ciro Gallo •

Renato Pizzuti • Salvatore Panico

Received: 26 March 2013 / Revised: 26 June 2013 / Accepted: 10 July 2013 / Published online: 26 July 2013
! Swiss School of Public Health 2013

Abstract From the very little information on exclusively urbanwaste

Objectives Potential health hazards for the environment depots it is reasonable to say that correct management of
and people living nearby landfills and incinerators are landfill does not increase the risk of these health effects. It
claimed to be related to several methods of waste man- is confirmed that historically incinerators are an important
agement. Independent systematic review of the scientific source of pollution and harm for the health of populations
literature is a key procedure to support the lay public and living nearby; however, changes in technology are pro-
policy makers to achieve informed decisions. ducing more reassuring results.
Methods The study design and potential biases of papers Conclusions A moderate level of confidence is possible
retrieved in this comprehensive literature search were in limited areas of knowledge, implying the need to over-
analyzed. come the limitations of current studies about exposure
Results The most consistent result is that the risks of assessment and to control confounders at the individual
congenital anomalies and hospitalization due to respiratory level.
disease are likely to be real nearby special waste landfills.
Keywords Incinerator ! Landfill !
Environmental exposure ! Environmental diseases !
This article is part of the special issue ‘‘Environment and Health Population health
Reviews’’.

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this

article (doi:10.1007/s00038-013-0496-8) contains supplementary Introduction
material, which is available to authorized users.
Management of solid waste disposal is a priority issue in
A. Mattiello ! N. Forgione ! I. Flammia ! S. Panico
Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Federico II Naples, the organization of modern societies. In spite of the
Naples, Italy increasing recycling activities, landfills and incinerators are
widely used to manage the final phase of waste disposal.
P. Chiodini ! C. Gallo
Potential health hazards for the environment and people
Department of Mental Health and Preventive Medicine,
Second University of Naples, Caserta, Italy living nearby are claimed to be related to waste manage-
ment, which is known to release potentially harmful
E. Bianco substances although in small quantities and at very low
Azienda Sanitaria Locale Avellino, Avellino, Italy
levels. Many uncertainties surround the assessment of
R. Pizzuti health effects, and the need for independent systematic
Epidemiological Observatory, Campania Region, Naples, Italy reviews of the current scientific information is urgent in
order to provide the lay public and policy makers with
S. Panico (&)
reliable lines of scientific knowledge. A number of reviews
Dipartimento di Medicina Clinica e Chirurgia, Federico II
University, Via Pansini, 5, 80131 Naples, Italy are already available (Vrijheid 2000; Hu and Shy 2001;
e-mail: [email protected] Rushton 2003; Dolk and Vrijheid 2003; Department for

123
 $)&+
-BOEGJMM
'BJMVSFT
'1

CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pact 34
726 A. Mattiello et al.

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) 2004; entific information for the interpretation of the results. The
Franchini et al. 2004; Michaels and Monforton 2005; search was completed using the references identified in the
Minichilli et al. 2005; Linzalone and Bianchi 2007; World retrieved papers and any highlighted by the working group.
Health Organization (WHO) 2007; Russi et al. 2008; A total of 201 relevant papers were identified, 101 on
Signorelli et al. 2008; Giusti 2009; Porta et al. 2009). The landfills and 100 on incinerators. The papers were screened
reviews underline the difficulties in interpreting data from for eligibility by two independent reviewers; disagreements
primary studies because of the lack of accurate exposure were resolved by discussion. Out of 100 papers on landfills,
information and control of potential confounders. This 71 were excluded (1 systematic review, 1 duplicate paper,
problematic interpretation further complicates a scenario 1 focused on occupational exposure, 34 biological studies,
where risk communication is poorly manageable, risk 34 other non-relevant types of papers); therefore 29 papers
perception is greatly biased, and conflicting interests were evaluated (4 cohort studies, 8 case–control studies, 17
become the dominant issues for discussion, implying huge ecological studies). Out of 100 papers on incinerators, 69
difficulties in managing public health issues affecting the were excluded (2 systematic reviews, 1 duplicate paper, 1
safety of communities. This review updates the evaluation focused on occupational exposure, 29 biological studies, 36
of evidence (19 more papers on landfills and 13 on incin- other non-relevant types of papers); therefore 31 papers
erators included in the tables in the ‘‘Electronic were evaluated (2 cohort studies, 9 case–control studies, 17
supplementary material’’) derived from the literature on the ecological studies, 3 cross-sectional studies). The list of
health effects of landfills and incinerators in people living excluded papers is reported in Appendix A (Electronic
in their proximity and discusses the degree of uncertainty supplementary material).
associated with the risk estimates, thereby providing Information on study subjects (number, age, gender,
researchers, citizens, and institutions with an updated country), exposure assessment, outcome assessment, esti-
independent piece of evidence. This process has been mated effects, and potential bias were independently
promoted by the Italian authorities after the dramatic gar- abstracted by three observers using a predefined format,
bage management failures in Campania, an Italian area and disagreements were resolved by discussion. Charac-
where the safety of communities has been put in danger by teristics of the studies are reported in Appendices B and C
very bad organization and the presence of several illegal (Electronic supplementary material) for landfills and
landfills; the resultant potential health hazards in some incinerators, respectively. The tables therein are arranged
areas of Campania are associated with higher mortality by outcome.
rates for various diseases in comparison with those in other To assess the size and direction of potential biases an
regional areas (Altavista et al. 2004; Comba et al. 2006; evaluation scale is proposed that envisages exposure
Martuzzi et al. 2009; Fazzo et al. 2008, 2011). assessment, outcome assessment, and confounding control
(Table 1). For each item the null value (0) indicates that no
influence on the estimation is likely, a positive sign that the
Methods effect estimates could be less (?) or more (??) overesti-
mated, and a negative sign that the effect estimates could
The scientific literature was scrutinized through comput- be less (-) or more (- -) underestimated. As for exposure
erized literature searches using PubMed, Embase, Web of assessment, underestimation is considered according to the
Science, and the Cochrane Library from 1 January 1983 to study designs; conversely for outcome and confounding
1 June 2012. The search strategy consisted in the use of assessment, overestimation is considered (Porta et al. 2009;
various combinations, in line with the specific database WHO 2007; Franchini et al. 2004; Giusti 2009). The results
language, of the terms ‘‘incinerat* OR ‘‘refuse disposal’’ of this evaluation were discussed among three authors (SP,
OR ‘‘refuse disposals’’ OR landfill*’’, ‘‘population* OR EB, and PC) and the grade was assigned according to the
habitant*’’, ‘‘environmental exposure’’, ‘‘environmental majority rule in case of inconsistencies.
disease’’; the search was subsequently improved using An attempt to define the relationship between the pro-
more restrictive terms related to both exposure to disposal cess (landfill/incinerator) and the various diseases in terms
sites and disease outcomes. Primary publications on the of potential cause–effect evaluation was performed
health effects of landfills and/or incinerators on the popu- according to Porta et al. (2009), using the International
lation living in the proximity were the subject of this Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) criteria for carci-
systematic review. Other types of papers (systematic nogenesis (IARC–WHO, 2013). The results of this
reviews, biomonitoring of toxic agents in the proximity of evaluation were discussed among three authors (SP, EB,
waste disposal sites, environmental impact estimation) and PC) and the relationship was assigned according to the
were consulted in order to integrate all the available sci- majority rule in case of inconsistencies.

123
 $)&+
-BOEGJMM
'BJMVSFT
'1

CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pact 35
Health effects associated with the disposal of solid waste in landfills and incinerators 727

Table 1 Qualitative assessment

Item Risk of bias Evaluation criteria
of internal validity of the
reviewed studies Exposure - If defined by both the distance from the site and
some measurement of polluting substances
-- If defined only by the distance from the site or by an
exposure area
0 Use of individual data
Outcome 0 If reported from cancer registries or direct measure
of incidence
? If reported by death registries
?? If reported by hospital discharge forms or detected
through questionnaires
Confounding 0 Use of individual data
? Control at a population level (including deprivation
index)
?? No control

Results Liver In an ecological study that analyzed mortality in a

community living in an Italian area containing a landfill, an
Studies on communities living near landfills incinerator, and a refinery, liver cancer mortality was not
different in populations living at various distances from the
Twenty-nine papers on the health effects in communities sites, after adjustment for age and deprivation index and
living in the proximity of landfills were evaluated. One of separately by sex (Michelozzi et al. 1998). In another
the major issues in the evaluation was the difficulty in Italian study a potential risk was found in males, but no
distinguishing between solid urban waste and other types adjustment was made and information on outcomes cannot
of wastes. There is not yet a standardized definition of the be related to the distance from the landfills (Minichilli et al.
various types of wastes. The terms dangerous, special, 2005). A Canadian case–control study found no significant
toxic, industrial, and commercial are not uniformly used trend in populations living at various distances from an
in different countries and over time periods. Moreover, urban waste landfill, adjusting for some confounders
the types of wastes disposed in a landfill may have (Goldberg et al. 1999). Multiple comparisons on 30 cancer
changed over time. The outcomes considered in the sites and the low number of cases suggest that caution be
papers were all cancers, birth defects, respiratory diseases, adopted in interpreting these results. A Brazilian ecological
and total mortality. In some papers multiple outcomes study of urban landfills in Sao Paolo found no difference
were evaluated. comparing people living at less and more than 2 km from
several sites (Gouveia and Ruscitto do Prado 2010a).
Cancer
Bladder A large national ecological study, carried out in
The relationship between landfills and cancer has been the UK, analyzed the incidence of bladder cancer in pop-
evaluated in seven studies (5 ecological, 1 cohort, and ulations living at various distances from a landfill site
1 case–control) (Jarup et al. 2002) and did not detect any association, nor
when only special wastes were considered. Two other
Colorectal A cohort study carried out in Finland com- studies were unable to detect any association (Williams and
pared the incidence of colorectal cancer in a community in Jalaludin 1998; Gouveia and Ruscitto do Prado 2010a).
the proximity of a landfill containing industrial and urban
wastes to that in a control cohort (Pukkala and Pönkä Larynx A significant decrease of mortality rates as the
2001). No difference was found, but the low number of distance from the sites increased was reported in Italy, but
cases and the lack of adjustment for confounders, beside with low numbers (Michelozzi et al. 1998). Another study
age and sex, make the results less reliable. An ecological in Canada did not detect any association (Williams and
study in Australia evaluated mortality and incidence in Jalaludin 1998).
populations living nearby a landfill containing urban spe-
cial and dangerous wastes, both liquid and solid, did not Lung None of the three evaluated studies was able to
find any risk excess, but again involved a low number of detect any association (Williams and Jalaludin 1998;
cases (Williams and Jalaludin 1998). Michelozzi et al. 1998; Pukkala and Pönkä 2001).

123
 $)&+
-BOEGJMM
'BJMVSFT
'1

CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pact 36
728 A. Mattiello et al.

Kidney Two studies found a modest non-significant people living at different distances from the sites (Klop-
increase in risk (Michelozzi et al. 1998; Goldberg et al. penborg et al. 2005). Evaluating the rates before and after
1999). the opening of 24 landfills in Wales, Palmer et al. (2005)
found a significant increase over time. Among residents of
Lymphomas Only one study (Goldberg et al. 1999) found areas close to 15 landfills in Brazil no association was
a significant association, whereas those by Williams and detected comparing rates of people living at less than 2 km
Jalaludin (1998) and Michelozzi et al. (1998) did not. and the whole city, after adjustment for sex and age
(Gouveia and Ruscitto do Prado 2010a). Another UK study
Leukemia Two studies in children (Jarup et al. 2002; reported on a landfill where all kinds of wastes (urban
Gouveia and Ruscitto do Prado 2010a) and four in adults solid, industrial, and special) were transferred, and com-
(Williams and Jalaludin 1998; Michelozzi et al. 1998; pared three areas close to site and 26 distant areas (Fielder
Jarup et al. 2002; Gouveia and Ruscitto do Prado 2010a) et al. 2001). After the opening of the site a significant risk
were unable to detect any association. increase in the closest areas was found, but the authors
cautiously interpreted the findings owing to poor accuracy
Brain No association was found in a UK study (Jarup and incompleteness of data. A Scottish investigation found
et al. 2002). An increased risk only in males living in the no association in residents at less than 2 km from the site
proximity of the landfill was detected in a US study compared with those at more after adjustment for age and
(Williams and Jalaludin 1998), limited by low numbers of deprivation index (Morris 2003). A multicenter case–con-
cases. trol study (EUROHAZCON), carried out in five countries
(Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, and the UK), found a
Other cancers In a previously described study no asso- significant increase in congenital malformations in people
ciation was found for breast, uterus, prostate, stomach, and living nearby sites containing dangerous substances (Vrij-
skin cancers (Williams and Jalaludin 1998). Goldberg heid et al. 2002). Caution is suggested in interpreting the
found an increased risk for pancreatic cancer but not for results owing to the difficulty in correctly classifying the
prostate (Goldberg et al. 1999). Another study found an sites according to their dangerousness. A previous inves-
increased risk for skin and pancreatic cancers only in males tigation on dangerous waste landfills had found conflicting
(Pukkala and Pönkä 2001). results (Geschwind et al. 1992). In a UK retrospective
cohort study stratifying by three time periods and four
Birth defects and reproductive disorders types of landfills, Dummer et al. (2003b) found no asso-
ciation. A similar lack of association was found in a study
Out of the 22 studies analyzing the relationship between on urban solid wastes in Northern Ireland (Boyle et al.
these disorders and the presence of landfills, 13 are eco- 2004).
logical, 2 cohort, and 7 case–control.
Non-chromosomal birth defects
Birth defects in general
The EUROHAZCON case–control study detected an
Six studies found statistically significant associations increase in risk of non-chromosomal birth defects in people
(Fielder et al. 2000, 2001; Elliott et al. 2001, 2009; Palmer living at less than 3 km from landfills containing both
et al. 2005; Vrijheid et al. 2002), but five other studies urban solid and industrial or toxic wastes (Dolk et al.
(Morris 2003; Dummer et al. 2003b; Boyle et al. 2004; 1998). In this study a statistically significant increased risk
Kloppenborg et al. 2005; Gouveia and Ruscitto do Prado was found in the subgroups of neural-tube defects (OR
2010a) did not. In the UK an ecological study of residential 1.86), malformations of the cardiac septa (OR 1.49), and
distance from a site, the risk of congenital malformations anomalies of great arteries and veins (OR 1.81).
was higher; however, that risk was also detected by ana-
lyzing data before the opening of the landfill (Fielder et al. Nervous system birth defects
2000). A national UK study analyzed congenital anomalies
and low birth weight in populations living at different In a UK retrospective cohort study in which data were
distances from a large number of waste sites (19,196) stratified by three time-periods and four types of landfills,
(Elliott et al. 2001). A statistically significant association congenital anomalies were significantly higher close to
was found (RR 1.05), but it disappeared for urban solid urban solid waste landfills (Dummer et al. 2003b), whereas
waste (RR 0.99) when analyzed separately from toxic a previous study had not found this relationship (Croen
waste (RR 1.08) (Elliott et al. 2009). A Danish national et al. 1997). Another study confirmed the association for a
ecological investigation found no association in comparing landfill containing toxic substances (Marshall et al. 1997).

123
 $)&+
-BOEGJMM
'BJMVSFT
'1

CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pact 37
Health effects associated with the disposal of solid waste in landfills and incinerators 729

Cardiovascular defects, hypo- and epispadias, oral defects Total mortality

Statistically significant higher risk of hypo- and epispadias Three ecological studies reported on this association: no
was detected in children living close to industrial toxic association was reported in one (Williams and Jalaludin
wastes (Geschwind et al. 1992). For cardiovascular and 1998), whereas in two there was some indication of a
oral anomalies no such risk was found in another investi- positive association (Fielder et al. 2001; Minichilli et al.
gation (Croen et al. 1997). 2005). However, in the study by Williams and Jalaludin
(1998) the detected risk was consistent with that reported
Down syndrome before the opening of the site; in the other studies there is
no indication of the distance from the site. No association
No association was found for Down syndrome in the was found in a US cohort study (Gensburg et al. 2009).
analysis of 6,829 sites (Jarup et al. 2007).
Studies of communities living near incinerators
Sirenomelia and cyclopia
Thirty-one papers on the health effects in the communities
The two studies on this malformations analyzed four cases living in the proximity of incinerators were evaluated. The
of sirenomelia and four of cyclopia (Castilla and Mas- following outcomes were considered: cancers (15), birth
troiacovo 2008; Orioli et al. 2009). The identification of a defects (10), respiratory diseases (5), cardiovascular dis-
possible cluster of sirenomelia has to be interpreted cau- eases (1), total mortality (1), and skin disease (1). In some
tiously in the light of this very low number of observations. papers multiple outcomes were evaluated.

Low birth weight Cancer

A retrospective cohort study in Alaska took into account Fifteen studies analyzed the relationship between inciner-
several confounders and classified sites according to dan- ators’ activity and cancer. Most studies are ecological or
gerousness, finding a risk nearby the sites with intermediate case–control and only one is based on a retrospective
and high dangerous levels (Gilbreath and Kaas 2006). An cohort.
ecological study in the UK, part of the EUROHAZCON on
mixed sites, found a small significant risk increase in res- All cancers Three ecological (Elliott et al. 1996; Goria
idents at less than 3 km, evaluating seven areas close to ten et al. 2009; Federico et al. 2010) and one retrospective
sites (Morgan et al. 2004). A case control study in Quebec cohort study (Ranzi et al. 2011) evaluated the association
found a small increase in risk which persisted after between incinerators and all cancers in adults. In a UK
adjustment for several confounders; however, it did not ecological study the incidence increased; however, no
find any association with preterm births (Goldberg et al. adjustment for relevant confounders was performed and the
1995). As reported in a previous section a nationwide UK authors claimed to be cautious in their interpretation
study reported an increase, with no distinction between the (Elliott et al. 1996). In an Italian study no association was
types of waste disposed (Elliott et al. 2001). Only an reported in the four geographical areas analyzed (Federico
ecological UK study, described above, found no associa- et al. 2010), whereas another Italian cohort study reported
tion (Fielder et al. 2000). an increase in all-cancer mortality (RR 1.47) in women
exposed to elevated levels of heavy metals ([2 ng/m3)
Respiratory diseases (Ranzi et al. 2011). In a modeling risk estimation study a
linear relationship was found, but limitations in study
A retrospective Finnish study on a site containing urban design and patient selection imply problems of interpreta-
and industrial wastes reported an increase of asthma inci- tion (Goria et al. 2009). In an ecological study no excess
dence (Pukkala and Pönkä 2001), and an ecological risk of cancer mortality was found in children aged less
investigation in the UK found an increase in hospitalization than 5 years (Gouveia and Ruscitto do Prado 2010b), but
for respiratory diseases, again dealing with a waste site also according to analyses coming from a companion study to
containing industrial wastes (Fielder et al. 2001). In that of Elliott et al. (1996) the influence of population
another retrospective US cohort study the results suggested migration might influence the results owing to poor accu-
an increased rate of hospitalization for asthma and respi- racy of the case findings (Knox 2000). Overall, the
ratory diseases (Ma et al. 2007). evidence appears weak and conflicting.

123
 $)&+
-BOEGJMMT
'BJMVSFT
'1

CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pact 38
730 A. Mattiello et al.

Non-Hodgkin lymphomas Three ecological studies and et al. 2010). In the same region another cohort study found
one cohort study found no association (Elliott et al. 1996, higher mortality in men and higher incidence in women, but
Federico et al. 2010; Gouveia and Ruscitto do Prado the increased risk was found at heavy metal exposure levels of
2010b; Ranzi et al. 2011), whereas two case–control 1–2 ng/m3 and not at higher levels (Ranzi et al. 2011).
studies and one ecological study found a positive associa-
tion with dioxin levels (Viel et al. 2000; Floret et al. 2003; Liver Recent studies found no association (Federico et al.
Viel et al. 2008a), especially in women (Viel et al. 2008a); 2010; Gouveia et al. 2010b; Ranzi et al. 2011). A less recent
however, some exposure measurement errors may mises- investigation in the UK had found a significant risk increase
timate the effects. An ecological Italian study reported associated with smaller distances from the sites (Elliott et al.
higher Standardized Mortality Ratio (SMR) between 1986 1996). A subsequent analysis of this data and including a
and 1992 for non-Hodgkin lymphomas (not for Hodgkin histological evaluation of cancer cases confirmed the find-
lymphomas) in a municipality where an incinerator had ings. (Elliott et al. 2000). A Brazilian study carried out in rural
operated until 1985 (Biggeri and Catelan 2005). deprived areas found an association, but its validity is
diminished by flaws in the study design (Goria et al. 2009).
Sarcoma and soft tissues Six ecological (Elliott et al. 1996;
Viel et al. 2000; Floret et al. 2004; Biggeri and Catelan 2005; Larynx Three ecological studies and one cohort study
Viel et al. 2008a; Federico et al. 2010), two case–control found convincing associations (Elliott et al. 1996; Federico
(Comba et al. 2003; Zambon et al. 2007), and one cohort et al. 2010; Gouveia et al. 2010b; Ranzi et al. 2011)
studies (Ranzi et al. 2011) provide data. No association was
shown in five (Elliott et al. 1996; Floret et al. 2004; Biggeri Leukemia An Italian ecological study found a modest risk
and Catelan 2005; Federico et al. 2010; Ranzi et al. 2011). increase in residents between 2 and 3.5 km from the site,
The other studies reported: (a) significant risk increase but not at shorter distances; the authors suggest that this
associated with living less than 2 km from the site, but based risk is hardly linkable with the distance from the site
on five cases and with a very wide confidence interval (Federico et al. 2010). No association was found in a cohort
(Comba et al. 2003); (b) significant risk increase by level and study in adults in Italy (Ranzi et al. 2011) and in an eco-
duration of exposure, especially in women (Zambon et al. logical study in children in Brazil (Gouveia et al. 2010b).
2007); (c) risk increase but at exposure levels higher than A UK ecological study in children under 16 years found a
those detectable in more modern incineration technologies risk increase but with a mixed exposure (incinerator and
(Viel et al. 2000, 2008a). The evidence of risk due to an old- industrial combustion) (Knox 2000).
generation plant is convincing.
Stomach An ecological study found a significant risk
Breast No association was found in a case–control and a increase associated with the distance from the site, but
cohort study (Viel et al. 2008b; Ranzi et al. 2011). A small control of confounding factors was poor (Elliott et al.
association was found in a study designed to compare 1996). An Italian cohort study reported a risk increase for
different ways of modeling exposure and confounding, and women exposed to heavy metal levels of 1–2 ng/m3, but
the results are strongly limited by this study objective not for those exposed to higher levels (Ranzi et al. 2011).
(Goria et al. 2009).
Bladder No association was found either in a UK eco-
Lung Two ecological studies and one case–control study logical study (Elliott et al. 1996) and in an Italian cohort
reported a risk excess in people living close to the emission study (Ranzi et al. 2011).
site (Elliott et al. 1996; Biggeri et al. 1996; Parodi et al.
2004). In the studies carried out in Italy, there might be an Cerebral, myeloma, lymphatic system, prostate Only one
exposure misclassification because other pollution sources study reported on these cancers (Ranzi et al. 2011); no
were present but not identified (Biggeri et al. 1996; Parodi association was found between incidence and mortality for
et al. 2004). More recent investigations, with better expo- these diseases and exposure to heavy metals in populations
sure measurement, found no association (Federico et al. living nearby two incinerators.
2010; Gouveia et al. 2010b; Ranzi et al. 2011).
Birth defects and reproductive disorders
Colorectal An increased risk with distance from the site
was reported in the UK, but the authors cautiously suggest Ten studies were evaluated (Lloyd et al. 1988; Jansson and
possible overestimation due to poor control of confounding Voog 1989; Williams et al. 1992; ten Tusscher et al. 2000;
factors (Elliott et al. 1996). No risk was found in an ecological Cresswell et al. 2003; Dummer et al. 2003a; Tango et al.
study in Italy, with a good outcome measurement (Federico 2004; Cordier et al. 2004; Vinceti et al. 2008; Cordier et al.

123
 $)&+
-BOEGJMM
'BJMVSFT
'1

CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pact 39
Health effects associated with the disposal of solid waste in landfills and incinerators 731

2010): eight ecological, one case–control, and one retro- to heavy metals, and an increase in cardiovascular disease
spective cohort study. The results are often inconsistent; mortality in women, in hospitalization for chronic cardiac
however, the paper by Cordier is relevant for interpretation insufficiency and acute myocardial infarction in men in the
because confounders were controlled for on an individual mid-category exposure (0.5–1 ng/m3) to heavy metals, but
basis, through a questionnaire (Cordier et al. 2010). not for the highest (higher than 2 ng/m3) (Ranzi et al.
2011).
Orofacial defects No risk increase was found for cleft
palate by a Swedish study (Jansson and Voog 1989), Skin diseases
whereas both in France and the Netherlands a risk increase
was detected (ten Tusscher et al. 2000; Cordier et al. 2004). A Japanese study found no association with atopic der-
However, the site analyzed in the Dutch study was open to matitis (Lee and Shy 1999), but a reporting bias and poor
many chemical substances (ten Tusscher et al. 2000). control of confounding factors indicate a unsatisfactory
quality of the paper.
Urinary tract defects The French study by Cordier
showed a risk increase (around double after adjustment) for
congenital urinary tract defects when women, resident Discussion
within 10 km from 21 active incinerators, were exposed to
atmospheric dioxin and dioxin deposits in the ground The evaluation of the possible health effects has to be done
during the first months of pregnancy (Cordier et al. 2010). taking into account two relevant issues: (a) in the majority
The authors also suggest a possible role of the dioxin in of the papers on landfills it is virtually impossible to dis-
contaminating locally produced food. These data together tinguish the role of urban solid from other types of waste
with those for renal dysplasia require special attention. coming from different sources; (b) the evolving technology
of modern incinerators, with improved control of dioxin
Other congenital anomalies Two studies reported a and heavy metals emission, may enhance the inconsisten-
modest risk increase of spina bifida, cardiac defects, and cies of the results. Because of these constraints any
renal dysplasia in the areas proximal to the incinerator conclusion has to be viewed in the light of variability and
(Dummer et al. 2003a; Cordier et al. 2004). No significant some uncertainty in the results. Nevertheless, this review
association was found for low birth weight and reproduc- appears to have new important information if compared
tive defects (Tango et al. 2004), chromosomal and non- with the latest published systematic review (Porta et al.
chromosomal anomalies (Cresswell et al. 2003), sponta- 2009).
neous abortion and other studied reproductive outcomes
(Vinceti et al. 2008). Occurrence of twin and female births Landfills
were increased (Williams et al. 1992; Lloyd et al. 1988).
For total mortality evidence is insufficient to indicate a role
Respiratory diseases of urban solid waste; moreover, the lack of control of
important confounding factors in most papers is a real
Two studies reported a decrease in respiratory function and an issue. For cancers the inadequate level of evidence already
increase in respiratory wheezing in children living in the reported in previous reviews (Porta et al. 2009) is sup-
proximity of an incinerator (Hsiue et al. 1991; Miyake et al. ported by more recent data (Gouveia et al. 2010a). More
2005). Increased prevalence of chronic respiratory symptoms intriguing are the results on birth defects and reproductive
was detected in other studies comparing populations resident disorders. An effect is detectable for toxic wastes, as
at various distances from the site (Lee and Shy 1999; Shy pointed out by old and more recent papers, but this is much
et al. 1995). In an Italian retrospective cohort a higher less clear when only urban solid wastes are considered. The
respiratory disease mortality was found in men exposed to evaluation of 9,565 landfills in the UK in which Elliott
heavy metals levels of 0.5–1 ng/m3; however, no risk was et al. (2009) distinguished between deposits of non-special
detected in individuals exposed to higher levels (Ranzi et al. from special or unknown waste confirmed an effect of the
2011). In the same investigation no difference was found for latter and no evidence of harm from the former. The
total mortality and hospitalization for respiratory diseases. environmental impact evaluation performed by the INTA-
RESE group in three European countries (Italy, Slovakia,
All-cause mortality and cardiovascular diseases and the UK) on residents living at less than 2 km from a
landfill with mixed waste estimated an excess risk of 1.96
Ranzi found that total mortality in women was associated newborns with defects in the period 2001–2030 (Forastiere
with the presence of an incinerator at any level of exposure et al. 2011). It is reasonable to conclude that the risk of

123
 $)&+
-BOEGJMMT
'1

CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pact 40
732 A. Mattiello et al.

congenital anomalies is likely to be real. Within the biological levels of released substances (Gonzalez et al.
framework of a correct management of landfill of strictly 2000; Reis et al. 2007). Where an incinerator had been the
urban waste, the risk of these defects is less likely, indi- only source of pollution in a defined area for many years in
cating that solid waste should be very accurately selected the past, the harmful effects on the health have been con-
before being thrown in a landfill. sistently detected in a later period (Viel et al. 2000).
Second, where a health impact of the change of technology
Incinerators has been reported (as for the Italian study by Ranzi et al.
2011) the results appear reassuring; however, this implies
Papers dealing with the health effects of incinerators active new challenges for the evaluation of environmental impact
in the years 1969–1996 consistently report a detectable risk on health in other societal environments. New objectives of
of some cancers in the populations living nearby. The good evaluation are needed: (a) the size of incinerators, accurate
quality studies confirm these data, as pointed out in other measurement of nanoparticles; (b) markers of ‘‘minor’’, but
reviews (Franchini et al. 2004; Linzalone and Bianchi not less important health outcomes (respiratory symptoms,
2007; Porta et al. 2009). The large UK study by Elliott annoyance of the residents, stress-induced risk conditions).
et al. (1996) on 72 incinerators found a risk excess for all The evaluation of the aforementioned conditions in public
cancers, stomach, colorectal, liver, lung, and non-Hodgkin health should include both incinerators and landfills owing
lymphomas; other studies carried out in Italy, France, and to their association with the quality of life of residents
the UK indicate some suggestive but not consistent results during the time of exposure (de Wet et al. 2011).
for non-Hodgkin lymphomas and soft tissue sarcomas
(Elliott et al. 1996; Viel et al. 2000; Comba et al. 2003; Main methodological issues
Floret et al. 2004; Zambon et al. 2007; Viel et al. 2008a;
Federico et al. 2010; Ranzi et al. 2011). One study that did Environmental epidemiology of waste disposal suffers
not detect any association is quite interesting for a number from limitations conducive to inadequate or contrasting
of reasons (Ranzi et al. 2011): the investigation was carried results: because most disease are ‘‘rare’’ in populations, a
out on a technologically advanced plant which had large number of individuals have to be observed for a long
undergone a number of improvements; the observations time period to identify a potential determinant, and studies
were based on a complex model of dispersion as an esti- carried out in small communities for a limited number of
mate of exposure; morbidity and mortality were quite years lack statistical power; specific attention is often given
accurately evaluated. The paper also provides an interest- to communities where exposure is ‘‘visibly’’ higher com-
ing analysis comparing emissions at different time periods pared with others, thereby emphasizing the effect; exposure
relative to a different technology: the ratios of concentra- is mostly not based on individual measurements or accurate
tions of released substances in 2008 compared with the modeling of differences in population groups; potential
period 1994–1996 are 0.214 for total suspended particulate, concomitant causes of harm to health should be measured
0.20 for mercury and cadmium, and 0.0001 for dioxins and controlled for in the analyses as confounders such as
[polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDD) and poly- the socioeconomic conditions; the lack of information on
chlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDF)]. These data suggest a individual risk factors competitive for many diseases such
dramatic change in the amount of dangerous emissions and as smoking, dietary habits, alcohol use, and occupation, is
the need for accurate monitoring of pollution. In the mostly common. This large variety of conditions impaired
comparison between older and newer observations, the the calculation of summary estimates of risks through
results for cancer incidence and mortality are largely not meta-analyses.
consistent.
Attention should be paid to the risk excess for urinary Cause–effect relationship
tract defects as reported in a well-designed study by Cor-
dier et al. (2010), even if other studies are inconsistent. A summary table (Table 2), using the IARC criteria for
Orofacial defects are reported to be associated with expo- cause–effect evaluation, as described in the methods
sure to special waste incinerators, whereas no risk is found (IARC–WHO) is proposed. Although this classification is
for reproductive disorders such as spontaneous abortion applied to evaluate the causal role of potential carcinogens,
(Vinceti et al. 2008). it allows us to compare the conclusions proposed by us
A first general comment is that, historically, incinerators with those by Porta et al. (2009), the latest comprehensive
have been consistently indicated as an important source of systematic review performed before ours. Only two cate-
pollution and harm for the health of populations living gories (limited and inadequate) have been used because of
nearby the sites. Studies on biomarkers support this: pop- the insufficient design of the evaluated studies that suffer
ulations exposed to emissions more than others have higher from poor exposure measurement, outcome definition, and

123
 $)&+
-BOEGJMM
'BJMVSFT
'1

CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pact 41
Health effects associated with the disposal of solid waste in landfills and incinerators 733

Table 2 Evaluation of the evidence according to IARC criteria for reviews where transparency of methods and rigorous
evaluated diseases evaluation criteria can be checked by the readers.
Health effect Level of evidence
Acknowledgments We thank Vanna Pistotti for library search
Landfills Incinerators strategies and Francesco Forastiere, Pietro Comba, Ennio Cadum,
Andrea Ranzi, Carla Ancona, and Fabrizio Bianchi for comments and
All cancers Inadequate Limited suggestions. The authors declare their full responsibility for the pro-
Stomach Inadequate Inadequate duction, analysis, and interpretation of the results and the conclusions
Colorectal Inadequate Inadequate of the systematic review. This review has been made possible through
a grant from the Regione Campania Authority addressed by the
Liver Inadequate Inadequate Center for Disease Control of the Italian Ministry of Health.
Larynx Inadequate Inadequate
Lung Inadequate Inadequate Conflict of interest The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Soft tissues sarcoma Inadequate Limited
Kidney Inadequate Inadequate
Bladder Inadequate Inadequate
Lymphomas Inadequate Inadequate
References
Leukemia Inadequate Inadequate
Brain Inadequate Inadequate Altavista P, Belli S, Bianchi F, Binazzi A, Comba P, Del Giudice R,
Children’s cancers Inadequate Inadequate Fazzo L, Felli A, Mastrantonio M, Musmeci L, Pizzuti R,
Other cancers Inadequate Inadequate Svarese A, Trinca S, Uccelli R (2004) Mortalità per causa in
un’area della Campania con numerose discariche di rifiuti.
All birth defects and reproductive disorders Limited Limited
Epidemiol Prev 28(6):311–321
Neural tube defects Limited Inadequate Biggeri A, Catelan D (2005) Mortalità per linfoma non Hodgkin e
Orofacial defects Inadequate Limited sarcomi dei tessuti molli nel territorio circostante un impianto di
Genitourinary tract defects Limited Limited incenerimento di rifiuti solidi urbani. Campi Bisenzio (Toscana,
Italia) 1981–2001. Epidemiol Prev 29(4–5):156–159
Abdominal wall defects Inadequate Inadequate Biggeri A, Barbone F, Lagazio C, Bovenzi M, Stanta G (1996) Air
Gastrointestinal defects Inadequate Inadequate pollution and lung cancer in Trieste, Italy: spatial analysis of risk
Cardiac defects Inadequate Inadequate as a function of distance from sources. Environ Health Perspect
104:750–754
Low birth weight Limited Inadequate
Boyle E, Johnson H et al (2004) Congenital anomalies and proximity
Respiratory diseases or symptoms Limiteda Inadequate to landfill sites. Ir Med J 97(1):16–18
Cardiovascular diseases Inadequate Inadequate Castilla E, Mastroiacovo P et al (2008) Sirenomelia and cyclopia
Skin diseases Inadequate Inadequate cluster in Cali, Colombia. Am J of Med Genet Part A
146(20):2626–2636
a
Data confined to industrial waste Comba P, Ascoli V, Belli S, Benedetti M, Gatti L, Ricci P, Tieghi A
(2003) Risk of soft tissue sarcomas and residence in the
neighborhood of an incinerator of industrial wastes. Occup
Environ Med 60:650–683
adjustment for confounding factors. Nevertheless, we have Comba P, Bianchi F, Fazzo L, Martina L, Menegozzo M, Minichilli
important hints. The category limited is used for some F, Mitis F, Musmeci L, Pizzuti R, Santoro M, Trinca S, Martuzzi
disease, indicating points-of-attention for etiology, the M (2006) Cancer mortality in an area of Campania (Italy)
characterized by multiple toxic dumping sites. Ann NY Acad Sci
estimation of risks, and their management in public health.
1076:449–461
One reassuring point is that we should appreciate the Cordier S, Chevrier C, Robert-Gnansia E, Lorente C, Brula P, Hours
continuous improvement in research design and analysis of M (2004) Risk of congenital anomalies in the vicinity of
the relevant investigations. The choices on the mode of municipal solid waste incinerators. Occup Environ Med 61:8–15
Cordier S, Lehebel A et al (2010) Maternal residence near municipal
waste disposal management are not ‘‘neutral’’; powerful
waste incinerators and the risk of urinary tract birth defects.
political and economic interests play a great role ‘‘like the Occup Environ Med 67(7):493–499
choices on energy production, mode of transportation or Cresswell PA, Scott JES et al (2003) Risk of congenital anomalies
greenhouse gas emission’’ and often stand ‘‘predominant near the Byker waste combustion plant. J Public Health Med
25(3):237–242
over the epidemiological evidence’’ (Forastiere et al.
Croen LA, Shaw GM, Sanbonmatsu L, Selvin S, Bufflers PA (1997)
2008). Within this framework—similarly to other public Maternal residential proximity to hazardous waste sites and risk
health decisions taken on a scientific basis—in order to for selected congenital malformations. Epidemiology 8:347–354
overcome issues of conflicts of interest in scientific pro- de Wet T, Plagerson S, Harpham T, Mathee A (2011) Poor housing,
good health: a comparison of formal and informal housing in
duction and to avoid the construction of false reassurances
Johannesburg, South Africa. Int J Public Health 56:625–633
or deplorable uncertainties (Michaels and Monforton Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)
2005), it is advantageous to rely on independent systematic (2004) Review of environmental and health effects of waste

123
 $)&+
-BOEGJMM
'BJMVSFT
'1

CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pact 42
734 A. Mattiello et al.

management: municipal solid waste and similar wastes, UK Geschwind SA, Stolwijk J, Bracken M, Fitzgerald E, Stark A, Olsen
2004. DEFRA, London C, Melius G (1992) Risk of congenital malformations associated
Dolk H, Vrijheid M (2003) The impact of environmental pollution on with proximity to hazardous waste sites. Am J Epidemiol
congenital anomalies. Br Med Bull 68:25–45 195:1197–1207
Dolk H, Vrijheid M, Armstrong B, Abramsky L, Bianchi F, Garne E, Gilbreath S, Kaas PH (2006) Adverse birth outcomes associated with
Nelen V, Robert E, Scott JE, Stone D, Tenconi R (1998) Risk of open dumpsites in Alaska native villages. Am J Epidemiol
congenital anomalies near hazardous-waste landfill sites in 164:518–528
Europe: the EUROHAZCON study. Lancet 352:423–427 Giusti L (2009) A review of waste management practices and their
Dummer TJB, Dickinson HO, Parker L (2003a) Adverse pregnancy impact on human health. Waste Manage (Oxford) 29:2227–2239
outcomes around incinerators and crematoriums in Cumbria Goldberg MS, Goulet L, Riberdy H, Bonvalot Y (1995) Low birth
Northwest England, 1956–1993. J Epidemiol Commun Health weight and preterm births among infants born to women living
57:456–461 near a municipal solid waste landfill site in Montreal, Quebec.
Dummer TJB, Dickinson HO et al (2003b) Adverse pregnancy Environ Res 69:37–50
outcomes near landfill sites in Cumbria, northwest England, Goldberg MS, Siemiatyck J, DeWar R, Dèsy M, Riberdy H (1999)
1950–1993. Arch Environ Health 58(11):692–698 Risk of developing cancer relative to living near a municipal
Elliott P, Shaddick G, Kleinschmidt I, Jolley D, Walls P, Beresford J, solid waste landfill site in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Arch
Grundy C (1996) Cancer incidence near municipal solid waste Environ Health 54:291–296
incinerators in Great Britain. Br J Cancer 73:702–710 Gonzalez CA, Kogevinas M, Gadea E, Huici A et al (2000)
Elliott P, Eaton N, Shaddick G, Carter R (2000) Cancer incidence Biomonitoring study of people living near or working at a
near municipal solid waste incinerators in Great Britain. Part 2: municipal solid-waste incinerator before and after two years of
histopathological and case-note review of primary liver cancer operation. Arch Environ Health 55(4):259–267
cases. Br J Cancer 82:1103–1106 Goria S, Daniau C et al (2009) Risk of cancer in the vicinity of
Elliott P, Briggs D, Morris S, de Hoogh C, Hurt C, Jensen TK, municipal solid waste incinerators: importance of using a
Maitland I, Richardson S, Wakefield J, Jarup L (2001) Risk of flexible modelling strategy. Int J Health Geogr 8:31
adverse birth outcomes in populations living near landfill sites. Gouveia N, Ruscitto do Prado R (2010b) Spatial analysis of the health
Br Med J 323:363–368 risks associated with solid waste incineration: a preliminary
Elliott P, Richardson S, Abellan JJ, Thomson A, de Hoog C, Jaruo L, analysis. Rev Bras Epidemiol 13(1):3–10
Briggs DJ (2009) Geographic density of landfill sites and risk of Gouveia N, Ruscitto do Prado R (2010a) Health risks in areas close to
congenital anomalies in England. Occup Environ Med 66:81–89 urban solid waste landfill sites. Rev Saude Publica 44(5):1–8
Fazzo L, Belli S, Minichilli F, Mitis F, Santoro M, Martina L, Pizzuti Hsiue TR, Lee SS, Chen HI (1991) Effects of air pollution resulting
R, Comba P, Martuzzi M, Bianchi F, Working Group (2008) from wire reclamation incineration on pulmonary function in
Cluster analysis of mortality and malformations in the Provinces children. Chest 100:698–702
of Naples and Caserta (Campania Region). Ann Ist Super Sanità Hu SW, Shy CM (2001) Health effects of waste incineration: a review of
44:99–111 epidemiological studies. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 51:1100–1109
Fazzo L, De Santis M, Mitis F, Benedetti M, Martuzzi M, Comba P, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)–WHO. http://
Fusco M (2011) Ecological studies of cancer incidence in an area monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Preamble/currentb6evalrationale0706.php.
interested by dumping waste sites in Campania (Italy). Ann Ist Accessed 22 July 2013
Super Sanità 47:181–191 Jansson B, Voog L (1989) Dioxin from Swedish municipal inciner-
Federico M, Pirani M et al (2010) Cancer incidence in people with ators and the occurrence of cleft lip and palate malformations.
residential exposure to a municipal waste incinerator: an Int J Environ Stud 34:99–104
ecological study in Modena (Italy), 1991–2005. Waste Manag Jarup L, Briggs D, de Hoogh C, Morris S, Hurt C, Lewin A, Maitland
30(7):1362–1370 I, Richardson S, Wakefield J, Elliott P (2002) Cancer risks in
Fielder HMP, Poon-King CM et al (2000) Assessment of impact on populations living near landfill sites in Great Britain. Br J Cancer
health of residents living near the Nant-y-Gwyddon landfill site: 86:1732–1736
retrospective analysis. Br Med J 320(7226):19–22 Jarup L, Morris S, Richardson S, Briggs D, Cobley N, de Hoog C,
Fielder HMP, Palmer SR et al (2001) Addressing environmental Gorog K, Elliot P (2007) Down syndrome in births near landfill
health concerns near Trecatti Landfill Site, United Kingdom. sites. Prenat Diagn 27:1191–1196
Arch Environ Health 56(6):529–553 Kloppenborg SCh, Brandt UK, Gulis G, Ejstrud B (2005) Risk of
Floret N, Mauny F, Challier B, Arveux P, Cahn JY, Viel JF (2003) congenital anomalies in the vicinity of waste landfills in
Dioxin emissions from a solid waste incinerator and risk of non- Denmark; an epidemiological study using GIS. Cent Eur J
Hodgkin lymphoma. Epidemiology 14:392–398 Public Health 13:137–143
Floret N, Mauny F et al (2004) Dioxin emissions and soft-tissue Knox E (2000) Childhood cancers, birthplaces, incinerators and
sarcoma: results of a population-based case-control study. Rev landfill sites. Int J Epidemiol 29:391–397
Epidemiol Sante Publique 52(3):213–220 Lee JT, Shy CM (1999) Respiratory function as measured by peak
Forastiere F, Badaloni C et al (2011) Health impact assessment of expiratory flow rate and PM10: six communities study. J Expo
waste management facilities in three European countries. Anal Environ Epidemiol 9(4):293–299
Environ Health Glob Access Sci Sour 10(1):53 Linzalone N, Bianchi F (2007) Incinerators: not only dioxins and
Forastiere F, Perucci CA (2008) Rifiuti, prove scientifiche e decisioni heavy metals, also fine and ultrafine particles. Epidemiol Prev
politiche: quale ruolo per l’epidemiologia. Epidemiol Prev 31(1):62–66
32(1):5–7 Lloyd OL, Lloyd MM, Williams FL, Lawson A (1988) Twinning in
Franchini M, Rial M, Buiatti E, Bianchi F (2004) Health effects of human populations and in cattle exposed to air pollution from
exposure to waste incinerator emissions: a review of epidemi- incinerators. Br J Ind Med 45:556–560
ological studies. Ann Ist Super Sanita 40(1):101–115 Ma J, Kouznetsova M, Lessner L, Carpenter D (2007) Asthma and
Gensburg LJ, Pantea C et al (2009) Mortality among former Love infectious respiratory disease in children—correlation to resi-
Canal residents. Environ Health Perspect 117(2):209–216 dence near hazardous waste sites. Paediat Resp Rev 8:292–298

123
 $)&+
-BOEGJMM
'BJMVSFT
'1

CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pact 43
Health effects associated with the disposal of solid waste in landfills and incinerators 735

Marshall EG, Gensburg LJ, Deres DA, Geary NS, Cayo MR (1997) Russi MB, Borak JB, Cullen MR (2008) An examination of cancer
Maternal residential exposure to hazardous wastes and risk of epidemiology studies among populations living close to toxic
central nervous system and musculoskeletal birth defects. Arch waste sites. Environ Health 26:7–32
Environ Health 52(6):416–425 Shy CM, Degnan D, Fox DL, Mukerjee S, Hazucha MJ, Boehlecke
Martuzzi M, Mitis F, Bianchi F, Minichilli F, Comba P, Fazzo L BA, Rothenbacher D, Briggs PM, Devlin RB, Wallace DD,
(2009) Cancer mortality and congenital anomalies in a region of Stevens RK, Bromberg PA (1995) Do waste incinerators induce
Italy with intense environmental pressure due to waste. Occup adverse respiratory effects? An air quality and epidemiological
Environ Med 66(11):725–732 study of six communities. Environ Health Perspect 103:714–724
Michaels D, Monforton C (2005) Manufacturing uncertainty: con- Signorelli C, Riccò M, Vinceti M (2008) Inceneritori e rischi per la
tested science and the protection of the public’s health and salute umana: lo stato dell’arte. Ann Ig 20:251–277
environment. Am J Public Health 95(Suppl 1):S39–S48 Tango T, Fujita T, Tanihata T, Minowa M, Doi Y, Kato N, Kunikane
Michelozzi P, Fusco D, Forastiere F, Ancona C, Dell’Orco V, Perucci S, Uchiyama I, Tanaka M, Uehata T (2004) Risk of adverse
CA (1998) Small area study of mortality among people living reproductive outcomes associated with proximity to municipal
near multiple sources of air pollution. Occup Environ Med solid waste incinerators with high dioxin emission levels in
55:611–615 Japan. J Epidemiol 14:83–93
Minichilli F, Bartolacci S, Buiatti E, Pallante V, Scala D, Bianchi F ten Tusscher GW, Stam GA et al (2000) Open chemical combustions
(2005) Studio di mortalità intorno a sei discariche di rifiuti in resulting in a local increased incidence of orofacial clefts.
Toscana. Epidemiol Prev 29(5–6) Suppl:53–56 Chemosphere 40(9–11):1263–1270
Miyake Y, Yura A, Misaki H, Ikeda Y, Usui T, Iki M, Shimizu T Viel JF, Arveux P, Baverel J, Cahn JY (2000) Soft-tissue sarcoma and
(2005) Relationship between distance of schools from the nearest non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma clusters around a municipal solid
municipal waste incineration plant and child health in Japan. Eur waste incinerator with high dioxin emission levels. Am J
J Epidemiol 20:1023–1029 Epidemiol 152:13–19
Morgan OWC, Vrijheid M et al (2004) Risk of low birth weight near Viel JF, Daniau C, Goria S, Fabre P, de Crouy-Chanel P, Sauleau EA,
EUROHAZCON hazardous waste landfill sites in England. Arch Empereur-Bissonnet P (2008a) Risk for non Hodgkin’s lym-
Environ Health 59(3):149–151 phoma in the vicinity of French municipal solid waste
Morris SE, Thompson AOW et al (2003) No excess risk of adverse incinerators. Environ Health 7:51. doi:10.1186/1476-069X-7-51
birth outcomes in populations living near special waste landfill Viel JF, Clément MC, Hägi M, Grandjean S, Challier B, Danzon A
sites in Scotland. Scottish Med J 48(4):105–107 (2008b) Dioxin emissions from a municipal solid waste incin-
Orioli IM, Mastroiacovo P, Lopez-Camelo JS, Saldarriaga W, Isaza erator and risk of invasive breast cancer: a population-based
C, Aiello H, Zarante I, Castilla E (2009) Clusters of sirenomelia case-control study with GIS-derived exposure. Int J Health
in South America. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol Geogr 7:4
85(2):112–118 Vinceti M, Malagoli C et al (2008) Adverse pregnancy outcomes in a
Palmer SR, Dunstan FDJ et al (2005) Risk of congenital anomalies population exposed to the emissions of a municipal waste
after the opening of landfill sites. Environ Health Perspect incinerator. Sci Total Environ 407(1):116–121
113(10):1362–1365 Vrijheid M (2000) Health effects of residence near hazardous waste
Parodi S, Baldi R, Benco C, Franchini M, Garrone E, Vercelli M, landfill sites: a review of the epidemiological literature. Environ
Pensa F, Puntoni R, Fontana V (2004) Lung cancer mortality in a Health Perspect 108(suppl I):101–112
district of La Spezia (Italy) exposed to air pollution from Vrijheid M, Dolk H et al (2002) Hazard potential ranking of
industrial plants. Tumori 90:181–185 hazardous waste landfill sites and risk of congenital anomalies.
Porta D, Milani S et al (2009) Systematic review of epidemiological Occup Environ Med 59(11):768–776
studies on health effects associated with management of solid WHO, Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen (2007) Population
waste. Environ Health 8:60 health and waste management: scientific data and policy options.
Pukkala E, Pönkä A (2001) Increased incidence of cancer and asthma In: Mitis F, Martuzzi M (eds) Report of a WHO workshop Rome,
in houses built on a former dump area. Environ Health Perspect Italy, 29–30 March 2007. WHO Regional Office for Europe,
109:1121–1125 Copenhagen
Ranzi A, Fano V, Erspamer L, Lauriola P, Perucci CA, Forastiere F Williams A, Jalaludin B (1998) Cancer incidence and mortality
(2011) Mortality and morbidity among people living close to around a hazardous waste depot. Aust N Z J Publ Health 22(3
incinerators: a cohort study based on dispersion modeling for Suppl):342–346
exposure assessment. Environ Health. 24(10):22 Williams FL, Lawson AB, Lloyd OL (1992) Low sex ratios of births
Reis MF, Sampaio C, Brantes A, Aniceto P, Melim M, Cardoso L, in areas at risk from air pollution from incinerators, as shown by
Gabriel C, Simão F, Segurado S, Miguel JP (2007) Human geographical analysis and 3-dimensional mapping. Int J Epi-
exposure to heavy metals in the vicinity of Portuguese solid demiol 21:311–319
waste incinerators. Int J Hyg Environ Health 210(3–4):447–454, Zambon P, Ricci P, Bovo E, Casula A, Gattolin M, Fiore AR, Chuiosi
439–446, 455–459 F, Guzzinati S (2007) Sarcoma risk and dioxin emissions from
Rushton L (2003) Health hazards and waste management. Br Med incinerators and industrial plants: a population-based case-
Bull 68:183–197 control study (Italy). Environ Health 6:19

123
Japanese Geotechnical Society Special Publication The 15th Asian Regional Conference on
Soil MechanicsCHEJ Landfill Failures
and Geotechnical Fact Pact
Engineering 44

Effect of aging on the leachate characteristics from municipal solid waste landfill

B.P. Naveeni), P.V. Sivapullaiah ii) and T. G. Sitharam iii)

i) Ph.D Student, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012, India.
ii) Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012, India.
iii) Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012, India.

ABSTRACT

Leachate emanating from solid waste deposited in landfill possess dissolved or an entrained environmentally harmful
substances. They consist of soluble organic and inorganic compounds as well as suspended particles. These
leachates also have a distinguishing characteristic in that they are highly variable and contain significantly elevated
concentrations of undesirable material derived from the waste. Depending on whether leachate flow increases
(during rainy season) and decreases (during dry/summer season) can change the composition. The concentration of
waste change dramatically changes over the life of the landfill due to chemical degradation and biological decay of
organic matter present. Consequently, the physical characteristics also vary considerably depending on the age of the
waste. This paper brings out the effect of aging on the leachate characteristics from a municipal solid waste located
at the Terra Firma Biotechnologies Ltd situated at Gundlahalli village in Doddaballapur taluk, near Bangalore. For
the sake of comparison the leachates from two different parts of the site one from the location where old waste was
dumped and another from the location where the waste was dumped relatively recently during the same period. Thus
the two leachate samples from the same site representing different stages degradation of waste were collected to
represent leachate from old waste and another from relatively fresh waste. The samples were analyzed for various
physicochemical parameters to estimate its pollution potential. The results showed that most of the parameters
examined in the leachate samples such as colour, conductivity, hardness, BOD, COD, TOC were found higher in the
fresh leachate than aged leachate. In addition, low BOD/COD ratio of <0.1 in aged leachate and BOD/COD ratio of
0.33 in fresh leachate are observed. This shows that the major portion is organic matter which is not quickly
biodegradable in the leachate from Terra Firma Biotechnology. The compost site is non-engineered solid waste
landfill, which has neither bottom liner system nor any leachate collection and treatment system. Hence, leachate
may percolate through subsoil causing pollution to ground water and surface water resources. Further the properties
of soil below can change due to changing composition of the pore fluid.

Keywords: Aging, BOD, COD, Leachate, Municipal Solid Waste.

1. INTRODUCTION waste includes food waste, green waste and certain

wastes arising from commercial and industrial sources.
Leachate is a contaminated liquid that drains
This kind of waste will easily decompose within the
through the bottom of the solid waste disposal facilities
first few months of disposal. Non biodegradable waste
such as landfills. Its composition varies widely
like paper, wood and plastics also yield organic
depending on the composition of waste as well as the
compounds to leachate, but only in small percentage
age of waste. It contains number of dissolved and
over long periods of time. The majority of inorganic
suspended materials. After municipal solid waste
compounds are readily soluble and the ions released
landfill site is closed, landfill will continue to produce
usually appear within a short time. Heavy metals
contaminated leachate and this process can last for
contained in the solid waste are usually released slowly
30-50 years which can have significant environmental
into the leachate and the process may take up to several
impact when released untreated into the
years. Moreover, there is a complex interplay between
environment(Peter et al., 2002). Quality of leachate is
leaching of ionic species and the maturity of the solid
site-specific and even at a single landfill site the quality
waste landfill site. This affects the compositional
of leachate is strongly variable. Variability caused by
characteristics of the leachate (Renou et al., 2005).
many factors such as rainfall regime, geology, landfill
age, composition of solid waste, physico-chemical
conditions at the landfill (Zgajnar et al., 2009).
As landfill passes through different phases of its life
cycle, the leachate composition also varies widely
Within the land fill waste mass, biodegradable
 CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pact 45

through the successive aerobic, acetogenic, many metal ions with increasing pH. In case of lead, it
methanogenic and stabilization stages. The degradation forms very stable complexes with the humic acids
process of the waste in a landfill passes through (Harmsen, 1983). Due to the effect of the shifting pH
different phases. The first phase which is normally on metal-ions, reduction of sulphate to sulphide during
short is characterized by the aerobic degradation of methanogenic phase, this increases the precipitation of
organic matter, CO2 is produced and the temperature of metals ions.
waste can increase up to 80⁰C, this can affect the later
stage of leachate production. In this phase, leachate Generally, leachate strength get reduces with time
contributes moisture during compaction as well as from due to biological breakdown of organic compounds and
precipitation through the buried waste (Kjeldsen et al., precipitation of soluble elements like heavy metals.
2002). The amount of leachate leaving the landfill is With increasing age of leachate production, the organic
limited due to the water holding by the waste, until the compounds decrease more rapidly than the inorganic
leachates reaches the collection system and is drained compounds. Hence, the ratio of total volatile solids to
to the collection basin(Armstrong and Rowe,1999). total fixed solids decreases with the age of the landfill
This stage usually lasts only a few weeks and (Robinson and Gronow, 1993)
consequential phase appears when the oxygen is
depleted, the degradation continues anaerobically. The The aim of our study is to bring out the effect of
anaerobic degradation process consists of two major aging on the leachate characteristics from a municipal
fermentation phases, the acidogenic phase generating solid waste of Terra Firma Biotechnologies Ltd situated
young, biodegradable leachate and the methanogenic at Gundlahalli village in Doddaballapur taluk, near
phase, generating old, stabilised leachate (Bhala et al., Bangalore. Two leachate samples were collected at
2012). different locations from the same site representing
different stages of degradation of waste. Further the
Young leachate from the early acidogenic phase leachate contamination potential has been assessed
contains large amounts of readily biodegradable based on the concept of leachate pollution index (LPI).
organic matter. The complex organic compounds are
fermented anaerobically, yielding mainly soluble 2 SITE DESCRIPTION
organic acids such as free volatile fatty acids (VFAs),
Terra Firma Biotechnologies Ltd(TFBL) is situated
amino acids, other low molecular weight compounds
at Gundlahalli village, 18 km from Doddaballapur taluk
and gases like H2 and CO2 (Harmsen, 1983). The
of Karnataka state,India. TFBL receives about 1,000
concentration of VFAs can be quite significant,
tons of MSW daily from BBMP while remaining 400
representing 95% of the TOC, leading to low pH (less
tons of MSW is collected from hotels, IT parks..etc.
than 5). BOD5/COD will have high ratio values of
The MSW collected is treated through composting,
0.5-0.7 indicate large amounts of biodegradable organic
biomethanation and landfill facility. The first leachate
matter (Granet et al., 1986). COD values are
(sample-1) originated from the old part of the landfill as
3,000-60,000 mg/l (Aisien et al., 2010). During this
show in fig 1.
phase the metals are more soluble because of lower pH
and the bonding with the VFAs, leading to relative high
concentrations of Fe, Mn, Ni and Zn (Harmsen, 1983). Sample -1

Old leachate will be in the methanogenic phase with

lower concentration of VFAs (Chain and Dewalle,
1976). This is due to their conversion into methane
and carbon dioxide (CO2) as gaseous end products
during this second fermentation period. VFAs and other
readily biodegradable organic compounds in the
leachate decreases, the organic matter in the leachate
becomes dominated by refractory compounds, such as
humic like compounds and fulvic acid like substances
(Chian and Dewalle,1976). Thus BOD5/COD will have
low ratio values, most often close to 0.1, is a
characteristic value for stabilised leachates. The dark Fig. 1. Leachate collected from aged dump site
colour in leachate is mainly due to humic substance.
The decrease of VFAs results in an increase in pH. A
characteristic pH value for stabilised leachate is close to
8 (Granet et al., 1986). The concentration of metal Fig. 1 Leachate location from the Old part of the Landfill
ions is in general low due to the decreasing solubility of
 CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pact 46

The second leachate (sample-2) was sampled at the Sodium, mg/l flame photometer method
same landfill but it is active part of the landfill as show Potassium , mg/l flame photometer method
in fig 2. Nitrate,mg/l Spectrophotometer method
Heavy metal Absorption Spectrophotometer
Sample -2
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The physico-chemical properties of both leachates
are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Leachate characteristic of TFBL

Details Sample-1 Sample-2

pH 7.38 5.7
Colour Brownish Dark Black
Odour Very High Medium
Temperature,ºC 29 29
Conductivity, µS/cm 2750 1050
Turbidity (NTU) 470 80
TDS, mg/l 1375 310
COD, mg/l 498 4960
Fig. 2. Leachate location from the fresh dump site
BOD5, mg/l 40 1680
Sulphate, mg/l 42 30
3. SAMPLING AND ANALYSES
Chloride, mg/l 960 2300
Calcium, mg/l 159 680
A municipal solid waste leachate sample was Hardness, mg/l 26000 30000
collected in the month of April from the Terra Firma Alkalinity, mg/l -Nil- 2500
Biotechnologies Ltd in Bangalore. Glass bottles were
Iron, mg/l 5.28 6.61
used to collect leachate samples for chemical analyses,
Copper, mg/l 0.001 0.223
whereas, samples preserved for BOD and COD tests
Silver, mg/l 0.785 0.192
were collected in polyethylene bottles covered with
aluminium foils. A few drops of concentrated nitric Chromium, mg/l BDL BDL
acid were added to the leachate sample collected for Cadmium, mg/l 0.026 0.015
heavy metals analysis to preserve the samples. The Lead, mg/l 0.252 0.145
samples were then transported in cooler boxes at Zinc, mg/l 48 0.2
temperature below 5°C, and transported immediately to Nickel, mg/l 0.074 BDL
the laboratory. Sample of leachate were stored in Sodium, mg/l 260 508
refrigerator at 4°C before proceeding for the analysis. Potassium , mg/l 200 508
The analysis is carried out according to standard Nitrate,mg/l 82.73 8.91
methods for examination of water and wastewater
unless otherwise stated (APHA, 1998). The Sample-1 leachate originating from the old
landfill had typical properties of leachate from landfill
3.1 Determination of Physico-chemical parameters in the methonogenic phase (Kjeldsen et al., 2002). High
pH, low concentration of organic matter and typically
Table 1. Method of determination of Physico-chemica very low BOD5/ COD ratio (<0.1), indicating low
parameters biodegrability potential.
Parameters Method of determiantion
pH pH meter On the other hand, leachate from the active part of
Conductivity, Conductivity meter the landfill (sample-2) was significantly more polluted,
µS/cm it contained high concentrations of chlorides, sulphate,
TDS, mg/l TDS meter calcium and its pH was lower (5.7) indicate that the
COD, mg/l Open reflux method landfill is at the end of the acidic anaerobic phase
BOD3 , mg/l Winkler’s method (waste buried in the landfill is about 4 years) and it will
Sulphate, mg/l Titration proceed to another phase i.e. methanoenic.
Chloride, mg/l Titration
Calcium, mg/l EDT titration The sample -2 leachate is a strongly odoured black
Alkalinity, mg/l EDT titration coloured liquid when it comes from a landfill site. The
 CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pact 47

smell is acidic and offensive because of sulfur, (sample-2) leachate found to be in medium age between
hydrogen and nitrogen rich organic species such as an 5 and 10 years.
organosulfur compound As it becomes oxygenated it
tends to turn brown because of the presence of Iron 5. LEACHATE POLLUTION INDEX CONCEPT
salts in solution and in suspension. It also quickly
develops a bacterial flora often comprising substantial LPI provides an efficient method for evaluating the
growths of Sphaerotilus. leachate contamination potential. The leachate pollution
index (LPI) and it is formulated based on the Delphi
Concentrations of metals were low in both leachates technique. The LPI is a quantitative tool by which the
samples except for Fe and Zn. Generally heavy metals leachate pollution data of the landfill sites can be
appear in the municipal solid waste from Batteries, reported uniformly. LPI formulation process involves
consumer electronics, ceramics, light bulbs, house dust selecting variables, deriving weights for the selected
and paint chips, lead foils such as wine bottle closures, pollutant variables, formulating their sub indices curves,
used motor oils, plastics, and some inks and glass. and finally aggregating the pollutant variables to arrive
Concentration of heavy metals in a landfill is generally at the LPI (Kumar and Alappat, 2003).
higher at earlier stages because of higher metal
solubility as a result of low pH caused by production of LPI process involves: Selection of pollutant
organic acids. It is now recognized that most trace variables, Pollutant weights are assigned, formulating
elements are readily fixed and accumulate in soils, and their sub indices curves and aggregating the pollutant
because this process is largely irreversible, repeated variables to arrive at the LPI.
applications of amounts in excess of plant needs
eventually contaminate a soil and may either render it The LPI is calculated using the following equations:
non-productive or the product unusable. Although
plants do take up the trace elements, the uptake is LPI =
n

normally so small that this alone cannot be expected to ∑ WiPi

i =1 (1)
reduce appreciably the trace element. It is interesting to
note that the zinc levels are very high in leachate from Where LPI= the weighted additive LPI, Wi= the weight
old waste compared to leachate from fresh waste. for the ith pollutant variable, Pi = the sub index score of
However the concentrations of iron is about the same in the ith leachate pollutant variable, n= number of
the both the leachate samples. leachate pollutant variables used in calculating LPI.

4.1 Indications from BOD and COD values However, when the data for all the leachate
pollutant variables included in LPI are not available, the
The BOD/COD ratio can used to indicate the age of LPI can be calculated using the concentration of the
the waste fill. Relatively BOD levels decrease with age available leachate pollutants. In that case, the LPI can
faster than COD due to rapid disintegration of bio be calculated by the equation:
degradable waste. Thus generally the ratio of m

BOD/COD will decrease with age and can be used to LPI = ∑ WiPi
i =1
indicate the age of the waste.. Any waste water, having m

its BOD5/COD ratio more than 0.63 can be considered ∑ Wi

i =1 (2)
to be quite controlled to biological treatment.
Where m is the number of leachate pollutant
Table 3. Age of waste based on BOD & COD values of parameters for which data are available, but in that case,
leachate (Hui, 2005).
m<18 and ΣW<1 contamination from the pollutant
BOD5/COD Age of fill COD to the overall leachate pollution.
≥ 0.5 Young (< 5yr.) >10,000
0.1-0.5 Medium(5yr -10yr) 500-10,000 LPI values were calculated for leachate sample of
<0.1 Old(>10 yr) <500 Terra Firma site. Tables 4 show the calculations for LPI
values of leachate samples in Terra Firma site.
From table 3, it shows that BOD5 was 1290
mg/l and the value of COD was 13400 mg/l. The ratio
of BOD5/COD is 0.09 for sample-1 leachate. The value
of BOD5/COD can characterize the age of the landfill
according to the leachate constituents (Table 3). The
value of COD and BOD5/COD from Table 3 shows that
the leachate (sample-1) in this study was collected from
the landfill with a age of more than 10 years and
 CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pact 48

Table 4. LPI for the landfill leachate (sample-1) 6. CONCLUSIONS

Pollutant, Sample Wi Pi (PiWi) 1. Based on the physico-chemcial analysis the

mg/l 1 leachate from the active part (fresh waste) of
pH 7.38 0.055 5 0.275 the landfill, it has been inferred that anaerobic
TDS 1375 0.050 8 0.40 acidic phase is established.
BOD5 40 0.061 55 3.36 2. The leachate from the closed part showed
COD 498 0.062 80 4.96 typical characteristics of leachates generated
TKN 831 0.053 95 5.035 during the methanogenic phase of the landfill
AN 1 0.051 100 5.10 life phase.
Iron 5.28 0.044 5 0.22 3. Based on BOD5/COD ratio suggested that the
Copper 0.001 0.050 5 0.25 leachate (sample-1) (closed part of landfill)
Nickel 0.074 0.052 5 0.26 from the landfill with the age more than 10
Zinc 48 0.056 5 0.28 years and (sample-2) leachate (fresh waste)
Lead 0.252 0.063 5 0.31 found to be in medium age.
Chromium 0.011 0.064 10 0.64 4. The LPI is a quantitative tool by which the
Chlorides 960 0.048 5.3 0.2544 leachate pollution data of the landfill sites can
Final LPI value = 13.22 be reported uniformly. High LPI values
indicate that the leachates generated from
Table 5. LPI for the landfill leachate (sample-2) landfill site are not yet stabilized even after 10
years, resulting in high pollution threat. While
Pollutant, Sample Wi Pi (PiWi) pollution threat from Leachate 1 (from old
mg/l 2 waste) is less from BOD and COD, its threat is
pH 5.7 0.055 5 0.275 mainly due to high concentrations of Zinc,
TDS 310 0.050 8 0.40 TDS and TKN. On the contrary the pollution
BOD5 1680 0.061 55 3.36 threat from fresh leachate arises mainly form
COD 4960 0.062 80 4.96 high BOD, COD and chloride levels.
TKN 485 0.053 95 5.035
AN 350 0.051 100 5.10
Iron 6.61 0.044 5 0.22 REFERENCES
Copper 0.223 0.050 5 0.25
Nickel 0.001 0.052 5 0.26
Zinc 0.2 0.056 5 0.28 1) APHA (1998), Standard Methods for Examination of Water
and Waste water , 19th edition, American Public Health
Lead 0.145 0.063 5 0.31
Association, Washington, DC. Brock T.D. and Madigan
Chromium 0.001 0.064 10 0.64 M.T.Biology of Microorganisms. 5th edition.Prentice Hall
Chlorides 2300 0.048 5.3 0.2544 International inc 641 - 644.
Final LPI value = 16.11 2) Armstrong, M.D., and Rowe,R.K, (2009): Effect of landfill
operations on the quality of municipal solid waste leacahte,
In international Waste Management and Landfill Symposium,
The results indicate that the leachate sample has proc. Sardinia99, S Margherita di pula, Cagliari, Italy,.81-88.
3) Barlaz, M.A., Ham, R.K., and Shaefer, D.M. (2012):
high LPI value and therefore, has relatively more Methane Production form Municipal Refuse: A review of
contamination potential. Terra Firma leachate sample Enhancement Techniques and Microbial Dynamics,CRC Crit.
can therefore pose threat to the environment and human Rev. Environ. Contr,19, 6,557.
health and hence, measures and continuous monitoring 4) Chain.E.S.K and Dewalle.E.B (1976), Sanitary landfill
must be ensured. This threat potential does not seem to leachate and their treatment, Journal of Environmental
be reducing even with increase of the leachate. Engineering Division, ASCE, 108(EE2), 411.
5) Granet.C, Courant.N, Millot. N, Rousseau and Navarro. N
(1986), Diagnostic detrailabilite dex lixivials: definition d’une
It is interesting to note that the LPI of both the methodologie,L’Eau et l’ Industrie. Janvier.
leachates is not much different. While pollution threat 6) Harmsen.J, (1983), Identification of organic compounds in
from Leachate 1 (from old waste) is less from BOD and leachate from a waste tip, Journal of Water Research, 17(6),
COD, its threat is mainly due to high concentrations of 699-705.
Zinc, TDS and Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN). On the 7) Hui, T.S. (2005), Leachate Treatment by Floating Plants in
Constructed Wetland Master’s Thesis,Universiti Teknologi
contrary the pollution threat from fresh leachate arises Malaysia, Malaysia.
mainly form high BOD, COD and chloride levels. 8) Kjeldsen, P., Barlaz, M.A.,Rooker, A.P., Balun, A., Ledin, A
However the threat exists from leachates from both and Christen, T.H.(2002): Present and long-term composition
fresh waste and aged leachate. of MSW landfill leachate: a review,criti Rev Environ Sci
Technol,32:297-336.
9) Kumar, D., and Alappat, B.J (2003). A technique to quantify
 CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pact 49

landfill leachate pollution, Proc., 9th Int. Landfill Symp. 13) ZgajnarGot a n i ler and a orc- on canJ(2009),Comp
243-244. ari onofdifferenttreatment trate ie forindu trialland llleacha
10) Peter .K, Morton A. B, Alix P. R, Anders B, Anna. L, and te.JHazardMater162:1446–1456.
Thomas H.C,(2002), Present and Long-Term Composition of
MSW Landfill Leachate: A Review, Critical Reviews in
Environmental Science and Technology, 32(4), 297-336
11) Renou,S J.G. Givaudan, S. Poulain, F. Dirassouyan and
Moulin.P, (2008), Landfill leachate treatment: Review and
opportunity, Journal of Hazardous Materials, 150, 468-493.
12) Robinson,H.D & Gronow. J.R.(1993), A review of landfill
leachate composition in the UK, Proc. Sardinia 1, CISA,
821-83.
 CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pack 50

Environmental Health - Toxic Substances Hydrology Program

Landfill Leachate
Released to
Wastewater Treatment Plants and
other Environmental Pathways
Contains a Mixture of Contaminants
including Pharmaceuticals
New scientific research from the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) details how landfill leachate, disposed from
landfills to environmental pathways, is host to numerous
contaminants of emerging concern (CECs).
Landfills are the final repository for a heterogeneous
mixture of liquid and solid waste from residential,
industrial, and commercial sources, and thus, have the
potential to produce leachate—a liquid waste product
that consists of a diverse mixture of chemicals as
precipitation or applied water moves through the waste.
Landfills are often not the final repository for leachate
which can be discharged to surface waters following
onsite or offsite wastewater treatment.
In this national-scale study, scientists provide an
assessment of CECs in landfill leachate disposed offsite
that has undergone treatment or storage processes (final
leachate) at landfills across the United States to gain a
greater understanding of this potential contaminant
source to the environment. This study follows and
advances previous USGS research of leachate prior to Sample bottels like these filled with leachate were analyzed for
onsite treatment, storage processes, and offsite disposal contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) including
(fresh leachate). pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, household chemicals,
steroid hormones, and plant/animal sterols. Photo Credit: Dana
In this study, final leachate samples from 22 landfills W. Kolpin, USGS
were collected and analyzed for 190 CECs including
pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, household
chemicals, steroid hormones, and plant/animal sterols. The sampling network included municipal and private landfills with
varying landfill waste compositions; geographic and climatic settings; ages of waste, waste loads, and leachate production;
and leachate management strategies.
Scientists determined that final leachate samples contained 101 of the 190 chemicals analyzed for the study, with chemicals
present in every final leachate sample collected at levels ranging from as low as 2 nanograms per liter (ng/L) to as high as
17,200,000 ng/L. The most frequently detected CECs were lidocaine (local anesthetic, found in 91 percent of samples),
cotinine (nicotine breakdown product, 86 percent), carisoprodol (muscle relaxant, 82 percent), bisphenol A (component for
plastics and thermal paper, 77 percent), carbamazepine (anticonvulsant, 77 percent), and N,N-diethyltoluamide (DEET,
insect repellent, 68 percent).
A detailed comparison of CEC concentrations between final leachate in landfills included in this study and the previous study
of fresh leachate indicated that levels of CECs were significantly less in final leachate compared to those observed in fresh
leachate samples. Nevertheless, final leachate still contained a complex mixture of CECs at concentrations that may be
potential cause for concern if released to the environment.
This research is part of continuing USGS efforts to quantify the contribution of contaminants in leachate released from
landfills to various pathways that ultimately lead to the environment. Use of landfills as a means of waste disposal will likely
 CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pack 51
increase as the global population continues to increase.
Despite advancements in recycling, source reduction,
and composting, the amount of municipal solid waste
discarded in U.S. landfills increased from 150 million tons
in 1985 to 165 million tons in 2010. The study is
intended to inform landfill managers, stakeholders, and
regulators about chemicals present in landfill leachate
disposed offsite to environmental pathways.
The study was supported by the USGS Toxic Substances
Hydrology Program.

References
Masoner, J.R., Kolpin, D.W., Furlong, E.T., Cozzarelli,
I.M., and Gray, J.L., 2015, Landfill leachate as a
mirror of today's disposable society--
Pharmaceuticals and other contaminants of
emerging concern in final leachate from landfills in
the conterminous United States: Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry, doi:10.1002/etc.3219 In some cases USGS scientists collected leachate samples from
manhole access points like this one. Photo Credit: Dana W.
(Advanced Web release). Kolpin, USGS

Masoner, J.R., Kolpin, D.W., Furlong, E.T., Cozzarelli,

I.M., Gray, J.L., and Schwab, E.A., 2014, Contaminants of emerging concern in fresh leachate from landfills in the
conterminous United States: Environmental Science--Processes and Impacts, v. 16, no. 10, p. 2335-2354,
doi:10.1039/C4EM00124A.

More Information
For more information contact Dana W. Kolpin, USGS Iowa Water Science Center, or Jason R. Masoner, USGS Oklahoma
Water Science Center
Frequently Asked Questions about this Science Feature Article
USGS Technical Announcement: Storage and Treatment of Liquid Waste from Landfills Doesn't Remove All Contaminants,
Including Pharmaceuticals
USGS Emerging Contaminants in Landfill Leachate
Pesticide Contamination and Environmental Exposure Investigation

Related Science Features

New Study Documents Crop Bactericide, Nitrapyrin, in Iowa Streams
Distinct Microbiomes Identified in Landfills Throughout the United States
Chemicals Found in Treated Wastewater are Transported from Streams to Groundwater
Pharmaceuticals and Other Chemicals Common in Landfill Waste
Chemicals from Land-Applied Biosolids Persist in Soil
Complex Mixture of Contaminants Persists in Streams Miles from the Source
Hormones in Land-Applied Biosolids Could Affect Aquatic Organisms
Biosolids, Animal Manure, and Earthworms: Is There a Connection?
Household Chemicals and Drugs Found in Biosolids from Wastewater Treatment Plants

More Science Features

U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey

Page Content Contact Information: [email protected]

 CHEJCHEJ Landfill
Landfill FailuresFailures Fact
Fact Pack 45 Pact 53

CHAPTER

3 Landfill Gas Safety and

Health Issues

T
his chapter provides information about health and safety issues associated with landfill
gas—specifically, possible explosion and asphyxiation hazards and issues related to
odors emanating from the landfill and low-level chemical emissions. It also contains
information about health and safety issues associated with landfill fires (which may or may not
be the direct result of landfill gas). This chapter also describes the tools that can be used to help
environmental professionals respond to community health concerns. It provides information
about what is known and unknown about the short-term and long-term health effects associated
with landfill gas emissions, which can be mixtures of hundreds of different gases.
When reading this chapter, keep in mind that if people are not being exposed to landfill gases,
no adverse health effects are expected. Exposures occur only if the landfill is producing harmful
levels of gases and if the gases are migrating from the landfills and reaching people.
Responding to community concerns about the possible health impacts of known or potential

LANDFILL GAS SAFETY AND HEALTH ISSUES

landfill gas emissions can often be difficult. Data (at the point of exposure) are needed to fully
evaluate exposures, and these data are often limited or not available (see Chapter Four).

How are people exposed to landfill gas?

People may be exposed to landfill gases either at the landfill or in their communities. As dis-
cussed in Chapter Two, landfill gases may migrate from the landfill either above or below
ground. Gases can move through the landfill surface to the ambient air. Once in the air, the land-
fill gases can be carried to the community with the wind. Odors from day-to-day landfill activi-
ties are indicative of gases moving above ground. Gases may also move through the soil under-
ground and enter homes or utility corridors on or adjacent to the landfill. Figure 3-1 illustrates
the movement of landfill gases and potential exposure pathways. The levels of gases that
migrate from a landfill and to which people are exposed are dependent on many factors, as
described in Chapter Two. Landfill gas collection and control systems have the greatest impact
on gas migration and exposures. If a collection or control system is in place and operating prop-
erly, migration and exposures should be minimal.

Explosion Hazards
Landfill gas may form an explosive mixture when it combines with air in certain proportions.
This section provides information about:
• The conditions that must be met for landfill gas to pose an explosion hazard.
• The types of gases that may potentially pose explosion hazards.
• What can be done to assess whether a landfill is posing an explosion hazard.
15
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 4 54

Figure 3-1: Potential Exposure Pathways to Landfill Gas

When does landfill gas pose an explosion hazard?

The following conditions must be met for landfill gas to pose an explosion hazard:
• Gas production. A landfill must be producing gas, and this gas must contain chemicals
that are present at explosive levels.
• Gas migration. The gas must be able to migrate from the landfill. Underground pipes or
natural subsurface geology may provide migration pathways for landfill gas (see
Chapter Two, “What factors affect landfill gas migration?”). Gas collection and treat-
ment systems, if operating properly, reduce the amount of gas that is able to escape
from the landfill. (See Chapter Five.)
• Gas collection in a confined space. The gas must collect in a confined space to a con-
centration at which it could potentially explode. A confined space might be a manhole,
a subsurface space, a utility room in a home, or a basement. The concentration at which
a gas has the potential
to explode is defined
in terms of its lower Lower and Upper Explosive Limits (LEL and UEL)
and upper explosive The concentration level at which gas has the potential to explode is called
limits (LEL and the explosive limit. The potential for a gas to explode is determined by its
UEL), as defined at lower explosive limit (LEL) and upper explosive limit (UEL). The LEL and UEL
right. are measures of the percent of a gas in the air by volume. At concentrations
below its LEL and above its UEL, a gas is not explosive. However, an explo-
sion hazard may exist if a gas is present in the air between the LEL and UEL
and an ignition source is present.

16 Chapter 3: Landfill Gas Safety and Health Issues

 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 4 55

Landfill Gas Explosions

Although landfill gas explosions are by no means common occurrences, a number of incidents
known or suspected to have been caused by landfill gas explosions have been documented.

1999 An 8-year-old girl was burned on her arms and legs when playing in an Atlanta playground. The area
was reportedly used as an illegal dumping ground many years ago. (Atlanta Journal-Constitution 1999)

1994 While playing soccer in a park built over an old landfill in Charlotte, North Carolina, a woman was
seriously burned by a methane explosion. (Charlotte Observer 1994)

1987 Off-site gas migration is suspected to have caused a house to explode in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
(EPA 1991)

1984 Landfill gas migrated to and destroyed one house near a landfill in Akron, Ohio. Ten houses were
temporarily evacuated. (EPA 1991)

1983 An explosion destroyed a residence across the street from a landfill in Cincinnati, Ohio. Minor injuries
were reported. (EPA 1991)

1975 In Sheridan, Colorado, landfill gas accumulated in a storm drain pipe that ran through a landfill.
An explosion occurred when several children playing in the pipe lit a candle, resulting in serious injury
to all the children. (USACE 1984)

1969 Methane gas migrated from an adjacent landfill into the basement of an armory in Winston-Salem,
North Carolina. A lit cigarette caused the gas to explode, killing three men and seriously injuring five
others. (USACE 1984)

LANDFILL GAS SAFETY AND HEALTH ISSUES

See the box above for a few of many documented situations where all the conditions for explo-
sions were met and explosions actually occurred.

What types of gases can pose an explosion hazard?

• Methane. Methane is the constituent of landfill gas that is likely to pose the greatest
explosion hazard. Methane is explosive between its LEL of 5% by volume and its UEL
of 15% by volume. Because methane concentrations within the landfill are typically
50% (much higher than its UEL), methane is unlikely to explode within the landfill
boundaries. As methane migrates and is diluted, however, the methane gas mixture may
be at explosive levels. Also, oxygen is a key component for creating an explosion, but
the biological processes that produce methane require an anaerobic, or oxygen-depleted,
environment. At the surface of the landfill, enough oxygen is present to support an
explosion, but the methane gas usually diffuses into the ambient air to concentrations
below the 5% LEL. In order to pose an explosion hazard, methane must migrate from
the landfill and be present between its LEL and UEL.
• Other landfill gases. Other landfill gas constituents (e.g., ammonia, hydrogen sulfide,
and NMOCs) are flammable. However, because they are unlikely to be present at con-
centrations above their LELs, they rarely pose explosion hazards as individual gases. For
example, benzene (an NMOC that may be found in landfill gas) is explosive between its

17
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 4 56

LEL of 1.2% and its UEL of 7.8%. However, benzene concentrations in landfill gas are
very unlikely to reach these levels. If benzene were detected in landfill gas at a concen-
tration of 2 ppb (or 0.0000002% of the air by volume), then benzene would have to col-
lect in a closed space at a concentration 6 million times greater than the concentration
found in the landfill gas to cause an explosion hazard.
Table 3-1 summarizes the potential explosion hazards posed by the important constituents of
landfill gas. Keep in mind that methane is the most likely landfill gas constituent to pose an
explosion hazard. Other flammable landfill gas constituents are unlikely to be present at concen-
trations high enough to pose an explosion hazard. However, the flammable NMOCs do
contribute to total explosive hazard when combined with methane in a confined space.

Table 3-1: Potential Explosion Hazards from Common Landfill Gas Components

Component Potential to Pose an Explosion Hazard

Methane Methane is highly explosive when mixed with air at a volume between its LEL of
5% and its UEL of 15%. At concentrations below 5% and above 15%, methane
is not explosive. At some landfills, methane can be produced at sufficient
quantities to collect in the landfill or nearby structures at explosive levels.
Carbon dioxide Carbon dioxide is not flammable or explosive.
Nitrogen dioxide Nitrogen dioxide is not flammable or explosive.
Oxygen Oxygen is not flammable, but is necessary to support explosions.
Ammonia Ammonia is flammable. Its LEL is 15% and its UEL is 28%. However, ammonia
is unlikely to collect at a concentration high enough to pose an explosion
hazard.
NMOCs Potential explosion hazards vary by chemical. For example, the LEL of benzene
is 1.2% and its UEL is 7.8%. However, benzene and other NMOCs alone are
unlikely to collect at concentrations high enough to pose explosion hazards.
Hydrogen sulfide Hydrogen sulfide is flammable. Its LEL is 4% and its UEL is 44%. However, in
most landfills, hydrogen sulfide is unlikely to collect at a concentration high
enough to pose an explosion hazard.

How can I assess whether a landfill in my community poses an explosion hazard?

The checklist on the following page can help determine if a landfill may pose an explosion haz-
ard. If your evaluation identifies the potential for an explosion, several actions can be taken to
prevent harm to the community. Measures and controls to prevent explosion hazards are dis-
cussed in Chapter Five. Possible public health actions are described in Appendix B.

18 Chapter 3: Landfill Gas Safety and Health Issues

 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 4 57

Landfill Gas Explosion Hazard Checklist

❑ Is the landfill producing gas and, if so, how much?
Because methane and carbon dioxide are the main components of landfill gas and these chemicals are both
odorless and colorless, monitoring data are necessary to answer this question. (See Chapter Four for
information about how landfill gas is monitored.)

❑ Is a landfill gas collection system in place?

Landfill gas collection systems reduce levels of gas migrating from the landfill to surrounding areas.
(See Chapter Five for information about collection systems.)

❑ Is gas migrating from the landfill?

Off-site monitoring data may be necessary to answer this question. (See Chapter Four.)

❑ If gas is migrating from the landfill and reaching structures, are there places for gas to collect?
Uncontrolled gases escaping from a landfill may migrate to structures on the landfill itself or in the
surrounding area. However, the further a structure is from the landfill, the less likely it is that gases are
migrating to it at concentrations great enough to pose an explosion threat. The most common places for
gases to collect are basements, crawl spaces, or buried utility entry ports. Homes with basements,
especially those with pipes or cracks in the basement that would allow gas to enter, are more likely to
collect gases.

❑ Is gas collecting at concentrations that are high enough to pose an explosion hazard?
Monitoring data are needed to answer this question. Caution should be used in selecting sampling
equipment to ensure that an ignition source is not introduced into the area. (See Chapter Four for
information about monitoring.)

LANDFILL GAS SAFETY AND HEALTH ISSUES

❑ Is there an ignition source?
Gases can be ignited by many different sources, such as a furnace in the basement or a pilot light on a gas
stove. Other sources may include candles, matches, cigarettes, or a spark. Because there are so many igni-
tion sources, it is safest to assume that the potential for an ignition source is always present.

Asphyxiation Hazards
Landfill gas poses an asphyxiation hazard only if it collects in an enclosed space (e.g., a base-
ment or utility corridor) at concentrations high enough to displace existing air and create an oxy-
gen-deficient environment. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) defines
an oxygen-deficient environment as one that has less than 19.5% oxygen by volume (OSHA
n.d.a). Ambient air contains approximately 21% oxygen by volume. Health effects associated
with oxygen-deficient environments are described in Table 3-2.
Any of the gases that comprise landfill gas can, either individually or in combination, create an
asphyxiation hazard if they are present at levels sufficient to create an oxygen-deficient environment.
Carbon dioxide, which comprises 40% to 60% of landfill gas, may pose specific asphyxiation
hazard concerns. Because it is denser than air, carbon dioxide that has escaped from a landfill
and collected in a confined space, such as a basement or an underground utility corridor, may
remain in the area for hours or days after the area has been opened to the air (e.g., after a man-

19
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 5 58
Science News Online

Landfills Make Mercury More Toxic- byJanet Raloff

Mercury, a nerve poison, is a major ingredient in many products—from thermometers and fluorescent bulbs to batteries
and old latex paint. A new study finds that landfill disposal of such products can chemically alter the mercury in them, not
only rendering it more toxic but also fostering its release into the air.

While open landfills (above) may expose wildlife directly to poisonous mercury, closed landfills can vent tainted gases
through pipes (below).

Although even mercury in its elemental form is toxic, its most poisonous embodiment is methyl mercury, the result of a
chemical modification by bacteria (SN: 3/9/91, p. 152). The finding of such a process in landfills underscores the
importance of ensuring that mercury doesn't enter the municipal-waste stream, says study leader Steve E. Lindberg of Oak
Ridge (Tenn.) National Laboratory.

The decomposition of interred landfill wastes creates methane. Some landfill managers burn the gas in flares as it exits
pipes atop the waste field. Most managers, however, merely vent the gas—and any contaminants it may carry—into the
air.

Two years ago, Lindberg's team found methyl mercury in the water vapor that condensed out of the gas emanating from a
Florida landfill. Concentrations were at least 100 times those typically seen in water. The finding made sense, Lindberg
recalls: In wetlands, researchers had previously identified certain bacteria that methylate natural, inorganic mercury
derived from minerals. This same family of microbes resides in landfills.

However, methyl mercury comes in two forms—mono- and dimethyl-mercury—with the latter being the more toxic. To
probe which form is made in landfills, Lindberg and his coworkers collected gases destined for flaring. In the August
Atmospheric Environment, they report finding some 50 nanograms of dimethyl mercury per cubic meter of landfill gas.

That "is higher, by a factor of 30 or 40, than concentrations of total mercury in ambient air," Lindberg notes, and it's at
least 1,000 times that of any dimethyl-mercury concentration ever recorded in open air. His team also detected lower
concentrations of the less volatile mono-methyl mercury in the landfill gas.

Although chemists had detected methyl mercury in air and rain, "nobody had been able to demonstrate where it comes
from," notes John W.M. Rudd of the Winnipeg (Manitoba) Freshwater Institute, part of Canada's Department of Fisheries
and Oceans. The new study offers "the first real evidence that landfills might be a major source," he says.

Some 60,000 U.S. children are born each year with developmental impairments triggered by fetal exposure to methyl
mercury, usually as a result of their moms having eaten tainted fish (SN: 7/29/00, p. 77). "If it doesn't get methylated,
mercury doesn't get into fish," observes Edward Swain of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in St. Paul.

To limit the rain of mercury from human activities, regulators have focused on curbing emissions of inorganic mercury
from coal burning. However, Lindberg notes, although chemists assumed that mercury could become methylated in the
air, they couldn't show it.

Now, Swain posits, a "shift in paradigms" may be in order. He says that sending mercury-containing wastes to landfills
may essentially be spoon-feeding copious amounts of the toxicant to methylating bacteria, which then cough the injurious
forms into air.

The new findings point to the need to inventory emissions by landfills—especially the older ones, which hold the richest
stores of mercury-tainted wastes—says Frank D'Itri of Michigan State University's Institute of Water Research in East
Lansing.

Lindberg plans to embark on such an inventory. He says that the new data also suggest a need for technologies to capture
methyl mercury from landfills before it can enter the atmosphere.
Vinyl In Landfills Most Likely to Blame For Toxic Gases

CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 5 59

Vinyl In Landfills Most Likely to Blame For

Toxic Gases

● To: [email protected]
● Subject: Vinyl In Landfills Most Likely to Blame For Toxic Gases
● Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 13:26:19 -0800

VINYL IN LANDFILLS MOST LIKELY TO BLAME FOR TOXIC

GASES
Municipalities across Canada urged to investigate

TORONTO - November 27, 1998 - Toxic substances found in the air

downwind from Toronto area landfill sites are most likely caused
by the dumping of PVC plastic (vinyl), according to Greenpeace,
the Toronto Environmental Alliance, and City Councillor Jack
Layton, Chair of Toronto's Environmental Task Force. The
environmental organizations and Mr.. Layton are urging
municipalities across Canada to investigate and take action
after worrying levels of cancer-causing vinyl chloride were
reported in a Ministry of Environment report obtained by the
Globe and Mail.

Studies have shown that PVC provides between one-half and two-
thirds of the chlorine present in municipal waste, making it the
most probable source of a wide range of chlorine-containing
gases emitted by landfills. Vinyl chloride is especially likely
to originate from PVC because it is the basic chemical building
block of the plastic. According to the U.S. Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry, vinyl chloride is a known human
carcinogen which causes liver cancer in people. In animals, it

http://archive.greenpeace.org/majordomo/index-press-releases/1998/msg00333.html (1 of 3)
Vinyl In Landfills Most Likely to Blame For Toxic Gases

causes numerous kinds of cancer. CHEJ

CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 5 60

A recent study by the New York State Department of Health

reported that women living near municipal landfills where gas is
escaping have a four-fold increased chance of bladder cancer or
leukemia. A 1995 study of families living near Montreal's Miron
Quarry landfill also found an elevated incidence of several
cancers and a 20% increased likelihood of low birth weight among
those most heavily exposed to gases from the landfill.

"These findings are of great concern and I will be urging the

Canadian Federation of Municipalities to investigate and
consider restrictions on PVC," said Mr. Layton. The
Federation's Environment Committee is meeting next week in
Laval, Quebec.

"This news from Toronto is a wake-up call for Canada's mayors to

get chlorine - and chlorine-based materials - out of our dumps,
" said Lois Corbett, executive director of the Toronto
Environmental Alliance.

PVC waste is notorious for its environmental problems. In

incinerators, which Environment Canada lists as the largest
emitters of deadly dioxin to the atmosphere, PVC is the dominant
source of chlorine without which the dioxin cannot be produced,
and each kilo of PVC incinerated generates between one and two
kilos of secondary hazardous waste. In 1997 when PVC plastic
waste burned at the Plastimet recycling plant in Hamilton, the
site became contaminated with extraordinarily high
concentrations of dioxin. A U.S. study has shown that nearly
200 times more virgin PVC was produced between 1990 and 1996
than was recycled, the worst recycling ratio of any common
plastic.

The production of PVC plastic also involves highly toxic

precursors and generates hazardous emissions and wastes. And
because it often requires hazardous additives such as phthalate
esters, lead and cadmium, to make it functional, use of PVC
products can also pose risks to human health. This was the case
in Health Canada's recent advisory to parents to discard soft
PVC teethers and rattles for infants.

"These toxic landfill emissions show there is no acceptable way

http://archive.greenpeace.org/majordomo/index-press-releases/1998/msg00333.html (2 of 3)
Vinyl In Landfills Most Likely to Blame For Toxic Gases

CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 5 61

to deal with PVC waste - neither incineration, recycling or

landfilling," said Greenpeace toxics specialist Dr. Matthew
Bramley. "We've had mini-blinds, Plastimet, hazardous PVC
children's products, and now landfill emissions. How many
scandals does it take to get national action to restrict PVC?"

Greenpeace on the Internet at http://www.greenpeace.org

http://archive.greenpeace.org/majordomo/index-press-releases/1998/msg00333.html (3 of 3)
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 54 62

Business News
Old PCs toxic in landfill sites

Your computer equipment could contain highly toxic materials.

The European Union is developing a solution.
Composition of a Desktop Personal Computer
Risks related to some e-toxins found in computers
By: Lindsay Wood

Landfill and incinerator facilities are often the final resting-place for electronic waste. Computers, cell
phones, electronic games, television sets - are piling up with increasing rapidity, ready to be burned or
buried. But are you aware that these leftover gadgets are loaded with toxins that can leak into the
groundwater or produce carcinogens and toxins?

Your computer equipment could contain highly toxic materials.

Computer equipment is a complicated assembly of more than 1,000 materials, many of which are highly
toxic, such as chlorinated and brominated substances, toxic gases, toxic metals, biologically active
materials, acids, plastics and plastic additives.

The average computer has a lifespan of less than two years, and hardware and software companies are
constantly generating new programs that fuel the demand for more speed, memory and power. Y2K
concerns generated an increase in the number of new systems bought. According to the National Safety
Council, as recently as 1994, buyers held on to their computers from four to six years.

The San Francisco Toxic Coalition website states that three quarters of all computers ever bought in the
US are sitting in people's attics and basements because they don't know what to do with them.

At the end of last year another 24 million computers in the United States had become "obsolete". Only
about 14 percent (or 3.3 million) of these will be recycled or donated. The rest - more than 20 million
computers in the U.S. -- will be dumped, incinerated, shipped as waste exports or put into temporary
storage in attics, basements, etc.

In contrast, for major appliances such as washing machines, air conditioners, refrigerators, dryers,
dishwashers and freezers, the proportion recycled in 1998 was about 70 percent of the number put on the
market that year.

The "Electronic Product Recovery and Recycling Baseline Report" --published by the National Safety
Council's Environmental Health Center states that by the year 2004, experts estimate that there will be
over 315 million obsolete computers in the US.

SVTC say that recycling of hazardous products has little environmental benefit - it simply moves the
hazards into secondary products that eventually have to be disposed of. Unless the goal is to redesign
the product to use non-hazardous materials, such recycling is a false solution. Carnegie Mellon University
estimate that, in four years, there will be 70 million computers in landfills.

To add to the list of injuries, a recent Swedish study found that when computers, fax machines or other
electronic equipment are recycled, dust containing toxic flame-retardants is spread in the air.

SVTC also add that the stream of decay involved in electronic scrap significantly contributes to the heavy
metals and halogenated substances contained in the municipal waste stream. Because of the variety of
different substances found together in "electroscrap", incineration is particularly dangerous. For instance,
copper is a catalyst for dioxin formation when flame-retardants are incinerated.

The introduction of waste computers into incinerators results in high concentrations of metals, including
heavy metals, in the slag, in the fly ash, the flue gas and in the filter cake. In this context, more than 90
percent of the cadmium put to an incinerator is found in the fly ash and more than 70 percent of the
mercury in the filter cake.

1 of 3
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 55 63

Municipal incineration is the largest point source of dioxins into the US and Canadian environments and
among the largest point source of heavy metal contamination of the atmosphere.

The European Union is developing a solution.

The European Union is developing a solution that will make producers responsible for taking back their
old products. This legislation - which includes "take-back" requirements and toxic materials phase-outs --
also encourages cleaner product design and less waste generation. Under current environmental
regulations, a manufacturing facility is responsible for the environmental impacts of its activities; this
responsibility does not cover environmental impacts from the products it manufactures.

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) encourages producers to prevent pollution and reduce resource
and energy use in each stage of the product life cycle through changes in product design and process
technology. The term was coined by Thomas Lindhqvist a Swedish professor of environmental economics
and was first mandated in Germany on 1991.

Using the principle of EPR, product manufacturers are responsible for the total life-cycle environmental
impact of their products, from raw materials extraction and manufacturing to use and disposal (i.e., the
product system). The aim of EPR is to encourage producers to prevent pollution and reduce resource and
energy consumption at each stage of the product's life cycle.

Examples are partnership agreements with suppliers, consumers, or others; mandatory or voluntary
product labeling and disclosure of environmental information; government procurement policies;
deposit-refund systems; product take-back programs; product stewardship programs; leasing systems;
and life-cycle management programs.

The EC's proposals could cost as much as $18 billion US to $27 billion to implement, estimates the
European industry group Orgaville. The electronics industry is lobbying for an extension of the phaseout
timetable on the grounds that there are no alternative materials available at the moment.

Many companies have already taken the initiative and are producing cleaner products. Compaq
Computer Corp takes back 200,000 computers a year in North America. Hewlett-Packard Company has
developed a safe cleaning method for chips using carbon dioxide cleaning as a substitute for hazardous
solvents. In 1998 IBM introduced the first computer that uses 100 percent recycled resin (PC/ABS) in all
major plastic parts for a total of 3.5 pounds of resin per product.

Researchers at Delft University in Holland are investigating the design of a wind up laptop similar to the
wind-up radio that plays one hour for every 20 seconds of hand winding.

Everyone, all those involved along the product chain share responsibility for life-cycle environment
impacts of a product, whether buying in parts or complete products or recycling and reusing.

For information on what to do with your old computer see svtc.org for their clean computer campaign and
recycling directory.

Composition of a Desktop Personal Computer

Source: Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation (MCC).

Plastics Lead Aluminum Germanium Gallium Iron Tin Copper Barium Nickel Zinc Tantalum Indium
Vanadium Terbium Beryllium Gold Europium Titanium Ruthenium Cobalt Palladium Manganese Silver
Antinomy Bismuth Chromium Cadmium Selenium Niobium Yttrium Rhodium Platinum Mercury Arsenic
Silica

Risks related to some e-toxins found in computers

Source: Clean Water Action Alliance, SVTC, Clean Water Fund.

Lead - Found in cathode-ray tubes, solders. Each cathode-ray tube can contain five pounds of lead or
more. Can cause damage to the central and peripheral nervous systems, blood system and kidneys in
humans. Damage to a child's brain development has also been noted.

Cadmium - Printed circuit boards, semiconductors. By 2005, a total of more than 2 million pounds will
exist in discarded computers. Cadmium and cadmium compounds accumulate in the human body, in
particular in kidneys it is adsorbed through respiration but is also taken up with food. Cadmium can easily
be accumulated in amounts that cause symptoms of poisoning.

Mercury - Batteries, switches. By 2005, 400,000 pounds across the US. Methylated mercury causes
chronic damage to the brain.

2 of 3
Old PCs toxic in landfill sites http://www.galtglobalreview.com/business/toxic_pcs.html

CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 5 64

Chromium - Used as corrosion protection in steel. By 2005, estimated 1.2 million pounds. Chromium VI
can easily pass through membranes of cells and is easily absorbed producing various toxic effects within
the cells. It causes strong allergic reactions even in small concentrations. Asthmatic bronchitis is another
allergic reaction linked to chromium VI. Chromium VI may also cause DNA damage.

PVC Plastics - Cables and housings. Potential waste of 250 million pounds per year. An MCC study
estimated that the largest volume of plastics used in electronics manufacturing (at 26%) was polyvinyl
chloride (PVC), which creates more environmental and health hazards than most other type of plastic

Brominated Flame Retardants - Used in electronic products as a means for reducing flammability. In
computers, they are used mainly in four applications: in printed circuit boards, in components such as
connectors, in plastic covers and in cables. Scientific observations indicate that Polybrominated
Diphenylethers (PBDE) might act as endocrine disrupters. Research has revealed that levels of PBDEs in
human breast milk are doubling every five years and this has prompted concern because of the effect of
these chemicals in young animals

These chemicals make computer recycling particularly hazardous to workers

© Copyright 2001. Galt Western Personnel Ltd. Unless otherwise specified, you may reprint this article, quote from it, use it in research or
projects, duplicate it or distribute it. Credit of authorship and source MUST be given to galtglobalreview.com. Ownership of Copyright
remains with Galt Western Personnel Ltd.

3 of 3
 CHEJ Landfill �ail���� �� �
CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pact 65

by | |

You may not have heard of Dickson, Tennessee, but this weekend, the town is center stage in the movement for environmental justice.
Civil rights leaders gathered there for a to highlight environmental health issues facing
communities of color.

The location was a pointed choice. For about a decade, the town of about 12,000 has been at the center of an
involving a local family and a contaminated landfill, which is just a stone’s throw from dozens of homes in a mostly Black community. The
Holts claim that family members have been due to a toxin from the landfill, trichloroethylene (TCE). Sheila
Holt-Orsted and Beatrice Holt, together with the , are alleging that the chemical has
poisoned their water system and should be held accountable for the family’s struggles with cancer and other ailments.

The federal Environmental Protection Agency has a to support “fair treatment for people of all races, cultures, and incomes,
regarding the development of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” But runs much deeper than regulatory statutes
or a contaminated well.

The Town of Dickson purchased the land for a “city dump” in 1946. Sometime between 1946 and 1956, the newly
acquired land, which was bounded by the old “Negro Coaling School,” a one-room county school with grades 1
through 9 that dates back to 1895, became the Dickson “city dump,” an open unlined dump….

According to government records, in 1968, the same year Dr. Martin Luther King was assassinated in Memphis, Scovill-Shrader and
several other local industries, buried drums of industrial waste solvents at an “open dump” landfill site…

For years, drums of toxic industrial waste solvents were dumped at the landfill, which later contaminated the groundwater.

Contaminated waste material was cleaned up from other areas in this mostly white county and was trucked to the landfill in the mostly
black Eno Road community.

The report also compared the government’s testing and monitoring of environmental hazards in Black and white areas and found that “the
care and precaution that the government officials initiated to protect the health of the white families was not extended to the black Holt
family.”

The Holt family’s plight is emblematic not just of the depth of environmental racism but of a warped paradigm of upward mobility that
mires communities of color in a state of continual disenfranchisement. The report concludes:

After slavery, dozens of black families acquired hundreds of acres of land—not part of the empty “40 acres and a
mule” government promise—and lived a quiet and peaceful existence in Dickson’s historically black Eno Road
community. That is, until their wells were poisoned by a county landfill….

The Holt family’s American Dream of land ownership has become a “toxic nightmare.” For more than a decade, this
black family has experienced the terror of not knowing what health problems may lay ahead for their children and
their children’s children.

Perversely, the modest roots the Holts have struggled to put down now act as another kind of ball and chain.

The Dickson case has garnered national attention because it symbolizes the extremes of environmental racism’s reach. But other
neighborhoods and homesteads across the country bear the toxic burden more subtly—the whose bedroom overlooks
a smog-laden highway, or the who comes home each night spattered in pesticide. In all these places, and in our
backyard, the burden of pollution is heavy with the weight of history.
 CHEJ Landfill �ail���� �� �
CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pact 71
4. Segregate remaining organics in landfills for the most effective and cost-efficient gas collection
(always maintaining high suction).
5. Keep out all liquids from landfills (including not recirculating leachate) to reduce fugitive
emissions.
6. Cap landfills with temporary covers over the working face to keep out rain and then install
permanent synthetic covers and gas collection systems as soon as possible (within months is
important). (The current 5-year NSPS requirement harms our environment and health.)
7. All captured methane should be burned in a flare, boiler or a high efficiency turbine, or used to
replace natural gas for heating or fuel cells (after proper filtration to remove harmful gasses);
internal combustion (IC) engines should not be used because of unburned methane releases.
8. Stop new landfill gas to energy projects and don't give “renewable energy” credits to landfill
gas (unless capture rates over the entire landfill and destruction efficiencies are constantly monitored
and demonstrated30 to be equal to those of a flare.) (The argument that credits should be given if gas
collection projects are installed earlier than local or NSPS requirements should not apply, since
fugitive emissions have been found to be so large. The only way to eliminate these fugitive
emissions is to eliminate organics from landfills, which would make landfill gas to energy projects
uneconomic. Giving renewable energy credits to landfill gas allows it to undercut clean sources like
wind and solar and, most importantly, puts source reduction, reuse, recycling, diversion, composting,
and anaerobic digestion at a competitive disadvantage.)

30
Peter Anderson mentions monitoring costs in “Critique of SCS Engineers’ Report Prepared for California’s
Landfill Companies on Gas Collection Performance,” Sept. 5, 2008, p. 12 ([email protected]).
However, a spectroscopy method developed by Picarro proposes efficient monitoring, Rella, Chris, et al., 2009,
(http://www.picarro.com/assets/docs/Quantfying_Methane_Fluxes_Simply_and_Accurately_-
_Trace_Dilution_Method.pdf).
Jim R. Stewart, PhD Landfill gas to energy GHG impacts January 30, 2013 8
 CHEJ Landfill �ail���� �� �
CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pact 67
32% in the first year alone) (see Figure 2.), usually before the gas cap and capture systems are put in
place. The normal reason for the delay putting on the cover is the operator is still adding waste to that
section of the landfill.
0.3

0.25

Figure 2. Over 80% of the

0.2
Methane from Food Waste
Food Waste
Escapes in the First 3 Years, 0.15 Yard Waste
Usually Before Capping Biosolids
0.1

[Emissions in tons of methane

(CO2e) per wet ton of waste] 0.05

0
Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5 Yr 6 Yr 7 Yr 8 Yr 9 Yr
10

To get the above data, the Chicago Climate Exchange uses a decay model to calculate GHG emissions
from a landfill, which is described in detail in their paper. 8 The bottom line is, if there are any organics
in the landfill, we need to deal with the ongoing methane emissions from the remaining waste. For
many years people installed impermeable caps and gas collection systems to capture the methane and
put it into a flare to burn it. Every ton of methane captured and burned avoids the equivalent of adding
104 tons of CO2 to the atmosphere (calculated over a 20-year period).9
Wet vs. Dry Landfills
But then people thought, why waste that biomethane burning it in a flare? Why not use it to replace
fossil fuels? It sounded like a good idea, except, if you take the methane from a dry landfill and try to
burn it in an engine or turbine, it is inefficient. The normal methane flow from a “dry tomb” landfill is
so slow and impure, that the operator doesn't make enough money to pay for the additional capital and
operating expenses of an engine or turbine. So they need more moisture in the landfill. As the chart
below from research done for the U.S. EPA shows, wet landfills generate 2.3 times more methane than
dry ones (based only on measuring the collected gas, not the total emitted, which was not looked at in
these studies).10 If the collection efficiency were the same in both cases, the result is up to 2.3 times
more GHG emissions for energy recovery sites.11
2.3 Times More Methane Emissions
for Wet vs. Dry Landfills
0.070

Figure 3. Moisture 0.060

Greatly Increases 0.050

Methane Emissions 0.040 Methane

Emissions
0.030 in tons/ton
Municipal
0.020
Solid
0.010 Waste

0.000
Dry Wet

8
Chicago Climate Exchange, Avoided Emissions from Organic Waste Disposal, Offset Project Protocol, 2009,
p. 22. (https://www.theice.com/publicdocs/ccx/protocols/CCX_Protocol_Organic_Waste.pdf)
9
Calculated from methane global warming factor 105 minus the 1 part CO2 from the flare burning the methane.
10
Reinhart, D.R. et al. First-Order Kinetic Gas Generation Model Parameters for Wet Landfills, report prepared
for US EPA, 2005, p. 4-5. (nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P100ADRJ.txt). See also Sally Brown,
“Putting the Landfill Energy Myth to Rest,” BioCycle, May 2010, p. 5.
11
We note that these data are from experimental sites; some energy recovery sites may not be this wet.
Jim R. Stewart, PhD Landfill gas to energy GHG impacts January 30, 2013 2
 CHEJ Landfill �ail���� ��
CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pact 68
Since it is supposed to be illegal to deliberately add water to a landfill, waste engineers came up with a
variety of ideas to increase the gas production in the short term and decrease costs so they could make
more money, including such methods as12:
• Leaving the cap off as long as possible so more water from rain and snow can enter.
• Regrading the slopes to drain rain into the landfill.
• Recirculating the liquid leachate flowing from the bottom of the landfill back into the top.13
• Turning off gas collection wells on a rotating basis in order to give each field time to recharge
moisture removed by the gas extraction process itself.
• Reducing the vacuum pump pull on gas collection wells when imperfections in the landfill cover
allow air to be drawn into the waste mass. Pulling lower amounts into the collection system allows
more methane to escape. (Note: While landfills that just flare gas can accept 3%-5% oxygen
infiltration before risking igniting fires, those recovering energy are restricted to as low as 0.1%
because a high rate of methane production depends upon having an oxygen-starved environment.)
• Installing more gas collection wells at the center of the landfill, where methane ratios are greatest,
and less at the periphery, which could allow more gas to escape with no wells to capture it.
Result of Increasing Moisture is More Uncollected, Fugitive Emissions
The problem is that these aids to more profitable “energy recovery” result in much more uncaptured
methane. A report for the US EPA analyzed fugitive emissions for three types of approaches: (1) normal
dry tomb landfill, (2) closed landfill, but circulating leachate to provide moisture for energy recovery,
and (3) active landfill circulating leachate to provide moisture for energy recovery. The results are
shown in Figure 4. The closed, but wet landfill had 1.9 times more escaping emissions, while the active
wet landfill designed for maximum energy production had 4.7 times more emissions.14
Escaping Methane Emissions
70
methane in grams/second

60

Figure 4. Moisture Increases 50

Fugitive Methane Emissions 40

from a Landfill, by up to 4.7 30

20

times 10

0
Control (dry) Closed (wet) Active (wet)

12
List compiled in March 2010 by Peter Anderson, RecycleWorlds Consulting, based on these publications:
- Augenstein, Don, Landfill Operation for Carbon Sequestration and Maximum Methane,
(http://www.osti.gov/bridge/purl.cover.jsp?purl=/795745-EMfXDz/native).
- Institute for Environmental Management (IEM), Emission Control: Controlled Landfilling Demonstration
Cell Performance for Carbon Sequestration, Greenhouse Gas Emission Abatement and Landfill Methane
Energy, Final Report, February 26, 2000.
- Augenstein, Don, et. al., Improving Landfill Methane Recovery - Recent Evaluations and Large Scale Tests
(2007) (http://www.globalmethane.org/expo_china07/docs/postexpo/landfill_augustein_paper.pdf)
- Oonk, Hans, Expert Review of First Order Draft of Waste Chapter to IPCC’s 4th Assessment Rpt, 2008
(available from Peter Anderson, [email protected])
- SCS Engineers, Technologies and Management Options for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions From
Landfills, 2008 (http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Climate/CATSubgroups/2008Feb26/Report.pdf).
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 40 CFR Part 60 WWW (proposed and final rule).
- Sierra Club LFGTE Task Force, Sierra Club Report on Landfill-Gas-to-Energy, January 2010
(http://sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/landfill-gas-report.pdf)
13
"[Director of Butte County's solid waste program] Mannel explained that in this process, liquid is introduced into
the sealed "waste cells" in the landfill. The addition of the liquid improves the production of methane up to five
times more than the unaugmented process.” Chico Enterprise-Record, 6/14/2010 (chicoer.com/news/ci_15292646)
14
Mark Modrak, et al., Measurement of Fugitive Emissions at a Bioreactor Landfill (2005) (available at
http://clubhouse.sierraclub.org/people/committees/lfgte/docs/measurements_fugitivieemissions.pdf)
Jim R. Stewart, PhD Landfill gas to energy GHG impacts January 30, 2013 3
 CHEJ Landfill �ail���� ��
CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pact 69
The IPCC estimated that, over the long term, including the extensive times (before and after installation
of the gas capture systems) when there is little or no gas collection, the average total fraction captured
may be as low as 20%.15 U.S. EPA’s Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42) assumes a
range from 60 to 85 percent, with 75 percent as “typical” for sites having a well-designed active
collection control system in place.16 However, EPA gives no estimates of the amounts lost before the
installation of the gas capture system and after landfill maintenance ends, which often are very large.17
A report by consultants for the solid waste industry18 provides their view of the ranges of gas collection
values: 50-70% for an active landfill, 54-95% for a inactive landfill or portions of a landfill that contain
an intermediate soil cover, or 90-99% for closed landfills that contain a final soil and/or geomembrane
cover systems. Their view is stated as, “The high ends of the range of these values are proposed for sites
with NSPS or similar quality LFG collection systems which are designed for and achieve compliance
with air quality regulations and surface emissions standards.” “The low end of the range would be for
full LFG systems that are installed and operated for other purposes, such as energy recovery, migration
control, or odor management; . . .” (emphasis added). Our interpretation of these statements is the high
ends of the ranges apply to sites using flaring, while the low ends apply to those doing energy recovery.
However, we note that the Palos Verdes landfill study in the 1990s, which was cited by SCS Engineers
for its “capture efficiencies above 95%,”19 was for a landfill that had been closed for nearly 20 years and
had a 5-foot thick clay cap installed. That study was recently reevaluated by the California Air
Resources Board, which found a collection rate of only 85%.20 Thus for closed landfills with a final
cover, 85% capture is a more substantiated upper limit, meaning that more than 15% is escaping.
In any event, the SCS report indicates the waste industry recognizes the potential losses in the collection
efficiency of energy recovery compared to state of the art flaring. This means that an active landfill
(shown in the left two columns in Figure 5 on the next page) using an energy recovery system could
have a collection efficiency as low as 50%, compared to about 70% for one using flaring, which implies
1.6 times more methane is likely escaping when a landfill is used for energy recovery. A study of Dutch
landfills21 shown in the two right columns found that, averaged over the life of the landfill, flaring gas
extraction systems designed for minimizing emissions could realize collection efficiencies only up to
50%, while energy recovery systems averaged only 20% efficiency. However, the numerical factor is
the same, 1.6 times more methane is likely escaping when a landfill is used for energy recovery.
120%

100%

Figure 5. Methane Capture 80%

Loss
60%

Efficiency at Flaring sites is 40%

Capture

1.6 Times greater than at 20%

0%

Energy Recovery sites. Flaring Energy Flaring Energy

Recovery Recovery
SCS Engineers Oonk

15
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fourth Assessment Report, Waste Chapter 10, p. 600 (2008).
(Note that 54% of all waste x 75% collection efficiency x 50% when collecting = 20%.)
16
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and Office of Air and Radiation, Emission Factor Documentation
for AP-42, Section 2.4, Municipal Solid Waste Landfills (Revised 1997) (http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch02)
17
“Critique of SCS Engineers’ Report Prepared for California’s Landfill Companies on Gas Collection
Performance,” by Peter Anderson, Center for a Competitive Waste Industry, 2008 ().
18
SCS Engineers, Current MSW Industry Position and State-of-the-Practice on LFG Collection Efficiency,
Methane Oxidation, and Carbon Sequestration in Landfills, for the Solid Waste Industry for Climate Solutions
(June 2008), p. 16-17 (http://www.scsengineers.com/Papers/FINAL_SWICS_GHG_White_Paper_07-11-08.pdf).
19
California Integrated Waste Management Board, Overview of Climate Change and Analysis of Potential
Measures to Implement Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies, May 8, 2007.
20
“Initial Statement of Reasons for the Proposed Regulation to Reduce Methane Emissions from Municipal Solid
Waste Landfills,” (May 2009) p. IV-5 and Appendix D (http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2009/landfills09/isor.pdf).
21
Oonk and Boom, 1995, Landfill gas formation, recovery and emissions, Chapter 7, TNO-report 95-130.
Jim R. Stewart, PhD Landfill gas to energy GHG impacts January 30, 2013 4
 CHEJ Landfill �ail���� ��
CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pact 70
We note that a recent report22 by Patrick Sullivan, senior vice president of SCS Engineers, consultants
for the solid waste industry, states, “Opponents of landfills claim development of LFGTE projects will
increase methane emissions at landfills [in comparison with flaring]. . . This is simply not true.” Some of the
points he makes are quoted in italics below:
1. “The landfill is required by federal regulations to achieve the same surface emission limits and LFG
system operational requirements in either case.” Our response is the landfill operator must
demonstrate there is no increase in fugitive emissions from practices that aid LFGTE, such as the six
strategies mentioned on page 3 above.
2. “Landfill opponents suggest that LFG engines, which represent the largest majority of LFGTE devices,
do not destroy methane as well as flares. Indeed, the capacity of flares to destroy methane is greater
than most LFGTE equipment, but the true difference between the two devices is very small with
flares and other control devices achieving more than 99% control and lean-burn LFG engines
achieving more than 98% control of methane (Solid Waste Industry for Climate Solutions [SWICS],
2007).” He is referencing his own company report, but the report cited actually states that methane
destruction efficiency of flares is 99.96% compared to internal combustion engines 98.34%. As we
will show later, this 1.6% difference is very significant, even using the outdated GHG multiplier of
21 (and much worse using the 20-year multiplier 105).23 This means that it is impossible to use
engines and have less net impact than flaring, but turbines with high destruction efficiency are
acceptable, as are systems that inject the methane directly into natural gas pipelines for normal uses.
3. “There are some landfills, which are not required by regulation to collect and control LFG, that are
developed for LFGTE.” Our response is this is a valid point. Voluntary LFGTE projects undertaken
before the NSPS standards require temporary capping and collection could significantly reduce GHG
emissions compared to cases where operators wait as long as possible (up to 5 years is allowed for active
cells) to cap and install collection systems. A consultant report found the very large collection of
methane before the five year limit produced substantial carbon reduction credits.24 However we feel the
EPA needs to drastically tighten the NSPS standards, especially in light of the analyses reported above
that the largest emissions from wet organics occur within the first three years.

Combining the Two Effects Produces Much More Net GHG Emissions for Energy Recovery
In addition to the 1.6 times increase in fugitive emissions at energy recovery sites, there is the effect
reported above that wet landfills produce 2.3 – 4.7 times more methane than dry ones. If we combine
these two observed effects, the net result would be 3.8 - 7.8 times more net GHG emissions for energy
recovery compared to flaring (this value is irrespective of the value of the GHG multiplier for
methane, but the GHG impact is five times greater when using the 105 multiplier for methane).
The charts in Figure 6 indicate the actual global warming savings using the captured methane from
energy recovery to replace the burning of fossil methane are very small (0.0007 tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent per typical ton of municipal solid waste (MSW)), much less than the overall impacts of the
escaping methane. The left chart shows a net increase of GHG emissions of 0.034 CO2 equivalent tons/
MSW ton using the old (1995) multiplier of 21 (which is still used by the US EPA for “consistency”).
The right chart shows a net increase of GHG emissions of 0.172 CO2 equivalent tons/MSW ton using
the latest (2009) multiplier of 105 over the next critical 20 years. Below the large right red bars for
energy recovery in both figures, there is a very tiny blue line (that looks almost like a shadow) that

22
Patrick Sullivan, SCS Engineers, The Importance of Landfill Gas Capture and Utilization in the U.S., April
2010, p. 28-30.
(http://www.scsengineers.com/Papers/Sullivan_Importance_of_LFG_Capture_and_Utilization_in_the_US.pdf)
23
It is very unfortunate that EPA 40 CFR Part 98 allows the use of a default 99% destruction efficiency for
methane for all types of LFG combustion devices, including engines, ignoring this large GHG impact.
24
McCommas Bluff LFGTE Project, Voluntary Carbon Standard Assessment, Jan. 2010, by Blue Source LLC,
available from the author, Annika Colson, (212) 253-5348, [email protected]
Jim R. Stewart, PhD Landfill gas to energy GHG impacts January 30, 2013 5
 CHEJ Landfill �ail���� ��
CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pact 71
represents the amount of benefit from offsetting the use of fossil fuels, which in each case is only 0.0007
tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per typical ton of MSW.
Note that the charts essentially apply to landfills with active gas collection systems, and do not include
the methane lost before the landfill is capped, or after the permanent landfill cap is no longer maintained
and starts to leak, adding moisture from precipitation, which will increase methane emissions.
Figure 6. Energy recovery procedures increase global warming impact by at least 3.8 times using
either multiplier of 21 or 105, even considering the savings from “energy recovery.”
The GHG emissions from escaping methane are expressed in CO2 equivalent Tons per MSW Ton

Methane Destruction Inefficiency of Internal Combustion Engines Increases GHG Impact

It is important to include recent data from the waste industry of average methane destruction efficiency
of flares (99.96%) compared to internal combustion (IC) engines (98.34%) and turbines (99.97%).25
Their analysis indicates turbine destruction efficiency is essentially equivalent to a flare, but an internal
combustion engine adds significant GHG impact from its 1.6% lower destruction efficiency. An EPA
report found that a boiler was similar to a flare.26 But using an engine increases the GHG impact from
energy recovery by 0.0006 CO2 equivalent tons per MSW ton, using the old multiplier of 21, or 0.0028
CO2 equivalent tons per MSW ton, using the latest 20-year multiplier of 105. The methane destruction
inefficiency of an internal combustion engine (0.0006) essentially negates its global warming savings
from replacing fossil methane at the old multiplier (0.0007). Using the short-term multiplier of 105
shows the GHG impacts of IC engines are 40 times those of flaring, turbines, or boilers.
GHG Emissions from Incomplete Methane Destruction

25
SCS Engineers, Current MSW Industry Position and State-of-the-Practice on Methane Destruction Efficiency in
Flares, Turbines and Engines, prepared for the Solid Waste Industry for Climate Solutions (July 2007), p. 2.
26
Roe, S.M., Fields, P.G., and Coad, R. Methodologies for Quantifying Pollution Prevention Benefits from
Landfill Gas Control and Utilization. EPA/600/SR-95/089, July 1995. (http://www.p2pays.org/ref/07/06277.pdf)
Jim R. Stewart, PhD Landfill gas to energy GHG impacts January 30, 2013 6
 CHEJ Landfill �ail���� ��
CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pact 72
Effects of Different Types of Covers
A recent paper by Goldsmith et al.27
compares the efficacies of different types of
flat landfill covers in reducing fugitive
emissions. Goldsmith et al. discuss the
impact of different climates on the fugitive
emissions, but since they found such a wide
range of emissions for a given cover type
within each climate zone, this chart
compares the averages of all the results they
obtained for the five cover types. Even a
temporary cover reduces emissions by over
50%, an intermediate cover by 90%, final
soil by 95%, and a synthetic final cover by
99.9%.
A recent EPA report28 using tracer gas data
and optical remote sensing measurements to
analyze fugitive emissions from both the
tops and side slopes found collected gas for
intermediate covers ranged from 70% to
77% for a site with interim soil cover and
73-88% for a site with a final soil cover.
Both sites had not accepted waste for years.
The one that had just stopped receiving new
waste had only 38% capture rate. The gas
was being flared with no energy recovery.
Note that this EPA report contradicts the
report mentioned in footnote 17, by SCS
Engineers, consultants for the solid waste
industry, which claims collection efficiencies of 90-99% for closed landfills that contain a final soil
cover. The results of the Goldsmith and EPA reports make it even more urgent that all landfills install a
waterproof, airproof synthetic final cover and efficient gas collection system as soon as each small cell
is filled, preferably within a few weeks.

Policy Recommendations
In summary, to reduce global warming requires the following steps to be implemented immediately:
1. Use current GHG impact value of 33 (over 100 years) or 105 (over 20 years) for methane to
calculate the impacts of methane emissions from landfills.
2. Divert all organics (except sewage sludge) from landfills to reduce uncollected emissions.29
3. Either compost all organics or digest them in sealed processors that capture all methane.

27
Goldsmith, Jr., C.D., Chanton, J., Abichou, T., Swan, N., Green, R., and Hater, G., Journal of the Air & Waste
Management Association, 62(2):183–197, 2012.
28
Quantifying Methane Abatement Efficiency at Three Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. EPA/600/R-11/033,
report prepared in 2012 by ARCADIS U.S. for Susan A. Thorneloe.
29
We note that clean organics can be processed by aerobic composting or by anaerobic digesters that can capture
all the methane for energy purposes and produce high quality compost, with only small amounts of inert waste
remaining for a landfill. However, toxic contaminated organics such as sewage sludge/“biosolids” digestate
should be monofilled in separate cells in existing landfills because of the high contamination.
Jim R. Stewart, PhD Landfill gas to energy GHG impacts January 30, 2013 7
 CHEJ Landfill �ail���� �� �
CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pact 73
4. Segregate remaining organics in landfills for the most effective and cost-efficient gas collection
(always maintaining high suction).
5. Keep out all liquids from landfills (including not recirculating leachate) to reduce fugitive
emissions.
6. Cap landfills with temporary covers over the working face to keep out rain and then install
permanent synthetic covers and gas collection systems as soon as possible (within months is
important). (The current 5-year NSPS requirement harms our environment and health.)
7. All captured methane should be burned in a flare, boiler or a high efficiency turbine, or used to
replace natural gas for heating or fuel cells (after proper filtration to remove harmful gasses);
internal combustion (IC) engines should not be used because of unburned methane releases.
8. Stop new landfill gas to energy projects and don't give “renewable energy” credits to landfill
gas (unless capture rates over the entire landfill and destruction efficiencies are constantly monitored
and demonstrated30 to be equal to those of a flare.) (The argument that credits should be given if gas
collection projects are installed earlier than local or NSPS requirements should not apply, since
fugitive emissions have been found to be so large. The only way to eliminate these fugitive
emissions is to eliminate organics from landfills, which would make landfill gas to energy projects
uneconomic. Giving renewable energy credits to landfill gas allows it to undercut clean sources like
wind and solar and, most importantly, puts source reduction, reuse, recycling, diversion, composting,
and anaerobic digestion at a competitive disadvantage.)

30
Peter Anderson mentions monitoring costs in “Critique of SCS Engineers’ Report Prepared for California’s
Landfill Companies on Gas Collection Performance,” Sept. 5, 2008, p. 12 ([email protected]).
However, a spectroscopy method developed by Picarro proposes efficient monitoring, Rella, Chris, et al., 2009,
(http://www.picarro.com/assets/docs/Quantfying_Methane_Fluxes_Simply_and_Accurately_-
_Trace_Dilution_Method.pdf).
Jim R. Stewart, PhD Landfill gas to energy GHG impacts January 30, 2013 8
 CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pack 74

POLICY. SCIENCE. BUSINESS.

EPA
Court orders agency to address landfill emissions
Ellen M. Gilmer, E&E News reporter
Published: Tuesday, May 7, 2019

Solid waste landfills, like this one in Arizona, are a source of methane emissions. Alan Levine/Flickr

The Trump administration violated the Clean Air Act by not taking action on harmful emissions from landfills, a federal court ruled
yesterday.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California found EPA failed to meet its statutory obligation to restrict climate-warming
methane and various conventional pollutants that spew from municipal solid waste landfills across the country.

The waste sites are the third-largest emitters of human-caused methane in the United States. They also release benzene and other
pollutants that can harm human health.

The Obama administration crafted landfill emissions guidelines in 2016 after years of consideration, but Trump officials have not taken
the requisite next steps to review state implementation plans or craft a federal program.

"There is no denying EPA's clear failure to meet its nondiscretionary duties," Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr. wrote.

Proponents of tight restrictions on landfill pollutants cheered the ruling as another rebuke to Trump officials' efforts to delay or roll back
various environmental standards.

"Courts are showing no patience for EPA's blatant violations of law," David Hayes, executive director of the State Energy &
Environmental Impact Center, said in a statement.

"Thankfully, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra and other state attorneys general are holding the Trump Administration
accountable for outrageously flouting the rule of law," he added later.

Government lawyers did not dispute allegations that EPA shirked its mandatory duties; instead, they argued that the coalition of states
challenging the agency lacked legal standing to bring the case because they failed to show a clear connection between EPA's inaction
and specific harm the states would face.

Gilliam, an Obama appointee, rejected the argument, citing the "special solicitude" afforded to sovereign states in litigation, as laid out in
the landmark Massachusetts v. EPA ruling in which the Supreme Court ruled Massachusetts could challenge EPA's refusal to regulate
greenhouse gases.

The state coalition in the landfill case included California, Illinois, Maryland, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and
Vermont.

"Noxious landfill emissions affect everyone, but disproportionately hurt our most vulnerable communities, impacting their health,
environment, and standard of living," Becerra (D) said in a statement. "Once again, we've held the EPA accountable for its failure to
 CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pack 75

perform its mandatory duties under the Clean Air Act, and for its unwillingness to protect public health."

The Environmental Defense Fund intervened in the case on the states' side.

"I definitely see this as part of the streak of Trump administration rollbacks that are not holding muster in court," EDF attorney Rachel
Fullmer told E&E News.

Under the court's order, EPA must make final decisions approving or disapproving existing state plans by Sept. 6 and finalize a federal
plan by Nov. 6 — keeping the court apprised of its progress through status reports every 90 days.

EPA said it is reviewing the decision.

The agency is separately working on a proposal to formally delay implementation deadlines for landfills. The new deadlines would more
closely align with those in the Trump administration's proposed replacement for the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, which targeted
greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector.

Reporter Jennifer Hijazi contributed.

Twitter: @ellengilmer Email: [email protected]

The essential news for energy & environment professionals

© 1996-2019 Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC Privacy and Data Practices Policy Site Map Contact Us
 CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pack 76

An official website of the United States government.

Close
We've made some changes to EPA.gov. If the information you are looking for is not here, you
may be able to find it on the EPA Web Archive or the January 19, 2017 Web Snapshot.

News Releases from Region 09

EPA resolves Clean Water Act violations with
Honolulu and Waste Management at Waimanalo
Gulch Landfill
04/29/2019

Contact Information: 
Margot Perez-Sullivan ([email protected])
415-947-4149

For Immediate Release: April 29, 2019

HONOLULU – The U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, and Hawaii Department of Health (DOH) have settled with the City and
County of Honolulu (CCH) and Waste Management of Hawaii, Inc. (WMH), over
Clean Water Act violations at the Waimanalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill in Kapolei,
Oahu.

CCH and WMH will pay a combined penalty of $425,000, which will be split
evenly between the U.S. and the State of Hawaii. The state will use the funds for
coral reef and habitat restoration, monitoring and conservation on the leeward
coast of Oahu.

The agreement also calls for a series of facility upgrades to maintain compliance
with stormwater regulations. CCH and WMH will retrofit the landfill’s existing
stormwater drainage pipeline, install a trash screen, revise their stormwater
pollution control plan, comply with specific operational and monitoring limits for
the stormwater basin, and apply for an individual stormwater permit for the
facility. The consent decree is subject to a 30-day public comment period.

“Today’s action requires the City and County of Honolulu and Waste
Management to improve their stormwater drainage, controls, and
monitoring program at Waimanalo Gulch Sanitary Landfill,” said EPA
Pacific Southwest Regional Administrator Mike Stoker. “Managing stormwater
runoff is critical to protecting residents’ health and Oahu’s coastal waters.”
 CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pack 77

“Actions detailed in this consent decree will help prevent future harmful
discharges from the landfill and provide resources to restore corals that were
impacted by the violations,” said Hawaii DOH Deputy Director of
Environmental Health Keith Kawaoka. “The consent decree concludes years of
dispute over the horrific discharges of medical waste and sediment that
occurred during the winter of 2010.”

Today’s settlement marks the end of a long-term effort by EPA and the state of
Hawaii to bring the landfill – the largest on Oahu – into compliance with laws
designed to protect public health, natural ecosystems, and wildlife.

Waste Management operates the Waimanalo Gulch landfill, which is owned by the
City and County of Honolulu. In 2009, WMH and CCH began work on a landfill
expansion and new stormwater diversion structure. During construction, Waste
Management used temporary stormwater pipes to divert stormwater around the
landfill.

Before completion of the permanent stormwater diversion structure, WMH began

placing waste in the landfill expansion area. In December 2010 and January 2011,
several large storms overwhelmed the temporary pipes and flooded the expanded
area of the landfill. The flooding discharged stormwater contaminated with
leachate, trash, and medical waste into the Pacific Ocean. Medical waste washed
up on area beaches for several weeks, prompting leeward Oahu area beach
closures.

EPA issued an order in January 2011 requiring cleanup of leachate, trash, and
medical waste discharged during the storms. EPA issued an additional Clean
Water Act order in 2012 requiring WMH and CCH to:  complete construction of
the facility’s stormwater diversion system; finish a study of the landfill’s detention
basin to evaluate its capacity to store and treat stormwater; and develop an interim
stormwater monitoring plan. WMH and CCH have completed the requirements in
those orders.

In July 2015, WMH pleaded guilty to criminal violations for negligent discharge
of pollutants on seven days in violation of the Clean Water Act. The company
paid $400,000 in criminal fines, and $200,000 in restitution.

The consent decree for this settlement will be lodged in the federal district court
by the U.S. Department of Justice and is subject to a 30-day public comment
period and final court approval. A copy of the decree will be available on the
Department of Justice website at: https://www.justice.gov/enrd/consent-decrees

For more information on EPA’s Stormwater Program please see:

https://www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater-discharges-industrial-activities

For Hawaii’s Stormwater program, please see:

http://health.hawaii.gov/cwb/permitting/industrial-storm-water/  

###

LAST UPDATED ON APRIL 29, 2019

 CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pack 78

BRIEF

Report identifies factors in

Advanced Disposal landfill
slope failure that left one dead
By Igor Geyn
Published Feb. 7, 2019

Dive Brief:

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

(DEP) has approved a third-party root cause analysis (RCA)
report identifying the source of a fatal Feb. 2017 slope failure at
the Advanced Disposal Services Greentree Landfill in Kersey,
PA.

According to the report, the "placement of non-conventional

waste streams … including low shear strength sludges"
interacted with an inability to install necessary gas well
infrastructure to displace 15.5 acres of waste, resulting in the
death of William Pierce.

The report identified three categories of "factors" as the

"primary focus" of the incident investigation team: operational
factors, leachate and landfill gas factors (which subsequently
contributed to "excessive pore pressure"), and geometric factors
“associated with cell configuration and management of waste
within [the] configuration.”

Dive Insight:

The 2017 incident led to the DEP requiring Advanced Disposal to

pay $695,000 in civil penalties, as well as remediate the slope
 CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pack 79

failure area and consent to restrictions on sludge acceptance. The

company was also responsible for $12,000 in OSHA fines. The
company's most recent quarterly filing indicates it had incurred
$6.4 million in expenses, net of insurance recoveries, as of June
2018 due to the incident.

Advanced Disposal did not respond to a request for comment on

this new report.

In its RCA report, Geosyntec Consultants identified a series of

operational conditions that factored into the failure, but said that
none "led to (or would have led to)" the collapse in isolation. In
combination with pore fluid pressures and geometric factors,
Advanced Disposal’s use of oil and gas drill cuttings for interim
cover, implementation of a "100-ft plus" setback in the affected
landfill cell and installation of a segregation layer "led to an
unstable waste mass that resulted in the Slope Failure."

Although Greentree staff acted "aggressively" to implement landfill

gas well infrastructure, and met both permit conditions and
industry standards in individual decisions, the combination of
these operational decisions created a section of concentrated,
hydrologically nonconductive low shear strength waste (LSSW)
that produced bulging, eruption and the eventual collapse.

In a separate lecture on the geotechnical stability of waste

fills, Geosyntec Chairman and Senior Principal Dr. Rudolph
Bonaparte explained how the lack of timely gas well installation
and concentration of more than 40% LSSW in the
Greentree Landfill cell exploited the slope’s weak zones. Bonaparte
also connected the observations from the Greentree failure to a
need for greater understanding of “unintended consequences” of
waste fill operations, including the management of special waste.
 CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pack 80

The Advanced Disposal site, which has been in operation since

1986, is permitted for an average of 5,500 daily tons of waste and
currently accepts an average of 3,000 tons. It's included in the
solid waste plans of several Pennsylvania counties and has
contracts with multiple generators in the region.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), three of the 63

fatalities in the "waste management and remediation services"
category occurred at landfills in 2017. While this is a small number
relative to the 30 fatalities among collection workers — which often
receive more regular attention in safety discussions — it indicates
that risks are still present at closed sites. While official 2018 BLS
data won't be available until later this year, anecdotal reports
indicate that there have already been at least two fatalities at
landfills so far in 2019.
 CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pack 81

BRIEF

Waste Management reaches

$4.1M settlement over Ohio
landfill
By Rina Li
Published Dec. 5, 2018

Dive Brief:

Waste Management will pay $4.1 million in a class-action

lawsuit over the Stony Hollow Landfill in Dayton, Ohio, reports
Dayton Daily News. The settlement was finalized in federal
district court on Nov. 26.

The suit, which was filed in 2016 following numerous odor

complaints from neighboring communities, claims Waste
Management “failed to sufficiently collect, capture, and destroy
landfill gas generated at its landfill to prevent fugitive emissions
and to otherwise prevent odors from the landfill from invading
the homes and property.”

An estimated 2,000 individuals will share $1.875 million

provided by the settlement, according to court documents. In
addition to doling out funds to class-action members, Waste
Management will also be required to implement $1.45 million
worth of improvements to the landfill by the end of 2022 in
order to reduce odor emissions.

Dive Insight:

The 169-acre landfill, which takes in an average of 1,100 tons of

waste per day, has been an ongoing source of grief for adjacent
 CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pack 82

communities; odor emissions have prompted hundreds of

complaints from area residents since April 2016. While Waste
Management has acknowledged the odors — and, according to the
landfill’s website, taken “significant action” to address underlying
structural issues — community members and city officials remain
frustrated with the lack of progress.

The suit marks the culmination of a series of odor-related

headaches centered around Stony Hollow Landfill. The Ohio EPA
issued the site a $16,000 fine for emissions last year, while odor
issues have prompted Montgomery County to explore alternative
options for solid waste disposal. In addition, Dayton barred the
landfill from discharging waste into the city’s sanitary sewers after
the presence of prohibited chemicals forced cleanup crews to seek
medical attention.

Strained relations between landfills and neighboring communities

have become increasingly common in recent months: odor
emissions from a Waste Connections-owned landfill in Louisiana
have prompted multiple pending class-action suits, while another
Waste Management landfill in New York was hit with its own class-
action suit over odors this past summer. 
 CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pack 83

For Release: Monday, February 5, 2018

DEC Cites High Acres Landfill for Failure to Reduce

Odors
Notice of Violation Issued to Waste Management of New
York, LLC, for Ongoing Violations of State's Air Pollution
Control Requirements and Solid Waste Management
Regulations
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Commissioner Basil Seggos today announced
that on Friday, Feb. 2, 2018, DEC issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) to Waste Management of New York, LLC,
operator of the High Acres Western Expansion Landfill located in the towns of Perinton in Monroe County and
Macedon in Wayne County, for ongoing violations of the state's solid waste management regulations, as well as
the state's air pollution control requirements related to ongoing odor issues.

DEC Commissioner Basil Seggos said, "The odor condition at High Acres Landfill is unacceptable. New York's
stringent rules and regulations governing waste exist to ensure facilities in our state are adhering to the safest
practices and highest standards possible to protect public health and the environment. DEC takes any violation of
these policies seriously and is taking necessary action to hold these violators accountable. The communities next
door to the High Acres Landfill deserve no less."

DEC has received numerous complaints from the neighboring community of persistent unpleasant odors
emanating from the landfill that are adversely impacting properties and quality of life. In response to these
concerns, DEC immediately bolstered its monitoring of the landfill to determine the nature and extent of the
odors, including increased on-site inspections. In addition, DEC has been working in cooperation with the town of
Perinton and its Conservation Board to resolve the issue.

Under the terms of the NOV, Waste Management, LLC, must implement operational modifications to ensure best
management practices are being applied at High Acres Landfill and undertake several structural improvements to
strengthen the integrity of the facility's gas collection and odor mitigation systems to achieve significant odor
reductions as expeditiously as possible.

DEC will continue to closely monitor operations and air quality conditions at the landfill and in surrounding
communities and will provide strict oversight as the required corrective actions and modifications are
implemented by March 16, 2018. Some of the corrective actions are already underway. In addition, DEC is
continuing its increased presence at the site to ensure implementation of these measures until the odor issue is
resolved.

Waste Management, LLC, may be liable for penalties for past or future violations.

The complete NOV is available (PDF, 212 KB).

CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pact 84
 CHEJ Landfill �ail���� ��
CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pact 85
CHEJ Landfill Failures
CHEJ Landfill Fact ��
�ail���� Pact 86
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 87

Australia: Methane gas landfill leak forces residents to evacuate suburb

By Peter Byrne

25 September 2008

On September 11, Country Fire Authority chief officer Russell Rees advised owners of about 250 houses in the working class outer-
Melbourne suburb of Cranbourne to move out after methane levels of 60 to 65 percent were found in some houses. Concentrations of
5-15 percent are considered an explosion risk.

The gas emanated from a closed landfill bordering the Brookland Greens housing development. Since the evacuation notice was
issued, it has been revealed that the state government planning review body approved the housing development after ignoring
Environmental Protection Agency safety warnings.

Residents were initially advised they would have to stay away for a year, and that it could be as long as 24 months before measures
were put in place to fix the leakage problem. While the Victorian state government offered paltry conditional emergency grants of
$8,500, it was left up to households to organise their own accommodation. With few options available, only 33 of the 230 households
in the affected zone initially moved out. In the past week, at least 21 of those have returned following zero readings from methane gas
monitors.

The immediate danger of home gas explosions seems to have passed, but hundreds of residents are now faced with ongoing safety
fears and a continuing methane stench. Many, including those with large mortgages, also face a devastating collapse in the value of
their homes, threatening their income security and retirement nest-egg.

The land developer, local council and the Victorian state Labor government and its planning regulatory bodies are now engaged in a
mutual blame-shifting exercise. But what emerges is the complicity of all those who had material interests in the development project
—yet another expression of the impact of a profit-driven system in which the rights of ordinary people to decent, safe and affordable
housing are sacrificed to corporate interests. This fundamental problem has been compounded by a lack of rational urban planning. A
chronic housing shortage in Melbourne—which has fuelled rents and property prices particularly in inner-city suburbs—has led to a
situation in which many working people can only afford to live in housing developments in outlying areas, often with grossly
inadequate public transport, recreational facilities, and other critical social infrastructure.

Brookland Greens, located nearly 50 kilometres south-east of Melbourne, adjoins an exhausted sand quarry in Stevensons Road,
which the City of Casey operated as a rubbish tip from 1996 to 2005. About 100,000 tonnes of household waste was dumped each
year. Contrary to best practice, the landfill was never lined with clay. Instead, the site was capped with a layer of soil and a gas
collection and burning system was installed, designed to collect all the methane produced. This is now failing. According to the EPA,
an estimated 1,300 cubic metres of methane per hour are produced with a proportion—several hundred—leaking sideways and
percolating up through the ground outside the capped area of the landfill site.

The EPA and council have been monitoring gas problems and fielding complaints about the landfill for at least eight years. Residents
have reported skin rashes, eye infections, asthma, burning sensations and headaches.

If there was a substantial buffer-zone between the landfill and residential buildings, then the methane would find its way to the surface
and (being lighter than air) simply escape through the ground and into the atmosphere. But when the gas is restricted by an
impermeable object like a home’s concrete floor slab, it can be channelled through a pipe or cabling penetration and then build up to
explosive concentrations in unventilated cupboards or wall cavities. This is what happened two weeks ago in Brookland Greens.

EPA safety warning ignored

Western Australian-based developer Peet Limited bought what was then farmland, adjoining the former Stevensons Road landfill site,
in June 1998 for $3.5 million and planned Brookland Greens as a staged subdivision with some 800 lots. Revenue was projected at
$100 million over a 10-year period.

In 2000 the council rezoned the land for residential subdivision on condition that a 200-metre buffer between houses and the landfill
site would be maintained until declared safe by the EPA and the council. But in 2003 Peet Limited applied to have the buffer
effectively junked, based on its assertion that because the tipping of rubbish had ceased in some parts, the 200-metre boundary should
move to reflect the point of distance from the active area of the site. Had the company waited for the projected 25 years for the
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 88
methane gas leakage to abate, about one third of the 800 lots in Brookland Greens could have been blocked. This would have had a
significant impact on the company’s bottom line, which last year recorded an annual profit of $48 million.

Casey City Council initially refused the application to remove the buffer zone. In response, Peet Limited successfully appealed to the
Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT), the state government planning review body.

Established in 1998, VCAT has been utilised by successive Liberal and Labor state governments as a means of fast-tracking
developers’ appeals against unfavourable council planning decisions. The Age newspaper reported Angry talkback callers have filled
the radio airwaves with their own tribunal horror stories’ since news broke of the gas emergency. Many of the callers have been upset
with what they saw as a lack of accountability and transparency.

The Labor government of Premier John Brumby has denied any responsibility for the situation in Brookland Greens. Its position,
however, is untenable. The entire land usage regulatory system presided over by the government is geared towards the corporate
developers. nderscoring the close relationship between these interests and the state government, it has emerged that Peet donated
$10,000 to the Victorian Labor Party between 2003 and 2005.

The council has similarly denied all responsibility and pointed to its denial of Peet’s initial application on the buffer zone. But it has
been suggested that the local body had an interest in the development and the additional development contribution fees, taxes and rates
it would bring. Ben Hardwick, a lawyer acting for Brookland Greens’ residents who are considering a class action suit, noted I t is
common practice, for political reasons, for local councils to refuse developers’ applications or decline to make a decision, safe in the
knowledge that VCAT will make the hard decision for them.

etails of the 2004 VCAT decision, overruling the local council and the EPA on the need for a buffer-zone, provide a damning portrait
of the scant regard shown by official state bodies for public safety. The review body simply dismissed out of hand the EPA’s
recommendation that the buffer should be increased from 200 metres to 500 metres because of the serious problems with the unlined
leaking landfill. The environmental agency had fined tip operator Grosvenor Lodge three times and imposed 19 enforcement actions
for odour emissions.

After the successful appeal, Peet Limited quickly built 4 homes in the contested area, garnering revenue of $16.45 million. As the
landfill was progressively closed, the buffer was effectively eliminated, with new houses abutting the edge of the capped landfill.

There are indications that Brookland Greens is no isolated incident. The EPA has announced an investigation into dozens of landfill
sites in Victoria, while the federal Liberal Party has called on Prime Minister evin Rudd to convene a national inquiry and an audit of
every landfill site in Australia.

he land should never have been sold

The World Socialist Web Site spoke to a number of residents whose houses back on to the landfill site. They explained that no
government agency warned them of any potential danger before they bought their land.

Andy Rhodes, mechanical engineer, and ixz err, finance clerk, bought land for $300,000 in March 200 and moved in later that
year.
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 89

We liked this particular block because we were told by the developers that the culprit behind us would be a park by about now, Andy
explained. We specifically asked if there would be any problems or had been any problems, and we were told it’s all behaving as
normal, everything’s on schedule. When we bought the land, we were told the tip had been closed for a couple of years. ow the
proposed park is years away.

ixz said I think that the land should never have been sold. They didn’t know that it was going to be 100 percent O , so they
shouldn’t have sold it in the first place. Obviously the developer needs to take some blame because they were already doing
monitoring. But we never heard anything until we moved in, although we did ask and were told everything was O .

Andy added I personally think all three are equally to blame—the developer, the council and VCAT. The council hasn’t done enough
to mitigate the problems and deal with their own landfill. Then VCAT probably jumped the gun. The developer probably pushed pretty
hard and they made a lot of money out of the land. We’ve heard that this is highly unusual that this is only one of two rubbish dumps
that did this. They’re supposed to line the bottom and sides. When they cap it they put a layer on top that the methane gas can’t come
through.

The smell gets really bad sometimes but we can’t move out. We don’t have the option and haven’t got anywhere to go. We’ve got a
methane gas measure monitor but haven’t had any positive readings. Technically we’re still in the danger zone and we probably
shouldn’t have a house here. We’re worried on a number of counts. What are the health effects They’ve said it doesn’t harm your
health but it can’t be good for you either. There’s obviously other stuff coming out of the ground when it smells. Is that harmful
We’re worried about the potential danger to property if it does explode. And obviously no-one can sell their house. o one’s going to
buy here, not for decent market value anyway.

Another resident, Antony rause, moved from Sydney six months ago to be closer to his daughter and look after his grandchild. ow
retired, he worked for 21 years at the Reckitt Benckiser factory in Sydney, and paid $295,000 for a house that backs onto the landfill
site. I never heard anything about the gas, he explained. We do get the smells, the bad egg smells every week or so, only outside.
When I bought this house I asked the real estate agent about the tip and he said don’t worry about that, they’re going to build
parkland’. And the next day I phoned the council and they sent me a letter that said there’s nothing to worry about, we’re building a
park. I didn’t know it was going to be so serious. I can’t move out because I planted all my money here and I don’t have money to buy
another house.

Retired factory manager Graeme Hiam moved into his house 16 months ago. He paid $130,000 for the land and another $190,000 for
the house.

We were never told anything, he told the WSWS. From the time we purchased the land there was never any mention of the tip. One
would assume they didn’t know or they weren’t telling. Ever since we’ve been here we’ve seen people putting rods down the drains.
They first put a methane gas measure meter in my house a month ago. The house next door had the high reading that has been
reported. My opinion is that blame rests between Peet and VCAT. But everyone’s blaming someone else.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http www.wsws.org articles 2008 sep2008 mgas-f25.shtml

 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 90

Ombudsman’s damning report on landfill leak

Tuesday, 20 October 2009
Garth Lamb

Lawyers representing nearly 600 residents of Brookland Greens Estate, who were allegedly
effected by landfill gas leaking out of the old Stevensons Road landfill in the Melbourne
suburb of Cranbourne last year, have welcomed a damning report by Victoria’s independent
Ombudsman. Released last week, it found EPA Victoria mainly to blame for the gas
migration, which saw hundreds of people evacuated and ongoing claims of depressed
property prices.

The Ombudsman traced the problem back to 1992 when the EPA granted
works approval for the Shire of Cranbourne (the predecessor of the City of
Casey Council). The EPA intended the landfill to be lined with compacted clay
if it was to accept putrescible waste – a “favored” but not compulsory
practice at the time – but ultimately the regulator bowed to pressure and
allowed an unlined facility to be built.

The Ombudsman found the Shire’s 1992 contention that a landfill liner would
be expensive ($500,000) to install should not have been taken into account
by the EPA: “Clearly, environmental standards should not be compromised
for the sake of an agency saving money.”

While it was the lack of a liner which ultimately saw gas migration become such a high profile issue
last September, the Ombudsman was equally scathing about other aspects of site design and
operation.

“My investigation identified that the EPA’s assessments of the Shire’s works approval applications
were inadequate,” states 289-page, 65-recommendation report, which has been tabled in Parliament.

“The applications contained errors and the EPA failed to properly explore all assertions. The EPA also
failed to properly assess the Shire’s applications for works approval partly through lack of expertise
and partly through allowing the outcome to be the subject of negotiation.”

One significant error of the EPA, “was to ignore the condition of the State Environment Protection
Policy (Siting and Management of Landfills Receiving Municipal Waste) 1991 that prohibited landfilling
below the level of the water table, ‘unless written permission from the Authority has been obtained’”.

“Without addressing this condition explicitly in the assessment of the works approvals, the EPA should
not have granted permission for the landfill which was not only below the level of the water table, but
interrupted a substantial nearby aquifer,” states the report.

EPA Victoria CEO Terry A'Hearn rejected claims the EPA did not do its job, telling the ABC things
hadn’t been done perfectly, but "we believe that at all times what we've done is prioritise the safety of
the people on the estate”.

The Ombudsman was also highly critical of the Shire of Cranbourne and the City of Casey Council,
finding “in its narrow focus on the economics of landfilling, the Shire failed to take account of other
factors, namely environmental standards”.

Perhaps the most acute display of the all round failure of the system is the ongoing series of failures
to adequately address the problems, despite multiple opportunities for this to occur.

“I concluded that while there have been significant technological developments in landfill design since
the works approval was issued by the EPA in 1992, design standards at the Stevensons Road landfill
effectively stood still.
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 91

“Essentially, a landfill conceived in the late 1980s, approved in 1992 and licensed in 1996 continued
to operate with no landfill liner up until 2005 when it was closed. In the granting of the works
approval for an unlined landfill and the subsequent lost opportunities to require a landfill liner, the EPA
failed to set conditions for the protection of the environment.”

Last November law firm Slater & Gordon launched a class action in the Supreme Court of Victoria
seeking unspecified damages from the City of Casey on behalf of residents affected by the gas leak.
Lawyer Ben Hardwick said it is now “imperative that the City of Casey and EPA come to the table and
try to resolve the matter through mediation”.

“Now that the Ombudsman has made his findings, the next step is to fix the problem,” he said.
“Rather than protracted and expensive legal action through the courts, the City of Casey should sit
down and talk with us.”

He said the Ombudsman catalogued “a litany of bureaucratic bungling, mismanagement and blame-
shifting” and pointed to a particular comment in the report supporting his class action lawsuit.

The Ombudsmand stated, “it is clear to me that the local community has endured considerable
anxiety, distress and inconvenience as a result of methane gas leaking from the landfill into the estate
and the way that some government agencies handled this issue. On this basis, affected residents
should be compensated accordingly”.

© Aspermont Limited

Aspermont Limited
Street Address613-619 Wellington Street, Perth WA Australia 6000
Postal Address PO Box 78, Leederville, WA Australia 6902
Head Office Tel +61 8 6263 9100 Head Office Fax +61 8 6263 9148
e-mail [email protected] website www.aspermont.com ABN 66 000 375 048
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 5 92

Print Page

Scotland board puts end to landfill project

Jun. 8--LAURINBURG -- The Scotland County Board of Commissioners voted Monday night to end a
controversial landfill expansion project.

County officials had considered expanding a closed landfill to create a regional dump as a way to
bring in revenue for the struggling county.

But many residents opposed the plan, saying it would turn the county into a dumping ground for trash
from all over the state.

Monday's meeting officially killed the project, when commissioners unanimously voted on two items
meant to quash the plan for good.

J.D. Willis, chairman of the board and proponent of another regional landfill proposal in 2007, issued
a motion to stop plans for the landfill at Patterson Road.

Commissioner John Alford, before voting on the motion, asked that it include language to stop all
regional landfill proposals in the county.

Willis agreed.

The motion was passed without dissent.

Immediately afterwards, Bob Davis, a longtime opponent of regional landfills in the county, submitted
a detailed resolution banning the Patterson Road landfill expansion.

The resolution stated that "Scotland County discontinue the employment of engineering firms, outside
legal counsel and all other firms or companies engaged to assist with the condemnation and/or more
expansive plans for disposition of waste."

The resolution asked that the county manager notify all waste management companies that Scotland
County was, in effect, out of the landfill business.

It, too, was passed unanimously.

Only Commissioner Guy McCook was absent. Willis said McCook had been hospitalized that
morning.

Willis said the landfill had become a divisive issue in the county, and that officials would be better
served by channeling resources into other things.

"Having said that, it is my opinion that the climate is not conducive to expanding our existing landfill,"
he said.

Willis, a longtime board member, was defeated in the May primaries, after refusing to say whether he
would vote for or against the landfill expansion project.

Many residents believed Willis was in favor of the project.

In 2007, he was one of five of the board's seven commissioners to vote in favor of a dump that was
expected to produce about $4 million a year in revenue for the county.

Eddie Carmichael, a farmer who had spoken out against the Patterson Road landfill, said he was
pleased with the board's decision, but remained skeptical.

"It's good they finally listened to the people," Carmichael said.

But, he said, with a wary shrug: "It's politics. They could come in next month with a whole, new
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 93
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 94
 | Bird Flu Virus Can Survive Two Years in Landfill

CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pact 95

Health News CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pack

Home | Recent Posts | Pages

« Next: Drugs Best First Defense Against Heart Disease for Diabetics | Previous:
Grilled Meats Not Tied to Breast Cancer in Older Women »

Bird Flu Virus Can Survive Two Years in Landfill

Posted in: Cold, Flu, and Sinus

FRIDAY, June 5 (HealthDay News) — Poultry carcasses

infected with the bird flu virus can remain infectious in municipal landfills for as
long as two years, say Nebraska researchers.
Hundreds of millions of chickens and ducks infected with bird flu have died or been
killed worldwide in an effort to control the spread of the disease, they noted. The
remains are disposed of in different ways, including burial in landfills. For example,
the carcasses of more than 4 million poultry that were culled or died during a
2002 outbreak in Virginia were placed in municipal landfills, according to a news
release from the American Chemical Society.
But the safety of landfill disposal has received little attention, said the researchers
who conducted the study. They found that the bird flu virus can survive in landfill
leachate — liquid that drains from a landfill — for at least 30 days and up to two
years.
Factors that most reduced the virus’ survival times were elevated temperatures
and acidic or alkaline pH, the news release noted.
“Data obtained from this study indicate that landfilling is an appropriate method of
disposal of carcasses infected with avian influenza,” concluded Shannon L. Bartelt-
Hunt and colleagues, who noted that landfills are designed to hold material for
much longer than two years.
The study is to be published in the June 15 issue of the journal Environmental
Science & Technology.

http://news.health.com/2009/06/08/bird-flu-virus-can-survive-two-years-landfill/ (1 of 3) [6/23/2009 11:59:51 AM]

 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 96
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 97
CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pact 98
CHEJ Landfill �ail���� �� �
CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pact 99

CHEJ Landfill �ail���� �� �

 CHEJ Landfill �ail���� �� �
CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pact 100
CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pact 101
CHEJ Landfill �ail���� �� ��
 CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pack 102

International Journal of
Environmental Research
and Public Health

Article
Socio-Environmental and Hematological
Profile of Landfill Residents (São Jorge
Landfill–Sao Paulo, Brazil)
Vivianni Palmeira Wanderley 1, *, Fernando Luiz Affonso Fonseca 1,2 , André Vala Quiaios 3 ,
José Nuno Domingues 3 , Susana Paixão 3 , João Figueiredo 3 , Ana Ferreira 3 ,
Cleonice de Almeida Pinto 1 , Odair Ramos da Silva 1 , Rogério Alvarenga 1 ,
Amaury Machi Junior 1 , Eriane Justo Luiz Savóia 1 and Rodrigo Daminello Raimundo 1
1 Environmental Health Management Department, ABC MedSchool, Santo André 09060-650, SP, Brazil;
[email protected] (F.L.A.F.); [email protected] (C.d.A.P.);
[email protected] (O.R.d.S.); [email protected] (R.A.); [email protected] (A.M.J.);
[email protected] (E.J.L.S.); [email protected] (R.D.R.)
2 Biological Sciences Department, Institute of Environmental, Chemistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences,
Federal University of São Paulo, Diadema 04060-650, SP, Brazil
3 Environmental Health Sciences Department, IPC, EsTesC, Coimbra Health School, Coimbra 3046-854,
Portugal; [email protected] (A.V.Q.); [email protected] (J.N.D.);
[email protected] (S.P.); [email protected] (J.F.); [email protected] (A.F.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +55-011-4993-5400

Academic Editor: Huixiao Hong

Received: 27 September 2016; Accepted: 31 December 2016; Published: 11 January 2017

Abstract: We are experiencing an unprecedented urbanization process that, alongside physical,

social and economic developments, has been having a significant impact on a population’s health.
Due to the increase in pollution, violence and poverty, our modern cities no longer ensure a good
quality of life so they become unhealthy environments. This study aims to assess the effect of social,
environmental and economic factors on the hematologic profile of residents of Santo André’s landfill.
In particular, we will assess the effect of social, economic, and environmental factors on current and
potential disease markers obtained from hematological tests. The research method is the observational
type, from a retrospective cohort, and by convenience sampling in Santo André in the Greater ABC
(municipalities of Santo André, São Bernardo do Campo and São Caetano do Sul, southeast part
of the Greater São Paulo Metropolitan Area, Brazil). The study determined a socio-environmental
profile and the hematologic diseases screening related to a close location to the landfill. The disease
manifests itself within a broad spectrum of symptoms that causes changes in blood count parameters.
The objective of this work is to show that there is an association between social, environmental and
economic factors and a variety of serious disease outcomes that may be detected from blood screening.
A causal study of the effect of living near the landfill on these disease outcomes would be a very
expensive and time-consuming study. This work we believe is sufficient for public health officials to
consider policy and attempt remediation of the effects of living near a landfill.

Keywords: landfill; waste; socio-environmental impact; hematologic diseases

1. Introduction
Nowadays, due to higher levels of pollution, violence and poverty, cities can no longer ensure
a good quality of life for everyone and have become unhealthy environments for a great many
local inhabitants [1]. An unprecedented urbanization, along with physical, social and economic
developments, is having a significant impact on the health of the population [1,2].

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 64; doi:10.3390/ijerph14010064 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijerph
 CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pack 103

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 64 2 of 12

Besides the continuous demographic growth, these factors have an implicit effect on the amount
of resources that have to be consumed in order to sustain all citizens of the Earth. This increases waste
production, which invariably affects society dynamics in general.
Landfill disposal remains the main destination in waste management, and it is expected to remain
so for the next decades [3–5]. It is estimated that at the worldwide scale, over five million people
die every year due to waste-related diseases [2]. The adverse effects of municipal solid waste on
the environment, not to mention on public and individual health, are widely recognized by several
authors [6], who point out a deficiency in the implemented systems and especially the lack of a strong
policy emphasizing health safeguards [7].
A few authors state that societies all over the world are focused on consumption, and, therefore,
there are significant losses of organic and inorganic materials: waste type [8,9], which would imply an
uncertain future for Public Health. The improvement suggestion would be educating the population
for a sustainable consumption and a strategic waste management system [9], such as: recycling and
treating degraded soils; and to which extent these landfill sites would be usable.
The large amount of waste was not a concern for an extensive period due to the distance between
disposal sites and urban areas. Meanwhile, with the population growth, it has been difficult to
reduce the distance between them [10]. Another emerging problem linked to population growth is the
unsystematic construction of homes in hazardous locations and quite vulnerable environmental areas,
which usually lack urban infrastructure (sanitation, electricity), among other things [11,12].
It has been scientifically shown that residences on or near a landfill have impacts on the residents’
health and on the environment: air quality, water quality, and soil pollution. The effects of landfills are
major public health issues. Consequently, waste, waste treatment and disposal are major sanitary and
environmental concerns to cities [3,13,14].
The environmental degradation scenario is unquestionable, and there is a lack of policies to
prevent and ameliorate the crisis. The complexity of analyzing all impacts demands studies on the
various effects of waste produced daily by the population [15,16]. The first step is to identify any
adverse health outcomes using blood tests, which can be an important tool for the evaluation of various
situations, such as diagnosis and progression of hematologic diseases, detection of infections and
therapeutic monitoring [17].
Therefore, a hemogram can guide the initial suspicions supported by clinical files. The importance
of the hematologic analysis is assumed to be an important diagnosis tool, providing useful information
for a better handling of these cases.
It is necessary to adopt a set of measures that include politics’ globalization, government social
efficiency and social participation growth. It is the government’s duty to ensure that change is not
only possible but always sustained in clear objectives as well in results well defined and with special
properly defined interventions [18–20].
Santo André has an area of 174.38 square kilometers and is located in the Greater ABC
(municipalities of Santo André, São Bernardo do Campo and São Caetano do Sul, southeast part
of the Greater São Paulo Metropolitan Area, Brazil), 18 km from the capital city of São Paulo. The city
is strategic for the logistics sector, as it lies in the main economic center of the country. Santo André
has 678,486 inhabitants and is the tenth largest city in the state of São Paulo. The landfill of São Jorge
(217,000 m2 ) is located in Santo André, and is surrounded by the slum São Jorge—about 1400 families.
Every month, the landfill receives about 13 thousand tons of household waste and 250 tons of sterilized
medical waste [11].
Around the landfill of São Jorge, there are signs that the environment has suffered both physical
and social impacts [21,22]. The landfill began to operate in the 1980s and is located in the São Jorge
District. Santo André’s landfill is a facility that provides treatment and disposal of solid waste produced
in the municipality. Therefore, it evolved from a non-official dumping location to a controlled one with
good environmental practices. Nowadays, it is an area destined to receive solid waste produced in
Santo André and is the most suitable and sustainable destination for the waste.
 CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pack 104

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 64 3 of 12

This study aims to measure the socio-environmental and hematologic profile of residents of
Santo André’s landfill—the “Espírito Santo suburbs”—by using the social and demographic data
of the studied area and association between socio-environmental factors and the alterations in
hematological parameters as precursors to diseases. This fieldwork will allow better urban planning
and Public Health policies for residential areas on and near landfills, as well as a greater degree of
social and environmental responsibility for all sectors of society.

2. Method
The research method is observational with a retrospective cohort study where the samples
are obtained by convenience in Santo André in the Greater ABC region. The study consists of the
elaboration of a demographic and environmental profile and assesses the prevalence of potential
diseases identified by hematological screening that may be the result of housing conditions and/or
exposure to environmental contaminants from the landfill. The study must be understood as a primary
tracking diagnosis, and it will be the kick-off for a transversal study of Espírito Santo inhabitants that
will be performed in the near future.
The exposed group lives in the vicinity of the landfill. There is a very little knowledge about
the reality of this population due to the fact that national entities do not have permission to enter
the area to study and help this community. Furthermore, this study got a special permit to develop
a campaign for being the spin-off of a more transversal study. The community inhabits a place that
was a dumping ground and it is actually contiguous to the landfill; therefore, the study’s aim was to
establish connections among the location and the community’s health.
The study was conducted in two phases. The first phase consisted of a survey and research profile
of the residents as the following variables: age, gender, type of house, water treatment, water supply
and type of sewage, based on interviews and completing a questionnaire. The second phase consisted
of the collection of blood samples into two distinct groups: a group of people living in the community
(experimental group) and a group of random people attending a health facility located in the central
city (control group).
According to the data obtained, a descriptive and comparative analysis of the differences in
hematologic patterns between both groups was made.
The blood samples were collected through peripheral venopunction using the vacuum method.
After recovery, the blood was added to the tube with EDTA. The samples were homogenized for 10 min
and evaluated through flux cytometry with ABX Pentra 120 equipment (Horiba Medical, Montpellier,
France). The serial evaluations were performed in blades using the Leishman method in order to obtain
the procedures approached. The analysis was carried out according to good biomedical practices.
Quantitative and qualitative alterations in blood count (viral, bacterial and parasitic) were
measured by reading lamina by Fernando Luiz Affonso Fonseca (hematologist)—a blood sample.
A total of 100 blood samples were harvested, but only 62 of them were considered biologically
viable. The viability of the blood sample complied with good practices in clinical analyses. Thus,
samples hemolyzed with jaundice or still lipemic were not included in the hematological analysis.
Therefore, in a group of inhabitants of the central region, 30 individuals were included (unexposed
group). From the group of inhabitants of the vulnerable region (exposed group), 84 were included.
However, from these, only 32 consented to having their blood harvested.
The information gathering tool used in this study was a questionnaire taken from the database
developed by SEMASA, the Bureau of Environmental Issues of Santo André, São Paulo, Brazil,
the institute responsible for the approval of construction, basic sanitation and water supply, as well
as for assessing the regularity of housing developments. The applicants were the work’s researchers,
supervised by the head researcher of the University.
From a total of 100 questionnaires filled out, 84 were considered adequate (valid questionnaires).
Thus, 16 were discarded, due to inadequacies in the information provided or a lack of consent from
the individuals.
 CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pack 105

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 64 4 of 12

A descriptive analysis of all variables presented was performed in terms of their relative and
absolute terms. In order to evaluate the association between the qualitative variables, a chi-square test
was used, and/or the exact Fisher test. The level of significance was 5%. The data were processed
and treated in the statistics software SPSS 21.0 (Released 2012, IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows,
Version 21.0, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).
At last, an exact Fisher test was applied, in order to evaluate whether there is a connection between
the hematological results and the type of exposure, as well as the quantity of hematological changes.
The exact Fisher test is used to calculate the association of the analyzed features when the total amount
of data is small and when the expected values in one or more of the cells of the 2 × 2 table is less than
or equal to five. Thus, in small samples, this test should be used, since it produces fewer distortions
than the chi-square test.
The sample was only gathered after the theme enlightening and authorization of the individuals.
Anonymity as well as the confidentiality of the data obtained were guaranteed.
All subjects granted their informed consent for inclusion before participating in the study.
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was
approved by the Ethics Committee of the Secretária Municipal de Saúde, Santo André (1.587.630).

3. Results

3.1. First Phase

Questionnaires were distributed with the purpose of establishing a social, demographic and
biographic profile of the location. Table 1 shows the most significant variables of the community.

Table 1. Socio-biodemographic characteristics of the inhabitants.

Community Sample
Variables
n %
Gender
Female 55 65.5
Male 29 34.5
Age group
(6–12) 7 8.3
(13–18) 6 7.1
(19–30) 30 35.7
(31–50) 31 36.9
(51–60) 8 9.5
(+60) 2 2.4
House type
Bricks 53 63.1
Wood 20 23.8
Mix 5 6.0
Another 6 7.1
Income *
Less than 2 67 79.8
Between 3–5 16 19.0
Between 5–10 1 1.2
Plus 10 0 0.0
Sanitation
Yes 54 64.3
No 30 35.7
Total 84 100
* Minimum Wage (M.W.) = 724 Reais.
 CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pack 106

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 64 5 of 12

The several variables that were incorporated in the study and tabulated the appropriate statistical
program mentioned above are the best ways of reflecting the social and demographic landscape of the
target population. It is important to note that the variable “Sanitation” in Table 1 corresponds to the
presence of the official public water, sewage and electricity networks.
As can be seen by observing Table 1, there is a predominance of females and the age groups from
19 to 30 and from 31 to 50 are the most prevalent in respondents. It was also verified that the income
was below two Brazilian minimum wages (M.W.), which indicates that we face a special group in
terms of economic capacity. It is also noted that there is a prevalence of masonry houses (63.1%) and
houses with in-door plumbing/sanitation (64.3%).

3.2. Second Phase

In order to obtain plausible conclusions to the case study, it was necessary to compare the effects
of the convenience sampling of another group of people that were not exposed to the several harmful
environmental factors (Non-Exposed Group) to those who were exposed (Exposed Group).
Of the 84 individuals described in Table 1, 32 were randomly chosen and were designated as the
“Exposed Group”. The Non-Exposed Group was interviewed at the same time as they did the blood
sample. In total, 30 people were interviewed, which corresponds to the amount of blood samples.
As described earlier, in order for the importance of the two groups to share the same characteristics,
it appears that the percentages are similar, where the female gender was the most prevalent, with 75%
in the “Exposed Group” and 66.7% in “Non-Exposed Group”.
Regarding the age, the range between 31–50 years was the most commonly reported, with 11 people
(36.7%) in the “Non-Exposed Group” and 19–30 in the “Exposed Group”, with 13 persons (40.6%).
It appears that the housing and financial realities are significantly different in each group, where
84.4% of the “Exposed Group” presents an income of less than two minimum wages, while 56.7% of
the “Non-Exposed Group” have similar income.
Regarding the “Non-Exposed Group”, a greater purchasing power is observable, and, therefore,
all of the respondents live in masonry houses and nearly all have sanitation. Table 2 describes the
exposure type according to socio-biographic characteristics.
According to the analyzed variables, we observe that both groups have a significant association
with the variables’ sewage (p = 0.004) house type (p < 0.0001) and income (p = 0.025) with the exception
of the variables gender and age group (p > 0.05).
It is noted that of the totality of the individuals with sewage (82.3%), 94.4% of them live in the
vicinity of the landfill.
According to house type, the totality of the non-exposed live in brick houses, and, from the total
of individuals that live in this type (n = 50), the majority (62.5%) is exposed to the landfill.
The total of individuals that own an income lower than 2 M.W. is 44 (71%), as 27 of them (84.4%)
are exposed to the landfill and (56.7%) correspond to the non-exposed.
In order to verify the association among hematologic changes towards socio-biodemographic
characteristics, the next table was prepared (Table 3).
During the analysis of the hematologic changes, no significant association to any variables
was observed.
Regarding the age group variable, among the age groups of 6–12 and 51–60, there is a great
disparity among changes found. Overall, most (51.6%) do not show hematologic changes.
Regarding the sewage variable, there is a balance in terms of percentages, and we infer that
(51.6%) do not have any hematologic changes. As regards the income variable, 44 individuals (71%)
have an income lower than two minimum wages.
In order to investigate the existence of an association between exposure type and hematologic
changes in individuals, a statistical analysis was carried out. The results of hemogram differences were
summarized in Table 4.
 CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pack 107

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 64 6 of 12

Table 2. Association of the socio-biodemographic characteristics with the exposition type.

Exposition Type
Socio-Biographic Characteristics Non-Exposed Exposed Total p-Value
n % n % n %
Female 20 66.7 24 75 44 71
Gender Male 10 33.3 8 25 18 29 0.471
Total 30 100 32 100 62 100
(6–12) 2 6.7 6 18.8 8 12.9
(13–18) 1 3.3 3 9.4 4 6.5
(19–30) 9 30 13 40.6 22 35.5
Age Group (31–50) 11 36.7 6 18.8 17 27.4 0.309
(51–60) 5 16.7 3 9.4 8 12.9
≥60 2 6.7 1 3.1 3 4.8
Total 30 100 32 100 62 100
Yes 29 96.7 22 84.4 51 82.3
Sanitation No 1 3.3 10 15.6 11 17.7 0.004 *
Total 30 100 32 100 62 100
Brick 30 100 20 62.5 50 80.6
Type of House Wood 0 0 12 37.5 12 19.4 <0.001 *
Total 30 100 32 100 62 100
Less 2 M.W. 17 56.7 27 84.4 44 71
Among 3–5 M.W. 9 30 5 15.6 14 22.6
Income 0.025 *
Among 5–10 M.W. 4 13.3 0 0 4 6.5
Total 30 100 32 100 62 100
* Statistical significance (chi-square test; exact Fisher).

Table 3. Hematologic changes discovered in individuals’ hemograms.

Hematologic Changes
Variable Description Yes No Total p-Value
n % n % N %
Female 20 45.5 24 54.5 44 29.0
Gender Male 10 55.6 8 44.4 18 71.0 0.470
Total 30 45.5 32 54.5 62 100
(6–12) 5 62.5 3 37.5 8 12.9
(13–18) 2 50.0 2 50.0 4 6.5
(19–30) 11 50.0 11 50.0 22 35.5
Age Group (31–50) 9 52.9 8 47.1 17 27.4 no assumptions
(51–60) 2 25.0 6 75.0 8 12.9
≥60 1 33.3 2 66.7 3 4.8
Total 30 48.4 32 51.6 62 100
Yes 25 49.0 26 51.0 51 82.3
Sanitation No 5 45.5 6 54.5 11 17.7 no assumptions
Total 30 48.4 32 51.6 62 100
Masonry 25 50.0 25 50.0 50 80.6
House Type Timber 5 41.7 7 58.3 12 19.4 0.604
Total 30 48.4 32 51.6 62 100
Less 2 M.W. 17 56.7 27 84.4 44 71
Between 3–5 M.W. 9 30 5 15.6 14 22.6
Income no assumptions
Between 5–10 M.W. 4 13.3 0 0 4 6.5
Total 30 100 32 100 62 100
 CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pack 108

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 64 7 of 12

Table 4. Association among exposure type with hematologic change.

Hematologic Change
Groups
Change No Change Total
n 10 20 30
% Line 33.3% 66.7% 100.0%
Non-Exposed
% Column 33.3% 62.5% 48.4%
% Total 16.1% 32.3% 48.4%
Exposure Type
Count 20 12 32
% Line 62.5% 37.5% 100.0%
Exposed
% Column 66.7% 37.5% 51.6%
% of Total 32.3% 19.4% 51.6%
p = 0.022.

In Table 4, we can observe an association among the variables of Exposure Type and Hematologic
Change as being significant from a statistical perspective (p < 0.05). We verified a pattern of association
between exposure and the presence/absence of hematologic changes (p = 0.022).
From the sum of people exposed to landfills (32 cases), the majority had hematological disorders
(62.5%). It was found that, from 30 cases where the presence of hematological abnormalities was found,
most are exposed to the landfill (66.7%).
As noted in Table 4, there was a 50% increase in changes in the screening performed in the
“Exposed Group” compared to the “Non-Exposed Group”, which indicates that the population is not
in its best health.
The chance of occurrence of hematological disorders is 3.33 times higher in subjects exposed to
the landfill compared to those who presented hematological changes in the “Non-Exposed Group”.
It is recognized, by the observation data, that 10 individuals from the “Non-Exposed Group” showed
alterations in parameters, whereas the incidence in the “Exposed Group” was significantly higher,
with 20 individuals undergoing changes.
Diseases such as leukocytosis, anemia, lymphocytosis and neutropenia were the major findings,
and changes are evident in the “Exposed Group” compared to the “Non-Exposed Group”.

4. Discussion
Analyzing the changes in vital functions of living beings, it is possible to know the effects of exposure
to pollutants before their occurrence and the existence of any other significant damages [18,23–26].
It is considered that proving the cause–effect connection with environmental exposures that
may trigger chronic manifestations in humans requires specific studies that prove to be costly and
time-consuming [27–30]. It is necessary for the data to be collected in the field so as to be compared
with experimental observations, in order to demonstrate the process and how the interactions occur
regarding study dynamics [16].
The effects of human exposure to environmental pollutants are manifested typically in the long
term and are masked by other causes. Adding to this, the fact that the probability of harmful elements’
synergy and exponentiation of the risk is generally unknown, and it is thus extremely difficult to
corroborate it with science based on laboratory tests, without incorporating other relevant factors,
such as corporate interests, and industrial or professional regulators who hinder the analysis and
detection of any effects on human health [20,24,26,30].
Given these considerations, as well as relying on the limitations of the health system itself in
identifying peculiarities in the epidemiological profile of the population, a methodology was defined
that aims to fully understand the exposure process. There are five parameters that are difficult to
materialize including individual characteristics, duration of exposure, frequency of exposure, average
time and “contact rate“, always bearing in mind that the characteristics of the individual vary by age,
gender, occupation, and body weight [31].
 CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pack 109

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 64 8 of 12

The focus of the study is the exposure of individuals to organisms, as well as to social, economic
and environmental processes in anticipation of models that historically focus on the monitoring and
maintenance of health [21,22]. Several papers have been published that address the role that the landfill
can play in people’s health [30–32]. There is no doubt that a landfill should be viewed from a holistic
point of view, in that it must manage the direct and indirect effects that it may have [3,18,32].
Despite the existence of federal government programs for vulnerable populations, there do not
seem to have been any improvements in the living conditions of this community [13,14]. The hemogram
exam (counting blood cells—CBC) is used as a tool to promote the indicative tracking and respective
improvements to minimize ongoing risks in analyses of a certain population. Given its great potential
as a monitoring method, CBC integrates a set of parameters that describe the number and characteristics
of some elements in the blood. The CBC consists of three basic features, namely erythrocyte evaluation
(or red series), leukocytes evaluation (white or series), review of erythrocytes and platelets (platelet or
series) [33].
Lymphocytosis is characterized by an increase in the number of lymphocytes (sub-group of white
blood cells). The disease neutropenia indicates a low number of neutrophils that are a subset of
leukocytes originating in the bone marrow, thus revealing an immune susceptibility. The increase of
leukocytes is a sign of a viral infection, i.e., people near the landfill tend not to have viral and bacterial
infections [33]. The disease leukocytosis reveals an increased number of leukocytes that reveals the
existence of an infection, since they are the elements that are linked to immune system defenses against
foreign bodies. The greater the leukocytosis is, the more contaminated the landfill will probably be,
which can be interpreted as a parameter that reveals and establishes causal links. The disease of anemia
is more complex, so the causes are more comprehensive and diversified. This immediately implies a
more detailed investigation into these cases [33–35].
The lymphocytosis, neutropenia and leukocytosis diseases can be understood as correlated,
although they have opposite directions of growth, as previously conveyed [35].
The results express the presence of discrepancies in the health of the São Jorge population,
compared with the other subjects in the study, which requires the completion of further studies to detect
the most common causes and the consequences for the residents in order to enable the development of
a continuous and systematic supervision program for the residents. The suggestion is to carry out a
more in-depth study in order to make improvements in this type of group exposed to potential health
hazards, such as those identified in this study, in comparison with the Non-Exposed Group.
The problems derived from municipal solid waste are still present and without a proper
solution [36]. There is no alternative but a behavioral change in relation to waste, given the
reduction in its production, and in order to gradually implement technologies that are within our
technical capabilities and to leverage resources to gradually develop a greater level of control over the
environmental and health effects caused by waste [37].
The prevention measures and control of public health consequences of urban solid waste lack
information and epidemiological data in which causal relationships can be established. There is a
colossal deficiency in studies on the recovery of areas degraded by disposal of urban solid waste.
In this context, this article seeks to contribute to a consolidation of the state-of-the-art related to the
theme, in order to raise awareness of the elements that improve the quality of urban areas and hence
the quality of life of their citizens [31,36].
Supporting research of this kind is a priority. The development of greater technical training,
in view of the environmental and health issues, as well as the involvement of professionals in integrated
waste management systems, in the medium and long term, may introduce these variables in projects
and plans [15,37,38].
Data from this study should be compared to other data, which may involve a characterization
of the epigenetic profile of the population [39] and even a characterization of the study areas for the
presence of particulate material [40]. The challenge is to continue collecting more valid and reliable
data in order to achieve an extrapolation between environmental and respective consequences for the
 CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pack 110

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 64 9 of 12

health of population’s risk factors to make a comparison on a national and global scale [18]. The study
described is the first step in a study involving the whole Espírito Santo community.
The data obtained in this tracking study indicate that strategies for prevention and health
promotion should include joint actions established between citizens and the management of
services and should always be aimed at improving living conditions, particularly urban planning,
implementation educational programs, as well as raising awareness about behavioral changes, once
isolated actions are considered ineffective in reducing any problems [38,41].
It can be inferred that this study has a purpose of consolidating knowledge, which contributes to
the prevention and detection of either known or unknown adverse health effects [40,41] to the public
that are related to environmental exposure. The study should be understood as a primary screening
indicating some pathologies, which, in addition to enabling us to assess the state of health of the
inhabitant, may be indicative of the level of pollution of landfill, insofar as the conditions are reflected
on the inhabitants of the landfill.
We must identify priorities at the community level, which is why the understanding of
environmental health problems is essential. Sustainable planning may be a possible tool to implement
a research-oriented future intervention, and thus to address the issues of greatest importance. However,
this process is not simple in communities featuring persistent health disparities and a historical lack of
confidence in health professionals [40,41].
The main alterations found in the completed study were anemia, leukocytosis, lymphocytosis
and neutropenia. These data show that this is a group with greater immune susceptibility, adding that
some elements of the exposed group already have infections, which are consistent with exposure to
contaminants, supporting the existence of a pattern. Aiming at the promotion of health, it is suggested
that the project should continue to be monitored in order to gather a greater quantity of evidence in
support of the result of the tracking work carried out and described [42,43].
Based on the study, the exposed group is 3.33 times more likely to develop hematological
abnormalities, taking as reference its exposure to the landfill, as opposed to the group that was
not exposed. There is much [8,44] research on urban landfills, but none involving the social and
hematological profile have been found in the literature.
Although the results only show the events occurred at the São Jorge landfill, in the Greater
ABC region. They also provide important information on the expansion of knowledge concerning
the assessment of this risk in residential areas around the planet. The demand for a thorough
investigation is urgent in order to spread information related to the potential effects of human exposure
to contaminants from multiple sources that affect public health.
A recent bibliographical survey study about the difficulty of assessing the impacts on the health
of populations exposed to waste [45] shows that the biggest difficulty is the access to immediate and
recent results of studies about biomonitoring of the effects of waste exposure on human health [45].
It is noted that this occurs due to several factors: identifying the profile of the exposed population,
characterization and diversity of the analyzed area, socio-economic factors (education, unemployment,
home ownership, family structure and access to health services), as well as government interests.
The analysis provides evaluation of quantitative data on the environment. However, the
complexity and specificity related to historical and cultural features of this population caused some
limitations in this study, such as: it was a convenience sampling, the way people moved to the landfill
area, and, mainly, whether these blood changes in people living near the waste were due to their
displacement alone. Besides those, there are limited potential confounders, such as population diet,
family history and other risk factors that were not controlled in the analyses.
Future investigations may include concepts like nanoparticles and epigenetics, in order to promote
a holistic view of the causes, mechanisms and consequences caused by the exposure of humans
to a multitude of organisms, thereby complementing the present study and scientific knowledge,
eliminating existing cross-limitations.
 CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pack 111

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 64 10 of 12

5. Conclusions
The full blood element count analysis was performed and it found that the blood counts
of residents living near the landfill had positive results for hematological changes, and diseases
such as leukopenia, anemia, neutropenia and lymphocytosis were the most frequently encountered
changes. However, proving the cause-effect relation with environmental exposure factors that
may trigger chronic manifestations in humans requires specific studies, which often are very costly
and time-consuming.

Acknowledgments: The authors would like to express their gratitude to the ABC Medical School and to the
School of Health Technology Coimbra-IPC-Polytechnic Institute of Coimbra-Portugal and the Department of
Environmental Health and Public Health, as well as company SEMASA-Sanitation and Insurance Central, for their
support and cooperation with this study.
Author Contributions: All authors contributed significantly to the successful completion of this work both
intellectually and financially. Fernando Luiz Affonso Fonseca, Rodrigo Daminello Raimundo, Eriane Justo Luiz
Savóia, José Nuno Domingues and Ana Ferreira conducted sampling and interviews and analyzed the data;
Cleonice De Almeida Pinto, Hating Odair Ramos Da Silva and Rodrigo Daminello Raimundo did the statistical
analysis of data; Vivianni Palmeira Wanderley conducted the study and manuscript revisions, André Vala Quiaios,
Susana Paixão, João Figueiredo, Rogério Alvarenga and Amaury Machi Junior made relevant comments on the
manuscript. Finally, all authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. De Souza Porto, M.F.; de Moura Juncá, D.C.; de Souza Gonçalves, R.; de Freitas Filhote, M.I. Lixo, trabalho e
saúde: Um estudo de caso com catadores em um aterro metropolitano no Rio de Janeiro, Brasil. Cad. Saúde
Públ. 2004, 20, 1503–1514.
2. Confalonier, U.E.C.; Marinho, D.P. Mudança Climática Global e Saúde: Perspectivas para o Brasil. Available
online: http://www.multiciencia.unicamp.br/artigos_08/a_03_8.pdf (accessed on 4 January 2017).
3. Beaven, R.P.; Knox, K.; Gronow, J.R.; Hjelmar, O.; Greedy, D.; Scharff, H. A new economic instrument for
financing accelerated landfill aftercare. Waste Manag. 2014, 34, 1191–1198. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Seco, J.I.; Fernández-Pereira, C.; Vale, J. A study of the leachate toxicity of metal containing solid wastes
using Daphnia magna. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2003, 56, 339–350. [CrossRef]
5. Nagendran, R.; Selvam, A.; Joseph, K.; Chiemchaisri, C. Phytoremediation and rehabilitation of municipal
solid waste landfills and dumpsites: A brief review. Waste Manag. 2006, 26, 1357–1369. [CrossRef]
6. Heller, L.; Catapreta, C.A. Solid waste disposal in urban areas and health—The case of Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Waste Manag. Res. 2003, 21, 549–556. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Santos, I.D.C. A participação do Brasil nos programas de paz da ONU. Interfaces Cient.-Direito 2013, 1, 67–74.
[CrossRef]
8. Václavík, V.; Ondrašiková, I.; Dvorský, T.; Černochová, K. Leachate from municipal waste landfill and its
natural degradation—A case study of Zubří. Zlín region. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 873.
[CrossRef]
9. Zaman, A.U.; Lehmann, S. Challenges and opportunities in transforming a city into a “Zero Waste City”.
Challenges 2011, 2, 73–93.
10. Jacobi, P.R.; Besen, G.R. Gestão de resíduos sólidos em São Paulo: Desafios da sustentabilidade.
Estudos Avançados 2011, 25, 135–158. [CrossRef]
11. RIMA Ampliação da Área de Disposição de Resíduos da CTR de Santo André. Available online: http:
//www.semasa.sp.gov.br/admin/biblioteca/docs/pdf/rima.pdf (accessed on 12 September 2016).
12. Kostopoulou, P.; Karagiannidis, A.; Rakimbei, P.; Tsiouvaras, K. Simulating the water balance in an old
non-engineered landfill for optimizing plant cover establishment in an arid environment. Desalination 2010,
250, 373–377.
13. Beltrão, A.F.G. Aspectos Jurídicos do Estudo de Impacto Ambiental; MP Editora: São Paulo, Brazil, 2008.
14. Oliveira, M. Caracterização dos Impactos Sócio—Ambientais no Entorno do Aterro Controlado de JARDIM Gramacho;
Município de Duque de: Caxias, Brazil, 2007.
 CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pack 112

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 64 11 of 12

15. Ferreira, J.A.; Dos Anjos, L.A. Aspectos de saúde coletiva e ocupacional associados à gestão dos resíduos
sólidos municipais. Cad. Saúde Públ. 2011, 17, 689–696. [CrossRef]
16. López, A.; Lobo, A. Emissions of C&D refuse in landfills: A European case. Waste Manag. 2014, 24, 1446–1454.
17. Pfeffer, N.; Laws, S. “It’s only a blood test”: What people know and think about venipuncture and blood.
Soc. Sci. Med. 2006, 62, 3011–3023. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Payne-Sturges, D.; Gee, G. National environmental health measures for minority and low-income
populations: Tracking social disparities in environmental health. Environ. Res. 2006, 10, 154–171. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
19. Huang, X.Y.; Lessner, L.; Carpenter, D.O. Exposure to persistent organic pollutants and hypertensive disease.
Environ. Res. 2006, 102, 101–106. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Sachs, I. Estratégias de Transição Para o Século XXI: Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente; Tradução de Magda Lopes;
Studio Nobel: São Paulo, Brazil, 1993; p. 39.
21. Kirkeby, J.T.; Birgisdottir, H.; Bhander, G.S.; Hauschild, M.; Christensen, T.H. Modelling of environmental
impacts of solid waste landfilling within the lifecycle analysis program EASEWASTE. Waste Manag. 2007, 27,
961–970. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Arias, A.R.L.; Inacio, A.F.; Novo, L.A.; Viana, T.A.P.; Albuquerque, C. Utilização de bio marcadores como
ferramenta de monitoramento e avaliação ambiental: O caso de recursos hídricos. Mundo Vida 2005, 6, 34–41.
23. Poulsen, O.M.; Breum, N.O.; Ebbehøj, N.; Hansen, Å.M.; Ivens, U.I.; van Lelieveld, D.; Malmros, P.;
Matthiasen, L.; Nielsen, B.H.; Nielsen, E.M.; et al. Sorting and recycling of domestic waste. Review
of Occupational health problems and their possible causes. Sci. Total Environ. 1995, 168, 33–56. [CrossRef]
24. Blumenthal, K. Generation and Treatment of Municipal Waste; Eurostat, European Commission: Luxembourg
City, Luxembourg, 2011.
25. DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). The Economics of Waste and Waste Policy:
Waste Economics Team—Environment and Growth Economics; DEFRA: London, UK, 2011.
26. Hogg, D.; Sherrington, C.; Vergunst, T. A Comparative Study on Economic Instruments Promoting Waste
Prevention; Final Report to Bruxelles Environment; Eunomia: Bristol, UK, 2011.
27. Kirkeby, J.T.; Birgisdottir, H.; Hansen, T.L.; Christensen, T.H.; Bhander, G.S.; Hauschild, M. Environmental
assessment of solid waste systems and technologies: EASEWASTE. Waste Manag. Res. 2006, 24, 3–15.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
28. El-Fadel, M.; Findikakis, A.N.; Leckie, J.O. Environmental impacts of solid waste landfilling. J. Environ.
Manag. 1997, 50, 1–25. [CrossRef]
29. Deng, W.J.; Louie, P.K.K.; Liu, W.K.; Bid, X.H.; Fu, J.M.; Wong, M.H. Atmospheric levels and cytotoxicity
of PAHs and heavy metals in TSP and PM2.5 at an electronic waste recycling site in southeast China.
Atmos. Environ. 2006, 40, 6945–6955. [CrossRef]
30. ILO. Encyclopaedia on Occupational Health and Safety, 4th ed.; International Labour Organization:
Geneva, Switzerland, 2011; Available online: http://www.ilocis.org/en/contilo.html (accessed on 15
September 2016).
31. Li, Y.; Li, J.H.; Chen, S.S.; Diao, W.H. Establishing indices for groundwater contamination risk assessment in
the vicinity of hazardous waste landfills in China. Environ. Pollut. 2012, 165, 77–90. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Ribeiro, T.; Guimarães, M.; Carvalho, D.; Campina, N.; Lobarinhas, M.; Lopes, A.; Cunha, M.; Wanderley, V.;
Invenção, A.; Braga, T.; et al. Prevalence of blood diseases in the Estuary of Santos, Brazil. In Proceedings of
the 21st Annual Conference of the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology, Dublin, Ireland,
25–29 August 2009; pp. S206–S207.
33. Naoum, P.C.; Naoum, F.A. Interpretação Laboratorial do Hemograma; Disponível EM: São José do Rio Preto,
Brazil, 2008; Available online: http://www.ciencianews.com.br/arquivos/ACET/IMAGENS/Artigos_
cientificos/Interphemo.pdf (accessed on 23 July 2014).
34. Lorenzi, T.F. Manual de Hematologia. Propedêutica e Clínica, 3nd ed.; Editora Médica Científica: São Paulo,
Brazil, 2003.
35. Hoffbrand, A.V.; Petit, J.E. Moss PAH—Essential Haematology, 4th ed.; Blackwell Science: Oxford, UK, 2002.
36. Laner, D.; Fellner, J.; Brunner, P.H. Flooding of municipal solid waste landfills—An environmental hazard?
Sci. Total Environ. 2009, 40, 73674–73680. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
 CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pack 113

Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 64 12 of 12

37. Senese, V.; Boriani, E.; Baderna, D.; Mariani, A.; Lodi, M.; Finizio, A.; Testa, S.; Benfenati, E. Assessing the
environmental risks associated with contaminated sites: Definition of an ecotoxicological classification index
for landfill areas (ECRIS). Chemosphere 2010, 80, 60–66. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. De Liliane Costa, B.; Gabriela, D.; José Antônio, L.; Carmen Rejane Flores, W. Análise dos Impactos
Sócio-Ambientais Provocados Pelo Aterro Sanitário no Município de São Gabriel, 2011; Educação e Ciência na Era
Digital in XV Simpósio de Ensino; Pesquisa e Educação da Universidade Federal de Santa Maria: Santa Maria,
Brazil, 2010.
39. Gelberg, K.H. Health study of New York City Department of Sanitation landfill employees. J. Occup.
Environ. Med. 1997, 39, 1103–1110. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40. Deloraine, A.; Zmirou, D.; Tillier, C.; Boucharlat, A.; Bouti, H. Case-control assessment of the short-term
health effects of an industrial toxic waste landfill. Environ. Res. 1995, 68, 124–132. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
41. Butt, T.E.; Gouda, H.M.; Baloch, M.I.; Paul, P.; Javadi, A.A.; Alam, A. Literature review of baseline study for
risk analysis—The landfill leachate case. Environ. Int. 2014, 63, 149–162. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
42. Corrêa, C.R.S.; Abrahão, C.E.C.; Carpintero, M.D.C.C.; Anaruma Filho, F. O aterro sanitário como fator de
risco para doenças respiratórias em crianças. J. Pediatr. 2011, 87, 319–324.
43. Palmiotto, M.; Fattore, E.; Paiano, V.; Celeste, G.; Colombo, A.; Davoli, E. Influence of a municipal solid
waste landfill in the surrounding environment: Toxicological risk and odor nuisance effects. Environ. Int.
2014, 68, 16–24. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
44. Petrescu-Mag, R.M.; Petrescu, D.C.; Oroian, I.G.; Safirescu, O.C.; Bican-Bris, an, N. Environmental equity
through negotiation: A case study on urban landfills and the Roma community. Int. J. Environ. Res.
Public Health 2016, 13, 591. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45. Triassi, M.; Alfano, R.; Illario, M.; Nardone, A.; Caporale, O.; Montuori, P. Environmental pollution from
illegal waste disposal and health effects: A review on the “Triangle of Death”. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health
2015, 12, 1216–1236. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

© 2017 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
 CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pack 114

International Journal of Epidemiology, 2016, 806–815

doi: 10.1093/ije/dyw052
Advance Access Publication Date: 24 May 2016
Original article

Environmental Exposures and Cancer

Morbidity and mortality of people who live

close to municipal waste landfills: a multisite
cohort study
Francesca Mataloni,1* Chiara Badaloni,1 Martina Nicole Golini,1 Andrea
Bolignano,2 Simone Bucci,1 Roberto Sozzi,2 Francesco Forastiere,1
Marina Davoli1 and Carla Ancona1
1
Department of Epidemiology, Lazio Regional Health Service, Rome, Italy and 2Lazio Environmental
Protection Agency, Rome, Italy
*Corresponding author. Department of Epidemiology, Lazio Regional Health Service, Via Cristoforo Colombo, 112. 00147
Rome, Italy. E-mail: [email protected]
Accepted 27 January 2016

Abstract
Background: The evidence on the health effects related to residing close to landfills is
controversial. Nine landfills for municipal waste have been operating in the Lazio region
(Central Italy) for several decades. We evaluated the potential health effects associated
with contamination from landfills using the estimated concentration of hydrogen sul-
phide (H2S) as exposure.
Methods: A cohort of residents within 5 km of landfills was enrolled (subjects resident on
1 January 1996 and those who subsequently moved into the areas until 2008) and fol-
lowed for mortality and hospitalizations until 31 December 2012. Assessment of expos-
ure to the landfill (H2S as a tracer) was performed for each subject at enrolment, using a
Lagrangian dispersion model. Information on several confounders was available (gen-
der, age, socioeconomic position, outdoor PM10 concentration, and distance from busy
roads and industries). Cox regression analysis was performed [Hazard Ratios (HRs), 95%
confidence intervals (CIs)].
Results: The cohort included 242 409 individuals. H2S exposure was associated with
mortality from lung cancer and respiratory diseases (e.g. HR for increment of 1 ng/m3
H2S: 1.10, 95% CI 1.02–1.19; HR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00–1.19, respectively). There were also as-
sociations between H2S and hospitalization for respiratory diseases (HR ¼ 1.02, 95% CI
1.00–1.03), especially acute respiratory infections among children (0–14 years)
(HR ¼ 1.06, 95% CI 1.02–1.11).
Conclusions: Exposure to H2S, a tracer of airborne contamination from landfills, was
associated with lung cancer mortality as well as with mortality and morbidity for respira-
tory diseases. The link with respiratory disease is plausible and coherent with previous
studies, whereas the association with lung cancer deserves confirmation.

Key words: waste, landfills, residential cohort study

C The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association.
V 806
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way,
and that the work properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact [email protected]
 CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pack 115
International Journal of Epidemiology, 2016, Vol. 45, No. 3 807

Key Messages
• The evidence on the health of people living close to landfills is still controversial; most of the published studies are

characterized by poor exposure assessment, use of health data at the aggregate level and limited possibility of adjust-
ing for socioeconomic status.
• We evaluated the potential health effect of living near nine landfills (Lazio region, Italy), using a residential cohort ap-

proach and a dispersion model for exposure assessment.

• Exposure to landfills was associated with mortality from lung cancer and respiratory diseases and with hospitaliza-

tions for respiratory diseases, both in adults and in children.

Introduction they were equipped with containments (including leachate

People who live close to municipal solid waste (MSW) land- collection and treatment, landfill cap construction and
fills could be exposed to air pollutants emitted by the plants landfill gas collection and treatment). The main character-
(landfill gas containing methane, carbon dioxide, hydrogen istics of the landfills (together with other potentially rele-
sulphide and other contaminants including volatile organic vant environmental factors in the areas, e.g. arsenic
compounds, particulate matter and bioaresols) or to contami- contamination)14 are described in Supplementary Table 1,
nated soil and water. The possible health effects related to Landfill characteristics, and in Supplementary Figure 2,
residence close to these sites have been assessed in several ori- Study areas, (available as Supplementary data at IJE on-
ginal papers1–9 and evaluated in systematic reviews.10,11 line). The study area was defined for each landfill as a 5-
Excess of mortality for some cancer sites (e.g. liver, pancreas, km radius from the boundary of the landfills assessed using
kidney, larynx) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma has been noted GIS software and regional technical maps with a scale of
in some studies,1–3 but the results have not been confirmed in 1:5000. The World Geodetic System of 1984, with the
other investigations.4–6 In addition, some studies have indi- Universal Transverse Mercator zone 33Nord projection
cated an increase of respiratory symptoms among residents (WGS84_UTM33N) was the reference for the geographical
close to biodegradable waste facilities.12 In 2009, Porta et coordinates.
al.10 concluded that evidence of an association between living
close to a landfill and adverse health effects is inconclusive.
Exposure assessment
Most of the published studies have methodological problems, H2S has been considered a surrogate measure of all con-
including poor exposure assessment based only on distance taminants emitted by landfills, and the airborne concentra-
from the source, use of health data at the aggregate level and tions were predicted using a dispersion model. Dispersion
limited possibility of adjusting for socioeconomic status. The models, such as the one we have been using here, have
quality of the epidemiological studies and scientific know- been recently used to assess the health effects of waste
ledge about the issue would be improved by using a residen- management processes.15–17 We followed a process in
tial cohort approach13 and applying dispersion models to three steps. First, yearly H2S emissions from each sector of
provide a better exposure assessment.14 the landfills were estimated using a Landfill Gas Emissions
This study aimed at evaluating the association between esti- Model.18 Using several variables (the start and end dates of
mated exposure to hydrogen sulphide (H2S, produced by an- operations for each sector of the landfills, the waste cap-
aerobic decomposition of sulphur-containing organic matter acity and waste acceptance rate), the annual emission rates
in landfills) and mortality and morbidity of a cohort of resi- for H2S were calculated by means of a first-order decom-
dents living within 5 km of the nine MSW landfills of the position rate equation:
Lazio region (Central Italy, about 5 million inhabitants includ-
X
n X
1  
ing the city of Rome). The study was part of a larger project Mt ktij
QH2 S ¼ KL0 e
on the characteristics of municipal solid waste treatment t¼1 j¼0:1
10
plants, their emissions and potential health effects in Lazio
(www.eraslazio.it). where:
Methods QH2S ¼ annual emission rate (m3/year)
t ¼ age of the jth section of the landfill
Study areas i ¼ 1 year time increment
Nine municipal solid waste landfills have been operating in n ¼ (year of the calculation) – (initial year of waste
Lazio for several decades. Only in the past two decades acceptance)
 CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pack 116
808 International Journal of Epidemiology, 2016, Vol. 45, No. 3

j ¼ 0.1 year time increment considered subjects at risk until they died or moved out of
K ¼ hydrogen sulphide generation rate (year-1) the municipality.
Lo ¼ potential hydrogen sulphide generation capacity
(m3/Mg)
Mt ¼ mass of waste accepted until t (in Mg) Health outcomes
tij ¼ age of the waste mass accepted until the ith year We analysed natural and cause-specific mortality and hos-
(Mt) at the jth section pital admissions for cardiorespiratory diseases. The under-
Mg ¼ Megagram. lying cause of death for deceased subjects was retrieved
We used inventory defaults parameters derived from the from the Regional Registry of Causes of Death, and hos-
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Compilation pital admissions were obtained from the Regional Hospital
of Air Pollutant Emission Factors19 to define hydrogen sul- Information System which collects information related to
phide generation rate (K) and potential hydrogen sulphide all hospital admissions that occur each year in public and
generation capacity (Lo), and Mt and tij were defined by private hospitals. Causes of death and diagnoses of hospi-
the Lazio Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) using talization were coded according to the ICD 9 revision. For
local data. Second, the EMMA software was used for the each subject, only the principal diagnosis that was the rea-
temporal and spatial modulation of the estimated emis- son for the hospitalization was used and the event (i.e. fail-
sions. EMMA approximates landfills shape as a regular ure in the Cox model) was defined at the time of the first
grid with a resolution of 125 m x 125 m.20 Finally, we hospitalization for a specific cause that occurred in the
used a Lagrangian particle model (SPRAY ver.5, study period. Respiratory hospital admissions for children
ARIANET Srl, Italy) to simulate H2S concentrations (residents under 14 years) were also analysed.
around the landfills and to produce maps of annual aver-
age concentrations around the sites; 2008 was chosen as
the reference year for all the sites. The meteorological data Covariates
were derived from regional measurements made by Lazio We considered for each subject an area-based socioeco-
EPA in 2005 (that year is considered representative of the nomic position (SEP) index, based on several characteris-
meteorological conditions in the area), and used in connec- tics at the census tract level (around 400 inhabitants) such
tion with RAMS data.21 The Lagrangian model simulates as education level, occupation, housing conditions, family
the transport, dispersion and deposition of pollutants emit- size and country of origin, classified into five levels (high,
ted using the orography, the meteorological data, the tur- middle-high, medium, middle-low, low).22 Modelled out-
bulence and the hourly spatial distribution (horizontal and door PM10 concentrations (mg/m3) from primary emissions
vertical) of the emissions, based on the characteristics of were assigned to the residential addresses of the cohort
the single source and on the mass fluxes. The model fol- participants as a measure of background air quality.23 The
lows the path of fictitious particles in the atmospheric tur- dispersion model was based on the integration between the
bulent flow, and it is able to take into account complex meteorological Regional Atmospheric Modelling System 21
situations, such as the presence of obstacles, breeze cycles, and the Eulerian Flexible Air Quality Regional Model
strong meteorological non-homogeneities and non-station- (FARM, ARIANET Srl, Italy). As an additional indicator
ary, calm wind conditions. of long-term exposure to traffic-related air pollution at the
Each subject in the cohort (see below) was assigned an baseline address, we used the Functional Road Class (FRC)
H2S exposure value corresponding to the estimated annual (included in the TeleAtlasMultiNet road network) to clas-
average value from the dispersion model at the baseline ad- sify the type of street: motorway (FRC ¼ 0) and major traf-
dress. In other words, no exposure variation over time was fic roads (FRC ¼ 1–5). Presence of an industrial plant in
considered and each person remained at the same exposure the 2-km buffer from the residence was also considered.
level during the all study period. Information on individual lifestyle factors was not
available.

Enrolment of the cohort and follow-up procedures Statistical analysis

All residents living within 5 km of the borders of the land- The association between landfill H2S exposure and mortal-
fill on 1 January 1996, or those who later moved to the ity and hospital admissions was evaluated using Cox pro-
areas until 31 December 2008, were enrolled; datasets portional hazard regression models [hazard ratios (HRs),
from 16 municipalities were used. Vital status was assessed 95% confidence intervals (CIs)], with age as the underlying
using local registries until 31 December 2012. We time variable.
 CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pack 117
International Journal of Epidemiology, 2016, Vol. 45, No. 3 809

For mortality we defined a latency period of 5 years; category. People in the higher exposure category tended to
therefore we considered all cohort participants who were live farther from high traffic roads (500 m) but closer to
residents of the area on 1 January 1996 (and started the highways and industrial plants (0–1 km). There was a good
follow-up on 1 January 2001) and those who subsequently correlation between distance from landfill and H2S
moved to the areaup until 31 December 2003 (starting the exposure.
follow-up 5 years after enrolment). No latency was allowed At the end of the follow-up there were 18 609 deaths
for the analyses of cardiorespiratory hospitalizations. We (7.7%), and for 40 740 subjects (16.8%) the follow-up
first compared the mortality and hospitalization risk of ended at the time of move away from the municipality of
residents according to quartiles of the H2S distribution. We residence.
then considered H2S as a continuous variable, using the Table 2 shows the association between H2S concentra-
value of the annual mean exposure at residence. A linear as- tions and cause-specific mortality; effect estimates are given
sociation was estimated for increments equal to 1 ng/m3 of for the quartile distribution of H2S (25–50, 50 75 and >
H2S. We considered as potential confounders socioeco- 75 percentile of the distribution vs < 25 percentile) and for
nomic position (SEP), PM10 background concentrations, a linear increase of H2S equal to 1 ng/m3. There were asso-
residence within 150 m of main roads, 500 m from high- ciations between H2S exposure and lung cancer (HR 1.34,
ways and within 1 or 2 km of industrial plants. With the ex- 95% CI 1.06–1.71), and respiratory diseases (HR 1.30,
ception of PM10, which was a continuous variable, all 95% CI 0.99–1.70) when comparing residents in areas
other covariates were considered in the model as categor- with H2S concentrations greater than 75 percentiles to the
ical variables. In addition, the analyses were performed reference group. These findings were confirmed when we
stratifying in the Cox analysis by landfill sites, to take into consider H2S exposure as linear (HR 1.10, 95% CI 1.02–
account the possible different background rates in the vari- 1.19 for lung cancer and HR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00–1.19 for
ous local areas, by gender and by calendar period (1996– respiratory diseases). No other associations were noted.
2000, 2001–04, 2005–08, 2009–12), to take into account Table 3 shows the results for cardiorespiratory hospital
possible time-related changes in background rates of mor- admissions. No association was detected for cardiovascu-
tality and hospitalization. Diagnostic tools were used to lar diseases. There was an association between the highest
check the proportional-hazard assumption for all categor- quartile of exposure to H2S and hospitalizations for re-
ical covariates. If any variable in the individual cohort spiratory diseases (H 1.05, 95% CI 0.99–1.11) also when
models violated this assumption, effect estimates were com- considering H2S exposure as linear (HR 1.02, 95% CI
pared with a stratified Cox analysis for that covariate. SAS 1.00–1.03). H2S exposure was linked with respiratory dis-
(SAS Institute, NC) and STATA ver. 12 (StataCorp, TX) eases and acute respiratory infection hospital admissions
software programs were used for the statistical analyses. among children (for the highest quartile, HR 1.11, 95% CI
1.01–1.22; HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.04–1.38, respectively) also
when we considered H2S exposure as a linear term in the
Results model. We found an association with paediatric admis-
A total of 242 409 individuals were enrolled in the cohort sions for asthma but with wider confidence intervals.In
from 1996 to 2008 (50.4% females), and H2S concentra- both mortality and hospitalization analyses, we did not
tions were estimated for each of them at the address of re- find effect modification by gender (data not shown).
cruitment. The annual average H2S exposure levels of the Because of the peculiarity of the urban site in Rome
population was rather low, 6.3 ng/m3 [standard deviation (‘Malagrotta’) (where a large landfill, an incinerator of
(SD) 22.5]; as expected, people living close to the larger medical wastes, and a petrochemical refinery are located
landfills (Latina and Rome) had higher H2S exposure levels within just a few kilometres of each other3), we repeated
[mean ¼ 32.7 ng/m3 (SD 76.3) and mean ¼ 45.8 ng/m3 the analyses excluding the subjects who live close to the
(SD 59), respectively]. Malagrotta landfill. There were no important changes in
The main characteristics of the study cohort according the results (See Supplementary Tables 3 ‘Mortality exclud-
to H2S concentrations (divided by quartiles of exposure) ing Malagrotta landfill’ and 4 ‘Morbidity excluding
are described in Table 1. The distribution of gender, age Malagrotta landfill’, available as Supplementary data at
and vital status was rather similar across exposure catego- IJE online). We did perform the same sensitivity analysis
ries. However, people living in areas with higher concen- excluding each landfill at the time, and again the results
trations of H2S were more likely to be of lower SEP were similar (see Supplementary Figures 7 ‘Lung cancer
compared with people living in areas with lower exposure. mortality’, 8 ‘Respiratory mortality’, 9 ‘Respiratory mor-
PM10 background concentrations were higher in the most bidity’ and 10 ‘Respiratory morbidity in children’, avail-
exposed group compared with those in the low exposure able as Supplementary data at IJE online).
 CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pack 118
810 International Journal of Epidemiology, 2016, Vol. 45, No. 3

Table 1. Descriptive individual and environmental characteristics of the cohort members by hydrogen sulphide (H2S) exposure

Total H2S exposure levels (ng/m3)

<25 perc (<0.77) 25 –50 perc (0.77–2.1) 50 –75 perc (2.1–4.2) >75 perc (>4.2)

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Total 242 409 100 60 927 100.0 60 775 100 63 962 100 56 745 100
Gender
Males 120 232 49.6 29 781 49.0 30 137 49.6 31 979 50.0 28 335 49.9
Females 122 177 50.4 31 146 51.0 30 638 50.4 31 983 50.0 28 410 50.1
Vital status
Alive 183 060 75.5 48 306 79.3 45 948 75.6 44 673 69.8 44 133 77.8
Migrant 40 740 16.8 8 169 13.4 10 228 16.8 14 446 22.6 7 897 13.9
Dead 18 609 7.7 4 452 7.3 4 599 7.6 4 843 7.6 4 715 8.3
Age at recruitment (years)
0–14 53 082 21.9 12 246 20.0 13 011 21.4 16 266 25.4 11 559 20.4
15–44 112 754 46.5 27 380 45.0 28 383 46.7 30 661 47.9 26 330 46.4
45–64 50 146 20.7 13 296 22.0 12 584 20.7 11 727 18.3 12 539 22.1
>65 26 427 10.9 8 005 13.0 6 797 11.2 5 308 8.3 6 317 11.1
Area-based socioeconomic position
High 23 589 9.7 10 012 16.0 6 033 9.9 4 779 7.5 2 765 4.9
Middle-high 41 955 17.3 7 843 13.0 8 834 14.5 9 548 14.9 15 730 27.7
Medium 42 286 17.4 7 447 12.0 8 588 14.1 13 958 21.8 12 293 21.7
Middle-low 50 394 20.8 5 364 9.0 16 816 27.7 17 563 27.5 10 651 18.8
Low 62 157 25.6 22 806 37.0 15 206 25.0 11 906 18.6 12 239 21.6
Missing 22 028 9.1 7 455 12.0 5 298 8.7 6 208 9.7 3 067 5.4
PM10 (mg/m3)
< 11.99 (<50 perc) 121 222 50.0 44 371 73.0 29 696 48.9 23 986 37.5 23 169 40.8
11.99–17.69 (50 –90 perc) 96 369 39.8 16 556 27.0 28 967 47.7 31 661 49.5 19 185 33.8
> 17.69 (>90 perc) 24 818 10.2 0 0.0 2 112 3.5 8 315 13.0 14 391 25.4
Distance from major roads (metres)
< ¼ 150 m 114 698 47.3 31 842 52.0 25 876 42.6 34 506 53.9 22 474 39.6
> 150 m 127 711 52.7 29 085 48.0 34 899 57.4 29 456 46.1 34 271 60.4
Distance from highways (metres)
< ¼ 500 m 9 428 3.9 2 908 5.0 1 087 1.8 744 1.2 4 689 8.3
> 500 m 232 981 96.1 58 019 95.0 59 688 98.2 63 218 98.8 52 056 91.7
Distance from industrial plants (km)
0–1 km 12 863 5.3 376 1.0 2 676 4.4 1 130 1.8 8 681 15.3
1–2 km 50 503 20.8 1 138 2.0 9 589 15.8 28 809 45.0 10 967 19.3
> 2 km 179 043 73.9 59 413 98.0 48 510 79.8 34 023 53.2 37 097 65.4
Distance from landfill (km)
0–1 km 5 187 2.1 0 0.0 3 0.0 19 0.0 5 165 9.1
1–2 km 21 475 8.9 2 0.0 4 225 7.0 5 835 9.1 11 413 20.1
2–3 km 65 386 27.0 8 372 13.7 20 588 33.9 23 627 36.9 12 799 22.6
3–4 km 77 722 32.1 19 739 32.4 18 787 30.9 20 217 31.6 18 979 33.4
4–5 km 72 639 30.0 32 814 53.9 17 172 28.3 14 264 22.3 8 389 14.8

An additional analysis was performed using distance H2S concentrations (see Supplementary Table 6
from the landfills (0–2 km, 2–3 km vs 3–5 km), instead of ‘Morbidity by distance’, available as Supplementary data
estimated H2S concentration, as the exposure variable. at IJE online).
Although the results for mortality using distance were not Our final concern was that migration outside the areas
similar to what has been observed using H2S concentra- could bias the results in the case of migration being associ-
tions (see Supplementary Table 5 ‘Mortality by distance’, ated with the exposure and if residents with pre-existing
available as Supplementary data at IJE online) the results diseases were more likely to migrate. We compared the
for hospitalizations were similar to those obtained using characteristics of people who migrated outside the study
Table 2. Associations between hydrogen sulphide (H2S in quartiles and continuous) and cause specific mortality: number of deaths (No.) hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confi-
dence intervals (95% CI)

Cause of death (ICD-9-CM) H2S concentrations

<25 percentilea 25 –50 percentile 50 –75 percentile >75 percentile Linear trend

No. No. Crude HR HR 95% CI No. Crude HR HR 95% CI No. Crude HR HR 95% CI HR 95% CI

Natural causes (001–799) 3 701 3 946 0.98 1.01 (0.96–1.06) 4 254 1.00 1.02 (0.97–1.08) 4 104 0.96 0.98 (0.91–1.05) 1.00 (0.98–1.02)
All cancers (140–239) 1 282 1 307 0.97 0.99 (0.91–1.08) 1 493 1.03 1.05 (0.95–1.16) 1 452 1.00 1.03 (0.91–1.16) 1.01 (0.98–1.05)
Stomach (151) 75 88 1.03 0.98 (0.70–1.37) 108 1.27 1.23 (0.84–1.79) 105 1.00 0.88 (0.54–1.42) 1.00 (0.87–1.16)
International Journal of Epidemiology, 2016, Vol. 45, No. 3

Colorectal (153–154,159) 154 170 0.99 1.00 (0.79–1.27) 176 0.96 0.97 (0.74–1.28) 159 0.93 0.91 (0.64–1.28) 0.97 (0.87–1.08)
Liver (155–156) 102 89 0.86 0.83 (0.61–1.13) 106 0.89 0.77 (0.53–1.11) 89 0.74 0.76 (0.48–1.2) 0.90 (0.78–1.05)
Pancreas (157) 68 64 0.92 0.93 (0.64–1.35) 69 0.92 0.95 (0.61–1.49) 72 0.69 0.73 (0.41–1.32) 0.93 (0.77–1.11)
Larynx (161) 17 15 0.81 0.72 (0.33–1.56) 11 0.38 0.40 (0.14–1.14) 23 0.43 0.26 (0.07–0.95) 0.64 (0.43–0.97)
Lung (162) 276 281 0.98 1.06 (0.89–1.27) 360 1.09 1.18 (0.97–1.45) 361 1.19 1.34 (1.06–1.71) 1.10 (1.02–1.19)
Bladder (188) 54 48 0.88 0.89 (0.59–1.36) 56 1.22 1.33 (0.81–2.16) 50 1.01 0.94 (0.5–1.80) 1.03 (0.85–1.26)
Kidney (189) 36 30 0.76 0.85 (0.51–1.43) 36 0.87 0.94 (0.52–1.70) 31 0.70 0.86 (0.41–1.83) 0.96 (0.75–1.22)
Brain (191) 23 29 1.26 1.25 (0.70–2.26) 38 1.63 1.63 (0.84–3.17) 41 1.70 1.76 (0.81–3.81) 1.22 (0.95–1.56)
Lymphatic and haematopoietic 108 115 1.03 1.16 (0.87–1.54) 106 0.94 0.96 (0.68–1.35) 102 1.06 1.12 (0.74–1.17) 1.02 (0.89–1.16)
tissue (200–208)
Cardiovascular diseases (390–459) 1 457 1 681 1.02 1.05 (0.97–1.13) 1 676 0.96 1.00 (0.91–1.09) 1 641 0.90 0.91 (0.81–1.02) 0.98 (0.94–1.01)
Ischaemic heart diseases (410–414) 512 570 0.99 1.00 (0.88–1.14) 574 0.86 0.91 (0.78–1.06) 530 0.77 0.78 (0.64–0.95) 0.93 (0.87–0.99)
Respiratory diseases (460–519) 256 244 0.88 0.92 (0.76–1.11) 279 1.15 1.13 (0.90–1.40) 264 1.30 1.30 (0.99–1.70) 1.09 (1.00–1.19)
Digestive diseases (520–579) 158 163 0.93 0.97 (0.77–1.24) 218 1.06 1.09 (0.83–1.41) 186 0.94 0.97 (0.69–1.35) 1.01 (0.91–1.12)
Urinary system diseases (580–599) 58 92 1.49 1.54 (1.08–2.21) 74 1.25 1.28 (0.83–1.97) 67 1.26 1.42 (0.84–2.40) 1.11 (0.94–1.30)

a
Reference category
811
CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pack 119
 CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pack 120
812 International Journal of Epidemiology, 2016, Vol. 45, No. 3

areas (40 740 subjects) with those who remained in the

Table 3. Associations between hydrogen sulphide (H2S, in quartiles and continuous) and cardiorespiratory morbidity: number of people hospitalized (No.), hazard ratios (HR)

(0.98–1.05)
(0.95–1.05)
(0.98–1.11)

1.20 (1.04–1.38) 1.06 (1.02–1.11)

1.13 (0.91–1.41) 1.07 (0.99–1.14)
(0.99–1.02)
(0.98–1.03)
(0.95–1.02)
(0.96–1.03)
(1.00–1.03)

1.11 (1.01–1.22) 1.04 (1.01–1.07)

95% CI
Linear trend
areas until the end of the follow-up (201 669 subjects) See
Supplementary Table 11 ‘Comparison between migrant
and not migrant’, available as Supplementary data at IJE

1.00
1.04
1.00
1.01
0.99
0.99
1.02
1.02
HR
online). We considered gender, age, socioeconomic status

(0.90–1.25)
(0.90–1.33)
(0.97–1.07)
(0.97–1.11)
(0.88–1.10)
(0.88–1.10)
(0.99–1.11)
(0.97–1.18)
and H2S exposure as fixed variables. Since occurrence of
95% CI
hospitalizations before migration is a time-dependent vari-
able, we compared subjects migrating in the period 2004–
12 (19 695 subjects) with all subjects who did not migrate

1.06
1.09
1.02
1.04
0.99
0.98
1.05
1.07
Crude HR HR

before that period (189 560 subjects), evaluating the occur-

rence of cardiorespiratory hospitalizations during1998–
>75 percentile

1.09
1.11

1.25
1.11
1.03
1.05
1.01
0.97
1.06
1.09

1.10
2003. Migration was associated with male gender, younger
577 age and lower exposure to H2S; no clear differences of mi-
365

1.10 (0.97–1.25) 617

1.29 (1.06–1.55) 276
6 677
4 022
1 426
1 543
4 837
1 509

1.08 (0.99–1.17) 1 499

grants compared with non-migrants were found for socioe-
No.

conomic status. In a multinomial logistic regression(data

(0.96–1.04)
(0.92–1.04)
(0.85–1.03)
(0.89–1.06)
(0.96–1.06)
(0.89–1.05)
(0.78–1.04)
(0.99–1.38)
95% CI

not shown), we found no major differences between the

two groups for respiratory diseases, whereas migrants
were less likely than non-migrants to suffer from two or
1.00
0.98
0.94
0.97
1.01
0.97
0.90
1.17
Crude HR HR

more hospitalizations for cardiovascular disease (OR, 0.

50 –75 percentile

74, 95% CI 0.57–0.95) before migrating. All these results

indicate that bias due to increased susceptibility of mi-
0.99
0.97
0.94
0.97
1.02
1.00
0.92
1.16

1.07
1.15
1.23

grants is unlikely given that migrants are less exposed and

tend to be healthier than non-migrants.
6 291
3 580
1 288
1 466
5 628
1 721
535
594

0.99 (0.92–1.07) 2 420

1.02 (0.91–1.15) 925
0.99 (0.83–1.19) 506
No.

(0.95–1.03)
(0.93–1.03)
(0.94–1.10)
(0.91–1.06)
(0.92–1.01)
(0.89–1.04)
(0.84–1.06)
(0.86–1.17)

Discussion
95% CI

We found a positive association between exposure to

hydrogen sulphide (H2S), that we used as a surrogate for
0.99
0.98
1.02
0.98
0.97
0.96
0.94
1.00
Crude HR HR

all the pollutants co-emitted from the landfills, and mortal-

<25 percentilea 25 –50 percentile

ity for lung cancer and respiratory diseases as well as hos-

0.99
0.99
1.03
0.98
0.98
1.00
0.96
1.01

1.00
1.10
0.98

pital admissions for respiratory diseases, especially in

children.
Previous studies have investigated the association between
6 090
3 585
1 347
1 482
4 249
1 441
592
355

1 522
669
267
No.

residence close to landfills and cancer incidence or cause-spe-

H2S concentrations

cific mortality, with conflicting results. A Canadian cohort

study compared cancer incidence in males living close to a
6 666
3 991
1 393
1 635
4 372
1 447
654
332

1 457
573
257

landfill with that of residents of farther away areas.1 The dis-

tance from the landfill was assigned to each person based on
No.

the residential address at diagnosis. Excess risks for non-

Acute respiratory infections (460–466,480–487)

Acute respiratory infections (460–466,480–487)

Hodgkin lymphoma and liver, pancreas and kidney cancers

were found in male residents close to the site. Malagrotta
and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI)

(Rome) residents who lived near (in an area about 2 km2) a

Cerebrovascular diseases (430–438)
Ischaemic heart diseases (410–414)

large landfill of municipal solid waste, an incinerator and a

Cardiovascular diseases (390–459)

petrochemical refinery showed an association between prox-

Respiratory diseases (460–519)

Respiratory diseases (460–519)

imity to landfill and laryngeal cancer.2 A more recent resi-

Cardiac diseases (390–429)

COPD (490–492;494;496)

dential cohort study of the same area found that H2S

Children 0–14 years old
Diagnosis (ICD-9-CM)

exposure from the landfill was related to higher risk of mor-

Reference category

tality from laryngeal cancer and bladder cancer in women, as

Asthma (493)

well as hospitalizations for cardiorespiratory diseases.3 Jarup

Asthma (493)
Total cohort

et al. compared cancer incidence (bladder, brain and hepato-

biliary cancers and leukaemias) in the population resident
a

within 2 km of 9565 landfills in UK with cancer rates of

 CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pack 121
International Journal of Epidemiology, 2016, Vol. 45, No. 3 813

those who lived more than 2 km away.4 Despite the large measure of the landfill gases, on the assumption that the
statistical power, the study did not show excess cancer risk pollution from landfills does not spread uniformly around
associated with proximity to landfill sites. An ecological the site but depends on the quantity of incoming waste, the
study compared mortality, hospital admissions and repro- prevailing winds and the orography of the area.3 Our re-
ductive health of a population living near a landfill site in sults for hospitalizations were confirmed when we used
Wales with another population matched for socioeconomic distance from the source as the exposure variable instead
status.5 No differences between the two populations were of modelled H2S concentrations. There are, however, sev-
found. A study in Brazil evaluated the association between eral aspects in the exposure assessment process we used
residence close to solid waste landfill sites and cancer mortal- that should be considered. H2S generation rates were taken
ity.6 The exposed areas were defined using a 2-km buffer ra- from EPA published material, and waste acceptance cap-
dius around 15 sites. Standardized mortality ratios were acity and waste acceptance rates were from derived from
analysed in Bayesian spatial models. The results did not indi- legal authorized values. It is likely, then, that the derived
cate any excess risk for people close to landfills. Some ele- absolute emissions data were more accurate for the recent
vated risks of bladder and liver cancer, and death due to period and less certain for the past. On the other hand, we
congenital malformation were found, although they did not used the shape of the H2S concentrations on the ground to
have statistical significance. rank subjects as more exposed or less exposed, and this
The results we found regarding respiratory diseases are shape is of greater importance than the exact absolute val-
consistent with others suggesting a relationship between ues. Of course, the major limitation of our exposure assess-
living close to landfill areas and damage to the respiratory ment is related to the lack of a validation study with in situ
system,24,25 as highlighted in a recent systematic review.26 measurements. Nonetheless, SPRAY is a consolidated
Occurrence of respiratory symptoms was documented model that has been validated using a ‘conventional’ valid-
among residents living close to waste sites12 and was linked ation framework,31 and its performances and efficiency
to inhalation exposure to endotoxin, microorganisms, and have been evaluated and validated in multiple real condi-
aerosols from waste collection and land filling.27 tions with different orography, size of domain, number of
Occupational exposure to organic dust, particulate mat- grid cells in the domain, meteorological conditions and
ters from microbial, plant or animal origin, has been asso- emission types.32–34 The model has been already used in
ciated with an increased risk of lung cancer in a pooled other locations to study health effects of waste manage-
analysis of case-control studies.25 High lung cancer mortal- ment.3,17 Another aspect of concern is the use of meteoro-
ity was found among male residents of Italian National logical parameters that greatly influence the dispersion of
Priority Contaminated Sites with industrial waste landfills the pollutants. We considered the year 2005 as representa-
or illegal dumps29 and among residents living near inciner- tive of the study area meteorological conditions because
ators and landfills of hazardous waste in Spain,30 but the there were no particular meteorological anomalies in that
overall evidence that residing near landfills is associated year. Running the dispersion model with meteorological
with increased risk of lung cancer is still inadequate.10 data for different years could change the landfills footprint
This study attempted to overcome some of the limita- only in presence of extreme weather conditions that
tions of the previously conducted studies, which included strongly affect the annual average. In our opinion, the dif-
issues of study design, exposure assessment and confound- ference among years is generally minimal and the uncer-
ing.11 We used a residential cohort approach to provide a tainty associated with the use of specific meteorological
more detailed estimation of the population at risk. To each data is negligible.
subject in the cohort we assigned an H2S exposure Our results were adjusted for several confounders: age,
value(corresponding to the estimated H2S concentration at socioeconomic position and variables related to the envir-
the baseline address). It was not possible to consider onmental context (proximity to roads with heavy traffic,
indexes of average or cumulative exposure based on the proximity to industrial sites, air quality) that might other-
different residences, because only a few municipality data- wise distort the study association. In particular, high level
bases provided information about changes of residence of PM10 (> 90 percentile of the distribution vs < 50 per-
during the follow-up. For this reason, individual exposure centile) was associated in our model with cardiovascular
reflects residence at the beginning of the follow-up. and respiratory hospitalizations (HR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01–
Previous studies have considered distance from landfills 1.16 and HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96–1.12, respectively).
as a proxy of exposure.4,7,9 Distance-to source is easy to However, no data were available on the personal habits of
understand because it assumes that people living near the the subjects, which could have had a role in the diseases
landfill are more exposed than people living further away. investigated, especially cigarette smoking but also alcohol
We used modelled H2S concentrations as an exposure use, physical activity and obesity. The collection of this
 CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pack 122
814 International Journal of Epidemiology, 2016, Vol. 45, No. 3

information, through telephone interviews or home visits, 3. Ancona C, Badaloni C, Mataloni F et al. Mortality and morbid-
would have been prohibitive for such a large cohort, and ity in a population exposed to multiple sources of air pollution: a
retrospective cohort study using air dispersion models. Environ
the lack of this information may have biased the results be-
Res 2015;137:467–74.
cause of confounding not controlled in the analysis. It
4. Jarup L, Briggs D, de Hoogh C et al. Cancer risks in populations
should be noted, however, that many personal habits are living near landfill sites in Great Britain. Br J Cancer
associated with socioeconomic position. It is therefore rea- 2002;86:1732–36.
sonable to assume that the analysis that adjusted for 5. Fielder HMP, Poon-King CM, Palmer S R et al. Assessment of im-
socioeconomic index also took into account others individ- pact on health of residents living near the Nant-y-Gwyddon land-
ual variables, including smoking. Moreover, excess of hos- fill site: retrospective analysis. BMJ 2000;320:19–22.
pitalizations for respiratory diseases were found also in 6. Gouveia N, Prado RR. Health risks in areas close to urban solid
waste landfill sites. Rev Saude Publica 2010;44:859–66.
children, and no excess mortality/morbidity for cardiovas-
7. Pukkala E, Pönk€ a A. Increased incidence of cancer and asthma in
cular diseases (indicative of most of the unmeasured life-
houses built on a former dump area. Environ Health Perspect
style factors including smoking) was found, despite the 2001;109:1121–25
larger statistical power than for respiratory diseases. 8. Forastiere F, Badaloni C, de Hoogh K et al. Health impact assess-
Therefore, although residual confounding cannot be ment of waste management facilities in three European coun-
excluded, it is unlikely that the observed relationship be- tries. Environ Health 2011;10:53.
tween H2S exposure and respiratory disturbances could be 9. WHO. Population health and waste management: scientific data
entirely due to unmeasured smoking habits and other and available options. http://www.euro.who.int/document/
E91021.pdf (24 March 2015, date last accessed).
factors.
10. Porta D, Milani S, Lazzarino AI et al. Systematic review of epi-
In conclusion, we found associations between H2S ex-
demiological studies on health effects associated with manage-
posure from landfills and mortality from lung cancer as ment of solid waste. Environ Health 2009;23:8–60.
well as mortality and morbidity for respiratory diseases. 11. Giusti L. A review of waste management practices and their im-
The link with respiratory diseases has been observed in pact on human health. Waste Manag 2009;29:2227–39.
other studies and it is potentially related to irritant gases 12. Blanes-Vidal V, Bælum J, Schwartz J et al. Respiratory and sensory
and other organic contaminants. The excess of lung cancer irritation symptoms among residents exposed to low-to-moderate
is a relatively new finding. air pollution from biodegradable wastes. J Expo Sci
EnvironEpidemiol 2014;24:388–97.
13. Ancona C, Mataloni F, Badaloni C et al. Residential cohort ap-
Supplementary Data proach in industrial contaminated sites: the ERAS Lazio project.
Epidemiol Prev 2014;38(Suppl 1):158–61.
Supplementary data are available at IJE online.
14. D’Ippoliti D, Santelli E, De Sario M et al. Arsenic in drinking
water and mortality for cancer and chronic diseases in Central
Funding Italy, 1990-2010. PloS One 2015;10:e0138182.
15. Ranzi A, Fano V, Erspamer L et al. Mortality and morbidity
This study was supported by the Lazio Waste General Directorate
among people living close to incinerators: a cohort study based
(DGR n929/08) as a part of a larger project on the health effects of
waste treatment plants in the Lazio region (ERAS Lazio: on dispersion modeling for exposure assessment. Environ Health
Epidemiology, Waste, Environment and Health —www.eraslazio. 2011;10:22.
it). The funder had no scientific role. 16. Candela S, Ranzi A, Bonvicini L et al. Air pollution from inciner-
ators and reproductive outcomes: a multisite study. Epidemiology
2013;24:863–70.
Acknowledgements 17. Golini MN, Ancona C, Badaloni CA et al. Morbidity in a popu-
We wish to thank Margaret Becker for her help in editing the manu- lation living close to urban waste incinerator plants in Lazio
script and Carlo A. Perucci, former director of our department, for
Region (Central Italy): a retrospective cohort study using a be-
initiating the ERAS Lazio project and for his long-standing support
fore-after design. Epidemiol Prev 2014;38:323–34.
of environmental epidemiology.
18. Alexander A, Burklin C, Singleton A et al. Landfill Gas
Conflict of interest: None declared.
Emissions Model (LandGEM) Version 3.02 User’s Guide, May
2005.
References 19. US Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air
1. Goldberg MS, Siemiatyck J, DeWar R, Dèsy M, Riberdy H. Risk Pollutant Emission Factors; AP-42. http://www3.epa.gov/
of developing cancer relative to living near a municipal solid ttnchie1/ap42/ (24 March 2015, date last accessed).
waste landfill site in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Arch Environ 20. Calori G, Radice P. Emission Manager – Reference Guide.
Health 1999;54:291–96. Milan, Italy: ARIANET R2004.29, 2004.
2. Michelozzi P, Fusco D, Forastiere F et al. Small area study of 21. Pielke RA, Cotton WR, Walko RL et al. A comprehensive
mortality among people living near multiple sources of air pollu- Meteorological Modeling System RAMS. Meteorol. Atmos.
tion. Occup Environ Med 1998;55:611–15. Phys. 1992;49:69–91.
 CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pack 123
International Journal of Epidemiology, 2016, Vol. 45, No. 3 815

22. Cesaroni G, Agabiti N, Rosati R, Forastiere F, Perucci CA. An 29. Fazzo L, Minichilli F, Pirastu R et al. A meta-analysis of
index of socioeconomic position based on 2001 Census, Rome. mortality data in Italian contaminated sites with industrial
Epidemiol Prev 2006;30:352–57. waste landfills or illegal dumps. Ann Ist Super Sanit a
23. Sozzi R, Bolignano A, Barberini S, Di Giosa AD. apporto sullo 2014;50:278–85.
stato della qualitÁ dell aria nella Regione Lazio 2011. ARPA 30. Garcıa-Pérez J, Fern
andez-Navarro P, Castell o A et al. Cancer
Lazio. 2012. mortality in towns in the vicinity of incinerators and installations
24. Heaney CD, Wing S, Campbell RL et al. Relation between mal- for the recovery or disposal of hazardous waste. Environ Int
odor, ambient hydrogen sulfide, and health in a community bor- 2013;51:31–44.
dering a landfill. Environ Res 2011;111:847–52. 31. Olesen HR. Toward the establishment of a common framework
25. Corr^ea CR, Abrah~ ao CE, CarpinteroMdo C, AnarumaFilho F. for model evaluation. In: Gryning SE, Schiermeier F (eds). Air
Landfills as risk factors for respiratory disease in children. J Pollution Modeling and Its Application XI. New York,
Pediatr (Rio J) 2011;87:319–24. NY:Plenum Press, 1996.
26. Mattiello A, Chiodini P, Bianco E et al. Health effects associated 32. Brusasca G, Tinarelli G, Anfossi D. Particle model simulation of
with the disposal of solid waste in landfills and incinerators in diffusion in low windspeed stable conditions, Atmos Environ
populations living in surrounding areas: a systematic review. Int 1989; 26, 707–723.
J Public Health 2013;58:725–35. 33. Brusasca G, Tinarelli G, Anfossi D. Comparison between
27. Park DU, Ryu SH, Kim SB, Yoon CS. An assessment of dust, the results of a Monte Carlo atmospheric diffusion model
endotoxin, and microorganism exposure during waste collection and tracer experiments, Atmosp Environ 1992;23:
and sorting. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 2011;61:461–68. 1263–80.
28. Peters S, Kromhout H, Olsson AC et al. Occupational exposure 34. Anfossi D, Tinarelli G, TriniCastelli S et al. A new Lagrangian
to organic dust increases lung cancer risk in the general particle model for the simulation of dense gas dispersion. Atmos
population.Thorax 2012;67:111–16. Environ 2010;44: 753–62.
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 124
Environmental Health BioMed Central

Review Open Access

Systematic review of epidemiological studies on health effects
associated with management of solid waste
Daniela Porta1, Simona Milani1, Antonio I Lazzarino1,2, Carlo A Perucci1 and
Francesco Forastiere*1

Address: 1Department of Epidemiology, Regional Health Service Lazio Region, Rome, Italy and 2Division of Epidemiology, Public Health and
Primary Care, Imperial College, London, UK
Email: Daniela Porta - [email protected]; Simona Milani - [email protected]; Antonio I Lazzarino - [email protected];
Carlo A Perucci - [email protected]; Francesco Forastiere* - [email protected]
* Corresponding author

Published: 23 December 2009 Received: 4 May 2009

Accepted: 23 December 2009
Environmental Health 2009, 8:60 doi:10.1186/1476-069X-8-60
This article is available from: http://www.ehjournal.net/content/8/1/60
© 2009 Porta et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract
Background: Management of solid waste (mainly landfills and incineration) releases a number of toxic
substances, most in small quantities and at extremely low levels. Because of the wide range of pollutants, the
different pathways of exposure, long-term low-level exposure, and the potential for synergism among the
pollutants, concerns remain about potential health effects but there are many uncertainties involved in the
assessment. Our aim was to systematically review the available epidemiological literature on the health effects in
the vicinity of landfills and incinerators and among workers at waste processing plants to derive usable excess risk
estimates for health impact assessment.
Methods: We examined the published, peer-reviewed literature addressing health effects of waste management
between 1983 and 2008. For each paper, we examined the study design and assessed potential biases in the effect
estimates. We evaluated the overall evidence and graded the associated uncertainties.
Results: In most cases the overall evidence was inadequate to establish a relationship between a specific waste
process and health effects; the evidence from occupational studies was not sufficient to make an overall
assessment. For community studies, at least for some processes, there was limited evidence of a causal
relationship and a few studies were selected for a quantitative evaluation. In particular, for populations living
within two kilometres of landfills there was limited evidence of congenital anomalies and low birth weight with
excess risk of 2 percent and 6 percent, respectively. The excess risk tended to be higher when sites dealing with
toxic wastes were considered. For populations living within three kilometres of old incinerators, there was limited
evidence of an increased risk of cancer, with an estimated excess risk of 3.5 percent. The confidence in the
evaluation and in the estimated excess risk tended to be higher for specific cancer forms such as non-Hodgkin's
lymphoma and soft tissue sarcoma than for other cancers.
Conclusions: The studies we have reviewed suffer from many limitations due to poor exposure assessment,
ecological level of analysis, and lack of information on relevant confounders. With a moderate level confidence,
however, we have derived some effect estimates that could be used for health impact assessment of old landfill
and incineration plants. The uncertainties surrounding these numbers should be considered carefully when health
effects are estimated. It is clear that future research into the health risks of waste management needs to overcome
current limitations.

Page 1 of 14
(page number not for citation purposes)
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 125
n ironmenta ea t 8 e o a e o e 1

Introduction waste management plants as they may be exposed to the

"Waste management", that is the generation, collection, same potential hazards as the community residents, even
processing, transport, and disposal of solid waste is if the intensity and duration of the exposure may differ.
important for both environmental reasons and public However, to limit our scope, we did not consider studies
health. There are a number of different options available on biomarkers of exposure and health effects.
for the management and treatment of waste including
minimisation, recycling, composting, energy recovery and Relevant papers were found through computerized litera-
disposal. At present, an increasing amount of the ture searches of MEDLINE and PubMed Databases from
resources contained in waste is recycled, but a large por- 1/1/1983 through 31/12/2008, using the MeSH terms
tion is incinerated or permanently lost in landfills. The "waste management" and "waste products" and the sub-
various methods of waste management release a number heading "adverse effects". We identified 144 papers with
of substances, most in small quantities and at extremely this method. We also conducted a free search with several
low levels. However, concerns remain about potential combinations of relevant key words (waste incinerator or
health effects associated with the main waste manage- landfill or composting or recycling) and (cancer or birth
ment technologies and there are many uncertainties outcome or health effects), and 285 papers were identi-
involved in the assessment of health effects. fied. In addition, articles were traced through references
listed in previous reviews [1-3,6-9], and in publications of
Several studies of the possible health effects on popula- the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural
tions living in proximity of landfills and incinerators have Affairs [10]. Finally, we used information from two recent
been published and well-conducted reviews are available reviews of epidemiological studies on populations with
[1-4]. Both landfills and incinerators have been associated potential exposures from toxic and hazardous wastes for
with some reproductive and cancer outcomes. However, reproductive [4], and cancer [11] outcomes, respectively.
the reviews indicate the weakness of the results of the
available studies due to design issues, mainly related to a The eligibility of all papers was evaluated independently
lack of exposure information, use of indirect surrogate by three observers, and disagreements were resolved by
measures, such as the distance from the source, and lack discussion. As indicated, studies on sewage treatment and
of control for potential confounders. As a result, there is on biological monitoring were not included. We also
great controversy over the possible health effects of waste excluded articles in languages other than English, not
management on the public due to differences in risk com- journal articles, and six studies [12-17] conducted at the
munication, risk perception and the conflicting interests municipal level (usually small towns) where it was not
of various stakeholders. Therefore, there is the need for an possible to evaluate the extent of the population poten-
appropriate risk assessment that informs both policy mak- tially involved and the possibility of exposure misclassifi-
ers and the public with the information currently availa- cation was high.
ble on the health risks associated with different waste
management technologies. Of course, the current uncer- Papers were grouped according to the following criteria:
tainties should be taken into account.
• waste management technologies: recycling, composting,
Within the EU-funded INTARESE project [5], we aimed to incinerating, landfilling (considering controlled disposal
assess potential exposures and health effects arising from of waste land and toxic or hazardous sites);
solid wastes, from generation to disposal, or treatment. A
key part in the health impact assessment was selecting or • health outcomes: cancers (stomach, colorectal, liver, lar-
developing a suitable set of relative risks that link individ- ynx and lung cancer, soft tissue sarcoma, kidney and blad-
ual exposures with specific health endpoints. In this der cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, childhood
paper, we systematically reviewed the available epidemio- cancer), birth outcomes (congenital malformations, low
logical literature on health effects in the vicinity of land- birth weight, multiple births, abnormal sex ratio of new-
fills and incinerators and among workers at waste borns), respiratory, skin and gastrointestinal symptoms or
processing plants to derive usable excess risk estimates for diseases.
health impact assessment. The degree of uncertainty asso-
ciated with these estimates was considered. We have reported in the appropriate tables (in the online
additional files) for each paper: study design (e.g. geo-
Methods graphical, cohort, cross-sectional, case-control study,
We considered epidemiological studies conducted on the etc.), population characteristics (subjects, country, age,
general population with potential exposures from collect- sex), exposure measures (e.g. occupational exposure to
ing, recycling, composting, incinerating, and landfilling waste incinerator by-products, residence near a landfill,
solid waste. We also considered studies of employees of etc.), and the main results (including control for major

Page of 14
(page number not for citation purposes)
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 126
n ironmenta ea t 8 e o a e o e 1

confounders) with respect to the quantification of the cial, etc, are variously applied in different countries and
health effects studied. For each study we have evaluated time periods to designate non-household wastes. In ear-
the potential sources of uncertainty in the results due to lier time periods definitions were even less clear and some
design issues. In particular, the possibility that selection disposal sites may have switched categories (e.g. if they
bias, information bias, or confounding could artificially used to take industrial waste they may now only take
increase or decrease the relative risk estimate has been municipal waste). Since two systematic reviews were
noted in the tables using the plus/minus scale to indicate already available for toxic wastes [4,11], we did not repli-
that effect estimates are likely to be overestimated (or cate the literature search, but summarized the evidence
underestimated) up to 20% (+/-), from 20 to 50% (++/--) reported in the available reviews and tried to compare and
and more than 50% (+++/---). Uncertainties were graded discuss the results with studies where mainly municipal
by two observers (SM and FF), who discussed the incon- solid wastes were landfilled. The additional file 1 contain
sistencies. several details of the studies reviewed.

After a description of the available studies, the overall Cancer

evaluation of the epidemiological evidence regarding the Russi et al. [11] carried out Medline searches of the peer-
process/disease association was made based on the IARC reviewed English language medical literature covering the
(1999) criteria, and two categories were chosen, namely: period from January 1980 to June 2006 using the key-
"Inadequate" when the available studies were of insuffi- words "toxic sites" and "cancer", and identified articles
cient quality, consistency, or statistical power to deter- from published reviews. They included 19 articles which
mine the presence or absence of a causal association; fit the following selection criteria: 1) the study addressed
"Limited" when a positive association was observed either cancer incidence or cancer mortality as an end-
between exposure and disease for which a causal interpre- point, 2) the study was carried out in a community or a set
tation is considered to be credible, but chance, bias, or of communities containing a known hazardous waste site;
confounding could not be ruled out with reasonable con- 3) the study had to address exposure from a specific waste
fidence. There were no instances where the category "suf- site, rather than from a contaminated water supply
ficient" evidence could be used. Only when the specific resulted from multiple point sources. As the authors rec-
process/disease association was judged as limited (sugges- ognized, some of the location investigated included both
tive evidence but not sufficient to infer causality) we toxic wastes and municipal solid wastes as in the study
decided to evaluate the strength of the association and to from Goldberg et al. [18] or Pukkala et al. [19]. There are
measure appropriate relative risks. For this purpose, we two investigations considered in this review that are
considered the set of studies providing the best evidence important to evaluate because of the originality of the
and assigned an overall level of scientific confidence of approach (cohort study, [19] and due to the large size
the specific effect estimate based on an arbitrary scale: very [20].
high, high, moderate, low, very low. This evaluation was
made by three assessors (SM, DP, and FF). In Finland, Pukkala et al. [19] studied whether the expo-
sure to landfills caused cancer or other chronic diseases in
Results inhabitants of houses built on a former dumping area
A total of 49 papers were reviewed: 32 concerning health containing industrial and household wastes. After adjust-
effects in communities in proximity to waste sites, and 17 ing for age and sex, an excess number of male cancer cases
on employees of waste management sites. The majority of were seen, especially for cancers of the pancreas and of the
community studies evaluated possible adverse health skin. The relative risk slightly increased with the number
effects in relation to incinerators and landfills. We found of years lived in the area. However, some uncertainties
little evidence on potential health problems resulting were likely to affect the results of the study with regards to
from environmental or occupational exposures from the exposure assessment (-), outcome assessment (+) and
composting or recycling, and very little on storage/collec- presence of residual confounding (-).
tion of solid waste. A description of the main findings fol-
lows. Jarup et al. [20] examined cancer risks in populations liv-
ing within 2 km of 9,565 (from a total of 19,196) landfill
Studies of communities near landfills sites that were operational at some time from 1982 to
One of the main problems in dealing with studies on 1997 in Great Britain. No excess risks of cancers of the
landfill sites (an to some extent also for incinerators) is bladder and brain, hepato-biliary cancer or leukaemia
the distinction between sites for municipal solid wastes were found, after adjusting for age, sex, calendar year and
and sites for other wastes. The definition of different types deprivation. The study was very large and had high power,
of waste is far from being standardised across the world. however misclassification of exposure could have
The terms hazardous, special, toxic, industrial, commer- decreased the possibility of detecting an effect (--).

Page of 14
(page number not for citation purposes)
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 127
n ironmenta ea t 8 e o a e o e 1

Based on the findings and on the evaluation of the quality Included in the Saunders's review [4] is the national geo-
of the studies, Russi et al. [11] concluded that epidemio- graphical comparison study on landfills in the UK by Elli-
logical studies of populations living in the vicinity of a ott et al. [24]. This study investigated the risk of adverse
toxic waste site have not produced evidence of adequate birth outcomes in populations living within two km of
quality to establish a casual link between toxic waste expo- 9,565 landfill sites in Great Britain, operational at some
sures and cancer risk. In our terms, the evidence may be time between 1982 and 1997, compared with those living
considered as "inadequate". further away (reference population). The sites included
774 sites for special (hazardous) waste, 7803 for non-spe-
In addition to the articles reviewed by Russi et al. [11], we cial waste and 988 handling unknown waste; a two km
reviewed the article by Michelozzi et al. [21], which inves- zone was defined around each site to detect the likely
tigated the mortality risk in a small area of Italy (Mala- limit of dispersion for landfill emissions, including 55%
grotta, Rome) with multiple sources of air contamination of the national population. Among the 8.2 million live
(a very large waste disposal site serving the entire city of births and 43,471 stillbirths, 124,597 congenital anoma-
Rome, a waste incinerator plant, and an oil refinery lies (including miscarriage) that were examined, there
plant). Standardised Mortality Ratios (SMRs) were com- were: neural tube defects, cardiovascular defects, abdomi-
puted in bands of increasing distance from the plants, up nal wall defects, hypospadias and epispadias, surgical cor-
to a radius of 10 km. No association was found between rection of gastroschisis and exomphalos; low and very low
proximity to the sites and cancer of various organs, in par- birth weights were also found , defined as less than 2500
ticular liver, lung, and lymph haematopoietic cancer, g and less than 1500 g, respectively. The main analysis,
however, mortality from laryngeal cancer declined with conducted for all landfill sites during their operation and
distance from the pollution sources, and a statistically sig- after closure, found a small, but still statistically signifi-
nificant trend remained after adjusting for a four-level cant, increased risk of total and specific anomalies (OR:
index of socio-economic status. The main uncertainty of 1.01, 95%CI: 1.005-1.023) in populations living within 2
the study is related to the exposure assessment (--) since Km, and also an increased risk of low (OR: 1.05, 95%CI:
only distance was considered thus decreasing the possibil- 1.047-1.055) and very low birth weight (OR: 1.04,
ity of detecting an effect. There are also uncertainties in 95%CI: 1.03-1.05). Additional analyses were carried out
using mortality to estimate cancer incidence in proximity separately for sites handling special waste and non-special
to a suspected source of pollution (+). On the other hand, waste, and in the period before and after opening, for the
even though the authors did adjust for an area-based 5,260 landfills with available data. After adjusting for dep-
index of deprivation, residual confounding (+) from soci- rivation and other potential confounding variables (sex,
oeconomic status was likely. year of birth, administrative region), there was a small
increase in the relative risks for low and very low birth
In summary, there is inadequate evidence of an increased weight and for all congenital anomalies, except for cardi-
risk of cancer for communities in proximity of landfills. ovascular defects. The risks of all congenital anomalies
The three slightly positive studies from Goldberg et al. were higher for people living near special waste disposals
[18], Pukkala et al. [19] and Michelozzi et al. [21] are not (OR: 1.07 CI95%:1.04-1.09) compared to non-special
consistent. waste disposals (OR: 1.02, CI95%:1.01-1.03). There was
no excess risk of stillbirth. On these bases, the author [4]
Birth defects and reproductive disorders concluded that while most studies reporting a positive
Saunders [4] reviewed 29 papers examining the relation- association are of good quality, over half report no associ-
ship between residential proximity to landfill sites and the ation with any adverse birth outcome and most of the lat-
risk of an adverse birth outcome. The review included ter are also well conducted. The review considered that the
either studies on municipal waste or on hazardous waste. evidence of an association of residence near a landfill with
Eighteen papers reported some significant association adverse birth outcomes as unconvincing.
between adverse reproductive outcome and residence
near a landfill site. Two of the strongest papers conducted After the review by Saunders [4], we considered four addi-
on hazardous waste landfill sites in Europe (EURO- tional studies examining reproductive effects of landfill
HAZCON) found similarly moderate but significant asso- emissions.
ciations between residential proximity (within 3 km) to
hazardous waste sites and both chromosomal [22] (Odds Elliot et al. recently updated the previous study [25] in
Ratio, OR: 1.41, 95%CI: 1.00-1.99) and non-chromo- order to evaluate whether geographical density of landfill
somal [23] (OR: 1.33, 95%CI: 1.11-1.59) congenital sites was related to congenital anomalies. The analysis was
anomalies. restricted to 8804 sites operational at some time between
1982 and 1997. There were 607 sites handling special
(hazardous) waste and 8197 handling non-special or

Page 4 of 14
(page number not for citation purposes)
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 4 128
n ironmenta ea t 8 e o a e o e 1

unknown waste type. The exposure assessment took into retardation. The major limit of the study is the low specif-
account the overlap of the two km buffers around each icity of the exposure definition.
site, to define an index of exposure with four levels of
increasing landfill density. Several anomalies (hypospa- In summary, an increased risk of congenital malforma-
dias and epispadias, cardiovascular defects, neural tube tions and of low birth weight has been reported from
defects and abdominal wall defects) were evaluated. The studies conducted in the UK. When compared with the
analysis was carried out separately for special and non- results from studies conducted in proximity of hazardous
special waste sites and was adjusted for deprivation, pres- waste sites, studies in proximity of non-toxic waste land-
ence or absence of a local congenital anomalies register fills provide lower effect estimates. The main uncertainty
and maternal age. The study found a weak association of these studies is the completeness of data on birth
between intensity of hazardous sites and some congenital defects, the use of distance from the sites for exposure clas-
anomalies (all, cardiovascular, hypospadia and epispa- sification, and the classification as toxic and non-toxic
dias). waste sites.

The studies conducted in the United Kingdom suffer from Respiratory diseases
the same limitations, namely the possibility that misclas- A study conducted by Pukkala et al. [19] in Finland evalu-
sification of exposure could have decreased the relative ated prevalence of asthma in relation to residence in
risk estimates to some extent (--); on the other hand, there houses built on a former dumping area containing indus-
are several uncertainties related to the quality of reporting trial and household wastes. Prevalence of asthma was sig-
and registration of congenital malformations. In the latter nificantly higher in the dump cohort than in the reference
case, a positive bias is more likely (++). For the recent cohort (living nearby but outside the landfill site). Unfor-
report by Elliott et al. [25], location uncertainties and dif- tunately, this study has not been replicated and the overall
ferential data reliability regarding the sites, together with evidence may be considered inadequate.
the use of distance as the basis for exposure classification,
limit the interpretation of the findings (--). Studies of landfills workers
Only one study on landfill workers was reviewed. Gelberg
In Denmark, Kloppenborg et al. [26] marked the geo- et al. [29] conducted a cross-sectional study to examine
graphical location of 48 landfills and used maternal resi- acute health effects among employees working for the
dence as the exposure indicator in a study of congenital New York City Department of Sanitation, focusing on
malformations. The authors found no association Fresh Kills landfill employees. Telephone interviews con-
between landfill location and all congenital anomalies or ducted with 238 on-site and 262 off-site male employees
of the nervous system, and a small excess risk for congen- asked about potential exposures both at home and work,
ital anomalies of the cardiovascular system. Potential con- health symptoms for the previous six months, and other
founding from socioeconomic status is the major information (social and recreational habits, socio-eco-
limitation of this study (+++). nomic status). Landfill workers reported a significantly
higher prevalence of work-related respiratory, dermato-
Jarup et al. [27] studied the risk of Down's syndrome in logical, neurologic and hearing problems than controls.
the population living near 6829 landfills in England and Respiratory and dermatologic symptoms were not associ-
Wales. People were considered exposed if they lived in a ated with any specific occupational title or task, other than
two-km zone around each site, people beyond this zone working at the landfill, and the association remained,
were the reference group. A two-year lag period between even after controlling for smoking status.
potential exposure of the mother and her giving birth to a
Down's syndrome child was allowed. The analysis was Studies of communities living near incinerators
adjusted for maternal age, urban-rural status and depriva- Twenty-one epidemiologic studies conducted on resi-
tion index. No statistically significant excess risk was dents of communities with solid waste incinerators have
found in the exposed populations, regardless of waste been reviewed and their characteristics are listed in the
type. additional file 2.

Finally, Gilbreath et al. [28] studied births in 197 Native Cancer

Alaskan villages containing open dumpsites with hazard- Eleven studies have been reviewed on cancer risk in rela-
ous waste, scoring the exposure into high, intermediate tion with incinerators, usually old plants with high pollut-
and low hazard level on the basis of maternal residence. ing characteristics. The studies are reported below by
The authors found an association between higher levels of country.
hazard and low birth weight and intrauterine growth

Page of 14
(page number not for citation purposes)
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 5 129
n ironmenta ea t 8 e o a e o e 1

In the United Kingdom, Elliott et al. [30] investigated can- living in the area with the highest dioxin concentration
cer incidence between 1974 and 1987 among over 14 mil- than among those in the area with the lowest concentra-
lion people living near 72 solid waste incinerator plants. tion. Given that a model was used to attribute exposure to
Data on cancer incidence among the residents, obtained cases and controls, a random misclassification could have
from the national cancer registration programme, were reduced the effect estimates (--). Based of these results, a
compared with national cancer rates, and numbers of nationwide study on NHL was conducted [35]. A total of
observed and expected cases were calculated after stratify- 13 incinerators in France were investigated and dispersion
ing for deprivation, based on the 1981 census. Observed- modelling was used to estimate ground-level dioxin con-
expected ratios were tested for decline in risk up to 7.5 km centration. Information about the exposure levels and
away. The study was conducted in two stages: the first potential confounders was available at the census block
involved a stratified random sample of 20 incinerators level. A positive association between dioxin level and
and, based on the findings, a number of cancers were then NHL was found with a stronger effect among females.
further studied around the remaining 52 incinerators (sec- Although the study represents an improvement regarding
ond stage). Over the two stages of the study there was a exposure assessment compared to investigations based on
statistically significant (p < 0.05) decline in risk with dis- distance from the source, it should be noted that the anal-
tance from incinerators for all cancers, stomach, colorec- ysis was conducted at the census block level and the pos-
tal, liver and lung cancer. The use of distance as the sibility of misclassification of the exposure (-) as well as of
exposure variable in this study could have led to some residual confounding from socioeconomic status (+)
degree of misclassification (--). On the other hand, the remains.
same authors observed that residual confounding (+) as
well as misdiagnosis (+) might have increased the risk Viel et al. [36] have recently reported the findings from a
estimates. When further analyses were made, including a case-control study on breast cancer. There was no associa-
histological review of liver cancer cases [31], the risk esti- tion or even a negative association between exposure to
mates were lower (0.53-0.78 excess cases per 105 per year dioxin and breast cancer in women younger or older than
within 1 km, instead of 0.95 excess cases per 105 as previ- 60 years, respectively, living near a French municipal solid
ously estimated). waste incinerator with high exposure to dioxin. Design
issues and residual confounding from age and other fac-
Using data on municipal solid waste incinerators from the tors (---) limit the interpretations of the study.
initial study by Elliott et al. [30], Knox [32] examined a
possible association between childhood cancers and In Italy, Biggeri et al. [37] conducted a case-control study
industrial emissions, including those from incinerators. in Trieste to investigate the relationship between multiple
From a database of 22,458 cancer deaths that occurred in sources of environmental pollution and lung cancer.
children before their 16th birthday between 1953 and Based on distance from the sources, spatial models were
1980, he extracted 9,224 cases known to have moved at used to evaluate the risk gradients and the directional
least 0.1 km in their life time, and using a newly devel- effects separately for each source, after adjusting for age,
oped technique of analysis, he compared distances from smoking habits, likelihood of exposure to occupational
the suspected sources to the birth addresses and to the carcinogens, and levels of air particulate. The results
death addresses. The childhood-cancer/leukaemia data showed that the risk of lung cancer was inversely related
showed highly significant excesses of moves away from to the distance from the incinerator, with a high excess rel-
birthplaces close to municipal incinerators, but the spe- ative risk very near the source and a very steep decrease
cific effects of the municipal incinerators could not be sep- moving away from it. The main problem of the study is
arated clearly from those of nearby industrial sources of the difficulty to separate the effects of other sources of pol-
combustion. Misclassification of exposure is the main lution based on distance, and the possibility of potential
limit of this paper (--). confounding from other sources remains (++). An excess
risk of lung cancer was also found in females living in two
In France, Viel et al. [33] detected a cluster of patients with areas of the province of La Spezia (Italy) exposed to envi-
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) and soft tissue sarcoma ronmental pollution emitted by multiple sources, includ-
around a French municipal solid waste incinerator with ing an industrial waste incinerator [38]. Again in this
high dioxin emissions. To better explore the environmen- study the limited exposure assessment could have
tal origin of the cluster suggested by these findings, Floret decreased the risk estimates (--), but positive confounding
et al. [34] carried out a population-based case-control from other sources is very likely.
study in the same area, comparing 222 incident cases of
NHL diagnosed between 1980 and 1995 and controls ran- A case-control study by Comba et al. [39] showed a signif-
domly selected from the 1990 census. The risk of develop- icant increase in risk of soft tissue sarcomas associated
ing lymphomas was 2.3 times higher among individuals with residence within two km of an industrial waste incin-

Page of 14
(page number not for citation purposes)
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Pact
Fact Pack 130
n ironmenta ea t 8 e o a e o e 1

erator in the city of Mantua, with a rapid decrease in risk Subsequently, Cordier et al. [45] studied communities
at greater distances. There is a slight likelihood that with fewer than 50,000 inhabitants surrounding the 70
increased attention to the diagnosis for this form of cancer incinerators that operated for at least one year from 1988
in the vicinity of the plant could have introduced a small to 1997 in France. Each exposed community was assigned
bias (+) in the risk estimate. Another case-control study, an exposure index based on a Gaussian plume model,
carried out in the province of Venice by Zambon et al. [40] estimating concentrations of pollutants per number of
analyzed the association between soft-tissue sarcoma and years the plant had operated. The results were adjusted for
exposure to dioxin in a large area with 10 municipal solid year of birth, maternal age, department of birth, popula-
waste incinerators. The authors found a statistically signif- tion density, average family income, and when available,
icant increase in the risk of sarcoma in relation to both the local road traffic. The rate of congenital anomalies was not
level and the length of environmental modelled exposure significantly higher in exposed compared with unexposed
to dioxin-like substances. The results were more signifi- communities; only some subgroups of congenital anom-
cant for women than for men. alies, specifically facial cleft and renal dysplasia, were
more frequent in the exposed communities.
In summary, although several uncertainties limit the over-
all interpretation of the findings, there is limited evidence Tango et al. [46] investigated the association of adverse
that people living in proximity of an incinerator have reproductive outcomes with mothers living within 10 km
increased risk of all cancers, stomach, colon, liver, lung of 63 municipal solid waste incinerators with high dioxin
cancers based on the studies of Elliott et al. [30]. Specific emission levels (above 80 ng international toxic equiva-
studies on incinerators in France and in Italy suggest an lents TEQ/m3) in Japan. To calculate the expected number
increased risk for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and soft-tis- of cases, national rates based on all live births, fetal deaths
sue sarcoma. and infant deaths occurred in the study area during 1997-
1998 were used and stratified by potential confounding
Birth defects and reproductive disorders factors available from the corresponding vital statistics
Six studies examined reproductive effects of incinerator records: maternal age, gestational age, birth weight, total
emissions (see additional file 2). previous deliveries, past experience of fetal deaths, and
type of paternal occupation. None of the reproductive
Jansson et al. [41] analysed whether the incidence of cleft outcomes studied showed statistically significant excess
lip and palate in Sweden increased since operation of a within two km of the incinerators, but a statistically signif-
refuse incineration plant began. The results of this register icant decline in risk with distance from the incinerators
study, based on information from the central register of was found for infant deaths and for infant deaths with
malformations and the medical birth register, did not congenital anomalies, probably due to dioxin emissions
demonstrate an increased risk. from the plants.

A study by Lloyd et al. [42] examined the incidence of In sum, there are multiple reports of increased risk of con-
twin births between 1975 and 1983 in two areas near a genital malformations among people living close to incin-
chemical and a municipal waste incinerator in Scotland: erators but there are no consistencies between the
after adjusting for maternal age, an increased frequency of investigated outcomes. The overall evidence may be con-
twinning in areas exposed to air pollution from incinera- sidered as limited. The study by Cordier et al. [45] pro-
tors was seen. In the same study areas, Williams et al. [43] vides the basis for risk quantifications at least for facial
investigated gender ratios, at various levels of geographi- cleft and renal dysplasia. Quantification for other repro-
cal detail and using three-dimensional mapping tech- ductive disorders is more difficult.
niques: analyses in the residential areas at risk from
airborne pollution from incinerators showed locations Respiratory and skin diseases or symptoms
with statistically significant excesses of female births. Four studies examined respiratory and/or dermatologic
effects of incinerator emissions (see additional file 2).
To investigate the risk of stillbirth, neonatal death, and
lethal congenital anomaly among infants of mothers liv- Hsiue et al. [47] evaluated the effect of long-term air pol-
ing close to incinerators (and crematoriums), Dummer et lution resulting from wire reclamation incineration on
al. [44] conducted a geographical study in Cumbria (Great respiratory health in children. 382 primary school chil-
Britain). After adjusting for social class, year of birth, birth dren who resided in one control and three polluted areas
order, and multiple births, there was an increased risk of in Taiwan were chosen for this study. The results revealed
lethal congenital anomaly, in particular spina bifida and a decrement in pulmonary function (including forced
heart defects. vital capacity and forced expiratory volume in one sec-
ond) of those residents in the vicinity of incineration sites.

Page of 14
(page number not for citation purposes)
 CHEJLandfill
CHEJ Landfill Failures
Failures FactFact
PackPact 131
n ironmenta ea t 8 e o a e o e 1

Shy et al. [48] studied the residents of three communities Bresnitz et al. [52] studied 89 of 105 male incinerator
having, respectively, a biomedical and a municipal incin- workers in Philadelphia, employed at the time of the
erator, and a liquid hazardous waste-burning industrial study in late June 1988. Based on a work site analysis,
furnace, and then compared results with three matched- workers were divided into potentially high and low expo-
comparison communities. After adjustment for several sure groups, and no statistically significant differences in
confounders (age, sex, race, education, respiratory disease pulmonary function were found between the two groups,
risk factors), no consistent differences in the prevalence of after adjusting for smoking status.
chronic or acute respiratory symptoms resulted between
incinerator and comparison communities. Additionally, A similar study was conducted by Hours et al. [53]: they
no changes in pulmonary function between subjects of an analysed 102 male workers employed by three French
incinerator community and those of its comparison com- urban incinerators during 1996, matched for age with 94
munity resulted from the study by Lee et al. [49], based on male workers from other industrial activities. The exposed
a longitudinal component from the Health and Clean Air workers were distributed into 3 exposure categories based
study by Shy et al. [48]. on air sampling at the workplace: crane and equipment
operators, furnace workers, and maintenance and efflu-
Miyake et al. [50] examined the relationship between the ent-treatment workers. An excess of respiratory problems,
prevalence of allergic disorders and general symptoms in mainly daily cough, was more often found in the exposed
Japanese children and the distance of schools from incin- groups, and a significant relationship between exposure
eration plants, measured using geographical information and decreases in several pulmonary parameters was also
systems. After adjusting for grade, socio-economic status observed, after adjusting for tobacco consumption and
and access to health care per municipality, schools closer centre. The maintenance and effluent group, and the fur-
to the nearest municipal waste incineration plant were nace group had elevated relative risks for skin symptoms.
associated with an increased prevalence of wheeze and
headache; there was no evident relationship between the In the same year, Takata et al. [54] conducted a cross-sec-
distance of schools from such plants and the prevalence of tional study in Japan on 92 workers from a municipal
atopic dermatitis. The main factors that may have affected solid waste incinerator to investigate the health effects of
the relative risk estimates in this study could be reporting chronic exposure to dioxins. The concentrations of these
bias (++) and residual confounding from socioeconomic chemicals among the blood of the workers who had
status (++). engaged in maintenance of the furnace, electric dust col-
lection, and the wet scrubber of the incinerator were
In sum, although the intensive study conducted by Shy et higher compared with those of residents in surrounding
al. [48] did not show respiratory effects, there are some areas, but there were no clinical signs or findings corre-
indications of an increased risk of respiratory diseases, lated to blood levels of dioxins.
especially in children. However, the uncertainty related to
outcome assessment and residual confounding is very In sum, there are some studies that suggest increased gas-
high and the overall evidence may be considered inade- tric cancer and respiratory problems among incinerators
quate. workers. However, there are a great number of uncertain-
ties, which make it difficult to derive conclusions.
Occupational studies on incinerator employees
Four studies conducted on incinerator employees were Epidemiological studies of health effects of other
reviewed (see additional file 3). waste management processes
Twelve epidemiologic studies on the potential adverse
In 1997, Rapiti et al. [51] conducted a retrospective mor- health effects of other waste management practices are
tality study on 532 male workers employed at two munic- reviewed and listed in additional file 4.
ipal waste incinerators in Rome (Italy) between 1962 and
1992. Standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) were com- Waste collection
puted using regional population mortality rates. Mortality Ivens et al. [55] investigated the adverse health effects
from all causes resulted significantly lower than expected, among waste collectors in Denmark. In a questionnaire-
and all cancer mortality was comparable with that of the based survey among 2303 waste collectors and a compar-
general population. Mortality from lung cancer was lower ison group of 1430 male municipal workers, information
than expected, but an increased risk was found for stom- on self-reported health status and working conditions was
ach cancer: analysis by latency since first exposure indi- collected and related to estimated bioaerosol exposure.
cated that this excess risk was confined to the category of After adjusting for several confounders (average alcohol
workers with more than 10 years since first exposure. consumption per day, smoking status, and the psychoso-
cial exposure measures support/demand ), a dose-

Page of 14
(page number not for citation purposes)
 CHEJLandfill
CHEJ Landfill Failures
Failures FactFact
PackPact 132
n ironmenta ea t 8 e o a e o e 1

response relationship between level of exposure to fungal were interviewed about respiratory symptoms and dis-
spores and self-reported diarrhoea was indicated, mean- eases in the last 12 months and had a spirometry after a 5-
ing that the higher the weekly dose, the more reports of year follow-up. Exposure assessment was conducted at 6
gastrointestinal symptoms. out of 41 composting plants and at the individual level.
Eyes, airways and skin symptoms were higher in compost
In contrast with these results, a study of 853 workers workers than in the control group. There was also a
employed by 27 municipal household waste collection steeper decline of Forced Vital Capacity among compost
departments in Taiwan did not find an excess of gastroin- workers compared to control subjects, also when smoking
testinal symptoms [56]. The workers answered a question- was considered.
naire and were classified into two occupational groups by
specific exposures based on the reported designation of Materials recycling facilities
their specific task. The exposed group included those There are no epidemiological studies of populations liv-
working in the collection of mixed domestic waste, front ing near materials recycling facilities; only studies on
runner or loader, collection of separated waste and special employees are available.
kinds of domestic waste (paper, glass, etc.), garden waste,
bulky waste for incineration, and the vehicle driver; the In the already-quoted study by Rapiti et al. [51] on work-
control group included accountants, timekeepers, canteen ers at two municipal plants for incinerating and garbage
staff, personnel, and other office workers. No significant recycling, increased risk was found for stomach cancer in
differences were found in the prevalence of gastrointesti- employees who had worked there for at least 10 years,
nal symptoms, but results indicated that all respiratory while lung cancer mortality risk was lower than expected.
symptom prevalence, except dyspnoea, were significantly
higher in the exposed group, after adjusting for age, gen- In the study by Rix et al. [60], 5377 employees of five
der, education, smoking status, and duration of employ- paper recycling plants in Denmark between 1965 and
ment. 1990 were included in a historical cohort, and the
expected number of cancer cases was calculated from
Composting facilities national rates. The incidence of lung cancer was slightly
In a German cross sectional study by Bünger et al. [57], higher among men in production and moderately higher
work related health complaints and diseases of 58 com- in short term workers with less than 1 year of employ-
post workers and 53 bio-waste collectors were investi- ment; there was significantly more pharyngeal cancer
gated and compared with 40 control subjects. Compost among males, but this may have been influenced by con-
workers had significantly more symptoms and diseases of founders such as smoking and alcohol intake.
the skin and the airways than the control subjects. No cor-
rection was performed for the confounding effect of Sigsgaard et al. [61] conducted a cross-sectional study to
smoking, as there were no significant differences in the examine the effect of shift changes on lung function
smoking habits of the three groups. among 99 recycling workers (resource recovery and paper
mill workers), and correlated these findings with meas-
A subsequent study in Germany by Herr et al. [58] exam- urements of total dust and endotoxins. Exposure to
ined the health effects on community residents of bio-aer- organic dust caused a fall in FEV1 over the work shift, and
osol, emitted by a composting plant. A total of 356 this was significantly associated with exposure to organic
questionnaires from residents living at different distances dust; no significant association was found between endo-
from the composting site, and from unexposed controls toxin exposure and lung function decreases.
were collected: self-reported prevalence of health com-
plaints over past years, doctors' diagnoses, as was residen- The same authors [62] also analysed skin and gastrointes-
tial odor annoyance; microbiological pollution was tinal symptoms among 40 garbage handlers, 8 compost-
measured simultaneously in residential outdoor air. ers and 20 paper sorters from all over Denmark, and
Reports of airway irritation were associated with residency found that garbage handlers had an increased risk of skin
in the highest bio-aerosol exposure category, 150-200 m itching, and vomiting or diarrhoea.
(versus residency >400-500 m) from the site, and periods
of residency more than five years. In a nationwide study, Ivens et al. [63] reported findings
of self-reported gastrointestinal symptoms by self-
Bünger et al. [59] conducted a prospective cohort study to reported type of plant. A questionnaire based survey
investigate, in 41 plants in Germany, the health risks of among Danish waste recycling workers at all composting,
compost workers due to long term exposure to organic biogas-producing, and sorting plants collected data on
dust that specifically focused on respiratory disorders. occupational exposures (including questions on type of
Employees, exposed and not exposed to organic dust, plant, type of waste), present and past work environment,

Page of 14
(page number not for citation purposes)
 CHEJLandfill
CHEJ Landfill Failures
Failures FactFact
PackPact 133
n ironmenta ea t 8 e o a e o e 1

the psychosocial work environment, and health status. affected by various respiratory and gastrointestinal symp-
Prevalence rate ratios adjusted for other possible types of toms.
job and relevant confounders were estimated with a com-
parison group of non-exposed workers, and an associa- Choosing relative risk estimates for health
tion was found between sorting paper and diarrhoea, impact assessment of residence near landfills
between nausea and work at plastic sorting plants, and and incinerators
non-significantly between diarrhoea and work at com- The reviewed studies have been used to summarize the
posting plants. evidence available, as indicated in table 1. When the over-
all degree of evidence was considered "inadequate" we
The health status of workers employed in the paper recy- decided not to propose a quantitative evaluation of the
cling industry was also studied by Zuskin et al. [64]. A relative risk; when we arrived to a conclusion that "lim-
group of 101 male paper-recycling workers employed by ited" evidence was available, relative risk estimates were
one paper processing plant in Croatia, and a group of 87 extracted for use in the health impact assessment process.
non-exposed workers employed in the food packing Table 2 summarizes the relevant and reliable figures for
industry was studied for the prevalence of chronic respira- health effects related to landfills and incinerators. For
tory symptoms, and results indicated significantly higher each relative risk the distance from the source has been
prevalence of all chronic respiratory symptoms were reported as well as the overall level of confidence of the
found in paper workers compared with controls. effect estimates based on an arbitrary scale: very high,
high, moderate, low, very low.
Gladding et al. [65] studied 159 workers from nine mate-
rials recovery facilities (MRFs) in the United Kingdom. Landfills
Total airborne dust, endotoxins, (1-3)-beta-D-glucan were From the review presented above and following the work
measured, and a questionnaire-survey was completed. already made by Russi et al. [11], it is clear that the studies
The results suggest that materials recovery facilities work- on cancer are not sufficient to draw conclusions regarding
ers exposed to higher levels of endotoxins and (1-3)-beta- health effects near landfills, both with toxic and non-toxic
D-glucan at their work sites experience various work- wastes. The largest study conducted in England by Jarup et
related symptoms, and that the longer a worker is in the al. [21] does not suggest an increase in the cancer types
MRF environment, the more likely he is to become that were investigated. Investigations of other chronic dis-
Table 1: Summary of the overall epidemiologic evidence on municipal solid waste disposal: landfills and incinerators.

HEALTH EFFECT LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

LANDFILLS INCINERATORS
All cancer Inadequate Limited
Stomach cancer Inadequate Limited
Colorectal cancer Inadequate Limited
Liver cancer Inadequate Limited
Larynx cancer Inadequate Inadequate
Lung cancer Inadequate Limited
Soft tissue sarcoma Inadequate Limited
Kidney cancer Inadequate Inadequate
Bladder cancer Inadequate Inadequate
Non Hodgkin's lymphoma Inadequate Limited
Childhood cancer Inadequate Inadequate
Total birth defects Limited Inadequate
Neural tube defects Limited Inadequate
Orofacial birth defects Inadequate Limited
Genitourinary birth defects Limited* Limited**
Abdominal wall defects Inadequate Inadequate
Gastrointestinal birth defects§ Inadequate Inadequate
Low birth weight Limited Inadequate
Respiratory diseases or symptoms Inadequate Inadequate

"Inadequate": available studies are of insufficient quality, consistency, or statistical power to decide the presence or absence of a causal association.
"Limited": a positive association has been observed between exposure and disease for which a causal interpretation is considered to be credible, but
chance, bias, or confounding could not be ruled out with reasonable confidence.
* Hypospadias and epispadias
** Renal dysplasia
§ The original estimates were given for "surgical corrections of gastroschisis and exomphalos"

Page 1 of 14
(page number not for citation purposes)
 CHEJLandfill
CHEJ Landfill Failures
Failures FactFact
PackPact 134
n ironmenta ea t 8 e o a e o e 1

Table 2: Relative risk estimates for community exposure to landfills and incinerators

Health effect Distance from the source Relative Risk (Confidence Interval) Level of confidence**

Landfills
Congenital malformations [24]
All congenital malformations Within 2 km 1.02 (99% CI = 1.01-1.03) Moderate
Neural tube defects Within 2 km 1.06 (99% CI = 1.01-1.12) Moderate
Hypospadias and epispadias Within 2 km 1.07 (99% CI = 1.04-1.11) Moderate
Abdominal wall defects Within 2 km 1.05 (99% CI = 0.94-1.16) Moderate
Gastroschisis and exomphalos* Within 2 km 1.18 (99% CI = 1.03-1.34) Moderate
Low birth weight [24] Within 2 km 1.06 (99% CI = 1.052-1.062) High
Very low birth weight Within 2 km 1.04 (99% CI = 1.03-1.06) High
Incinerators
Congenital malformations [45]
Facial cleft Within 10 km 1.30 (95% CI = 1.06-1.59) Moderate
Renal dysplasia Within 10 km 1.55 (95% CI = 1.10-2.20) Moderate
Cancer [30]
All cancer Within 3 km 1.035 (95% CI = 1.03-1.04) Moderate
Stomach cancer Within 3 km 1.07 (95% CI = 1.02-1.13) Moderate
Colorectal cancer Within 3 km 1.11 (95% CI = 1.07-1.15) Moderate
Liver cancer Within 3 km 1.29 (95% CI = 1.10-1.51) High
Lung cancer Within 3 km 1.14 (95% CI = 1.11-1.17) Moderate
Soft-tissue sarcoma Within 3 km 1.16 (95% CI = 0.96-1.41) High
Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma Within 3 km 1.11 (95% CI = 1.04-1.19) High

*The original estimates were given for "surgical corrections of..". **The following scale for the level of confidence has been adopted: very high, high,
moderate, low, very low.

eases are lacking, especially of respiratory diseases, yet from socioeconomic status near the incinerators and a
there is one indication of an increased risk of asthma in concern of misdiagnosis among registrations and death
adults [19], but with no replication of the findings. Over- certificates for liver cancer. The histology of the liver can-
all, the evidence that living near landfills may be associ- cer cases was reviewed, re-estimating the previously calcu-
ated with health effects in adults is inadequate. lated excess risk (from 0.95 excess cases 10-5/year to
between 0.53 and 0.78 excess cases 10-5/year). We then
A slightly different picture appears for congenital malfor- graded the confidence of the assessment for these tumours
mations and low birth weight, where limited evidence as "moderate" with the exception of liver cancer (high)
exists of an increased risk for infants born to mothers liv- since the misdiagnosis was reassessed and the extent of
ing near landfill sites. The relevant results come from the residual confounding was lower. In the study by Elliott et
European EUROHAZCON Study [23] and the national al. [30] no significant decline in risk with distance for
investigation from Elliott et al. [24]. In the UK report, sta- non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and soft tissue sarcoma was
tistically significant higher risk were found for all congen- found. However, the studies of Viel et al. [33] and Floret
ital malformations, neural tube defects, abdominal wall et al. [34] conducted in France and the studies from
defects, surgical correction of gastroschisis and exompha- Comba et al. [39] and Zambon et al. [40] in Italy provide
los, and low and very low birth weight for births to people some indications that an excess of these forms of cancers
living within two km of the sites, both of hazardous and may be related to emissions of dioxins from incinerators.
non-hazardous waste. Although several alternative expla- As a result, we provided effect estimates in table 2 also for
nations, including ascertainment bias, and residual con- non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and soft tissue sarcoma as
founding cannot be excluded in the study, Elliott et al. derived from the conservative "first stage" analysis con-
[24] provide quantitative effect estimates whose level of ducted by Elliott et al. [30]. We graded the level of confi-
confidence can be considered as moderate. dence of these relative risk estimates as "high".

Incinerators With regards to congenital malformations near incinera-

Quantitative estimates of excess risk of specific cancers in tors, Cordier et al. [45] provided effect estimates for facial
populations living near solid waste incinerator plants cleft and renal dysplasia, as they were more frequent in the
were provided by Elliott et al. [30]. We have reported in "exposed" communities living within 10 km of the sites.
table 2 the effect estimates for all cancers, stomach, colon, Other reproductive effects, such as an effect on twinning
liver, and lung cancer based on their "second stage" anal- rates or gender determination, have been described; how-
ysis. There was an indication of residual confounding ever the results are inadequate.

Page 11 of 14
(page number not for citation purposes)
 CHEJLandfill
CHEJ Landfill Failures
Failures FactFact
PackPact 135
n ironmenta ea t 8 e o a e o e 1

Conclusions
We have conducted a systematic review of the literature Additional file 2
regarding the health effects of waste management. After Studies on incinerators. The data provided represent a brief description
the extensive review, in many cases the overall evidence of the studies on populations living near incinerators.
Click here for file
was inadequate to establish a relationship between a spe- [http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/supplementary/1476-
cific waste process and health effects. However, at least for 069X-8-60-S2.XLS]
some associations, a limited amount of evidence has been
found and a few studies were selected for a quantitative Additional file 3
evaluation of the health effects. These relative risks could Studies on occupational exposures among incinerators and landfills
be used to assess health impact, considering that the level workers. The data provided represent a brief description of the studies on
of confidence in these effect estimates is at least moderate workers of waste management plants.
Click here for file
for most of them.
[http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/supplementary/1476-
069X-8-60-S3.XLS]
Most of the reviewed studies suffer from limitations
related to poor exposure assessment, aggregate level of Additional file 4
analysis, and lack of information on relevant confound- Studies on other waste management processes. The data provided rep-
ers. It is clear that future research into the health risks of resent a brief description of the studies on population living near plants
waste management requires a more accurate characteriza- using waste management technologies different from landfills and incin-
erators.
tion of individual exposure, improved knowledge of
Click here for file
chemical and toxicological data on specific compounds, [http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/supplementary/1476-
multi-site studies on large populations to increase statisti- 069X-8-60-S4.XLS]
cal power, approaches based on individuals rather than
communities and better control of confounding factors.

List of abbreviations used Acknowledgements

EU: European Union; INTARESE: Integrated Assessment This study was funded by the INTARESE project. INTARESE is a 5-year
of Health Risks of Environmental Stressors in Europe; Integrated Project funded under the EU 6th Framework Programme - Pri-
NHL: non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma; OR: Odds ratio; TEQ: ority 6.3 Global Change and Ecosystems. We thank Margaret Becker for a
linguistic revision the text. We are in debt to Martine Vrijheid for her com-
Toxic Equivalent.
ments on an earlier version of the manuscript.

Competing interests References

The authors declare that they have no competing interests. 1. Vrijheid M: Health effects of residence near hazardous waste
landfill sites: a review of epidemiologic literature. Environ
Health Perspect 2000, 108(suppl 1):101-112.
Authors' contributions 2. Rushton L: Health hazards and waste management. Br Med Bull
DP participated in the design of the study, conducted the 2003, 68:183-197.
systematic review and drafted the manuscript. SM con- 3. Franchini M, Rial M, Buiatti E, Bianchi F: Health effects of exposure
to waste incinerator emissions: a review of epidemiological
ducted the systematic review and contributed to draft the studies. Ann Ist Super Sanita 2004, 40:101-115.
manuscript. AIL participated in the systematic review and 4. Saunders P: A systematic review of the evidence of an
contributed to draft the manuscript. CAP helped to con- increased risk of adverse birth outcomes in populations liv-
ing in the vicinity of landfill waste disposal sites. In Population
ceive of the study and to write and revise the manuscript. health and waste management: scientific data and policy options. Report of
FF conceived and coordinated the study and helped to a WHO workshop Rome, Italy, 29-30 March 2007 Edited by: Mitis F,
Martuzzi M. WHO, Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen;
write and revise the manuscript. All authors have read and 2007:25-27.
approved the final manuscript. 5. Briggs DJ: A framework for integrated environmental health
impact assessment of systemic risks. Environ Health 2008, 7:61.
6. Poulsen OM, Breum NO, Ebbehoj N, Hansen AM, Ivens UI, van
Additional material Lelieveld D, Malmros P, Matthiasen L, Nielsen BH, Nielsen EM,
Schibye B, Skov T, Stenbaek EI, Wilkins CK: Sorting and recycling
of domestic waste. Review of occupational health problems
Additional file 1 and their possible causes. Sc Total Environ 1995, 168:33-56.
7. Poulsen OM, Breum NO, Ebbehoj N, Hansen AM, Ivens UI, van
Studies on landfills. The data provided represent a brief description of the
Lelieveld D, Malmros P, Matthiasen L, Nielsen BH, Nielsen EM,
studies on populations living near landfills. Schibye B, Skov T, Stenbaek EI, Wilkins CK: Collection of domes-
Click here for file tic waste. Review of occupational health problems and their
[http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/supplementary/1476- possible causes. Sc Total Environ 1995, 170:1-19.
069X-8-60-S1.XLS] 8. Hu SW, Shy CM: Health effects of waste incineration: a review
of epidemiologic studies. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 2001,
51:1100-1109.
9. Dolk H, Vrijheid M: The impact of environmental pollution on
congenital anomalies. Br Med Bull 2003, 68:25-45.

Page 1 of 14
(page number not for citation purposes)
 CHEJLandfill
CHEJ Landfill Failures
Failures FactFact
PackPact 136
n ironmenta ea t 8 e o a e o e 1

10. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA): histopathological and case-note review of primary liver can-
Review of Environmental and Health Effects of waste management: munic- cer cases. Br J Cancer 2000, 82:1103-1106.
ipal solid waste and similar wastes. UK 2004. 32. Knox E: Childhood cancers, birthplaces, incinerators and
11. Russi MB, Borak JB, Cullen MR: An examination of cancer epide- landfill sites. Int J Epidemiol 2000, 29:391-397.
miology studies among populations living close to toxic 33. Viel JF, Arveux P, Baverel J, Cahn JY: Soft-tissue sarcoma and non-
waste sites. Environ Health 2008, 26:7-32. Hodgkin's lymphoma clusters around a municipal solid
12. Rydhstroem H: No obvious spatial clustering of twin births in waste incinerator with high dioxin emission levels. Am J Epide-
Sweden between 1973 and 1990. Environ Res 1998, 76:27-31. miol 2000, 152:13-19.
13. Fukuda Y, Nakamura K, Takano T: Dioxins released from inciner- 34. Floret N, Mauny F, Challier B, Arveux P, Cahn JY, Viel JF: Dioxin
ation plants and mortality from major diseases: an analysis of emissions from a solid waste incinerator and risk of non-
statistical data by municipalities. J Med Dent Sci 2003, Hodgkin lymphoma. Epidemiology 2003, 14:392-398.
50:249-255. 35. Viel JF, Daniau C, Goria S, Fabre P, de Crouy-Chanel P, Sauleau EA,
14. Altavista P, Belli S, Bianchi F, Binazzi A, Comba P, Del Giudice R, Fazzo Empereur-Bissonnet P: Risk for non Hodgkin's lymphoma in the
L, Felli A, Mastrantonio M, Menegozzo M, Musmeci L, Pizzuti R, Savar- vicinity of French municipal solid waste incinerators. Environ
ese A, Trinca S, Uccelli R: Cause-specific mortality in an area of Health 2008, 7:51.
Campania with numerous waste disposal sites. Epidemiol Prev 36. Viel JF, Clement MC, Hägi M, Grandjean S, Challier B, Danzon A:
2004, 28:311-321. Italian Dioxin emissions from a municipal solid waste incinerator
15. Biggeri A, Catelan D: Mortality for non-Hodgkin lymphoma and and risk of invasive breast cancer: a population-based case-
soft-tissue sarcoma in the surrounding area of an urban sontrol study with GIS-derived exposure. Environ Health 2008,
waste incinerator. Campi Bisenzio (Tuscany, Italy) 1981- 7:4.
2001. Epidemiol Prev 2005, 29:156-159. 37. Biggeri A, Barbone F, Lagazio C, Bovenzi M, Stanta G: Air pollution
16. Minichilli F, Bartolacci S, Buiatti E, Pallante V, Scala D, Bianchi F: A and lung cancer in Trieste, Italy: spatial analysis of risk as a
study on mortality around six municipal solid waste landfills function of distance from sources. Environ Health Perspect 1996,
in Tuscany Region. Epidemiologia' Prevenzione 2005, 29(suppl 5- 104:750-754.
6):53-56. 38. Parodi S, Baldi R, Benco C, Franchini M, Garrone E, Vercelli M, Pensa
17. Bianchi F, Minichilli F: Mortality for non-Hodgkin lymphoma in F, Puntoni R, Fontana V: Lung cancer mortality in a district of La
the period 1981-2000 in 25 Italian municipalities with urban Spezia (Italy) exposed to air pollution from industrial plants.
solid waste incinerators. Epidemiol Prev 2006, 30:80-81. Tumori 2004, 90:181-185.
18. Goldberg MS, Siemiatyck J, DeWar R, Dèsy M, Riberdy H: Risk of 39. Comba P, Ascoli V, belli S, Benedetti M, Gatti L, Ricci P, Tieghi A: Risk
developing cancer relative to living near a municipal solid of soft tissue sarcomas and residence in the neighborhood of
waste landfill site in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Arch Environ an incinerator of industrial wastes. Occup Environ Med 2003,
Health 1999, 54:291-296. 60:650-683.
19. Pukkala E, Pönkä A: Increased incidence of cancer and asthma 40. Zambon P, Ricci P, Bovo E, Casula A, Gattolin M, Fiore AR, Chuiosi
in houses buuilt on a former dump area. Environ Health Perspect F, Guzzinati S: Sarcoma risk and dioxin emissions from incin-
2001, 109:1121-1125. erators and industrial plants: a population-based case-con-
20. Jarup L, Briggs D, de Hoogh C, Morris S, Hurt C, Lewin A, Maitland I, trol study (Italy). Environ Health 2007, 6:19.
Richardson S, Wakefield J, Elliott P: Cancer risks in populations 41. Jansson B, Voog L: Dioxin from Swedish municipal incinerators
living near landfill sites in Great Britain. Br J Cancer 2002, and the occurrence of cleft lip and palate malformations. Int
86:1732-1736. J Environ Stud 1989, 34:99-104.
21. Michelozzi P, Fusco D, Forastiere F, Ancona C, Dell'Orco V, Perucci 42. Lloyd OL, Lloyd MM, Williams FL, Lawson A: Twinning in human
CA: Small area study of mortality among people living near populations and in cattle exposed to air pollution from incin-
multiple sources of air pollution. Occup Environ Med 1998, erators. Br J Ind Med 1988, 45:556-560.
55:611-615. 43. Williams FL, Lawson AB, Lloyd OL: Low sex ratios of births in
22. Vrijheid M, Dolk H, Armstrong B, Abramsky L, Bianchi F, Fazarinc I, areas at risk from air pollution from incinerators, as shown
Garne E, Ide R, Nelen V, Robert E, Scott JE, Stone D, Tenconi R: by geographical analyis and 3-dimensional mapping. Int J Epi-
Chromosomal congenital anomaliesand residence near haz- demiol 1992, 21:311-319.
ardous waste landfill sites. Lancet 2002, 359:320-322. 44. Dummer TJ, Dickinson HO, Parker L: Adverse pregnancy out-
23. Dolk H, Vrijheid M, Armstrong B, Abramsky L, Bianchi F, Garne E, comes around incinerators and crematoriums in Cumbria,
Nelen V, Robert E, Scott JE, Stone D, Tenconi R: Risk of congenital north west England, 1956-93. J Epidemiol Community Health 2003,
anomalies near hazardous-waste landfill sites in Europe: the 57:456-461.
EUROHAZCON study. Lancet 1998, 352:423-427. 45. Cordier S, Chevrier C, Robert-Gnansia E, Lorente C, Brula P, Hours
24. Elliott P, Briggs D, Morris S, de Hoogh C, Hurt C, Jensen TK, Maitland M: Risk of congenital anomalies in the vicinity of municipal
I, Richardson S, Wakefield J, Jarup L: Risk of adverse birth out- solid waste incinerators. Occup Environ Med 2004, 61:8-15.
comes in populations living near landfill sites. Br Med J 2001, 46. Tango T, Fujita T, Tanihata T, Minowa M, Doi Y, Kato N, Kunikane S,
323:363-368. Uchiyama I, Tanaka M, Uehata T: Risk of adverse reproductive
25. Elliot P, Richardson S, Abellan JJ, Thomson A, de Hoog C, Jaruo L, outcomes associated with proximity to municipal solid
Briggs DJ: Geographic density of landfill sites and risk of con- waste incinerators with high dioxin emission levels in Japan.
genital anomalies in England. Occup Environ Med 2009, 66:81-89. J Epidemiol 2004, 14:83-93.
26. Kloppenborg SCh, Brandt UK, Gulis G, Ejstrud B: Risk of congenital 47. Hsiue TR, Lee SS, Chen HI: Effects of air pollution resulting from
anomalies in the vicinity of waste landfills in Denmark; an wire reclamation incineration on pulmonary function in chil-
epidemiological study using GIS. Cent Eur J Public Health 2005, dren. Chest 1991, 100:698-702.
13:137-143. 48. Shy CM, Degnan D, Fox DL, Mukerjee S, Hazucha MJ, Boehlecke BA,
27. Jarup L, Morris S, Richardson S, Briggs D, Cobley N, de Hoog C, Rothenbacher D, Briggs PM, Devlin RB, Wallace DD, Stevens RK,
Gorog K, Elliot P: Down syndrome in births near landfill sites. Bromberg PA: Do waste incinerators induce adverse respira-
Prenat Diagn 2007, 27:1191-1196. tory effects? An air quality and epidemiological study of six
28. Gilbreath S, Kaas PH: Adverse birth outcomes associated with communities. Environ Health Perspect 1995, 103:714-724.
open dumpsites in Alaska native villages. Am J Epidemiol 2006, 49. Lee JT, Shy CM: Respiratory function as measured by peak
164:518-528. expiratory flow rate and PM10: six communities study. J Expo
29. Gelberg KH: Health study of New York City Department of Anal Environ Epidemiol 1999, 9:293-299.
Sanitation landfill employees. Journal of Occup Environ Med 1997, 50. Miyake Y, Yura A, Misaki H, Ikeda Y, Usui T, Iki M, Shimizu T: Rela-
39:1103-1110. tionship between distance of schools from the nearest
30. Elliott P, Shaddick G, Kleinschmidt I, Jolley D, Walls P, Beresford J, municipal waste incineration plant and child health in Japan.
Grundy C: Cancer incidence near municipal solid waste incin- Eur J Epidemiol 2005, 20:1023-1029.
erators in Great Britain. Br J Cancer 1996, 73:702-710. 51. Rapiti E, Sperati A, Fano V, Dell'Orco V, Forastiere F: Mortality
31. Elliott P, Eaton N, Shaddick G, Carter R: Cancer incidence near among workers at municipal waste incinerators in Rome: a
municipal solid waste incinerators in Great Britain. Part 2: retrospective cohort study. Am J Ind Med 1997, 31:659-661.

Page 1 of 14
(page number not for citation purposes)
 CHEJLandfill
CHEJ Landfill Failures
Failures FactFact
PackPact 137
n ironmenta ea t 8 e o a e o e 1

52. Bresnitz EA, Roseman J, Becker D, Gracely E: Morbidity among

municipal waste incinerator workers. Am J Ind Med 1992,
22:363-378.
53. Hours M, Anzivino-Viricel L, Maitre A, Perdrix A, Perrodin Y, Char-
botel B, Bergeret A: Morbidity among municipal waste inciner-
ator workers: a cross-sectional study. Int Arch Occup Environ
Health 2003, 76:467-472.
54. Takata T: Survey on the health effects of chronic exposure to
dioxins and its accumulation on workers of a municipal solid
waste incinerator, rural part of Osaka Prefecture, and the
results of extended survey afterwards. Ind Health 2003,
41:189-196.
55. Ivens UI, Hansen J, Breum NO, Ebbehoj N, Nielsen BH, Poulsen OM,
Wurtz H, Skov T: Diarrhoea among waste collectors associ-
ated with bioaerosol exposure. Ann Agric Environ Med 1997,
4:63-68.
56. Yang CY, Chang WT, Chuang HY, Tsai SS, Wu TN, Sung FC:
Adverse health effects among household waste collectors in
Taiwan. Environ Res 2001, 85:195-199.
57. Bunger J, Antlauf-Lammers M, Schulz TG, Westphal GA, Muller MM,
Ruhnau P, Hallier E: Health complaints and immunological
markers of exposure to bioaerosols among biowaste collec-
tors and compost workers. Occup Environ Med 2000, 57:458-464.
58. Herr CE, Zur Nieden A, Jankofsky M, Stilianakis NI, Boedeker RH,
Eikmann TF: Effects of bioaerosol polluted outdoor air on air-
ways of residents: a cross sectional study. Occup Environ Med
2003, 60:336-342.
59. Bünger J, Schappler-Sheele B, Hilgers R, Hallier E: A 5-year follow-
up study on respiratory disorders and lung function in work-
ers exposed to organic dust from composting plants. Int Arch
Occup Environ Health 2007, 80:306-312.
60. Rix BA, Villadsen E, Engholm G, Lynge E: Risk of cancer among
paper recycling workers. Occup Environ Med 1997, 54:729-733.
61. Sigsgaard T, Abel A, Donbaek L, Malmros P: Lung function changes
among recycling workers exposed to organic dust. Am J Ind
Med 1994, 25:69-72.
62. Sigsgaard T, Hansen J, Malmros P: Biomonitoring and work
related symptoms among garbage handling workers. Ann
Agric Environ Med 1997, 4:107-112.
63. Ivens UI, Ebbehoj N, Poulsen OM, Skov T: Gastrointestinal symp-
toms among waste recycling workers. Ann Agric Environ Med
1997, 4:153-157.
64. Zuskin E, Mustajbegovic J, Schachter EN, Kanceljak B, Kern J, Macan
J, Ebling Z: Respiratory function and immunological status in
paper-recycling workers. J Occup Environ Med 1998, 40:986-993.
65. Gladding T, Thorn J, Stott D: Organic dust exposure and work-
related effects among recycling workers. Am J Ind Med 2003,
43:584-591.

Publish with Bio Med Central and every

scientist can read your work free of charge
"BioMed Central will be the most significant development for
disseminating the results of biomedical researc h in our lifetime."
Sir Paul Nurse, Cancer Research UK

Your research papers will be:

available free of charge to the entire biomedical community
peer reviewed and published immediately upon acceptance
cited in PubMed and archived on PubMed Central
yours — you keep the copyright

Submit your manuscript here: BioMedcentral

http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/publishing_adv.asp

Page 14 of 14
(page number not for citation purposes)
CHEJLandfill
CHEJ Landfill Failures
Failures FactFact
PackPact4 138
CHEJLandfill
CHEJ Landfill Failures
Failures FactFact
PackPact5 139
CHEJLandfill
CHEJ Landfill Failures
Failures FactFact
PackPact 140
CHEJLandfill
CHEJ Landfill Failures
Failures FactFact
PackPact 141
CHEJLandfill
CHEJ Landfill Failures
Failures FactFact
PackPact 142
CHEJLandfill
CHEJ Landfill Failures
Failures FactFact
PackPact 143
CHEJLandfill
CHEJ Landfill Failures
Failures FactFact
PackPact 144
CHEJLandfill
CHEJ Landfill Failures
Failures FactFact
PackPact 145
CHEJLandfill
CHEJ Landfill Failures
Failures FactFact
PackPact 146
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Fact
PackPact
1 147
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Fact
PackPact
1 4 148
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Fact
PackPact
1 5 149
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Fact Pact
Papers
Pack 1 150

Risk of adverse birth outcomes in populations living near

landfill sites
Paul Elliott, David Briggs, Sara Morris, Cornelis de Hoogh, Christopher Hurt, Tina Kold Jensen,
Ian Maitland, Sylvia Richardson, Jon Wakefield, Lars Jarup

Abstract birth weight near landfill have been reported,6–9 includ- Editorial by
McNamee and Dolk
ing from recent European and UK studies,10 11
Objective To investigate the risk of adverse birth although some have reported less significant12 or nega- Small Area Health
outcomes associated with residence near landfill sites tive findings.13 The aim of our present study was to
Statistics Unit
(SAHSU),
in Great Britain. examine risk of adverse birth outcomes associated with Department of
Design Geographical study of risks of adverse birth residence near landfill using data on all known sites in Epidemiology and
outcomes in populations living within 2 km of 9565 Public Health,
Great Britain. Imperial College, St
landfill sites operational at some time between 1982 Mary’s Campus,
and 1997 (from a total of 19 196 sites) compared with London W2 1PG
those living further away. Methods Paul Elliott
director
Setting Great Britain. Classification of populations near landfill sites David Briggs
Subjects Over 8.2 million live births, 43 471 stillbirths, Data provided by the national regulatory agencies were professor of
and 124 597 congenital anomalies (including merged in a geographical information system to give a environment and
terminations). health
database containing 19 196 sites. Data on boundaries Sara Morris
Main outcome measures All congenital anomalies were unavailable for most sites, so point locations had research associate
combined, some specific anomalies, and prevalence to be used. These comprised the site centroids for 70% Cornelis de Hoogh
of low and very low birth weight ( < 2500 g and of sites and, for the remainder, the location of the site research associate
< 1500 g). gateway at the time of reporting. Data for site locations Christopher Hurt
research associate
Results For all anomalies combined, relative risk of were of low accuracy (often rounded to 1000 metres), Tina Kold Jensen
residence near landfill sites (all waste types) was 0.92 and data on area were inadequate to allow estimation lecturer
(99% confidence interval 0.907 to 0.923) unadjusted, of the extent of most sites. Landfill sites also change Ian Maitland
and 1.01 (1.005 to 1.023) adjusted for confounders. considerably over time as old areas are closed and new database manager
Adjusted risks were 1.05 (1.01 to 1.10) for neural tube Sylvia Richardson
areas develop, while postcodes (used to define the loca- professor of statistics
defects, 0.96 (0.93 to 0.99) for cardiovascular defects, tion of cases and births) give only an approximation of Jon Wakefield
1.07 (1.04 to 1.10) for hypospadias and epispadias place of residence, accurate to 10-100 metres in urban reader in statistics
(with no excess of surgical correction), 1.08 (1.01 to areas but > 1 km in some rural areas; also, landfill sites Lars Jarup
1.15) for abdominal wall defects, 1.19 (1.05 to 1.34) assistant director
are highly clustered, so that individual postcodes may
for surgical correction of gastroschisis and lie close to 30 or more sites. Therefore, distance from Correspondence
and reprint
exomphalos, and 1.05 (1.047 to 1.055) and 1.04 nearest landfill site was not regarded as a meaningful requests to:
(1.03 to 1.05) for low and very low birth weight proxy for exposure. As a compromise between the P Elliott
respectively. There was no excess risk of stillbirth. need for spatial precision and the limited accuracy of [email protected]
Findings for special (hazardous) waste sites did not the data, we constructed a 2 km zone around each site
BMJ 2001;323:363–8
differ systematically from those for non-special (figure), giving resolution similar to or higher than that
sites. For some specific anomalies, higher risks of previous studies,10 11 and at the likely limit of disper-
were found in the period before opening sion for landfill emissions.14 Postcodes within the 2 km
compared with after opening of a landfill site, buffer zone were classified hierarchically by opera-
especially hospital admissions for abdominal wall tional status, year on year, such that sites still operating
defects. took precedence over those closed earlier in the study
Conclusions We found small excess risks of period, which took precedence over sites opening later
congenital anomalies and low and very low birth in the study period.15 People living more than 2 km
weight in populations living near landfill sites. No from all known landfill sites during the study period
causal mechanisms are available to explain these comprised the reference population.
findings, and alternative explanations include data Because of concerns about the quality of landfill
artefacts and residual confounding. Further studies data for earlier years, and because health data were
are needed to help differentiate between the various available only to 1998, we excluded 9631 sites (25% of
possibilities. the population) that closed before 1982 or opened
after 1997 (to allow a one year lag period for the birth
outcomes) or for which there were inadequate data.
Introduction The remaining 9565 sites comprised 774 sites for spe-
Waste disposal by landfill accounts for over 80% of cial (hazardous) waste, 7803 for non-special waste, and
municipal waste in Britain.1 Human exposure to toxic 988 handling unknown wastes. The 2 km surrounding
chemicals in landfill (which include volatile organic these sites included 55% of the national population;
compounds, pesticides, solvents, and heavy metals2–4) 20% were included in the reference area.
may occur by dispersion of contaminated air or soil,2 Health and denominator data
leaching or runoff,5 or by animals and birds, although We used national postcoded registers held by the Small
evidence for any substantial exposures is largely Area Health Statistics Unit. These comprised the
lacking.6 Excess risks of congenital anomalies and low National Congenital Anomaly System in England and

BMJ VOLUME 323 18 AUGUST 2001 bmj.com 363

Papers CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Fact
PackPact
1 151

Q00-Q99); neural tube defects (ICD-9 740.0-740.2,

741.0-741.9, 742.0; ICD-10 Q00.0-Q00.2, Q05.0-
Q05.9, Q01.0-Q01.9); cardiovascular defects (ICD-9
745.0-747.9; ICD-10 Q20.0-Q28.9); abdominal wall
defects (ICD-9 756.7; ICD-10 Q79.2-Q79.4); hypospa-
dias and epispadias (ICD-9 752.6; ICD-10 Q54.0-
Q54.9, Q64.0); surgical correction of hypospadias and
epispadias (M731, M732); and surgical correction of
gastroschisis and exomphalos (T281). Multiple anoma-
lies were counted under each outcome (once only for
all anomalies combined).
Surgical corrections (England and Scotland only)
were analysed by date of birth, not date of surgical pro-
cedure. For hypospadias and epispadias, we included
only procedures carried out before the age of 3 years,
and, for gastroschisis and exomphalos, in the first year
of life only. Low and very low birth weights were
defined as < 2500 g and < 1500 g respectively. The
relevant denominators and years of analysis are shown
in table 1.

Statistical methods
We calculated risks for the population within 2 km of
landfill relative to the reference population by indirect
standardisation, assuming a common relative risk for
all landfill sites. We used model predictions from Pois-
son regression of data from the reference area to pro-
vide standard rates. The regression function included
year of birth, administrative region (n = 10), sex (for
birth weight and stillbirths), and deprivation. We
obtained deprivation by assigning postcodes to tertiles
of the national distribution of the Carstairs’ depriva-
tion index16 based on 1991 census statistics at
enumeration district level (we used tertiles rather than
quintiles of the Carstairs index because of the small
number of events for the rarer outcomes in the most
deprived part of the reference area). We used a
descending stepwise selection procedure starting from
the fullest model including all possible interactions.
This was repeated without deprivation, and then the
two models were constrained (where necessary) to dif-
fer only in terms of deprivation (table 2). For the hospi-
tal admissions data (where there were fewer years),
unadjusted and deprivation-adjusted results only were
obtained, and no modelling was done.
Some degree of overdispersion and a widening of
the confidence intervals is to be expected if our model
assumptions fail to hold (for example, because of data
anomalies, unmeasured confounding, or sampling
variability of the rates). We therefore calculated Poisson
99% (rather than 95%) confidence intervals, but this
Map of Great Britain showing 2 km zones around landfill sites and reference area does not necessarily ensure that all additional variabil-
ity has been captured—we emphasise estimation of
Wales, 1983-98, and data on terminations, 1992-8, per- relative risks and their stability (or otherwise) to choice
formed for “grounds E” of the 1967 Abortions Act of model confounders rather than significance testing.
(“where there is a substantial risk that if the child were We assessed the sensitivity of our results to model
born it would suffer from such physical or mental choice by using an alternative model for each birth
abnormality as to be seriously handicapped”); congeni- outcome (table 2). We also included urban or rural sta-
tal anomaly and terminations data for Scotland, 1988- tus and examined risks for rural areas only, and for
94; hospital admissions data for England and Scotland, birth weight (where data were sufficient) we examined
1993-8 (Welsh data were considered unreliable); and sensitivity to the use of quintiles (rather than tertiles) of
national births and stillbirths data, 1983-98. the Carstairs index. For abdominal wall defects, we also
Cases were coded to ICD-9 (international classifi- examined maternal age ( < 20 and >20 years, available
cation of diseases, ninth revision) from 1983 to 1994, 1986-98 for England and Wales only).17
and to ICD-10 thereafter. Outcomes were all congeni- The main analysis identified at outset was for all
tal anomalies combined (ICD-9 740-59; ICD-10 landfill sites for the combined period during their

364 BMJ VOLUME 323 18 AUGUST 2001 bmj.com

 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Fact Pact
Papers
Pack 1 152

Table 1 Denominators and years for analyses of birth outcomes near landfill sites (within 2 km) and in reference area (>2 km from any site), and before
opening and during operation and after closure for sites that opened during the study period
Sites that opened during study
period (all waste types) by
All operating and closed sites by waste type operating status
Special Non-special Reference During operation
Analysis Denominator Years All waste waste area Before opening and after closure
Congenital anomalies* Live births, E, W 1983-98; S 5 825 575 803 833 4 517 196 2 026 074 429 160 4 150 320
stillbirths, and 1988-94
terminations
Surgical corrections (hypospadias and Live male births E, S 1993-5 585 414 67 281 469 149 199 974 9 982 424 271
epispadias)†
Hospital admissions (abdominal wall Live births E, S 1993-7 1 903 892 222 179 1 522 851 646 415 21 282 1 384 135
defects) or surgical corrections
(gastroschisis and exomphalos)†
Stillbirths Live births and E, S, W 1983-98 6 062 700 825 456 4 725 120 2 177 796 461 776 4 295 686
stillbirths
Low and very low birth weight Live births E, S, W 1983-98 6 030 429 821 124 4 699 860 2 166 596 459 358 4 272 510
E=England, W=Wales, S=Scotland.
*Includes terminations for England and Wales 1992-8, for Scotland 1988-94. For hypospadias and epispadias, denominator data are male live births and stillbirths only: numbers are 2 983 963
(all landfill sites), 412 201 (special waste sites), 2 313 135 (non-special waste sites), 1 037 320 (reference area), 220 227 (before opening of sites), 2 125 477 (after opening of sites).
†England and Scotland only.

operation and after closure. Subsidiary analyses exam- of age (7.7% v 6.1%) and, among women aged 15-44,
ined risks separately for special and non-special waste included (1991 census) a higher proportion of women
sites, and in the period before and after opening for the of Indian, Pakistani, or Bangladeshi origin (4.8% v
5260 landfill sites with available data.17 3.2%) and a lower proportion of black women (2.0% v
3.4%).
Table 3 shows the numbers of cases for each birth
Results outcome and relative risks for the area near landfill
Urban or rural status and Carstairs index were strongly compared with the reference area. The relative risk for
correlated. Within the reference area, 49% of the most all congenital anomalies combined was 0.92 (99% con-
affluent tertile of areas was classified as rural (7% for fidence interval 0.907 to 0.923) unadjusted, and 1.01
the most deprived tertile), while for all outcomes rates (1.005 to 1.023) adjusted for deprivation and other
were higher in the most deprived areas compared with confounders. After adjustment for deprivation (which
the most affluent areas: the ratio ranged from 1.02 reduced excess risks) relative risk was 1.05 (1.01 to
(surgical correction of hypospadias and epispadias) to 1.10) for neural tube defects, 1.08 (1.01 to 1.15) for
1.52 (very low birth weight).17 The area within 2 km of abdominal wall defects (and 1.07 (0.98 to 1.18) for hos-
the 9565 landfill sites tended to be more deprived than pital admissions), 1.19 (1.05 to 1.34) for surgical
the reference area: 34% (v 23%) of the population were correction of gastroschisis and exomphalos, and 1.05
in the most deprived tertile of Carstairs score (36% for (1.047 to 1.055) and 1.04 (1.03 to 1.05) for low and very
special waste sites). The area near landfill also had a low birth weight respectively. The risk was 0.96 (0.93 to
higher proportion of births to mothers under 20 years 0.99) for cardiovascular defects and 1.07(1.04 to 1.10)

Table 2 Models chosen by the stepwise selection procedure in the reference area for each outcome*
No of parameters in Terms added in
Outcome Model chosen model alternative model†
Deprivation unadjusted
All anomalies Year+region+region:year 151 —
Neural tube defects Year+region 25 Region:year
Cardiovascular defects Year+region 25 Region:year
Hypospadias and epispadias Year+region 25 Region:year
Abdominal wall defects Year+region 25 Region:year
Stillbirth Year+region+sex+region:sex 35 Region:year
Low birth weight Year+region+sex 26 Region:year
Very low birth weight Year+region 25 Region:year
Deprivation adjusted
All anomalies Deprivation+year+region+region:deprivation+region:year 171 Year:deprivation
Neural tube defects Deprivation+year+region 27 Region:year
Cardiovascular defects Deprivation+year+region+region:deprivation 45 Region:year
Hypospadias and epispadias Deprivation‡+year+region 27 Region:year
Abdominal wall defects Deprivation+year+region 27 Region:year
Stillbirth Deprivation+year+region+sex+region:sex 37 Deprivation:year
Low birth weight Deprivation+year+region+sex+region:deprivation+deprivation:sex 48 Region:year
Very low birth weight Deprivation+year+region+region:deprivation 45 Deprivation:year
Interactions are denoted by “:”
*No modelling was done for the hospital admissions data.
†Terms added in alternative model used in sensitivity analysis, defined as the most important term excluded at the last step (no alternative is shown for all anomalies
combined, deprivation unadjusted, because the model is already saturated).
‡Deprivation not selected by stepwise selection process but was added as a main effect.

BMJ VOLUME 323 18 AUGUST 2001 bmj.com 365

Papers CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Fact
PackPact
1 153

Table 3 Risks of congenital anomalies, stillbirths, and low and very low birth weight in populations living within 2 km of a landfill site (all waste types)
during operation or after closure compared with those in the reference area (>2 km from any site)
Near landfill (<2 km) Reference area Relative risk (99% CI)
Rate (per Rate (per Adjusted (but not for Adjusted (and for
Birth outcome No of cases 100 000 births) No of cases 100 000 births) Unadjusted deprivation) deprivation)
Congenital anomalies (register and terminations data*)
All congenital anomalies 90 272 1550 34 325 1694 0.92 (0.907 to 0.923) 1.01 (1.00 to 1.02) 1.01 (1.005 to 1.023)
Neural tube defects 3 508 60 1 140 56 1.07 (1.02 to 1.12) 1.08 (1.03 to 1.12) 1.05 (1.01 to 1.10)
Cardiovascular defects 6 723 115 2 716 134 0.86 (0.83 to 0.89) 0.95 (0.92 to 0.98) 0.96 (0.93 to 0.99)
Hypospadias and epispadias† 7 363 247 2 485 240 1.03 (1.00 to 1.06) 1.07 (1.04 to 1.10) 1.07 (1.04 to 1.10)
Abdominal wall defects 1 488 26 448 22 1.16 (1.08 to 1.23) 1.14 (1.06 to 1.22) 1.08 (1.01 to 1.15)
Congenital anomalies (hospital admissions)
Hypospadias and epispadias‡ 1 503 257 536 268 0.96 (0.90 to 1.02) — 0.96 (0.90 to 1.02)
Abdominal wall defects 755 40 227 35 1.13 (1.03 to 1.24) — 1.07 (0.98 to 1.18)
Gastroschisis and 467 25 126 19 1.26 (1.12 to 1.42) — 1.19 (1.05 to 1.34)
exomphalos‡
Stillbirths and birth weight
Stillbirths 32 271 532 11 200 514 1.04 (1.02 to 1.05) 1.05 (1.03 to 1.06) 1.00 (0.99 to 1.02)
Low birth weight 422 149 7000 137 958 6367 1.10 (1.095 to 1.104) 1.11 (1.102 to 1.111) 1.05 (1.047 to 1.055)
Very low birth weight 62 191 1031 20 858 963 1.07 (1.06 to 1.08) 1.08 (1.07 to 1.09) 1.04 (1.03 to 1.05)
See table 1 for denominators and years of analysis and table 2 for adjustments.
*Terminations included for England and Wales 1992-8, Scotland 1988-94.
†Excludes terminations (3 cases).
‡Surgical corrections.

and 0.96 (0.90 to 1.02), respectively, for hypospadias rural status did not materially alter results with
and epispadias and their surgical correction (for which deprivation included, though modelling of data for
deprivation adjustment had little or no effect). rural areas only (where numbers of cases were much
Table 4 summarises findings (adjusted for depriva- lower than in the main analysis) did reduce risk
tion) for the special and non-special waste sites, and for estimates for neural tube defects and hypospadias and
the sites that opened during the study period. For spe- epispadias—relative risks (for all waste types, depriva-
cial waste sites, risks above one were found for all but tion adjusted) were 0.99 (0.89 to 1.10) and 1.01 (0.94 to
two outcomes, ranging up to 1.11 (1.03 to 1.21) for 1.09) respectively. Inclusion of maternal age as a
cardiovascular defects and for hypospadias and confounder had only a small effect on risk of abdomi-
epispadias. For the specific anomalies, except neural nal wall defects.17
tube and cardiovascular defects, risks were higher in
the period before opening of a landfill site compared
with after opening, especially for hospital admissions
Discussion
for abdominal wall defects. For birth weight and This is by far the largest study of associations between
stillbirth, risks were higher after opening. residence near landfill and adverse birth outcomes. We
Sensitivity analysis showed that the risk estimates found a small excess risk of neural tube defects,
were robust to the different models used.17 Urban or abdominal wall defects, surgical correction of gastro-

Table 4 Estimated relative risks (99% confidence intervals) of birth outcomes for populations living within 2 km of a landfill site,
adjusted for deprivation and other variables* according to waste type and to operating status for those sites that opened during the
study period
Sites that opened during study period (all
All operating and closed sites, by waste type waste types), by operating status†
During operation or
Birth outcome All wastes Special waste Non-special waste Before opening after closure
Congenital anomalies (register and terminations data‡)
All congenital anomalies 1.01 (1.005 to 1.023) 1.07 (1.04 to 1.09) 1.02 (1.01 to 1.03) 1.02 (0.99 to 1.05) 1.00 (0.99 to 1.01)
Neural tube defects 1.05 (1.01 to 1.10) 1.07 (0.95 to 1.20) 1.06 (1.01 to 1.12) 0.98 (0.82 to 1.16) 1.05 (0.99 to 1.10)
Cardiovascular defects 0.96 (0.93 to 0.99) 1.11 (1.03 to 1.21) 0.95 (0.91 to 0.98) 0.92 (0.81 to 1.04) 0.92 (0.88 to 0.95)
Hypospadias and epispadias§ 1.07 (1.04 to 1.10) 1.11 (1.03 to 1.21) 1.07 (1.04 to 1.11) 1.08 (0.98 to 1.19) 1.05 (1.02 to 1.09)
Abdominal wall defects 1.08 (1.01 to 1.15) 1.03 (0.86 to 1.25) 1.07 (0.99 to 1.16) 1.24 (0.97 to 1.60) 1.06 (0.98 to 1.14)
Congenital anomalies (hospital admissions)
Hypospadias and epispadias¶ 0.96 (0.90 to 1.02) 0.98 (0.81 to 1.19) 0.96 (0.90 to 1.04) 1.42 (0.94 to 2.16) 0.93 (0.86 to 1.00)
Abdominal wall defects 1.07 (0.98 to 1.18) 1.08 (0.82 to 1.42) 1.05 (0.94 to 1.16) 2.26 (1.23 to 4.15) 1.12 (1.01 to 1.25)
Gastroschisis and exomphalos¶ 1.19 (1.05 to 1.34) 1.10 (0.77 to 1.58) 1.18 (1.03 to 1.34) 1.33 (0.46 to 3.81) 1.24 (1.09 to 1.42)
Stillbirths and birth weight
Stillbirths 1.00 (0.99 to 1.02) 0.99 (0.95 to 1.03) 1.00 (0.99 to 1.02) 1.01 (0.96 to 1.06) 1.02 (1.00 to 1.03)
Low birth weight 1.05 (1.047 to 1.055) 1.05 (1.04 to 1.06) 1.06 (1.052 to 1.062) 1.01 (0.99 to 1.02) 1.07 (1.062 to 1.072)
Very low birth weight 1.04 (1.03 to 1.05) 1.03 (1.00 to 1.06) 1.04 (1.03 to 1.06) 0.98 (0.94 to 1.02) 1.04 (1.03 to 1.05)
See table 1 for denominators and years of analysis.
*See table 2 for other variables adjusted for.
†522 landfill sites with available data for hospital admissions.
‡Terminations included for England and Wales 1992-8, Scotland 1988-94.
§Excludes terminations (3 cases).
¶ Surgical corrections.

366 BMJ VOLUME 323 18 AUGUST 2001 bmj.com

 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Fact Pact
Papers
Pack 1 154

schisis and exomphalos, low and very low birth weight.

What is already known on this topic
Findings for cardiovascular defects and hypospadias
and epispadias were inconsistent, and there was no Various studies have found excess risks of certain congenital anomalies
association with stillbirth. By including all landfill sites and low birth weight near landfill sites
in Great Britain and using routine data sources, we
avoided the possibility of bias from selective report- Risks up to two to three times higher have been reported
ing18 19 and maximised statistical power, but problems
with data quality and confounding could have led to These studies have been difficult to interpret because of problems of
spurious associations.20 These merit further discussion. exposure classification, small sample size, confounding, and reporting
bias
Exposure classification and data quality issues
In the absence of information on site or geological fac- What this study adds
tors affecting emissions from landfill, we examined Some 80% of the British population lives within 2 km of known landfill
data for special waste sites as a proxy for potential haz- sites in Great Britain
ard. The UK practice of co-disposal of special and non-
special wastes (in contrast, for example, with US By including all landfill sites in the country, we avoided the problem of
“superfund” sites3) means that most special waste sites selective reporting, and maximised statistical power
handle small volumes of hazardous wastes. They are
subject to stricter management and design standards Although we found excess risks of congenital anomalies and low birth
than other UK sites, while hazardous wastes may have weight near landfill sites in Great Britain, they were smaller than in
been disposed of, unreported, in non-special sites. some other studies
Thus exposure risks from special waste sites may be no
greater than from other sites. Exposures to environ- Further work is needed to differentiate potential data artefacts and
mental contamination from sources other than landfill confounding effects from possible causal associations with landfill
may also be relevant because sites tend to be located in
old mineral or other excavations, often on old
industrial or contaminated land or close to current
and, unlike in the United States,28 location of waste sites
industrial activities.
near ethnic minority communities was not a key feature.
A key issue was the possibility of misclassification
Increased risks (about 1.5 to 2) of low and very low birth
from use of a 2 km zone to define proximity to landfill
weight,29 30 and (more weakly) of certain congenital
sites. However, in view of the low spatial resolution of
anomalies (especially neural tube defects31) have been
the landfill data (hundreds of metres) and complex
reported among offspring of women of South Asian
nature of landfill sites, using finer subdivisions of the
origin,32 but the higher proportions of women of Indian,
2 km zone or distance as a continuous measure to
Pakistani, or Bangladeshi origin living near landfill sites
examine proxy dose-response relationships would
compared with the reference area would explain only
not yield meaningful results. Misclassification of
around 1% excess in our study.
potential exposure to landfill may also have occurred
Secondly, we examined rates both before and after
if mothers moved home during the relevant period
the opening of landfill sites that opened during the study
after conception.21
period. Because this analysis is restricted to one set of
While the data for births and stillbirths are well
areas, it is less subject to confounding by socio-
recorded, the national congenital anomaly system in
demographic factors than comparisons between differ-
England and Wales is known to be incomplete22 (though
ent areas—although confounding by temporal trends
we found relative over-reporting in Scotland), and there
(which are strong for some of the health outcomes stud-
were marked fluctuations in rates of anomalies over the
ied here17) is possible. Consequently, we did not compare
study period, partly because of coding changes23 and the
the risks before and after opening directly but estimated
dates that the terminations data became available. We
each with respect to the reference region. We found
adjusted for calendar year to deal with fluctuating rates,
excess risks for some specific anomalies in the period
but ascertainment artefacts could have biased our results
before opening (and which were higher than in the
(in either direction) if they were differential with respect
period during operation or after closure, especially for
to landfill locations. Though we had no reason to suspect
hospital admission for abdominal wall defects). This
that this had occurred, such inconsistencies could
implies that factors other than landfill might be respon-
explain differences of the order detected in this study.
sible. The Nant-y-Gwyddon study also noted an excess
On the other hand, we included data on terminations to
risk of all congenital anomalies combined before the site
improve ascertainment, especially for neural tube
was opened.11
defects, and included data on hospital admissions and
A possible causal association with landfill should
surgical corrections to give an independent source of
also be considered. Given the large heterogeneity
data for those specific anomalies.
between landfill sites and the likelihood that the effect
Confounding of any emissions would be greatest close to the sites,33
We addressed confounding in two ways. Firstly, analysis causal effects related to particular landfill sites might
included potential confounders, with and without have been greatly diluted. None the less, we know of no
adjustment for deprivation. Residual confounding may causal mechanism that might explain our findings, and
persist if the adjustment did not account completely for there is considerable uncertainty as to the extent of any
relevant individual characteristics such as smoking,24 possible exposure to chemicals found in landfills.6 Fur-
drug use,25 and infections during pregnancy.26 As in the ther understanding of the potential toxicity of landfill
Eurohazcon study,10 maternal age (for risk of abdominal emissions and possible exposure pathways is needed in
wall defects27) did not seem to be a strong confounder, order to help interpret the epidemiological findings.

BMJ VOLUME 323 18 AUGUST 2001 bmj.com 367

Papers CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Fact
PackPact
1 155

We thank the Office for National Statistics, the Department of tem and musculoskeletal birth defects. Arch Environ Health 1997;52:416-
Health, and the Information and Statistics Division of the Scot- 25.
14 World Health Organization. Methods of assessing risk to health from exposure
tish Health Service for providing data on congenital anomalies,
to hazards released from waste landfills. Report from a WHO meeting Lodz,
births, stillbirths, and hospital admissions. We thank the Poland, 10-12 April 2000. Bilthoven, Netherlands: WHO Regional Office
Environment Agency in England and Wales and the Scottish For Europe, European Centre for Environment and Health, 2001.
Environment Protection Agency for providing data on landfill 15 Briggs D, de Hoogh K, Hurt C, Maitland I. A geographical analysis of popu-
and for their help in resolving discrepancies. The views lations living around landfill sites. London: Small Area Health Statistics
expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not Unit, Imperial College, 2001. (SAHSU Technical Report 2001.1.)
16 Carstairs V, Morris R. Deprivation: explaining differences between
necessarily those of the funding departments, data providers, or mortality between Scotland and England. BMJ 1989;299:886-9.
of Office for National Statistics. We thank Sean Reed and Rich- 17 Elliott P, Morris S, Briggs D, Hurt C, de Hoogh C, Maitland I, et al. Birth
ard Arnold for their help in preliminary analyses and Alex outcomes and selected cancers in populations living near landfill sites. Report to
Lewin for help in the statistical analysis. the Department of Health. London: Small Area Health Statistics Unit,
Contributors: PE and LJ initiated the project and, with DB Imperial College, 2001.
and SM, drafted the paper. DB, CdH, CH, and IM performed the 18 Roht LH, Vernon SW, Weir FW, Pier SM, Sullivan P, Reed LJ. Community
exposure to hazardous waste disposal sites: assessing reporting bias. Am J
analysis of landfill sites. SM, CH, and IM performed the statisti- Epidemiol 1985;122:418-33.
cal analysis, overseen by JW and SR. TKJ contributed to the epi- 19 Neutra R, Lipscomb J, Satin K, Shusterman D. Hypotheses to explain the
demiological analysis and interpretation. All authors contrib- higher symptom rates observed around hazardous waste sites. Environ
uted to and approved the final paper. PE is guarantor for the Health Perspect 1991;94: 31-8.
paper. 20 Elliott P, Wakefield JC. Bias and confounding in spatial epidemiology. In:
Elliott P, Wakefield JC, Best NG, Briggs D, eds. Spatial epidemiology: methods
Funding: The Small Area Health Statistics Unit is funded by
and applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000:68-84.
a grant from the Department of Health; Department of the 21 Schulman J, Selvin S, Shaw GM, Malcoe LH. Exposure misclassification
Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs; Environment Agency; due to residential mobility during pregnancy in epidemiologic investiga-
Health and Safety Executive; Scottish Executive; National tions of congenital malformations. Arch Environ Health 1993;48:114-9.
Assembly for Wales; and Northern Ireland Assembly. 22 Working Group of the Registrar General’s Medical Advisory Committee.
Competing interests: None declared. The OPCS monitoring scheme for congenital malformations. London: Office of
Population Censuses and Surveys, 1995. (Occasional paper 43.)
23 Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. A statistical review of
notifications of congenital malformations received as part of the England and
1 Digest of environmental statistics. London: Department of the Environment, Wales monitoring system, 1992. Congenital malformations statistics notifica-
Transport and the Regions, 2001.
tions. London: HMSO, 1992.
2 Ward RS, Williams GM, Hills CC. Changes in major and trace
24 Wasserman CR, Shaw GM, O’Malley CD, Tolarova MM, Lammer EJ.
components of landfill gas during subsurface migration. Waste Manage
Parental cigarette smoking and risk for congenital anomalies of the heart,
Res 1996;14:243-61.
neural tube, or limb. Teratology 1996;53:261-7.
3 Johnson BL, DeRosa C. The toxicologic hazard of superfund hazardous-
25 Torfs CP, Velie EM, Oechsli FW, Bateson TF, Curry CJ. A
waste sites. Rev Environ Health 1997;12:235-51.
population-based study of gastroschisis: demographic, pregnancy, and
4 Hamar GB, McGeehin MA, Phifer BL, Ashley DL. Volatile organic com-
lifestyle risk factors. Teratology 1994;50:44-53.
pound testing of a population living near a hazardous waste site. J Expo
26 Lynberg MC, Khoury MJ, Lu X, Cocian T. Maternal flu, fever, and the risk
Anal Environ Epidemiol 1996;6:247-55.
5 El-Fadel M, Findikakis AN, Leckie JO. Environmental impacts of solid of neural tube defects: a population-based case-control study. Am J Epide-
waste landfilling. J Environ Manage 1997;50:1-25. miol 1994;140:244-55.
6 Vrijheid M. Health effects of residence near hazardous waste landfill sites: 27 Tan KH, Kilby MD, Whittle MJ, Beattie BR, Booth IW, Botting BJ.
a review of epidemiologic literature. Environ Health Perspect Congenital anterior abdominal wall defects in England and Wales 1987-
2000;108:101-12. 93: retrospective analysis of OPCS data. BMJ 1996;313:903-6.
7 Geschwind SA, Stolwijk JA, Bracken M, Fitzgerald E, Stark A, Olsen C, et 28 Soliman MR, Derosa CT, Mielke HW, Bota K. Hazardous wastes, hazard-
al. Risk of congenital malformations associated with proximity to hazard- ous materials and environmental health inequity. Toxicol Ind Health
ous waste sites. Am J Epidemiol 1992;135:1197-207. 1993;9:901-12.
8 Shaw GM, Schulman J, Frisch JD, Cummins SK, Harris JA. Congenital 29 Afflick EF, Hessol NA. Impact of Asian ethnicity and national origin on
malformations and birthweight in areas with potential environmental infant birth weight. Am J Epidemiol 1997;145:148-55.
contamination. Arch Environ Health 1992;47:147-54. 30 Parsons L, Duley L, Alberman E. Socio-economic and ethnic factors in
9 Vianna NJ, Polan AK. Incidence of low birth weight among Love Canal stillbirth and neonatal mortality in the NE Thames Regional Health
residents. Science 1984;226:1217-9. Authority (NETRHA) 1983. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990;97:237-44.
10 Dolk H, Vrijheid M, Armstrong B, Abramsky L, Bianchi F, Garne E, et al. 31 Balarajan R, Raleigh VS, Botting B. Mortality from congenital malforma-
Risk of congenital anomalies near hazardous-waste landfill sites in tions in England and Wales: variations by mother’s country of birth. Arch
Europe: the EUROHAZCON study. Lancet 1998;352:423-7. Dis Child 1989;64:1457-62.
11 Fielder HM, Poon-King CM, Palmer SR, Moss N, Coleman G. Assessment 32 Leck I, Lancashire RJ. Birth prevalence of malformations in members of
of impact on health of residents living near the Nant-y-Gwyddon landfill different ethnic groups and in the offspring of matings between them, in
site: retrospective analysis. BMJ 2000;320:19-22. Birmingham England. J Epidemiol Community Health 1995;49:171-9.
12 Croen LA, Shaw GM, Sanbonmatsu L, Selvin S, Buffler PA. Maternal resi- 33 US Environmental Protection Agency. Revised risk assessment for the air
dential proximity to hazardous waste sites and risk for selected congeni- characteristic study. Volume 1, overview. Washington: US EPA, Office of Solid
tal malformations. Epidemiology 1997;8:347-54. Waste, 1999. (530-R-99-19a.)
13 Marshall EG, Gensburg LJ, Deres DA, Geary NS, Cayo MR. Maternal
residential exposure to hazardous wastes and risk of central nervous sys- (Accepted 3 August 2001)

368 BMJ VOLUME 323 18 AUGUST 2001 bmj.com

Largest ever study into health of populations around landfill sites published

CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Fact
PackPact
1 156

News releases

Largest ever study into health of populations around landfill sites

published
Published date: 16 August 2001

A major study into the possible health risks for populations living around landfill sites is published today. The Small Area Health Statistics Unit
(SAHSU) studied the rates of birth defects, low birthweight, stillbirths, and of certain cancers in populations living within 2km of landfill sites. The
group examined 9,565 landfill sites that were in operation between 1982 and 1997. It is the most extensive study into landfill sites anywhere in the
world.

The study was commissioned in response to public concerns about the possible health effects of living close to landfill sites. SAHSU, an
independent unit funded by government departments, found that 80 per cent of the population lives within 2 kilometres of a landfill site.

Results on birth outcomes of the SAHSU study will be published in the British Medical Journal on 17 August. The key findings are:

the study found no increase in rates of cancer in populations living close to landfill sites

the rate of congenital anomalies in populations living within 2km of all landfills is one per cent more than expected

the rate of congenital anomalies in populations living within 2km of landfill sites containing hazardous waste is seven per cent more than
expected

rates of low birth weight babies are around five per cent higher near to landfill sites, but there is no difference in the rate of stillbirths

rates of birth defects did not increase, and in some cases reduced, after landfill sites were opened in certain areas

The SAHSU study says that it is not clear at present that landfills are causing these effects and that other explanations are possible. These could
include limits in the information available for the study, or the possibility that the study did not completely take into account other factors which
increase the risk of birth defects or low birth weight. They recommend that further work is done to distinguish between these possibilities.

The Government's expert advisory Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) noted that the
findings for the birth outcomes were not consistent and that the study provided no evidence that rates of anomalies increased after landfill sites
opened. They commented that this made it difficult to draw conclusions about the possible health effects of landfill sites on the basis of this study.
The COT recommended that the finding of a 7 per cent higher rate of congenital anomalies around special waste sites merited further investigation,
whether or not it was related to the presence of the landfill sites.

Dr Pat Troop, Deputy Chief Medical Officer, said:

“"This is an important study and the Government is taking it seriously. The results are difficult to interpret and we need to put them into context. We
cannot say that there is no risk from landfill sites, but given the small numbers of congenital anomalies and the uncertainties in the findings, we are
not changing our advice to pregnant women and they should continue with the recommended ante-natal programme."”

This study is part of an ongoing Government-funded research programme to investigate the possible impact of landfill sites on human health. In
response to the recommendation of the COT, SAHSU will be asked to look further at the data to see if it is possible to identify any areas with
particularly high rates of birth defects and to further investigate what these might be associated with.

Notes to editor
1. The Small Area Health Statistics Unit (SAHSU) was established in 1987, to investigate the incidence of disease around sources of
environmental pollution and to advise government. It is wholly funded by government departments of Health; Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs; Health and Safety Executive, Scottish Executive; National Assembly of Wales; Environment Agency; and Northern Ireland
Department of Health, Social Security and Public Safety.

2. A full report of the study will be published on the DH website at: www.doh.gov.uk/landh.htm A paper publishing the results of the birth

1 of 2
Largest ever study into health of populations around landfill sites published

CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Fact
PackPact
1 157
outcomes analyses is published in the British Medical Journal on 17 August 2001.

3. In summer 1998, a report of the EUROHAZCON study was published in the Lancet. This investigated the incidence of congenital anomaly
around 21 hazardous waste landfill sites in 5 European countries. It found an increased risk of congenital anomaly in babies whose mothers
live close to the landfill sites. The study did not establish cause and effect, but concluded that there was a need for further work.

4. The SAHSU study was part of ongoing work to look at potential health impacts from landfill sites. Other research underway includes a
review of the known causes of birth defects, a review of the potential for substances emanating from landfill sites to cause birth defects, a
study of the geographical variation in overall rates of birth defects and the rates of specific anomalies, and a detailed study of emissions
from landfill sites.

5. It is Government policy to reduce reliance on landfill. The Government's Waste Strategy 2000 set out a comprehensive strategy to reduce
reliance on landfill, to reduce waste, to recycle it and to gain value from waste. The EU Landfill Directive which came into force on 16 July
2001 imposes stringent targets on the UK to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste which it landfills to 35% of that produced
in 1995 by 2020. The WS 2000 also sets challenging targets for increasing household recycling and composting and a target to reduce the
amount of industrial and commercial waste landfilled. We produce over 100 million tonnes of waste a year from households, commerce and
industry alone. Most waste produced in England and Wales goes to landfill. About 83% of municipal waste and 54% of commercial and
industrial waste are managed in this way.

6. Landfills are subject to strict controls. The purpose of the licensing system is to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of in ways which
protect the environment and human health. Landfill sites are subject to strict licensing and regulatory controls by the Environment Agency in
England and Wales and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) in Scotland. The purpose of the licensing system is to ensure
that waste is recovered or disposed of in ways which protect the environment and human health. Details of landfill sites can be found on the
public registers of the EA and SEPA, and information about landfill sites in England and Wales can be found at
www.environment-agency.gov.uk/yourenv/

7. The EU Landfill Directive will impose additional requirements on landfill including banning some wastes from landfill altogether and
requiring that waste is pre-treated before it is landfilled. Regulations to implement the Directive were issued for consultation on 8 August.

8. For further information contact Department of Health media centre on 0207 210570752334860 or DEFRA press office 0207 238 5391

Contact: Press officer

Address: Media Centre, Department of Health

Richmond House, 79 Whitehall
London
SW1A 2NL

Phone: Media Centre

020 7210 5221

2 of 2
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Fact
PackPact
1 4 158
U.S. National Library of Medicine
and the National Institues of Health

1: J Occup Environ Med. 1997 Nov;39(11):1103-10.

Health study of New York City Department of Sanitation landfill employees.

Gelberg KH.
New York State Department of Health, Bureau of Occupational Health, Albany 12203,
USA.

Employees currently working at a large municipal landfill expressed

concern that they experience higher rates of illness than other municipal
sanitation workers. Therefore, this study was designed to examine acute
health effects among employees working at the New York City Department
of Sanitation, with special emphasis upon the landfill workers. Interviews
conducted with 238 landfill and 262 off-site male employees asked
questions about health symptoms experienced in the six months prior to
the interview and about workplace exposures. This study found a higher
prevalence among landfill employees of work-related dermatologic,
neurologic, hearing, and respiratory symptoms, and sore and itching
throats than among off-site employees. The respiratory and dermatologic
symptoms were not associated with any specific occupational title or work
task, other than working at the landfill. Off-site laborers experienced more
neuromuscular symptoms and injuries.
PMID: 9383721 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

1 of 1
 $)&+
-BOEGJMM
'BJMVSFT
'1

CHEJ Landfill Failures Fact Pact 159
Environmental Research 111 (2011) 847–852

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Research
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envres

Relation between malodor, ambient hydrogen sulfide, and health

in a community bordering a landfill$
Christopher D. Heaney a,n, Steve Wing a, Robert L. Campbell b, David Caldwell b, Barbara Hopkins b,
David Richardson c, Karin Yeatts a
a
Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB# 7435, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7435, USA
b
Rogers-Eubanks Neighborhood Association, P.O. Box 16903, Chapel Hill, NC 27516-6903, USA
c
Institute for the Environment, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB#1105 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-1105, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o abstract

Article history:
Received 31 August 2010 Background:
Municipal
solid
waste
landfills
are
sources
of
air
pollution
that
may
affect
the
health
and

Received in revised form quality
of
life
of
neighboring
communities.
17 May 2011 Objectives:
To
investigate
health
and
quality
of
life
concerns
of
neighbors
related
to
landfill
air
pollution.

Accepted 29 May 2011 Methods:
Landfill
neighbors
were
enrolled
and
kept
twice-daily
diaries
for
14
d
about
odor
intensity,

Available online 15 June 2011
alteration
of
daily
activities,
mood
states,
and
irritant
and
other
physical
symptoms
between
January
and

Keywords: November
2009.
Concurrently,
hydrogen
sulfide
(H2S)
air
measurements
were
recorded
every
15-min.

Community-driven research Relationships
between
H2S,
odor,
and
health
outcomes
were
evaluated
using
conditional
fixed
effects

Solid waste landfills regression
models.
Air pollution Results:
Twenty-three
participants
enrolled
and
completed
878
twice-daily
diary
entries.
H2S
measure-
Hydrogen sulfide
ments
were
recorded
over
a
period
of
80
d
and
1-h
average
H2S¼0.22
ppb
(SD¼ 0.27;
range:
0–2.30
ppb).

Malodor
Landfill
odor
increased
0.63
points
(on
5-point
Likert-type
scale)
for
every
1
ppb
increase
in
hourly
average

Health
H2S
when
the
wind
was
blowing
from
the
landfill
towards
the
community
(95%
confidence
interval
(CI):

0.29,
0.91).
Odor
was
strongly
associated
with
reports
of
alteration
of
daily
activities
(odds
ratio
(OR)¼ 9.0;

95%
CI:
3.5,
23.5),
negative
mood
states
(OR¼5.2;
95%
CI:
2.8,
9.6),
mucosal
irritation
(OR¼ 3.7;
95%
CI¼2.0,
7.1)
and
upper
respiratory
symptoms
(OR¼3.9;
95%
CI:
2.2,
7.0),
but
not
positive
mood
states

(OR¼ 0.6;
95%
CI:
0.2,
1.5)
and
gastrointestinal
(GI)
symptoms
(OR¼1.0;
95%
CI:
0.4,
2.6).
Conclusions:
Results
suggest
air
pollutants
from
a
regional
landfill
negatively
impact
the
health
and
quality

of
life
of
neighbors. & 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Fact
PackPact
1 160

Annotated Resources on
Landfills and Health Effects
1. Porta, D. et al. Systemic Review of Epidemiological Studies on Health Effects Associated with
Management of Solid Waste. Environmental Health (2009) 8:60-73.

This paper provides an overview of the studies in the published literature that evaluated the adverse health effects
associated with different waste management methods including landfills. The authors also scored the reported
effects in order to derive useable excess risk estimates for health impact assessment. The study design and
potential biases in effect estimates were evaluated for each study included in the review. The authors found that
for populations living with 2 kilometers of landfills, there was limited evidence of congenital anomalies and low
birth weight with an excess risk of 2 percent and 6 percent, respectively. The excess risk tended to be higher when
sites handled toxic waste. Many of the studies suffered from various limitations that are described in the review.
Despite this, the authors concluded with a moderate degree of confidence that “we have derived some effect
estimates that could be used for health impact assessment.”

2. Kouznetsova, M., et al. Increased Rate of Hospitalization for Diabetes and Residential Proximity of
Hazardous Waste Sites. Environmental Health Perspectives (2007) 115(1): 75-79.

This study investigated whether residence near persistent organic pollutants (POPs)-contaminated hazardous
waste sites increased rates of hospitalization for diabetes. The authors examined adult diabetes patients 25-74
years of age in New York State from 1993-2000. After controlling for major potential confounders, the study
found a statistically significant increase in the rate of hospitalization for diabetes among patients residing in ZIP
codes containing POPs-contaminated waste sites versus patients in “clean” sites. These results do not prove a
cause and effect relationship; however, this study provides further support for the association between diabetes
and exposure to environmental contaminants.

3. Kuehn, C.M., et al. Risk of Malformations Associated with Residential Proximity to Hazardous Waste
Sites in Washington State. Environmental Research (2007) 103: 405-412.

This study examines the relationship between malformations occurring in infants and maternal residential
proximity to hazardous waste sites in Washington State. Maternal residence of infants born with malformations
from 1987-2001 was compared to maternal residence of infants who were randomly selected and who were born
without malformations during this same time period. The authors found that infants born within 5 miles of a
hazardous waste site had an increased risk of malformations compared to infants born more than 5 miles away
from a hazardous waste site.

4. Gilbreath, S and Philip Kass. Adverse Birth Outcomes associated with open dumpsites in Alaska Native
Villages. American Journal of Epidemiology (2006) 164(4): 518-528.

This study evaluates adverse birth outcomes in infants whose birth records indicate that the mothers lived in
villages with dumpsites that were potentially hazardous to public health. The authors found that mothers who
lived in villages with intermediate and high hazard dumpsite has a higher proportion of low birth weight infants
than did mothers in the control group. More infants born to mothers who lived in the intermediate and high
hazard villages suffered from intrauterine growth retardation.
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Fact
PackPact
1 161

5. Palmer, S. et al. Risk of congenital anomalies after the opening of landfill sites. Environmental Health
Perspectives (2005) 113(10): 1362-1365.

This study was conducted to investigate whether there was an increased risk of births with congenital
malformations for mothers living near 24 landfill sites in Wales that opened between 1983 and 1997. Expected
rates of congenital anomalies were compared to those of mothers living within 2 km of the sites, before and after
opening of the landfills. Results showed risk of congenital anomalies for mothers living near the landfills increased
when the sites were opened. However, the data could not establish a causal link between the landfills and the
malformations because of a variety of biases that may have confounded the relationship. Nonetheless, the increase
in risk associated with the opening of sites requires continued surveillance.

6. Morgan, O., Vrijheid, M., Dolk, H. Risk of low birth weight near EUROHAZCON hazardous waste landfill
sites in England. Archives of Environmental Health (2004) 59(3): 149-151.

This study evaluated risk of low birth weight near 10 English hazardous waste sites used in a previous study of
congenital anomalies (see below). The authors found a small but not statistically significant increase in risk of low
birth weight within 3 km of sites. The findings of this study suggests that previously reported results for congenital
anomalies should not be extrapolated to a wider range of reproductive effects but instead evaluated separately for
each outcome.

7. Dummer, T., Dickinson, H., Parker, L. Adverse pregnancy outcomes near landfill sites in Cumbria,
northwest England, 1950-1993. Archives of Environmental Health (2003) 58(11): 692-697.

This study evaluated the risks of stillbirth or neonatal death for mothers living near landfills. All stillbirths,
neonatal deaths, and lethal congenital anomalies occurring among 287,993 births to mothers in Cumbria,
northwest England during the period 1950-1993 were studied. For the period 1970-1993, a small but significant
increase in risk of “other congenital anomalies of the nervous system” was found in mothers living near domestic
waste landfill sites. This finding was consistent with other researchers, but a casual effect could not be inferred and
the possibility that the results occurred by chance could not be ruled out.

8. Vrijheid et al. Chromosomal congenial anomalies and residence near hazardous waste landfill sites.
Lancet (2002) 359: 320-322.

This study revealed that there is an increased risk of chromosomal anomalies in people who live close to
hazardous waste landfills. Adjustments were made for maternal age and socioeconomic status. The results of this
study suggest that an increase in the risk of chromosomal anomalies is similar to that found for non-chromosomal
anomalies.

9. Elliot, P. et al. Risk of adverse birth outcomes in populations living near landfill sites. British Medical
Journal (2001) 323: 363-368.

Between 1982 and 1997, a study was conducted to investigate the risk of adverse birth outcomes associated with
residence near landfill sites. Individuals living 2 km from one of 9565 landfill sites throughout Great Britain were
sampled. This has been the largest study of associations between residence near landfill and adverse birth
outcomes thus far. It was concluded that residents near landfill sites are at risk of having children with congenital
anomalies and low birth weight, however, further studies are needed to explain these findings.
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Fact
PackPact
1 162

10. McNamee, R., Dolk, H. Editorial: Does exposure to landfill waste harm the fetus? British Medical Journal
(2001) 323: 351-352.

This editorial addresses issues concerning the article entitled “Risk of adverse birth outcomes in populations living
near landfill sites” by Elliot et al. in the August 2001 edition of the British Medical Journal.

11. Pukkala, E and Antti Ponka. Increased incidence of cancer and asthma in houses built on a former dump
area. Environmental Health Perspectives (2001) 109(11): 1121-1125.

This study evaluated the health of people who moved into twelve blockhouses in Helsinki, Finland that were built
on a former dumpsite. Cancer and other chronic diseases were evaluated. The authors found a statistically
significant increase in cancer for both sexes. The relative risk increased slightly with the number of years lived in
the area. They also found increases in asthma and chronic pancreatitis. The authors concluded that the
“possibility of a causal association between the dump exposure and incidence of cancer and asthma cannot be fully
excluded.” Nonetheless, the city council decided to demolish all houses in the dump area.

12. Berger, S., Jones P., White, M. Exploratory analysis of respiratory illness among persons living near a
landfill. Journal of Environmental Health (2000) 62.6: 19.

Due to concern expressed by residents in two Staten Island, NY communities, the authors of this study evaluated
the severity and frequency of respiratory symptoms occurring over a 12-month period among self-identified
residents with asthma, severe breathing, or other respiratory conditions. Responses indicated that residents who
lived adjacent to the landfill and those from the north-shore (seven miles from the landfill) had differing health
problems, with landfill residents reporting higher rates of certain odors and eye, nose and throat irritation. The
authors concluded that further investigation of respiratory illnesses should be conducted, as the study showed
high rates of respiratory-related symptoms and conditions.

13. Vrijheid et al. Health effects of residence near hazardous waste landfill sites: a review of epidemiologic
literature. Environmental Health Perspectives (2000) 108: (Suppl. 1) 101-112.

This review is an evaluation of current literature on the adverse health effects due to residence near landfill sites.
It is difficult to make a conclusion about direct causes for adverse health effects and risks of landfills in general are
hard to quantify. Of the studies reviewed, all proved to have insufficient exposure information. This article
suggests that research of exposure to landfill sites needs to take a more interdisciplinary approach. Furthermore,
epidemiologic and toxicologic studies need to be conducted for individual chemicals and chemical mixtures in
order to understand what their effects may be on a population living near a landfill.

14. Knox, EG. Childhood cancers, birthplaces, incinerators and landfill sites. International Journal of
Epidemiology (2000) 29: 391-397.

A study conducted in Great Britain between 1974 and 1987 found that children living near incinerators, both
municipal and medical, were at more risk of getting cancer than those children living near landfill sites. This study
targeted the sensitivity of children to carcinogenic emissions, but it failed to take into account the association of
additional toxic sources in the vicinity. This study also did not account for the migration of families from areas of
high toxicity to areas of low toxicity before, during, or after a child’s birth.
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Fact
PackPact
1 163

15. State of New York Department of Health, Center for Environmental Health. Investigation of cancer
incidence near 38 landfills with soil gas migration conditions: New York state, 1980-1989, 1998. Available
from: New York State DOH, 2 University Place, Albany, NY 12203-3399. Phone: 1-800-458-1158.

Thirty-eight landfills throughout the state of New York were selected for a study to find out if people living near
certain landfills had an increased risk of cancer compared to people living elsewhere. This study evaluated cancer
incidence among people living around these 38 landfills between 1980 and 1989. All cases of leukemia, non-
Hodgkin’s lymphoma, liver, lung, kidney, bladder and brain cancer were identified and located on a map.
Although this study had many limitations, it still found that women living near the landfills had a higher incidence
of bladder cancer and leukemia. In comparison, men did not show an increased risk of any type of cancer despite
their proximity to a landfill.

16. Dolk, H. et al. Risk of congenital anomalies near hazardous-waste landfill sites in Europe: the
EUROHAZCON study. Lancet (1998) 352: 423-427.

This study examined seven regional registers of congenital anomalies in five different countries in Europe to
determine if exposure from hazardous chemicals at landfills increased the risk of birth defects. Twenty-one sites
were examined overall and among those sites mothers within a 3 km radius showed a significantly raised risk of
having children with congenital anomalies. The results of this study were adjusted for maternal age and
socioeconomic status. However, this study’s findings are limited by a lack of information on exposures.

17. Berry, M., and Bove, F. Birth weight reduction associated with residence near a hazardous waste landfill.
Environmental Heath Perspectives (1997) 105(8): 856-861.

Twenty-five years of birth certificate information (1961-1985) was collected in order to examine the relationship
between birth weight and mother’s residence near the Lipari Landfill located in New Jersey. The results indicated
that there was a significant impact to infants born to residents who lived near the landfill during the time they
would have been at greatest risk of exposure to hazardous chemicals. Many factors, including maternal health,
cigarette and alcohol consumption during pregnancy, and socioeconomic status were not available for this study.

18. Goldberg, M. et al. Incidence of cancer among persons living near a municipal solid waste landfill site in
Montreal, Quebec. Archives of Environmental Health (1995) 50(6): 416-424.

In a Canadian study, researchers from the Public Health Department in Montreal evaluated cancer incidence rates
in people living around the Miron Quarry municipal landfill. Thirty-five volatile organic chemicals were identified
in the landfill gases sampled, including known human carcinogens. When evaluating cancer incidence rates
among persons living near the landfill, it was concluded that there might have been increased risks for certain
cancers, such as stomach, liver, lung, prostate, and cervix uteri. The researchers also concluded that there were
too many unknown factors to make any conclusions as to whether cancer incidence and proximity to the landfill
were directly related.

19. Shaw, G. et al. Congenital malformations and birth weight in areas with potential environmental
contamination. Archives of Environmental Health (March/April 1992) 47: 147-154.

Due to the public’s increasing concern about reproductive damage as a result of exposure to environmental
contamination, a study was conducted to determine if mothers living near contaminated sites were at a greater risk
of having children with congenital malformations. This study did not reveal lower birth weight or increased risks
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Fact
PackPact
1 164

for most malformations among women who lived in contaminated areas. It did, however, show an elevated risk
for infants with malformations of the heart and circulatory system.

20. Upton, A. et al. Public health aspects of toxic chemical disposal sites. Annual Review of Public Health
(1989) 10:1-22.

This article provides a summary and overview of past health studies conducted around toxic waste disposal sites.
The results of 16 published epidemiological studies of residential exposures to toxic waste sites are summarized in
this report, many of which are landfills operated by local, state or federal agencies. Although many weaknesses
were identified in this review, several adverse health impacts were also identified. These included decreased
weight at birth, increase in the frequency of congenial malformations, increase in the occurrence of certain forms
of cancer, decrease in the growth and maturation of children, and increased prevalence of central nervous system
symptoms. Overall, this article provides evidence that health problems associated with exposure to toxic waste
disposal sites are underestimated and poorly studied.

21. Hertzman, C. et al. Upper Ottawa Street landfill site health study. Environmental Health Perspectives
(1987) 75:173-195.

As of 1987, there were few health studies conducted that found health problems in communities living around
landfills that were published in the medical or scientific literature. To this day, there is still a lack of conclusive
studies giving evidence that adverse health effects are caused by landfills alone. In a study conducted by Clyde
Hertzman et al. a number of health problems in workers and residents living near the Upper Ottawa Street
Landfill in Hamilton, Ontario were identified. A few of the problems found with the highest credibility included
clusters of respiratory, skin, narcotic, and mood disorders. Evidence is presented in their study that supports the
hypothesis that vapors, fumes or particulate matter emanating from the landfill site, as well as direct skin exposure,
may have lead to the health problems found in excess in this particular area.

22. Paigen, B. et al. Growth of children living near the hazardous waste site, Love Canal. Human Biology (June
1987) 59(3): 489-508.

This is the third of a series of three studies that were conducted on children living near the Love Canal landfill.
This study examined whether living near a hazardous waste site had an adverse impact on the growth patterns of
children. Children are especially vulnerable to environmental contamination and it was hypothesized that
exposed children would be smaller in comparison to control groups of children within a similar socioeconomic
status. In earlier studies it was found that there was a significant effect between health problems and the closeness
of homes near Love Canal, but in this study the difference in stature associated with birth and residence near Love
Canal was not statistically significant. These findings suggest that length of exposure to chemicals may be more
important to study rather than point of exposure.

23. Goldman, L., and Paigen, B. Low birth weight, prematurity and birth defects in children living near the
hazardous waste site, Love Canal. Hazardous Waste & Hazardous Materials (1985) 2(2):209-223.

This is the second of a series of three studies that were conducted on children living near the Love Canal landfill.
This study assessed birth weight, prematurity, gestational age, and birth defects in 239 children who were living in
the Love Canal neighborhood before and shortly after birth. Overall the results showed no significant difference
in prematurity, but there was an increase in low birth rate and birth defects. The outcomes of this study suggest
that low birth weight is a good indicator of adverse health effects caused by exposure to low levels of chemicals.
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Fact
PackPact
1 165

24. Paigen, B., and Goldman, L. Prevalence of health problems in children living near Love Canal. Hazardous
Waste & Hazardous Materials (1985) 2(1):23-43.

This is the first of a series of three health studies that were conducted on children living near the Love Canal
landfill. This particular study looked at the overall health of children. The parents of 523 Love Canal and 440
control children were given questionnaires. It was found that children that lived near Love Canal had an increased
prevalence of seven major health problems including, seizures, learning problems, hyperactivity, eye irritation,
skin rashes, abdominal pain, and incontinence. This paper addresses many of the difficulties involved with
conducting community health studies and recognizes the limitations of science when there are so many variables
to contend with.

Updated September 2010

 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Fact
PackPact
1 166

USEFUL WEBSITES ABOUT LANDFILLS

Please note that web addresses change frequently. We apologize if you are not able to
access a particular site and hope that you are still able to gain useful information from
the other materials provided in this Fact Pack.

Zero Waste, Landfill Page: http://www.zerowasteamerica.org/Landfills.htm

Zero Waste America (ZWA) is an Internet-based environmental research organization that promotes the
recycling of all materials back into nature or the marketplace. ZWA’s Landfill page highlights the hazards
associated with landfills and provides evidence as to why landfills always fail. This page has excellent
statistics and provides links to numerous organizations, experts, and publications.

Grassroots Recycling Network, End Landfilling Page:

http://www.grrn.org/landfill/index.html

The Grassroots Recycling Network helps to promote corporate accountability and encourages public policies
to manage resources in order to achieve zero waste. This web page outlines how landfills are flawed and
makes the argument that landfills are just wasting our resources and polluting our environment. GRRN has
several campaigns and resources that are described on this site as well.

Dr. Fred Lee’s Home Page: http://www.gfredlee.com/

Dr. G. Fred Lee and Dr. Anne Jones-Lee have prepared professional papers and reports about various issues
surrounding domestic water supply, water quality, water and wastewater treatment, water pollution control,
and the evaluation and management of the impacts of solid and hazardous wastes. Their web page allows
readers to download the papers and reports they have written, many of which relate to the failures and risks
of landfills.

The Basics of Landfills: http://www.ejnet.org/landfills/

This site is maintained by the Activists’ Center for Training in Organizing and Networking and provides a
basic understanding of what landfills are and why they fail. This page hasseveral links to useful articles and
organizations that deal with landfill issues.

The Alliance for a Clean Environment: http://www.acereport.org/

The Alliance for a Clean Environment (ACE) is a local group from Pottstown, PA that has been fighting for
the health and safety of their community, which is being threatened by a local hazardous waste landfill.
Their site provides an example of how a local group can make a difference and provides proof that “people
power” is effective in winning a fight.

Concerned Citizens of Cattaraugus County, Inc. Home Page:

http://www.homestead.com/concernedcitizens

Concerned Citizens of Cattaraugus County is a larger than local nonprofit corporation located in New York
State that advocates for clean air, soil and water through the implementation and enforcement of laws and
policies that promote a clean and healthful environment. CCCC’s main goal is to keep the public informed,
especially about issues concerning waste disposal on the local and state level. Their web site addresses
several of the issues being addressed in NY surrounding landfills and waste problems in general.
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Fact
PackPact
1 167

References

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2001). Landfill
Gas Primer - An Overview for Environmental Health Professionals. Available at:
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/landfill/html/intro.html

At least 160 bodies recovered from avalanche of garbage dump in Philippines. (2000, July 16). CNN
International.com. Available at:
http://edition.cnn.com/2000/ASIANOW/southeast/07/15/philippines.landslide.01/index.html

Bailey, Jeff. (1996, November 14). Plastic Dump Liners Have Been Slow in Coming. Wall Street Journal. A4.

Cohen Milstein Attorneys Score Public Health Win in Lipari Landfill Settlement; Landfill Once Termed the Nation’s
Worst Toxic Dump. (2001, May 19). Business Wire. Available at:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2001_May_19/ai_74730068

Elliot, P., Briggs, D., Morris, S., de Hoogh, C., Hurt, C., Jensen, T.K., Maitland, I., Richardson, S., Wakefield, J. &
Jarup, L. (2001). Risk of Adverse Birth Outcomes in Populations Living Near Landfill Sites. British Medical
Journal 323: 363-368. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7309.363

Environmental Research Foundation. The Basics of Landfills: How They Are Constructed and Why They Fail.
Available at: http://www.zerowasteamerica.org/BasicsOfLandfills.htm

Fretwell, Sammy. (2002, February 17). Threat of Landfill Leak into Major South Carolina Reservoir Studied. The
State. Columbia, SC.

Gardinier, Bob. (2002, January 22). Plans for Dump are a Big Waste, Town Says. The Times Union. Albany, NY.
Available at: http://tinyurl.com/6xxqd9

Gelberg, Kitty H. (1997). Health Study of New York City Department of Sanitation Landfill Employees [abstract].
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 39(11): 1103-10. Abstract available at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9383721

Greenpeace. (1998, November 27). Vinyl in Landfills Most Likely to Blame for Toxic Gases [press release].
Available at:
http://archive.greenpeace.org/majordomo/index-press-releases/1998/msg00333.html

Johnson, Annysa. (2001, January 5). 2 Landfills Want Permit Changes. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Available at:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/jan01/pcb06x010501a.asp

Kore Para Aotearoa. (1999). Current Issues: Landfills. Palmerston North, New Zealand. Available at:
http://www.converge.org.nz/kpa/issues.htm

Lee. G. Fred. (1998, March). Assessing the Potential of Minimum Subtitle D Lined Landfills to Pollute: Alternative
Landfilling Approaches. Proceedings of the Air and Waste Management Association 91st Annual Meeting, San
Diego, CA. Available at: http://www.gfredlee.com/alternative_lf.html

Lee, G. Fred. (1999, November). Detecting Failure of Subtitle D Landfill Liner Systems. G. Fred Lee & Associates,
El Macero, CA. Available at: http://www.gfredlee.com/detecting_failure.pdf

Lee, G.Fred and Jones-Lee, Anne. (1994). Impact of Municipal and Industrial Non-Hazardous Waste Landfills on
Public Health and the Environment: An Overview. Prepared for California EPA Comparative Risk Project,
Sacramento, CA. Available at: http://www.gfredlee.com/cal_risk.htm
 CHEJ
CHEJ Landfill
Landfill Failures
Failures Fact Fact
PackPact
1 4 168

Lee, G. Fred and Jones-Lee, Anne. (1996). Evaluation of the Potential for a Proposed or Existing Landfill to Pollute
Groundwaters [abstract]. Report of G. Fred Lee & Associates, El Macero, CA.

Lee, G.Fred and Jones-Lee, Anne. (1998, July). Deficiencies in Subtitle D Landfill Liner Failure and Groundwater
Pollution Monitoring. Presented at the National Water Quality Monitoring Council National Conference,
“Monitoring: Critical Foundations to Protect Our Waters.” US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C. Available at: http://www.gfredlee.com/nwqmcl.html

Lee, G. Fred and Sheehan, William. (1996). Landfills Offer False Sense of Security. BioCycle 37(9):8.

Lewis, Gregory. (2002, July 17). Study to Examine For Lauderdale, Fla., Landfill’s Effect on Public Health. Sun-
Sentinel. Fort Lauderdale, FL.

Montague, Peter. (1982, September). Hazardous Waste Landfills: Some Lessons From New Jersey. Civil Engineering
Magazine. American Society of Civil Engineers. Available at:
http://www.rachel.org/files/document/Hazardous_Waste_Landfills_Some_lessons_from_Ne.pdf

Montague, Peter. (1988, December 26). The Catch-22s of Landfill Design. Rachel’s Environment & Health News
#109. Available at: http://www.rachel.org/en/node/4354

Montague, Peter. (1989, March 7). Leachate Collection Systems: The Achilles Heel of Landfills. Rachel’s
Environment & Health News #119. Available at: http://www.rachel.org/en/node/4344

Montague, Peter. (1991, January 23). Plastics Part 2: Why Plastic Landfill Liners Always Fail. Rachel’s Environment
& Health News #217. Available at: http://www.rachel.org/en/node/4235

Montague, Peter. (1992, December 16). New Evidence That All Landfills Leak. Rachel’s Environment & Health
News #316. Available at: http://www.rachel.org/en/node/4131

Raloff, Janet. (1989, March 18). Unexpected Leakage Through Landfill Liners. Science News. 135(11).

Raloff, Janet. (2001, July 7). Landfills Make Mercury More Toxic. Science News 160(1): 4. Available at:
http://sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/1777/

U.K. Department of Health, Media Office. (2001, August 16). Largest Ever Study Into Health of Populations Around
Landfill Sites Published [press release]. London. Available at:
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Pressreleases/DH_4010837

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Office of Public Affairs. (1999, June 25). EPA Cites CDT Landfill
for Clean-Air Violations. Press Release No. 99-OPA177.

Vrijheid, Martine. (2000). Health Effects of Residence Near Hazardous Waste Sites: A Review of Epidemiologic
Literature. Environmental Health Perspectives 108, Supplement 1: 101-112. Available at:
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2000/suppl-1/101-112vrijheid/vrijheid-full.html

Wood, Lindsay. (2001). Old PCs Toxic in Landfill Sites. The Galt Global Review. Available at:
http://www.galtglobalreview.com/business/toxic_pcs.html
“CHEJ is the strongest environmental organiza-
tion today – the one that is making the greatest
impact on changing the way our society does busi-
ness.”
Ralph Nader

“CHEJ has been a pioneer nationally in alerting

parents to the environmental hazards that can
affect the health of their children.”
New York, New York

Center for Health, Environment & Justice

P.O. Box 6806, Falls Church, VA 22040-6806