Managing Trash in Coln, Panama: A Case Study of Selected Strategies

A Report of the Panama Initiative

Austin Blais Rebekah Berlin Rowena Clima Julia Glendening Veronica Gutierrez Jack Izard Courtney Mallow Rachel Nelson Elizabeth Ritch Peter Swigert University of Virginia 2010 B.A. Environmental Thought and Practice

With Guidance from Associate Professor Vivian Thomson Department of Environmental Sciences, Department of Politics Director, Environmental Thought and Practice BA Program Director, Panama Initiative And Professor Janet Herman Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA June 21, 2010

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Dr. Stanley Heckadon-Moreno, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Panama City, Panama, for his guidance and advice. We are grateful to Susan Thorneloe, US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, and Keith Weitz, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, who put at our disposal the Municipal Solid Waste Decision Support Tool. Ms Thorneloe and Mr. Weitz worked with us over a period of months to customize the Tool to Colns situation, they ran the model for us, and they provided outputs in timely, organized fashion. This report would not have been possible without their assistance.

Team Panama members, Professors Herman and Thomson, Susan Thorneloe (US EPA, Keith Weitz (RTI International), Research Triangle Park, NC.

Contents
Acronyms Executive Summary Introduction: Background on Panama and Coln City Scenario I: Status Quo, Open Dump Scenario II: Waste-to-Energy Incineration Scenario III: Well-Regulated Landfill with Recycling and Composting Legal Framework and Involved Institutions Conclusions Figures 1 through 5: Comparing Costs and Pollution Across Scenarios References 4 5 8 18 26 35 46 57 61 65

Acronyms
ACP: Autoridad Canal de Panam (Panama Canal Authority) ANAM: Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente (National Environmental Agency) AMUPA: La Asociacin de Municipios de Panam (Association of Panamanian Municipalities) APRONAD: La Asociacin para la Promocin de Nuevas Alternativas de Desarrollo (Association for the Promotion of New Alternatives to Development) APROSAC: Asociacin Promocin Saneamiento Ambiental en Comunidad (Association for the Promotion of Community Environmental Health) ARI: Administracin de la Regin Interocenica (Interoceanic Regional Authority) ATSDR: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry BOD: Biological oxygen demand BTU: British thermal units CHP: Combined Heat and Power CO: Carbon monoxide CO2: Carbon dioxide CWM: Coln Waste Management Company DDT: Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane DIMA: Direccin Metropolitana de Aseo (Metropolitan Hygiene Department) EPA: United States Environmental Protection Agency FAS: Fundacin de Accin Social por Panam (Social Action Foundation for Panama) FIDEC: Fundacin Pro-Inversion y Desarollo de Coln (Coln Foundation of Investment and Development) GDP: Gross Domestic Product GHG: Greenhouse Gas HCl: Hydrogen chloride IDAAN: Instituto de Acueductos y Alcantarillados Nacionales (National Water and Sewer Authority) IDB: Inter-American Development Bank IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change MINSA: Ministerio de Salud (Health Ministry) MRF: Materials Recovery Facility MSW: Municipal Solid Waste (trash or garbage) MSW-DST: Municipal Solid Waste Decision Support Tool NOx: Nitrogen oxides PAH: Polycloric aromatic hydrocarbons PCB: Polychlorintaed biphenyls PM: Particulate Matter RTI: Research Triangle Institute SOx: Sulfur oxides UNESCO: United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization VOC: Volatile Organic Compound WTE: Waste-to-Energy

Executive Summary About the authors and the study In 2007 the University of Virginia launched the Panama Initiative to foster teaching and research collaborations with partner institutions in Panama. Panama Initiative projects have involved student field trips to Panama, student and faculty exchanges, and research on improving diagnostics and therapeutics for malnutrition in children. Our partner institutions have included the City of Knowledge, the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, and the Gorgas Memorial Health Institute. This study is part of the Panama Initiative. The University of Virginia has provided all funding for this study. The University of Virginias 2009-2010 work on trash management in Coln represents a collaboration with Dr. Stanley Heckadon Moreno of the Galeta Marine Laboratory, which is part the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Coln, Panama. Dr. Heckadon has provided advice and input from the start of this work in July 2009. The authors of this report are ten fourth-year students from the University of Virginia who now hold BA degrees in Environmental Thought and Practice, an intensive, selective major that involves environmentally-oriented coursework across the natural sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities. Their University of Virginia faculty mentors are Associate Professor Vivian E. Thomson, an expert in environmental policy, and Professor Janet Herman, an expert in water resources systems. This report expands on preliminary research conducted by Professor Thomson and Reem Alamiri (BA, Environmental Thought and Practice, and an MPP candidate at the University of Virginia) in 2009. Goals and methods Two questions guided this study: (1) What are the possible trash management strategies for Coln? (2) What are the social, economic, environmental, and policy implications of such strategy? To answer these questions, we collected information in English and in Spanish from the following sources: Newspaper, journal, and magazine articles from the United States and Panama; Trade association websites (e.g., on recycling); Interviews in Panama with waste management experts in July 2009 and January 2010; Official websites in Panama; Websites of non-governmental organizations (e.g., APRONAD) in Panama; Scholarly databases;
5

International institutions like the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank; Government publications in the United States; The Municipal Solid Waste Decision Support Tool (MSW-DST), a sophisticated computer model developed by the US Environmental Protection Agency over fifteen years; and, Books on waste management.

Findings and limitations El Dompe is an open, unregulated dump that receives waste from Coln Province and the Coln Free Trade Zone. This is the status quo option. We also analyzed alternatives to the status quo, as follows: Scenario 1: the continued use of El Dompe, an open dump in Coln with no environmental controls. Scenario 2: a waste-to-energy trash incinerator. Scenario 3: a materials recovery facility for recycling, possibly with composting, and the diversion of Colns residual waste to a well-controlled landfill in Coln or in Panama City.

We analyzed the social, economic, and environmental implications of each option. We could not collect site-specific measurements. To the extent possible, we used Colnspecific information as inputs to MSW-DST. But these results are best viewed relative to one another. We cannot provide exact estimates of our scenarios costs or environmental impacts. Scenario 1 shows the lowest direct economic costs while also exhibiting the highest emissions of air pollutants and the highest discharge of water pollutants. Those pollutants include: Methane, which contributes to fires, which can explode, and which contributes to global warming; Carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas pollutant; Benzene, a human carcinogen; Particulate matter, which can contain lead (which has been associated with a host of health problems, including lowered IQ and high blood pressure), and mercury (a neurotoxin); and, A host of toxic constituents in landfill liquids, including, but not limited to: arsenic, cadmium chromium, lead, nickel, PCBs, dioxins, furans, and pesticides.

In Scenario 2, we analyze the implications of building a waste-to-energy incinerator. Trash incinerators require high capital investment and skilled engineering oversight, so this is a more costly option than the status quo. Colns trash stream might not be large enough to make a waste-to-energy incinerator financially viable. However, an incinerator with the most modern

would limit air and water pollution to low levels and it could produce electricity and, possibly, carbon credits to be sold under the Kyoto Protocol. Finally, in Scenario 3 we analyze the implications of constructing a materials recovery facility in Coln that would achieve either a fifteen percent recycling rate, on the one hand, or a twenty percent recycling rate and a ten percent composting rate, on the other hand. At this facility scavengers would remove and sell recyclables and undertake composting. Residual trash would go to a well-controlled landfill, which could be a new landfill in Coln or the Cerro Patacn landfill in Panama City. In addition to reducing air and water pollution far below the levels seen with the status quo, this scenario provides improved stability and safety for the scavenger population in Coln. We aim to provide more analysis for decision-makers in Panama who wish to close El Dompe and find an environmentally sound method of trash management in Coln. We hope that our report will prove a valuable resource to members of the public, community leaders, private enterprises, regulatory agencies, and non-government organizations.

Gabriel Thomas (Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute), Marta Cecilia Escobar (Aguaseo), Reem Alamiri (University of Virginia), at El Dompe, July 2009. Photo by V. Thomson.

Introduction
Background on Panama and Coln Panama is a unique country. Nestled between the agricultural lands of Colombia and Costa Rica to the east and west and framed by the tourist islands of the Caribbean to the north, Panamas economy is based around the Panama Canal. Completed in 1914, Canal is an eightykilometer long passage between the Pacific and Caribbean Oceans that represents growth, opportunity and prosperity for the country. Yet the benefits of the canal are not just symbolic; they are concrete and substantial. In 2010 the total revenue generated by the Canal is expected to exceed two billion dollars (Persher 2010). The Canal acts as a vital economic engine for Panamas other sectors, which include banking, insurance, tourism, and the Coln Free Zone. Service sectors collectively account for seventy-six percent of the nations total income (Central Intelligence Agency 2010). By 2014 the Canal will be expanded to include a third set of locks on both the Pacific and Caribbean sides. The expansion is expected to double the Canals capacity and lower high unemployment rates in the country (Central Intelligence Agency 2010). These new locks will be large enough for even the largest vessels, and their installation will help stimulate continued economic growth for Panama. Panamas economy has been growing rapidly. In 2007, 2008, and 2009, GDP grew by 11.9 percent, 9.2 percent, and 2.4 percent, respectively. Over three million people call Panama home, with a majority of the population living in urban areas. More than half of the population lives in the Panama-Coln metropolitan corridor. The average age in Panama is twenty-seven years, and over sixty percent of the population is between the ages of fifteen and sixty-four (Central Intelligence Agency 2010). Economic growth is straining the countrys natural wealth. The rich natural environment of Panama, which is one of the most diverse in the world, is threatened by increased development. Dr. Stanley Heckadon-Moreno of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute observes that there is an urgency to reconcile the rapid settlement and economic development of the region with the need to preserve the capacity of this fragile ecosystem to produce large quantities of high quality water (Heckadon-Moreno 2005, 30). Soil erosion and deforestation are among the major environmental and water resource management problems facing the country. These economic, social, and environmental patterns converge in Coln City, the second largest city in Panama. Here, economic and environmental assets combine to create a valuable and important region of the country. The city was created in 1850 to serve as the Atlantic station of the Panama Railroad, a railroad that was originally built to shorten the commute to California during the California Gold Rush (Encyclopedia Britannica 2010). The city was first called Aspinwall after one of the Railroads engineers. By 1890 it carried the name of Coln, the Spanish form of Colombus (named after Christopher Colombus) (City of Coln 2010). After the
8

construction of the railroad, Coln City remained a significant center of transport, especially during the construction of the Panama Canal. In 1900 Coln was home to only 3,000 people (Heckadon-Moreno 2010). Coln Citys 2000 population was estimated at 204,208 (Coln City 2010).

Source: Wikipedia.

Contemporary Coln is a bustling city that is vital to the economic success of Panama. The Coln Free Zone is the largest free trade zone in the Americas and the second largest in the world after Hong Kong (Administracin de la Zona Libre de Coln 2009). The zone extends over 450 hectares and it hosts 2,500 merchants. The Zone attracts over 250,000 visitors and generates sixteen billion U.S. dollars in imports and exports annually. A wide array of goods is exchanged in the zone, ranging from electric appliances, clothing and watches to textiles, gold jewelry, liquors, and cigarettes (Business Panama Group 2010). Very little of the tax revenues generated by the Free Zone reaches the City of Coln. The Free Zone pays taxes only to the national government and, of those, an estimated fifty million dollars annually flow back to Coln (S. Heckadon-Moreno, pers. comm., 2010). Coln hopes to expand its tourism industry. The national government is helping with this goal by providing special government incentives. For example, the Special Tourism Zones Law offers a 100 percent exemption from income tax, real estate tax, and import duties for construction and equipment materials (Washington Times International Advocacy Department 2010). Development of this new industry is evident in the great number of hotels dotting the Coln District. The Hotel Malina, New Washington Hotel, the Four Points Sheraton, the Four Points Coln, and David Suites stand high above the city, welcoming travelers from the United States and Latin America. The Cristobal Cruise Terminal and Coln 2000 Terminal add to the citys appeal as a world traveler destination (The Panama Network 2008). Beaches like Isla Grande, Playa Langosta, and Playa Maria draw tourists seeking sand and sun. Gatun Locks and

Fort San Lorenzo (a UNESCO World Heritage site) attract visitors interested in the regions history (MapXL Inc. 2009). Coln is not only economically valuable; its natural ecosystems are centrally important to Panama. Colns climate is classified as moist low land tropics, with a May to December rainy season that brings an average of 3,000 mm of rainfall (Harmon 2005). This climate supports a rich array of terrestrial and marine ecosystems, including mangrove forests, wetlands, coral reefs, and tropical forests. Three national parks are in the region. To give but one example of the biological richness found in this area, San Lorenzo National Park is home to over twelve different kinds of forests, 430 birds species, and eighty mammal species, including jaguars and tapirs (Center for Studies and Social Action in Panama 2006). Since 1923 the Smithsonian Tropical Research institute has studied and documented the vibrant environmental landscape of the Coln Province. Today, the Institute has a marine laboratory at Galeta Point, which draws thousands of educators, students, scientists, and visitors annually (Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute 2010). Despite the economic and environmental treasures in Coln, the region is one of the poorest in the country. Economic decline was evident even in the 1930s. Establishing the Free Zone in the 1950s represented an attempt to revive Coln (Conniff 2001). The regions economic problems have affected its social vibrancy. Residents of the upper and middle economic classes from Greek, Italian, Jewish, Chinese and South Asian heritage have fled the region to live in Panama City and in other countries like the U.S. and the U.K. (Wikipedia 2010). Today most residents of Coln are descendents of Caribbean and West Indies immigrants who first came to Panama to seek jobs as laborers during the construction of the Panama Canal. Over forty percent of the province population lives in poverty and nearly half of those living in city under 24 years old are unemployed (Inter-American Development Bank 2008). These rates of poverty have led to high rates of crime and violence in Coln: Drug wars and turf wars are resulting in more murders. There is a national lament over the escalating crime in Panama in general. There is mourning for generations of children and youth who have opted for a life of crime (Marvia Lawes, Marvias Panama Journal, comment posted October 17, 2008). This observation is reflected statistically in the World Banks Panama Poverty Assesment Report. According to the report, Coln has the highest incidence of incarceration in the country. Homicides make up a larger percentage of crimes in Coln than any other region of Panama (World Bank 2000).

Trash Management in Coln, Panama Trash touches all parts of life in Coln, from its growing economy and population to its diverse environment. Trash affects the economy when waste from the Coln Free Zone is taken to provinces open dump, which residents refer to as El Dompe. Smoke rising from the fires of El Dompe can be seen by international visitors crossing the canal or looking out their hotel windows. We understand that water pollution from El Dompe flows into a stream that, in turn, ends at the canal not far from the citys drinking water intake. Trash touches the unemployed in
10

Coln, some of whom scavenge for recyclables in the dump. Many people simply discard trash on the ground or in waterways. Trash is a presence everywhere, affecting all parts of Coln City. Aside from the incinerators that process waste from the Free Zone, the city of Coln diverts all of its waste to one place El Dompe. El Dompe is an unregulated dump that was originally opened by the US military in the 1930s or 1940s (Thomson and Alamiri 2010). Today, El Dompes official extent is eleven hectares, but it is likely that this open dump has extended over a much larger area during its long life. Waste coming in and out of the dump is not controlled or monitored, so all kinds of waste--domestic garbage and hazardous waste alikecan end up in the dump. El Dompe burns regularly, sometimes for days on end, because of spontaneous combustion and human-caused fires. Scavengers living near the dump start fires to retrieve valuable metals from waste material. Among the toxic pollutants emitted into the air during this process are carcinogens like PCBs and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 2010). Waste management in Coln is not only important to protect human health and the environment, it is also vital for sustained economic growth. In 2002, as part of a one billion dollar initiative, the Panamanian government began to invest in infrastructure, security measures, and tourist attractions in Coln to change it from a sail-by site to a port of call (Caribbean Update 2002, Harding 2010). However, the ports--Coln 2000 and Cristobal Pier--will thrive only if they are desirable locations. Thick smoke or offensive odors rising from the dump will surely stunt their success. Waste management in Coln also has impacts on the economy of Panama as a whole. The Canal Authority has reported that smoke from fires in El Dompe reaches the Canal Zone, where it could limit the visibility of ships passing through the canal (Thomson and Alamiri 2010). El Dompes risks and adverse economic impacts will only increase over time because economic growth fosters more waste. The World Bank urges government officials to ask themselves how the amount or general composition of waste might change in the future (Thurgood 2010, 11). In Coln, more people, more products, and more spending power means more trash. Diverting a larger trash stream to El Dompe will only exacerbate the sites environmental and health problems. Planning and implementing a new waste management strategy is a key to the success of Coln City. Trash A Regional Problem in Latin America and the Caribbean Panama and the Coln City are not alone in facing the challenges of trash management. Growing populations, economic development, and increased urbanization are leading to higher trash generation rates in other Latin American and Caribbean countries. In this region there is little institutional capacity or funding to adequately deal with mounting trash (Zerbock 2003). As a result of this gap between the problem and its remedies, the World Bank has sponsored more municipal solid waste (or MSW, the technical term for trash) projects in Latin America
11

and the Caribbean than in any other region of the world. Attempts to improve trash management are underway in Colombia, Brazil, Chile, and Argentina (Johannesson and Boyer 1999). For example, Belize is to receive a loan for over eleven million dollars from the InterAmerican Development Bank (IDB) to improve municipal solid waste management practices in the countrys Western Corridor (Belize City, San Ignacio, Santa Elena). These improvements will decrease pollution and increase the countrys appeal as an eco-tourism site in the Latin American region. The loan will fund the closure of an open dumpsite, the creation of a waste transfer facility where recyclables are separated from the waste stream, and the construction of a new regional landfill. An IDB representative stated that improved solid waste management is very important to Belize, providing much needed service to the population and protecting the environment, a critical resource for sustainable economic growth (Inter-American Development Bank 2008). Belizes IDB loan will also help strengthen the capacity of the Belize central government to cultivate better waste management practices. Unfortunately, poor planning and disputes between different government agencies can stalled plans to rectify open dumpsites. An example of thwarted efforts is found in Barbados. In 1993, the government of Barbados entered into an agreement with the Inter-American Development Bank to develop a modern waste management system that would protect the environment, improve public health, and foster participation of the private sector in waste management (Ministry of Health, Barbados). The plan was comprehensive but ambitious. It called for building a new sanitary landfill, a transfer station, a chemical waste storage facility, and a composting facility, as well as strengthening key government agencies, public education, and updated legislation. Some of these components were successfully implemented, but others were not. The national sanitary landfill was never constructed because several landslides, storms, and budget limitations at the Greenland dump site made renovations unworkable. According to one observer, while many government officials in Barbados knew that Greenland was not the ideal location for the new site given its topography and age, the project continued because other politicians refused to place the landfill elsewhere (Goddard 2008). These examples show that Latin America and the Caribbean nations are pursuing improved waste management strategies because of the economic, environmental, and public health benefits these strategies provide. However, it is important to learn from the mistakes of countries like Barbados. Options for Managing Trash in Coln Panama Concern for trash management has long existed in Coln, but it is an unaddressed concern. According to one recent informal survey, in one part of the Coln District over half of the population buries their trash into the ground or burns it. Only six percent pay for their trash to be collected or recycled. Coln residents are not happy with trash management practices in their region. The residents of the Chagres River district see poor management of the regions solid waste as an important environmental concern that should be solved by the local government and federal agencies (APRONAD 2010). Waste management decision-makers in Panama and the City of Coln are at a crossroads. Like their neighbors in Central America, they can recognize and address the problem of waste
12

management at El Dompe, or they can choose to put the issue to the side. When making a decision like this one, it helps to have a picture of what lies ahead with each option. The consequences of an unaddressed open dump can be understood through the analysis of the Fresh Kills landfill (now closed) in the United States. Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island, New York City was the largest operating landfill in the world, sprawling over an estimated 800 hectares. The kinds of contaminants seen at Fresh Kills are seen at smaller landfills as well, albeit with varying concentrations of contaminants depending on specific circumstances (Christensen et al. 2001). Fresh Kills polluted surrounding water and air. In 2001 New York City Mayor Rudy Guiliani finally closed Fresh Kills because of its harmful effects on public health and the environment. The landfill polluted the air with methane, carbon dioxide, volatile chemicals, particulate matter and unpleasant odors. Depending on levels of exposure, these pollutants can cause a wide variety of adverse health effects, including respiratory problems and cancer. One health study found that odor coming from the landfill could be linked to negative effects on respiration. On days with particularly bad odor study participants were more likely to wheeze or cough. They were also more likely to experience a decrease in peak expiratory flow rate (a measure of lung capacity) from the morning to the evening (ATSDR 2001, Thurgood 2010, Thomson 2009). Investigators also found that chemical waste from the Fresh Kills Landfill leached into the groundwater beneath the site and into surface waters around the site. Some of the chemicals released into the surface waters might have harmed fish and shellfish. Landfill leachate (garbage juice) poses threats wherever landfills do not have proper environmental controls. According to the World Bank, it is inevitable that the contaminants in the waste will affect human health and pollute water supplies as well as affect the aquatic food chain. Grazing animals on dumps can pass diseases via the terrestrial food chain, as well as by pests through infestation. People living on or near a dump are also at risk (Thurgood 2010, 5). All of these effects are real concerns for El Dompe and the greater community of Coln. Colns heavy rainfall (over 3,000 mm annually) greatly increases the changes for contamination of regional water resources, including Colns water supply and the Panama Canal (World Atlas 2010). Further, the water table is reportedly only four inches below the surface of El Dompe, meaning that contaminants can move quickly into surrounding waters (R. Phillips, Panama Canal Authority, pers. comm. 2010). Because the intake for Colns water system is reportedly located not far from the stream that flows past El Dompe, the municipal water supply in Coln may be at risk (S. Heckadon-Moreno, pers. comm. 2010). The environmental, economic, and public health risks of open dumps can be averted by adopting modern waste management strategies. In fact, benefits can even be attained by managing waste correctly and creatively. For example, in the Rio Azul Landfill of San Jose, Costa Rice, an incinerator converts trash into energy for the country. Methane gas coming from the garbage is collected and combusted, producing electricity at a power plant on the landfill. This electricity is distributed across a national interconnected-grid, delivering energy to citizens in San Jose and other parts of Costa Rica (Senternovem 2010). The combustion of methane also
13

decreases the amount of green house gas pollutants emitted from the landfill, a win for the environment and for public health. According to Senternovem, a company from the Netherlands financing the project, this landfill gas collection system will eventually keep 1.5 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalents from being released into the air. Aside from the generation of electricity and the protection of the environment, the landfill gas collection system in Rio Azul provides many other benefits. It improves the local neighborhoods and communities by reducing toxic and odorous gases emissions. The removal of these gases from the air improves public health. This new waste management scheme also decreases the risk of landslides by speeding the settlement of waste mass (Senternovem 2010). A story of successful waste management can also be found right in Panama. While Panama City has yet to institute a garbage collection system that works, the citys landfill, Cerro Patacn, has come under new management by the Spanish firm Urbaser Plotosa. Formerly, Cerro Patacn was like El Dompe in Coln. In 1998 a fire burned at Cerro Patacn for nine days. Toxic fumes were released into the air and many people went to the hospital (Rivas 2009). Urbaser has implemented many improvements to the landfill. There is a new fence around the landfill, better roads, a materials separation and recycling facility, and an organized scavenging cooperative that employs 1,000 people. Urbaser has plans to install a leachate collection system and a waste-toenergy facility as well. This facility has the potential to produce carbon credits for Panama, which can be sold to countries like the Netherlands (Thomson and Alamiri 2010). Though it is not discussed in the success stories above, a crucial component of any successful waste management strategy is public education. While most of the citys trash ends up in El Dompe, there are areas outside of the city where regular trash service is very infrequent and most trash is burnt or buried (APRONAD 2010). Informing the public about other waste management practices will help reduce the amount of trash being buried and burnt, disposal practices that have associated environmental and health risks similar to El Dompe. Countries like Barbados have launched public education campaigns around personal and residential waste management practices. These campaigns address waste problems from the bottom up. One component of the public education campaign in Barbados is a user friendly website, with resources about proper waste practices for teachers to use in class, online games about waste for children, and an online community bulletin board. There are also several printable brochures available on the website, with some entitled The Dos and Donts of Waste Disposal and 101 Ways to Watch Your Waste line (Ministry of Health Barbados 2010). The website acts as a point of information dispersal. It is widely accessible and creatively attempts to make the adoption of personal waste management practices fun and enjoyable. By bringing public participation to the issue of waste management in Coln, the transition towards an improved waste strategy will be much more sustainable and the benefits it generates will be long-term. What has happened in Barbados, at Cerro Patacn, and in San Jose, Costa Rica can happen in Coln. Of course, any solution to waste management problems in Coln must be Coln specific. It must take into consideration the unique economic, environmental, and social
14

context of the Coln district in order to be successful. Purpose In 2007 the University of Virginia launched the Panama Initiative to foster teaching and research collaborations with partner institutions in Panama. The University of Virginias partner institution in Panama is the City of Knowledge in Panama City. Panama Initiative projects have involved student field trips to Panama, student and faculty exchanges, and research on improving diagnostics and therapeutics for malnutrition in children, which has been conducted with colleagues at the Gorgas Memorial Health Institute. This study was undertaken as part of the Panama Initiative. The University of Virginias work on trash management in Coln was made possible through collaborations with Dr. Stanley Heckadon-Moreno of the Galeta Marine Laboratory, part the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Coln, Panama. Our report addresses two major questions: (1) What are possible waste management strategies for Coln? (2) What are the social, economic, and environmental implications of each strategy? Specifically, we examine three potential waste management scenarios in this report: (1) the status quo, an open dump; (2) a waste-to-energy incinerator, which would use Colns trash to generate electricity and whose ash would be disposed of in a well-controlled landfill; and, (3) a well-controlled landfill (either a new landfill in Coln or transport of residual waste to Cerro Patacn) with a materials recovery facility (a MRF) in Coln where scavengers would separate out recyclables and, potentially, undertake composting. Our report includes a chapter for each scenario in which we describe potential costs and potential environmental, social, and public health impacts. Our hope is that the information presented in this report will serve as a launching point for dialogue in Coln about what effective waste management strategies look like and what strategies are most pertinent to the regions continued economic growth and social vitality. Methods We used the following sources of information: Newspaper articles from the US and Panama; Personal interviews in Panama during July 2009; Institutional websites in Panama; Dr. Stanley Heckadon-Moreno, of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, who has collaborated with UVa in this research from its inception in 2009; Scholarly databases; Statistical surveys (eg. World Bank);

15

Results from MSW-DST, a computer model developed by the US Environmental Protection Agency; and, Books in English and in Spanish.

In cooperation with over eighty stakeholders in the private and public sectors, and over a period of many years, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed the Municipal Solid Waste Decision Support Tool (MSW-DST) to help assess the quantitative implications of waste management scenarios. MSW-DST is a screening tool that allows local and state decision-makers to evaluate a complete set of environmental and cost tradeoffs when deciding which waste management strategy makes most sense for their circumstances. MSW-DST includes multiple design options for waste collection, transfer, and disposal (RTI 2004). The inputs for the model can be tailored to local circumstances. When local data are unavailable the model contains default values (e.g., for the composition of the waste stream). Using these inputs, the model estimates the annualized cost and the amount of water and air pollution released annually for each scenario. MSW-DSTs results reflect life cycle environmental impacts and full cost accounting so as to capture the full implications for each scenario, including those not realized locally. For example, when paper or metal is recycled, that same amount of material does not have to be produced from virgin material. MSW-DST estimates the difference in the amount of pollution produced from recycling and that produced when using virgin materials, even though the saved pollution may be realized at locations far from the trash disposal site. Similarly, when waste-toenergy facilities (e.g., an incinerator or a landfill gas waste-to-energy unit) produce energy, MSW-DST subtracts from the amount of pollution (e.g., carbon dioxide) created at the waste-toenergy facility the amount of pollution that would otherwise have been created at a power plant to make that same amount of energy. This emphasis on net pollution created means that MSWDSTs estimates of pollution can be negative in the sense that some waste management options avoid pollution, when all effects are considered. The models full cost accounting calculates the full cost for the lifetime of any given strategy. For example, it considers the costs associated with the permitting, design, construction, and operation of each waste management strategy, such as a sanitary landfill, and averages them over the estimated life of the facility to produce annual cost estimates. For any given material the model estimates the costs of collection, handling, transport, and disposal. Cost figures allow for revenues from the sale of energy generated or from the sale of recyclables (Thorneloe et al., 2007). Sources of Coln- and Panama-Specific Inputs To the extent possible, we collected and used Panama-specific data for MSW-DSTs modeling runs, as follows: The International Energy Agency and the United States Department of Energy provided Panama-specific statistics on which sources of energy provide various fractions of power generation and on the costs of electricity, respectively.
16

To estimate the amount of garbage dumped in El Dompe annually, Thomson and Alamiri (2010) used a variety of sources, including publications by ANAM, the World Bank, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and personal interviews in Coln. For waste collection frequency, tipping fees, and wages for garbage collectors and drivers, we used the results of interviews conducted in Coln and research by the World Bank. For data on the likely composition of the waste stream, our group utilized a study by the World Bank that included data for Panama City. Through research and personal communication with several different recycling companies in Panama and Central America, our team was able to estimate the market price of recyclables.

Limitations The outputs from the MSW-DST model reflect our best estimates based on published information and local interviews. We did not have the opportunity to interact with community stakeholders to determine the validity of our modeling assumptions. Thus, the outputs from the model are most helpful not as absolute quantitative results, but as a means to compare the potential financial, environmental, and public health costs of our scenarios. While MSW-DSTs environmental outputs reflect global life cycle values, they also highlight the types of pollutants and health effects associated with each waste management strategy. We could not collect water or air quality data around El Dompe. We are not aware of any public health studies that have focused on El Dompes effects. However, even in the best of circumstances, monitoring or epidemiological studies around sources of pollution are expensive and complicated to undertake. The results of such studies can be ambiguous and contestable: it is inherently difficult to connect environmental exposures with community health effects because of confounding factors. Therefore, we believe our analysis can be useful to decision makers in Coln.

17

Scenario I: Status Quo, Open Dump

Background on Waste Generation and Waste Management in Coln Scenario I is the status quo option, which means continuing to dump the regions trash at El Dompe. El Dompe is an open, environmentally uncontrolled dump used by the city of Coln. El Dompe is managed by Aguaseo, a Columbian waste management firm. According to anecdotal sources, El Dompe has been accepting trash for approximately seventy to eighty years. At present waste is spread over eleven hectares, although it seems likely that, given El Dompes age, the actual extent of the area that has been used for dumping far exceeds eleven hectares (Thomson and Alamiri 2010). Aguaseo collects residential and commercial municipal solid waste from Coln district. Using various published sources and personal interviews in Panama, Thomson and Alamiri (2010) estimate that the amount of residential trash dumped at El Dompe amounts to 74,955 to 112,433 tons/year (68,000 to 102,000 metric tons annually). Aguaseo also collects waste in areas overseen by the Panama Canal Authority (ACP) on the Atlantic Coast of Panama. This waste is estimated to be 32,118 tons/year (29,138 metric tons per year). Other waste accepted at El Dompe is commercial and industrial waste from the Coln Free Zone that is collected by Coln Waste Management (CWM) and estimated to amount to 3,016 tons/year (2,255 metric tons per year). When these waste estimates are combined, total municipal solid waste (MSW, the technical term for garbage) disposal at El Dompe is estimated to be between 110,089 and 147,567 tons/year or roughly 300 to 400 tons/day (Thomson and Alamiri 2010). Assuming that 204,000 people live in Coln City, the amount of garbage generated on average per capita ranges from 0.53 to 0.72 tons/year or from 3 to 4 pounds per capita daily. For perspective, in 2002 per capita trash generation rates in the United States fell somewhere between 0.83 to 1.35 tons/year, depending on which sources of data are used. It appears that waste generation rates in the United States have not changed much since 2002 (United States Environmental Protection Agency 2010). In the European Union-15 and in Japan the corresponding figures are 0.63 tons/year and 0.62 tons/year, respectively. These data are for 2002, the most recent available when Thomson (2009) undertook this international comparison. In recent years Japan and many European Union Member States have pressed hard to reduce the amount of trash generated. In combination with the worldwide recession, which has lowered trash production, more recent Japanese and European figures would likely be even lower than those presented here. Aguaseo is an international firm that runs waste management operations throughout Latin America. In 2002, Aguaseo and Coln District (which includes Coln City and several nearby corregimientos) signed a twenty-five year contract for Aguaseo to oversee waste disposal at El Dompe. Aguaseo is responsible for collecting, transporting, and disposing all waste from Coln
18

District, including areas run by the ACP, but excluding the Free Zone. Since 2005, Aguaseo has collected trash daily or three times weekly from receptacles placed on particular streets in urban and semi-urban areas in Coln. Aguaseos operations are financed through tipping fees, fees paid by residents, and a $75,000 monthly subsidy paid by the city of Coln for services provided to low-income and dangerous neighborhoods in the district. The residents fees vary between four and ten dollars per month. They are collected by the national water and sewer authority, IDAAN (Instituto de Acueductos y Alcantarillados Nacionales), along with water and sewer fees, and then the garbage fees are transferred to Aguaseo. Tipping fees at El Dompe are $17 per metric ton ($15/ton) for non-CWM trucks and $30 per metric ton ($27/ton) for CWM trucks (Thomson and Alamiri 2010, M. Cecilia Escobar, Aguaseo, pers. comm.). The $75,000 monthly subsidy covers garbage collection for approximately 13,000 Coln residents, but about 21,000 residents reportedly do not pay for Aguaseos services. Because Coln did not pay the subsidy in 2007, Aguaseo officials claim that Coln owes them $900,000 (Thomson and Alamiri 2010). El Dompe continues to operate, but financial instability could undermine its long term operation. There are no environmental controls at El Dompe. Rather, trash is dumped on the ground and left in the open air. Because El Dompe is unfenced, no authority public or private can exert control over the kind of waste discarded there. Large fires as well as smaller, smoldering fires are a regular sight at El Dompe. Nearby mangroves are dying and loose trash collects rainwater, providing breeding grounds for insects carrying diseases like malaria. Local residents believe they suffer ill effects from El Dompes air pollution. The ACP reports that smoke rising from the landfill can limit visibility of ships in the Canal Zone (Thomson and Alamiri 2010). Beyond economic, environmental, and public health concerns another important part of analyzing El Dompe is considering the community of scavengers that live there. This group of people sifts through the trash in order to find and sell scrap metals or other valuable materials. They are at high risk for environmental hazards, such as harmful gas emissions from fires that spontaneously erupt at the dump. Sometimes scavengers deliberately set fire to the waste in order to find metals more easily, a practice that poses health threats to both themselves and the surrounding community. In the 1990s the Panama Canal Commission recommended closing El Dompe. Since 2002 local and national officials have promised to close El Dompe, but this promise remains unfulfilled. Aguaseo has urged local officials to find a new landfill site because of the smoke from regularly occurring fires at El Dompe. The City of Coln may purchase land at Bahia Las Minas for the new landfill. However, the surrounding community will likely protest because this is already the site of an oil refinery and a coal-fired power plant. MINSA has recognized the hazards at El Dompe and in 2008 Ministry officials piled layers of dirt on the landfill to decrease the amount of gaseous emissions. This increased occurrences of spontaneous combustion and the dirt had to be removed.

19

Economic Costs and Pollution For the status quo scenario MSW-DST inputs were drawn from locally-specific information when that information was available. (MSW-DST is described on p. 16.) For the status quo option we were able to estimate the following locally-specific information: To estimate the amount of garbage dumped in El Dompe annually, Thomson and Alamiri (2010) used a variety of sources, including publications by ANAM, the World Bank, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and personal interviews in Coln. For waste collection frequency, tipping fees, and wages for garbage collectors and drivers, we used the results of interviews conducted in Coln (Thomson and Alamiri 2010). For data on the likely composition of the waste stream, our group used a study by the World Bank that included data for Panama City (World Bank 2008).

There were many unknowns in our analysis. For example, we were not able to estimate the amount of trash that has been deposited in El Dompe over time, nor did we have specific information on El Dompes physical characteristics (e.g., soil type, distance to water resources) or on Aguaseos actual operating costs. We used an estimate of labor rates for Aguaseos garbage truck drivers and collectors that was based on local interviews. Our estimates for Colns waste stream span a range (109,451 and 146,930 tons/year, see p. 18 for more detail these estimates). We selected the lower end of this range (110,000 tons/year) as our waste disposal input value for MSW-DST, for all scenarios. Figure 1 (p. 61) indicates that the overall costs of collecting an annual waste stream of 110,000 tons/year in Coln, transporting it to El Dompe, and operating a landfill with El Dompes might amount to approximately $6.2 million annually. This value is lower than the estimated costs for the WTE and well-controlled landfill scenarios. However, Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5 (pp. 62-63) show that greenhouse gases and other pollutant levels are highest for this scenario. Air Pollution from Landfill Gas Emissions Open landfills similar to El Dompe produce many gases that are potential health or environmental hazards. A high percentage of landfill gas typically consists of methane and carbon dioxide, which are formed through anaerobic and aerobic decomposition. Hydrocarbons and compounds such as benzene, a human carcinogen, are also found in trace concentrations. Landfills may also emit sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and lead. High levels

20

of moisture can contribute to the enhancement of gas formation. This is of particular concern for Coln because there is a great deal of moisture in this environment (El-Fadel et al 1997). Carbon dioxide concentrations in landfill gas emissions range from about thirty to fifty percent (Brosseau and Heitz 1994). Carbon dioxide emissions contribute to climate change. Climate change is associated with ecosystem disturbances, rising sea-levels, rising temperatures, as well as an increase in extreme weather events. This phenomenon is also linked to negative impacts on human health because of the movement of infectious diseases to higher latitudes (IPCC 2007, Stern 2009). Methane concentrations in landfill gas emissions range from about forty to seventy percent (Brosseau and Heitz 1994). Methane is also a greenhouse gas and one mole of methane is about twenty-four times more effective at absorbing infrared radiation and affecting the Earths climate than one mole of carbon dioxide (Wuebbles and Hayhoe 2002). Methane is an explosive hazard when present at five percent to fifteen percent per volume of air. Explosions have been known to occur in buildings near landfills when concentrations are high enough (ATSDR 2004). Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are produced when waste decomposes. VOCs are also released when waste is buried. Though VOCs account for less than one percent of landfill gas emissions, some VOCs can be extremely harmful to human health (Zou et al 2003). Benzene is one of the most abundant toxic gases at landfills. Studies indicate that benzene continues to emanate from landfills twenty years after the landfill closure (Paraskaki and Lazaridis 2005). Benzene exposures have been linked with elevated leukemia incidence in epidemiological studies. Benzene is classified as a known human carcinogen (Duarte-Davidson et al. 2001). Another abundant VOC in landfill gas is toluene, a non-carcinogenic pollutant that can cause respiratory illness and central nervous system damage (Durmusoglu et al. 2010). VOCs also contribute to ozone (smog) formation. Ozone can cause damage to lung tissue and reduced lung function. Children, the elderly, people with asthma, and people who work or exercise outside are the most susceptible to these negative health impacts (EPA 1998). Prolonged exposure to VOCs such as benzene and toluene may be especially harmful for landfill operators and scavengers (Zou et al 2003). Nitrogen oxides (NOx) concentrations within landfill gas are usually less than two percent (Brosseau and Heitz 1994). NOx contributes to ozone formation or can react with moisture, ammonia, and other compounds to form nitric acid vapor and particles. Small NOx particles can penetrate sensitive parts of the lungs and exacerbate respiratory and heart disease (EPA 1998). Carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations within landfill gas are typically less than three percent (El-Fadel et al 1997). CO reduces the amount of oxygen that reaches a persons organs and tissues by decreasing the oxygen-carrying capacity of blood. The effects of ambient levels of CO are fairly subtle and most people experience a reduced ability to exercise, especially people who are prone to exercise-induced chest pain. Low CO exposure can lead to heart disease exacerbation for the elderly, particularly in cold weather (U.S. EPA 2010).
21

Spontaneous fires or those lit by humans at El Dompe create smoke containing fine particulate matter. These small particles are able to get deep into lungs and the bloodstream. Particulate matter creates respiratory problems, such as aggravated asthma, especially for children with asthma and adults who exercise outdoors (U.S. EPA 2003, 2010). The effects of some particulate matter, such as sulfur oxides (SOx), are immediate. If SOx is inhaled, airway restriction can be felt within five to ten minutes of exposure (U.S. EPA 1994, 2010). Lead is another particulate pollutant originating from landfills. People can inhale airborne lead particles, which accumulate within the blood stream. Lead can cause small increases in blood pressure and anemia. Long-term exposure can result in decreased nervous system functions and lowered IQ levels in children (ATSDR 2007, U. S. EPA 2010). Landfill gases can also create vegetation damage at landfill sites or in the surrounding area because of oxygen deficiency in the root zone. Landfill gas directly displaces oxygen, leading to the death of plants by asphyxia. Another way oxygen can be depleted near the soil surface is during methane oxidation by methane-consuming bacteria. Methane oxidation also releases heat which increases the soil temperature, creating potential for plant asphyxia and high amounts of carbon dioxide and trace gases that are harmful to plants (El-Fadel et al 1997). People often complain about the odor from landfills. These unpleasant smells often create nausea and/or headaches, but these ailments usually go away when the odor fades and thus odors alone are often considered more of a nuisance than a direct health hazard (El-Fadel et al 1997). However, a study at the Fresh Kills Landfill site on Staten Island, New York, determined people with existing asthmatic conditions were more likely to wheeze or have difficulty breathing when they experienced unpleasant smells coming from the nearby Fresh Kills Landfill (ATSDR 2000). Goorah et al. (2009) report that few studies have examined the health impacts of trash landfills on surrounding populations, but that nausea and vomiting (as well as low body mass index in men) were statistically elevated even in people living near a well-controlled landfill in Mauritius.

El Dompe on fire, January 2010. Photo by V. Thomson. 22

Landfill Leachate Moisture entering El Dompe from rain or as a result of the decomposition of waste picks up chemicals and bacteria contained within the dump site. This liquid is called leachate and it can leak into groundwater or nearby surface waters. Many contaminants likely to be found in El Dompe are of concern for the humans and ecosystems, including ammonia, some organic compounds, heavy metals, and alkalinity (Thomas et al. 2009). High rainfall contributes to a greater likelihood that leachate from uncontrolled dumps will migrate into nearby water systems. The chemical properties of leachate change depending on its stage of decomposition. As leachate liquids decompose, they develop increasing concentrations of soluble degradable organic compounds, more acidic pH levels, and changes in ammonium concentrations. After multiple months to several years, this leachate will eventually become less acidic as it reaches methanogenic conditions, but it may still contain unhealthy levels of contaminants (Salem et al. 2008. We did not have access to any measurements of chemicals in groundwater or surface waters near El Dompe. However, since El Dompe is an uncontrolled landfill with no protective barriers in place to collect and contain leachate, it is likely that leachate from El Dompe has permeated into the water table, exposing water sources to contaminants. The likelihood of contamination spreading is greatly increased because the water table is reportedly just inches below the surface of the dump (R. Phillips, Panama Canal Authority, pers. comm.). Trace amounts of arsenic, sulfuric acid, and cadmium are indicated by MSW-DST as likely water discharges for this scenario. Even in small amounts these chemicals can be toxic to plants and animals in the surrounding environment. The model also indicates high levels ammonia for the open dump scenario. While not particularly harmful to humans in diluted quantities, ammonia can harm aquatic organisms. MSW-DST also indicates higher levels of phosphorous outputs for this scenario than in the other two scenarios. Phosphorus can contribute to eutrophication. While Fresh Kills Landfill in Staten Island New York was an uncontrolled open dump which operated on a much larger scale than El Dompe, the waste content and its effects on the surrounding environment at Fresh Kills provides an example of the contamination likely to be found in most uncontrolled municipal waste sites. Contaminants found with elevated levels of inorganic compounds such as ammonia and sulfate as well as various potentially harmful metals like arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, and nickel. Traces of toxic chemicals and metals including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, furans, pesticides, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), cadmium, lead, DDT, and chlordane have also been observed in aquatic species like shellfish and fish species living near the landfill. However, the potential for exposure to these water contaminants on Staten Island is very limited, in large part because drinking water comes from elsewhere. Health studies have not indicated that people living near Fresh Kills Landfill experience statistically higher cancer rates relative to people living in other parts of Staten Island (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 2000a).

23

Landfill Remediation Authorities in Coln could elect to close El Dompe, remediate it, and use another waste management strategy. Landfill remediation techniques vary. Landfill caps keep out rainfall. Typical caps in the United States consist of compacted soil on top of the waste, then a flexible plastic layer, a layer of sand or gravel, and a permeable filter to keep soil out of the drainage system. Another layer of compacted soil with stabilizing vegetation is placed on top. The sand or gravel layer drains any precipitation that infiltrates the landfill and the plastic layer ultimately keeps precipitation from reaching the waste. Permeable fabric layers can be placed on either side of the plastic layer for protection and provide additional support. One guidance document published in the US indicates that a landfill cap typically costs about $150,000 per acre ($370,000 per hectare) (Maryland Department of the Environment 2003). Labor costs are likely to be lower in Panama relative to the US, but at these rates, a cap over eleven hectares at El Dompe would cost approximately $4 million. If material is available locally that can be substituted, such as clay for plastic, costs may be lowered. Caps are critical where landfills are unlined (like El Dompe) and they may reduce the need for more extensive groundwater monitoring systems. If the groundwater is determined to be contaminated by toxic chemicals, it can be pumped and treated. The 1.4 hectacre LongvilleRemer sanitary landfill in Cass County, Minnesota and eight monitoring wells were installed. The monitoring system cost approximately $15,000 in sampling and analytical costs over four years (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 2005). Landfill gases can be controlled by extraction wells drilled to the depth of the groundwater table or to the bottom of the landfill. A blower is used to create a pressure gradient and extract the landfill gas (U.S. EPA 2005). Blowers and pipes collect the gas at a central point and it is flared or used as a fuel. One source indicates that the installation cost of these gas systems is approximately $10,000 to $20,000 per acre (approximately $25,000 to $50,000 per hectare) (Maryland Department of the Environment 2005). Landfill reclamation, also called landfill mining, could be undertaken at El Dompe. Many landfill mining projects have taken place around the world. Landfill reclamation is the process of extracting soil and waste from a dump, sorting out recyclables, and selling part of the excavated waste. Landfill reclamation offsets costs through profits generated from the sale of recyclables, the sale of soil, or burning waste for energy (U.S. EPA 1997). A simple example of landfill reclamation is found in Tel Aviv, Israel, where the waste was excavated and carried on a conveyor belt to a sifter. Coarse soil was dumped back in the landfill and fine soil was sold for construction projects. The left over material was taken to a manual sorting area where valuable metals and other recyclable products could be picked out. In Mumbai, India, a similar landfill reclamation project cost $2.2 per ton of waste excavated. Kurian et al. (2004) provide details of many landfill mining projects around the world. From 1997 to 1999 the Panama Canal Commission tried remedia El Dompe by applying soil cover to approximately eighty percent of the landfills surface. The Commissions efforts

24

cost $3.2 million and included a water quality monitoring study that we have not seen (Thomson and Alamiri 2010). Conclusion The status quo scenario for El Dompe is an unregulated, unmonitored dump site. El Dompe is without protective barriers or gas collection systems which would restrict leachate movement and air pollution. This is an especially pertinent health concern because the water table is reportedly within a few inches of the surface of El Dompe. The air pollution from gaseous emissions and waste fires may be causing deleterious health effects for the residents of Coln, as well as contributing to global green house gas emissions. Beyond public health benefits, removing greenhouse gas emissions has an economic benefit as well: emissions credits can be sold to other countries. Therefore, while the operating cost of maintaining El Dompe might seem low in comparison with the other scenarios discussed in this report, continuing to utilize El Dompe without any remediation or protective actions is likely to result in higher costs to human and environmental health.

El Dompe, July 2009. Photo by V. Thomson.

25

Scenario II: Waste-to-Energy Incineration

The Waste-to-Energy (WTE) scenario is a viable alternative for dealing with Colns municipal solid waste (MSW). In this scenario, MSW that is normally taken to El Dompe, would be diverted to a WTE incinerator. The MSW would be incinerated and the resulting ash would be disposed of in a sanitary landfill. The WTE scenario has benefits and drawbacks. One benefit is that it reduces MSW weight and volume, which would reduce the need to expand existing landfills or create new landfills (Thomson 2009). A second major benefit is that the incineration of the MSW produces power, thus making MSW a renewable energy resource (Michaels 2007). Among the drawbacks of WTE incineration are that these facilities can be expensive to construct and maintain, they often require large amounts of waste to be financially viable, and WTE incineration can release air pollutants that can cause harm to the environment and public health. This chapter discusses how a WTE facility operates, it provides examples of incinerators from around the world, it describes the MSW-DST outputs for an incinerator sized for 110,000 tons of garbage annually, and it describes the potential health, environmental, and economic impacts of incineration. How a Waste-to-Energy Facility Works Most WTE incineration facilities have a similar layout. First the MSW (trash) is unloaded into a holding area. In some incinerators workers pull out the recyclables from the MSW, in some the MSW is shredded, and in some incinerators both processes occur. The MSW is then lifted by a crane and dropped into a hopper adjacent to the incineration chamber. The MSW is slowly pushed into the incineration chamber which is set around 750 degrees Celsius (BBC 2006). The MSW is the fuel for the furnace and produces carbon dioxide, water vapor, and most importantly for WTE, heat (National Research Council 2000). MSW with a larger portion of food and grass produces more heat than other types of MSW (Michaels 2007). The heat produced by combustion boils water in an adjacent boiler. The water produces a powerful steam, which spins a turbine and generates electricity. The more consistent the waste stream is, the more efficient the power production system is (Michaels 2007). The electricity is used to run the incineration facility and the excess electricity is fed into the public electricity grid (BBC 2006). The remaining MSW from the chamber turns into ash and air pollution. Depending on the composition of the trash, combustion can produce and release carbon oxides, other carboncontaining particles, hydrochloric acid (HCl), dioxins, sulfur oxides (SOx) nitrogen oxides (NOx) and metal oxides (NRC 2000). After combustion, the ash typically occupies only ten percent of the original volume and twenty-five percent of the original weight of the MSW (Thomson 2009). In incinerators, two kinds of ash are formed. The incombustible heavy ash that is left behind is called bottom ash, and it is dropped through a grate at the bottom of the incinerator (Thomson 2009, BBC 2006). A magnet is hovered over the bottom ash to extract heavy metals, which can then be recycled. The remaining bottom ash is transported and placed in a landfill.
26

In most modern WTE inclination facilities, the smaller, incombustible particulate matter, which is called fine ash, or flue gas, goes through a series of pollution filters before it is emitted into the atmosphere. The fine ash first goes through a scrubber unit, which treats the ash for pollutants like SO2 and dioxins. The flue gas then moves through the fine particulate matter filter. Finally, the gas and ash that makes it beyond the filters are emitted from the chimney and into the atmosphere (BBC 2006).

Waste-to-Energy Incinerator Diagram; Diagram Labels: 1.) Holding Area, 2.) Hopper, 3.) Incinerator, 4.) Boiler, 5.) Ash collection chamber, 6.) Scrubber reactor, 7.) Fine Particulate Removal System, 8.) Chimney (BBC 2006)

Examples of Waste-to-Energy Incinerators Around the World WTE incineration has been adopted around the world, most notably in Japan and the European Union. Unfortunately, no major WTE incinerators are currently running in Latin America or the Caribbean (UNEP 1996). Although it is not well documented, Mexico City once had an incinerator, but it was eventually shut down due to the fact the facility could not meet Mexicos emission standards. Buenos Aires and So Paolo have also had incinerators shut down due to a combination of high costs and environmental problems (UNEP 1996). In fact, many regions in Latin America such as Quintana Roo and San Luis Potos in Mexico have recently banned the construction of incinerators due to environmental and health fears (GAIA 2009). Despite this, there are many countries like Chili and Brazil that are considering WTE incineration models like our own (Gebremedhin et al. 2009, Mendes et al. 2004). Barbados Barbados is a Caribbean island country that lies about 400 kilometers northeast of Venezuela. It has a tropical climate, covers a land area of 430 square kilometers, and has a population of 280,000. The country produces 1100 tons of MSW a day and the rate of MSW production waste is predicted to increase five percent annually (Goddard 2008).
27

Barbados has a history of conflict around MSW management strategies. In the early 1990s, Barbados was debating between opening a WTE incinerator in Mangrove Pond and opening a well-controlled landfill in Greenland, which is an area in the parish of St. Andrew. The Barbados Government and the Canadian International Development Agency discouraged the use of a landfill and instead recommended that Barbados adopt WTE incineration and a combination of recycling and composting. WTE incineration was recommended due to the fact that Barbados has little land available for landfilling. It is densely populated, and the country is strongly supported by tourism. There was concern that a landfill might appear unsightly to tourists. Because of financial constraints, the government of Barbados decided to create a landfill, but problems later arose. Several landslides occurred within the landfill area, the landfill area pooled with rainwater, and budget limitations prevented landfill renovations. There is also growing evidence that landfill leachate will drain into the sea by the Greenland River and will threaten and destroy marine life. Many in Barbados feel that the incinerator would have been a better choice and that the landfill was an enormous waste of time and money (Goddard 2008). In 1992 the Barbados Port Authority commissioned a Pyrotechnix 30 Ton Incinerator System in Bridgetown Port in 1993 to dispose of waste generated by ships (Barbados Port Inc. 2007). This incinerator has had many benefits including: (1) preventing food and other waste from being dumped into the ocean; (2) the generation of revenue from waste disposal and recycling; and, (3) the conservation of land that would otherwise be transformed into a landfill (Tanner Management Corporation 1997). The original system treated around 40-55 tons of waste a day. Since the addition of a second combustion chamber the capacity has increased to 80 to 110 tons a day (Barbados Port Inc. 2007).

Tynes Bay Plant, Bermuda Bermuda is a British Overseas Territory located in the Atlantic Ocean off the east coast of the United States. Bermuda has an area of 54 square kilometers and a population of 60,000 (Arden 1996). Although it is further from the equator than countries in the Caribbean, it has a warm, humid climate and receives about 1400 mm of rainfall annually, due to the transport of warm, moist air from the lower latitudes northward by the Gulf Stream (Bermuda National Library 2010). Because of limited space the government decided to build a WTE incinerator in Tynes Bay. The facility cost about US $70.5 million and construction was completed in 1994 (Arden 1996). The facility processes about 160 tons of waste a day and supplies 13 million Btu of electricity, which satisfies 5% of the electricity demand on the island (Arden 1996). One of the main concerns about the incineration plant was the pollution caused by the resulting ash from incineration. Residents concerns were due to the fact that many people in Bermuda obtain their drinking water through rooftop catchments which are highly susceptible to air pollution. Also, if the ash was deposited in an unsanitary landfill, the area could be affected by additional pollution from leachate.

28

To prevent ash from being released into the environment, two solutions were adopted. To minimize the spread of the lighter ash or fly ash into the atmosphere, scrubbers were installed on the WTE unit. The heavier ash, bottom ash, was mixed with Portland cement and dried into big blocks. Compared to its granulated ash state, a cement greatly block reduces the spread of pollutants like copper by a factor of six, lead by a factor of forty, and cadmium by a factor of 6000 (Arden 1996). These blocks were then placed in the marine waters off of Castle Harbour or Tynes Bay as part of a land reclamation project. Over the past two years, the ash concrete blocks show little if any deterioration and marine organisms have begun to Colnize them. United States
Figure 1: Land reclamation in Tynes Bay using concrete block from ash incineration (Source: Arden 1997)

In the United States, about fourteen percent of the non-hydropower renewable energy is generated through WTE incineration plants (Ozgekaplan et al. 2009). In 2007 the United States housed 87 WTE incineration plants, which process about 28.4 million tons of MSW annually (Michaels 2007) , which amounts to roughly ten percent of MSW produced in the United States (U. S. EPA 2010). Although successful in terms of MSW disposal and energy production, incineration still costs significantly more than directly landfill trash. In 2004 incineration cost on average $75 per ton while direct landfilling cost on average $41 per ton (Thomson 2009). Almost all WTE plants in the United States were built at least fifteen years ago (Rosenthal 2010). WTE is not widely used in the United States for a variety of reasons. WTE tends to be more expensive than landfilling in the US, where there is abundant open land. Recent headlines about the financial crisis in the United States highlighted the case of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, the state capital, which finds itself almost insolvent partially because of its investment in a WTE facility (Fletcher 2010). Some environmentalists feel that incineration would divert attention and waste away from recycling. Because incinerators must be fed a continuous stream of garbage, some observers believe that by pushing for incineration, the goal of overall reduction in producing waste would disappear. Finally, many people are wary of the air pollution produced by incinerators (Rosenthal 2010). Some organizations in the United States are trying to change misconceptions towards incineration. These groups provide support mechanism such as corporate partnerships and tax credits to encourage the adoption of more WTE incineration (Ozgekaplan et al. 2009). Japan In 2002 Japan had a population of 127 million people who produced about fifty-seven million tons of garbage annually (Thomson 2009). Japan has a small amount of land for landfills and the Japanese have designed their waste management programs around the proximity principal. The proximity principal is the belief that individual regions should be responsible for
29

the handling of their own MSW rather than sending it to other regions. As a result, Japan has many regional and neighborhood incinerators. In total Japan has about 1,490 incinerators, which by one estimate makes it home to seventy percent of the worlds incinerators (Thomson 2009). Due to the economies of scale, it would actually be more cost-effective to implement fewer, larger WTE incinerators rather than many small ones. Thus Japan is an example of a country basing their decision about the treatment of MSW on perceived moral obligations over economic factors. Denmark Europe is home to about 400 incinerators. Unlike Japan, Europeans take advantage of economies of scale, so most European countries have large, regional incinerators rather than many small, local incinerators (Thomson 2009). WTE incinerators are widely accepted by the Danes. Denmark has a population of 5.5 million. Denmark has the highest per capita incineration rate in Europe, at a rate of 0.7 tons of waste annually (Central Intelligence Agency 2010, Reno-Sam & Rambll 2006). In 1997 Denmark became the first country to ban the landfilling of MSW that could otherwise be incinerated (Reno-Sam & Rambll 2006). By the end of 2005, Denmark housed twenty-nine WTE incinerators treating 3.6 million tonnes of waste annually. Ninety-three percent of household waste was either recycled or incinerated (Reno-Sam & Rambll 2006). Rather than only producing electricity, Denmark utilizes a combined heat and power (CHP) system. Two WTE incinerators in Copenhagen produce enough heat and power for 70,000 residents with carbon dioxide emissions one-fifth as large as those that would be produced using fossil fuels (International Sustainability Institute 2008).

Figure 2: Horsholm, Denmark Incinerator. Photo by Johan Spanner. (Source: Rosenthal 2010)

Some WTE incinerators are elaborately designed and many residents prefer having access to the affordable heat and electricity generated by these facilities (Rosenthal 2010). Impacts of Waste-to-Energy Positive Health and Environmental Impacts Figures 1 through 5 (pp. 60 to 63) summarize the relative costs and environmental impacts of Scenario I (Open Dump), Scenario II (WTE), and Scenario III (Well Regulated Landfill Plus Recycling and Composting), as estimated by MSW-DST. MSW-DST is described on p. 16 and on p. 60. MSW-DST assumes that this incinerator would have sophisticated air pollution controls (lime/ammonia injection and a baghouse) that reduce air pollution levels substantially. As these figures indicate, a well-operated, well-controlled WTE facility in Colon handling 110,000 tons of garbage per year is estimated to cost $8.9 million annually, net of revenues received for energy
30

generation. MSW-DST estimates that net carbon dioxide emissions and energy consumption would be negative, because the electricity generated at the WTE facility would offset the need for electricity generated through other, more polluting means. Air pollution and water pollution would be reduced substantially relative to the status quote scenario. Installing a WTE incinerator would lower greenhouse gas emissions relative to the Open Dump scenario. This is because virtually all of the contents of the municipal solid waste stream are combustible at the high temperature of WTE incineration, including paper, food, yard waste, plastic, rubber, wood, glass, metals, ceramics, and clay (TN-SWEP 2010). According to MSWDSTs calculations, El Dompe emits over 32,000 tons of CO2eq annually. In terms of MSW itself, incinerators require large amounts of waste to run and produce energy. We estimate El Dompes trash stream at 110,089 and 147,567 tons per year. A properly sized incinerator could easily burn this amount of MSW. An incinerator would greatly limit the amount of newly produced waste being deposited in open landfills. Only the incinerator ash would need to be buried and potentially it could be re-used. An incinerator would also help mitigate the problems at El Dompe because the MSW from El Dompe could also be used to fuel the incinerator, decreasing the amount of decomposing waste in the current landfill. This decrease in MSW would help limit the foul smell that is spread via the wind and would limit toxic pollutant discharges into the surrounding environment, including the waterways. When waste is burned in an incinerator, heat is produced which can be used to produce electricity or for district heating purposes. This displaces the need for an equivalent amount of electricity to be generated at a power station, preventing the release of carbon dioxide and other air pollutants from fossil fueled power stations. Incinerators act as a renewable energy source as the MSW is burned and converted into new energy, decreasing the need for electricity generated by hydropower or the burning of fossil fuels. Waste-to-energy incineration would also result in health benefits because of reduced dumping at El Dompe. Incinerating rather than landfilling MSW would decrease the amount of toxins available to seep into the water and pollute the air surrounding El Dompe. The Scenario I/El Dompe chapter describes those potential effects in some detail. Negative Health and Environmental Impacts WTE incineration can have a number of negative effects on public health and the environment. First, the process of incineration produces two types of ash, bottom ash and fly ash (Zafar 2008). Bottom ash stays in the bottom of the incinerator while fly ash leaves the smoke stacks and can carry harmful pollutants. Bottom ash is less harmful as it can be collected and deposited into a regulated landfill, but fly ash can include harmful pollutants such as heavy metals and dioxins which harm the environment (Zafar 2008). The incineration of plastics creates ash containing particularly high toxic pollutants and therefore incineration of plastics should be minimized. Even though all modern incinerators have technologies to catch toxins as they leave the stack, some toxins make it past and into the atmosphere. There is no way to avoid the production of these toxins, but most can be trapped by sophisticated filters, which can be extremely
31

expensive (Zafar 2008). Because the toxins are trapped in the scrubbers and filters, the scrubbers and filters ultimately become hazardous waste themselves and must be properly discarded. If they are not discarded into a highly regulated hazardous waste landfill, the toxins can seep into the ground and cause environmental problems as the water table moves the toxins towards water sources. Waste-to-energy incinerators can have a number of negative health impacts as well. Incinerators produce a large quantity of pollutants which can harm peoples health, such as toxic metals, nitrogen dioxins, and acid gases (Zalfar 2008). However, modern incinerators are required to install sophisticated air pollution controls that, if properly maintained and operated, reduce harmful pollutants to a mere fraction of their pre-control levels. RTI International has documented those after-control emission levels in its support documents for MSW-DST (North Carolina State University and Research Triangle Institute 2000). Finally, while incinerators are a way to decrease the amount of solid waste in landfills, they require large amounts of waste to continue operating. As a result, many incinerators rely on minimum guaranteed waste flows. Indirectly, this promotes the generation of MSW and hinders other forms of waste management such as recycling, composting, and reusing of materials. Positive Economic Impacts Waste-to-energy can also lead to economic benefits from using incinerators for MSW. First, the decrease in methane emissions can be used to gain carbon credits and revenue through the international trading scheme between businesses and countries. As the MSW-DST model predicts, an incinerator facility would decrease carbon equivalents emissions by over 32,000 tons annually compared to the Status Quo Open Landfill. Because carbon credits are worth $15/ton on the world market today, the new facility could potentially sell over US $480,000 worth of carbon credits each year (Point Carbon 2010). The Netherlands has signed an agreement with Panama to buy carbon credits gained through gas controls that will be installed at the Cerro Patacn landfill in Panama City (Koninkrijk 2010). Second, incinerators produce energy through the burning of MSW. This energy could be used to run the facility, which lowers operational costs (this effect is already included in MSWDSTs results). Excess power generated can provide power to homes or businesses in the area. MSW-DSTs cost estimates for a WTE incinerator include revenues from the sale of electricity, using average electricity prices in Panama. Third, lower methane emissions would decrease the effects of climate change and therefore decrease the cost of fixing environmental problems in the future. The estimated future remediation cost for rising sea levels, decreasing water and food supplies, and other effects of climate change is thought by leading economists to be much greater than the cost of taking action now (Dow 2007, Stern 2009). Finally, El Dompes harms to the surrounding community could translate into lower economic productivity, not only because of public health impacts but also because El Dompe is located so close to businesses and the Canal. Closing down El Dompe could thereby help increase the overall economic productivity in the area.

32

Negative Economic Impacts Incinerator facilities are expensive to build and to operate (Zalfar 2008). Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, a city of approximately 50,000 people, has accumulated an outstanding debt of $288 million in connection with its WTE facilty (Fletcher 2010). Additionally, some developing countries have a lower BTU value of garbage than those in developed countries. Depending on the BTU value of Panamas waste stream, fuel might need to be added to the waste in order for incineration to occur. Not only would this cost more money, but added fuel might increase air pollution. Waste-to-Energy Scenario Analysis Compared to the Open Landfill Scenario and the Regulated Landfill and Recycling scenario, the MSW-DST model shows the WTE scenario has a number of positive attributes (mainly in regards to pollutants emitted), but also has a number of negative attributes, such as the yearly operation cost. However, MSW-DSTs analysis does not include potential revenues from selling carbon credits as a result of decreased methane emissions, a benefit that would also be realized in Scenario III. Results from the MSW-DST model show that well-controlled WTE facilities have low air pollutant emissions. Negative values of pollution emissions reflect offset emissions from manufacturing or energy processes that do not occur as a result of waste being recycled, burned, or when methane emissions are avoided through waste management. Our analysis assumes that the most sophisticated air pollution controls are installed and that they would reduce different air pollutants by seventy-six to ninety-nine percent. However, the actual emissions at any given incinerator will vary from those assumed here, because of operational differences among incinerators and because waste inputs vary. Some incinerators achieve emission rates lower than those assumed in MSW-DST. According to the models results, a WTE incinerator would offset the most sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions of any scenario. These offsets would result because the WTE unit would generate electricity that might otherwise have been generated using oil. For similar reasons the WTE Scenario shows low emissions of hydrocarbons, lead, and ammonia compared with the other scenarios. Results from the MSW-DST model show that the WTE Scenario has the lowest discharge of water pollutants in all categories, except for zinc and phosphate. Conclusion WTE incineration is one possible alternative for the treatment of MSW in Coln, but like every scenario, it has both benefits and drawbacks in regard to its impact on the environment, public health, and the economy. WTE produces energy and the least amount of water pollutant emissions, but is also the most expensive option. Air pollution emissions are projected to be low, under the assumption that sophisticated controls would be installed and maintained. The ash however, still needs to be disposed of in landfills and the concentration of chemicals within that ash could cause problems by seeping into the drinking water system if leachate is allowed to escape into the environment. WTE incinerators have been known to
33

release compounds such as dioxins, which can cause health problems such as cancer, although modern controls reduce those emissions substantially. Finally, many observers argue that the promotion of incineration would discourage other forms of MSW management such as recycling and composting. WTE would have many positive and negative economic impacts. WTE would be one of the most expensive operations on a yearly basis at a net cost of $8.9 million. But the carbon credits gained could be sold on the world emissions trading market. Other economic benefits of incineration are that it can produce power and it decreases greenhouse gas emissions that facilitate climate change. Investing in the prevention of climate change is more affordable than dealing with the many consequences of climate change. Despite the fact that there are many successful incinerators around the world, it is important to realize that incinerators have not been widely successful in the Caribbean and Latin America due to economic issues and environmental impacts. If a WTE incinerator was adopted, it should have all the technological controls to reduce harmful emission. In the long-term another option to consider would be erecting a large incinerator between Panama City and Coln, and using that WTE unit to burn all MSW generated in both cities.

34

Scenario III: Well-Regulated Landfill with Recycling and Composting

In this alternative, Colns trash would go first to a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF), where scavengers would remove recyclables and compost organic waste. A well-regulated landfill in Coln or Panama City would receive the residual waste. A well-regulated landfill refers to a landfill with a liner, a leachate collection system, and a landfill gas collection system (Gatrell and Klepper 2005). Landfill liners and collection systems prevent leachate (landfill liquids) from seeping into the ground, where they can contaminate groundwater and, eventually, nearby surface waters. Once the leachate is collected it is sent to a sewage treatment plant to be treated. Gas collection and management systems reduce atmospheric emissions of gases such as methane (a greenhouse gas that is also explosive), carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas), and benzene (a human carcinogen). The firm Urbaser, which owns Cerro Patacn in Panama City, is planning to install modern leachate and gas collection systems (R. Sebastin de Erice, Urbaser, pers. comm.). If El Dompe were closed to prevent further air and water contamination, then waste from Coln could be shipped approximately eighty kilometers (fifty miles) to Cerro Patacn. Another option would be the construction of a new regulated landfill in or near the city of Coln. However, landfill siting here could prove to be difficult, as the topography is low lying and prone to flooding. El Dompe reportedly sits a mere four inches above the groundwater (R. Phillips, pers. comm.). Extensive research to find a suitable area for a new landfill in Coln Province would be necessary to avoid groundwater contamination concerns. A MRF offers an organized environment for scavengers to remove and sell valuable materials, as well as reduces the volume of waste that enters the landfill. Scavengers sell their accumulations to directly to companies or through intermediaries. At Cerro Patacn there is a new open-air MRF in which scavengers salvage recyclables (see photo at left, courtesy of Urbaser). A MRF does not currently exist at El Dompe. However, an act passed by the municipality of Coln in March 2010 provides for the installation of a MRF-like facility. The proposal also includes a smallscale energy-producing incinerator next to a new landfill once an appropriate site is found (Municipality of Coln 2010). A public-private partnership, Mixta Municipal Reciclajes y Desarrollo, would run the proposed facility and the scavengers, or pepenadores, would sell their collected recycled material to local recyclable buyers like Papelera Istamena S.A., or LESA
35

Inc. (ANAM 2010). This proposed MRF would require zero to minimal electricity and provide a safer location for local workers to sort and collect recyclable materials. The scavenger community in Coln presents a unique opportunity for the recovery and sale of materials. By charging right to salvage fees, the Empresa Mixta Municipal Reciclajes y Desarrollo could earn money for maintenance of the MRF. Scavengers could also substitute for a hired manual sorting team, thus reducing labor costs at the MRF. However, great care must be taken with the scavenger community, to ensure that they receive health protection (e.g., proper immunizations), that they receive adequate remuneration for their work, and that they are treated with respect for the important work that they undertake. Where scavenger cooperatives have been established scavengers can earn higher incomes than their unskilled counterparts working in formal employment (Medina 2000). A successful scavenger cooperative example is Cooperativa Recuperar in Medelln, Colombia. This highly organized group of over 1,000 scavengers receives 1.5 times the minimum wage, access to medical care, loans, scholarships for continuing education, and life and accident insurance. The cooperative operates a MRF that recovered 5,000 tons of recyclables, including paper, cardboard, glass, metals, textiles, and plastics in 1998 (Medina 2000). In 1996, the cooperative earned about US $30,000. Organized cooperatives are important to strengthen bargaining power in order to negotiate prices with intermediaries. In Scenario III, a MRF would be established in Coln. An organized scavenger cooperative would be responsible for sorting the waste and then selling their materials on the recyclables market. This market often demands material by the ton, thus an organized scavenging cooperative would give scavengers an opportunity they would not otherwise receive if they were working independently. The cooperative could also provide training for the scavengers to improve efficiency, productivity, and the recovery yield. We assumed manual sorting by scavengers at the MRF for our MSW-DST calculations. The first option we describe in this chapter has the waste being processed through a MRF in which fifteen percent of the waste is recycled. The scavengers would manually sort through the waste, pick out the recyclable material, and then sell it. The second option combines twenty percent recycling and ten percent composting, with the residual waste being sent to a well-regulated landfill. Composting could be conducted onsite at the MRF, either by hired workers or by contracted scavenger cooperative members. Different funding sources exist for the construction and maintenance of the MRF, including local prominent businesses in Coln and in the Panama Canal Free Trade Zone, government authorities (e.g., the Panama Canal Authority), the national government, international loan organizations like the Inter-American Development Bank, right to salvage or trash collection fees.

36

Recycling and Well-Controlled Landfill Options Option 1a: Fifteen Percent Recycling with Landfill in Coln
Municipal Solid Waste MRF Landfill in Coln Recyclable ReManufacturing

Option 2a: Fifteen Percent Recycling with Transfer Station and Residual Transport to Panama City (Cerro Patacn)

Municipal Solid Waste

MRF/Transfer Station

Cerro Patacn LF Recyclable ReManufacturing

Option 1b: Twenty Percent Recycling and Ten Percent Composting with Landfill in Coln
Compost Municipal Solid Waste MRF Landfill in Coln Recyclable ReManufacturing

Option 2b: Twenty Percent Recycling and Ten Percent Composting with Residual Transport to Panama City
Compost Municipal Solid Waste MRF/Transfer Station

Cerro Patacn LF

Recyclable ReManufacturing

37

Options 1a and 2a: Fifteen Percent Recycling Rate with a Well-Controlled Landfill, Either in Coln or Cerro Patacn The World Bank estimates that to achieve a fifteen percent recycling rate at least twentyeight percent of incoming waste must consist of recyclable material (World Bank 2008, p. 3-9). Using the World Banks methods for estimating the fraction of a waste stream that could be recycled, the waste stream in Panama City likely contains forty-seven percent recyclable material, above and beyond the organic fraction (forty-five percent) that could be composted (World Bank 2008, 2.4-4, 2.4-12). Lacking detailed information on the composition of the garbage stream in Coln, we have used the waste composition in Panama City. We understand that one significant difference between the waste stream in Panama City and that in Coln is that a large proportion of the waste stream from the Free Zone consists of boxes and paper, which are recyclable. Based on this information, the prospects for sustaining a good recycling rate in Panama City and in Coln seem quite good. There are strong recycling markets in the United States and Costa Rica (Rivas 2010). Table 1 shows market prices for recyclables in Panama (Pinel 2009, Calderon 2009, Rojas 2004). These midpoints of these ranges were used as inputs for the MSW-DST calculation of the estimated returns from selling recyclables.

Table 1 Market Prices for Recyclables in Panama Newspaper Aluminum White/Mixed Paper Plastic Glass Copper Iron 50-70 $/Ton 430-500 $/Ton 200-240 $/Ton 150-200 $/Ton 110-130 $/Ton 1900-3000 $/Ton 160-200 $/Ton

The government of Panama recently released a guide detailing in-home recycling, but it has not provided bins or other ways to facilitate the process (ANAM 2010). In order to achieve a fifteen percent recycling rate in Coln, a MRF would be necessary. The manual sort MRF we describe offers a safer location for the pepenadores and piedreros (scavengers who collect in the streets) to make a livelihood (Rivas 2004). According to MSW-DSTs estimates, the net annualized cost of a manual MRF -including all costs over the life time of the facility, e.g., construction, operation, and maintenance, as well as revenues received from selling the recyclables--would be $29/ton or $479,000 total for a recycling rate of fifteen percent. It is likely that the rates assumed in MSWDST might be high for Coln since they are based on US labor rates.
38

Mexico has experienced considerable success with its low technology, manual-sorting MRFs (Guzman 1998). The waste is unloaded at the MRF and put on conveyor belts. As the waste travels along the conveyor belt the pepenadores remove recyclables such as plastics, metals, paper, cardboard, and glass. The recyclables are then classified, cleaned, and packaged to be bought by recycling processing companies (Guzman 1998, 58). Within many countries of Latin America, pepenadores are an intrinsic part of municipal solid waste management (Guzman 1998, 58). Since Coln is a port city, a large amount of packaged recyclables is exported to other countries with larger recycling industries. The majority of recyclable exports are sent to Colombia, Costa Rica, Venezuela and the United States (Business News 2005). A new MRF in Coln would allow the pepenadores to process more recyclables efficiently which could result in greater income, social cohesion, and healthier working conditions. Numerous countries, such as Colombia and Costa Rica, have instituted recycling programs and operate successful MRFs. Panama has an opportunity to be a green business leader among Latin American and Caribbean countries by instituting a cost-effective, simple, and efficient MRF program in Coln. Costs and Environmental Impacts of Options 1a and 2a MSW-DST estimates the total net annual cost of a well-controlled landfill and a MRF that achieves a fifteen percent recycling rate at $8.5 million, if the landfill is located in Coln. The estimated annual cost for sending residual waste to Cerro Patacn by truck with a MRF in Coln for separating recyclables is $9.6 million (Weitz 2010). These annualized estimates include all lifetime costs of waste collection and transport, building and running the MRF, constructing and operating a well-controlled landfill with leachate and gas collection, a transfer station for Option 2(a) (where the residual, post-MRF waste would be loaded onto larger trucks for transport to Cerro Patacn), and considering the revenue from selling recyclables. Options 1(a) and 2(a) are about $400,000 cheaper and $600,000 more expensive, respectively, than the costs estimated for a WTE (Scenario II). A key uncertainty in these costs is the savings that might be realized by sending Colns trash to Cerro Patacn. Under Option 2(a) it seems likely that there might be economies of scale in sending Colns trash stream to an existing well-controlled landfill rather than investing in an entirely new landfill. However, MSW-DSTs inputs did not allow us to consider those potential savings. It seems likely that the costs estimated here for Option 2(a) are higher than those that would be actually realized. Financing either option could be accomplished through a mix of government funds, aid from local prominent businesses, and international organizations. The local municipality has an agreement with Aguaseo to pay a US $75,000 monthly subsidy for the collection and management of waste in low-income communities of Coln (Amada 2009). The municipality of Coln, however, has refused to pay this subsidy since 2007. Reinstatement of the subsidy would aid in covering the costs of new landfill operations. It is illuminating to consider the difference in cost per person between Scenario I, the status quo (El Dompe), and these options. Granted, there are many uncertainties in our cost estimates, especially since we have not seen Aguaseos estimates of its costs or revenue streams.
39

However, using MSW-DSTs estimate of $6.2 million per year for the status quo and MSWDSTs estimate of $8.5 million for a well-controlled landfill in Coln and a MRF achieving fifteen percent recycling, the marginal difference in cost is $2.3 million annually. If we divide that by Colns population of 200,000, we find that the difference between these options on a per capita basis is only $11.50 annually, or about one dollar per person per month. If an acceptable waste site is not found in the Coln district, then it may be preferable to send the waste to Cerro Patacn in Panama City. This could also be an interim option to use after El Dompe is closed and before a well-controlled landfill or WTE facility is sited in Coln. Urbaser is undertaking improvements Cerro Patacn that will include leachate and gas collection (APRONAD 2010). Cerro Patacn is sized to accept roughly five times the amount of trash that Coln currently generates daily (Thomson and Alamiri 2010). The government of Panama has recently signed an agreement with the Netherlands to gain carbon credits for its methane gas capture from the landfill (Embassy of Netherlands 2010). The potential revenue from the sale of carbon credits is not reflected in the overall cost estimates presented here. In comparison with the open dump, a well-controlled landfill at either Cerro Patacn or Coln would save energy in a number of ways. The net energy offset can be attributed to the reduced materials production and energy consumption associated with the industrial manufacturing of glass, aluminum, paper, plastic and other recycled goods (World Bank 2008). Methane gas capture at the well-controlled landfill would be combusted for energy. Sending waste to a new landfill in the Coln district or to Cerro Patacn results in about the same amount of associated carbon dioxide equivalent emissions (2,000 tons). This level of emissions is much lower than the level related to the open dump scenario, which is about 30,000 tons greater (Weitz 2010). The difference between these two scenarios is mainly due to the energy production emissions needed for industrial manufacturing and materials extraction of products that are otherwise recycled by the MRF (World Bank 2008). When recyclables are not removed from the waste stream, they must be produced again using energy intensive processes that contribute to carbon emissions. In other words, by recycling materials at a rate of fifteen percent, new metal, paper, or other goods will not need to be produced. The uncontrolled fires that occur at El Dompe also contribute to carbon dioxide emissions (Weitz 2010). Particulate matter (PM), nitrogen dioxide (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and lead are all significant pollutants that are present during energy production, materials extraction/manufacturing, and waste management. The fifteen percent recycling option (at both Cerro Patacn and Coln) results in significantly lower levels of PM, SOx, CO, and lead compared to the levels associated with the open dump scenario (Weitz 2010). The fifteen percent recycling option results in a net offset of sulfur oxide emissions (SOx), but it is four times less than the net offset of sulfur oxide emissions from the waste-toenergy option (Weitz 2010). Sulfur oxides are a by-product of energy production. The waste-toenergy scenario has a net offset of sulfur oxides by producing energy with a process that emits less sulfur oxide than would be produced by other methods, such as oil combustion in Panama (IEA 2010). By reducing the need to produce energy by oil combustion, the waste-to-energy scenario creates a significant net offset of sulfur oxide emissions compared with fifteen percent recycling (Weitz 2010). However, fifteen percent recycling is a good option for lowering PM
40

emissions, with a net offset in overall emissions. PM is associated with energy production, fuel consumption, and transportation (Thornloe et al. 2007). By reducing materials demand with the return of recycled products back to various industries, less materials are produced, resulting in less energy consumption and PM emissions. Waste-to-energy will emit some PM as a byproduct when the waste is burned, thus producing slightly more particulate matter than the fifteen percent recycling scenario (Weitz 2010). Compared to the waste-to-energy and open dump scenarios, Options 1a and 2a have the following estimated implications for water pollution: Second lowest amount of dissolved solids, suspended solids, biological oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), oil, heavy metals such as mercury and lead, and pollutants such as ammonia (Weitz 2010). Dissolved solids net offset, but it is not as significant an offset as in the waste-to-energy scenario. The BOD and COD emissions are related to industrial processes and energy production, thus the waste-to-energy scenario has a net offset while the fifteen percent recycling scenarios contribute to BOD and COD. Options 1a and 2a have higher net offsets zinc and phosphate than the El Dompe Scenario or the WTE Scenario. Net offset means that not only does the landfill not discharge these pollutants, it also reduces emissions worldwide related to industrial and energy processes. Zinc is a material utilized for metal production, therefore recycling metal realizes a net offset for zinc. Phosphate is a by-product of paper and cardboard production. Twenty Percent Recycling and Ten Percent Composting with a Well Regulated Landfill, Either at Coln (Option 1b) or Cerro Patacn (Option 2b) For these options we assumed a higher recycling rate (twenty percent) and added a ten percent composting rate. Composting would involve manual turning at an estimated cost of $66 per ton, which is the average cost in Buenos Aires (World Bank 2008). Both recycling and composting could be conducted at the MRF by the pepenadores. Additionally, composted material could be used as a cover in remediating El Dompe (Coker 2006). See Scenario I (Open Dump) for more information regarding possible remediation measures for El Dompe. Composting is the biological decomposition of organic matter. Under controlled aerobic conditions, a pile of organic waste can be transformed into nutrient rich soil for crops, plants, and flowers. Composting has many benefits, including income generation through a compost market, reduced volume of waste entering the landfill, and fertilizer for crops. Additionally, the process of composting is relatively simple, although more advanced techniques exist, such as in vessel composting at a facility with metal bunkers. Within these containers the airflow and temperature can be controlled electronically with tubes and probes. This form of composting produces minimal odor and leachate. However, it also requires a larger investment in materials, construction, and technology. If the scavengers will be the main people controlling the composting operation, then choosing a technique that demands minimal financial commitment, training, and materials is a key consideration. The simplest form of composting involves only the ground, some worms,
41

sawdust, and a black plastic tarp. Composting using worms is called vermicompost. The composting material is placed in a bin or on the ground and then layered with organic waste and worms mixed in. Each layer is moistened with water. Panamas humid climate and rainfall patterns make it an ideal place for vermicompost. In Bluefields, Nicaragua the municipal government has started a vermicomposting pilot program. The composting site is located near the dump so the waste can be sorted on site. The organic waste is piled up and enclosed in black plastic tarp to increase the heat to aid in decomposition. Government employees aerate the piles daily to keep the temperature from rising too much and having negative effects on the worms. The decomposition process can cause the compost pile to reach temperatures near 170 F (GTZ 2007). The entire transformation process from organic waste to suitable fertilizer takes about three months. This form of composting would be relatively easy to implement and does not require much space or manpower. If we assume Colns waste production is approximately 350 tons per day (the midpoint of the range estimated by Thomson and Alamiri 2010) and that a substantial fraction of the stream consists of compostable organic material (which seems likely, since Panama Citys waste stream consists of forty-one percent kitchen waste), then ten percent (35 tons) would be available to compost daily (World Bank 2008). As one ton of compost takes up about 0.11 cubic meters, then the daily input of material for composting would be close to four cubic meters. Scavengers could make their own piles and be in charge of aerating them daily. When the compost was ready, the scavenger could sell his or her pile in the compost market. Compost prices vary widely across regions and countries. In Bluefields, Nicaragua, the city government charges about US $145 per ton of compost (Bravo, pers. comm. 2010). In Bogot, Colombia, one ton costs US $120 because Colombia has many compost vendors flooding the market (pers. comm. Florez 2010). A compost market in Coln would be an important opportunity for entrepreneurship by scavengers. The Empresa Mixta Municipal Reciclajes y Desarrollo could help facilitate this social business enterprise by providing the facility and contracting with the scavenger cooperative. One of the most successful forms of composting in Latin America is the Bocashi fermentation technique (Restrepo 2000). This method employs manual labor for aeration and few materials. It is relatively inexpensive and conducive to the climate of Central America, as it requires about sixty percent humidity. Bocashi fermentation compost consists of aerobic decomposition using a microbial mix of organisms called effective microorganisms (EM). This type of composting is usually performed in a sealed container where the EMs are layered throughout the compostable material. The Bocashi method has several advantages over other forms of composting, including: no toxic gases nor bad odors, flexibility in the amount of compost produced, and the deactivation of pathogenic agents which can cause disease. It is also a fairly quick process: 12-24 days, as opposed to about 90 days, which increases productivity dramatically. The warmer the climate is, the shorter the decomposition time will be. The costs involved are slightly less because worms do not need to be purchased (Florez, pers. comm. 2010). The principal materials for the Bocashi method are chicken manure, rice husks, carbon, molasses (the principal source of energy for the microorganisms), water, lime, and soil.
42

Necessary equipment includes shovels, buckets, watering can, molasses solution and baking powder in water, a hose, rubber gloves, and a face mask to protect workers from dust (GTZ 2007). Cost and Analysis: Twenty Percent Recycling and Ten Percent Composting with a Well Regulated Landfill, Either at Coln (Option 1b) or at Cerro Patacn (2b) The annualized net cost of twenty percent recycling and ten percent composting would be about US $9 million annually if a well-controlled landfill and a MRF were built in Coln (Option 1b). The annual cost of Option 2b, which involves the same recycling and composting rates but sending residual waste to Cerro Patacn, is estimated at $9.7 million. The increased composting and recycling rate of Option 2b would reduce the total amount of waste transported and deposited at Cerro Patacn relative to Option 1b (Weitz 2010). With higher rates of recycling and the addition of composting, all pollutant levels improve somewhat over Options 1a and 1b (see Figures 2 through 5, pp. 63-64). Our results indicate there is a slightly greater reduction in carbon emissions with greater recycling and composting. There would also be a significantly greater reduction in emissions compared to the open dump scenario but still not as much as the waste-to-energy scenario. However, we observe a significant difference in methane emissions between the two recycling options because of composting. Diversion of organic material from landfills and into composting significantly decreases methane gas generation (Weitz 2010, World Bank 2008, 2.1). This reduction in methane emissions, however, would not be as low as that of the waste-to-energy scenario, which has a net methane offset. Economic Implications The presence of a MRF and market for compost has several economic implications. If a new, well-regulated landfill is built in Coln, then there will be high upfront and maintenance costs. Also, it may be difficult to the site the landfill as nearby Coln residents will resist. Transporting the waste away from Coln to Panama City would be a rare example of waste being transported from a poorer area to a richer area. The waste management company Urbaser in Panama City would gain economically from the tipping fees. Aguaseo would not have to manage a disposal facility. A MRF for recycling and composting is an opportunity for income-generating activities performed by the pepenadores. Organization of the pepenadores in more formal cooperatives would allow them to enter into contracts with companies to buy their recyclable materials and compost. The MRF owner, Empresa Mixta Municipal Reciclajes y Desarrollo, would benefit from salvage fees. MRF scavengers are often exploited financially. Without the bargaining power of a cooperative they may receive lower rates for their recyclables. A key consideration for the MRF workers is health and safety. One idea to improve the well being of the MRF workers would be to provide them with a minimum level of protection, as well as preventative healthcare and treatment. Keeping the scavengers healthy ensures a productive labor force. The scavengers perform useful labor, and helping them increase their recycling rates would be a benefit for the entire community.
43

Environmental and Public Health Implication Fires at El Dompe are very common and at times burn for days, especially during the dry season (Thomson & Alamiri 2010). On 25 April 2010, the Minister of Health, Franklin Vergara, said that the toxic smoke emanating from El Dompe is highly dangerous for the health of thousands of people (Racero 2010). The dump fires are one of the biggest environmental concerns that have created the impetus to find a new waste management solution as soon as possible. The dioxins, furans, and particulate matter emitted are harmful for air quality in the area (World Bank 2008, 3.1). A well-controlled landfill with a MRF would eliminate dump fires (World Bank 2008). Scavengers cause many of the fires at El Dompe when they attempt to remove copper and other precious metals from electronic waste (Thomson and Alamiri 2010). The burning of electronic waste causes considerable harm by emitting cancer causing agents and resulting in respiratory problems in citizens of nearby neighborhoods (Robinson 2009). With a MRF, the fires would no longer be intentionally lit because the pepenadores (including piedreros) would be recovering materials in a sanitary environment where their work would be safe, organized and remunerated. The MRF results in significant health benefits for the pepenadores that currently attempt to recover materials from the landfills and the streets (Wilson et al. 2006). As evidenced in Colombia, Mexico, and even Cerro Patacn in Panama City, recyclable collectors work in sanitary conditions at centralized MRFs, have fixed work schedules, and more supportive social environments (Guzman 1998, Linowes 2006, Wilson et al. 2006). The MRF will not only create healthier working conditions, but will also result in social cohesion that will improve general mental health. A well-controlled landfillwhether in Coln or Cerro Patacn--would also result in significant improvements for the water quality near El Dompe. Improving the water quality around the dump is essential for the residents of Coln. Because the dump does not have a liner system, leachate with toxic contaminants percolates through the ground and into the nearby water. The Citys drinking water intake is reportedly located not far from where the streams near El Dompe discharge into the Canal (S. Heckadon-Moreno, pers. comm. 2010). The methane gas capture of a well-controlled landfill would result in local and farreaching environmental benefits. Methane comes from the decomposition of materials that are disposed of in the landfill. Methane is highly combustible and it is a greenhouse gas. The wellcontrolled landfill, by containing and processing the methane, will result in better ambient air, less odor, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Conclusion While the current open dump at Coln is the cheapest option out of all three scenarios, all observers agree that its environmental costs and negative effects on public health necessitate its closure. The proposed scenario of a well-controlled landfill with the various recycling and composting options present a much better solution for waste management compared to the current open dump. As with the the waste-to-energy scenario, the well-controlled landfill with recycling and composting bring numerous environmental and public health benefits.

44

A MRF will significantly reduce the dangers posed to recyclable collectors. Waste dumped at the landfill will no longer be burned regularly to find higher-return recyclables. Local water sources will no longer receive pollutants that harm fish and make the water unfit for human consumption. The well-controlled landfill with recycling will create a net offset of energy while the current dump consumes energy. With a new municipal company just established in Coln, Empresa Mixta Municipal Reciclajes y Desarrollo Coln, and a recently approved plan for a MRF in Coln, steps have already been taken to achieve a better waste management option (Municipality of Coln 2010). The economic market for recycling in Panama is strong. Panama exported to the United States in 2008 US $44 million dollars worth of recyclables, and that is not including exports to other countries such as Venezuela, Costa Rica, and Colombia (Rivas 2010).

45

Legal Framework and Institutional Involvement

Panama A Young Democracy There is no national, comprehensive, or integrated system of regulation for waste management in Panama. As in the United States, there are a number of players, each with varying perspective and objectives. Fundamental to the complexity of waste management is a question to how it should be defined: Is trash to be regarded first and foremost as something of value? Or alternatively, as pollution? (Thomson 2009, 2). Viewing waste management within a framework which includes environmental protection, public health and welfare, and economic optimization, captures how the development of a waste management system in Panama has been struck with many of the difficulties stemming from Panamas young democracy. The 1992 nationwide election was acclaimed by participants and international observers alike as one that was transparent, free, and fair. As such, the referendum marked a small, but significant, step in the institutionalization of democratic procures under a civilian regime (Scranton 1993, 65). The amazing development and strengthening of the Panamanian democracy and economy in the past two decades has been remarkable. There are still many areas, however, where there is still progress to be made. In their 2007 book Emerging Markets for Ecosystem Services a number of researchers on environmental issues in Panama explored the difficulties in promoting environmental protection, even when it was often proposed in conjunction with public health and development issues. The book describes the situation as a difficult one: Panamanian institutions and their leaders, including important sub-executive positions, are subject to high turnover rates when political control passes to a new administration. The result is variability and inconsistency over time in policy objectives, design, and implementation of environmental policy.The Panamanian public sector suffers from an image of corruption and non-transparency as a consequence of the many political scandals that have occurred throughout the countrys post-independence history. This perception continues to impair business and investment (Fotos et al. 2007, 201-202). Furthermore, the book portrays Panamanian government institutions as historically fragmented and uncooperative in their approach to environmental issues. Lack of communication, lack of coordination among governmental institutions, and lack of leadership have all inhibited the development of policies (Lichtenfield, 61). History of Municipal Oversight of Waste Management in Coln Waste management is an issue that has not received the highest level of attention, energy and investment in Panama. Article 232 of the constitutions establishes the autonomy and administrative authority of municipalities, and Article 233 goes into greater detail on the division of authority and responsibility. Al Municipio, como entidad fundamental de la divisin poltico administrativa del Estado, con gobierno propio, democrtico y autnomo, le corresponde prestar
46

los servicios pblico y construir las obras pblicas, que determine la Ley, ordenar el desarrollo de su territorio, promover la participacin ciudadana, as como el mejoramiento social y cultural de sus habitantes y cumplir las dems funciones que le asigne la Constitucin y la Ley.La Ley establecer cmo se descentralizar la Administracin Pblica y es traslado de competencia y la transferencia de recurso para el cumplimiento de esta norma (Rivas 2010, 2-3). Thus, the structure of the Panamanian government has created a strong centralized federal entity, with municipalities generally dependent on federal assistance for major projects. In 2004 President Martn Torrijos issued two executive decrees regarding regulations of sanitary landfills and incineration facilities, demonstrating the high level of centralized control over waste management in Panama. This level of centralization is unusual in waste management. In personal communication, Dr. Stanley Heckadn Moreno, Director of Communications and Public Programs at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama, has described the difficulties that municipalities have in raising funds for waste management under such a federally centralized structure. Dr. Heckadon-Moreno noted that local governments only have the power to tax a select number of entertainment and vice industries (Heckadon-Moreno 2010). ANAM has noted the many difficulties municipalities have with waste management. Institutional issues center on a lack of municipal personnel, particularly with professional experience in waste management. Economic issues include little availability of credit and investment and weak systems of payment and fee collection, and technical problems involve the lack of long-term planning, low-quality and poorly maintained equipment, and the lack of regularity in garbage and recycling collection (ANAM 2007). Municipal oversight of waste management has its beginnings in Law N 41 from November 8th, 1984, creating DIMA, la Direccin Metropolitana de Aseo. DIMA oversaw three major urban areas: Panama City, San Miguelito and Coln, as well the more rural regions of each district in between Panama City and Coln. DIMA was a semi-autonomous agency, with strong ties to MINSA. DIMA was charged with management and maintenance of three landfills: Panama Citys Cerr Patacn, Red Tank, near Panama City off of the Pacific coast, and Mt. Hope (or Monte Esperanza), near Coln (Linowes and Hupert 2006). The Mt. Hope landfill is now referred to more commonly as El Dompe and is the focus of this report. In 1987 Cerro Patacn was modernized as a sanitary landfill, while Red Tank and Mt. Hope remained open dumps. DIMA was by law in charge of waste collection in all geographical areas of the three municipal districts. However, in reality, only the metropolitan areas of Panama City, San Miguelito, and Coln were being serviced, leaving the trans-isthmian corridor between Panama City and Coln without official waste collection service. This led to the practice of burning waste in yards and dumping it into rivers and unofficial dumps on back roads and near the highway linking Panama City and Coln (Linowes and Hupert 2006, 104). In their waste management case study, authors Richard Linowes and Mollie Brown Hupert of the University of Washington note that In the years since its opening, with DIMAs allocated budget proving inadequate to handle the amount of waste generated, [Cerro Patacn] had taken on some of the characteristics of an open dump. The other sites proved just as difficult to maintain, and most municipalities throughout the country of Panama had not
47

implemented modern waste management practices (105). During the earlier 1990s, the government was pursuing a large-scale privatization program encouraged by the International Monetary Fund (Linowes and Hupert 2006, 103). When Ernesto Perez Balladares gained the presidency in the 1994 election the rate and scale of privatization increased. Under Article 3 of Law 41 of the 27th of August, 1999, the responsibility for the collection and treatment of waste was transferred to the three involved municipalities, Panama City, San Miguelito and Coln (Rivas 2010). As of the date of transfer, DIMA had a fleet of only twenty-five trash compacting trucks serving a millionpeople (Thomson and Alamiri 2010). With the new burden of overseeing waste management practices, and with minimal federal oversight and assistance, the three localities directly overseen by DIMA turned to private enterprise. In Coln, authority for the El Dompe site was officially transferred to the district in September of 2000. However, Coln is poorly equipped to deal with these new responsibilities: Colns economic and environmental vitality is framed by weak local governmental institutions that depend on the national government for revenues and direction. About fifty percent of local public funds are needed merely to maintain personnel and overhead. Local government officials have little autonomy in a system of governance that is highly centralized (Thomson and Alamiri 2010, 6). In 2002 Coln signed a twenty-five year contract with Aguaseo, a Colombian company for collection and disposal. Both national and local officials have recognized that the Mt. Hope/El Dompe site does not provide adequate conditions for a sanitary landfill, and plans for a new site (in Davis, a town in the region of Cristbal) were first proposed in 1998 by an independent consulting firm, F. Guardia y Asoc (MINSA 2001). Research and studies conducted by MINSA and ANAM since the 1990s have allowed officials to narrow down the site location for the new landfill to two places in Villa Alondra and Bahia Las Minas (both northeast of Coln City), yet despite these studies and the interest in a new landfill location, nothing has been formalized (Thomson and Alamiri 2010). As MINSA itself has noted, poor cooperation and organization between la Administracin de la Regin Interocenica (ARI), the regional administrator, Coln district itself, MINSA and ANAM have failed to produce a comprehensive resolution or plan each time a new proposal has been suggested (MINSA 2001). Key Players of Waste Management in Coln Today In most areas of Coln, the company Aguaseo collects trash multiple times a week and deposits collected waste at El Dompe. Aguaseo also provides waste collection services to the ACP (Thomson and Alamari 2010). The ACP is required by law to report any cases of pollution, illegal littering, or dumping in ports or offshore to the federal government. The ACP also operates its own recycling program. Aguaseo receives income from tipping fees from all waste deposited at El Dompe. However, El Dompe is generally unfenced and trucks are often able to deposit trash without paying the tipping fee. Aguaseo also assesses fees on individual residents. IDAAN, the national water and sewer authority, assesses garbage fees along with its water and sewer fees, and transfers these payments (between four and ten dollars per household each month) to Aguaseo

48

(Thomson and Alamiri 2010). Aguaseos financial arrangements are detailed on pp. 18-19 above. Much of the community is poorly educated about waste management. To promote public education about waste management practices, Aguaseo sponsors a weekly radio broadcast. Many Panamanians dispose of waste in public areas, and roadside dumping is common (Linowes and Hupert 2006). The Spanish company Urbaser is a dominant private player in waste management in Panama City. It took over operations at Cerro Patacn in January 2009 and has already undertaken important improvements to the landfills operations, [including] installing a fence, applying extensive soil cover, building vastly better roads, erecting a separate materials separation and recycling facility, and organizing the scavenger community of about 1,000 people (Thomson and Alamiri 2010, 9). Urbaser plans to install modern leachate and gas collection systems, as well as a waste -to-energy facility with a 6MW capacity. The government of Panama will sell the carbon credits accrued by Cerro Patacns WTE facility to the Netherlands through the Kyoto Protocols Clean Development Mechanism (Thomson and Alamiri 2010). While Urbasers work to modernize Cerro Patacn is a success story, Panama City still struggles with garbage collection. Mayor Vallarino recently purchased a fleet of fifty-one new garbage trucks, but the Mayor was criticized by the public and by the Panamanian Vice President Juan Carlos Varela, who commented, For the sake of transparency in the municipal government, and for there to be satisfaction among all parties, it would be prudent for the municipal authorities to call a new process to acquire the fleet of trucks (Winner 2010). The Martinelli administration has decided to allocate $3.1 million in federal funds for immediate garbage collection in Panama City, hiring at least four private companies to collect and haul all waste to Urbasers facility at Cerro Patacn (Winner 2010).

Urbasers Modern Dump Trucks Source: http://www.lebrija.es/opencms/opencms/lebrija/municipio/albumes/album_0001.html 49

Another important private party involved in waste management Coln is Coln Waste Management, a Panamanian company that has collected solid waste generated in the Free Zone: The company handles waste from both the industrial and commercial sides of the Free Zone and deposits this trash [in] El Dompe. National solid waste regulations apply to waste management in the Free Trade Zone, but the ports fall under maritime law (Thomson and Alamiri 2010, 10). The Free Zones plans to create a comprehensive recycling program, but such a program might depend on anticipated administrative streamlining of the agencies overseeing the ports, Free Zone roads and commercial areas. The Free Zone pays no municipal or local taxes and functions as a semi-independent region. However, the Free Zones operators have occasionally invested in projects in Coln District when approached by community or government representatives (Thomson and Alamiri 2010, 16). Influence of Panamas Economic Engines: The Free Zone, the Ports and the ACP Coln Waste Managements involvement highlights the major roles played by the Panama Canal Authority, the ports, and the Coln Free Zone. The Panama Canal Authority is a federal agency, yet the ACP is financially autonomous, has its own patrimony, and the right to administer it, stemming from the 1997 Organic Law that was passed during Panamas major period of privatization (ACP 2010). It is run by an eleven-member Board of Directors, nine of whom are chosen by the Panamanian President with ratification from the Legislative Assembly, one of whom is designated by the Legislative Assembly directly, and one of whom holds the title of director, who is appointed directly by the President. The Canal is currently being expanded to accommodate wider ships at an estimated cost of $5.25 billion over the course of the project (ACP 2006). Coln is the largest port complex in Latin America, and new port centers continue to be built. In the 1990s under Presidents Guillermo Endara and Ernesto Balladares, Panamas federally owned ports were auctioned to private companies and new corporations were allowed to develop their own ports at Coln (Focus Panama 2010). New cruise ship terminals have been constructed within the past decade, and port expansion is a major issue for Coln province. The benefits of the Free Zoon have helped encourage major new projects, such as the $687 million Panama Canal Coln Port that a Californian firm signed a contract to build in 2009 (Jones Lang LaSalle 2009). The Panama Maritime Authority, a federal agency, oversees the ports. The Free Zone, the ACP and the private owners of the ports wield large amounts of economic and political power. The interests of these institutions may help to sway what strategies of waste management have been used in the past and what strategies will be adopted in the future. That is not to say that federal involvement in waste management is negligible, but there have been many failed efforts to develop stronger government regulation and control of waste management.

50

One of Colns Many Ports: The Coln Container Terminal Source: http://www.dchain.com.pa/img/ColnContainerTerminal.jpg

Federal Regulation of Solid Waste Though Panama does not have an integrated framework for the regulation of solid waste, the Panamanian national government has become more involved in waste management over the past few years. A number of federal agencies play a role in the regulation of waste management, including the Ministry of Health (MINSA), the National Environment Authority (ANAM), and the Institute of National Aqueducts and Sewage Systems (IDAAN). However, these organizations are limited in their capacity to address the problem of solid waste management in Panama. Though federal agencies have been assigned the tasks of regulating certain sanitary landfills and incinerators, a significant portion of Panamas solid waste slips through the cracks, and remains unregulated. Therefore, despite federal regulation, poorly managed solid waste continues to degrade Panamas environment. Ministerio de Salud (MINSA) MINSA has taken the lead role in regulating solid waste. The agency plays a major role in permitting and administering executive decrees that involve public health, including those that regulate sanitary landfills and incinerators. This responsibility is based on Panamas Sanitary Code (Law Number 66, passed on November 10, 1947). Articles 87 and 88 of this law state that the Department of Public Health (within MINSA) should regulate municipal sanitation, including the collection and treatment of solid waste (Cdigo Sanitario 1947).

51

Roadside Dump Near Panama City. Photo by V. Thomson, March 2008.

Executive Decree Number 275 of July 21, 2004 applies to mechanized sanitary landfills with a capacity of more than 300 metric tons (330 tons) per day. It specifies criteria for the site selection, construction, operation, closure, and post-closure maintenance of such landfills. For example, landfills should be sited as follows: at least two kilometers from populated areas; at least eight kilometers from airport flight paths; away from water, sewer, and utility lines, and geologically risky areas; outside of the 100-year floodplain; downstream from any surface water used for human consumption; and, at least 1000 meters from drinking water wells.

Before the permit to site the landfill can be approved, the developer must submit an application to MINSA containing information about three possible landfill sites. MINSA can then recommend a site based on the details submitted. These details include: the distance to both the nearest population and the population that will be served by the landfill; the bodies of water that are near the proposed landfill site; the prevailing wind direction; the accessibility and present use of the proposed site; the results of a survey of area residents concerning the proposed project; the availability of sufficient space for a landfill to last for at least fifteen years; and, the availability of material to cover the landfill.

Once MINSA and other authorities have inspected the proposed site, the developers of the landfill must conduct a number of studies of the site in order to ensure that it is suitable. For
52

example, these investigations should show that the ground water level is at least two meters below the bottom of the landfill. The executive decree also provides specifications for the operation, maintenance, and closure of the sanitary landfill. An approved landfill must have a liner, collection systems for gas and leachate (contaminated water that is released by the landfill), and a plan for groundwater monitoring. The operators of the landfill must also monitor and control noise, particulates, disease vectors, gases, and odors. The treatment of leachate and other wastewater must reduce the concentrations of certain pollutants to a specified level. The decree also requires a plan for the closure of the landfill, in which the landfill will be covered with a material that meets certain criteria. The decree also requires a post-closure plan that must address the integrity of the cap on the landfill and the operation of the leachate collection system, and must include monitoring of groundwater, surface water, and air quality. The costs of this post-closure maintenance should be included in the fees for the use of the landfill. MINSA shares the responsibility for implementing this decree with ANAM and other federal and local agencies. The Direccin General de Salud Pblica (Department of Public Health) within MINSA and health centers are both authorized to permit landfills. MINSA shares responsibility for site inspections in order to determine the best location for a new landfill with ANAM and the local Department of Municipal Engineering. MINSA is also the primary administrator of Executive Decree Number 293 of August 23, 2004. This regulation establishes permitting standards for the construction, operation, and monitoring of incinerators systems. The regulation has separate criteria for incinerators that combust hazardous waste and those that do not. It requires incinerators to be sited in relatively low risk areas, at least 1.5 kilometers from the nearest populated area. Prior to permitting, local residents must be surveyed. Before it approves a permit, MINSA considers factors such as nearby bodies of water, wind direction, and the design parameters of the incinerator. The incinerator operators must be able to dispose of the incinerator ash in a secure landfill (not in an open dump or a landfill not prepared to accept dangerous wastes.) Non-hazardous waste incinerators must monitor and control noise, atmospheric contamination in the work environment, particulate matter, gases, and odors. Meanwhile, hazardous waste incinerators have more specific criteria, including limits on specific pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, dioxins, furans, and heavy metals. The regulation requires incinerator operators to monitor the incinerator ash for heavy metal content and to take soil samples around the incinerator on a regular basis to test for contamination. Recently, MINSA has begun to promote the establishment of regional sanitary landfills. However, this effort has caused conflicts with local communities in some areas. For example, in Chiriqu Province, the provincial governor, supported by MINSA, attempted to send waste from other municipalities to the landfill in David District. The mayor of David protested, saying that the Municipal Law implied that the central government could not require a community to accept outside waste. This case eventually went to the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice,
53

which ruled in favor of the mayor of David in February of 2010. This court decision has slowed MINSAs attempts to centralize waste management (Rivas 2010). MINSA has been somewhat involved in the efforts to find a replacement for El Dompe. However, MINSA has reportedly not undertaken serious efforts to address the problems at El Dompe as it exists. Instead, it has responded to incidents as they arise. Since El Dompe is not a regulated sanitary landfill, MINSA has no legal authority to require its remediation. Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente (ANAM) ANAM was established in 1998 with the passage of Ley No. 41 de 1 de Julio de 1998. Article 58 of that law states that it is the duty of the State to regulate and control the management of domestic, industrial, and hazardous wastes, in all of their stages, including generation, collection, transport, recycling, and final disposal, through the proper authority. Rivas (2010) suggests that this language implies recognition of MINSA as the primary authority for dealing with waste, while ANAM takes a supporting role. ANAM is also charged with supporting MINSA in ensuring compliance with the 1992 Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal, of which Panama is a party. As of 2006, the Basel Convention lists no disposal or recovery facilities within Panama, and it appears that Panama does not respond to the Conventions annual requests for information on hazardous waste generation, movement and disposal (Basel 2006). Like MINSA, ANAM has been involved in the efforts to site a new sanitary landfill in Coln. ANAM has reportedly refused to approve the Bahia Las Minas site favored by MINSA, since it is located less than five hundred meters from a residential community (Thomson and Alamiri 2010). ANAM has also facilitated the development of Memoranda of Understanding for the sale of carbon credits to the Netherlands, Canada, Italy and Spain (Lichtenfels 2007). This effort suggests that ANAM could take a lead role in allowing carbon credits from landfill gas capture or a waste-to-energy plant to be sold on the international market. Instituto de Acueductos y Alcantarillados Nacionales (IDAAN) Cabinet Decree Number 409, of December 29, 1968, created the Departamento de Aseo (Department of Sanitation) under the director of IDAAN. One of the departments tasks was to oversee the collection and deposition of solid waste in both Panam City and Coln. Executive Decree Number 222, on March 11, 1971, provided more detail on the responsibilities of the Department of Sanitation and other government agencies. Some of IDAANs roles were to set the service hours and fees for waste pickup and disposal, and to take responsibility for the environmental health and safety of solid waste operations (Thomson and Alamiri 2010). Therefore, it is IDAANs duty to collect garbage fees along with fees for water and sewer use in Coln. IDAAN passes the garbage fees on to Aguaseo when it collects trash.

54

IDAAN does not have very much capacity to promote environmental protection. For example, it lacks the authority to regulate water resources or levy penalties for contamination. The agency has also had difficulties collecting fees, which has contributed to financial problems for the entities that rely on those fees (Lichtenfels 2007). Other Federal Agencies and Programs Other federal agencies in Panama play smaller roles in waste management. For example, the Fondo de Inversin Social (Social Investment Fund) can provide technical support and help finance waste management projects, while the Ministerio de Educacin (Ministry of Education) can help educate the public about waste management (Organizacin Panamericana de Salud 2003). The various agencies involved in solid waste regulation have been working to collaborate with one another. For example, La Red Nacional de Residuos Slidos (National Solid Waste Network) was created on August 19, 1996 by Executive Decree Number 197, and is a network consisting of a number of key players in solid waste management in Panama. MINSA presides over the network, which includes representatives from the Ministries of Education, Government, Justice, and Housing, along with representatives from other agencies and organizations. Panamas municipalities participate through a representative of the Association of Municipalities of Panama (AMUPA) (Rivas 2010). Non-Governmental Organizations and Universities A number of non-governmental organizations have become involved in solid waste management in Panama, and are often able to provide training and technical assistance for waste management projects (Organizacin Panamericana de Salud 2003). The Association for the Promotion of New Alternatives to Development (APRONAD), the Association for the Promotion of Community Environmental Health (APROSAC), and the Social Action Foundation for Panama (FAS) have all been involved with solid waste projects in Coln Province (Thomson and Alamiri 2010). These organizations also work to publicize problems with solid waste management in Panama. For example, APRONAD regularly posts articles about solid waste on its website (APRONAD 2010). These organizations have the potential to help build public support for improved waste management policies. Local universities, including the Universidad de Panam and the Universidad Tecnolgica de Panam have also played a role in waste management. These institutions can provide training and technical assistance for waste management operations (Organizacin Panamericana de Salud 2003).

Financial Institutions Financial institutions may have the capacity to help finance waste management projects in Panama (Organizacin Panamericana de Salud 2003). One institution that could play a substantial role in Coln is the Inter-American Development Bank, which recently began Phase I
55

of a multiphase sustainable development program in Coln Province (Inter-American Development Bank 2008). IDB has a history of funding improved waste management systems in Central America. For example, in 2008 the bank planned to loan over eleven billion dollars to Belize for a project that was to include the closure of open dumpsites, the establishment of a recycling program, and the construction of a new regional waste disposal facility (IDB 2008). Most of the funds for IDBs new program in Coln Province will be spent outside of the city of Coln (Thomson and Alamiri 2010), but it is possible that future efforts by the Inter-American Development Bank or similar financial institutions could provide funding for a replacement for El Dompe Conclusion Panama is a young democracy, and its institutions are still developing. Given the lack of an integrated federal framework for solid waste management, those institutions charged with regulating waste have sometimes struggled. However, effective solid waste management is essential for Panamas economic growth. The degree to which political authority is concentrated within the Panamanian national government is striking and has a profound impact on solid waste regulation in that country. Though recent years have seen a trend toward the decentralization of solid waste management, many municipalities in Panama lack the resources and authority to manage their waste effectively. With cooperation among municipalities, federal agencies, non-governmental organizations, business interests, other stakeholders, and the public, Panama will be able to move toward a more effective regulatory framework for waste management.

56

Conclusions
Panama is a small Central American country, but it operates a big canal and the world keeps an eye on developments there. -Richard Condit et al 2001 Connecting the two great American continents, Panama holds a unique position in the Western Hemisphere. The Panama Canal cuts between North and South America, and the countrys environmental, economic, and sociocultural history is inextricably tied to both continents, as well as to the Caribbean. Though Panama is a young democracy, its economy and population are growing. With the planned expansion of the Canal, the trends of growth and development in this country are sure to continue. However, this growth has not come without costs. Economic growth and urban expansion have led to deforestation, soil erosion, and water and air pollution. Development has also led to major socioeconomic challenges. This report focuses on the El Dompe site in Coln as a case study of waste management practices to promote improved economic, environmental and public health benefits. While these benefits are applied specifically to Coln in this report, they are applicable to any country that takes steps to improve their waste management practices. Coln Province sits at the Canals Atlantic entrance and it is home to approximately 235,000 residents, divided between Coln City and more rural areas. Coln hosts the second largest free trade zone in the world (behind Hong Kong) and has high literacy rates and extensive public utilities. However, Coln is also faced with high income inequality poverty (Thomson and Alamiri 2010). Environmentally, ecosystems ranging from mangroves, tropical forests, wetlands and coral reefs are all threatened by pollution and rapid development. With rapid population and economic growth, waste management has become a key issue for economic, environmental and public health. To help compare the implications of various waste management options for Coln, we use here the U.S. EPAs Municipal Solid Waste Decision Support Tool (MSW-DST), which has been developed by RTI International. These screening-level evaluations allow municipal and federal representatives, as well as other stakeholders, to interpret and explore different waste management options. The MSW-DST model allows for the use of local inputs for a wide variety of parameters, e.g., moisture content of waste, frequency of trash collection, types and proportions of waste, and market prices for recyclables. Its outputs account for total life-cycle costs and environmental outcomes. The current situation in Coln is inefficient economically. The open dump is dangerous to the environment and to public health. Residents feel that waste is a major problem in the province and change is necessary. Proposals for new sanitary landfills and other methods of remediation have been raised regularly since the late 1990s (APRONAD 2010). The El Dompe site is an uncontrolled, unenclosed landfill and it supplies a large population of unregulated scavengers who sort for valuable metals and other recyclables.

57

All observers recognize that El Dompe must close. However, change has been difficult to implement. When primary responsibility for waste management in Panama City, San Miguelito and Coln was transferred from the federal agency DIMA to the municipalities themselves in 1999, Colns waste management difficulties expanded. With minimal funds, these municipalities leased waste management services to Aguaseo, a Colombian company, which has had its own struggles with collecting payments from Coln and from its customers. At a larger scale, federal agencies such as MINSA, ANAM and IDAAN have had minimal input, coordination and investment in remediation of the site. However, political will and economic investment may be coming together; current support from the Inter-American Development Bank, the promise of newly elected Coln Mayor Dmaso Garca to remediate El Dompe, requests from Aguaseo to fix the situation and the positive example of the modern sanitary landfill, Cerro Patacn, are all forces bringing momentum to the remediation of El Dompe. Each of the scenarios outlined in this report utilizes the MSW-DST to provide information for the stakeholders who wish to determine the best course for El Dompe. Summary of Scenario I The first waste management strategy discussed in this report was the status quo scenario. In summary, landfills generate greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide and methane, which contribute to global climate change. On a more local scale, they also emit a number of toxins that can affect environmental and public health in surrounding ecosystems and communities. Fires, both natural and intentionally set, contribute to these issues. Without remediation, ozone, particulate matter, NOx, SOx, carbon monoxide, and harmful metals will continue to increase respiratory problems such as asthma, bronchitis, heart attacks, neurological problems and cancer risks. In addition to the problems caused by air pollutants, Coln is also susceptible to water pollutants. El Dompe is unlined, allowing hazardous chemicals to leach into the surrounding groundwater and surface waters. A lack of data limits quantification of the impacts of El Dompe on human health in the surrounding communities. However, the status quo scenario is clearly the worst option for public and ecosystem health, although it is the cheapest scenario presented in this report. When it is eventually closed, the dump will eventually need to be remediated. Applying soil cover, capping the landfill, capturing and burning gases, and monitoring groundwater for contaminants could greatly increase the cost of the status quo, though each could be offset by landfill mining. Summary of Scenario II The second scenario proposes the diversion of waste that normally travels to El Dompe to a Waste to Energy (WTE) incinerator. WTE facilities are common in Japan and Western Europe, and are becoming more common in developing nations. After incineration the ash would be disposed of in a sanitary landfill, such as Cerro Patacn.

58

The scenario would reduce space requirements for waste disposal and would serve as a renewable electricity source (reducing greenhouse gas emissions). This scenario is the most effective at limiting water pollution and greenhouse gases, as well as many air pollutants, assuming that sophisticated air pollution controls are installed at the facility. The net costs of a WTE facility are estimated here at $8.9 million annually, when all costs (and offsetting revenues) over the lifetime of the facility are considered. Some observers believe that 1,000 tons of waste daily this amount of waste is the minimum amount needed to make incinerators an economically viable option (Zalfar 2008). Colns current level of waste is estimated at only about one third of this level, meaning that any waste to energy facility may need to import trash from outside of the Coln area. While the upfront costs would be high, the facility would have the capacity to produce electricity. Carbon credits generated by the waste to energy plant could be sold under the Kyoto Protocol on the international market. Summary of Scenario III The final scenario proposed considers the development of a materials recovery facility (MRF) for different levels of recycling and possible composting, in combination with a wellcontrolled landfill, either in Coln or by transporting residual waste to Cerro Patacn. The estimated net costs of the options examined under this Scenario vary between $8.5 million and $9.6 million annually, depending on the recycling rate and where the residual trash is taken for disposal. Recycling is a major component of the current system of waste management in Coln, but it occurs in an unregulated and unsafe fashion with local pepenadores in the landfill and piedreros in the streets at high risk for respiratory diseases, exposure to carcinogens, and lacerations and infections from sharp glasses and metals. Construction of a MRF and oversight from Aguaseo or the newly created Empresa Mixta Municipal Reciclajes y Desarrollo Coln could provide a safer, more sustainable and possibly more lucrative environment. Relative to the uncontrolled dump option, the well-controlled landfill with a MRF shows much lower water pollution levels. It would save energy, largely from a reduction in materials produced, and reduce greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions substantially relative to the Open Dump Scenario. However, emissions of some air pollutants such as NOx and CO would increase slightly with truck transport of waste to Cerro Patacn. Collective Assessment of Waste Management Scenarios Continuing to send Colns trash to El Dompe is the cheapest option, but the dump is ultimately a major threat to the environmental resources of the province and the health of its residents. The emission of air and water pollutants from the dump not only jeopardizes public health, it decreases Colns chances of participating in Panamas growing tourism economy and could affect business at the Coln Free Zone.

59

Scenario II, the installation of a waste to energy facility, requires high start up costs and ongoing close maintenance. This scenario has the potential to generate carbon offsets that can be sold on the international market. With the installation and maintenance of sophisticated air pollution controls, this scenario decreases substantially the emissions of many air and water pollutants. Scenario III, which entails taking Colns trash to a well managed landfill and creating a MRF in Coln, greatly reduces the amounts of water and air pollution coming from the open dump. It is a safer option for the health of Colns citizens and landscapes and it holds the potential for ancillary benefits such as the employment of the scavenger community into a cooperative. In regard to costs, this option is similar to the WTE Scenario, and one subset of Scenario III involves transporting Colns residual (post-MRF) trash to Cerro Patacn, which could also be an interim option after El Dompe is closed and before another disposal site is built in Coln. Carbon offsets could also be generated in this scenario and sold on the international market. These comparative findings are summarized in Figures 1 through 5 directly following this conclusion. For consistency, all scenarios assumed a waste stream of 110,000 tons annually, which is at the lower end of our estimates for the waste disposed of at El Dompe. While the MSW-DST is a powerful tool for assessing different models of waste management, it could be adjusted more than we could undertake here to accurately describe local circumstances. MSW-DST accounts for life-cycle costs and environmental impacts, so the effects depicted in Figures 1 through 5 include effects not realized in Coln. Despite the limitations of our research, we hope this report will prove a valuable resource for evaluating the economic, environmental and public health impacts of various waste management strategies in Coln.

60

Figures 1 through 5: Comparing Costs and Pollution Across Scenarios

The following figures compare the results for each waste management scenario described in this report. In interpreting these results it is important to understand the MSW-DST model that was used to generate them. In cooperation with over eighty stakeholders in the private and public sectors, and over a period of many years, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency has developed the Municipal Solid Waste Decision Support Tool (MSW-DST) to help assess the quantitative implications of waste management scenarios. MSW-DST is a screening tool that allows local and state decisionmakers to evaluate a complete set of environmental and cost tradeoffs when deciding which waste management strategy makes most sense for their circumstances. MSW-DST includes multiple design options for waste collection, transfer, and disposal (RTI 2004). The inputs for the model can be tailored to local circumstances. When local data are unavailable the model contains default values (e.g., for the composition of the waste stream). Using these inputs, the model estimates the annualized cost and the amount of water and air pollution released annually for each scenario. MSW-DSTs results reflect life cycle environmental impacts and full cost accounting so as to capture the full implications for each scenario, including those not realized locally. For example, when paper or metal is recycled, that same amount of material does not have to be produced from virgin material. MSW-DST estimates the difference in the amount of pollution produced from recycling and that produced when using virgin materials, even though the saved pollution may be realized at location far from the trash disposal site. Similarly, when waste-toenergy facilities (e.g., an incinerator or a landfill gas waste-to-energy unit) produce energy, MSW-DST subtracts from the amount of pollution (e.g., carbon dioxide) created at the waste-toenergy facility the amount of pollution that would otherwise have been created at a power plant to make that same amount of energy. This emphasis on net pollution created means that MSW-DSTs estimates of pollution can be negative in the sense that some waste management options avoid pollution, when all effects are considered. Further, MSW-DSTs results include environmental effects and costs that are not realized locally. Thus, each figure below refers to net effects, to reflect the fact that the costs and impacts displayed consider pollution savings that do not occur in Coln. The models full cost accounting calculates the full cost for the lifetime of any given strategy. For example, it considers the costs associated with the permitting, design, construction, and operation of each waste management strategy, such as a sanitary landfill, and averages them over the estimated life of the facility to produce annual cost estimates. For any given material the model estimates the costs of collection, handling, transport, and disposal. The models net cost estimates include revenues from the sale of electricity or from the sale of recyclables.

61

Labels used for each scenario are as follows: Scenario 1 (Open dump) Existing Landfill Scenario 2 (Construction of a waste-to-energy facility) WTE Scenario 3 (Construction of a materials recovery facility for recycling, with possible composting included, and the diversion of Colns waste to well controlled landfill) A) 15 percent recycling + trash sent to well controlled landfill in Coln 15% Rec and Coln LF B) 15 percent recycling + trash sent to well controlled landfill Cerro Patacn 15% Rec and Cerro LF C) 20 percent recycling + 10 percent composting + trash sent to well controlled landfill in Coln 20% Rec, 10% Comp and Coln LF D) 20 percent recycling + 10 percent composting + trash sent to well controlled landfill Cerro Patacn 20% Rec, 10% Comp and Cerro LF

Figure 1: Estimated Net Cost per Scenario (in Millons of U.S. dollars)

62

Figure 2: Estimated Net Annual Carbon Emissions in Thousands of Tons

Figure 3: Estimated Net Annual Energy Consumption in Thousands of MBtus

63

Figure 4: Estimated Net Water Pollutants Emitted

Figure 5: Estimated Net Air Pollutants Emitted

64

References
Administracin de la Zona Libre de Coln. 2009. Facts about the Coln Free Zone. Government of Panama - Coln Free Zone Administration. http://www.Colnfreezone.com/info/features.asp Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2007. Toxicological Profile for Lead, by Division of Toxicology and Environmental Medicine/Applied Toxicology Branch. Atlanta, GA: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp13.pdf. Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2004. Health Consultation: Old Simpsonville Dump #2, by South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Division of Health Hazard Evaluation. Atlanta, GA: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha/OldSimpsonvilleDump2-111204-SC/ OldSimpsonvilleDump111504-SC.pdf. Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2000. A Panel Study of Acute Respiratory Outcomes, Staten Island, New York, by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Atlanta, GA. _____. 2000a. Petitioned public health assessment: Fresh Kills Landfill. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/pha/pha.asp?docid=195&pg=0 Al-Yaqout, Anwar F., and Mohamed F. Hamoda. 2002. Management problems of solid waste landfills in Kuwait. Waste Management and Research 20 (4): http://wmr.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/20/4/328.10.1177/0734247X0202000403. Arden, D.J. 1996. Bermuda Tynes Bay Waste to Energy facility. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. 114: 2-11. Asamblea Legislativa, Repblica de Panam. 2004. Decreto Ejecutivo No. 275 de 21 de julio de 2004. Que aprueba las normas de los rellenos sanitarios, con capazidad mayor o igual a trescientas toneladas mtricas por da, de residuos slidos no peligrosos. http://www.asamblea.gob.pa/APPS/LEGISPAN/PDF_NORMAS/2000/2004/ 2004_536_1876.PDF Asamblea Legislativa, Repblica de Panam. 1998. Ley 41 de 1 de Julio de 1998: Por la cual se dicta la Ley General de Ambiente de la Repblica de Panam y se crea la Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente. http://www.lawyers-abogados.net/es/recursos/Ley-41-1998-LeyGeneral-Ambiente.htm Asamblea Legislativa, Repblica de Panam. 2004. Decreto Ejecutivo No. 293 de 23 de agosto de 2004. Que dicta normas sanitarias para la obtencin de los permisos de construccin y operacin, as como para la vigilancia de los sistemas de incineracon y
65

coincineracin. http://www.anam.gob.pa/images/stories/normasambientales/ Decreto_%20ejecutivo_No_293_INCINERADORES.pdf Asociacin para la Promocin de Nuevas Alternativas de Desarrollo (APRONAD). 2010. Proyecto para el Manejo Adecuado de los Residuos Slidos en la Costa Debajo de Coln. <http://apronadpanama.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/manejo_residuos_distrito_chagres_ panama1.pdf>. (Accessed 10 April 2010). Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente. 2007. Gestin de desechos slidos en Panam: Taller sobre el modelo de emisiones en relleno sanitario para la regin Centroamericana. http://www.epa.gov/lmop/documents/pdfs/conf/central-america/ Gestion_desechos_panama.pdf Autoridad Nacional de los Servicios Pblicos. Licencia para la Prestacin de una o ms de las Actividades de los Servicios de Agua Potable y/o Alcantarillados Sanitarios. http://www.panamatramita.gob.pa/tramite_req.php?id_tram=444 ATSDR. 2001. Landfill Gas Safety and Health Issues. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/landfill/html/ch3.html. Barbados Ministry of Health. "Introduction: Solid Waste Management Program. Sewage and Solid Waste Project Unit, Ministry of Health, Barbados. http://www.solid.gov.bb/Programme/index.asp Barbados Port Inc. 2007. Waste Management Plan for Barbados Port Inc. University Row, Bridgetown, Barbados: Barbados Port Inc., Coastal and Environmental Engineering Solutions Inc. Barlaz, Morton and Ranji Ranjithan. 1995. System Description for a Life-Cycle Inventory of Municipal Solid Waste Management Alternatives. RTI International. https://webdstmsw.rti.org/docs/System_OCR.pdf Bermuda National Library. 2010. Faqs. Bermuda National Library. <http://www.bermudanationallibrary.bm/technical_faqs.php> BBC World News. 2006. Q&A Waste Incineration. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4622484.stm (Accessed April 26, 2010). Brat, I. 2008. Citites Give Waste to Energy Plants a Second Look. The Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122851537257083869.html (Accessed April 26, 2010). Bravo, Gerardo. 2010. Interview by author. Bluefields, Nicaragua, January, 10 2010. Brosseau, Josee and Michele Heitz. 1994. Trace gas compound emissions from municipal landfill sanitary sites. Atmospheric Environment 28: 285-293.
66

Business News Americas-English. 2005. Jan-Mar Recyclable Waste Exports Hit US$9mn. 29 June. LexisNexus Online. (Accessed 10 April 2010). Business Panama Group. 2010 Investing in Panama: Coln Free Trade Zone. Business Panama Group. Panama City: Panama. http://www.businesspanama.com/investing/opportunities/cfz.php Caldern, Cindy. 2009. Industria de Reciclaje Afronta Los Malos Tiempos Con Hidalgua. Panam Amrica Digital, December 2009. <http://www.padigital.com.pa/periodico/edicion-actual/calle50interna.php?story_id=859820&edition_id=20091201#ixzz0kvIrjDWO>. (Accessed 15 April 2010). Capping the I-95 Municipal Landfill. Fairfax County Virginia. http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpwes/trash/dispcapp.htm. Cecilia, Marta. Manager, Aguaseo, interview with V. Thomson, 22 January 2010. Center for Studies and Social Action in Panama. 2006. San Lorenzo National Park: Biodiversity. http://www.sanlorenzo.org.pa/content/blogcategory/24/28/lang,en/ Central Intelligence Agency. 2009. "Central America and Caribbean: Panama." The World Fact Book. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pm.html Chen, Martha, Renana Jhabvala, Ravi Kanbur, and Carol Richards, eds. 2007. MembershipBased Organizations of the Poor. New York: Routledge. Christensen, Thomas, and Peter Kjeldsen, Poul Bjerg, Dorthe Jensen, Jette Christensen, Anders Baun, Hans-Jorgen Albrechtsen, and Gorm Heron. 2001. Biogeochemistry of landfill leachate plumes. Applied Geochemestry. 16: 659-718. Ciplet, David. 2009. An Industry Blowing Smoke. Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA). Global Anti-Incinerator alliance. Coln City Website. 2000. About Coln. City of Coln. http://www.Colncity.com/ Clean Air Trust. 1999. Sulfur Dioxide. http://www.cleanairtrust.org/sulfurdioxide.html. Cdigo Sanitario de la Repblica de Panam. 1947. Ley 66 de 10 de noviembre de 1947. http://www.minsa.gob.pa/minsa2008/final_newpage/documents/legal/documentos-legalminsa/Codigo-Sanitario%20.pdf Coker, Craig. 2006. Environmental Remediation by Composting. BioCycle, December. http://www.jgpress.com/archives/_free/001206.html

67

Commission on Life Sciences (CLS). 2000. Waste Incineration and Public Health. http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5803&page=R9 (Accessed April 30, 2010). Conniff, Michael L. 2001. Panama and the United States: The Forced Alliance. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press. Dale, A. 2010. Tynes Bay Incinerator hit by system failure. The Royal Gazette. http://www.royalgazette.com (Accessed April 29, 2010). Dow, Kirstin and Thomas E. Downing. The Atlas of Climate Change. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2007. Duarte-Davidson, R, C Courage, L Rushton, et al. 2001. Benzene in the environment: an assessment of the potential risks to the health of the population. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 58: 2-13. Durmusoglu, Ertan, Fatih Taspinar, and Aykan Karademir. 2010. Health risk assessment of BTEX emissions in the landfill environment. Journal of Hazardous Materials 176: 870877. Effluent Limitation Guidelines. 2007. United States Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/guide/p2/appf.htm El-Fadel, Mutasem, and Angelos Findikakis, and James Leckie. 1997. Environmental Impacts of Solid Waste Landfilling. Journals of Environmental Management. 50: 1-25. Embassy to the Netherlands in San Jos. 2010. Holland Buys Carbon Credits from Panama. http://www.nethemb.or.cr/aspx/get.aspx?xdl=/views/post/xdl/page&SitIdt=82&VarIdt=6 3&ItmIdt=46727 (Accessed 1 May 2010) Encyclopdia Britannica. 2010. Coln. Encyclopdia Britannica Online. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/126137/Coln. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. Landfill Methane Outreach Program. http://www.epa.gov/landfill/basic-info/index.html#a03 (Accessed 1 May 2010) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. Municipal Solid Waste: Clean Energy. http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/municipal-sw.html (Accessed April 18, 2010). Fletcher, Michael A. 2010. Downturn, debt swamp Harrisburg, other cities. Washington Post (June 21, 2020): A1. Florez, Ricardo. 2010. Phone interview by author. Bogot, Colombia, April, 17.
68

Focus Panama 2010. Panamas Ports. Accessed May 6th, 2010. http://www.focuspublicationsint.com/focuspanama/en/ports.htm Fotos, Mike, Newcomer, Quint and Kappali, Radha . 2007. Policy Alternatives to Improve Demand for Water-Related Ecosystem Services in the Panama Canal Watershed.. In Emerging Markets for Ecosystem Services: A Case Study of the Panama Canal Watershed, ed. Bradford S. Gentry, Quint Newcomber, Shimon C. Anisfield, and Michael A Fotos, III, 195-216. London: Haworth Press. Gatrell, Douglas and Gary Klepper. 2005. New Uses for Old Landfills and Dumps? - Sure, if done Right!. Environmental Expert.com, December 1. http://www.environmentalexpert.com/resulteacharticle.aspx?cid=4409&codi=6546 Gebremedhin, A., Karlsson, B., Bjornfot, K. 2009. Sustainable energy case studyA Case Study from Chile. Renewable Energy. 34: 1241-1244. Giusti, L. 2009 A review of waste management practices and their impact on human health. Waste Management 29 (8): 2227-2239. Global Alliance for Incineration Alternatives (GAIA). 2009. Mexico: A New Victory Against Incineration. http://www.no-burn.org/article.php?id=713 (Accessed April 29, 2010). Goddard, Richard. 2008. Richard Goddard Has Hope That The DLP Government Will Stop The Barbados Greenland Dump Fiasco. Barbados Free Press. <http://barbadosfreepress.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/richard-goddard-has-hope-that-thedlp-government-will-stop-the-barbados-greenland Gomez, Boris. 2006. Boqueteos se convierten en campeones del reciclaje. La Prensa Online, December 18. <http://mensual.prensa.com/mensual/contenido/2006/12/18/hoy/nacionales/832900.html> (Accessed 10 April 2010). Goorah, Smita Sulackshana Devi, Mary Libera Isabelle Esmyot, Ravindra Boojhawon. 2009. The Health Impact of Nonhazardous Solid Waste Disposal in a Community: The Case of the Mare Chicose Landfill in Mauritius. Journal of Environmental Health. 72 (1): 48-54. GTZ (Cooperacin Tcnica Alemana). Produccin de abono orgnico. Cooperative Coffees.http://coopcoffees.com/forproducers/documentation/agriculture/produccion-deabono-organico.pdf/view Guzman, A. 1998. Urban Municipal Solid Waste Management in Costa Rica. MS thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Harding, Maria. 2010. Coln (Cristobal) cruise port. The Independent Traveler, Inc. http://www.cruisecritic.com/ports/newport.cfm?ID=119
69

Heckadon-Moreno, Stanley. 2010. Personal Communication. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. April 27. Heckadon-Moreno, Stanley. 2010. Interview by author Peter Swigert. Charlottesville, VA, April, 26. Heckadon-Moreno, Stanley. 2005. Light and Shadows in the Management of the Canal Watershed. The Rio Chagres, Panama. Netherlands: Springer. Hefacheng, Yanguozhang, Aihongmeng and Andqinghaili. 2007. Power Generation in China: A Case Study of Waste to Energy in Changchun City. Environmental Science and Technology. 41: 7509-7515. Herman, Russell. 2005. An Introduction to the Panama Watershed. The Rio Chagres, Panama. Netherlands: Springer Inter-American Development Bank. 2008. Belize will improve Solid Waste Management with IDB Support. Press Release, November 19. http://www.iadb.org/NEWS/detail.cfm?Language=En&artType=PR&artid=4879&id=48 79 Inter-American Development Bank. 2008. Multi-Phase Program for the Sustainable Developmen of Coln Province. Available at http://www.iadb.org/projects/project.cfm?id=PNL1012&lang=en (19 February 2010). Inter-American Development Bank. 2008. Programa multifase de desarrollo sostenible de la Provincia de Coln Fase I. http://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum=1462278 International Energy Agency. 2010. Key energy statistics: Electricity/Heat in Panama, 2007. http://www.iea.org/stats/electricitydata.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=PA International Energy Agency. 2010. Key energy statistics: Electricity/Heat in Panama, 2007. http://www.iea.org/stats/electricitydata.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=PA Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change by Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K. and Reisinger, A. (Eds.). Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf.
International Sustainability Institute. 2008. Comparative Analysis of Waste Management Practices. http://www.isiseattle.org/Home_Page.html

Johannesson, Lars and Gabriela Boyer. Urban Development Division. 1999. Observations of Solid Waste Landfills in Developing Countries : Africa, Asia and Latin America.
70

Washington, D.C: Urban Development Division, Waste Management Anchor Team, The World Bank. http://www.worldbank.org/urban/solid_wm/erm/CWG%20folder/uwp3.pdf Jones, Lang LaSalle 2009. Jones Lang LaSalle Announces Plans to Develop Panama Canal Coln Port. Accessed May 6th 2010. http://www.us.am.joneslanglasalle.com/UnitedStates/ENUS/Pages/NewsItem.aspx?ItemID=17998 Khitoliyal, R.K., Arora, Shakti, Jaitley, Sikander. 2009. Ground Water Contamination by Municipal Solid Waste Landfill: a Case Study. Proceedings of World Academy of Science: Engineering & Technology, 39, 224-227, March 2009. EbscoHost. Academic Search Complete. University of Virginia Libraries. Koninkrijk der Nederlanden. 2010 Nieuwsflits nr 14 Panama. http://www.nethemb.or.cr/aspx/get.aspx?xdl=/views/post/xdl/page&SitIdt=82&VarIdt=6 3&ItmIdt=46727. Kurian, Joseph, Nagendran, R., Palanivelu, K., Thanasekaran, K. and C. Visvanathan. 2004. Dumpsite Rehabilitation and Landfill Mining. http://dste.puducherry.gov.in/envisnew/books&reports9.pdf Lichtenfels, Michelle. 2007. Policy Alternatives for Improving Markets for Water Quality and Quantity in the Panama Canal Watershed. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 25 (1/2): 147174. Linowes, Richard, and Mollie Brown Hupert. 2006. "The Tropical Waste Dilemma: Waste Management in Panam." International Journal of Emerging Markets 1, no 3: 225234. http://emdapcasebook.iie.org/pdfs/CS_09.pdf (Accessed 10 April 2010). Map of Panama. World Atlas of Maps Flags and Geography Facts and Figures - Maps. http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/namerica/camerica/pa.htm Mapsoftheworld.com. 2009. Coln. Map XL Inc. http://www.mapsofworld.com/panama/cities/Coln.html Marvia Lawes, comment on Crime and Violence Escalates in Coln, Panama. Marvias Panama Journal Blog, comment posted October 17, 2008. http://www.marviaspanamajournal.com/659/crime-and-violence-escalates-in-Colnpanama/ (accessed May 6, 2010). Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). Estimated Costs of Landfill Closure. http://www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/factsheets/landfill_cl.pdf. Medina, Martin. 2007. The worlds ccavengers: salvaging for sustainable consumption and production. Plymouth, United Kingdom.
71

Mendes, M., Aramaki, T., and Hanaki, K. 2004. Comparison of the environmental impact of incineration and landfilling in Sao Paolo City as determined by LCA. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 41: 47-63. Michaels, T. 2007. The 2007 IWSA Directory of Waste to Energy Plants. Integrated Waste Service Associations. http://www.wte.org (Accessed April 29, 2010). Ministerio de Salud, Republica de Panama. 2001. Analisis sectorial de residuos solidos Panama. Organizacin Panamericana de la Salud, Organizacin Mundia de la Salud, Division de Salud y Ambiente. (Octubre) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 2005. Cass County Longville-Remer Sanitary Landfill, by The Closed Landfill Program, Petroleum & Landfill Remediation Section, Remediation Division. Detroit Lakes, Minnesota: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/reports/clp-cass-longville.pdf. Municipal solid waste decision support tool. RTI International. 2004. https://webdstmsw.rti.org/ Municipality of Coln. 2010 Empresa Mixta De Reciclaje. Comunicaciones Coperativas. Mar 3 2010. http://www.municipioColn.gob.pa/es/noticias/114 (Accessed 30 April 2010). National Reports: Compilation of information contained in Part I. Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal. http://www.basel.int/natreporting/index.html National Research Council. 2000. Waste Incineration and Public Health. Committee on Health Effects of Waste Incineration, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology. New cruise port destination. (Coln; Panama Ports Company)(Brief Article) Caribbean Update. January 1, 2002 http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-80863375.html
North Carolina State University and Research Triangle Institute. 2000. Default Data and Data Input Requirements for the Municipal Solid Waste Decision Support Tool. https://webdstmsw.rti.org/docs/Inputs_Document_OCR.pdf

Organizacin Panamericana De La Salud, Organizacin Mundial De La Salud, Divisin De Salud Y Ambiente Octubre De, Oct. 2001. ANLISIS SECTORIAL DE RESIDUOS SLIDOS PANAM. . <http://www.cepis.opsoms.org/eswww/fulltext/analisis/panamar/panamar.pdf>.(Accessed 10 April 2010). Ozgekaplan, P., Decarlois, J., and Thorneloe, S. 2009. Is it better to burn or bury waste for Clean Electricity Generation? Environmental Science and Technology. 43: 1711-1717.

72

Panama Canal Authority 2010. ACP Overview. Accessed May 6th, 2010. http://www.pancanal.com/eng/general/acp-overview.html Panama Canal Authority 2006. Proposal for the Expansion of the Panama Canal: Third Set of Locks Project. Accessed May 6th, 2010. http://www.acp.gob.pa/eng/plan/documentos/propuesta/acp-expansion-proposal.pdf Panama Maritime Authority 2010. What is the PMA? Accessed May 6th, 2010. http://www.amp.gob.pa/newsite/english/home.html Paraskaki, Ioanna and Mihalis Lazaridis. 2005. Quantification of landfill emissions to air: a case study of the Ano Liosia landfill site in the greater Athens area. Waste Management & Research 23: 199-208. Persher, Dan. 2010. Number of ships down but revenue of Panama Canal up in 2010. International Living. April 15. http://internationalliving.com/2010/04/15-panama-canalrevenue/ Petitioned public health assessment fresh kills landfill: Staten island, Richmond county, New York. ATSDR Home. October 22, 2009. <http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/pha/pha.asp?docid=195&pg=1#sum>. Pinel, Melissa Z. 2009. Reciclaje en Crisis. La Prensa Online, June 23. <http://mensual.prensa.com/mensual/contenido/2009/06/23/hoy/vivir/1829264.asp>. (Accessed 4 April 2010). Point Carbon. Point Carbons Price Assessments. 2010. <http://www.pointcarbon.com/> Population health and waste management: scientific data and policy options. World Health Organization. http://www.euro.who.int/document/E91021.pdf Racero, Amada Corte Condena al Municipio de Coln a pagar 900 mil dlares, La Prensa, 8 July 2009, 10A. Racero, Amada. 2010. Salud Busca Solucin al Vertedero de Coln. Lo Que Dicen: De Coln Para el Mundo. Reno-Sam and Rambll. 2006. The most efficient waste management system in Europe: wasteto-energy in Denmark. http://www.powermag.com/business/2418.html Restrepo, Jairo. Abonos orgnicos fermentados experiencias de agricultores en Centroamrica y Brasil. Ayuntamiento de Motril. http://www.motril.es/fileadmin/areas/medioambiente/ae/presentacion/documentos/ABON OSORGNICOSFERMENTADOS.pdf

73

Repblica de Panam, Ministerio de Salud et al. 2001. Anlisis sectorial de residuos slidos Panam. http://www.cepis.ops-oms.org/eswww/fulltext/analisis/panamar/panamar.pdf (Accessed 30 April 2010). Research Triangle Institute (RTI). Default Data and Data Input Requirements for the. Municipal Solid Waste Management Decision Support Tool. 2000. https://webdstmsw.rti.org/docs/Inputs_Document_OCR.pdf Rivas, Francisco. 2004. El Mercado Del Reciclaje en Panam. <http://www.bvsde.paho.org/bvsars/matedu/recicla.pdf> (Accessed 20 April 2010). Rivas, Francisco. 2009. El Mercado Del Reciclaje en Panam. http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/apronad-294001-el-mercado-de-reciclaje-enpanama-recclaje-metales-papel-exportaciones-residuos-apronad-travel-places-nature-pptpowerpoint/(Accessed 25 April 2010). Roberts, R.J., Chen, M. 2006. Waste incinerationhow big is the health risk? Journal of Public Health. 28(3): 261-266. Robinson, Brett H. 2009. E-waste: An Assessment of Global Production and Environmental Impacts. 408:2, 183-191. December 2009. EbscoHost, Academic Search Complete. University of Virigina Libraries. Rosenthal, Elizabeth. 2010. Europe Finds Clean Energy in Trash; but US Lags. The New York Times.<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/science/earth/13trash.html?scp=4&sq=incin erator&st=cse> Saied, Abey. 2006 Al Rescate de los Desechos. La Prensa Online. September 10. Sec 43 A. Salem, Z., and K. Hamouri, R. Djemaa, and K. Allia. 2008. Evaluation of landfill leachate pollution and treatment. Desalinization 220, 108-114 Scranton, Margaret E. 1993. Consolidation after Imposition: Panamas 1992 Referendum. Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, Vol. 35, No. 3, Special Issue: The Future of Panama and the Canal. (Autumn): 62-102. SenterNovem. 2010. Project: Costa Rica, Rio Azul Landfill Gas to Energy Project. http://www.senternovem.nl/carboncredits/projects/costa_rica_rio_azul_landfill_gas_to_e nergy_project_cer01_48.asp. Stern, Nicholas. 2009. The Global Deal: Climate Change and the Creation of a New era of Progress and Prosperity. New York: PublicAffairs. Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. About STRI. The Smithsonian Institution. http://www.stri.org/english/about_stri/index.php
74

Tanner Management Corporation. 1997. Tanner Management Corporation Incineration Systems. <http://www.incineration.com/> The Panama Canal Authority. 2003. Social and Environmental Report 2002-2003. Panama City, Panama: The Panama Canal Authority, Department of Safety, Environment and Security. The Panama Network. 2008 Coln Panama Hotels. The Panama Network. http://Colnpanamahotels.com/ The Panama Network. 2008 Colns Cruise Ports. The Panama Network - Cruises in Panama. http://cruisesinpanama.com/Colns-cruise-ports/ The World Bank Report. 2000. Panama Poverty Report: Priorities and Strategies for Poverty Reduction. Washington D.C: The World Bank. Print. Report published online via Google Books. http://books.google.com/books?id=VQJVMXfRoasC&pg=RA1PA21&dq=Coln+Panama&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=1990&as_ maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=3&ei=JQbWS6vSMarAygTK8-2CQ&cd=14#v=onepage&q&f=true Thomas-Hope, E. 1998. Solid Waste Management: Critical Issues for Developing Countries. Kingston: Canoe Press. Thomas, David John Lawrence, Sean Ferguson Tyrrel, Richard Smith, and Steve Farrow. 2009. Bioassays for the Evaluation of Landfill Leachate Toxicity. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B (12): 83-105. Thomson, Vivian. 2009. Garbage In, Garbage Out: Solving the Problems with Long-Distance Trash Transport. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press. Thomson, Vivian, and Reem Alamiri. 2010. Solid waste management in Coln, Panama: A report of the Panama Initiative, University of Virginia. Working paper, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Virginia. Thorneloe , Susan A., Keith Weitz, and Jenna Jambeck. 2007. Application of the US decision support tool for materials and waste management. Waste Management 27: 1006-1020 Thurgood, Maggie. "Decision-makers guide to solid waste landfills." The World Bank. <http://www.worldbank.org/urban/solid_wm/erm/CWG%20folder/landfill-dmg>. TN-SWEP. 2010. Waste to Energy Incineration. http://www-tnswep.ra.utk.edu/. United Nations Environmental Programme. 1996. Solid Waste Management Sourcebook: 2.4 Topic Incineration. United Nations Environmental Programme. http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/ESTdir/Pub/MSW/RO/Latin_A/Topic_d.asp (Accessed April 29, 2010).
75

U. S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. 2010. EIA Renewable Energy-Landfill Gas and Data and Information.http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/landfillgas/landfillgas.h tml. (Accessed 1 May 2010). U.S. Department of State. 2009. "Background Note: Panama." U.S. Department of State : Diplomacy in Action. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2030.htm#profile U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2008. http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw2008rpt.pdf. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. An Introduction to Indoor Air Quality: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). http://www.epa.gov/iaq/voc.html. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. Carbon Monoxide: Health and Environmental Impacts of CO. http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/co/hlth1.html. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. Ground-level Ozone: Basic Information. http://www.epa.gov/glo/basic.html. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. Lead in Air: Health and Environment. http://www.epa.gov/air/lead/health.html. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. Climate Change: Methane. http://www.epa.gov/methane/. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. Nitrogen Dioxide: Health. http://www.epa.gov/air/nitrogenoxides/health.html. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. Particulate Matter: Health and Environment. http://www.epa.gov/air/particlepollution/health.html U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. Sulfur Dioxide: Health. http://www.epa.gov/air/sulfurdioxide/health.html. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Hydrocarbons. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/invntory/overview/pollutants/hydrocarbons.html U.S. Environmental Projection Agency (EPA). 2005. Guidance for Evaluating Landfill Gas Emissions from Closed or Abandoned Facilities, by Thomas Robertson and Josh Dunbar, Environmental Quality Management, Inc., and EPA Project Manager Susan A. Thorneloe, Office of Research and Development Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division. Research Triangle Park, NC: http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r05123/600r05123a.pdf.
76

U.S. Environmental Projection Agency (EPA). 2003. Particle Pollution and Your Health, by Office of Air and Radiation. Washington, D.C.: http://www.epa.gov/oar/particlepollution/pdfs/pm-color.pdf. U.S. Environmental Projection Agency (EPA). 2000. Air Quality Criteria for Carbon Monoxide, by Office of Research and Development. Washington, D.C.: http://www.epa.gov/NCEA/pdfs/coaqcd.pdf. U.S. Environmental Projection Agency (EPA). 1998. NOx, by Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC: http://www.epa.gov/reg5oair/naaqs/noxfldr.pdf. U.S. Environmental Projection Agency (EPA). 1997. Landfill Reclamation, by Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, D.C.: http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/landfill/land-rcl.pdf. U.S. Environmental Projection Agency (EPA). 1994. Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Sulfur Oxides: Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information, by Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, NC: http://www.epa.gov/ttnnaaqs/standards/so2/data/so2sp1994.pdf. U.S. Environmental Projection Agency (EPA). 1997. Landfill Reclamation, by Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Washington, D.C.: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/landfill/sw_pubs.htm. Weitz, Keith. 2010. Outputs of Data with Panama Specific Information Using the Municipal Solid Waste Decision Support Tool. RTI International. https://webdstmsw.rti.org/resources.htm. Wikipedia. 2010. Coln, Panama. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Col%C3%B3n,_Panama (accessed June 18, 2010). Wilkes University. 2010. Total Dissolved Solids. http://www.water-research.net/ totaldissolvedsolids.htm. Wilson, David C., Velis, Costas, Cheeseman, Chris. 2006. Role of Informal Sector Recycling in Waste Management in Developing Countries. Habitat International. 30: 797-808. http://www.wiego.org/occupational_groups/waste_collectors/Wilson_Velis_Cheeseman_ Informal_Sector_Waste.pdf (Accessed 15 April 2010). Winner, Don. 2010. Central Government Steps In on Garbage Collection. Panama Guide. April 16, 2010. Winner, Don. 2010. Varela Calls on Mayor Vallarino to Scrap Garbage Truck Purchase- Start Over. Panama Guide. April 19, 2010.
77

World Bank. 2008. Solid Waste Management Holistic Decision Modeling: Final Report. Accessed via class materials, Environmental Thought and Practice Capstone Seminar. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTUSWM/Resources/4636171175027570205/FR_Narrative_090226.pdf and http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTUSWM/Resources/4636171175027570205/FR_Appendices_090226.pdff79f7d303f56/UVa_CLAS_2009_Spring_E TP401-1/2008%20World%20Bank%20MSW-DST%20application%20study.pdf> (Accessed 15 April 2010). Wuebbles, Donald J. and Katharine Hayhoe. 2002. Atmospheric methane and global change. Earth Science Reviews 57: 177-210. Wuebbles, Donald J. and Katharine Hayhoe. 2002. Atmospheric methane and global change. Earth Science Reviews 57: 177-210. Zalfar, Salman. 2008. Negative Impacts of Incineration-based Waste to Energy Technology. Alternative Energy. http://www.alternative-energynews.info/negative-impacts-Waste to Energy/. Zou, S.C., S.C. Lee, C.Y. Chan, K.F. Ho, X.M. Wang, L.Y. Chan, and Z.X. Zhang. 2003. Characterization of ambient volatile organic compounds at a landfill site in Guangzhou, South China. Chemosphere 51: 1015-1022.

78