The challenges and opportunities of post-disaster waste management

Charlotte Browncharlotte.brown@canterbury.ac.nz (until 30 November 2012)lottiebrown@gmail.com

presentation outline

• background

• existing plans and guidelines

• waste characteristics

• operational strategies

• management considerations

disaster waste managementbackground

2004 Indian Ocean tsunamiPhoto credit: Erica Seville, University of Canterbury

background

2005 Hurricane KatrinaPhoto credit: Tim Townsend, University of Florida

background

2009 Victorian Bushfiresbackground

2010/2011 Christchurch earthquakes

background

Year Event Waste Quantities

2011 Japanese tsunami estimated 25 million tons (on land)

2011 Christchurch earthquake estimated 8 million tonnes

2010 Haiti earthquake estimated 23 - 60 million tonnes

2009 L’Aquila earthquake, Italy estimated 1.5-3 million tonnes

2008 Sichuan earthquake , China 20 million tonnes

2005 Hurricane Katrina, US 76 million cubic metres

2004 Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne, Florida, US 3 million cubic metres

2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami 10 million cubic metres (Indonesia)

2004 Hurricane Charley, US 2 million cubic metres

1999 Marmara Earthquake, Turkey 13 million tonnes

1995 Great Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake, Kobe, Japan 15 million cubic metres

Why is good disaster waste management important?

social impact

economic impact

environmental impact

background

existing plans and guidelines

2008 USEPA Planning for Natural Disaster Debris

http://www.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/imr/cdm/pubs/pndd.pdf

existing plans and guidelines

2011 UNOCHA Disaster waste management guidelineswww.ochanet.unocha.org/p/Documents/DWMG.pdf

existing plans and guidelines

• current planning focusses on operational aspects.

• it is challenging to plan for a very wide spectrum of disaster impacts.

• a possible approach is to use disaster waste ‘indicators’ (see Brown, 2012 thesis, for more detail)

- disaster scale- number of displaced persons- geographical extent of damage- duration of hazard event- damage to road network- volume of waste- human & environmental health hazards- movement of the waste (from point of origin), and- difficulty in handling the waste.

waste characteristics - composition

typical types of waste

• vegetative

• construction and demolition

• personal property / household items

• household hazardous wastes

• white goods

• soil, mud and sand

• vehicles and vessels

• putrescent

waste characteristics - quantity

how much waste?

• varies widely between different disaster types and built environments.

• FEMA have developed some waste estimation tools (FEMA, 2010, Debris Estimating Field Guide and FEMA, 2009, Multihazard loss estimation methodologies).

• UNEP are currently developing some debris estimating tools.

• some models have also been developed in Japan.

waste characteristics- hazards

Photo credit: Tim Townsend, University of Florida

operational strategies

operational strategies - collection

Hurricane Katrina kerbside collectionhttp://www.ees.ufl.edu/homepp/townsend/disaster/DD_Overview.pdf

Photo credit: Tim Townsend, University of Florida

operational strategies - collection

2009 Samoan tsunami clean-up

operational strategies – handling

Temporary storage in rice paddies and mangroves, following the

2004 Indian Ocean tsunami

operational strategies – handling

Space needed: 50ha per 1,000,000 cu.m debris

2007 FEMA Debris Management Guide

operational strategies – treatmentreuse / recyclingwaste to energyincineration

operational strategies – final disposal

Lyttelton Port ReclamationChristchurch, 2011

management considerations

• overall management and coordination: link with recovery authority

• human resources: skilled and unskilled work, livelihood and capacity building opportunities

• public participation

• public communication

• human health and environmental risk management: accept there will be higher risks

• laws and regulation: flexible and bounded

• funding – public vs private

• disaster waste has a significant impact on a community's social, economic and environmental recovery.

• flexible planning is needed.

• both operational and management aspects need to be considered.

summary

key references

• UNOCHA, 2011. Disaster Waste Management Guidelines, January 2011, Emergency Preparedness Section, Joint UNEP/OCHA Environment Unit.

• USEPA, 2008. Planning for Natural Disaster Debris EPA530-K-08-001, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Solid Waste, USEPA.

• Brown, C., 2012. Disaster Waste Management: a systems approach. PhD thesis. University of Canterbury. (in particular, Appendix N) http://ipac.canterbury.ac.nz/ipac20/ipac.jsp?index=BIB&term=1793295#focus

• Brown, C., Milke, M. & Seville, E., 2011. Disaster Waste Management: a Review Article. Waste Management, 31, 1085-1098.

thank you and questions?charlotte.brown@canterbury.ac.nz