|
MUNICIPAL
SOLID WASTE SITING PROJECT
OVERVIEW:
This project uses the environmental issues associated with the management
of municipal solid waste in a role-playing setting.
PROJECT
OBJECTIVES: You
have two main objectives in this project. First, you must develop a municipal
solid waste (MSW) system for the city of CAST; your focus is on the facilities
that will be needed to handle the solid waste. Second, you must locate
those facilities within the city of CAST. You will be divided into four
stakeholder groups to complete these tasks, but the Council must produce
a single final MSW system. The groups are as follows:
- Solid
Waste Incorporated (SWI) - local waste management firm
- Cast
City Council (Council) - elected city government with decision responsibility
- Concerned
Citizens Association Blue (CCA-Blue) - group of concerned citizens from
upper income community
- Concerned
Citizens Association Green (CCA-Green) - group of concerned citizens
from lower income community
PROJECT
SCENARIO: The State Environmental Agency (SEA) has mandated that all
cities in the state institute a waste diversion program that will divert
25% of their current MSW streams from the landfills within 3 years. To
do this, assume that CAST must construct a Materials Recycling Facility
(MRF) to process its recyclables before shipping them to their respective
market. SWI is a private corporation that provides solid waste management
services to CAST on a contract basis. It builds, operates, and maintains
all SWM facilities, but the City owns the facilities and must assume all
costs. As part of its contract SWI assumes all liability for damages likely
to arise out of its management of the cityís MSW. Presently, SWI operates
a single landfill for the city (taking residential and commercial MSW),
and has informed them that the available capacity will expire in 3 years.
However, the landfill can be expanded in the buffer zone to the north
of its current location. CAST currently has no other options for managing
its MSW since the export of waste to other landfills is illegal under
state law (i.e., exporting waste is NOT an option). Table 1 outlines the
options available to the city. Assume that all options can be constructed
and placed in full operation within 3 years.Ý The attached figure illustrates
the socioeconomic breakdown of the City, and the possible locations for
a waste disposal facility (based on zoning laws and geology). Besides
the annualized costs of the facilities, each facility will likely impact
property value in each community, and there are uncertain health risks
and environmental degradation associated with each facility. The decision
as to where to site the facility(ies) may include payments (or free services)
to the affected communities by SWI. In other words SWI may compensate
residents for impacts from the waste facilities.
|
Option
|
Annual
Cost
|
Life
of System
|
Comments
|
|
Expand
landfill
|
2X
|
7
years
|
Will
use up 75% of existing buffer zone to the north of the landfill
|
|
Add
MRF
|
X
|
Adds
1 year of life to landfill or WTE for every 10% MSW recycled
|
25%
rate mandated within 3 years.
|
|
Add
yard waste composting facility
|
X
(without odor control),
1.5
X (with odor control)
|
Adds
1 year of life to landfill or WTE for every 50% yard waste recycled
|
Yard
waste is 15% of MSW. Facility produces a strong but nonhazardous
odor of decay.
|
|
Add
waste to energy facility (WTE)
|
4X
(with regulated technology - 95% air emissions removal, 10-4
risk), 6X (with best available technology - 99% air emissions removal,
10-6 risk)
|
20
years at full capacity
|
Needs
a minimum of 60% of MSW to be cost effective. Full capacity is 100%
of MSW stream, but 5% of MSW stream will need to be landfilled as
ash.
|
|
Build
new landfill
|
4X
|
20
years at full capacity
|
Needs
a minimum of 60% of MSW to be cost effective. Full capacity is 100%
of MSW stream.
|
Note 1:
Assume transportation costs are similar for each option since waste is
not leaving city limits.
Note 2:
Assume equal population in each quadrant and facility lifetime estimates
account for population changes
Note 3:
Assume the following annual land value:
| 90%
blue, 10% green |
0.4X |
| 90%
green, 10% blue |
0.1X |
| 80%
blue, 20% green |
0.3X |
| 50%
blue, 50% green |
0.2X |
ASSIGNMENT:
Each group will develop a river basin management system for the region
that includes specific policy considerations for the Council. Each recommendation
from a stakeholder group must include the combination of proposed strategies,
the overall costs and benefits of the program (qualitatively), and a justification
of why this is the best plan. On the scheduled date, each group
will have 5 minutes each to present its plan to the Regional Planning
Council. The Regional Planning Council will have a total of 10 minutes
to ask the groups questions. The Council may allow some questions from
the rest of the audience. The Council will then incorporate these comments
into their pre-prepared plan and announce the final decision. Each
of the groups must also turn in a 3-page written position piece outlining
its rationale - this means the plan and justification for why it should
be adopted. The written deliverable must include a concept map highlighting
the issues and a decision matrix to decide between alternatives (these
can be in addition to the 3 pages).
You are
free to research this as much as you want. Your grade will depend on the
extent of substantiated points. Cite all references used. Be careful to
both use reliable sources and to adopt the role of the stakeholder
you represent. Besides the internet (especially newspaper articles), the
following books have substantial relevant information: Compass and Gyroscope
by Kai Lee, Island Press, 1993; and Upstream, National Research Council,
1996.
HOW TO
PREPARE: As you are researching ask yourself these questions:
- What
is the problem that must be solved? Why is it complicated? What are
the issues?
- Characterize
the case with tools we are using (e.g. concept map, the decision matrix)
- Who are
the main stakeholder groups? What are their objectives? Are they conflicting?
- What
are the alternative solutions to the problem?
- What
criteria can be used to evaluate the options?
GRADING:
| Concept
map of factors that influence your recommended plan |
15 |
| Decision
matrix |
15 |
| Justification
of recommendation (written) |
30 |
| Format
including citations/references |
10 |
| Presentation |
30 |
| Total |
100 |
|
