- Email: [email protected]
An environmental assessment procedure for siting solid waste disposal sites
ENVIRON IMPACT ASSESS REV 1990;10:285 296
285
G E N E R A T I N G A L T E R N A T E POLICIES, P R O G R A M S , AND D E S I G N S
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE FOR SITING SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
KAREN F. BOLTON AND FRED A. CURTIS
Virtually every small community in Saskatchewan has a waste disposal facility. Of the approximately 900 sites, many are improperly operated or poorly sited, with some being considered environmentally hazardous (Dillon and Murray, 1983). This paper discusses a procedure for siting waste disposal sites. The Saskatchewan Department of the Environment, under whose jurisdiction waste management falls, encourages the development of regional sanitary landfills rather than the development of numerous modified landfills. However, the strongly autonomous nature of the prairie community seems to conflict with this end, and department officials seem less than optimistic that any immediate progress will be made in this direction (Clark, 1984). Development is primarily at the local level; thus, it is appropriate that the investigation and decision for a waste disposal site be initiated by those immediately involved in the selection process. Any small municipality desiring to expand or develop landfill facilities has a relatively complex task. ~ The site selection process for the disposal of domestically generated wastes is no longer limited to acquiring the least expensive and most accessible land. Current decisions must take into account and satisfy st
Address requests for reprints to: Prof. Fred A. Curtis, Faculty of Engineering, University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada $4S OA2. Karen F. Bolton is affiliated with the Department of Geography, at the University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan qn Saskatchewan modified landfills are how the accepted form of waste disposal in communites under 5,000. A modified landfill situation exists when the compaction and covering of waste is less frequent than the minimum three times per week required for a sanitary landfill (Saskatchewan Department of Environment 1985). Schedule A for Regulating Municipal Waste Management Activities.
© 1990 Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. A. . . . . . . . ¢ . ~ A ~ . ; ~ ~**, V.rt" NIV lflOlf)
~cc
0195-9255/00/$3.50
286
KAREN F. BOLTON AND FRED A. CURTIS
number of environmental, social and political criteria. 2 Estal~lishing landfills in accordance with the regulations, at the same time satisfying those concerns voiced by special interests groups and the public, can be a difficult, time-consuming and costly activity (Sexsmith et al., 1973). For a proposed waste disposal site, a small municipality might not need to investigate a comprehensive range of concerns. However, a need exists to consider those issues for example, health, welfare and safety that are topical to the community or are the subject of legislative requirements. It has been demonstrated that the potential for environmental degradation is present in any project when insufficient care is taken prior to development (McLoughlin, 1970; Fischer and Woodford, 1973). To ensure that such a situation does not arise, it is essential to address the pertinent concerns. To do this effectively, relevant project related issues need to be incorporated into the planning phase of development (Warkentin and Yong, 1973). The means for addressing a broad spectrum of concerns may be loosely termed environmental assessment. As stated by Curtis (1982) "environmental assessment promotes the protection and wise use of community resources by integrating environmental objectives, in the initial project planning stage". EA can be an effective and efficient planning tool for public and private projects (Curtis, 1983(a)). Environmental assessment need not involve the application of sophisticated techniques or the commitment of significant human and financial resources. As a planning process, (Curtis, 1981), EA may be effective if it adequately addresses the concerns initiated by a project, utilizing an appropriate level of analysis. EA is efficient if it maximizes the available expertise, acknowledges the occasional need for technical assistance, and utilizes an available budget.
The Decision to Plan The framework for the site selection procedure for waste disposal sites is a stepwise planning process, which guides a municipality from the initial decision to plan to the selection of a preferred site (Figure I). The planning process is designed to be responsive to a number of relevant social, environmental and economic objectives. The environmental assessment procedure is an integral part of the overall
2A consideration of the "environment" includes the natural and social environment. More clearly defined enrefers to: (i) air, land or water; (ii) plant and animal life, including man; (iii) the social, economic and cultural conditions that influence the life of man or a community relative to the items stated under (i) and (ii). Environmental Assessment Secretariat, Saskatchewan Environment, (August, 1982), General Guidelines for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement, P. A h vironment
SITING SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
287
I
.[GU2~ l
FIGURE 1. The planning process for solid waste disposal sites. planning process which begins with the decision to plan. Need and foresight will influence a municipality in their decision to actively plan for a new waste disposal facility. Following the decision to plan, the municipal council must undertake the selection of a project team. The project team, composed of volunteers, should represent a cross section of the community, drawing on the engineering and planning expertise available. The local media may inform the public of the need for participants and submissions to the municipal council. Council members may put forth names of individuals they feel may be helpful or interested. The project team will be responsible for applying the planning process to the selection of a preferred site. Following the decision to plan, the municipal council needs to establish a project team, drawing on the expertise available within the community. This project team is responsible for applying the planning process to its logical conclusion.
The Frame of Reference The provincial regulations (Saskatchewan Department of Environment, (1985), combined with any existing land use objectives or plans provides the project team with a starting point for the investigation. Reference to these documents
288
KAREN F. BOLTON AND FRED A. CURTIS
aids in delineating the area feasible for study by immediately eliminating certain land areas from consideration.
Scoping Scoping is a vehicle for public participation. Action groups and potentially affected groups will have an opportunity to comment following the identification of alternative sites or site areas, and after a preferred site has been selected. Open house meetings, forums and surveys provide the means for communication. It is essential that the project team be aware of local sentiment and the limits which it will impose on the study. The project team in conjunction with the appropriate regulatory agency(s) organizes scopes and prioritizes the significant environmental issues. Initial contact with the public will provide insight and understanding of their perception of the project and related issues, and what limits they may impose on the investigation.
Goals and Objectives After the scope of the study has been established, the project team formulates project goals and objectives; the long term goal is the selection of a site which is environmentally sound, socially acceptable and economically feasible (Reindl, 1977). A number of objectives directly related to minimizing the environmental impact on the social and physical environments are inherently embodied in the environmental assessment matrices. They include: (1) The site should be publicly acceptable and be located to minimize the hazard of surface water pollution, be isolated from sight and, limit the problems associated with noise, dust, smoke, odor and traffic. (2) The site should be compatible with plans for area planning and development. (3) The site should be suitable for development of a waste disposal ground in terms of accessibility, land vacancy, flood potential haul costs and the life of the site. (4) Site ecology should not be significantly altered. Consideration must be given to the flora, fauna and uniqueness of the area. (5) Public health and safety should be ensured. The groundwater pollution hazard must be minimized to protect portable water supplies. Gas travel hazard must also be considered. (6) The site must be suitable for operation in terms of the availability of cover material, ease of machinery operation and erosion hazard. The importance of clearly defining objectives cannot be over emphasized.
SITING SOLID W A S T E DISPOSAL SITES
289
Objectives provide a permanent frame of reference for the project team and the decision maker; in addition, the suitability of the various alternatives is determined by fulfilling the stated objectives.
Information Collection and the Identification of Alternatives An information base is essential to the identification of alternative sites (Chapin and Kaiser, 1979). It is not necessary to develop a highly sophisticated information system, only a well organized one. Having the required information will minimize the occurrence of time consuming errors. Primary information, that is basic topographic and zoning information in combination with an estimation of the maximum haul distance, 3 will aid in identification of the study area. Those areas which can be considered as alternative sites will quickly become evident. Following the identification of alternatives, it is prudent to encourage public participation to scope the alternatives. After the alternatives have been narrowed, the information base can be expanded. Reference to the checklists contained in the three evaluation matrices will provide the project team with a detailed outline of the informational requirements.
The Evaluation of Alternatives The systematic evaluation of sites is undertaken in three matrices shown in Figure 2: (1) The Preliminary Assessment Matric (PAM); (2) The Hydrogeological Assessment Matrix (HAM); and (3) The Cost Assessment Matrix (CAM). The evaluation of the social and environmental consequences of the alternatives is a two-step progression. The Preliminary Assessment Matrix is the first sieve for alternatives, The assessment procedure removes the more obviously inappropriate alternatives, and isolates potential environmental problems which might require further study (Dunn, 1979). Those alternatives, considered publically acceptable after this initial evaluation, are carried forward to the H~cdrogeological Assessment Matrix for more detailed assessment. Since this phase of the investigation requires technical expertise, it is more costly and the need for the preliminary assessment is vital because it reduces the number of alternatives requiring such assessment (Reindl, 1977). Lets now examine the analytical method used in evaluating alternatives. The purpose of the first two matrices is to evaluate alternative sites by deter-
3At this stage of the planning process it is not necessary for the project team to do anymore than estimate the maximum haul distance. Sites should be located within a certain radius of a municipality to be economically viable. Reference to past figures for transport cost would enable the project team to estimate the cost of transport per ton per mile, In this way. the team can ascertain how large a study area to assess based on the cost to transport refuse.
290
KAREN F. BOLTON AND FRED A. CURTIS
IDECiSiOiTO PLAHI
J, THE FS,A,:E OF REFERE:iCE I Provincial Regulations Land Use Objectives
I FO,,ucA,IO,,or GoA,_s oJEcTz,zs i
I IilFORIIATION Ai'ID THE IDEIITIFIC.,\TIO,!
OF ALTERiiATIVES
p-
I ITHE EVALUATION OF ALTER;JATIVESI
i Rejection Approval
I ZimLE:iEUTATIO : I--It:,:C:, ZT,SRZ[jGII[~ FIGURE 2. The evaluation of alternatives.
mining how well they satisfy the objectives. An objective score is calculated for each alternative as each objective is considered within the two matrices. The initial objective score is dependent on three variables; the objective weight, the criteria weight, and the condition rating. The objective weight reflects the importance of an objective in developing a waste disposal site. A scoring system ranging from 0 to 10 is used where a score of 10 indicates the most important objective, with all others being rated relative to this. It is the responsibility of the project team to prioritize and assign a weight to each of the objectives and related criteria. The procedure assists the team in this task by providing a list of weights for the objectives and criteria reflecting the opinions of a number of communities and experts. For a site to fulfill an objective it must completely satisfy a number of criteria (Table 1). Criteria are weighted in a similar fashion with scores near 10 representing those criteria which are of greater significance in satisfying a particular objective. Because the objectives and criteria are not specific enough to ensure uniformity in the evaluation process, that is one evaluator's interpretation of the criteria groundwater pollution hazard might be quite different from another eval-
SITING SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
291
T A B L E 1. The Objectives and Associated Criteria for the Preliminary A s s e s s m e n t Matrix and Hydrogeological A s s e s s m e n t Matrix Preliminary Assessment Matrix
Objective 1: Public Acceptabilio" Criteria A B C D E
Surface Water Pollution Hazard Surface Water Pollution Potential Isolation from Noise, Dust, Smoke and Odour Isolation from Sight Traffic Hazard
Objective 2." Compatibility with Area Planning and Development Criteria A B C D
Regulatory Requirements Present Land Use Influence of Existing Development Future Land Use
Ot~jective 3: Suitability for Development Criteria A B C D E
Life of the Site Haul Costs Road Accessibility Flood Potential Present Land Ownership
Objective 4: Prelimina~ Ecological Considerations Criteria A B
Type of Vegetation Potential Impact on Fish Hydrogeological Assessment Matrix
Objective 5: Public Health and Safety Criteria A B C D E
Groundwater Pollution Hazard (depth to water table) Proximity to Water Supply Intake Water Supply Pollution Potential Groundwater Pollution Potential (soils) Gas Travel Hazard
Objective 6. Suitability for Operation Criteria A B C
Availability of Cover Material Ease of Machinery Operation Erosion Hazard
Example A
Objective 1: Public Acceptability (wt: Criteria A
)
Surface Water Pollution Hazard (wt:
Conditions - - N o drainage to Surface Water within 350 m of site - - N o drainage to Surface Water within 200 m of site --Drainage to Surface Water within 200 m of site --Surface Water Course on or adjacent to site
) Condition Ratings 10 6 I) I)
292
KAREN F. BOLTON AND FRED A. CURTIS
uator, a set of specific conditions are used (Table 1, Example A). The conditions which are also rated from 0 to 10 represent on site, or adjacent site conditions, which relate to various aspects of topography, hydrogeology, relative location and so on. The condition ratings are preassigned, reflecting current thought in waste disposal literature. Scores near 10 indicate favourable conditions for development, while a condition rating of zero indicates a conflict with a regulation or with community objectives. A condition rating of zero, for any site, automatically eliminates it from further consideration. Scores near 10 indicate conditions which would be favorable for development. The equations used for calculating the total objective scores and total site scores are as follows: n
TOTAL OBJECTIVE SCORE ~ (Criteria wt x Condition Rating) i=1 x Objective wt. where: n = number of criteria
(1) (2)
k
TOTAL SITE SCORE = ~] Total Objective Score i= 1 where: k = number of objectives Following the Preliminary Assessment Matrix, sites are ranked in descending order and the most promising sites proceed to the Hydrogeological Assessment Matrix. Total site scores are then calculated using the objectives, criteria, and conditions in the Hydrogeological Assessment Matrix with satisfactory sites moving into the Cost Assessment Matrix. It is here that site development and capital costs in addition to the operation and finishing costs are calculated. After the Cost Assessment Matrix has been completed for the most promising sites, the decision makers have access to all the pertinent information on a site's environmental and economic suitability. The preferred site is then selected.
Alternative Selection A preferred alternative would be a site with a high degree of environmental suitability at minimum cost. However, since conditions are not generally optimal, this situation is not the most likely. Consequently, trade-offs occur. The decision makers, aware of the environmental, social and economic priorities, must decide what to sacrifice and when to spend. Because the final selection on a solid waste disposal site will have a long term impact (15, 20 or 25 years), it is imperative that the public be given a final opportunity to comment on the process and the recommended site. The comments and responses of the public should be included with all the pertinent information and technical data which the project team has collected. This information package, along with the project team's recommendation on which of the original
SITING SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
293
sites is the most suitable, is given to the decision makers. Their review of the information will lead them to concur with the project team's recommendation or decide on a different alternative. If, at the conclusion of the evaluation, no site is deemed satisfactory then the project team has two options. First, using the process termed feedback, they could return to that stage of planning which involves the identification of alternatives and search for new options in light of their knowledge and experience or, they could re-examine the most promising existing alternatives using more sophisticated assessment techniques. Where conflicts arise, mediation can be employed to resolve the dispute (Curtis, 1983b).
Decision by the Regulator3, Agency After a decision has been reached, the project team is in a position to complete and submit the appropriate form to the designated regulatory agency. Generally, three decisions can result following the proponents submission: (1) site approval without conditions (2) site approval with conditions. These conditions might involve modification to the original proposal, a more detailed environmental study of one or more aspects of the project, or the introduction or improvement of mitigation measures; or, (3) site rejection. In the case of a positive decision, a municipality is in a position to implement the original or modified project. Conversely, the project team may be forced to begin the process again with new alternatives.
Implementation, Monitoring and Feedback: The Ongoing Process If a municipality is successful in its bid to develop a new disposal ground, implementation is not the final step. Planning is an ongoing process, and to keep pace with the changing environment and demands of society it is necessary to monitor such actions. Monitoring may involve regular periodic checks to ensure that the facility is being maintained and operated to implement the current goals and objectives (McLoughlin 1970; Chaplin and Kaiser 1979). If the site is destined to become a recreational area, then its development must be scrutinized to achieve this goal. The concern for water quality has initiated a number of on site monitoring programs. Where a potential for environmental impact (even with mitigating measures) exists such programs should be seen as a necessity. Even in less crucial circumstances the implementation of a regular program for monitoring water quality is a wise decision. Monitoring is the best way to measure the effectiveness of planning (Emond, 1978).
294
KAREN F, BOLTON AND FRED A. CURTIS
Feedback also plays a major role in monitoring; it acts as a control mechanism (McLoughlin, 1970). The frequent checking on the progress of the implemented action, and by comparing that progress with the goals and objectives of the plan, will keep the plan on course. Conversely, if the original goals and objectives cease to reflect the needs of the community, the implemented action can be modified to satisfy current needs. Monitoring and feedback are essential in developing plans which have the flexibility to respond to changing societal demands and advances in technology. In some sense, a successful end to this planning process is only the beginning of a larger more complete long term land use and waste management plan, which has perhaps 25 to 50 years of inherent change.
Conclusions This paper has described an environmental assessment process for the selection of solid waste disposal sites in small communities. The regulations for waste management provide the parameters for landfill development in the absence of any guidelines for their application. The planning process presented here fills that gap with a stepwise procedure that integrates environmental assessment. In general terms, environmental concerns are considered from the outset. More specifically, three matrices evaluate alternatives for the purpose of decision making. The methodology originally devised by Sexsmith et al. (1973) and adapted by Conestoga et al. (1978), Truitt (1976) and others, provides the basis for the preliminary and hydrogeological assessment matrices. The format for the cost assessment matrix follows the lead of Liptak (1974) and Pavoni et al. (1975). It is intended that the bulk of the assessment be undertaken by a project team selected from within the municipality. Using the matrices the project team evaluates information from air photos, topographic maps, field investigations, and other references. It is recognized, however, that certain technical considerations may arise outside the range of expertise in the project team. This situation may require the engaging of other technical personnel. The eventual outcome of this process is a soundly based and defensible decision to determine, from the originally nominated sites, the most suitable one for development of a waste disposal area site. The methodology presented has a number of benefits. It is relatively simple to employ and allows for community participation through both the project team and the planning process. It eliminates sites which conflict with regulations and provides adequate and relevant information for permit application forms. Finally, the procedure serves as an inexpensive alternative to hiring a consultant. The scoring selected may be difficult to use due to the high degree of subjectivity involved in scoring the various objectives and criteria. It is hoped that the final site scores would vary significantly, indicating a difference between
SITINGSOLIDWASTEDISPOSALSITES
295
sites however, it is possible a clustering of scores will occur. In such cases a qualitative consideration of the data rather than a quantitative one would have to made by the project team and and the decision makers. They would have to weigh the pros and cons of each alternative. Such a scenario could greatly lengthen the process. Despite the drawbacks associated with the methodology, its consistent use would improve the decision making process at the local level given the appropriate initiative, perhaps from the regulatory agency. Methodologies of this nature would avoid unnecessary time delays in the approval process. Most important the process will ensure to the municipality that the site selection reflects the social, environmental and economic objectives of the community.
Bibliography Chapin, Stuart, F., and Kaiser, Edward, J., 1979. Urban Land Use Planning, (Chicago: University of Illinois Press), pp. 109-126. Clark, Dave, 1984, Personal Communication. Director, Lands Protection Branch, Saskatchewan Department of Environment. Conestoga-Rovers and Associates, 1978, Small Municipal Waste Disposal Site Selection. (Waterloo: Conestoga-Rovers and Associates). Curtis, F. A., 1982, "'An Environmental Assessment Procedure for Shopping Centers". Urban Ecology, Vol. 7, p. 195. Curtis, F. A., 1983(a) "Environmental Assessment for Local Private Projects". Environments, Vol. 15, No. I, pp. 21-25. Curtis, F. A., 1983(b) "Integrating Environmental Mediation into EIA" Impact Assessment Bulletin. Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 17-25. Curtis, F. A., 1981, "Environmental Impact Assessment in Ontario, Canada". J. ~f Urban Planning and Development, ASCE, Vol. 107, No. UP2, pp. 1-17. Dillon, M. M., and Murray, Paul, 1983, Identification and Verification of Active and Inactive Land Disposal Sites in Saskatchewan, (Canada Department of Environment and Saskatchewan Department of Environment). Dunn, John, J., 1979, "Part 11 of Landfill Siting Techniques: Picking Sites and Narrowing the List", Solid Waste Management, Vol. 22. Emond, Paul, D., 1978, Environmental Assessment Law in Canada, (Toronto: EmondMontgomery Ltd.). Environmental Assessment Secretariate, Saskatchewan Environment, 1982, General Guidelines for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix A. Fischer, Joseph, A., and Woodford, Donald, L., 1973, "Environmental Consideration of Sanitary Landfill Sites, Part 1 & 2", Public Works, p. 93. Liptak, Bela, G., (ed.), 1974, Environmental Engineering Handbook, Vol. 3, Land Pollution, (Pennsylvania: Chilton Book Company), pp. 515-523. McLoughlin, Brian, J., 1970, Urban and Regional Planning: A Systems Approach, (London: Faber and Faber), pp. 20, 21. Pavoni, Joseph, L., and Heer, Jr. John, E., and Hagerty, Joseph, D., 1975, Handbook of Solid Waste Disposal: Materials and Energy Recovery, (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company), pp. 211-218.
296
KAREN F. BOLTON AND FRED A. CURTIS
Reindl, John, 1977, "Gathering Data: Most Important Step in Designing Landfill, Lesson #6", Solid Waste Management, Vol. 20, No. 9, pp. 42-44, 74-78. Saskatchewan Department of the Environment, 1985, Schedule A for Regulating Municipal Waste Management Activities, pp. 2-3, 6-10. Sexsmith, D. P., and Wilson, T. M. A., and Graham, R. G., 1973, "Selection Criteria, Methods and Scoring System for Sanitary Landfill Site Selection", International Conference on Land for Waste Management, (Ottawa: Department of Environment/NRC of Canada), pp. 300-307. Truitt, Peter, G., et al., 1976, Lunenberg County Solid Waste Disposal Site Selection, (Public Works Committee Lunenberg Council and the Nova Scotia Department of the Environment). Warkentin, B. P., and Yong, R. N., 1973, "Integrating Ecological Concerns into Waste Management Planning", International Conference on Land for Waste Management, (Ottawa: Department of Environment/NRC of Canada), pp. 328-331.
285
G E N E R A T I N G A L T E R N A T E POLICIES, P R O G R A M S , AND D E S I G N S
AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE FOR SITING SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
KAREN F. BOLTON AND FRED A. CURTIS
Virtually every small community in Saskatchewan has a waste disposal facility. Of the approximately 900 sites, many are improperly operated or poorly sited, with some being considered environmentally hazardous (Dillon and Murray, 1983). This paper discusses a procedure for siting waste disposal sites. The Saskatchewan Department of the Environment, under whose jurisdiction waste management falls, encourages the development of regional sanitary landfills rather than the development of numerous modified landfills. However, the strongly autonomous nature of the prairie community seems to conflict with this end, and department officials seem less than optimistic that any immediate progress will be made in this direction (Clark, 1984). Development is primarily at the local level; thus, it is appropriate that the investigation and decision for a waste disposal site be initiated by those immediately involved in the selection process. Any small municipality desiring to expand or develop landfill facilities has a relatively complex task. ~ The site selection process for the disposal of domestically generated wastes is no longer limited to acquiring the least expensive and most accessible land. Current decisions must take into account and satisfy st
Address requests for reprints to: Prof. Fred A. Curtis, Faculty of Engineering, University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada $4S OA2. Karen F. Bolton is affiliated with the Department of Geography, at the University of Regina, Regina, Saskatchewan qn Saskatchewan modified landfills are how the accepted form of waste disposal in communites under 5,000. A modified landfill situation exists when the compaction and covering of waste is less frequent than the minimum three times per week required for a sanitary landfill (Saskatchewan Department of Environment 1985). Schedule A for Regulating Municipal Waste Management Activities.
© 1990 Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. A. . . . . . . . ¢ . ~ A ~ . ; ~ ~**, V.rt" NIV lflOlf)
~cc
0195-9255/00/$3.50
286
KAREN F. BOLTON AND FRED A. CURTIS
number of environmental, social and political criteria. 2 Estal~lishing landfills in accordance with the regulations, at the same time satisfying those concerns voiced by special interests groups and the public, can be a difficult, time-consuming and costly activity (Sexsmith et al., 1973). For a proposed waste disposal site, a small municipality might not need to investigate a comprehensive range of concerns. However, a need exists to consider those issues for example, health, welfare and safety that are topical to the community or are the subject of legislative requirements. It has been demonstrated that the potential for environmental degradation is present in any project when insufficient care is taken prior to development (McLoughlin, 1970; Fischer and Woodford, 1973). To ensure that such a situation does not arise, it is essential to address the pertinent concerns. To do this effectively, relevant project related issues need to be incorporated into the planning phase of development (Warkentin and Yong, 1973). The means for addressing a broad spectrum of concerns may be loosely termed environmental assessment. As stated by Curtis (1982) "environmental assessment promotes the protection and wise use of community resources by integrating environmental objectives, in the initial project planning stage". EA can be an effective and efficient planning tool for public and private projects (Curtis, 1983(a)). Environmental assessment need not involve the application of sophisticated techniques or the commitment of significant human and financial resources. As a planning process, (Curtis, 1981), EA may be effective if it adequately addresses the concerns initiated by a project, utilizing an appropriate level of analysis. EA is efficient if it maximizes the available expertise, acknowledges the occasional need for technical assistance, and utilizes an available budget.
The Decision to Plan The framework for the site selection procedure for waste disposal sites is a stepwise planning process, which guides a municipality from the initial decision to plan to the selection of a preferred site (Figure I). The planning process is designed to be responsive to a number of relevant social, environmental and economic objectives. The environmental assessment procedure is an integral part of the overall
2A consideration of the "environment" includes the natural and social environment. More clearly defined enrefers to: (i) air, land or water; (ii) plant and animal life, including man; (iii) the social, economic and cultural conditions that influence the life of man or a community relative to the items stated under (i) and (ii). Environmental Assessment Secretariat, Saskatchewan Environment, (August, 1982), General Guidelines for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement, P. A h vironment
SITING SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
287
I
.[GU2~ l
FIGURE 1. The planning process for solid waste disposal sites. planning process which begins with the decision to plan. Need and foresight will influence a municipality in their decision to actively plan for a new waste disposal facility. Following the decision to plan, the municipal council must undertake the selection of a project team. The project team, composed of volunteers, should represent a cross section of the community, drawing on the engineering and planning expertise available. The local media may inform the public of the need for participants and submissions to the municipal council. Council members may put forth names of individuals they feel may be helpful or interested. The project team will be responsible for applying the planning process to the selection of a preferred site. Following the decision to plan, the municipal council needs to establish a project team, drawing on the expertise available within the community. This project team is responsible for applying the planning process to its logical conclusion.
The Frame of Reference The provincial regulations (Saskatchewan Department of Environment, (1985), combined with any existing land use objectives or plans provides the project team with a starting point for the investigation. Reference to these documents
288
KAREN F. BOLTON AND FRED A. CURTIS
aids in delineating the area feasible for study by immediately eliminating certain land areas from consideration.
Scoping Scoping is a vehicle for public participation. Action groups and potentially affected groups will have an opportunity to comment following the identification of alternative sites or site areas, and after a preferred site has been selected. Open house meetings, forums and surveys provide the means for communication. It is essential that the project team be aware of local sentiment and the limits which it will impose on the study. The project team in conjunction with the appropriate regulatory agency(s) organizes scopes and prioritizes the significant environmental issues. Initial contact with the public will provide insight and understanding of their perception of the project and related issues, and what limits they may impose on the investigation.
Goals and Objectives After the scope of the study has been established, the project team formulates project goals and objectives; the long term goal is the selection of a site which is environmentally sound, socially acceptable and economically feasible (Reindl, 1977). A number of objectives directly related to minimizing the environmental impact on the social and physical environments are inherently embodied in the environmental assessment matrices. They include: (1) The site should be publicly acceptable and be located to minimize the hazard of surface water pollution, be isolated from sight and, limit the problems associated with noise, dust, smoke, odor and traffic. (2) The site should be compatible with plans for area planning and development. (3) The site should be suitable for development of a waste disposal ground in terms of accessibility, land vacancy, flood potential haul costs and the life of the site. (4) Site ecology should not be significantly altered. Consideration must be given to the flora, fauna and uniqueness of the area. (5) Public health and safety should be ensured. The groundwater pollution hazard must be minimized to protect portable water supplies. Gas travel hazard must also be considered. (6) The site must be suitable for operation in terms of the availability of cover material, ease of machinery operation and erosion hazard. The importance of clearly defining objectives cannot be over emphasized.
SITING SOLID W A S T E DISPOSAL SITES
289
Objectives provide a permanent frame of reference for the project team and the decision maker; in addition, the suitability of the various alternatives is determined by fulfilling the stated objectives.
Information Collection and the Identification of Alternatives An information base is essential to the identification of alternative sites (Chapin and Kaiser, 1979). It is not necessary to develop a highly sophisticated information system, only a well organized one. Having the required information will minimize the occurrence of time consuming errors. Primary information, that is basic topographic and zoning information in combination with an estimation of the maximum haul distance, 3 will aid in identification of the study area. Those areas which can be considered as alternative sites will quickly become evident. Following the identification of alternatives, it is prudent to encourage public participation to scope the alternatives. After the alternatives have been narrowed, the information base can be expanded. Reference to the checklists contained in the three evaluation matrices will provide the project team with a detailed outline of the informational requirements.
The Evaluation of Alternatives The systematic evaluation of sites is undertaken in three matrices shown in Figure 2: (1) The Preliminary Assessment Matric (PAM); (2) The Hydrogeological Assessment Matrix (HAM); and (3) The Cost Assessment Matrix (CAM). The evaluation of the social and environmental consequences of the alternatives is a two-step progression. The Preliminary Assessment Matrix is the first sieve for alternatives, The assessment procedure removes the more obviously inappropriate alternatives, and isolates potential environmental problems which might require further study (Dunn, 1979). Those alternatives, considered publically acceptable after this initial evaluation, are carried forward to the H~cdrogeological Assessment Matrix for more detailed assessment. Since this phase of the investigation requires technical expertise, it is more costly and the need for the preliminary assessment is vital because it reduces the number of alternatives requiring such assessment (Reindl, 1977). Lets now examine the analytical method used in evaluating alternatives. The purpose of the first two matrices is to evaluate alternative sites by deter-
3At this stage of the planning process it is not necessary for the project team to do anymore than estimate the maximum haul distance. Sites should be located within a certain radius of a municipality to be economically viable. Reference to past figures for transport cost would enable the project team to estimate the cost of transport per ton per mile, In this way. the team can ascertain how large a study area to assess based on the cost to transport refuse.
290
KAREN F. BOLTON AND FRED A. CURTIS
IDECiSiOiTO PLAHI
J, THE FS,A,:E OF REFERE:iCE I Provincial Regulations Land Use Objectives
I FO,,ucA,IO,,or GoA,_s oJEcTz,zs i
I IilFORIIATION Ai'ID THE IDEIITIFIC.,\TIO,!
OF ALTERiiATIVES
p-
I ITHE EVALUATION OF ALTER;JATIVESI
i Rejection Approval
I ZimLE:iEUTATIO : I--It:,:C:, ZT,SRZ[jGII[~ FIGURE 2. The evaluation of alternatives.
mining how well they satisfy the objectives. An objective score is calculated for each alternative as each objective is considered within the two matrices. The initial objective score is dependent on three variables; the objective weight, the criteria weight, and the condition rating. The objective weight reflects the importance of an objective in developing a waste disposal site. A scoring system ranging from 0 to 10 is used where a score of 10 indicates the most important objective, with all others being rated relative to this. It is the responsibility of the project team to prioritize and assign a weight to each of the objectives and related criteria. The procedure assists the team in this task by providing a list of weights for the objectives and criteria reflecting the opinions of a number of communities and experts. For a site to fulfill an objective it must completely satisfy a number of criteria (Table 1). Criteria are weighted in a similar fashion with scores near 10 representing those criteria which are of greater significance in satisfying a particular objective. Because the objectives and criteria are not specific enough to ensure uniformity in the evaluation process, that is one evaluator's interpretation of the criteria groundwater pollution hazard might be quite different from another eval-
SITING SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
291
T A B L E 1. The Objectives and Associated Criteria for the Preliminary A s s e s s m e n t Matrix and Hydrogeological A s s e s s m e n t Matrix Preliminary Assessment Matrix
Objective 1: Public Acceptabilio" Criteria A B C D E
Surface Water Pollution Hazard Surface Water Pollution Potential Isolation from Noise, Dust, Smoke and Odour Isolation from Sight Traffic Hazard
Objective 2." Compatibility with Area Planning and Development Criteria A B C D
Regulatory Requirements Present Land Use Influence of Existing Development Future Land Use
Ot~jective 3: Suitability for Development Criteria A B C D E
Life of the Site Haul Costs Road Accessibility Flood Potential Present Land Ownership
Objective 4: Prelimina~ Ecological Considerations Criteria A B
Type of Vegetation Potential Impact on Fish Hydrogeological Assessment Matrix
Objective 5: Public Health and Safety Criteria A B C D E
Groundwater Pollution Hazard (depth to water table) Proximity to Water Supply Intake Water Supply Pollution Potential Groundwater Pollution Potential (soils) Gas Travel Hazard
Objective 6. Suitability for Operation Criteria A B C
Availability of Cover Material Ease of Machinery Operation Erosion Hazard
Example A
Objective 1: Public Acceptability (wt: Criteria A
)
Surface Water Pollution Hazard (wt:
Conditions - - N o drainage to Surface Water within 350 m of site - - N o drainage to Surface Water within 200 m of site --Drainage to Surface Water within 200 m of site --Surface Water Course on or adjacent to site
) Condition Ratings 10 6 I) I)
292
KAREN F. BOLTON AND FRED A. CURTIS
uator, a set of specific conditions are used (Table 1, Example A). The conditions which are also rated from 0 to 10 represent on site, or adjacent site conditions, which relate to various aspects of topography, hydrogeology, relative location and so on. The condition ratings are preassigned, reflecting current thought in waste disposal literature. Scores near 10 indicate favourable conditions for development, while a condition rating of zero indicates a conflict with a regulation or with community objectives. A condition rating of zero, for any site, automatically eliminates it from further consideration. Scores near 10 indicate conditions which would be favorable for development. The equations used for calculating the total objective scores and total site scores are as follows: n
TOTAL OBJECTIVE SCORE ~ (Criteria wt x Condition Rating) i=1 x Objective wt. where: n = number of criteria
(1) (2)
k
TOTAL SITE SCORE = ~] Total Objective Score i= 1 where: k = number of objectives Following the Preliminary Assessment Matrix, sites are ranked in descending order and the most promising sites proceed to the Hydrogeological Assessment Matrix. Total site scores are then calculated using the objectives, criteria, and conditions in the Hydrogeological Assessment Matrix with satisfactory sites moving into the Cost Assessment Matrix. It is here that site development and capital costs in addition to the operation and finishing costs are calculated. After the Cost Assessment Matrix has been completed for the most promising sites, the decision makers have access to all the pertinent information on a site's environmental and economic suitability. The preferred site is then selected.
Alternative Selection A preferred alternative would be a site with a high degree of environmental suitability at minimum cost. However, since conditions are not generally optimal, this situation is not the most likely. Consequently, trade-offs occur. The decision makers, aware of the environmental, social and economic priorities, must decide what to sacrifice and when to spend. Because the final selection on a solid waste disposal site will have a long term impact (15, 20 or 25 years), it is imperative that the public be given a final opportunity to comment on the process and the recommended site. The comments and responses of the public should be included with all the pertinent information and technical data which the project team has collected. This information package, along with the project team's recommendation on which of the original
SITING SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
293
sites is the most suitable, is given to the decision makers. Their review of the information will lead them to concur with the project team's recommendation or decide on a different alternative. If, at the conclusion of the evaluation, no site is deemed satisfactory then the project team has two options. First, using the process termed feedback, they could return to that stage of planning which involves the identification of alternatives and search for new options in light of their knowledge and experience or, they could re-examine the most promising existing alternatives using more sophisticated assessment techniques. Where conflicts arise, mediation can be employed to resolve the dispute (Curtis, 1983b).
Decision by the Regulator3, Agency After a decision has been reached, the project team is in a position to complete and submit the appropriate form to the designated regulatory agency. Generally, three decisions can result following the proponents submission: (1) site approval without conditions (2) site approval with conditions. These conditions might involve modification to the original proposal, a more detailed environmental study of one or more aspects of the project, or the introduction or improvement of mitigation measures; or, (3) site rejection. In the case of a positive decision, a municipality is in a position to implement the original or modified project. Conversely, the project team may be forced to begin the process again with new alternatives.
Implementation, Monitoring and Feedback: The Ongoing Process If a municipality is successful in its bid to develop a new disposal ground, implementation is not the final step. Planning is an ongoing process, and to keep pace with the changing environment and demands of society it is necessary to monitor such actions. Monitoring may involve regular periodic checks to ensure that the facility is being maintained and operated to implement the current goals and objectives (McLoughlin 1970; Chaplin and Kaiser 1979). If the site is destined to become a recreational area, then its development must be scrutinized to achieve this goal. The concern for water quality has initiated a number of on site monitoring programs. Where a potential for environmental impact (even with mitigating measures) exists such programs should be seen as a necessity. Even in less crucial circumstances the implementation of a regular program for monitoring water quality is a wise decision. Monitoring is the best way to measure the effectiveness of planning (Emond, 1978).
294
KAREN F, BOLTON AND FRED A. CURTIS
Feedback also plays a major role in monitoring; it acts as a control mechanism (McLoughlin, 1970). The frequent checking on the progress of the implemented action, and by comparing that progress with the goals and objectives of the plan, will keep the plan on course. Conversely, if the original goals and objectives cease to reflect the needs of the community, the implemented action can be modified to satisfy current needs. Monitoring and feedback are essential in developing plans which have the flexibility to respond to changing societal demands and advances in technology. In some sense, a successful end to this planning process is only the beginning of a larger more complete long term land use and waste management plan, which has perhaps 25 to 50 years of inherent change.
Conclusions This paper has described an environmental assessment process for the selection of solid waste disposal sites in small communities. The regulations for waste management provide the parameters for landfill development in the absence of any guidelines for their application. The planning process presented here fills that gap with a stepwise procedure that integrates environmental assessment. In general terms, environmental concerns are considered from the outset. More specifically, three matrices evaluate alternatives for the purpose of decision making. The methodology originally devised by Sexsmith et al. (1973) and adapted by Conestoga et al. (1978), Truitt (1976) and others, provides the basis for the preliminary and hydrogeological assessment matrices. The format for the cost assessment matrix follows the lead of Liptak (1974) and Pavoni et al. (1975). It is intended that the bulk of the assessment be undertaken by a project team selected from within the municipality. Using the matrices the project team evaluates information from air photos, topographic maps, field investigations, and other references. It is recognized, however, that certain technical considerations may arise outside the range of expertise in the project team. This situation may require the engaging of other technical personnel. The eventual outcome of this process is a soundly based and defensible decision to determine, from the originally nominated sites, the most suitable one for development of a waste disposal area site. The methodology presented has a number of benefits. It is relatively simple to employ and allows for community participation through both the project team and the planning process. It eliminates sites which conflict with regulations and provides adequate and relevant information for permit application forms. Finally, the procedure serves as an inexpensive alternative to hiring a consultant. The scoring selected may be difficult to use due to the high degree of subjectivity involved in scoring the various objectives and criteria. It is hoped that the final site scores would vary significantly, indicating a difference between
SITINGSOLIDWASTEDISPOSALSITES
295
sites however, it is possible a clustering of scores will occur. In such cases a qualitative consideration of the data rather than a quantitative one would have to made by the project team and and the decision makers. They would have to weigh the pros and cons of each alternative. Such a scenario could greatly lengthen the process. Despite the drawbacks associated with the methodology, its consistent use would improve the decision making process at the local level given the appropriate initiative, perhaps from the regulatory agency. Methodologies of this nature would avoid unnecessary time delays in the approval process. Most important the process will ensure to the municipality that the site selection reflects the social, environmental and economic objectives of the community.
Bibliography Chapin, Stuart, F., and Kaiser, Edward, J., 1979. Urban Land Use Planning, (Chicago: University of Illinois Press), pp. 109-126. Clark, Dave, 1984, Personal Communication. Director, Lands Protection Branch, Saskatchewan Department of Environment. Conestoga-Rovers and Associates, 1978, Small Municipal Waste Disposal Site Selection. (Waterloo: Conestoga-Rovers and Associates). Curtis, F. A., 1982, "'An Environmental Assessment Procedure for Shopping Centers". Urban Ecology, Vol. 7, p. 195. Curtis, F. A., 1983(a) "Environmental Assessment for Local Private Projects". Environments, Vol. 15, No. I, pp. 21-25. Curtis, F. A., 1983(b) "Integrating Environmental Mediation into EIA" Impact Assessment Bulletin. Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 17-25. Curtis, F. A., 1981, "Environmental Impact Assessment in Ontario, Canada". J. ~f Urban Planning and Development, ASCE, Vol. 107, No. UP2, pp. 1-17. Dillon, M. M., and Murray, Paul, 1983, Identification and Verification of Active and Inactive Land Disposal Sites in Saskatchewan, (Canada Department of Environment and Saskatchewan Department of Environment). Dunn, John, J., 1979, "Part 11 of Landfill Siting Techniques: Picking Sites and Narrowing the List", Solid Waste Management, Vol. 22. Emond, Paul, D., 1978, Environmental Assessment Law in Canada, (Toronto: EmondMontgomery Ltd.). Environmental Assessment Secretariate, Saskatchewan Environment, 1982, General Guidelines for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix A. Fischer, Joseph, A., and Woodford, Donald, L., 1973, "Environmental Consideration of Sanitary Landfill Sites, Part 1 & 2", Public Works, p. 93. Liptak, Bela, G., (ed.), 1974, Environmental Engineering Handbook, Vol. 3, Land Pollution, (Pennsylvania: Chilton Book Company), pp. 515-523. McLoughlin, Brian, J., 1970, Urban and Regional Planning: A Systems Approach, (London: Faber and Faber), pp. 20, 21. Pavoni, Joseph, L., and Heer, Jr. John, E., and Hagerty, Joseph, D., 1975, Handbook of Solid Waste Disposal: Materials and Energy Recovery, (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company), pp. 211-218.
296
KAREN F. BOLTON AND FRED A. CURTIS
Reindl, John, 1977, "Gathering Data: Most Important Step in Designing Landfill, Lesson #6", Solid Waste Management, Vol. 20, No. 9, pp. 42-44, 74-78. Saskatchewan Department of the Environment, 1985, Schedule A for Regulating Municipal Waste Management Activities, pp. 2-3, 6-10. Sexsmith, D. P., and Wilson, T. M. A., and Graham, R. G., 1973, "Selection Criteria, Methods and Scoring System for Sanitary Landfill Site Selection", International Conference on Land for Waste Management, (Ottawa: Department of Environment/NRC of Canada), pp. 300-307. Truitt, Peter, G., et al., 1976, Lunenberg County Solid Waste Disposal Site Selection, (Public Works Committee Lunenberg Council and the Nova Scotia Department of the Environment). Warkentin, B. P., and Yong, R. N., 1973, "Integrating Ecological Concerns into Waste Management Planning", International Conference on Land for Waste Management, (Ottawa: Department of Environment/NRC of Canada), pp. 328-331.