UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The financial and social costs of solid waste disposal Zeiss, Christopher Andrew 1984

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1984_A6_7 Z44.pdf [ 12.54MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0096178.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0096178-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0096178-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0096178-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0096178-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0096178-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0096178-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0096178-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0096178.ris

Full Text

THE  FINANCIAL  AND S O C I A L  C O S T S OF S O L I D WASTE D I S P O S A L  by  CHRISTOPHER Dipl.  Masch.  ANDREW  ZEISS  Ing. ETH, Federal Institute Zurich, Switzerland, 1976  A THESIS THE  SUBMITTED  IN  REQUIREMENTS MASTER  PARTIAL  Of  Technology,  F U L F I L M E N T OF  FOR T H E D E G R E E OF OF S C I E N C E  in THE School  FACULTY  Of  Community  We a c c e p t to  THE  OF GRADUATE  this  the  And R e g i o n a l  thesis  required  UNIVERSITY  STUDIES  as  Planning  conforming  standard  OF B R I T I S H  COLUMBIA  e April  1984  j ©  Christopher  Andrew  Zeiss,  1984  In p r e s e n t i n g requirements  this thesis f o r an  of  British  it  freely available  agree t h a t for  understood that for  Library  shall  for reference  and  study.  I  f o r extensive copying of  h i s or  her  copying or  f i n a n c i a l gain  be  shall  g r a n t e d by  not  be  of  Community and Regional Planning  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h 1956 Main Mall V a n c o u v e r , Canada V6T 1Y3  Date  (3/81)  A p r i l 25,  19S4  Columbia  make  further this  thesis  head o f  this  my  It is thesis  a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my  permission.  Department o f  the  representatives. publication  the  University  the  p u r p o s e s may by  the  I agree that  permission  department or  f u l f i l m e n t of  advanced degree at  Columbia,  scholarly  in partial  written  i i  Abstract The  Financial  Decisions  and  about  disposal  in  the  (GVS&DD),  the  study  the  financial  external  communities.  five A  disposal thesis  of  waste costs  planning  cost  waste  landfilling, separated  the  sites  citizen the  have  other  social  on  the  caused  opposed  basis by  in  four  noxious  the  areas  caused  and  conclusions  method,  study  area.  similar  problems  with  in North  America.  This  by  the  the  side-effects  compares for  host-  last  in  of  of  the  proposed  reveals  urban  in  waste  District  f i n a n c i a l l y cheapest  facilities,  draws  solid  Drainage  opposition  been  costs  and  costs  Disposal  for  determined  disposal  comparison disposal 100%  recycling  The  financial  operational Europe.  $14.50  been social  in  Waste  locations  successfully  per  operation.  with with  is  tonne  on  the  residual are  with  them waste  of  with  the  management  average  Source-separated  municipal  GVS&DD:  landfilling,  100% source-  and  source-  incineration.  cost to  the  of  incineration,  calculated  the  methods  for  grate  disposal  found  four  suitable  residual  costs  C o n t r a r y to  metric  based  found  experience  landfilling  is  mass-burning  recycling  separated  GVS&DD,  The  in  Solid  process.  The solid  have  literature  facilities  financial  and  the  and  result,  been  where  assesses  solid  a  of  V a n c o u v e r Sewage  area,  result  has  instances  review  Greater  As  Costs  methods  costs.  effects  landfilling,  Social  be  with  data  facilities figures the  present  most  in North  presented expensive  valued  recycling  derived  over with  20  from  America by  the  method  at  years  of  residual  incineration  is  the  cheapest  disposal  method  at  $11.25  per  tonne. The  social  side-effects of  costs  derived  operational  ecological, analysed  collection The  value  of  corresponds  reflect  with  the  control  effects  water  distributional suitable at  between monetized portion  of  included The that  the  evenly  over  predominantly often of  caused  costs  and  as  five  types  and  from  a  are a  of  review health,  described  basis  for  and data  used  of  costs the  waste  management  the in by  financial study the the  benefits.  area,  Thus,  in  of  and  no  available represent  costs.  The  a  sum  of  significant  therefore  and  costs,  costs are  be  indicates  distributed  however,  Citizen  overcome  accrue  opposition  inequitable to  and  because  health)  disposal  social  order  risk,  are  must  health  process.  benefits  the  time and  potential  represent  host-community. perception  and  disposal  for  the  the  evaluation  planning  costs  leisure  qualitatively,  costs  of  Property  Ecological,  costs  distribution  of  the  source-separation,  (nuisance  social  disposal  loss  value  cost  total  total  and  to  analysed  opportunity  50%  for  calculating  effects.  effects,  pollution.  are  by  external  required  air  monetized  spatial  benefits  effects  measured  the  are  non-monetized  the  in  to  nuisance,  impacts  nuisance  costs  for  and  and  by  effort  effects  The  20%  The  spatial  are  the  and  methods  present.  their  caused  pollution of  complaints  distributional  costs  costs  losses  citizen  according  valuation.  social  opportunity  from  and  terms and  categorized  characteristics.  risk,  in  are  is  distribution local  citizen  i v  opposition  the  equitably,  i.e.  redistribution of  social  of  disposal  can  residents.  process  Analytical  social  for  distribution initial  project  methods elements.  to  the  in  through to  decentralisation  be  impractical  and  noxious  compensating  the  affected  be  determined  potential  through  host-communities  suggested  for  the  a and  disposal  GVS&DD.  minimum  compensation  and  In-kind  of  calculation  the  benefits.  more  acceptance  can  is  the  cost  analysis.  quantify  by  redistributed  the  found  between  determining of  to  voluntary  method  siting  basis  is  compensation  This  be  effects  achieved  process  proponent.  a  external  be  Adequate  bid-bargaining  as  the  must  proportion  However,  facilities  facility  in  facilities  ineffective.  the  costs  Future value  to  can  refined  compensation  the  residents,  research the  be  is  to  serve  sum, and  the  for  the  suggested  on  non-monetized  social  cost  V  Table  of  Contents  Abstract L i s t of T a b l e s L i s t of F i g u r e s Acknowledgement Chapter  ii ix xi xiv  I  INTRODUCTION  1  1.  PROBLEM S T A T E M E N T  1  2.  T H E NATURE OF T H E PROBLEM  2  3.  PURPOSE AND S I G N I F I C A N C E  3  4.  ASSUMPTIONS  4  5.  T H E STUDY A R E A :  6.  7.  AND L I M I T A T I O N S T H E G R E A T E R VANCOUVER  SEWAGE AND  D R A I N A G E D I S T R I C T (GVS&DD) 6 5.1 I n s t i t u t i o n a l Background 7 5.1.1 T h e GVS&DD B o a r d O f D i r e c t o r s 7 5 . 1 . 2 T h e GVS&DD S t a f f 8 5 . 1 . 3 T h e GVS&DD P o l i c y On S o l i d W a s t e D i s p o s a l 9 T H E H I S T O R I C A L BACKGROUND: S O L I D WASTE MANAGEMENT I N T H E G R E A T E R VANCOUVER SEWAGE AND D R A I N A G E D I S T R I C T 11 6.1 W a s t e G e n e r a t i o n A n d W a s t e D i s p o s a l I n T h e GVS&DD .'11 6.1.1 P o p u l a t i o n Growth And Waste G e n e r a t i o n 11 6.1.2 U r b a n G r o w t h A n d The L o c a t i o n Of D i s p o s a l S i t e s .14 6.2 The D e v e l o p m e n t Of S o l i d Waste Management In The GVS&DD A n d T h e R o l e O f P o p u l a r O p p o s i t i o n I n T h e S i t i n g Of L a n d f i l l s 17 6.2.1 Summary 23 6 . 3 T h e I m p l i c a t i o n s O f T h e GVD&DD D e c i s i o n M a k i n g S t r u c t u r e F o r S o l i d Waste Management P l a n n i n g 24 6.4 D e c i s i o n Makers R e q u i r e m e n t s F o r The A n a l y s i s 29 D E V E L O P M E N T S I N S O L I D WASTE MANAGEMENT P L A N N I N G I N OTHER M E T R O P O L I T A N A R E A S I N NORTH A M E R I C A 30 7.1 L a n d f i l l i n g 30 7.2 W a s t e - T o - E n e r g y : I n c i n e r a t i o n 32 7.3 Resource Recovery 35 7 . 4 Summary O f S o l i d W a s t e D i s p o s a l M e t h o d s I n N o r t h America 37  Chapter II O P E R A T I O N A L C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S AND F I N A N C I A L WASTE D I S P O S A L F A C I L I T I E S IN T H E GVS&DD 1.  METHODOLOGY  2.  CHARACTERISTICS  COSTS  OF S O L I D 38  AND A S S U M P T I O N S AND C O S T S  OF D I S P O S A L  38 FACILITIES  39  v i  3.  2.1 C o m p o s i t i o n Of T h e M u n i c i p a l W a s t e S t r e a m 2.2 P r o b a b l e C o m b i n a t i o n s Of D i s p o s a l T e c h n o l o g y 2.3 S a n i t a r y L a n d f i l l i n g 2.3.1 Operat ion 2.3.2 F i n a n c i a l C o s t s Of L a n d f i l l i n g 2.4 W a s t e - T o - E n e r g y C o n v e r s i o n 2.4.1 A v a i l a b l e Technology 2.4.2 Incineration 2 . 4 . 3 F i n a n c i a l C o s t s Of I n c i n e r a t i o n 2.4.4 Results 2.5 S o u r c e - S e p a r a t i o n And R e c y c l i n g 2.5.1 D e s c r i p t i o n And O p e r a t i o n  39 42 45 45 47 51 51 51 54 60 62 62  SUMMARY AND C O N C L U S I O N S 3.1 Summary A n d D i s c u s s i o n Costs 3.2 C o n c l u s i o n s  67 Of  Chapter III T H E S O C I A L C O S T S OF S O L I D WASTE C A T E G O R I Z A T I O N AND V A L U A T I O N OF S O C I A L  COSTS  The F i n a n c i a l  Disposal 67 68  DISPOSAL  FACILITIES:  73  1.  DEFINITION  73  2.  D E S C R I P T I O N AND C A T E G O R I Z A T I O N OF T H E E X T E R N A L E F F E C T S OF S O L I D WASTE D I S P O S A L F A C I L I T I E S 76 2.1 D e s c r i p t i o n Of The E x t e r n a l i t i e s 76 2.1.1 E x t e r n a l E f f e c t s Of L a n d f i l l s 76 2.1.2 E x t e r n a l E f f e c t s Of T r a n s f e r S t a t i o n s 80 2 . 1 . 3 E x t e r n a l E f f e c t s Of I n c i n e r a t i o n F a c i l i t i e s 82 2.1.4 E x t e r n a l E f f e c t s Of R e c y c l i n g D e p o t s 87 2.1.5 Perceptional Externalities 87 2 . 2 C a t e g o r i z a t i o n Of E x t e r n a l i t i e s 90 2 . 3 S p a t i a l D i s t r i b u t i o n Of E x t e r n a l E f f e c t s 94 2.3.1 B a s i c D i s t a n c e - D e c a y C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Of Externalities 94 2.3.2 Nuisance Distance-Effect Functions 96 2.3.3 Health Distance-Effect Functions 97 2.3.4 E c o l o g i c a l Distance-Effect Function 99 2.3.5 Risk/Uncertainty Distance-Effect Function 100 2.3.6 D i s t r i b u t i o n a l Distance-Effect Function 101 2.3.7 Summary O f T h e S p a t i a l D i s t r i b u t i o n O f E x t e r n a l Effects 101  3.  METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES FOR V A L U A T I O N OF S O C I A L COSTS 103 3.1 V a l u a t i o n M e t h o d s F o r I n t a n g i b l e E x t e r n a l i t i e s ...103 3.1.1 Criteria 103 3.1.2 M o n e t a r y Measurement Of E x t e r n a l E f f e c t s 106 3 . 1 . 3 N o n - m o n e t a r y Measurement Of E x t e r n a l E f f e c t s ...108 3 . 2 C h o i c e Of V a l u a t i o n M e t h o d s F o r T h e E x t e r n a l Effects Of D i s p o s a l F a c i l i t i e s 110 3.2.1 Nuisance Effects 110 3.2.2 Health Effects 113  3.2.3 E c o l o g i c a l Effects 3 . 2 . 4 R i s k And U n c e r t a i n t y 3.2.5 D i s t r i b u t i o n a l Effects .' 3 . 3 Summary O f M e t h o d o l o g y A n d A v a i l a b l e D a t a C h a p t e r IV THE CALCULATION IN T H E GVS&DD 1.  OF T H E S O C I A L  MONETIZED S O C I A L COSTS 1.1 N u i s a n c e E f f e c t s 1.1.1 Noise, Odor, V i s u a l 1.1.2 Calculation 1.1.3 Source - Separation 1 . 2 Health Effects 1.2.1 Water P o l l u t i o n 1 .2.2 A i r P o l l u t i o n  COSTS  OF S O L I D WASTE  116 119 119 121  DISPOSAL 122 122 122 122 126 143 146 146 149  Disamenity Effort  2.  NON-MONETIZED COSTS 2.1 E c o l o g i c a l E f f e c t s 2.1.1 Replacement Costs 2 . 1 . 2 Damage T o U n i q u e H a b i t a t s 2.2 R i s k s And U n c e r t a i n t i e s 2.3 D i s t r i b u t i o n a l E f f e c t s  151 151 151 152 153 154  3.  SUMMARY OF T H E S O C I A L FACILTIES 3.1 D i s c u s s i o n  156 159  Chapter V RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, 1.  COSTS  OF S O L I D WASTE MANAGEMENT  AND RECOMMENDATIONS  SUMMARY AND R E S U L T S 1.1 C o m p a r a t i v e W a s t e  Disposal  161 161 163  Systems  2.  CONCLUSIONS 2.1 C o s t C o m p a r i s o n 2.1.1 F i n a n c i a l And S o c i a l C o s t s 2.2 E q u i t y And E f f i c i e n c y T r a d e o f f s  165 165 165 167  3.  I M P L I C A T I O N S AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR T H E P L A N N I N G PROCESS 169 3.1 M e t h o d s F o r O b t a i n i n g V o l u n t a r y A c c e p t a n c e 170 3.1.1 R e d i s t r i b u t i o n Of S o c i a l C o s t s In - K i n d 170 3.1.2 R e d i s t i b u t i o n Of S o c i a l C o s t s T h r o u g h C o m p e n s a t i o n 172  4.  ROLE OF A N A L Y T I C A L FUTURE RESEARCH  METHODS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 176  BIBLIOGRAPHY A P P E N D I X A - NEWSPAPER A R T I C L E S O P I N I O N S OF L A N D F I L L S  178 RELATING  TO C I T I Z E N S 185  APPENDIX  B  -  LANDFILL  L E A C H A T E AND METHANE GAS  PRODUCTION 188  APPENDIX C TO 198 3  COMPLAINT P A T T E R N :  COQUITLAM L A N D F I L L  -  1981 189  APPENDIX D - NUISANCE IN T H E GVS&DD  EFFECT  SURVEY OF O P E R A T I N G  LANDFILLS 190  A P P E N D I X E - DATA FOR S T A T I S T I C A L A N A L Y S I S OF P R O P E R T Y V A L U E S AROUND PREMIER S T R E E T L A N D F I L L IN NORTH VANCOUVER 205 A P P E N D I X F - SURVEY OF R E A L E S T A T E R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S AND A P P R A I S E R S ON THE E F F E C T S OF L A N D F I L L S ON P R O P E R T Y VALUES  209  APPENDIX  G -  C A L C U L A T I O N OF  211  APPENDIX  H -  PERSONAL  LANDFILL  COMMUNICATIONS  L E A C H A T E PRODUCTION  212  i x  List  Members  GVS&DD  II.  Landfills  III.  S o l i d Waste G e n e r a t i o n and D i s p o s a l i n V a n c o u v e r a r e a , 1 9 8 2 ; . S o u r c e : GVRD,1983  IV.  Summary GVS&DD  V.  Composition 1980  VI.  of  the  GVRD,  Reasons  of  Voting  Tables  I.  in  and  of  for  Power  1949  -  Distribution  8  1983  Opposition  Vancouver Waste  15  to  the  Greater 16  Landfills  Stream;  Source:  in  the 21  GVRD, 39  C o m p o s i t i o n of M u n i c i p a l Waste Stream C o l u m b i a ; S o u r c e : B i r d a n d H a l e , 1977  VIII.  Summary Stream  IX.  Matrix  X.  P o l l u t i o n Reduction Stanley Associates,  XI.  Matrix  XII.  Summary  XIII.  Regression  Equation  for  Lynnmour  Cross-section  Study 133  XIV.  Regression  Equation  for  Westlynn  Cross-Section  Study 136  XV.  C o m p a r i s o n of M u n i c i p a l S o l i d Waste Incinerator Emissions with Conventional Fuel Boiler Emissions; SourcetO-Connell, Stotler, and C l a r k , 1 9 8 3 and US-EPA, 1972 150  XVI.  Summary o f t h e M o n e t i z e d S o c i a l Disposal F a c i l i t i e s  XVII.  of  of of  Costs  Externalities  for  North  40  C o m p o s i t i o n of Waste Franklin Associates, Disposal  in  British  VII.  of  Stream 1982  in  100%  caused  by  and R e s o u r c e 1981  America;  of  Solid  Disposal  Source: 41  Waste  Facilities 93  Savings;Source:  V a l u a t i o n Methods Estimated  Nuisance  68  117 121  Effects  Costs  Summary o f t h e N o n - m o n e t i z e d S o c i a l Disposal F a c i l i t i e s  of  of  Landfills  128  Waste 157  Costs  of  Waste 158  X  XVIII. Summary Matrix f o r T o t a l Costs of S o l i d Waste D i s p o s a l in the GVS&DD 1 64 XIX.  Combinations of Monetized Costs  and Non-Monetized  Social  166  xi  List  Vancouver  of  Figures  1.  The G r e a t e r  2.  P o p u l a t i o n G r o w t h i n t h e GVRD o f B . C . , 1961 1981; S o u r c e : L o w e r M a i n l a n d R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g B o a r d , 1978  3.  Development G V R D , 1982  4.  E x t e n t of Urban Development area, 1961 - 1981  5.  of  Sewage  Disposed  Opinion Profile reported in the  and  Solid  Drainage  Waste  in  the  Projected Composition 1990; S o u r c e : F r a n k l i n  7.  100%  Landfilling  8.  100%  Incineration  9.  Source-Separation  Greater  of S o l i d Waste Stream Associates, 1982  .12  after  12  Vancouver  in  US  21 until 42 44  with Residual (11%),  Landfilling  with Residual  Source-Separation (11%), c o m b i n e d w i t h ( 8 9 % ) , a n d R e s i d u a l L a n d f i l l i n g (30%)  11.  Sanitary  Landfill  12.  Transfer  Station  13.  Landfilling  14.  European  15.  Modular  16.  Costs for D i f f e r e n t a n d R e i m e r , 1978  17.  Incineration  18.  Landfill  Operation  19.  External  Effects  20.  Clackamus  Operation  and  44  Landfilling  Incineration  Design  Costs  Costs  Size  in  of  including Transfer  20 the  Source:GVRD,  Incinerators;  years,  1986  Source:  dollars  GVS&DD  .50  Transfer  1980  ...54  Goepfert 57 61 77  Landfills  Oregon  Costs  Incinerator;Source:GVRD,1980 53  Incinerator;  for  44  46  Burning Grate  Starved-air  (89%) 44  46  Design  Financial  County,  GVRD;  S t a t e m e n t s (N=60) 1976 - 1983  10.  Mass  the  ....6  14  for a l l Opposing Vancouver Press,  6.  in  District  77 Station  80  xi i  21.  Coquitlam,  B.C.  22.  An O p e r a t i n g Switzerland  Transfer  Solid  Waste  Station Incinerator,  External  24.  Connection  between  25.  Four  Distance-Effect  26.  Distance-Effect Disamenity  27.  Source-Separation  28.  Distance-Effect  Function  of  29.  Distance-Effect  Function  for  30.  Spatial  31.  Distance-Effect  32.  Cause  -  Solothurn, 82  23.  Effects  Basic  81  of  Incinerators  83  Externalities  92  Function  Effort  Distribution  Effect  of  Functions for  Noise,  95 Odor,  and  Distance-Effect Water  Visual  Function  ....97  Pollution  98  Air Pollution  Ecological  99  Effects  Curves  for  NIMBY  and  Linkage  for  Valuation  100  THOU E f f e c t s of  96  ...101  Externalities 103  33.  Externality  Map f o r  a  Typical  Landfill  34.  Map o f R e s i d e n t i a l A r e a s a d j a c e n t L a n d f i l l , North Vancouver  to  Site  129  Premier  Street 131  35.  S c a t t e r g r a m of Lynnmour T h r e e - B e d r o o m Condominium V a l u e s w i t h t h e Sum o f D i s t a n c e s from the L a n d f i l l and the A c c e s s Road 134  36.  S c a t t e r g r a m of Westlynn S i n g l e F a m i l y Residence Values w i t h Three Subareas r e p r e s e n t i n g the L e v e l of Nuisance Effects 137  37.  Function Center  of  38.  Function  of  39.  F u n c t i o n of the V a l u e L o s s from the L a n d f i l l S i t e  40.  100%  Landfilling  163  41.  100%  Incineration  163  42.  Source-Separation  Value  the  Loss  over  Distance ".  Area Affected  Recycling  per  over Unit  from  Landfill 140  the  Radius  Area  with Residual  with  141 Distance 141  Landfilling 1 63  xi i i  43.  Source-Separation  Recycling  44.  D i s t r i b u t i o n of B e n e f i t s Disposal F a c i l i t i e s  and  with Residual  Costs  of  Incineration . . 1 63  Solid  Waste 167  xiv  Ac k n o w l e d g e m e n t  I  would  Dr.  Jack  like Knetsch  committee. this  the  and  for  Hayton  their for  Nancy  for  thesis  would  their  am a l s o  Len  have  to  and  deeply  been  Pendakur, as  indebted  Toivo Alias  get  into  much  the  Finally, which  less  to  the  the  am  my  business  of  for  Walter  for  giving  knee-deep  information  very  and  thesis  essential  GVS&DD  process  enjoyable.  Waters  MacKay,  providing I  on  were  Doug  from  in  Bill  advisors  garbage  support  without  Dr.  encouragement  and  research.  love,  Setty effort  continuing  this  her  Dr.  insight  opportunity  incentive  $SIGNOFF  I  thank  for  Their  thesis.  Mechler, me  to  grateful writing  and to this  1  I.  1.  PROBLEM  The  STATEMENT  financial  primary  concern  Greater  Vancouver  landfilling most  INTRODUCTION  in  of  solid  solid  Sewage  was  and  method  is  to  the  disposal  management  Drainage be  (GVRD,  still  waste  waste  considered  desirable  landfilling  costs  1973  only  in  (GVS&DD).  most  economical  and  1980),  method  been  planning  District  the  have  used  the  Since  and  hence  disposal  in  a  the  by  GVS&DD  (GVRD,1982). Yet Lower  popular  Mainland  Vancouver  opposition  of  British  Sewage have  landfill  space  because  existing  ones  (see  are  newspaper The  effects which  financial  (by  noise,  welfare  losses  solid to  waste  residents  at  least  and  added  the  Appendix A ) .  definition, But odor, (e.g.  residents  underlying this disposal  to  see  the  etc.),  thesis  Chapter  persons  property  value).  management  planning  is  the  adequate  cost,  then  financial  and the  costs.  cause not  costs  to  This  can  provide  external  many areas  external  social  costs in  the  externalities accrue if  the  as goal  real of  certain  benefits  sanitation  service  costs  type  and  the  by  its  adequate  reflected  Thus,  convenient  and  adjacent  that  affected  social  sites  the  Greater  finding  the  is  III)  in  through  of  facilities  the  in  in  the  (GVS&DD)  newly proposed  in  growing  result,  difficulties  references  waste  been  District  the  total to  of  a  by  costs.  (e.g.  all  has  opposed  solid  are  As  Drainage  encountered  assumption of  landfills  Columbia.  and  municipalities  to  of  must  be  cost  assessed analysis  2  will  permit  sites  with  2.  the  lowest  makers  to  overall  choose  the  disposal  methods  and  impacts.  T H E N A T U R E OF T H E PROBLEM  The  volume  population  consumed  is  a  and  amount  etc.  of  times  generation  the  decision  per  waste capita  function is  and  are  the  of  of  of  consumption  solid  waste  patterns,  the  product  generation.  determined the  by  the  is  rooted  but  is  amounts  pachaging,  predetermined  generation  waste the  therefore  type  stream  Per  and  by  types  of  in at  As  both the  the waste  of  goods  choice.  packaged  producer.  accrues  capita  consumer  size  of  a  But units  result,  the  production tail  end  of  and these  processes. Waste health  collection  and  safety  in  providing  convenient  regional  government  residents. are  The  tax  distribution Disposal while  cause  methods  providing  waste  the  But  removal  costs among the  are  disposal,  create  benefits  for  provison  the  external  sites  essential  must  be  of  (social)  found  benefits.  public  1982).  municipal accruing these  beneficiaries  to  for  (Melosi,  and  community o p p o s i t i o n and  essential  environments  agencies  evenly  levies.  disposal urban  financial  distributed  through  and  costs  disposal which  By and  to  all  benefits  (residents) and  their  facilities.  minimize  costs  3  3.  PURPOSE AND  The  purpose  social  costs  Specifically,  of  magnitude  will  be  of  included  in  the  as  the  Although financial people  lobbying  against  and  The  Mainland  the this  importance costs  of (or  to  explicitly costs  of  help  the  overall and,  to  be  sites.  not  show  up  in  losses  to  the  of  negative etc.  The  Vancouver  area  landfills,  define  results will  losses,  need  and  welfare  of  order  the  or  seeking  existing  sites,  costs.  first  welfare  same  they  Greater  operation  is a  the  the  pollution,  future  and  externalities  effects  the  thesis  minimize  in  do  real  the  facilities.  these  then  odor,  in  measure  externalities  methods  the  noise,  social  are  costs,  with  these  by  benefits)  proposed  of  the  costs  represent  continued  of  disposal  and  disposal  caused  social  citizens  reality  attempting  costs.  as  of  against  the  facilities,  they  such  number  effects  costs  categorize  waste  financial  burdened  increasing  By  the  evaluation  are  injunctions  the  i s to  solid  social If  social  externalities  indicates  by  statements,  who  study  relative  determined.  magnitude  reduce  this  caused the  the  of  SIGNIFICANCE  hence,  and  solid step  value waste  towards  decision-makers costs avoid  of  the  solid  citizen  external  management  assessing in waste  the  these Lower  disposal,  opposition.  4  4.  ASSUMPTIONS  AND L I M I T A T I O N S  This  study  Vancouver  Sewage  The for  focuses  study  area  comprises  (e.g.  through  (e.g.  through  lower  product  prices)  assumed  to  be  the  been  considered  host  in  the  Greater  (GVS&DD). limitations  are  main  convenient commercial part  postulated  management total -This  costs  where  planning  in  the  benefits in  the the  social  lower  GVS&DD  are  study  area  GVS&DD w h i c h  sites  of  from  for  garbage  of  solid  service  becomes  the  factors  costs  that and  a  have from  of  recovery  is  and  effort  of  on and  desirable solid  of  to  waste  minimizing  the  costs). with  the  require  externalities  disposal  garbage  affected  may  is  preparing  convenience,  waste of  area  minimal  it  waste  industry,  in  matter  social  problems may be  very  businesses  concerned only  social  Vancouver  households,  requiring  and  the  level  Greater  Assuming  (including  resource  outside  the  removal  level  is  outside  disposal  the  reflected  included  present  in  garbage.  address  these  the  household  thesis  not  Also  establishments  resulting  does  of  garbage  this  people  and  the  municipalities.  services  of  separating maintain  its  benefit  management  to  possible  Thus  pollution)  production costs  accruing  as  GVS&DD.  water  municipalities  GVS&DD a n d  -The  e.g.  and  the  negligible.  are  the  District  assumptions  costs  the  disposal  study:  -The  the  waste  and Drainage  following  this  on  by  facilities;  collection  the  disposal  additional  and it  except method,  effort  from  5  the  citizens  before as -  are of  highly  on  the  or  store,  changes  benefits  as  effects  of  solid  dependent  on  the  technology  most  These  costs  external  estimates the  separate,  pick-up.  separate The  to  of  applied the  effects  commonly used  average  to  level  of  and  level  and  prepare  will  be  the  disposal control their of  control  counted  case  waste  their  may  garbage  accordingly  be.  disposal  facilities  method  the  and  level  side-effects. values  technology, technology  will or in  be  The  based  on  respectively the  GVS&DD.  6  5.  T H E STUDY  DISTRICT  The  AREA:  T H E G R E A T E R VANCOUVER SEWAGE AND D R A I N A G E  (GVS&DD)  GVS&DD  is  a  regional  municipalities  and  of  1.1  million  inhabitants  in  the  Lower  1 -  The  GVS&DD  and  drainage  management  1 unincorporated  M a i n l a n d of  Figure  has  government  and  an  British  area  area  services,  services  on  (Figure  of  request.  about  Sewage  responsibility and  comprising 1) 300  with  16  a  total  square  miles  Columbia.  The G r e a t e r V a n c o u v e r District  compulsory  body  offers  for  and  Drainage  provision  regional  solid  of  sewer waste  7  5.1  Institutional The  GVS&DD  Enabling to  Act  service  of  obtained 1956.  the  district  (GVS&DD,1956).  to  its  by  functions  T h e GVS&DD A c t  operating,  the  principles  its  participating  maintaining, within  Background  and  GVS&DD  members  at  GVS&DD  has  to  minimum  cost  by  meet  a  involved  in  powers  constructing, facilities services  cost-effectiveness  required cost  and  these  on  financial  Provincial  major  of  operates  the  assets  administering the  endeavouring  provides  municipalities  for  The  with  level  levied  of  service  through  direct  taxes. The functions  since  participate service  of  in  solid  A committee  various  Board  5.1.1  municipal their  members  acts Of  of  councils  from  municipalities provide  power,  must  but  the  and  in  Board  among  for  on  (i.e.  disposal)  Coquitlam,  communities).  made  waste  advisory  municipalities  Burnaby,  are  disposal  by  the  capacity  to  But  whole  management  Port the  GVS&DD  comprising  the  Board.  Directors  one  political  rely  management  management  waste  five  (Westburnco  water  members  Directors  the  are  selected  their  council  year  terms.  by  members As  representation  GVS&DD  staff  their  for  and  a  to  respective represent  result,  the  decision-making  technical  know-how  continuity. Voting  each  on  T h e GVS&DD B o a r d  The  and  Moody  waste  Board.  waste  New W e s t m i n s t e r ,  Port  solid  Presently,  solid  GVS&DD:  and on  1970.  the  the  Coquitlam, decisions  been  weight  municipality  in  (see  the table  Board  is  below),  allocated with  one  by  vote  population  of  corresponding  8  to  about  its a  21  20,000 votes  majority  residents.  carries by  Clearly,  considerable  allying  itself  the  City  weight  and  with  one  of  Vancouver  can  easily  or  with  achieve  two  other  municipalities.  Votes i n Board  Table  5.1.2  I  -  D i s t r i c t o f Burnaby D i s t r i c t of Coquitlam D i s t r i c t of Delta C i t y o f New W e s t m i n s t e r C i t y of North Vancouver D i s t r i c t of North Vancouver C i t y of Port Coquitlam C i t y o f P o r t Moody Township o f Richmond D i s t r i c t of Surrey C i t y of Vancouver D i s t r i c t o f West V a n c o u v e r C i t y o f W h i t e Rock U n i v e r s i t y Endowment L a n d s ( U E L ) C i t y of Langley D i s t r i c t o f Maple Ridge D i s t r i c t o f P i t t Meadows  7 4 4 2 2 4 2 1 5 4 21 2 1 1 1 2 1  Total  64  GVS&DD M e m b e r s  T h e GVS&DD  Although District  all  staff  concerned  experienced  professionals  effective criteria D.L.  engineering  organisation. thinking almost  MacKay,  the staff  Power  Distribution  Greater  Thus, and  Since  the  uses  the  Department GVS&DD  and  staff  is  is  almost  water  well  years  supply  of  attuned  of  service to  cost-  cost-effectiveness  decision-making  Regional  Regional  predominantly  w i t h many  financial  for  Vancouver  consists  (engineers)  exclusively  1984).  are  Engineering with  The  the  members  the  functions.  in  Voting  Staff  personnel,  exclusively  and  Manager  (pers. makes  comm. specific  9  proposals work  to  the  completed  decisions does  by  on  not  the  many  constituencies 5.1.3  the  these  have  although  Board,  The  of  of  political  and  by  is  the  preferred  the  most  economical  1980).  other  feasible,  or  new  only  In  were order  GVS&DD  attitudes Planning  one to  of  item  term  the  separate  and if  (63%)  certain  powers, the  judged  sites  in  the  six  in  citizen  supposedly  1973;  times  13  and  The  Board  a five  reported  with  members' in  a  UBC  al.,1982):  indicated  that  they  would  pickup  were  provided;  from  been of  opinions  separated  items  has  protest.  they  a  not  years,  other  that  supported  disposal  either  stated  curbside  GVRD,  operation  the and  be  past  personal  1982 et  is  to  1975).  disposal,  (Zeiss,  landfilling  high-technology  Yet,  by  it  (GVRD,  commissioning  November  directors  more  or  directors'  waste  paper  already  majority  landfill  the  in  Board  affect  that  because  are  opposed  on  surveyed  separate a  to  policy  School  91%  compare  final  The  executive aspects  method  landfill  successfully  were  disposal,  actually  (Coquitlam  proposals.  indicate  (GVRD,1980).  in  makes  Disposal  staff  recycling,  proposed once  to  of  Waste  incineration  risky  has  landfill  attempts  the  too  GVS&DD  successful  than  simply  social  flexible  Source-separation  methods  the  and  Board  background  members.  GVS&DD  method  technical  exercising  On S o l i d  the  on  technical)  possibility  Board  based  the  (basically  the  done  are  staff,  GVS&DD P o l i c y  Studies  which  by-law  their  be  requiring  garbage;  at  least willing  residents  1 0  -  when  asked  disposed most  of  whether through  stated  economical  were  insecure costs  such  in  as  to  the  that or  about  alternative  But  l a n d f i l l i n g was  incineration,  stated  methods  was  a  method,  that  and  and  the they  available  consensus  necessary,  pyrolysis,  be  l a n d f i l l i n g was  directors  there  should  alternative  short-term,  the  the  garbage  some  approach;  involved.  alternative  felt  landfilling  that,  most  the  they  and  that  that  an  methods  composting  were  desi rable. The  directors'  technical  matters  presented  to  and  Waste  that  and  t h e m by  cost  at  $23  of per  per  transfer  As  a  result,  remained 1981).  on  for  capacity  of  region's plant.  the  the  an this  main  a  (see  to  separation  recycling  comm.  Mechler,  date  bulk  as  Smith).  per  ton, as  was energy  and  to  only  represents  1984)  no  been  steam  hence  that  methods  be  at  has  Program,  to the  $25  1982).  Five-Point  recovery,  to  Water  less  GVRD,  instructed  also  the  indicating  ton,  disposal  amounts  have  1982  l a n d f i l l i n g at  hauling;  GVS&DD  such  were  (March  per  in  information  staff  $79  in  the  with  programs W.  $56  Staff  and  programs  but  and  the  from  expensive  incinerator  stream,  promoted,  was  net  on  insecurity  in October  report  emphasis  GVS&DD  first  Recycling  e.g.  as  station  incinerator  waste  W.  twice  landfilling  Although  designs  staff:  equalled  about  their  reliance  received  ton  was  (with  reflect  incineration  incineration ton  their  the  Subcommittee  the  revenue  responses  prepare projected  7% best  of a  encouraged  the pilot and  full-fledged  source-  implemented  (pers.  11  6.  THE HISTORICAL  GREATER  6.1  Generation  Population Greater  generating stream; the  of  to  the  urban  a  the  6.1.1  In  of  1961  Growth  to  1981,  District  1,100,000  (Lower  GVRD  thereby  Lower  Mainland.  average,  per  annum  from  1961  (on to  the  1981.  basis  disposal  increase  in  in  waste waste  the  population  has  resulted  in  growth  be  As  amount for  waste  the  investigated  the  1961  of  these  waste  two  two  has  sites,  been i.e.  effects,  stream  in  the  respectively  below.  Generation  from  Regional 77%  of  disposal  to  rose  in  result  these  population  for  a  trace  And Waste  of  the  waste  of  to  population  on  volume  growth  Mainland  GVS&DD  the  suitable  the  The  increased  area  (GVRD)  accounted  the  first,  increasing  will  In  effects  an  order  area  Regional  On  of  population  Population  two  development.  decreasing  urbanized  From  area:  growing  DISTRICT  Disposal  had  has  disposal  landfills.  relation  has  Vancouver  the  confined  to  growth  second,  factors,  And Waste  residents  extent  for  S O L I D WASTE MANAGEMENT I N T H E  VANCOUVER SEWAGE AND D R A I N A G E  Waste  the  BACKGROUND:  of  the  Greater  790,000  to  Planning Board,  of  the  population  GVRD g r e w population)  on in  an  estimated  1978). growth  average the  Vancouver  The in  the  about  2%  twenty  years  12  f,Loo  Figure 2 - P o p u l a t i o n Growth i n the 1981; S o u r c e : Lower M a i n l a n d R e g i o n a l In (i.e.  contrast, solid  increased since and  at  1974.  building  the  waste  amount  delivered  approximately However, wastes  if  are  '  3 -  municipal by  1% p e r  the  total  solid  municipal annum  waste  disposed  collection  services)  (1974  tonnages  basis,  GVRD,  including  1—i  1 — i — i — i — i  »  SC ye**  Development of D i s p o s e d S o l i d GVRD;- a f t e r G V R D , 1982  Waste  in  1982)  commercial  counted,  99 ?$~ Figure  of  GVRD o f B . C . , 1961 Planning Board, 1978  the  1 3  the  increase  p.a.  (see  in  diposed  figure  3,  waste  basis  .amounts  1974,  to  GVRD,  approximately  8.15%  1982).  Notes: -the  amount  building  of  wastes  "other except  refuse"  for  includes  those  commercial  delivered  to  Port  and Mann  landfill; -the  unmeasured  Richmond  between  the  1980  1974  in  from  on 1.55  capita solid and  a  waste  to  per  day  1980,  or  disposed  typical  growth  for  and by  the  in  remained  tons  in  in  (Doughton,  1981)  of  the  to  prorating back  "other  to  waste"  GVS&DD.  solid to  waste 2.2  years,  constant  delivered by  1974  seven  waste"  estimated  the  total  capita 42%  was  development  landfills  average  per  day  in  to  1970  decade. to  the  up  sites. density  capita 3.65  amounts the  kgs these of  areas,  in  1980,  at  disposed  kgs  while  about  waste  generated  areas; of or  increases  per the  0.9  rose  day  and  municipal  kgs  per  day  waste  rose  in  waste  lots,  this  type  of  the  growth  the  or  in  disposal of  from  urban  other is  2.2  may  the  also  and  the  often  convenience  has  be  thereby  figures  inconsequential areas  per  for  generated two  that  kgs  collected,  these  are  notes  37.5%  disposed  amount  between  disposed)  (1982)  approximately  between  empty  (and  Melosi  systematically  The d i f f e r e n c e  backyards,  Although  waste  production  discrepancy  disposed. in  in  American urban  However,  reducing amount  rates  North  the  ends  1979  the  basis  "other  capita. Such  due  capita  of  150,000  to  other  per  and  of  proportion  kgs  in  1974  total  delivered Thus,  quantity  dump in  low  increased  the  1 4  pressure  to  (Brunner  and  6.1.2  and  Keller,  properly  1972  in  dispose  Bealer,  U r b a n G r o w t h And The L o c a t i o n  The increase shows  collect  population of  the  Figure  growth  urbanized  extent  4 -  of  area  this  in  between the  spatial  of  the  Martin, Of  and  Disposal  1961  generated  and  GVS&DD.  Crider,  1982).  Sites  1981  resulted  The  figure  growth.  E x t e n t of Urban Development i n Vancouver area, 1961 1981  waste  the  Greater  in  a  below  15  Within  the  distributed above)  area,  densely  the  core,  Burnaby,  In  landfill  the  the  except  sites  in  some  of  respectively  of  proportion  sub-centers  of  the  on  the  proposal  past, map  closures,  their  in  (see  (  is map  to  the  Central  Richmond).  marked  their  population  peninsula  roughly  location are  generating  downtown  decreasing  the  sequence  closure,  waste  New W e s t m i n s t e r ,  contrast,  proposed  the in  densities  from  Broadway,  table  most  with  distance  in  urban  present,  and  and  are  numbered  respectively  expected  (see  figure  above  and  below).  Site Past: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.  K e r r Road S t r i d e Ave T e r r a Nova Leeder Braid St.  Present: 6. R i c h m o n d 7.  Premier  8. 9.  P o r t Mann B u r n s Bog  St.  Table  II  Notably, of  (Richmond fringe  of  16  1952-66 1910-69 1965-75 1965-79 1975-83  Richmond  1 965-  North  1 956-  -  u n c e r t a i n due to leachate proble 2-3 y e a r s i f permit is not extended 7-8 years 25-40 y e a r s  1 9691 966-  Landfills  from  Premier  the  Vane  Remaining Capac i t y  Surrey P i t t Meadows Langley Texada Island  there kms  and  Vancouver Burnaby Coquitlam Coquitlam Coquitlam  Surrey Delta  Proposed: 1 0 . S u r r e y Bend 11. P i t t P o l d e r 12. L a n g l e y Bog - 13.Texeda  radius  P e r i o d of Operat ion  Location  in  the  are  only  the  Vancouver  Street  growing  in  urban  two  GVRD,  operating core  North area  1949  1 983  landfills  area.  Both  Vancouver) and  both  are  left  these are  on  under  in  a  sites the heavy  1 6  popular  pressure  Appendix 20 of  A).  Only  kms r a d i u s , them  sites are  (still)  are  even  to  two  Burns in  further outside  close  (see  landfill Bog  the  the  and  operating  Port  Mann  A l l of  some  of  Vancouver Burnaby New W e s t minster Coqui tlam Port Coquitlam P o r t Moody Delta W h i t e Rock UBC e t a l . Commerc i a l  414,000 136,000 38,000  Waste Generated (tons) 141,078 44,148 17,511  61,000 27,000 .15,000 75,000  20,469 9,625 5,442 25,944  17,000  1 22,293 183,762  Total  them  densely  (Texada  Island)  Di sposal Site Burns it  Bog  II  H II  H  II II  185,000  1 9%  Richmond  147,000  84,315  65,000  33,209  34,000  12,989  36,000  12,333 75,850  9%  P o r t Mann (Surrey) Premier  14%  973,968  tons  development of  populated,  core  and,  landfill hence,  waste-generating  a  sites  shows  growing areas  a  the  shift  separation  from  Street  Premier Street (North "Vane.)  S o l i d Waste G e n e r a t i o n and D i s p o s a l i n Vancouver a r e a , 1 9 8 2 ; . S o u r c e : GVRD,1983  densifying  both  proposed  96,000  Total  the  Surrey,  to  newly  % of total  134,381  from  in  16  B u r n s Bog (Delta)  Total  locational  the  the  59%  North Vancouver District North Vancouver City West V a n c o u v e r Commerc i a l  The  in  in  570,272  Richmond  Table III Greater  references  GVS&DD.  Population C e n s u s 1981  Grand  article  are  areas.  core,  Mun i c i p a l i t y  Surrey  sites  in Delta  low d e n s i t y from  newspaper  the  of  away the  disposal  1 7  sites. The  concentration  populated  urban  Westminster) four  the  the  a  the  of  of  the  of  areas,  the  and  management and  has  North  sites  capacity  is  Because  become  a  pressure  to  to  consultants solid  waste  to  Solid  towards  the  disposal  of  the  waste  suitable  landfill  hydrogeology,  grown  waste  are  this  and  in  the  sites  etc.),  the  disposal  in  generating  and  regional  distribution  functions:  densely in  separation,  solid  With  remaining  two  the  rural waste  (Richmond  strictly  concentration  the  populated  concentrated  problem.  the  municipal  of  disposal  continue.  Opposition  function  municipalities,  sites.  the  Role  management  populated  has  three  The  trend  main  of  Of  The  the  costs  The Development Popular  between  accrue  6.2  Of  in  link  municipalities  close,  capacity  dependency  solid  the  disposal  New  the  regional of  Burnaby,  of  topography,  social  densely  fringe  physically  disposal  the  likely  waste  more  the  separation  Vancouver)  under  of  heavily  of  the  Vancouver,  distribution  of  costs  host-communities.  a  in  on  between  waste  while  of  landfill  the  distinct  benefits  benefits  with  boundaries a  more  location  function  districts,  core  the  because  political  the  created  municipalities  population,  (City  municipalities  has  sources,  Thus,  (as  area  generation  concentration  lower-density  generation  of  waste  areas  and  metropolitan  and  of  was  Waste In  Management The  Siting  regionalization recognized  GVS&DD function  (Kaller, be  made  In Of  of  Landfills the  solid  waste  in  1970  when  clearly 1970) a  T h e GVS&DD A n d  recommended  regional  that  function.  the The  18  regional  solid  efficient  in  disposal  functions  the  GVS&DD  potential As  the  long  access  sites  than  a  containing  management run,  to any  consequence  the  the  fewer,  but  larger  land  single  to  GVS&DD c o u l d larger,  be  more  consolidate  sites,  base  report, Report  conclusion  pg.  considered  and  and,  because  hence,  more  municipality.  this  Summary  following  (GVRD,1973,  a  of  "Technical  was  because  into  had  preliminary  disposal  -waste  the  on  GVS&DD  Refuse  pertaining  completed  Disposal to  the  the  Study",  methods  of  11-3):  "For the f o r e s e e a b l e future l a n d f i l l i n g should c o n t i n u e as the r e f u s e d i s p o s a l method for the R e g i o n . B e s i d e s b e i n g by f a r t h e most e c o n o m i c a l m e t h o d , l a n d f i l l i n g has the h i g h l y i m p o r t a n t a d v a n t a g e of b e i n g t h e most f l e x i b l e method o f d i s p o s a l from the s t a n d p o i n t of meeting change. I t c a n a l s o be u s e d to improve the v a l u e of the m a r g i n a l l a n d and t o t u r n o t h e r w i s e u s e l e s s l a n d i n t o community a s s e t s . "  In the  1973/74,  eastern  four  part  of  Coquitlam,  Port  ran  landfill  out  of  responsibility The  GVS&DD  immediately Terra  Nova In  "Surrey map  Sept.  the  30,  for  growing GVS&DD  named  capacity. the the  disposal  of  the  $ 700,000  1976).  to  their  in  close  in  some  Westminster,  the  GVS&DD solid  enabling  sites  to  108.5  acre  in  north  Surrey,  of  to  take  waste. act  replace  and the  1974.  a  compensation  in  municipalities)  combined  possible  River  To appease  New  legislative  expropriated Fraser  communities  WestBurnCo requested  of  for  scheduled  GVS&DD  the  necessary  suburban (Burnaby,  They  searching  landfill  Bend"  above)  given  began  1974,  the  Coquitlam,  for  was  rapidly  (The the  site  in  the  B.C.  (see  Vancouver  Sun,  concern  for  the  bog  19  habitat,  the  relatively bog  (see  GVS&DD was small  the  Canadian  National  concern  about  garbage,  rendered  In GVRD on  1974,  Braid  site  Nov.  27,  seen  after and  site  extension Also,  industrial.  The B r a i d location  because  the  years.  Yet,  1979,  the  dramatically the  four  extended In were  of  the  privately  that  extra  waste.  years  of  residents  operation,  October  by  the  and  the  landfilling  to  the  to  which  to had  was  intended  to  be  growing  the  is  site  reached  to  six  eight  closed  in  increased  to  accomodate  complaints  (mainly  industry  landfill  a  found,  to  Street  adjacent  be  was  landfill  added  was  primarily  site  only  Sun,  (pers.  had  site  Braid  and  new  the  for  Terra  time  the  permanent  site  Vancouver  the  because  last  acre  previous  (The  at  130  the  in  operation  the was  1983.  period  proposed  recent  owned L e e d e r  lift  the  abandoned,  the  site,  new,  Despite  from  ensuing  evaluated,  an  been  voiced  landfill  estimated  of  space  for  the  popular  project,  million  around  a  However,  available  had  probably  deliveries  odor)  until the  was  waste  additional  because last  when  was  until  qualities  floodplain  existing  Street  of  problematic.  $ 2.2  area  only  capacity  so  for  the  the  the  adjacent  1983), of  the  site  No o p p o s i t i o n  Mechler,  portion  natural  expropriated  Coquitlam,  capacity.  temporary  of  Bend  2)  a  extension  proposal  Surrey  aside  the  in  yard  portion  figure  1978).  an  reduction  promptly  in  (see  W. as  the  set  in Appendix A.)  Railroad's a  to  preserve  references  using  Street  Nova  to  subsequent  located  comm.  site  newspaper  outcry,  willing  and  between  1974  subsequently  and  1983,  defeated  various by  sites  popular  2 0  opposition  in  municipalities.  the In  effects,  two  perceived  unfairness  complaints. in  Appendix  A):  Site  Bend  Bog  Langley Bog  Pitt  Peat  Polder  of  the  IV g i v e s  Year  specific by  the  a  press  neighboring  nuisances  citizens  distribution "  and  of  were  social  and based  (see  Reasons for Opposition  of  the  popular  newspaper  on  costs:  not-in-my-back-yard" summary  health  -  8 3  1 9 8 1  1 9 8 1 / 8 2  the  "them(NIMBY)  opposition  references  Groups e x p r e s s i n g opposition  - l e a c h a t e and Mayor,counci1, water p o l l u t i o n residents -ecological prob. (unspecified) -an imals  1 9 7 3  1 9 7 6  to  and  Vancouver  Proposal  Surrey  Burns  the  communities  voiced  (THOU) Table  reported  addition  reasons  dumping-on-us"  host  -THOU Mayor,council, - l e a c h a t e and farmers water p o l l u t i o n -natural preserve -THOU Mayor,residents, - l e a c h a t e and Surrey residents water p o l l u t i o n -envi ronmental problems(unspec.) -general pollution -NIMBY - l e a c h a t e and P i t t Meadows water p o l l u t i o n counci1,residents -environm. prob. Maple Ridge (unspecified) council,residents -wildlife res. Port Coquitlam -THOU c o u n c i l and -NIMBY residents -prop, values -an imals -truck traffic -toxic wastes - l o s s of farm l a n d  in  21  Texeda  Island  Premier Street 1981 (North Vancouver)  Table  In articles  -THOU Mayor, residents -water p o l l u t i o n -animals residents -leachate and water p o l l u t i o n -odor -toxic gases -noise -traffic -dust -prop, values -NIMBY -visual pollution  1982 -  83  IV -  Summary  of  the  figure  below  are  references  listed  listed  in  Reasons for O p p o s i t i o n i n t h e GVS&DD  the  according  to  specific their  to  reasons  frequency  Landfills  given (see  in  press  newspaper  Appendix A ) :  15% 2o  z%JL*  zr.  Figure 5 - Opinion P r o f i l e for a l l Opposing Statements (N=60) r e p o r t e d i n t h e V a n c o u v e r P r e s s , 1976 1983 In  response  proposals cover no  all  viable  for  to  these  incineration  types  of  proposals  in  disposal for  concerns, 1976, methods  incineration  but  the  GVS&DD  extended  (GVRD, were  the  1976).  received,  requested request  At so  that  to time  that  a  22  suggestion  to  municipalities was  already  the  extension  haul to  Burns  operating of  the  the  Bog  a  landfill,  the  Methods  (GVRD,1980).  This  report  expected  costs  other  means  than  difference over GVRD,  the  in  costs  1980,  of  for  Disposal deals for  is  costs  of  of  with  The  of  Vancouver  opposition  in  major  Table  study  of  the  per  ($  region's  30  ton  to  in  $  40  1980  program  Develop a  2.  Enlarge at  Burns  3.  Acquire a  Construct  landfill 5.  on  GVS&DD a p p r o v e d  site  a  with  and  site  in  (Vancouver  Delta,  to  serve  prepare  energy  transfer  landfill  by  that  the  per  ton)  a  of  five-  point  in  the  eastern  area.  City-operated) the  western  designs  for  the  disposal  sector. building  of  recovery.  station  at  Coquitlam,  the  existing  for  bulk-haul  (nearly to  other  operations.  Encourage  Based  the  disposal  existing  Bog,  incinerator,  exhausted)  1981,  refuse  the  site  4.  waste  1981):  1.  an  Refuse"  7-8):  in October  (GVRD,  the  dollars,  " a p p e a r s t o o h i g h a premium to pay f o r presumed environmental benefits of i n c i n e r a t i o n over landfilling, which a r e , in f a c t , mainly the r e s u l t e x a g e r a t e d i d e a s about p o l l u t i o n from l a n d f i l l s . "  Subsequently,  on  technology  concluded  incineration  to  IV).  Municipal  alternative  study  ($15  (the  noted a  West-BurnCo  City  Mixed  the  disposing  landfilling  pg.  pursued  operation  landfilling. the  was  the  the  GVS&DD c o m p l e t e d  "Alternative  the  from  in Delta,where  existing  Simultaneously,  and  garbage  this  and  promote  program,  recycling and  in  programs. response  to  continuing  23  pressure  against  proposals  in  (GVRD, Of  being  21  or  the  6.2.1  for  a  is  the  total  of  approximately  proposals  pursued  proposal that  1982  1982),  the  landfills,  in  approved  required  72,500  7% o f  received,  detailed by  GVS&DD  planning the  tons  the  the  requested  million  three  has  presented  be  waste  most  stages.  will  annum o f  regions  there  invested  is  in  refuse stream.  viable  Until  GVS&DD B o a r d ,  $25  per  incineration  ones  are  the  detailed  no  certainty  incineration.  Summary  This opposing  section views  -The and  regarding  GVS&DD c o n s i d e r s flexible  methods  method.  The  the  waste  The  is  too  residents  and  their  effects  to  increasingly  stepped  forward  very  successful  communities. local  The  into  four -  nuisance  affect odor,  be  high  two  landfilling:  the  cost  the  most for  economical alternative  compared  with  the  effects  visual  pollut ion;  mayors  very and  councils  find  undesirable said  preventing  for  popular  to  and  so  in  and  have  public.  They  landfills opposition  potentially  preliminarily,  in  they  their  vary  from  ubiquitous can  be  grouped  categories:  health,  health  in  effects  effects;  main  be  reasons  nuisance  perceptional  to  by  on  benefits.  affected  been  developments  disposal  increased  negative  have  past  landfilling  (incineration)  environmental -  solid  the  but  include are  blight,  effects  the  direct  effects  which  annoyances,  e.g.  do  not  noise,  etc.  include,  potentially,  water  and  air  24  -ecological health  or  of  resources  the or  -perceptional inequity e.g. 6.3  The  Solid  The bodies: the  decision a  block  political rather  e.g.  wildlife  human  reduce  through  the  reduction  habitats;  comprise  risk/uncertainty  distribution  of  (NIMBY)  structure  body,  the  of  or  but  sites  body, than  as  take  the  Board,  The c i t i z e n s  structure, site  affecting  indirectly  benefits  or  and costs,  effects.  T h e GVD&DD D e c i s i o n  making  staff.  specific  action  which  not  Making  Structure  For  Planning  political  making  The  unique  effects  Of  those  environment  unfair  Management  decision a  but  not-in-my-backyard  technical  when  or  Implications  Waste  include  annoyance,  enjoyment of  effects  are  form are  a  GVS&DD  and not  a  comprises  two  bureaucratic  part  temporary  of  body,  this  formal  political  factor  chosen.  Hall  (1980)  action,  suggests,  i.e.  will  (Hall,  tend  1980,  to  page  232) :  " . . . p r e v e n t e x t e r n a l c o s t s b e i n g imposed (which is e a s i e r ) t h a n t o i m p o s e e x t e r n a l c o s t s on o t h e r s (which is d i f f i c u l t ) . " and ( H a l l , 1980, page 2 3 3 ) : " P o l i t i c i a n s w i l l be m o r e c o n c e r n e d t o a v o i d imposing new c o s t s o n s u c h d e f i n e d g r o u p s t h a n t o b e n e f i t a m a j o r i t y at the expense of a g r o u p . T h u s , o n many p r o p o s a l s , t h e y w i l l t e n d t o c o n f i r m t h e s t a t u s quo . Conversely, i n s o f a r a s t h e y i m p o s e new c o s t s , they w i l l t e n d t o d o s o on t h e w i d e s t p o s s i b l e g r o u p , while c o n c e n t r a t i n g t h e b e n e f i t s on a s m a l l d e f i n e d group."  the  In  regard  first  part  Board  has  to of  solid  Hall's  adhered  waste  disposal  conclusions  closely  to  the  planning  holds status  true, quo  in  the  GVS&DD,  because in  relying  the on  25  landfilling  as  capacities  of  sites.  imposition  The  minimised. group the  of  decision  has costs  residents Here,  of  on  into  widest  Hall  not  possible  with  affect  group is  new  thereby a  been  specific  of  residents  in  the  opposite  of  the  According like  explain  would  affect  since  this  group  disposal  play.  similar  exhibit  to  increasing  establishing  has  would  large  implemented,  much  than  costs  a  which  of  thus  rather  do  behavior  behave  preferred  behavior.  recycling,  the  has  new c o s t s  benefitting  been  and  (social)  these  communities  the  new  conclusions  organisations  page  of  according  Hall's  not  method  landfills  making  separation  equally,  comes  while  which,  However,  spread  existing  people  political  disposal  Moreover,  region,  source  the  private  organizational  mandatory  all  residents  action  would  benefitting  the  facilities.  technical to  while  why  staff  as  policy  makers  Hall,  public  not-profit  profit  making  ones,  inertia,  where  (Hall,  and 1980,  210):  " A l t e r n a t i v e s m u s t be c o n s i d e r e d sequentially, c o n c e n t r a t i n g o n l y on a r e a s w h e r e t h e r e s e e m t o be immediate problems. U n c e r t a i n t y must be a v o i d e d by following regular procedures, r e a c t i n g to feedback r a t h e r than f o r e c a s t i n g the f u t u r e e n v i r o n m e n t . O p e r a t i n g p r o c e d u r e s m u s t be s t a n d a r d i z e d . Thus r e s e a r c h a l l o c a t i o n s w i l l come t o r e f l e c t o n l y g r o s s c o m p a r i s o n s of the m a r g i n a l a d v a n t a g e s of the alternatives; s e a r c h e s among a l t e r n a t i v e s w i l l be made j u s t b e f o r e a commitment i s n e e d e d ; c o m p u t a t i o n s of e x p e c t e d c o n s e q u e n c e s w i l l be b a s e d on s i m p l e questions (Is it feasible?, I s t h e money available? I s i t b e t t e r t h a n w h a t we a r e d o i n g n o w ? ) . "  In  addition,  the  longer  a  unit  tends  to  exist,  the  more  internal  26  insulation poor  and  perception  (Kaplan,  (1967)  conservative, as  such,  much  so,  the  process  pay  of  will  new  reign,  tending  disturbing  factors  that  age  to in  inertia  its  and  environment  1964).  Downs  and  solidarity  their are  that,  enough  status  quo  (1980,  page  suggests  officals  biased  of  search  to  for  attention  to  ,  take  or  that  213)  become  against  according  with  any  Downs,  change  account  in  courses  involve  of  future  quo  tend  of  more  conservative,  status  bureaucracies  that  become  increasingly  alternative  actions  bureaux  to  action  large  .  So  distort and  not  changes  in  uncertainties.  Hall  adds:  " E s p e c i a l l y where t h e r e i s p r e s s u r e f o r q u i c k decisions, b u r e a u x t e n d t o c o n s i d e r a minimum number of a l t e r n a t i v e s ; to g i v e f i r s t a t t e n t i o n to a l t e r n a t i v e s a l r e a d y thought out i n advance and 'ready t o g o ' ; t o r e s t r i c t t h e number of d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s and t h e d i v e r s i t y of t h e i r v i e w s ; and t o use s e c r e c y to guarantee t h i s r e s t r i c t i o n . (...) It f o l l o w s from a l l t h i s t h a t many b u r e a u x a r e e x t r e m e l y r e s i s t a n t to change. L a r g e b u r e a u x , where t h e power and f u n c t i o n s of o f f i c i a l s a r e w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d , w i l l tend to oppose changes, e s p e c i a l l y i f these o f f i c i a l s are conservers, as t h e y p r o b a b l y w i l l b e . They a l s o t e n d to have s t r o n g autonomous s u p p o r t . S u c h a b u r e a u may r e f u s e to a l t e r i t s b e h a v i o r e v e n when a g e n t s i n i t s p o w e r s e t t i n g agree i t should; instead, i t may t r y t o i n f l u e n c e i t s a g e n t s o p i n i o n ; i n p a r t i c u l a r i t may t e l l a g e n t s t h a t i t i s a l r e a d y d o i n g what is s u g g e s t e d , though a g e n t s w.ill deny t h i s . "  But  Hall  also  have  longer  than  do  states  time  horizons  politicians."  technical  staff  the  in  the  GVS&DD  functions  that  since  is  but  These  (1980, less  page  214):  sensitivity  conclusions  seem  GVS&DD  because  an  organisation,  1914;  old  "Bureau to  public  applicable  having  officials opinion to  fulfilled  the  its  27  -  the  the  average  the  career  in  the  the  of  is  the  monetary  terms,  In  causing  few  the  of  tendency method  to  tends  1973,  to  disposal 1982).  is  is  a  i.e.  20  years,  started  his  Professional  1983,  and  B.  on  addition, costs  in  these  15  almost  engineers); oriented,  and  drainage  readily  quantifiable  in  they  that  are  are  largely  in  levied  undisputed  partially  due  are  reasons  valid  disposal  to  .  as  engineering  It  the  fact  for a  knowledge  therefore  technologies  such  as  are  sceptically  viewed  the  Board  with  scepticism  Board's  favorable  survey  results  politicians  especially  to  some  on  the  are those  more  not  incineration by  the  reservations staff's  attitudes  above,  the  long-  is  This  (see  of  is  sewer  sanitation quo  to  although and  out  landfilling  1980).  staff  buried.  status  the  are  costs),  recycling  and  (12  hidden  facts,  rely  alternatives  social  social  plant  the  projects  presented  moderate  In  and  cost-effectiveness  costs  new d i s p o s a l  hence  GVRD,  15  years,  and  conventional  the  the  source-separated  (see  of  well-founded  that  and  32  staff,  MacKay,  of  financially  these  representing  staff  D.L.  partially  and  much o f  surprising  Department  financial  taxes,  view  GVS&DD's  between  engineering  nature  these  that  technical  served  training  civil  projects;  through  the  in  GVS&DD  because  is  has  comm.  engineering  the  and  Engineering  the  1984);  exclusively  (i.e.  Manager  (pers.  Ericson,  among  Department  Regional  Engineer  proven  service  Engineering  while  and  of  Zeiss,  towards et  sensitive  accruing  part  to  al., to their  28  constituent  municipalities,  alternative  methods  preventatively  high  (GVRD,  page  and  1980,  instead  (GVRD,  are  1980,  follows  for 8).  8),  most  by  as  it  the  social  costs ideas  understandable  supporting  reliable  GVS&DD  method  the  as  costs  staff  are  in  being  benefits" not  defined  about  pollution"  that  the  financially  presented  of  as  environmental  "exaggerated is  financial  the  "presumed  Since  presented  page  "hard"  presented  the  recommendations  technically namely  are  the  Board  cheapest  staff  and  reports,  landfilling.  Recently, communities  however,  and  existing  sites  prepare  designs  from (e.g. for  due  to  opposition  representatives Delta),  the  incineration  and  in of  the  host-  municipalities  pressure to  potential  has  promote  with  mounted  recycling  to  (GVRD,  1981 ) . The to  do  Board  with  the  decision financial  1984),  because  more  expensive  although  the  than  social  were  not  assumed  to  least  financial (GVRD,  costs  1980,  have  costs  incineration,  method  at  to  and  bargaining  costs  sites  and  have  social  costs.  of  defined  or  indicated  indicated  in  The  necessary  to  focused  the  Staff  community achieve attention  was  groups  the  shown  were  to  of  have  be  Thus, disposal  implicitly  difference  acceptance on  MacRay,  only  large report  little  1980).  the they  had  D.L.  GVRD, as  measured,  the  above,  (see  offset  studied  comm.  landfilling  partially  1981).  (pers.  landfilling  costs  thus  as  incineration  1980  and  increased of  existence  in 1981 the  proposed of  these  29  6.4  D e c i s i o n Makers  The  GVS&DD  issues:  the  second,  the  social  straightorward  (Letter  from  The A n a l y s i s  concerned  comparative  simple  M.  For  B o a r d Members a r e  first,  disposal,  Requirements  financial  costs  of  costs  disposal,  analysis  which  Mayor,  North  Baker,  with  can  be  three of  and,  major  solid  finally,  interpreted  Vancouver,  waste a  easily  December  9,  1983) . These financial  parameters costs  assessment and  of  available  not  all  those  terms  should  comm.  the data  external  needs,  monetary  should  items  is  be  that  measured  analysis  that  effects.  Thus,  which  be  while  can  the  preferable  MacRay,  Feb.  the in  social  this to  is  for  of  no c o m p a r i s o n  the The  methods, many  if  decision-makers'  on c o n s i s t e n t  comparison  1984).  the  and  terms.  measurement  possible  serve  compared  to  costs  commensurate  frameworks,  indicates  be,  scales  D.L.  the  imply  some at  items all  monetary on  non-  (pers.  30  7.  DEVELOPMENTS  METROPOLITAN  The divided  resource glass, used  AREAS  solid into  conversion,  IN S O L I D WASTE MANAGEMENT PLANNING IN NORTH  waste  recovery metals,  by  etc.  some  (e.g.  form  Although these many  in North America  landfilling,  combustion  through  simultaneously,  methods  categories:  usually  OTHER  AMERICA  management  three  IN  of  recycling  areas  can  be  waste-to-energy  incineration),  methods  metropolitan  can  be  rely  of  paper,  combined  on  and  one  and  primary  method. 7.1  Landf i 1 1 i n g  In with  1974,  when  acquiring  having  the  the  GVRD was  landfill  same  sites,  problems  first other  (Nat.  experiencing  difficulties  areas  in  North America  were  League  of  Cities,  page  1973,  18) :  " Y e t a t p r e c i s e l y t h e t i m e when d i s p o s a l requirements are r a p i d l y i n c r e a s i n g for a l l c i t i e s , most c i t i e s are r u n n i n g out of a v a i l a b l e l a n d . In our S o l i d Waste Needs A s s e s s m e n t , the l a c k of a d e q u a t e d i s p o s a l sites r a n k e d number one as t h e most p r e s s i n g p r o b l e m f o r m u n i c i p a l s o l i d waste management. And 46.5 % of our r e s p o n d e n t s i n d i c a t e d t h e i r c i t y w i l l Bun o u t o f l a n d f i l l capacity for c u r r e n t and a n t i c i p a t e d waste l o a d s i n from one t o f i v e years."  Various Bealer, space  case  studies,  1981) in  describe  754  the  Gonzalez  (1980,  problems  with  in  Crider  acquiring  and  landfill  detail.  Bartolotta 1976),  e.g.  questions  because,  responding  he  the  maintains,  municipalities  conclusion in in  the  above  the  US,  (Bartolotta, cited  survey  only  5%  1975, of  the  indicated  31  having  less  reported years  than  having  and  one  67%  capacity.  one to  year two  remaining  years,  reported  He c o n c l u d e s  of  11%  having  that  landfill  reported  five  or  (Bartolotta,  capacity,  three  more  1975,  to  years page  17% four  remaining 239):  " B u t f o r many c i t i e s t h i s i s n o t a p r e s s i n g p r o b l e m ... H o w e v e r , t o a s s u m e t h a t t h e r e i s no d i s p o s a l p r o b l e m w o u l d be a n o v e r s i m p l i f i c a t i o n . W h i l e many c i t i e s do have e x i s t i n g s i t e s w i t h a good d e a l of remaining capacity, t h e e x i s t i n g s i t e s may be r e m o t e , e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y unsound, or v e r y c o s t l y to operate."  Bulger  (1978)  governments 100,000  in  (sample which  disposal. land as  reports  of  at  the  sought  the  first  obstacle  survey  further  indicated  By League  1981 of  Cities  new  disposal  this  phenomenon  (page  least  that  to 33%  capacity. sure  responsibility  for  reported  80  try of  than  cities  1975)  Crider to  the  will  and  continue  of of  of  solid to  land  was .  counties for  over waste  acquire  siting  the  county  those  resistance  landfill  percent  more the  failing  Citizen  getting  (Bartolotta,  is  all  successful  in  many h a d at  had  survey  including  attempt.  to  successful but  539),  counties  leading  disposal,  nationwide  =  county  the  eventually  a  size  the  52%  on  solid  the  cited The were waste  once. surveyed have  had  by to  Bealer  (1981)  since  few  the  National  search  for  suggest  that  municipalities  8):  " c o u l d p r o j e c t an i n f i n i t e l y l a r g e c a p a c i t y f o r solid waste d i s p o s a l and: "The shooting g a l l e r y s c e n a r i o t h a t i s a p o p u l a r c o n c e p t i o n when c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s s t i p u l a t e d i n n o t l i k e l y t o f a d e away as one t y p e of r e s p o n s e . F u r t h e r more, w h i l e c i t i z e n a r o u s a l a n d p r o t e s t o f new s o l i d w a s t e facilities s i t i n g may be s o m e w h a t l e s s f r e q u e n t t h a n i s supposed, s u r e l y i t i s a s u f f i c i e n t l y common o c c u r e n c e t o  32  warrant b e t t e r , wider study than is presently manifest." (...) At p r e s e n t , one i s l e f t to c o n j e c t u r e why c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s sometimes effective, at other times n o t , but in g e n e r a l a p p a r e n t l y more i n f l u e n t i a l (as o p p o s i t i o n ) t h a n i n many a r e a s o f s o c i e t a l operation."  Thus,  the  problem  not  unique  7.2  Waste-To-Energy:  From  to  the  of  1965  municipal  significant  to  in  112,  a  drop  1970  1974  closed  estimated elicited  a  (under  total  drop  had  106  shut  per  1978,  1982  a  there  reduction  has  been  opposition  a  is  were  of of over  the  of  in  60%  58  the  and  of in  164  1978  plants: no  capacity  of  The  stringent  air  Between  incinerators plants  were  (Alvarez,  1978)  54  still  were  loss  85  However,  smaller  plants  about  to  1978).  response.  affected  of  265  1970.  municipal  gave  number  total  30,893  164  overall  small  in  1965  total  closures  the  only  30%  a  to  burning  from  (Alvarez,  A survey  of  grand  dropped  operating  down,  operating  capacity  further  from  Including  be  incinerators  m a i n l y due  1975,  day),  to  of  58%  between  the  operational.  be  of  100  estimated  is  to  ton  citizen  has  of  introduced  number  and  In  number  substantial  1974  USA  As  52  1974.  the  o n e - t h i r d of  responses  since  number  down.  operating, since  the  reduction  in  standards  was  and  Incineration  1978,  pollution and  sites  GVS&DD.  refuse  approximately  landfill  is  built  plants  about  30%  between  incinerators  were  1978. 63  plants  tons  per  capacity in  left  operating  day.  since  capacity.  This 1978.  Most  of  with  a  represents Overall the  a  the  presently  33  operating  incinerators  heating  or  combined  capacity  while down  9 plants in A  in  process  1982.  reverted  government  agencies  lower  of  able  Cinncinati, city the  was  of  cost  by  the  Ohio  in  abatement  equipment  contracts adequate  its  different  and  52)  of  being per  with  a  implemented,  day  were  municipalities their  closed  surveyed  current  solution.  method  Even  recovery,  closure  very  solid  to  last  of  though few  opted  was  of  $1.5  had  to  the  manager plant  disposal. three  in  1976).  had  install  be  closed,  The while  already  this  thus  Cincinnati  in  pollution  decided  private  a  can  1976  The c i t y to  at  incinerator  Management,  ton.  and  scale.  economics  Hill  million  was  saving  $  presently  landfills  with  years.  resistence set  of  of  larger  technology  incineration  per  number  are  economies  Wastes  for  waste  25  plants  Center  new c i t y  disposal  example  reasons,  a  large  incinerator  the  $3.50 of  to  of  of  ton  promptly  waste  due  (Solid  per  a  pollution control  ton,  1976  while  remaining  judgement  when  for  capacity  Another  were tons  resource  air  expenditure  year  installations  for  1982).  interim  the  per  $6.50  the  per  7,379  that,  the  the  approved  200,000  of  an  l a n d f i l l i n g was  "inefficient"  day  l a n d f i l l i n g as  closed,  spending  cost  of  emphasized  install  additional  illustrated  to  shows  How a r b i t r a r y is  per  66  electricity  recycling.  have to  (42  as  survey  incinerators hence  least  form  This  tons  capacity  back  at  some  a  number  disposal,  for  68,125  and/or  Further  (Franklin Associates,  significant  1978  steam  energy.  of  with  produce  by  the  to  incinerators, voters  in  the  albeit  for  City  of  34  Brisbane,  in  incinerator $)  in  the  proposal  compensation  were  mainly  Francisco  garbage  carbon  the  undesirable.  of  the  Thurman,  1983).  their  the  extra  with  are  projects (250  use  since in  by  the  the  reverting presently -  mass-burning  in  3000 grate  in  tons  and  compensation revenue  facilities  to  day)  technology.  from  the  in  of  and  based  lead,  considered  that in  the a  plant loss  600,000  to  $  plant  (Solem  1980). plants  1 and  serious The  risks  tend  to  municipalities, air  pollution  Instead,  landfilling.  San  net  sized  1970.  are  want  experienced  medium  US  arguments.  were  recovery  implementation per  $  an  voters  dioxide,  resulting  plus  (1983  not  NIMBY)  believed  enforcement  States  did  dioxin  down  The  suphur  (Harrison,  energy  turned  4 million  they  have  problems  to  $  (THOU a n d  Brisbane,  tax  They  coffers.  because  acid,  strict  back  city  including  small  United  added  opponents  high-technology  their  especially controls  financial  have  community  values  in  area.  plan  pollutants,  million  year  and  prohibit  scale  the  waste-to-energy  technical  areas  to  Bay  ailing  hydrochloric  $4  per  involved  in  property  million  Many  their  Finally,  lower  inspite  to  air  monoxide,  Francisco  which would  opposed  Specifically  would  San  The  many  urban  incineration  predominantly  of  upon  European  proven  large  35  7.3  Resource  The  Recovery  National  situation  in  the  League  late  of  Cities  1960's  and  (1973,  1970's  page  as  20)  analyses  the  follows:  "An e c o l o g y c o n s c i o u s p u b l i c e n t h u s i a s t i c a l l y endorses the t h e o r y of r e c y c l i n g and c r i t i c i z e s the c i t y a d m i n i s t r a t o r s f o r n o t g e t t i n g on w i t h t h e p r a c t i c e o f it. But l o c a l governments have to d e a l w i t h the e c o n o m i c s of r e c y c l i n g , and t h o s e market realities have f o r c e d c i t i e s t o adopt a " w a i t and see" approach. C o s t c o n s c i o u s c i t y governments s i m p l y have not been a b l e t o see enough l i g h t at t h e end of the resource recovery tunnel."  Thus,  the  long-term  community large  of  number page  initiative  scale  League  are  of  in  level  1973).  recycling,  or  exceptions  Cities,  on a  and  other  examples  be  it  regional,  cannot  On t h e  discouraging  be  hand  (Nat.  on  a  local  centralized  replicated there  League  are of  and  (Nat.  an  endless  Cities,1973,  20) : "-Cities state  investigate  and  find  rail  freight  -In  a  that  costs  section  paperboard  mills  paper  exported.  miles  find  major -most  that  raw  away,  landfill  to  potential  recycling  on  from  outof  of  used  center  tire  sales  of-state our  located,  in  will  another not  cover  location.  states,  cities  the  materials,  same  constraints  one  most  being  those  tire  the  are  find  is  a  revenues  of  markets  -Cities  The  successes  where  26  looking  pulp  for  paper  area's  salvaged  imported  from  thousands  miles  of  within  a  few  and  and  recycled  where  of they  resources." recycling  buyers  demand  are  numerous  reliable,  and  constant  diverse: supplies,  36  whereas stream  the  fluctuate  price  for  for  of  scrap  transport  of  one  -government virgin By  far  the  of  waste  to  lower  availability;  virgin  or  natural  the  League  render  times  more  of  Cities, the  the  resources  depletion  of  rates  Thus,  serve  natural  1973).  transport  expensive  of  one  than  the  ore; and  (Stanley  important  municipal  due  (Nat.  purchasing  materials most  ton  the  II).  recyclables;  2.5  of  Chapter  lower  freight  iron  (see  for  rewarded  discriminatory ton  is  incentives  is  composition  strongly  disincentives  resources  and  materials  -numerous as  size  consumer  Associates,  constraint  preferences  favor  1981).  is  the  lack  of  stable  markets. Many started  well-intentioned  in  the  due  to  much  volunteer  London,  early  falling  Ontario,  Municipal  Research,  successfully  million is  and  recycled tons  recovered.  of  some  and  recycling  initiatives  large  number  rising  labor  government  financial  Ontario,  et  al.  were  have  failed  costs,  despite  support ,  (e.g.  Bureau  of  1975).  is  done.  A very  prices  Burlington,  Recycling  garbage  1970's.  market  work  community  much Teresi is  talked (1980)  points  insignificant  garbage  generated  about,  in  in  out  North  the  but that  very the  America:  US e v e r y  seldom  amount of  year,  of  the  160  only  1%  37  7.4  Summary  There  Solid  are  landfilling recovery  Waste  three  carries is  responsible capital  Of  ways  the  the  required  for  the  dealing  lowest  with  financial  and  incur  recycling residue  In  North  solid cost,  most  Waste-to-energy  expenditures and  of  Methods  environmentally  approach.  waste-to-energy  Disposal  disposal:  while  resource  effective  processes  disposal,  (Nat.  waste  cost  operational  America  require  risks.  of  large  Even  landfills  League  and  Cities,  with  are  s t i l l  1973,  GVRD,  1980). While  predominantly  day)  are  are  abandoning  or  the  still  by Many  costs  These hauling  analysis to  refuse  the  via  is  financial  quite  GVS&DD.  are  prefer  widely  to  incur  than  pay  criterion  applied  in  Thus, for  North  to  to  a  per  communities  of  the  expense  pollution  landfilling, distant  higher the  tons  air  back  stations  incinerators. cost  because  reverting  250  smaller  installing  transfer  landfilling on  of  (over  many  incinerators  communities  controls least  built,  difficulties  involved with  the  incinerators  and  older  decision-makers  pollution that  planned  their  technical  controls. often  being  larger  site.  environmental  financial  costs  it  concluded  can  solid  America  be  waste and  not  for  disposal unique  38  11.  OPERATIONAL  CHARACTERISTICS  AND F I N A N C I A L  COSTS  OF S O L I D  WASTE D I S P O S A L F A C I L I T I E S I N T H E GVS&DD  1.  METHODOLOGY  This disposal  chapter  describes  facilities  The tonnes  AND A S S U M P T I O N S  as  comparison  per  waste.  year  This  generation  will  (231,000  the  solid  about  the  Chapter  of  I).  savings  This  through  be  determining  on  tons  of  the per  basis year)  equivalent  to  solid  disposal  of of  210,000  GVS&DD's  capacity  total  provides  economies  centralization.  Finally,  materials  from  this  attractive  to  waste  of  the  scale  without  production  volume  of  buyers  of  waste  without  waste  which  causing  large  requiring  the  constitutes 1981,  opportunity  energy  is  for  (GVRD,  adequate  solid  yearly  and  stream  metric  municipal  the  services  waste  their  WestBurnCo m u n i c i p a l i t i e s  waste  potential  operations  for  made  is  five  GVS&DD p r o v i d e s  basis  short  capacity  of  25%  the  the  see for  excessive  or  recycled  enough  major  to  be  marketing  activity. A lead  time  construction commence After  in  of  and 1986  this  start and  period  required,  but  Therefore,  no  approximately  the  up.  continue major  Hence for  costs  years  the  twenty  revisions  installation  dismantling  two  to  will  will  is  operation years, the  is  assumed  until  plant  continue  accrue.  required  to  for to  2005.  would  be  operate.  39  2.  CHARACTERISTICS  In resource waste 2.1  order  to  recovery  stream  Vancouver  choose  be  Of  are  the  diposal  of  listed  the in  Waste  the  table  by  11.5  Wastes  15-25  20.0 45.0  2-4  5.7  Textiles  2-3  3.7  Wood  5-10  4.3  Metals  7-9  9.6  G l a s s & Ceramics  7-10  8.2  Ash, Rocks & D i r t  -  2.5  Composition  of  for  coincide  British  stream  in  the  9.5  40^55  100.0  V a n c o u v e r Waste  GVRD,  measurements  municipal  Weight  P l a s t i c , Rubber & L e a t h e r  measurements  the  optimize  (GVRD,1980):  -  (Garbage)  Total  These  below  1972 UBC Survey  Paper P r o d u c t s  V -  waste  1973 Tech. Summary R e p o r t  Wastes  Food and Garden  Table  of  and  Stream  municipal  Percent  Food H a s t e s  methods  composition  The M u n i c i p a l  Category  Garden  FACILITIES  determined.  components area  OF D I S P O S A L  adequate  options,  must  Composition  The  AND C O S T S  Stream;  Source:  1980  with  Columbia  Bird  and  (1977).  Hale's  more  recent  40  As-received  Component  Wet Wt (%)  S.E.*  Moisture Content (%)  Paper Kraft Paper Newsprint Fine Paper Other Paper  37.91 6.9K 11.13 3.22 16.63  6.28 2.25 4.20 1.89 5.42  19 .60 16 .87 11 .34 10 .98 25 .91  Class Beer Containers Reuseable Soft Drink Non-reuseable Soft Drink Liquor and Wine Containers - Food Containers - Other Flat and Cullet  7.78 0.07 0.31 0.19 2.99 2.60 0.65 0.97  1.21 0.06 0.29 0.24 1.01 0.72 0.25 0.40  0 .82  Ferrous Metals Beer Cans Soft Drink Cans Food Cans Other  7.20 0.00 0.22 3.13 3.85  1.82 0.01 0.12 1.07 2.70  2. ,88  Non-Ferrous Metal Aluminum Other  0.1(8 0.17 0.02  0.17 0.14 0.04  14. ,71  Plastics Containers Sheet F i l m Other  5.12 1.18 1.2ii  031 0.17 1.13  15. 48  3.28 5.19 17.1(2 4.99 7.28 2.80 0.36  3.71 1.17 7.09 2.29 3.96 2.88 0.39  3. 15. 58. 13. 15. 11.  Ceramics Rubble Lumber Putrescible Textiles Leather Rubber Yard Wastes Brush Fines Petroleum Chemical Mix  T O T A L W E I G H T E D M O I S T U R E C O N T E N T (%)  21 01 78 11 12 86  21.11  : Table  VI  Franklin  -  C o m p o s i t i o n of M u n i c i p a l Waste Stream C o l u m b i a ; S o u r c e : B i r d and H a l e , 1977  Associates  United  States.  higher  paper  all  estimates  (  (1982)  The o n l y content paper  is  indicate  significant of  the  waste  the .largest  collected  for  waste-to-energy  approximately  50% o f  the  of  lies  for  the  in  the  in Vancouver.  by  weight  disposal,  BTU c o n t e n t  British  figures  difference  component  importantly  total  similar  in  the  and,  In more  constitutes refuse.  41  Combustibles  X of T o t a l Btu  % by Weight  As-disposed Btu/lb  Btu Content  29.8 4.8 2.5 2.3 3.5 16.7 19.1  6,682 14,058 9,473 6,775 6,666 1,915 2,729  1,991 675 237 156 233 320 521  48.0 16.2 5.7 3.8 5.6 7.7 12.5  4,133  99.5  Paper Plastics Rubber and L e a t h e r Textiles Wood Food Yard Total  78.7  Noncombustibles Glass Metals Miscellaneous  10.5 9.3 1.6  Total Grand  Table  VII  The through the  waste in  21.3  Total  100.0  1990  of  States,  stream.  Vancouver.  is  (Franklin  the  4 8 _8  0.1 0.2 0.2  20  0.5  4,153  100.0  C o m p o s i t i o n of Waste Stream i n N o r t h Source: Franklin Associates, 1982  composition  United  because  -  42 86 86  projected,  Associates, but  similarity Possibly  assumed  in  the paper  remain  1982).  are  the  to  to  The be  present content  America;  fairly  figures  valid  for  are  for  Vancouver,  composition will  constant  diminish  of  the  somewhat  42  Misc. 1.6%  Rubber 4 Leather 2.3%  Misc. 1.5%  Plastics 4.81  & Leather 2.4%  Plastics 5.5%  2980 Figure  2.2  US  6 - P r o j e c t e d C o m p o s i t i o n of until 1990; S o u r c e : F r a n k l i n  Probable  The fulfill  1990  Combinations  disposal two  methods  Disposal  included  applied  operations  technology  Those  in  in  in  the  in  incineration, separation), not more  in  Technology  in  must  full-scale  North  the  finanical  evaluation  Vancouver  use  be  in  (over  must  considered expensive  i.e.  it  must  tonnes  per  day)  and  America  potential  and  disposal  include  market  landfilling,  preparation  recycling.  proven  other  some  area.  North  adequately than  200  have  refuse-derived-fuel composting  proven,  America;  2. ) Any r e c o v e r e d - r e s o u r c e s value  Stream 1982  criteria:  1. ) T h e d i s p o s a l be  Of  S o l i d Waste Associates,  However,  composting methods,  (mechanical since  is these  RDF  is  substantially two  methods  43  are  not In  waste  practical order  to  stream,  combinations technically individually.  for  large  compare  disposal achieve  feasible.  scale  systems methods  100%  application that  must  dispose be  disposal,  The d i s p o s a l  in  the  of  combined. and  elements  GVS&DD.  100% The  are will  of  the  following considered  be  discussed  Figure  gure  8  ,  Figure  -  100%  7  -  100%  Incineration  Landfilling  with Residual  Landfilli  T^ahf y**-  9  -  Source-Separation Landfilling  (11%), (89%)  with  Residual  J 'ex F i g u r e 10 - S o u r c e - S e p a r a t i o n (11%), c o m b i n e d w i t h I n c i n e r a t i o n (89%), and R e s i d u a l L a n d f i l l i n g (30%)  45  2 . 3 Sanitary  2.3.1  Landfilling  Operat ion  The  ASCE  defines  disposal  by  sanitary  landfilling  as:  " A m e t h o d o f d i s p o s i n g o f r e f u s e on l a n d w i t h o u t c r e a t i n g nuisances or hazards to p u b l i c h e a l t h or s a f e t y by u t i l i z i n g p r i n c i p l e s o f e n g i n e e r i n g to c o n f i n e refuse to the s m a l l e s t p r a c t i c a l a r e a , to reduce i t to the s m a l l e s t p r a c t i c a l volume, and to c o v e r i t w i t h a l a y e r of e a r t h at the c o n c l u s i o n of e e a c h d a y ' s o p e r a t i o n or more f r e q u e n t l y if necessary."  Practically refuse face,  from  mm o f  adjoining usually  on  dirt  slopes  (maximum  factors  in  landfills  for which  other  landfill  layer  than  and  very  landfilling  same  3:1)  is  60  design  compacting  methods  operators  in  to  to  is and  cope  daily  done  in  make  90  total  the  cover  of  cells,  at  cover. a  the  working and  least  comprising  top  height  150  of  Landfills  lift  are  ,  one  A series  lift.  centimetres.  is  covered  The  outside  the  limiting  figure). limited, limited  due  to  the only The  this  incineration) with  onto  tipping  layers,  up  lift;  of  into  daily  equipment.  part,  (e.g.  a  one  (see  flexible  vehicles  thin  the  capacity  are,  is  consists  waste  with  the  of  total  and  the  and  layer  the  spreading  private  layers  more  landfill  While  the  the  comprise final  and  Landfilling  volume  cells  landfilling  compacting the  dirt.  refuse  a  and  covering  cover  day's  with  municipal  spreading  finally,  speaking,  seasonal  daily by low  the  and  and  of  costs  flexibility  which  daily  of  capacity  capital  built-in  lack  capacity  enables  fluctuations  46  in  the waste  Figure  more  11  (GVRD,  - Sanitary  Transfer  Stations  distant  landfills.  transfer located for  stream  stations close  Landfill  are often  Operation  required  For reasons  i s becoming  to densely  the c o l l e c t i o n  1973).  more  and  to haul  mentioned  widespread.'  populated  areas  Design the refuse  above, They  to minimize  to  t h e use of are usually travel  time  vehicles.  % \ I — I ii  Figure The into  large  garbage  12 - T r a n s f e r  dumped  semitrailer  i !  Station  at the transfer  trucks  ("B"  Design station  trains),  and  i s transferred transported  in  47  bulk  to  design  the  of  enclosed  2.3.2  from a)  a  disposal transfer  buildings  Financial  land  in  suitable  -  equipment:  leachate  has  and  ,  W.  the  opportunity  in  of  marginal  hence,  land  moving  are  usually  emitted.  landfill  and  costs  evolve  above:  compacting  machinery,  not  enter  land  land  the  full  of  etc.  occur,  But  cost  appears  of  serve  to  after  a  land(pers.  reasonable  price  may  plus  the  methane, to  in  there  landfilling  ceases, odors,  argue  that  landfills  are  located  upgrade  the  land.  are  omitted.  costs  comprise  the  scales,  office  compactors,  from  difficult  many  costs  resold  landfilling,  after  is  be  calculation  leachate, it  capital  bought  purchase  because  they  the will  is  the  investment  where  capital  land  function  effects  costs  in  Although this  the  ground,  areas  and  the  recouping of  the  Thus,  1983).  loss.will  the  that  does  systems  considered  reclamation  in  the  Equipment bulldozers  are  described  control  not  continuing  systematic  Therefore,  is  ceased.  cost  of  earth  assumed  Mechler,  settling  etc.  estimating  features  methane  land  difficulties  because  stations  terrain  scales,  and  of  landfilling  of  for  the.physical  etc.  is  a  Landfilling  -  comm.  noise  shows  costs:  it  be  Of  operational  purchase  view  Costs  basic  supplies,  fund  odor,  the  below  Transfer  no  categories  because  figure  so  cost  -  The  station.  The  Capital  The  site.  initial and  investment  in  maintenance  48  buildings,  fences,  access  etc.  $120,000  for  and  Using  $200,000  million per  is  year  buildings,  to  site  large  enough  100  ha).  seems costs  1976,  $  Stern, and  ton  on  which  for  an  low $  will  be  amortized  100%  reinvestment Operating  maintenance Depending operating  over in  1.10  can  $  $ 2  tonnes 2  semi-  control  systems  are  2 million  dollars  for  W. to  20  for  years on  a  (about the  site  estimate to  will  be  the  include  This  estimate  of  US d o l l a r s  the  $3  Both  Stanley  total  equal  (US-  capital  approximately  calculations  will  landfilled,  be to  The  civil  works  equipment  over  five,  with  ten  cover  between  to  added.  years.  labor,  availability  $1  1983).  landfilled.  $2.50/tonne  after  of  1976  following  of  at  US-EPA  in  interest  The  costs  Mechler,  the  $2.20  tonne  and  ten.years,  vary  scales,  of  capital  (1981)  interest  provision  location,  costs  to  per  equipment  costs  costs,  on  and  sets  of  etc.).  investment  amortization  investment  scale-house).  comm.  Doughton  compactors,  much d e p e n d e n t  compared  1977)  for  210,000  capacity  overall  landfilling.  initial  the  very  (pers.  between  (1981)  the  including amortization  4 per  based  in  methane  is  connections,  handle  2  and  geology,  somewhat of  to  to  design  water  initial  road  estimate  landfilled  Associates costs  the  hydrology,  tonne  an  approximately  GVS&DD e s t i m a t e s  estimate  EPA,  to  for  This  (topography,  initial  amount  scales,  3 compactors,  paved  and  $150,000  sufficient  collection  estimated  per  be  bulldozers,  Leachate  The  of  to  sewer  bulldozers,  set  estimated (3  permanent  per  roads,  of $6  operating material,  cover and  materials, fuel,  material, $10  per  etc.  etc.,  tonne  in  the the  49  GVS&DD  (GVRD,  The has  Doughton,  additional  been  cost  are  Station hauling  (about  stations  $16  on a  per  per  calculation will  -Life -  tonnage: :  20  $  -  Interest  interim  figure current  in  Rate  -Inflation -No  The p r e c e d i n g  basis: Costs  7.50  $17.50  be  rate:  5 years  $1.50/tonne  -Real  hauling  10 $  based  210,000  $1.50/tonne  -Discount  bulk  on  metric  the  following  tonnes  per  assumptions:  year  years  Amortization  equipment  tonne).  Operating  $7.50  cost  and  tonne  $ 2.50  -Total  in  transfer  Initial Capital Investment $ 5  Total  The  1982).  summarized below  Landfill  The  of  d e t e r m i n e d above  estimates  Transfer and b u l k  1983,  below  :  in  buildings  12  Rate  earthworks  distibuted  as  10  $3.50  years,  10 y e a r s , :  and  $1  in  follows:  five  in  -  10  transfer  5 years;  years, station  landfill  —  years;  % p.a. :  4 % p.a.  8 % p.a. financing  required  shows  development  dollars  the  assuming  constant  of  and  the equal  landfilling inflation.  costs  50  &>6F ye*.  Figure  The (1983  13  -  present dollars)  Landfilling  value per  (PV) metric  Financial Costs  of  the  tonne  Costs  total  averaged  including  costs over  Transfer  amounts 20  to  years.  $  14.50  51  2.4  Waste-To-Enerqy Conversion  2.4.1  Available  Technology  Waste-to-enegy various  forms  common oil,  of  products  char,  disposal  processes  convert  solid  energy,  materials,  and  residue.  include  fuel-  pellets,  Waste-to-energy -direct  of  subsequently  burned  is  not  -pyrolysis  in  comprises  in  modified  residual  mixture  carbon  a  experimental  large-scale  included 2.4.2  s t i l l  in  and  this  at  gases,  process:  has  is this  present;  gases  and  which  furnaces;  thermal  inerts  operation  of  (RDF)  dedicated  a  combustible  in  or  gasification),  of  most  furnaces  reliable  producing  is  types  refuse-derived-fuel  considered  (or  The  combustible  three  dedicated  process  process  decomposition  and  vapors,  (char); not  since  proven  (Harrison,  and  a  this  successful  1980),  it  is  not  analysis.  Incineration  Incineration waste  is  usable  energy.  municipal boilers  burned  for  not  a a  Three  direct  types  European  for  of  under  furnace  process or  incineration  mass  over  incinerators. been  combustion  dedicated  capacities  incinerators  have  is in  wastes:  fluidized-bed and  disposal  -preparation  electricity,  into  etc.  incineration  process  air  steam,  waste  burning  200  200  tons  The  implemented  tons per  latter in  a  on  a  whereby grate  have  been  grates per  day;  day, are  to  sufficiently  to  wat-erwall  modular  s t i l l  produce  adapted  with  and  solid  starved-  experimental in  development  large  scale  to  52  be  viable  at  locations  present.  and  The  capacities  two  former  in North  types  America  are  used  in  (Franklin  numerous  Associates,  1982). In  the  larger  incinerators, zone  on  ensure the  a  the  moving  complete  waterwall  of  (see  Quench ashes ash  Oxygen  oxidation.  and  pass  hydrogen  produce  refuse water  mass.  to  contain  grate  the  and  are  a  fumes  gas  cooler  filter  and  flyash  is  of  dissolved  in  the  (usually)  a  variety oxides,  to  quench  1975). 1/3  of  landfilled.  The  which  an  particulate  1/4  usually  metals  to  through  (Hocking,  recirculated.  trace  up  nitrogen  others  are  chamber  contain  comprising  by-products  ashes  rise  e.g.  and  the  and  (MBG)  combustion  reduce  gases  components, chloride,  to  grate  the  into  and  The exhaust  concentrations  particles  through  injected  (ESP)  These  cool  is  through  below).  mass-burning  transported  The heat  inorganic  dioxides,  raw  grate.  figure  Incinerators the  is  precipitator  organic  sulphur  European  garbage  boiler,  electrostatic matter  scale  residue  adhere  water  and  to  the  (Hocking,  1975). Incineration raw  waste.  landfill  cost  This  of  the  costs  is  costs for  of  up  in  life  by of  the  life  landfill  addition landfilling  landfilling  only  residuals  landfill  because  for  take  limited the  extension  Therefore, the  these  extends  calculation,  weight. costs,  Since  capacity  incineration fold.  residuals  the  1/6th  of  volume  are  landfilled  the  available  available is  not  costs  are  the  the  residual  refuse)  the  volume,  landfills  by  in  expressed  direct  6  the by  incineration  ashes  will  of  and  reflected  to  raw  the  be  (about  1/3  included  in  53  the  incineration  costs  (GVRD,1980,  Harrison,1980 ) .  F i g u r e 14 - E u r o p e a n M a s s B u r n i n g Inc i n e r a t o r ; S o u r c e : G V R D , 1 9 8 0 Smaller combustion the  name  starved-air by  (see  limiting figure  completely  oxidize  combustion.  Heat  to  modular the  An  the  gases  recovery  incinerators  amount  below).  and  Grate  of  air  for  afterburner produced  smoke  control  the  combustion,  hence  is  necessary  in  filtration  a are  to  starved-air very  similar  MBG i n c i n e r a t i o n . Steam  for  heating  power. and  generated or  The  process latter  incinerators steam,  or  degrees  whereas  process  steam  can  be  Celsius  and  efficient  be  converted  Celsius  400  bars  be  requires  about  20  can  can  application  of  more  pressure  in  supplied  respectively.  at  used  a  either to  minimum  and  40  250  Generating  electric temperature  bars -  directly  (595  300  electricity  psi),  degrees allows  54  TO HEAT RECOVER^  Figure  use  of  15 - Modular  steam  energy  passing the t u r b i n e s .  i f the  Source:GVRD,  steam i s used f o r h e a t i n g a f t e r  But such co-generation of e l e c t r i c i t y and  heat r e q u i r e s a l a r g e r higher  Starved-air Incinerator; 1980  temperatures  investment and  for raising  pressures.  the  steam  Moreover,  to  higher  temperatures cause more r a p i d c o r r o s i o n of the b o i l e r tubes and, hence, higher replacement c o s t s  (GVRD,  1980).  2.4.3 F i n a n c i a l Costs Of I n c i n e r a t i o n The c a p i t a l and o p e r a t i n g c o s t s f o r a plant  are  reduced  comparative cost  by the revenues  modern  from steam s a l e s .  f i g u r e s f o r a-municipal i n c i n e r a t o r  were compiled f o l l o w i n g the GVS&DD's request 1982.  The  GVRD.  Detailed  in the GVRD  for proposals i n  request s p e c i f i e d the c a p a c i t y of 72,500 tons p.a.  and three p o s s i b l e l o c a t i o n s next to p o t e n t i a l the  incinerator  Although  72,500  tons  only  steam  represent  regions's s o l i d waste stream, t h i s c a p a c i t y was chosen  users 7%  in  of the  to permit  55  manufacturers American  both  modular  compared  on  The for  of  larger  economies  indicate  scale  incinerator,  on  limit.  was  It  the  other  by  boiler  units  of  scale  waterwall  boilers  were here for  are  application The  (65,900  base  to  were  for the  two -types  North  were  at  for  thus  for  be  at  technology  used  to  raise  not  be  capacity,  see  Doughton,  following $ 20  (GVRD,  million  2 million rate  of  steam  -Real  incinerators  of  1981. 72,500  -Inflation: $ 3.20/1,000  (1983 (1983  dollars) dollars)  per  inflation  4%  8% lbs  of  steam  tons  1983):  :12%  interest:  for  considered  rates: rate  and  incinerators  modular  capacity  t h e MBG  pressures  of  incinerator  more  substantial  The m o d u l a r will  was  addition,  steam  upper  throughput  achieving In  modular  its  increasing  and  exploit  The  analysis  an  the  MBG  designed  to  operating  higher  be.  are  unable  units.  evaluation  $  be  thereby  need  smaller  -Discount  -Revenue:  and  throughput.  the  modular  if  the  costs:  escalated  -Interest  and  detailed a  would  therfore  investment:  -Operating 1987,  a  figures  tonnes)  -Capital  from  For  specified  designed  generation  are  potential  the  could  eliminated either.  The  MBG i n c i n e r a t o r s  that  the  over  and  power  hence,  hand,  of  electric  and the  because  temperatures  the  concluded  economies  bid.  that  at  advantageous adding  to  grate  terms.  capacities, of  mass-burning  incinerators  equal  results  European  (1983  dollars)  year  in  56  -Plant In  order  tonnes,  the  overall tonnes into  is  the  on  their  which and  their  results  inceasing  one  the  between  view  of  these  for  the  base  case  reduction costs  will  in be  seems  the  for  an  (210,000 capital  up  safe  an  of  must  a  700 take  of  of a  versus arid  a  and  1979).  conclusion in  scale,  and  be  control  (US-EPA,  number  Europe;  both of  with  furnaces  especially  in  throughput.  10%  to  and twice  of  66,000  cost  20%  in  about the  tripling  40%  to  landscaping,  different  estimate  about  US-EPA  incinerators  tons  involves  tonnes  the  elaborate  below),  capacity,  investment  assumed.  at  figure  be  by  scale  increasing  installation  scaling  of  economies  a  of  throughput  architecture,  100,000  to  210,000  Assuming  estimates  more  operating  (see  facts,  doubling  costs  54  and  cost  of  arrive  and  location  costs  Because  size  a  estimated  economies  (1978)  80,000  of  are  significant  installations  operating  80%,  3.18.  of  scale.  up  larger  a  daily  eat  show  capacity  of  whistles"),  of  the by  because  the  to  increased  and  analysis  in  of  scale  Reimer  installed  In  of  furnace  range  be  data  The a d j u s t m e n t  mainly  ("bells  Goepfert  cost  must  economies  small,  costs  the  availability  economies  systems  years  adjust  required.  relatively  based  to  20  throughput  account  other  :  yearly  The  But  life  savings the  30%  for  capital  to  40%  in  size. of  capacity  tonnes)  reduction  in  a  over 20  %  operating  57  Ill'iUiUi ! , ! ! ! !  !  -I. -i !-j-h  j iTiTrlTf! 6 //*  ,-60'r  i !i i it  1411  • -i  .Ii  ;  7 Tr  ANNUAL  ! i  i _ ... t  1  I  !!!frn":T'TVirnv"nTM-!i!iii  TONNAGE  NET]  COST  AS  i  (SHORT.  vAfA/,;  TONS)=  1980  OBTAINABLE  IN  j|  CHAMBER'  !r  iKiiilii. ! i :>o i L i  r' t I O -l OO j  COMBUSTION'  ni-hiiii  i ; I J j VPRICE\L[EVEL\  i  ' M i i ! i i •• I i i i i ' ' QN GRATES \lN WATER-WALLED,  : • : .  ADAPTEDt FROM. GOEPFERT fl, REIVER (1978) :! i • j'j VOfJRESPONDWG 26 IN SOURCE I i - I I i i i | ! 11 I I i [• . I I • • , i , i I RATED. FURNACE CAPACITIES \IN METRIC: TONNES PER  TTST:: ?f; -U  ; • i I i • • : ' = \BY MASS-BURNING]  I 1  l-i  .,,  liiii iM'iMi  -IV)-!-1 i I I  •UNIT ,COST\ OF INCINERATION  l-l  .....  i  HI  • : 9 !! I  i  li'iliiiiilHV.M'.Vn  fl!  i i - i i...l i "|.j |-  l/h x 11x24  RATED  WEST  GERMANY  Mil! ' 1 ;  i -i i • i i 1  1  1  •Hi!  n  ... .  Hi  HOUR] j X 365 x 0. TO 1 .(FR6)  1  !!! I  rH  cn. 1. i M  !I  f-i IT.  1  i  liiir  ip.! !].!'  iiiliil-  i I !i!iTi I ! 11 i  IfSilh!  !M!-!fiii  11  O /O.OO  0  200,000  ANNUAL  Figure A short  300,000  400,000  REFUSE  500,000  THROUGHPUT  600,000  (SHORT  700,000  TONS)  ,  16 - C o s t s  for Different Size Incinerators; G o e p f e r t a n d R e i m e r , 1978 c a l c u l a t i o n reveals the adjusted costs:  Capacity  enlargement:  210,000  Capital  Costs:  million  $20  tonnes  :  66,000  tonnes  x 3.18 = 63.6 m i l l i o n  Source:  = 3.18 -  20% = $51  million Operating $3.77  costs:  million The  raised  plant  will  located  Alternately  it  Revenue  steam  from  x 3.18 = $  6.28  million  -  40%  for  process  heat  p.a.  steam  paperboard  $2 m i l l i o n  could  be  be  sold  adjacent supplied  production  is  to  the  incinerator.  to hospitals  calculated  from  to a  for  heating.  the heat  value  58  of  municipal  1980;  Doughton,  suitable degrees 1800 of  for  BTUs/lb  steam  is  turbine  raised  to  the  bars,  be  or  waste the to  210,000  tonnes  =  1,150,000,000  lbs  replaces  of  amount  value  2.20  equals  B.C.  the  e.g.  Hydro  per £  refuse  steam/lb lbs  (1800/1050 of  2,050,285,715  $  burning  of  2.5  a  of  steam  about  80%.  Thus,  of  refuse  of  steam (400  psi)  can  be  gas  produced network.  is  about 2.5  raised  or  steam,  (GVRD,1980; be  gauged  replaced  o i l ,  assuming  of  or  that  by  it  T h e two p o s s i b l e  will  gas  feet  equal  460,000,000  lbs  p.  =)  p.a.  and  1.7 1 x  a.  thereby  1000  cubic  feet  or of  natural  gas  of thousand cubic  4,510,630  feet  in  1983  (Margolick,  by the be  revenues  refuse  steam  BTUs  natural cubic  of  p.a.  and  producing  can  fuel  lbs  refuse  Celsius) for  300  ratio  of  process  sold  conventional  -  This  pound  degrees  either  energy  natural  per  250  about  burned.  required  Since  the  raise  steam:  x  at  cost  of  to  of  (co-generation)  value  GVRD,  compared.  Process  the  590  to  refuse,  pressure  temperature  electricity  the  heating  of  psi)  lbs  turbines.  both the  lb  2.3  or  steam  the  of  supplied will  about  1981),  municipal  per  lb  295  efficiency  to  with  by  boiler  (about  per  required  district  bars  drops  steam  Doughton,  20  BTUs  energy  and  produced  (40  electricity  price  a  are  pressure  either  and  4,500  The  process  at  necessariliy  (about  1981).  Celsius  steam  if  refuse  1982)  59  equals  (x  1.71)  (x  2.5  or  (x  Based  on  3.77/1,000  lbs  of  )  $ 9.43/1,000  lbs  of  2.2  )  $20.74/tonne  of  the  GVS&DD's  projections, 1986.  $  the  Doughton  1983.  Both  for  next  the  1983  In from  will  order  the  for  production, Quebec  a  steam,  the  or  $  assuming  between 0.1  boiler  bar,  maximum  for  power  B.C.  per  General  be  3 bars  (44  and  passing  generation  Service  bulk  Thus,  the  1.631  total  user  $  rate  case.  and  to  to  City  Salem,  Va.,  10 and  in see  per  thousand  some steam  City  1977), lbs  of  rate  of  1 1 0 , 0 8 0 , 0 0 0 KWh Celsius  losses  condensation  pressure  through  a  turbine  KWh p e r  tonne  (B.C.  energy Hydro  (pers. energy  condensing  electric  the  of  dollars).  degrees a  switch  allow  (e.g.  a  in  analysis.  steam,  (1983  in  The M a r g o l i c k  incentive  of  in  increase  applied  at  and  of  $25.30  $ 32.62  interuptions  refuse  512  cents/KWh electric  some  3.20  purchase  rate  base  of  inlet,  of  would the  namely  sensitivity  steam  at  price  $20.74/tonne  the  1972;  psi)  all  analysis,  usually  of  about  value  the  to  (1982)  higher-than-inflation  produced  turbine  at  1983),  is  tonne  energy  incinerator  value  can  Hydro  incinerator  the  equal  as  steam to  Margolick's  refuse  this  contract,  equivalent 17.63  in  and  of  possibility  sales  Electricity p.a.  the  15% d i s c o u n t  steam  reducing  For  used  source  the  ton  overall  applied  give  present  discount  be  be  to  an  years.  will  refuse  estimates  project  dollars  projections  (1981)  per  or  refuse  calculations  revenue  twenty  steam  of  energy  revenue  from  portion  Schedule W.  for  refuse.  charge  comm.  of  an  of  the  1821,  April  Mechler,  1983).  would  amount  to  $  60  1,761,280 Not steam, would  p.a. only  but add  result,  or is  the  the  about  $ 8.15  capital 5% t o  steam.  tonne  revenue  generation  process  per  Only  for  of  electricity  expenditures  the  refuse.  capital  for  costs  of  electricity  the  latter  lower  than  for  turbine-generator  sets  (GVRD,  is  less  alternative  1980).  As  advantageous  will  be  a  than  considered  henceforth. The  adjusted  foregoing  estimates  -Capital  -Operating -Revenue:  $  A  (1983) 2.4.4  per  rate:  for  the  million  resulting  tonne  of  the  PV c a l c u l a t i o n s :  (1983  dollars),  10% r e i n v e s t m e n t million  from  (1983)  refuse  after  per  (1983  10  years  year dollars)  12 %  8 % rate:  and  indicate  tonnes  per  1,182,500,000  analysis  costs  4 %  210,000  production:  will  $ 51  figures  years  burned:  sensitivity  operating  20  interest  -Steam  base  $ 3.77  17.63  -Inflation:  -Refuse  the  10 y e a r s ,  costs:  life:  -Discount  -Real  form  Investment:  -Amortization:  -Plant  cost-revenue  assuming  a)  year  lbs  per  10%  year  higher  capital  and  b)  revenues  as  projected  by  Margolick/GVRD  the  response  of  the  to  these  costs  changes.  Results  The  figure  the  twenty  The  present  year  12.50/tonne.  below  depicts  period  value The  of  under  the  the  cost-revenue  distribution  over  consideration.  costs  sensitivity  in  the  standard  analysis  case  indicates  equals $  15.00  $ per  61  tonne  (or  20%  more)  operating  costs,  projection  of  Figure  17  and  energy  -  for $  10% 11.50  higher per  capital  tonne  (8%  investment  less)  for  the  prices.  Incineration  Costs  for  20  years,  1986  dollars  and high  62  2.5  Source-Separation  2.5.1  definition  reusables objects  '  and  at  the  the  source  the  appear  the  waste  disposal  separation  of  waste  reu-sables  in  of  of  are  and  borne  financial  recycling  of  materials  and  namely h o u s e h o l d s  and  reusable  generation;  costs  effort by  by  the  to  clean,  waste  calculations  for  prepare,  generators  and  waste  collection  the  collection  disposal. The  separated  vehicles are  type  The a d d i t i o n a l  store not  this  involves  businesses.  and  Recycling  D e s c r i p t i o n And O p e r a t i o n By  do  And  at  sorted,  labor  the  materials recycling  cleaned,  intensive.  volunteers Assoc.,  have  1981;  are  deposited  depot  or  and  loaded  for  Most  often  in  contributed  McCrae,  1973)  transfer  station  shipping. the  much  and  by  of  thus  this  past, this  helped  where  work  they  is  very  students labor  reduce  and  (Stanley  the  &  costs  for  stream  by  recycling. The source  amount  in  willingness The  to  are  waste  items  of  it  in. the  the  is  v  commonly  on  source  and  the  waste  amounts  and  of  the  stream VI  and  by  programs.  section  perception  determines  of  are  will  of  total  2.1). the  effort  what  source-separated  generators'  percentage  (see  the  "recyclables"  waste  separation  public's  stream  which  from  the  waste  the  waste  materials  most  in  in Tables  however,  these  on  stream  participate  listed  materials  salvage The  the  extracted  depends  components  essence, the  waste  separation  contained  weight  of  value  required be  paper  In of to  separated. (newspaper,  63  fine  paper,  stream),  corrugated  glass  "other  only.  (18  Except  is for  waste  the  of  bulky  stream  is  of  large.  The  recovery  (1980),  and  Stanley  ease  in  paper  and  for  items  reflect  separating  cited  the  tradeoffs  waste  -fine  paper  ferrous  metal  However, with  which,  education,  the in  be  Depot recovery  -  29.0%  -  9.0%  rates type  average  type  in  the  vary  of  depressed,  tires),  of  Hale  for  the  rest  because are  (1977),  curb-side  perceived  this  1981).  reprocessing  of the too  Rompre pick-up  scarcity  and  the  location  to  rate  significantly  recycling  is  a  of  & Assoc.,  expected  rates  following  analysis.  experience  (approximately  from  operation  function  (Stanley  operations  rates  is  paper  41.0% 32.0%  income  used  -  -  turn,  and  reflect  therefore  and  these  low-grade  41.0%  cartons  glass  rates  in  comprises  materials:  -  -corrugated  and  waste  category  Associates,  Bird^and  Recovery  paper-newsprint  rate,  cost  by  for  reprocessed,  (1981),  Materials  location  the  the  stream)  paper  (Stanley  or  % of  The r e s i d u a l  suitable  (appliances  Assoc.  21.3  waste  low-grade  or  rates &  is  separated  separation  (7%).  the  recycled  not  difficulty  operations  of  not  together  metals  20%  market  usually some  and  to  types  Since  material  the  (8%),  paper"  heterogeneous  cardboards,  1/3  of  participation  public 1981).  for  much  and  B.C.  lower the  awareness, The  recovery  and  will  participation curb  pick-up  64 rates). ratio  They  is  will  substantially  programs  (Doughton,  Combining percentages of of  not  210,000  favorable  Stanley  estimated  applying  tonnes  considered,  less  1981,  the  and  be  the  than  figures  Waste:  of  up  1981).  the  calculation  pick  with  the  weight  waste  stream  expected  amount  total the  210,000 tonnes Recovery Rate Amounts R e c y c l e d 41% 9,300 tonnes 41% 5,510 32% 1,950 29% 4,690 9% 1,320 tonnes  Composition 10.8% 6.4 % 3.1% 7.7% 7.0%  newsprint corrugated fine paper glass ferrous metal Total  22,770 The  balance  methods,  e.g.  Stanley  an  commodity  and  requirements  at  costs  are  up  average  fifty  B.C.  of  a  much  These  ammortized from  the  converted  into  1983  the  the  market,  assured  larger  waste  population,  other  pick-up  and  averaged  by  were  evaluated  by  processing  annual  and  for  serving  these  of  Labor  costs  unpaid a  operation,  stream  each  costs.  for  dollars  and  by  curb-side  for  account  recycling  of  Recycling  literature  to  tonnes  composting.  costs  equipment  (1980)  Since  or  compiled  $5/hour  source-separated  people.  were  (1981).  from  disposed  source-separated,  extracted  miles  be  incineration,  estimating  priced  represents  in  must  Source-separated  inventory  were  pick-  60,000  tonnes  for  Associates  developing  unit  Of  costs  operations &  shadow  187,230  Analysis  unit  recycling  of  landfilling,  Financial  The  The  curb  rates  to  cost/revenue  recyclables:  Total  3.2  the  for  Associates,  recovery  these  permits  because  a  were  labor.  curb-side located  population 210,000  estimates  on of  tonnes are  65  conservative  due  to  increasing  size  recycling  operations  reduce  collection  adjusted tonne  of  only  unit  Revenues weight  operation.  It be  comes  Thus,  to  by  Phyllis  is  conceivable,  the at  of  in  unit  with  however,  that  four  costs  10% p e r  scale  locations  will  annum.  The  to  will  be  total  per  $65.10.  sales  processed  economies  distributed  inflation  from  communication  would  routes.  for  cost  additional  are the  calculated going  Dubois,  by  market  Vernon  multiplying  prices  (  the  personal  Community  Recycling  Centre): newsprint  9,300  tonnes  X $59.40  =  $552,420  corrugated  5,510  tonnes  X $82.50  =  $454,525  fine  1,950  tonnes  X $82.50  =  $160,075  4,690  tonnes  X $49.50  =  $232,155  1,320  tonnes  X $25.00  =  $  paper  glass ferrous Total  metals  Revenue  Spread  over  $62.90/tonne. waste  to  included,  are  for  source The  pollution  the  tonnage  landfilled  because  modifications possibly  $1,432,225 processed,  Diversion credits be  these  to more  33,000  for  savings  are  the  $326,290)  for  averages  amount  necessary  vehicles  scheduling,  revenue  reducing  (approximately  collection frequent  this  are to  not cover  recyclables  especially  if  of  more  and items  separated. indirect reduction,  which  lower  market  prices.  benefits etc.  of  are  production costs The a n a l y s i s  recyc1ing,i.e.  not are  of  included, assumed  non-market  to  energy  since be  savings,  any  benefits  reflected  benefits  is  in  part  the of  66  the  following  chapters.  However, from  sales  of  recylcables primary  an  recycled  material  calculations •recyclables prices  the  agree to  to  3.2.1  overbridge  analysis  effects  in  the  of  long  have  had  market there term  a  (Stanley,  1981;  European cost  in  low  far.  revenue  A will  sources  tendency  Rompre,  and so  Literature  definite  these  buffer-stocking  markets  20%  and  the  success  of  for  trends  various  or  depressed  a  prices  render  pooling  fluctuations. exists  in  little  revenue  documents  can  decrease  of  economic  paper  at  of  The  (1979)  waste  times  calculation  the  prices  assuming  that  with  Attempts  recyclables  though,  rise  changing  obsolete.  for  sensitivity  for  the  warranted.  Pearce  prices  Thus,  to  is  strongly  prices.  in  countries.  caveat  materials  fluctuate  fluctuations  show  important  for  all  prices  1980).  Results  Using tonne, twenty  the  revenues present  years  of  value  of  A decrease  value  to  $8.63  in  per  per  tonne  and  source-separated  of . o p e r a t i o n  dollars). cost  $62.90  amounts  revenue tonne.  by  20%  to  costs  of  $65.10  recycling costs $1.28  per  increases  tonne the  per for (1983  present  67  3.  SUMMARY AND C O N C L U S I O N S  3.1  Summary A n d D i s c u s s i o n O f T h e F i n a n c i a l  The  matrix  disposal the  costs  amount  total the  of  for  classification  Rather,  the  in  the  which  the  signifies  stream  disposal  for  principle  disposal  waste  residual  the  not  portion  unique  (column  in percentage  methods  method does  financial  process  (column  100% d i s p o s a l  largest  Costs  present-valued  individual  required  by  by  it  each  the  costs  method  lists  reduction  (column 2 ) , total  the  below  Disposal  of  and  (column 4).  The  waste  treatment  the  3),  necessarily  of  1),  in  is  reflect  disposed.  the  specific  combination. The costs  costs  times  methods, of  would  the  and  210,000  are  amounts  dividing  tonnes  be  calculated  no  disposed the  p.a.  loss  by  It  of  total was  economy  of  though c a p a c i t i e s  calculate  the  unit  residuals of  any  disposal  would  be  economies  it  is  scale,  the  e.g.  by  and  of  unit  residual  waste  stream  assumed  that  there  in  the  lower  than  This  is  likely  large  products  total  scale  costs.  combined i n t o  of  by  may b e  most  the  principle  implicitly  even  because  for costs  residuals,  assumption,  adding  that  units  providing  disposal that  a the  to  used  of to  reasonable teatment  take  services  of  advantage to  larger  areas. Transportation included bulk  in  the  hauling  integrated  into  costs  costs costs the  are  assumed  for  landfilling,  to  the  costs  for  landfill,  not  to  exceed  including and  the  source-separation.  the  transfer transport  costs and costs  68  Disposal  Column  Method  1  Costs per metric tonne  100% L a n d f i 1 1 i ng  $14.33  Inc i n e r a t i on  $12.44  -  Source-Separation R e c y c l i ng w i t h Residual Landfilling  $  1 . 28  -  Source-Separation Recyc1ing with Residual Incineration  $  1 . 28  '7-^  3.2  Total Costs per metric tonne  $ 14.50  100% 35-40% LF i n c l  $12.50  1 1%  89%  LF  $ 13.00  1 1%  89% 31%  INC LF  $ 1 1 . 25  65-70% by w e i g h t  -  Summary  of D i s p o s a l Costs Waste Stream  for  100%  of  Solid  Conclusions  The per  VIII  Residual disposal  % of t o t a l di sposed  • L a n d f i 1 1 i ng Inc i n e r a t i on  L e g e n d : LF INC  Table  Column 4  Column 3  Column 2  average  metric  tonne  incineration) costs  present (for  to  disposal  source-separated  $14.50  ($ 1 2 . 5 0 / t o n n e )  residual  valued  per  are  incineration  tonne  15%  costs  recycling  from  with  (landfilling).  lower,  costs  range  $11.25  residual  Incineration  source-separation  ($11.25)  are  25%  with  lower  than  landfilling. These  results  -  energy  -  inflation  -  no  costs  based  in  on  British  the  assumptions  that  Columbia continue  to  rise;  continues;  substantial  projected for  are  20  revision  capital  years after  the  of  expenditures operation  first  ten  are  beyond  years;  needed the  10%  in  the  projected  69  -  firm  the -  energy  l a n d f i l l i n g costs  analysis  these  show  ton  for  incineration  costs  a  in  in  place  for  the  life  of  be  most  (GVRD,  to  be  versus  $56 of  per  by  results  landfilling 1973  and  of  $30  1980).  In  per ton  for tons  in  the  GVS&DD. however,  to  $40  per  the  cost $25  incineration year.  discrepancies  separation  method,  namely  per  financial  disposal  1982,  ton,  the  source  1980),  economical  72,500  explained  the  versus  $31  operational.  i n c i n e r a t i o n and  (GVRD,  the  1980  capacity can  largely  for  landfilling  estimated  landfilling for  be  for  than  studies  to  remain  costs  disposal  GVS&DD  landfilling  was  are  circumstances,  lower  residual Two  per  contracts  operation;  Under  with  sales  in  find at  $15  ton  for  difference per  ton  (GVRD,  for  1982),  The d i f f e r e n c e s  the  method  of  in cost  calculat ion: 1. ) the  T h e GVS&DD operating  comparing  life  of  cost  with  very  The c a p a c i t y  of  the  waste  used  in  stream  high in  disallows  economies  operating  "costs.  This  which  require  technologies more  than  investment  it is  does  favor  of  GVS&DD the  low  landfilling, small.  early  will  in  Thus,  costs,  and  distort  the  landfilling. comparison  only  7%  Vancouver area,  and  capital  assumption large  capital  costs  Greater in  costs  (GVS&DD,1982).  very  scale  relatively  disposal  capital  the in  of  the  facility with  difference  2. )  reflect  the  landfilling,  incineration, average  figures  intial where  is  investment affects  outlays capacity  and  disposal for  plant  dependent  70  3. )  The a m o r t i z a t i o n  are  not  indicated  cost  figures  periods  will  operation 4. )  are  These  The c o s t s  four  for  methods  up.  Thus,  for  must  be  costs  present cash  i n an large  GVS&DD  Thus,  the  investments  dollar  short  in  the  per  ton  amortization early  years  of  above).  future  requiring  capital  because  the  1  the  GVS&DD.  ambiguous,  result  the  the  point  for  points  by  inflate  (see  discounting  periods  valued  to  provide  some  the  disposal  costs  flow.  exageration capital  of  expenditures  calculations  before  overestimate  start-  costs  for  incineration. Comparing operating will  put -  the  costs the  An  to  years $25 all  of  and costs plant  study of  ton the  while  were  than  somewhat these  IV with  cities  in North  1981)  $25  per  to  eight  found  costs  were  to  reports  locations to  their than  can  explained  encountered  in  the  the  after  ten  of  to  be  sites.  the  in  and  operation.  In  steadily.  two  to  three  in  the  cities stations  A l t h o u g h MBG view  initial  1970's  twelve  $12  transfer  expected  early  to  decreasing  RDF c o s t s  by  effective  northeastern  years  required  higher be  in  between  landfill  America  the  vary  be  effective  perspective:  ton  found  i n c i n e r a t i o n or  the  are  Table  into  RDF c o s t s  costs  hauling  difficulties  and  seven  bulk  life,  (Manuel,  after  of  other  analysis  $15  landfilling  none  for  in  t w o MGB i n c i n e r a t o r s  between  lower  studied,  this  operation,  cases,  Although  of  costs  range  figures  estimates  US-EPA  per  times  and  results  operating US  cost  with  of  the  start-up this  new  71  technology. Some study  of  of  these  the  Nashville  (Harrison  and only  pollution  control the  became  disposal  costs  1980)  plus  A  minor  Plant  per  tonne  in  per  of  450,000  tonne)  turbines shows  and  can  MGB  reduce  be  under  arranged,  a  on  results  the  and  experience  summarized  in  and  Table  shows  a  year,  tipping  production  produce be  of  that  firm  refuse  is  seem  in to  $33  fees  (higher of  $12.60  (existing  steam  the  financially  projections VIII  of  favorable  electricity), a  Hearns  profit  incineration  flow  the  dollars,  R.J.  for  to  the  Hydro's  costs  condition  reliable  (US  Although  to  plant  then,  year.  energy  the  The  costs.  1982)  per  air  shut-downs  Since  ton  1974  the  per  tonnes  incineration  per  Ontario  (Walls,  utilized  1978.  a  equipment  but  operation. in  in  in  extensive  $9.25  for  the  for  proposition,  of  disposal  study  Toronto  to  built  problems,  caused  years  incinerated  circumstances capacity  expected  dropped  -reflected  The c o m b u s t i o n  operational  residue  feasibility  Power  four  fully have  the  and  are  incinerator  1980).  filters  first  finally  difficulties  Transfer  Vesilind,  experienced  throughout  Based  initial  steam  study viable  sales  are  secured. other be  cities,  accurate  the and  reliable. In for  conclusion,  solid  methods  are  Incineration  waste  this  disposal,  substantially and  financial and  lower  analysis  shows  especially  for  than  source-separation  indicated with  that the  by  residual  the  costs  alternative the  GVS&DD:  disposal,  are  72  less  expensive.over  three  methods  within  the  to  a  next  of  Due  plus  to  rate  or  about $11 of  year  minus  $13 per  0.6  period  per  $2,  0.8  or  metric  capita to  than  per  landfilling.  15% p e r tonne,  year  tonnes  at  per  All  metric  tonne  corresponding an  average  year  for  per the  years.  to costs  determination GVS&DD.  twenty  of  $7.50  generation  twenty  social  are  average  cost  capita  a  these  small  differences  acquire  a  of  least  the  in  potentially total  cost  the  financial  decisive disposal  costs,  the  in  the  role method  for  the  73  1  1  •  1  THE SOCIAL  COSTS  OF S O L I D WASTE D I S P O S A L  CATEGORIZATION  This  chapter  social  costs  Then,  methods  costs and  will  of  be  decision-makers  choice  of  the  of  data  Social  others"  social somewhat  of  309):  over more  categorize  applicable  measuring  and  suitable  chosen  based  to  the  valuing  methods,  on  the  the  GVS&DD.  the  data  social sources  needs  of  the  GVS&DD.  approach,  the  three  methods  main  will  available  OF S O C I A L  (Coase,  term,(page  and  be  determining addressed:  methodology  and  factors the  in  nature  data,  and  the  needs.  costs  actions  systems  for  be  the  describe,  Finally,  analytical  problem,  DEFINITION  "those  and  this  decision-makers 1.  disposal  in  taking  the  four  will  AND V A L U A T I O N  define,  reviewed.  assumptions  By  will  FACILITIES:  were  COSTS  originally  business 1960,  firms  page  "external  referred which  1),  or,  have as  diseconomies,  private  costs."  specific  in  his  Kapp  to  the  harmful  products  of  effects  on  Turvey  (1963)  i.e.  the  (1971,  definition  as  of  pp.  social  13  uses  the  excess  of  and  14)  is  costs:  " A l l d i r e c t a n d i n d i r e c t l o s s e s s u f f e r e d by t h i r d p e r s o n s or the g e n e r a l p u b l i c as a r e s u l t of private economic a c t i v i t i e s . . " and " a l l h a r m f u l c o n s e q u e n c e s and damages w h i c h t h i r d p e r s o n s o r t h e community s u s t a i n as a r e s u l t of the p r o d u c t i v e process, and for which p r i v a t e e n t r e p r e n e u r s are not easily held accountable."  Social  costs  externalities.  reflect  "external  diseconomies",or  simply  74  .Baumol  and  externalities  Dates  (pp.  17  (1975) and  establish  two  conditions  for  18):  1. An e x t e r n a l i t y i s p r e s e n t w h e n e v e r some i n d i v i d u a l ' s u t i l i t y or p r o d u c t i o n r e l a t i o n s h i p s include r e a l (that i s , nonmonetary) v a r i a b l e s , whose v a l u e s a r e c h o s e n by o t h e r s ( p e r s o n s , corporations, governments) without p a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n to the effects on t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s w e l f a r e . 2. The d e c i s i o n m a k e r , whose a c t i v i t y a f f e c t s others' u t i l i t y l e v e l s or e n t e r s t h e i r p r o d u c t i o n f u n c t i o n s , does not r e c e i v e (pay) in compensation for this a c t i v i t y an amount e q u a l t o t h e r e s u l t i n g (marginal) b e n e f i t s or c o s t s to others."  This be  caused  not is  definition by  only  rules  public  (as  out  i n t e n t i o n a l damages.  service  facilities  Kapp and Coase  important  for  this  imply)  thesis, waste  fees  producers  from  internalized But  the  in  first, (i.e.  by  of  to  effects  the on  1983).  facilities of  of are  defined effects  third  i.e.  Williams,  former, third  can  accrue  and  social  to  secondly,  these  costs.  in  two  Knetsch,  allocative  ways:  adjustments  losses  externalities  affect  user  therefore  not;  market by  the  of  producers.  externalities  1978;  technological  parties  due  are  are  as  This  costs by  waste  here  parties and  the  disposal  technological  and  covered and  can  facilities),  financial  are  of  costs  enterprises.  disposables)  waste  externalities),  Sugden  the  calculations  what  to  impacts,  1975;  (Knetsch,  cost  external  losses  pecuniary  contrast direct  cause  costs  physical Oates,  the  side-effects  externalities The  the  waste  private  because  publically-operated (i.e.  by  (e.g.  Social  due  to  (Baumol  and  1983).  In  constitute efficiency  75  This the  thesis  addresses  technological  henceforth external  be  used  effect.  only  the  externalities. to  refer  to  costs The  the  and  term costs  implications  "social of  costs"  this  type  of will of  76  2.  DESCRIPTION  S O L I D WASTE  2.1  AND  DISPOSAL  Description  The  OF T H E E X T E R N A L  EFFECTS  OF  FACILITIES  Of T h e E x t e r n a l i t i e s  following  potential  CATEGORIZATION  description  s i d e - e f f e c t s of t h e  will  comprise  following  the  solid  recognized  waste  disposal  facilities:  -  Landfills Transfer  Some  Incinerators Recycling  Stations  of the e f f e c t s  features,  disposal  2.1.1  facilities  (e.g.odor), pollution  be  and  control  operating  through  design  procedures.  specifically  These  i n the context  of  Landfills  the  effects  minimized while  or eliminated  i n t h e GVS&DD.  E f f e c t s Of  external  can  or  be d i s c u s s e d  photograph  potential these  will  External  The  c a n be r e d u c e d  pollution controls,  possibilities the  Stations  others  systems.  by  figure  of  below  landfill  adjusting require  illustrate  operations. operating  capital  the  Some o f procedures  expenditures  for  Figure  Figure  18  -  Landfill  19 -  Operation  External  Effects  in  the  GVS&DD  of  Landfills  78  The  most  landfilling  important are  through  anaerobic  decomposition  chemical  methane  gas  and  refuse,  are  shown  in  chemical  water  hydrology  of  vertically  into  aquifers  and  or  the  groundwater  with  in  immediate  substrata  burned  -Odor  is  migrate  hydrogensulfides (see  Appendix  organic -Visual  matter  is  is  pollution  by  of the  biological  leachate  oxygen  and  toxic  demand  metals  and if  leachate  and (B0D5)  ammonia.  it  Depending  horizontally  In  can  certain  levels  of  often or  used  the  affects on  the  can  permeate  into  surface  for  and  off  reached  emitting cracks  nearby  the  and  purposes.  from  smell  in  probes  degestion gas  gas.  buildings.  through  heating  methane the  only  through  of  bled  concentrations  are  area  anaerobic  addition,  often  in  cellars  when (H2S)  B).  the  harmful  horizontally  into  flares,  caused  very  these  vicinity  gas  in  of  moderately  heavy  dangerous  Usually  enter  methane  either  only  air.  and  produced  produce  fish.  or  percolation  1973).  be  area,  of  contamination.  is  can  be  landfill  cause  can  (COD),  supplies  (5%-l5%)  gas  demand  which  biological  can  gas  However,  of  gas,  (GVRD,  waste  leachate  -Methane  the  B  by-products  the  The d e t a i l s  processes  levels  untreated  drinking  Hence,  waste.  Appendix  oxygen  from  methane  from m u n i c i p a l  elevated  Hence,  and of  recognizable  stemming  degradation  -Leachate carry  easily  leachate,  rainwater  and  and  of  releases amino  acids  putrescent  present. be  caused  by  the  sight  of  raw  79  garbage,  e.g.  on  the  working  is  applied,  by  dust  the  landfill,  by  loose  the  lack  of  obstruction  of  are  immediate reaches -Noise  -Air  to  visible  from  certain  the  landfill  the  is  usable  because  of  and  parks. can  its  either  situation.  terms be  the  angles  and  animals,  by  and  the  or  by  the  Most  of  these  and  unless  within  the  minor  aside  from  merely  the  landfill  of  nuisance  include  Some even to  for  effects  beneficial  or  areas  working  the  face.  methane  effects  in  be  on  they  and the  are  the  also  land  The  values,  detrimental  a  wildlife  reclaim  purposes,  are  seemingly  considered  of  can  energy  resources  recovered.  also  some  materials,  these  if  because  landfilling  its  of  sometimes or  the  the  landfills.  enough  valuable  affects  to  society,  is  birds  close  landfill  valuable  it  and  around  to  However,  In  are  uniqueness,  render  roads  slopes  leachate.  and  objects.  disposal  supports. land  in  valuable  economically for  very  present  and  used  roads  which  buried  not  machinery,  access  -Resources  by  cover  height.  trucks,  concentrations  considered  of  other  landfill,  only  sulfide  many  the  daily  access  outside  waters  pollution  hydrogen  the  the  the  and  surface  certain  from  birds  on  by  on  of  vicinity  a  adjacent  view  before  traffic  litter,  vegetation  discoloration effects  from  face  land loss it  useless  e.g.  for  landfilling  depending  on  the  80  2.1.2  External  The  illustrations  external traffic bulk  effects  reduced County  are  consisting  haul  visual  Effects  with  20  below  good  Stations  show two  primarily  creates  noise,  design  and  transfer  due  and  of the b u i l d i n g  installation  Figure  Transfer  of m u n i c i p a l  vehicles  disamenity  Of  stations.  to truck  private dust,  itself  traffic.  vehicles  landscaping,  be  as t h e  Transfer  as The  substantially Clackamus  shows.  - Clackamus County, Oregon  Truck  as w e l l  and e x h a u s t fumes. can  The  Station  81  adaa  F i g u r e 21 Due odor,  &\.  - Coquitlam,  t o the h a n d l i n g  of t h e  B.C. refuse  Transfer Station i n s i d e the  t h e v i e w of t h e g a r b a g e , t h e a t t r a c t i o n  a r e h e l d t o a minimum. storage  areas  effluent  i s usually non-toxic  sewers f o r  can  The  treatment.  washing  of  is  the  of v e c t o r s , e t c .  vehicles  c r e a t e some c o n t a m i n a t i o n and  station,  and  refuse  of w a t e r , but  discharged  into  the  sanitary  82  2.1.3  External  The  E f f e c t s Of  photgraph  in  Switzerland.  an  adjacent  Other the  below  pulp  effects:  of  Figure  produced  by  this  incineration plant facility  i s used i n  mill. produces exhaust  side-effects arise  waste  Facilities  shows an o p e r a t i n g  The e n e r g y  Incineration side-  Incineration  two b y - p r o d u c t s w h i c h fumes  from  and  truck  residue traffic,  cause  ( f l y a s h and visual  S o l i d Waste Switzerland  slag).  blight  resources.  22 - An O p e r a t i n g Solothurn,  negative  Incinerator,  and  83  The  diagram  below  Figure  summarizes  23  -  Approximately particulate  External 8%  matter  with  emissions  can  vary  diameter.  The  larger  black  smoke  houses. microns. difficult for in  and  are  size  fraction,  more  because  natural  yet  by  it  and  emitted  (about  is  microns as  30%)  average grey  bag is  most  measures  are  retention  in  or  filter under  2 microns  the  as  particulate  conventional  under  protective  inhalation  120  noticeable  however,  control,  is  These  2 and  particularly  humans,  Incinerators residue-  between are  effects.  stream.  controlled  and  is  5  most  hazardous ineffective the  lungs  1976).  metals main  of  total  particles  fraction  Particulate  its  exhaust  measure  (Hocking,  heavy  the  easily  deep  Effects  the  to  preventing  potential  of  in  A significant This  the  such  emissions as  components  lead, of  also  contain  trace  mercury,  and  cadmium  organic  carbon,  concentrations in  addition  silicon,  of to  aluminum,  84  calcium,  and  to  flyash  favor  Since in  regard  static for in the  iron.  adsorption,  the for  Cadmium,  particle  municipal  (ESP)  size  have  precipitators  operate,  work  control not  technology  filter  well  for  gaseous  furnace  are  residence  to  mix  combustible  reduced  gases. context  be  90  of  have  electromethod  efficiencies  sufficient gr/cf. to  the  matter.  standards  optimal  99%  0.01  shown  exhaust.  1970,  the  to  become  e.g.  carbon  The  to  meet  Although  install  and  state-of-the-art  ESP's  key  air  however,  do  ammonia,  and  not  considered  municipal  municipal  refuse  content  fossil  waste,  is fuels  much (0.7  because lower to  1.0%  adequate 1975;  adequate  refuse  and  turbulence  1981). oxides  These (NOx).  sulphur  oxides  have  boiler  design,  under  at a  under  Hocking,  nitrogen  efficient  S02  burned are  (Doughton,  and  experiments  is  chamber  of  oxides  more  C,  combustion,  emission  nitrogen  are  factors  degrees  for  with  monoxide,  solids  combustion  gases  through  950  air  the  the  when  and  in  in  microns,  supply,  of  to  the  pollution  expensive  produced  in  increase  -Non-combustible  air  and  sufficient  gas  fire  0.01  (min.  and  been  air  about  particulate  temperature  conditions  at  conditions.  GVRD,1980),  with  are  gases,  cyanide  unfavorable  emitted  been  emissions:  Combustible hydrogen  being  Objectives  electro-static they  have  proven  down t o  Provincial  mercury  incinerators  matter  ranges  and  stringent  waste  particulate  B.C.  thus  US E P A p a s s e d  precipitators  reducing  zinc,  recirculating major  the  sulphur  (0.1%) in  problem,  than  flue in  the  content  of  the  sulphur  low-sulphur  types,  85  Hocking,  1976).  Volatile heavy  metals  components can  metal  be  are  arise  under by  and  in  waste-stream  the  Batelle  8):  "  or  Some  Institute vegetation  chloride  growth e f f e c t s  refuse  the  that  species  suffer  the  (Batelle,  containing polyvinyl  chlorides  gaseous  emissions  through  wet  or  that  and  slag)  (1980,  however, The open  has  burning  scrubbing  process and  high  caused  area."  H C l and H F l can  chemical  capital  (flyash  suggests  the  precipitator  filtration  10% a d d i t i o n a l  of  including  dry  electro-static chemical  km  1983,  to  injury;  reported.  1  amount  relatively  operating must  page  processes  filtration  is  be  only  of  to  rise.  pg.  7 and  doses no  burning  of  vegetation Many be  of  the  reduced  after  Hocking, in a  of  chronic  expensive  deposited  of  plastics  process.  costs,  and  Hydrogen  content  HCl emissions  exposed  acute  organic  above.  clorine  increasing  causing  vaporized,  combustion conditions  been  within  Atwater  The  are  Minor  outlined  from  finds  have  damage  residue  measures  arise  are  mercury,  on p a r t i c u l a t e s .  PVC p l a s t i c s .  The  e.g.  inadequate  the  (HCl) gases  paper  hydrogen  The  adsorbed  reduced  chloride  elements,  the This (about 1976).  landfill.  31):  " I n t h e p a s t , i n c i n e r a t o r r e s i d u e s w e r e t h o u g h t t o be i n e r t , b u t r e c e n t e v i d e n c e shows t h a t t h i s i s n o t t h e case. Incinerator residues can, in fact, have s i g n i f i c a n t p r o p o r t i o n s of b o t h unburned o r g a n i c m a t e r i a l and water s o l u b l e m a t e r i a l . ( . . . ) While i n c i n e r a t o r r e s i d u e l e a c h a t e s are l i k e l y to have c o n s i d e r a b l y l e s s s t r e n g t h t h a n t h o s e from m u n i c i p a l r e f u s e l a n d f i l l s , i t i s c l e a r t h a t they c o u l d have sufficient s t r e n g t h and volume to cause a n o t i c e a b l e a d d i t i o n to a r e c e i v i n g environment ( . . . ) . "  86  Nuisance  side-effects  possible  visual  of  the  plant  burning while  their  materials  municipal  the It  or  (e.g  to  from  and  glass,  truck  the  resources  combustion  visual  paper,  the  traffic,  occurs  energy  reusing  incinerator  impact through  cans,  value  etc.)  of  materials  Recent  reports  incinerator  or  flyash  significant  air  taken  the goods  from  no  components  of  the  production  the  from  fossil  fuel  waste  of  the to  fuels  (oil, by  production  and  of  the  from  an  emissions net  the  plant  pollution  the  air  burning  emissions  for  the  Ltd.,  in  most  from  impact  facilities  electrostatic for  of  a the  In  showed  or  are  the  solid  can  be  traces  done  from  made  to  and the  on show same  relate  the  parameters  to  tests of  waste  usually  combustion two  1983)  America,  precipitators,  contrast, no  EPS,  in North  measurements  predictions  stream  1982;  municipal  measurements  even  dioxins.  boilers  that  conventional  air  Little  the  conclusive the  the  the  quality.  for  Since  a  get  dioxins  variations  facility,  to  (Arthur of  though,  incinerator  Thus,  is  conventional  from  compared  emissions Japan.  mind,  increases  waste  order  ambient  evidence  and  in  incinerators  for  emissions  the  of  in  only  be  boiler on  kept  energy.  must  conventional  impact  substitute  the  from of  be  gas)  between  amount  indicate  a  natural  incinerator  the  opposed  strongest  as  emissions  Europe,  as  smoke,  of  goods  the  must  waste  difference  same  and  dust  entirety.  pollution.  the  and  through  only  process,  Overall,  coal,  noise  The d i s p o s a l  recovering  oxidation in  obstruction  site.  of  include  or  emissions  dioxins.  This  87  scant  evidence  conventional 2.1.4  Effects  (either  usually  plant.  Noise,  odor, to  recyclables increased extra each  two  required  addition types  to  some  the  form  transfer  disamenity  operations,  are  since  Traffic  to  and  of  that  residual  recycling station  not the  the  significant  separate  depots or  likely  station  the  to  storage  be of  may  externality  prepare  the  be  is  the  recyclables  in  is  imposes  risks  terms  their  certain  of  time)  probability  be  the  specific  effects  which  unavoidable,  assessment.  possible  to  acceptable  imposed of  Externalities  Risk/uncertainty  Risk  will  visual  conclusion  Depots  incineration),  either  The most  the  dioxins.  entails  enclosed.  somewhat.  facilities:  the  and  Perceptional  In  it  produce  always  into  support  household.  2.1.5  are  not  Recycling  recycling  is  effort  not  Of  integrated  due  does  l a n d f i l l i n g of  incinerator  increased  do  recycling  disposal are  however,  furnaces  External  Since  ,  and  must  be  the  effects  when  are  facility an  a  assessed  as  to  (i.e.  the  possible  of  i.e. there  common  For  the  incidents  is  a  of  of  to  all  of  there noxious  effects.  considered  safe,  if  priori  analysis,  their  acceptability  of  occurences  Two f a c t o r s  uncertainty  will  spread lack  is  number  damage.  degree  the  externalities,  distributional  a  risks.  First,  judgments, greater  but  probability and  and  physical  influence opinions.  data  or  the  in  in a  influence in  the  judging range  This  experience  of  spread with  88  the  specific  technology.  less  probable  risk  assessment  voluntarily much  higher  than  are  the  risks  is  activity  typically  imposed  assessed .  Risks  created  by  hence  potential The  view  of  the  for  risk  indicates  is that  voluntarily  involuntarily.  taken  if  the  benefits  latter  not are  (persons,  the  of are  does  The  others fit  benefits  risk  benefits.  thus  the  corresponding  by  case  Secondly,  accepted  involuntary  person  and  whether (1969)  imposed  while  a  on  are  voluntarily  solid  put  of  up  effects  known  of  waste with  disposal  firms,  definition  and  unknown e f f e c t s  facilities  involuntarily.  depending  risks  1983).  perception  is  reinforced  and  Crider, is  effects  facilities  perception  garbage  if  the  of  on  the  They  be  included  in  of  as in  usually  vary  type  uncertainties  must  are  type  disposal  well the  as  the  list  of  costs.  location  this  fold)  be  technology.  Starr  compensating  on  Distributional  the  are  the  depend  to  ies.  possibility  Burton,  1000  likely  newer  imposed.  in  agencies),  and  method.  to  acceptable  imposed  external it Risk  or  more  for  shown  (about  offer  government  social  been  is  and  worthwhile,  necessarily  in  has  accepted  considered  and  incidents  considered  Risk  This  arise  from  the  spatially  with  noxious  externalities  The p h y s i c a l  effects  must  of of by  1982).  the  fairness  inequity the  is  stigma  of  based  attached  The o b j e c t i o n  oderous;  rather  their  the  is  be  inequitable (Pushchak  differentiated  distribution.  on  the  to  physical  "waste"  "not  problem  so is  effects,  much it  from  Although  (Bealer,  that  and  Martin  that is  it  the  odious"  89  (Philadelphia 1982).  Inquirer,  This  perception perceived For  negative be  levels  thesis of  effect  (NIMBY)  while  Them-On-Us  distributional question  of  noxious  refers  NIMBY  is  (THOU)  while  useful  is  its  and  THOU  Although  the  total  benefits  average  per  citizens  exceeds  residents. oppose  capita  As  the  themselves (Pushchak Magorian,  a  result,  Burton,  1982;  effects  the  for  main  cause  Numerous in  and  outside  higher  the  if  for  the  they  are  between  two  Not-In-My-Backyard inequity the  the  effects,  inter-community  and  addresses  the  host-community  stigma  attached  or  to  1983;  on  often  in  the  and  to  to  constitute waste  an  preventing  confirm  the  region's  likely  high  to  costs  to  references Morell  indicate  important  disposal  the  the  1983;  1980)  and  affected  Numerous  Thurmann,  Delta,  health  of  are  avoid  the  costs,  group  residents  1982).  of  public  benefits  of  benefits.  overall  small  order  of  attempts  GVS&DD  the  local  to  dispersed  the  capita  Solem  distribution  maintaining  than  per  the  uneven  widely  imposed  opposition  the  by  Magorian,  successful  for  within  (in  Municipality  distributional  the  used  the  strongly  and  multiplier  differentiate  localized  the  average  facility  and  be  costs  the  (Morell  is  reflect  versus  to  Martin,  host-community.  costs  assumed  be  caused  high  are  a  and  especially  effects:  will  localized  safety)  to  distribution  and  as  intra-community  NIMBY  THOU  Bealer  unevenly.  the  effects.  facility  Both  to  act  effects,  distributional  uneven  municipality  it  Crider,  can  external  distributed  this  spatial  in  stigmatization  of to  1978  if  not  and that the  facilities. waste  potential  facilities strength  of  90  inequity  costs,  factors. and  depending  The  expensive  factor  to  rejection siting  the  otherwise  of  total  benefits  effects  can  process  and,  The on  the  the  of  two the  produce  the  or  small,  larger  for  e.g  unless  in  Categorization In  order  advantageous counting. capture  to The  all  nuisance  to  of  of  of  the  the of  local  will  waste,  to  that  rejection loss  of  of the  distributional of  the  will  siting  local  the  from with  local  etc.)  more  citizens.  the  economic  integrated  offers  its  facility  . revenues,  is  waste  community's  disposal The  depends  solid  facility  the  tax  which  In  who b e n e f i t s  the  facility  waste  cost  out  distribution  determine  of  waste  are  into  a  substantial  This  is  not  the  facilities.  Externalities  measure  and  them  following effects  effects  the  externalities.  facility  the  success  cost  i.e.  the  Of  to  benefits.  employment,  solid  the  lengthy  substantial  points  in  cost  project.  the  i.e.  a  social  follows  Therefore,  in  classify  the  result  elements  employment  municipal  leading  equity  different  production  benefits,  costs  compatibility  (increases  usually  (1977)  determining  land-use(s),  similar  benefits  main  often  O'Hare  can  costs  the  origin  and  surrounding  -  in  other  represents  project.  community p e r c e p t i o n  disposal,  to  decisive  judgment  perception:  2.2  the  of  proposals  and  social  facility  of  hence,  management,  case  the  value  site  processes  optimal  be  of  the  proponent.  underestimation an  on  five  compare to  avoid  overlap  categories  without  comprise  the - e x t e r n a l i t i e s ,  provide  and  it  is  double-  enough  detail  overlap:  reasons  for  annoyance  that  are  91  not  serious  odor,  visual  health  enough  or  -  or  death,  e.g  noise,  etc.  include  externalities  Chich  increase  impacts  ecosystem  through  affect  human a c t i v i t y  extraction  of  by  resources  or  disturbing emission  wastes; risk/uncertainty  and  uncertainty  in  distributional distribution The  morbidity  mortality;  ecological  of  cause  disamenity,  effects  morbidity  the  to  effects  cause. causes;  are  the  are  judging  outcomes;  effects  costs  firm  below arrows  while  the  by  due  are  and  categorized  The d i a g r a m  classification, ef f e c t s :  of  effects  to  unforeseen  caused  by  the  incidences  inequitable  benefits. the  worst  illustrates indicate dashed  consequences  the the  arrows  linkages connection  show  possible  they  could  among  the  used  for  parallel  92  Figure  The  matrix  facilities above:  below in  24  -  Connection  summarizes question  the  between  Externalities  external  according  to  the  effects  of  categories  the  disposal  established  L a n d f i11 Nu i s a n c e E f f e c t s - Noise - truck t r a f f i c -compacting and h a n d l i n g -bi rds - Visual Disamenity -1 i t t e r -smoke -dust -open f l a m e s • -lack of v e g e t a t i o n -obstruction of view -open g a r b a g e - d i s c o l o r a t i o n of water -flocks of birds -rodents - Odor - Source-separation effort  Transfer Stat ion  Inc i n e r a t o r  Recyc1 i r Center  x (x)  ( x )  ( x )  ( x )  ( x ) x  ( x )  ( x ) X  ( x ) x  ( x )  Health Effects - W a t e r P o l 1ut i o n (1eachate) - A i r P o l 1ut i on -gas emissions -smoke  ( x )  X  X  ( x )  ( x )  Ecological Effects - Disposal of Resources - Damage t o h a b i t a t s Risk/Uncertainty Distributional - NIMBY - THOU Legend: -  Effects  Effects x (x)  ( x )  (x)  ( x )  x = e f f e c t i s present = e f f e c t i s not noted  Table  IX  -  Matrix  of  Externalities  caused  by  Disposal  Facilities This  categorization  distribution  of  the  will  be  effects.  used  to  determine  the  spati  94  2.3  Spatial  The  spatial  determines the  Distribution  the  distance  The  forms the  and  the  distance-decay  valuation of  of  the  the  described  respect  to  foregoing  their  characteristics.  If  characteristics,  they  the  the will  on  other  to  distance  hand, the  do  site  previous  of  facility. for  several  the basic Then,  section  will  be  characteristics. Of  Externalities  physical  depend a  and  only  strict  implies  two  perceptional on  physical  and  theoretically  Purely  perceptional  necessarily and  function  established.  function. not  effects  basis  externalities  exhibit  effects,  from  the  a  disposal the  be  spatial  of  as  following,  the  effects  distance-decay  the  the  impacts:  well-determined the  the  form  will in  external  affection  Characteristics  description  determining  the  from  In  effects  Distance-Decay  factors  of  functions  2.3.1  main  of  i.e.  externalities.  in  The  Effects  characteristics  categorized Basic  level  source,  distance-decay  external  External  configuration  area  from  Of  show  therefore  can  any be  relation distance-  independent . Between variations effects. 1. a 2.  these  as  well  Dear  two as  (1977)  homogeneous linear  rapidly  identifies perception  extremely  taper  forms,  there  many c o m b i n a t i o n s  declining  concentrated  basic  three of  of  the  off;  immediate  and  numerous negative  functions:  spill-overs  distance-sensitive  in  positive  basic  distance-decay  are  w i 1.1  aggregate  to  function; external  vicinity  of  the  effects  are  facility  and  95  3.  mixed  distances total  can  on  which  the  required  to  complete  examples  of  these  25  the  four  -  Four  negative  cancel vary  distance  distance-independent  Figure  and  partially  effects  depending The  positive  each  from  from  reactions other  positive  the  basic  Basic  The  distance  -  various  resulting to  in  negative  source;  characteristic spectrum.  out,  at  is graph  effect  Distance-Effect  the  fourth  below  type  indicates  relationships:  Functions  96  2.3.2  Nuisance  Noise,  visual  determining are  their  usually  functions. the  As  will  especially  effects  etc.,  while  are  wind  angle.  to  Within  the  visual  are  declining.  The  26  -  loss  that  the  by  their  the  odor  areas,  resulting  time  for  distance-decay  odor  berms,  vegetation more  adjacent  personal and  and  However, (trees)  difficult create to  to  noise  landfills.  observations  noise  depends  in  similar.  whereas  rodents)  and  are  further.  effects on  perception  the is  Noise,  source-separation  with  visibility  assumed  to  be  functions  Odor,  is  in  vary  distance-effect  Distance-Effect F u n c t i o n for Visual Disamenity of  different  extend  areas  1973;  by  functions  are  laws effects  dispersal  site,  extent,  disamenity  affected  therefore  Figure  the  These  typical  effects  lesser  in  1983)  homogeneous; linearly  a  (Coughlin,  direction,  can  odor  in  the  reduced  and  disamenity  October/November, the  easily  (and,  indicate  perception, to  physical  homogeneously  differ  close  obey  effects.  represent  disamenity  noise  Birds  visual  Surveys  their  visual  they may  odor  their  fairly  they  disperse  visual  control.  to  and  and  result,  Although  thresholds  Noise  dispersal  a  Functions  blight,  perceived  individuals.  and  Distance-Effect  and  distributed  97  evenly  over  the  area  independent  of  the  effect the  remains  area  served  by  the  distance  from  constant  served  by  from  the  disposal the  the  site  facility,  i.e.  site.  boundary over  facility  and  The  level  of  to  the  the  study  is this  edge  of  area.  — , Figure  2.3.3  27  Health  Water  piped  pollution  area  the  water  down  however,  from  (beach  affect  of  the  portion  the  and  the  the  flow  and,  toxic  boating,  leachate  or  is  systems  be  now  Water  River,  important water  pollution  in  the  for is may,  Vancouver  etc.).  unless  and  Fraser  drinking  immediate  landfill 5 -  not  incinerator  contamination  to  are  because  fishing,  the  of  the  activities  leachate in  contribution River  hence,  GVRD,  recreational  from  into  watersheds.  collection  Fraser of  in  aquifers  leachate  estimates  the  pollution  the  Inlet  mountain  activities,  discoloration with  Burrard  Distance-Effect  Functions  emissions  supplies  affect  Water  Source-Separation Effort Function  Distance-Effect  respectively drinking  -  discharges  vicinity they  treated. leachate  8%.  However,  being  collected  are  through captured  Atwater to  as and  the noted  can  (1980)  toxicity above,  deposited  a in  98  the  sewer  into  the  system,  ocean  Therefore, level  the  rivers The  and  that  recreational  will loss  be  best  recreational  is  (City  along  of  28  -  the  the  whole  value.  the  banks  decline  pollutants.  Both  Air  is  as  well  types  perceived  of  a  by  regional  effluents. users  substantial the  high  in  of  shores  is  of  priority "Goals  the  affected  declining  distance  effect  Although  characteristic,  with  the  1977).  and  region  this  emissions  vicinity  pollution  the  plant  beaches  A shallow  the  aquifers  through  the  distance-decay because  from  for  the  the  shore.  <—»»  Distance-Effect  Incinerator immediate  to  flowing  outfalls.  commercial  have  Vancouver,  represents  benefits  can  i  Figure  treatment and  and  Gate  shifted  indicated  along  most,  recreational  function  sewer  quality  quality  residing  affected  of  the  water  water  survey  individuals  Lions  partially  recreational  benefits  to  Vancouver"  the  is  and  treatment  beaches.  fact  attributed  to  of  primary  Island  impact  loading  accrue  through  Annacis  local  through  effects  on  from  the  The  passing  F u n c t i o n of  Water  from  the  stack  as  the  ambient  impacts  mainly  as  can  affect  cause  smoke  Pollution  or  levels health haze,  both  the  of  air  effects. but  the  99  effects  are  mainly  in  mortality.  The  area,  contribute  but  Thus,  a  Once  is  2.3.4  29  -  Ecological  The and  a  areas  of  .  for  the  but the  s t i l l ambient  Function  replacement the  for  region  of  extracting  the  are  located.  concentrated  around  such  facilities. to  stems  from  nuisance  unique  habitats  (e.g.  bog  damage  to  are  not  wildlife reflected  through in  the  downward  of  well. sloping  effects.  Air Pollution  They  unique  and/or  land)  for  effluents direct  goods  most  habitats  from  nuisance  and  effects.  disposal solid costs  in  facilities  are  health  resources  occur  manufacturing  goods  enjoyment  zone  replacement  disposed  where  damage  point  Function  replacement  Environmental  for  dispersal  the  pollution  and  pollution.  dispersal  slightly air  of  from  the  morbidity the  levels  function in  in  within  background  Distance-Effect  costs  increases  decline  effects  Distance-Effect  externalized  producing  to  the  flat  appropriate  Figure  effects  distance-decay  represents  dispersed,  curve  immediate  declining  discharge  long-term  waste to  for likely  wildlife The  sites  the  use  and  of the  facilities  humans.  The  1 00  resulting in  loss  reduction  knowing  habitats  visits of  and,  habitats  recreational  the  perception  ubiquitous  wildlife  of  that  recreational the  of  to  value hence,  are  the  however,  values  wildlife in  will,  and  s t i l l  knowledge  assumed  to  be  reflected  enjoyment  there.  areas  be  of  simply  Although  are  distance  of  that  the  dependent,  existence  distributed  over  the  is whole  region.  /eve/ 1:  Figure 2.3.5  -  Spatial  Distribution  of  Risk/Uncertainty Distance-Effect  The Risks  spatial  associated  dispersal determined reasonable The  30  risks  distance.  effects with  patterns, by to will  describe tend  dioxin  while  water  to  will  depend  on  emissions  risks  from  Ecological Function  the will  effects.  a  spatial  be  cause follow  leachate  dispersal specific  concentrated  Effects  of  the  air  toxicity It  is  pattern  locally  and  risks.  pollution will  be  therefore  not  for  risks.  disperse  with  101  2.3.6  Distributional  According effects the  to  the  definition  will  follow  a  physical  effect  functions  effects  are  are  represented  best  source  to  2.3.7  determine The  by  boundary  31  Summary  The  local  unbiquitous  the  Figure  i.e  Distance-Effect  -  Of  of  the  The  Spatial  relevant  area  identified  immediate  the  two  latter  boundaries. fields  will  reflect  the  areas The be  the  are  spatial  results  of  curve  out  NIMBY  similar  further. and  to THOU  therefore  extending  for  and  the  from  data  of  the  facility,  region,  of  the  THOU  External  comprise  dimensions in  Of  and  Effects  functions  collection.  the  the  NIMBY  distance-decay  well  the  function  extend  spatially  discussed  thesis,  host-community  categories  and  this  host-municipality.  for  vicinity  host-community,  for  Distribution  the  i.e.  will  Distance-Effect Curves Effects  boundaries  the  but  horizontal  spatial  spatial  adopted  distance-decay  within a  Function  the  local  GVS&DD. by  localized  section.  area,  municipality,  the  defined  the  next  valuation.  i.e.  the  The  political externality  The  functions  1 02  Notably., external area and  spatial  effects,  adjacent NIMBY/THOU  concurrent disposal  the  to  and,  the  all  with  hence,  facility.  show the  facilities  analysis  are  of  indicates the  social  Nuisances,  distinct assumption  a  concentration costs  health  distance-decay that  concentrated  social  locally.  in  the  effects,  of  local risk,  characteristics costs  of  waste  1 03  3.  METHODOLOGY  The an  Pareto  activity  losers  for  actually the  the  the  of  of  to  safety.  purpose on  of  the  Valuation  than  the  the  losers.  has  It  are  very  benefits as  social  are  are  is  to  been  large  are  costs  Intangible  in  of  to  if  gainers  the  terms  the  that  of  public  widely  among  costs  presumably  of  benefits  established  financial  determine  COSTS  costs  distributed  the  costs  (social) For  that  regardless  section  Methods  OF S O C I A L  worthwhile,  region,  external  requires  greater  disposal  The  this  be  be  These the  FOR V A L U A T I O N  efficiency  the  waste  of  SOURCES  gainers  compensate  disposal.  3.1.1  of  solid  concentrated.  methods  disposal  of  placing  facilities.  Externalities  Criteria  The  valuation  connection effects be  rule  project  residents  values 3.1  a  and  waste The  to  benefits  health  AND DATA  be  monetary  established  on human  attached  distinct  in  to  steps  between  activity, these  (see  32  -  Cause  secondly, The  effect*  u>a.'fe^ -  first,  externalities  — of  requires,  that  process  monetary  values  involves  O H  cjuglily for  a  their  hueicr,vtty  Effect Linkage External it ies  that  and  below):  -~  i  Figure  ,  the  effects.  figure  Si  i  and  terms  Valuation  of  four  1 04  1.  The  externality  toxicity 2.  The  and  the  impact  receiving defined  3.  the  aquifer,  characteristics or  amount  of  level  pollution  must  established  water  of  and  this  dollar  the  e.g.  spent  is  known,  personal  value  Freeman  (1979,  which  analysis  1.  of 2.  the  at  the  on  of  determined. here  a  change  e.g.  in  quality  the  in  a  terms  of  (BOD,  human a c t i v i t y  e.g.  the  boating,  and  of  the  the  determining of  other  work;  COD),  to  be  recreational days,  the  through  a  exchange  pp.  to  12)  must  objective  for  or  step  to  units  value  a  in  be to  of  the  fishing  which  aggregate  specifies  ideally  spent  individuals  the  market  market  last  need  damage  time  activity  of  losses  in  reveals  should  in  need  swimming  the  the  this  judgments  10  loss  quantified losses  value  some  e.g.  A technique  because  by  ideally  preferences  an  values  comparing  therefore  level  etc.  converting  values,  time  value  by  change  quantified,  catch,  or  as  indicators  fish  fish,  determined  of  the  environment,  or  losses  dollar  the  be  quality,  fishing,  calculated  must  environmental  from  The  be  on  i.e.  of  enjoyment  4.  effluent  effluent  must  defined,  level.  The e f f e c t s  in  of  be  with  monetary based  on  involved  and  of  personal  mechanism. six  desirable  criteria  meet:  yield  measures  of  exercise  the  in is  monetary the  units  determination  values. The  technique  analytically  and  and  estimating  empirically  procedures on  must  be  based  i n d i v i d u a l behavior  and  105  preference, (or  given  The  measures  changes  in  specified  5.  among  actual  correspond  as  theoretical  addition,  expression  to  of  levels to  nature  benefits  changes  into  and  primarily  for  used  must  related  to  in  ambient  a  correctly  upon  individual  in  the to  use  behavior  empirical the  work  variables  (costs,  reference -  and  should of  the  isolation  at  hand.  for  the  1979):  etc.),  regarding  the  changes  in  the  costs,  i.e.  total  or  levels, pollutants,  preferably  elements, of  standard  of  the of  data  standards  benefits,  specific  the  comparison  the  techniques  dirty),  pollution the  and  (Freeman,  points  d i m e n s i o n of  in  empirical  minimal  including  terms  (clean  the  model  certain  individual  and  purpose  of  of  i n d i c a t i o n and criteria  be  units.  theoretical  the  definition  The  based  possible  estimates,  statement  separated  as  are  use  marginal  measures  the  consistent  reference  must  changes  be of  economic  studies  cost  pollution  -  of  model.  there  of  value or  must model  closely  Benefit  appropriate  and  levels  theoretical  The  6.  use  estimates  relationships  -  definition  quality.  Benefit  4.  of  pollution  environmental  -  utilitarian  costs).  3.  In  the  the of  sources  pollutants.  i n f o r m a t i o n depend  analysis.  solid  of  waste  Since disposal  this  on  thesis  methods  the is and  1 06  sites,  and  rough  estimates  costs  are  linkage and  represents  would  require  interlinked of  possible  with  the  for  and  the  measures data  the  available  disposal  effects.  external  effects a  can  monetary  this  effects  are  section,  assumptions The  and  will  be  Opportunity  foregone  if  the  consideration. follows  (1978,  made  the  external  This  is  damages  then  surrogate These  without  not caused  can  be  measures  substitute  requiring  detailed  External  of  methods  for are  comparing  grouped  approaches.  monetary  relies costs  Sugden  Effects  into The  external monetary, necessary  explicit.  resources  page  Of  descriptive  quality  costs.  valuation  intricate  assumptions  derived.  The methods  calculation  environmental  be  three  reviewed.  non-monetary,  by  and  certain  social  cause-effect  numerous  caused  true,  the  systems.  Monetary Measurement  In  of  valuation,  of  detailed  dispersal if  hold  cost  facilities.  on  However,  conditions  a  effects  data  social  magnitudes  knowledge  environmental  certain  of  Establishing  waste  allow  stage  comparative  in-depth  on e n v i r o n m e n t a l  3.1.2  early  solid  external  made,  the  sufficient.  effects  by  of  an  the  represent  are  and  on  values  used  Williams  concept the  for  value the  define  for of of  changes  opportunity opportunities  project(s)  opportunity  under  costs  149):  "A good t h a t does not have o v e r - t h e - c o u n t e r s e n s e may in the sense that consumers v a l u e i n o r d e r t o g e t more of the c o s t t h a t a consumer c o n s u m e m o r e o f a g o o d may  in  a p r i c e i n the l i t e r a l or nevertheless have a p r i c e must g i v e up s o m e t h i n g o f of the good. A measurement m u s t b e a r t o be a b l e t o be c a l l e d a n o p p o r t u n i t y  as  1 07  cost  uses  price."  The  comparison  the  accepted  disutility. therefore, monetary on  the  costs  that  exchanges  values  that  when  the  opportunity costs  As  use  a  result,  real  value,  of  the  consumers exceed  which  opportunity costs the  measure  of  these  methods  is  good  are  measure  benefits  only  at  based in  least  could  lower be  the make the  as  to  large  bear  and W o r r e l l , a  in  Thus,  willing  (Sinden  are  presumably  costs. be  and  reflected  will  must  consumers  scale  methods  is  the  methods  a  on o n e  benefits  intangibles  intangible  because  of  disposal  as  opportunity cost  value  of  costs  measurable  benefits  benefits  of  underlying  because  as  the  are  the  of  enjoy  the  monetary  Furthermore,  value the  of  exchange,  only  opportunity costs  assumption  the  assumption an  the  measure  One  terms.  of  of  bound  greater  to  1979). of  the  than  the  fit  the  costs. There  is  a  variety  available  cost  important  advantage  intangibles, especially  the  in  cost  the data,  methods  Worrell,  valuation difficulty on  the  1979). of  of  to  This  is  environmental  obtaining data,  effects  an  of  changes  and in  quality. of  opportunity cost  methods  are  rooted  in  assumptions:  opportunity unpriced  and  the  of  disadvantages  underlying  opportunity cost  (Sinden  because  monetary  environmental The  data  of  good  costs or  do  service,  not but  measure instead  the  measure  value the  of  the  costs  of  108  obtaining control  some  product  or  service  (e.g.  to  emissions);  the  use  of  intangible does  associated  not  devices  opportunity  costs  are  necessarily as  compared  cost  equal  hold with  to  for the  methods  the  the  opportunity  cost  social  implies  of  costs;  pollution  costs  of  that this  control  uncontrolled  emissions. One  additional  caveat  willingness-to-pay establish  values  1982)  are  and  higher  (Gregory,  1982;  When  measures  CD  understanding second  reason  measures  It  has  than  the 1983,  should  in  is  that  the  shown  they  rely  marketplace both  on to  theoretically  that  compensation  demanded  (CD)  WTP  values  the  good  Knetsch  be  used  distribution  why o p p o r t u n i t y  costs  been  empirically  Knetsch,  and  opportunity  (WTP)  values.  (Gregory,  to  and  Sinden,  depends  of  costs  for  forthcoming).  on  the  entitlements. are  likely  same  This  to  basic is  the  underestimate  values. Ideally intangible the  in  external  the  method  question  the  to  the . e x t e r n a l i t y  3.1.3  available  If  Quantified there  predicting units,  the  etc.),  is  and  will  this  discrepancy  the  method  Measurement  correspond  reflect  the  the  is  closely  to  the  caused  by  possible  due  changes  not  always  must  be  judged  according  used.  Of E x t e r n a l  Effects  Results some  external but  will  However,  data;  Non-monetary a)  and  effects.  to  chosen  the  quantitative effects  method  (e.g.  conversion  in to  of  measuring  emissions,  monetary  values  and  damage is  not  1 09  accurate of  or  acceptable,  alternative  by  projects  by  projects former to  unified common both time  all  scale  consuming to  thesis.  The considered  by  used  disadvantage  equally  and  significance projects pollution  utility to  inc i n e r a t o r s ) .  and  ways:  each  type  of  of  the  it  function  combining  value  for  whereas  this  on  the  the  resulting  alternative  to  not  enables  externalities method  predict part  outcomes,  externalities  latter  second  the  does  the  individual  different  predicted  addition,  a  measurements).  expertise  judgments  the  the  of it  is  render  on  not  a  requires  effects  the  a  and  decisionapplied  monetary  in  values  decision-makers. of  individual  cost-methods to  this  damage  produce from  for  as  compare  Since  do  method  disregards of  effect  numerous  comparison where  comparison  in various  units  curve  alternatives, of  value  the  quantitative  made  assessment  technical  In  a  damage  each  "utility".  value  be  utility  total  project  of  a  total  be  extensive  preferred  The  (e.g.  can  still  the  of  a  comparison  makers this  to  possibly  alternative;  impact  utilities  common  and  establishing  predicted  The  can  comparing  externality -  then  is  seem that  thresholds  units.  different landfills  not  It  externalities accurate it or  versus  values  down  all  when  effects air  be  reliable.  decreasing  breaks  external  or  will  units  marginal different  (e.g.  water  pollution  from  1 10  b)  Qualitative  Methods  Simple  description  qualitative  description  assumptions. or  Although  the and  make  the  clear  for  of  to  Qualitative  avoiding  results  of  reducing  are  especially  the  tradeoffs  be  analysis  "hard"  of  require  to  compare  costs,  a  and  This  decision.  as  if  results  not  3.2  Choice  Disposal  3.2.1  a)  Of  Valuation  Nuisance  Noise,  nuisance  values  will  on  the  be  used  obtainable.  The E x t e r n a l  Effects  Of  Effects  Odor,  and  within  a  1979).  Under  Visual  values  certain  /buyers  Blight,  are  perceived  the  characteristics  distance assumption  of  the  measures  health  effects  (land)  which  the  from  stable  property  units,  price  exchanged  attachment  close  surrogate  on  residential  property  facilities  (Freeman,  noxious  of  1975;  on  a  effects  Sinden  opportunity  based is  Traffic:  considered  health  (Walters,  method  personal  For  can  Facilities  Property  all  Methods  are  quantified  Based  analysis  quantified  effects.  clarification  qualitative  resort  for  comparison  preferences,  last  methods  with  decision-makers a  basic  qualitative  consideration. the  allow  no  identify  monetized  facilitate  effects  non-quantified  monetary  between  often  and can  difficult  decision-makers can  external  made  impacts  results  tradeoffs  the  costs  conditions,  (consumers'  the  of  homogeneous  and  identical  demand  from  and  Worrell,  1979),  this  of  nuisances  observations on  measure  of  a  market.  surplus)  to  and  perceived  substitute Moving  costs  residences  good and are  111  disregarded  by  market  differential  the  price  value  this  loss,  Under  method  because  the  condition  with  estimated  by  aggregating  function  of  the  caveats  the in  B.C. property  there  taxes  will  to  effects taken into  depress  (see  into the  be  are  1979).  account  on  property  compared  with  the  and  valuation The  same  integrating  the  from  real  those  the  method  of  then  nuisance could  in  difference disposal too  price  high,  and  hence  (Sinden  perceived  1979).  This  measurement  estate  vicinity  and  health must  be  techniques  this  be  landfills  services  elsewhere.  but  if  possibly  data  should  of  disposal  applied  Assessment  listing  units  remain, and  of  Columbia  agents  similar  effects  also  the  British  will  established,  appraisers, of  are  overestimated  further  reflect  the  sales  from  discrepancies be  land  a  framework.  either  can  value  Freeman,  and  realtors  property  the  as  because  are  The  below;  or  difference  effects.  a  be  there  of  property  vary  values  first,  such  of  can  However,  taxes  into  will  costs  property  externalities  for  bound  prices  negative  The  excluded.  recognize  Effects  recent  some  not  also  when  is  procedure;  does  negative  the  records  course,  simple  1983).  lower  the  facility.  capitalized  Authority be  the  values  Health  obtained  can  from  in  Property  analytical  Data can  fact  effects,  differences  to  in  the  nuisance  the  property  a  property  values the  indicates  that  seemingly  due  Knetsch,  surplus  Authority  property  Worrell,  of  distance  this  are  tend  level  1975;  consumers'  Assessment  facilities, if  the  to  therfore  the  inversely  two  (Walters,  to  a  significant  confirmed be  Of  reliable  by for  facilities. the  property  11 2  affected  by  truck  traffic  adjacent  to  the  access  facility  in  question.  Opportunity costs  of  control,  vegetation  berms  reduce  to  be  totally  are  equivalent  case  of  most b)  and  to  the  accurate  of  for  of  separate;  report  93% o f  willing  to  recycling and  Mustel  of  mandatory  survey 1982) source  done which  show  a  the  showed  that  odor  alleviate  blight,  and  effects  that  not  the  can  seldom  social  justifiable  at  seems  nuisance  can  be  composition required  (1973) and  costs  in  the  to  offer  the  effects,  many  77% o f  estimated of  to  and  separate  people  B.C.  of  These  B.C.  results  are  and  In  the  garbage. least  These  50% o f  the  of  paper  residents  (1982)  to  results consider  permit  Mclntyre in  by  (Zeiss  residents  survey  to  repsecitvely,  confirmed  approximately  70%  Mustel  residents  students  and  willing  addition,  GVRD b y UBC p l a n n i n g  amount  stream,  quite  and  metal  total  the  the  recyclables  residents,  glass,  56%  waste  are  Mclntyre  available.  of  the  by  separate  p i c k - u p were  recycling.  in  through  approach  localized  However,  Illinois  separate  conclusion  the  Sigler  curb  price  consumed  time  source  if  e.g.  assumption is  the  the  nuisance  costs  to  estimate  However, the  to  effects,  the  i.e.  m a i n l y due  used  to  the  time  1973).  source  be  is  site,  Efforts  the  (e.g.McCrae,  traffic  could  property  generated,  estimates  disposal  landscaping  control  the  Source-separation  waste  the  the  effects.  value  amount  from  nuisance  c o n t r o l l e d and  summary,  The of  the  and  if  methods  noise.  nuisance  In  road,  cost  reducing  to  favor a  small  et  al.,  willing allow the  to the  extra  11 3  effort the  worthwhile and, feeling  households, in to  of  hence,  conserving  some a s s u m p t i o n  relation estimate  to  wages  the  value  inconvenience  resources. of  earned  opportunity  the  the  for  For  value  of  the  cost  of  source-  than  other  leisure  working hours)  less  50%  time  could  (e.g.  be  separation  of  applied for  the  region. If  a  presumably the  mandatory the  property  such  program  required  values  program  in  in  were  separation the  efforts  affected  effect  in  the  put  into w o u l d be  area.  study  effect,  Since  area,  this  then  reflected  in  there  is  no  method  is  not  pollution  is  applicable. 3.2.2  a) The  Health  Water  Pollution  valuation  hampered  of  appreciated recreation number  or  and  health  of  the  of  shoreline  by  could  an  simply  and with  alternative, be  emissions  compared  of  of to  and  their its  numerous  becomes  the in  origins  be  informal  makes  the  widely  applicable  points,  must  demand.  most  is  the  cause-effect  benefits The  of  because  recorded. access  to the  For  a  points,  unmanagable.  amounts volume  the  recreational  too.  access  importance  show  recreational  specific  water  the  Clawson-Knetsch  C l a w s o n - K n e t s c h method As  models  difficult,  faci1 ities-with visitors  of  leachate  losses  effects  knowledge  lack  nature  method  of  river,  lack  between  dispersed  assessment  potential  the  toxics  relationship The  of  by  specific  the  Effects  of  and  leachate in  levels  and of  waste  water  toxicity.  11 4  The  available  Atwater, of  1980)  expected  for  a  based  data as  to  since  influence  on  because  these  costs  the  b)  Air  the  and  reflect  were  to  system  the  .  amounts  The  could  be  costs  estimated  technology,  measure  toxicity  and  But  the  costs  of  water  to  costs  of  based  c o l l e c t i o n and  costs  the  the  leachate,  not  preferable  exceed  the  social  are  the  reflects  of  actual  costs  be  (e.g.  effluents.  maximum e x t e r n a l would  calculate  and  the  treatment  measure  in  mortality  air  for  effects  not  turn,  the  it water  on  the  treatment pollution,  actual  social  former,  of  cause-effect  the  can  costs  to  serve  for  to  H C l and  can,  relationship  pollutants  are  pollution.  The  under  in morbidity monetary  (Lave  Seskin,  and  emissions  and  the  available, on humans  of  Direct  certain  calculate  1983)  not  dioxins  determinable.  air  incinerator  Institute, are  of  increases  foregone  levels  emitted  levels  related  modelling  on a m b i e n t  readily  for  social  earnings  HCl (Batelle  effects the  the  be  and  dispersion  done  health  care  in  models  pollution  then  which,  health  However,  is  of  results  landfills)  costs  amount  dispersion  circumstances,  Thus,  the  costs  to  increase  its  the  to  treament  toxicity  analysis  Pollution  necessary  been  from  opportunity cost  latter  Accurate  of  figures  human a c t i v i t y .  represent  if  basic  (leachate  necessarily  pollution,  costs  and  this  proportionately  toxicity  construction  amounts  Although  not  as  c o l l e c t i o n and  on p r e s e n t  does  well  wastewater  total  calculated  contains  air  costs 1977).  has  only  estimates  nor  been  have  of the  determined.  pollution  questioning  and  on  health  would  produce  11 5  inaccurate  results,  perceived  health  identified  and  methods  be  costs  for  reflects  to  the but  filtering  This  cost  case  of  higher  social  costs  would  be  better  off  pay  water  pollution  surrogate  Unfortunately, control  difference Perceived  be  health  immediate  neither  are  have  direct probably  and  the  effects  were  measure  gases  to  a  safe  level. in  effects,  devices.  But,  estimate  real  pollution  since  the  cost  price  perceived  the  society,  cost  social  also  which  effects  to  of  society  is  air  the  similar  to  only  a  pollution.  social  cost  and  the  (1979)  points  out  that  pollution  negligible  included  the  measures  property  nuisance short-term  high  of  exposures  are  nor  not  likely  air  effects,  and  in  predominantly  effects  immediate  Freeman  also  are  reactions  water  this  of  only  suffering  the  determined.  accumulating  Since  to  reflect  Property  calculate  control  counting,  costs  method  Long-term  are  relation  unperceived  exhaust  from  costs,  double  health  to  the  for  only  respondents.  is  actual  cannot  avoid  perceived  i.e.  the the  costs  To  control  for  the  maximum c o s t  to  would  would a l s o  alternative  the  results  unless  applied,  The o n l y  control  the  effects,  conveyed  could  effects.  because  not  in  effects, emissions.  to  perceived.  be are  perceived  reflected  effects.  toxic  pollution  the  price  likely  health  to  effects  the  property  price  which  replaces  energy  di f ference. Since from  incineration  burning  emissions emissions  conventional  from of  produces fuels  incineration  furnaces  burning  energy  (coal, plants  o i l , must  conventional  natural be  gas),  compared  fuels  to  with  produce  the the the  1 16  same  amount  emissions  of  energy.  from c o n v e n t i o n a l  additional  cost  element.  control  costs  and  pollutants  the  3.2.3  a)  can  Ecological  Disposal  of  Since has  been  be  market in  are  These  the  only the  only  quantities  multifarious disposal. pollution 1981);  internalized  in  production  the  estimate is  excess  be  of  the  considered  an  determining  on  the  size  exhaust  not  scrap  the  of  pollution  installation  gases.  value  costs  and  costs occur  costs  of  of  difficult  The  table  the  production of  possible  the  to  cost  and  not  an  the  savings  savings  is.not  extensive  are  due  for  external of  the  (Stanley  savings apparent. to  100%  probably  indication  these  costs  replacement  steel as  and  reusing  replacements  determine gives  materials  l a n d f i l l i n g and  which  social  without  of  producing  resource to  waste  incineration  producing  below  extent  of  100%  glass  and  of  costs of  for  paper,  reduction  Associates,  quantified  and  external  costs  disposed  overall  can  externalized  the  of  the  financial  The e x t e r n a l  costs  based  in  energy  incineration.  equally  for  in  Effects  the  recyclables  boilers  The d a t a  estimated  amount  Resources  the  recycling,  the  fuel  contained  captured  goods.  Only  are A  replacement  research.  11 7  100% RECYCLED MATERIALS USED  ENERGY SAVED  AIR POLLUTION REDUCED  Paper  23-70%  60-73%  Glass  8%  Steel  47-75%  Aluminum  97%  WATER POLLUTION REDUCED  SOURCE WASTE REDUCED  WATER SAVED  MATERIALS SAVED  15-61%  39%  61%  90-100%  20%  50%  80%  50%  54%  86%  75%  97%  40%  90%  96%  97%  100%  95%  98%  Table X - P o l l u t i o n Reduction and Resource Stanley A s s o c i a t e s , 1981 Land i s a l i m i t e d resource significance  because  certain  in  general,  Savings;Source:  but  has  special  areas have c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which  make them unique h a b i t a t s f o r c e r t a i n types of fauna and In  general, disposal f a c i l i t i e s  l y i n g land. former  Notwithstanding  landfills,  can  upgrade  low-  the d i f f i c u l t i e s of c o n s t r u c t i o n on  otherwise u s e l e s s land can be converted  economically u s e f u l p r o p e r t y . will,  (landfills)  flora.  however, be r e f l e c t e d  The  loss  of  wildlife  into  habitats  in r e d u c t i o n of r e c r e a t i o n a l values  and non-user values ( s c i e n t i f i c  research  values  and  existence  values). The  travel  cost method (Clawson-Knetsch) c o u l d be used to  d e r i v e a demand curve f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l b e n e f i t s , but t h i s only be of use  would  i f the a n t i c i p a t e d change c o u l d be q u a n t i f i e d  and  the e f f e c t s on the r e c r e a t i o n a l demand d e r i v e d therefrom. Possibly, elsewhere question.  the e f f e c t s of s i m i l a r e x t e r n a l i t i e s on h a b i t a t s  c o u l d be reviewed and t r a n s f e r r e d to the However,  the  more  unique  the  location  habitat,  in  the more  1 18  difficult  this  extremely  difficult  The with the  same  can  of  the as  effects  may  be  the  in is  the  approach  of  of  virtually in  will  be  the  impossible  at  present.  terms  analysis.  species  As  and  whereas Further,  on w i l d l i f e  externality  fraught  pollution;  qualitatively.  for  of  is  water  quantitative  toxicity  problems  linkage  on w i l d l i f e  case  described  effects  cause-effect  this  effects  determined  be  insurmountable  for  find.  the  only  determining  the  of  emissions  present  to  Data  difficulties  modelling  others  be.  determination  the  Some  will  a  may  result,  damage  is  very  tenuous. The  non-user  methods. are even loss  The  difficult  opportunity to  possible. is  a  losses  estimate, The  direct  monetary  values.  design,  the  survey  only of  are costs if  the  difficulty  in  consistent  and  comprehensible  thesis,  only  practical  disposal  the  facilties  qualitatively.  on  of  the  the be  very  effects terms.  option unique  is  a  to  travel-cost  fauna  natural  method  residents of  in  transfering  practical  would not  expressing  included  recreating  Regardless  results  not  to  for  is  quantifying  the  disutility  difficulties  on For  describe  habitats  and  in  of  habitat purpose the  or  survey  because  the the  flora  habitat  obtain  accurate  and  of  impacts  analyse  the in this of them  1 19  3.2.4  Risk  The the  And U n c e r t a i n t y  risks  and  probability  uncertainties and  the  method;  alternatively,  through  technological  costs  technical  risk  if  assessment  will  be.  potential Since  is,  effects,  relatively  new  understood,  and  the  this  scope  analysed 3.2.5  -there  is  used  to  obtain  the  the  risks  and  of  risk  the  the  on  risks  risk  and  assessment  emissions,  assessment  the  opportunity  available risk  each  accurate  valuation  is  dioxin  risk  the  The more  to  is  are  not  is.  not  well  possible  uncertainties  will  in be  no  no  of  NIMBY  unique  values but  NIMBY  facility  at  process  did  resulted  in  (O'Hare,  1979).  NIMBY the  to  what THOU  acceptable all, not  THOU is  effects  vicinity degree result  is in  especially involve  if  the  the  and  because  market;  waste  to  in  the  disposal  determinable;  opposition other  difficult,  reflected  solid  not  public  burdens  on  are  of  is  predictable,  exchanged  alternatives  involuntary  disamenities  somewhat  substitute  in  and  and  context  degree,  facilities, often  Effects  spatial  certain  property  is  e.g.  inherent  reducing  data  accurate  comparing  of  be  and  by  costs  reliable  extensive  valuation the  -  more  thesis,  occurences  available.  more  assessed  qualitatively.  though  a  are  risks,  Distributional The  even  of  an  of  can  experience the  best  financial  means  the  The more  effects  the  means  are  than  choice  for not  and  which to  the  participation costs  to  the  there  build  the  proposed and  hence  residents  1 20  Surveys present  to  seem  assess  respondents  to the  could  be  be  the  asked  to  involving evenly  effects.  Past in  research  conjunction  hypothetical to  e.g.  opposition  the  response  those  is  facility  at  establish  a  so  value  Market applicable and  THOU  and  money  costs  also  difficulty data  the  in  that  and  uniquely.  be  viewed the  measuring to  full-scaled  distributional  qualitat i vely.  in  the  only  different  concentrated  is  acceptable it  is  that  similar  actually  GVS&DD.  circumstances  Mustel,  indicates  responses  site  opportunity  are  no  the  in  proposed,  Often  local  solution  is  difficult  effects, value  no to  survey  is  effects  other  to  is  NIMBY be  beyond (NIMBY  a  and  the the and  are  reflect  opposition  there  of  seems  to  methods  which  opportunity  opposition  the  cost  indicators  Possibly,  as  direct-questioning a  when a  two  M c l n t y r e and  effects  elicit  the  these  there  reflect  pertaining  again, Since  because effects  not  in  locally  1973;  at  scale.  prices  could  do  landfills  Under  and  available  Hypothetically  effects  landfill  encountered to  the  distributed  with  negative  a l l .  value  method  effects.  (Coughlin,  situations  intensity  practical  distributional  situations  1983)  only  NIMBY  effort  in  costs,  but  effects.  Due  substantial THOU  only scope THOU)  not  time these  to  the  lack  of  effects.  Thus,  practical  method.  of  thesis,  this  will  be  analysed  121  3.3  Summary  The be  Of M e t h o d o l o g y A n d A v a i l a b l e  matrix  below  applicable  waste has  disposal  been  to  the  in  order  costs.  the  identified  facilities.  chosen  financial  summarizes  Where to  valuation external  possible,  produce  The  Data  values  matrix  methods  effects  to  produced  monetary commensurate  includes  found  by  valuation with  alternatives  the for  valuat ion.  Valuation Monetised  Data  Methods  Nu i s a n c e s - n o i s e , odor, v i s u a l -separation effort  property value d i f f e r e n c e s c o s t o f - 1 o s t t ime  real estate sales time value (estim.)  collection costs filtration  engineering, estimates engineering e s t i mates  Health -water -air  A1ternat i ve Methods  Sources  Costs  pollution  p o 1 1 u t i on  Non-monetised  and treatment costs  f o r HCL  controls survey  cost survey cost  Costs  Ecological -Resources Disposed - H a b i t a t damage  s o c i a l c o s t s of replacement qualitative analysis  R i sk/Uncertai nty  qualitative  analysis  D i s t r i but i onal  qualitative  analysis  Table  XI  -  Matrix  of  study on e f f e c t s o f 1andf i l l s o n bog h a b i t a t dioxin studies l i t e r a t u r e and past experience  Valuation  Methods  survey  survey  1 22  IV.  THE CALCULATION  OF T H E S O C I A L IN  Based outlined proceed  20  social of  In  1.1  SOCIAL  cost  based  on  facility  assumptions  social  in  costs  Chapter  the as  namely  total  same  used  III. size  in  210,000  can  and  Chapter tonnes  II for  capacity.  external  monetised  costs  cost  will  be  elements  calculated and  the  in  non-  COSTS  category  their  Nuisance  comprises  opportunity  all  external  effects  appearance  and  valued  in  costs.  Effects  Noise,  1.1.1  the  the  DISPOSAL  elements.  This of  are  the  the  summarized  disposal  tonnes  and  of  calculations,  following,  MONETIZED  terms  waste cost  categories:  methods  estimates  4,200,000  the  framework  determination the  cost  solid  or  monetised 1.  to  financial  years,  two  the  OF S O L I D WASTE  T H E GVS&DD  theoretical  according  capacity the  the  above,  The  for  on  COSTS  Odor,  Visual  Disamenity  Assumpt i o n s Based  on  the  similarity  characteristics,  the  IX  III),  in  Chapter  recycling  centers  local  are  by  to  equal;  vehicle  externalities  transfer  assumed  traffic  approximately collection  nuisance  in  to  equal, from  while and  stations,  be  and  produced  (see  Table  i n c i n e r - a t o r s ..and  because the  transfer  bulk  operational  haul  facilities stations vehicle  have  are both  traffic,  1 23  incinerators  (usually)  cause  traffic  to  Truck  Traffic  for  Collection Residual  spread  700  vehicles:  haul  operate over  a  metric 10  longer  tonnes  metric  vehicles:  20  longer  Stations  Inc i n e r a t o r  time  per  metric  Res i d u a l  70  35  70  1 2  Recycling/lnc inerator  75-80  1 1  total per  waste  weight  stream),  unit  vehicle  trip.  with  transfer  stations  the  compacting  inside -  all  are  assumed  of to  providing  the  equipped  with  prevent although stacks  tonnages  due  or  to  86-91  (about  lower  more  11%  of  vehicle  collection  recycling  centers  are  the trips  weights combined  incinerators;  handling  view,  dust  equal  for  incinerator an  of  of  45  on  waste  roads,  all is  three  visible  and  and  is  carried  visual  types  operated  electrostatic  incinerators  (between  106-11 1  out  facilities;  be  emission  82  would a t t r a c t  Usually  and  three  obstruction  but  processed  per  -  lower  Total 1 05  31  handle  period.  tonnes;  75-80  centers  hence,  day  Recycling/Transfer  Recycling  and,  tonnes;  C o l l e c t ion Transfer  hours  of  facilities,  properly  precipitator  particulate  disamenity  and  is  filter  to  matter  do  require  the  construction  60  m high  in  the  GVS&DD,  (smoke); of  smoke Batelle  1 24  Institute,  1983)  incinerators cause  the  proposed stacks  that  no  the  additional  material,  potential  greater  for  disposed  with  raw  than  amount  of  more In  order  to  matter refuse smell, In  the  amount It  one  and  i.s  the  will  the  89%  This  as  the two  area  closed  is  raw  much waste  recycling) (35%, to  proportional also  is  or  31%  make  the  to  the  reflects  residue.  affected  existing  recently  residue  is  matter.  view  of  with  of  landfill  organic  assumption  incinerator  require  residue  ideal  justified be  by  remain  condition  amount  therefore  caused  methods  decomposing  incinerator  stacks)  however,  Incineration  or  could  equal.  disposal  stream,  or  Therefore  blight  the  landfilled.  around  caused.  addition,  costs  establish  be  are  which  four  site.  their  unsightly  is  of  (and  and  of  A l l chimneys  litter,  waste  social  nature  and  (ash)  which  incinerators  visual  material  contains  the  the  of  sources  incinerator  landfills,  significantly.  of  patterns  Street)  four  amounts  material  stable  complaint Premier  that  A l l  for.  refuse.  recycling).  assumption  the  for  (100%  larger  raw  by  the  boilers  stations  caused  disamenity,  have  waste  transfer  vary  while  solid  of  of  accounted  inert  metres  effect  be  dense,  already  nuisance  effects  largely  500  visual  disamenity.  will  nuisance  the  energy  costs  The  material  locations  social  and  the  to  visual  conventional  additional  but  of  within  incinerators  the  much  type  replace  add  conventional  municipal  then  landfilling,  The  same  located  actually  thereby  replace  incinerator  Assuming  to  and  by  nuisances,  landfills landfill  (Richmond  the and  (Coquitlam)  125  were  studied.  operating Mann).  in  Unfortunately,  landfills  The  results  In  North  two  areas,  Street  and  east  the  of  dust, in  odor, the  comm. and -  are  Vancouver, in  the  and  about H.  the  330  metres  the  complaints (pers.  coming comm.  Department,  1984).  approximately  1.25  center  source  to  the  kilometres.. very  low  continuous -  In  The and  x  Coquitlam,  kms  from Mr.  of  so  and  and  along  Limerick  1981  (pers. 1984,  could  located  400  of  landfill the  not  be  1981  the  to the  areas  of  site  Health measures  distance  around open  80%  Richmond  amounted  since  were with  metres  on  pollution  perimeter,  that  with  focussed  water  the  density  complaints  registed  landfill  Guite,  complaints  pattern  the  the  noise,  subdivision  since  the  A.  kms,  were  complainants  However, 1.5  about  North -Vancouver,  within  interspersed  the  10  from  to  1983).  odor,  residential  complaint  of  Premier  metres  Greenock  lodged  The  600  complaints  from  July,  complaints  11.5  Port  clustered  between  to  Westlynn  metres  practices,  to  200  Place,  19.  two  and  1981  complaints  District  discoloration).  from  boundary  Sun,  about  the  1200  other  Bog  since  subdivision  similar  McBride,  handling  (foaming,  to  the  below:  complaints  Birchlynn  for  (Burns  comprised  area,  400  Richmond,  waste  and  vectors;  The V a n c o u v e r  In  the  Road,  landfill,  files  available  Lynnmour  Lillooet  Road,  Mr.  not  summarized  second  Arborlynn Courts,  were  complaint  1.0  from  the  to  1.4  landfill so  that  rs a  established. focussed  on  odor,  1 26  birds,  flames  Odor  serious.  source  as  In  sum,  can  extend  site  3 kms  out  some  on  the  100  7  site, from  ha  nuisance  effects  will  the  center,  or  site  1.1.2  site,  kilometres  site x  1,000m),  kms  an  area  from  the  especially  distince  the  the  distinctly  will  up  to  be  effects  perimeter.  for  some  a  assumed  2.0  as  clustering  present  Thus,  it  were  nuisance  from  boundary.  were  visual  complaints a  data,  affect  1.5  with  available  are  general  disamenity  registered  effects  (1,000m  and  C).  8  the  flares,  in Appendix  the to  the the  map  from  gas  visual  of  from  (see  kilometres of  and  kms away  judging  Depending two  The  8  within  one  typical that  the  kilmotres  from  perimeter.  Calculation  The  results  nuisance losses  effects, will  in  Chapter  a  cross-sectional  indicate  information  on  number  residential  loss,  of the  property during values  the  total value  the  20  years  the  are  blight  and  showed  extent  loss  study  of  the  can  be  the  operation,  it  landfilling losses  is is  measure on  the  of  the  difficulties  in  effects,  personal  landfill  sites  these  of  property  social  of  the  With  value  Since  the  experienced if  completed. loss  the  average  welfare  property Thus,  the  regardless  if  market. measuring  observations  were  value  costs.  irrelevant  the  immediate  externalities, and  loss  exchanged  operating  for  calculated.  actually  odor  the  affected,  measure  value  that  bound of  units  after  property  Because  of  III  lower  spatial  losses  increase  units  a  value  estimated  four  methane  appearance.  far  to  from  undertaken  of to  noise, the  visual region's  determine:  a)  1 27  the  strength  of  directions, could D)  be  are  hampered at  only  recommended elsewhere  described factors from  one  point  average above.  such  uncovered  the  refuse,  Greater  Vancouver  in  typical  area  the  Canada,1980),  the  effects  subjective  observations and  are  are of  used public  scales  and  D.  facility  obvious  of  are  combined  the  capacity  odor,  health  observed.  (Atmospheric  of  facilities  prevailing  the  Appendix  quality  appearance,  were  the  grading  Appendix  traffic,  of  biases  the  b)  (see  judgements  existing  a  which  Personal  grade  visual  etc.)  and  applicable  four for  local  interpretation  est  The  values  from  and  observations  time.  to  indicated  through  Environment  in  form  Noise,  as  angles,  perceptional  from  perimeter  limitations  1977).  values  provide  the  are  the  personal  by  similiar  points  at  the  These  such  (Hatry,  The to  for in  measuring  effect  respectively  perceived.  perception  services  the  From  wind  and  hazards this  (e.g.  data  directions  Environmental  following  other  effect  and  in  the  Service,  patterns  were  e.g.  open  imated:  -prime  direction  -angle  from  refuse  , .equipment  -access effect  road  and  which  visual  on  noise,  be  seen,  gases,  disposal  etc.  vehicles  have  a  major  dust)  the  perimeter  outside  the  site  noise  vectors  can  smoke,  which  at  of  odor  blight  -noise  -presence  of  operating,  length  (traffic,  extent  would  resp. be  an  heard,  estimate  of  how  far  1 28  The  results  are  Landfills  summarized  Odor kms  Burns  Bog  Richmond Port  Mann  Premier  St.  Table  XII  the  proximity  disregarded. by  the  value.  view  2-3  e-w  110  deg.  3-4  100 m  2  e~w  120  deg.  3-4  100 m  1-1  e-w  30  deg.  3  200 m  1-1  e-w  90  deg.  1  200 m  90  degrees  3  -  Summary  of  Estimated  of  two  the  landfills  kms  overhead  kms  Nuisance  1 50 m  Effects  of  ills  landfills the  length  Vectors  angle  e-w  road  Access  direc.  However, of  below.  Traffic  Landf The  table  Visual  1.5-2.0  Mean  in  large could  to  major  number add  to  of  highways  individuals  the  visual  was  affected  disamenity  129  Based  on  typical  landfill  Figure In  2  33  order  census a  these  to  figures  km r a d i u s  averaged:  -  of  figures,  an  disposal  facility  Externality obtain of  the  each  externality  the  Map f o r number  residential of  in  the  a of  map  the  be  charted  for  a  GVS&DD.  Typical  Landfill  affected  units  four  can  in  sites  units,  census were  Site the  tracts  1981 within  compiled  and  1 30  Landfill Burns  Site  Residential  Bog  Premier  Street  Other for  97 4,432  for  all  sites:  variables  (e.g.  This  capacity  2,834  influencing  other  locational  of  study  requires  a  large  data  determining  and  coding  difficult  and  time  thesis.  Therefore,  determination  of  was  -comparable  at  Premier it  sufficient The of  two  into  possible  and  would  effects). and  computer  account.  Moreover,  influences  is  exceed  abbreviated  base  controlled  version  the  scope  was  often  of  used  this  for  the  values.  where  favorable  conditions  for  a  cross-  age,  size,  quality,  site  varying  found: units  distances  (type,  from  the  from  etc.)  200  to  figures)  are  metres;  available  because  an  housing  -sufficient  The  all  nuisance  were  located  variables  consuming  chosen  study  1,200  be  and  all  are  must  condition  take  sectional  value  size,  to  site  property  age,  type  A  Census)  5,538  Mann  Average  (1981  1,272  Richmond Port  Units  market  over  Street was  the  sales study  the  price last  landfill only  site  24  data  (actual  sales  months.  area  in North  with  adequate  V a n c o u v e r was housing  selected  density  and  data. area  subdivisions  around (see  the  map).  Premier  Street  landfill  consists  131  Figure  34  - Map o f Street  Residential Areas adjacent L a n d f i l l , North Vancouver  to  Premier  1 32  The  data  -was  Vancouver  obtained  (Block  through  Bros.,Mr.  presently  listed  units  Westlynn  area,  and  (see  lists  varied  an  The  of  from  the  size  of  $86,500, landfill the  ensure  bedrooms  was  included  located  on  a  Lillooet  Road.  increase  the  the  (pers.  roughly the  value  view  with  estimated  subtracted The negative access  from  McBride,  value any  effects  to  District  A regression)  Peerless,  of  traffic, North  performed  on  the  the  The u n i t s  are  east  is  the  side  likely  the  of to  maximum o f units  with  corresponds access  view  road,  must  be  analysis. two m a i n  noise,  pers.  sources  birds)  comm.  and  Mr.  o.f the H.  1984).  (scattergram data  of  view q u a l i t y  the  the  number  the  over  the  meters  Peerless,  D.  estimated  to  600  comm.  and  an  average  and  amenity  (odor,  Vancouver,  to  of  structures  the  dust,  analysis  an  due  landfill  1984).  with  variable.  in  prices  old,  and  indicate  the  consists  landfill  found  area  east  1984) the  Lynnmour  Peerless,  120  the the  the  the  by  North  for  period,  Street  units  the  1982  comparison,  D.  the  of  in  comprised  the  between  view  Since  for  (pers.  best  patterns  statistical was  general  difference  be  years  from  and  D.  to  Premier  from  agent  April  Mr.  independent  differential  (noise,  16  the  distance  complaint  road  an  quality.  the  comm.  reasonable  the  Mr.  this  8 to  between  of  During  consistent  as  Thus,  comm.  worst  a  slope  1982  The q u a l i t y  are  To  December  distances  site.  units  since  subdivision  at  estate  Peerless)  sales  (pers.  approximately  1984).  5%  all  E).  5%  real  D.  since  Lynnmour  condominiums, value  and  in Appendix estimated  1.  a  using  unit  and value  multiple as  the  1 33  dependant  variable,  independant  and  distance  VARIABLE(S)  VAL  to  XIII  -  best  the  area  the  figure  list  at  Peerless). values  in  of  the  the  distance  with  centroids.  The  absence  of  price of  F  0.05534  the  for  77.698  variable  unit  from from  of  the  this  (pers.  indication  effects.  values  was  landfill  gate  Premier  condominium u n i t s  an  Cross-section  significant.  with  distances  $109,000  external  is  distances  scattergram  gives  Lynnmour  distance  the  Comparable  approximately This  STD ERROR B  Equation Study  sum o f  centroids  below.  DF 1. 50.  * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  correlation  using  area  the  DIST  0.78003  Regression  coefficient  the  as  IN THE EQUATION BETA  0.4878031 59 1.3903  * * * * * * * * * *  obtained  bedrooms  ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE REGRESSION RESIDUAL  B  VARIABLE DIST (CONSTANT)  1..  0.78003 0.60845 0.60062 77.4 1690  VARIABLES  The  of  VALUE  ENTERED ON STEP NUMBER  MULTIPLE R R SQUARE ADJUSTED R SQUARE STANDARD ERROR  The  number  variables.  DEPENDENT V A R I A B L E . .  Table  and  data on  Street is  of  shown  Fromme  comm. the  to  Mr.  in  Road, D.  property  1 34  SCATTERGRAM OF (DOWN) VAL 240.00  VALUE  320.00  400.00  460.00  560.OO  (ACROSS) DIST  640.00  720.00  800.00  880.00  960.00  1200.00 +  * 1200.00 2  06's  2  • 2 2  2  200.00  2RO.O0  36O.O0  440.00  r.?0.00  GOO. OO  6no.no  760.00  840.00  920.00  1000.00  F i g u r e 35 - S c a t t e r g r a m o f L y n n m o u r T h r e e - B e d r o o m C o n d o m i n i u m V a l u e s w i t h t h e Sum o f D i s t a n c e s f r o m t h e L a n d f i l l and t h eA c c e s s Road  1 35  The  correlation  significant $108,500 or  a  at  at  this  of  of  possible  the  34%  property  120m  600m  2.  from  about  the  and  show  0.7. a  decreasing  to  unit  per of  difference of  to  years  the  the  type  of  results  view  in  of  meters,  a  (5%)  over  error minimum from  leaves  the  range  a of  site.  on a p p r o x i m a t e l y  landfill  200  across  with  value  Deducting  20%  west  are  standard  landfill  old,  from  a  the  about  the  dwellings  30  The d i s t a n c e  of  at  24.6%. of  results  property  $71,600  $6,000  perimeter  to  mean  Using  differential  family  The  $108,500).  subdivision  18  R2" i s  maximum i n f l u e n c e  value  single  $115,000. 1200  value  Westlynn  comprises lots,  (of  estimated  minimum to  level  plus-minus  property  the  95%  1000m d i s t a n c e  decline  estimate  coefficient  an  Lynn 70  x  100  average  ranges  Creek foot  value  from  400  of and  meters. Inherent  quality  and  to  the  condition  vary  substantially.  not  only  by  Creek,  but  B.C.  Hydro  direction  the  also  in  depends  external  effects  of  complaint on  Greenock  and  the  on  on  the  crosses of  landfill  Limerick  Courts.  size,  units  it  area  landfill the  is up  size,  Westlynn influenced from  Lynn  Furthermore, in  site.  unit  unit  in  rises  vegetation.  an Thus,  values  east-  west  there  besides  a  are the  site.  indicates  along  lot  quality  as  the  influence  pattern  units  the  view  slope  tree  the  family  the  the  the  line  which  single  addition,  vicinity  variables  vectors)  the  location  numerous  The  In  Power the  of  units,  Arborlynn  substantial Road,  effects  Birchlynn  (odor, Place,  1  DEPENDENT V A R I A B L E . . V A R I A B L E ( S ) ENTERED  MULTIPLE R R SQUARE ADJUSTED R SQUARE STANDARD ERROR  VAL ON  Table  B  with  statistical  the distance  coefficient  R of a  was  0 . 0 7 3 )  subareas hence  Multiple performed  subarea effects. size,  F  22.31674 .  4.025  Cross-Section  when  slightly  with  the level  a n d shows a c o r r e l a t i o n  better  the units  of the value  correlation  were g r o u p e d  the complaint  (R* =  into  three  patterns  o f e f f e c t s b e t t e r ( s e e map).  v a r i a b l e was m a r g i n a l l y  w i t h a r e s u l t i n g R*"of  and 0 . 1 5 8 .  show a l o w c o r r e l a t i o n deemed t o r e p r e s e n t  I n c l u d i n g other v a r i a b l e s ,  floorspace  value  such  as  was  therefore,the  with the distance the l e v e l  . The  significant. on  Overall,  and  and a  of the nuisance floorspace, l o t  number o f b e d r o o m s , d i d n o t a d d t o t h e c o r r e l a t i o n a s much  might  0 . 1 6 8 .  A  regression of distance  grouping  ERROR B  the l a n d f i l l  of t h e subarea  property values  STD  a n a l y s i s includes scattergrams  0 . 0 3 9 .  respresented  DF 1. 51.  EQUATION  Equation f o r Westlynn Study  from  obtained  IN THE  0.27047  which corresponded  coefficient  as  44.77529 1053.691  SUBAREA  ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE REGRESSION RESIDUAL  BETA  XIV - Regression  The  1..  0.27047 0.07316 0.05498 140.34226  VARIABLE SUBAREA (CONSTANT)  VALUE  STEP NUMBER  VARIABLES  3 6  have  been  expected,  as the best R*achieved  was o n l y  1 37  SCATTERGRAM OF (DOWN) VAL 1500. 00 + 450.OO  |  550. OO  VALUE  650.00  750.OO  (ACROSS) DIST  850.00  950,00  1050. OO  1150.00  1250.00  <*  1500. OO  1 180.00  +  700.00 * 40O.0O  500.00  600.OO  700.OO  80O.0O  900.00  1O0O.00  11OO.O0  1200.00  F i g u r e 36 - S c a t t e r g r a m o f W e s t l y n n S i n g l e V a l u e s w i t h Three Subareas r e p r e s e n t i n g the Effects It  *0O  1350.00  was,  from  the  single  however,  to  landfill family  to  be  expected  the  that  property  residences  than  the  values for  1300.00  700. OO  /tjg^fgf  1400.00  Family Residence L e v e l of N u i s a n c e  correlation would  of  . be  condominiums  due  distance  worse to  for  larger  1 38  variation  in  therefore  the  be  quality,  condition,  attributed  to  etc.  these  The  other  variation  variables  must  mentioned  above. The  results  positive  and  landfill  site  Lynnmour  area,  significant Westlynn  (see  and  In due  were  list  of  in  the  for  these  effects  estimates  varied  residential  residential of  total  of  the  a  property  by  of  the  B.C.  value 15%  nuisance  to  a  the  value  opinions  were  Assessment  adjacent not  of  appraisers  externalities  the  does  in  estimates  and  The  the  marginally  property  E).  in  Authority  minimum  the  the  in  residences  nuisance  values  and  agents  from  from  make  had  areas, allowance  assessments.  The  maximum o f  25%  for  with  an  externalities  20%.  the  compiled  value  property  landfills.  that  their  from  estate  contacts  Assessment in  weak  strong  value  landfills,  Appendix  property  units. affected  estimate  a  comm.  the  B.C.  Summarizing use  on  real  very  property  family  of  a  distance  very  single  effects  from  two  of the  a  show  corroborate  nuisance  for  with  only  the  to  confirming  effects  road  for  order  pers.  although  to  access  obtained  analysis  correlation  indicating  to  (except  Authority)  average  statistical  correlation  losses  definite  the  while  area.  unanimous  the  significant  differential the  of  units  loss to  data, of  it  seems  20%  account  for  of  reasonable the  the  average nuisance  and value  safe of  effects  1 39  Calculation  of  Residential  Property  Value  Losses  due  to  Nuisance  typical  landfill  Externalities The in  calculation the  the  GVS&DD  is  preceding  the  of  monetary  based  on  the  caused  following  by  a  factors  determined  in  section:  weighted  family  losses  and  $112,650  average  condominium) (Sept.  in  1,1983,  residential  unit  the  Vancouver  Greater  pers.  comm.  value  Mr.  (single area  is  D.  Peerless,  be  circular,  1984); -  the  with  potentially a  radius  the  50%  over  of  located  metres  The  varies be  minus  site  means with  less  and This  more  units  the  less  of  of  funct ions.  in  the  the  are  by  to  landfill  affected  some  centroid; to  are  type  distributed  assumed  of  to  be  externality;  linearily  landfill  be  area;  area  decline  the  assumed  assumed  radial  values 20% a t  an  the  even  from  seriously heavily  the  distribution  number  radius  distribution  product  units  is  from  boundary  0% a t  (at  500  2000  m from  centroid).  that  very  m from  affected  property to  area  potentially  areas  assumptions  area  the  the in  the  the  2,000  residential  equally -  of  affected  of  units  the  affected affected  will value  be loss  units  - As  near at  accounted and  units  affected  center.  units  of  the  a the  the for  at  over any  result, the  even  given  level  there  site  area by  an  boundary  perimeter.  integrating  distribution  will  of  the units  1 40  The  total  following Value  property  =  level (as  times  at  loss  can  be  calculated  area  affected  with  the  formula:  loss  -  value  per  level  -20%  affection  fraction  units  the  of  (at  of  area  of  value)  times  affection  0.5km)  times  and  is  this  average  a  0% a t  linear 2.0  at  specific  value  of  the  function  level  units  with  values  km:  Va/t*c /ass of *m./ue.J  Figure  -  the  of  the  37  area  -  Function  affected  distance  (i.e.  of V a l u e Landfill  at  each  radius)  Loss over Center  level from  Distance  increases the  as  center:  a  from  function  141  A. Figure  38  The  product  on  value  resulting  -  Function  of  these  per  area  function  two  of  Area  functions  unit  takes  the  as  a  parabolic  Affected  is  equal  fraction  over  to  the  the  of  Radius  total  the  effect  value.  The  form:  *ffe.*.£e.U ire.*.  e//^t a nee L  a.ZS  Figure  The  39  integral  -  of  F u n c t i o n of the V a l u e L o s s per U n i t D i s t a n c e from the L a n d f i l l Site  this  function  from  the  landfill  Area  boundary  with  to  the  1 42  perimeter  of  the  circular  area  is  equal  to:  2.0 z.o  r  .2..0  0.5  J and  thus  total -  10.5  3 the  area  0.91  x  which  is  unit  230  is  nuisances of  the  This  of  For are  for  the  metric methods  -100%  units  50%  be  per  $112,650  value  landfill.  assumed over  of  =  all  calculated  area  from:  x average  unit  value  $23,577,650 units,  therefore  equals:  of  the  property  These  losses  value  also  loss  due  include  a  to  the  portion  to  be  distributed  4,200,000  tonnes,  over  resulting  20 in  a  years  of  loss  of  tonne. other  than  proportionately  incineration  residual  residual  100% to  (35%):  landfilling,  the  amounts  $0.98  per  the  nuisance  landfilled:  tonne;  Recycling  Landfilling  -Source-separated with  can  $11,788,825  -Source-separated with  x  loss  effects.  i.e.  reduced  x  only  present  is  operation, per  effect  2 =  NIMBY loss  $2.81  :  the  value  units/km  valid  $23,577,650 This  total  [a,s  z.  (89%):  $2.50  per  tonne.  (31%) : $ 0 . 8 7  per  tonne.  Recycling  Incineration  costs  1 43  1.1.3  Source  -  Separation  Effort  Assumpt i o n s The  source-separation  program  burdens  the  spending  leisure  requiring  extra  simplify  the  assumed  time  labor  to  be  entirely  calculation  of  the  lowered taken  leisure  into  incur time  however,  of  added  the  labor  for  businesses. the  waste  mandatory  the  cost  of  as  well  as  order  to  In  generators  will  households.  required costs  the  with  recyclables  residential  costs  value  of  multiplying  the  number  amount  time  -  the  a  time,  (as  In  the  opposed  households)  will  be the  fact  to  that  possibly  have  to  be  calculated  by  account.  The  dollar  from  value  under  households  separate  costs  calculation,  would  recycling  region's  to  businesses  for  of value  of  generation  waste  lost  time  generating  for  is  households  separating  times  materials  the  times  the  dividing  the  time.  of  disposal  generation  of  total  required  The number  total  the  households capacity  ratio; rate  of  1983),  corresponds  262,500  persons  105,000  households.  a,t  A  recent  survey  over  50% o f  the  210,000 0.8  has  GVRD  be  by  the  tonnes  tonnes  with say,  can  a  2.5  estimated average of  per  waste persons  shown  residents  by  refuse  at  capita generating per  per  capita  a  capita  (from  .GVRD  ,  population  of  household  (Mclntyre + Mustel, were  in  per  favour  of  1982)  equals  that  mandatory  1 44  recycling, source  resp.  70%  separate  Between  35%  already  source  Mustel,  1982).  if  of  separate These  School  therefore  safe  affected  residents  residents  resources  which  expenditure. costs  and  welfare. affects  of  of  figures  a  of  the  citizens does  result,  the  source  facility.  Therefore,  households  or  52,500  refuse  al.  separation  of  50%  the  households  and  time  equal a  the  loss  of  negatively the  total  are  the  saving  constitute  only  of  of  benefits  by  is  separate.  effort  serviced  UBC  It  benefits  households  and  a  50%  source  the not  by  1982).  least)  the  to  ( Mclntyre  confirmed  extra  effort  the  allege  voluntarily  these  of  BC r e s i d e n t s  (at  perception  voluntarily available.  et  that  to  were  are  (Zeiss  outweighs  50%  likely  their  required  As a only  some  would  For  the  60%  assume  have  very  pick-up  and  survey to  be  curbside  GVRD  Planning  These  would  disposal  of  used  105,000 in  the  calculation. The  amount  of  time  -Newspapers:  required  stock  is  and  estimated  by McCrae  bundle  no a d d i t i o n a l  -  (1973):  time  requi red -Glass: metal per  bottles and  other  plastic  than rings,  deposit place  -  in  wash,  boxes:  10  remove minutes  week  -Metal:  tin  cans  flatten  and  store:  Total:  15 m i n u t e s  -  wash,  remove  5 minutes per  per  household  labels, week per  week.  remove  ends,  1 45  The the  marginal wage  value  utility  rate  of  less  leisure  of  the  time  marginal is  (Harrison  and  Quarmby,  much  the  wage  below  time  time  at  the  since  some  the  reasonable  to  separation  time  Most and  paid  would  businesses minimum that  source  flexibly. comm.  valuable  for  remaining  also  rate  made  be  would  Therefore  most  efforts  the  paid as  travel  wage  105,000 the at  total  source  minimum  wages  employees  appropriate  rate  households net  value  15 m i n u t e s  equals  13,050  678,600  hours  at  $3.65  or  $11.80  per per  : of  2 =  52,500  source  of  hours)  hours  per  hour  is  per  week,  is  for  week or  year =  tonne  $2,476,890 disposed,  per  year  which  loss,  in the  considering  $3.65/hour  therefore:  a  Hence,  individually  used.  households  separation  (0.25  per  effort  and  source  low-income  allocated  separation  rate,  of  C a l c u l a t ion The  leisure  seems  mandatory.  be  time  it  value  at  can  will  of  that  the  be  1984)  rate  observation  labour,  likely  wage  wage  households.  by  be  the  how  the  undertaken  were  minimum  Nancy Nowlan,  of  done  separation  by  to  determine  for  than  rate  50%  are  to  equal  Hence  average  established  wage  recycling effort  the  e.g.  less  low  work.  behavioral  been  be  of  difficult  done  a  the  is  has  will  theoretically  below  some  assume  separation  Ms.  it  efforts  source  wage  It  is  probably if  1972).  are  margin  of  amount  (as  is  disutility  without  Because  time  some  rate  trade-offs  observations).  leisure  and  (pers.  1 46  or  1.2  an  average  Health  1.2.1  present  value  of  $8.02  per  tonne.  Effects  Water  Pollution  Assumpt i o n s Water landfills  pollution containing  amount  of  leachate  amount  of  refuse  proportional landfilled  is  reduction  in  production  of  landfilling. toxicity  costs  safely  water  an so  maximum  the  serve  pollution.  given  as  of  the  percentage  flow the  surrogate  for  not  only of  the of  from  leachate  the  disposal  costs measure  a  the  flow  waste  calculated  leachate  a  proportional  result,  is  are  surface  density  a  the  given  causes  the  to  the  landfilled,  As  opportunity a  and  The  flows  leachate  and  from  residue.  leachate  assumption the  to  leachate  in  flows  proportional  however,  increase  landfill  the  be  the  amount  that  Alternately,  can  the  related  the  to  landfilled,  residue.  be  leachate  incinerator  assumed  overestimates  characteristics,  treatment of  the  in  of  because  to  but  refuse,  disposed  percentage  and  mass,  raw  the  Incineration,  incinerator can  is  surface  height.  production  landfilled  stream  the  by  refuse  deposited,  the  over  caused  raw  proportional  fill  leachate  be  produced  to  constant  residue  can  as  by  flows  a 100%  and  the  of  collection  for  the  social  1 47  Calculation  for  amount  of  20  years  of  on an  year on  flows  for  100%  area  (see  Based  The  Leachate  The  tonnes per  of  the  leachate  of  100  relative waste  is  of  a  840,000  disposal  of  m3 o r  sufficient  in  litres  Appendix  landfilled,  are  4,200,000  840,000,000  flows  refuse  methods  landfill  (approximately  leachate  amounts  Landfilling  in  capacity  ha)  calculation  the  produced  disposal  calculated  the  G).  leachate  below:  840,000,000  litres  per  year  (100%)  Incineration  294,000,000  litres  per  year  (  35%)  Source-separated Recycling with Residual Landfilling  747,600,000  litres  per  year  (  89%)  Source Separated Recycling with Residual Incineration  264,600,000  litres  per  year  (  31.5%)  types  of  toxicity  of  the  material  can  be  residue  is  no h i g h e r  Therefore, the  Flows  the  assumed  Collection  equal,  than  leachate  externalized  A  leachate  water  that  flows  collection  and  all  since of  raw  that refuse  represent  pollution  and Treatment  from  from  landfilled incinerator  (Atwater,  comparable  1980).  values  for  costs.  Costs  treatment  system  for  the  leachate  comprises: landfill  liner  with  adequate  preparation  and  installation; -  aerated  lagoons  additional reduce  reduce  filtration  potentially  (Lee,1979).  to  toxic  BOD a n d C O D ; through  substances  "carbon to  polishing"  non-toxic  to  levels  1 48  Omitted piping  from and  the  following  pumping  of  the  cost  calculation  leachate  from  are  the  the  costs  landfill  for  to  the  lagoons. Cost a)  Calculation: Landfill  comm.  Mr.  least  L.  a  a  10,890,000  cost  of  $16,335,000;  staggered  installation  b)  per  at  4% p . a . )  over  per  present to  lagoon  treatment:  Lee  (1979)  Imperial  gallons  time,  resulting  in  BOD r e m o v a l  COD r e m o v a l  effeiciencies  of  over  (including  capital  operating  detention  and  leachate  amounts  to  Present  valued  over  c)  year  or  years, Summary a)  $0.56  Additional  gallons  an  twenty  (pers.  area  of  at  year  life  of  a  yearly  value  of  $11,099,899  1000  average  the  payments,  the  amounts  for  foot  sgft  equal  Thus,  square  or  cost the  an  of  liner  average  of  the  at  tonne.  Aerated  $0.93  twenty  ensues.  (discounted $2.64  and  per  installed  or  landfill,  $816,750  GVS&DD),  $1.50  m2,  total  Assuming  approximately  Hayton,  1,000,000  equals  the  liner:  to  carbon  per  90%.  at  recommended  efficiencies The  total  costs)  $0.83  years  polishing:  treatment tonne  polishing  Leachate  Collection  20  or  the  for  per  4%,  cost  day  99%  and  treatment 840,000  tonne  this  of  10  of  treatment  cost m3  of  refuse. costs  on  tonne.  carbon the  $0.36  of  per  $173,600  at  estimates  of  adds  process. refuse  comes  Treatment $2.64  to  $0.40 This  p.a. $0.24  per  amounts  Present per  tonne  Costs: per  tonne  1000  refuse  to  Imperial  $75,000  valued  over  disposed.  per 20  1 49  b)  Lagoon  Treatment  $0.56  per  tonne  refuse  c)  Carbon  Polishing  $0.24  per  tonne  refuse  $3.44  per  tonne  refuse  Total  present  This  is  the  a  low  leachate  dependent, are  not  may  estimate,because  from and  the  are  be  Finally,  J.  Atwater,  Proportionately, other  disposal  -100%  the  options  residual  with  1.2.2  Air  residual  here.  this  piping  lagoons  and  are  Furthermore,  suggested  eliminate  pumping distance  liner  treatment  ammonia  from  costs  process  the  leachate  1984).  costs  (35%)  for  :  leachate  collection  for  the  $1.12  to  $1.20  per  tonne;  Recycling  landfilling  -Source-separated  the  for  are:  incineration  -Source-separated with  to  costs  to  included  sufficient  comm.  the  landfill  not  capitalized.  not  (pers.  value  (89%)  :  $2.89  to  $3.06  per  tonne;  (31%):  $1.00  to  $1.07  per  tonne.  Recycling  incineration  Pollution  Assumpt i o n s Air exceeding  pollution the  emissions  same  energy  waste  disposal  compares  sbems  production,  the  facility  from from  incinerator conventional  however, (see  emissions  add  Chapter from  a  to  emissions. energy the  III). modern  Only  sources  social The  costs  those  for  the  of  the  table  below  mass-burning  grate  1 50  incinerator  with  electrostatic conventional  a  waterwall  precipitator boilers  Emissions  boiler to  (US-EPA,  and  the  1973,  equipped  emission  and  O'Connell  with  an  levels et  al.,  Gas  of 1982):  Munic i p a l  Natural  Fuel  Oil  Inc i n e r a t o r  Boiler  Boiler  l b s / m i o BTU  l b s / m i o BTU  l b s / m i o BTU  Particulate  0.038  0.0171  0.053  SOx  0.267  0.00057  1 .06  NOx  0 . 1 78  0.22  0.7  Hydrocarbons  0.013  0.0029  0.013  HCl  0.38  (incl. )  (incl.)  T a b l e XV - C o m p a r i s o n o f M u n i c i p a l S o l i d W a s t e Incinerator Emissions with Conventional Fuel B o i l e r Emissions; Source:0Connell, Stotler, and C l a r k , 1 9 8 3 and US-EPA, 1972  For  all  emissions  incinerators and  fuel  oil  show  filter  the  emissions  at  an  overall  incineration $1.25  per  incinerators  boilers  for  ppb) been  have  been  confirmed  can  efficiency be  (pers.  tonne.  modern  the  an  reduced  additional  metric  between  are  detected  in  rating to  those  comm.  listed  Mr.  of  a  above.  natural  95%  10%  emission from  Traces  of  emissions  combustion  gas dry  for H C l ,  equal  levels  of  Mechler,  those  MSW  chemical  about  of  W. the  than  incinerator  conventional  of  cost  overall,  no h i g h e r  of  (HCl),  approximately  financial  Thus,  emissions  in  levels  acid  Through i n s t a l l a t i o n  with  cost  hydrochloric  emission  boilers.  scrubbing HCl  except  the  1984),  rates  or  from  conventional dioxins  and  systems.  ( < 10  have Even  not if  151  municipal dioxins  solid than  dose-response as  of  yet.  waste  incinerators  conventional  fuel  characteristics  of  Therefore  social  costs  effects  must  is be  not  a  were  boilers, dioxins  prediction  possible.  included  found  of  The  the in  the  risk  to  produce  dispersal  humans  damage of  or  are  more  and  not  the  the  category  of  of  the  production  known  ensuing  dioxin-caused  in  the  health  risk-uncertainty  :  effects.  2.  NON-MONETIZED  2.1  Ecological  2.1.1  main  of  difficult  pollution  to  (paper,  measure Stanley  control  savings  of  prices  the  into for  than the  created  (1981)  respective pollution  virgin production  recyclables.  processes  and  which  those  Associates in  glass,  effects as  reducing  rather  internalized market  items  multifarious  facilities.  recycled  Costs  externalities  recyclable  number  cost  Effects  Replacement  The  COSTS  use  steel)  are by  waste  the  energy  emissions  costs  and  disposal savings  estimate  these  a  equally  through  But are  to  three  comprise  probably  industries  materials.  for  of the  reusing costs  reflected  in  are the  1 52  2.1.2  Damage  All  four  landfill  in  rivers  study  inlets.  fauna of  and  the  peat  location  mining.  leachate  would  Bog  landfill Peat  Bog,  these the  sites  Lower  new  area  site was  have  see  have  Mainland.  But  since  the  pure  A),  the  the  required  land  valuation  unique  price  of  the  under that  only  along  in Delta)  Burns total  is  Bog  ,  impact  on  I),  and  hence  of  the  is  bog  value in  determine  the be in  Langley one  of  area  in  perceived  special  by  proposed  any  discussed.  primarily  would  Bend,  references  be  the  of  reduced  newspaper will  use  that  bogland  of  (Surrey  habitat  ha  the  some  the  bog  130  of  because  disturbed  premise  only  boglands  the  the  3%  critically  will  in  already  although  factor  area  that  area  made  in  (see  this  landfill  an  Chapter  not  be  areas  landfill  landfill  and  been  would  above  in  Therefore,  to  Bog  completed  (AIM C o n s u l t a n t s , 1 9 8 3 ) ,  constitutes  Meadows,  residents  recently  low-lying  indicated  collected  would  some  new  minimal  statement  alone.  Pitt  (Burns  a  GVS&DD,  the  be  This  sites  of  w o u l d be  This  landfilled. Burns  the  of  one  in  one  bog.  impact  by  flora  a  and  located  Only  in  the  commissioned  landfills  GVS&DD a r e  located on  Habitats  operating  the  and  actually A  To U n i q u e  over  by and  Appendix  The the  size  of  level  of  ef f e c t s . Recreational circumstances curve, can  be  and  the  if  user  with  the  visitors'  determined. origin  the  of  This the  values  can  be  Clawson-Knetsch  determined  under  certain  travel-derived  demand  travel  distances  from  requires  knowledge  of  visits.  For  large  bog  home  the  areas  to  access in  the  the  bog  points GVS&DD  1 53  these  data The  are  measurement  opinion  and  achievable fairly  common  value such  in  are  a  and  the  obtain.  the  (1975)  of  the  alternative  way  that  the  use  and  point  out  uses  benefits  values  might  relative  income  elasticity  and  rise  in  And  specific  pertaining  -the  value  to  the  exact  of  environmental that  the  well  only  habitat  is  values  no  change  of  would  environmental  use,  relative  over  will  under  possibility result  amenity  expected  use  increase  uncertainties  GVS&DD a r e  incinerator  time  in  decrease,  conditions  of  augmentation  of  be  an  amenity  expected  over  time.  of  trace  incinerator  solid  waste  management  few:  o.f  leachate  residue  may  dioxin  stacks  conventional  dioxins  all  exact  in  toxicity  result  in  a  are  unknown,  different  type  toxicity;  whether  -the  land  perceptional  economic  The  the  effects  effects  waste  these  bog  probably  Uncertainties  leachate  -the  humans.  recognized  although of  by  relative  2 . 2 Risks  The  area  Since  might  of  amenity  habitat  and  public  high.  whereas  the  (research,  difficult  Mainland,  landfilling Fisher  more  values  techniques.  Lower  very  perceived  is  survey  not  comparing  Krutilla  of  to  existence)  through  presumably In  difficult  are  energy  emissions  from  municipal  unknown;  also  it  sources  have  not  solid  is  uncertain  been  producing  along; social  costs  of  producing  replacement  goods  for  154  disposed of  the  -the  articles  real  are  of  is  -the  is  the  landfill -  very  to  the  to  facility  but  value in  bound  (i.e.  the  of  the  lower  yet;  unique  small,  increase  of  a  exact  such  bog) effects  habitats,  future;  can  mitigate  the  effects  of  have  surfaced  in  response  to  Effects  and  Surrey  Thou  Bend,  opposition  the  facilities  -in  Delta  expected the  Oct.10, to  solid  furthermore although within  1980)  that  as  of  staff  economical  boundaries  of  those  Island  proposal  municipality for  resisting  Appendix  to  the  A);  of  the "a  affected  should  accepting GVRD"  more  location  strong  Municipality  community  throughout  while  indicated  obligation  that  the  in  local  (NIMBY)  reason'  (Report  suggested  Polder,  effects  the  single  moral  generated  less  Pitt  references  "no  the  was  and  local  municipal  grounds  waste  perhaps the  and  assume  it  (THOU)  newspaper  the  Bog  representatives  inequity  mayor  on  Peat  immediate  and  (see  the  opposition  the  members  regional  Delta,  Langley  opposed  council  cited  of  be  as  as  proposals:  residents  of  facilities  environmental  of  only  incidents.  Nimby  in  the  determined  areunavai'lable  to  estimated  Distributional  Both  be  disposal  location  unforeseen  but  judged  unknown;  however,  2.3  costs,  damage  habitats  can  can  be 100%  (pg.3); desirable, be  found  municipalities  "  (pg.3). -  the  Texada  site  was  opposed  purely  on  the  1 55  grounds caused  of by  Islands' this NIMBY The  THOU  industrial  a  of  has  located  area.  form  site  for  THOU  disamenity.  strong  shown  Magorian,  near  to  next  to  two  to  while  not  the  opposition. of  NIMBY This  existing  residents  incinerated;  for  reduce  was  be  sources  1982).  Coquitlam l a n d f i l l  the  GVS&DD,  motives  facilities  been  to  the  elsewhere  very  and  disamenity  barged of  noxious  why t h e  was  landfill was  been  (Morell  explanantion site  pure  have  effects  resistence  this  hosting  the  location  external  distributional  garbage  is  and  the  is  similar  and a  opposed landfills  THOU  possible in  1975; in  an  1 56  3.  SUMMARY OF T H E S O C I A L  COSTS  OF S O L I D WASTE MANAGEMENT  FACILTIES  The  social  summarized  in  the  methods  and  the  totalled  for  each  summarized  in  Under  the  lowest  social  at  disposal  brief  the  resources  minus  determines  the  to  substant i a l l y .  with  the  sections  the  The m o n e t i z e d  method;  about  are  measurement  cost  non-monetized  per  cost to  $2  items costs  are are  of  the  this  tonne,  The  difference  are  the  of  to  can  costs (about  society  effort, change  the  significant  undertaking  separation  the  source-  incurs  most  recyclables  value  citizens  while  landfilling  tonne.  inconvenience of  i n c i n e r a t i o n causes  per  separate  perception the  100%  residual  $13  the  valuation  among  made.  with  necessary  Since  perception  of  approximately  effort  preceding  along  assumptions,  recycling  extra  the  descriptions.  costs  contributing  in  below  assumptions  factor  tonne).  calculated  matrix  postulated  separation highest  costs  a  for  the  $8  per  of  saving  the  effort  shift this  in cost  Externality Landfilling and T r a n s f e r Station Monetized  Social  Measurement S-S R e c y c l i n g with Residual Landfilling  Method  S-S R e c y c l i ng w i t h Res i dua1 I n c i n e r a t i on  Costs  Nu i s a n c e -odor,no i se, v i sual  $0. 98  $2:81  -source-separation  Health -water  Disposal Technology Incineration  $0.87  $2 .  -  E f f e c t s are proport i o n a t e t o t h e mass o f landfilled material; transfer station effects equal incinerator effects  $8.02  $8 .02  50% o f h o u s e h o l d s separate v o l u n t a r i l y : o t h e r s v a l u e time a t minimum wage r a t e :  pollution:  •leachate  production: 840.000  -collection  and treatment $3.20 to $3.44  - a i r p o l 1 u t i on -HC1 f i l t r a t i o n  Sub T o t a l : Monetized Costs  294.000  m3  74 7.600  m3  264.600  m3  amount o f l e a c h a t e i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e t o mass 1 andf i11ed:  costs: $1 . 12 to $1.20  costs  per tonne $6.01 to $6.25  m3  $2 . 89 to $3 .06  11 .00 to 11 .07  11.10  $1 . 25  disposed $3.35 to $3.43  $13.51 to $13.58  $10.99 to $11.06  MSW i n c i n e r a t o r emissions are comparable to t h o s e p r o d u c e d by conventional b o i l e r s , e x c e p t f o r HC1 emissions;  Non-monetized  social  costs  Ecological effects -replacement of disposed materials -damage t o u n i q u e h a b i t a t s -recreational value - s c i e n t i f i c value -option value -existence value  D i s t r i b u t i ona1 -NIMBY:  - THOU  -Risk  - a l l methods r e q u i r e l a n d f i l l c a p a c i t y and h e n c e c a n c a u s e h a b i t a t damage;  - l i k e l y t o be v e r y s t r o n g immediate v i c i n i t y o f t h e disposal facilities;  Damage i n p r o p o r t i o n to capacity required: environmental amenity; value l i k e l v to r i s e in the f u t u r e ;  i n the  -very s t r o n g i n communities h o s t i n g r e g i o n a l d i s p o s a l f a c i l i t i e s which a c c e p t r e f u s e from o t h e r m u n i c i p a l i t i e s ; and U n c e r t a i n t y - e f f e c t s of d i o x i n emissions a r e not s u f f i c i e n t 1 y we 11 understood;  - s o c i a l c o s t s a v i n g s due t o reduced p o l l u t i o n c o n s t i t u t e a lower bound o f t h e r e a l social costs;  - t h e damage t o u n i q u e h a b i t a t s i s s m a l l , b u t i t s v a l u e i s l i k e l y t o grow in the f u t u r e ;  1 59  3.1  Discussion  A  study  of  incinerators the  total  ton  as  shown inc  social  to  extend  $8  of  ton  for  blocks  of  55  Rudzitis,  landfilling  per  3 city  and  costs  landfills  1976)  amount  to  concludes  $0.07  incineration.  from  landfills  and  and  7  that  (1970)  per  The  effects  are  20  miles  from  obtain  them  inerators.  warrent -  -  results  some no  of  ground  upon  or  surface  completion, type  the  of  with  equipment  water  made  pollution  were  and  after  reflected costs, reasons,  energy  in  to  occurs  the  the  property  results  costs, can  facilities  air  the  to  or  risk be  the  in  the  as  a  and  result  used;  basically  modern  the  only  a  filtration  and  proximity  environmental of  pollution be  lower  than  GVS&DD  in  a  with 1984.  the  from  landfill from  those all  etc.  For  social  a  from  costs  unperceived  uncertainty,  compared  on  the  costs.  emissions  ignores  e.g.  of  leachate  construction  analysis  values,  not in  of  shown  Finally,  ecological  disposal  is  production  costs  Also, been  value  reflect  the  higher  have  boilers.  the  reclaimed  recovery  to  neglect  completion.  in  is  studied  property  assumed  the  incinerator oil  landfill  incinerator  changes  landfills,  the  no  assumptions  fuel  assumptions  involved;  landfills  modern  the  landfilling;  furnace,  These  and  remarks:  the  for  Hwang,  costs  opposed  to  environmental  (Hockman,  These  site  the  not  health these costs  1 60  In  the  1976  monetized  costs  valuation  of  Chapter For  a  values  relative  figures. The those  opportunity  costs  and  of  which  at  reliable  finally,  will  be  for of  discussed  which  due  which  basic  the  process in  the  value  next  found  in  social  costs.  these  social  indication  that  determined than  with  the  WTP  a  partial  effort  is  necessary  for  damage,  which  surveys  cognitive  limited  to are  could biases,  because  valuation etc.)  could  damage  THOU)  extensive and  value  (e.g.  and  first,  of  the  (e.g.  resulting  in  judgment.  effects in  or  strategic  possible  (WTP)  categories:  NIMBY  only  of  research.  large  valuation  facts  effects, in  to  some  three  bound,  (e.g.  results  is  different  those  non-monetized  decision-making  lower  for  however,  are  into  As  of  elements  second, and  bounds  further  fall  estimates  savings.  cost  a  long-term biases  a  cost  there  with  those  knowledge  cognitive The  warrents  the  willingness-to-pay  lower  albeit  perceptional  risks,  social  measures  least  thesis,  methods,  unless  of  question  purely  of  disposal  demanded  habitats),  lack  the  useful,  unique  and  constitute  magnitudes  established,  provide  this on  non-monetized costs  for  in  based  are  This  as  all  WTP v a l u e s  compensation  be  are  comparison  costs the  III,  study  some  must  be  other  way.  chapter.  entered Some  into  the  possibilities  161  V.  1.  CONCLUSIONS,  AND RECOMMENDATIONS  SUMMARY AND R E S U L T S  The total in  RESULTS,  purpose  of  financial  the  order total  and  Greater  to  thesis  social  is  costs  to  of  Vancouver area.  select  costs  this  disposal  and  the  solid This  methods  reduce  assess  and  and  waste  disposal  analysis  sites  compare  is  which  probability  of  the  methods  essential minimize  local  in the  community  opposition. Chapter the  I  gives  historical  area,  the  an  background  Greater These  solid  management  regard  to  In and  the  costs  per The  the  first  In  valuation  requirements available the  costs  tonne  section effects  (transfer  depots).  end of  data the  the  the of for  waste  Sewage  other  are  p r o b l e m and disposal  and  in  areas  with  in  study  District  the  North  reviews the  Drainage  compared  urban  available of  compared  metric  external  question  the  and  in  the  trends  America  in in  methods.  II,  financial  calculated  solid  developments  disposal Chapter  of  Vancouver  (GVS&DD). waste  i n t r o d u c t i o n to  four  on  for of  20  suitable basis  years  III  the  waste  stations,  externalities  are  chapter.  are  describes disposal  the  summarized  reviewed  methods  valued  criteria  The in  and  are  disposal  categorizes  facilities  incineration,  reviewed  decision-making.  sources  present  are  operation.  landfills, section,  methods  disposal  of  of  Chapter  of  second  the  disposal  in  a  recycling  and methods light  selected valuation  in  of  for the  methods  and  matrix  at  1 6 2  In  Chapter  performed. comprise  The  Chapter  section  and  draws  social  costs  for  planning  in  followed,  in  analytical  social  research.  the  results  monetized  This  the  IV,  and  assessment are  compiled  conclusions  cost  are four,  the  Implications  established by  valuation  tabular  in  costs  costs form  in  the  significance and the  suggestions and  external  is and  elements.  total  regarding  second.  process  section  the  the in  non-monetized cost  summarizes  the  of  first  of  the  recommendations third for  recommendations  the for  section, role  of  further  1.1  Comparative  The disposal the  Waste  comparison for  following  a  Disposal  of  the  capacity  disposal  Systems  financial of  210,000  and  social  metric  costs  tonnes  was  of  waste  based  systems:  /ooX>  Figure  /cor.  40  -  100%  Landfilling  J 3S%  Figure  41  -  100%  Incineration  /Pa /e>  Figure  42  -  Source-Separation Recycling Landf i l i i n g  //%  Figure  43  -  Source-Separation Recycling Inc i n e r a t ion  with  Residual  /aw*/////  with  Residual  on  1 64  The the  financial  Chapter cost  IV).  for  The and  each  20 y e a r s  Disposal  costs costs  elements  costs for  total  of  for  the  (see  Chapter  summary  the  total  disposal operation  Method F inancial Costs per metr i c tonne  four  systems II)  and below  of  monetized  the  system. and  discounted  Monet(zed Soc i a 1 Costs per metr i c tonne  social  contains  at  4%  $20.75  Inc1neration(100%)  $12.50  $3 . 43  $ 15.93  Source-Separation R e c y c 1 i ng w i t h Residual L a n d f i l l i n g  $13.00  $13.58  $26.58  Source-Separation $11.25 R e c y c l i ng w i t h Residual Incineration  $ 11.06  $22.31  are  by  adding  costs  the  and  Total Monet i z e d Costs per metr i c tonne  $6 . 25  -  obtained  A l l costs  $14.50  XVIII  the  matrix  Landf i 1 1 i n g ( 1 0 0 % )  Table  are  (see  individual  non-monetized present  valued  p.a.  Non-monet i z e d Social Costs  ecological x  Summary M a t r i x f o r T o t a l C o s t s D i s p o s a l i n t h e GVS&DD  r i sk  di s t r i but i o n a l  d i ox i ns ( 1.0)  dioxins (0.89)  of  SoTid  x  Waste  1 65  2.  CONCLUSIONS  2.1  Cost  2.1.1  Comparison  Financial  The  financial  recycling at  with  $11.25  per  expensive to  the  much  And S o c i a l  at  cost  $87  analysis  residual  indicates  incineration  to  be  source-separated  the  cheapest  metric  tonne,  while  $14  metric  tonne.  These  which  showed  incineration  per  GVS&DD e s t i m a t e s as  Costs  per  tonne  landfilling  compared  with  is  results  method  the  most  are  contrary  to  cost  as  $25  per  landfilling  at  tonne. The social 100%  direct costs  20%  50%  of  costs  total  social  the  of  solid  on  the  inherent  the to  could  a be  and  disposal  costs. bound  costs  and  costs,  be  method  and  recycling  and  and  the  the  social  a  be  the  sizable  cost  included  into  per  metric  is  non-monetized the  the  tonne.  consideration  identifying  in  process.  incineration  $16.00  and  costs,  than  decision-making 100%  amount  monetized  greater  should  taken  monetized  (for  Since of  monetized 27%  costs  constitute  therefore  can  the between  disposal  approximately  of  range  substantially  planning  costs  and  source-separated  lower  social  at  costs  financial  only  combinations  each  (for  monetized  method  financial  monetised  costs  non-monetized  comparing  the  social  the  management  expensive The  the  total  The  total  waste  Based  of  costs  element  of  104%  represent  costs.  least  and  the  financial  the  that  landfilling)  to  social the  shows  incineration)  residual to  comparison  by  costs  trade-offs:  166  Disposal  Method  Total Monet i z e d Cost D i f f e r e n c e f r o m mean p e r annum ($4,494,000)  Non-monet i z e d Social Costs  ecological disposal potential of for habitat resources damage Landf i 1 1 i n g  (100%)  136,500  1 .0  1 .0  -$1,148.700  1 .0  0. 35  Source-Separat ion R e c y c l i n g wi t h Residual Landfilling  +$1,087.800  0. 89  0.89  Source-Separat ion R e c y c l i n g wi t h Residual Incineration  +$  0. 89  0.3 1  Incineration  Table  Since $5  per  (100%)  XIX  the  -$  -  C o m b i n a t i o n s of Social  difference  tonne  191,100  from  in  the  the  distributional  d1 ox i ns (1.0)  d i ox 1ns (0.89)  M o n e t i z e d and N o n - M o n e t i z e d Costs  monetized  mean,  r 1 sk  costs  is  between  non-monetized  plus  costs  or  minus  cannot  be  disregarded. Based are  found  on to  the  be  analysis  of  concentrated  in  benefits  and  the  financial  among  region's  residents.  the  distribution  of  the  distributed  benefits  benefits  larger  social result  are costs in  in  forgone  the  social and  than  the  spatial  the  are  graph  costs  total  host-community to  the  below  the  shows to  the  Although  the  can  prevent  whole  region.  costs  whereas more  costs.  costs,  social  distributed  relative  financial  the  benefits  host-community,  costs The  impacts,  evenly spatial evenly  the  concentration the  the  rfacility  total of and  167  Figure  Since the  44  local siting  planning  -  D i s t r i b u t i o n of B e n e f i t s and C o s t s Waste D i s p o s a l Facilities  resistance  has  proven  process,  the  main  process  is  host-community's social  costs  the  be  the  issue  to  tradeoff  perception  reflected  to  in  the  main be  between  of  of  Solid  deterrent  addressed  efficiency  inequitable  and  distribution  distributional  effects  in  of  (NIMBY  to the the the and  THOU). 2.2  Equity  And E f f i c i e n c y  Unfortunately, inequity  costs  objective and  In  were  method  efficiency  no  suitable  found  of  to  be  determining  costs  the p a s t ,  Tradeoffs  undertaken  following  the  landfills  based  municipal this  on  a  the  allegedly  Nor  relative  of  is  weighting  measuring there  of  any  inequity  1976). council  weighting  recommendations  methods  accurate.  (McAllister,  the  implicitly  analytic  of  in the  lower  or  the  favor  GVS&DD  of  staff  Board  has  efficiency  by  and  financial  implementing costs.  Yet  1 68  there  are  strong  costs  (i.e.  the  efficiency of  and  sites  Crider,  1976;  1982,  This  Pushchak to  where  THOU  in  and  and  decisions  risk  to  in  than  the  choice  general Wolpert,  Bealer,  and 1973;  Martin  and  1983).  the  sites  pertaining  1981,  and  heavily  (Mumphrey a n d  Burton,  landfill  more  facilities  Bealer,  for  distributional  weigh  noxious  hold  (i.e.  the  particular  Crider  seems  communities  in  that  costs)  for  facilities  McAllister,  and  equity  considerations  methods  disposal  indications  GVS&DD  were  too;  residents  proposed  distributional)  in  indicated  effects  all  NIMBY  as  reasons  for  not  served  by  opposition. As  a  result,  disregarding waste costs  the  perceive  resist  especially  rejected  the  and  communities.  locations waste  and  capacity.  if  first  This The  to  be  the  public  costly  the  of  costs  of  process  proponent  and  costs  the  are  the  often often  operations  ends  Once a  to in  to  the  facility  imposed  reverts there  with  of  they is  without  process  increasingly  back  social  This  facility  failure  solid  if  unfairly.  siting  proposals  benefits  burdened  <.di s t r i b u t e d  participation.  series  is  reject  community,  extends  the  residents  possibly  costs  for  by  facility.  and  likely  possibility  lengthy  because  the  efficiency  distribution  disposal, will  overall  to  has  the been  becomes  a  sensitive locate  the  to  existing  accomodate  additional  1 69  3.  IMPLICATIONS  The  consideration  external  effects  included  in  the  significance  deserve findings  of  this  community  groups  spatial  valued  more  very  and  the  lengthy  better  served  by  because  foregoing  constitutes acceptance, benefits through the  sizable methods  in a  a  the  the  of  and  social  waste  to  costs  present.  The  citizens  costs  perceived  does  effort  not  be  and  effects  are  be  the  and  apparently distributed  In  found This social  with  achieving  of  order  is  the  disposal to  gain  balance basically  costs  facilities.  in  social  will  efficiency  obtaining  to  the  opposition  into  benefits  disposal  deal  Overall  and  cost.  host-community.  the  the  external  social  be  description,  external  that  the  costly.  dispersed  of  of  citizen  facilities  redistribution  benefits  are  process  must  to  must  demonstrated  The  the  the  benefits.  putting  disposal  up  by  facilities  costs. of  PROCESS  caused  their  indicate  distribution,  siting  to  made  The  they  the  facility  of  also  planning  their  acceptance  been  perceptive  if  to  due  valuation  distribution.  relation if  has  costs  disposal  total  and  thesis  are  waste  the  than  negatively  in  Thus,  to  FOR T H E P L A N N I N G  social  process  measurement effort  their  the  solid  relative  more  unfairly  of  of  planning  categorization,  costs  AND RECOMMENDATIONS  the only  make is  voluntary benefits facilities voluntary costs  and  possible  proportion  to  170  3.1  Methods  For  There  are  redistributing  Obtaining  two the  waste-generating costs  by  3.1.1  to  waste  waste  generator  proportion  to  and  wider  external  effects  required  to  carry has the  of  the  be  Costs  such  especially  in  hazards the  more  own  and  refuse  social  social the  would  mean  that  every  stream.  dense  urban  This areas,  health  level  each  in  of  and  benefits.  dispersal  of  the  municipality  within  its  for  were  boundaries  and  disposal.  This  drawbacks: inequity  areas  absolute  higher  number  would.still  effects, harmful  economies  the  the  way  public  costs  urban  the  a  waste  equitable  if  populated  -  among  externalities  stipulated  achieved  its  to  -  potentially  by  requiring  kind  negative the  regionally  of  by  in  to  and  financial  external  either  Rind  facilities  reducing  be  -  in  effects  an  while  externalities  thus  could  In  negative  submit  kind  redistributing  contribution  intra-community  highly  goal:  in  residents  affected  serious  several  by  affected  Social  her  dispose  the  or  impossible,  However,  option  Of  or  causing  convenience,  externalities  disposal  his  this  extra.  would  practically  without  thus  pay  the  Acceptance  achieve  households,  redistribution  relocating  to  negative  Redistribution  A  is  ways  compensating  beneficiaries  Voluntary  of  thus  in  remain  the  distribution  exposing  the  have  to  (NIMBY);  would of  of  probably  their  population  more  to  the  individuals  to  effects; scale  of  large  facilities  would  be  lost;  171  these  cost  savings  additional  cost  which  in  -  suitable  the  turn  equally space  of  often  necessary  installing  reduce  external  sites  among  for  are  and  the  expensive  conditions  users  justify  pollution  the  controls  effects;  region's  landfills,  to  are  not  distributed  municipalities,  of  energy  from  e.g  adequate  incinerators,  etc . Thus,  the  unlikely is  redistribution  due  to  especially  have  true  considered  systems 1983,  (see  and  North  equitable result  imposing  for  to  be  extra  proportion  Shore  a  reduction separation  dealt  required with  in  North  disposal  (only  ways.  some  of  the  10%  disposal  to  and  recycling Proposal,  be  social  waste  residents not  The  through roughly  politically in  favor,  reduce  The e q u i t y  facilities  most  costs.  stream  Although  15%).  the  beneficiaries  r e c y c l i n g does by  This  municipalities  might  on a l l  the  highly  1983).  total  of  is  Incineration  benefits. 56%  kind  suburban,  recycling  the  in  considerations.  Shore  efforts  (with  residual other  in  their  source-separated  substantially  some  R e c y c l i n g Program,  Chapter  the  areas;  1981,  acceptable  stream  efficiency  redistribute  to  effects  individual  marginally I),  and  urban  smaller  external  source-separated  way  would  equity  Doughton,  Mandatory  in  both  of  remain  the  waste  costs  and  see  must  of be  1 72  3.1.2  Redistibution  Adequate (including obtaining  compensation  voluntary by  and  various  potential  in  with  offered. available for  that  society  transferrable  to  to  then  reduce  Several  and  a  the  is  Wolpert,  it  the  required  conditions  the  social  when  based  higher  on  risk  1977, is  among the  of  of  errors  compensation  the  and  of  costs  costs  acceptance  1969),  types  overcome  auctioning  accepts  and  the  the  while  if best  striving  indications risks  if  than  this  effects  voluntary  is  of  been  process to  If  has  compensation  order  that  analysis.  equity  process  in  voluntary  method  O'Hare,  auctioning  out  a  effects  various  adequate  or  (Starr,  for 1973,  greater  voluntarily on  used  therefore,  project  as  facilities  determining  that,  localized  effects)  The  are  Compensation  of  noxious  points  gaining in  placed  tend  costs  for  involuntarily  facilities,  risk  bidding  O'Hare  concludes  method  bearers  of  analytically  cost-efficiency  correct  a  Through  host-communities  social  He  and  1983).  by  facilities.  estimating  the  authors  Burton,  established  noxious  to  (Mumphrey a n d  usually  difficulties  Costs  acceptance  numerous  facilities  Pushchak  Social  distributional  suggested noxious  Of  are  those  tenet of  is  noxious  acceptance  will  compensation.  must  be  met  to  make  the  bidding  process  workable: -  the  level and  proponent  of  of  safety  site  detailed submitted  public  proposals design to  the  the  project and  (Farkas, features  must  health  precautions  1982); and  potential  demonstrate  for  the  this known  in  -an  adequate  the  design  purpose, risks  host-communities  must  with  the be the  173  request  for  the  compensation  local  scrutinize  the  level  control  -  the  an  local  interests socially After  the  can  bargain  to  establish  include  the  for  with  of  al.,  1982, be  costs,  or  more  suitable  to  choose the  the  the  must with  have the  to  risks, sufficient  proponent  body  must  to  represent  compensation  of  have  been  the  potential  compensation  and  means  offer  the  to  be  efficient.  e.g.  independant  Pushchak  while  for  the  level;  negotiating  compensation,  in  given  potential  finally,  compensation  and  be  negotiations  community  facility,  free  and  compensation  one  a  the  the  or  estimate  economically  non-monetary  board  in  bidding  and  bids  estimates,  adequate  of  have  proposals,  cost  determine  then  c o m m u n i t y must  establish of  bids;  entered,  least  package,  which  can  also  on  the  representation  1983).  etc.  (Carnes,  The p r o p o n e n t  expensive  host-community  proponent  host-communities  monitoring,  Burton,  the  would  site be  in  paid  et  would  overall adequate  compensat i o n . This inequity  bid-bargaining costs  the  minority  by -  the a  since  facility  large  some p r o b l e m s  intra-community  resolved, the  but  procedure  and  would  a  suffer  municipalities, localized  situation  (NIMBY)  the  inequity  majority  could  compensation  the  where  likely  to  reduce  the  remain:  unaffected enjoy  is  effects; a  majority  effects possibly  while this will  are  an is  not  accept affected  possible be  not  in  affected  effects;  wherein  only  one  possible  site  exists  does  174  not  allow  situation the  the is  -  the  the  in  in  according  to  used  the  level  be  the  host-community  of is  be  estimate and  of  so  the  GVS&DD, all  however,  this  because  types  of  and  spillovers  the  host-communities  of  disposal  overcome  costs  methods costs  type  of  on an  not  be  to  the  individual  basis  the  the  costs.  spatial  first,  (O'Hare,  measuring  accruing  the  of  outside  are  if,  imposed  spillover that  accruing  sum.  residents  social  the  each  social  These  to  costs  individuals  extent  externality  1977),  estimates  and  the  in  the  level  social  costs  evident. the  GVS&DD  the  requesting  bids  alternative  disposal  for  Chapter).  incinerators,  are,  the  GVS&DD.  w o u l d be  external  calculation estimate  of  site  the  the  process  facilities (see two  main  the to  installation  should  social  be  compensation  sum;  at  two  identify plans  could the  applied  for  the  the  by four  beginning landfills  and  bidding  submitted  costs  be  elements,  respectively, Thus,  could  required  diagrams  advantageous  and  effects of  the  there  although  Detailed  the  For  in  it  bid-bargain  systems  identified  the  of  the  the  disaggregated  contribution  In  the  to of  work;  for  partially  analytic  can  should  to  effects  be  paid  if  sites  compensation  can  in  to  municipalities;  boundaries  is  secondly,  happen  possible  the  drawbacks  process  to  different  political  compensation  and  of  environmental  included These  unlikely  number  facilities  bidding  four  process more  and sites  may  work,  sites.  and  the  description  with  the  requests.  serve relative  as  of  the  magnitude  of The  minimum of  the  175  social be  cost  used  the  to  elements  and  the  determine  the  distribution  affected  following could for  be  residents  distance  exposure,  e.g.  THOU,  residents  could  be  by  the  extent of  of  the  to  providing  effects  or  by  amenities  some  rate  for  effects effects,  other  perceptional  flat  among  The  nuisance  distance  could  compensation  e.g.  distance-independant compensated  the  host-communities.  functions,  according  while  or  in  decay  compensated  spatial  measure effects,  amounts  enjoyment  to  all  by  the  whole  be  chosen  commun i t y . The the  least  basis  costs  of  costly  the  whereby  constitute In  a  the  determined operating  sum o f the  initial  life  bidding  in  unknown  effects  can  contract  is  be  the  taken  into  analytical disposal procedures  be  the  costs  i.e.  20  technology,  taken  into  after  residents,  suggested  determination  for  total  derived  social  disposal  in  and  to  on  compensation  social  costs  would  compensation for  In  pollution when  initial  their  duration  years.  account  the  the  should  this  and  compensation  year  preferences  the way,  controls,  the  20  of  be  and  period. values  can  GVS&DD  incorporates  the  costs  of  and  relies  account.  process  into  costs  process,  facility,  renegotiated  changes  The  the  the  new d e v e l o p m e n t s  Also,  financial  would have  level.  cover of  system  analytically  minimum  to  disposal  a the  of  here  for  the  social  bid-bargaining basic  estimates  the  process of  social  costs.  solid on  waste  analytic  1 76  4.  R O L E OF A N A L Y T I C A L METHODS AND RECOMMENDATIONS  FOR F U T U R E  RESEARCH  The serve  social  the -  cost  planning  as  a  project as  the  a  indicator  1.  measure  a  valuation  of  the  costs  In  order  is  the  Fraser  these  2.  The  following  this  thesis  can  manner:  estimate  potential  for  the  proponent's  the  distribution  residents  of  achieve  host-communities  to  bid;  the  in  the  waste  of  according  the  compensation  to  non-localized  included  solid  the  of  the  level  effects,  compensation  goal  of  accurate  management  planning,  leachate  receiving River  entails  on  in  among  of  and  the  hence,  bid.  social the  cost  following  needed:  of  toxicity,  not  to  The e f f e c t s  This  for  as  for  for  compensation  effects;  enjoyment in  a  external  research  the  compensation  host-community  valuation  in  performed  evaluation; an  as  process  minimum  establish -  valuation  waters  Estuary,  identifying reduction  on  of  commercial  need  to  Burrard the  be  recreational  established,  Inlet  and  biological  human e n j o y m e n t  and  the  foreshore.  effects and  the  primarily  of  leachate  value  placed  losses. external  production  need  worth  recycling  of  replacement  to  costs be  of  paper,  determined and  production.  thereby This  glass  in  order  of  reducing  could  be  to  and  ferrous  metal  the  social  value the  social  accompished  by  a  costs  of  similar  1 77  study 3. in  on  the  The the  user  on  magnitude The  of  identified those  of  damages  to  bogs the  risks  be  recyclable  of  and  have  been  dioxin  effects  be  to  is  be  of  bog  the  small  habitats  effects  of  1983),  the  must  be  (AIM,  unknown. from  The  incinerators  emissions  sources  related  values  Although  emissions  energy  humans must  non-user  found  accurately.  conventional  materials.  measured.  non-user  more  to  of  (recreational)  GVS&DD n e e d  landfills  4.  production  to  must  and  the  the  worst  be  related  potential  to  health  possible  exposure  case. 5. of  The the  effects  social costs  effects  and  determined, types  of  determine 6.  The  the e.g.  are  The  spatial  important.  the  influencing  influence  the  location,  site  methods  calculating  pollution  costs  to  controls;  compare  more  perception  effects  by  to  the  external  these  measure  d i s t r i b u t i o n on  factors  technical  evaluated  is  of  with  obtain  the  benefical  to  the  of  the  produced,  of the  extent  of  perception  origin  must  be  the  of  process  used  to  external  effects  must  be  type  waste,  the  of  the  mitigating costs  of  costs  actual  suffer  valuation  the  etc.  these  maximum  their  and  can  be  used  social costs,  level the  constructing  of  costs  social than  or  and as  opportunity  as  a  costs  to  operating  at  install  surrogate which  it  pollution  controls. 7.  Compensation  establish  the  upper  demanded bound  for  measures the  should  social  "be  costs.  applied  to  1 78  BIBLIOGRAPHY  1.  AIM C o n s u l t a n t s . 1983. p r o p o s e d GVS&DD l a n d f i l l V a n c o u v e r : GVRD.  The b i o l o g i c a l impact of on B u r n s Bog i n D e l t a .  2.  Atmospheric Environment M e t e o r o l o g i c a l Summary.  3.  Atwater J. 1980. Impact of l a n d f i l l s - F r a s e r River E s t u a r y Study - Water Q u a l i t y . Victoria,B.C.: Ministry Envi ronment.  Service. 1980. Annual Vancouver: Environment  the  Canada.  of  4.  A l v a r e z R. 1978. "Municipal refuse incinerator shows s h a r p d e c l i n e i n n u m b e r s " , in S o l i d Wastes Management , N o v e m b e r 1978 ( p p 104-108).  survey  5.  Bartolotta R. 1976. " W i l l our c i t i e s crisis?", i n S o l i d Wastes Management , 39) .  6.  ibid. 1975. The M u n i c i p a l International  7.  Batelle I n s t i t u t e Columbus. 1983. An a n a l y s i s o f the d i s p e r s i o n of h y d r o c h l o r i c e m i s s i o n s from the proposed GVS&DD i n c i n e r a t o r . Vancouver:GVRD.  8.  B a u m o l W. a n d W. Oates. 1975. environmental p o l i c y . Englewood  9.  Bealer R . , K . M a r t i n , and D. Crider. 1982. Soc i o l o g i c a l a s p e c t s of s i t i n g f a c i l i t i e s for s o l i d waste d i s p o s a l . U n i v e r s i t y P a r k : The P e n n s y l v a n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y .  face a l a n d f i l l April 1976 ( p p 3 4 -  " L o c a l government s o l i d waste Yearbook , 1975. Washington, C i t y Management Association.  programs, D.C. :  in  The t h e o r y of Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.  10.  B e l l R. 1980. "The Modern A g r i c u l t u r e " .  11.  B i l i t e w s k i B. 1978. " A n s a t z zum w i r t s c h a f t l i c h e n V e r g l e i c h von m e c h a n i s c h e n S o r t i e r v e r f a h r e n fuer Haushaltsabfaelle", in Refuse Technology S e m i n a r , V o l . 1 R e c o v e r y of M a t e r i a l from M u n i c i p a l Refuse . Berlin:Technical University.  12.  B i r d and H a l e L t d . 1977. Municipal C a n a d i a n communities of over 100,000 Ottawa E n v i r o n m e n t Canada.  13.  Brown M .  14.  Brunner D. d e s i g n and  1980.  R o l e of Compost and C o m p o s t i n g Compost S c i e n c e , 1974.  Laying  waste.  in  refuse s t a t i s t i c s (1976-77)~  New Y o r k :  Pantheon  for  Books.  and D. Keller. 1972. Sanitary landfill operation. W a s h i n g t o n D . C : US-EPA S o l i d Waste  179  Management  Publication  SW-65.  15.  Bureau of M u n i c i p a l Waste M a n a g e m e n t . "  16.  Carley M. 1980. Rational techniques London: Heinemann E d u c a t i o n a l Books.  17.  C a r n e s S. et a l . r a d i o a c t i v e waste Oakridge National  18.  C i t y of Quebec. (Photocopy).  19.  C i t y of Salem, (Photocopy).  20.  C i t y of V a n c o u v e r . V a n c o u v e r : C i t y of  21.  C o a s e R. 1960. "The problem Law a n d E c o n o m i c s , V o l . I l l ,  22.  C o l a c i c c o D. 1982. "Economic B i o c y c l e , V o l . 2 3 , No. 5.  23.  C o u g h l i n R. et a l . 1973. P e r c e p t i o n s of l a n d f i l l operations h e l d by n e a r b y r e s i d e n t s . P h i l a d e l p h i a RSRI D i s c u s s i o n Paper S e r i e s No. 65.  24.  C r i d e r D. a n d R. Bealer. 1981. S i t i n g s o l i d waste l a n d f i l l s i n A m e r i c a n c o m m u n i t i e s : How c r i t i c a l ? U n i v e r s i t y P a r k : The P e n n s y l v a n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y (mimeographed article).  25.  Dear M. 1977. "Spatial externalities and l o c a t i o n a l conflict." A l t e r n a t i v e frameworks for a n a l y s i s , Massey 0. and P. Batey (eds.). London Papers. i n R e g i o n a l S c i e n c e 7: P i o n P u b l i c a t i o n .  26.  D i l l o n -M. 1983. Destruction technologies for P.CB's. Ottawa: Environmental P r o t e c t i o n S e r v i c e , EPS-3-EC-83-1 .  27.  Dorcey A. and A . R . Thompson. 1983. "Environmental Management as a B a r g a i n i n g P r o c e s s : F o r B e t t e r or W o r s e ? " , Environmental E t h i c s Research Workshop. M o n t r e a l , Quebec, November 1983.  28.  Doughton B. 1981. An a l t e r n a t i v e m e t h o d o f s o l i d w a s t e disposal f o r the C o r p o r a t i o n of the Township of Richmond. MBA T h e s i s : S i m o n F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y .  29.  Edwards  W.  Research. 1975. "The P o l i t i c s of T o r o n t o : Mimeographed Research Letter. policy  analysis.  1982. I n c e n t i v e s and the s i t i n g facilities. K n o x v i l l e : Tennessee L a b o r a t o r y , ORNL 5 8 8 0 . 1972.  Va.  1977.  in  "Steam  1977.  Sales  "Steam  of  Contract."  Sales  Contract."  1977. Goals for Vancouver. Vancouver Planning Department.  "How t o  use  of 1.  social  aspects  cost".  of  Journal  of  composting".  multiattribute  utility  180  measurement for s o c i a l d e c i s i o n making." .IEEE T r a n s a c t i o n s on S y s t e m s , M a n , a n d C y b e r n e t i c s , 7, N o . 5 , May 1 9 7 7 . in  SMC-  30.  Farkas E. 1982. T h e NIMBY Vol. 10 N o . 213, 1982.  31.  Franklin Associates. 1982. Waste P a p e r : The F u t u r e of Resource, 1980 - 2 0 0 0 . P r a i r i e V i l l a g e , Kansas: Solid Waste C o u n c i l of the Paper Industry.  32.  Freeman A . 1979. The b e n e f i t s of e n v i r o n m e n t a l improvement. B a l t i m o r e : The Johns H o p k i n s U n i v e r s i t y Press for Resources for the F u t u r e .  33.  Goepfert H. a n d R. Reimer. 1978. Kostenuntersuchungen v e r s c h i e d e n e r V e r f a h r e n zum B e s e i t i g e n von Siedlungsabfaellen. ( i n German; Cost s t r u c t u r e research on m e t h o d s o f u r b a n w a s t e d i s p o s a l ) . German F e d e r a l Environment Agency, M a t e r i a l s 6/78.  34.  Gonzales M. 1980. The L y c o m i n g C o u n t y , P e n n . landfill: C i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n s o l i d waste management. M.Sc. T h e s i s : The P e n n s y l v a n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y .  35.  G r e g o r y R. 1982. Valuing of a l t e r n a t i v e approaches. B r i t i s h Columbia.  36.  GVRD. study.  37.  ibid. 1976. Request for p r o p o s a l s for disposal services. V a n c o u v e r : GVRD.  38.  ibid. 1980. R e p o r t on a l t e r n a t i v e m e t h o d s f o r of mixed m u n i c i p a l r e f u s e . V a n c o u v e r : GVRD.  39.  ibid. refuse  40.  ibid. 1982b. L a n d f i l l l e a c h a t e and i t s treatment l a n d f i l l Gas and i t s c o n t r o l . Vancouver:GVRD.  41.  ibid. 1982c. Miscellaneous Vancouver:GVRD.  Information  on  Composting.  42.  ibid. I982d. Supplementary technology. Vancouver:GVRD.  information  on  incineration  43.  ibid. I982e. R e p o r t t o GVS&DD W a t e r a n d W a s t e Committee, October 21, 1982. Vancouver:GVRD.  44.  ibid.  197 3 . Technical Vancouver:GVRD.  Syndrome,  Vol.  non-market goods: Ph. D. Thesis:  summary  report  on  1982a. Request for p r o p o s a l s for by i n c i n e r a t i o n . Vancouver:GVRD.  1983.  "Call  for  Alternatives,  tenders:  a  An a n a l y s i s U n i v e r s i t y of  refuse  solid  disposal  waste  disposal  disposal  Construction  of  of  and  Management  a  181  temporary bulk haul  r e f u s e . t r a n s f e r s t a t i o n and for t r a n s f e r and of r e f u s e . " (mimeographed tender request).  45.  H a l l P. 1980. Great planning d i s a s t e r s . U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press.  Berkeley:  46.  Hammer T . et a l . 1971. The e f f e c t of a l a r g e urban on r e a l e s t a t e v a l u e . Philadelphia: Science Research I n s t i t u t e , RSRI D i s c u s s i o n P a p e r Series.  47.  Harrison A. Cost-Benefit Books.  48.  H a r r i s o n B. and P. Vesilind. 1980. D e s i g n and management f o r r e s o u r c e r e c o v e r y , V o l . 2 : H i g h - t e c h n o l o g y A failure analysis. Ann A r b o r : B u t t e r w o r t h G r o u p .  park  and D. Quarmby. 1972. "The v a l u e of time". A n a l y s i s , R. Layard (ed.). London: Penguin  49.  Hatry H. services? municipal  50.  Hocking M. 1975. "A chemical input-output a n a l y s i s m u n i c i p a l s o l i d waste i n c i n e r a t i o n . " The J o u r n a l of Environmental Systems, Vo1.5(3).  51.  Hockman 0 . , E.G. Hwang, and G . e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o s t s of l a n d f i l l s C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago.  52.  Kahneman D . , P . S l o v i c and A . under u n c e r t a i n t y . Baltimore: University Press.  53.  Kaller J. Vancouver:  1970. GVRD.  54.  Kaplan M. politics.  1964. System and p r o c e s s i n international New Y o r k : J o h n W i l e y a n d S o n s .  55.  Kapp, K. New Y o r k :  56.  Kaufmann decision  57.  Knetsch J. Vancouver:  58.  Knetsch J. t o - p a y and J o u r n a l of  59.  Krutilla  -  et a l . 1977. How e f f e c t i v e a r e y o u r c o m m u n i t y Procedures for m o n i t o r i n g the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of services. W a s h i n g t o n , D . C : The Urban I n s t i t u e .  Report  1971. The Schocken. G. and H . analysis.  J.  an  social  Rudzitis. 1976. and incinerators.  Tversky. The Johns  solid  costs  management.  private  Thomas ( e d s . ) . 1977. Hammondsworth: Penguin  1983. Property Butterworth.  rights  and  The  1981. Judgment Hopkins  waste  of  of  enterprise.  Modern Books.  compensation.  and J . Sinden. Forthcoming. "Willingnessc o m p e n s a t i o n demanded m e a s u r e s . " Quarterly Economics. and  A.  Fisher.  1975.  The  economics  of  182  natural environments. Baltimore: The J o h n s H o p k i n s U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s for R e s o u r c e s for the Future. 60.  Lave L . health.  and E . Seskin. 1977. A i r p o l l u t i o n a n d human Baltimore: The Johns H o p k i n s U n i v e r s i t y Press.  61.  Lee C . M.A.S.  62.  L i t t l e A. New Y o r k :  63.  Lower M a i n l a n d R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g B o a r d . R e p o r t on P o p u l a t i o n G r o w t h . Vancouver: Regional Planning Board.  64.  Margolick M. 1982. N a t u r a l gas and B r i t i s h Columbia. Vancouver:GVRD.  65.  M c A l l i s t e r D. 1976. facility location."  66.  McAllister planning.  67.  McCrae A . 1973. A study of the C a p i t o l R e g i o n a l R e c y c l c i n g Program. V i c t o r i a , B . C . : M i n i s t r y of Environment.  68.  M c l n t y r e and M u s t e l . 1982. P u b l i c o p i n i o n s on i s s u e s r e l a t e d to the M i n i s t r y of E n v i r o n m e n t . Vancouver; M c l n t y r e and M u s t e l .  69.  M e l o s i R. Wiley and  70.  Mishan Unwin.  71.  M o r e l l D. and C . Margorian. 1982. Siting hazardous waste f a c i l i t i e s , local opposition and the myth of preempt i o n . Cambridge, Mass.: B a l l i n g e r P u b l i s h i n g Co.  72.  •Mumphrey A . and J . Wolpert. 1973. "Equity c o n s i d e r a t i o n s and c o n c e s s i o n s i n the s i t i n g of public facilities." Economic Geography, Vol. 4 9 , p a g e 109 121.  73.  M u n i c i p a l i t y of D e l t a . 1980. " R e p o r t o n t h e p r o p o s e d new GVS&DD l a n d f i l l i n t h e n o r t h e a s t e r n s e c t i o n o f B u r n s Bog, October 10, 1980." (Delta: Environmental Control Office).  74.  National disposal  1979. Treatment of a Thesis: U n i v e r s i t y of  E.  municipal l a n d f i l l B r i t i s h Columbia.  leachate.  Ltd. 1982. D i o x i n from combustion sources. A m e r i c a n S o c i e t y of M e c h a n i c a l Engineers.  D. 1982. Cambridge,  1982. Sons. 1976.  1978. Lower  electricity  " E q u i t y and e f f i c i e n c y in Geographic A n a l y s i s , V o l . Evaluation M a s s . : MIT  Garbage  in  Cost-benefit  the  Technical mainland  prices  in  public 8, 1976.  in environmental Press  cities.  analysis.  League of C i t i e s . 1973. Crisis. Washington D . C :  District  New Y o r k :  John  London:Allen  and  C i t i e s and the nation's US C o n f e r e n c e of  183  Mayors. 75.  Nijkamp P. 1977. "Stochastic quantitative and qualitative multi-criteria analysis for environmental design." The R e g i o n a l S c i e n c e A s s o c i a t i o n P a p e r s , V o l . 39.  76.  O ' C o n n e l l W. et a l . 1982. " E m i s s i o n s and e m i s s i o n c o n t r o l i n modern m u n i c i p a l i n c i n e r a t o r s " J o u r n a l of A i r Pollution Control Assocciation, 1982, page 2 8 5 - 2 9 7 .  77.  O'Hare M. 1979. " N o t o n my b l o c k s i t i n g and s t r a t e g i c i m p o r t a n c e of Policy, Vol. 25, N o . 4 , F a l l 1977.  78.  Pearce  79.  P e t e r s s o n S. 1983. W i r t s c h a f t l i c h k e i t s b e t r a c h t u n g zum BRINI S y s t e m . S e m i n a r on M a t e r i a l R e c y c l i n g a n d W a s t e Treatment. B e r l i n : Technische U n i v e r s i t y .  80.  PLM M i l j o t e k n i k . 1982. Appendix to p r o p o s a l composting proposal. Vancouver:GVRD.  81.  P u s h c h a k R. and I. Burton. 1983. " R i s k and p r i o r compensation in s i t i n g l o w - l e v e l n u c l e a r waste facilities: D e a l i n g w i t h t h e NIMBY s y n d r o m e . " Plan Canada, 23:3, December, 1983.  82.  Rompre R. C o u n c i l of  83.  Sigler J. 1973. A t t i t u d e s of I l l i n o i s s o l i d waste and the e n v i r o n m e n t . Solid S e r i e s : IIEQ Document N o . 73-6.  84.  Sinden J. Decisions Sons.  85.  Solem D. and down r e c o v e r y  86.  S o l i d Wastes incinerator.  87.  S t e r n R. 1977. L o c a t i o n a l parameters for a nuisance land use: E s t a b l i s h i n g sanitary l a n d f i l l s in the urban setting. M.A. Thesis: Northeastern I l l i n o i s University.  88.  S t i c k e l b e r g e r D. 1969. P r o c e s s e s and t e c h n o l o g y refuse composting. Cologne FRD: V o i t h - M u e l l e x .  89.  Sugden  D.  R.  1979.  Waste  paper  you d o n ' t : F a c i l i t y compensation." Public  recovery.  1980. "Addendum to British Columbia."  report  Paris:  on  the  OECD.  to  GVRD  Recycling  citizens toward Waste Management  and A . Worrell. 1979. Unpriced values: without market p r i c e s . New Y o r k : J o h n W i l e y  S. Thurman. 1983. "Bay Area project." World Wastes, A p r i l Management. 1976. March, 1976.  and  A.  Williams.  Taps  1978.  for  voters 1983.  and  turn  another  in  The p r i n c i p l e s  of  1 84  practical cost-benefit University Press.  analysis.  London:  Oxford  90.  T e r e s i R. 1980. " L o o k i n g down i n t h e dumps Popular Mechanics, (January):92-95,140-144.  91.  T u r v e y R. 1963. "On d i v e r g e n c e s between private cost." Economica, V o l . XXX, No. 1 963.  92.  Tversky A. and D. Kahneman. 1981. "The framing decisions and the p s y c h o l o g y of c h o i c e . " Science, V o l . 2 1 1 , 30". January, 1981.  93.  U.S. Conference of Mayors. 1980. "Resource activities," City Currents,•Washington, D.C.  94.  US-EPA. factors.  95.  US-EPA. 1979. R e f u s e - F i r e d E n e r g y S y s t e m s i n E u r o p e : An E v a l u a t i o n of D e s i g n P r a c t i c e s . Washington,D.C:US-EPA.  96.  US-EPA. 1981. Impediments to Energy and M a t e r i a l s Recovery F a c i l i t i e s for M u n i c i p a l S o l i d Waste. Prepared by E . Manuel. Washington,D.C.:US-EPA.  97.  Walker et a l . 1980. " A c r i t i c a l r e v i e w of the performance of sewage s l u d g e c o m p o s t i n g operations." Proceedings o f N a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e on M u n i c i p a l a n d Industrial Sludge Composting. New C a r r o l t o n , M D .  98.  Walls T. 1982. " E n e r g y r e c o v e r y from mass municipal solid wastes." Resource recovery w a s t e s , S e n g u p t a S. a n d K~! Wong ( e d s . ) . Pergamon Press.  99.  Walters A. 1975. Clarendon Press.  100.  1973. Compilation Research T r i a n g l e  Noise  and  for  energy."  s o c i a l c o s t and 119, August,  of  recovery  of a i r p o l l u t a n t emission Park, N . C : US-EPA.  prices.  b u r n i n g of from s o l i d New Y o r k :  Oxford,  U.K.:  Zeiss c. et a l . 1982. " I n s e a r c h of l a n d f i l l s : The garbage dilemma i n the GVRD." Term P a p e r , F a l l 1982: S c h o o l of R e g i o n a l and Community P l a n n i n g , U n i v e r s i t y B r i t i s h Columbia.  of  185  APPENDIX  A -  NEWSPAPER A R T I C L E S R E L A T I N G LANDFILLS  The  Vancouver  Sun,  "Garbage  The  Vancouver  Sun,  "Stink  The  Vancouver  Sun,  "Families  Van  Dump",  The  Province,  "Taking  The  Vancouver  Sun,  "Delta  Sun,  "GVRD  25, The Jan. The Dec.  Jul.  29,  Vancouver 20, Globe 23,  and  Mail,  out  Legal  Garbage", Doesn't  28,  1983  2,1983  Action  to  close  North  Editorial,  want  Region's  Jan.  28,  1983  Garbage",  Jan.  $100,000  for  Garbage  Designs",  Islanders  Refuse  Vancouver's  Trash",  1982.  Province,  "Texada  The  Vancouver  Sun,  garbage  pays  "Texada  The  Vancouver  "Islanders  lose  shouldn't  "Islanders  be  Trash dump  Plea", site",  were  refused  okay  Sun,  " P o l l u t i o n case  Victory  for  Sun,  "Texada  dump",  Nov.  Dec. Nov. for  22,  1982  29,  1982.  their  own  17,1982. Citizens",  Nov.  1982. Vancouver  'garbage  island'  plan",  The  Vancouver  Sun,  The  Province,  "Islanders  Oct.  Start  Aug.  Sept.  1983  Sun,  The  Dump",  Probe",  1983  Vancouver  13,  over  faces  O P I N I O N S OF  1983  The  The  Issue  TO C I T I Z E N S  27,  residents  Nov.  out  in  force  fight  10,1982.  "Pollution admitted", protest  being  Nov. ignored  9,  1982.  over  dump  plan",  1982.  The  Vancouver  Sun,  "Islanders  t h u m p dump p l a n " ,  The  Vancouver  Sun,  "Texada  uproar  proposal",  to  Oct.  21,  1982.  in  over  Nov.  garbage  dump  9,1982.  186  The  Vancouver  dump",  Sun,  Sep.  23,  "Texada  quarries  viewed  as  GVRD  garbage  1982.  The  Province,  "Delta  to  fight  The  Vancouver  Sun,  "City  The  Vancouver  Sun,  "Crowd opposed  The  Vancouver  Sun,  "Polder  The  Vancouver  Sun,  "Delta  wary  of  The  Vancouver  Sun,  "Dumps  draw  protest",  The  Vancouver  Sun,  "Williams  The  Province,  "Petition  to  garbage",  resist  dump  asks  Jul.  waste to  plan",  Jun.  30,1982.  landfill",  Jun.  30,  opposed",  May  GVRD dump  dumps  dump  Polder  29,1982.  31,1982.  plea",  May  1982.  May  31,  1982.  27,1982.  request",  landfill  May  ban",  14,  1982.  Apr.  23,  1982. The  Vancouver  Sun,  "Polder  The  Vancouver  Sun,  "Dump  out", The  2.,  still  for a  dump",  hazard  Mar.  after  25,  being  1982. put  "We d o n ' t  want  garbage,  "Take  garbage  angry  residents  shout",  11,1982. Province,  wildlife", The  fires  site  12,1982.  Province,  Feb. The  Mar.  worst  Feb.  Vancouver  out  before  it  wrecks  homes  and  15,1982.  Sun,  "Dump s o u g h t  "Landfill  next  to  wildlife  refuge",  Feb.  1982.  The  Vancouver  Sun,  The  Province,  "Landfill  The  Province,  "Wall  The  Vancouver  Sun,  "Langley  "B.C.  of  fight  becomes garbage  renewed",  vote stirs  blasts  issue", up  Dec.  15,  Nov.  13,1981.  unrest",  garbage  dump",  Nov.  1981.  3,1981.  Oct.  29,  1981 . The  Vancouver  Sun,  The  Province,  "Langley  kills  opposes  dump  plan",  landfill",  Oct.  Oct.  23,  1981.  20,1981.  1 87  The  Vancouver  Sun,  "Maple  Ridge  rejects  dump  request",  Apr.  22,  1981. The  Province,  "Garbage  causes  The  Province,  "Airline  trash  The  Vancouver  Sun,  "Richmond  The  Vancouver  Sun,  Picture  10, The Jan.  of  pollution", worrying opposes gulls  Feb.  24,  officials", dumping",  at  1981.  Jan.  Apr.  Coquitlam  5,1981. 11,  1978.  landfill,  Feb.  1978. Province,  "Illegal  Richmond  dump  site  is  a  money  maker",  27,1978.  The  Vancouver  Sun,  "Surrey  The  Vancouver  Sun,  "GVRD  The  Vancouver  Sun,  "Landfilling  10,  1976.  The  Province,  "Delta  against  garbage  doesn't  landfill",  plan", is  want  a  Sep.  waste  region's  of  Oct. 30,  5,1976. 1976.  energy",  garbage",  Feb.  Jul.  9,1975. The  Vancouver  2,1974.  Sun,  "GVRD  landfill  site  on  Sturgeon  Banks",  Mar.  APPENDIX B - LANDFILL LEACHATE AND METHANE GAS PRODUCTION  189  APPENDIX C - COMPLAINT PATTERN: COQUITLAM L A N D F I L L - 1981 TO 1 983  1  APPENDIX D  - N U I S A N C E E F F E C T S U R V E Y OF THE GVS&DD  A.  Observation  1.  Visual  Format and C l a s s i f i c a t i o n  Perception  -appearance  of  -color: -  2.  leachate  Visual  clear,  Perception  l:clean,  Pollution:  opaque,  o i lfilm,  yes -  flow:  a.appearance  of Water  leachate:  surface:  - odor:  -  OPERATING LANDFILLS  brown,  foam,  no  weeps o r s e e p s  of  of s i t e  Site  perimeter:  vegetated  slopes;  black  IN  90  some  litter  heavy l i t t e r  cover, but no p i l e s of garbage  5:  large  piles  landfilling  of  uncovered  operation  garbage  and  actual  1 93  b.visibility  of  landfilling  1:  none  2:  trucks  and  equipment  visible  3:  trucks  and  equipment  constantly  4:  trucks  and  equipment,  visible 5:  5.  visible  garbage  and  litter  piles  of  uncovered  garbage,  working  face  and  visible  Odors  1 : no  4.  open  sometimes  constantly  equipment 3.  operations:  odor  2:  odor,  3:  garbage  4:  constant  garbage  5:  odor  enough  Smoke,  but  not  odor  bad  dust,  ash,  1 : none  exposed  2:  none  blowing,  3:  some  dust  4:  considerable  5:  continuous  of  necessarily attributable in  to  garbage  wafts odor to  take  action  to  avoid  it  exhaust of  blowing  but  freely  exposed  smoke smoke,  smoke,  dust,  dust,  or  or  intermittent  ash  at  ash  considerable  Noise 1 : no  noise  2:  occasional  3:  constant  noise  noise,  at but  perimeter not  loud  enough  to  disturb  conversation 4:  noise  equivalent  to  busy  city  streetcorner  levels  1 94  5:  noise  loud  enough  to  prevent  conversation,  or  night  noise 6.  7.  Animals  rats,  stray  1:  none  2:  occasional  animals  3:  occasional  flocks  4:  constant  5:  signs  Truck  birds  of  overhead  rats  Traffic  seldom  2:  spacing  3:  trucks  less  than  4:  two  more  trucks  5: Air  pets)  overhead  1:  less  8.  (birds,  or  than  queing  spacing >  2-5  >  minutes  minutes  2 minute of  15  every  2  minutes  arriving  at  same  time  regularly  intervals  trucks  on a c c e s s  roads  Pollution  1:  no  smell  of  methane  2:  slight  3:  frequent  smell  ,4:  constant  -smell  5:  constant  and  smell,  or  H2S  occasionally of  methane  strong  smell  or  H2S  at  or  outside  perimeter  in  195  B.  Results  Premier  Street  Ob-servation  Landfill,  North Vancouver  :  Location  df  Points:  •«••••• I •  Point  1: 1:  small  creek  from  underneath  landfill,  greenish-brown,  f oam; 2a: 2b:  1 1-2  3:3 4:3 5:2 6:3 7:3 8: Point  2-3 2:  1:  water  algae,  seeping  green  foam  from and  revegetated oil  slick  lifts,  rust  colored  no  196  Point  2a:  2-3  2b:  4-5  3:  4  4:  3  5:  4  (birds  6:  5  (seagulls)  7:  4  8:  3  trucks)  3: 1:  not  2a:  3  2b:  2  3:  1-2  4:  visible  1  5:  3-4  6:  4  7:  (birds)  1-2  8: Point  and  1 4:  1:  Oil slicks,  2a:  4  2b:  3  3:  2  4:  2  5:  3  6:  3  7:  1-2  reddish  foam  8:1  Richmond  Landfill,  Richmond  :  Location  of  Observation  F R H C RICHMOND L A N D F I L L 140 ho Proposed S i t e  Points  Point  2a:  2  2b:  4  3:  3-4  4:  2  5:  3  6:  3  7:  2  8:  1  3: 1:  Point  large  2a:  2  2b:  4  3:  3  4:  2  5:  2-3  6:  2  7:  2-3  8:  2  4:  1: 2a:  3  2b:  2  3:  4-5  4:  2  5:  3-4  6:  2  7:  1  oils  slicks,  foam p a t c h e s ,  weeps  of  leachate  8: Point  2-3 5:  1:  Port  Point  -  2a:  1  2b:  5  3:  1  4:  2  5:  3  6:  2-3  7:  2  8:  1  Mann  1:  (birds)  Landfill,  Surrey  :  Location  of  Observation  Points  200  2a:  4-5  2b:  "4-5  3:  3-4  4:  3  5:  3-4  6:  4  7:  3  8:  2  Point  2: 1:  greyish-green,  2a:  bottom,  no  oil  2-3 3-4  4:  2  5:  2)L  7:  1-2  8:  1-2  Point  see  4  2b: 3:  can  6:  2  3: 1:  layer  2a:  4  2b:  3-4  3:  4  ,4:  2  5:  4  6: 7: 8:  1-2 1 2-3  of  green-brown  sludge,  no  foam  slicks  201  Point  4:  1:  Point  stagnant  2a:  4  2b:  3  3:  3  4:  2  5:  2  6:  2-3  7:  1  8:  3  greyish-green  water,  litter  5: 1:  dark  2a:  4-5  2b:  3  3:  2-3  4:  2  5: 6: 7: 8:  1-2 1 2-3 1  brown  to  black,  oil  slicks  202  Burns  Bog  Point  1: 1:  Landfill,  dark  2a:  4  2b:  4  3:  Delta  :  Location  of  brown  3-4  4:2  Point  5:  1  6:  2  7:  3  .8:  1  2:  1:  dark  2a:  2  brown  to  black,  oil  slicks  Observation  Points  203  2b:  Point  3:  4-5  4:  3  5:  2  6:  3  7:  4  8:  1  3 1:  purplish-black,  2a:  2  2b:  2  3: 4: 5:  solid  oil  slick,  thick  brown  surface  layer,  foam  4-5 2 2-3  6:  3  7:  2  8: Point  2  1-2  4 1:  brown  2a:  4  2b:  4  .3:  5  4:  3  5:  3-4  6:  3-4  7:  3  8:  2  to  black,  foam,  oil  slick,  no  odor  204  Point  5: 1: 2a:  4  2b:  5  3:  Point  clear,  but  4-5  4:  3  5:  5  6:  4  7:  3-4  8:  2-3  6: 1:  no  2a:  4-5  2b: 3:  water  3 2-3  4:  1  5:  1  6:  2  7:  1  8:  1  brown  205  A P P E N D I X E - DATA FOR S T A T I S T I C A L A N A L Y S I S OF P R O P E R T Y V A L U E S AROUND P R E M I E R S T R E E T L A N D F I L L I N NORTH VANCOUVER A)  LYNNMOUR  -  f*LS #  SALES  -  ADDRESS  CUBS L PRICE S PRICE DTE RG RH BS BD  V95567 1132 PREMIER STREET  AT  93133 4693 HRLORY D M T  DE  - 3 5 8 8 1 1528 FERN b l k t t l  79,888  68,888 82/84  155,8ft? 155,088 82/84 18  DE  99,588  93,888 81/84 5  6 PB 3 H  PB  0  6 NB 3  \/"1666 1835 LILLOOET ROAD  fiT  87,988  82,588 81/84 18 6  3  v/86876 785 PREMIER b l k t t l  DE  89,988  78,888 81/84 24 5 B  2  _  92814 1368 E KEITH ROAD  DE  118,988 114,888 81/84 HE 6 B  3  -  78141 1328 E KEITH ROflD  DE  114,988  -  118,888 81/84 NE  5 PB 3  V34692 953 LILLOOET ROfiD  fiT  84,988  75,888 11/83 15 6  3  "-72263 1841 LILLOOET ROfiD  RP  73,988  69,883 11/83 8  2  87858 1582 FERH b l k t t l  DE  89,588  85,683 11/83 52 5 B  2  V78623 1148 PREMIER b l k t t l  fiT  39,688  83,888 11/83 13 '5  2  5  ~ 76696 1562 BOND b l k t t l  DE  91,988  88,888 18/83 5  v83128 1847 LILLOOET ROflD  RP  69,988  67,889 18/83 18 5  2  i/ES57 1212 PREMIER b l k t t l  fiT  84,988  78,888 18/83 13 6  3  V67878 947 LILLOOET ROflD  fiT  81,988  73,888 18/83 12 5  2  —76862 1346. E KEITH ROfiD  DE  95,888  88,589 18/83 15 6 PS . 3  >/62898 1136 PREMIER b l k t t l  fiT  81,888  77,888 IB/83 13 6  3  - 7 4 8 5 1 1555 FERN b l k t t l  DE  96,988  83,889 89/83 28 6 B  2  V75535 777 CsRKLL b l k t t l  DE  113,888 83,988  J  -  6 B  ^81982 1224 PREMIER b l k t t l  fiT  C€ 122,588  \/?8148 1114 PREMIER b l k t t l  fiT  84,988  83,888 88/83 13 6  3  ^7171 1852 LILLOOET ROflD  fiT 114,588  189,888 87/83 11 7  3  68349.1516.-.RifERT b l k t t l  ..-71898.1523 .BRUCE, blkttl -78611 919 LILLOOET ROfiD  88,888 89/33 13 6  3  V76414 763 ORtELL b l k t t l  V 7 1 5 3 3 : 9 « ; I I L L 0 O E T ROfiD  3  118,888 83/83 5 11 NB 5  DE  69,489  69,488 87/83 01 5 PB 3  fiT  82,988  81,888 87/83 14 6  Dt • i *y~$ j ?0S fiT  s-j f  •3  6L"D •07/83 OT 5 r ¥ - 3  £3,988  88j6§y 86/83 13 6  3  v/69868 1863 LILLOOET ROfiD  RF'  68,588  64 j 683 85/83 8  5  2  i*5784 891 LILLOOET ROfiD  fiT  3c ,88d  8bj9u3 65/83 14 6  3  fiT 187,888  188,889 85/83 11 6  3  5  2  \/*3767 1834 LILLOOET ROfiD u69785 1821 LILLOOET ROfiD  fiP  74/388  78,450 85/83 8  -57454 1597 BOND b l k t t l  DE  79,588  76,689 85/83 OT 5 B.  ^ 8 5 9 8 1885 PREMIER b l k t t l  DE  79,888  72,588 85/83 34 4 N8 2  2  -*7384 1844 LILLOOET ROflD  fiT 116,588 112,888 84/83 11 6  3  •45368 1238 PREMIER STREET  fiT  78,588  76,81$ 84/83 13 5  2  >/65fl84 984 LILLOOET ROfiD  fiT 189,888  183,888 84/83 18 6  3  ^7813 1883 LILLOOET ROflD  AT  97,988  98,888 84/83 8  DE  124,888  117,888 84/83 2  AT  79,988  DE  119,988  - 6 4 3 4 8 1547 CROHN b l k t t l —  112,588 83/83 7  5 KB 3  54387 1118 PREMIER, b l k t t l  - 62938 1529 RUPERT blkttl  6  3  5 8  2  77,589 83/83 11 4 83/83 12  6 B  1 3  2  /6183b 114? LILLGOET ROflD  JiT  ^ 8 3 7 9 1864 LILLOOET ROfiD  fil  69/988  65,888 63/83 8  5  2  189,888 83/83 18 6  3'  RT  86,888  14 6  3  *59171 1288 PREHIER SikLLi  RT  88,888 83/83 13 6  3  ^52815 83? PREMIER STREET  OE  71,868  69,888 81/83 OT 4NB  2'  1^4749 iet.6 PRERIER STREET  AT  86,888  84,888 81/83 13  b  6 HB 3  ,\J?5725 871 LILLOOET RC®  3  DE 188,588  95,888 61/83 2  ^4648 1138 PROBER blkLLI  HT  79,988  78,888 12/82 11 6  3  'Wl453 1169 LILLOOET ROfiD  AT  99,588  94,688 12/82 8 6  3  —14232 1581 BOND STREET  DE  99,588  95,888 12/82 28 5 8  2  "44567 1559 RUPERT STREET  48238 1844 LILLOOET ROfiD  v*m±  115? LILLOOET ROfiD  AT 119JBB  185,888 11/82 18 7  3  HP  77,888 '83/83 9  6  3  81,988  DE 182,88*?  95,888 82/83 NE 6 HB 3  ^51621 1548 OffORD blkht!  RT  114,888  92,888 8&<83 HE 6 HB 3  -39748 1575 HWTER STREET  DE  65,808  56,888 83/83 OT 3 HB 1  ^57865 1884 LILLOOET ROflD  RT  89,988  83,888 82/83 18 5  2  »*56K7 1825 LILLOOET RORD  BP  69,988  61,888 81/83  5  c  --51624 1538 WORD STREET  US I  ADDRESS  CLASS L PRICEfiGRH BS BD  92344 1148 PREHIER STREET  AT  77,888.14. 5  98774 1164 PREMIER STREET  AT  79,988 13 6 PB 3  99828 1216 PREMIER STREET  AT  78,988 14 6 B  3.  ,_99132 1122 PREMIER STREET  AT  78,588 14 5 B  2  96512 1153 PREMIER STREET  AT  75,988 13 6 PB 3  89547 893 LILLOOET ROflD  AT  87,988 14 6  95285 833 LILLOOET ROfiD  AT  87,580 13 6 PB 3  '94848 847 LILLOOET ROflD  AT  84/^88 i-j  6B  3  94875 1263 PREHIER STREET  AT  89,568 13 ? B  3  99895 1524 FERN STRET  If  89,588 27 4 B  2  97467 1879 LILLOOET ROflD  AT  97,588 18 6 PB 3  '93216 811 LILLOOET ROflD  AT  94,888 14 6 B  3  39413 1256 PREMIER STRET  RT  91,880 14 6 B  3  99435 1581 RUPERT STREET  DE  4B  2  , ('93925 1824 LILLOOET ROflD  RT  9^5™? 18 6FB  3  ; v*93839 1 » 2 LILLOOET ROflD  HT 185,808 11  6FB  3  | vi4423 1846 LILLOOET ROflD  AT 114,900 12 5 B  2  •w. S W r n S T I L M O E T K H T  HT 115,880 18 6 B "3  '  •  j j/85781 1868 LILLOOET ROflD | - 9 3 9 4 4 1585 RUPERT STRET -91993 136.4 E KEITH ROflD  AT 117,988 18 6  .2.  3  3  DE 129,988 6  6 PB 3  DE 122,988 1  6 PB 3  C)  WESTLYNN  -  SALES  (IS I /  ADDRESS  CLASS L PRICE S PRICE DTE AG RH BS BD  97417 1625 M O U N T A I N HW 96332 1371 ROSS ROAD 93218 2415 LftURfiLYHH DRIVE 96882 1334 E 23TH blkttl 76732 1671fiYLESLYMHDRIVE - 9 5 6 3 2 1351 B P P I N ROfiD 91:347 1417 B R I R R L Y H N CRESC '±47:3 1671 M O U N T A I N H W '91899 1322 BRIfiRLYNH CRESC '•93004 1589 TOSS ROfiD 86897 1283 filRLYNH FLftCE 91215 2836 FLORALYNN CRESC . 34693 2334 M O U N T A I N Wi 81597 2484 VIEM.YNN DRIVE '• 79789 2586 VIEULYHN DRIVE  DE DE DE DE DE DE  129,988 123,888 02/84 31 8 PB 134,588 128,888 82/84 27 8 B 118,888 . 183,880 82/84 25 5 NE: 125,008 118,800 02/34 23: 6 8 146,589 132,590 01/84 HE 7 HE: 119,588 115,088 81/84 27 7 8 D E 124,988 118,888 81/84 27 7 NB DE 132,988 125,889 81/84 17 6 PB DE 114,868 106,898 81/84 27 7N8 DE 1 7 9 , 9 8 8 167,588 01/84 84 8 B DE 1 4 8 , 8 8 8 148,600 12/83 12 8 PB DE 134,888 133,888 12---83 26 6 B DE 114,908 118,888 1 2 / 8 17 3 6 PB DE 188,500 184,508 12-33 25 7HB DE 139,888 1 3 8 , 8 8 8 12-133 24 7 PB - 8 8 9 2 3 1549 N 3 U N T R I N HDEW 114,988 113,000 1 2 / 8 25 3 6 PB =94785 1 6 8 7 ARBORLVHN DRIVE DE 1 1 5 , 8 9 8 . 187,888 11/83 24 7 NB /71381 1588 M O U N T A I N H¥Y D E 181,988 95,008 11/83 OT 5 B / 8 6 6 2 8 1345 E 1 6 T H STREET DE 135,888 127,588 11/83 UT 6 B 81809 1464 E 28TH blkttl DE 129,900 126,088 11/83 28 7 B • B 2 5 2 3 1492 E 27TH STREET 3 5B D E 139,983 1.33,8.90 1 8 / 8 19 • 7 7 6 9 6 2828 M O U N T A I N HDY D E 93,598 95,888 10/83 OT 4 B 115,800 18/83 23 6 B im 1621 A R B O R L Y N N DDER I123,988 VE -786.16 2883 V I E N L Y N N DRIVE DE 129,089 125,899 88/83 26 5 B '"33213-1177 ARBQRLYMN DRIVE DE- 124,588 -118,688 88/33 19 6 B DE 129,988 128,008 68/83 12 7 PB 65719 1485 ROSS ROfiD 3 6B 75834 1541 HERLYNH CRESC DE 1 2 9 , 9 8 9 128,888 8 7 / 8 18 7 4 7 7 2 2 8 5 2 F L O R f l L Y N N C R E S C D E 112,888 112,888 8 7 / 8 236 7 NB 3 6 NB ' 6 B 8 3 7 ' " 1 8 8 9 A L D E R L Y N N DRIVEDE 114,588 181,088 8 6 / 8 27 • 7 0 7 8 9 1454 E 27TH blkttl D E 132,088 125,888 05/83 24 6 B ' 6 6 5 5 2 1 1 9 8 RRBORLYNN DRIVEDE 129,888 123,883 85/83 27 8 NB 65141 2327 HAZELLYHN P U C E DE I8999y 185,088 64/83 25 5 HB 1 3 8 , 8 9 8 8 4 / 8 3 18 6 B 67685 1357 E 16TH STREET DE i-j4 141,988 135,968 04/83 24 6 8 64852 1328 E 28TH blkttl DE 65889 1588 HERLYHH CRESC D E 133,980 137,088 04/83 24 9 KB DE •39,988 92,088 8 3 / 8 328 7 HB 58873 1884 MOUNTfilN M 64193 2574 L f l U R f t L V N H DRIVED E 117,588 113,588 83/83 25 6 HB DE 184,988 98,188 83/83 18 5H8 59984 1499 ROSS ROfiD ' 5 4 9 2 6 1835 RRBORLYNH DRIVE D E 139,568 135,688 63/83 8 6 B 62528 1679 KYLE-LYNN DRIVE D E 115,888 187,689 82/83 28 6 HB 5 4 9 2 5 2666 FLORALYNN CRESC DE 119,688 112,688 82/83 26. 8 HB  {  ?  3 5  3 3.  3 3 3  3 3 5 4 3  3 3 3 3 4' 2 3  3 3  2 3. 2 34 3 3 3 3  4 3 3 3  5; 3.  3 2' 3 3 4  208  57764 2382 VIESLYNM DRIVE  DE  189,988 184,588 82/83 24 5 HB 3  56881 1367 GHUCKHRRT PLfiCE DE  mmm m  134,588 128,588 82/83 19 6 8  ®m or  5 PB a  57688 1358 BRIRRLWi CRESC DE  187,888 182,888 82/83 27  5 KB 3  53978 1544fiRBORLYHKDRIVE DE  189,988 185,888 82/83 26 6 HB 3  tetia 1741  DE  mm  55812 2295 HflZELLYNH PUCE DE -55318 1984 ALDERLYHH DRIVE DE • 5 3 1 8 8 1283 HlRLYNN PLfiCE  187,888  113,988 DE  85,588  DE  54582 1388 E 18TH STREET  DE  ULS I  99,988  169,888 " 1 5 2 , 5 8 8 81/83 3  94,888 12/82 22 6 HB 3  136,583 129,888 12/82 22 6 PB 3  ADDRESS  CUES L PRICE AG RH BS BD  8 4 5 8 4 1872f l R B O R L Y N NDRIVE  DE  186,888 2 8 6 HB 3  96748 1983 HOUNTAIH  DE  189,888 24 7 HE: 3  DE  116,988 28 6 B  94172 1621 AYLESLYNN DRIVE  DE  119,688 27 5 if: 3  869553 1441 E 29TH STREET  DE  127,988 22 6 B  Hff  91727 1318 E 29TH STREET  3 3  9 3 8 % 2834 C R E S T L Y H H PLfiCE DE  1 2 2 , 8 8 8 824 H B 4  97523 1 4 3 6f l R B O R L Y N ND R I V E  DE  125,988 2? 6  DE  124,988 18 8 PB 3  9524? 1326 E 29TH STREET  DE  129,968 25 8 HB 4  96489 2166 FLOfiBLYHH CRESC  DE  139,988 26 8 B  3  88275 2169 FLORflLYNN CRESC  DE  137,568 25 7 B  3  99875 1415 ROSS R O f l D  DE  131,888 21  6B  3  93361 1185 AIRLYHH PLACE  DE  147,988 4  8B  3  98334 1211 EASTVIEW ROflD  DE  149,988 18 7 PB 3  • 9462? 1258 MOUNTAIN KtfY ,  DE  119,888 1 1 5 , 8 8 8 8 1 / 8 3 7 8 9 B  ;52656 2661 V I E U L Y N N D R I V E DE  D) WESTLYNN - L I S T I N G S  1 8 7 , 8 8 8 8 1 / 8 3 12 6 PB 3  D E 139,888 132,888 81/83 23 6 HB 3  55787 2484 CflRHRRIfl COURT 58983,1458 E29TH STREET  96,888 82/83 24 5 HB 3  183,888 81/83 26 6 HB 3  128,888  56561 1 6 7 9 ( H L E S L Y H H D R I V E  3  % 3 4 8 1258 B f l R L Y N N CRESCDE  IS** j9bi? 5  2  6 PB 3  6  7 8  3  209  A P P E N D I X F - SURVEY OF R E A L E S T A T E R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S AND A P P R A I S E R S ON T H E E F F E C T S OF L A N D F I . L L S ON PROPERTY V A L U E S  Questions 1.  asked: Does  the  property  values  Responses: 2.  presence  yes  How l a r g e  think  this  What  are  :  landfill  ;  no  :  is  2,  the  on  15  a  -  and  the  unit :  5;  no  Bros.  ,  any  effect  adjacent  to  unaffected  priced 4;  which  visible  garbage:  units  of  20%  effects  have  on  the  the  site?  2;  percentage  smell  visible  a  residential  11  in  0%  Responses: and  :  effect  Responses: 3.  of  of  20%  at :  garbage:  opinion:  6;  do  you  $100,000?  3;  influence  price  20  -  the  25%  :  values  smell  4. most?  and  animals  2;  Respondents: Muriel Steve Mike  Anderson, Collier,  Grover,  E.H.  Block  Block  Grover  Hanson,  Bros.,  Coquitlam,  Associates,  Hanson  Richmond,  Consulting  Delta, Ltd.,  B.C.,  Nov.  24,  1983.  B.C.,  Nov.  24,  1983.  B.C.,  Nov.  28,  1983.  B.C.,  Nov.  Delta,  24,  1983. J.  Kowalchuk,  28,  and  Associates,  Lee  North  Thunder  Bay,  Ont.,  Nov.  1983.  F r e d 'Dee, Lance  Kowalchuk  Fred  Penny,  Penny  24,  1983.  Dave  Peerless,  Ltd., and  Block  Vancouver,  Keenleyside,  Bros.,  North  Ltd.,  B.C.,  Vancouver,  Vancouver,  B.C.,  1984. Marianne  Schlaak,  A.E.  LePage,  Nov.  23,  Nov.  1983.  28,  1983.  B.C.,  Nov.  March  2,  210  Leonor  Vieira,  Block  Bros.,  North Vancouver,  B.C.,  Nov.  24,  1983. Paul Two  Weebe,  Century  officials  Coquitlam  and  of  the  21,  Surrey,  B.C.  B.C.,  Assessment  North Vancouver,  Nov.  Nov.  24,  Authority 24,  1984.  1983. Offices  in  21 1  APPENDIX  a)  required  -required 210,000 at  G -  500  capacity  kg/m3  8,400,000m3  100  less  approximately  b)  20  =  years:  4,200,000  ha  at  9m f i l l  aound p e r i m e t e r  tonnes  (1:3)  results  in  moisture  Assumed  evapotranspiration: 5% o f  Influx:  Cover  material:  filled  total  840m p e r loose  area.  Leachate  surface  1,0.00,000  X circumference  of  of  year  300m p e r  year  60m  year soil  Top area  soil, is  vegetation  flat,  only  Production:  area  times  m2 X 0 . 8 4 m •=  influx  840,000  m3 p e r  over  outside  precipitation  Total  equals  a  1200mm p e r  precipitation:  Total  c)  9m X 27m2  9,000,000m2  influx  precipitation:  5% o f  or  equals  1,000,000m3  Assumed  the  height  m3  Landfill  Runoff  tonnes  volume  slope  486,000  PRODUCTION  density:  size:  8,500,000  for  X 20  less  or  LEAGHATE  size  tonnes  Landfill  C A L C U L A T I O N OF L A N D F I L L  year  the  rest  slopes  of  allow  runo  212  APPENDIX  GVRD T.  PERSONAL  COMMUNICATIONS  Representatives Alias,  Barbara  Oct.  Hayton,  D.  L.  M.  Marino,  W.  A.  W.  Smith,  Brian  Oct.  Feb.  of  Ms.  Phyllis  24,  1983;  Mr.  Art 26,  26,  1,  1984.  Oct.  27,  1983,  Feb.  of  Civil  27,  1984.  1984 7,  1984.  Interviewed  Atwater, British Dubois,  Guite,  March  1984.  27,  Experts J.  University  Department Columbia;  Vernon  Richmond  Feb.  Recycling  Health  14,  Engineering, 1984;  Center,  Department,  Vernon,  B.C.,  Richmond,  B.C.,  Nov.  1984. McBride,  Deputy  Vancouver,  March  Ms.  Nowlan,  Nancy  15,1984;  7 and  Mechler, Feb.  1984.  1984.  Feb. 28,  Professor  22,  23,  Feb.  Talbot,  H.  1983.  Feb.  March  MacKay,  Individual  March  27,  Ericson,  L.  Mr.  H -  22,  Municipal  Engineer,  District  of  North  1984.  Canada  Employment  and  Immigration;  Jan.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0096178/manifest

Comment

Related Items