Transcript Waste Management & Public Involvement in the US Case study

Tokyo Institute of Technology
Department of Environmental Science & Technology
Interdisciplinary Graduate School of Science & Engineering
Waste Management & Public Involvement in the US
Case study : City of Seattle
Akino M. Tahir & Sachihiko Harashina
Research Goals & Scope
Research Goals
 waste management system & public involvement in the US context
 learning points
Scope of Research
 Municipal solid waste management
 Waste facilities
Scope of Analysis
 Evaluating PI process and procedures : build understanding on
public involvement process
 Delivering information to public
 Getting inputs from public
 Usage of public involvement tools : understanding the methods
 Other factors affecting the PI process
Solid Waste Management
Municipal Solid Waste:
 Durable goods,
 Nondurable goods,
 Containers & packaging,
 Food wastes,
 Yard trimmings,
 Miscellaneous organic wastes
Number of Waste: 206 million
tons (2005)
 Landfilled (54.3%), Recycled
(32.1%), Combusted with
energy recovery (13.6%)
 Others : incinerated without
energy recovery, littered,
illegally dumped
Waste Management Stream: “Integrated Solid Waste Management”
1. Source Reduction
3. Waste combustion
2. Recycling & composting
4. Landfilling
Waste Regulations
 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Sub Title D,
 Other environmental regulations
 Landfill for SW disposals
Environmental Assessment
Regulation: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Regulation
(1969)
NEPA Regulation : ensures that project planning and decision making
should include the integrated
consideration of technical,
economic, environmental, social and other factors.
EIA : applied to most of projects
 13.000-15.000 NEPA process / year (in average)
 State level: adoption of NEPA regulation (1970) – SEPA regulation
 Waste facility (siting) projects is subjected to SEPA
Public Involvement
Why public involvement?
 Efficiency & effectiveness of planning process & implementation
 Public understands the planning essence
 Mechanism for exchange of information*
 Source of information on local values*
 Credibility*
* Creighton, Chalmers, & Branch (1981)
Cornerstone of the U.S. public participation system:
 access to information
 public participation in decision-making
 access to justice
PI in EIA
 CEQ regulations specifies the need for public participation in terms of
scoping, general public-involvement requirements, and the review
process for draft EIS (CEQ, 1987)
 Public participation in EIA process : all stages for undertakings projects,
plans, programs, or policies
Case Study
Why Washington State & City of Seattle?
Public participation is mandated
 State growth management programs
-> citizen involvement
 Formal public participation program
 Seattle
 Ordinance of WA State
 The largest and most advanced city

City of Seattle

Pacific Northwest of US

Population:
about 570.000 (2002)
-
Waste Figures
Waste Generation
1995: around 765,000 tons of waste
2002: similar number
Sources (2002)
Business
: 48%
Residents : 36%
Self-haulers : 16%
Waste Facilities
Public-owned:
 Recycling & Disposal Stations
 Household Hazardous Waste
Privately-owned: 8 facilities
case study
Waste Flow
case study
Solid Waste Facilities Planning Process
Milestones
Notes
1998
Solid Waste Comprehensive Plan is
completed
Identification for new and different waste
facilities
Dec 2001
City Council Resolution 30341
Directing SPU to prepare a long-term solid waste
facility plan
2002-2003
Solid Waste Facilities Master Plan
Process
Public Involvement
a. Stakeholders meetings
b. Recommendation: new intermodal transfer
facility and rebuild of transfer stations
Nov 2003- Apr
2004
Property search period for suitable
site
Identification of intermodal sites : 4 sites
Apr 2004
City Council Ordinance
Authorization for SPU for implementation
Environmental Review
Public involvement & SEPA Process
Public comment period on SEPA process
Additional studies
Apr 2004-Aug
2005
Public involvement
Analysis for the most feasible sites in SEIS
Aug 2005- Mar
2006
Mar 2006
Recommendation to City Mayor
Corgiat Site in the South Seattle
Apr – Aug
2006
Information to public about the
preferred site
Public involvement
Aug 2006
Decision is temporarily suspended
Public concern
Aug 2006-Mar
2007
June 2007
Additional study
Final decision
Environmental Assessment
SEPA Process for 1998 SW Plan : Non project (programmatic) action
SEPA Process for Waste Facilities Master Plan :
 Sequence from a non project document
 Supplemental for 1998 SW Plan :. Supplemental EIS
Issuance of DS/Scoping notice
SEPA Process
14-30 day review
Public Scoping
Meeting
Disclosure of process & procedure
Issuance of
Draft Supplemental EIS
30 day review
Public Hearing
Work
together
with
environmental law
Issuance of
Final Supplemental EIS
7 day wait
other
Agency Decision
PI Process & Procedure
PI Guidelines



PI Procedure : Not regulated in details in City Codes
PI Guidelines : To ensure & accommodate opportunities to express
interests
Include:
 commitment to public process,
 adequate time & resources,
 access concerns before starting the process,
 public involvement strategy,
 evaluation
Point: Commitment of SPU in PI since the beginning
Defining Stakeholder



Internal city and regulatory
Experts and existing/potential
partners
External interst group &
potentially affected community
Points


Important :: defining the right
stakeholder
> effective process
> higher degree of participation
Representative of stakeholder
:: relatively well
PI Process



Refer to previous table
Public comments & responses
Information is all included in
released documents
Points


Level of participation
> Harashina Model :
“Meaningful Reply”
Public opinion is reflected in
decision making process
(to some extend)

High level of Information
disclosure
PI Actions



Costumer survey
:: Basic study for developing plan
Various meetings
 Community/Neighborhood
meetings
 Business councils meetings
 Employee meetings
 Coordination meetings (with
other agencies)
 SWAC meetings
Public Forums
 1st series : introduce issue,
identify concerns,
recommendation
 2nd series : preliminary
options
Particularly in SEPA Process
Public comment period
 Scoping
 Draft Supplemental EIS
2 rounds of meetings
 Discuss Supplemental EIS
 Present implementation
alternatives
 Inform SEIS development &
potential information impact
to be addressed in SEIS
 Gather comments & inputs
PI Tools













Fact sheets (7)
Information board
News releases
Advertisement
Display board
Door hanger & fliers (2500)
Letter of invitation (600)
News letters
Phone & individual email
Website
Comment forms
Open house
etc.
Information : Feed-forward & feedback
 Usage of broad-range information
tools
 Easy-to-understand & creative
information display
 User-friendly means of participation
Points

Appropriate information tools
 broader public involvement
 tend to engage public

Availability of several participations
techniques
 attract people to participate
 make it easier for public to
participate

Public education & awareness
Other Factors Affecting PI
Regulatory Framework

WA State Growth Management Program
 strongly mandates PI in local planning process
 Mandates to develop participation guideline
Point : Greater attention to participation by local government
City Planning System

Planning approach : Bottom-up planning
Point : Enable to make plan that reflects public views & preferences
Other Factors Affecting PI

Neighborhood Planning Program (1995)
 Enables city & community to work
in partnership to improve the
quality of life within the city
 Neighborhoods create their own
neighborhood plans
 1999 : 38 Neighborhood plans in 13
districts, by around 200.000
citizens
Points
For agency :
useful for extensive public outreach
For public :
easier to participate
Challenges in PI
1. Early public involvement
Before specific site was selected, level of participation was low
2. Ensuring diverse groups of citizen participate & learn
e.g.: minority group with language barrier, absence of open minded people
(busy, less care)
3. Changes in political leadership
 New leader did not follow the process from beginning
 Request for additional studies
:: More resources (money, human resources, etc)
Lessons Learned
1. Early public involvement
 Agency
: help structuring fair & effective process
 Community : help for better understanding of the process & reason
behind planning activities
 Build sense of ownership
2. In planning process
 Important to define the appropriate stakeholder & public
 Important to emphasize transparency, accountability, & openness in the
process
:: puts trust among public
 Addressing comments & inputs enables the agency to consider new things
that has not been considered before
:: learning from local knowledge
Lessons Learned
3. PI Actions & Tools
 Important to provide citizens with information
 Choose right participation tools in the appropriate conditions
 Creative outreach strategies
:: e.g.: material translation, advisory group, etc
4. Other important factors:
 Regulation support (from upper level of government, city planning system)
 Commitment of agency & its staffs on the essence of PI & its importance
 Pay attention to political condition
 Political leaders are the decision makers
 Information should also given to political leaders & its staffs
 Important to maintain consistent contact with elected officials
Conclusion & Future Study
Conclusion



Waste facilities plan is a very sensitive issue to several specific community.
In general, SPU has done a relatively good public involvement based on the
analysis.
Several learning points can be taken from the study case, for conducting PI
in waste facilities plan in other place.
Several challenges and weakness occurred in the process in case study can
be used as consideration in designing public involvement for planning
process.
Future study

Study on public perception on public involvement process in waste
facilities planning process