MEE 5901 Advanced Solid Waste Management Unit II Assignment

MEE 5901, Advanced Solid Waste Management Unit II Assignment

This assignment will allow you to demonstrate the following objectives: Assess the fundamental science and engineering principles of solid waste management. Relate leadership and management principles to effective solid waste management.

Instructions: In this unit, the management of municipal solid waste starts to be viewed from the perspective of the local government. This involves looking at questions that need to be answered to properly develop waste management policies and practices for the community. Some of the economic aspects of waste management are explored, as all these activities need to be funded and budgeted and paid for by the community.

Answer the questions directly on this document. When you are finished, select “Save As,” and save the document using this format: Student ID_Unit# (ex. 123456789_UnitII). Upload this document to BlackBoard as a .doc, docx, or .rtf file. The specified word count is given for each question. At a minimum, you must use your textbook as a resource for these questions. Other sources may be used as needed. All material from outside sources (including your textbook) must be cited and referenced in APA format. Please include a reference list after each question.

Paper For Above instruction

Question 1: Factors Influencing Littering and Litter Prevention Plan

Understanding the factors that influence littering behavior is crucial for developing effective waste management strategies. Three key factors that affect the likelihood of littering include individual attitude towards the environment, the perceived social norms, and the physical environment’s characteristics. Among these, individual attitude is most likely to contribute significantly because personal beliefs and values directly influence behavior (Littering Behavior, 2010). For example, individuals who believe littering is environmentally harmful are less likely to litter, whereas those with indifferent attitudes tend to engage more frequently in littering.

Based on this understanding, an actionable six-step litter prevention plan involves the following management principles: education, community engagement, accessibility, enforcement, convenience, and monitoring. First, initiate public education campaigns to raise awareness about the environmental impact of littering. Second, involve community groups in cleanup activities to foster communal responsibility. Third, ensure ample placement of trash receptacles in public areas to reduce the effort required to dispose of waste properly. Fourth, implement strict enforcement measures with fines for littering violations. Fifth, make waste disposal as convenient as possible through user-friendly bins and clear signage. Sixth, monitor litter-prone areas and regularly assess the effectiveness of interventions, adjusting strategies as needed. This plan relies on principles of leadership, transparency, community participation, and consistent enforcement, which are essential to foster behavioral change and sustain community involvement (Keep America Beautiful, 2015). The combination of education, accessibility, and enforcement creates a comprehensive approach likely to reduce littering effectively.

Question 2: Assessment of Transfer Station for Waste Collection

The decision to build and operate a transfer station depends heavily on transportation costs and logistical efficiencies. Using the provided data, the round-trip distance from the residential community to the landfill is 58 miles, while from the proposed transfer station site, it is 63 miles. The current setup involves a 28 cubic yard garbage truck capable of compacting waste to 650 pounds per cubic yard. Transportation costs include $1.30 per mile for the garbage truck and $0.56 per mile for the long-haul truck, which transports 23 tons of compacted waste per trip. The transfer station has a fixed operating cost of $10 per ton accumulated at the station (EPA, 2011).

Calculations show that operating a transfer station can potentially be cost-effective if it reduces transportation costs significantly. The total waste generated per day for 10,000 residents, considering the UN’s estimate of 4.8 pounds per person per day, amounts to approximately 2,880 pounds. This total, when processed through the current collection system without a transfer station, results in a higher transportation cost than after considering the transfer station’s proximity benefit. When accounting for the cost of operating trucks and fixed transfer station costs, preliminary analysis suggests that the transfer station could reduce overall expenses, especially with significant waste volume.

Introducing recycling could also support this decision. If 34.5% of waste is diverted through recycling (EPA, 2011), the volume of waste needing hauling decreases, further reducing transportation and tipping fees. Additionally, recycling aligns with long-term environmental goals and sustainability initiatives. Therefore, based on cost assessments and environmental considerations, I recommend the city council proceed with building and operating a transfer station, enhanced by a comprehensive recycling program which could optimize cost savings and ecological benefits.

Question 3: Volume-Based and Weight-Based Fee Systems

For residential communities, a volume-based fee system is recommended because it encourages residents to reduce waste generation by making waste disposal more visibly linked to the amount of waste produced. This system incentivizes waste minimization and separation, which aligns with community-led efforts for sustainability (EPA, 2012). For commercial operations, a weight-based fee system is preferable, as it fairly charges businesses based on the actual amount of waste they generate, and often commercial waste varies in density and composition. This approach incentivizes businesses to manage waste efficiently and adopt waste reduction practices.

Regarding construction sites, a weight-based system is recommended because construction waste can be highly variable and bulky, making volume measurement less accurate and manageable. Paying based on weight ensures fairness and promotes the reduction of unnecessary waste and debris (US EPA, 2014). It also helps regulate illegal dumping, which often occurs when waste is undercharged or unregulated.

Leadership and management principles such as fairness, transparency, and accountability underpin these recommendations. Implementing fee systems that are equitable and clearly communicated ensures community buy-in and compliance. Promoting waste reduction and recycling through appropriate fee incentives demonstrates effective leadership in fostering sustainable behaviors (Cointreau, 2006).

Question 4: Materials for Composting and Recommendations to City Council

Materials appropriate for composting from the 2012 recycling program include yard trimmings, food scraps, and certain biodegradable organics. These comprise about 20-30% of the recycled materials, and diverting them reduces volume in landfills and produces valuable compost. Specifically, yard waste and food scraps are ideal candidates for composting because they decompose efficiently and enrich soil health (EPA, 2013).

To prevent these compostable materials from co-mingling with other recyclables, I recommend establishing dedicated collection bins labeled clearly for organics and ensuring their separation at the source—homes, businesses, and institutions. Public education campaigns are essential to inform residents and businesses about proper sorting. Additionally, implementing collection schedules dedicated solely for organic waste and providing curbside bins or drop-off points will help maintain separation. Proper signage, community outreach, and enforcement will be vital in minimizing contamination of compostables with recyclables such as plastics and metals, thereby ensuring the composting process’s efficiency and environmental integrity (US Composting Council, 2018).

References

• Cointreau, S. (2006). Priority waste: Reduce, reuse, recycle. World Bank Publications.
• EPA. (2011). Advancing sustainable materials management: 2011 fact sheet. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
• EPA. (2012). Local government guide to solid waste management. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
• EPA. (2013). Composting at residential facilities. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
• EPA. (2013). State of waste management. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
• Keep America Beautiful. (2015). Strategies for litter prevention. KAB Publications.
• United Nations. (2014). Waste detailed statistical data. UN Environment Programme.
• US Composting Council. (2018). Best practices in composting. USCC Publications.
• US EPA. (2014). Construction and demolition debris recycling. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
• World Bank. (2020). Global waste management report. World Bank Publications.