Research Goals waste management system & public involvement in the US context learning points

1. Waste Management & Public Involvement in the USCase study : City of SeattleAkino M. Tahir & Sachihiko Harashina Tokyo Institute of TechnologyDepartment of Environmental Science & Technology Interdisciplinary Graduate School of Science & Engineering

2. 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

3. Solid Waste Management 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 Municipal Solid Waste: • Durable goods, • Nondurable goods, • Containers & packaging, • Food wastes, • Yard trimmings, • Miscellaneous organic wastes 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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)

7. 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

8. Waste Flow case study

9. 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 Apr 2004-Aug 2005 Environmental Review • Public involvement & SEPA Process • Public comment period on SEPA process • Additional studies Aug 2005- Mar 2006 Public involvement Analysis for the most feasible sites in SEIS 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 • Additional study June 2007 Final decision case study Solid Waste Facilities Planning Process

10. 14-30 day review Public Scoping Meeting Issuance of DS/Scoping notice Issuance of Draft Supplemental EIS 30 day review Public Hearing Issuance of Final Supplemental EIS 7 day wait Agency 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 SEPA Process Disclosure of process & procedure Work together with other environmental law

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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)

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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