ＮＯ．1
A STUDY ON LAND SELECTION AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENTFOR CLOSED SYSTEM DISPOSAL FACILITIESHiroshi KOKUBO, Kiyohisa MATSUOKA, Takaya KATOH
Cost Reduction Working Group, Research Committee for Closed System Disposal Facilities
Chateau-Takanawa 401, 3-23-14 Takanawa, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 108-0074
Japan

Masataka HANASHIMA, Tohru FURUICHI
Research Committee for Closed System Disposal Facilities
Chateau-Takanawa 401, 3-23-14 Takanawa, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 108-0074
Japan• The leachate volume and reclamation work are freefrom the effects of weather condition.

ABSTRACTThe Research Committee for Closed System Disposal• It can be used as a storage facility for recycling ofused materials.

Facilities has proposed a closed system disposal facility(herein after called “CSDF”) as a landfill that would
preservation of the environment and facilitate exchange• The consent of residents can be formed more easilyon the construction of the facilities.

of information with community residents. In addition to

At the same time, however, the CSDF requires

research and surveys, the committee has engaged incovering facilities and additional incidental equipment,

public relations activities in order to promote theand thus the construction of such facility is believed toproposal.

be highly costly compared with a conventional

Isolated from its external environment by covering

opened-type landfill site (herein after called “OPLS”).

facilities and seepage control facilities, the CSDF is

The authors have studied the potential for the regional

characterized by the following advantages.

development of a CSDF and land selection for its site

• The dispersion and spread of waste and odor can beprevented.

in such a way as to make the best use of the facility

contributetoimprovement

in

the

safetyandwhile minimizing construction costs.

Photograph 1. Examples of Closed System Disposal Facilities(1)

INTRODUCTIONCONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES UNDER A

In recent years, a number of regional development

REGIONAL

projects have been under way in Japan for such

PROGRAM

intermediate

processing

facilities

This section discusses the classification and evaluation

incineration

facilities

and

of

recycling

waste

as

facilities.

LANDFILL

DEVELOPMENTof regional landfill development patterns.

Nevertheless, there have been few intensive and(1) Classification of development patterns

extensive projects with landfills. In addition, an

The regional landfill development patterns can beincreasing number of local governments are operatingclassified as centralized and decentralized types. In a

more than one landfill as a result of recent mergers ofcentralized pattern, a single landfill is developed, whilecities and towns promoted under a government

in a decentralized pattern, multiple landfills are

incentive.

constructed.

Under these circumstances, it is becoming more

A total of 10 patterns are obtained when landfills areimportant to select an optimal development patternclassified further by basic structure (Table 1).

when a local government is to plan the construction of

Table 1. Classification of development patternsa regional landfill. A development pattern refers to adevelopment of a landfill basedonCentralized(single facility)

form ofNo.

considerations of regional conditions specific to each
local government. The selection of a development
pattern is to determine the basic structure of a landfill(OPLS or CSDF) and the number of facilities to be

1 OPLS
2 CSDF
3 OP-CS combined disposal facilities
4 OPLS

Once a development pattern is selected, the site for the

5 CSDF

Decentralized(multiple facilities)

built.
landfill needs to be determined. Conventionally, land
selection is based on the development of an OPLS.
However, it is required now to select a site for a CSDF
also, as this type of facility, having a number ofadvantages over the OPLS, is increasingly employed on

Classification

6 OP-CS combined disposal facilities
7 OPLS + CSDF
8 OPLS + OP-CS combined disposal facilities
9 CSDF + OP-CS combined disposal facilities
10 OPLS + CSDF + OP-CS combined

various scales and under a variety of locational
conditions.

(2) Classification of regional conditions

Focusing on the cost reduction issue for landfill

The regional conditions consist of the regional

systems as a whole, the authors have conductedcharacteristics and locational conditions of a certain

research on the development of landfills under alocal government or an extended association of local

regional development project and the land selection

governments formed to promote the efficiency andapproach applicable to the CSDF, as well as the OPLS.

sharedA proposal will be made in the future for planning themanagementofwaste.

The

regional

characteristics under our study are the population anddevelopment of landfills based on a feasibility study

area of a district for processing of waste and thethat utilizes the results of the cost reduction researchnumber of intermediate processing facilities in thefor landfills construction.

district. As locational conditions, the amount of rainfall
and snowfall and the degree of urbanization wereselected.
Each of these regional conditions was categorizedusing a relevant threshold (Table 2).

(2)

Regional characteristics
Locational conditions

Table 2. Classification of regional conditions

causes a change in the existing topography. The larger

Regional conditions

the change in the topography, the higher the risk ofClassification
1) Up to 50,000
2) 50,000 to 100,000
3) 100,000 to 200,000
4) 200,000 or moredisaster taking place during a

event of water leakage or other accidents. The degree

Area1) Up to 400km2
2) 400km2 to 1,000km2
3) 1,000km2 or moreIntermediate
processing facilities

1) Single
2) Multiple4) Consensus building:Population

Amount of rainfall

1) Heavy-rainfall area
2) Low-rainfall area

Amount of snowfall

1) Heavy-snowfall area
2) Low-snowfall area

torrential rainfall andby an earthquake. And the larger the landfill, the larger
the degree of pollution of underground water in theof risk of pollution and disaster was evaluated in ourstudy.
In panning a landfill

development program, it is essential to build consensus
with the community residents. Evaluation was made on
the ease of consensus building.
5) Others:

Other evaluation items included thesmoothness of facility development, the ease of

1) High
Degree of urbanization 2) Intermediate
3) Lowbringing in disaster debris to the landfill, and theeffectiveness of returning landfill benefits to the local
community.

(3) Evaluation of development patterns
To evaluate the development patterns, the evaluation

LAND SELECTION METHOD FOR LANDFILLS

items were categorized into 7 evaluation criteria. These

Discussion is made below on land selection methods

criteria were further subdivided as shown in Table 3.

applicable to both the OPLS and the CSDF.

When Table 3 is applied to a combination of a(1) Land selection processdevelopment pattern in Table 1 and a regional condition

In the selection of landfill sites, it has been increasingly

in Table 2, it becomes possible to quantitatively

difficult in recent years to build the consent of residents

evaluate and compare one development pattern with

under an administrative initiative. In consensus

another.
1) Economy and efficiency:

building, it is indispensable to deepen understanding

In development of abetween the authorities and community residents

landfill, its economy and efficiency are among the mostthrough disclosure of relevant information. For thisimportant factors to be considered. In our study,

purpose, a committee is often established to gather, andconstruction costs, maintenance management cost, andact based on, public comments.

combined construction and maintenance management

Figure 1 shows the land selection process.

costs were evaluated to determine the economy of a1) Identification of the landfill system:

landfill. To measure the efficiency of a landfill, theevaluation results for the development patterns are

efficiency of operation, maintenance, and management

scrutinized and the following actins are taken.

of the facility was evaluated.

• Identification of the remaining service period of theexisting landfill and its remaining waste disposable2) Living environment and natural environment:
The regional environment is affected by the presence

capacity.

and operation of landfills, traffic of waste-carrying and• Confirmation of the reason for the construction of alandfill being deemed necessary after all efforts areother vehicles, reclamation work, and other factors. The
degree of effect of a landfill is largely determined by its

made concerning the 3R (Reuse, Reduce andsize. In our study, the maintainability of the living andRecycle) measures.

natural environments was evaluated.
3) Safety:

The• Identification of the volume and type of waste to bedisposed of at the landfill.

Generally, the construction of a landfill(3)

Table 3. Evaluation items for development patterns
Evaluation
criteria

Evaluation items

EconomyUp to 50,000
MaintenanceSuperiority of amanagement cost centralized/decentralized 50,000 to 100,000
landfill by population (the 100,000 to 200,000
scale of the landfill)
200,000 or more
Construction cost Economy by amount of+maintenancerainfallmanagement cost
Superiority of thesingularity/plurality ofintermediate processing
facilities
Efficiency inSize of the area covered
maintenanceby waste collection
management
services

Low-rainfall area

Operational efficiency
affected by snowfall

Low-snowfall area

20

Heavy-rainfall area

Small area (up to 400km2)
Medium-sized (400 to 1,000km2)

15

Living environment

Heavy-snowfall area

Maintainability of Degree of impact of changes in the natural environment
the natural
Effects on downstream areas of change in treated water
environment
discharge

10

Degree of disasters and risks caused by torrential rainfalls,
Risk of potential
earthquakes, and other events
pollution and
Degree of risks and underground water pollution caused bydisasters
water leakage

10Consensus building

The centralized landfill is given higher marks because it has a greater advantage of scales.

5

The CSDF is given higher marks because it needs only a smaller water treatment facility, and without the need for covering soil on the same day.
The centralized landfill system is given higher marks because it does not require distributed maintenance management activities, while having an advantage of scale.

5

In case of a small population, the centralized landfill system is given higher marks.
In case of a medium-sized population, the centralized landfill system is given higher marks if the intermediate processing facilities are consolidated.
In case of a large population, the decentralized landfill system is given higher marks if the intermediate processing facilities are distributed.

5

In case of a heavy rainfall area, the CSDF is given higher marks because lower cost is needed for the construction and maintenance management of the water
treatment facility.

5

If multiple intermediate processing facilities are operated at distributed locations, the decentralized landfill system is given higher marks.

5

The larger the area, the higher marks are given to a decentralized landfill system having multiple intermediate processing facilities.

5

In heavy snowfall areas, the OPLS is given lower marks because the disposal of waste is extremely difficult in the winter.

Large area (1,000km2 or more)

Maintainability of the living environment affected by crow
Maintainability ofdamage and waste dispersion
the living
Maintainability of the living environment along roadways
environment
used by waste-carrying vehicles

Other

5

Superiority of multiple facilities

Smoothness ofdevelopment

Smoothness of development by centralized/decentralized
landfill system

Disaster debris

Ease of acceptance and disposal of disaster debris by
centralized/decentralized landfill system

The centralized landfill system is given lower marks because waste-carrying traffic concentrates on a specific road.

5

The OPLS is given lower marks because it causes a substantial landscape change and poorly maintains the living environment.
The centralized landfill system is given slightly lower marks because it causes substantial landscape changes and is less capable of preserving the living environment.

5

The OPLS is given lower marks because it is subject to damage from crows, harmful insects and animals, which may change the natural environment.
The larger a landfill, the lower marks are given because it may change the natural environment.

5

The CSDF is given higher marks because it can control the generation of leachate.
The centralized landfill system is given lower marks because a single landfill generates a larger amount of leachate, thus affecting its downstream waters.

5

The CSDF is given higher marks because it is free from overflows of retained water or other events in torrential rainfalls.
The decentralized landfill system is given higher marks because the degree of a disaster or risk is diluted.
The CSDF is given higher marks because it can reduce pollution in underground water by controlling the amount of sprinkled water.
The decentralized landfill system is given higher marks because the degree and the risk of pollution in underground water are diluted.

5

The CSDF is given higher marks where there are many urbanized areas or in a community where there is strong resistance to a landfill.

5

Where there are many urbanized areas, the centralized landfill system is given higher marks because building lots are extremely difficult to acquire in these areas.

5

To utilize the existing landfills, the decentralized system is given higher marks.
The decentralized system is given higher marks in a community that is more in favor of a decentralized one for geographical or historical reason.
The centralized system is given higher marks in a community that is more in favor of a centralized one for economic reason.

5

The centralized system is given higher marks when disaster debris is to be accepted.

5

Any basic structure is given high marks to the extent that it commits to its development policy of returning to the community benefits gained from the utilization of
the landfill.

5

Ease of consensus building by basic structure
Ease ofconsensus
building

520Effects on the utilization of neighboring land

Ease of consensus
Many urbanized areasbuilding and landacquisition byModerate number of urbanized areas
centralized/decentralized landfill system
Few urbanized areas

5

The CSDF is given higher marks because it can preserve landscape with its covering facilities and is free from crow damage.
The centralized landfill system is given lower marks because it causes a substantial landscape change due to its size.
The OPLS is given lower marks because it is subject to damage from crows and harmful insects and animals and also from waste dispersion.
The decentralized landfill system is given moderately higher marks because each landfill is small and also because the system can better preserve the environment.

5

Degree of impact of landscape changes

10

15

Measure for
Effectiveness of measures by basic structure for returning
returning benefits
benefits to the community
to community

Total score

Explanation

Superiority of a single facility

SafetyEfficiency

Evaluation details

Economy in construction cost by centralized/decentralized
landfill
Economy in maintenance management cost by basic structure(OPLS/CSDF) and by centralized/decentralized landfill

Naturalenvironment

Indirect cost reduction factor

Direct cost reduction factor

Construction
costs

Example of allocationof marks

1003) Primary selection: A negative map is produced in

Identification of the landfill system- Results of development pattern evaluation- Identification of the remaining service period and waste disposable capacityof the existing landfill- Identification of the reason for requiring the construction of a landfill- Identification of the type and volume of waste

accordance with laws and regulations concerning thepreservation of the naturalenvironment

and

the

control of land utilization, while a positive map isprepared by using transportation cost simulation andDetermination of a basic policy- Basic structure (OP type or CS type)- Seepage control structure(type of the seepage control facilities, presence of water leakage detected, etc.)- Safety measures (leachate processing method, controlled water quality, etc.)- Land selection scheduleother techniques. The two maps are superimposed oneach other to identify primary candidate sites.
4) Secondary selection: As in primary selection, thepositive and negative maps are superimposed on eachPrimary selection (Selection of study sites)
Compilation of a negative map

other, while adding other conditions, including theCompilation of a positive map

basic landfill structure (OPLS or CSDF), in order tofurther narrow down the candidate list. Figure 2

Integration of the negative map and the positive map

provides an example of compiling a map.
Selection of primary candidate sites

5) Invitation of public comments:

The selection

process and results are made public with respect to theSecondary selection (Selection of multiple candidate sites)

candidate sites, the public is invited to make comments,
Compilation of a negative map(on a narrow area)

Compilation of a positive map(on a narrow area)and explanatory meetings are held.
6) Comprehensive evaluation:

Taking publiccomments into consideration, final candidate sites are

Integration of the negative map and the positive map

selected using the strategic environmental assessment

Selection of secondary candidate sites(SEA) method.
(2) Evaluation items for land selection

Invitation of public comments

The following shows evaluation items applied in the

Disclosure of candidate sites

primary
Explanatory meetings andinvitation of opinions

selection,

secondaryselection

andcomprehensive evaluation processes.

Community residents

1) Evaluation items in primary selection: Sites on
the negative map are excluded from the selection

Review of evaluation items

process if they are judged to be inappropriate for the
introduction of a landfill due to legal restriction on land

Comprehensive evaluation (Selection of candidate sites based on the SEA method)

utilization or other reason. Sites are selected from theSelection candidate sites (more than one candidate)positive map if they are deemed to be advantageous interms of transportation costs or for other reasons, or if

Comparison and examination of candidate sites(relative evaluation of SEA-based evaluation items)

there is strong demand for a landfill from community
residents. The same evaluation items are used for the

Figure 1. Land selection process

OPLS and the CSDF in the compilation of these maps.
determined concerning the development of a landfill.

selection• Basic structure (OPLS or CSDF)• Seepage control system (type of seepage control
facility, presence of water leakage detection, etc.)• Safety measures (leachate processing method,
controlled water quality)• Land selection policy and process(5)

Negativefactors

Table 4. Example of evaluation items for primary• Legal restriction on land utilization.
• Physical difficulty with construction.
• Land utilization policy already established.

Positivefactors2) Determination of a basic policy: A basic policy is• District where transportation costs are low.
• Strong demand of community residents for the
introduction of a landfill.
• District where landfill sites are available.

2) Evaluation items in secondary selection: Using

candidate sites.

evaluation different items between the OPLS and the

Further, the candidate list is narrowed down based on

CSDF as shown in Table 5, the negative and positive

the evaluation items as shown in Table 6.

maps are superimposed on each other to select a few
Table 5. Example of evaluation items in secondary selection (1)Positive factors

Negative factors

OPLS

CSDF

• Proximity to a residential area
• Proximity to schools, libraries, and parks• Proximity to a funeral center and other facilities that residents tend to avoid• Proximity to designated cultural assets• Upstream of the point of water-use activities (except when treated • Upstream of the point of water-use activities (except whenwater is discharged to the sewage system)
treated water is discharged to the sewage system or whentreated water is not discharged externally)• Proximity to waste or sewage processing facilities• Existence of a planned railroad or roadway construction project• Periphery of the center of population gravity• Area where a sewage development project will start or has been completed• Mountainous area having a valley• Flatland or tableland• Proximity to waste or sewage processing facilities• Existence of a planned railroad or roadway construction project(having the possibility of ultimate land being utilized)

Table 6. Example of evaluation items in secondary selection (2)Direct cost
reduction factor

Evaluation criteria

Evaluation items

Example of allocation of marks

Construction cost
Economy7

Development cost for social infrastructures21

7

Maintenance management cost
Cover soil
Efficiency

Locational characteristics

Natural conditions

7
High availability of cover soil

20

10

Roadways used to transport waste Development length of roadways used to carry waste

10

Reclamation

4

Efficiency of the waste disposal process

Utilization of ultimate land

Flatness of ultimate land after reclamation
Presence/absence of a concrete plan

Water utilization

Geological features

4
20

4

Public water sources

4

Agricultural water

4

Strength of the ground3

Underground water level

3

12

Active fault
Environmental characteristics

Indirect cost reduction factor

Evaluation details

Land utilization

3

Landslide3

Countryside, fields (cultivated land)

3

Forest (afforested area)

3

Cultural assets

Designated cultural assets

2

Dwelling

Densely settled areas, residential complexes

3Intermediate processing facilities of waste
Sewage processing facilities

Social conditions
Urban facilities

3
27

3

Railroads and roadway facilities (planned development project)2

Funeral center

2

Community hall, library

2

Schools, hospital

2

Park
Total score

(6)

2
100

3) Evaluation items in comprehensive evaluation:

relative evaluation is performed on these items. More

SEA based evaluation items as shown in Table7 arethan one candidate site may be selected.

used to narrow down the candidate list. At this stage,
Table 7. Example of SEA evaluation items
Environmental factors
Environmental load

Evaluation items

Indicator

Global warming

CO2 emissions

Waste

Emissions from work

Hazardous substances, etc.

(during construction work)
NOX emissions
Emissions of suspended particulate matter (during construction work)

Noise

Noise from roadway traffic
Noise from facility operation(during construction work)

Vibration from roadway traffic
Vibration from facility operation(during construction work)

Air quality, water quality, Vibrationsoil environment, etc.
Odor

Degree of odor dispersion

Water quality

Water quality of rivers
Degree of effect on underground water

Soil

Increased pollution due to construction work

Topography, geological features

Degree of effect on essential topography and geological features

Plants, animals, ecological system

Important plant communities and species
Identification of effects on major habitats and ecological systems

Interaction with landscape, humans and nature

Degree of effect on major landscape resources
Degree of effect on interactions between humans and nature

Biological diversity

Interaction with nature(during construction work)

PROPOSAL FOR LANDFILL DEVELOPMENT

Evaluation of development patterns

PLANNING

Development pattern

Regional conditions

In the paragraphs above, as part of the study on
regional development, the authors have analyzed
landfill construction. At the same time, the OPLS and

Selection of development patterns

the CSDF have been examined for selection of landfill
sites. The study is still under way to build a more

Land selection

detailed view of our own concerning this issue.

Selection of potential
CSDF sites

Selection of potential
OPLS sites

In the near future, a feasibility study will be conductedUtilization of the negative map,
positive map, and SEA method

on a virtual model area. In the study, several landfill
development patterns will be selected and evaluated.

Selection of appropriate landfill sites

Then, actual candidate landfill sites will be selected.
Finally, an optimal development form will be

Cost effectiveness analysis

established through cost effectiveness comparison.

Setting of model disposal facilities

Figure 3 shows the flowchart of the planned feasibility
study.

Calculation of development costs
Monetization of benefits
Cost effectiveness comparison

Evaluation

Selection of the optimal development configuration

Figure 3. Study flowchart(7)

Setting ofa virtual model area

Evaluation

development patterns and evaluation methodology forRoadway
Intermediate
processing
facilitiy

Forestarea

Roadway

Base mapRiver
Plannedroadway

RailroadIntermediate processing
facilitiy
River

CSDF

OPLS

Park area

Negative map

Positive map

Superposed map

Candidate sites

Figure 2. Example of compiling a negative map and a positive map
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS• Fusao TANIZAWA (Taisei Corporation)

This report has summarized the findings of a study• Satoshi TAUE (Unitika Ltd.)

conducted by the Cost Reduction Working Group under
the Research Committee for Closed System Disposal
Facilities. This working group is composed of the

REFERENCES

following members.

Higuchi, S. (1999)• Toshinori ICHIMARU (Fudo Construction Co., Ltd.)"最終処分場の計画と建設 改訂版", Nippo Co., Ltd.,• Masayuki ITOH (Sohgoh Engineering Co., Ltd.)

ISBN4-89086-102-5 (in Japanese).

• Takaya KATOH (Waste Management Consulant)• Hiroshi KOKUBO (Penta-Ocean Construction Co.,Ltd.)

The Landfill Systems and Technologies Research• Katsumi KOTANI (Taiyo-Kogyo Corporation)

Landfills in Japan (Revised Edition), The Journal of• Akira MAEDA (Obayashi Corporation)

Waste Management.

• Ryoji MATSUMOTO (Environmental Technologic
Consultant Co., Ltd.)

Kokubo, H., Kotani, K., Katoh, T., et al. (2005)• Kiyohisa MATSUOKA (Chugai Technos Co., Ltd.)"A Study on Benefit and Cost Effectiveness of Closed• Syuji NAKANO (Pacific Consultants Co., Ltd.)

System Disposal Facilities", Proceedings the 10th

• Kouichi OKAZAKI (Okumura Corporation)

International• Seiko SUGASAWA (Waste Management Consulant)

Symposium in Sardinia 2005.

Association of Japan, NPO (2004)

(8)

Waste

Management

andLandfill