As the assistant city engineer for Dover City, one of the duties of my office is to study construction proposals sent to the city council and write a report about them. The proposal in question, in this report, is for the construction of a medical waste incinerator. The proposal suggests that the incinerator is to be located within two miles of the two major hospitals and a biotech research facility i.e. the Blue Park neighborhood in Dover City. The project posits that it will bring about 30 good jobs to the Blue Park neighborhood, an economically miserable part of town.
The two major hospitals in Dover city and the biotech research facilities do not have an efficient waste management facility within there vicinity. As such, the two hospitals and the research center use up a lot funds to manage their waste. These institutions will find the incinerator quite helpful as it will help cut costs and they can pass on the benefits to their customers and shareholders.
Criteria for evaluating the feasibility of building the incinerator
To evaluate the feasibility of building the incinerator included conducting a careful literature to search in the environmental and health research databases to read up on the published literature about the safety of incinerators and scrubbers. This was to ascertain the validity of the proposals claims about the safety record of incinerators. A systematic analysis of readers and the report's contexts of use was then carried out. A Writer-Centered Analysis Chart was first used followed by a Reader-centered Analysis Chart to discover the different readers' requirements, values, and approaches. A Context Analysis Chart was finally used in order to discover the physical, financial, political, and ethical issues concerned.
The findings of your research form the four peer-reviewed articles
From an engineering point of view, the proposal from Valley Medical, Inc. appears to be solid. On the financial facts only, the analysis found that the incinerator would be well positioned in the Blue Park region. However, the research carried out also showed that the neighborhood lacked professionally trained personnel and as such all, the well-paying employment opportunity will be given to outsiders. As such, the proposals assertion that the project will bring about 30 good jobs to the economically depressed Blue Park region will not hold. A study about incinerators demonstrated that this proposed project might not be the best decision for the health and safety of the region. Incinerators, according to Kleis & Dalager, (2) discharge different intensities of heavy metals such as manganese, nickel, mercury, lead, as well as cadmium (Beychok, 28).
These metals have been found to have the capacity to be toxic at extremely low levels. The proposal does not guarantee there will be zero emission but rather claims about "almost" removing the emissions. The proposal's plan for guaranteeing that medical waste will not sit in the area in trucks or containers pending incineration look grand on paper. However, it is obvious from experience that all manners of delays can occur in regular operations of this kind (Medina 53). In such incinerators, highly toxic ash is produced. This residue must be securely disposed. This typically will involve extra waste miles and the requirement for expert toxic waste landfill in another place. This, if not well done, might cause apprehensions for local inhabitants. Alongside these facts, other political, ethical, and economic issues should be considered. For instance, in the past, companies have been known to take advantage of the venerability of residents in poor neighborhoods and expose them to toxic materials.
Your evaluation and recommendation
After carefully evaluating the proposal, it was discovered that the project is required in the town but the location is not appropriate. Even though the proposed location is fitting to the involved hospital and research center, the incinerator will be detrimental to the wellbeing of the inhabitants of the neighborhood. In such a location, the project will face a lot of opposition and it will not have the blessings of the community in the region. I would recommend that the location of the plant be changed to a place outside town and not in a residential area. It would be insensitive to place it in a resident area especially in a community, which cannot defend itself.
Your justification or persuasion for this recommendation
This recommendation is based on the truth that the interests of the community are paramount and should not be relegated for those of three institutions that are supposed to work towards the wellbeing of the same community.
This report was produced for the City council of Dover by the city engineer Duane Jackson.