associated costs, in $/ton treated, are given in Table 2. Because total power demand in the community is expected to remain at current levels, consumption should not be disrupted. Additionally, since the cement factory is the region's main employer, it is important that any additional costs incurred by these new environmental constraints not result in cutbacks in production at the plant or that would result in a loss of jobs. Because of these factors, the costs associated with meeting the new environmental mandates are to be borne by an increase in property taxes assessed in the community. As such, control measures should be implemented in a way that minimizes cost to the community. Table 2. Costs of Feasible Emission Control Methods Control Method Power Plant 1 Power Plant 2 Cement Factory ($/ton) ($/ton) ($/ton) 1. Baffled settling chamber 1.00 1.40 1.10 2. Multiple cyclone * * 1.20 3. Long-cone cyclone * * 1.50 4. Spray scrubber 2.00 2.20 3.00 5. Electrostatic precipitator 2.80 3.00 * * Control not feasible Let x. = tons/yr of production (i.e., coal burned, cement manufactured) at source i (i.e., power plant 1, power plant 2, or cement factory) that uses emission control option j (i.e., none, baffled settling chamber, multiple cyclone, long-cone cyclone, spray scrubber, electrostatic precipitator) Table 3. Emission Control Methods i Source i j Control Method j 1. Power plant 1 0. None 2. Power plant 2 1. Baffled settling chamber 3. Cement factory 2. Multiple cyclone 3. Long-cone cyclone 4. Spray scrubber 5. Electrostatic precipitator Design the optimal treatment strategy to meet the environmental mandate given the local situation; make sure to justify your objective, to clearly define your decision variables, and to properly label all your constraints. Then solve using Excel and briefly discuss your results. For full credit, also make sure to show any intermediate calculations