4
Integrated and Interconnected Systems

All the things are eternally connected with everything.

4.1 Principle 1

Population growth, increasing living standards, and urbanization under climate change require integrated and interconnected sustainable EEIS. EEISs should be integrated and interconnected for sustainable development (NSF et al., 2015). For example, integrated plan is at the core of food–energy–water (FEW) nexus. WRRFs could be integrated with the power infrastructure for the benefit of producing energy. More importantly, the integration would make it possible for WRRFs to operate independently of the electrical grid to increase the resiliency of the EEIS. WRRFs could also be integrated with other water management infrastructures to provide reliable water supply together with reclamation and desalination. In most cities, WRRFs locate close to sanitary landfills that also produce biogas. Fat–oil–grease (FOG) from restaurants could be codigested with sludge to produce more methane. Other organic wastes in the solid waste might be diverted to anaerobic digester to produce energy and save space in landfills. Ultimately, integrated plan and design would efficiently utilize all forms of wastes to generate reclaimed water, energy, or even nutrients such as N and P.

As human population continues the path to nine billion by 2050, more than half of the population would be in the middle class. Future cities have to be designed eco‐friendly to accommodate the population growth and rising living standards. Ideally, a sustainable and resilient city should be in balance with the nature in terms of water, energy, and critical elements such as C, H, O, N, and P. Therefore, urban EEIS should be integrated and interconnected with the ecological system. With the paradigm shifts from wastes to resource, a new concept is sustainable element management. WRRFs could be designed in such a way that all the essential elements such as C, H, O, N, and P should be returned to the nature in its best original form. The integration and interconnection would bring synergy for EEIS and increase reliability on a spatial and resiliency on a temporal scale that will be explored in more detail in the next two chapters.

To sustainably manage essential elements such as C, H, O, N, and P, designers should develop alternatives to achieve environmental, economy, and equality (3E) goals using integrated approaches by engaging and interacting all the stakeholders within implementing feedback loops to achieve 3E objectives. To achieve specific air, water, and soil quality indices and to decouple economic growth from environmental pressure, stakeholders within communities should be actively participating in the development of SEE solutions. The interconnections between engineering constraints and the economic and social domain to achieve sustainability are illustrated by the Venn diagram in Figure 4.1.

Top: Venn diagram with circles labeled ecology and thermodynamics, economics and technology, and society. Bottom: Stacked Venn diagram with circles labeled environment, society, and economy (core).

Figure 4.1 Sustainability “Venn” diagram for SEE.

The ultimate goal of SEE is to design EEIS to meet demand both from the human and environment for generations to come. The major challenge faced by SEE designers is to optimize the conflicting interests of different stakeholders in achieving 3E goals. For example, using potable water for irrigation is not sustainable and wastes material and energy. Therefore, WWTP cannot be fit for all because transportation of sewage is expensive and reclaimed water is not close to its demands. For these reasons, fit for all would be intrinsically unsustainable. Therefore, SEE designers should target zero emission of air, water, and soil discharged to the environment after raw materials were used for human activities. One of the most important strategies is to manage waste by color codes such as blue, green, grey, brown, and black to achieve zero water design, while all the EEIS should be integrated and interconnected.

Integrated management plan is to decouple economic growth from environmental pressures. Many nations, e.g. the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark, showed that GDP increase could be decoupled from environmental deterioration through integrated design approach. Figure 4.2 clearly shows that the increasing GDP in the Netherlands has been decoupled from environmental degradation since 1990 (Bilthoven, 2007). These environmental effects include climate, eutrophication, acidification, and waste management.

Index vs. year displaying ascending curve represents GDP, descending curves represent eutrophication, acidification, and waste management, and fluctuating curve represents climate.

Figure 4.2 Comparing the Netherlands’ economic growth and reduction of environmental impacts, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Environmental Balance 2007, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.

(Source: Adapted from Bilthoven (2007).)

The dual objectives of protecting human health and the biosphere require designers to find the best SEE planning strategies by thinking of the system as whole. Therefore, an integrated air, water, and land management plan should develop alternatives that minimize material and energy footprint (FP) using life cycle assessment (LCA) tools. Stakeholders should be closely consulted during development of the integrated and interconnected design alternatives. The US EPA recommended the following strategies to engage stakeholders:

  1. A network of community opinion leaders should cover the existing boards or other governing bodies to provide stakeholder perspectives. Community priorities or utility sustainability objectives should be identified to prioritize SEE objectives, projects, values, and ideas for the short and long term.
  2. Stakeholder steering committees should be engaged on key planning decisions, such as setting long‐range goals and establishing project selection criteria and/or weighting schemes.
  3. Traditional and social media should be used to keep the community informed about SEE design process and strategies.
  4. Public meetings on milestones in SEE design should be held for the stakeholders and the public.

Integrated system approach (ISA) is a process whereby engineers analyze and optimize the whole technical system, which is composed of components, attributes, and relationships to achieve a specified goal. Components, attributes, and relationships, in an engineering sense, are defined as follows:

  1. Components are the operating parts of a system consisting of input, process, and output. Each system component may assume a variety of values to describe a system state as set by some control action and one or more restrictions.
  2. Attributes are the properties or discernible manifestations of the components of a system. These attributes characterize the system.
  3. Relationships are the links between components and attributes.

ISA involves an interdisciplinary or team approach throughout the system design and development process to ensure that all design objectives are addressed in an effective and efficient manner. Different design disciplines should be involved to use different methods, techniques, and tools to implement the systems engineering approach. ISA helps ensure that engineers examine the many choices that are available to meet the specific needs of society. To reduce energy and material FP, designers should:

  1. Explore all options and question all assumptions.
  2. Analyze the whole problem breadthwise before exploring parts of the solution in detail.
  3. Understand the primary system level before exploring the subsystem.
  4. Determine the functionality of the whole system before developing a physical prototype.

Effective ISA design optimization in the early stages of design projects provides significant economic, social, and environmental benefits. Decisions made early in the design process have an enormous impact on life cycle system costs, both economic and environmental. Front‐end design (FED) can lead to better‐considered decisions, lower life cycle costs, and fewer late changes through concentration of design activity and decisions in the earliest phases, where changes cost the least. FED creates easier, more rapid integration and testing by avoiding many of the problems normally encountered in these phases to develop sustainable solutions. By reducing risk early in the design process, the overall result is a saving in both time and cost, with a higher quality system design. Systems engineering has a positive effect on cost compliance and the quality of a project. In addition to the direct costs associated with the project, the cost of making design changes escalates as system development progresses. Figure 4.3 shows that the cost of making design changes is lowest during the initial design phase, is 10‐fold higher during the preproduction phase, and is more than 80‐fold higher during the production phase. Approximately 60% of life cycle costs are determined in the concept phase, and a further 20% are determined in the design phase.

Lifetime production cost vs. phase of production life (concept, design, testing, process planning, and production) displaying solid (committed cost) and dashed (incurred cost) curves forming diagonal diamond.

Figure 4.3 Comparison of the incurred costs and committed costs for each phase of system development.

(Source: Adapted from Anderson (2008).)

In the FED phase, EEIS should be integrated and interconnected according to design hierarchy – prevention, reduction, reuse, recycle, treatment, recovery, disposal, retrofit, and remediation – as shown in Figure 4.4 with input of stakeholders.

Inverted triangle labeled prevention, reduction, reuse, recycle, treatment, recovery, disposal, retrofit, and remediation (top–bottom).

Figure 4.4 Design hierarchy for air, water, and land management.

Figure 4.4 shows that prevention is the first choice among all the SEE design alternatives. If waste could not be prevented, reduction and minimization could be the second consideration. Once materials enter the economic process, recycling within the economy should be assessed to promote circular economy. To reduce the operating cost of EEIS, regenerative design should maximize the 3E objectives so that the EEIS produces more than the exergy of wastes. One of the effective ways to achieve this is photosynthesis. Ideally, green economy should target at creating green jobs such as bioenergy, solar energy, and recovery materials to achieve 3E goals. To assess the effectiveness of prevention strategies, design alternatives should be assessed and compared in terms of the reduction of chemical, biological, and radioactive risks and minimal FP on air, water, soil, and energy within the proposed budget.

4.2 Challenges and Opportunities

Water problems are mainly caused by unequal distribution of water in space. Excessive volume of water during floods creates problems for local inhabitants, farmers, industries, and municipalities. On the other hand, water shortage also creates problems during dry periods. Ideally, water resources should be available without significant changes in the quality and quantity throughout the year. The quality of water resources can be protected through strict wastewater (WW) treatment, elimination of soil erosion, point or non‐point pollution sources.

In the United States, air, water, and solid waste management are governed by separated departments within a county. Miami‐Dade County is a typical example. The Water and Sewer Department (WASD) manages water and WW, while the Department of Solid Waste is in charge of solid waste collection and disposal at landfills. Since landfill leachate is discharged to the southern Dade WWTP, reclaiming treated WW became too expensive to build the water reclaiming plant at full scale.

In China, about 1.5% of all deaths, or 64 000 persons/year, can be attributed to water pollution related to diseases. Intelligence quotient (IQ) loss in children due to ingestion of water and food contaminated with lead, mercury, and other heavy metals is the highest cost of water pollution damage. Each year, about seven million children are affected, losing on average 6.5 points on the IQ scale. In the next decades, US companies can benefit from cooperation between the United States and China in many areas. For example, the prevention and control of air emissions from electricity generation, industrial sources, vehicles, off‐road machinery, ports, and vessels are the priority. Other major markets include management of hazardous waste and solid waste, persistent organic pollutants, and other toxic substances; environmental science, technology, and standards; emergency response; environmental threats to human health and to ecosystems; ecosystems restoration and recovery; environmental policy and management; environmental education and public awareness; and environmental law development, implementation, compliance, and enforcement.

4.2.1 Market Size of Solid Waste Management in China

Rapid urbanization in China is creating huge markets for solid waste management. More importantly, the government is opening this market to private investors through public–private partnership (PPP). The major indicators to measure effectiveness of solid waste management are percentage of detoxification rate, sanitary landfill, and incineration. Table 4.1 shows that the detoxification rate of municipal solid waste (MSW) increased from 63.5 to 90% at city level. At county level, the rate increased from 27.4 to 79.4%. If every city and county is to achieve adequate detoxification treatment capacity, an additional $19.17 billion is needed in the next 5 years. Table 4.2 indicates that for major cities, treatment capacity is planned to increase 60% from 23.8 to 38 ktons for Beijing from 2015 to 2020. In terms of total treatment capacity, Guangdong will have the highest of 105.4 ktons/day, while Tibet will only have 1.5 ktons/day by 2020.

Table 4.1 Main indicators of domestic waste treatment facilities in the 13th FYP.

Serial number Main indicators 2010 2015 12th FYP Goal
1 Detoxification rate (%) Cities and counties 63.5 90.2 Achieved
Cities 77.9 94.1 90 Achieved
Counties 27.4 79.04 70 Achieved
2 Number of detoxification treatment facilities Cities and counties 1076 2077
Cities 628 890
Counties 448 1187
Sanitary landfill Cities and counties 919 1748
Cities 498 640
Counties 421 1108
Waste incineration plant Cities and counties 119 257
Cities 104 220
Counties 15 37
Others Cities and counties 38 72
Cities 26 30
Counties 12 42
3 Detoxification treatment capacity (10 000 tons/day) Cities and counties 45.7 75.8 87.1 Partially achieved
Cities 38.8 57.7 65.3 Partially achieved
Counties 6.9 18.1 21.8 Partially achieved
Sanitary landfill Cities and counties 35.2 50.2
Cities 28.9 34.4
Counties 6.2 15.8
Waste incineration plant Cities and counties 8.9 23.5
Cities 8.4 21.9
Counties 0.46 1.6
Others Cities and counties 1.5 2.1
Cities 1.3 1.4
Counties 0.25 0.7
4 Ratio of incineration Ratio of incineration 31 35 Partially achieved
Ratio of incineration in east area 48 48 achieved
5 Cities and counties with detoxification treatment capacity There are 43 cities and 367 counties without detoxification treatment capacity There are 43 cities and 367 counties without detoxification treatment capacity Every city and county has detoxification treatment capacity Partially achieved
6 Investment (billion $) 18.485 37.657 −19.171 (needed)

Table 4.2 Treatment capacity of domestic waste treatment facilities in the 13th FYP (10 000 tons/day).

13th FYP
Serial number Region Treatment capacity in 2015 Established treatment capacity New treatment capacity Closured treatment capacity Treatment capacity in 2020
1 Beijing 2.38 0.93 0.99 0.50 3.80
2 Tianjin 1.04 0 1.24 0.53 1.75
3 Hebei 3.98 0 0.97 0.60 4.35
4 Shanxi 2.35 0 0.90 0.08 3.17
5 Inner Mongolia 1.90 0.17 0.74 0 2.81
6 Liaoning 2.34 0.11 1.85 1.01 3.29
7 Dalian 0.40 0 0.70 0.15 0.95
8 Jilin 1.58 0 0.74 0 2.32
9 Heilongjiang 1.58 0.40 1.20 0.69 2.49
10 Shanghai 2.05 0.50 1.10 1.02 2.63
11 Jiangsu 6.28 0.79 1.46 0.49 8.04
12 Zhejiang 5.12 0.74 1.10 0.33 6.63
13 Ningbo 0.80 0.23 0.32 0.06 1.29
14 Anhui 2.47 0.58 2.34 0.76 4.63
15 Fujian 2.32 0.44 0.45 0.07 3.14
16 Xiamen 0.38 0 0.36 0 0.74
17 Jiangxi 1.43 0.47 1.11 0.59 2.42
18 Shandong 4.30 0.20 0.85 0.80 4.55
19 Qingdao 0.54 0.18 0.18 0.08 0.82
20 Henan 3.73 0.23 1.53 0.40 5.09
21 Hubei 2.67 0.10 1.75 0.47 4.05
22 Hunan 3.63 0.03 1.60 0.49 4.77
23 Guangdong 6.11 3.10 4.16 2.83 10.54
24 Shenzhen 1.57 0 1.03 0.43 2.17
25 Guangxi 1.45 0.34 0.73 0.33 2.19
26 Hainan 0.55 0.05 0.38 0.27 0.71
27 Chongqing 1.19 0.69 1.11 0.26 2.73
28 Sichuan 3.20 0.60 1.90 0.55 5.15
29 Guizhou 1.36 0.98 0.58 0.72 2.20
30 Yunnan 1.63 0.18 0.84 0.51 2.14
31 Tibet 0 0.03 0.12 0 0.15
32 Shaanxi 2.70 0.10 0.60 0.26 3.14
33 Gansu 0.85 0.31 0.95 0.30 1.81
34 Qinghai 0.33 0 0.68 0.12 0.89
35 Ningxia 0.46 0.11 0.25 0.11 0.71
36 Xinjiang 1.16 0.26 0.96 0.50 1.88
37 Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps 0 0.05 0.19 0 0.24
38 Heilongjiang Land Reclamation 0 0 0.11 0 0.11
Total 75.83 12.90 38.07 16.31 110.49

Figure 4.5 shows that the top five current treatment capacities are Jiangsu, Guangdong, Zhejiang, and Hebei in 2015.

Treatment capacity of domestic waste treatment facilities in 2015, displaying 5 descending bars for Jiangsu, Guangdong, Zhejiang, Shandong, and Hebei (left–right).

Figure 4.5 Treatment capacity of domestic waste treatment facilities in 2015 (10 000 tons/day).

By 2020, Guangdong will have 105.4 kton/day followed by Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Sichuan, and Henan at 80, 66.3, 51.5, and 47.7 ktons/day, respectively (Figures 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 4.13, 4.14, 4.15, and 4.16).

Treatment capacity of domestic waste treatment facilities in 2020, displaying 5 descending bars for Guangdong, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Sichuan, and Henan (left–right). Sichuan and Henan are equal.

Figure 4.6 Treatment capacity of domestic waste treatment facilities in 2020 (10 000 tons/day).

Landfill capacity of domestic solid waste treatment facilities in 2015, displaying 5 descending bars for Guangdong, Hunan, Henan, Hebei, and Jiangsu (left–right).

Figure 4.7 Landfill capacity of domestic solid waste treatment facilities in 2015 (10 000 tons/day).

Incineration capacity of domestic waste treatment facilities in 2015, displaying 5 decreasing vertical bars for Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Guangdong, Shandong, and Fujian (left–right).

Figure 4.8 Incineration capacity of domestic waste treatment facilities in 2015 (10 000 tons/day).

Landfill of domestic waste treatment facilities in 2020, displaying 5 decreasing vertical bars for Henan, Guangdong, Hunan, Sichuan, and Hebei (left–right).

Figure 4.9 Landfill of domestic waste treatment facilities in 2020 (10 000 tons/day).

Incineration capacity of domestic waste treatment facilities in 2020, displaying 5 decreasing vertical bars for Guangdong, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Anhui, and Shandong (left–right).

Figure 4.10 Incineration capacity of domestic waste treatment facilities in 2020 (10 000 tons/day).

Number of landfills in the 13th FYP, displaying 5 decreasing vertical bars for Jiangxi, Anhui, Hainan, Henan, and Gansu (left–right).

Figure 4.11 Number of landfills in the 13th FYP.

New treatment facilities investment in the 13th FYP, displaying 5 decreasing vertical bars for Guangdong, Anhui, Shenzhen, Zhejiang, and Beijing (left–right).

Figure 4.12 New treatment facilities investment in the 13th FYP (billion $).

Transfer facilities investment in the 13th FYP, displaying 5 decreasing vertical bars for Liaoning, Anhui, Sichuan, Xinjiang, and Hunan (left–right).

Figure 4.13 Transfer facilities investment in the 13th FYP (billion $).

Transfer facilities investment of food waste in 13th FYP, displaying 5 decreasing vertical bars for Zhejiang, Guangdong, Jiangsu, Henan, and Beijing (left–right).

Figure 4.14 Treatment facilities investment of food waste in the 13th FYP (billion $).

Monitoring system investment in 13th FYP, displaying 5 decreasing vertical bars for Hunan, Beijing, Anhui, Tianjin, and Hebei (left–right).

Figure 4.15 Monitoring system investment in the 13th FYP (billion $).

Total investment of domestic solid waste treatment facilities in the 13th FYP, displaying 5 decreasing vertical bars for Beijing, Guangdong, Anhui, Zhejiang, and Liaoning (left–right).

Figure 4.16 Total investment of domestic solid waste treatment facilities in the 13th FYP (billion $).

4.3 Integrated Solid Waste Management

4.3.1 Integrated Solid Waste Management Market in China

There are huge market and investment opportunities in China in integrated solid waste management (ISWM). Currently, most municipal solid waste (MSW) were open dumped in the city surrounding. Satellite images show that many cities are surrounded by domestic wastes that catastrophically cause deterioration in air, water, and soil quality and ultimately pose threat to human health. These opportunities can be seen from the 13th Five‐Year Plan (FYP) of China. Since there is limited land available for waste, incineration of solid wastes is the major trend. Taking Beijing as an example, the percentage of incineration of municipal solid waste (MSW) is 44% in 2015. The 13th FYP targets at 67% incineration which is 27% increase. There are many benefits for incineration of MSW: (i) it harvests energy for the MSW, (ii) it occupies much less land, (iii) it does not produce leachate that needs continuous treatment, and (iv) it does not produce odor, fliers and birds. As a result, property value of properties close to the facilities will not significantly depreciate as those close to landfills. For other major cities and provinces, the same increasing trend of incineration is planned (Table 4.3).

Table 4.3 Landfill and incineration of domestic solid waste in the 13th FYP.

image

The market opportunities can be exemplified in Table 4.4, which lists the new collection and transport management and treatment facilities of food waste in the 13th FYP of China.

Table 4.4 New collection and transport, management, and treatment facilities of food waste in the 13th FYP.

Serial number Region Collection and transport capacity (10 000 tons/day) Solid waste management Treatment capacity of food waste (10 000 tons/day)
1 Beijing 1.39 7 0.15
2 Tianjin 0.95 3 0.08
3 Hebei 1.84 22 0.16
4 Shanxi 0.75 7 0.06
5 Inner Mongolia 1.02 19 0.05
6 Liaoning 4.62 17 0.07
7 Dalian 0.85 6 0.02
8 Jilin 0.55 21 0.05
9 Heilongjiang 1.11 33 0.08
10 Shanghai 0.86 2 0.13
11 Jiangsu 1.87 17 0.22
12 Zhejiang 0.87 10 0.31
13 Ningbo 0.57 3 0.15
14 Anhui 3.13 80 0.10
15 Fujian 1.04 0 0.08
16 Xiamen 0.40 0 0.02
17 Jiangxi 1.62 102 0.08
18 Shandong 1.40 10 0.08
19 Qingdao 0.20 0 0.01
20 Henan 1.73 55 0.16
21 Hubei 2.30 9 0.09
22 Hunan 2.14 41 0.11
23 Guangdong 0 48 0.34
24 Shenzhen 1.28 3 0.07
25 Guangxi 1.21 22 0.05
26 Hainan 0.21 58 0.02
27 Chongqing 1.34 8 0.15
28 Sichuan 2.70 39 0.11
29 Guizhou 1.16 10 0.06
30 Yunnan 0.94 36 0.08
31 Tibet 0.17 0 0.01
32 Shaanxi 0.85 20 0.05
33 Gansu 0.70 51 0.06
34 Qinghai 0.48 11 0.01
35 Ningxia 0.17 22 0.04
36 Xinjiang 1.33 11 0.12
37 Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps 0.29 0 0.01
38 Heilongjiang Land Reclamation 0.18 0 0
Total 44.22 803 3.44

Table 4.5 shows the monetary values of these MSW markets. A total of $35 billion investment is needed for the next 5 years to achieve the planned targets of MSW management. The major trend in China’s EEIS markets is PPP mechanism that opens great opportunities for EEIS designers to reduce the environmental impacts of MSW in China.

Table 4.5 Domestic solid waste treatment facilities investment in the 13th FYP (billion $).

Serial number Region New treatment facilities Transfer facilities Treatment facilities of food waste Landfills Classification facilities Monitoring system Total
1 Beijing 1.093 0.1 0.129 1.464 0.071 0.029 2.886
2 Tianjin 0.736 0.068 0.057 0.014 0.071 0.014 0.961
3 Hebei 0.514 0.131 0.094 0.057 0.029 0.014 0.840
4 Shanxi 0.511 0.052 0.051 — 0.028 0.014 0.658
5 Inner Mongolia 0.351 0.073 0.043 0.050 0.029 0.014 0.560
6 Liaoning 1.041 0.358 0.056 0.053 0.029 0.014 1.551
7 Dalian 0.284 0.103 0.011 0.179 0.071 0.014 0.663
8 Jilin 0.389 0.039 0.043 0.072 0.028 0.014 0.585
9 Heilongjiang 0.786 0.079 0.064 0.034 0.029 0.014 1.006
10 Shanghai 0.536 0.061 0.074 0.006 0.071 0.014 0.763
11 Jiangsu 0.754 0.167 0.189 0.050 0.029 0.014 1.202
12 Zhejiang 1.237 0.125 0.264 0.041 0.029 0.014 1.711
13 Ningbo 0.321 0.140 0.126 0.014 0.054 0.014 0.670
14 Anhui 1.543 0.234 0.084 0.247 0.036 0.024 2.169
15 Fujian 0.270 0.074 0.069 — 0.029 0.014 0.456
16 Xiamen 0.311 0.040 0.017 — 0.028 0.014 0.411
17 Jiangxi 0.652 0.115 0.051 0.038 0.028 0.014 0.901
18 Shandong 0.728 0.142 0.064 0.128 0.028 0.014 1.107
19 Qingdao 0.205 0.014 0.008 0.000 0.028 0.014 0.271
20 Henan 0.901 0.122 0.137 0.117 0.028 0.014 1.321
21 Hubei 0.918 0.164 0.075 0.050 0.028 0.014 1.251
22 Hunan 1.007 0.177 0.092 0.100 0.042 0.051 1.471
23 Guangdong 1.914 — 0.195 0.202 0.028 0.014 2.355
24 Shenzhen 1.290 0.091 0.047 0.030 0.028 0.014 1.501
25 Guangxi 0.388 0.085 0.042 0.050 0.028 0.014 0.610
26 Hainan 0.261 0.014 0.017 — 0.028 0.014 0.335
27 Chongqing 0.704 0.095 0.120 0.038 0.071 0.014 1.044
28 Sichuan 1.074 0.192 0.080 0.065 0.028 0.014 1.455
29 Guizhou 0.471 0.082 0.040 0.028 0.028 0.014 0.665
30 Yunnan 0.370 0.067 0.045 0.072 0.028 0.014 0.598
31 Tibet 0.134 0.074 0.008 0.007 0.028 0.014 0.267
32 Shaanxi 0.364 0.061 0.034 0.017 0.028 0.014 0.520
33 Gansu 0.552 0.050 0.042 0.107 0.028 0.014 0.795
34 Qinghai 0.775 0.054 0.004 0.028 0.028 0.014 0.905
35 Ningxia 0.130 0.012 0.030 0.048 0.028 0.014 0.264
36 Xinjiang 0.584 0.182 0.105 0.034 0.054 0.014 0.975
37 Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps 0.098 0.02 0.005 — 0.014 0.014 0.152
38 Heilongjiang Land Reclamation 0.068 0.012 — — 0.014 0.014 0.110
Total 24.275 3.682 2.621 3.448 1.344 0.604 35.977

4.3.2 Strategy of ISWM

The hierarchy of ISWM is reduction, reuse, recycling, recovery, landfill or incineration, and controlled dump by the best available technologies. For example, waste reduction includes longer‐lasting and reusable products and decreased consumption. Waste collection should use alternative nonfossil fuels. Recycling/materials recovery uses materials recovery facilities (MRFs) to process source‐separated materials or mixed waste. MRFs use a combination of manual and mechanical sorting options. Materials should be separated as a recyclable source to reduce contamination. Organic material should be composted after digestion to produce a useful soil conditioner and avoid landfill disposal. Finished compost applied to soils is also an important method to reduce GHG emissions by reducing nitrogen requirements and associated GHG emissions. Waste can be incinerated to generate energy, while last and least option is landfill. Landfill sites should capture the methane that they generate or use it as a renewable energy resource. The US EPA (2012) recommended that an ISWM plan should include the following sections (Table 4.6).

Table 4.6 The US EPA procedure to develop a strategic plan (The US EPA, 2012).

Step Actions
1 List municipal policies, aims, objectives, and initiatives
2 Identify the character and scale of the city, natural conditions, climate, development, and distribution of population
3 Collect the MSW waste generation data such as MSW composition, moisture content, and density (dry weight), present and predicted of both recent years and projections over the lifetime of the plan (usually 15–25 years)
4 Identify all proposed alternatives for waste collection, transportation, treatment, and disposal of the defined types and quantities of solid waste
5 Assess alternatives of the ISWM by assessing all technical, environmental, social, and financial issues
6 Specify the amount, scale, and distribution of collection, transportation, treatment, and disposal systems of different alternatives
7 Identify institutional reforms and regulatory arrangements needed to support the plan
8 Analyze both investment and recurrent costs associated with the proposed facilities and services over the lifetime of the plan
9 Develop and operate the final alternative including estimated subsidy transfers and user fees
10 Develop what facilities are required, who will provide them and the related services, and how such facilities and services will be paid for
11 Implement the plan covering a period of at least 5–10 years, with an immediate action plan detailing actions set out for the first 2–3 years
12 Outline public consultations carried out during preparation of the plan and proposed in future
13 Outline the detailed program to be used to site key waste management facilities, e.g. landfills, compost plants, and transfer stations
14 Assess GHG emissions and the role of MSW in the city’s overall urban environmental plans

Figure 4.17 shows the US EPA proposed solid waste management hierarchy.

EPA solid waste management hierarchy illustrated by an inverted triangle with 4 segments labeled Source reduction and reuse, Recycling/composting, Energy recovery, and Treatment and disposal (top–bottom).

Figure 4.17 EPA solid waste management hierarchy.

In short, ISWM aims to prevent, reduce, recycle, recover, and dispose of wastes through:

  1. Ecodesign
  2. Eco‐innovation
  3. Resource efficiency
  4. Cleaner production
  5. Sustainable production and consumption
  6. Product as service
  7. Life cycle approach
  8. Cradle to cradle
  9. Green economy

There are three perspectives in ISWM, namely, source, stakeholders, and life cycle. Figure 4.18 shows that reduction, reuse, and recycle (3Rs) are the most important strategies in minimizing residential, industrial, and service solid wastes. Separating hazardous waste from MSW is critical in SEE design. From a stakeholder perspective, the “three Rs” are important for residential, industrial, and service stakeholders. Governments should establish the “three Rs” rules which are guided by the SEE design principles. The innovative solutions including energy recovery, green jobs, and recycling materials were illustrated by the UNEP (2013) in Figure 4.19.

Diagram illustrating generation source perspective of integrated solid waste management with arrows connecting boxes labeled Residential, Industrial and commercial, Services, Energy, Resources, etc.

Figure 4.18 Generation source perspective of integrated solid waste management.

(Source: Adapted from UNEP (2013).)

Diagram illustrating stakeholders/management perspective of integrated solid waste management with arrows connecting boxes labeled Waste generators, Government, Waste generation, Businesses, etc.

Figure 4.19 Stakeholders/management perspective of integrated solid waste management.

(Source: Adapted from UNEP (2013).)

From an LCA perspective, when materials are extracted from the nature, the reduction of solid waste should be emphasized. In the consumption phase, reuse and recycle are the key. After consumption, proper treatment and disposal should be designed so that human health and the environment are protected. For developed countries, sustainable consumption holds the key to reduce overshooting in terms of ecological FP. For developing countries, the recycling rate should be significantly increased in SEE design (Figure 4.20).

Diagram illustrating life cycle perspective of integrated solid waste management with arrows connecting boxes labeled Natural resources recycled resources, Directly recycled resources, Production, etc.

Figure 4.20 Life cycle perspective of integrated solid waste management.

(Source: Adapted from UNEP (2013).)

MSW per capita generation directly correlates with the country’s GDP. Hoornweg and Bhada‐Tata (2012) divided countries into four groups according to the national gross production as low, lower middle, upper middle, and high income at GDP calculated using the World Bank Atlas method of $1 045 or less in 2014; middle‐income economies are those with a gross national income (GNI) per capita of more than $1 045 but less than $4 125, upper‐middle income is from $4 125 to $12 736, and high‐income economies are those with a GNI per capita of $12 736 or more. The MSW collection rates in countries with GNIs high, upper middle, low middle, and low change from 98, 85, 69 to 42%, respectively (World Bank, 2012). The MSW generation data for different income countries are estimated in 2010 and 2025 as shown in Tables 4.7 and 4.8.

Table 4.7 Estimated solid waste management costs in 2010 and 2025.

Source: World Bank (2012).

Country income group MSW management cost in 2010 (billion $) MSW management cost estimated in 2025 (billion $)
Low income 1.5 7.7
Lower middle income 20.1 84.1
Upper middle income 24.5 63.5
High income 159.3 220.2
Total global cost ($) 205.4 375

Table 4.8 Solid waste generation in 2010 and 2025.

Source: World Bank (2012).

MSW data in 2010 Projections for 2025
Region Urban waste generation Projected population Projected urban waste
Total urban population (millions) Per capita (kg/capita/day) Total (tons/day) Total population (millions) Urban population (millions) Per capita (kg/capita/day) Total (tons/day)
Low income 343 0.60 204 802 1637 676 0.86 584 272
Lower middle income 1293 0.78 1 012 321 4010 2080 1.3 2 618 804
Upper middle income 572 1.16 665 586 888 619 1.6 987 039
High income 774 2.13 1 649 547 1112 912 2.1 1 879 590
Total 2982 1.19 3 532 256 7647 4287 1.4 6 069 705
Solid waste composition estimated in 2025
Low income 62 6 9 3 3 17
Lower middle income 55 10 13 4 3 15
Upper middle income 50 15 12 4 4 15

The composition of MSW also depends upon income levels. The MSW can be classified as organic, paper, plastic, glass, and metal. Specifically, organic includes food scraps, garden (leaves, grass, brush) waste, wood, and process residues. Paper includes paper scraps, cardboard, newspapers, magazines, bags, boxes, wrapping paper, telephone books, shredded paper, and paper beverage cups. Plastic includes packaging, containers, bags, lids, and cups. Glass includes bottles, broken glassware, light bulbs, and colored glass. Metal includes cans, foil, tins, nonhazardous aerosol cans, appliances (white goods), railings, and bicycles. Other includes textiles, leather, rubber, multilaminates, e‐waste, appliances, ash, and other inert materials. Table 4.9 lists the distribution of these classes according to countries’ income groups. The per capita weight and total solid waste generated will continue to increase with urbanization. In 2002, there were 2.9 billion urban residents who generated about 0.64 kg of MSW per person per day (0.68 billion tons/year). In 2010, Hoornweg and Bhada‐Tata (2012) estimated that about three billion residents generate 1.2 kg/person/day (1.3 billion tons/year). By 2025 this will likely increase to 4.3 billion urban residents generating about 1.42 kg/capita/day of MSW (2.2 billion tons/year). The increasing trend of MSW requires ISWM.

Table 4.9 Solid waste composition in 2010 and 2025.

Source: World Bank (2012).

Region Solid waste composition in 2010
Organic Paper Plastic Glass Metal Other
Low income 64 5 8 3 3 17
Lower middle income 59 9 12 3 2 15
Upper middle income 54 14 11 5 3 13
High income 28 31 11 7 6 17
Region Solid waste composition estimated in 2025
Low income 62 6 9 3 3 17
Lower middle income 55 10 13 4 3 15
Upper middle income 50 15 12 4 4 15
High income 28 30 11 7 6 18

4.3.3 LCA on Footprint of Solid Waste Recycle

4.3.4 ISWM Data Analysis

Data analysis plays a critical role in ISWM because EEIS design needs design parameters such as waste generation factors (WGF).

4.3.4.1 Calculations for Measuring Quantity

  1. Quantifying a waste sector on vehicle surveys If the annual tonnage of all waste disposed of at the facility is known, the vehicle survey data can be used to determine the portion of annual disposal corresponding to the waste sectors being studied. For a given waste sector, S, the sector tonnage can be calculated from the tonnage, of an individual vehicle:
    (4.5)images

    If the annual tonnage of all waste disposed at the facility is not known, the corresponding tons that were counted during the vehicle survey can be used to extrapolated:

    (4.6)images

    Appropriate adjustments should be made for the differences across days, weeks, or seasons.

  2. Quantifying a waste sector on measurement at the point of generation

    The process of quantifying waste for an industry sector involves several steps, starting with the individual measurements of waste taken at the generators, then, the following steps should be followed:

    First, extrapolate the volume of waste disposed of using each waste container (or pile or process, etc.) at each generator:

    (4.7)images

    Second, add the extrapolated volume of waste disposed of all containers that handle waste belonging to the same waste stream at the location:

    (4.8)images

    Third, calculate the density of the waste at the generator location based on data from the waste sample:

    (4.9)images

    Fourth, apply the location‐specific density figure to calculate the tons of waste disposed annually by the generator:

    (4.10)images

    Fifth, calculate a “scale‐up factor” for waste generation by the industry and size group. For many commercial sectors, the appropriate scale‐up factor is proportional to the number of employees. For most agricultural sectors, it is according to number of crop acres or number of animals. The following example shown involves calculating tons per employee (TPE) for a given industry. It draws upon data reflecting the tone disposed:

    (4.11)images

    Sixth, calculate the tons disposed of from the entire industry. The following example draws upon data reflecting the total number of employees in the larger population (e.g. countywide, statewide, etc.) of industry members in the appropriate size group:

    (4.12)images

    Seventh, add the results for the size groups to calculate total tons disposed of by the industry:

    (4.13)images

  3. Quantifying based on waste generation factor (WGF)

    In calculating and projecting waste quantities, especially from the service and industrial sector, WGF should be determined. Then it will be easy to extrapolate the waste generation rates for the industries and services. WGF depends on size of operation, waste management practices, and process technology. Therefore, the information for this sector should have the size of production and process technology with respect to nonhazardous and hazardous waste generation. WGF can be defined as

    (4.14)images

4.3.4.2 Calculations for Composition

The composition of the waste corresponding to a sector of the waste stream is calculated using the method described in the succeeding text. The method should be applied separately to each waste sector being studied and to each size group or distinct waste stream within an industry group.

  1. Calculating the mean estimate For a given material, j, in all of the relevant samples, i, calculate the ratio, r, of the material weight, m, to the total sample weight, w:
    (4.15)images

    The calculation should be repeated for each material.

  2. Calculating the error range For each mean estimate, rj, calculated, the confidence interval (error range) surrounding the mean estimate is calculated as follows. First, calculate the variance, images, of the mean estimate:
    (4.16)images

    where n is the number of samples and mean sample weight images.

    Confidence level is images, where t depends on the number of samples, n, and the desired confidence level. The value of t can be estimated from t‐static.

  3. Volume‐to‐weight conversion factors and net weight of waste

    Combining the composition estimates for two or more segments of the waste stream requires the use of the weighted averages method. The result for each segment of the waste stream is weighted according to the relative size of that segment in the larger waste stream being studied.

  4. Calculating the weighting factors when combining waste sectors

    A specific weighting factor should be calculated for each sector or segment of the waste stream being studied. The weighting factor, PG, for each segment or size group, G, within the waste stream is calculated as follows:

    (4.17)images

    A weighting factor should be calculated for every waste sector, so the sum of all the values of PG should equal one.

  5. Calculating the mean estimate for combining waste sectors

    The mean estimate for a given material, j, in a combination of segments (1, 2, 3…) of the waste stream can be found as follows:

    (4.18)images

  6. Calculating variance and confidence level for combined sectors

    After a mean estimate for combined waste sectors is calculated as shown earlier, the variance surrounding the estimate can be calculated as follows:

    (4.19)images

    Confidence level is images.

4.3.5 Determining Waste Composition

4.3.5.1 Moisture Content

Moisture content is a very important factor that influences decisions on converting organic waste into compost and biogas, using solid waste as a fuel and designing landfills or incineration plants. Currently there are various types of moisture meters available to check moisture content. However, the traditional test could also be done on certain types of materials. The moisture content is measured by heating the sample at 105°C in an oven until the weight loss stabilizes. The weight of the sample before and after gives the moisture content. The different fractions of the waste stream should have their moisture content measured separately.

4.3.5.2 Calorific Value

The energy value of the waste components depends on its calorific value, which is influenced by the moisture content and hydrogen content of the waste. The formula for determining the calorific value of waste components is

(4.20)images

where

  • CV = calorific value (“raw” is real “as delivered” value, and “upper” is value for dried material) in kJ/kg
  • MC = % moisture content (by weight)
  • H = % hydrogen content (from literature)
  • *Vaporization enthalpy of water (2441 kJ/kg at 25°C)

To determine the calorific value of a waste stream, the following steps must be carried out:

  1. Sample to be sorted and analyzed into fractions.
  2. CVupper is applied from literature.
  3. CVupper is analyzed for unknown fractions.
  4. % hydrogen is applied from literature.
  5. Moisture of fractions is determined.
  6. The values for CVraw are calculated.

Default higher calorific values and hydrogen contents for solid waste are shown in Table 4.21. Moisture content varies by location (climatic variation) and by season and leads to a directly proportional change in the CVraw.

Table 4.21 Moisture content, hydrogen content, and calorific values for MSW.

Material in MSW Moisture (%) Hydrogen content (%) CVupper (kJ/kg) CVraw (kJ/kg)
Eligible components
Kitchen organics – vegetable 80.9 6.2 19 800 1 540
Kitchen organics – meat 52.9 9.4 11 900 3 340
Municipal garden organics 46.5 6 16 800 7 140
Paper composite 12 7.5 21 450 17 130
Mixed paper 29.7 5.8 15 150 9 030
Liquid paper board 4.5 7.5 21 450 12 520
Newspaper 7.2 6.1 17 330 14 660
Magazines 5 5.1 13 500 11 640
Cardboard 6.7 5.9 18 670 16 050
Disposable nappies 55 6.4 22 900 41 902
Wood (timber) 19 6 20 630 15 070
Noneligible components
Textiles4 26.8 6.4 16 780 10600
Liquid paper board 4.5 7.5 21 450 6 360
Disposable nappies 55 6.4 22 900 4 140
Compounds (radios) 10 5.1 12 000 9 570
Mixed plastics 10 10 39 000 32 880
Plastic composite <1 10 37 100 34 900
Plastic film <1 10 40 000 37 800
Polystyrene (PS) <1 8.4 40 000 38 150
Polyethylene (PE) <1 14.2 45 000 41 880
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) <1 5.6 25 000 23 770
Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) <1 6 25 000 23 680
Polypropylene (PP) <1 14 44 000 40 920
Rubber 18.7 8.7 23 100 16 770

4.3.5.3 Chemical Composition

For organic and inorganic waste, information on chemical composition is quite important to design recycling, composting, energy recovery, and disposal. The important elements are carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, and ash. That data may be utilized to calculate the composition of the collected waste.

4.3.5.4 Calorific Values

(4.21)images

where

  1. CV = calorific value (“raw” is real “as delivered” value, and “upper” is value for dried material) in kJ/kg
  2. MC = % moisture content (by weight)
  3. H = % hydrogen content (from literature)
  4. *Vaporization enthalpy of water (2441 kJ/kg at 25°C).

4.3.5.5 Data Presentation

Similar tables may be produced for other sectors. Thereafter, similar waste components from different sectors could be grouped for different purposes, including the overall available amount of certain components for recycling or for final disposal (Tables 4.26, 4.27, 4.28, 4.29, and 4.30).

Table 4.26 Calorific values for waste components in city X.

Component CVraw CVupper Hydrogen (H) Moisture content (MC)
kJ/kg kJ/kg (%) (%)
Food 3 809 19 800 6. 70
Paper 14 905 17 330 6 6
Cardboard 16383 18 670 5.9 5
Plastics 37 020 39 000 7.2 1
Textiles 13 553 16 780 6.6 10
Rubber 41 803 44 000 10 0
Yard waste 3 832 16 800 6 65
Wood 14 961 20 630 6 20

CV is calorific value; “raw” is real “as delivered” value of the collected waste, while “upper” is value for dried material from literature.

Table 4.27 Solid waste generation in city X (167tpd nonhazardous and 33tpd hazardous).

Sector estimated Ratio (%age) Estimated tonnage (per day)
Nonhazardous Hazardous
Residential 22.6 45.2 0.0
Commercial 17.4 34.8 0.0
Construction and demolition 9.0 16.0 1.0
Healthcare 0.5 1.0 1.0
Industrial 50.0 70.0 30.0
Sludge 0.5 0.0 1.0

Table 4.28 Residential waste in city X.

Component Wet weight Dry weight Composition
kg kg MC CV C H O N S Ash
Food waste 4.1 1.2 70 3 809 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1
Paper 15.4 14.5 6 14 905 6.3 0.9 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.9
Cardboard 2.7 2.6 5 16 383 1.1 0.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.1
Plastic 3.2 3.1 1 37 020 1.9 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.3
Textiles 0.9 0.8 10 13 553 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Rubber 0.2 0.2 0 41 803 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Leather 0.2 0.2 20 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Yard waste 8.4 2.9 65 3 832 1.4 0.2 1.1 0.1 0.0 0.1
Wood 0.9 0.7 20 14 961 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Glass 4.0 4.0
Metals 5.1 5.1

MC, CV, C, H, O, N, and S are moisture content, calorific value, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur, respectively.

Table 4.29 Aggregated data on waste components.

Components Residential Commercial Construction Industrial Healthcare Total
Food waste 4.1 5.2 0.0 2.0 0.3 11.6
Paper 15.4 5.0 0.2 7.0 0.1 27.7
Cardboard 2.7 3.0 1.0 9.0 0.0 15.7
Plastic 3.2 3.3 1.0 10.0 0.1 17.6
Textiles 0.9 1.2 0.0 5.0 0.2 7.3
Rubber 0.2 1.0 1.0 5.0 0.1 7.3
Leather 0.2 1.0 1.0 5.0 0.1 7.3
Yard waste 8.4 4.0 1.0 5.0 0.1 18.5
Wood 0.9 2.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 11.9
Glass 4.0 4.0 2.0 7.0 0.0 17.0
Metals 5.1 5.1 3.0 10.0 0.0 23.2
Hazardous 0.0 0.0 1.0 30.0 1.0 32.0
Total 45.2 34.8 15.2 100.0 2.0 197.2

Table 4.30 Time series data and projections (1991–2010) for residential waste in city X.

Year Residential Year Residential
Organic Inorganic Total Organic Inorganic Total
1991 20.0 15.0 35.0 2001 14.0 28.0 42.0
1992 19.0 16.0 35.0 2002 14.0 29.0 43.0
1993 18.0 17.0 35.0 2003 13.8 30.0 43.8
1994 17.0 20.0 37.0 2004 13.6 31.0 44.6
1995 17.0 22.0 39.0 2005 13.4 31.8 45.2
1996 16.0 23.0 39.0 2006 13.4 33.0 46.4
1997 15.0 24.0 39.0 2007 12.9 34.2 47.1
1998 15.0 25.0 40.0 2008 12.5 35.4 47.9
1999 14.5 26.5 41.0 2009 12.0 36.6 48.6
2000 14.5 27.5 42.0 2010 11.6 37.8 49.4

Organic waste covers food waste and yard waste that can be converted into compost.

4.3.6 Zero Waste

In 2007, the City Council of San José (City) developed an ISWM Zero Waste Strategic Plan for 2040. To provide resource conservation, waste reduction, pollution prevention, and a sustainable economy, the ISWM Zero Waste Strategic Plan addresses the following key components:

  1. Strengthening recycling programs.
  2. Identifying infrastructure requirements for reusing, recycling, and composting.
  3. Establishing effective waste prevention programs, incentives, and fee structures.
  4. Identifying economic development opportunities from expanding solid waste processing facilities and industries using recycled materials as feedstock.

4.3.7 Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM)

“IWRM is a process that promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources in order to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems” (GWP, 2017). IWRM could enhance water resources management toward economic efficiency, equity, and environmental sustainability. IWRM should be based on a participatory approach, involving users, planners, and policy makers at all levels. Water has an economic value in all its competing uses and should be recognized as an economic good.

To establish IWRM objectives, the EPA lays out the following procedure:

  1. Goal setting: Establish sustainability goals that reflect utility and community priorities.
  2. Objectives and strategies: Establish explicit, measurable objectives for each sustainability goal and identify strategies for meeting the objectives.
  3. Alternatives analysis: Based on sustainability goals and objectives, set explicit and consistent evaluation criteria to analyze a range of infrastructure alternatives.
  4. Financial strategy: Implement a financial strategy including adequate revenues so that new infrastructure and operational investments – as well as the overall system – are sufficiently funded, operated, maintained, and replaced over time on a full life cycle cost basis, with appropriate considerations for disadvantaged households.

The potential sustainable goals and the corresponding examples are listed in Tables 4.38, 4.39, 4.40, 4.41, 4.42, and 4.43.

Table 4.38 Integrated planning for WTPs and WWTPs.

Source: The US EPA (2012).

Sustainable goals Examples
Improve compliance Collaborate with neighboring utilities to increase or maintain technical, managerial, or financial capacity
Reduce energy cost Invest in more energy efficient equipment or explore operational changes that can enhance energy optimization (such as pumping at night when the rate is lower)
Reduce overall infrastructure costs Coordinate infrastructure projects such as rain gardens
Extend the projected adequacy of current water supplies Implement water metering, fix distribution system leaks, or make use of reclaimed water
Implement a mix of nontraditional infrastructure alternatives such as green infrastructure solutions with integrated stormwater and combined sewer overflow control
Preserve critical ecological areas Adopt management programs for septic systems to reduce nutrient loadings to water bodies or green treatment such as GI
Improve the economic vitality Target water infrastructure projects to encourage redevelopment
Enhance community livability Incorporate green space or recreational opportunities into projects
Reduce long‐term system operational costs Use wetlands to reduce the input of energy and chemicals for treatment or reuse water treatment solids
Improve operational resilience Understand operational, financial, and potential climate vulnerabilities and incorporate them into alternatives analysis to reduce risk
Reduce vulnerability to water supply disruption or contamination Conduct real‐time water quality monitoring, install isolation shutoff values, or provide connections to alternative water supplies

Table 4.39 The US EPA procedure for identifying sustainable goals.

Source: The US EPA (2012).

Step Actions
1 Identify sustainability priorities and potential opportunities for the utility
2 Identify community sustainability priorities
3
  • Engage the community about its sustainability priorities
  • Participating in direct discussions with other planning institutions and community bodies early in their planning processes
  • Getting involved with existing community‐wide planning efforts
  • Aligning utility planning with existing community plans
  • Convening a stakeholder process for water planning
4 Identify and document sustainability goals

Table 4.40 The US EPA procedure to develop a strategic plan.

Source: The US EPA (2012).

Step Actions
1 Develop a strategic roadmap
2 Define the service area
3 Assess the system’s technical, managerial, and financial capabilities
4 Identify alternatives
5 Assess alternatives
6 Implement an action plan
7 Evaluate alternatives

Table 4.41 Step‐by‐step guide for conducting baseline analysis.

Step Actions
1 Describe the water storage and delivery system, including the size of the physical system, the number of people and connections, services, land use, demographics, and any unique characteristics that affect supply or demand
2 Inventory the water supply system, including sources of water supply, the status of water rights, and any limits on system capacity
3 Estimate present water demand (e.g. with information from current billing records)
4 Estimate future water demand based on population growth projections and other relevant information
5 List and rank water problems, including high per capita use, significant losses, constraints on system capacity, and/or insufficient water rights
6 List and analyze potential solutions, including water conservation through infrastructure investments (e.g. repairing leaks, replacing old lines and tanks, etc.) and/or demand reduction

Table 4.42 Sustainable criteria.

Number Sustainable criteria
1 Ecological and economic impacts, such as the extent to which projects damage (or create) important habitat, or create green space and recreation opportunities
2 Preference for treatment or operational functions that rely on natural systems for lower life cycle operating costs through reduced energy and chemical inputs
3 Reduced reliance on the energy grid through greater energy efficiency or self‐generation of energy
4 The extent to which projects focus on sustainability of infrastructure in a utility’s existing service area
5 Cost‐effectiveness based on an assessment of full life cycle costs

Table 4.43 Procedure in assessing alternatives.

Step Action
1 Identify alternatives
2 Develop specific sustainability criteria
3 Assess the benefits of each alternative
4 Assess the full costs of each alternative using life cycle assessment
5 Compare and select alternatives
6 Document the alternatives analysis

For small utilities, the EPA’s strategic planning describes seven steps to develop a “strategic road map” as follows.

  1. Identify criteria.
  2. Establish a scale (e.g. −3 to +3) for each criterion.
  3. Assign a weight factor to each criterion.
  4. Score each criterion.
  5. Multiply each score by the criterion’s weighting factor.
  6. Sum weighted scores across all criteria.
  7. Identify the alternative with the highest calculated score.

4.3.8 Water Resource Recovery Facilities (WRRF)

Recovery of water, energy, and nutrients is the key of WRRF. It enables WRRF to be independent of the grid and adds revenue through recovering water, energy, and nutrients. Reclaimed water can be integrated into power plants for cooling, irrigation in food production, and recharging ecosystems. For example, biogas could be used to heat sludge or generate electricity. Digested sludge could be then used as fertilizer (Figures 4.30, 4.31, 4.32, 4.33, and 4.34) (NSF et al., 2015)

Pie chart of energy breakdown at water resource recovery facilities, with shaded portions indicating 57% aeration, 13% pumping, 13% anaerobic digestion, 8% other, 7% lighting/building maintenance, etc.

Figure 4.30 Energy breakdown at water resource recovery facilities (WRRFs).

Pie chart of water resource recovery facilities’ operating cost breakdown, with shaded portions indicating 25% sludge transport/disposal, 23% electricity, 19% staff, 10% other, 9% discharge fees, etc.

Figure 4.31 Water resource recovery facilities’ (WRRFs) operating cost breakdown.

Cycle diagram illustrating water resource recovery facility of the future from wastewater treatment plant to integrated production, to outcomes, to smart systems, and then back to wastewater treatment plant.

Figure 4.32 Water resource recovery facility of the future.

Flow diagram of water resource recovery facility operations from screening/grit removal to boiler, etc. indicated by boxes linked by arrows for sludge/sewage (dashed), water (solid), and biogas (dotted).

Figure 4.33 A simplified view of water resource recovery facility operations.

Flow diagram of water resource recovery facility operations from screening/grit removal to boiler, etc. indicated by boxes linked by arrows for sludge/sewage (dashed), water (solid), and biogas (dotted).

Figure 4.34 A simplified view of water resource recovery facility operations.

The US Water Research Foundation developed major tools in integrated water management as follows (Table 4.44).

Table 4.44 Integrated planning tools (The US Water Research Foundation).

Design tools Functions Sponsor agencies
Integrated Water Management with Urban Planning and Design How a full spectrum of water services can be integrated with land‐use development and provides recommendations to encourage integration WE&RF, 2017
Economic Pathways and Partners for Water Reclamation and Stormwater Harvesting How effective economic conditions can be developed to promote the beneficial use and develops the pathways to utilize reclaimed water and stormwater reuse as a commodity for communities WE&RF, 2017
Integrating Land Use and Water
Resources Planning to Support
Water Supply Diversification		 User‐friendly resources that can help advance the integration of water resource and land‐use planning WRF, 2018
Framework for Evaluating
Alternative Water Supplies:
Balancing Cost with Reliability, Resilience, and Sustainability		 Integration of reliable, resilient, and sustainable water supply into a framework to support water supply planning WRF, 2018
Using Graywater and Stormwater to Enhance Local Water Supplies: An Assessment of Risks, Costs, and Benefits Technical, economic, regulatory, and social issues associated with gray water and stormwater for nonpotable urban uses, irrigation, and groundwater recharge WE&RF, WRF, NAS, 2016
Water and Electric Utility Integrated Planning Tools, knowledge, and recommendations for water and electric utility collaboration in strategic and project‐level integrated planning WRF, AWWA, & NYSERDA, 2017
Opportunities and Barriers for
Distributed Energy Resource
Development at Water and
Wastewater Utilities		 Opportunities for distributed energy resource (DER) development at water and wastewater utilities; (2) assess the legislative, regulatory, and policy environment impacting DER developments; and (3) undertake case studies of implemented DER utility projects WE&RF, WRF, 2019
Toolbox for Completing an Alternatives Analysis as Part of an Integrated Planning Approach to Water Quality Compliance A user’s guide to help municipalities and utilities determine whether to pursue US EPA’s Integrated Planning Framework (IPF) and how to use current tools and information to prepare a successful integrated water plan WE&RF, 2017
Pathways to One Water: A Guide for Institutional Innovation Guidance for organizations to move toward “One Water” management based on a literature review of major challenges and how organizations take action WE&RF, WRF, 2017

AWWA, American Water Works Association; NAS, National Academy of Sciences; NYSERDA, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority; WE&RF, Water Environment and Reuse Foundation; WRF, Water Research Foundation.

4.4 Integrated Air Quality Management (IAQM)

There are two types of air quality standards. Primary standards are established to protect human health, while secondary standards are set to reduce environmental damage. The secondary standards are mostly the same as the primary standards. In addition, there are no secondary standards for carbon monoxide. Black carbon, a component of particulate matter, and ozone both have adverse impacts on human health, leading to premature deaths worldwide. Ozone is also the major air pollutant responsible for reducing crop yields and thus affects food security. Black carbon darkens snow and ice surfaces and increases their absorption of sunlight, which, along with atmospheric heating, exacerbates the melting of snow and ice around the world, including in the Arctic, the Himalayas, and other glaciated and snow‐covered regions. This affects the water cycle and increases risks of flooding and drought. They disturb tropical rainfall and regional circulation patterns such as the Asian monsoon, affecting the livelihoods of millions of people.

A major aim of IAQM is to reduce black carbon from the combustion of coal, oil, and gas. Emissions reduction measures targeting black carbon, and ozone precursors could immediately begin to protect the climate, public health, water and food security, and ecosystems. Measures include the recovery of methane from coal, oil, and gas extraction and transport, methane capture in waste management, the use of clean‐burning stoves for residential cooking, diesel particulate filters for vehicles, and the banning of field burning of agricultural waste. If these measures were implemented by 2030, they could halve the potential increase in global temperature projected for 2050. Global warming would be reduced by 0.5°C, and the rate of regional temperature increase would also be reduced. As a result, the chances of keeping the Earth’s global mean temperature increase within the UN’s 2°C target would increase significantly. For these reasons, renewable energy must be utilized in SEE design whenever it is feasible.

4.5 Exercise

4.5.1 Questions

  1. On stakeholder’s input and support
    1. Why is stakeholders’ involvement important?
    2. What are the likely stakeholders for EEIS of a water utility?
    3. How to identify and get the stakeholders involved in both planning and implementation loops?
    4. How to get the support from the stakeholders for a timely and effective implementation?
  2. On goal setting
    1. What was the internal process a local utility undertook to identify its sustainability opportunities? What opportunities did the utility identify?
    2. What community plans or information sources did the local utility consult to identify community sustainability priorities?
    3. If applicable, how did a local utility consult with other community members or community planning organizations about utility and community sustainability priorities and the relationship between them?
    4. If applicable, how did a local utility consult with neighboring utilities about potential partnership opportunities to share information or services?
    5. What sustainability goals did a local utility set and why?
    6. How were the local utility’s sustainability goals documented and communicated internally and externally?
    7. How will the community and others consulted be kept informed of subsequent decisions and developments?
  3. On objectives
    1. How much water is available from the water supply source(s)?
    2. What are the legal and regulatory implications for water withdrawals while maintaining ecological flows?
    3. What are the water supply needs and demands of the community, including energy and industry, and projected growth?
    4. How much storage capacity is built in to the water supply?
    5. Does the utility have backup or alternative sources and interconnections with other water systems in case of extreme weather events, such as droughts and floods?
    6. Does the utility have a conservation plan in case of a water shortage?
    7. Is the water supply susceptible to saltwater intrusion from over withdrawals of groundwater or climate change?
    8. Do the community’s land use plan and zoning include provisions for determining adequate water supply production and protection of drinking water sources and environmentally sensitive areas?
    9. Does the water utility have a source water protection plan?
    10. Does the water supply have natural filters and barriers (e.g. riparian buffers, land conservation, and wellhead protection) in place to prevent pollution, or are there opportunities to implement them?
  4. On strategies
    1. How was each of a local utility’s sustainability goals reflected in specific, measurable objectives?
    2. In what ways were the utility’s sustainability objectives articulated consistent with the SMART principles?
    3. For each sustainability objective, what kind of baseline analysis did you conduct to assess your current status?
    4. What types of tools and resources did you use for the baseline analysis? Are there monitoring programs already in place to generate data for baseline analysis and to monitor progress toward objectives?
    5. For each sustainability objective, what traditional and nontraditional strategies did the utility identify?
    6. How and where were the sustainability objectives described and codified in a planning document?
    7. What is your plan for measuring and tracking the accomplishment of sustainability objectives over time?
  5. On assessing alternatives
    1. Did you describe, analyze, and rank all alternatives?
    2. How to assess different alternatives using the TDPs of SEE?
    3. What are the other methods for analyzing alternatives and the criteria for ranking them?
    4. Were all sustainability objectives reflected in the specific ranking criteria or in the alternatives analyzed? How?
    5. How were alternatives ranked according to the criteria? In what ways did the ranking process reflect specific consideration of integrated and interconnected natural systems?
    6. Were alternatives all assessed on a full life cycle cost basis?
    7. Was the alternatives analysis transparent, and were the approach, rationale, and results communicated to community members?
    8. To what extent was the community involved in, or kept up‐to‐date on, the alternatives considered and selected?
  6. On finance WTPs and WWTPs
    1. Were a full range of capital financing options considered, and were their interest, acquisition, and implementation costs fully identified and thoroughly compared?
    2. Does the capital financing strategy keep capital acquisition and interest costs as low as possible and keep the repayment schedule (principal and interest) consistent with utility revenue capacity (cash flow)?
    3. What was considered in determining whether to use cash versus debt financing?
    4. Are rates, fees, and charges sustainable, and do they generate sufficient revenue to fully cover long‐term full life cycle costs of the selected project alternatives?
    5. Are costs allocated fairly/appropriately (e.g. reliability costs to current customers, cost recovery for industrial wastewater permitting and treatment, growth costs to new development, rates for disadvantaged households)?
    6. Does the rate structure create appropriate customer incentives consistent with the utility’s objectives (e.g. conservation pricing)?
    7. Does the financial strategy maintain or improve the bond rating, debt coverage ratio, or capital financing reserves where relevant?

4.5.2 Calculation

  1. In the past decades, the average solid waste collection rate is about 1.8 ton/person/year in Miami‐Dade County. If the solid waste contains 15% food waste, what could be the total amount of food waste diverted to anaerobic digester of Miami‐Dade County of 2.6 million residents?
  2. Miami‐Dade County is required to achieve 60% of reuse of wastewater treated, which is about 120 MDG. Currently, however, there are only 7% treated wastewater that have been reused. The current water rate in Miami‐Dade is $3.34/ft3 for water and $6.58/ft3 for sewer if a household water uses rate ranging from 6 to 9 ft3. Please calculate the following:
    1. What monetary benefits could bring to the county if a WRRF of 120 MGD is designed and built annually?
    2. What would be the annual saving for an average single family residential house that consumes 108 ft3/year, if all the benefit of the WRRF is transferred to the consumers in the Miami‐Dade County?
  3. In three months from July to September 2017, Miami‐Dade County recycled 1652 tons of cardboard/paper, 4204 tons of newspaper, 1502 tons of mixed paper, 201 tons of plastics, 150 tons of tin cans, and 150 tons of aluminum. Please answer the following:
    1. How many metric tons of CO2 emission are avoided?
    2. If 4805 tons of residue were sent to the Miami‐Dade waste‐to‐energy (WTE) facility and generated 12.49 million kWh electricity, what is the energy conversion efficiency of this WTE facility?

4.5.3 Projects

4.5.3.1 Community Projects

  1. Please contact director of air, water, and solid waste management in your city and collect following inventory data in the last 10 years:
    1. Air emission data in terms of P.M.2.5, CO2, SOx, NOx, O3, and volatile organic compounds (VOC). Also, please go to the website: http://aqicn.org/map/world/. Please report the following:
      1. Air quality index.
      2. From the UNEP website below to do the following:
      http://uneplive.unep.org/country/data/CN#data_tab, From the Excel file of cn_ambient_air_quality_by_key_cities_2013, please answer the following:
      1. Historical average AQI of the city.
      2. What is projected average AQI using crystal ball?
      3. What are the major air pollutants contribute to the high AQI in your city?
      4. What are the major emitters contributing to the high AQI?
      5. Please develop outline of two alternatives of integrated and interconnected air quality management plan for your city for the next 5, 10, and 20 years.
    2. Please do the same as above on water and solid wastes.

4.5.3.2 Xiongan Projects

Xiongan is located in Hebei province. Please use the related data to do the same as above.

References

  1. Anderson, D.M. (2008). Design for Manufacturability & Concurrent Engineering, How to Design for Low Cost, Design in High Quality, Design for Lean Manufacture, and Design Quickly for Fast Production. CIM Press.
  2. Bilthoven (2007). Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (2007). Environmental Balance 2007, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP), Bilthoven, the Netherlands.
  3. Global Water Partner, http://www.gwp.org/en/GWP‐CEE/about/why/what‐is‐iwrm/ (accessed December 2017)
  4. Hoornweg, N. and Bhada‐Tata, P. (2012). What a waste, a global review on solid waste management. Washington, DC: Urban Development & Local Government Unit, World Bank.
  5. NSF (National Science Foundation), US DOE (US Department of Energy), and US EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) (2015). Energy‐Positive Water Resource Recovery Workshop Report. Workshop date 28–29 April 2015, Arlington, VA.
  6. The US EPA (2012). Planning for Sustainability: A Handbook for Water and Wastewater Utilities. Washington, DC: US EPA.
  7. UNEP (2013). cn_ambient_air_quality_by_key_cities_2013, http://uneplive.unep.org/country/data/CN#data_tab (accessed 20 January 2018).
  8. World Bank (2012). What a waste: a global review of solid waste management. Urban development series knowledge papers no. 15. Washington, DC: World Bank.
..................Content has been hidden....................

You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.
Reset