rGreen Landfill - Development of tools

DEVELOPMENT OF APPROPRIATE SUSTAINABILE DECISION SUPPORT TOOLS FOR DISRUPTIVE INNOVATIONS IN SOLID WASTE TECHNOLOGIES

Prepared by: Mark Hudgins, rGreen Landfill, Inc., 2016

Abstract Incorporating "green infrastructure" practices within large urban areas can effectively and

affordably complement traditional infrastructure. Whether through the application of

conventional or new approaches, these practices give municipal managers the ability to create

integrated solutions across various departments. Further, there are strong societal expectations

from the public for sustainable development, transparency and accountability as they have

evolved with increasingly stringent legislation, growing pressures on the environment from

pollution, inefficient use of resources, improper waste management, climate change, degradation

of ecosystems, and loss of biodiversity.

As a result, moving from subjective discussions about green benefits to quantitative business

cases that monetize social and environmental impacts offers a new way of thinking about

infrastructure development in order to leverage natural systems and create a more resilient

infrastructure, especially as part of today’s integrated solid waste management (ISWM)

planning. Over the past few years, communities have begun using various decision support tools

(DSTs), models, standards, and programs to develop sustainable ISWM plans. These include

life-cycle analysis (LCA), goal-oriented assessments, ENVISION, ISO 14001, and capacity,

management, operations, and maintenance programs (CMOMs) as used for various utilities, such

as water and wastewater treatment facilities.

Yet, while many DST assessment methods for waste management systems are quite advanced

and sophisticated, ISWM planning becomes more difficult when accepted hierarchies and

assumptions within the solid waste industry are challenged by new technologies and approaches,

some of which may cause either significant market or paradigm shifts (known as “disruptive

innovations”). As result, both infrastructure development and sustainability plans can be bereft of

such influences and benefits. To address this, DST’s should accommodate state-of-the-art

analytics and “value stream” thinking, appropriate metrics, as well as based on practical

approaches.

To best develop a DST to allow for disruptive innovations, presented herein is a review of

several DSTs that have been used for conventional ISWM planning, some of which could be

modified. In addition, a holistic view of planning a DST for disruptive innovations within ISWM

is offered and an example case for a large municipality in Florida.

Introduction According to the National League of Cities, incorporating "green infrastructure" practices can

“effectively and affordably complement traditional infrastructure,” giving municipal managers

the ability to create integrated solutions across different departments, especially in the face of a

shrinking budgets and limited resources. Sustainable development as a goal is achieved by

balancing the three pillars of sustainability. (economic, social and environmental). Moreover,

societal expectations for sustainable development, transparency and accountability have evolved

with increasingly stringent legislation, growing pressures on the environment from pollution,

Development Of Appropriate Sustainable Decision Support Tools For Disruptive Solid Waste Technologies

December 2016

Page | 2 Commercial in Use

inefficient use of resources, improper waste management, climate change, degradation of

ecosystems and loss of biodiversity.

With respect to integrated solid waste management (ISWM) planning, many large cities perform

sustainability assessments using a variety of decision-support tools (DSTs). However, many of

these DSTs are based on established hierarchies and assumptions which limit the opportunities

for new technologies to be introduced. For example, it is assumed that landfills will always

produce methane and toxic leachate (liquids) and thus remain as threats to the environment.

Also, the landfill’s airspace capacity is generally permitted to be a fixed volume. Lastly, most

waste is either landfill, recycled, or used for energy purposes.

However, as presented herein, few DSTs, therefore ISWM plans, accommodate across-the-board

impacts and “value streams” (multiple municipal departments, for example) and/or do not

account for if the challenging of ISWM assumptions. Further, many DSTs are single-output

based, focusing only on environmental outcomes such as climate change, for example, while

others are only cost-based. In these cases, DSTs may not give attention to value streams that can

flow horizontally across technologies, assets, and departments. Lastly, while debates still exist

between landfill and recycling proponents, few realize there are new “disruptive innovations” in

solid waste management where not only can both approaches co-exist and thrive, but where a

significant paradigm shift in the solid waste industry could occur. The impact of these

hierarchies and assumptions, current DSTs, and conventional perspectives, can limit the number

of ISWM options available to communities.

Landfills versus Recycling Assumptions

Take for example landfilling and waste recycling. Guided mainly by US Environmental

Protection Agency (US EPA’s) solid waste hierarchy, as illustrated below in Figure 1, landfills

are the least desired management option due their perceived hazards. Here, business are

encouraged to generate less waste in their manufacturing process, while communities are asked

to reduce the amount of waste they generate. More challenging for communities are aggressive

recycling goals (e.g. 75%). Without other new approaches on the horizon, US EPA states that

this current hierarchy best protects the environment, reduces Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,

and creates jobs that are focused on the use of recycled materials.

Figure 1: US EPA’s Waste Management Hierarchy


December 2016


On the other hand, many in the solid waste industry and landfilling proponents support the

position that landfilling is economical and it will always be needed in some manner. Yet, zero-

waste proponents point out that landfilling costs do not include the life-cycle costs of likely site

remediation down the road. Their basis is that while modern landfills are designed with highly-

engineered protection systems, such as HDPE liners, even the US EPA, views landfills as

temporary protection solutions, for “even the best liner and leachate collection system will

ultimately fail due to natural deterioration”1.

This has made ISWM planning challenging for over a decade, as exampled by the Environmental

Defense Fund’s2 1996 debate of certain waste management “myths” and “facts” about recycling

and landfills, as presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Recycling versus Landfilling

Landfill Proponents Recycling Proponents

Recycling responds to a false landfill-space

“crisis” created by the media and

environmentalists.

Concentrating on landfill space misses the point. Most of recycling’s

environmental benefits lie in reduced energy use and natural resource damage

and pollution from extracting virgin raw materials and from manufacturing—

benefits documented in every recent study that has examined virgin and

recycled products over their full life cycle. As just one example, recycling at

current levels saves enough energy to supply 9 million U.S. households.

Landfill space is cheap and abundant. Landfill space is a commodity, priced according to supply and demand. The

major growth in recycling has occurred where landfills are expensive or

recyclable materials command higher than average prices. Curbside recycling

in these areas is a rational response to economic costs and opportunities.

Recycling should pay for itself. Recycling, landfills, incinerators are not expected to pay for themselves.

Recycling proponents instead focus on what recycling’s net costs over the

long term as compared with those of the alternatives. As they support that

“snapshot” accounting of recycling costs early in the life of a program is

misleading. Lastly, substantial efficiencies occur (and improve) as these

programs innovate and mature, making well run recycling programs cost-

competitive.

There are no markets for recyclable

materials.

Recycling is the foundation for large, robust manufacturing industries that are

an important part of our economy. The volume of the major scrap materials

sold in domestic and global markets is growing steadily. As with all

commodities, prices fluctuate over time, yet recycling is often the lowest-cost

option for manufacturers.

Strict regulations ensure that the

environmental costs of making and using

products are included in their prices.

Many of the environmental costs of virgin materials extraction,

manufacturing, consumption, and disposal are not included in products’

prices. An entire sub-discipline of environmental economics has developed to

address these market “externalities,” which occur even in the most regulated

industries.

Recycling is nearing its maximum

potential.

There remains enormous room for growth in recycling. We still throw away

about 35 million tons of highly recyclable materials each year—including

half of all newspapers and almost three-quarters of magazines and glass

containers.

Recycling is a time-consuming burden on

the American public

Convenient, well-designed recycling programs allow Americans to take

action in their daily lives to reduce the environmental impact of the products

they consume. Informing citizens of the costs of their own consumption and

1 US EPA Federal Register, Aug 30, 1988, Vol.53, No.168 2 EDF Letter VOL. XXVII, NO.5, 1996


December 2016


disposal activities through “pay as you throw” user fees makes economic and

environmental sense—but only alongside viable recycling programs.

From this debate, it appears that recycling and landfills are mutually exclusive- that communities

must decide either waste is to be recycled (or used for energy) or landfilled.

Recycling Debate Illustrates the Need to Examine Values Streams

However, amongst this dialogue, there is a clear illustration regarding the important of value

streams. Recycling proponents point out that both the energy sector and manufacturing are

comparative factors that are interrelated with recycling. This points out that the ISWM decision-

making process should ensure that other municipal departments or “value streams”- energy and

material usage- are included whenever recycling is presented as an ISWM alternative. Extending

this further, ISWM plans should recognize other value streams such as carbon credits, if they

apply. Lastly, such plans should flexible to accommodate possible challenges to the status quo,

for example, economic factors where a particular approach or technology has the ability to avoid

costs, increase the value of an asset (landfill air space), or create new revenues. By its own

illustration, the recycling industry has nevertheless recognized that all decisions regarding ISWM

planning are instead not mutually exclusive.

Assumptions on Landfilling

With the exception of reducing the amount of degradable wastes to the landfill, landfills are less

interesting from an ISWM perspective as there are fewer interrelationships, sensitivities, or

impacts within the waste hierarchy. The introduction of new technologies and improvements in

this sector has historically had little impact across other value streams or other departments. For

example, increasing waste compaction in the landfill, improvements in landfill gas (LFG)

collection, or advances in leachate pre-treatment, such as more efficient reverse osmosis (RO)

units, are viewed more as improvements. This is supported by the fact that such improvements

do not “shift” landfilling up to the next hierarchy level.

Added to this is that many view landfills, as discussed, as bane on climate change, as it is

assumed that a MSW landfill will always produce LFG, containing approximately 55% (v/v)

carbon dioxide and 45% (v/v) methane, both Greenhouse gases (GHGs). This is supported by the

US EPA that 11% of global methane production is from landfills. Further, it is assumed that

landfills will always generate leachate and thus require some sort of end-of-pipe treatment

system. This is supported by the thousands of landfills worldwide which impact groundwater and

other resources. Lastly, improvements in other ISWM approaches, such as energy-from-waste

(EfW), plasma, and waste gasification technologies, would likely keep landfilling at the bottom

of the hierarchy.

A New Perspective on Landfilling

However, what if these hierarchies and assumptions regarding landfill were challenged? What

would be the impact if for example:

If a new technology allowed a community to produce as much waste as it wants without

filling up their landfill to capacity? In other words, how could 10 million tons of waste fit

into a landfill built to hold only 1 million tons? Which “value streams” or how many

municipal departments would be affected?

What if such an approach eliminated the need for a landfill closure and a permanent

composite landfill cap costing over $300,000 per acre?


December 2016


What if this same approach avoided the production of odors? As well as methane, thereby

generating millions of dollars of new revenues from carbon credit sales? And applied at

both closed landfills and operating site?

What if leachate production (100%) was eliminated, thereby not only lowering operating

costs but directly closing down an expensive a downstream remediation effort previously

caused by leachate leaking from the landfill?

What would be the total life-cycle impacts of such a technology have on the landfill as

well as on the solid waste industry?

What if both recycling and landfilling were not mutually exclusive, whereby recycling

activities could occur even after the waste was buried?

How would the solid waste market react if the disposal/management cost per ton of waste

were significantly lowered, while at the same time, environmental risks were reduce as

well?

Last, what impact would this have on the US EPA waste hierarchy?

Such actions would almost certainly not only change the manner in which landfills are viewed,

but could “disrupt” the manner in which the entire solid waste sector operates. Further, as

presented herein, a new types of DST would likely be needed, as compared to the ones currently

available, as there would likely be a multitude of impacts across many value streams.

Today’s Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) For years, ISWM has involved carefully evaluating local needs and conditions to determine

suitable options for many aspects of waste management, including generation, segregation,

collection, transportation, sorting, recovery, treatment, and disposal. Because it is based on local

needs and conditions, ISWM has been an effective policy tool in many cities, regardless of their

level of development and existing waste management practices.

Through careful planning and the use of decision support tools (DST), as discussed below,

ISWM has helped mitigate the influence of external stressors (e.g., economic and population

growth) on waste management, and contribute numerous benefits, including to human health and

the environment (HHE), climate change, and the economy. Further, ISWM results in other

benefits to society, including reducing bad odors and improving the quality of life for

communities as a whole.

Developing an ISWM Plan: Key Considerations

Developing an ISWM plan requires careful assessment of numerous issues. Key considerations

when developing an ISWM plan include:

• Analyze weaknesses, strengths, and capacities. Completing an analysis of the

weaknesses, strengths, and capacities of their waste management activities will help cities

identify the most suitable waste management options and effectively and efficiently

implement an ISWM plan.

• Conduct triple-bottom line assessment. A robust assessment of the economic,

environmental, and social impacts of waste management options can help inform

decisions about which options to pursue.

• Consider all aspects of waste. To maximize the efficiency of a waste management

program, an ISWM plan should account for all aspects of waste, including generation,

segregation, collection, transportation, sorting, recovery, treatment, and disposal.


December 2016


• Involve stakeholders. Involving all stakeholders, especially the public, in developing and

implementing an ISWM plan will enhance its efficacy (e.g., by engaging support for the

program).

• Select suitable waste management options. Waste management options should be based

on local needs and conditions. Cities should identify opportunities to use environmentally

preferable waste management options (e.g., waste prevention and reduction) whenever

possible.

• Coordinate with the national government. National governments play a key role in waste

management, especially in establishing and enforcing waste management policies. Cities

should work closely with national governments to clarify their respective roles and

identify opportunities for mutual support.

• Identify sustainable sources of funding. An ISWM plan must include reliable sources of

funding (e.g., user fees) to sustain waste programs. Incorporating the private sector into

waste management activities can offer a way to reduce the costs of managing waste while

also leveraging private sector expertise. This may include public/private partnerships

(PPPs).

“Disruptive Innovation” Impact on ISWM Planning

A disruptive innovation is “a business vehicle that creates a new market and value network,

which eventually disrupts an existing market and value network, and potentially displaces the

established leading firms, products and alliances.” The term was defined and phenomenon

analyzed by Clayton M. Christensen beginning in 1995. Examples include mobile phones that

can connect one to almost any place in the world as well as treat chronic diseases through remote

health monitoring. Also, almost every web user is aware that The Cloud serves as use of

computer hardware and software resources now over the Internet, and 3D Printing has had a

significant impact on today’s manufacturing. All of these have changed their respective markets

considerably.

Some would agree that, within the solid waste industry, recycling is probably one of its few

disruptive innovations, in that a recognizable amount of waste has been diverted from landfills

since the beginning of the 1990’s. However, disruptive innovations loom for the solid waste

industry. As presented below, not only will communities be able to completely re-think their

ISWM planning, but their sustainability efforts as well, Further, the communities who use these

innovations will increase transparency to the public and may play a role in shifting the solid

waste industry paradigm altogether.

The Aerobic Landfill Bioreactor System TM Today’s landfills are an effective system for storing waste. However, the plastic liners and covers

beneath and over the waste, cause a “dry-tomb” effect, where the waste decays under

“anaerobic” (without air) conditions. These systems, which are required by law to protect the

environment, ironically increase risks to the public as they produce toxic leachate, foul odors,

and methane gas, which can leak or be released from these same systems. Further, under these

conditions, many landfills can take decades or hundreds of years to “stabilize” before it can be

used or redeveloped. In the meantime, millions of dollars are spent to monitor and care for it as it

settles and collapses. Millions more could be spent if leachate is released from liners into the

groundwater.


December 2016


Building on successful pilot testing over a decade in the US, Canada, Japan, and China (currently

at over 20 sites worldwide), the Aerobic Landfill Bioreactor System (ALBS) is an alternative to

operating landfills in the manner in which they are designed and operated today. Instead of

building landfills to bury and store waste for hundreds of years, the ALBS is attached to the

landfill and operated (injecting air and water) to rapidly treat and degrade the waste inside at a

rate up to 30x times faster than the normal anaerobic decay process, and complete the treatment

in approximately 3 to 5 years. The ALBS (blowers, pumps, instruments) is then detached and

either salvaged or reused at a later date. As the waste is now treated and safer to handle, it is

removed and separated from the inert materials such as soil, metal, glass, and plastic. These are

either reused or recycled along with non-landfilled recyclables. With the landfill emptied, the

cell is refilled and the ALBS process repeated.

Not only is the ALBS an alternate landfill operating scheme, but it is the only known landfill

biotechnology that directly addressing the problem with landfills- the buried waste itself. In other

words, it is not a technology that just treats the “downstream” or “left-over symptoms” of a

conventional landfill release, such as local soil and groundwater contamination, but instead it is a

pro-active, direct means of accelerating what nature is expected to do. Instead of using

techniques such as conventional approaches such natural attenuation, advanced groundwater

treatment, and chemical odor control (sprays) to address releases, the ALBS treats the waste in-

situ, addresses or preventing the problem sooner, without the long-term costs.

Similar to waste composting, the ALBS process is conducted on much larger scale treating

millions of tons of waste until the landfill waste is safe to remove. However, the ALBS system

resembles a conventional LFG collection and recovery system, consisting of vertical wells

installed through he landfill cover and into the waste. These wells are connected to PVC or

HDPE header piping and then to blowers and pumps. However, instead of pulling LFG from the

landfill under vacuum, the ALBS instead injects air and liquids into the waste. Immediately, the

respiring and facultative bacteria indigenous to the waste begin mineralizing the degradable

matter under aerobic conditions. At the same time, methanogens, microorganisms that were

producing methane as a metabolic byproduct, begin to die off as oxygen is toxic to them. As long

as there is oxygen, a moisture sources, and degradable waste to consume, the aerobic bacteria

will reduced methane production by over 90% as well as reduce carbon dioxide gas. Also, most

waste-borne pathogens are eliminated, many by 100%, due to internal exothermic (heat)

production, around 165 degrees F., which is controlled as part of ALBS operations.

While waste degradation is the key goal, the ALBS is also recognized by the US EPA as a “Tier

II” landfill gas (LFG) reduction approach. It is also is registered with the United Nations Clean

Development Mechanism (CDM) as “Avoidance of landfill gas emissions by in-situ aeration of

landfills --- Version 1.0.1, Number AM0083” and is used as the basis for the Alberta (CA)

Aerobic Landfill Protocol. In addition, the ALBS improves leachate quality, as seen in many

aerobic wastewater treatment systems, for air also comes in contact with the leachate inside the

landfill. Last, the ALBS can reduce leachate volume due to the elevated waste temperatures that

are controlled. At many sites, 100% of the leachate that is generated is captured and used in the

ALBS process, thereby eliminating off-site leachate disposal.

Ex-post ALBS operations can include the redevelopment of the landfill into more useable

property as many of the hazards have been addressed. Here, construction materials can be

brought in and compacted over the stabilized site, readying the site for vertical development. At


December 2016


present, there are ALBS projects that are underway with a focus on redeveloping former landfills

into residential high-rise towers in China.

Landfill mining (LFM) has also matured over the past few years. To date, over 30 LFM projects

have been reported worldwide (e.g. Georgia, Florida, New York) being conducted for a number

of reasons, with increasing available airspace as one of the key drivers. Using LFM as well as

traditional screening and tromelling equipment, the ALBSTM can be applied and waste mined

repeatedly in a cycle that extends the landfill’s capacity to receive waste for decades longer than

planned.

Known as a “Sustainable Landfill,” (SL), see Figure 2, millions of tons of waste can cross the

scales (adding new revenues) and loaded into the same volume that previous wastes once

occupied. Also, millions of gallons of leachate are either improved or eliminated (100% due to

the internal heat) and millions of dollars of carbon credits sold due to the long-term avoidance of

GHGs. More on the ALBSTM can be found at US EPA’s website at

https://archive.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/web/html/aerobic.html

Figure 2: The Sustainable Landfill

As compared to many other technologies, the ALBSTM epitomizes waste sustainability. Listed

below in Table 2 are several of the environmental, economic, and social inputs that would likely

be used as part of assessment of the ALBSTM during an ISWM development effort.

Table 2. Summary of Potential ALBSTM Benefits and Key DST Factors

ISWM Element Description

Potential ALBSTM Benefits/ Impact on Sustainability

and Other Value Streams

Landfill Operations The airspace is reused repeatedly whereby normal fill operations continue,

yet degraded waste removal is introduced as a new operation.

Less material and haul costs for daily cover (from borrow pit)

Potential for increases in cover settlement

Recycling Waste is treated aerobically reducing pathogens and VOCs. Thus, the waste

is safe to remove, handle, and can be blended into other recycling streams.

https://archive.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/web/html/aerobic.html


December 2016


Increased recycling lowers energy costs- further.

Cell Reuse Cell reuse extends landfill life and delays or minimizes the need for

extending or building new landfill sites in the future

Landfill

Footprint

Instead of filling up the entire permitted footprint, only 4-5 smaller cells, thus

a smaller operational, may be needed. This frees up the balance of land for

infill, greenspace, and/or urbanization efforts.

Closure/Post

Closure Care

(PCC)

If the landfill remains open longer, PCC and its 30-year costs are delayed or

avoided.

Lower risk to HHE, sets the case for relief from prescriptive PCC (less

frequent monitoring, fewer parameters)

Impact on Natural Resources

Waterways/ Lakes/ Groundwater

Reduced leachate production and improved leachate quality reduces

potential impact to groundwater and other water resources.

Reducing Carbon Footprint

Heavy equipment and truck emissions may increase due to new mining,

hauling, and recycling activities.

Improvements in Air Quality

90%+ reduction in methane emissions; 50% less carbon dioxide emissions.

More efficient reductions as compared to LFG generation, collection and

destruction.

Built Environment

Commercial/ Industrial Property

Reduced leachate and odor production as well as less risk to groundwater

improves potential for site redevelopment, infill and urbanization initiatives.

Residential

Fewer odors complaints.

Land Planning Less landfill footprint used, fewer landfills needed makes more land available

for more useful purposes.

Wastewater Treatment Less reliance on leachate treatment at WWTP is avoided as it reapplied to

the waste as part of liquids requirement for ALBSTM operations.

Quantity Up to 100% elimination due evaporative effects of ALBSTM

Quality Lower BOD, VOCs, arsenic, lead, metals (due to neutral pH)

Sludge Disposal

Sludge disposal into landfill increases ALBSTM effectiveness as it adds more

organics and nutrients to the waste and thus the decay process.

Treatment Capacity

Increases volumetric availability for premium users (industrial)

Less BOD, VOCs reduces WWTP treatment load and surcharges,

Energy Reliance on

LFG Users

Decreased as methane production is avoided. Good news for landfills with

insufficient volumes of LFG or not economical/ practical

Renewable Energy (Solar)

More industrial room for solar farms. See Land Planning.

Operations Increased recycling lowers energy costs further.

Recovered BTU materials can be used as energy supply. (cement kilns)

Increased energy costs for blowers.

Budget Tipping Fees/

Market Impacts

Given the potential cost savings and new revenues, the life-cycle costs of

landfill operations could be less.

New Revenues

(carbon credits,

recycling)

Potentially more revenues per ton of waste as compared to LFG-to-energy

sales.

Risk Reduction Reduced leachate production, improved leachate quality, less odors reduces

potential impact to groundwater and associated costs of risk. (Insurance)


December 2016


Departmental

Costs (landfill,

WWTP)

Potentially lower tipping fees.

Increased competiveness for local waste.

Lower odor and leachate management costs.

Funding/

Grants

Many grants available for local, national, and global sustainability, recycling,

GHG reduction, biotechnology, research initiatives

Social Impact Odors/

Environmental

Impact

Fewer odors means fewer complaints?

Greenspace/

Healthy

Neighborhoods

Reduced risk from landfills could change public perceptions, increase land

values.

Civic

Engagement

Public hearings would introduce new solutions.

Confidence in

Government

Increased due to openness to new approaches,

Legislative Responds well to new ideas and approaches, especially if conducted in

compliance with existing regulations.

Education Workshops to learn about how biotechnology can help solid waste issues.

Employment Increased recycling, increases jobs.

Additional operator training on ALBSTM

Community Green landfills forms a community bond

Tourism Attractive to public and academia

Future Responsibilities

Reduce potential of landfill remediation by future generations

In one sense the ALBS seems counter-intuitive. Landfilling is relatively less expensive in many

geographical locations, it can generate revenues from LFG-to-energy, and it can provide long-

term disposal solutions. Yet, looking closer at the ALBS benefits, a comprehensive assessment

of the ALBS could produce several interesting outcomes, as hypothesized:

Landfill Reconfiguration and Operation. The ALBS may reduce the need for large

mountains of waste. Instead, low profile treatment cells could be built under current

design regulations but would be smaller). The aesthetics would likely be favorable to

many in the public.

LFG Equipment Market- Instead of designing, suppling and installing conventional

equipment, the current workforce could be retrained to design and supply equipment for

ALBS systems.

Reusable Liners. If a landfill cell is to be reused, stronger, more resilient floors and

sidewalls could be designed, including concrete or asphalt. Not only would this provide a

better operating surface for waste filling and removal and protect the environmental as a

stronger barrier than plastic liners, but the likely higher costs of these liners could be

amortized over a longer period of time since the landfill would stay open, and collect

fees, longer.

Increase Labor- Increases in recycling can increase waste-related employment. Hiring

new waste spotters at the landfill gate can ensure less hazardous waste enters that could

interfere with ALBS performance.


December 2016


Less Energy Use- Increases in recycling increases decreases energy consumption, per the

recycling industry, perhaps offsetting ALBS energy demands.

Reduce Reliance on Subsidies. The avoidance of methane production would meet one

key aspect of sustainability. The revenues from the sales of carbon credits, the “new”

airspace value, and the reduction in operations and long-term care could preclude the

need to rely on energy subsides.

Increasing Research, Design, and Development (RD&D) Projects. On its website3, the

US EPA does not currently have a single model or tool for decreasing the level of

contaminants inside a landfill nor is there one that focuses on increasing the rate of decay

of waste in a landfill. Instead there are a number of commercially available software

companies, such as MULTIMED a steady-state model, that are instead used to predict the

migrating of contaminants after they have been released from a waste disposal facility via

the subsurface. Also, there are models which estimate the natural attenuation (self-decay)

of organic contaminants in groundwater due to the processes of advection, dispersion,

sorption, and biodegradation. Again, these address contaminants after they have been

released into the groundwater. With the ALBS, there will be new opportunities for

RD&D projects, models, and tools related to the aerobic treatment of wastes on soil,

groundwater, and air to better understand the relevant biokinetics to improve system

performance.

Increased Research Funding. Being part of a disruptive innovation may yield additional

research dollars for ALBS process improvements, as compared to many other solid waste

concepts which do little to impact the current waste hierarchy.

Increase WWTP User- Reduction of high-strength leachate can allow for new users and

lower-strength wastewaters, thereby reducing WWTP expansion.

More land available for solar farms. Landfill footprint areas owned by the municipality

but not used for landfilling due to the less footprint requirements for the SL could be used

for build solar farms.

Potential Impact to Related Markets

At first glance, not only would most landfilling in the US be impacted, but the ALBS could

impact the entire communities ISWM planning process as well as several industries tied to

waste. As such, it could be argued that the ALBS is a disruptive innovation, as discussed above,

with respect to the solid waste, energy, wastewater and air pollution control markets, sectors, and

industries, as well as the engineering and technical support that would be needed to make such

changes.

The US has one of the biggest consumer markets, producing approximately 251 million tons of

trash every year. As such, the U.S. waste industry has an annual revenue of 75 billion dollars,

making it a large part of our economy.4 There are approximately 20,000 companies within it,

with eight of the largest waste management companies accounting for nearly half of the of

industry’s yearly revenue. The industry employs approximately 367,800 employees, most of

them being part of the private sector of the industry, generating approximately three-fourths of

the waste industry’s revenue. The balance are the public sector services. Looking closer,

although the biggest part of the waste industry, collection, accounts for approximately 55% of

the industry’s revenue, waste treatment and disposal is responsible for 20%, with the most

3 https://www.epa.gov/land-research/models-tools-and-databases-land-and-waste-management-research 4 http://www.gridwaste.com

https://www.epa.gov/land-research/models-tools-and-databases-land-and-waste-management-research

http://www.gridwaste.com/


December 2016


established waste treatment methods consisting of composting, incineration, landfill, and

recycling.

As waste management is a commodity that can be monopolized by big businesses, meaning

higher costs and subpar services rendered, many businesses and entrepreneurs spend enormous

amounts of energy and resources creating a competitive market for greater transparency, lower

prices, and better service.5

Another aspect to consider is the shrinking number of US landfills. This has been facilitated by

tighter regulatory controls, the establishment of large regional landfills, consolidation of

private waste management companies, and economies of scale. In the public sector,

municipalities that desire to retain control over their own solid waste operations and disposal

sites are increasingly looking to neighboring municipalities to develop larger regional solid

waste management sites in order to minimize costs and risks associated with the management

of a landfill. Even though landfills remain the primary disposal option for the majority of solid

waste, the assumptions and hierarchies that ISWM is based on push owners to consider

programs that are effective, yet sometimes more expensive. For example, many communities

are implementing programs to recover food scraps and other organic materials for composting

and anaerobic digestion. From 2008 to 2012, U.S. EPA estimates that the amount of food

scraps diverted from landfills has more than doubled from 0.80 million tons to 1.74 million

tons.

Other markets could be affected as well. The market for industrial water (including landfill

leachate) treatment technologies is set to expand by more than 50% over the next five years,

from an estimated $7 billion in 2015 to more than $11 billion in 2020.6 Where 100% of the

landfill leachate is used in the ALBS process, new methods for injecting water while

simultaneously injecting air will be needed.

Regarding new jobs, the ALBS’s impact on creating a demand for new engineering, science, and

recycling jobs would be signficant. Businesses and vendors which rely on building landfills in

the conventional sense would instead need to prepare for new designs where waste is instead

treated and removed, versus stored for decades. These could range from liner manufacturers to

engineering services.

In all of these regards, any potentially new disruptive innovation in ISWM would likely be

attractive to both private and public landfill owners and could have significant impact across

all value streams and their receptive markets. As such, the ALBS deserves a full and proper

assessment in terms of the various value streams.

5 A unique example of this is Grid Waste. This firm gives waste generators options and greater transparency through

reverse-auction bidding. Per their website, “Grid Waste’s grouping function allows users to form purchasing groups

with neighboring generators to trump monopolization in their neighborhood. By creating purchasing groups, more

waste management companies can penetrate a market. The bigger the purchasing group, the more fiscally viable for

smaller companies to service these monopolized areas.” 6

Rapid Growth Hits Industrial Water Treatment Technologies, Water Online, February 25, 2015

http://www.wateronline.com/doc/rapid-growth-hits-industrial-water-treatment-technologies-0001

http://www.wateronline.com/doc/rapid-growth-hits-industrial-water-treatment-technologies-0001


December 2016


Example Case: City of Orlando and Orange County, Florida

The potential for impact could be most dramatic in major US cities as most of them with

populations of over 10 million generate the most waste on a per capita basis. Orange County,

Florida could be one such example.

Recycling Driven by the State of Florida’s recycling goal of 75% by 2020, the City of Orlando hopes to

eventually become a “zero waste” community, eliminating all solid waste to landfills or

incinerators, with an intermediate target of 75% reduction by 2020. In 2012, the City Orlando

had a curbside residential recycling rate of 27%, switching to single-cart recycling to surpass the

US average of 34% recycled.

In line with US EPA’s solid waste hierarchy, up-front recycling of waste can create opportunities

for economic growth within both jurisdictions. Instead of paying to haul, treat and dispose of

solid waste in the OCSWMF landfill, this waste can become the raw material for sustainable

industries producing new products. In this way, the City “can become a leader in proving that

solid waste is a resource rather than an environmental liability.” In fact, City states that “strong

zero waste focused programs have spawned the growth of new businesses, creating new jobs and

more diverse local economies.”

Facing the same state-wide recycling goal, Orange County residential recycling rate is one of the

highest in the state, around 41% and single family participation in curbside is around 90%.

However, multi-family curbside recycling is only at 14% and commercials units are around 40%.

To improve their rates and reach the goal of 75%, the County has developed a Plan (Sustainable

Orange County, 2014) to help improve commercial recycling rates. Per this Plan, “strategies

could include evaluating residential composting, post-collection consumer sorting, and

enforcement of mandatory recycling requirements in the Orange County Code.”

Infill Development The City of Orlando also supports the “eco- district” concept- livability, efficiency,

neighborhoods, stewardship and a sense of place, Per its 2013 Community Action Plan, the City

has begun to identify locations in Orlando where eco districts could thrive with the goal of

creating a connected network of eco districts throughout the City minimizing sprawl and

providing more services and options within walking distance to home and work. Similarly, one

of the County’s focus areas is supporting new growth in infill areas and on redevelopment that

does not require the extension of water, sewer, and road infrastructure or facilitate sprawl. Here

County Planning would assess infill and redevelopment potential based on a susceptibility to

change for vacant or underutilized land within the County.

Greenhouse Gases Per the City’s Plan, buildings are the number one contributor to greenhouse gas (GHG)

emissions and energy use, so ensuring new construction takes advantage of green building

technology and aggressively pursues energy efficiency upgrades on existing buildings will have

a large impact on sustainability goals. The City already realizes $1 million in annual energy

savings through its various green building and efficiency programs. In addition to municipal

buildings, there are approximately 100 certified green buildings in the City, along with hundreds

of residential homes that have received some level of energy efficiency upgrades through though

Federal, state and local programs.


December 2016


Altogether, the City’s goal is reduce GHG emissions by 90% from 2007 levels by 2040, with

reductions by 25% by 2018. To do this, the City intends to:

• create a market-based program that offers incentives for buildings to meet green

standards;

• develop financing programs for community-oriented energy efficiency upgrades and

solar installations.;

• implement policies and technologies to take advantage of the local utility’s smart grid

investments, focusing on EcoDistricts and market-based innovations;

• establish an energy benchmarking and disclosure policy; and

• develop a roadmap to position Orlando as the solar leader in the Southeast United States.

The County GHG’s reduction goals include the collection of landfill gas (LGF) and digester gas,

and using it for energy purposes.

OCSWMF Landfill Located east of Orlando, the Orange County Solid Waste Management Facility (OCSWMF), the

largest publicly owned municipal solid waste landfill in Florida, began operations in 1971 and

currently accepts approximately 2,000 tons of waste per day. The landfill site encompasses 5,000

acres and accepts Class I (putrescible) waste, Class III (construction and demolition) waste, yard

waste, and waste tires. In addition to the landfill, Orange County operates two transfer stations

and 25 transfer trucks to facilitate garbage disposal for residents while also reducing road traffic.

The landfill footprint is approximately 252 acres, comprising of Cells 9 through 12.

The OCSWMF disposal areas are in different

stages of LFG generation. The majority of the

LFG is currently generated where the active

Cells 9 and 10 are located. Cells 11 and 12 are

planned in the near future after the disposal

capacity of Cells 9 and 10 is depleted. It is

predicted that the peak LFG generation will be

approximately 11,550 scfm occurring in 2031.

New Technologies Along with phasing in commercial and multi-

family recycling standards programs, one of the

key waste management strategies proposed by

the City, for example, is to “support the

development of technolog[ies] that make it

easier to recycle materials.”

As the City recognizes that policies and

education alone will not achieve a 100% waste diversion goal, they also believe that “emerging

technologies will enable communities to recover recyclable materials before they are buried.”

As such, the City’s Plan proposes that it and its key partners implement innovative technologies

that “mechanically extract recyclables from landfill-bound solid waste streams and utilize

organic waste for energy production.” Moreover, the Plan also places an emphasis on advancing

composting. Lastly, the City recognizes that older landfills have impacted soil, groundwater, and

surface water “as material leaks out of the landfill and into these areas” and that these landfills

do not meet today’s standards. Although not specifically discussed in the Plan, both the City and

the County are exploring options for mitigation these impacts.


December 2016


From this, it is evident that both governments have similar goals and interests, and since the City

is one of the County’s largest landfill customers, it may be beneficial for the County and the City

to work together in re-assessing their respective ISWM plans, advancing technologies, such as

the ALBS, and waste operations using a comprehensive DST that would fully highlight the

advantages, disadvantages, costs, revenues, and overall impact across multiple value streams.

Presented in Table 3, is a summary of the potential impacts an ALBS/Sustainable Landfill

application, as described above, may have on the County interests when taking into account just

some of the suitable programs they want to develop. (No DST has yet been applied.)

Table 3. Estimated Economic Benefits from ALBS/ SL Application- Orange County

Description

Status Quo ($M)

Using ALBS/SL

($M) Notes

Permitted Airspace Value $825 $4,125

Assume 22M tons @ $37.50./ton Assume SL reuses airspace 5x

Increased Revenue from GHG sales $0 $396

Assume $3/ per ton CO2Eq x 5 reuses (22M tons x 1.2 x $3/Co2Eq x 5)

Avoided Capping Costs ($93) $0 Assume 31 acres x $300,000 per acre

Avoided PCC Costs ($86) ($43) Assume 50% reduction ($86M/2) over 30 years

Sale from Recycled Materials Baseline

Baseline + 20%

Assume 20% increase in sale of recycled goods

Value of Land not used for landfilling

$0 $63 Permitted Footprint is 252 acres. Assume 50% is used for SL. Assume surrounding land worth $0.5M per acre

Once an appropriate DST is applied, not only will municipalities, such as Orange County be able

to completely re-think their ISWM planning and sustainability efforts, but they may play a

critical role in shifting the solid waste industry paradigm and facilitate moving landfilling up the

US EPA waste hierarchy.

Decision Support Tools (DSTs) Assessment methods and decision-support tools (DSTs) are common in decision-planning for

businesses, in the production of products, and the implementation of services. Within waste

management, they have been used to help communities achieve practicable waste management at

an acceptable cost, balancing environmental, economic, technical, regulatory, and other social

factors. Over the last decade, there has been a growing emphasis on address sustainability as well

as in regard to industrial ecology, carbon cycle management, life cycle assessment, and earth

systems engineering and management.

In one 2014 study7 of the various DST’s that were used for solid waste management, the tasks

that were recommended when assessing waste management systems included using (i) a mass

balance approach based on a rigid input–output analysis of the entire system, then a (ii) a goal-

oriented evaluation of the results of the mass balance, which takes into account the intended

waste management objectives; and finally (iii) a transparent and reproducible presentation of the

methodology, data, and results. However, this same study reported that only a small number of

the DSTs evaluated social aspects. Further, the choice of system elements and boundaries varied

significantly among the studies; thus, assessment results were sometimes contradictory.

7 Allesch, A and Brunner PH(2014) Assessment methods for solid waste management: A literature review. Waste

Management & Research,Vol. 32(6) 461– 473


December 2016


With this mind and as the ALBS may be a disruptive innovation, several questions to be asked to

municipalities such as Orange County emerge:

What is the proper DST(s) to use as part of ISWM planning?

How would all the important aspects of sustainability be accounted for?

How would current ISWM or sustainability plans be impacted?

How would the outputs be normalized?

At first glance, it appears that multiple DSTs would be needed, as described herein. However,

each DSTs would need to consider what metrics would be used in regard to a number of

potential impacts, for example:

re-purposing a portion of the permitted landfill footprint in light of advancing

community urbanization initiatives;

amortization of airspace costs if the landfill capacity is extended by reusing the airspace

5-10 times;

assessing the contractual implications to both a municipality and LFG end-user whereby

LFG-supply contracts are modified or terminated because an approach was found that

eliminates methane from LFG and thereby reduces risk to human health and

groundwater;

evaluating the impacts to a community’s wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) that no

longer is required to take in and treat landfill leachate as the landfill no longer produces

leachate;

recycling marketable portions of the waste that has been removed from a landfill;

modifying land development codes to encourage sustainable development; and/or,

monetizing the impacts to financial incentives to encourage infill and redevelopment.

Moreover, what DSTs would be used regarding social, environmental, and economic impact of

conducting current actions with an eye on future outcomes; for example, the life-cycle aspects

savings if the potential for future cleanup costs are minimized by removing the risk in the

present-day?

Also of social importance, municipal leaders can take credit for removing the burden on future

generations by accounting for it in their ISWM planning. This, and similar actions, may be

important if, for example, should future efforts by the federal government, for example, seek to

develop extended producer responsibility (EPR) requirements, whereby a manufacturer is

required by law to integrate environmental costs into the current price of the product. Is there a

measurement for this?

Lastly, although PCC and costs are generally accepted to be 30 years, there are today landfill

owners who are looking at having that care period extended because the environmental

regulators believe that the landfill still poses a longer-term threat. Even more so, some regulators

are talking in terms of “perpetual” care, having no real grasp on what the total costs would be.

Which DST is available to assess the present-day removal of that risk?

To better understand how a new DST could be developed, possibly integrating new analytics,

presented below is a review of some of the DST elements that have been used for conventional

ISWM planning. In addition, a holistic view of the impact the ALBSTM might have on the

development of a new DSTs is offered in order to help assess future disruptive technologies

and/or innovations within solid waste. Also presented are several DST models and sustainability


December 2016


standards, such as ISO, that can guide such development. Lastly, an example case of what a

proper DST could yield is developed based on this discussion.

DST Elements

For most DSTs, economic aspects have probably been the most important factor because money,

in combination with available technology, is generally the limiting factor for a sophisticated,

properly functioning waste management system. Economic aspects can be discussed on a

business (micro-economic) level or on a public (macro-economic) level.

The purpose of considering environmental aspects in waste management (from waste generation

over collection, recycling, and treatment to the final disposal) has been to evaluate the impacts

on air, soil, and water, as well as on resource consumption. To protect humans, flora, and fauna,

it is necessary to know the environmental aspects of a service or a process. Studies using life-

cycle assessment (LCA) methodology often evaluate environmental impacts by examining the

following categories: global warming potential; stratospheric ozone depletion; acidification;

terrestrial eutrophication; aquatic eutrophication; photochemical ozone formation; human

toxicity; and ecotoxicity.

Social sustainability can be classified under three different perspectives: social acceptability (the

waste management system must be acceptable); social equity (the equitable distribution of waste

management system benefits and detriments between citizens); and social function (the social

benefit of waste management systems). Public health and safety are important factors within

society, with a close link to the economy and to the environment. Social aspects also refer to the

employment market, governance, ethics, security, education systems, and to culture.

Presented below in Table 4 is a summary of economic, environmental, and social impacts of

waste management that are typically considered.

Table 4. Summary of DST Considerations in ISWM

Economic Impact Environmental Impact Social Impact

Function of the internal market

Investment costs

Operating costs

Administrative burdens

Public authorities

Property rights innovation and research

Economic effects on consumers and households

Economic effects on industry and business

Climate

Energy

Air quality

Biodiversity, flora, fauna, and

landscapes

Water quality and resources

Soil quality or resources

Land use

Renewable or non-renewable

resources

Environmental consequences

of firms and consumers

Likelihood or scale of

environmental risks

Animal welfare

Employment and labor markets

Social inclusion and protection of particular groups

Non-discrimination

Individuals, private and family life, personal data

Governance, participation, good administration, access to justice, media, and ethics

Public health and safety

Security

Access to and effects on social protection, health, and educational systems

Culture


December 2016


Using these considerations, a number of DST have been developed, including life-cycle analysis

(LCA), Multi-criteria decision-Making (MCDM), and Risk assessment (RA). While several of

them focus on the impacts related to the production of goods, presented in Exhibit A is summary

of several types of DSTs that are used in ISWM planning which could be used wholly, in-part, or

as the basis for modifications to develop an appropriate DST for disruptive innovations. For

example, strategic environmental assessment (SEA) is a method to provide a high level of

protection to the environment and to contribute to the integration of environmental

considerations into the preparation and adoption of related plans and programs, with an aim to

promote sustainable development by ensuring that an environmental assessment of certain plans

and programs, which are likely to have significant effects on the environment, is performed.

Review of Status Quo DST Studies (2014)

The 2014 study cited above reported that approximately 41% of the 151 DST studies that were

reported for ISWM used life cycle assessment (LCA) as the method to evaluate waste

management systems. Since 1990, attempts have been made to develop and to standardize the

LCA methodology (Burgess and Brennan, 2001), and since the publication of the guidelines for

LCA (ISO 2006), an international standard has been defined. (More below)

Many of these studies assessed entire waste management systems. Here, the life cycle of a

product ends with waste management, which includes the waste management system from waste

generation, waste collection, recycling, and treatment to final disposal. Therefore, the efficient

planning of waste management systems requires an accounting of complete sets of effects caused

by the entire life cycle of waste (Emery et al., 2007). One-quarter of the reviewed works assessed

either one treatment plant or compared different treatment options to determine the best available

alternative. In particular, the performances of incinerators or landfills were often the objects of

such investigations.

Comparing system boundaries with the object of investigation shows that studies evaluating

waste management systems, waste collection systems, and waste prevention options often used

geographic boundaries (country, region, or city). The reason is that these boundaries most likely

coincided with administrative boundaries. The functional unit to compare different treatment

options was primarily one unit of a specific waste stream, and the evaluation of single treatment

often referred to the inputs and outputs of the investigated plant.

Also, benchmarking methods were often used for assessing MSW management. However,

benchmarking does not seem common for investigations of single waste streams. Compared with

the other assessment methods, LCA, MCDM, and RA were more often performed for assessing

single waste streams.

Advanced DTSs

The creation of new DSTs and analytics is not new. For example, researchers who consider

carbon flows through landfills and WTE facilities, cite that it is important to factor in

global warming potential, energy offsets, and different timescales to have a full and accurate

picture of ISWM. Here they perform a statistical entropy analysis to quantify the power of a

system to concentrate or to dilute substances and to the basis for a simple lifecycle “net energy”

metric – encompassing the “lost energy” that would have been gained when high-calorific

materials are landfilled rather than combusted with energy recovery. As appropriate, it is

introduced to account for additional influxes of carbon when using landfilling as the primary

disposal method. When combining net energy calculations and long terms effects of landfilling,


December 2016


waste to energy (WTE) becomes a more attractive option for dealing with non-recycled

municipal solid waste (MSW).

In response to the increasing demand for sustainability assessments which consider adavances in

energy assessment, as well as spatial, thematic, and/or programmatic influences, a number of

new, now commercialized, DSTs have been developed, as illustrated in Figure 4 and Table 5. A

recent study shows that there are over 59 DTSs reported from 22 countries. They include rating

categories which range from nature conservation, local environmental quality, resource

recycling, and carbon dioxide absorption, to comprehensiveness, green space, cultural and

natural landscapes, urban living environment, and community participation. More detail on these

DSTs are provided in Exhibit B.

Table 5. Selected Commercial DST assessment methods with Rating Categories

DST Providers

CASBEE for Cities Institute for Bldg. Environment & Energy Conservation, Japan

Comprehensive Plans for Sustaining Places

American Planning Assn, US

Eco-City Ministry of Environmental Protection, China

Eco-Garden City Ministry of Housing & Urban-Rural Development, China

Low-Carbon City National Development & Reform Commission, China

STAR Community STAR Communities, US

Sustainable Communities Audubon International, US (available internationally, and for Existing Neighborhoods)

Envision Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure, US

Global Sustainability Assessment System for Railways

Gulf Organization for Research & Dev, Qatar

Green Mark for Infrastructure Bldg. & Construction Authority, Singapore

Greenroads Greenroads Foundation, US

INVEST U.S. Dept of Transportation, Federal Hwy Administration, US

IS Rating Tool Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia

PEER Perfect Power Institute, US

Walk Score

Walk Score, US

Eco-City

Ministry of Environmental Protection, China

H+T Affordability Center for Neighborhood Technology, US

Enterprise Green

Enterprise Green Communities Green Communities

Figure 4. Selected Commercial DST Used in 22 Countries


December 2016


In regard to these, a number of different inputs and influences were used, as shown in Table 6:

Table 6. Select DST Inputs and Influences

Scope & Scale

Topical scope

Physical scale

Minimum elements Usefulness

Value proposition

Efficiency: effort vs. benefit Standards Conformity

Tool development

Rating criteria

Tool maintenance Maturity & Impact

Years operating

Ratings performed

Tool versions

National or intl. market

Market uptake

Empirical results

Tool Administration

Business model

Tool delivery method

Staffing/support infrastructure

Languages

Ancillary services (training, credential)

Rating Procedure

Responsible party

Transparency

Verification

Local adaptability

Monitoring/re-certification Costs to Use

Time

Fees

Documentation

Process

Rating Criteria

Creation process

Technical rigor

Scoring & weighting

Trade-off reconciliation

Mandatory vs. optional

Prescriptive vs. performance

Criteria maintenance Users

Households

Businesses

Neighborhood organizations

Designers

Developers

Local government

Disadvantaged groups

Issues with Current ISWM DSTs While many of these DSTs have similar rating categories, it is evident that many of them have

been developed for precise purposes or centered on specific themes. Few DSTs appears to have

been developed with a comprehensive focus on sustainability, account for disruptive innovation,

or have the appropriate metrics to measure as many important social, economic, and

environmental aspects, as possible, across multiple departments.

For example, US EPA’s Office of Research and Development, Air Pollution Prevention and

Control Division developed a life cycle DST that allows designer to examine factors outside of

the traditional MSW management framework of activities occurring from the point of waste


December 2016

Page | 21

collection to final disposal.8 Per US EPA, while this DST identifies and quantifies energy, water

and materials usage and environmental releases (e.g., air emissions, solid waste disposal, waste

water discharges), its main focus is to assess the potential human and ecological effects of

energy, water, and material usage and the environmental releases on the potential environmental

impacts associated with identified inputs and releases. However, this DST does not take into

account technical performance, cost, or political and social acceptance. Moreover, this DST is

based on the hierarchy of diverting waste material from the landfill and only considers the

wastestream characteristics. Therefore, it is US EPA recommends that this LCA not be used in

conjunction with these other parameters.9

In 2009, EPA developed a Waste Reduction Model (WARM), a tool which provides material-

specific emission factors for activities such as recycling, combustion, landfilling, and

composting. However, the focus of WARM is mainly on reducing GHGs. WARM compares the

emissions and offsets resulting from a material in a baseline and an alternative management

pathway in order to provide decision-makers with comparative emission results. For example,

WARM could be used to calculate the GHG implications of landfilling 10 tons of office paper

versus recycling the same amount of office paper. With respect to recycling, WARM focuses on

redesigning products to use fewer materials (e.g., lightweighting, material substitution); reusing

products and materials (e.g., a refillable water bottle), extending the useful lifespan of products,

and avoiding using materials in the first place (e.g., reducing junk mail, reducing demand for

uneaten food).

But what if a disruptive innovation allowed for significant increases in recycling, thus lower

energy usage, as compared to both reduced landfill costs and GHG emissions? What if another

type of analysis indicated that as a result of lower overall net costs (thus more available revenue),

the higher cost of lightweighting and material substitution. (e.g. aluminum) could be avoided,

and that the more GHG-producing material, e.g. steel, would have no net impact on GHG

emissions, especially in areas of the country such as Pennsylvania where re-hiring the labor force

is politically and socially important? Here, both LCA approaches may not be able to provide

many of the answers needed to address important social, economic, and environmental aspects,

in different parts of the county or across multiple departments.

DST Modification Factors

As described by Allesch and Brunner (2014), a simplistic approach to new DST development

may first be needed before the impact of disruptive innovation can be assessed.

1. Goals are important and first be must clearly stated. This concerns two types of goals:

a. First, the objectives for waste management, as provided by the legislative

framework, policy statement, or regional guideline, must be considered.

It is important to focus on these objectives because these objectives can be

manifold and even contradictory and because these objectives have a determining

influence on the methodology that must be chosen for the evaluation.

8 Application of Life-Cycle Management to Evaluate Integrated Municipal Solid Waste Management Strategies,

United States Office of Research and Environmental Protection Development May 2006 Agency Washington, DC

20460 9 LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT: PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE by Scientific Applications International

Corporation (SAIC), May 2006


December 2016

Page | 22

b. Second, the purpose, scope, and the goals for the assessment must be clearly

defined, considering the addressees and the objectives of waste management

stated in (i). It is important to select a preliminary assessment method, or, most

often, a set of assessment methods, that is capable of addressing all the criteria

necessary for characterizing the goals established in the first step. To meet these

expectations, numerous studies have been published.

If only a part of the goals are to be considered, for example environmental protection such as in a

LCA, this consideration must be clearly stated to allow for the comparison of different studies.

According to the purpose of the assessment, it may be also necessary to address additional

issues, such as the value of previous investments and of existing waste treatment components. It

is evident that such a comprehensive evaluation is a demanding task requiring reliable

methodologies, sound data, and experienced evaluators.

2. Often, waste management systems are assessed by evaluating the impacts caused by

selected single outputs, for example emissions. A comprehensive evaluation must

consider all direct and indirect impacts. Waste management should be perceived as a

‘throughput economy’, with inputs from the market and with outputs to the market and to

the environment.

Taking this view, the complexity of the economic system is apparent. It becomes evident that

sophisticated assessment methods are required, especially for disruptive innovations. Only such

methods are able to evaluate the economic, ecological, and social effects of a waste management

system. The choice of the starting point and end point of an assessment can have a decisive

impact on the results. The scope and system boundaries have to be selected carefully, because

changing the boundaries can have a key influence on the results.

Particularly in the case of recycling, it is important to consider not only emissions but also all the

risks. The fate of hazardous substances that are not released to the environment, but that are

retained in the recycling goods, must be followed as well. If not, then an ‘after-care-free’ waste

management cannot be established because these hazardous substances will have to be managed

after x cycles (Velis and Brunner, 2013).

Hence, when recycling processes, or even landfilling, are assessed, waste composition, process

characteristics, emissions, and recycling product qualities must be known. In summary, inputs

must be linked with outputs.

3. The application of the mass balance principle is crucial for an impartial, comprehensible

evaluation. Assessment methods can be divided into two groups: methods that are based

on the mass balance principle and other methods that do not require this strict

precondition. The establishment mass balances of the total waste management system is

recommended as a base for any subsequent evaluation step.

Such mass balances on the level of goods and substances represent required and highly

useful tools for evaluation because these tools allow the cross-checking plausibility of

available information (Brunner and Rechberger, 2004). When evaluating waste

management systems, data availability and data quality are often limiting steps. Wastes

contain many products that are made from complex mixtures of elements and that are

composed of countless substances, yielding highly heterogeneous combinations. In fact,

wastes may contain everything because their content cannot be completely controlled.

Thus, to analyze waste inputs over longer periods for real situations is a non-trivial, time-

consuming, and costly endeavor. A more effective means is output-oriented analysis. If


December 2016

Page | 23

inputs and outputs of waste treatment systems are monitored and balanced, then the law

of conservation of matter allows the comparison of information concerning material

flows from the input side with the output side. Hence, data can be crosschecked,

deviations can be detected, and additional investigations can be performed, if necessary.

The products of waste treatment are generally more homogenous and easier to analyze,

and the accuracy of waste composition data calculated from the products of waste

treatment is usually higher (Brunner and Ernst, 1986). This advantage becomes even

more pronounced when, in addition to the level of goods, the level of substances is

considered. Mass balances on the level of goods ensure that the total input (wastes) and

total output (products, residues, emissions) match.

Substance balances go one step further; these balances ensure that inputs and outputs

correspond on the level of individual elements or chemical compounds (e.g. carbon or

CO2). Thus, if an array of valuable and hazardous substances is balanced together with

the flow of inputs and outputs of goods, then the resulting information serves as a reliable

and comprehensive base for subsequent evaluation steps. Hence, a mass balance

approach based on a rigid input–output analysis of the entire waste management system

should be taken. Well suited for this purpose is material flow analysis, a systematic

assessment that considers all processes, flows, and stocks in a defined system, delivering

a complete and consistent set of information concerning a waste management system

(Brunner and Rechberger, 2004).

4. Assessments must be reproducible, comprehensible, and transparent regarding

methodology and data. Methods based on mass balances must be favored and applied that

promote these characteristics. Good, impartial, and reliable data sources with known

uncertainty are crucial. Objectivity, transparency, and confirmability are not only

necessary during the assessment step; these qualities are also of key importance when the

results are presented, for example policy decisions.

Politicians, stakeholders, and decision makers generally require results that these

individuals can grasp with little effort. If informative and convincing text, figures, and

tables are produced in a transparent and reproducible manner, then the results of the

assessment are likely to have a larger impact.

As a framework for waste management decisions, assessment methods depict the strengths and

weaknesses of different management alternatives. An approach based on mass balances or on a

goal-oriented evaluation of impacts is a powerful means to ensure comprehension, objectivity,

rigidity, and transparency. Applying this approach for assessing waste management systems will

result in better and more comprehensive support for decision makers.

Accounting for Disruptive Innovation

To account for disruptive innovation, the new DST can be assessed based on one of four

according to a community’s ISWM aims.

1. ‘Scenario-based’: an evaluation of different scenarios to find the best scenario for a single

project/community or for a whole waste management system.

2. ‘Comparison-based’: a comparison of countries/cities/regions or companies to determine

the best in a defined category.

3. ‘Performance-based’: an evaluation of the performance of a single project (e.g. treatment

plant) or strategy (waste management system) with the goal to increase efficiency.


December 2016

Page | 24

4. ‘Goal-based’: an evaluation of the current status of a project or strategy concerning

provided goals or regulations.

In the cited 2014 study of conventional DST approaches used, approximately 60% of these were

‘scenario-based’. Often, three or four scenarios were compared; however, the range of the

considered scenarios in the reviewed studies was from one to 19. One-third of the studies used

the ‘performance-based’ approach, and approximately 10% were ‘comparison-based’. Only four

studies compared the efficiency of current waste management systems with provided goals or

laws.

The scales (boundaries and functional units) used in the study were (i) one unit of a specific

waste stream (e.g. 1 tonne organic household waste), (ii) the entire waste input and output of a

treatment plant, or (iii) the waste management system of a city, country, or region. In a few

cases, household waste or waste generated through the demolition of buildings was investigated.

Only approximately one-fifth of the reviewed studies used the mass balance principle (Brunner

and Rechberger, 2004) to identify the inputs and outputs of the investigated system. More

commonly, only the outputs of the systems were considered.

Each scenario has its benefits. However, it is proposed that the DST should first map out the

internal value-adding processes, as these processes make the final product (or service) more

valuable to the end consumer (or constituent) than otherwise it would have been. The difference

between the traditional supply or value chain and the value stream is that the former includes the

complete activities of all the departments involved, whereas the latter refers only to the specific

parts of the municipality that actually add value to the specific service under consideration. As

such the value stream is a far more focused and contingent (dependent) view of the value-adding

process.

For example, if a community could generate as much plastic waste as it wanted, completely

disregarding the US EPA’s waste hierarchy, yet still met its recycling goals (75%) through the

application of an SL and blending of recovered recyclables into the communities existing

recycling program, which departments would be affected? Would every department that

generated waste then be able to reduce its own waste (and costs) as extraction from the landfill

would now replace inter-departmental recycling? Here, the DST would need to identify direct

and indirect value streams within the departments that impact the outcome, based upon internal

and external situations, versus the municipality as a whole.

Another example, is where municipalities seek to modify land development codes to encourage

sustainable development as well as provide financial incentives to encourage infill and

redevelopment. Mapping the internal value-adding processes would be beneficial to the DST

processes, whereby landfill property that is not used for building such a structure could be

monetized and management differently, as compared to other properties.

Resources, Standards, and Models To aid the development of a new DST, there are a number for resources and standards that are

available to the designer. Presented below are just a few.

ENVISION

Different than Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design (LEED) certification for buildings,

Envision recognizes that infrastructure has different challenges. Buildings are under the control

of a single owner or entity, where one can readily optimize the building systems. Yet, for

infrastructure, there is no single responsible entity. There are multiple departments with different


December 2016

Page | 25

issues, agendas, schedules, budgets, customers and integration needed at the city/community and

regional levels.

In the Envision rating system there are five main categories:

1. Quality of Life specifically addresses a project’s impact on communities from the health

and well-being of individuals to the well-being of the larger social fabric as a whole.

2. Leadership is comprised of the tasks that demonstrate effective leadership and

commitment by all parties involved in a project including meaningful commitments from

the owner, team leaders, & constructors.

3. Resource Allocation measures the use of renewable and non-renewable resources for the

project. Benefits of managing resources needed will allow a longer life as we know it.

4. Natural World allows project teams to assess the effect of the project on the

preservation and renewal of ecosystem functions. This section addresses how to

understand and minimize negative impacts while considering ways in which the

infrastructure can interact with natural systems in a synergistic and positive way.

5. Climate and Risk looks at two main concepts: minimizing emissions that may contribute

to increased short- and long-term risks and ensuring that infrastructure projects are

resilient to short-term hazards or altered long-term future conditions.

Envision also helps clients and communities define what broad terms like sustainable, resilient,

and smart mean to them. For example, Envision contains sixty credits, each one representing an

indicator of sustainability, such as:

• Stimulate local growth and development

• Improve public health and safety

• Take into account stakeholder views and concerns

• Last longer

• Reduce energy needs

• Protect farmland

• Withstand climate change threats

Lastly, Innovation Points are assigned in each of the five categories for both exceptional

performance beyond the expectations of the system and the application of methods that push

innovation in sustainable infrastructure. Innovation credits act as bonus points that are added to

the project score. Examples include a project where job development and training far exceed the

restorative level and fundamentally revitalize a community’s economy, or a project where the

stormwater management system is a community-wide resource for capturing stormwater,

preventing erosion, and treating stormwater prior to release back into natural hydrologic systems.

In addition, Envision can be used in choosing materials. One can ask, is a community using

recycled materials? This can reduce the load on the landfill. We cannot just consider the cost of

taking material to the landfill – what about the future cost?

The questions are answered, the points tallied, and projects are then scored, planned and

executed, only to be assessed by Envision to ensure quality control.

Using Envision for ISWM Modifications Envision is flexible because of the diverse range of projects it addresses and that there are no

“prerequisites” or “must-dos” like in other rating systems. Lastly, Envision incorporates

sustainable philosophies into discreet infrastructure projects. While these and other benefits


December 2016

Page | 26

arguably help expand how project teams look at sustainability to encourage more creative ways

of solving infrastructure and solid waste challenges, there are some limitations inherent within

Envision that the user should know which can lead to an improper scoring and/or outcome.

For example, the merits of applying Envision to two Texas water infrastructure projects that

were specifically designed to enhance supply resiliency were assessed by retroactively rating the

San Antonio Water System (SAWS) Twin Oaks Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR).10 In this

review, the authors described that the novelty and innovation inherent in the ASR was largely

overlooked by Envision, which often does not evaluate sector-specific concepts.

Here, several important aspects of groundwater sustainability were omitted: aquifer-wide

monitoring programs, sustainable yield, groundwater regulations, and public awareness of water

resource limitations. To address this, an effective water resource sustainability index was

proposed to include system principles and simultaneously assess both surface and subsurface

water supplies. Per the authors, Envision’s focus was more on project implementation and less

on what a project does on a large scale. If Envision were used in conjunction with a groundwater

specific sustainability index, the authors argue, both the water system and the individual water

project could be reviewed together in a truly holistic manner.

Using the Twin Oaks Envision rating as an example, five important aspects of the Envision

system should be noted when apply is as a DST for a disruptive innovation in regard to ISWM

planning:

1) Conflation of project purpose and project design

2) No weighting of points based upon local needs

3) Project-oriented focus omits systems scale

4) Uneven weighting of three sustainability pillars

5) Positive scoring overlooks negative aspects of projects

6) Established hierarchies (e.g. waste) can be challenged and thus affect scoring

In the case of the ISWM planning, Envision also builds on the assumption that while landfilling

has a huge impact on the sustainability of the community, siting a new landfill not only costs

money, it has many social impacts that have a cost. Yet, its developers admit that it too may be

difficult to assign a value to it. Other assumptions include:

As much waste or materials as possible should be avoided from landfills;

Priorities are given for the production and/or use of renewable energy;

Landfills will always produce methane; and

Energy consumption is fixed as part of landfill operations.

Potentially Applicable Standards, Principles, and Models

International Organization for Standardizations (ISO) The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is the world's largest developer of

voluntary international standards which facilitates world trade by providing common standards

between nations. Nearly twenty thousand standards have been set covering everything from

manufactured products and technology to food safety, agriculture and healthcare. ISO 9001, for

example, has been shown to improve sales, customer satisfaction, corporate image and market

10 Using Envision to Assess the Sustainability of Groundwater Infrastructure: A Case Study of the Twin Oaks

Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project. Article by Cody R. Saville, Gretchen R. Miller * and Kelly Brumbelow,

Texas A & M University, 2016


December 2016

Page | 27

share (Manders 2014 ) and ISO 14001 (discussed below) has been shown to have a positive

impact on environmental performance worldwide (de Vries et al, 2012 ) In the UK standards

account for an $8.2bn annual growth in GDP, while in Canada, the use of standards has injected

over $91bn into the economy since 1981.

When developing a new DST, applicable and salient ISO standards should be used. With respect

to disruptive technologies such as the ALBS, the ones listed in Table 7 may apply: (More detail

is provided in Exhibit B)

Table 7: Description of Selected ISO Standards Applicable to the ALBS

ISO Category

14001 Environmental Management Systems

14040 Environmental management - Life cycle assessment

14064

14065 Climate Change

14064 Water Protection

18091 Quality Management Systems in Local Government

37101 Sustainable Development in Communities

50001 Energy

Capacity, Management, Operations, and Maintenance Programs (CMOMs) Strategic tools to support the most effective and efficient use of a utility's resources have become

critically important to a utility's planning process. Using the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency's capacity, management, operations, and maintenance program (CMOM) as a guide,

utilities such water and wastewater prepare performance management plans to address the

challenges of rapidly growing populations and stretched water resources.

Originally developed for wastewater utilities, CMOM can addresses many aspects of a

municipality’s organization, with specific focuses such as water utility management and

operations, financial considerations, water treatment maintenance issues, public health

protection, regulatory compliance, and safety. For example, in Orange County, Florida, the

County’s Water CMOM program showed the gaps in the utility's organization, provided a

method to prioritize and implement gap closure projects, and aligned the final recommendations

of the assessment with the utility's goals and mission statement. The program created a

repeatable process that can measure how the utility is performing, re-analyze the utility

periodically, show gaps in performance, develop plans to close those gaps, and remeasure the

utility using performance indicators and industry-accepted metrics.

Climate- Based Efforts The Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-lived Climate Pollutants (CCAC) is a

partnership of governments, intergovernmental organizations, the environmental community, and

other groups that is dedicated to catalyzing rapid reductions in SLCPs to protect human health

and the environment now, and to slow the rate of climate change within the first half of this

century.

One of the CCAC’s focal areas is the Mitigating SLCPs from Municipal Solid Waste Initiative,

where the CCAC works to enable cities, with the support of their regional and national

governments, to move along the waste hierarchy in a coordinated and cohesive manner in order


December 2016

Page | 28

to mitigate methane and black carbon emissions. Information on actions that cities can take to

improve waste management and reduce SLCP emissions is available through the CCAC MSW

Knowledge Platform (http://waste.ccac-knowledge.net).

LEAN A “Lean” organization understands customer value and focuses its key processes to continuously

increase it. The ultimate goal is to provide perfect value to the customer through a perfect value

creation process that has zero waste. The core idea is to maximize customer value while

minimizing waste. Simply, lean means creating more value for customers with fewer resources.

To accomplish this, lean thinking changes the focus of management from optimizing separate

technologies, assets, and vertical departments to optimizing the flow of products and services

through entire value streams that flow horizontally across technologies, assets, and departments

to customers.

Eliminating waste along entire value streams, instead of at isolated points, creates processes that

need less human effort, less space, less capital, and less time to make products and services at far

less costs and with much fewer defects, compared with traditional business systems. Companies

are able to respond to changing customer desires with high variety, high quality, low cost, and

with very fast throughput times. Also, information management becomes much simpler and more

accurate.

DST Software and Models

EASEWASTE Commonly used software tools for LCAs include EASEWASTE and SimaPro software

programs. EASEWASTE (Environmental Assessment of Solid Waste Systems and Technology)

is a LCA-based DST which calculates waste flow, resource consumption and environmental

emissions from waste management systems. It also provides an impact assessment in terms of

potential global warming, ozone depletion, photochemical ozone formation, acidification,

nutrient enrichment, ecotoxicity and human toxicity. The model also possesses two impact

categories: Spoiled Groundwater Resources and Stored Toxicity. The model is flexible, user-

friendly and provides default data for waste composition, collection, transport, various treatment

processes, landfilling, use on land, recycling, utilization as well as upstream and downstream

processes (for example electricity consumption and heat production).

As such programs are mechanized, they can be readily modified. For example, EASEWASTE

assumes that time periods are long, and as such, waste materials and substances are left in the

waste at the end of the set time period. In the conventional landfill case, the organic waste may

be somewhat degraded, but the landfill can still contain significant amounts of materials and

substances that can support leaching for long time.

In order not to forget what is left in the waste after the time period in focus, EASEWASTE

includes an impact potential called “stored toxicity.” This metric basically keeps account of how

much is left of each toxic substance in the waste at the end of the normal decay period and

ascribes each substance the characterization factor for ecotoxicity to water and to soil, 50% each,

an arbitrary assumption that half of the toxic substances end up in the water compartment and the

other half in the soil compartment. However, this model can be modified using empirical ALBS

data, including results which show less impact remaining, than assumed. This ties directly to

long-term care of the landfill after closure and costs.

http://waste.ccac-knowledge.net/


December 2016

Page | 29

TOPSIS Over the last decade, sustainability experts and modelers have proposed more advanced DSTs

and method, for example a sustainability measurement and scoring system for assessing the

efforts of organizations at meeting sustainability targets. Using a “technique for order preference

by similarity to ideal solution” (TOPSIS) as the basic framework, this method proposes to

incorporate all three sustainability dimensions – economic, environmental and social – to

establish a threshold below which an organization is considered to have failed a sustainability

test. In addition, time-independent thresholds are proposed to enable a clearer comparison of

performance of organizations over time. Such proposed methods include plots for visualizing the

sustainability performance of organizations under review.

In this example case, the proposed method first assigns target values to a hypothetical

organization. TOPSIS is then used to generate composite scores in which the score of the

hypothetical organization is set as the threshold below which organizations are deemed to have

failed a sustainability test. Using the square of the closeness coefficient of TOPSIS, the final

composite score is decomposed into three components to reflect the contribution of the three

dimensions of sustainability to serve as a guide to determining which dimension to focus on for

improvement. A relative comparison score is then proposed to track the performance of

organizations over time.

While such proposals appear more advanced than other sustainability assessments, it is important

to know that such methods are available when either disruptive innovations or more complex

interrelations are at stake as part of ISWM planning.

Humanitarian Standards

The Sphere Project The Sphere Project http://www.sphereproject.org/ is a voluntary initiative that brings a wide

range of humanitarian agencies together around a common aim - to improve the quality of

humanitarian assistance and the accountability of humanitarian actors to their constituents,

donors and affected populations. The Sphere Handbook, Humanitarian Charter and Minimum

Standards in Humanitarian Response, is one of the most widely known and internationally

recognized sets of common principles and universal minimum standards in life-saving areas of

humanitarian response.

The Sphere Project is structured very loosely, without any membership or sign-up process for

organizations. Yet, its aim is that agencies use Sphere minimum standards to the benefit of

affected populations. While focused more on international efforts, there are elements of Sphere

that can be integrated into sustainable ISWM.

Sustainability Assessment & Measurement Principles (Bellagio STAMP) A growing number of organizations have been involved in the development of indicator systems

around the key socio-economic and environmental concerns of sustainable development within

their own context. In order to provide guidance and promote best practice, in 1997 a global group

of leading measurement and assessment experts developed the Bellagio Principles. The Bellagio

Principles have become a widely quoted reference point for measuring sustainable development,

but new developments in policy, science, civil society and technology have made their update

http://www.sphereproject.org/


December 2016

Page | 30

necessary. The Principles founders state they are responding to widespread calls for greater

harmony with the natural environment and for measures to secure the wellbeing of current and

future generations. http://www.sustainabledevelopment2015.org

The Bellagio Sustainability Assessment and Measurement Principles (BellagioSTAMP) have

been developed through a similar expert group process, using the original Principles as a starting

point. Intended to be used as a complete set, the new BellagioSTAMP includes eight principles:

(1) Guiding vision; (2) Essential considerations; (3) Adequate scope; (4) Framework and

indicators; (5) Transparency; (6) Effective communications; (7) Broad participation; and (8)

Continuity and capacity.

Overall, while the BellagioSTAMP process focus is mainly the eradication of poverty through

sustainable development, the Principles are designed to help any group assessing societal

progress, considering policy options or advocating change: community bodies, academics, non-

governmental organizations, corporations, governments and international institutions.

BellagioSTAMP helps realize the full potential of sustainability assessments by guiding them in

these areas:

• Content – Questions that should be answered in assessments

• Process – The way in which assessments should be carried out

• Scope – Range of assessments across the dimensions of time and geography

• Impact – The way to maximize the impact of assessments on the public and policy

makers

These principles are interrelated and are intended to be used as a complete set and its framework

supports communities revisiting of how they assess progress as a key lever for sustainable

development. Therefore, they can used as a learning tool. Further, high level principles can help

guide measurement and assessment system design. Lastly, BellagioSTAMP principles cover both

the content and process of measurement and assessment.

Conclusion

Incorporating "green infrastructure" practices within large urban areas can effectively and

affordably complement traditional infrastructure. Yet, integration of disruptive innovations, such

as the ALBS, can make sustainability and ISWM planning challenging. As presented herein,

there are a number of available resources and standards to help planners develop new DSTs, yet

they should consider that community goals and regulations are important, and first be must

clearly stated. Further, waste management should be perceived as a ‘throughput economy’, with

inputs from the market and with outputs to the market and to the environment. Also, assessment

of any ISWM must be based on waste composition, process characteristics, emissions, and

recycling product qualities, and inputs must be linked with outputs. Lastly, DST assessments

must be reproducible, comprehensible, and transparent regarding methodology and data.

http://www.sustainabledevelopment2015.org/


December 2016

Page | 31

Bibliography

American Institute of Architects, Quantifying Sustainability: A Study of Three Sustainable Building Rating Systems, AIA, May 2008.

Aranoff, Miriam, et al, LEED for Neighborhood Development: Does it Capture Livability? Berkeley Planning Journal, Vol 26, 2013.

Berardi, U., Sustainability Assessment of Urban Communities Through Rating Systems, Environment, Development & Sustainability, 2013.

Black, Elissa, Green Neighborhood Standards from a Planning Perspective: LEED-ND, Focus: Journal of City & Regional Planning, Cal Poly, 2008.

Blair, John, et al, Affordability and Sustainability Outcomes: a Triple Bottom Line Assessment of Traditional Development and Master Planned Communities, Australian Housing & Urban Research Institute, June 2004.

Blair, John, et al, Affordability and Sustainability of Greenfield Suburban Development and Master Planned Communities – a Case Study Approach to Triple Bottom Line Assessment, Australian Housing & Urban Research Institute, May 2003.

Cable, Faith, Sustainable Neighborhood Rating Systems: An International Comparison, Berlin Technical University, July 2008.

Campbell, Scott, Green Cities, Growing Cities, Just Cities? Journal of the American Planning Assn, 1996.

Dalai-Clayton, Barry, and Sadler, Barry, Sustainability Appraisal: a Sourcebook and Reference Guide to International Experience, Routledge, May 2014.

Ewing, Reid, et al, Prediction of Transportation Outcomes for LEED-ND Pilot Projects, Journal of Planning Education & Research, April 2013.

Fitzgerald, Joan, District-Scale Sustainability Scan, Northeastern University, 2014.

Frame, B, and Vale, R, Increasing Uptake of Low Impact Urban Design & Development: the Role of Sustainability Assessment Systems, Journal of Local Environment, June 2006.

Garde, Ajay, Sustainable by Design? Insights from U.S. LEED-ND Pilot Projects, Journal of the American Planning Assn, 2009.

Gasparatos, A., and Scolobig, A., Choosing the Most Appropriate Sustainability Assessment Tool, Journal of Ecological Economics, June 2012.

Gil, J and Duarte, J, Tools for Evaluating the Sustainability of Urban Design: a Review, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 2011.

Haapio, Appu, Towards Sustainable Urban Communities, Journal of Environmental Impact Assessment Review, September 2011.

Hammer, Janet, Development That Adds Up: Accounting for the Social Bottom Line of Triple Bottom Line Investment, Portland State University, 2009.

Harrell, Rodney, et al, Is This a Good Place to Live? Measuring Community Quality of Life for All Ages, AARP, Washington DC, April 2014


December 2016

Page | 32

EXIHBIT A. Selected DST assessment methods

Method Description

Benchmarking Benchmarking is a continual comparison of products, services, methods, or processes to identify performance gaps, with the goals to learn from the best and to note out possible improvements

(Gabler, 2014).

Cost benefit analysis

(CBA) The essential theoretical foundations of CBA are defining benefits as increases in human wellbeing (utility) and costs as reductions in human wellbeing. All benefits are converted to monetary units. The cost component is the other part of the basic CBA equation (Pearce et al., 2006).

Cost effectiveness

analysis (CEA) CEA evaluates alternatives according to both their cost and their effect concerning producing some outcome (Levin and McEwan, 2000). CEA allows the consideration of intangible effects.

Eco-efficiency

analysis (Eco-Eff) Eco-efficiency analysis (Eco-Eff) denotes the ecological optimization of overall systems while not disregarding economic factors. The Eco-Eff analysis by BASF quantifies the sustainability of products and processes, considering the environmental impacts and economic data concerning a business or national economic level (Saling et al., 2002).

Emergy analysis (EA) Emergy is the amount of available energy that is used up in transformations, directly and indirectly for a service or product. The EA is an evaluation method that considers both environmental and economic values (Song et al., 2012; Yuan et al., 2011).

Environmental impact

assessment (EIA) EIA is a method that has to be performed before consent is given to a project. Significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size, or location are made subject to a requirement for development consent and for an assessment concerning their effects (Directive 2011/92/EC).

Exergy analysis The exergy method evaluates the qualitative change from the available energy to the unusable one in the form of work (Hiraki and Akiyama 2009; Szargut, 2005)

Life cycle assessment (LCA)

LCA addresses the environmental aspects and potential environmental impacts (e.g. use of resources and environmental consequences of releases) throughout a product’s life cycle, from raw material acquisition through production, use, end-of-life treatment, recycling, and final disposal (ISO 2006).

Life cycle costing (LCC)

LCC is an economic analysis method in combination with LCA. This method is a tool for accounting the total costs of a product or service over a long life span (Carlsson Reich, 2005; Langdon, 2007).

Multi-criteria decision- Making (MCDM)

MCDM is a decision-making tool that facilitates choosing the best alternative among several alternatives. This tool evaluates a problem by comparing and ranking different options and by evaluating their consequences according to the criteria established (Hermann et al., 2007; Hung et al., 2007; Karmperis et al., 2013).

Risk assessment (RA) RA is an integral part of the overall organization’s performance assessment and measurement system for departments and for individuals. The goal is to provide a comprehensive, fully defined, and fully accepted accountability for risks (ISO 2009).

Statistical entropy

analysis

Method that quantifies the power of a system to concentrate or to dilute substances (Brunner and Rechberger, 2004; Rechberger and Brunner, 2002).

Strategic environmental

assessment (SEA)

SEA is a method to provide a high level of protection to the environment and to contribute to the integration of environmental considerations into the preparation and adoption of plans and programs, with an aim to promote sustainable development by ensuring that an environmental assessment of certain plans and programs, which are likely to have significant effects on the environment, is performed (Directive 2001/42/EC).

EXHIBIT B. Selected Commercial DST assessment methods with Rating Categories

Tools Providers Websites Rating Categories

CASBEE for Cities

Institute for Bldg. Environment & Energy Conservation, Japan

http://www.ibec.or.jp/

CASBEE/English/ Nature conservation, local environmental quality, resource recycling, carbon dioxide absorption, living environment, social services, social vitality, industrial vitality, financial vitality, carbon dioxide trading

Comprehensive Plans for Sustaining Places

American Planning Assn, US

https://www.planning.

org/sustainingplaces/

compplanstandards/

Livable built environment, harmony with nature, resilient economy, interwoven equity, healthy community, responsible regionalism

Eco-City Ministry of Environmental Protection, China

N/A Construction plan, independent environmental agencies, energy savings, environmental quality, ecological construction

Eco-Garden City Ministry of Housing & Urban-Rural Development, China

N/A Comprehensiveness, green space, cultural and natural landscapes, urban living environment, community participation, exemplary policy implementation

Low-Carbon City National Development & Reform Commission, China

N/A Integration of climate protection, green development, industrial GHG emissions, GHG emission database, low-carbon lifestyles

STAR Community

STAR Communities, US

http://www.

starcommunities.org/ Built environment, climate & energy, economy & jobs, education arts & community, equity & empowerment, health & safety, natural systems, innovation & process

Sustainable Communities

Audubon International, US (available internationally, and for Existing Neighborhoods)

http://www.

auduboninternational.org/

sustainable-communities-

program

Agriculture, economic development & tourism, education, environment, governance, housing, open space & land-use, planning zoning building & development, population, public safety & emergency management, recreation, resource use, volunteerism & civic engagement, transportation

Envision Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure, US

http://www.

sustainableinfrastructure.

org/rating/index.cfm

Project pathway contribution, project strategy and management, communities and efficiencies, land-use and restoration, landscapes, ecology and biodiversity, water resources and environment, energy and carbon, resource management, transportation

Global Sustainability Assessment System for Railways

Gulf Organization for Research & Dev, Qatar

http://www.gord.qa/

uploads/pdf/GSAS%20

Technical%20Guide%20

V2.1.pdf (general guidance)

Unavailable

Green Mark for Infrastructure

Bldg. & Construction Authority, Singapore

http://www.bca.gov.sg/

GreenMark/others/GM_

Infra_V1.pdf

Landscape ecology & land efficiency, energy, renewable energy, water, project management, waste management & environmental protection, innovation

Greenroads Greenroads Foundation, US

https://www.greenroads. org/ Project requirements, environment & water, access & equity, construction activities,


December 2016

Page | 34

materials & resources, pavement technologies

INVEST U.S. Dept of Transportation, Federal Hwy Administration, US

https://www.

sustainablehighways.org/ Integrated planning, economic development and land-use, linking asset management and planning, stormwater, recycle materials, construction waste management, pavement management system, road weather management program

IS Rating Tool Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia

http://www.isca.org. au/is-

rating-scheme/is-overview/is-

rating-tool

Transport, water, communications, energy

PEER Perfect Power Institute, US

http://

perfectpowerinstitute.org/

apply-peer

Enabling customer action; operational efficiency; reliability, power quality, and safety; energy efficiency & environment

Enterprise Green Enterprise Green Communities

http://www. enterprisecommunity. com/solutions-and-innovation/enterprise-green-communities

Integrative design, location & neighborhood fabric, site improvements, water conservation, energy efficiency, materials beneficial to the environment, healthy living e

Enterprise Green Communities

http://www. enterprisecommunity. com/solutions-and-innovation/enterprise-green-communities

Integrative design, location & neighborhood fabric, site improvements, water conservation, energy efficiency, materials beneficial to the environment, healthy living environment, operations & maintenance

Walk Score

Walk Score, US

http://www.walkscore. com/

Walk, bike, transit

Eco-City

Ministry of Environmental Protection, China

N/A

Construction plan, independent environmental agencies, energy savings, environmental quality, ecological construction

H+T Affordability

Center for Neighborhood Technology, US

http://htaindex.cnt.org/

Housing costs, transportation costs

EXHIBIT C. Description of Selected ISO Standards Applicable to the ALBS

ISO Category Description

14001 Environmental Management Systems

Systematic framework to manage the immediate and long term environmental impacts of an organization’s products, services and processes

• Demonstrate compliance with current and future statutory and regulatory requirements

• Increase leadership involvement and engagement of employees • Improve company reputation and the confidence of stakeholders through

strategic communication • Achieve strategic business aims by incorporating environmental issues into

business management • Provide a competitive and financial advantage through improved efficiencies

and reduced costs • Encourage better environmental performance of suppliers by integrating them

into the organization’s business systems

14040 Environmental management - Life cycle assessment

LCA can assist in:

• identifying opportunities to improve the environmental performance of products at various points in their life cycle,

• informing decision-makers in industry, government or non-government organizations (e.g. for the purpose of strategic planning, priority setting, product or process design or redesign),

• the selection of relevant indicators of environmental performance, including measurement techniques, and

• marketing (e.g. implementing an ecolabelling scheme, making an environmental claim, or producing an environmental product declaration).

14064

14065

Climate Change

Supports programs to reduce GHG emissions as well as emissions trading programs. ISO 14064 is emerging as the global benchmark on which to base such programs. Used by the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS), developed by The Climate Group (TCG), the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), specifically integrates the principles of ISO 14064 and uses the validation and verification requirements of ISO 14065.

14064 Water Protection

ISO’s more than 260 water quality standards provide a common terminology, water sampling methods and reporting and monitoring guidance to check presence of bacteria, purity and other characteristics.

18091 Quality Management Systems in Local Government

ISO standards draw on international expertise and experience and are therefore a vital resource for governments when developing public policy. Benefits to governments include:

• Getting expert opinions - By integrating an ISO standard into national regulation, governments can benefit from the opinion of experts without having to call on their services directly.

• Open up world trade - ISO international standards are adopted by many governments, so integrating them into national regulation ensures that requirements for imports and exports are the same the world over, therefore facilitating the movement of goods, services and technologies from country to country.

• Remove barriers to world trade by providing the technical basis on which political trade agreements can be put into practice, whether they are at the regional or international level.


December 2016

Page | 36

37101 Sustainable Development in Communities

Designed to help communities to develop holistic and integrated approaches instead of working in silos. Sets out requirements and guidance to attain sustainability with the support of methods and tools including smartness and resilience. The Standard also aims to improve the contribution of communities to sustainable development outcomes.

50001 Energy Improved energy performance helps organizations maximize the use of their energy sources and energy-related assets, thus reducing both energy cost and consumption. Provides a framework for organizations to make positive contributions toward reducing depletion of energy resources and mitigating worldwide effects of energy use, such as global warming, while improving the efficiency of organizational operations related to energy.

ISO 50001 is based on the same management system model of continual improvement used for ISO 9001 and 14001. This compatibility makes it easier for organizations to integrate energy management into their quality and environmental management efforts. However, ISO 50001 adds new data-driven sections related to energy planning, operational control, and measuring and monitoring.