Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Optimal Expansion Strategy for a Sewer System under Uncertainty

  • Published:
Environmental Modeling & Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Because of fast urban sprawl, land use competition, and the gap in available funds and needed funds, municipal decision makers and planners are looking for more cost-effective and sustainable ways to improve their sewer infrastructure systems. The dominant approaches have turned to planning the sanitary sewer systems within a regional context, while the decentralized and on-site/cluster wastewater systems have not overcome the application barriers. But regionalization policy confers uncertainties and risks upon cities while planning for future events. Following the philosophy of smart growth, this paper presents several optimal expansion schemes for a fast-growing city in the US/Mexico borderlands—the city of Pharr in Texas under uncertainty. The waste stream generated in Pharr is divided into three distinct sewer sheds within the city limit, including south region, central region, and north region. The options available include routing the wastewater to a neighboring municipality (i.e., McAllen) for treatment and reuse, expanding the existing wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) in the south sewer shed, and constructing a new WWTP in the north sewer shed. Traditional deterministic least-cost optimization applied in the first stage can provide a cost-effective and technology-based decision without respect to associated uncertainties system wide. As the model is primarily driven by the fees charged for wastewater transfer, sensitivity analysis was emphasized by the inclusion of varying flat-rate fees for adjustable transfer schemes before contracting process that may support the assessment of fiscal benefits to all parties involved. Yet uncertainties might arise from wastewater generation, wastewater reuse, and cost increase in constructing and operating the new wastewater treatment plant simultaneously. When dealing with multiple sources of uncertainty, the grey mixed integer programming (GIP) model, formulated in the second stage, can further allow all sources of uncertainties to propagate throughout the optimization context, simultaneously leading to determine a wealth of optimal decisions within a reasonable range. Both models ran for three 5-year periods beginning in 2005 and ending in 2020. The dynamic outputs of this analysis reflect the systematic concerns about integrative uncertainties within this decision analysis, which enable decision makers and stakeholders to make all-inclusive decisions for sanitary sewer system expansion in an economically growing region.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2005). http://www.asce.org/asce.cfm.

  2. Angelakis, A. N., & Bontoux, L. (2001). Wastewater reclamation and reuse in European countries. Water Policy, 3, 47–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Arana, A. (1992). In the shadow of the Maquiladores. Business Week, 20, 22.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ashley, R. M., Souter, N., Butler, D., Davies, J., Dunkerley, J., & Hendry, S. (1999). Assessment of the sustainability of alternatives for the disposal of domestic sanitary waste. Water Science and Technology, 39, 251–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Berthouex, P. M. (1992). Information management for wastewater treatment. ISA Transactions, 31(1), 35–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Berthouex, P. M., & Box, G. E. (1996). Time series models for forecasting wastewater treatment plant performance. Water Research, 30(8), 1865–1875.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Berthouex, P. M., Hunter, W. G., Pallesen, L., & Shih, C. Y. (1976). Use of stochastic models in the interpretation of historical data from sewage treatment plants. Water Research, 10(8), 689–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Berthouex, P. M., & Polkowski, L. B. (1970). Design capacities to accommodate forecast uncertainties. Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division, ASCE, 1183–1210.

  9. Chan, Y., Carter, W. B., & Burnes, M. D. (2001). A multiple-depot, multiple-vehicle, location-routing problem with stochastically processed demands. Computers & Operations Research, 28, 803–826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chang, N. B., Davila, E., Dyson, B., & Brown, R. (2005). Optimal site selection and capacity planning of a municipal solid waste material recovery facility in an urban setting. Waste Management, 25(8), 833–846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chang, N. B., Wen, C. G., Chen, Y. L., & Yong, Y. C. (1996a). Optimal planning of the reservoir watershed by grey fuzzy multiobjective programming (I): Theory. Water Research, 30(10), 2329–2334.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Chang, N. B., Wen, C. G., Chen, Y. L., & Yong, Y. C. (1996b). Optimal planning of the reservoir watershed by grey fuzzy multiobjective programming (II): Application. Water Research, 30(10), 2335–2340.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Das, P. (1979). Multilevel wastewater treatment and transport. Journal of Environmental Management, 9, 49–60.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Deining, R. A., & Loucks, D. P. (1972). Systems approach to water pollution. In K. C. George (Ed.), Systems approach to environmental pollution (pp. 137–221). Arlington, VA: Operations Research Society of America Health Applications Section.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Deininger, R. A., & Su, S. Y. (1973). Modeling regional wastewater treatment systems. Water Research, 7(4), 633–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dixon, A., Butler, D., & Fewkes, A. (1999). Water saving potential of domestic water reuse systems using greywater and rainwater in combination. Water Science and Technology, 39(5), 25–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Engineering News Record (ENR) (2004). Building cost index history. McGraw-Hill Construction.

  18. Etnier, C., Nelson, V., & Pinkham, R. (2000). Economics of decentralized wastewater treatment systems: Direct and indirect costs and benefits, a white paper for National Decentralized Water Resources Capacity Development Project. August 6, 2000.

  19. Fujiwara, O., Puangmaha, W., & Hanaki, K. (1988). River basin water quality management in stochastic environment. Journal of Environmental Engineering, ASCE, 114(4), 185–198.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Harman, D. (2005). U.S. tourists cautioned about jaunts to Mexico, USA Today.

  21. Hitchman, P. A., & Berthouex, P. M. (1986). Exponential smoothing of monitoring data. Journal of Environmental Engineering, ASCE, 112(3), 551–563.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Huang, G. H., Baetz, B. W., & Patry, G. G. (1992). A grey linear programming approach for municipal solid waste management planning under uncertainty. Civil Engineering Systems, 9, 319–335.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Huang, G. H., Baetz, W. B., & Patry, G. G. (1993). Grey integer programming: An application to waste management planning under uncertainty. Journal of Operational Research, 83, 594–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Huang, G. H., Baetz, B. W., & Patry, G. G. (1994). Grey dynamic programming for solid waste management planning under uncertainty. Civil Engineering Systems, 11, 43–73.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Huang, G. H., Baetz, B. W., & Patry, G. G. (1995). A grey integer programming for solid waste management planning under uncertainty. European Journal of Operational Research, 83, 594–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Huang, G. H., & Moore, R. D. (1993). Grey linear programming, its solving approach, and its application. International Journal of Systems Science, 24(1), 159–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Knight, D. (1998). Health news: Birth defects continue in US–Mexico border areas. World News, (Inter Press Service).

  28. Krupnick, A., Morgenstern, R., Batz, M., Nelson, P., Burtraw, D., Shih, J. S., et al. (2006). Not a sure thing: Making regulatory choices under uncertainty. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Lauria, D. T., Schlenger, D. L., & Wentworth, R. W. (1977). Models for capacity planning of water systems. Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE, 103(EE2), 273–291.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Leighton, J. P., & Shoemaker, C. A. (1984). An integer programming analysis of the regionalization of large wastewater treatment and collection system. Water Resources Research, 20(6), 671–681.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Leong, S. T., Muttamara, S., & Laortanakul, P. (2003). Reutilization of wastewater in a rubber-based processing factory; a case study in Southern Thailand. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 37, 159–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Martin, C. D., Johnson, K. D., & Moshiri, G. A. (1999). Performance of a constructed wetland leachate treatment system at the Chunchula Landfill, Mobile County, Alabama. Water Science and Technology, 40(3), 67–74.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Mays, P. A., & Edwards, G. S. (2001). Comparison of heavy metal accumulation in a natural wetland and constructed wetlands receiving acid mine drainage. Ecological Engineering, 16(4), 487–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Mels, A. R., van Nieuwenhuijzen, A. F., van der Graaf, J. H. J. M., Klapwijk, B., de Koning, J., & Rulkens, W. H. (1999). Sustainability criteria as a tool in the development of new sewage treatment methods. Water Science and Technology, 39(5), 243–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Merrit, L. B., & Bogan, R. H. (1973). Computer-base optimal design of sewer system. Journal of Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE 99(EE1), 35–53.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Moore, R. E. (1979). Method and applications of interval analysis. Philadelphia, USA: SIAM.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Mulvihill, M. E. (1974). Optimal timing and sizing of a conjunctive urban water supply and waste water system with nonlinear programming. Water Resources Research, 10(2), 170–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Naismith Engineering (2002). Wastewater system master plan. Funded by The Border Environment Cooperation Commission, City of Pharr, Texas.

  39. Ong, S. L., & Adams, B. J. (1990). Capacity expansion for regional wastewater systems. Journal of Environmental Engineering, ASCE, 116(3), 542–550.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Pallesen, L., Berthouex, P. M., & Booman, K. (1985). Environmental intervention analysis: Wisconsin’s ban on phosphate detergents. Water Research, 19(3), 353–362.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. StatSoft, I. (1998). STATISTICA. Tulsa, OK: StatSoft, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Swamee, P. K. (2001). Design of sewer line. Journal of Environmental Engineering, ASCE, 127(9), 776–781.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. The Associated Press (1993). Lawsuit blames birth defects on companies. The McAllen Monitor, McAllen, 7B.

  44. Tredoux, G., King, P., & Cavé, L. (1999). Managing urban wastewater for maximizing water resource utilization. Water Science and Technology 39(10), 353–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Urbaniak, A. (1988). Multicriteria capacity expansion planning for an urban water system with random data. Civil Engineering System, 5, 129–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. U.S. Census Bureau (2000). Census 2000. United States Census Bureau.

  47. U.S. EPA (2002). The clean water and drinking water infrastructure gap analysis, EPA-816-R-02-020, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges the financial support from the city of Pharr and Mr. Eric Davila and Mr. Javier Guerrero for their assistance in data collection.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, 32816, USA

    Ni-Bin Chang

  2. Environmental Engineering Department, Texas A&M University-Kingsville, Kingsville, TX, 78363, USA

    Elma Annette Hernandez

Authors
  1. Ni-Bin Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elma Annette Hernandez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ni-Bin Chang.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

Table 7 Parameter settings in MIP model
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chang, NB., Hernandez, E.A. Optimal Expansion Strategy for a Sewer System under Uncertainty. Environ Model Assess 13, 93–113 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-007-9084-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-007-9084-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation