ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
Table S1 Demographic and water use data for the City of Atlanta
# of residents or employees (ARC 2010)
Water use, m3/(capita·yr) (AECOM 2009)
Outdoor water use, m3/(capita·yr) (AECOM 2009)
Single-family
Multi-family
Employee
Single-family
Multi-family
Employee
Single-family
Multi-family
Employee
276,000
144,000
378,000
109
101
106
38.7
13.8
23.5
Table S2 Plant capacity and average daily flow for drinking water treatment
Water Treatment Plant (WTP)
Hemphill
Chattahoochee
Atlanta-Fulton County
Total
Plant Capacity
(AECOM 2009)
517
246
341 50%
931
Average Daily Flow (the
Department of Watershed
provided from the City of
Atlanta)
152
144
83
379
Unit
103 m3/day
Fig. S1 Chattahoochee water treatment plant (WTP) process, which was used for our WTP analysis (Lin
2003)
Table S3 Plant capacity and average daily flow for wastewater treatment
Wastewater Reclamation Center
R.M. Clayton
Utoy Creek
South River
Total
Plant Capacity
(AECOM 2009)
462
167
204
833
Average Daily Flow
(provided from the City of
Atlanta)
284
91
95
469
Unit
103 m3/day
Fig. S1. Utoy Creek wastewater reclamation treatment (WRT) process, which was used for our WCT
analysis (BNR: biological nutrient removal) (Mines et al. 2004; Mines et al. 2006)
Table S4 Infrastructure scale and LCI datasets
Infrastructure
Capacity
Data source
Water supply system
Pump station
1.67E+06
m3/day
Water treatment plant
931
m3/day
Booster pump station
5.60E+05
m3/day
Storage tank
1.57E+05
m3
4,340
km
Distribution pipeline
(AECOM 2009;
DP&CD 2010; Lin
2003; The City of
Atlanta 2005; The
City of Atlanta 2008;
The City of Atlanta
2009)
Wastewater collection and treatment system
Wastewater
collection pipeline
3,420
km
Pump station
2.29E+05
m3/day
Wastewater treatment
plant
8.33E+05
m3/day
(AECOM 2009;
DP&CD 2010; Mines
et al. 2004; Mines et
al. 2006; The City of
Atlanta 2005; The
City of Atlanta 2008;
The City of Atlanta
2009)
Stormwater collection system
Stormwater collection
pipeline
3,420
km
(The City of Atlanta
2005; The City of
Atlanta 2008; The
City of Atlanta 2009)
Dataset name
(CH: Switzerland,
RER: Europe)
Reference flow: 1.15 m3
pump station/p/CH/I; 1p =
644,546 m3/yr
water works/p/CH/I; 1p =
644,546 m3/yr
pump station/p/CH/I; 1p =
644,546 m3/yr
water storage/p/CH/I; 1p
= 2,500 m3
water supply
network/km/CH/I
Reference flow: 0.77 m3
sewer grid, class
1/km/CH/I
pump station/p/CH/I; 1p =
644,546 m3/yr
wastewater treatment
plant, class 1/p/CH/I; 1p =
47,100,000 m3/yr
Reference flow: 1.25 m3
sewer grid, class
1/km/CH/I
*p: one unit of infrastructure that has a capacity defined in the column 5 (dataset name)
Per FU, 1 m3
water distributed
to point-of-use
1.12E-07
p*
6.27E-08
p
3.77E-08
p
7.48E-09
p
5.16E-07
km
2.19E-07
km
1.94E-08
p
9.70E-10
p
3.56E-07
km
Calculation
The capacities (column 2) were
divided by the daily average flow
rate of 379 103 m3/day (Table
S1) and the life expectancy of 70
years.
The capacity (column 2) was
divided by the daily average flow
rate of 469 103 m3/day (Table
S1) and the lifespan of 70 years.
The capacities (column 2) were
divided by the daily average flow
rate of 469 103 m3/day (Table
S1) and the lifespan of 30 years.
The distance (column 2) was
divided by the annual stormwater
runoff volume (2.24E+08 m3/yr)
and the lifespan of 70 years.
The runoff volume was determined
for the sewer system area of 583
km2.
Table S5 Materials, processes and direct emissions for system operation and LCI datasets
Input
Amount
Data source
Water supply system
Aluminum sulfate
2,077,418
kg/yr
Sodium hypochlorite
1,316,735
kg/yr
Lime
1,017,804
kg/yr
Phosphoric acid
110,977
kg/yr
Hydrofluosilic acid
231,821
kg/yr
Sludge sent to R.M.
clayton WRC
586
kg/yr
Water for filtration
bed backwashing
466
m3/each
Natural gas
4,414,266
MJ/yr
Electricity
74,048,70
0
kWh/yr
Data
provided
from the
Department
of
Watershed
Management
(CoA) for
Chattahooch
ee water
treatment
plant
(144E+03
m3/day)
Lin (2003)
Georgia
Power
Dataset name
(CH: Switzerland,
RER: Europe)
Reference flow: 1.15 m3
Aluminum sulfate, powder,
at plant/RER U
Sodium hypochlorite, 15%
in H2O, at plant/RER U
Lime, hydraulic, at
plant/CH U
Phosphoric acid, industrial
grade, 85% in H2O, at
plant/RER U
Fluosilicic acid, 2% in
H2O, at plant/US U
Disposal, digester sludge,
to municipal
incineration/CH U
Per FU, 1 m3 water
distributed to pointof-use
4.55E-02
kg
2.88E-02
kg
2.23E-02
kg
2.43E-03
kg
5.07E-03
kg
1.28E-05
kg
Tab water, at user/CH U
6.43E+00
kg
Natural gas, at longdistance pipeline/RER U
9.66E-04
m3
*
6.15E-01
kWh
Calculation
The consumptions (column 2) were
divided by the daily average flow rate of
144 103 m3/day for Chattahoochee
WTP (Table S2).
The water use (column 2) was divided
by the treatment capacity of each
filtration bed (20.8E+03 m3/day) and
backwashing frequency (every 96 hrs)
The energy consumption (column 2) was
divided by the daily average flow rate of
379 103 m3/day (Table S2).
Table S6 Materials, processes and direct emissions for system operation and LCI datasets (continued)
Input
Amount
Data source
Wastewater collection and treatment system
Ferric Chloride
524,933 kg/yr
(40%)
Caustic soda (50%)
809,648
Magnesium
hydroxide powder
63,565
l/yr
Dewatering
polymer
29,723
kg/yr
Sludge disposal
kg/yr
2,519,697
kg/yr
Ash to brick
964,608
kg/yr
Ash to landfill
318,596
kg/yr
Electricity
Natural gas
CO2 emission from
biogas combustion
136,177,852
91,938,667
42.5
kwh
Data
provided
from the
Department
of
Watershed
Management
(CoA) for
Utoy Creek
wastewater
reclamation
center
MJ/yr
Georgia
Power
g as
carbon
Hardy
(2011)
Dataset name
(CH: Switzerland,
RER: Europe)
Reference flow: 0.77 m3
Iron (III) chloride, 40% in
H2O, at plant/CH U
Sodium hydroxide, 50% in
H2O, production mix, at
plant/RER U
Sodium hydroxide, 50%
(wt.) in H2O, production
mix, at plant/RER U
Aluminum sulfate
Disposal, municipal solid
waste, 22.9% water, to
municipal incineration/CH
U
clay and soil, extracted for
use
Disposal, inert waste, 5%
water, to inert material
landfill/CH U
*
Natural gas, at longdistance pipeline/RER U
Biogenic CO2 emission to
air
Per FU, 1 m3 of water
distributed to pointof-use
1.22E-02
kg
1.88E-02
kg
5.13E-03
kg
6.89E-04
kg
5.84E-02
kg
2.24E-02
kg
7.39E-03
kg
6.13E-01
kWh
1.09E-02
3
1.2E-01
m
kg as
CO2
Calculation
The consumptions (column 2) were
divided by the daily average flow rate
of 91E+03 m3/day (the Utoy Creek
wastewater reclamation center).
Specific gravity of magnesium
hydroxide powder = 2.36
The energy consumption (column 2)
was divided by daily average flow rate
of 469 103 m3/day (Table S2)
Carbon amount in 0.07785 Nm3/m3
wastewater (RM clayton WRC) = 3.47
mole/m3
TP,
Total phosphorus emission
mg/L
1.22E-04 kg as P
Mines et al.
to water
as P
Water pollutant
(2004)
discharge
Mines et al.
TN,
Total nitrogen emission to
(2006)
1.83 mg/L
1.41E-03 kg as N
water
as N
* Electricity, hard Coal, at power plant/US U 67%; Electricity, natural gas, at power plant/US U 10%; Electricity, nuclear, at power plant/US U 21%; Electricity,
hydropower, at power plant/FR U 2%
0.158
Table S7. Material transport and LCI datasets
System
Water supply
system
Material
Supplier location or
destination
Truck,
km
Aluminum sulfate
Sodium hypochlorite
lime
phosphoric acid
Macon, GA
Allied Ranger, GA
Campobello, SC
Augusta, GA
161
129
322
274
Hydrofluosilic acid
Red Hill, NC
418
Sludge sent to RM
Clayton WRC
R.M clayton WRC
Ferric Chloride, 40%
Caustic soda, 50%
Magnesium hydroxide
Dewatering polymer
Ash to brick
Detroit, MI
Savannah, GA
Philadelphia, PA
Waxhaw, NC
Smyrna, GA
Ash to landfill
Buford, GA
Train,
km
Data source
-
16
-
32
418
24
451
16
1,175
1,448
-
88
-
Chemical
suppliers’ names
were provided
from CoA
The sludge
amount was
provided form
the CoA.
Dataset name
Transport,
combination
truck, average
fuel mix/US
Wastewater
collection and
treatment system
Total
2.12E-03
-
2.06E-07
Total
Chemical
suppliers’ names
were provided
from the CoA
The ash amounts
were provided
form the CoA.
Per FU, 1 m3 of water
distributed to point-of-use
Truck, tkm
Train, tkm
7.29E-03
3.70E-03
7.15E-03
6.62E-04
Transport,
combination
truck, average
fuel mix/US or
Transport,
train, diesel
powered/US
2.09E-02
3.98E-04
8.01E-03
2.36E-04
3.16E-04
3.66E-04
1.46E-02
1.41E-02
-
6.65E-04
-
9.99E-03
2.86E-02
Table S8. Pollutant concentrations of stormwater runoff (Horowitz 2009; Horowitz et al. 2008; USGS
2012)
Water pollutant
Phosphorus, water, unfiltered
Nitrate, water, filtered
Nitrite, water, filtered
Ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water unfiltered
Potassium, water, filtered
Sodium, water, filtered
Chloride, water, filtered
Silica, water, filtered
Sulfate, water, filtered
Calcium, water, filtered
Magnesium, water, filtered
Aluminum, water, filtered
Cadmium, water, filtered
Chromium, water, filtered
Copper, water, filtered
Iron, water, filtered
Lead, water, filtered
Manganese, water, filtered
Nickel, water, filtered
Silver, water, filtered
Zinc, water, filtered
Barium, unfiltered
Beryllium, unfiltered
Cobalt, unfiltered
Lithium, unfiltered
Mercury, unfiltered
Molybdenum, unfiltered
Strontium, unfiltered
Thallium, unfiltered
Vanadium, unfiltered
Antimony, unfiltered
Arsenic, unfiltered
Selenium, unfiltered
Concentration
3.71E-01
6.78E-01
1.69E-02
1.53E+00
3.56E+00
6.48E+00
8.19E+00
4.19E+00
1.20E+01
1.05E+01
2.32E+00
1.37E-01
3.26E-05
3.74E-04
3.96E-03
3.08E-01
7.37E-04
5.06E-02
1.42E-03
1.21E-05
1.20E-02
1.18E-01
5.89E-04
5.49E-03
2.28E-06
2.44E-05
6.10E-04
1.67E-02
2.03E-02
2.44E-02
4.06E-03
1.66E-03
1.83E-04
Unit
mg/l as P
mg/l as N
mg/l as N
mg/l as N
mg/l as K
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l as Si
mg/l
Calculation
Median values of
water quality data
monitored for rain
events
(monitoring
station number:
02336360,
02336300,
02203655,
02203700,
02336526, and
02336728)
Table S9 Data uncertainty of infrastructure
System
Water supply
Wastewater
collection and
treatment
Stormwater
collection
Infrastructure
Pump station for water
intake
Water treatment plant
Booster pump station
Storage tank
Distribution pipelines
Pump station
Sewer pipelines
Wastewater reclamation
centers
Sewer pipelines
Basic
uncertainty
Data quality indicators
Data uncertainty
3.00
1, 1, 1, 1, 4, na
3.23
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
1, 1, 1, 1, 4, na
1, 1, 1, 1, 4, na
1, 1, 1, 1, 4, na
1, 1, 1, 1, 4, na
1, 1, 1, 1, 4, na
1, 1, 1, 1, 4, na
3.23
3.23
3.23
3.23
3.23
3.23
3.00
1, 1, 1, 1, 4, na
3.23
3.00
1, 1, 1, 1, 4, na
3.23
Table S10 Data uncertainty of materials, processes, direct emissions, and transportation for system
operation
System
Input
Basic
uncertainty,
GSD2*
Water supply
Wastewater
collection
and treatment
1.05
1.05
2, 3, 1, 1, 1, na
2, 3, 1, 1, 1, na
1.05
3, 3, 1, 1, 4, na
1.53
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
2, 3, 1, 1, 1, na
2, 3, 1, 1, 1, na
2, 3, 1, 1, 1, na
2, 3, 1, 1, 1, na
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, na
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, na
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.05
1.05
1.05
1, 3, 1, 1, 4, na
1.51
2.00
3, 3, 1, 1, 1, na
-
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
2, 3, 1, 1, 1, na
2, 3, 1, 1, 1, na
2, 3, 1, 1, 4, na
2, 3, 1, 1, 4, na
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, na
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, na
2.02
Not applicable to input
or output for nature
1.09
1.09
1.51
1.51
1.05
1.05
1.05
3, 3, 1, 1, 1, na
1.12
1.50
1, 1, 1, 2, 1, na
1.50
1.05
2, 3, 1, 1, 4, na
1.51
Not applicable to input
or output for nature
1.09
2.02
2.02
Not applicable to input
or output for nature
1.50
-
Ash to brick
Ash to landfill
Truck transport
Train transport
Stormwater
collection
1.05
2.00
2.00
Stormwater discharge
Water pollutants
Data uncertainty,
GSD2
Not applicable to input
or output for nature
1.09
1.09
Water intake
Aluminum sulfate
Sodium hypochlorite
Water for filtration bed
backwashing
Lime
phosphoric acid
Hydrofluosilic acid
Sodium hypochlorite
Natural gas
Electricity
Sludge sent to clayton
WRC
Truck transport
Wastewater effluent
discharge
Ferric Chloride (40%)
Caustic soda (50%)
Magnesium hydroxide
Dewatering polymer
Electricity
Natural gas
CO2 emission from
combustion of sludge
digestion gas
Water pollutants (TP and
TN)
Sludge disposal
Data quality indicators
2, 3, 1, 1, 1, na
3, 3, 1, 1, 1, na
3, 3, 1, 1, 1, na
-
1.50
*GSD2: the square of geometric standard deviation
2, 1, 1, 1, 1, na
Table S11 Uncertainty test result
Impact category
Ozone depletion
Global warming
Smog
Acidification
Eutrophication
Carcinogenics
Non carcinogenics
Respiratory effects
Ecotoxicity
Fossil fuel depletion
Mean
7.17E-07
8.12E-05
7.83E-05
1.16E-04
4.66E-04
5.72E-03
5.92E-04
4.16E-05
7.82E-04
1.63E-06
SD
1.46E-07
1.30E-05
1.60E-05
1.93E-05
3.75E-04
4.81E-03
1.37E-03
8.11E-06
3.08E-04
2.43E-06
CV
20.4%
16%
20.5%
16.7%
80.5%
84.1%
232%
19.5%
39.4%
149%
2.5%
4.92E-07
6.10E-05
5.67E-05
8.69E-05
2.69E-04
2.36E-03
3.27E-04
2.99E-05
5.96E-04
5.01E-07
97.5%
1.07E-06
1.12E-04
1.11E-04
1.60E-04
1.27E-03
1.36E-02
1.21E-03
6.16E-05
1.19E-03
5.77E-06
Table S12 Impact changes for ±10% of infrastructure construction, electricity consumption, and water
pollutants in stormwater runoff
Impact category
Ozone depletion
Global warming
Smog
Acidification
Eutrophication
Carcinogenic effects
Non-carcinogenic effects
Respiratory effects
Ecotoxicity
Infrastructure
construction
3.0%
3.4%
2.4%
1.9%
0.5%
6.8%
3.5%
3.9%
2.6%
Electricity
consumption
3.8%
5.4%
4.9%
6.5%
3.9%
2.0%
2.1%
3.9%
1.0%
Water pollutants in
stormwater runoff
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4.2%
0.0%
2.0%
0.0%
5.5%
References
AECOM (2009) Wastewater management plan. Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning
District. http://www.northgeorgiawater.com/plans/wastewater-management-plan.
Accessed 25 October 2011
AECOM (2009) Water supply and water conservation management plan. Metropolitan North
Georgia Water Planning District. http://www.northgeorgiawater.com/plans/water-supplyand-water-conservation-management-plan. Accessed 9 September 2011
ARC (2010) Cities and Towns - 2010 Yearbook of growth and change. Atlanta Regional
Commission.
http://documents.atlantaregional.com/infocenter/Cities_And_Towns_Report_2010.pdf.
Accessed 1 August 2011
DP&CD (2010) 2011 Comprehensive development plan community assessment executive
summary. City of Atlanta.
http://www.atlantaga.gov/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=2835. Accessed 28
May 2011
Hardy SA (2011) Achieving economic and environmental sustainability objectives through onsite energy production from digester gas. In: AWEA's 2011 Annual Conference, Orange
Beach, Alabama
Horowitz AJ (2009) Monitoring suspended sediments and associated chemical constituents in
urban environments: lessons from the city of Atlanta, Georgia, USA Water Quality
Monitoring Program. J Soils Sediments 9:342-363
Horowitz AJ, Elrick KA, Smith JJ (2008) Monitoring urban impacts on suspended sediment,
trace element, and nutrient fluxes within the City of Atlanta, Georgia, USA: program
design, methodological considerations, and initial results. Hydrol Process 22:1473-1496
Lin JC (2003) Determining the removal effectiveness of flame retardants from drinking water
treatment processes. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Mines R, Behrend G, Bell IV H (2004) Assessment of AWT systems in the metro Atlanta area. J
Env Manag 70:309-314
Mines R, Lackey L, Behrend G (2006) Performance assessment of major wastewater treatment
plants (WWTPs) in the state of Georgia. J Environ Sci Health, Pt A: Environ Sci Eng
Toxic Hazard Subst Control 41:2175-2198
The City of Atlanta (2005) 2025 Comprehensive plan. Fulton County Environment and
Community Development Department. http://wms.co.fulton.ga.us/focusfulton/plan-0106/5comm-facil.pdf. Accessed 22 February 2011
The City of Atlanta (2008) Atlanta Strategic Action Plan. The City of Atlanta.
http://sndsi.org/images/CDP_2009_areas.pdf. Accessed 16 November 2011
The City of Atlanta (2009) Official statement relating to City of Atlanta, Georgia - Water and
Wastewater Revenue Bonds. The City of Atlanta.
http://www.fmsbonds.com/pdfs/047870KG4.pdf. Accessed 15 January 2012
USGS (2012) U.S. Geology Survey, Water-resources data for the United States of the year 2010.
http://wdr.water.usgs.gov/wy2010/search.jsp. Accessed 10 February 2012