Systems Engineering and Environmental Engineering
This topic discusses four issues that arise in system design and operation. They include design for a given operating environment, environmental impact, green design, and compliance with environment regulations. This topic is a stub, and reviewers are invited to contribute additional material and references.
Operating Environment
A system is designed for a particular operating environment. Product systems, in particular, routinely consider conditions of temperature and humidity. Depending on the product, other environmental conditions may need to be considered, including UV exposure, radiation, magnetic forces, vibration, and others. The allowable range of these conditions must be specified in the requirements for the system.
Requirements
The general principles for writing requirements System Requirements also apply to specifying the operating environment for a system and its elements. Requirements are often written to require compliance with a set of standards.
Standards
Depending on the product being developed, standards may exist for operating conditions. For example, ISO 9241-6 specifies the office environment for a video display terminal. Military equipment may be required to meet MILSTD 810G in the US, or DEF STAN 00-35 in the UK.
Environmental Impact
Many countries require assessment of environmental impact of large projects before regulatory approval is given. The assessment is documented in an environmental impact statement (EIS). In the United States, a complex project can require an EIS that greatly adds to the cost, schedule, and risk of the project.
Scope
In the United States, the process in Figure 1 is followed. A proposal is prepared prior to a project being funded. The regulator examines the proposal. If it falls into an excluded category, no further action is taken. If not, an environmental assessment is made. If that assessment determines a finding of no significant impact (FONSI), no further action is taken. In all other cases, and environmental impact statement is required.
Preparation of an EIS is a resource significant task. Bregman (1999) and Kreske (1996) provide accessible overviews of the process. Lee and Lin ( 2000) provide a handbook of environmental engineering calculations to aid in the technical submission. Numerous firms offer consulting services.
Legal References
Basic references in the US include the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969:, and its implementing regulations. (http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/nepa/nepaeqia.htm) (http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/Nepa/regs/ceq/1502.htm. The European commission directive is found at (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1985L0337:20090625:EN:PDF). State and local regulations can be extensive, and Burby and Paterson (1993) discuss improving compliance.
Cost and Schedule Implications
Depending on the scale of the project, the preparation of an EIS can take years and cost millions. For example, the EIS for the Honolulu light rail project took four years and cost $156M (Hill, 2011). While a project may proceed even if the EIS finds a negative impact, opponents to a project may use the EIS process to delay a project. A common tactic is to claim the EIS was not complete in that it omitted some environmental impacts. Eccleston (2000) provides a guide to planning for EIS.
Best Practices
The US Federal Aviation Administration publishes a list of EIS best practices (FAA, 2002).
Green Design
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 2011) defines Green Engineering as: Green engineering is the design, commercialization, and use of processes and products, which are feasible and economical while minimizing 1) generation of pollution at the source and 2) risk to human health and the environment. Green engineering embraces the concept that decisions to protect human health and the environment can have the greatest impact and cost effectiveness when applied early to the design and development phase of a process or product.
The EPA (2011) offers the following principles of Green Engineering:
- Engineer processes and products holistically, use systems analysis, and integrate environmental impact assessment tools.
- Conserve and improve natural ecosystems while protecting human health and well-being.
- Use life-cycle thinking in all engineering activities.
- Ensure that all material and energy inputs and outputs are as inherently safe and benign as possible.
- Minimize depletion of natural resources.
- Strive to prevent waste.
- Develop and apply engineering solutions, while being cognizant of local geography, aspirations, and cultures.
- Create engineering solutions beyond current or dominant technologies; improve, innovate, and invent (technologies) to achieve sustainability.
- Actively engage communities and stakeholders in development of engineering solutions.
Energy Efficiency
There is much written about design for energy efficiency. Lovins (2010) offer ten design principles . He also offer case studies (Lovins, 2011). Intel (2011) provides guidance for improving the energy efficiency of its computer chips. Much has also been written about efficient design of structures; (DOE, 2011) provides a good overview.
Increased energy efficiency can significantly reduce total life cycle cost for a system. For example, the Toyota Prius was found to have the lowest life cycle cost for 60,000 miles, three years despite having a higher initial purchase price (Brown, 2011).
Carbon Footprint
Increased attention is being paid to the emission of carbon dioxide. BSI British Standards offers a specification (PAS 2050:2011) for assessing life cycle greenhouse emissions for goods and services (BSI , 2011).
Sustainability
Graedel and Allenby (2009), Maydl (2004), Stasinopoulos (2009), Meryman (2004), and Lockton and Harrison (2008) discuss design for sustainability. Sustainability is often discussed in the context of the UN report on Our Common Future (World Commission on Economic Development, 1985) and the Rio Declaration (UN Environment Programme, 1992).
Compliance and the Enterprise
An enterprise must attend to compliance with the various environmental regulations. Dechant, Altman, Downing and Keeney (1994) provide an example company where 17% of every sales dollar goes towards compliance activities. They discuss gaining a competitive advantage through better compliance. Gupta (1995) studies how compliance can improve the operations function. Berry (1998) and Nash (2001) discuss methods for environmental management by the enterprise.
ISO14001 sets the standards for organization to comply with environmental regulations. Kwon and Seo (2002) discuss this in a Korean context, and Whitelaw (2004) presents a handbook on implementing ISO14001.
References
Works Cited
Berry, MA. 1998. “Proactive corporate environmental management: a new industrial revolution.” The Academy of Management Executive (1993-2005) , Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 38-50.
Bregman, JI. 2000. Environmental Impact Statements. 2nd Edition. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
Brown, C. 2011 "The Green Fleet Price Tag." Business Fleet, July 2011. Retrieved from http://www.businessfleet.com/Article/Story/2011/07/The-Green-Fleet-Price-Tag.aspx.
BSI Group. 2011. PAS2050:2011. Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and service. Retrieved from http://www.bsigroup.com/upload/Standards%20&%20Publications/Energy/PAS2050.pdf.
Burby, RJ, and Paterson, RG. 1993. “Improving compliance with state environmental regulations”. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Volume 12, Issue 4, pages 753–772.
Dechant, K, Altman, B, Downing, RM, and Keeney, T. 1994. “Environmental Leadership: From Compliance to Competitive Advantage.” Academy of Management Executive, vol.8, n.3: 7–2.
Department of Defense. 2008. MIL-STD-810G, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TEST METHOD STANDARD: ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTS. Retrieved from http://www.dtc.army.mil/publications/MIL-STD-810G.pdf.
Eccleston, C. 2000. Environmental Impact Statements: A Comprehensive Guide to Project and Strategic Planning. NY: Wiley.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. Green Engineering. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/oppt/greenengineering/
European Commission. 1985. COUNCIL DIRECTIVE of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (85/337/EEC). Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1985L0337:20090625:EN:PDF
Federal Aviation Administration. 2002. Best Practices for Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Management. Retrieved from http://www.faa.gov/airports/environmental/eis_best_practices/?sect=intro
Graedel, TE, and Allenby, BR. 2009. Industrial ecology and sustainable engineering. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice hall.
Gupta, MC. 1995. “Environmental management and its impact on the operations function.” International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 15 Iss: 8, pp.34 - 51
Hill, T. 2011. "Honolulu Rail's Next Stop?" Honolulu Magazine, July 2011.
Intel. ND. Energy Efficiency. Retrieved from http://www.intel.com/intel/other/ehs/product_ecology/energy.htm.
Kreske, DL. 1996. Environmental impact statements: a practical guide for agencies, citizens, and consultants. New York, NY: Wiley.
Kwon, DM and Seo, MS. 2002. “A study of compliance with environmental regulations of ISO 14001 certified companies in Korea.” Journal of Environmental Management, Volume 65, Issue 4, pages 347-353.
Lee, CC, and Lin, SD. 2000. Handbook of environmental engineering calculations. New York, NY, USA: McGraw Hill Professional.
Lockton, D, and Harrison, D. 2008. “Making the user more efficient: Design for sustainable behaviour.” International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, Vol.1 No. 1, pp. 3-8.
Lovins, A. 2010. Factor Ten Engineering Design Principles. Version 1.0. Retrieved from http://www.rmi.org/cms/Download.aspx?id=2412&file=2010-10_10XEPrinciples.pdf&title=Factor+Ten+Engineering+Design+Principles
Lovins, A, et. al. 2011. Case Studies. Retrieved from http://move.rmi.org/markets-in-motion/case-studies/ Maydl, P. 2004. ”Sustainable engineering: State-of-the-art and prospects.” Structural Engineering International, Vol 14, Iss 3.
Maydl, Peter. 2004. "Sustainable Engineering: State-of-the-Art and Prospects." Structural Engineering International, Volume 14, Number 3, pp. 176-180
Meryman, H. 2004. “Sustainable Engineering Using Specifications to Make it Happen.” Structural Engineering International, Vol 14, Iss 3.
Ministry of Defence. 2006. Standard 00-35, Environmental Handbook for Defence Materiel (Part 3) Environmental Test Methods. Retrieved from http://www.everyspec.com/DEF+STAN/DEFSTAN00-35_I4_4084/
Nash, J. 2001. Regulating from the inside: can environmental management systems achieve policy goals? Washington, DC, USA: Resources for the Future Press
National Environmental Policy Act. 1969. 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347. Retrieved 15 jan 20112 from http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/nepa/nepaeqia.htm.
Stasinopoulos, P. 2009. Whole system design: an integrated approach to sustainable engineering. London, UK: Routledge.
United Nation Environment Programme. 1992. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. Retrieved from http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid=78&articleid=1163.
Whitelaw, K. 2004. ISO 14001 environmental systems handbook. 2nd Ed. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
World Commission on Economic Development. 1987. Our Common Future. Retrieved from http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm,
Primary References
Bregman, J.I. 2000. Environmental Impact Statements, 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press.
Graedel, T.E and B.R. Allenby. 2009. Industrial Ecology and Sustainable Engineering. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.
Lee, C.C., and S.D. Lin. 2000. Handbook of Environmental Engineering Calculations. New York, NY, USA: McGraw Hill Professional.
Whitelaw, K. 2004. ISO 14001: Environmental Systems Handbook, 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Additional References
No additional references have been identified for version 0.75. Please provide recommendations for additional references in your reviews.
Comments from SEBoK 0.5
This article is new to the SEBoK for version 0.75. As such, there are no associated 0.5 comments. Because of this, it is especially important for reviewers to provide feedback on this article. Please see the discussion prompts below.
SEBoK Discussion
Please provide your comments and feedback on the SEBoK below. You will need to log in to DISQUS using an existing account (e.g. Yahoo, Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) or create a DISQUS account. Simply type your comment in the text field below and DISQUS will guide you through the login or registration steps. Feedback will be archived and used for future updates to the SEBoK. If you provided a comment that is no longer listed, that comment has been adjudicated. You can view adjudication for comments submitted prior to SEBoK v. 1.0 at SEBoK Review and Adjudication. Later comments are addressed and changes are summarized in the Letter from the Editor and Acknowledgements and Release History.
If you would like to provide edits on this article, recommend new content, or make comments on the SEBoK as a whole, please see the SEBoK Sandbox.
blog comments powered by Disqus