1

Chapter 2
Engineering Decisions Dr Salsabil Marzougui
 2
Dr Salsabil Marzougui

Environmental engineers have the immense responsibility of protecting both humans and
the environment. Our decisions directly and indirectly affect lives and ecosystems, so we
must take into consideration a multitude of factors when making decisions

We must therefore take into account several

considerations when making decisions.

Engineering: a Wrong designed project harms thousands of people

Medicine: a bad diagnosis hurts one person

Consequence of the construction of a dam Collapse of a building in Marseille-France in November 2018

 3
Dr Salsabil Marzougui

Collapse of a bridge in Italy in August 2018  40 dead

and 20 wounded

Human activities  greenhouse gases  melting of ice

 disappearance of several species
 4
Dr Salsabil Marzougui

Engineering Decision

Technical analysis

Cost-Effectiveness analysis

Cost-Benefit analysis

Risk analysis

Alternatives assessment

Environmental impact analysis

Ethical Analysis
 5
Dr Salsabil Marzougui

1. Decisions based on technical analysis

Technical analysis: consists of the study of all the concepts that are related to the operation
of a project exp: structure, installation, machine used, operating protocol ...

 There is no perfect decision

 There is not a single and correct decision
 A technical decision can be evaluated and verified by other professional and
competent engineers
 6
Dr Salsabil Marzougui

Application :

A town with 1950 residents wants to establish a municipally owned and operated
solid waste (garbage) collection program. They can purchase one of three possible
trucks that have the following characteristics:

Truck A : 18.3 m3
Truck B : 15.3 m3
Truck C : 7.65 m3

If the truck is to collect the refuse of the town each day during a 5-day work week, then every
residence will be collected during the week, and the truck will have to make only one trip per day to
the landfill. Which truck or trucks will have sufficient capacity?
 7
Dr Salsabil Marzougui

Additional data
• solid waste generation rate of this town (kg/capita/day)?
• Waste compaction ability of the truck (kg/m3)? = 296.5 kg/m3

Suppose a rate of solid waste production of 1.3 kg/capita/day.

Solution:
 Total mass of solid waste in the town during a week :
=1950*1.3*7
=17745 Kg
 The mass that the truck will recover per day :
=17745/5
=3549 Kg
After compacting, the desired truck capacity is :
=3549/296.5
=11.96 m3
Trucks that meet this criterion are Truck A and B
 8
Dr Salsabil Marzougui

oWhen performing technical analyses, we often do not have all the information
we need to make decisions. Therefore, we must make assumptions.

oFor example, when estimating the solid waste generation rate for the
community in the problem above, it would have been best to collect data on that
community’s generation (e.g., through analyzing waste haulers’ records) rather
than rely on national averages because every community is unique.

oEngineers typically do not design systems to last one or two years, so

projections have to be made of the community’s future population and waste-
generation patterns.
 9
Dr Salsabil Marzougui
The rate of solid waste production in Lebanon:
• MSW (Municipal Solid Waste) generation rates vary by region and data source. For
example: SOER 2001 gives an average rate of 0.92 kg /capita/day for Lebanon (1.1 kg in
Beirut and 0.85 kg for rural areas)

• METAP's 2004 report shows a rate of 0.5 to 0.7 kg /capita/day for rural areas and 0.75 to
1.1 kg /capita/day for urban areas.

• OMSAR gives 0.5-0.6 kg /capita/day for rural areas

• MOE estimates the rate at 1.1 kg for urban areas and 0.7 for rural areas with a national
average of 0.96 kg

• In general, in Lebanon, urban centers produce 1.1 kg (Beirut and most of Mount
Lebanon), while rural areas produce 0.7 kg (north, south, Nabtiyeh and Bekaa). These
quantities include waste generated by tourists, restaurants and hotels.
 10
Dr Salsabil Marzougui

2. Cost-Effectiveness analysis
• Cost-effectiveness analysis is a decision support tool. It aims to identify the most
economically efficient way to achieve a goal. As part of the evaluation, the analysis is
used to discuss the economic efficiency of a program or project.

The difficulties that engineers may get around are:

• All possible costs for the project must be estimated;
• The money changes in value with time (exp: the maintenance of a garbage collection
truck that will cost $ 4000 this year can cost $ 5000 next year)

The technique used to overcome these difficulties consists of comparing the costs of
different alternatives according to the
• Annual cost
• Present worth:Current value of the project.
 11
Dr Salsabil Marzougui

• Annual cost: all costs represent the money the community needs
annually to operate the facility and retire the debt (CR = Capital recovery
factor) .
CR = i (1+i)n/(1+i)n-1
Where :
i: the interest rate
n: number of annuities (annual payments on monthly bases)
• present worth : the capital costs are the funds needed to construct the
facility for the present time (CP = Present worth factor)
CP = C [1- (1+i)n]/i
Where C : amount of equal payments
 12
Dr Salsabil Marzougui

Application :

The municipality is trying to decide on the purchase of a refuse collection vehicle.

Two types are being considered, A and B, and the capital and operating costs are as
Shown. Each truck is expected to have a useful life of 10 yr.

Truck A Truck B
Initial (capital) cost $ 65 000 $ 50 000
Maintenance cost, per year $ 2 500 $ 4 500
Fuel and oil cost, per year $ 3 500 $ 6 500

Which truck should the municipality purchase based on these costs alone?
Calculate the costs both on an annual and a present worth basis, assuming an interest rate
of 8%, use Annexes pages 15-16-17
 13
Dr Salsabil Marzougui
Based on annual cost
Truck A Truck B
Exploitation maintenance $ 2 500 $ 4 500
Fuel $ 3 500 $ 6 500
To retire debt 65
50 000×0.14903 =
000×0.14903(*)
7451.5
=9686.95

Total annual cost $ 15686.95 $ 18451.5

(*) based on table CR at 10 years and with an interest rate 8% is eqal 0.14903

Based on an annual cost basis, Truck A, which has a higher capital cost, is the rational choice
because its total annual cost to the community is lower than the total annual cost of Truck B
 14
Dr Salsabil Marzougui
Based on present worth

Truck A Truck B
Capital costs $ 65 000 $ 50 000
Present worth for (2500 (4500 +6500)×6.71
maintenance and fuel +3500)×6.71(*) =73 810
=40 260

Total cost $ 105 260 $ 123 810

(*) based on table CP at 10 years and with an interest rate 8% is eqal 6.7100

Based on a present worth, Truck A is still the rational choice because, if the community
were to borrow the money to operate the truck for 10 years, it would have to borrow less
money than if it wanted to purchase Truck B
 15

Annexes 1 Dr Salsabil Marzougui

 16
Dr Salsabil Marzougui

Annexes 2
 17
Dr Salsabil Marzougui

Annexes 3
 18
Dr Salsabil Marzougui

3. Decisions based on risk analysis

When life and health are included in the benefit/cost calculations, the analyzes are usually
called risk/benefit/cost analyzes to indicate that people are at risk. They have become
more widely known as simple risk analyses

Risk analyses risk assessment: study and analysis of the potential effect of
certain hazards on human health. Using information (statistics), risk
assessment should be a tool for making informed decisions.

risk management: to reduce risks deemed unacceptable

 19
Dr Salsabil Marzougui

There are three ways of calculating risk of death due to some cause exp : risk
of deaths of population exposed to a pollutant

1) Risk can be defined as the ratio of the number of deaths in a given population D1 exposed to a
pollutant divided by the number of deaths in a population not exposed to the pollutant D0.
Risk = D1/D0
Exemple : Kentville, a community of 10,000 people, resides next to a krypton mine, and there is
concern that the emissions from the krypton smelter have resulted in adverse effects. Specifically,
kryptonosis seems to have killed 10 of Kentville’s inhabitants last year. A neighboring community,
Lanesburg, has 20,000 inhabitants and is far enough from the smelter to not be affected by the
emissions. In Lanesburg only two people last year died of kryptonosis. What is the risk of dying of
kryptonosis in Kentville?
10
10 000
Solution : Risk of death of kryptonosis = 2 = 10
20 000

That is, a person is 10 times more likely to die of kryptonosis in Kentville than in a
noncontaminated locality.
 20
Dr Salsabil Marzougui

2) A second method of calculating risk is to determine the number of deaths due to various
causes DA per population P and compare these ratios.
Risk = DA/P

Exemple : The number of deaths in Kentville and their causes last year were
Heart attack 5
Accidents 4
Kryptonosis 10
Other 6
What is the risk of dying of kryptonosis relative to other causes?

Solution The risk of dying of a heart attack in Kentville is 5/10,000, whereas the risk
of dying of kryptonosis is 10/10,000. That is, the risk of dying of kryptonosis is twice as
large as the chance of dying of a heart attack, 2.5 times the chance of dying of an
accident, and 1.7 times the chance of dying of other causes. The risks may be different in
Lanesburg, of course, and can be compared.
 21
Dr Salsabil Marzougui

3) Finally, risk can be calculated as the number of deaths due to a certain cause DA divided
by the total number of deaths Dtotal, or:

Risk = DA/Dtotal
Exemple : What is the risk of dying due to kryptonosis in Kentville relative to deaths due to
other causes, using the data in Example 2?

Solution The total number of deaths from Example 2 is 25

Risk = 10/25
= 0.4

That is, of all the ways to go, the inhabitants of Kentville have a 40% chance of dying of
kryptonosis.
 22
Dr Salsabil Marzougui

4. Environmental Risk Analysis Procedure

Environmental risk analysis takes place in discrete steps.

I. Define the source and type of pollutant of concern. From where is it coming, and what is it?
Exp : hazardous waste treatment facility is to be constructed near a populated area. What types of pollutants
should be considered? the production of chloroform during the addition of chlorine to drinking water or
gasoline from a leaking underground storage tank.

II. Identify the pathways and rates of exposure. How can it get to humans so it can cause health
problems?
Exp : the effect of methane atmospheric lead, the pollutant can enter the body in a number of ways,
including through food, skin, and water.

III. Identify the receptors of concern. Who are the people at risk?
Exp : Identifying the receptor can cause difficulty because not all humans are of standard size and
health. The USEPA has attempted to simplify such analyses by suggesting that all adult human
beings weigh 70 kg, live for 70 years, drink 2 L of water daily, and breathe 20 m3 air each day.
These values are used for comparing risks.
 23
Dr Salsabil Marzougui

IV. Determine the potential health impact of the pollutant on the receptor. That is,
define the dose-response relationship, or the adverse effects observed at
specific doses.
Is one of the most difficult steps in risk analysis because this presumes a
certain response of a human body to various pollutants. It is commonplace to
consider two types of effects: cancerous and noncancerous
V. Decide what impact is acceptable. What effect is considered so low as to be
acceptable to the public?
Based on the allowable effect, calculate the acceptable level at the receptor, and
then calculate the maximum allowable emission. If the emission or discharge is
presently (or planned to be) higher than the maximum allowable, determine
what technology is necessary to attain the maximum allowable emission or
discharge.
 24
Dr Salsabil Marzougui

VI. Calculating the acceptable levels of pollution is the next step in the risk
analysis process. This step is a simple arithmetic calculation because the
value decisions have already been made.

VII. If the emissions or releases currently exceed (or will exceed) the
maximum allowed, then determine the technology required to reduce
the level of emissions to the maximum allowed.
 25

Problèmes Dr Salsabil Marzougui

Problem 1: Chapel Hill, North Carolina, has decided to build a 15-mile raw water pipeline to allow it
to purchase water from Hillsborough, North Carolina, during times of drought. The engineer has
recommended that a 16-in pipeline be built. The basis for the decision is as follows:
Diameter (in) Cost of pipe in Cost of pumping Expected annual
the ground ($/ft) station $ cost of energy $

8 5 150 000 10 000

10 8 145 000 8 000
12 12 140 000 7 000
16 14 120 000 6 000

Interest rate is 8%; expected life is 20 yr.

a. Compare the four alternatives based on annual cost.
b. If the engineer is paid on the basis of 6% of the capital cost of the total job, which alternative might
he recommend if he based all decisions on hedonistic ethics?
c. Who might the engineer consider to be the “clients” in this situation? Defend
each choice with a few sentences
 26
Dr Salsabil Marzougui

Problem 2 : wastewater treatment plant for a city discharges its treated plant effluent into a stream,
but the treatment is inadequate. You are in charge of the city’s public works, and you hire a
consulting engineer to assess the problem and to offer solutions. She estimates that expanding the
capacity of the treatment plant to achieve the required effluent quality will be an expensive
proposition. She figures out that the city can meet the downstream water quality standard by
building a large holding basin for the plant effluent (discharge) and holding back the treated
wastewater during dry weather (low river flow) and discharging only during high streamflows
(rainy weather). The amount of organic pollution being discharged would remain the same, of
course, but now the stream standards would be met, the river water quality would be acceptable
for aquatic life, and the city would be off the hook.
Your consulting engineer did some calculations before making her recommendation, of course. The
cost of increasing the plant capacity is $1.5 million and the cost of the holding basin is $1.8 million.
The annual operating cost of the treatment plant expansion is $400,000, and the operating cost of
the holding pond is $100,000/yr. The city can borrow money at 6% interest; the expected life of
the treatment plant expansion is 10 years, and the expected life of the holding pond is 20 yr.

On the basis of economics alone, is the engineer right? Would you recommend this solution to the city
council? What type of decisions would you make to determine your final recommendation?