Unit III Project


MEE 5801, Industrial and Hazardous Waste Management 1

Course Learning Outcomes for Unit II Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to:

1. Assess the fundamental science and engineering principles applicable to the management and treatment of solid and hazardous wastes. 1.1 Discuss the importance of particle size and water temperature as they relate to sedimentation

theory. 1.2 Discuss application techniques and volume requirements as they relate to flow equalization

basin design.

4. Examine leadership and management principles related to industrial and hazardous waste issues.

5. Evaluate operations and technologies related to industrial and hazardous wastes. 5.1 Compare and contrast the benefits and limitations of a conventional API oil-water separator

against a rotary drum oil skimmer. 5.2 Discuss the benefits, limitations, and applications for dissolved air flotation (DAF).

Reading Assignment Chapter 2: Physical Unit Operations

Unit Lesson One of the potentially more frustrating aspects of designing a hazardous waste treatment and storage disposal facility (TSDF) is the management aspect of planning and budgeting for the project as well as the operational considerations with given resource requirements (human and equipment). As environmental engineers managing these types of projects, the responsibilities of even the financial forecasting (often in the form of a feasibility analysis) are often thrust upon us. Capital costs, operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, reduced waste management costs, raw material cost savings, insurance savings, changes in utilities costs, and revenue from marketable recovered byproducts may be needed in order to fully analyze the economic viability of our design (Haas & Vamos, 1995). We are going to closely consider the following aspects of planning, and incorporate these aspects into our course project (a proposal for an industrial waste treatment facility) design: (a) capital costs for construction, (b) capital costs for equipment, (c) O&M costs, and (d) forecasted revenue generation. Consequently, it is common to structure a feasibility analysis around engineering economic computations, such as the following (Haas & Vamos, 1995):

𝑃𝑉 = 𝑃

(1 + 𝐼)𝑡

where PV = present value i = interest rate (expressed on a fractional basis) t = years For example, generated revenue or expenses (P) may occur at (t) years in the future with a given interest rate (i), providing a present value (PV). This is also called an internal rate of return and is simply a function of trial and error computations (if done by hand) for modeling the feasibility of the proposed TSDF


Leadership and Management Aspects of Industrial and Hazardous Waste Management

MEE 5801, Industrial and Hazardous Waste Management 2



(Haas & Vamos, 1995). This is why contemporary calculations are often performed with spreadsheets and commercial accounting software. Still, it is important to understand the planning behind the math. Capital costs for construction are typically obtained by construction contractor estimates. These can be straightforward estimates generated by soliciting requests for proposals (RFP). As the designers, we just have to know exactly what equipment we will need in the process before we submit a solicitation for RFPs. Capital costs for equipment are also obtained by equipment vendor estimates generated by RFPs. As the designers, we must anticipate the equipment type and subsequently specify the correct pieces of equipment (including tanks, mixers, filters, etc.) in the RFP solicitation. O&M costs are often difficult to estimate with strong statistical confidence. However, we can calculate a reasonable estimate by doing the following steps. First, we can estimate the human resource requirements based upon the planned operational hours of the TSDF (accommodating for each sub-system within the treatment process). Second, we can sum the total energy requirements published by each piece of equipment specified in the RFP. Third, we can estimate a daily supply rate to cover anticipated operational supplies (e.g., personal protective equipment, administrative supplies). Fourth, we can estimate the staff training requirements (e.g., municipal wastewater operator license, 40-hour HAZWOPER certification) and facility operation requirements (such as Tier I or Tier II reporting requirements, municipal operating license, federal (EPA) permits, state permits) by researching requirements within the Code of Federal Regulations, including the 29 CFR (safety) and 40 CFR (environmental), and then pricing the cost of training and permitting. Forecasted revenue generation is also an estimate, but may be more predictable and subsequently demonstrate a stronger statistical confidence in our calculations. We can simply achieve this by conducting market research in the affected area of operation to understand where the wastes will be generated, and the frequency of delivery of the wastes to the TSDF. This is often achieved by an outside sales team (if an organization wants to maximize its potential for incoming wastes and subsequent revenue). As we learn about the equipment designs available to us in Bahadori’s (2014) discussion on physical treatment (pp. 25-79), start to consider what equipment you perceive would be most beneficial to your proposed system. We are going to make the same equipment decisions in the subsequent units for chemical treatment, biological treatment, general sewage treatment techniques, and solid waste treatment sections of our proposal (course project). Often, this type of exercise is best achieved by using commercially available forecasting models. As such, we are going to use a forecasting model for different equipment options in every unit as we design our own TSDF for our client. Let’s consider our first phase of equipment needs for our proposed project design.

1. Click here to access the interactive design model. 2. Closely review the influent laboratory report (lift station) against the effluent laboratory report (pop up

report). As environmental engineers, our job is to design the TSDF process so that the final effluent concentrations are ultimately at or below the established local limits for the municipal wastewater treatment plant (WWTP).

3. As we add equipment to our model (in each unit), we will see our forecasted final effluent concentrations for different analytes continue to drop and eventually meet the local limits. Use this model in your design work for your course project (proposed industrial and hazardous waste treatment facility) as you develop each section of the project in each unit.

Let’s start engineering our TSDF!

References Bahadori, A. (2014). Waste management in the chemical and petroleum industries. West Sussex, United

Kingdom: Wiley. Haas, C., & Vamos, R. (1995). Hazardous and industrial waste treatment. Upper Saddle River, NJ: