Page images
PDF
EPUB

3.2.8.2 Garbage Grinding. This is usually an individual disposal method of grinding select garbage and disposing of it through the sewer network and wastewater treatment process. Garbage grinding is usually not an acceptable alternative on a large scale. The capacity of the sewage disposal facility and cost of grinder installation shall be considered in comparison to the savings realized in the remaining disposal process.

3.2.8.3 Open Burning. Open burning is generally prohibited except for the infrequent burning of agricultural wastes in the field, silvicultural treatment for forest management purposes, land clearing debris, construction debris, diseased trees, debris from emergency cleanup operations, and ordnance. 3.2.8.4 Open burning of ordnance requires a RCRA Permit (40 CFR 264, Subpart X). The open burning and detonation of waste explosives is described in 40 CFR 265.382. Waste explosives include waste that has the potential to detonate and bulk military propellants that cannot safely be disposed of through other modes of treatment. Detonation is a violent chemical reaction within a chemical compound, or a mechanical mixture involving heat and pressure which proceeds through the reacted material at a supersonic velocity, exerting extremely high pressure on the surrounding medium, and forming a propagating shock wave originally of supersonic velocity. Open burning is the combustion reaction of any material without control of combustion air, containment of combustion reaction in air enclosed device, and/or control of gaseous combustion product emissions. Owners or operators choosing to open burn or detonate waste explosives must do so in accordance with the following table and in a manner that does not threaten human health or the environment. All explosives to be disposed of by detonation or open burning should be turned over to Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) office. The individual should never attempt to detonate or open burn explosives without first contacting EOD.

Pounds of waste explosives

or propellants

0 to 100

101 to 1,000

1,001 to 10,000

10,001 to 30,000

Minimum distance from open burning or detonation to the property of others, m (ft)

204 (670)
380 (1,250)
530 (1,730)

690 (2,260)

3.2.8.5 Disposal of explosives or explosives-contaminated wastes is the responsibility of EOD. Disposal of explosives by detonation or open burning should take place on a range or impact area that has an approved Environmental Assessment for detonation. Many installations are not allowed to open burn waste explosives and must use an incinerator designed for explosives or explosives-contaminated wastes. If no such incinerator exists on an installation, these types of wastes must be shipped to an installation having In either case, no waste explosives should be burned without first contacting the installation EOD office. Reference should also be made to any command's standard operating procedure on explosives incineration.

3.2.9 Environmental Health and Safety Requirements

Decisions concerning disposal methods must consider the health and safety of installation personnel and the local population. Factors to be considered before selecting the disposal method include:

pollution of groundwaters, surface waters, and potable water
supply

air quality

dust control and respiratory health hazards

noise control

litter control and aesthetic nuisance avoidance

traffic safety both on and off site

fire safety

ingress control

vector and bird control

gas generation and migration (sanitary landfill).

3.2.10 Cost Considerations

Items to be considered in comparing costs among the various disposal methods shall include:

Operating costs

materials and supplies

labor costs including fringe and additional benefits
equipment rental

cost of utilities: electricity, water, telephone, and
others

maintenance and repair of equipment and facilities

permit and closure costs.

Capital costs

facilities, land, and land improvements such as roads, aprons, and fences

equipment

investment costs and cost of capital.

Overhead

supervision, where this varies among disposal methods
installation support.

3.3 PLAN DEVELOPMENT

3.3.1 Plan development consists of evaluating the technical/legal/social economic alternatives identified through the evaluation process and tying them to a new budget plan. Major modifications to existing facilities or construction of new ones require line item listing in military budgets. Such expenditures do not come out of normal base operating funds. Third-party financing is another option for acquiring solids handling equipment or setting up resource recovery facilities.

3.3.2 Requests for new equipment, such as trucks, have to compete with vehicle requests for other base activities. Replacement of completely worn out equipment is more normal than replacing just to keep with state-of-the-art practices.

3.3.3 Any request for funds must be accompanied by a cost-effectiveness

analysis.

3.3.4 Planning Steps

In

3.3.4.1 In most cases, the engineer and the decision maker do not have an opportunity to study the entire solid waste management system and develop a total knowledge of the base under all conditions. Time and economic constraints often lead to decisions based on little or no information. order for engineers and decision makers to be able to respond to these situations and to ensure that the best use is made of time and available funds in the resolution of solid waste management problems, the following step-bystep planning procedure is recommended.

3.3.4.2 Step 1: Problem Definition and Specification. The first and most critical step in any planning study is to obtain a clear problem statement and corresponding specifications from the persons responsible for making decisions about solid waste management. Problem statements and specifications usually are derived from the concerns of the public or regulatory agencies. Difficulties often arise because solid waste systems are not well understood at all levels of decision making. Consequently, the engineer may have to redefine a problem that was originally specified at a higher level.

3.3.4.3 Step 2: Inventory and Data Accumulation. An inventory is made of all pertinent factors about the installation, and data are collected as needed to meet the problem specifications. The main purpose of the inventory is to define the existing solid waste system(s) as completely as needed and as accurately as possible and to collect certain other basic information (such as population data)--a task that requires a considerable amount of judgment. It is an important step in planning because all subsequent recommendations for action will be based on the findings of this step. Therefore, it is essential that at this level of planning all the functional elements of the solid waste management system be considered.

3.3.4.4 Step 3: Evaluation and Alternative Development. This step involves the detailed evaluation and analysis of the data accumulated in Step 2. During this step the programs of the plan begin to be formed. In some cases, it may be necessary to collect additional data and information. Reliability and maintainability must be considered when evaluating alternatives. However, before the programs are formed, it is important to review the original problem statement and specifications. Often some revisions are needed in light of the data gathered during the inventory.

3.3.4.5 Since a problem can have more than one solution, it is beneficial for decision-making purposes to develop alternatives composed of one or more programs. When practical, these alternatives shall be documented for presentation in the plan.

3.3.4.6 In developing alternatives, it is especially important that all functional elements be coordinated to ensure system continuity-- from onsite storage through processing and final disposal. By evaluating the coordinated programs, the planner is able to recommend viable alternatives.

3.3.4.7 Step 4: Program and Plan Selection. Program and Plan Selection. A limited number of alternatives are selected by the engineer for inclusion in the plan. The alternatives are reviewed by the engineer, the chief engineer, and the base commander, when appropriate. The logic of alternatives is reviewed and programs are changed as necessary to include review comments. The administrative control of all programs is identified and evaluated during this step. This is important because solid waste management will not function properly without responsive control. Hence, the engineer must develop a thorough knowledge of the social and jurisdictional structure of the base.

3.3.4.8 The final action in this step is the selection of a preferred set of activities to form the plan. The programs can be selected from a single alternative, or they can be selected from various alternatives. The final selection will be made by the base commander and/or designees.

3.3.4.9 Step 5: Development of Implementation Schedule(s). When planning failures have occurred, the lack of a well-defined implementation schedule acceptable to administrative and management organizations is often the principal contributing factor. The degree of documentation in any implementation schedule depends on the type of programs developed in the plan. If possible, the degree of documentation that will be required for implementation shall be set by the engineer and decision maker during the problem-specification stage (Step 1) of the plan development. Most military solid waste management plans will be local in nature and require rather simple implementation schedules such as step-by-step sequences for a chosen program.

3.4 PLAN SELECTION AND IMPLEMENTATION

3.4.1 Once a complete waste management plan including a line item budget has been selected, organization structures must be put in place. Then schedules and milestones must be set. Planned reviews and updates shall be included in the schedule. Again, the requirements of RCRA Subtitle D must be carefully reviewed.

3.4.2 Figure 3-4A shows an implementation schedule for a management plan that involves the functional elements of storage, collection, transfer/transport, and disposal. In essence it covers starting from scratch at a new military installation. Less complicated activities can, however, be isolated on the chart so reasonable schedules could be proposed for them.

3.4.3 Implementation steps can be discussed only briefly. There are no "standard practices" in solid waste management to cover the wide variety of options that can arise.

3.4.4 Developing Alternatives. Waste management programs are presented to decision makers in the form of alternatives so that the decision makers can make their own judgments on the probable success of each one. The most important requirement for an alternative is that it be quantifiable with

respect to equipment, disposal sites, economics, etc. An alternative can be as simple as specifying the details of one-person versus two-person collection crews, or it may be as complex as specifying landfill disposal of all wastes versus processing wastes at multiple stations and selling recovered materials to numerous dispersed markets. Every alternative must satisfy the requirement of measurability. Documentation for each alternative, regardless of complexity, must encompass the following: (1) performance, (2) economic analysis, (3) impact assessment, and (4) administration and management and an implementation schedule.

3.4.4.1 Performance. Performance means getting the job done. The work force and equipment required to provide the level of service desired by the installation must be specified. The details of performance will vary with individual installations, but significant details that must be identified include (1) level of service, (2) equipment reliability and flexibility, (3) equipment and work force expandability, and (4) program compatibility with other environmental programs (air and water) and with future changes in solid waste technology.

3.4.4.2 With these details established, it is possible to contrast performance functions of a recommended program with performance functions of alternatives without additional planning studies. This is an important part in achieving plan implementation.

3.4.4.3 Economic Analysis. Once the details of performance have been identified, it is important to analyze the economic impacts of each alternative. The analysis must include estimates of capital cost as well as of operating costs. The cost of an alternative normally will be expressed as an annual cost. When divided by the annual quantity of wastes handled, the cost can also be expressed as a unit cost. Unit costs, such as dollars per ton, are often used to compare the cost effectiveness of alternatives.

3.4.4.4 When cost estimates are completed, financing methods can be identified. Some alternatives will require line item appropriations, whereas others may be financed from a general operating fund.

3.4.4.5 Impact Assessment. The programs of a waste management plan will have an impact on an installation through changes to the natural environment and through involvement of the base personnel. Any activities that significantly affect the environment (e.g., landfill and incineration) require an Environmental Assessment. Although environmental assessments do not need to be approved by EPA, state, or local regulatory agencies, it is prudent that federal agencies solicit comments from EPA, state, and local agencies prior to finalizing these documents. If an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required, then formalized procedures for EPA approval must be followed.

3.4.4.6 Activities that require voluntary support of base personnel (e.g., recycling) must anticipate human reactions to such requests. Few hard and fast rules apply. A useful generalization is to keep all requests for voluntary participation simple and painless and simultaneously emphasize the benefits to participants.

3.4.4.7 Administration and Management.

The administrative functions

and organizations for implementation must also be identified for each

« PreviousContinue »