Best Available Technology for Small Arms Ranges Reasonable

EP –

For

Mis

sion

Sus

tain

abili

ty

CONSTRUCTION ESTABLISHMENT OF FINNISH DEFENCE ADMINISTRATIONENVIRONMENTAL SERVICESM.Sc. SARA KAJANDER

1

Best Available Technology for Small Arms Ranges- Reasonable Solutions to Limit Environmental Effects

Presentation at Environment, Energy Security and Sustainability SymposiumNew Orleans, May 9-12, 2011

EP –

For

Mis

sion

Sus

tain

abili

ty


2

Authors

Sara Kajander

• Construction Establishment of Finnish Defence Administration (CEDA)

• Manager of Environmental Services• M.Sc. Geologist• [email protected]

Dr. Matias Warsta

• Defence Command Finland• Head of Environmental Protection• [email protected]

Asko Parri

• Army Command• Noise Specialist• [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]�



EP –

For

Mis

sion

Sus

tain

abili

ty


3

Terminology: BAT and BREF

• BAT ”Best Available Technology”– Methods of production and treatment that are as efficient and advanced as

possible and technologically and economically feasible– Methods of design, construction, maintenance and operation to prevent or most

efficiently reduce the harmful environmental impacts caused by activities• Use of BAT is one of the key legal principles in European environmental

regulation– Implementation of the IPPC- and IE-Directive– Both EU and Finnish environmental regulation are based on a permitting system– Use of BAT demanded in permits

• BAT Reference (BREF) - document – Guidance document for interpretation of BAT, intended both for actors and

permitting authorities– Specific for different functions– Published on EU or National level– Do not exist for most of FDF related installations or operations

EP –

For

Mis

sion

Sus

tain

abili

ty


4

Small Arms Ranges in the FDF

• 200 ranges in 49 areas• 13M rounds annually• 12 range areas in the category of

500 000 – 1M rounds/y• 8 with 300 000 – 500 000 r/y• 15 with 100 000 – 300 000 r/y• 14 with less than 100 000 r/y• FDF uses pistol and rifle ranges• Shared with civilian sport

shooters, several ranges for sport shooting purposes only

– Including 20 shotgun ranges

EP –

For

Mis

sion

Sus

tain

abili

ty


5

Background – Why Do We Need a BREF for Shooting Ranges?

• Environmental permitting required for outdoor shooting ranges

• Environmental permits of FDF ranges demanding, partly inconsistent

• Use of BAT often required– Nobody knows exactly what it

means• Challenging schedules for

implementation of permit terms • Implementation calls for

considerable investments. – Rough estimate for soil and GW

protection and noise control measures 25M€ in next 5 years

EP –

For

Mis

sion

Sus

tain

abili

ty


6

Conclusions

• Need for cost-efficient technical solutions for controlling the environmental impacts of shooting ranges

– Soil and GW protection– Noise control– Monitoring

• Centralized planning of solutions and measures

• Need for consistency in EP demands by authorities, defining ”What is enough?” ?

– In terms of measures and costs• FDF initiative to prepare a National

BREF-document for Small Arms Shooting Ranges

EP –

For

Mis

sion

Sus

tain

abili

ty


7

Project

To produce a national Best Available Technology Reference Document (BREF-Document) for outdoor shooting ranges

”BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY FOR CONTROLLING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF OUTDOOR SHOOTING RANGES”

• Covers rifle-, pistol- and shotgun ranges• Co-operation with environmental authorities and civilian sport shooters• Timeframe 2010-2011• Will be published as a Finnish Environment Centre guidance document• Applies nationally to all outdoor shooting ranges

EP –

For

Mis

sion

Sus

tain

abili

ty


8

Main Goals of the Project

• Assessment criteria for EP requirements– Analysis of environmental permit process and contents of permits in Finland and

chosen comparison countries – Analysis of environmental impacts of shooting ranges

• Optimal, cost-efficient solutions tailored for different types of ranges– Evaluations of existing technical solutions and experiences, and development

work– Cost evaluations– Model plans and solutions, standards

• A tool for determining BAT for different types of ranges/sites– Weapon type, rounds/yr, location, soil, sensitivity of environment…– Cost-efficiency

“Technologically and economically feasible”

To produce, in co-operation with other actors and authorities, assessment criteria for EP requirements and model solutions for EP needs of shooting ranges

EP –

For

Mis

sion

Sus

tain

abili

ty


9

BAT for Soil and Groundwater Protection

CONCRETE STRUCTURE

WORKING SPACE FOR

MACHINERY

WATERPROOF ROOF

EP –

For

Mis

sion

Sus

tain

abili

ty


10

– Traditional Earthen Backstop

– With contact water control

• Impermeable bentonite-, rubber- or plastic liner to prevent contaminant migration

• Water collection and treatment possibility

– Pit and Plate

Evaluated Technologies and Practices

Sand Traps

EP –

For

Mis

sion

Sus

tain

abili

ty


11

– Deceleration traps• Snail Trap• Escalator Trap• Total Containment Trap• Etc.

– Steel Box Traps for pistol ranges

Steel Bullet Traps

Photo: Manufacturer

EP –

For

Mis

sion

Sus

tain

abili

ty


12

– Rubber Granulate Traps• Granulate bed installed on

backberm, model ”STAPP”• Granulate boxes

– Lamella Traps– Other traps

• Sand-filled pipe• Box trap filled with

alternative materials (plastic granulate, saw dust…)

Rubber Granulate and Other Bullets Traps

Photo: Manufacturer

EP –

For

Mis

sion

Sus

tain

abili

ty


13

Other Methods

• Roofing of backstop• Reducing solubility of

pollutants with soil amendments

– Iron– pH control (lime)– Other reactive materials

• Shock-Absorbing Concrete and other absorbing walls

• Treatment of runoff- and seepage waters

• Alternative bullet materials

EP –

For

Mis

sion

Sus

tain

abili

ty


14

Developing a Tool or Process for Aiding Best Technology Selection

EP –

For

Mis

sion

Sus

tain

abili

ty


15

Characteristics Influencing the Environmental Impacts of a Range

• Location– Soil type: permeability, ability to bind metals, pH…– Groundwater area Y/N, hydrogeology, type of aquifer, depth to GW , use

of water…– Amount of surface runoff, runoff directions, type of receiving waterway– …

• Range characteristics– Rounds per year– Age– Type of weapon – EP technology– …

Risk of over-simplification!

EP –

For

Mis

sion

Sus

tain

abili

ty


16

EP Demands:Chosen Approach

• What is the minimum level of environmental impact control in different conditions?

– Acceptable risk?

• What is the maximum level that can be demanded?– Acceptable cost?

Risk-based approachDefinition of different levels of environmental impact

controlTechnical recommendations for each level

EP –

For

Mis

sion

Sus

tain

abili

ty


17

BAT For Different Types of Ranges,Principles

• New ranges– Choise of location primary risk management measure– Contaminant management and monitoring always demanded– Double protective measures on groundwater areas

• Old ranges– Baseline survey and risk assessment– Measures planned according to risk

• 4 levels– Several choises of technical structures within the level, cost-efficiency and actor’s

preferences decide– Time-scale of environmental risk should be considered in implementation schedule– Monitoring and record-keeping are always part of the management system

• Monitoring program based on survey and risk assessment – If the survey and risk assessment indicate acute environmental risks– Remediation need

• Same principle for pistol/rifle ranges and shotgun ranges, different EP demand levels and measures

EP –

For

Mis

sion

Sus

tain

abili

ty


18

Soil and Groundwater protection of Small Arms RangesEP Levels for Determining BAT, Principles

LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4Description Basic Demanding,

surface waterDemanding, groundwater

Very demanding

Estimated risk potential- Based on range characteristics and conditions

Low risk of pollutant migrationExisting ranges only.

Long-term risk of pollutant migration to surface waters

Long-term risk of pollutant migration to groundwater

Acute risk of pollutant migration and possibly severe impacts or new range in sensitive environment

Survey needs-Separate guidance developed-Validation of risk potential

Baseline survey and qualitative risk assessment

Baseline survey and quantitative risk assessment

Baseline survey and quantitative risk assessment

Baseline survey and quantitative risk assessment. For new range baseline survey only.

Environmental protection demands- Minimum level

Lead volume control (reclamation)Record keeping and environmental monitoring

Runoff water control and treatment if necessary.Lead volume control or bullet containment

Contact water control in backstop and firing areaLead volume control or bullet containment

Double protection:Contact- and runoff water control in backstop, firing and range areaBullet containment Remediation if necessary

Suggested technical solutions-Examples of acceptable techniques

EP –

For

Mis

sion

Sus

tain

abili

ty


19

Estimating Cost-efficiency- What is Reasonable?

• Protection level ”The result” of the investment– The result should be proportional to costs

• Volume of activity vs costs of protection measures– Volume of the activity can be described by number of rounds / year– How to compare cost to volume?

• Investment divided on X years and comparison of ”cost per round”?• Life cycle cost of EP measures divided on life expectancy of range and

comparison of ”cost per round”?

• What can be considered reasonable?• Calculation of comparison values for different technologies and volumes of

activity• Comparison of calculated one-time fee for range user to ”normal sporting

fee” like tennis or aerobics lesson? • Or comparison of yearly costs of shooting to those of other hobbies?

EP –

For

Mis

sion

Sus

tain

abili

ty


20

Other Results

• Model plans: – Sandtrap and Boxtrap for pistol ranges

ready– Others under development

• Baseline Survey Guidance for Small Arms Ranges

• Monitoring Guidance for Small Arms Ranges

• Risk Assessment Guidance for Small Arms Ranges (under development)

EP –

For

Mis

sion

Sus

tain

abili

ty


21

BAT for Noise Control

EP –

For

Mis

sion

Sus

tain

abili

ty


22

Assessing Noise Levels

• For small caliber weapons there exist guidance levels

– Council of State’s decision on guidance levels of noise by small caliber weapons

– 60 – 65 dB (AImax)– < 12,7 mm

• Guidance levels are created for land use planning purposes

– Not meant to be used in environmental permitting process as limit values for old functions

– Nevertheless used in permit terms

EP –

For

Mis

sion

Sus

tain

abili

ty


23

• Technical constructions– Acoustically absorbing shooting stall– Absorbing divides in the stall– Noise control berms and walls

Model plans and cost calculations

• Weapons and ammunition– Sub-sonar speed bullets– Sound suppressors– Reducing caliber

• Further development of modelling and measuring methodology and guidance

Evaluated Technologies and Practices

EP –

For

Mis

sion

Sus

tain

abili

ty


24

Challenges

• Limited noise reduction possible with reasonable investments – Guidance / limit value levels can not always be obtained with any kind of

investments

• Noise can only be reduced in certain directions from the emission source

• Frequency of noise emission is usually not considered when setting demands for noise control

• All surveyed methods can not be used in all functions– Competition rules– FDF training needs

EP –

For

Mis

sion

Sus

tain

abili

ty


25

• Noise reduction requirements between 5 and 15 dB considered possible to fulfil

– Less than 5 dB; effect not possible to prove due to measuring and modelling uncertainty

– More than 15 dB not economically feasible

• No measures necessary on ranges where only .22 caliber weapons are used

• No measures necessary on ranges with less than 2000 rounds/yr

– Noise emissions considered a temporary nuisance

Suggestions:EP Demand Principles for Small Arms Ranges

EP –

For

Mis

sion

Sus

tain

abili

ty


26

Suggestions: Guidance Principles for Determining BAT Levels for Noise Control

”Technically and economically feasible”

– Berms or walls 5-10 m high

– Absorbing shooting stall constructions

– Use of sound suppressor in practice (excl. competition and FDF training)

– Reducing caliber

Maximum level

– Berms or walls more than 10 m high

– Roofing of whole range; indoor range

Technically acceptable, but can not be considered economically feasible!

EP –

For

Mis

sion

Sus

tain

abili

ty


27

Model Constructions

• Acoustically lined shooting stall

– 3 variations– Detailed construction

plan– Cost calculation – Noise reduction

estimate 1-8 dB, mainly behind the stall

– Divides reduce noise emissions also on the sides

EP –

For

Mis

sion

Sus

tain

abili

ty


28

Thank You for Your Attention!Questions?

Best Available Technology for Small Arms Ranges Reasonable

Documents

Transcript of Best Available Technology for Small Arms Ranges Reasonable