Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 186
OCR for page 187
OCR for page 188
188
to be balanced. It lends itself to elaboration at any
level of detail. It also lends itself to refinement by
integrating evaluations of short- and long-term environ-
mental impacts into a single predictive statistic and by
integrating institutional and environmental factors.
This matrix is similar to one that was developed to
compare the environmental impacts of ocean disposal with
those related to alternative disposal practices and
submitted in conjunction with an Ocean Dumping Permit
Application to the Environmental Protection Agency
(Energy Resources Co., Inc., 1981).
The case study of the Acid Waste Dumpsite presented
later in this chapter evaluates ocean disposal of
acid-iron wastes and an alternative method under which
the wastes would be neutralized and then placed in a
landfill. This is a simplified case that demonstrates
how the assessment system can be used; it is derived from
numerous actual studies and experience.
The third step in a multimedia assessment is decision
making. This is the point at which the results of the
impact assessment, the capital and operating costs, and
the policy and strategy considerations of the owner of
the waste confront the regulatory and political
processes. The matrix approach helps to ensure that all
possible media and processes are considered in deter-
mining how to manage a particular waste.
The proposed approach is sometimes subjective and
sometimes objective. It approximates natural decision-
making processes but is more structured to facilitate
decision making. The analysis may be simple or detailed,
depending on the complexity of the problem, the wishes of
decision makers, and the availability of data.
6 . 2 CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES
Decisions on how to deal with wastes first require
identification of the available options. In addition to
various disposal techniques, those options may include
changes in processes, recycling of wastes, changes in raw
materials, the separation or relocation of manufacturing
steps, and others (see Table 6.1). The use of alter-
natives is likely to result in wastes of differing quan-
tity with different physical, chemical, and biological
characteristics. These wastes may be gaseous, liquid, or
solid in varying proportions
OCR for page 189
189
TABLE 6.1 Examples of Waste-Management Alternatives
Revise process to reduce waste volumes or change
waste character
Change raw materials
Sell, use, or recycle wastes
Pretreat wastes or intermediate streams
Apply wastes to land for treatment
Send wastes to landfill
Dispose of in ocean
Incincerate
.
.
Inject into a deep well
Store
Develop other land-based alternatives
Shut down generating process
6.2.1 Screening of Alternatives
Once all the alternatives are identified, some type of
screening process is necessary. The alternatives are
normally screened to determine:
Technical feasibility
Economic reasonableness
Environmental acceptability
An evaluation of technical feasibility involves
determining whether a particular alternative can be
accomplished. Deep-well disposal of a waste, for
example, might be quickly eliminated as an option if no
geologic formations that could accept wastes in the
quantities anticipated were known to existe
An examination of economic reasonableness might show
that certain options would be prohibitively expensive
because of the effects of utilizing such options on the
price of a product. An example would be incineration of
a waste. Although incineration might be technically
feasible, a preliminary evaluation might show that the
additional cost of the fuel needed for incineration would
make a particular product uncompetitive in the
marketplace.
Some options might be shown, with relatively little
study, to be environmentally unacceptable. An example
would be incineration that caused an unacceptable level
OCR for page 190
OCR for page 191
191
management, operating, and service personnel. The
sources and costs of required raw materials, utility
services, and transportation should be specified. The
salability of by-products will need to be identified, or,
if such by-products must be disposed of, the costs of
such disposal must be specified.
Various secondary problems should be addressed as
well, such as a need for increased production of raw
materials. An instance of this would be the need to
produce more lime to neutralize acidic wastewater. This
might entail additional mining operations and consumption
of larger amounts of the fuel used in calcining the
limestone.
6.2.4 Final Listing of Alternatives
The final alternatives, typically two to five, will
include those that are considered technically and
economically feasible and environmentally acceptable. Of
critical importance, too, is whether each alternative can
be implemented within a required time. The time con-
straints will be determined by marketing strategies, by
statute, or by management or political edict.
If the final alternatives are found to be equally
desirable or satisfactory, an environmental impact assess-
ment can expedite the process of deciding which one to
adopt. Table 6.2 lists the types of information required
for environmental and institutional assessments.
6.3 IMPACT ASSESSMENT
In this section, the panel proposes a matrix for com-
paring final disposal alternatives with respect to their
impacts on air, water, land, ocean, institutional, and
community variables. The system is illustrated by an
example from the Acid Waste Dumpsite.
Waste-management alternatives that still appear
feasible after the initial evaluation can be compared by
using a matrix approach. By using a matrix it is possible
to make a comparison on the basis of composite point
totals that indicate short- and long-term impacts. The
higher the point total, the greater the impact of the
alternative. Table 6.3 shows the matrix that was
developed. There are five environmental media to be
considered (air, surface water, groundwater, land, and
OCR for page 192
192
TABLE 6.2 Information Needed for Environmental and
Institutional Assessments of a Waste-Management
Alternative
.
Description of the waste-management alternative
Process flow sheets
Material balances
Detailed design
Equipment lists
Materials of construction
Capital costs
Operating costs
Manpower requirements
Transportation needs
Waste streams--character, quantity
Time needed to install
Energy requirements
Definition of major secondary factors (energy, raw
material, waste, or new product)
Market information if sale of a by product or new
product is involved
Key economic ratios (e.g., return on assets and
discounted cash flow)
Technical feasibility--what are the odds that the
alternative will work?
Location of generating process
Waste disposal locations
Character of waste disposal location (e.g.,
geology, hydrology, climatology, topography)
ocean), and there is also a set of institutional con-
siderations (the effect of each disposal option on com-
munity attitudes, services, economy, and safety). Each
environmental medium has four areas of concern--human
health, human welfare, biota, property--with each area of
concern rated on a scale of 1 to 3, with 3 signifying
greatest relative importance. Since human health is the
most important environmental consideration, it is
assigned a 3. Human welfare, a category that includes
such factors as aesthetics and recreational value, and
biota are generally assigned an intermediate rating of
2. Property (land, buildings, roads, for example) is
assigned a relative importance of 1.
OCR for page 193
193
The relative impacts of each waste disposal option are
then rated in terms of their short-term and long-term
effects. Short-term effects are those that are evident
shortly after an alternative is implemented; they are
normally reversible. Long-term effects are those that
persist far into the future and may be irreversible.
Separate ratings are assigned for short- and long-term
effects. These ratings are assigned on a -5 to +5 scale
where O signifies no effect, +5 signifies a serious
adverse impact, and -5 signifies a very positive benefit.
These impacts can best be determined by experts who have
studied cause-and-effect relationships and can properly
quantify impacts. If the impact of a waste disposal
option is so severe as to be environmentally unacceptable,
the option probably will have been rejected during the
screening phase. But it is also possible that new
information indicating environmental unacceptability will
only come to light during the assessment.
Environmental evaluation factors (EEF) for each area
are then derived by multiplying the relative importance
score by the relative impact score. The EEFs are summed
to derive separate scores for environmental/short-term,
environmental/long-term, institutional/ short-term, and
institutional/long-term impacts.
The matrix approach offers flexibility in choosing
among waste disposal alternatives, but balance in the
matrix must be maintained. The relative emphases in the
subcategories should be similar, and no medium should be
weighted much more heavily than another. Indeed, an
alternative that impacts substantially on more than one
medium could be difficult to manage in an environmentally
acceptable manner. Institutional considerations should
also be weighted more or less equally.
The matrix is a semiquantitative tool based on
information of varying degrees of accuracy. Thus, small
differences in summary scores probably will not be
important.
6.3.1 Environmental Impacts
The impact of a waste disposal option on the air would
consist of changes in air quality affecting human health,
human welfare, biota, and property. Human-health impacts
would be the impacts resulting from excessive concentra-
tions of sulfur dioxide or carbon monoxide. Human
welfare impacts would be such things as decreased
OCR for page 194
OCR for page 195
195
TABLE 6 . 3 (continued)
Relat ive
I mpor Lance
Med ium and
Areas of Concern Scale 1-3
Impacts
(-5 to +5 )
Short Term Long Term
Mag · a EEFL, Mag . EEF
B. Institutional Considerations
Effects on Community
a . Att itudes
b . Serv ices
c. Economy
d. Safety
TOTALS
2
3
aMag.: Magnitude of impact on each environmental and
institutional resource considered is estimated on a scale of -5 to +5
with negative numbers indicating benef icial impacts (-5 = greatest
benef icial impact) and positive numbers denoting harmful impacts (+5 =
greatest harmful impact).
bEEF: Environmental evaluation factor = (relative importance of
environmental var table) x (magnitude of impact) .
OCR for page 196
196
visibility and odors. Impacts on biota would be such
things as damage to fish populations from acid rain or
damage to vegetation from air pollutants. Impact on
property might consist of damage to buildings caused by
acid rain.
Similarly, a waste disposal option could have impacts
on surface waters. A human welfare impact on surface
water might be loss of recreational fishing in a lake
because of pollution. Damage to a freshwater aquatic
community because of a change in water quality would be
an impact on the biota. ~ ~ ~-
An impact on property would be
damage to structures in the water, such as boats or docks.
A human-health impact would be contamination of a surface-
water source of drinking water.
In the groundwater medium, the major human-health con-
cern would be the protection of drinking-water supplies.
An impact on human welfare would be the rendering of
groundwater less usable for agricultural irrigation.
Although neither biota nor structures are normally
present in groundwater, biota and property are included
in the matrix to take account of the impact of groundwater
pollution on aquatic species in underground waters and on
structures elsewhere.
With respect to land, a direct impact on human health
would be caused by contact with contaminated soil; an
indirect impact would be human consumption of contaminated
crops. Human welfare, such as aesthetic or recreational
opportunities, could be impacted by the use of large
areas of land for waste disposal. The impact would be
short term or long term, depending on whether the land
could be returned to other use after disposal was com-
pleted. A waste disposal option could have an impact on
land biota, such as vegetation or animals, if the waste
was placed in a vegetated area. An impact on property
would be the razing of buildings to make space for a
power plant's waste disposal.
Ocean disposal considerations are discussed in greater
detail in Section 6.5. Ocean disposal might affect human
health if fish contaminated at disposal sites were con-
sumed as food, although the possibility of this appears
to be slight. ~ ~ ~~ ~
An impact on human welfare WOU1O he per-
ceived loss of recreational and aesthetic values, such as
beach damage caused by ocean dumping. Damage to the
biota could be short term (reversible) and long term
(irreversible). The impact on property would again be
confined to physical structures, such as boats and docks
OCR for page 198
OCR for page 199
199
limestone, disposal of the resulting solid waste on land,
and release of treated effluent to the river or (2)
disposal in the ocean (the existing practice).
6.5.1.1 Neutralization and Land Disposal (Table 6.4)
The neutralization and land disposal alternative would
consist of neutralization of the acid in the waste with
ground limestone, followed by separation of the produced
gypsum and metal hydroxide, which would then be disposed
of on land. Approximately 3,100 tons of 80 percent
solids would be generated per day, 365 days per year.
At an increase in cost, the neutralization process can
be modified to produce high-grade gypsum that would be
suitable for wallboard manufacture. A study conducted by
Battelle Memorial Institute determined that the gypsum
could be used in cement manufacturing, provided the
material was pelletized. Despite successful pilot runs
(in a Canadian plant), however, no local producer of
wallboard was interested in using the synthetic gypsum.
The cement industry would, at best, consume less than 10
percent of the gypsum.
Because prospects for the use of the gypsum were so
small, a study of the land disposal requirements was then
made. Three potential land disposal sites totaling 300
acres were identified. These sites could be used for 12
years, assuming the wastes were deposited to a height of
24 feet. Thereafter, additional sites at greater dis-
tances from the point of generation would be needed. The
wastes would amount to approximately 145 truckloads per
day; that is, a truck would be entering or leaving the
plant every S minutes, 24 hours per day, 365 days per
year. That would mean a significant increase in truck
traffic and thus a significant increase in energy
consumption, air pollution, and noise.
An engineering study of the neutralization process
produced a detailed estimate of capital, operating, and
maintenance costs and of engineering parameters (material
balances, manpower, material usage, for example).
The impact ratings of the neutralization process were
judged to range from O to +5 (on a scale of -5 to +S).
This option was found to have a small but quantifiable
effect on the ambient air as a result of the increase in
truck engine exhaust gases and particulates that would
occur. Therefore, a value of 1 was assigned to this
alternative's impact on human health. Since no irrever
OCR for page 200
OCR for page 201
201
TABLE 6.4 (continued)
Impacts
Relative (-5 to +5)
Importance
Medium and
Areas of Concern Scale 1-3
Short Term Long Term
Mag.a DEFT Mag. EEF
B. Institutional Considerations
Effects on Community
a. Attitudes 2 4 8 2 4
b. Services 1 ~2 2 2
c. Economy 2 1 2 2 4
d. Safety 3 2 6 2 6
TOTALS 18 16
aMag.: Magnitude of impact on each environmental and
institutional resource considered is estimated on a scale of -5 to +5
with negative numbers indicating beneficial impacts (-5 = greatest
beneficial impact) and positive numbers denoting harmful impacts (+5
greatest harmful impact).
bEEF: Environmental evaluation factor = (relative importance of
environmental variable) x (magnitude of impact).
OCR for page 202
OCR for page 203
OCR for page 204
204
TABLE 6.5 Impact Assessment Matrix for the Ocean Disposal
Alternative
Impacts
Relative (-5 to +5 )
Impor Lance
Shor t Term Long Term
Med tom and
Areas of Concern Scale 1-3 Mag. a EEF ~Mag. EEF
A . Environmental Cons ider at ions
AIR
a. Human:
health 3
welfare
(e.g., aesthetics) 2
b. Biota 2
c. Property 1
O O O O
O O O O
O O O O
O O O O
2. SURFACE WATER
a. Human:
health 3 0 0 0 0
welfare 2 0 0 0 0
b . B. iota 2 0 0 0 0
c . Proper ty 1 0 0 0 0
3. GROUNDWATER
a. Human:
health 3 0 0 0 0
welfare 1 0 0 0 0
b . B. iota 1 0 0 0 0
c . Proper ty 1 0 0 0 0
4. LAND
a. Human:
health 3 0 0 0 0
welfare 2 0 0 0 0
b . B. iota 1 0 0 0 0
c . Proper ty 1 0 0 0 0
OCEAN
a. Human:
health 3 0 0 0 0
welfare 2 1 2 0 0
b . B. iota ( benthos
and f ish) 2 1 2 0 0
c . Proper ty 1 0 0 0 0
TOTALS 4 0
OCR for page 205
205
TABLE 6 . 5 (continued )
Impacts
Relative (-5 to +5 )
Impor tance
Short Term
Med ium and
Areas of Concern
Scale 1-3 Mag. a
Long Ter m
EEF ~Mag. EEF
B. Institutional Considerations
Ef feats on Community
a . Att itudes 2
b. Services 1
c. Economy
d. Safety
TOTALS
2
3
4 8 4 8
O O O O
O O O O
1 3 1 3
11 11
aMag.: Magnitude of impact on each environmental and
institutional resource considered is estimated on a scale of -5 to +5
with negative numbers indicating benef icial impacts (-5 = greatest
benef icial impact) and positive numbers denoting harmful impacts (+5
greatest harmful impact).
bEEF: Environmental evaluation factor = (relative importance of
environmental var. table) x (magnitude of impact) .
OCR for page 206
OCR for page 207
OCR for page 208
Representative terms from entire chapter:
disposal option
