THE FINNISH ENVIRONMENT 4 | 2014 ENVIRONMEN- Best Available Techniques (BAT) ENVIRONMENTAL TAL PROTEC- PROTECTION Management of TION the Environmental Impact of Shooting Ranges Sara Kajander and Asko Parri (ed.) MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT THE FINNISH ENVIRONMENT 4 | 2014 Best Available Techniques (BAT) Management of the Environmental Impact of Shooting Ranges Sara Kajander and Asko Parri (ed.) Helsinki 2014 MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT THE FINNISH ENVIRONMENT 4 | 2014 Ministry of the Environment Layout: DTPage Oy Cover photos: Wide shot of a shooting range, Parolannummi shooting range: Janne Sikiö Shotgun shooter: Ari Niippa / Vastavalo.fi Construction of asphalt liner, Parolannummi shooting range: Ismo Salmela Frame of a firing line enclosure, Hoikankangas shooting range: Teemu Hourula The publication is also available on the Internet at: www.ym.fi/julkaisut Juvenes Print, 2014 ISBN 978-952-11-4351-9 (bound) ISBN 978-952-11-4352-6 (PDF) ISSN 1238-7312 (printed) 441 729 ISSN 1796-1637 (net) Painotuote FOREWORD The concept of Best Available Techniques (BAT) plays a very important role in the assessment of the requirement level of environmental protection during permit proceedings in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act. Shooting ranges are not covered by the scope of the Industrial Emissions Directive, so there is no joint European steering for the Best Available Techniques. Over the last years, a high-level national environmental protection guideline has been pre- pared by the so-called AMPY project involving, for example, the environmental administration. Regardless of this, both the shooting range operators and the representatives of the public ad- ministration saw fit to collect the technical and procedural solutions of environmental protection at shooting ranges and assess them in more detail. A BAT study can further improve the level of environmental protection, develop the cost-effectiveness of environmental protection at shooting ranges, harmonise the requirement levels of environmental permits, establish better means for taking case-specific conditions into account, and reduce unnecessary or incorrect investments. The BAT study for shooting ranges encountered the challenge that although a shooting range as a facility subject to the issuance of a permit would seem to be a reasonable simple structure, in reality, shooting ranges have been built for quite a large variety of purposes and numbers of users. Furthermore, the environmental conditions have a significant effect on the level of en- vironmental impact or risks caused by the shooting range. The study was different from most other national BAT studies in the sense that only a limited amount of domestic or international user experience is available for the various technical solutions for environmental protection at shooting ranges. Indeed, this resulting BAT report for shooting ranges places increased emphasis on emerging technologies and best practices related to operations. This should be taken into con- sideration when applying the contents of this report. The technical solutions compiled during the project have been piloted in practice during the preparation work, and structural design has improved further with experience. The national BAT report for shooting ranges was prepared in broad-based co-operation, the participants including representatives from several administrative branches, other users of shooting ranges, structural designers of shooting ranges, and experts in the management of environmental impacts. The project comprised two working groups (soil and water protection, and environmental noise) and a steering group. The working groups included representatives from permit and supervisory authorities from both the state and municipal administration, and the top experts in the field from the Finnish Environment Institute, the Finnish Defence Forces, the Construction Establishment of Defence Administration, shooting enthusiasts, and consult- ing firms. Preliminary studies were commissioned from the Aalto University, the University of Helsinki, and consulting firms. I would like to extend my warmest thanks to all parties who participated in the work of the steering group and the working groups and, in particular, the experts and authors of the preliminary studies who welcomed the challenge with open arms. Thank you to the Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE) for acting as the coordinating repre- sentative of the environmental administration and the party responsible for producing the publication. Support from the SYKE experts and the reviews required by the publishing process have allowed this report to achieve a high level of quality. Major thanks to the Finnish Defence Forces and the Ministry of Education and Culture for funding the project. I would like to give special thanks to Sara Kajander (Construction Establishment of Defence Administration), who directed the project execution, and Asko Parri (Army Command FInland), who was responsible for the section on environmental noise, for their countless working hours and in-depth delving into the subject. Matias Warsta Chair of the Project Steering Group The Finnish Environment 4 | 2014 3 CONTENTS Foreword .............................................................................................................................3 Abstract ...............................................................................................................................7 PART I – GENERAL .....................................................................................................13 1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................15 2 Background, goals and limitations of the work ..........................................18 2.1 Background ......................................................................................................18 2.2 Goals and limitations .....................................................................................18 2.3 Instructions and plans produced as part of the project ...........................19 3 Applicable law ..........................................................................................................19 3.1 Acts and decrees applied in the environmental protection at shooting ranges ...........................................................................................19 3.2 Best Available Techniques (BAT) .................................................................21 3.3 Best Environmental Practice (BEP) ..............................................................22 PART II – POLLUTANTS AND THEIR MANAGEMENT .............................23 4 The impact of shooting range operations on the soil and the surface and groundwaters ...........................................................................25 4.1 Environmental contamination at shooting ranges ...................................25 4.2 Emissions of pollutants and their migration at pistol and rifle ranges ........................................................................................................27 4.3 Emissions of pollutants and their migration at shotgun ranges ............29 4.4 Migration of pollutants into groundwater .................................................30 4.5 Migration of pollutants into surface waters ..............................................33 5 Possibilities for the management and reduction of pollutant emissions ................................................................................................36 5.1 Pistol and rifle ranges .....................................................................................36 5.1.1 Reduction of pollutant load ................................................................36 5.1.2 Prevention of pollutant migration .....................................................52 5.1.3 Water management and treatment.....................................................56 5.2 Shotgun ranges ................................................................................................60 5.2.1 Reduction of the spreading area of pollutants .................................61 5.2.2 Prevention of pollutant migration .....................................................65 5.2.3 Water management and treatment.....................................................67 5.3 Methods being developed .............................................................................68 5.3.1 Reducing the solubility of the pollutants ..........................................68 5.3.2 Using substitute materials ...................................................................70 5.3.3 Water treatment by precipitation .......................................................74 5.3.4 Collecting the shot ................................................................................75 6 Best Available Techniques and Best Environmental Practice in the management of pollutant emissions .......................................................76 6.1 Planning the management of pollutant emissions ...................................76 6.1.1 Determining the acceptable emission level ......................................77 6.1.2 Planning of measures at a new range ................................................80 6.1.3 Planning of measures at an existing range .......................................80 6.2 Assessment criteria for the suitability of the techniques and practices.....................................................................................................81