Alternatives - compare using life cycle costs. Discharge
to the base or publicly owned wastewater treatment plant
should consider pretreatment requirements. Also, an
assessment of contracted O&M should be included.
Possibilities of air emissions trading or the bubble
concept should be investigated.
Recommended solution(s) with rationale. Describe
alternatives evaluated. Sludge generation and disposal
must be a part of and may be a key factor in the
recommendation. Include staffing and other logistics
requirements for the activity. State whether a solution
can be recommended without conducting treatability (see
Section C) studies.
7. For selected projects, identified for NAVFACENGCOM or acquisition
team review, send three copies of the draft final PES to NAVFACENGCOMHQ
Code 04B for review. A 30 calendar day review period should be provided.
1. It may be necessary to perform treatability studies (TS) to
confirm the effectiveness of the proposed physical, chemical or
biological unit processes. Pilot tests should be conducted prior to a
chemical process design in order to determine the most cost-effective
solution. The life cycle cost analysis for each viable alternative
should include sludge handling, treatment and disposal requirements.
More extensive TS, which may vary from bench-scale testing to on-site
pilot plant operations, should be conducted when the PS justifies it.
Justification for further TS may include:
When the PES recommended solution, or the feasible
alternative, is not a proven "off-the-shelf" process.
When more than one unrelated process contributes pollutants
to the effluent.
When unusual wastes are treated.
When wastes containing numerous interfering substances,
such as stripping wastes, are to be treated.
When discharge limits are exceptionally restrictive.