reducing environmental/ghg impacts from...

© 2010 O’Brien & Gere. All Rights Reserved.1

Reducing Environmental/GHG Impacts from Groundwater Remediation at a Superfund Site

Environment, Energy Security & Sustainability Symposium & Exhibition (E2S2) | NDIA

Aniket Sawant, PhD

Scott McQueenParikhit Sinha, PhD

May 12, 2011 | New Orleans

© 2010 O’Brien & Gere. All Rights Reserved.

You can only manage what you can measure.

2

– Peter Drucker


SustainabilityEnergy & Carbon

Water & Waste

Buildings (LEED) Sustainable Deconstruction

Sustainable Remediation

Compliance

Sustainability

3


Sustainable Remediation – Overview

Environmental cleanup that is able to evaluate whether benefits outweigh remediation costs; ensure the environmental impact of the remediation activity is less

than the impact of leaving the land untreated; engage all stakeholders in the decision-making process; minimize or eliminate energy and natural resources consumption; reduce or eliminate releases to the environment; harness or mimic natural processes; use renewable energy sources; and use recyclable materials.


Background - Location

Groundwater remediation activities being conducted by Alcatel-Lucent at the former MW Manufacturing site (U.S. EPA Superfund site in north-central PA)

5


Background - Operations

Former metal wire reclamation operation Copper reclaimed from wire and cable using mechanical and chemical

stripping/ separation methods Significant contamination – soils and groundwater

Groundwater Treatment System (GWTS) installed in 2004

GHG emissions from GWTS reported

6

Flow equalization UV/hydrogen peroxideenhanced oxidation

Soils conditioning

Bag and cartridge filtration Countercurrent air stripping

Solids dewatering with a plate and frame filter press

pH adjustment and/or sequestering agent addition

Final pH adjustment


Method: The Greenhouse Gas Protocol1

Internationally recognized protocol Covers the Kyoto Protocol gases from direct and indirect sources

7

Boundaries Organizational

What locations are covered? Ownership vs. control

Operational What sources are covered?

Scope 1: Direct Scope 2: Indirect Scope 3: Other indirect

http://www.wbcsd.org/�


GHG Boundaries & Definitions for the Site

8

PARAMETERS DETAILS

GHG Accounting Protocol

World Resources Institute / World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WRI/WBCSD; www.ghgprotocol.org)

Intended AudienceCurrent internal audience: Alcatel-Lucent Danville groundwater remediation site, Alcatel-Lucent Corporate;Potential future audience: Carbon Disclosure Project; U.S. EPA mandatory reporting rule, U.S. federal cap-and-trade program

Organizational boundary

Based on operational control – report 100% of GHG emissions for those sources metered/measured by Alcatel-Lucent Danville site and for which future emission reduction actions can be taken.

Operational boundaryReport Scope 1 (direct) emissions from stationary combustion, mobile source combustion, process emissions, and fugitive emissions; Report Scope 2 (indirect) emissions from purchased electricity; Report Scope 3 (other indirect) emissions from chemical supply chain, waste supply chain, landfilled solid waste and wastewater treatment.

Duration Data available for January 2010; extrapolated to preceding 12-month period

Emission Intensity metrics Gallons of groundwater remediated

De minimis Threshold Emission sources that account for a small percentage of entity-wide emissions (<1%) can be called de minimis and approximated.

Reporting Frequency Annual (calendar year basis)


Inventory Program

GHG Inventory

Completed GHG scorecards used as inputs to GHG emission estimate

GHG Scorecard

Detailed quantitative request for data, prepared on basis of GHG activity questionnaire

GHG Activity Description Questionnaire

Guide in developing specific data collection methods where appropriate

Kick-off Meeting

Decide upon audience, boundaries, definitions


Carbon Footprint: Scope 1

Mobile and Stationary Emissions (MTCO2E)

Fuel Usage: Gallons (liquid fuels),

CF (NG)

Emission Factors:WRI2,3

Note: Mobile emissions and stationary emissions are calculated using similar approaches, but use different calculation tools. Mobile and stationary data are aggregated only after conversion to MTCO2E.



Purchased Electricity Emissions (MTCO2E)

Usage: kWhEmission Factors: EPA

eGRID, Subregion-specific4



Supply Chain Transportation,

Solid Waste, and Wastewater

Emissions (MTCO2E)

Fuel Usage, Tonnage Landfilled,

Gallons Water

Emission Factors:WRI3, EPA5,6


Carbon Footprint: Total

Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 Carbon Footprint


GHG Emissions

14

Scope Emission Source Acitivity Equipment Fuel/Resource Usage Unit MTCO 2 E

Operator's Vehicle 813 7.2Manager's Vehicle 63 0.6Mower 30 0.3Weed Whacker 4 0.04

UV/Ox High Intensity 216,445 112UV/Ox Low Intensity 144,175 75Air Compressor 113,880 59Transfer Pump 102 25,550 13Transfer Pump 401 365 0.2Tank 401 Mixer 12,410 6.4Air Stripper Blower 36,135 19Air Stripper Transfer Pump 1,095 0.6Effluent Tank Mixer 13,870 7.2

Pumping of Groundwater Grundfos Pumps 21,170 11

Delivery of Hydrogen Peroxide Tractor Trailer 63 0.6Delivery of Sulfuric Acid Tractor Trailer 100 1.0Delivery of Caustic Tractor Trailer 16 0.2Delivery of Cartridge Filters Box Truck 2,250 23

Non-Hazardous Waste Transport of Solid Waste Refuse Hauler 225 2.3

Potable Water Usage Faucets, Toilet, Hose 4,000 0.03Septic Water Septic Tank 80 0.001

Solid Waste DisposalOnsite Dumpster (3 CY)

MSW 14 US tons 6

483,625 296411,355 259

Gallons

2

Groundwater Remediation

Lighting and Outlets for Treatment Plant and Construction Trailer

Lights and Outlets 42,705 22

kWhPurchased Electricity Electricity

Water and Wastewater

3

Chemical Supply Chain

Water Gallons

Diesel Gallons

MCF 4.1

1

StationaryHeating Treatment Plant and Construction Trailer

Gas Heating Unit Natural Gas 77

MobileCommute to Site by Operator and other Support Personnel; Landscaping and Maintenance

Gasoline

80%+ 50%+


GHG Emissions – UV/Ox Lamp at High Intensity

15

Operator's Vehicle2%

Manager's Vehicle0.19%Gas Heating Unit

1%

UV/Ox High Intensity36%

Air Compressor20%

Transfer Pump 102

4%

Tank 401 Mixer2%

Air Stripper Blower

6%

Air Stripper Transfer Pump0.19%

Effluent Tank Mixer2%

Grundfos Pumps4%

Lights and Outlets7%

Tractor Trailer - H2O2

0.20%

Tractor Trailer - H2SO4

0.32%Box Truck - Cartridge Filters 7%

Refuse Hauler1%

Onsite Dumpster2%

(a) High Intensity: 296 MTCO2E

Contributions ≤0.1%:* Mower* Transfer Pump 401* Tractor Trailer - Caustic* Weed Whacker* Potable Water Use* Septic Tank


Operator's Vehicle3%Manager's Vehicle

0.21%Gas Heating Unit

2%

UV/Ox Low Intensity27%

Air Compressor23%

Transfer Pump 102

5%

Tank 401 Mixer2%

Air Stripper Blower7%

Air Stripper Transfer Pump0.22%

Effluent Tank Mixer3%

Grundfos Pumps4%

Lights and Outlets9%

Tractor Trailer - H2O2

0.23%

Tractor Trailer - H2SO4

0.37%Box Truck - Cartridge Filters

8%

Refuse Hauler1%

Onsite Dumpster2%

(b) Low Intensity: 259 MTCO2E




GHG Emissions – UV/Ox Lamp at Low Intensity

16


Normalized GHG emissions

Normalized GHG emissions (emissions per unit process output, e.g., gallons of water remediated) are useful in: Benchmarking against similar operations elsewhere Benchmarking one year to the next Identifying targets for GHG mitigation

17

Parameter High Low

Total GHG Emissions (MTCO2E/MG)

22.5 19.7

Electricity Consumption (MWh/MG)

36.8 31.3

UV/Ox Lamp Consumption (MWh/MG)

16.5 11.0


The Mitigation Cycle

18

Baseline Carbon Footprint

Project Execution

Emission Reduction Goals• Long-term• Interim

Emission Reduction Projects• Identify• Prioritize

Future Emissions Scenarios• Business-as-usual

Mitigation Plan• Draft• Communicate to

Stakeholders

StartThe carbon footprint is only the first step …


GHG Mitigation

Two system components account for ≥50% of the groundwater remediation emissions at the site Change in operating mode of one component (UV/Ox lamp) reduces overall

GHG emissions by ~13% Reduces electricity consumption ~70,000 kWh Reduces site budget by ~3% at a time of significant (60%) rate increases Conducted confirmatory testing on treatment effectiveness with new setting

Additional GHG mitigation from: Chemical supply chain – switching from monthly to annual delivery of

cartridge filters (~7% mitigation) Carbon sequestration – planting 15 acres of native meadow and 1.5 acres of

wetland (~17% mitigation) Total mitigation = 88 MTCO2E 30% of base case of 296 MTCO2E Equivalent to emissions from ~17 passenger cars

19


Conclusions

A detailed inventory can provide the basis for significant emissions reductions and cost savings

Alcatel-Lucent site reduced emissions by ~40% and budget by 3% Normalized GHG emissions can serve as a benchmark and help identify

opportunities from year to year or at other comparable facilities Sustainable remediation can inform future cleanup goals and methods evaluate whether benefits outweigh remediation costs; minimize or eliminate energy and natural resources consumption;

Sustainable remediation helps with Community/public – increased acceptance Regulators – enhanced negotiating position


References

(1) World Resources Institute, 2009. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard.

(2) World Resources Institute, 2008a. GHG Protocol tool for stationary combustion. Version 4.0.

(3) World Resources Institute, 2008b. GHG Protocol tool for mobile combustion. Version 2.0.

(4) EPA, 2007. eGRID subregion and emissions finder (CO2, N2O, CH4) tool. Version 1.1.

(5) EPA, 2006. Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life-Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks. 3rd edition.

(6) EPA, 2008. Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (1990-2006).

reducing environmental/ghg impacts from...

Documents