SUSTAINABILITY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS, REMEDIAL …€¦ · Mob/Demob 0.22 16.5 Treatment...

May 5, 2016 1

SUSTAINABILITY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS, REMEDIAL OPTION ANALYSIS AND PROJECT OPTIMIZATION

John Dewis, B.Sc., P.Ag.

Ingo Lambrecht, M.Sc., P.Geo. Arcadis Canada Inc.

Raman Birk, M.Sc. PWGSC – Pacific Region

•  Sustainability Program •  Sustainability Matrix •  Sustainability Performance Indicators (SPIs) •  Treatment Optimization •  Case Studies

OUTLINE

•  Developed based on a dialogue with property owners, managers, custodians and community

•  Identify project elements and work components •  Develop and implement Sustainability Best Management

Practises (SBMPs)

SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAM

•  Assist in evaluation and selection of remedial approach •  Used to develop a total sustainability score in Remedial

Options Analyses (ROAs) •  Weight and scoring of various matrix components based on

project targets agreed upon with client, custodian, community

•  Identify quantitative performance indicators to be used as sustainability performance indicators

•  Enables to compare impact of GHG emissions, waste generation, social aspects and cost between various remedial options

SUSTAINABILITY MATRIX

•  Constructed around a set of values created through dialogue with property owners, managers and custodians

•  Provide a means to measure the performance of a project component with quantifiable metric such as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions

•  Used to compare strategies or procedures to maximize social, economic and environmental effects

SUSTAINABILITY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (SPIs)

•  Focus in on site-specific factors and work components •  Identify control points for data such as fuel volumes •  Identify data collection methodology (machine hours vs volume

of fuel consumed) •  Compare against a baseline or alternate scenario

PROJECT SPECIFIC SPIs

May 5, 2016 7

Fuel Consumed (L) Treated Soil Volume (m3)

GHG Conversion Factors

GHG (tonnes) / Treated Soil (m3)

SPI Examples – Task Specific GHG Emission

Fuel (L) / Treated Soil (m3)

•  Social Context: Local Contractor Hours ÷ Total Contactor Hours = % Local Labour Involvement

•  Environmental Context (Waste Diversion): Waste Diverted ÷ Total Waste Created = % Waste Diverted

•  Environmental Context (Total GHG Emissions): Treatment GHG (tonnes) + Other GHG (tonnes) (flights, mob/demob, shipping, materials, pumps, generators, etc.) = Total GHG (tonnes)

OTHER SPIs

Adjustment of work components or system components to maximize efficiency based on value set •  Time vs cost •  Cost vs GHG emissions •  Local contractors vs cost •  Waste diversion vs cost •  Machine time vs treatment •  System components vs treatment time

TREATMENT OPTIMIZATION

CASE STUDIES 1 AND 2 – LAND TREATMENT – WHITEHORSE AND WATSON LAKE AIRPORTS

Soil treatment in Land Treatment Facilities (LTFs) using tractors to till soil, equipment to move soil and moisture adjustment

•  Treatment is a function of input and treatment rate •  Inputs to consider for optimization include amount of N-P-K

amendment, soil handling and soil moisture •  Adjust inputs, evaluate SPIs to maximize treatment process

efficiency

Increased Inputs

e Optimized

Diminishing Returns

No Returns

LTF Inputs: •  Equipment •  O2 •  Moisture •  N-P-K

SPI Site Location Whitehorse LTF Watson Lake LTF

Treated Soil Volume 1,984 m3 2,060 m3

Fuel Consumption per Unit Treated Soil 2.73 L/m3 3.95 L/m3

* Use WRI-WBCSD GHG protocol Conversion Factors to convert to GHG emissions

•  Identify GHG intensity for each input •  Reduce machine time input to optimize treatment rate •  Track GHG emissions •  Track treatment rate and cost •  Optimize treatment based on SPIs

Source of GHG Emissions Whitehorse LTF

(Tonnes GHG emission) Watson Lake LTF

(Tonnes GHG emission)

Mob/Demob 0.22 16.5

Treatment Methodology 24.0 22.4

Commuting 0.86 4.3

Sample Shipment 0.27 0.1

Flights 1.5 2.2

Total GHG Emissions 26.9 45.5

Inputs to consider for optimization include equipment time (screening) and application of water containing a protease enzyme product (washing)

CASE STUDY 3 – SOIL WASHING – LIARD HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE YARD, ALASKA HIGHWAY

SPI Site Location

Liard Soil Washing

Treated Soil Volume 2,600 m3

Fuel Consumption per Unit Treated Soil 1.54 L/m3

CASE STUDY 3 – SOIL WASHING – LIARD HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE CAMP

•  Beneficial by products [drain rock (200 m3), sand (1,800 m3)] are generated

•  GHG emissions are offset by the emissions required to generate drain rock and sand

CASE STUDY 3 – SOIL WASHING – LIARD HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE CAMP

•  Capture free phase •  Mobilize soil contamination •  Capture and degrade mobilized petroleum hydrocarbons

CASE STUDY 4 – SURFACTANT FLUSHING AND ENHANCED REMEDIATION – LIARD HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE YARD, ALASKA HIGHWAY

SPI Site Location

Liard Surfactant Flushing and Enhanced Remediation

Treated Soil Volume 4,402 m3

Fuel Consumption per Unit Treated Soil 17.69 L/m3

CASE STUDY 4 – SURFACTANT FLUSHING AND ENHANCED REMEDIATION – LIARD HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE CAMP

•  Treatment of approximately 4,402 m3 of soil (approximately 44,022 kg of contaminant mass)

•  Treatment inputs: •  Generator fuel (pumps, control room) •  Surfactant injections •  Mechanical components •  Operation and maintenance

CASE STUDY 4 – SURFACTANT FLUSHING AND ENHANCED REMEDIATION – LIARD HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE CAMP

SPIs are a useful tool to evaluate and adjust treatment efficiency

CONCLUSIONS

Case Study 1

LTF - Whitehorse

Case Study 2 LTF -

Watson Lake

Case Study 3 Soil Washing -

Case Study 4 Surfactant Flushing and

Enhanced Bioremediation - Liard

Fuel Consumed (L) 5,416 8,137 4,000 77,870 Treated Soil Volume (m3) 1,984 2,060 2,600 4,402

Contaminant Average Concentration (ug/g)

(VH+LEPH+HEPH) 2,089 1,141 2,090 5,000

Contamination Mass (kg) (VH+LEPH+HEPH) 8,289 4,701 10,868 44,020

Fuel Consumed per Treated

Soil Volume (L/m3) 2.73 3.95 1.54 17.69

Fuel Consumed per Contamination Mass (L/kg) 0.65 1.73 0.37 1.77

Scoping Stage •  Identify stakeholder objectives, project limitations and requirements •  Identify SPIs with the greatest potential effect for scope of project Evaluation Stage (ROA) •  Choose appropriate SPI units when comparing impacts •  Evaluate between treatment options for a site based on total GHG

emissions Execution Stage (Remediation) •  Use SPIs as a management tool to optimize remediation progress •  Optimize remediation program through sustainability program •  Optimize treatment by focusing on inputs and rate of treatment

CONCLUSIONS

May 5, 2016 23

QUESTIONS / DISCUSSION

SUSTAINABILITY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS, REMEDIAL …€¦ · Mob/Demob 0.22 16.5 Treatment...

Documents

Wisconsin Petroleum Environmental Cleanup Fund …assigned primary mob/demob; however, it could not be applied to 18, since TaskTask 18 does not have an assigned primary mob/demob

I O RITY HIDDEN SCREWS EXPOSED SCREWS · Regal Red 0.42 0.84 45 Regal White 0.68 0.86 82 PMS: 2915 Sandstone 0.54 0.86 63 Sierra Tan 0.35 0.86 37 Slate Gray 0.36 0.84 37 Solar White

Concentration, Size Distribution and Electrostatic Charge ... · charge-to-mass ratio (qN) of airborne particles was -0.86 mC/kg (s.d.=0.27). The measured qN value of airborne particles

Crop Acreage and Yield Estimation Report(2 nd ) - Bandaweather-risk.com/_content/crop estimation/Wheat Crop...Kamasin 0.27 0.18 Mahuva 0.30 0.19 Naraini 0.27 0.18 Tindwari 0.30 0.22

UNIVERSITY OF PUNE M.E. (CIVIL) (CONSTRUCTION …. ME Civil Construction... · Construction Management – Site mobilization – demob ilization aspects, various Resources management

Functional properties and health benefits of orange juice · HDL-C (mmol/L) 1.20 0.29 1.16 0.31 1.14 0.27 1.16 0.23 LDL-C (mmol/L) 3.35 0.61 2.74 0.80* 4.78 0.48 4.20 0.86* Apo B

0.27 Sample Preparation - faculty.sdmiramar.edu

I O RITY HIDDEN SCREWS EXPOSED SCREWS...Regal Red 0.42 0.84 45 Regal White 0.68 0.86 82 Sandstone 0.54 0.86 63 Sierra Tan 0.35 0.86 37 Slate Gray ... Marine Green 0.36 0.86 38 THERMAL

CREATING THE FUTURE IN STEEL Steel Company Prof… · · 2014-06-04Slit Sheet 19mm – 1250mm (thickness 0.27 – 3mm) Sheets / Blanking Thickness 0.27 – 6mm (width of 150mm to

STRENGTH ANALYSIS OF THE FRAME OF THE … · ESCALATOR USING THE FINITE ELEMENT METHOD AND CALCULATION OF THE DRIVE ... Coefficient of friction (0.27-0.37) µ= (0.27-0.37) FBY: Load

Transcriptome networks in the mouse retina: An exon level ...fibroblast activation protein Chr2: 62.339000 7.19 0.86 Cacna1g calcium channel, voltage-dependent, Chr11: 94.269705 9.95-0.86

USA - April 2013 SAMPLEBWLD M IFF CYBX TDC BWLD Restaurants 1,617.41 0.84 1.00 M Retail - Department Stores 16,455.33 1.65 0.86 1.00 IFF Chemicals - Commodity 6,151.73 0.84 0.86 0.92

Cluster Computing for $0.27/hr using Amazon EC2 and IPython Notebook

Mob from Darling Harbour Demob after this location · Mob from Darling Harbour 01020304050 m Demob after this location. Title: Johnstons Bay barge movmeents Marine Notice sy1910 Author:

Baryon interactions from Lattice QCD at m(pi)=0.27 GeV2019/06/19 Lattice 2019 @ Wuhan, China 1 Baryon interactions from lattice QCD at mπ = 0.27 GeV Takumi Doi (RIKEN Nishina Center

DEMOB - FAMITDemob Demob Page 6 of 56 to the servicing Dispatch Center about a resource requiring air travel. * These questions can be edited at any time during the incident if needed

Effect of intraocular lens decentration on image quality tested ... of...(V-0.18), 4 Tecnis 1P ZCB00V with spherical aberration correction of 0.27 mm (T-0.27), and 4 Acrysof 1P SN60WF

The Road to Charter School Quality · 4 0.74 0.26 0.59 0.40 0.27 0.73 0.15 0.86 0.04 0.95 5 0.80 0.19 0.51 0.49 0.23 0.77 0.09 0.91 0.06 0.94 ... 2006 2007 2008 New Schools Significantly

EPS (S) $0.27 $0.02 $0.20 Initiating Report August 16, 2021

Readme 0.27