A Retrospective Analysis of Sustainability Metrics for ... · Presentation Outline – Background – Overview of Selected Sediment Sites – Sustainability Assessment Tools & Methods

A Retrospective Analysis of Sustainability Metrics for Remedial Alternatives at 2 Sediment Remediation Sites

Amanda D. McNally, PE (AECOM)

Frank J. Messina (ExxonMobil Environmental Services Company)

April 26, 2016

4th International Conference on Sustainable Remediation

Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Presentation Outline

– Background

– Overview of Selected Sediment Sites

– Sustainability Assessment Tools & Methods

– Results & Comparative Analysis

– Observations & Lessons Learned

April 26, 2016 Sediment GSR Tools Page 2

Sustainability Goes Beyond Green Remediation

– “Green” Remediation (USEPA; various documents) •  Practice of considering all environmental effects of remedy

implementation and incorporating strategies to maximize net environmental benefit

•  The goal is not to change the remedy selection criteria but to incorporate sustainability into the process

– “Sustainable” Remediation •  The practice of demonstrating, in terms of environmental,

economic and social indicators, that the benefit of undertaking remediation is greater than its impact, and that the optimum remediation solution is selected through the use of a balanced decision-making process.” (Sustainable Remediation Forum - United Kingdom)


Rem

edy

Impl

emen

tatio

n R

emed

y Se

lect

ion

Why is This Important: Example Effect of BMPs is Incremental Compared To Remedy Selection


0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000 To

ns C

O2

BMP reduction

With BMPs

Reference: Lower Duwamish Waterway Feasibility Study (AECOM, 2012) Note: Unit emissions are given for a 10 acre site with 5 feet contamination depth, 50% volume creep, transportation to and disposal at Roosevelt Landfill, 50% open water disposal, and 50% beneficial reuse. BMPs include finer tolerances, maximize rail use, and use of biofuels in trucks

Demands of Sediment Sites Make a Case for Action

–  Sediment remediation is complex; costs and benefits not always balanced; remedies take too long and are focused on mass removal

–  Sustainability already has a place in the remedy selection process •  Consistent with CERCLA and state regulations (e.g., NY, others) •  Net Environmental Benefits Analysis (NEBA) is one of many proven tools that

should be part of a Sustainability Assessment

–  Sustainability should be part of the weight-of-evidence approach for selecting remedial actions •  Most effective when considered early, as part of the selection process •  May easily be incorporated into remedial design and implementation •  Provides a platform for stakeholders to evaluate trade-offs (costs, risks, benefits)

and make informed decisions


Retrospective Analysis Demonstrates Value of Sustainability Assessments in Remedy Selection

– Objective: Conduct sustainability assessment for several large sediment remediation projects with remedies selected over 10 years ago (pre-SURF) to demonstrate that sustainability should be considered in remedy selection process

– Why: Selected remedies for complex sediment sites often focus on mass removal, take years to implement, and require expenditures well beyond the point of diminishing return

– Benefit: Newly established sustainability tools provide a structured platform for stakeholders to evaluate trade-offs (costs, risks, benefits) and make informed decisions within the CERCLA framework


Methods

Representative Sites for Evaluation

Site #1: Hudson River Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Superfund Site

•  Extends nearly 200 miles along the Hudson River •  ROD issued February 2002 •  Phase 1 dredging completed from 2009-2015

Site #2: Lower Fox River PCBs Superfund Site (OU3) •  39 miles from Lake Winnebago to Green Bay •  Focus on Operating Unit 3, Little Rapids to De Pere •  ROD issued June 2003 •  OU3 dredging completed from 2009-2011


Projects Preceded EPA Green Remediation Policies


2000 2010 2015 2005

Lower Fox River Feasibility Study & Proposed Plan

Hudson River Feasibility Study & Proposed Plan

Phase 1

OU3

Construction Durations

USEPA Superfund Green Remediation

Strategy

USEPA Region 2 Clean & Green

Policy

SiteWiseTM V3.1

SURF est.

Hudson River FS Alternatives


Remedial Alternative

Dredge Volume (cubic yards)

Dredge Area

(acres)

Cap Area

(acres)

PCB Mass Removal

(kilograms)

Cost Estimate

(US million $)

Construction Time

(Years)

Alt 1 1,732,820 493 207 33,100 $338 5

Alt 2 (EPA Selected) 2,651,730 493 0 45,600 $413 5

Alt 3 3,823,060 964 0 >63,500 $570 7

Most sustainable alternative determined in this assessment

References: Hudson River PCBs Reassessment RI/FS Phase 3 Report: Feasibility Study (December 2000); Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site Proposed Plan (December 2000)

Lower Fox River FS Alternatives


Remedial Alternative

Dredge Volume (cubic yards)

Dredge Area

(acres)

Cap Area

(acres)

PCB Mass Removal

(kilograms)

Cost Estimate

(US million $)

Construction Time

(Years)

Alt 1 (Dredge, 500ppb)

776,791 498 0 1,157 118.3 0.9

Alt 2 (Dredge,

1,000 ppb) (Selected)

586,788 328 0 1,111 99.9 0.7

Alt 3 (Cap to max.

extent) 170,858 193 135 764 62.9 1.3


References: Final Feasibility Study, Lower Fox River and Green Bay, Wisconsin Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (December 2002) ; Proposed Remedial Action Plan, Lower Fox River and Green Bay (October 2001)

Applied 3 Different Established Tools to the Sites

1)  SiteWiseTM(Version 3.1) •  Environmental and safety metrics •  Publically available tool developed by Battelle for US Navy •  Version 3.1 released in 2015 with sediment remediation modules

2)  AECOM Sustainability Tool (AST) •  Environmental footprint for sediment alternatives •  Designed in 2012 for Lower Duwamish Waterway Feasibility Study •  Proprietary Excel-based tool developed by AECOM

3)  AECOM Qualitative Sustainable Remediation Tool (AqSRT)

•  Tiered, ranking approach to site assessment •  Scores environmental, social, and economic values •  Developed by heritage URS in 2011 based on SuRF-UK indicators


Model #1: SiteWiseTM Model #2: AECOM Tool

Model #3: AECOM qSRT

GHG (CO2, CH4, N2O) Emissions

Energy NOx Emissions SOx Emissions

PM10 Emissions Landfill

Accident Risk – Fatality

& Injury Lost Hours – Injury

CO2 Emissions CO Emissions

Energy NOx Emissions SOx Emissions

PM10 Emissions Landfill

Ecological Footprint

Accident Risk – Fatality & Injury

Impacts on Air Impacts on Soil Conditions

Impacts on Ground & Surface Water Impacts on Ecology

Use of Natural Resources & Waste

Impacts on Human Health & Safety Ethics & Equality

Neighborhood & Locality Communities &

Community Involvement Uncertainty & Evidence

Direct Economic Costs & Benefits

Indirect Economic Costs & Benefits Employment & Employment Capital Induced Economic Costs & Benefits

Project Lifespan & Flexibility

Color indicates pillar of sustainability: Environmental / Social / Economic The two footprint tools evaluate similar metrics and the results can be compared between the two. The AST tool also includes an ecological footprint metric. The third tool is qualitative and looks at environmental (blue), social (purple), and economic (green) considerations.

Quantitative and Qualitative Metrics Evaluated


Results & Comparative Analysis

Hudson River Superfund Site Results Model #1: SiteWiseTM


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Impacts of Remedial Alternatives (Normalized to highest impact alternative)

Alt. 1 Cap-3-10-Select Alt. 2 Rem-3-10-Select Alt. 3 Rem-0-0-0 Selected Alternative

Hudson River Superfund Site Results Model #2: AECOM Tool


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Impacts of Remedial Alternatives (Normalized to highest impact alternative)

Alt. 1 Cap-3/10/Select Alt 2. Rem -3/10/Select Alt. 3 Rem-0/0/0 Selected Alternative

AECOM qSRT (Model #3) – Weight & Rank Each Indicator

Assessment Criteria Weight Remediation Option 1 2 3

Environ-mental

Impacts on Air 2 10 6 2 Impacts on Soil and Ground Conditions 5 15 15 20 Impacts on Groundwater and Surface Water 3 12 9 9 Impacts on Ecology 4 12 12 8 Use of natural Resources and Waste 3 12 6 3

TOTAL 17 61 48 42

Social

Impacts on Human Health and Safety 5 20 15 10 Ethics and Equality 3 6 9 9 Neighborhood and Locality 4 12 12 8 Communities and Community Involvement 4 20 20 20 Uncertainty and Evidence 2 8 8 8

TOTAL 18 66 64 55

Economic

Direct Economic Costs and Benefits 2 6 4 2 Indirect Economic Costs and Benefits 2 2 2 4 Employment and Employment Capital 3 6 6 9 Induced Economic Costs and Benefits 3 3 3 3 Project Lifespan and Flexibility 5 15 20 20

TOTAL 17 61 48 42 Overall (Average) Sustainability Score 62.6 53.3 46.3


Hudson River Superfund Site Results Model #3: AECOM qSRT


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1 2 3 4 5

Wei

ghte

d Sc

ore

(%)

Remedial Option

Percentage of Maximum Score (with Weightings)

Economic Environmental Social Overall

Most Sustainable

Least Sustainable

Selected Alternative

Sustainability Assessments Point to Different Alternatives

Site Selected Alternative

Sustainable Alternative

Implementation Considerations

Hudson River Alternative #2 2,651,730 CY

$413MM

Alternative #1 1,732,820 CY

$338MM

On-site disposal of waste and social (quality of life indicators) were considered but not evaluated in the FS

Lower Fox River (OU3)

Alternative #2 586,788 CY

$99.9MM

Alternative #2 586,788 CY

$99.9MM

Waste was pumped via pipeline as a trucking alternative

Actual construction varied from the alternatives evaluated in FS for a variety factors



Conclusions & Lessons Learned

1.  Sustainability assessments are consistent with Federal and State regulations governing remediation of sediment sites

2.  Sustainability tools provide a structured & transparent methodology during remedy evaluation and selection process

•  Allows stakeholder considerations of impacts and tradeoffs •  Optimizes benefits relative to environmental, social, and economic impacts

•  Environmental metrics are more easily quantified than social and economic indicators

3.  All 3 tools reached similar conclusions about the most sustainable alternative

•  AECOM qSRT requires a more robust stakeholder input to establish meaningful cumulative sustainability rankings and weights


Acknowledgments

ExxonMobil General Electric Wisconsin DNR AECOM Staff (Anne Fitzpatrick, Matt Salmon,

Maureen McBride, & Gerlinde Wolf)

Thank you!

Amanda D. McNally, P.E., [email protected]

Frank J. Messina, [email protected]

April 26, 2016

Documents

A Retrospective Analysis of Sustainability Metrics for ... · Presentation Outline – Background – Overview of Selected Sediment Sites – Sustainability Assessment Tools & Methods