Greener Cleanups
Un'tecl States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA 542-R-12-002
Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a
Project's Environmental Footprint
February 2012
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
Sponsored by the Technical Support Project
Engineering Forum
www.cluin.org/greenremediation/rnethodology
-------
Acknowledgements
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's
Environmental Footprint was prepared for the Technical Support Project (TSP) administered by the Office of
Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI). The methodology presented in this document was
developed under sponsorship of the Engineering Forum (one of three national TSP forums) to address the need for
a uniform EPA methodology that helps regional staff and other members of the cleanup community analyze and
take steps toward reducing the environmental footprint of cleanups.
OSRTI and the Engineering Forum gratefully acknowledge key contributions from members of the Agency's
Greener Cleanups Methodology Workgroup:
• Carlos Pachon, OSRTI
• Stephanie Vaughn, Region 2
• Dale Carpenter, Region 2
• Deb Goldblum, Region 3
• Hilary Thornton, Region 3
• Brad Bradley, Region 5
• Kendra Morrison, Region 8
• Tim Rehder, Region 8
• Michael Gill, Region 9
• Julie Santiago-Ocasio, Region 9
• Karen Scheuermann, Region 9
• Kira Lynch, Region 10.
Special thanks are expressed to Karen Scheuermann (Region 9) for invaluable assistance in developing the
methodology's conceptual design, pilot testing the methodology at three sites, and refining the final methodology.
The Workgroup also recognizes other EPA staff supplying significant feedback during methodology
development: Chris Corbett (Region 3), Candice (Jackson) Teichert (Region 4), Raji Josian (Region 6), Jeff
Dhont (Region 9), and Beth Sheldrake (Region 10).
Appreciation is extended to other federal or state agencies providing useful input to the methodology, including
the U.S. Department of Defense/Naval Facilities Engineering Command and the California Department of Toxic
Substances Control.
Development of the methodology described herein was funded by OSRTI under Contract No. EP-W-07-078 to
Tetra Tech. Appreciation is extended to Doug Sutton (Tetra Tech GEO) for significant contributions in
developing and documenting the methodology.
For additional information about EPA's footprint assessment methodology or strategies for conducting greener
cleanups, interested parties may contact Carlos Pachon (OSRTI) at: 703-603-9904 or pachon.carlos@epa.gov.
Other technical assistance in implementing greener cleanups is available from EPA's Engineering Forum Greener
Cleanup Subcommittee, which can be contacted through: http://www.epa.gov/tio/tsp/engforum/gcs.
An electronic version of this document can be downloaded at:
http://cluin.org/greenremediation/methodology and http://www.epa.gov/oswer/greenercleanups.
-------
Disclaimer
This document presents EPA's methodology to reduce negative environmental effects that might occur during
hazardous waste site assessment, site remediation, or non-time critical removal actions and to consequently
improve the environmental outcome of cleanup projects. It presents technical information based on EPA's current
understanding of the link between cleanup activities and their associated environmental footprint. The document
contains information designed to be useful for interested stakeholders including governments, the public, and the
regulated community. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use. This document was subjected to the Agency's administrative and expert review and was
approved for release as an EPA document.
This document provides topical introductory information rather than guidance and does not impose legally
binding requirements, nor does it confer legal rights, impose legal obligations, implement any statutory or
regulatory provisions, or change or substitute for any statutory or regulatory provisions. EPA recommends that
users refer to applicable regulations, policies, and guidance documents regarding selection of cleanup remedies
and implementation of cleanup actions; selected references and additional resources are provided herein. The
Agency notes that this is a living document that may be revised periodically without public notice. EPA welcomes
public comments on this document at any time and will consider those comments in any future revisions of this
document.
11
-------
Abbreviations & Acronyms
AS air sparging
BSFC brake-specific fuel capacity
BMP best management practice
Btu British thermal unit
ccf hundred cubic feet
CFC chlorofluorocarbon
cfm cubic feet per minute
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent of global warming potential
cy cubic yard
eGRID Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ft feet
ft3 cubic foot
GAC granular activated carbon
GHG greenhouse gas
gptm gallons per ton-mile
GWP global warming potential
F£AP hazardous air pollutant
HCFC hydrochlorofluorocarbon
HDPE high-density polyethylene
HFC hydrofluorocarbon
HP horsepower
ISCO in situ chemical oxidation
kW kilowatts of electric power
kWh kilowatt-hours of electricity
Ibs pounds
LCA life cycle assessment
MMBtu million British thermal units
mpg miles per gallon
MWh megawatt-hour
NP not provided
NOx nitrogen oxides
N/A not applicable
NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory
O&M operations and maintenance
OSRTI Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
P&T pump-and-treat
PLF partial load factor
PM10 particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or smaller
pmpg passenger miles per gallon
psi pounds per square inch
PVC polyvinyl chloride
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REC renewable energy certificate
RMPA Colorado-Eastern Wyoming eGRID Subregion and Geographic Descriptor
scfm standard cubic feet per minute
SOx sulfur oxides
SVE soil vapor extraction
SVOC semi-volatile organic compound
TBD to be determined
in
-------
Ton short ton (2,000 pounds)
(ig/L micrograms per liter
VFD variable frequency drive
VOC volatile organic compound
WRI World Resources Institute
IV
-------
Contents
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Purpose 2
1.3 Limitations 3
1.4 The Value of Footprint Analysis 3
1.5 Level of Effort and Cost 4
2.0 Green Remediation Metrics 5
2.1 Materials and Waste Metrics 6
2.1.1 Materials Metrics 6
2.1.2 Onsite Waste Metrics 7
2.1.3 Offsite Waste 8
2.2 Water Metrics 8
2.2.1 Onsite Water Metrics 8
2.2.2 Site-Specific Consideration for the Onsite Water Footprint 9
2.2.3 Offsite Water Use 10
2.3 Energy Metrics 10
2.4 Air Metrics 11
2.4.1 Onsite Air Metrics 12
2.4.2 Total Air Metrics 12
2.4.3 Further Categorization of Air Metrics 13
3.0 Footprint Methodology 15
3.1 Step 1: Set Goals and Scope of Analysis 15
3.2 Step 2: Gather Remedy Information 17
3.3 Step 3: Quantify Onsite Materials and Waste Metrics 17
3.3.1 Content of a Materials Footprint Analysis 18
3.3.2 Rules of Thumb and General Assistance for Quantifying Materials Use 19
3.3.3 Content of a Waste Footprint Analysis 19
3.3.4 Items Not Included in the Materials and Waste Footprint Analysis 20
3.4 Step 4: Quantify Onsite Water Metrics 20
3.4.1 Content of Onsite Water Footprint Analysis 20
3.5 Step 5: Quantify Energy and Air Metrics 22
3.5.1 Part 1 - Inventory Remedy Transportation, Equipment Use, Materials and Waste, Public
Water Use, and Offsite Services 23
3.5.2 Part 2 - Determine Remedy Energy Use 24
v
-------
3.5.3 Part 3 - Convert the Remedy Inventory into Energy and Air Metrics 26
3.6 Step 6: Qualitatively Describe Affected Ecosystem Services 28
3.7 Step 7: Present Results 28
4.0 Considerations for Interpreting Footprint Results 29
4.1 Data Quality 29
4.2 Tradeoffs between Metrics 30
4.3 Footprint Magnitude 30
5.0 Approaches to Reducing Footprints 33
5.1 Approaches to Reducing Materials and Waste Footprints 34
5.2 Approaches to Reducing Water Footprints 34
5.3 Approaches to Reducing Energy and Air Footprints 35
6.0 References... ..38
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Green Remediation Core Elements 1
Figure 3.1 Overview of Footprint Methodology 15
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Summary of Green Remediation Metrics 5
Table 3.1 Goals of Footprint Quantification 16
Table 3.2 Potential Onsite Use of Materials 18
List of Examples
Example 1 Data Quality - Transportation 31
Example 2 Data Quality -Electricity Generation 32
Example 3 Footprint Reductions from Optimization and Application of Renewable Energy 37
List of Appendices
Appendix A:Exhibits 40
Appendix B: Suggested Formats for Presenting the Footprint Analysis 73
Appendix C: Footprint Reduction Scenarios 87
VI
-------
1.0: Introduction
1.O Introduction
1.1 Background
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines green remediation as the practice of considering all
environmental effects of remedy implementation and incorporating options to minimize the environmental
footprint of cleanup actions. Green remediation strategies can include a detailed analysis in which components of
a remedy are closely examined and large contributions to the footprint are identified. More effective steps can
then be taken to reduce the footprint while meeting regulatory requirements driving the cleanup.
Use of the methodology can provide quantitative information about the footprint reductions gained by applying
EPA's green remediation best management practices (BMPs). Through ongoing efforts, the Agency is identifying
BMPs that apply to frequently used remedial technologies such as groundwater pump-and-treat (P&T) systems,
distinct project phases such as site investigation, or common sources of contamination such as leaking
underground storage tanks. Details about the BMPs are available through the green remediation initiative
sponsored by EPA's Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (as described on the CLU-IN
Green Remediation Focus website at www.cluin.org/greenremediation).
Two concepts are central to analyzing the environmental footprint of a cleanup. The first is to establish those
parameters (metrics) that are to be quantified, and the second is to establish a straightforward process
(methodology) for quantifying those metrics. The term "footprint" refers to the quantification of a specific metric
that has been assigned a particular meaning. For example, the "carbon footprint" is the quantification of carbon
dioxide (and other greenhouse gases [GHGs]) emitted into the
air by a particular activity, facility, or individual. This common
footprint measure has been established in the past because
emissions of carbon dioxide and other GHGs have been linked
to climate change. The term "environmental footprint" as
referenced in the methodology comprehensively includes
metrics such as energy use and water use as well as air
emissions to fully represent the effects a cleanup project may
have on the environment.
In context of the methodology, "metric" refers
to a project parameter for which a quantitative
value maybe:
• Derived mathematically
• Estimated through engineering details, or
• Extracted from past project records with
actual data.
This document presents EPA's metrics and methodology for conducting an environmental footprint analysis of
site cleanup activities and describes common approaches to reduce that footprint. The document's structure
corresponds to EPA's five core elements of green
remediation (Figure 1.1). Topics in the document
include:
The methodology's purpose and limitations, the
value of footprint analysis, and the level of effort
and cost for footprint analysis
Definitions of metrics aligning with the core
elements of green remediation
A seven-step process to quantify the metrics
o Step 1 - Set goals and scope of the analysis
o Step 2 - Gather and organize remedy
information
o Step 3 - Quantify materials and waste metrics
Figure 1.1. Green Remediation Core Elements
Materials
& Waste
Energy
Land&
Ecosystems
Water
Air&
Atmosphere
Greener Cleanups: Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint
February 2012
-------
1.0: Introduction
o Step 4 - Quantify water metrics
o Step 5 - Quantify energy and air metrics
o Step 6 - Qualitatively describe affected ecosystem services
o Step 7 - Present results
• Considerations for analyzing and utilizing footprint results
• Illustrative approaches to reduce the environmental footprints.
Appendix A of this document provides exhibits containing supporting technical information, Appendix B
provides suggested formats for presenting a quantified footprint, and Appendix C provides illustrative footprint
reduction scenarios.
The information needed and the process of obtaining the
information for this methodology are the same used to develop
remedy alternatives, design a remedy, or optimize a remedy. For
this reason, the Agency suggests that a footprint analysis be
conducted in concert with one or more of these project phases.
In context of the methodology, "cleanup"
or "remedy" generally refers to a remedial
project, corrective action, or comparable
effort conducted by government or private
organizations to address contaminated sites
under one or more programs.
1.2 Purpose
EPA recognizes that many factors are involved in quantifying the environmental footprint of a cleanup. The
Agency aimed to develop a methodology that is flexible, straightforward, and not overly burdensome to users or
the remedial process. The methodology relies on publicly available information and can be implemented through
standard spreadsheet software.
The methodology is intended to serve the following purposes:
• Facilitate implementation of EPA's Principles for Greener Cleanups
(http://www.epa.gov/oswer/greenercleanups/principles.html) by providing a methodology to quantify
materials, waste, water, energy, and air metrics that represent the environmental footprint of activities
involved with contaminated site cleanup. The metrics are designed to 1) reflect parameters that a remedy
project team has a relatively direct ability to change and 2) encourage practices that would result in
favorable changes to the metric values.
• Encourage (not require) quantification of these metrics for cleanups. The methodology is a general
framework to help site teams understand the remedy components with the greatest influence on the
project's environmental footprint. Quantifying the metrics can serve as an initial step in reducing the
remedy footprint. The overall process allows those involved in the remedial process to analyze a remedy
from another perspective and potentially yields viable and effective improvements that may not have been
identified otherwise.
• Provide technical suggestions on approaches to reduce the footprint of a remedy (but not guidance on
prioritizing the footprint reduction efforts).
• Expand technology transfer among stakeholders, by conveying EPA's lessons learned about footprint
analysis conducted at numerous and varied sites undergoing remediation.
• Provide a process for footprint analyses conducted on behalf of EPA and for use by EPA in evaluating
footprint analysis results submitted by other parties under any cleanup program.
Greener Cleanups: Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint
February 2012
-------
1.0: Introduction
• Fulfill action 8.2 of the Superfund Green Remediation Strategy to "develop an Agency methodology for
evaluating the environmental footprint of a cleanup" (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/greenremediation/sf-
gr-strategv.pdf).
1.3 Limitations
The methodology is not intended to be a detailed life cycle assessment (LCA) nor does it discourage the use of
LCA by remediation practitioners. Unlike an LCA, the methodology does not attempt to detail all natural resource
inputs and all environmental outputs, nor does it include an "impact assessment" that converts emissions and
metrics into environmental effects such as acidification, increased incidence of respiratory illness, human toxicity,
or ecotoxicity. The methodology uses a suitable number of green remediation metrics to represent each of the
green remediation core elements but limits the number of metrics to streamline the footprint analysis process. As
a result, EPA recognizes that these metrics may not capture some environmental effects or footprints associated
with a cleanup project.
The methodology is not intended for application to non-remediation projects or for submissions to other
organizations or programs with established methodologies for footprint analysis, GHG inventories, or similar
efforts. The methodology considers the mandates of Executive Order 13514 Federal Leadership in
Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance and EPA guidance on resource conservation and waste
minimization. It is intended to be applied in a manner consistent with the Agency's Principles for Greener
Cleanups and Superfund Green Remediation Strategy.
The methodology does not constitute an EPA requirement. Use of the methodology is intended to support the
remedial process and to help improve the environmental outcome of cleanup efforts but not to disrupt, delay, or
otherwise reduce protectiveness of a remedy.
1.4 The Value of Footprint Analysis
Greener cleanups can be implemented by applying BMPs without quantifying a remedy footprint or footprint
reductions. EPA's BMPs for green remediation address the most common cleanup activities posing opportunities
for footprint reduction (www.cluin.org/greenremediation). Most of the BMPs involve qualitative measures and
constitute relatively small modifications to standard operating procedures, such as instituting "no engine idling"
policies for vehicles and machinery, substituting potable water with available graywater for onsite needs, and
assuring maximum recycling of routine waste. Other BMPs may involve more significant process or equipment
changes, such as installing an onsite renewable energy system to meet a portion of, or all of, the energy demand of
cleanup equipment.
Footprint analysis brings a number of benefits to a project, including the following:
• Footprint reductions that might be achieved from making project improvements can be quantified.
• Aspects of a cleanup that dominate the footprint can be highlighted, allowing the project team and
stakeholders to more specifically target those aspects during remedy design and implementation.
• A cleanup project can be analyzed from a different perspective, which may lead to footprint reduction as
well as improvements in remedy effectiveness and efficiency that otherwise may not have been identified
by a more traditional evaluation.
A number of other parties recognize these and other benefits of footprint analysis, as evidenced by footprint
analysis tools recently developed by other agencies and organizations. Examples include the Sustainable
Remediation Tool (SRT), which was developed by the U.S. Air Force, and Site Wise, which was developed by
Greener Cleanups: Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint
February 2012 3
-------
1.0: Introduction
Battelle in conjunction with the U.S. Army and U.S. Navy. Analytical tools available from non-government
organizations include the "Guidance for Performing Footprint Analyses and Life-Cycle Assessments for the
Remediation Industry," which was developed by the Sustainable Remediation Forum.
Determining the footprint of a remedy can be a complex process depending on the level of detail and accuracy
sought from the analysis. The decision of whether to conduct a footprint analysis, the structure and detail of the
analysis, and the level of effort to conduct the analysis depend on several factors, including:
• Intended use of the footprint results. Will the results be used to assist with determining the footprint for
an entire organization or a portfolio of sites within the organization? Will the footprint be used to help
document or quantify footprint reductions?
• Complexity of a site cleanup. Is the cleanup likely to be dominated by one or two aspects such that
footprint analysis is not necessary in order to determine the largest footprint contributors? Without
undertaking calculations, is it apparent that the cleanup will have a very small footprint relative to other
cleanups within an organization's portfolio? Is the cleanup very complex (with many onsite and offsite
components to the footprint) or is it relatively simple?
The methodology does not dictate circumstances in which footprint analysis should be conducted. Users of the
methodology are encouraged to practice professional judgment and consult with other environmental
professionals to determine the usefulness of footprint analysis in a given set of circumstances.
1.5 Level of Effort and Cost
Application of the methodology is expected to add a negligible amount to the level of effort and cost associated
with overall remediation and a fraction of any particular remedial activity, such as a remedy design or an
optimization evaluation. For example, footprint analysis is expected to add approximately 10 percent to the level
of effort or cost of an optimization evaluation or less than 5 percent to the level of effort or cost of a remedial
design. The level of effort and cost will vary depending on the site complexity, experience in conducting footprint
analyses, and the level of analytical detail.
The level of effort to conduct a footprint analysis will vary depending on the cleanup project complexity, the
availability of information, and prior experience. Most information used in a footprint analysis is generated during
typical project phases or activities such as remedy design or remedy optimization and is documented in site
reports. Coordinating a footprint analysis with these and other activities can help minimize the level of effort
involved in footprint analysis.
The methodology focuses on green remediation metrics and therefore does not include quantification of cleanup
cost. The cost of implementing footprint reduction measures is expected to be considered separately by a project
team and evaluated on a project-by-project basis. Because cleanup costs often relate to the core elements of
greener cleanups (e.g., energy use, materials use, and waste disposal), many footprint reduction strategies can
result in cost savings over the life of a cleanup project. The costs and cost savings associated with footprint
reductions are project specific; for example, savings attributed to reduced energy use through energy efficiency
measures will depend on the unit costs of electricity and fuels, which vary by location and over time.
Greener Cleanups: Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint
February 2012
-------
2.0 Green Remediation Metrics
2.O Green Remediation Metrics
EPA's green remediation metrics encourage environmentally friendly behaviors that apply to each of the core
elements of greener cleanups and emphasize parameters that a remedy project team likely has the ability to
change. The metrics identified in this methodology are summarized in Table 2.1 and discussed below. Table 2.1
can be used to present the environmental footprint of a remedy, accompanied by supporting documentation as
outlined in this methodology and presented in Appendix B. A more detailed breakdown of the metrics noted in
Table 2.1 may be developed based on intermediate calculations in the footprint analysis and may be presented in
addition to these metrics.
Table 2.1. Summary of Green Remediation Metrics
Core
Element
Materials
& Waste
Water
Energy
Air
Land&
Ecosystems
Metric
M&W-l
M&W-2
M&W-3
M&W-4
M&W-5
M&W-6
M&W-7
W-l
W-2
W-3
W-4
E-l
E-2
E-2A
E-2B
E-2C
A-l
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
Refined materials used on site
Percent of refined materials from recycled or waste material
Unrefined materials used on site
Percent of unrefined materials from recycled or waste material
Onsite hazardous waste generated
Onsite non-hazardous waste generated
Percent of total potential onsite waste that is recycled or reused
Onsite water use (by source)
- Source, use, fate combination #1
- Source, use, fate combination #2
- Source, use, fate combination #3
- Source, use, fate combination #4
Total energy voluntarily derived from renewable resources
- Onsite generation or use and biodiesel use
Voluntary purchase of renewable electricity
Voluntary purchase of RECs
Onsite NOx, SOx, and PM10 emissions
Total NOx, SOx, and PM10 emissions
Total GHG emissions
Unit of
Measure
millions of gals
millions of gals
millions of gals
millions of gals
MMBtu
MMBtu
MWh
MWh
Ibs
Ibs
Ibs
Ibs
tons CO2e
Metric
Value
Qualitative description
RECs = Renewable energy certificates
NOx = Nitrogen oxides
SOx = Sulfur oxides
PM10 = F'articulate matter smaller than 10 microns in size
HAP = Hazardous air pollutants as defined by the Clean Air Act
MWh = megawatt-hour
MMBtu = million British thermal units
CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent of global warming potential
Greener Cleanups: Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint
February 2012
-------
2.0 Green Remediation Metrics
2.1 Materials and Waste Metrics
These metrics consider the materials used on site, the recycled content of those materials, the waste generated on
site, and the proportion of potential waste generated onsite that is subsequently reused or recycled. Although not
included in this footprint methodology, users may wish to add metrics for materials used off site or waste
generated off site.
2.1.1 Materials Metrics
The materials metrics consider the total amount of materials used onsite and the percentage of those materials that
are produced from recycled material, reused material, or waste material. The following materials metrics are
identified for this footprint methodology:
M&W-l. Refined materials used on site - This metric is presented in tons and refers to the mass of
manufactured or significantly processed materials that are used onsite and come from offsite sources.
Examples include chemicals, nutrients, food grade amendments, metals, plastics, and cement.
Why this Metric?
Raw materials are used in the manufacturing of refined materials. In addition, use of refined material
or the manufacturing of the material may result in waste generation. Reducing refined materials use
helps conserve raw materials and reduce potential waste generation. This metric and the other materials
and waste metrics are consistent with EPA's Reduce, Reuse, Recycle concept.
(http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/rrrX
M&W-2. Percent of refined materials from recycled or waste material - This metric refers to the percentage
of the "refined materials" that is produced using recycled or reused materials or is otherwise a waste product
of a manufacturing process. Examples include the portion of steel that is from recycled content, off-
specification food grade amendments that are otherwise waste and can be used as in situ bioremediation
reagents, and regenerated (not virgin) granular activated carbon (GAC) or regenerated ion exchange resin.
Why this Metric?
Use of materials from recycled products helps reduce the amount of raw materials consumed and the
amount of waste generated. Increasing the percentage of refined materials made from recycled or waste
materials helps conserve raw materials and reduce potential waste generation.
M& W-3. Unrefined materials used on site - This metric is presented in tons and refers to the mass of
materials that are used on site, come from offsite sources, and generally have not undergone significant
processing or refinement. Examples include clean fill, sand and gravel, clay, limestone, bentonite, and the
aggregate portion of concrete or asphalt. The term "unrefined materials" does not refer to raw materials that
are the feedstock of a "refined material" as identified above.
Why this Metric?
Unrefined materials use is included as a metric for the same reasons that refined materials use is
included as a metric. Unrefined materials are distinguished from refined materials for three reasons: 1)
unrefined materials (e.g., clean fill) involve less refinement and processing than refined materials; 2)
unrefined materials generally consist of common, more plentiful resources than the raw materials used
to manufacture refined materials; and 3) unrefined materials are often used in substantial quantities and
may overshadow the use of refined materials.
Greener Cleanups: Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint
February 2012
-------
2.0 Green Remediation Metrics
M&W-4. Percent of unrefined materials from recycled or waste material - This metric refers to the
percentage of "unrefined materials" obtained from recycled or reused materials or is otherwise a waste
product. An example includes crushed concrete that is brought from offsite sources and used as onsite fill.
Why this Metric?
This metric is included for the same reasons as the analogous metric for refined materials. Unrefined
materials are distinguished from refined materials for the three reasons described under unrefined
materials use.
2.1.2 Onsite Waste Metrics
The waste metrics consider the total amount of waste generated on site and the percentage of total potential onsite
waste that is recycled or reused. The following waste metrics are identified for this footprint methodology:
M& W-5. Onsite hazardous waste generated - This metric is presented in tons and refers to the mass of
hazardous waste generated on site and disposed of at an offsite hazardous waste facility or in a regulated
onsite disposal unit. Examples include excavated soil, treatment plant residuals, and recovered product that
are disposed of in this manner.
Why this Metric?
Onsite hazardous waste is generated as a direct result of onsite activities and increases the demand for
infrastructure needed to treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. Reducing onsite hazardous waste
generation by reducing the quantity of waste or the toxicity of waste helps conserve hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal capacity.
M& W-6. Onsite non-hazardous waste generated - This metric is presented in tons and refers to the mass of
non-hazardous waste that is generated on site and disposed of off site or in a regulated onsite disposal unit.
Examples include excavated soil, treatment plant residuals, and recovered product that are disposed of in this
manner.
Why this Metric?
Onsite non-hazardous waste is generated as a direct result of onsite activities and increases the demand
for disposal options, including landfill space. Reducing onsite waste generation helps conserve
disposal capacity.
M&W-7. Percent of total potential onsite waste that is recycled or reused - This metric reflects the total
potential waste (hazardous or non-hazardous) generated on site that is recycled or reused on or offsite.
Examples of wastes that are considered recycled or reused are as follows:
• Treated soil or crushed concrete from the remedy that is used as fill on or off site
• Cleared vegetation that is chipped, shredded, or composted and used on or off site for mulch or
compost
• GAC or ion exchange resin that is sent off site for regeneration instead of disposal
• Recovered product from remedial activities that is recycled or reused.
Consistent with Clarification on Counting Waste-to-Energy in Waste Diversion Goals As per Executive Order
13423 and Implementing Instructions (January 14, 2008) waste of high heat content that is used for energy
recovery is not considered recycled or reused.
Greener Cleanups: Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint
February 2012
-------
2.0 Green Remediation Metrics
Why this Metric?
Reusing and recycling potential waste helps reduce the demand for disposal capacity and conserve raw
materials. This metric is included with the other materials and waste metrics to help distinguish
between efforts to reduce waste and efforts to recycle and reuse potential waste.
2.1.3 Offsite Waste
A remediation project team may have the ability to reduce waste that is generated as part of onsite activities
through BMPs, but does not have much control over the waste generation, reusing, recycling, and disposal
practices of material manufacturers or other offsite service providers. As a result, for most project teams, efforts to
reduce offsite waste will likely rely on reduced use of materials or reduced use of offsite activities that generate
waste. In addition, quantifying waste generated offsite and determining the fate of that waste is complex. For
these two reasons, an offsite waste metric is not included in this methodology. Although this methodology does
not include an offsite waste metric, project teams are not discouraged from evaluating waste that is generated off
site in support of a remedy.
2.2 Water Metrics
These metrics consider the water used on site during cleanup and the specific sources and fates of the used water.
Although not included in this footprint methodology, users may wish to add metrics for water used off site during
supplemental activities.
2.2.1 Onsite Water Metrics
The onsite water metrics consider the source and amount of water used on site, as well as the fate of the water
after use. Site-specific factors are discussed further in Section 2.2.2. Onsite water metrics are identified as
follows:
W-l, W-2, W-3, W-4. Onsite water use - Onsite water metrics are presented in millions of gallons of each
source of water that is used on site, including brief descriptions of the sources, uses, and fates of the various
sources of water used. Water sources considered in this metric include but are not limited to the following:
• Water from the public potable water supply
• Extracted groundwater from each local aquifer
• Surface water
• Reclaimed water
• Collected or diverted stormwater.
The use of the water includes but is not limited to the following:
• Equipment decontamination
• Extraction and treatment
• Injection for plume migration control
• Chemical blending.
Potential fates of the used water include but are not limited to the following:
• Reuse in a public or domestic water supply
• Use as industrial process water
Greener Cleanups: Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint
February 2012 8
-------
2.0 Green Remediation Metrics
Discharge to groundwater (specify the aquifer)
Discharge to fresh surface water
Irrigation
Discharges to brackish or saline water
Discharge to the atmosphere (i.e., as water vapor)
Discharge to the sanitary sewer.
Why this Metric?
Water is a natural resource that has beneficial uses that depend on the source and quality of the water.
The use of water as part of the remedy and the fate of the water after use can affect water quality and
its potential for beneficial reuse. Reducing water use, choosing the appropriate water resources,
returning water to the environment with equal or improved quality, or reusing the water all contribute
to conserving valuable water resources.
2.2.2 Site-Specific Consideration for the Onsite Water Footprint
Water is typically a local or regional resource that may be plentiful or scarce. In addition, there may be several
types of local water resources available, and after use, the water may lose its original quality, retain its original
quality, or improve in quality. These concepts are discussed further below.
Water is typically a local or regional resource. The same water footprint calculated for two similar sites in
two different parts of the country may be interpreted differently by local site stakeholders. For example,
groundwater extraction, treatment, and discharge to surface water in one state may be seen as use of a
valuable, potential source of local drinking water. However, groundwater extraction, treatment, and discharge
in another state may not be of concern for water use if the groundwater in that particular location is abundant,
if groundwater is of relatively low quality, or surface water is the primary source of drinking water for that
location.
Various types of water with varying water quality may be used in association with cleanup activities.
For example, potable water provided by a water supply utility is a refined water resource that likely involves
extraction, treatment, and distribution prior to use. Groundwater and surface water, depending on the aquifer
or source, may be of drinking water quality without treatment, may be of drinking water quality with some
limited treatment, or may not practicably be used for drinking water or other beneficial purposes.
Groundwater and surface water may also be used in industrial processes or for irrigation without prior
treatment.
The onsite use of water can affect how it is discharged and how it can be reused. Water use can include
groundwater extraction and treatment, which typically improves water quality (in addition to removing
contamination). Therefore, extracted and treated groundwater may potentially have more uses than other
uncontaminated water from the same aquifer. Water used in single-pass heating or cooling systems (e.g.,
open-loop water source heat pumps) may cause a change in temperature that does not significantly affect its
potential use for other purposes. Public water used for blending chemicals that are injected into an aquifer or
added to the process stream in a water treatment plant reduces the quality of the used public water because it
is blended with other water of lesser quality and can no longer be used directly for public consumption.
Water may be returned to the environment in the same, improved, or reduced quality as a result of
cleanup activities. For example, discharge of treated groundwater from a groundwater P&T system to the
subsurface may involve returning that water to its original aquifer and therefore maintain the original
groundwater resource. By contrast, the treated groundwater might be discharged to brackish surface water that
Greener Cleanups: Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint
February 2012
-------
2.0 Green Remediation Metrics
is not of suitable quality for drinking, irrigation, or industrial uses, and therefore, the extracted groundwater
would no longer be available as a fresh water resource.
2.2.3 Offsite Water Use
Offsite water use refers to the quantity of water that is used off site for activities such as electricity generation at a
power plant or manufacturing. Unlike onsite water use, offsite water is used for many purposes and may occur in
a variety of geographic locations. Information may not be readily available regarding the source of the water, the
specific use of the water, the fate of the used water, and the scarcity/availability of water resources in the areas
where it is being used. Due to these sources of uncertainty and the level of effort that would be required to better
understand offsite water use, an offsite water metric is not included in this methodology. It is noted, however, that
offsite water use will generally decrease when other metrics (e.g., energy use and materials use) decrease.
Although this methodology does not include an offsite water metric, project teams are not discouraged from
evaluating water that is used offsite in support of a remedy.
2.3 Energy Metrics
The energy metrics consider the total amount of energy used by the remedy (including onsite and offsite
activities), and energy coming from renewable resources. The following energy metrics are identified for this
footprint methodology:
E-l. Total energy use - This metric refers to the total amount of energy used by the remedy for onsite and
offsite activities including electricity generation, transportation, materials manufacturing, and other offsite
activities that support the remedy.
Why this Metric?
Energy use involves the use of natural energy resources, which puts strain on the existing energy
infrastructure, and can result in waste streams. Therefore, reducing total energy use through energy
efficiency measures and efficient cleanup helps conserve natural energy resources, decreases demand
on the existing energy infrastructure, and decreases associated waste generation, www.epa.gov/energy
E-2. Total energy voluntarily derived from renewable resources - This metric category refers to renewable
energy that a project team voluntarily generates or uses in place of energy derived from other resources. The
metric category is comprised of three sub-metrics that distinguish between various forms of renewable energy
production and use. Each of the three sub-metrics is described below, and additional information regarding
renewable energy as it pertains to this methodology is included in Exhibit 2.1 (see Appendix A).
E-2A. Onsite generation or use and biodiesel use - This sub-metric refers to renewable energy that is
generated on site and biodiesel used both on site and offsite. Examples include the onsite use of landfill
gas in place of natural gas and the use of biodiesel in place of diesel for heavy equipment use or
transportation. Other examples include the generation of electricity from onsite renewable energy systems
(e.g., photovoltaic modules, wind turbines) or generation of heat from onsite solar thermal systems.
Systems that are immediately adjacent to the site and provide the renewable energy directly to the site are
also included. The value of this metric can be higher than the value of the total energy use metric if
renewable energy generated on site exceeds the energy use by the remedy and is exported off site for use
by others. To be counted toward this metric, the rights to the renewable energy generated by the systems
described here need to be retained by the cleanup project and not transferred to other parties or facilities.
Greener Cleanups: Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint
February 2012 10
-------
2.0 Green Remediation Metrics
Why this Metric?
Generating and using renewable energy in place of conventional energy helps conserve natural energy
resources and reduces waste generation and emissions associated with many conventional sources of
energy. In addition, renewable energy generation at the point of use (i.e., on site) helps avoid energy
losses due to the transmission of energy from one location to another. Renewable energy in this metric
is the most verifiable form of renewable energy production and use for a remedy and therefore is
distinguished from the renewable energy in the other sub-metrics.
E-2B. Voluntary purchase of renewable electricity - This sub-metric refers to the voluntary purchase of
renewable electricity from an electricity provider in the form of a "green pricing" or "green marketing"
product. In regulated electricity markets, renewable electricity may be purchased through the grid from
the electric utility by paying a premium for renewable electricity (i.e., buying a "green pricing" product).
In competitive electricity markets, the utility distributes the electricity and renewable electricity may be
purchased from an electricity generator that offers renewable electricity (i.e., buying a "green marketing"
product). This metric does not include the renewable electricity that is purchased by default when
purchasing standard grid electricity.
Why this Metric?
Purchasing renewable electricity contributes to the development of large-scale renewable electricity
projects that are independent of a remedy. For the purpose of this methodology, this form of purchased
renewable electricity is considered more verifiable than purchasing RECs because of the substantial
variability in the integrity and environmental attributes of RECs. For this reason, purchased renewable
electricity from electricity providers is distinguished from purchasing RECs.
E-2C. Voluntary Purchase of RECs - This sub-metric refers to the direct purchase of RECs. Refer to
Exhibits 2.1 and 2.2 for more information on RECs.
Why this Metric?
Purchasing renewable electricity through the purchase of RECs contributes to the development of
large-scale renewable electricity projects that are independent of a remedy. Because of the substantial
variability in the integrity and environmental attributes of RECs, they are distinguished from the other
forms of renewable electricity.
2.4 Air Metrics
The air metrics consider emissions of GHGs, nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), particulate matter less
than 10 microns in size (PM10), and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). For the purpose of the methodology, NOx,
SOx, and PM10 are combined into a single group at the summary stage to streamline footprint presentation. HAPs
refer to the original list of toxic air pollutants defined by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and subsequent
modifications. Additional information related to GHGs can be found on EPA's Climate Change website
(www.epa.gov/climatechange). Additional information related to NOx, SOx, and PM10 is available from EPA
online at http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair and additional information about HAPs can be found on EPA's Air
Toxics website (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/pollutants/atwsmod.html).
Organizations might purchase emissions off-sets or voluntarily purchase renewable electricity from an electricity
provider or through the purchase of RECs (see metrics E-2B and E-2C). For the purpose of this methodology, the
air metrics reflect project emissions before any potential reductions from these types of purchases in order to put
primary emphasis on improvements that directly reduce emissions associated with the remedy. Although
emissions reductions associated with these voluntary purchases of off-sets and renewable electricity are not
considered in the air metrics, voluntary purchase of these products are still encouraged (see metrics E-2B and E-
Greener Cleanups: Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint
February 2012
11
-------
2.0 Green Remediation Metrics
2C). Refer to Exhibit 2.2 (see Appendix A) for more information related to emissions reductions associated
voluntary purchases of emissions off-sets, renewable electricity, and RECs.
2.4.1 Onsite Air Metrics
A-l. Onsite NOx, SOx, and PM10 emissions - This metric refers to the sum of the onsite emissions for NOx,
SOx, and PM10 measured in pounds before consideration of potential reductions from voluntary purchases of
emissions off-sets, renewable electricity, RECs, or similar products.
Why this Metric?
NOx, SOx, and PM10 emissions are all examples of criteria pollutants as defined by the Clean Air Act.
NOx, SOx, and PM10 each adversely affect local and regional air quality in various ways. Some of the
adverse effects are detrimental to the environment (e.g., acid rain caused by NOx and SOx), and some
adverse effects are directly detrimental to human health (e.g., increase in incidence of respiratory
illness caused by NOx, SOx, and PM10). Fossil fuel combustion is a source for all three of these
pollutants. Other sources also exist for each pollutant, including various industrial processes and PM10
emissions associated with dust generation. Reducing on-site air emissions of these pollutants by
reducing fossil fuel use on site, using emissions control technologies on onsite equipment, suppressing
onsite dust generation, and employing other practices helps reduce adverse effects on a local scale.
A-2. Onsite HAP emissions - This metric refers to onsite combined HAP emissions (i.e., the sum of all listed
HAPs) measured in pounds before consideration of potential reductions from voluntary purchases of
emissions off-sets, renewable electricity, RECs, or similar products.
Why this Metric?
HAP emissions adversely affect air quality by increasing toxicity. Reducing onsite air emissions of
HAPs by modifying onsite remedial practices and using emissions control technologies for onsite
processes helps reduce the adverse effects of these pollutants on a local scale.
2.4.2 Total Air Metrics
The following three total air metrics described in this subsection refer to combined onsite and offsite emissions.
Offsite air emissions include emissions associated with electricity generation, materials manufacturing,
transportation, and offsite services used during the cleanup.
A-3. Total NOx, SOx, andPMW emissions - This metric refers to the total onsite and offsite NOx, SOx, and
PM10 emissions measured in pounds before consideration of potential reductions from voluntary purchases of
emissions off-sets, renewable electricity, RECs, or similar products.
Why this Metric?
As discussed above, NOx, SOx, and PM10 each adversely affect both local and regional air quality in
various ways. Therefore, reducing total emissions of these pollutants (i.e., onsite and offsite emissions)
can reduce the adverse effects of these pollutants on a regional scale or at the local scale in other
regions distant from the cleanup.
A-4. Total HAP emissions - This metric refers to the total onsite and offsite HAP emissions measured in
pounds before consideration of potential reductions from voluntary purchases of emissions off-sets,
renewable electricity, RECs, or similar products.
Greener Cleanups: Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint
February 2012
12
-------
2.0 Green Remediation Metrics
Why this Metric?
As discussed above, HAPs adversely affect air quality by increasing toxicity. Therefore, reducing total
emissions of these pollutants (i.e., onsite and offsite emissions) can improve air quality on a regional
scale, particularly for those HAPs that are persistent in the atmosphere such as mercury.
A-5. GHG emissions - This metric refers to the total onsite and offsite GHG emissions associated with the
remedy measured in tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) of global warming potential before
consideration of potential reductions from voluntary purchases of emissions off-sets, renewable electricity,
RECs, or similar products. Onsite emissions are not presented separately from offsite emissions because the
effects of GHGs are independent of the location of the emissions. GHGs, global warming potential, and CO2e
are discussed in more detail in Exhibit 2.3 (Appendix A).
Why this Metric?
Greenhouse gases contribute to climate change, which can adversely affect climate-sensitive systems
such as human health, agriculture, natural ecosystems, coastal areas, and heating or cooling needs
(www.epa.gov/climatechangeX Reducing greenhouse gas emissions can help reduce the potential for
significant changes in climate that might adversely affect climate-sensitive systems.
2.4.3 Further Categorization of Air Metrics
In quantifying the onsite and total air metrics presented above and in Table 2.1, this methodology uses a structure
based on three "scopes" for air emissions. The scopes are not individual air metrics for this methodology; rather,
they are a suggested means of organizing and calculating the emissions metrics to provide insight in the sources
of the emissions and to provide a parallel structure to other forms of emissions tracking. This structure is in
general agreement with the approach recommended by the World Resources Institute (WRI) Greenhouse Gas
Protocol. The approach based on scopes is also reflected by a number of regulatory, non-profit, and other
organizations, such as the former EPA Climate Leaders Program, the Climate Registry, the Chicago Climate
Exchange, various GHG inventories, and Executive Order 13514. The specific calculations and backup
documentation for air emission metrics used in this methodology are described in Section 3.0; these metrics can
be calculated without strictly adhering to the suggested organizational approach for emission scopes.
Onsite (Scope 1) - This scope of air emissions occurs from within the site boundaries. This is generally
consistent with the WRI Scope 1 emissions. WRI defines Scope 1 emissions as those derived from equipment
"owned" by the facility, even if these emissions occur off-property. However, unlike a manufacturing facility
or institution that may participate in a GHG inventory, very few remediation projects actually "own"
equipment. Therefore, the definition of Scope 1 emissions has been modified for the purpose of this
methodology to include only those emissions from onsite activities. Examples of Scope 1 emissions include
emissions associated with fuel combusted on site in heavy equipment.
Electricity generation (Scope 2) - This scope of emissions results from offsite generation of electricity used
by the project. Consistent with WRI approach, this scope of air emissions does not include air emissions
associated with the transmission of electricity from the power station to the site through the electricity grid.
Offsite (Scope 3) - This scope of air emissions results from remedy-related emissions not covered by the
"onsite" or "electricity generation" categories. For this methodology, offsite air emissions are further
subdivided as follows:
• Transportation (Scope 3a) air emissions are those associated with offsite transportation of personnel,
equipment, and materials.
Greener Cleanups: Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint
February 2012
13
-------
2.0 Green Remediation Metrics
• Other offsite (Scope 3b) air emissions are those associated with offsite activities such as materials
manufacturing, offsite services (e.g., laboratory analysis), transmission of electricity through the
electricity grid, and resource extraction for fuels used in electricity generation.
Because energy and air emissions are closely linked, these categories also apply to calculations and backup
documentation for energy use. For example, the electricity used on site (i.e., electricity as measured by the
project's utility meter) would be considered "onsite" energy use. The waste energy at the offsite electricity power
plant would be considered "electricity generation" energy use. The energy lost in transmitting the electricity to
the site would be considered "other offsite" energy use. Similarly, energy use in the form of onsite diesel fuel
would be considered "onsite" energy use whereas the energy used to produce the diesel would be considered
"other offsite" energy use.
Greener Cleanups: Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint
February 2012
14
-------
3.0 Footprint Methodology
3.O Footprint Methodology
As illustrated in Figure 3.1, this methodology is a seven-step process that begins with setting goals and scoping
the analysis and then gathering and organizing information about the remedy to be footprinted. This information
is then used to quantify the onsite materials and waste metrics and the onsite water metrics. The materials, waste,
and water information, plus other remedy information, is then used to quantify the energy and air metrics. After
the metrics have been calculated, ecosystem services that are affected during remedy implementation are
described qualitatively. The process ends with presenting the results in a manner similar to that illustrated in
Table 2.1 and described in Appendix B.
After the results are presented, the results can be analyzed to identify large contributors to the metrics and
evaluate opportunities for footprint reduction. In general, the methodology utilizes publicly available information
and can be implemented using standard spreadsheet software.
Figure 3.1. Overview of Footprint Methodology
Step 1:
Set Goals and Scope of Analysis
Step 2:
Gather Remedy Information
Step 3:
Quantify Onsite Materials and Waste Metrics
Step 4:
Quantify Onsite Water Metrics
Step 5:
Quantify Energy and Air Metrics
Step 6:
Qualitatively Describe Affected Ecosystem Services
Step 7:
Present Results
3.1 Step 1: Set Goals and Scope of Analysis
Stepl
The first step of a footprint analysis is to determine the goals and scope of the analysis. Other activities related to
this step are establishing the boundaries and functional unit for the analysis.
The goal of the analysis typically varies with the remedial stage and with other site-specific factors. Table 3.1
summarizes likely goals of the footprint quantification based on remedy stage.
Greener Cleanups: Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint
February 2012
IS
-------
3.0 Footprint Methodology
Table 3.1. Goals of Footprint Quantification
Remedy Phase
Development of remedy
alternatives*
Remedial Design and
Remedy Optimization
Other
Typical Goal of Footprint Quantification
• Identify components of various remedy alternatives that are large contributors to
footprints
• Identify remedy components that are large contributors to the remedy footprint
• View remedy from different perspective to identify opportunities for
improvement
• Identify:
o Design components that are large contributors to footprints during
construction or during remedy operation
o Refinements or data gaps in the conceptual site model that, if addressed,
might help reduce footprints (e.g., improved characterization that refines the
known contamination source area)
o Potential opportunities for footprint reductions
• Quantify and document emissions
* Results of a footprint analysis during the development of remedy alternatives may be subject to substantial uncertainty due to limited
remedy-specific information available and the absence of actual data or engineering design estimates.
The scope of the analysis will depend, in part, on the goals of the analysis. For example, the goals of one analysis
may be addressed by including only active components of a remedy (e.g., system operation, chemical injections,
or excavation) and omitting one or more components of a monitoring program whereas the goals of another
analysis may only be adequately addressed by including in the scope all project components affecting the
environment, including the remediation monitoring program. Similarly, the goals of one analysis may be
addressed by including only the soil component of a remedy and omitting the groundwater component whereas
the goals of another study may only be adequately addressed by considering the site-wide remedy for all affected
media. The scope of the analysis significantly influences the data to be gathered in Step 2 of the methodology.
The boundary of study is also established at the outset of a footprint analysis. The study boundary is the
conceptual boundary around a system or project that determines the processes that are included and the processes
that are excluded. One example of a study boundary is the physical boundary of the cleanup site. For example, a
footprint analysis that uses the physical site boundary as the study boundary would only include air emissions
from onsite sources and would exclude the emissions associated with generating the electricity obtained through
the electrical grid. This methodology generally establishes broad study boundaries that include onsite and offsite
processes, resource extraction and processing for fuels, resource extraction and processing of manufactured
materials, demolition and disposal of wastes, and project infrastructure. Because the methodology establishes
these boundaries, it is not necessary for the user of the methodology to independently establish the boundaries.
Another common concept determined early in a footprint analysis is the functional unit, which is the basic unit of
the item undergoing the footprint analysis. In the manufacturing sector, the functional unit may be a single
manufactured item. In the remediation community, the functional unit is commonly the life cycle of a remedy
from the present to the attainment of remedial action objectives and site closure. Alternative functional units could
be a year of system operation for a long-term remedy, a cubic yard of soil to be treated, a gallon of water to be
treated, or a cubic yard of aquifer to be restored. Although the methodology generally assumes that the most
common functional unit is the life of a remedy from the present to the attainment of remedial action objectives
and site closure, the user may decide to use an alternative functional unit as appropriate.
Greener Cleanups: Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint
February 2012
16
-------
3.2 Step 2: Gather Remedy Information
3.0 Footprint Methodology
Step 2
This step of the footprint methodology involves collecting information about remedy design, construction, and
operation. The information includes design parameters, activities conducted, and types of materials used. Exhibit
3.1 (in Appendix A) provides examples of this type of information for several common remedies.
The quality of the information depends on the stage of the remedy when the footprint analysis is conducted. The
information will likely be relatively uncertain during the early design stage but will increase in certainty as the
design stage proceeds and as the remedy is implemented. The degree of uncertainty in the remedy information
used in the footprint analysis should be documented as the footprint analysis proceeds, along with the likely
effects of the uncertainty on the results of the analysis.
The typical outcome of the information gathering step is a bulleted list of remedy information. The footprint
reduction scenarios presented in Appendix C illustrate the level of detail that is generally expected for this step of
the process. Although the scenarios provide examples for data gathering, professional judgment is used on a site-
specific basis to determine the appropriate level of detail to meet the objectives of the footprint analysis.
Some of the information to be gathered in this stage and in the next stages of the footprint analysis process is
generally available from existing documents and the site contractor. Moreover, the information needed and the
process of obtaining the information is similar to the information and process used while preparing design
documents, remedial action progress reports, or conducting remedy optimization evaluations. For this reason, it is
highly suggested that the footprint analysis be conducted in concert with one or more of these other activities.
Depending on the information available, some technical remediation expertise may be required to translate some
aspects of the remedy into useable information. For example, the level of effort and type and size of equipment
needed to excavate a given volume of contaminated soil may be estimated to provide information for the footprint
analysis, or the amount of GAC to treat process water may be estimated for a specified flow rate and contaminant
load. Although the methodology cannot provide all technical details needed to complete this step for all remedies,
the exhibits in Appendix A of this document convey examples of fundamental information.
The level of detail achieved in the footprint analysis is heavily dependent on the information gathering step
because this step will determine the information that is either included in the analysis or excluded from the
analysis. A tradeoff arises between the level of detail achieved in the analysis and the level of effort for
conducting the analysis. This methodology suggests setting and documenting the following two types of screening
limits to select the activities or materials included in the analysis:
• A screening limit based on a specified percentage of the maximum contributor to a particular metric
• A screening limit based on a specified magnitude for a particular metric.
The limits and the reasoning for selecting them should be clearly documented. Based on professional judgment,
an item or activity that is expected to contribute less than either of the limits can be omitted from the analysis with
an appropriate level of documentation. Both types of limits should be applied to each of the green remediation
metrics or grouping of metrics because an item that is a negligible contributor for one metric (such as GHG
emissions) may be a significant contributor for another metric (such as onsite water use). Exhibit 3.2 (Appendix
A) presents a screening approach that can be used and an example application of it.
3.3 Step 3: Quantify Onsite Materials and Waste Metrics
StepS
The methodology involves quantifying materials from off site that are used on site and quantifying waste that is
generated on site. This quantification is an accounting of the significant materials used, the recycled content of
those materials, various wastes generated, and the portion of that waste that is recycled or reused. The primary
Greener Cleanups: Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint
February 2012 17
-------
3.0 Footprint Methodology
challenges associated with this step include 1) converting the various quantities of materials and wastes into
common units for each of the metrics; 2) recognizing recycling and reuse when it occurs; and 3) presenting
information in a clear and concise manner.
3.3.1 Content of a Materials Footprint Analysis
To assist with identifying materials used on site, Table 3.2 provides materials typically involved in various
remedy activities. Where a material is comprised of a known combination of refined and unrefined materials, it is
appropriate to distinguish between the refined and unrefined portions. For example, concrete is approximately 15
percent refined materials and 79 percent unrefined material, and the remaining 6 percent is water (see Section
3.3.2 for more information). The use of one ton of concrete therefore is considered 0.15 tons of refined material
and 0.79 tons of unrefined material.
Materials that exceed the screening limits discussed in Section 3.2 and Exhibit 3.2 would be included in the
calculation of the footprint. Materials that fall below these limits would be excluded from the calculation of the
footprint. Materials that are excluded should be described with an appropriate level of documentation and can be
addressed through qualitative BMPs for green remediation.
Appendix B includes a sample table format for organizing a materials footprint analysis. Examples of completed
tables are presented in the footprint reduction scenarios provided in Appendix C.
Table 3.2. Potential Onsite Use of Materials
The materials listed are "refined" as defined by this methodology unless marked with an asterisk (*).
• Wells
o Grout
o Well casing (PVC or steel)
o Sand/grave 1/bentonite*
• Piping
o Steel
o Plastic (PVC, HPDE, other)
• Buildings and foundations
o Concrete**
o Steel
• Cutoff walls
o Sheet pile (PVC, steel)
o Slurry (bentonite, grout, fill)**
• Geomembranes/liners/caps
o PVC, HOPE
o Clay*
o Asphalt**
* Unrefined material
PVC = polyvinyl chloride
• Treatment chemicals/materials
o GAC
o Oxidants (e.g., hydrogen peroxide)
o Acids (e.g., sulfuric acid)
o Bases (e.g., sodium hydroxide)
o Flocculants (e.g., ferric chloride)
o Polymer
o Well rehabilitation chemicals
• Injection reagents
o Oxidants (e.g., permanganate)
o Acid (e.g., sulfuric acid)
o Catalysts (e.g., ferrous sulfate)
o Zero-valent iron
o Nutrients, electron donors (e.g., vegetable oil)
• Other
o Fertilizers
o Mulch/compost*
o Process equipment (PVC, HDPE, steel)
^^combination of refined and unrefined materials
HDPE = high density polyethylene
Greener Cleanups: Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint
February 2012
18
-------
3.0 Footprint Methodology
3.3.2 Rules of Thumb and General Assistance for Quantifying Materials Use
Quantifying materials use in tons can be challenging during any phase of a remedy because many materials are
ordered or described in different units, such as feet of pipe, square feet of plastic membrane, or gallons of
chemical reagents. Some material use can also be difficult to quantify if many small components are used (e.g.,
treatment system valves, fittings, and piping). In addition, some commonly used construction materials (e.g.,
steel) include significant recycled content but the recycled content is not necessarily communicated to the
purchaser. For this reason, rules of thumb are useful to simplify the materials inventory process when more site-
specific information is not readily available. Exhibits 3.3 through 3.8 (Appendix A) provide general information
and rules of thumb for this purpose.
• Exhibit 3.3 provides densities of common materials.
• Exhibit 3.4 provides the approximate materials content of commonly used aqueous chemical solutions.
• Exhibit 3.5 provides estimated materials use for piping and wiring runs.
• Exhibit 3.6 provides estimated materials use for well installation.
• Exhibit 3.7 provides estimated materials use for process equipment and building construction.
• Exhibit 3.8 provides reasonable assumptions for recycled content of steel, concrete, and asphalt, which
are construction materials with a significant percentage of recycled content.
3.3.3 Content of a Waste Footprint Analysis
The following waste streams are commonly associated with remediation and may significantly contribute to
onsite waste generation:
• Drill cuttings and used drilling mud
• Excavated soil for offsite disposal
• Construction debris
• Treatment plant residue
• Spent GAC.
Many of the above potential waste streams can be reused or recycled. Examples include spent GAC, which often
can be regenerated and reused rather than sent to a landfill for disposal.
The following waste streams are also commonly associated with remediation but may be too small to merit
inclusion in the waste footprint.
• Used packaging
• Used personal-protective equipment that is disposable.
Waste streams that exceed the screening limits discussed in Section 3.2 and Exhibit 3.2 would be included in the
calculation of the footprint. Waste streams that fall below these limits would be excluded from the calculation of
the footprint. Waste streams that are excluded should be described with an appropriate level of documentation and
can be addressed through qualitative BMPs for green remediation.
Quantifying waste generation is generally straightforward during remedy design and remedy implementation
because significant waste generation typically results in significant costs that need detailed analysis and
documentation. For this reason, general information and rules of thumb for waste generation are not provided as
has been done for materials use.
Greener Cleanups: Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint
February 2012 19
-------
3.0 Footprint Methodology
Appendix B includes a sample table format for organizing a waste footprint analysis. Examples of completed
tables are presented in the footprint reduction scenarios provided in Appendix C.
3.3.4 Items Not Included in the Materials and Waste Footprint Analysis
The methodology does not include in the materials metric the raw materials used in manufacturing processes or
materials used in other offsite activities that support the remedy because the project team often does not have
direct control over these materials. Similarly, it does not consider waste generation associated with materials
manufacturing or other offsite activities that support the remedy. Emphasis instead is placed on reducing onsite
materials use, increasing the recycled content in the materials that are used, reducing onsite waste generation,
and recycling or reusing materials that have served their purpose.
Although water is a "material" in a broad sense, this methodology considers water a separate core element of
green remediation with its own metrics for footprint analysis. Therefore, water used in a cleanup is not included
in the materials metric. Similarly, water discharged to an offsite treatment plant is not considered in the waste
metric. The production and treatment of water, however, are considered in the energy and air metrics discussed
in Section 3.5 because the production and treatment of water involves energy use and air emissions.
Fuels such as gasoline, diesel, and natural gas are also "materials" in a broad sense, but this methodology does
not include fuels in the materials metric because the production and use of fuels are considered thoroughly in
the energy and air metrics discussed in Section 3.5.
Equipment that is used only temporarily for a remedy is not considered in the materials metric when it is
brought on site and is not considered recycled or reused in the waste metric when it is removed from the site.
Examples of equipment that are not included in the materials or waste metrics are contractor equipment used at
other sites (e.g., heavy equipment, mixing tanks, and hoses) and rental equipment (e.g., portable generators or
air compressors for sampling). Equipment that is dedicated to the cleanup remedy, such as well extraction
pumps or tanks for treatment of extracted groundwater, should be included in the materials and waste metrics
when they are used and decommissioned, depending on the level of detail desired in the footprint analysis.
3.4 Step 4: Quantify Onsite Water Metrics
Step 4
The methodology involves quantifying onsite water use with emphasis on reducing onsite water use and
returning water of high quality to productive use. Activities in this step include:
• Distinguishing among various local and onsite water sources
• Identifying the quality of the water used from each source
• Quantifying the amount of water used from each source
• Identifying the use of the water from each source
• Distinguishing among various fates of the water from each source after use.
The following section discusses each of these items in more detail.
3.4.1 Content of Onsite Water Footprint Analysis
Water Resources - Common sources of water that may be used on site in association with a remedy include
potable water from a public water supply system, multiple groundwater resources, multiple surface water
resources, captured stormwater, and reclaimed water. Multiple groundwater and surface water resources are
Greener Cleanups: Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint
February 2012 20
-------
3.0 Footprint Methodology
possible because there may be different aquifers from which ground-water can be extracted or multiple locations
from which surface water is extracted.
Water Quality - The quality of the water used is an important aspect of the water footprint because the
potential beneficial uses of the water by the local community, economy, and environment are directly related to
the water quality. Indicating the source of water does not necessarily describe the quality of the water. For
example, if water is extracted from a shallow aquifer that is classified as a potential source of drinking water by
the state but actually has inadequate water quality for this purpose (perhaps due to high levels of naturally
occurring dissolved iron or dissolved solids), then the water quality might be described in the footprint analysis
as "potential potable water resource that likely requires treatment before use." For water that is contaminated by
site-related contamination, the description should pertain to the natural quality of that groundwater and should
note the site-related contamination.
Volume Used - The amount of water used from the indicated water resource refers to the volume that is used or
diverted from that resource over the life cycle of a remedy. For example, the installation and use of
impermeable surfaces as part of the remedy may result in diversion of stormwater to surface water rather than
allowing it to infiltrate into the subsurface. The stormwater diversion would be considered a "use" of the water.
Exhibit 3.9 in Appendix A provides additional information related to stormwater as it pertains to this
methodology.
Potential Water Uses - The uses of the water vary from remedy to remedy. Common uses of water resources
associated with remediation include the following:
• Extraction for treatment (e.g., in a groundwater P&T system)
• Extraction for testing (e.g., for long-term pumping tests)
• Injection for plume migration control
• Blending and injecting reagents for in situ bioremediation
• Blending and injecting reagents for in situ chemical oxidation (ISCO)
• Blending of chemicals for treatment plant operation
• Make-up or backwash water from treatment plant operation
• Mixing grout or slurry
• Evapotranspiration from phytoremediation
• Purge water from sampling
• Equipment decontamination
• Dust control and general construction.
Chemical solutions brought to the site from a chemical vendor can contain a significant amount of water.
Absent other information, it is appropriate to consider the water content of the solution to be public water that is
used on site. Relevant information for many common aqueous solutions used in remediation is available in
Exhibit 3.4. This and other uses of public water are also considered in quantifying the energy and air metrics as
described in Section 3.5.
Potential Fates of Used Water - The fate of the used water is an important part of the water footprint because
the potential beneficial uses of the "used" water by the local community, economy, and environment directly
depend on where the water is discharged and the quality of the water once it is discharged. Common fates of
water after water use during remediation include the following:
• Discharge to public water supply
• Discharge for use as industrial process water
• Discharge to groundwater
• Discharge to surface water
• Discharge for use as irrigation
Greener Cleanups: Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint
February 2012 21
-------
3.0 Footprint Methodology
• Discharge to a brackish or saline water body
• Discharge to the atmosphere through evapotranspiration or vaporization.
An onsite water metric is established for each combination of a water source, water use, and water fate that
involves significant water use. For example, extracted groundwater from a specified aquifer used for two
purposes, each with its own fate, results in two onsite water metrics. Water use from each major water resource
that exceeds the screening limits discussed in Section 3.2 and Exhibit 3.2 would be included in the calculation
of the water footprint. Water uses from the various sources that fall below these limits would be excluded from
the footprint but would be documented; these uses can be addressed through qualitative BMPs for green
remediation.
Although water may be used during the remedy, the use and the fate of the used water does not necessarily
result in a net effect on the onsite water resource. For example, groundwater may be extracted, treated, and
reinjected into the same aquifer, representing no net effect on the onsite water resource. However, if the treated
water is of substantially improved quality (e.g., lower total dissolved solids) than the groundwater, then
returning the treated water to the aquifer may be a lost opportunity for beneficial reuse. Similarly, groundwater
of relatively high quality that is extracted, treated, and discharged to brackish or saline water inherits the
brackish or saline quality. In this circumstance, groundwater that was extracted (before or after treatment) now
has increased salinity, and its potential uses may now be limited. In addition, discharging the groundwater to
naturally brackish water may reduce the salinity of the brackish or saline water in localized areas.
Quantifying onsite water use is generally straightforward during remedy implementation and remedy
optimization when actual data is available. It is also generally straightforward during the design process because
engineering estimates made at that point can be converted into water use. For example, engineering estimates
are typically available for the extraction rate for a P&T system or the amount of water that will be used for
injecting nutrients or reagents into the subsurface for an in situ remedy. These types of engineering estimates
should be used where available. General assistance is provided below to elaborate on some categories of water
use and how to quantify that water use.
Appendix B includes a sample table format for organizing a water footprint analysis. Examples of completed
tables are presented in the footprint reduction scenarios provided in Appendix C.
Chemical Solutions - Chemical solutions brought to the site from a chemical vendor can contain a significant
amount of water. Absent other information, it is appropriate to consider the water content of the solution to be
public water that is used on site at the cleanup project. Relevant information for many common aqueous
solutions used in remediation is available in Exhibit 3.4. This and other uses of public water are also considered
in quantifying the energy and air metrics as described in Section 3.5.
3.5 Step 5: Quantify Energy and Air Metrics
StepS
The energy and air metrics as calculated by the methodology attempt to account for as much of the life cycle of
the material or activity as is practicable. For example, the energy and emissions associated with electricity use
includes resource extraction for fuel, use of the fuels, and transmission and distribution losses. In addition, for
gasoline and diesel used on site or for transportation, the energy and emissions for extracting crude oil and
refining the oil into the gasoline and diesel are included, in addition to combustion of the fuels in equipment and
during transportation.
The methodology purposefully does not include energy use and air emissions resulting from the following aspects
of the remedy:
Greener Cleanups: Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint
February 2012 22
-------
3.0 Footprint Methodology
• The manufacturing of rental or temporary equipment for the site (e.g., the manufacturing of an excavator
that is used for removing contaminated soil) is not included in the footprint because 1) it is assumed that a
small fraction of the equipment lifetime operating hours are spent on a single project and 2) the footprint
associated with manufacturing the equipment is expected to be small relative to the footprint of operation
over the life of the equipment.
• Office-related work and other offsite personnel activities (other than routine transportation between the
site and the office) are not included because office-related work is anticipated to have a relatively small
footprint relative to site work.
• Items or activities that are non-additional (i.e., would have occurred in the absence of site remediation)
are not included because actions taken to reduce the footprint for a remedy would not address the
footprint of such items or activities.
• Items or activities external to the remediation process associated with redeveloping a property are not
included because they are external to the remediation process.
This methodology recommends including offsite energy use and air emissions because for some sites the offsite
energy use and emissions may represent the majority of the remedy footprint and project teams can influence the
offsite energy use and air emission by modifying the amounts or types of energy, materials, and offsite services
used in the remedy.
Step 5 is divided into the following three parts to facilitate organizing, presenting, and calculating the energy and
emission footprints:
Part 1 - Inventory Remedy Transportation, Equipment Use, Materials and Waste, Public Water Use, and
Offsite Services
Part 2 - Determine Remedy Energy Use
Part 3 - Convert the Remedy Inventory into Energy and Air Metrics.
Each of these parts is discussed in the following sections.
3.5.1 Part 1 - Inventory Remedy Transportation, Equipment Use, Materials and Waste,
Public Water Use, and Offsite Services
The first part of Step 5 is to make an inventory of the transportation, equipment use, materials and waste, public
water use, and offsite services required for the remedy. Much of the information required for this inventory is
based on the information previously gathered for the materials, waste, and water footprints. Additional
information is gathered on transportation, equipment use, and offsite services required for the remedy. As noted
earlier for the materials, waste, and water footprints, the quality of the inventory information gathered in this step
depends on the phase of the remedy when the footprint methodology is conducted, with greater certainty
associated with later phases of the remedial process.
The type of information collected varies by remedy technology and by remedy phase. Exhibits 3.10A and 3.10B
provide checklists as suggestions of the types of information to be gathered. Exhibit 3.10A provides a checklist
for the remedy construction phase, and Exhibit 3.10B provides a checklist for the remedy operation phase.
In an effort to streamline the footprint analysis process, it is appropriate to screen the information to be included
in the analysis. The materials use, waste disposal, and public water use described in Steps 2 and 3 (which have
already been screened) can be included directly. The transportation, equipment use, and other offsite services are
screened against the limits discussed in Section 3.2 and Exhibit 3.2. Items and activities that exceed the limits
Greener Cleanups: Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint
February 2012 23
-------
3.0 Footprint Methodology
would be included, and items and activities that fall below the limits would be excluded. Items and activities that
are excluded should be described with an appropriate level of documentation; these aspects can be addressed
through qualitative BMPs for green remediation.
The outcome of part 1 of this step is a reference to the previously documented materials, waste, and public water
from Steps 3 and 4 along with a bulleted list of types and quantities of transportation, equipment use, and offsite
services that are involved in the remedy.
3.5.2 Part 2 - Determine Remedy Energy Use
The second part of Step 5 is to organize and refine the inventory information that was developed in Step 2 and to
use that information to determine the amount of energy involved.
This part is divided into the following processes:
• Determining fuel use
o Converting personnel transportation into fuel use
o Converting onsite equipment use into fuel use
o Converting transportation of equipment, materials, and waste into fuel use
o Gathering information about actual fuel use (when such information is available)
• Determining electricity use
o Converting electrical equipment and power requirements into electricity use
o Gathering information about actual electricity use (when such information is available).
Determining Fuel Use
Converting Personnel Transportation into Fuel Use
Fuel use associated with personnel transportation is a function of the type of vehicle, the type of fuel, and the
distance traveled. During remedy construction or remedy operation, this information may be readily available, and
in some cases, actual fuel use may be tracked. If fuel use has been tracked for some or all of the remedy, it should
be used directly and/or used to estimate other fuel use. However, in most cases, particularly during remedy
design, it may be necessary to make some assumptions regarding fuel use. Exhibit 3.11A provides information for
quantifying fuel use for personnel transportation.
Fuel use associated with relatively routine personnel travel is considered in the footprint calculations. However, it
may not be necessary to include fuel use for non-routine or one-time travel because it likely falls below the
established screening limits. For example, it is typically appropriate to include daily or weekly travel of a site
operator to the site, whereas it may not be necessary to include travel by multiple parties for a kickoff planning
meeting. Carpooling can be assumed where appropriate (e.g., two sampling technicians traveling together to
conduct a monitoring event). The process of estimating fuel use for personnel transportation is illustrated in the
footprint reduction scenarios presented in Appendix C.
Converting Onsite Equipment Use into Fuel Use
Equipment operation typically involves the use of a diesel or gasoline engine that may or may not have been
modified to operate on biodiesel or fuel blends. Fuel use associated with equipment operation is a function of the
following:
Greener Cleanups: Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint
February 2012 24
-------
3.0 Footprint Methodology
• Horsepower rating of the equipment
• Type of fuel
• Engine efficiency
• Load on the engine
• Hours of operation.
Although the horsepower rating and fuel type may be known, the load on the engine, the engine efficiency (which
varies with load), and the hours of operation may not be known. During remedy construction or operation, it may
be feasible to track fuel use or contact equipment owners/operators about estimated fuel use. However, during
remedy design, this may not be practical and a means of approximating fuel use is needed. Exhibit 3.1 IB provides
assistance with quantifying fuel use for operation of heavy equipment. The process of estimating fuel use
associated with heavy equipment operation is illustrated in the footprint reduction scenarios presented in
Appendix C.
Converting Transportation of Equipment, Materials, and Waste into Fuel Use
Fuel use associated with transportation of equipment, materials, and waste is a function of the type of vehicle, the
type of fuel, the weight of the cargo, the presence of other cargo, the distance traveled, and whether or not the
vehicle makes an empty return trip. During remedy construction or remedy operation, this information may be
readily available. In some cases, actual fuel use may have been tracked or can be estimated by freight carriers. If
fuel use has been tracked for some or all of the remedy, it should be used directly and/or used to estimate other
fuel use. In most cases, however, particularly during remedy design, it may be necessary to make some
assumptions regarding fuel use. Exhibit 3.11C provides assistance with quantifying fuel use for equipment,
materials, and waste transportation. The following additional considerations are noted:
• Empty return trips for trucks should be considered where appropriate (e.g., when items are transported
directly to the site from the supplier or when waste is transported to a disposal facility).
• Consideration should be given to how a specific item is transported. For example, large quantities of
materials and waste are typically carried in bulk, whereas equipment is typically transported via specialty
freight (i.e., with no other cargo on board).
• In general, fuel requirements for transportation from the manufacturer to the vendor and then from the
vendor to the site should be considered where practical.
• It is common for heavy equipment such as drill rigs to remain at the site throughout the project, reducing
the amount of equipment mobilizations. This can be assumed unless site-specific information suggests
otherwise.
The process of estimating fuel use for equipment, materials, and waste transportation is illustrated in the footprint
reduction scenarios presented in Appendix C.
Converting Electrical Equipment and Power Requirements into Electricity Use
Electricity use associated with a remedy typically results from one of the following types of equipment:
• Electric motors for pumps, blowers, air compressors, and mixers
• Specialized treatment equipment such as ozone generators or ultraviolet oxidation units
• Subsurface electric resistive heating for in situ thermal remedies
• Electric heating, ventilation, and air conditioning for buildings
• Building lighting
• Process controls (typically with negligible electrical use compared to the equipment that is controlled).
Greener Cleanups: Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint
February 2012 25
-------
3.0 Footprint Methodology
Electricity provided by an onsite generator should not be included in quantifying electricity use. Rather, the fuel
used to power the generator should be included when converting equipment use into fuel use, as noted above.
Electricity obtained from a utility is easily tracked through past utility bills. When the footprint analysis is
conducted on an operating remedy and past electricity use is representative of future electricity use, the electricity
use from the electric utility bills should be used in the energy footprint. During the remedy design and remedy
construction phases, utility bills are not available and assumptions regarding electricity use are made. In either
case, an attempt should be made to document the individual demands for electricity from various pieces of
equipment because this information is useful for identifying areas for reducing electricity use during interpretation
of the results. Exhibit 3.12 provides equations for estimating equipment power ratings based on remedy
information, and Exhibit 3.13 provides equations for estimating electricity use given the equipment power rating.
The process of estimating electricity use is illustrated in the footprint reduction scenarios in Appendix C.
Like other forms of energy used on site, electricity generated from onsite renewable energy contributes to the
metric of total energy use. Onsite renewable energy is also an important component of the metric for energy
voluntarily derived from renewable resources and for avoiding emissions typically associated with conventional
energy use. Onsite renewable energy systems that generate electricity commonly include meters tied to the utility
grid; data supplied by these meters and associated net metering by the utility can be used to quantify these
metrics. Electricity generated from an onsite but off-grid renewable energy system also should be tracked
separately so that conversion factors for grid electricity are not applied to the electricity generated from the
renewable energy system. During the feasibility study and design stage of a renewable energy system, engineering
estimates of electricity generation are often available for footprint analysis. When electricity use is estimated by
considering electrical demand of individual pieces of equipment, it is similarly important to subtract from this
estimate the amount of electricity generated by the onsite renewable energy system so that the conversion factors
for grid electricity are not applied to the electricity generated from the renewable energy system.
3.5.3 Part 3 - Convert the Remedy Inventory into Energy and Air Metrics
The third part of Step 5 is to convert the fuel, electricity, materials, and offsite services involved in the remedy
into energy and air metrics. Footprint conversion factors are used for this purpose. Each item noted above (i.e.,
each type of fuel, each source of electricity, each material, and each offsite service) has its own set of conversion
factors related to the production, manufacturing, or provisioning of that item or service. In addition, fuels such as
diesel, gasoline, and natural gas each have an additional set of conversion factors related to the combustion of the
fuels. For example, for a fuel such as diesel, conversion factors are used to calculate metrics for energy, GHGs,
NOx, SOx, PM10, and HAPs associated with the production of the fuel and the combustion. The application of
the conversion factors for one of the metrics (GHG emissions measured as CO2e) is illustrated in the following
example for diesel fuel. First, the CO2e conversion factor for offsite production of a gallon of diesel from the well
field through the refinery (which is distinct from using a gallon of diesel) is applied.
Diesel used
(gallons)
Footprint conversion factor for
x converting production of a gallon of
diesel to tons ofCO^
CO 2e footprint
from diesel
production
(tons ofCO2e)
Second, the CO2e conversion factor for diesel use (combustion) is applied.
Diesel used
(gallons)
Footprint conversion factor for
converting use of a gallon of diesel
to tons ofCO?e
CO2e footprint
from diesel use
(tons ofCO2e)
Greener Cleanups: Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint
February 2012
26
-------
3.0 Footprint Methodology
Footprint conversion factors are applied in a similar manner to calculate the other metrics (energy use and
emissions of NOx, SOx, PM10, and HAPs) for production and use of diesel fuel. In addition, unique conversion
factors are applied in a similar manner to the production and use of all the other fuels, to the generation and use of
electricity, and to the manufacturing or provision of materials and services used for the remedy. The results are
then compiled and presented. Example tables for applying the conversion factors, summing the various
contributions, and presenting the results are presented in Appendix B and in the footprint reduction scenarios in
Appendix C.
One of the challenges of conducting a footprint analysis is establishing accurate conversion factors for the fuels,
electricity, materials, and services used in a remedy. Exhibit 3.14 (Appendix A) provides suggested default
footprint conversion factors to use in footprint analyses of environmental cleanups. Most of these conversion
factors are obtained from publicly available life cycle inventory databases. Others represent reasonable
approximations based on analysis of a compilation of conversion factors. The values presented in life cycle
inventory databases are generic or industry-wide averages that may not be accurate for specific manufacturing
facilities. There is therefore a degree of uncertainty associated with using these values for footprinting specific
remedies. These conversion factors are made available in Exhibit 3.14 to provide a means for quantifying green
remediation metrics specified in this methodology and are not intended to guide procurement decisions or to
suggest that one material should be used in place of another. In some cases, a site team may identify more specific
footprint conversion factors that are based on site-specific or vendor-specific information. Site-specific
conversion factors can be used for footprint analyses but the source of the conversion factor should be
documented as part of the footprint analysis. For example, a site team that uses a vendor who provides "carbon
neutral" solid waste disposal (if properly documented by the vendor) would choose a CO2e conversion factor of
zero for solid waste disposal rather than the "default" conversion factor, and documentation for choosing the site-
specific conversion factor should be referenced as part of the footprint analysis. Another example is the use of
emission control technologies (e.g., particulate filters) on diesel engines, which can reduce emissions of NOx,
SOx, or PM. Emissions from diesel engines, in particular, are subject to substantial variation based on idling
practices, type of vehicle or engine, model year, retrofits, and emission control technologies. For more thorough
analysis of emissions from diesel engines refer to information available from EPA's National Clean Diesel
Campaign (http://www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/).
In addition to emissions from fuel combustion on site, other onsite sources of emissions may be identified for
cleanup activities, particularly for the GHG and air toxics footprints. For example, air pollutants may be emitted
in the off-gas of an air stripper, in the exhaust of a soil vapor extraction (SVE) system, by vaporization from
exposed contaminated soil or groundwater, landfill gas emissions, dust generation, or perhaps other site-specific
activities. In addition, onsite activities may result in carbon storage or other reductions of the GHG footprint (e.g.,
combusting landfill gas or carbon storage in tree biomass). Exhibit 3.15 provides a method of calculating air
pollutant emissions from treatment processes and a reference for calculating dust and HAP emissions from
construction activities. Exhibit 3.16 provides a method of calculating carbon stored in the biomass of trees that
have been planted as part of remedial activities.
Conversion factors for energy and air emissions from offsite electricity generation are dependent on the specific
grid mix supplied to the site and are determined on a site by site basis. The type of information used to determine
the conversion factors is generally available from the individual electricity service providers. Otherwise, related
information at the U.S. state level is available online from the U.S. Energy Information Administration
(http://www.eia.gov/state/) or can be accessed for U.S. regions defined in the federally sponsored Emissions &
Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID) (www.epa.gov/egrid). Exhibit 3.17 illustrates how to use the
information from these sources to obtain the footprint conversion factors for grid electricity.
The footprint conversion factors suggested in Exhibit 3.14 and calculated as discussed above are not intended for
use by site owners or regulatory agencies in submittals of footprint information to other organizations such as
climate registries. Rather, they are intended to provide a sufficient level of information to allow a site team to
Greener Cleanups: Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint
February 2012 27
-------
3.0 Footprint Methodology
make educated decisions regarding energy use and pollutant emissions associated with the cleanup. It is expected
that updates or refinements to these emission factors will be provided as more information becomes available.
Appendix B provides example tables for applying conversion factors and presenting results, and the footprint
reduction scenarios in Appendix C provide examples of calculating and presenting the energy and air metrics.
3.6 Step 6: Qualitatively Describe Affected Ecosystem Services
Step 6
In its current form, the methodology suggests the use of qualitative descriptions of the effects of a remedy on land
and ecosystem services such as nutrient uptake and erosion control. Concepts related to ecosystem services are
available online from EPA's Ecosystem Services Research Program at http://www.epa.gov/ecology.
3.7 Step 7: Present Results
Step 7
A suggested format for presenting results of each step is presented in Appendix B. In addition to the information
gained through each step, documentation in a footprint analysis should be provided for:
The screening process
Analytical assumptions
Possible areas of uncertainty
Specific ideas of how to reduce the footprint.
Project teams may wish to supplement the methodology
with additional metrics meeting project or organization
needs and to tailor the presentation of footprint analysis
results accordingly.
Greener Cleanups: Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint
February 2012
28
-------
4.0 Considerations for Interpreting Footprint Results
4.O Considerations for Interpreting Footprint
Results
Interpreting the results of a footprint analysis is influenced by a number of considerations, including the quality of
the data used in the analysis, trade-offs among footprint metrics, and the magnitude of the footprint. The
following sections discuss each of these considerations, and the footprint reduction scenarios provided in
Appendix C demonstrate how they are considered.
4.1 Data Quality
There are three main factors that influence data quality:
• The first influence is the quality of the remedy information input into the footprint analysis. Variations
in remedy information, such as the volume of soil to be treated or the groundwater extraction rate, can
result in significant variations in the footprint results. This influence affects all green remediation metrics.
The quality of the data input is generally lowest during the development of remedy alternatives when
design studies have not been conducted and design-level engineering estimates have not been made. By
contrast, the quality of data input is generally highest during remedy operation when actual data is
available and the site has been thoroughly studied. The data quality during the design stage generally has
benefited from several design studies and engineering estimates but does not have the benefit of actual
data for input into the footprint analysis.
• The second influence is the accuracy or appropriateness of the formulas for quantifying use of
electricity, fuel, water, materials, and offsite services involved in a specific remedy. Although formulas
are provided in this methodology to help provide reasonable estimates of these quantities, they do not
necessarily apply accurately to each site or scenario. This influence primarily affects the energy and air
metrics but can also affect the other metrics to some degree. Example #1 (at the end of this section)
demonstrates how assumptions regarding materials transport can greatly affect the footprint results.
• The third influence is the accuracy of the conversion factors used to convert the remedy inventory into
green remediation parameters. Although the methodology includes conversion factors to use for this
purpose, the conversion factors are general in nature and cannot account for differences that might occur
from one manufacturing facility to another. Even the footprint conversion factors associated with
converting electricity generation to emissions can impart significant variation in the footprint results.
Example #2 (at the end of this section) provides an example of this influence and demonstrates that
footprint conversion factors could vary by as much as one order of magnitude. This third influence also
predominantly affects the energy and air metrics.
Based on the above discussion, it is apparent that the energy and air metrics may have the largest amount of
uncertainty relative to the other metrics because the energy and air metrics are affected by all three data quality
influences and the other metrics are primarily affected by the first data quality influence.
Project teams are encouraged to perform sensitivity analyses on the results by varying key input parameter values
within reasonable ranges and evaluating the resulting changes in the metric values. Large changes in the metrics
from relatively minor variations in a particular input parameter value suggests that the metric calculations are
highly sensitive to that parameter and that uncertainty in that input parameter translates to a similar level of
uncertainty in the metric calculation. Sensitivity analyses are helpful tools for project teams to understand the
implications of variations in data quality and better understand the quality of the footprint analysis results.
Greener Cleanups: Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint
February 2012 29
-------
4.0 Considerations for Interpreting Footprint Results
4.2 Tradeoffs between Metrics
The methodology helps quantify metrics for more than 15 different parameters in four different green remediation
core elements. Some of the parameters are local in nature (e.g., onsite HAP emissions or local water use), and
others are more regional (e.g., NOx/SOx/PMlO emissions) or global in nature (e.g., total GHG emissions). A
potential modification to an existing remedy may increase the values for some metrics and decrease the values for
others.
For example, a bioremediation remedy using water from the public supply results in significant use of public
water but relatively minimal onsite emissions of NOx, SOx, and PM10 because a generator or other equipment is
not needed to provided power for extracting groundwater. Potentially modifying the remedy to use extracted
groundwater will decrease or eliminate the use of public water but may increase the onsite NOx, SOx, and PM10
emissions from a generator that provides the power for groundwater extraction. Different site teams and different
stakeholders may favor one option over another depending on their prioritization of green remediation parameters,
cost, and other factors. When such tradeoffs exist, it is helpful to know the metrics or parameters that are more
important to site stakeholders as well as the influence of parameters relative to regulatory requirements.
4.3 Footprint Magnitude
Two main questions regarding the magnitude of a footprint may arise when interpreting the results of a footprint
analysis:
• "What is considered a large footprint or footprint reduction? " When seeking to reduce a footprint, it is
helpful to understand the significance of the magnitude of the potential reduction and the appropriate
level of resources (e.g., time, materials, and money) that could be reasonably invested to achieve the
reduction. A small percentage decrease in a footprint of a remedy with a large footprint may be greater in
magnitude and more cost-effective to achieve than a large percentage decrease in the footprint of another
remedy with a relatively small footprint.
• "What is considered a significant difference between footprints of two or more potential modifications
that are under consideration? " The data quality influences noted above are crucial elements in
determining if there is a significant difference between the footprints of two potential modifications to a
remedial system, and comparisons of footprints should be interpreted with a degree of caution that is
commensurate with the degree of uncertainty in the input data.
Greener Cleanups: Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint
February 2012
30
-------
4.0 Considerations for Interpreting Footprint Results
Example 1. Data Quality - Transportation
Consider the example of transporting 1.5 tons of emulsified vegetable oil (equivalent to approximately
400 gallons) 500 miles via specialty freight and common freight. The fuel economies used are from
Exhibit 3.11C and assume that the weight of the freight negligibly affects fuel economy relative to other
factors that affect fuel economy.
Specialty freight (includes empty return trip)
Delivery trip- 500 miles -f- 6 miles per gallon
Empty return trip: 500 miles
6 miles per gallon
Total:
83 gallons
83 gallons
166 gallons
Specialty freight (excludes empty return trip)
500 miles -f- 6 miles per gallon 83 gallons
Common freight "heavy load" (i.e., truck is fully loaded, including freight not related to the site)
1S. «nn -i 0.029 gallons per ton- ,,
1.5 tons x 500 miles = 22 gallons
mile
The fuel use differs by 750 percent depending on the mode of transportation assumed. This example
also assumes that the distance transported is known and correct. In many cases, especially during the
remedy design stages, the transport distance or mode of transportation may not be known, introducing
additional data quality concerns.
Greener Cleanups: Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint
February 2012
31
-------
4.0 Considerations for Interpreting Footprint Results
Example 2. Data Quality - Electricity Generation
Consider the following example of estimating the GHG emissions (measured in CO2e) from a P&T system in
Tacoma, WA, where electricity use is 100,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year and represents the large majority
of the GHG footprint for the remedy. Various sources of information on the fuel blend or generation mix for
grid electricity supplied to the site may be found on the internet or may be obtained from electricity providers.
The sources include the 2007 generation mix for the eGRID (www.epa.gov/egrid) Northwest Power Pool
(NWPP) subregion (where Washington is located), the 2009 generation mix for the NWPP from the
Washington State Department of Commerce ("Commerce"), the 2007 Washington state generation mix from
eGRID, the 2009 Washington state generation mix from Commerce, and the 2009 generation mix for Tacoma
Power (local utility) provided by Commerce.
Generation Mix
Coal
Hydropower
Natural Gas
Nuclear
Other
Total
CO2e emissions generation (Ibs/kWh)
CO2e footprint (Ibs) for 100,000 kWh of electricity use
NWPP
(eGRID 2007)
31.96
48.37
12.78
3.0
3.89
100%
0.87
87,000
NWPP
(Commerce 2009)
44.29
34.76
17.46
1.41
2.08
100%
1.20
120,000
o
o
P
<%
8.00
73.72
6.81
7.58
3.89
100%
0.26
26,000
WA
(Commerce 2009)
17
64
13
4
2
100%
0.54
54,000
Tacoma Power
(Commerce 2009)
3.83
87.64
1.51
6.68
0.34
100%
0.10
10,000
Notes:
- "Commerce " = Washington State Dept. of Commerce http://www.commerce.wa.sov/site/539/default.aspx)
- Coal, natural gas, and nuclear CO2e emissions for "Commerce " generation mixes are based on data from the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory Lifecycle Inventory (NREL, www.nrel. gov/lci). Hydropower CO^e emissions
are assumed to be 0 Ibs/kWh. "Other" fuels are assigned CO2e emissions ofO Ibs/kWh in calculating conversion
factors for each fuel blend, which may slightly underestimate emission factors for these generation mixes. The
footprint for extracting and transporting fuels is not included.
This analysis demonstrates that the generation mixes vary considerably among the various sources of
information. For example, the percentage of electricity generated from coal varies from 8 percent to 44
percent. The variation in the generation mix results in a variation in the footprint from 10,000 to 120,000
pounds of CO2e per year, which is more than one order of magnitude. The conversion factor even varies by
over 35 percent for the NWPP sub-region depending on the year, the entity compiling the data, or both. The
method for calculating the conversion factors for electricity generation therefore has a significant influence on
the footprint results. The conversion factors for electricity are relatively straightforward to calculate compared
to the conversion factors for other items associated with a remedy, and it is reasonable to expect that the
conversion factors for manufactured goods also vary significantly based on factory location and several other
factors.
Greener Cleanups: Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint
February 2012
32
-------
5.0 Approaches to Reducing Footprints
5.O Approaches to Reducing Footprints
The process of conducting a footprint analysis and the results from analysis can help project teams identify the
largest contributions and develop potential approaches to reducing those contributions and achieving a greener
cleanup. The largest footprint reductions for any one metric typically result from modifying certain processes or
project components. For example, if electricity use is the largest contributor to the energy footprint, the largest
footprint reduction will likely come from reducing overall electricity use. In many cases, the electricity use can be
reduced by modifying specific remedy components that use the most electricity.
Each approach should be tailored to a site's unique conditions and the expected operating parameters of a
particular cleanup remedy. Some contributions to a metric may appear to be small relative to other contributions
from the same project but are large when compared to comparable remedies implemented at other sites. For
example, the energy footprint associated with materials used for a large P&T remedy may be small relative to the
energy footprint associated with electricity use at the same site. However, the energy footprint associated with
materials at that site may be large when compared to the energy footprint of a comparable P&T remedy at a
different site. Appendix B includes figures that can be used to illustrate the magnitudes of various footprint
contributions relative to each other or a threshold value to help identify those that merit the most attention for
footprint reduction.
Experience and documentation gained through EPA's green remediation initiative, including illustrative profiles
of green remediation strategies (available online athttp://www.cluin.org/greenremediation/tab_d.cfm). suggests
that the greatest opportunities for footprint reduction often relate to renewable energy or remedy optimization.
Example #3 (in Section 5.3) illustrates footprint reductions that could result from applying both strategies.
Renewable energy can be incorporated through onsite systems that generate direct power for cleanup equipment
or through purchases from the local utility or a competitive provider. Optimization could involve changes in the
conceptual site model, data interpretation, or specific system components that result in more cost-effectiveness
and higher project efficiencies. Planning and implementation of either strategy can benefit from the additional
perspective provided by a footprint analysis.
Footprint reduction approaches can be linked to specific or general categories of EPA's green remediation BMPs.
The Agency has compiled a series of quick-reference fact sheets describing BMPs for specific remedial
technologies, project phases, and issues common to many sites. These documents (available at
http://www.cluin.org/greenremediation/docs/GR factsheet topics update.pdf) include:
• Excavation and Surface Restoration (EPA 542-F-08-012, December 2008)
• Site Investigation (EPA 542-F-09-004, December 2009)
• Pump and Treat Technologies (EPA 542-F-09-005, December 2009)
• Bioremediation (EPA 542-F-10-006, March 2010)
• Soil Vapor Extraction & Air Sparging (EPA 542-F-10-007, March 2010)
• Clean Fuel & Emission Technologies for Site Cleanup (EPA 542-F-10-008, August 2010)
• Integrating Renewable Energy into Site Cleanup (EPA 542-F-11-006, April 2011)
• Sites with Leaking Underground Storage Tank Systems (EPA 542-F-11-008, June 2011)
• Landfill Cover Systems & Energy Production (EPA 542-F-11-024).
Sections 5.1 through 5.3 describe overall approaches and specific BMPs that could be used to reduce the
environmental footprint posed by types of remedies that are commonly implemented for site cleanup. Results of a
footprint analysis can help project teams target the BMPs that most effectively reduce the footprint and track
associated improvements to a project's environmental outcome.
Greener Cleanups: Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint
February 2012 33
-------
5.0 Approaches to Reducing Footprints
5.1 Approaches to Reducing Materials and Waste Footprints
P&T remedies: The largest contributors to the materials and waste footprints for a P&T remedy are typically
system construction, chemicals use, and waste disposal. All of these items are directly tied to the extraction rate
and water quality, so the optimal extraction program would be a key focus for footprint reduction of P&T
systems. Consider the GCL Tie & Treating Superfund Site in Sydney, NY. Potassium permanganate use and
waste generation associated with removal of manganese (a nuisance parameter for treatment at this site, but not a
contaminant of concern) is directly tied to manganese loading (flow rate multiplied by influent concentration).
Optimizing the extraction network can reduce the flow rate and manganese loading, resulting in a reduction of
both potassium permanganate use and waste generation. Another key focus for footprint reduction of P&T
systems is the beneficial reuse of the treated water. Also consider the P&T system at the 10th Street Superfund Site
in Columbus, NE. A dispersant is added to the water to reduce fouling of the air stripper. However, the treated
water is distributed for public consumption, and the dispersant addition is required by the water provider to
prevent scaling in distribution piping and piping in residential and commercial buildings. Because the dispersant
is required for public distribution of the water, the dispersant use is not an "additional" item contributed by the
remedy and need not be considered part of the materials footprint for the remedy. Therefore, the beneficial reuse
of water not only reduces the water footprint but the materials footprint associated with dispersant production.
ISCO and in situ bioremediation: The largest contributors to the materials footprint associated with these in situ
remedies is the amount of reagents used/injected and the construction of permanent injection locations.
Optimizing the number of injection locations and the reagent demand could lead to significant footprint
reductions. In some cases, using existing wells as injection points can reduce the number of additional wells
needed. Optimizing the area to be treated (perhaps with more characterization) could reduce both the number of
injection locations and the demand for reagents. Creating recirculation cells by using extracted groundwater for
reagent blending and injection could help distribute the reagents in the subsurface, potentially reducing the
number of injection points. The use of direct-push technology to deliver reagents instead of permanent injection
wells may reduce materials use but increase energy use, presenting a potential tradeoff for site stakeholders.
Excavation remedies: The largest contributions to materials use and waste generation for excavation remedies
are the disposal of excavated material in a landfill and the use of clean fill for backfill. Consideration could be
given to conducting onsite treatment of impacted soils followed by reuse of the treated soil on site, using clean
soil from the excavation to partially backfill the excavation, and locating crushed concrete or other reusable
materials for fill. Consideration could also be given to in situ remediation via contaminant removal/destruction or
soil stabilization. These alternative approaches may reduce waste generation but might also affect the materials
use or energy and air footprints, presenting a potential tradeoff for the site team.
5.2 Approaches to Reducing Water Footprints
P&T remedies: The most important factor in quantifying the water footprints for many P&T remedies is the
change in water quality through the extraction, treatment, and discharge process. Extracted and treated
groundwater may be a valuable resource, but if the treated water is discharged to relatively low quality surface
water (e.g., water with high dissolved or suspended solids), the higher quality of the treated water is degraded and
its direct usefulness as a resource is lost. Finding beneficial use of the treated water (e.g., potable water, industrial
process water, or irrigation) is preferred if an appropriate use can be identified and the water has been thoroughly
tested. This is because using the treated water displaces demand on other water supplies and offsets the energy
and footprint of obtaining that other water resource. If a beneficial use is not available, discharging the water to an
aquifer or surface water body of equal quality and availability is another means of reducing the water footprint.
Focus should also be placed on optimizing the groundwater extraction rate.
Greener Cleanups: Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint
February 2012 34
-------
5.0 Approaches to Reducing Footprints
ISCO and in situ bioremediation: The largest contributors to the water footprint associated with these in situ
remedies are reagent dilution, injection, and dispersal. Optimizing the number of injection locations, reagent
demand, and delivery concentration could help reduce overall water use. In addition, the source of water used can
be a factor. Using extracted groundwater in place of water from the public supply would be favorable because
extracted groundwater is a less-refined water resource than public supply water. In addition, use of extracted
groundwater may help disperse the reagents in the subsurface.
Excavation remedies: Large contributions to the water footprint for excavation and other earth moving remedies
could include water used for dust control or water from dewatering. Water used for dust control could be reduced
by planning work for the appropriate season or weather condition. Water use could also be reduced through use of
chemicals, but this would result in an increase in the materials footprint. With respect to dewatering, excavations
below the water table can result in substantial dewatering efforts to lower the water table below the planned extent
of the excavation. Cutoff walls or other engineering controls could help reduce the extraction rates for dewatering.
Polymers or bentonite slurry may also help prevent trenches beneath the water table from collapsing and help
avoid or reduce the need for dewatering.
5.3 Approaches to Reducing Energy and Air Footprints
P&T remedies: The largest contributors to the energy and air footprints are typically electricity, chemicals use,
process sampling, and waste disposal. Electricity, chemical use, and waste disposal are directly tied to the
extraction rate, so establishing the optimal extraction rate would be a key focus for footprint reduction of P&T
systems. The intensive electricity use of P&T systems also makes them excellent candidates for the application of
renewable energy. The renewable energy may be generated on site (e.g., by a photovoltaic system, wind turbine,
or system for converting landfill gas to energy), purchased from the utility provider, or purchased as RECs.
Significant energy is used to lift groundwater from the water table to the surface and to treat it. As a result,
substantial footprint reduction can be achieved if the treated water can be put to an appropriate beneficial use
(after appropriate testing), effectively eliminating the energy and emissions associated with the water supply that
has been displaced. Process sampling can also be a large contributor to the energy and air footprints. For that
reason, optimizing the process sampling program and utilizing surrogate parameters such as pressure drop,
oxidation-reduction potential, pH, turbidity, and other parameters that help streamline the process sampling
program can help reduce the energy and air footprints.
ISCO and in situ bioremediation: The largest contributors to energy and air footprints are typically the
production and transport of the reagents to be injected. Therefore, optimizing the amount of reagent to be added
would be a key focus for footprint reduction for in situ remedies that involve reagent injection. It may be
appropriate to work in phases, beginning with the best estimate of reagent use and modifying or increasing
reagent doses for future injection events rather than injecting too much reagent in the first event. Increased
characterization of the treatment area may also help reduce the treatment volume and the reagent use. Selection of
the reagent type can be a factor. Although most reagents for chemical oxidation are refined chemicals that are
unlikely to be a manufacturing waste or byproduct, the reagents for in situ bioremediation may be food or
agricultural waste products. Mulch, off-specification soft-drink syrup, low-grade molasses, and other waste
products may be appropriate reagents for in situ bioremediation of chlorinated solvents. Because these items are
waste products, the footprint for producing them would not be attributed to the remedy. Attention could also be
given to the provider's location. Preference could be given to local providers to avoid long transport distances.
Where multiple injections are required or the subsurface formations are relatively tight, it may be preferable to use
permanent injection wells to avoid the repeated mobilization of heavy equipment (e.g., direct-push rigs) that
would operate throughout the injection events.
Excavation remedies: The largest contributions to energy and air footprints for excavation remedies are the
transport of the excavated material or backfill material from one location to another. The transport may be from
one portion of the site to another portion via dump truck, loader, or dozer. It may also be from the site to an offsite
Greener Cleanups: Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint
February 2012 35
-------
5.0 Approaches to Reducing Footprints
location for disposal or reuse. As a result, minimizing this horizontal transport distance and choosing the optimal
mode of transportation would be key areas of focus in reducing the footprints of excavation remedies. In some
circumstances, transportation by train or barge over long distances may have a lower footprint than transportation
by truck. Consideration could be given to using onsite treatment of impacted soils followed by reuse of the treated
soil on site, using clean soil from the excavation to partially backfill the excavation, locating local sources for fill,
and minimizing the distance to disposal locations. If soil or material requires substantial transport on site,
footprint reductions may be best achieved by loading dump trucks rather than carrying loads long distances in
front loader buckets or transporting long distances with a dozer. The use of renewable fuels (e.g., biodiesel) could
increase the percentage of energy from renewable resources. It could also reduce the GHG footprint for the
remedy. Although there may be a GHG footprint for onsite soil treatment, there is also a footprint associated with
landfill activities that could partially or completely offset the footprint of the onsite treatment.
It is noted that many footprint reduction approaches also result in cost reductions. For example, materials use and
waste disposal can be significant contributors to the costs of a cleanup project. As a result, decreasing the
materials and waste footprints often results in a cost savings. Similarly, energy use, materials use, and laboratory
analysis also can be significant contributors to the costs of a cleanup project and significant contributors to the
energy and air footprints. As a result, decreases in the energy and air footprints by decreasing these items can
often result in cost savings. Actual costs and cost savings associated with these reductions will depend on the
changes made and a variety of site-specific factors.
Greener Cleanups: Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint
February 2012
36
-------
5.0 Approaches to Reducing Footprints
Example 3. Footprint Reductions from Optimization and Application of Renewable Energy
The chart below presents the greenhouse gas emissions for several alternative versions of a P&T system that treats
approximately 50 gpm of extracted water with a trichloroethene (TCE) concentration of approximately 500 ug/L. The
chart illustrates the footprint reductions associated with optimized versions of the P&T system plus the effect of using
renewable energy. Although other parameters of are of importance, the greenhouse gas (CO2e) footprint is used as an
example parameter.
CO2e for Different P&T Approaches over 30-Year Period
Cfi
0)
cf
u
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
Version 1
Version 2
Version 3
Version 4
Version 1 - Treatment provided by air stripping with treatment of air stripper off-gas
Version 2-Air stripping with off-gas treatment- but use of variable frequency drives on motors
Version 3 - Treatment provided by liquid phase GAC instead of air stripping
Version 4 Version 1 with all electricity use provided by renewable electricity generated on-site
The example illustrates that the footprint can be reduced by energy efficiency efforts (e.g., variable frequency drives),
potential changes to the treatment system components (e.g., GAC instead of air stripping), and application of renewable
energy.
Greener Cleanups: Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint
February 2012
37
-------
6.0 References
6.O References
Council on Environmental Quality, Guidance for Federal Greenhouse Gas Accounting and Inventories
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/sustainability/fed-ghg
Council on Environmental Quality, Guidance for Federal Greenhouse Gas Accounting and Inventories Technical
Support Document
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ceq/technical support document l.pdf
European Commission - Joint Research Center, LCA Tools, Services and Data
http://lca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/lcainfohub/datasetArea.vm
Executive Order 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, October 5,
2009
http://www.fedcenter.gov/programs/eol3514/
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Report 4, Chapter 2, Changes in Atmospheric
Constituents and in Radiative Forcing
http://www.ipcc.ch
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. Life Cycle Inventory Database
www.nrel.gov/lci
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Energy
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Change - Greenhouse Gas Emissions
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corporate GHG Resources - Climate Leaders
http://www.epa.gov/climateleaders/
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Green Power and Renewable Energy
http://www.epa.gov/oaintrnt/greenpower/index.htm
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Green Power and Renewable Energy
EPA Green Power Purchasing Program Guide to Purchasing Green Power, EPA430-K-04-015, March 2010
http ://www. epa. gov/greenpower/documents/purchasing_guide_for_web. pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, CLU-IN Green Remediation Focus
http://www.cluin.org/greenremediation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Clean Diesel Campaign, Tools & Resources
http://www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/tools/
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Principles for Greener Cleanups
(http://www.epa.gov/oswer/greenercleanups/principles.html)
Greener Cleanups: Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint
February 2012 38
-------
6.0 References
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Superfund Green Remediation Strategy
(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/greenremediation/sf-gr-strategy.pdf)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Wastes - Resource Conservation - Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/rrr/
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Greening EPA - Water Conservation
htto: //www .epa. gov/oaintrnt/water/
Greener Cleanups: Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint
February 2012
39
-------
Appendix A:
Exhibits
EXHIBIT 2.1- ACCOUNTING FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY
EXHIBIT 2.2 - RENEWABLE ENERGY CERTIFICATES (RECs)
EXHIBIT 2.3 - DEFINING GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL
EXHIBIT 3.1- EXAMPLE REMEDY INFORMATION TO GATHER FOR STEP 2
EXHIBIT 3.2- SCREENING APPROACH
EXHIBIT 3.3- DENSITIES OF COMMON MATERIALS
EXHIBIT 3.4- APPROXIMATE MATERIAL CONTENT OF AQUEOUS CHEMICAL SOLUTIONS
EXHIBIT 3.5- APPROXIMATE MATERIALS USE FOR PIPING AND WIRING RUNS
EXHIBIT 3.6- APPROXIMATE MATERIALS USE FOR WELL INSTALLATION
EXHIBIT 3.7- APPROXIMATE MATERIALS USE FOR PROCESS EQUIPMENT AND BUILDING
CONSTRUCTION
EXHIBIT 3.8- APPROXIMATE CONTENT OF CONCRETE, ASPHALT, AND STEEL
EXHIBIT 3.9- STORMWATER DIVERSION
EXHIBIT 3.10A - GENERAL CHECKLIST FOR TYPICAL ITEMS TO CONSIDER IN A FOOTPRINT ASSOCIATED
WITH CONSTRUCTION OF A REMEDY
EXHIBIT 3.10B- GENERAL CHECKLIST FOR TYPICAL ITEMS TO CONSIDER IN A FOOTPRINT ASSOCIATED
WITH REMEDY OPERATION
EXHIBIT 3.11A - QUANTIFYING FUEL USE FOR PERSONNEL TRANSPORTATION
EXHIBIT 3.1 IB - QUANTIFYING FUEL USE FOR HEAVY EQUIPMENT USE
EXHIBIT 3.11C - QUANTIFYING FUEL USE FOR EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, AND WASTE TRANSPORTATION
EXHIBIT 3.12- ESTIMATING SIZES OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
EXHIBIT 3.13- ESTIMATING ELECTRICITY USE FOR TYPICAL REMEDIATION COMPONENTS
EXHIBIT 3.14- SUGGESTED CONVERSION FACTORS
EXHIBIT 3.15 - ESTIMATING AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM ONSITE SOURCES
EXHIBIT 3.16- ESTIMATING CARBON STORED IN PLANTED TREES
EXHIBIT 3.17- USING DATA FROM ELECTRIC SERVICE PROVIDERS TO DETERMINE FOOTPRINT
CONVERSION FACTORS
40
-------
EXHIBIT 2.1 - ACCOUNTING FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY
There are four main ways in which renewable energy can be applied to site remediation on a voluntary basis:
• Onsite systems that generate electricity, mechanical power, direct heat, or landfill gas
• Use of biodiesel in equipment and vehicles
• Renewable-sourced electricity purchased from the local utility or a competitive provider
• Direct purchase of renewable energy certificates (RECs)
A portion of standard grid electricity provided to the site may also include electricity that was generated from
renewable resources. This form of renewable energy, which is provided by default to the site as part of a utility's
basic electricity generation mix, is not considered "voluntary" in this methodology. This form of renewable
energy is included in the total energy metric (metric E-l) of this methodology, but is not considered in the
renewable energy metrics (metrics E-2A - E-2C) because project teams have little or no control over the sources
of energy in the basic generation mix. The emission factors used for estimating emissions from electricity
generation, however, do include the renewable energy component of the basic generation mix such that grid
electricity with a relatively high percentage electricity from renewable resources will likely have lower emissions
factors than grid electricity that has a relatively low percentage of electricity from renewable resources.
Each of the four voluntary ways of applying renewable energy to site remediation is discussed below in more
detail.
Onsite Systems that Generate Electricity, Mechanical Power, Direct Heat, or Landfill Gas
The following table presents the forms of onsite energy use and the renewable resources that can be used to
generate the energy.
Form of Energy
Electricity
Mechanical energy
Heat
Renewable Resource for Generating Energy
Solar
Wind
Hydroelectric
Geothermal
Biomass*
Wind
Hydropower
Solar thermal
Geothermal**
Biomass*
* Biomass refers to woody waste, agricultural crops or waste, animal and other organic waste, energy crops,
landfill gas, and methane generated from waste water that is used to generate usable energy.
** Geothermal refers to heat extracted from the subsurface for direct use and does not refer to heat exchange
with water source heat pumps or air heat pumps.
Use of Biodiesel in Equipment and Vehicles
Biodiesel can be used on site to generate electricity, used on site to power heavy equipment, and used on site and
off site for transportation. Biodiesel may be used alone or blended with regular diesel (e.g., B20 is 20 percent
biodiesel and 80 percent petroleum-derived diesel). For biodiesel blends, only the percentage of the blend that is
biodiesel counts as biodiesel use. Bio-ethanol is not considered a renewable energy source in this methodology.
41
-------
EXHIBIT 2.1 - ACCOUNTING FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY (continued)
Renewable-Sourced Electricity Purchased from the Local Utility or a Competitive Provider
The EPA Green Power Purchasing Program Guide to Purchasing Green Power (Office of Air (6202J), EPA430-
K-04-015, March 2010) describes renewable electricity products that project teams may have the ability to
purchase directly from the electricity provider. In regulated electricity markets, a green pricing product could be
voluntarily purchased from the local utility. Green pricing allows customers to voluntarily purchase renewable
electricity by paying a premium that supports a greater level of utility investment in renewable energy. In
competitive electricity markets, an electricity service provider can be selected that offers renewable electricity. In
this type of market, a green marketing product can be voluntarily purchased (and delivered through the electric
grid) from a provider other than the local utility. Similar to a green pricing product, a green marketing product
involves paying a premium in exchange for electricity generated from renewable resources. For this methodology,
the definition of renewable electricity as it applies to purchased electricity from renewable resources meets the
definition of "green power" used by the U.S. EPA Green Power Partnership, Partnership Requirements,
Appendix A as follows:
• Solar photovoltaic
• Wind
• Geothermal (not to be confused with the use of geothermal heat pumps)
• Eligible biomass
• Eligible hydropower
The reader is directed to the above reference for definitions of "eligible" biomass and hydropower. More
information about purchasing renewable electricity is provided online by EPA's Green Power Partnership at
www.epa. gov/greenpower. The effects of voluntary purchases of renewable electricity on air emissions are
discussed in Exhibit 2.2.
For the purpose of this methodology, potential emissions reductions from the voluntary purchase of renewable
electricity are not applied to the emissions metrics (Metrics A-l through A-5). See Exhibit 2.2 for more
information.
Direct Purchase of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs)
Where green pricing and green marketing products are not available, project teams can purchase renewable
electricity in form of RECs. The EPA Green Power Purchasing Program Guide to Purchasing Green Power
defines a REC as follows:
A REC is a certificate that represents the generation of one megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity
from an eligible source of renewable energy. Each REC denotes the underlying generation
energy source, location of the generation, and year of generation (a.k.a. "vintage"),
environmental emissions, and other characteristics associated with the generator.
RECs can be purchased and "bundled" with electricity purchased from the grid, resulting in renewable electricity.
Once RECs are sold, the seller can no longer claim that the electricity it produces from its facility is renewable
because those rights have been transferred to another party.
More information about RECs is provided at www.epa.gov/greenpower. The effects of purchasing RECs on air
emissions are discussed in Exhibit 2.2.
For the purpose of this methodology, potential emissions reductions from the voluntary purchase of RECs are not
applied to the emissions metrics (Metrics A-l through A-5). See Exhibit 2.2 for more information.
42
-------
EXHIBIT 2.2 - EFFECTS OF VOLUNTARY PURCHASES OF RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY
AND RECS ON AIR EMISSONS
Many federal and non-federal programs support emission reductions from the voluntary purchase of renewable
electricity from green pricing products, green marketing products, or RECs. One example is the EPA Green
Power Purchasing Program (www.epa.gov/greenpower). The White House Council on Environmental Quality
document titled Federal Greenhouse Gas Accounting and Reporting Guidance, October 6, 2010 and the
associated document titled Federal Greenhouse Gas Accounting and Reporting Guidance Technical Support
Document both provide similar guidance on reducing emissions through the purchase of renewable electricity in
the form of RECs.
Selecting the appropriate renewable electricity products to purchase and appropriately accounting for potential
reductions in air emissions can be complex. Further guidance on purchasing renewable electricity (including
RECs) and quantifying air emission reductions from those purchases can be found in the above-noted resources.
The methodology encourages reduction of air emissions through onsite
generation or use of energy from renewable resources and use of biodiesel
(E-2A) prior to considering air emission reductions through voluntary purchase
of renewable electricity or RECs (E-2B and E-2C).
This prioritization is intended to establish a primary focus on practices that
directly reduce emissions associated with a remedy, including energy efficiency
measures, engine retrofits, and emissions control technologies.
43
-------
EXHIBIT 2.3 - DEFINING GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL
Different GHGs have different residence times and different effectiveness in absorbing and emitting back to Earth
the infrared radiation that results in temperature increases. The concept of global warming potential (GWP)
accounts for these differences and quantifies the contribution of a particular GHG to global warming in terms of a
reference gas. Carbon dioxide is typically chosen as the reference gas, and GWP is measured in carbon dioxide
equivalents (CO2e). The GWP of common GHGs used for this methodology are as follows:
GHG
Carbon dioxide (CO2)
Methane (CHO
Nitrous oxide (N2O)
Carbon tetrachloride (CC14)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (CH3CC13, methyl chloroform)
Bromomethane (CH3Br)
Chloromethane (CH3C1)
Methylene chloride (CH2C12)
CFC-ll(CCl3F,Freon-ll)
GWP (CO2e)
1
21
310
1,400
146
5
13
8.7
3,800
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Report 4, Chapter 2, Changes in Atmospheric
Constituents and in Radiative Forcing (www.ipcc.ch), which is referenced by U.S. EPA at
www. epa. gov/climatechange.
Example: the emission of 1 pound of methane has an equivalent warming effectiveness as the emission of 21
pounds of carbon dioxide.
Many other compounds, particularly chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs),
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and other perfluorinated compounds, are strong GHGs but are not typically
associated with environmental cleanups. If these compounds are identified in the soil, groundwater, or sediments
of a site, it may be important to include air emissions of the compounds in the GHG metric. Information
pertaining to their global warming potential can be found in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Assessment Report 4, Chapter 2, Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing (www.ipcc.ch).
44
-------
EXHIBIT 3.1 - EXAMPLE REMEDY INFORMATION TO GATHER FOR STEP 2
Excavation and Disposal
Volume of soil to be excavated
Percentages disposed of as hazardous waste and non-hazardous waste
Methods of transportation available
Facilities for disposal
Associated sampling and analysis
Material used for backfill
Need for dewatering and discharge point for water
Pump and Treat (P&T) and Soil Vapor Extraction (SVE)
Number of wells, trenches, etc. and distance to process area
Extraction rates
Expected influent concentrations
Treatment processes
Discharge location (for P&T)
Frequency of operator visits
In situ Remedies Involving Nutrient or Reagent Injections
Method of injection (direct-push, injection wells, delivery trenches)
Aquifer volume to be treated
Number of inj ection points
Number of injections
Nutrient demand for calculating mass of injected materials
Phvtoremediation
Number and types of trees
Method of planting
Fertilizer, pesticide, watering, and fencing needs
In situ Thermal Remediation
Method of heating
Volume of treatment area
Type of contaminant and required heating temperature
Size of vapor control system
Method of treating off-gas
Pounds of contaminants to be removed
Soil Amendments
Amendment material
Volume of soil to be treated
Method of adding amendment
Amendment demand
Monitoring for Various Remedy Types
Process monitoring
Long-term monitoring
Performance monitoring
45
-------
EXHIBIT 3.2 - SCREENING APPROACH
The screening approach uses user-specified limits, two streamlined comparison approaches, and professional judgment to determine items and
activities that are included in the footprint analysis. Two types of user-specified limits are as follows:
• Limit based on a specified percentage of the maximum contributor to a particular metric
• Limit based on a specified magnitude for a particular metric
Based on professional judgment, an item or activity that is expected to contribute less than either of the limits can be excluded from the analysis
with an appropriate level of documentation. These limits are applied to the following categories:
• Refined materials
• Unrefined materials
• Non-hazardous waste
• Hazardous waste
• Each onsite water resource
• Onsite NOx, SOx, PM10 emissions
• Onsite HAP emissions
• Total energy use*
* The total energy use category is assumed to be generally representative of the total emissions for CO2e and other air pollutants.
Comparing items for the materials, waste, and water metrics to the two limits noted above is reasonably straightforward. Comparison of emissions
and energy use is more complicated. Streamlined approaches are provided below for comparing 1) various onsite sources of NOx, SOx, and PM10
emissions and 2) various contributions to total energy use. An example is provided for developing the two screening limits noted above. The
screening approach is also demonstrated in the footprint reduction scenarios in Appendix C.
Streamlined Comparison of Onsite NOx, SOx, and PM10 Emissions
The onsite NOx, SOx, and PM10 emissions are generally linked to onsite fuel
combustion; therefore, determining the largest contributor and gauging other
contributions relative to the set limits is based on use of various fuels. The table
to the right shows the approximate amounts of fuel that will result in generally
equivalent NOx, SOx, and PM10 emissions. For purposes of this screening
process, assume that combustion of the volumes of fuel noted in the table to the
right results in emissions of 0.2 pounds (Ibs) of NOx + SOx + PM10. However,
do not use this assumption for final footprint presentation.
Approximate Equivalencies for NOx, SOx, and PM10
from On-Site Fuel Combustion
Diesel combustion
Gasoline combustion
Natural gas combustion
1 gallon (gal)
Igal
lOccf
ccf= 100 cubic feet, which contains a similar amount of energy as 1 therm
Note: The sum of the NOx, SOx, andPMlO emissions from the combustion
of the indicated amounts of the fuels are generally comparable. This table
is not intended to suggest that they are equal. This table is based on the
information provided elsewhere in this document.
FOR SCREENING COMPARISON PURPOSES ONLY
DO NOT USE THESE APPROXIMATE EQUIVALENCIES FOR FINAL FOOTPRINT PRESENTATION
46
-------
EXHIBIT 3.2 - SCREENING APPROACH (continued)
Streamlined Comparison for Total Energy Use
Contributions to the total energy use metric are based on a variety of factors, including electricity use, fuel combustion, and materials
manufacturing. The following table provides approximate amounts of energy-related items, materials, or services that result in generally
equivalent amounts of energy use. The table also defines an "energy screening unit". As shown in the example below, the energy screening units
and values in this table can be used to compare the magnitudes of various contributors to the total energy footprint to determine those contributors
that exceed screening limits and will be included in the footprint analysis.
Item
Electricity use
Continuous electric motor operation
Natural gas use
Diesel or gasoline use
Onsite heavy equipment use
Excavation
Trenching and pipe installation
Well installation (including drill rig)
Personnel transport
Materials or waste transportation
Materials or waste transportation
Refined materials use
Unrefined materials use
Water discharged to the sanitary sewer
Waste disposal (drums)
Waste disposal (bulk)
Laboratory analysis
Physical Unit
kWh
Horsepower (HP)-hr
ccf or therm
Gal
HP-hr
Cubic yard
Linear foot
Vertical foot
Mile
Mile
Ton-mile
Ib
Ton
1,000 Gal
Drum
Ton
$
# of Physical Units in One
Screening Unit
1
1
0.1
0.1
2
5
10
0.02
2
0.5
3
1
1
1
10
0.1
1
# of Screening Units in One
Physical Unit
1
1
10
10
0.5
0.2
0.1
50
0.5
2
0.33
1
1
1
0.1
10
1
Note: The total energy uses associated with a screening unit is generally between 0.01 and 0.02 MMbtus (with some exceptions) based on information
provided elsewhere in this document. The values are only intended to be used to assist with screening, not for final footprint presentation.
Example: A remedy involves the following:
Item
10,000 Ibs of refined materials
5,000 ton-miles of materials transport
250,000 kWh of electricity
Number of Screening Units
10,000 x 1 = 10,000
5,000 x 0.33 = 1,650
250,000 x 1 = 250,000
The numbers in bold in the table to the left are taken from
the far right-hand column of the above table. The use of a
screening unit facilitates comparison between various
items that involve energy use. For example, 1,650 is a
small fraction of 250,000 (<1%), indicating that materials
transport can be omitted from the footprint analysis.
47
-------
EXHIBIT 3.2 - SCREENING APPROACH (continued)
Example Development of Screening Limits
The table below demonstrates the development of screening limits for the screening categories presented at the beginning of this exhibit. The user
identifies the "largest contributor" and the magnitude of the contribution ("largest contribution") for each of the 10 categories (rows). Based on the
level of detail and accuracy sought in the footprint analysis, the user also specifies for each category 1) the "selected % of largest contributor" to
calculate the "percent-based limit" and 2) the "selected magnitude-based limit". The "applicable screening limit" is the larger of the "percent-
based limit" and the "selected magnitude-based limit". A simplified in situ bioremediation remedy is used for example purposes in this table.
Once the "applicable screening limits" are determined, various items in each screening category would then be compared to "applicable screening
limit" for that category (comparison not shown in this example). Items in each category that are expected to be less than the limit by professional
judgment are excluded from the footprint analysis. Refer to the footprint reduction scenarios in Appendix C for detailed application of the
screening approach.
Category
Refined Materials
Unrefined Materials
Non-hazardous Waste
Hazardous Waste
Public water
Shallow groundwater
(offsite disposal)
Shallow groundwater
(reinjection)
Onsite NOx, SOx, PM10
emissions
Onsite HAP emissions
Total Energy use
Unit
tons
tons
tons
tons
gals
gals
gals
Ibs
Ibs
Screening
Units*
Largest Contributor
Vegetable oil
Sand for
sand pack
Drill cuttings
None
Water for drilling
Pump test
Nutrient blending and
injection
Drilling
Drilling
Vegetable oil
Largest
Contribution
150
1.5
6
0
500
1,000,000
3,000,000
120
<1
300,000
Selected % of
Largest
Contributor
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Percent-
based Limit
1.5
0.015
0.06
0
0.05
10,000
30,000
1.2
0.01
3,000
Selected
Magnitude-based
Limit
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1,000
1,000
1,000
1
1
1
Applicable
Screening
Limit
1.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1,000
10,000
30,000
1.2
1
3,000
* Energy screening units defined above.
48
-------
EXHIBIT 3.3 - DENSITIES OF COMMON MATERIALS
The following table provides approximate densities of common materials that can be used to convert a
known volume of a material into a mass of that material for documenting material use by mass. This
information has been provided to help streamline the process of gathering information for the materials
metric.
Material
Refined
Cement
GAC
HOPE
Lime (hydrated)
PVC
Steel
Unrefined
Asphalt
Concrete
Compacted clay
Mulch/compost
Sand, gravel, soil
Density
94 lbs/ft3
30 lbs/ft3
59.6 lbs/ft3
30 lbs/ft3
87.36 lbs/ft3
490 lbs/ft3
1.95 tons/cy
1.95 tons/cy
1.5 tons/cy
0.4 tons/cy
1.5 tons/cy
ft3 = cubic foot
tons = short tons (2,000 pounds)
cy = cubic yard
REFERENCES.
Cement - Portland Cement Association (www.cement.org)
GAC - consistent with various GAC vendor specifications
HDPE - consistent with HDPEpipe made to ASTMInternational standards
Lime - consistent with National Lime Association fact sheet values for hydrated lime
PVC - consistent with PVC pipe made to ASTM International standards
Steel - various materials handbooks (specific gravity of 7.8)
Asphalt - Nation Asphalt Pavement Association
Concrete - Portland Cement Association (www.cement.org)
Compacted clay, sand, gravel and soil - generally accepted engineering assumption
Mulch/compost - generally consistent with purchased bagged mulch
Example conversion from volume to mass
10 cubic yards of concrete x 1.95 tons per cubic yard = 19.5 tons of concrete
49
-------
EXHIBIT 3.4 - APPROXIMATE MATERIAL AND WATER CONTENT OF
AQUEOUS CHEMICAL SOLUTIONS
Environmental remedies commonly involve the use of chemical solutions, and in some cases a substantial
portion of the solution may be water. For the purpose of this methodology, the water use in chemical
solution preparation is considered to be of equal quality to public water. Public water is not considered
part of the materials metrics but is part of the water metrics and is also used in the calculation of the
energy and air footprints. In general, for chemical solutions, the mass of the chemical itself (not the full
solution) is used for determining the mass of the refined material. The following table lists common
chemical solutions, the specific gravity of the solution, the solution density, and the mass of the chemical
per gallon of solution. The table is intended to help determine the mass of a chemical present in the
solution for the purpose of calculating the materials metrics and to help determine the amount of water
present in the solution for the further purpose of calculating the water, energy, and air metrics.
Chemical Solution
Hydrochloric acid (37%)
Sulfuric acid (98%)
Sodium hydroxide (20%)
Sodium hydroxide (50%)
Hydrogen peroxide (30%)
Hydrogen peroxide (50%)
Ferric chloride (37%)
Sequestering agent (assume 40% solution)
Specific
Gravity
1.19
1.84
1.22
1.53
1.11
1.19
1.4
1.2
Density of
Solution
(Ibs/gal)
9.92
15.3
10.2
12.8
9.26
9.92
11.7
10.0
Mass of
Chemical per
Gallon of
Solution
(Ibs/gal)
3.67
15.0
2.03
6.40
2.78
4.96
4.33
4.00
Volume of
Water per
Gallon of
Solution
(gal/gal)
0.75
0.04
0.98
0.77
0.78
0.59
0.88
0.72
Information obtained from Material Data Safety Sheets for these chemical solutions
Example conversion from gallons of solution to pounds of chemical
4,000 gallons of 20% NaOH solution x 2.03 pounds per gallon = -800 pounds ofNaOH
NaOH = sodium hydroxide
Equation for determining water content of an aqueous solution
Water content
(gallons)
_ Volume of solution
(gallons)
Specific gravity
(unitless)
(100 - % concentration)
Example: 10,000 gallons of 20 percent Sodium Hydroxide (Specific gravity = 1.22)
x 7.22 x 80%
9,760
gallons
10,000
gallons
50
-------
EXHIBIT 3.5 - APPROXIMATE MATERIALS USE FOR PIPING AND
WIRING RUNS
Some remedies include long runs of piping and wiring to connect extraction wells to a treatment system.
The following table can be used to estimate the mass of refined materials involved in long runs of plastic
piping and wiring/conduit based on an approximate flow rate carried in the pipes. Values for PVC or
HDPE pipe are provided. This information has been provided to help streamline the process of gathering
information for the materials metric.
Pipe
Diameter
1-inch
2-inch
3 -inch
4-inch
6-inch
8 -inch
Approx.
Flow
(gpm)
5
25
50
90
200
350
SDR 11 HDPE Pipe
(Ibs/foot)
0.196
0.639
1.387
2.294
4.971
8.425
SCH 80 PVC Pipe
(Ibs/foot)
0.405
0.936
1.911
2.793
5.327
8.089
Estimated Wire
and Conduit
(Ibs/foot)
N/A
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
REFERENCES/METHODOLOGY:
Pipe size is based on approximate flow velocity of 2 to 2.5 feet per second. Pipe weight is based on pipe
made to ASTMInternational standards. Conduit values are general estimates based on one PVC or
HDPE power cable conduit and one PVC or HDPE control cable conduit that are sized appropriately for
the necessary cable/wire conductors. Wire values are general estimates based on four conductors
(including a ground) appropriately sized to provide power to a submersible pump providing the specified
flow and the associated control cables.
Example Application
1,000 feet of 6-inch HDPE pipe x 4.971 pounds per foot = -5,000 pounds of HDPE
51
-------
EXHIBIT 3.6 - APPROXIMATE MATERIALS USE FOR WELL INSTALLATION
Wells are a common element of groundwater remedies and can be complex from a materials inventory
perspective. The following table lists approximate materials use for well construction on a per foot basis
of well depth that may be helpful in quantifying materials use for the materials metrics.
Well
Diameter
2-inch
4-inch
6-inch
8-inch
10-inch
12-inch
Pounds per Foot of Well Depth
SCH40
PVC
Casing
0.681
2.012
3.537
5.323
7.547
9.979
Steel
Casing
3.65
10.79
18.97
28.55
40.48
49.56
Stainless
Steel
Screen
1.5
2.9
4.8
7.0
8.9
13.6
Grout for
Annulus
13
19
25
32
38
45
Grout to
Abandon
Well
2
6
14
25
40
57
Sand for
Annulus*
19
29
39
48
58
68
Drill
Cuttings
for
Disposal
22
39
61
87
119
155
REFERENCES/METHODOLOGY: Grout and sand use assumes annulus around casing has a diameter
that is 4 inches larger than the casing. Grout values are for neat cement assuming 6 gallons of water is
mixedwith 94 pounds of neat cement with a blended density of 15 pounds per gallon (generally typical of
engineering specifications). Pipe values based on typical of pipe specifications made to ASTM
International standards. Screen values are typical of manufacturer specifications for a 250-foot deep
well. Actual values may vary depending on the specific application. Drill cutting volume does not include
drilling mud for mud rotary drilling
52
-------
EXHIBIT 3.7 - APPROXIMATE MATERIALS USE FOR PROCESS EQUIPMENT AND
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
The following approximate rules of thumb have been established to assist in estimating materials use for
complex items in an attempt to streamline the level of effort to conduct a footprint analysis. Actual
materials use will vary, and use of site-specific values for these items is encouraged when these items are
believed to be significant contributors to the footprint.
Process Equipment and Controls
Permanent process equipment, piping, valves, and controls at a site can be comprised of many different
types of materials, and therefore can be complex from a materials inventory perspective. For simplicity,
this methodology suggests using the weight of the primary components (for example, the weight of steel
in an air stripper) and adding 25 percent to this weight as a general rule of thumb to obtain a reasonable
approximation of the refined materials associated with the piping, pumps, and controls for an overall
system. The weight of process equipment is typically readily available from a vendor web site.
Building Construction
Building construction is another type of materials use that can be difficult to inventory, especially during
the design stage if building vendors have not been contacted. Absent other information, the following
general rules of thumb can be used for estimating materials use associated with steel building
construction.
• Approximately 1 pound of steel per cubic foot of building space
• Approximately 1.3 pounds of steel per square foot of 6-inch slab
• Approximately 72.5 pounds of concrete per square foot of 6-inch slab
53
-------
EXHIBIT 3.8 - APPROXIMATE CONTENT OF CONCRETE, ASPHALT, AND STEEL
Concrete, asphalt, and steel are construction materials that are commonly used in environmental cleanups
and can represent a substantial portion of the materials used. General information about these materials
that is relevant to the footprint methodology, such as the typical proportions of the components in
concrete and asphalt, and the typical recycled content in steel, is provided in the following table and
discussed below. Note that if specific information is available from the manufacturer on the content of the
material used, the specific information should be used instead of the information provided below.
Material
Concrete
Fly ash concrete
Asphalt
Steel
Density
(lbs/ft3)
145
145
145
490
Pounds per Cubic Foot of Material
Refined Material
Total
22
22
7
490
Recycled/Reused
Content
0
4
1.4
270
Unrefined Material
Total
115
115
138
0
Recycled/Reused
Content
0
0
28
0
Concrete - Mixed concrete (by volume) is typically 0.5 parts water, 1 part cement (a refined material),
and 4.5 parts aggregate (an unrefined material). Water is covered separately under the water footprint and
is not considered a material in this methodology. Using the densities in Exhibit 3.3, concrete is 15 percent
refined material and 79 percent unrefined material by weight, with the remaining 6percent attributed to
the water. The density of concrete is approximately 145 pounds per cubic feet. Therefore, for every cubic
foot of concrete, approximately 22 pounds is refined material, 115 pounds is unrefined material, and the
remainder is water. For many applications, fly ash can be used as an admixture to replace up to 20 percent
of the cement component. Therefore, for fly ash concrete, 20 percent of the refined material (4 pounds)
can be considered recycled/reused.
REFERENCES: Values for proportions by volume obtained from Portland Cement Association
(www.cement.org) and converted to mass using densities provided from same source.
Information on fly ash from the Federal Highways Administration Materials Group:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/materialsgrp/flyash.htm.
Asphalt - Asphalt is approximately 5 percent asphalt cement (a refined material) and 95 percent aggregate
(unrefined) by weight. Therefore, for the purpose of this methodology, asphalt is assumed to be 5 percent
refined material and 95 percent unrefined material. Asphalt has an approximate compacted density of 145
pounds per cubic foot. Therefore, for every cubic foot of asphalt, approximately 7 pounds is refined
material and 138 pounds is unrefined material. Asphalt pavement typically contains up to as much as 20
percent recycled material. For the purpose of this methodology, this recycled content is assumed to be
evenly distributed among the refined and unrefined portions. Therefore, for one cubic foot of compacted
asphalt, approximately 1.4 pounds of the refined material is from recycled material and approximately 28
pounds of the unrefined material is from recycled material.
REFERENCES: National Asphalt Pavement Association (www.hotmix.org).
Steel - Recycling is an inherent part of the steel industry, and the recycled content of steel varies
depending on the furnace technology, which is somewhat specific to the type of product produced. The
recycled content for steel produced from a blast oxygen furnace is approximately 30 percent and the
recycled content for steel produced from an electric arc furnace is approximately 80 percent. For the
purpose of this methodology, the recycled content of steel is assumed to be the average (approximately 55
percent).
REFERENCES: Steel Takes LEED® with Recycled Content, American Iron and Steel Institute,
November 2009
54
-------
EXHIBIT 3.9 - STORMWATER DIVERSION
Significant diversions of stormwater can be considered a "use" because it results in transferring (using)
water from one resource and adding (discharging) it to another. For example, a large cap might divert
stormwater to a local surface water body rather than allowing it to recharge an aquifer. This diversion has
two effects. First, it reduces the recharge to the aquifer. The significance of this effect will vary from site
to site. If the site is in the recharge area of a drinking water aquifer, then diversion of precipitation would
affect replenishment of a potential drinking water resource. By contrast, a site might be located along a
creek such that infiltrating water would migrate only a short distance in the subsurface before discharging
to the creek. Preventing the water from recharging the aquifer in this latter case will not significantly
affect the local groundwater resource. Second, diversion of stormwater results in higher peak flows in the
receiving stream. This may have an effect on soil erosion or local ecosystems, potentially affecting one of
the other core elements of green remediation. It could also increase loading to a storm sewer or combined
sewer infrastructure. The significance of stormwater diversion can be conveyed by describing the quantity
and quality of the water diverted and the fate of the water. The quality of the water diverted is considered
the same quality as if it had naturally infiltrated and recharged the aquifer.
Diverted stormwater does not necessarily need to be discharged to surface water. Depending on the
facility, the surrounding environment, and the local land uses, the diverted stormwater may be collected
and used for beneficial purposes such as irrigation. The use of collected stormwater could then displace
the need to use other potentially valuable local water resources for these purposes. The collected
stormwater could also be diverted to facilitate infiltration into a different area of the same aquifer.
Calculating the amount of stormwater diverted depends on the percentage of precipitation water that
typically infiltrates. This is dependent on the surface soil, vegetation, slope, and other factors. Unless site-
specific calculations have been made to estimate changes in infiltration, the maximum amount of water
diverted can be used. This conservative approach assumes that all water naturally infiltrates into the
subsurface and the cap or remedy involves diversion of all of this water. Using these conditions, the
amount of water diverted annually is the average precipitation multiplied by the area of water diverted
according to the following equation:
Annual water
diverted =
(gallons/year)
Annual precipitation
(inches/year)
Area
(acres)
27,157
(gallons/acre-inches)
Total water diverted as a result of the remedy would be the annual water diverted multiplied by the
number of years diversion would occur.
55
-------
EXHIBIT 3.10A - GENERAL CHECKLIST FOR TYPICAL ITEMS TO CONSIDER IN
A FOOTPRINT ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION OF A REMEDY
This exhibit applies to the construction of remedies such as P&T, SVE, multi-phase extraction, or other
remedies that involve installing wells, laying pipe, erecting a building, and site grading (e.g., in situ
bioremediation remedies that involve permanent water supply wells and/or injection wells). This checklist
is intended to serve as an aid in identifying relevant components and is not necessarily an exhaustive list.
Other items related to the remedy, but not included below, should also be included if they are believed to
contribute significantly to the remedy footprint.
Transportation
Equipment Use
Quantities of
Materials and Offsite Services
Distance between site and
- Office of primary
consultant
- Offices of primary
contractors
- Manufacturers of various
construction materials
- Non-hazardous waste
landfill
- Hazardous waste landfill
Types of vehicles or modes
of transportation for
personnel, equipment,
material, and waste
transport
Quantity of material or
waste transported per trip
Type of fuel used in
vehicles
Material or waste transport
that requires an empty
return trip after delivery
• Equipment type, horsepower
rating, and total hours of
operation for
- Drilling wells
- Laying extraction and
injection network piping
- Trenching
- Clearing and grubbing
- Excavation and backfilling
- Grading
- Dredging
- Erecting buildings
- Dewatering
- Onsite electricity generation
- Providing compressed air
• Major electrical equipment not
running off of generators
- Pumps
- Blowers
- Mixers
Materials*
Services
- Waste disposal*
- Offsite water treatment**
- Laboratory analysis
* SEE MATERIALS AND WASTE
SECTION
** SEE WATER SECTION
56
-------
EXHIBIT 3.10B - GENERAL CHECKLIST FOR TYPICAL ITEMS TO CONSIDER IN
A FOOTPRINT ASSOCIATED WITH REMEDY OPERATION
This exhibit applies to the operation of remedies such as P&T, air sparging (AS)/SVE, multi-phase
extraction, or other remedies that involve long-term operation (e.g., in situ bioremediation or monitored
natural attenuation). This checklist is intended to serve as an aid in identifying relevant components and is
not necessarily an exhaustive list. Other items related to the remedy, but not specified below, should also
be included if they are believed to contribute significantly to the remedy footprint.
Transportation
Equipment Type, Power
Rating, Hours of Operation
Quantities of
Materials and Services
Distance between site and
- Office of primary consultant
- Office of primary contractors
- Manufacturers of various
construction materials
- Non-hazardous waste landfill
- Hazardous waste landfill
Types of vehicles or modes of
transportation for personnel,
equipment, material, and waste
transport
Quantity of material or waste
transported per trip
Type of fuel used in vehicles
Material or waste transport that
requires an empty return trip after
delivery
• Electrical equipment
- Extraction pumps
- Transfer pumps
- Chemical feed pumps
- Blowers
- Air compressors for
pneumatic equipment and
air sparging
- GAC pre-heaters
- Mixers
- Ozone generators
- Subsurface electric
heating
- Electric building heat
- Building lighting
- Building ventilation
- Catalytic oxidizers
• Gasoline, diesel, and
biofuel equipment
- Direct-push rigs for
chemical injection
- Other heavy equipment
- Generators
- Fuel-powered pumps
and compressors
- Subsurface heating
- Major landscaping
- Vehicles for onsite
transportation
• Natural gas equipment
- Building heat
- Process heaters
- Generators
- Thermal oxidizers
- Subsurface steam
heating
- Boilers
Materials*
Services
- Waste disposal*
- Off site water treatment**
- Laboratory analysis
* SEE MATERIALS AND WASTE
SECTION
** SEE WATER SECTION
Onsite Emissions and Reductions
• Landfill gas emissions
• Air stripper or SVE off-gas
• Emissions from large open
excavations
• Planted trees and biomass
57
-------
EXHIBIT 3.11 A - QUANTIFYING FUEL USE FOR
PERSONNEL TRANSPORTATION
The following table can be used to organize and calculate fuel use for personnel transportation. Two
different calculation options are provided in decreasing order of known information. It is preferable to
use the calculation Option 1 where possible. Option 2 can be used if the information is not available
for Option 1.
Activity
Input #1
Input #2
Fuel Use
Option 1 - Known Number of Events and Known Fuel Use per Trip
# of events
X
Fuel use per event
—
Fuel Use
(gals)
Option 2 - Known Distance and Vehicle Type
Distance traveled
^
Fuel efficiency
(mpg or pmpg)
=
Fuel Use
(gals)
Notes:
"Event" can refer to a specific trip, time period, or broader activity for which fuel use is known.
"mpg " = miles per gallon "pmpg " = passenger miles per gallon
If the distance of travel is not known, it should be estimated based on professional judgment (e.g., the
approximate distance to the nearest suburban or metropolitan area where a consultant or contractor
may be located). If the vehicle type is not known, it can be assumed based on professional judgment
and applying the fuel efficiencies from the following table.
Vehicle Type
Airplane (pmpg)
Bus (pmpg)
Passenger car (mpg)
Light-duty truck (mpg)
Light-duty truck with trailer or heavy load (mpg)
Train (pmpg)
Fuel Efficiency (mpg or pmpg)
Gasoline
N/A
N/A
24
17
N/A
N/A
Diesel or B20
45
96
28
20
6
59
Airplane/jet fuel calculated as dieselfor simplicity and due to similarities between kerosene and diesel
Gasoline car and truck efficiencies and diesel car, truck, airplane, bus, and train efficiencies from converting
average CO2 emissions for each mode of transportation using values of 22.3 pounds of CO2 per gallon of
diesel and 19.4 pounds of CO2 per gallon of gasoline. Average CO2 emissions are from Climate Leaders from
Commuting, Business Travel and Product Transport to diesel use assuming Climate Leaders. CO2 emissions
per gallon of fuel are from Climate Leaders Direct Emissions from Mobile Combustion Sources.
58
-------
EXHIBIT 3.1 IB - QUANTIFYING FUEL USE FOR HEAVY EQUIPMENT USE
The following table can be used to organize and calculate fuel use associated with heavy equipment
use. Two different calculation options are provided in decreasing order of known information. It is
preferable to use the calculation Option 1 where possible. Option 2 can be used if the information is
not available for Option 1.
Activity
Input #1
Input #2
Fuel Use
Option 1 - Known Fuel Use or Equipment Owner Estimated Fuel Use
Event
X
Fuel use per event
=
Fuel Use
(gals)
Option 2 - Known or Estimated Horsepower Rating, Fuel Type, and Hours of Operation
HP
X
Hours
X
BSFC
X
PLF
=
Fuel Use
(gals)
Notes:
Option 1 - "Event" can refer to a specific task, time period, or entire scope of work. Fuel use per event is
assumed to be a reasonable estimate by the equipment owner based on fuel use for a similar, but previously
executed event.
Option 2 - "HP" = horsepower rating of equipment "Hours" = hours of operation
"BSFC" brake-specific fuel capacity "PLF"= partial load factor
The assumed BSFC for diesel and biodiesel is 0.050 gallons per HP-hr.
The assumed BSFC for gasoline is 0.056 gallons per HP-hr.
BSFC values are consistent with 7,000 British thermal units (Btu)THP-hr (as used by EPA AP-42,
Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Chapter 3) and fuel higher heating values of 139,000
Btus for diesel and 124,000 Btus for gasoline (as used by Climate Leaders).
The following table provides HP and PLF values for common types of equipment.
Equipment Type
Medium/large excavator (2 CY bucket)
Medium loader (3 CY bucket)
Medium dozer, 100+ foot haul
Direct-push rig for soil sampling
Hollow-stem auger for well installation
Air or mud rotary for well installation
HP
175
200
200
60
150
500
PLF
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
Production Rate
720 cy/day
1200 cy/day
500 cy/day
250 ft/day
100 ft/day
200 ft/day
Production rates and equipment sizes are generally consistent with production rates reported RSMeans Building
Construction Cost Data and are representative averages. Actual production rates may vary due to a number of
factors including site conditions and operator experience. Site teams are encouraged to use more site-specific
production rates if they can be documented. Absent other information a PLF ofO. 75 is a reasonable estimate for
heavy equipment. The PLF may decrease if work is inefficient for a variety of reasons. Many of the same
inefficiencies would also reduce the production rate. Therefore, if the assumed production rate is lower, it is
appropriate for the PLF to be lowered by a commensurate amount resulting in no net change in fuel use.
59
-------
EXHIBIT 3.11C - QUANTIFYING FUEL USE FOR EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, AND
WASTE TRANSPORTATION
The following table can be used to organize and calculate fuel use for equipment, materials, and waste
transportation. Two different calculation options are provided in decreasing order of known information.
It is preferable to use Option 1. Option 2 can be used if information is not available for Option 1.
Activity
Input #1
Input #2
Fuel Use
Option 1 - Known Number of Events and Known Fuel Use per Trip
# of events
X
Fuel use per event
=
Fuel Use
(gals)
Option 2a - Common Freight - Known Distance, Cargo Weight, and Vehicle Type
Distance
traveled
X
Weight
(tons)
X
Fuel efficiency
(gptm)
=
Fuel Use
(gals)
Option 2b - Specialty Freight Load or Empty Load by Truck - Known Distance
Distance
X
Fuel efficiency
(mpg)
=
Fuel Use
(gals)
Notes:
"Event" can refer to a specific trip, time period, or broader activity for which fuel use is known.
"gptm " = gallons per ton-mile "mpg " = miles per gallon
The distance for materials transport should be from the manufacturer, not just from the local distributor. If
the distance of travel is not known, it should be estimated based on professional judgment considering the
following examples: 1,000 miles for specialty items and hazardous waste transport, 500 miles for most
materials, and 25 miles for borrow, fill, sand/gravel, asphalt, concrete, and non-hazardous waste transport.
Empty return trips should be considered as appropriate. Fuel efficiencies reported in gallons per ton-mile
(gptm) are assumed to include the empty return trip:
Vehicle Type
Truck (include separate empty return trip as appropriate)
Truck Common Freight (empty return trips included)
Train (empty return trips included)
Barge (empty return trips included)
Aircraft (empty return trips included)
Fuel Efficiency
Units
mpg
gptm
gptm
gptm
gptm
Value
6
0.029
0.0025
0.0047
0.15
Airplane/jet fuel calculated as dieselfor simplicity and due to similarities between kerosene and diesel.
Fuel efficiencies are obtained by from converting average CO2 emissions reported in Climate Leaders:
Commuting, Business Travel and Product Transport (EPA430-R-08-006) to diesel use.
Provided fuel efficiencies are representative averages. Actual efficiencies may vary due to a number of factors.
Site teams are encouraged to use more site-specific fuel efficiencies if those efficiencies can be documented.
60
-------
EXHIBIT 3.12 - ESTIMATING SIZES OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT
Estimating Pump Size Based on Expected Flow Parameters
QH 1 HP = horsepower
HP = 3956"X ~n Q= flowrate (gPm)
H=tota\ dynamic head (feet of water)
?7=pump efficiency (absent other information, assume (70%)
3956 = conversion factor from ft-gpm to HP
Round HP to the next highest value of (0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 5, 7.5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, 50,...) to determine
motor size
Estimating Blower Size Based on Expected Air Flow Requirements
QH 1 HP = horsepower
HP = ~^ x~ Q= flowrate (cfm)
#=total dynamic head (inches of water)
?7=blower efficiency (absent other information, assume (55%)
527 = conversion factor from cfm-inches of water to HP
Round HP to the next highest value of (0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 5, 7.5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, 50,...) to determine
motor size
Estimating Compressor Size Based on Compressed Air Requirements
Absent more specific information, based on a general rule of thumb, at 100 pounds per square inch (psi),
assume approximately 3.6 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) per HP.
Hp = s_cfin_
3.6
Off-gas Preheating
Absent more specific information, based on a general rule of thumb, assume approximately 0.003 kW of
electricity demand per scfm of air flow.
kW = 0.003 xscfm
Note: The above formulas are intended to provide approximate values for the purpose of estimating an
energy footprint and are not intended to provide estimates for design purposes or financial forecasting.
If more specific information is available, it should be used in place of these formulas.
61
-------
EXHIBIT 3.13 - ESTIMATING ELECTRICITY USE FOR TYPICAL
REMEDIATION COMPONENTS
During operation, electricity use can typically be determined by referring to electrical bills; however,
during the early remedy design stages, estimating electrical use is not as straightforward. In addition, even
if electrical bills are available during operation, it is helpful to estimate electricity use from all major
remedial components. This exhibit provides general rules of thumb for estimating electricity power
requirements.
Item
Small motors (< 1 HP)
(e.g., for pumps, blowers, mixers)
Large motors (> 1HP)
(e.g., for pumps, blowers, mixers)
Items with known electrical ratings
(e.g., kW)
Interpreting VFD settings
Calculation for Estimating Electricity
IrWh U v 0 74^ v hmn-v (n ~ 0 6^ /
rim
;rnfy - x M y o 746 x hnjjrv (n = 0 7^ L
rim
Use
- 80%)
= 80%)
kWh^ kWx hourt
HPxL 3
]fW]~ — y -' 0 746- hour?
^X77v
kW = kilowatts of electric power
kWh = kilowatt-hours of electricity
HP = horsepower
LM = percent of motor full load
Lv = percent of VFD full load (or speed in Hertz divided by 60 Hertz)
r/m = motor efficiency (typically 60% for less than 1 HP to 85% for 15 HP or greater)
r/v = VFD efficiency (typically 75% for less 50% load to 93% for more than 90% load)
hours = hours of operation over time frame of project
0.746 = conversion of HP to kW
VFD = variable frequency drive
Note: The above formulas are intended to provide approximate values for the purpose of energy
footprinting and are not intended to provide estimates for design purposes or financial forecasting. If
more specific information is available, it should be used in place of these formulas.
62
-------
EXHIBIT 3.14 - SUGGESTED CONVERSION FACTORS
Suggested conversion factor values are provided to help convert various forms of fuel use, materials manufacturing, and offsite services into
energy use and air pollution emissions. The conversion factors presented here are from a variety of sources, most of which are publicly available
life cycle inventory databases, and there is an inherent degree of uncertainty in the values. First, the life cycle inventory data may not be able to
accurately represent complex processes involved in manufacturing materials or providing offsite services. Second, the life cycle inventory data
represent overall averages of a particular industry rather than the specific processes or resources used at a particular facility that may produce the
majority of a particular material used in a project. Actual conversion factors may vary substantially due to a variety of factors including variations
in manufacturing practices and in sources of energy used in the manufacturing process. Third, there are many materials or services that may be
used in a remedy that are not included in the publicly available databases. More robust proprietary life cycle inventory databases exist and were
consulted as part of developing this methodology, but proprietary conversion factors are not presented in the tables below due to restrictions in
database licensing agreements. Project teams are encouraged to identify more specific conversion factors and to follow green procurement
practices when practicable. The data quality and the sources of alternative conversion factors, whether obtained from life cycle inventory databases
or developed independently by the project team, should be well documented as part of the footprint analysis.
Item or Service
Fuel Combustion
Biodiesel use
Diesel use
Gasoline use
Landfill gas use
Natural gas use
Unit
gal
gal
gal
ccfCH4
ccf
Suggested Conversion Factors
Parameters Used, Extracted, Emitted, or Generated
Energy
Used
MMBtu
0.127
0.139
0.124
0.103
0.103
C02e
Emitted
Ibs
22.3
22.5
19.6
13.1
13.1
NOx
Emitted
Ibs
0.20
0.17
0.11
0.01
0.01
SOx
Emitted
Ibs
0
0.0054
0.0045
0.0000063
0.0000063
PM
Emitted
Ibs
0.00099
0.0034
0.00054
0.00076
0.00076
HAPs
Emitted
Ibs
NP
0.0000052
0.000039
0.0000084
0.0000084
Reference
1
2
3
4
4
See notes on last page of this exhibit for references.
63
-------
EXHIBIT 3.14 - SUGGESTED CONVERSION FACTORS (continued)
Item or Service Used
Construction Materials
Cement
Concrete
Gravel/sand/clay
HOPE
Photovoltaic system (installed)
PVC
Stainless Steel
Steel
Other refined construction materials
Other unrefined construction materials
Unit
Dry-lb
Ib
Ib
Ib
Watt
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
Suggested Conversion Factors
Parameters Used, Extracted, Emitted, or Generated
Energy
Used
MMBtu
0.0021
0.00041
0.000028
0.031
0.034
0.022
0.012
0.0044
0.014
0.000028
C02e
Emitted
Ibs
0.9
0.171
0.0034
1.9
4.5
2.6
3.4
1.1
1.98
0.00335
NOx
Emitted
Ibs
0.0018
0.00035
0.000017
0.0032
0.015
0.0048
0.0075
0.0014
0.0037
0.000017
SOx
Emitted
Ibs
0.00105
0.00021
0.000015
0.0041
0.032
0.0076
0.012
0.0017
0.0053
0.000015
PM
Emitted
Ibs
0.0000032
0.00001
0.0000020
0.00064
0.00063
0.0012
0.0044
0.00056
0.0014
0.000002
HAPs
Emitted
Ibs
0.000029
0.00001
2.1E-10
0.0000034
0.0000029
0.00047
0.00014
0.000067
0.00014
2.1E-10
Reference
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
See notes on last page of this exhibit for references.
64
-------
EXHIBIT 3.14 - SUGGESTED CONVERSION FACTORS (continued)
Item or Service Used
Treatment Materials and Chemicals
Cheese Whey
Emulsified vegetable oil
Molasses
Treatment materials and chemicals
Virgin GAC (coal based)
Fuel Processing
Biodiesel Produced
Diesel Produced
Gasoline Produced
Natural Gas Produced
Public water
Unit
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
gal
gal
gal
ccf
gal x 1000
Suggested Conversion Factors
Parameters Used, Extracted, Emitted, or Generated
Energy
Used
MMBtu
0.0025
0.0077
0.0044
0.015
0.015
0.029
0.019
0.021
0.0052
0.0092
C02e
Emitted
Ibs
0.031
3.44
0.48
1.7
8.5
-16.8
2.7
4.4
2.2
5
NOx
Emitted
Ibs
0.000062
0.0066
0.0011
0.003
0.014
0.018
0.0064
0.008
0.0037
0.0097
SOx
Emitted
Ibs
0.000033
0.0019
0.00024
0.0065
0.034
0.033
0.013
0.019
0.0046
0.0059
PM
Emitted
Ibs
0.000002
0.000033
0.0000041
0.00061
0.00078
0.00082
0.00034
0.00052
0.000072
0.016
HAPs
Emitted
Ibs
NP
NP
NP
0.000016
0.0012
NP
0.00012
0.00016
0.0000061
0.0000150
Reference
15
16
17
18
19
1
20
21
22
23
See notes on last page of this exhibit for references.
65
-------
EXHIBIT 3.14 - SUGGESTED CONVERSION FACTORS (continued)
Item or Service Used
Offsite Services
Offsite waste water treatment
Offsite Solid Waste Disposal
Offsite Haz. Waste Disposal
Offsite Laboratory Analysis
Electricity Generation
Resource Extraction for Electricity
Coal extraction and processing
Natural gas extraction and processing
Nuclear fuel extraction and processing
Oil extraction and processing
Electricity Transmission
Unit
gal x 1000
ton
ton
$
Suggested Conversion Factors
Parameters Used, Extracted, Emitted, or Generated
Energy
Used
MMBtu
0.015
0.16
0.18
0.0065
C02e
Emitted
Ibs
4.4
25
27.5
1
NOx
Emitted
Ibs
0.016
0.14
0.154
0.0048
SOx
Emitted
Ibs
0.015
0.075
0.0825
0.0036
PM
Emitted
Ibs
NP
0.4
0.44
0.0004
HAPs
Emitted
Ibs
NP
0.0014
0.0015
0.00013
Reference
24
25
26
27
See Exhibit 3. 17
MWh
MWh
MWh
MWh
3.1
1.6
0.16
2.3
180
270
250
270
0.77
0.18
0.15
1.7
0.15
13
0.5
0.069
0.018
0.0071
0.0015
0.042
NP
NP
NP
NP
10 percent of electricity generation footprint for each parameter
28
29
30
31
32
MMBtu = millions of British thermal units
Ibs = pounds
NP = not provided
gal = gallon
ccf= hundred cubic feet
MWh = megawatt-hour
ton = short ton (2,000 pounds)
See notes on last page of this exhibit for references.
66
-------
EXHIBIT 3.14- SUGGESTED CONVERSION FACTORS (continued)
REFERENCES:
1. Life Cycle Inventory ofBiodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban Bus, NREL/SR-580-24089 UC Category 1503, U.S. Department of
Agriculture and U.S. Department of Energy, May 1998. The CO2e emissions for "biodiesel produced" are negative because of the uptake ofCO2 in the
crops used to produce the fuels. This CO2 is emitted during fuel combustion and is reflected in the CO2e emissions for "biodiesel use ".
2. Multiple sources
a. Energy and CO2e emissions from Direct Emissions from Mobile Combustion Sources, EPA430-K-08-004, U.S. EPA, May 2008.
b. NOx, SOx, PM, and HAPs from NREL: SS_Transport, single unit truck, diesel powered.xls
3. Multiple sources
a. Energy and CO2e emissions from Direct Emissions from Mobile Combustion Sources, EPA430-K-08-004, U.S. EPA, May 2008.
b. NOx, SOx, PM, and HAPs from NREL: SS_Transport, single unit truck, gasoline powered.xls
4. Multiple sources and simplifying assumption that emissions of natural gas reasonably represent combustion of methane component of landfill gas
a. Energy and CO'2e emissions for compressed natural gas in heavy vehicles from Direct Emissions from Mobile Combustion Sources, EPA430-
K-08-004, U.S. EPA, May 2008.
b. NOx, SOx, PM, and HAPs from NREL: SS_Natural gas, combusted in industrial boiler.xls
5. EUROPA - Portland cement
6. Calculated from presented emission factors for public water, cement, and gravel/sand/clay by assuming typical concrete proportions by weight of
0.45:1:4 of water, cement, and sand/gravel
7. EUROPA - Gravel 2/32
8. EUROPA - Polyethylene high density granulate (PE-HD)
9. Life-Cycle Assessment of the 33 kW Photovoltaic System on the Dana Building at the University of Michigan Thin Film Laminates, Multi-Crystalline
Modules, and Balance of System Components Sergio Pacca, Deepak Sivaraman and Gregory A. Keoleian Center for Sustainable Systems, University of
Michigan Report No. CSS05-09, June 1, 2006
10. EUROPA - Suspension Polymerisation PVC
11. EUROPA - Stainless steel
12. EUROPA -Average of Steel hot rolled section, Steel hot rolled coil, Steel rebar
13. Averages of conversion factors for cement, HDPE, PVC, stainless steel, and steel
14. Same as conversion factors for gravel/sand/clay
15. Offset values for cheese whey obtained from the module for yellow cheese from Nielsen PH, Nielsen AM, Weidema BP, DalgaardR andHalbergN
(2003). LCA food data base, www.lcafood. dk, Andersen M and Jensen JD (2003). Marginale producenter afudvalgte basislevnedsmidler (in Danish)
Udkast d. S.februar 2003.
16. Values for rapeseed oil from Nielsen PH, Nielsen AM, Weidema BP, DalgaardR andHalberg N (2003). LCA food data base, www.lcafood.dk.
Landbrugets radgivningscenter (2000). Talfra Fodermiddeltabellen, Raport nr. 91. In Danish. Weidema BP (1999). System expansions to handle co-
products of renewable materials. Presentation Summaries of the 7th LCA Scenarios Symposium SETAC-Europe, 1999. Pp. 45-48. pdf. Weidema B
(2003). Market information in life cycle assessments. Technical report, Danish Environmental Protection Agency (Environmental Project no. 863).
17. Offset values for molasses obtained from the module for sugar from Nielsen PH, Nielsen AM, Weidema BP, DalgaardR andHalbergN (2003). LCA
food data base, www.lcafood.dk. Sugar Production based on Danisco Sugar Author: Per H. Nielsen July 2003
67
-------
EXHIBIT 3.14 - SUGGESTED CONVERSION FACTORS (continued)
18. Intended for any common treatment chemical in pure form including chemical oxidants and regenerated granular activated carbon. For chemical
solutions, use only the mass of the chemical portion of the solution. Conversion factor is based on average value of conversion factors for the following
seven common treatment chemicals as reported by Ecoinvent v2.1 from the Ecoinvent Centre for Life-Cycle Inventories, http://www.ecoinvent. ch/
Hydrochloric Acid (30percent) - normalized to pure hydrochloric acid by dividing by database results by 0.3.
Sodium hydroxide (50 percent) - normalized to pure sodium hydroxide by dividing database results by 0.5.
Ferric chloride (iron III chloride)
Potassium permanganate
Sodium persulfate
Chlorine gas
Hydrogen peroxide (50 percent) - normalized to pure hydrogen peroxide by dividing database result by 0.5.
This averaging approach adds an additional layer of uncertainty to the conversion factors provided. For example, the range for energy is approximately
0.007 MMBtu to 0.025 MMBtu. The average (0.015 MMBtu) may overestimate the energy use value for some of the chemicals below by more than 100
percent and underestimate the energy us value for other chemicals by 40 percent. Additionally, some common treatment chemicals (e.g., sulfuric acid
and ferrous sulfate) have energy footprints that are substantially outside the presented range and would not be accurately represented by these values.
If an additional level of accuracy is preferred, readers of this methodology are encouraged to seek and document well referenced conversion factors as
part of footprint analysis submittals.
19. Based on "treatment materials and chemicals" above plus the result of combusting 1.86 pounds of bituminous coal. The additional coal combustion
represents the coal that is combusted in the activation process. The 1.86 pounds of bituminous coal assumes that the activated carbon yield is
approximately 35 percent of the coal used as a feedstock (e.g., 2.86 pounds of coal yields 1 pound of granular activated carbon), which is consistent
with values reported in Pore Develop of Activated Carbon Prepared by Steam Activate Process, Kim SC and Hong, IK, Journal of Industrial and
Engineering Chemistry, Vol. 4, No. 3, September 1998, 177-184.
20. EUROPA - diesel at refinery
21. EUROPA - gasoline at refinery
22. EUROPA - natural gas at consumer
23. EUROPA - Drinking water from surface water and drinking water from groundwater
24. Calculated based on Life-Cycle Energy and Emissions for Municipal Water and Wastewater Services: Case-Studies of Treatment Plants in USMalavika
Tripathi, Center for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan Report No. CSS07-06, April 17, 2007
EUROPA - Inert waste disposal
Values from EUROPA inertwaste disposal plus an arbitrary additional lOpercentto account additional practices required of a hazardous waste
disposal facility
27. Based on U.S. CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS AND INTENSITIES OVER TIME: A DETAILED ACCOUNTING OF INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT
AND HOUSEHOLDS, APRIL 2010. Approximately 1 Ib ofCO2 is emitted per dollar of gross domestic product. In the absence of other information, it is
assumed that the laboratory also has an emission profile of approximately 1 Ib ofCO2 emitted per dollar of sample cost. Conversion factor estimates
assume that 50 percent of this 1 Ib ofCO2per dollar of sample cost results from electricity use (U.S. average fuel blend) and 50 percent is due to diesel
use. A dollar of sample cost can then be converted into electricity and diesel use. The conversion factors result from this electricity and diesel use using
the average electricity fuel blend for the United States and the diesel conversion factors provided here.
68
-------
EXHIBIT 3.14 - SUGGESTED CONVERSION FACTORS (continued)
28. NREL - life cycle of electricity from bituminous coal minus the emissions from combusting coal
29. NREL - life cycle of electricity from natural gas minus the emissions from combusting natural gas
30. NREL - life cycle of electricity from nuclear
31. NREL - life cycle of electricity from residual oil minus the emissions from combusting residua oil
32. U.S. Dept. of Energy (GridWorks: Overview of the Electric Grid http://sites.energetics.com/gridworks/grid.html).
NREL = National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Life Cycle Inventory, provided by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and operated by Alliance for
Sustainable Energy, LLC under contract to the U.S. Department of Energy, www.nrel. gov/lci
EUROPA = European Reference Life Cycle Database (ELCD core database), version II compiled under contract on behalf of the European Commission - DG
Joint Research Centre - Institute for Environment and Sustainability with technical and scientific support by JRC-IESfrom early 2008 to early 2009.
(http://lca.jrc. ec. europa. eu/lcainfohub/datasetArea. vm)
69
-------
EXHIBIT 3.15 - ESTIMATING AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS FROM
ONSITE SOURCES
Some treatment processes (such as air strippers used in P&T systems) and some remedies (such as SVE
systems) involve discharge of process air to the atmosphere. It is common to include off-gas treatment to
mitigate discharge of pollutants to the atmosphere, but in some cases off-gas treatment is not provided.
The following equations provide assistance in calculating the emission rate in pounds per year from air
strippers and SVE systems.
Estimating Air Emissions from Air Stripper Off-Gas
„ gxCx3.785x1440x365x2.2x77, x(l-^)
-C/ = ;
E = Emission rate (pounds per year)
Q = process water flow rate (gpm)
C = concentration ((ig/L)
rjs = air stripper efficiency (assume 100%)
rjt = off-gas treatment efficiency (varies)
3.785 = liters per gallon
1440 = minutes per day
365 = days per year
2.2 = pounds per kilogram
Estimating Air Emissions from SVE Systems
E =
QxCx 0.0283 x 1440 x 365 x 2.2 x (1 - rjt)
E = Emission rate (pounds per year)
Q = process water flow rate (cfm)
C = concentration ((ig/m3)
0.0283 = cubic meters per cubic feet
1440 = minutes per day
365 = days per year
2.2 = pounds per kilogram
rjt = off-gas treatment efficiency (varies)
Estimating Air Emissions from Soil during Construction Activities
The 2002 EPA guidance document titled Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening
Levels for Superfund Sites (OSWER 9355.4-24) provides a number of equations that can be used
to estimate pollutant emissions from soil and dust generation from construction activities. Dust
generation can be a significant source of PM10 emissions.
70
-------
EXHIBIT 3.16 - ESTIMATING CARBON STORED IN PLANTED TREES
Carbon Stored in Planted Trees
Cs = carbon dioxide stored
bhd = breast-height diameter of tree in (cm), assume 1 cm/yr growth rate for up to 40 years and a slower
rate thereafter
Values represent average parameters for willow, poplar, oak, birch, and cypress trees
REFERENCES:
Biomass calculated based on equations from Jenkins, Jennifer C.; Chojnacky, David C.; Heath,
Linda S.; Birdsey, Richard A., National scale biomass estimators for United States tree species,
Forest Science. 49: 12-35, 2003
Willow - http://na.fs.fed. us/pubs/silvics manual/volume 2/salix/nigra. htm
species group (aa) according to Jenkins 2003
Bald Cypress - http://na.fs.fed.us/pubs/silvicsjnanual/Volume 1/taxodium/distichum.htm
species group (cl) according to Jenkins 2003
Poplar - http://na.fs.fed. us/pubs/silvics manual/volume 2/liriodendron/tulipifera. htm
species group (aa) according to Jenkins 2003
River Birch - http://na.fs.fed.us/pubs/silvics manual/volume 2/betula/nigra.htm
species group (mb) according to Jenkins 2003
Water Oak - http://na.fs.fed.us/pubs/silvics manual/volume 2/quercus/nigra.htm
species group (mo) according to Jenkins 2003
71
-------
EXHIBIT 3.17 - USING DATA FROM ELECTRIC SERVICE PROVIDERS TO DETERMINE FOOTPRINT CONVERSION FACTORS
The methodology involves the use of footprint conversion factors to convert electricity use into energy use and CO2e, NOx, SOx, PM, and HAP emissions. When possible, the fuel blend from the electric service provider should be used to
determine this information because it is likely more specific to the site and has likely been updated more recently than eGRID. This fuel blend may be referred to as a "generation mix" or provided on a "Power Content Label". If this information
is not available, then the data for the state where the site is located can be obtained from the most recent year indicated in Table 5 of the state electricity profile obtained from www.eia.gov. Note that information for electricity service providers is
available through eGRID (www.epa.gov/egrid) but should not be used for this methodology unless the information is consistent with that obtained directly from the electric service provider. Note that although renewable components of grid
electricity are considered when establishing conversion factors for the electricity, the renewable components are not included in the renewable energy metrics (E-2). This is because renewables in the basic grid electricity is not considered a
"voluntary" renewable. See Section 2.3 of the methodology for additional information.
Example Power Content from Electric Service Provider
Energy Source
Natural gas
Nuclear
Renewable (30% total)
- Geothermal (16%)
- Biomass/waste (15%)
- Hydroelectric (63%)
- Wind (6%)
- Solar (<1%)
Coal
Other
Percentage of
Power Mix
Delivered to
Customers
39%
4.8%
4.5%
18.9%
1.8%
<1%
8%
1%
22%
F
A
E
f
Converting Resource Mix to Footprint Conversion Factors and Portion of Energy Derived from Renewable Resources
Type
Conventional Energy
Coal
Natural Gas
Oil
Nuclear
Renewable Energy
Biomass
Geothermal
Hydro
Solar
Wind
Total
%of
Total
Used
Energy
(MMbtu/MWh)
Full
Load
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
Adj. by
%
"ull load emission values for each fuel type obtained J
11 values do not include energy and emissions for res
Energy conversion factors exclude the energy contaim
"or simplicity, energy conversion factors are assumea
thermoelectric facilities but may under or over est
CO2e (Ibs/MWh)
Full
Load
2200
1300
1800
0
0
0
0
0
0
Adj. by
%
®
0
0
0
0
NOx (Ibs/MWh)
Full
Load
6
1.1
2.2
1.4
0
0
0
0
rrom www.nrel.gov/lci.
Adj. by
%
0
0
0
0
0
SOx (Ibs/MWh)
Full
Load
15
0.0066
2.8
0.65
0
0
0
0
Adj.
by%
0
0
0
0
0
PM (Ibs/MWh)
Full
Load
.092
0.08
0.13
0.084
0
0
0
0
Adj.
by%
0
0
0
0
0
HAPs (Ibs/MWh)
Full
Load
0.66
0.025
0.066
5.3E-6
0
0
0
0
Adj.
by%
0
0
0
0
0
ource extraction or for transmission losses, which are counted in Scope 3b.
?d in the MWh of electricity used by the remedy to avoid double counting of Scope 1 energy use.
1 to be 6.9 MMBtu per MWh (equivalent to 33% efficiency) for all energy sources, which is typical for
'mate the energy footprint from other sources.
72
-------
Appendix B:
Suggested Formats for Presenting the
Results of the Footprint Analysis
FLOW OF INFORMATION FOR TABLES B-l THROUGH B-6
TABLE B-l. SUGGESTED FORMAT FOR SUMMARIZING AND PRESENTING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINT ANALYSIS RESULTS
TABLE B-2. SUGGESTED FORMAT FOR PRESENTING MATERIALS METRICS
TABLE B-3. SUGGESTED FORMAT FOR PRESENTING WASTE METRICS
TABLE B-4. SUGGESTED FORMAT FOR PRESENTING ONSITE WATER METRICS
TABLE B-5A. SUGGESTED FORMAT FOR CALCULATING AND PRESENTING ONSITE (SCOPE
1) ENERGY AND AIR METRICS
TABLE B-5B. SUGGESTED FORMAT FOR CALCULATING AND PRESENTING ELECTRICITY
GENERATION (SCOPE 2) ENERGY AND AIR METRICS
TABLE B-5C. SUGGESTED FORMAT FOR CALCULATING AND PRESENTING
TRANSPORTATION (SCOPE 3A) ENERGY AND AIR METRICS
TABLE B-5D. SUGGESTED FORMAT FOR CALCULATING AND PRESENTING OFFSITE
(SCOPE 3B) ENERGY AND AIR METRICS
TABLE 6. SUGGESTED FORMAT FOR SUMMARZING ENERGY AND AIR METRICS
SUGGESTED FORMAT FOR ILLUSTRATING CONTRIBUTIONS TO A METRIC
73
-------
FLOW OF INFORMATION FOR TABLES B-l THROUGH B-6
TABLE B-2
MATERIALS
TABLE B-3
WASTE
TABLE B-l
FOOTPRINT
SUMMARY
TABLE B-4
WATER
TABLE B-5A
ON-SITE
ENERGY AND AIR
TABLE B-5B
ELEC. GENERATION
ENERGY AN AIR
TABLE B-5C
TRANSPORTATION
ENERGY AND AIR
TABLE B-5D
OFFSITE
ENERGY AND AIR
TABLE B-6
SUMMARY
ENERGY AND AIR
74
-------
TABLE B-l. SUGGESTED FORMAT FOR PRESENTING THE ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINT ANALYSIS RESULTS
Core
Element
Materials &
Waste
Water
Energy
Air
Land&
Ecosystems
Metric
M&W-l
M&W-2
M&W-3
M&W-4
M&W-5
M&W-6
M&W-7
W-l
W-2
W-3
W-4
E-l
E-2
E-2A
E-2B
E-2C
A-l
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
Refined materials used on site
percent of refined materials from recycled or waste material
Unrefined materials used on site
percent of unrefined materials from recycled or waste material
Onsite hazardous waste generated
Onsite non-hazardous waste generated
percent of total potential onsite waste that is recycled or
reused
Onsite water use (by source)
- Source, use, fate combination #1
- Source, use, fate combination #2
- Source, use, fate combination #3
- Source, use, fate combination #4
Total energy use
Total energy voluntarily derived from renewable resources
- Onsite generation or use and biodiesel use
- Voluntary purchase of renewable electricity
- Voluntary purchase of RECs
Onsite NOx, SOx, and PM emissions
Onsite HAP emissions
Total NOx, SOx, and PM emissions
Total HAP emissions
Total GHG emissions
Unit of Measure
tons
percent
tons
percent
tons
tons
percent
millions of gals
millions of gals
millions of gals
millions of gals
MMBtu
MMBtu
MWh
MWh
Ibs
Ibs
Ibs
Ibs
tons CO2e
Value
Obtain value from Table B-2, Item D
Obtain value from Table B-2, Item E
Obtain value from Table B-2, Item H
Obtain value from Table B-2, Item I
Obtain value from Table B-3, Item E
Obtain value from Table B-3, Item F
Obtain value from Table B-3, Item D
Obtain value from Table B-4, Column 3
Obtain value from Table B-4, Column 3
Obtain value from Table B-4, Column 3
Obtain value from Table B-4, Column 3
Obtain value from Table B-6, Item A
Obtain value from Table B-6, Item K
Obtain value from Table B-6, Item L
Obtain value from Table B-6, Item M
Obtain value from Table B-6, Item D
Obtain value from Table B-6, Item E
Obtain value from Table B-6, Item F
Obtain value from Table B-6, Item G
Obtain value from Table B-6, Item C
Qualitative description.
The above table presents the results for the footprint analysis metrics. The following tables
are support tables that present the information and calculations used to obtain the metrics.
75
-------
TABLE B-2. SUGGESTED FORMAT FOR PRESENTING MATERIALS METRICS
Material and Use
Units
Quantity
Conversion
Factor to Ibs
% Recycled
or Reused
Content
Quantity
Virgin
Recycled
Refined Materials (Ibs)
Refined materials Total (Ibs):
Refined materials Total (Ibs):
Refined Materials Total (tons = lbs/2000):
Percent of Refined Materials that is Recycled or Reused Content
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
Unrefined Materials (tons)
Unrefined Materials Total (tons):
Unrefined Materials Total (tons):
Percent of Unrefined Materials that is Recycled or Reused Content
(F)
(G)
(H)
(I)
| (D) \ Values calculated in highlighted cells are transferred to the summary table (Table B-l).
Items in parentheses are for explanatory purposes only.
C=A+B C=D/2000 E=B/C
H=F+G I=G/H
76
-------
TABLE B-3. SUGGESTED FORMAT FOR PRESENTING WASTE METRICS
Waste or Spent Material
Quantity
% of Total
Potential Waste
Recycled/Reused Waste (tons)
Used On Site
Used On Site Subtotal:
Recycled or Reused Off Site
Recycled/Reused Off Site Subtotal:
Recycled/Reused Waste Total:
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
Waste Disposal (tons)
Hazardous Waste
Hazardous Waste Subtotal:
Non-Hazardous Waste
Non-Hazardous Waste Subtotal:
Waste Disposal Total:
Total Potential Waste*:
(E)
(F)
(G)
(H)
100%
* Includes waste that is recycled or reused as well as waste that is disposed of in landfills, incinerators, or other
forms of disposal that do not allow for recycling or reuse.
| (D) \ Values calculated in highlighted cells are transferred to the summary table (Table B-l).
Items in parentheses are for explanatory purposes only.
C=A+B D=C/H G=E+F H=C+G
77
-------
TABLE B-4. SUGGESTED FORMAT FOR PRESENTING ONSITE WATER METRICS
Water Resource
Public water supply
Extracted groundwater #1
Location:
Aquifer:
Extracted groundwater #2
Location:
Aquifer:
Extracted groundwater #3
Location:
Aquifer:
Surface water #1
Intake Location:
Surface water #2
Intake Location:
Reclaimed water
Source:
Collected/diverted stormwater
Other resource #1
Other resource #2
Description of Quality of Water Used
Volume Used
(Millions of gals)
Uses
Fate of Used Water
Column 1
Column 2
Column 3
Column 4
Column 5
Descriptions from Columns 1, 4, and 5 are used to define the water metric in Table B-l.
Values from Column 3 are the values of those metrics.
78
-------
TABLE B-5A. SUGGESTED FORMAT FOR CALCULATING AND PRESENTING ONSITE (SCOPE 1) ENERGY AND AIR METRICS
Contributors to Footprints
Onsite Renewable Enersv
Electricity generated on site by renewable resources
Landfill gas combusted on site
Biodiesel used on site
Other onsite renewable energy use #1
Other onsite renewable energy use #2
Onsite Renewable Energy Subtotals
Other Onsite Enersv
Grid electricity
Onsite diesel use
Onsite gasoline use
Onsite natural gas use
Other forms of onsite energy use #1
Other forms of onsite energy use #2
Other Onsite Energy Subtotals
Other Onsite Emissions Contributions
Onsite HAP process emissions
Onsite GHG emissions
Onsite carbon storage
GHG reductions by combusting onsite landfill methane
Other onsite contributions
Other Onsite Subtotals
Onsite Totals
Units
MWh
ccfCH4
gal
TBD
TBD
MWh
gal
gal
ccf
TBD
TBD
lb
Ib
lb
lb
TBD
Use
Energy
Conv.
Factor
10.3
0.103
0.127
TBD
TBD
3.413
0.139
0.124
0.103
TBD
TBD
MMBtus
(A)
1
(Bl)
GHGs
Conv.
Factor
13.1
22.3
TBD
TBD
22.5
19.6
13.1
TBD
TBD
(1)
(20)
TBD
Ibs CO2e
(B2)
NOx
Conv.
Factor
0.01
0.20
TBD
TBD
0.17
0.11
0.01
TBD
TBD
TBD
Ibs
u
(B3)
SOx
Conv.
Factor
Ibs
0.0000063
TBD
TBD
0.0054
0.0045
0.0000063
TBD
TBD
TBD
(B4)
PM
Conv.
Factor
Ibs
0.00076
0.00099
TBD
TBD
0.0034
0.00054
0.00076
TBD
TBD
NP
1
(B5)
HAPs
Conv.
Factor
8.4E-06
TBD
TBD
0.0003
0.0003
8.4E-06
TBD
TBD
TBD
Ibs
(B6)
TBD = to be determined. Values in parentheses are negative values. Energy for electricity is only that energy of that electricity and not the energy required to generate the electricity.
ccfCH4 = 100 cubic feet of methane. Obtained by multiplying total volume of landfill gas in ccf by the percentage of the gas that is methane.
Energy associated with onsite generation of electricity is assumed to be 10.3 MMBtu/MWh (3.413 MMBtu/MWhfor usable electricity plus 6.9 MMBtu/MWhfor energy loss due to an assumed 33 percent efficiency). 33 percent efficiency is consistent with Exhibit 3.17.
Energy associated with onsite use of grid electricity is 3.413 MMBtu/MWh of electricity because the energy loss associated with 33 percent efficiency is counted in Scope 2 energy calculations
If fuel is a blend of conventional fuel and renewable resource fuel, enter the amount of fuel from conventional sources into appropriate conventional fuel categories and enter amount of fuel from renewable resources into appropriate renewable fuel categories (e.g., for
100 gallons ofB20 biodiesel blend, 20 gallons would be entered under biodiesel and 80 gallons would be entered under diesel).
1. Enter use into blue cells in "Use" column in indicated units.
2. Convert uses into indicated units of each parameter by multiplying use by the indicated conversion factors. Enter result into blue cells in parameter columns.
3. Sum Onsite Renewable Energy results for each parameter and enter in green "Onsite Renewable Energy Subtotals" cells.
4. Sum Other Onsite Energy results for each parameter and enter in green "Other Onsite Energy Subtotals " cells.
5. Sum Other Onsite Contributions results for each parameter and enter in green "Other Onsite Subtotals " cells.
6. Sum green cells for each parameter and enter result in green "Onsite Totals" cells.
Use x Conversion factor = Footprint
This table is for calculation purposes only.
Items (A) and (Bl) through (B6) are transferred to Table B-6.
79
-------
TABLE B-5B. SUGGESTED FORMAT FOR CALCULATING AND PRESENTING ELECTRICITY GENERATION (SCOPE 2) ENERGY AND AIR METRICS
Contributors to Footprints
Grid electricity use
Green pricing or green marketing product purchases
REC purchase
Units
MWh
MWh
MWh
Use
(B)
(C)
Energy
Conv.
Factor
TBD
MMBtus
(Al)
GHGs
Conv.
Factor
TBD
Ibs CO2e
(A2)
NOx
Conv.
Factor
TBD
Ihs
(A3)
SOx
Conv.
Factor
TBD
Ihs
(A4)
PM
Conv.
Factor
TBD
Ihs
(A5)
HAPs
Conv.
Factor
TBD
Ibs
(A6)
See Exhibit 3.17 for how to determine the conversion factors for grid electricity.
1. Enter grid electricity use in MWh into blue cell in "Use " column.
2. Convert MWh use into indicated units of each parameter by multiplying use by the indicated conversion factors. Enter result into blue cells in parameter columns.
3. Enter quantity of voluntary purchased renewable electricity in the form of green pricing and green marketing products into the associated blue cell, and document information regarding that product in the table below.
4. Enter quantity of voluntary purchased renew able electricity in the form ofRECs into the associated blue cell, and document information regarding that product in the table below.
Use x Conversion factor = Footprint
Description of purchased green pricing or
green marketing product
Description of purchased RECs
Provider:
Type of product:
Type of renewable energy source:
Date of renewable system installation:
Provider:
Type of renewable energy source:
Date of renewable system installation:
This table is for calculation purposes only.
Items (Al) through (A6), (B), and (C) are transferred to Table B-6.
80
-------
TABLE B-5C. SUGGESTED FORMAT FOR CALCULATING AND PRESENTING TRANSPORTATION (SCOPE 3A) ENERGY AND AIR METRICS
Category
Conventional Energv
Diesel use
Gasoline use
Natural gas use
Conventional Energy Subtotals
Renewable Enersv
Biodiesel use
Transportation Totals
Units
gal
gal
ccf
gal
Use
Energy
Conv.
Factor
0.139
0.124
0.103
0.127
MMBtus
(A)
(Bl)
GHGs
Conv.
Factor
22.5
19.6
13.1
22.3
Ibs CO2
(B2)
NOx
Conv.
Factor
0.17
0.11
0.01
0.20
Ibs
(B3)
SOx
Conv.
Factor
0.0054
0.0045
0.0000063
0
Ibs
(B4)
PM
Conv.
Factor
0.0034
0.00054
0.00076
0.00099
Ibs
(B5)
HAPs
Conv.
Factor
0.000005
0.000039
0.0000084
NP
Ibs
(B6)
1. Enter uses of each material or service into "Use " column in indicated units.
2. Convert uses into indicated units of each parameter by multiplying use by the indicated conversion factor. Enter result into blue cells in parameter columns.
3. Sum Conventional Energy results for each parameter and enter in green "Conventional Energy Subtotals " cells.
4. Sum Conventional Energy Subtotals and biodiesel use results for each parameter and enter in green "Transportation " cells.
Use x Conversion factor = Footprint
This table is for calculation purposes only.
Items (A) and (Bl through (B6) are transferred to Table B-6.
81
-------
TABLE B-5D. SUGGESTED FORMAT FOR CALCULATING AND PRESENTING OFFSITE (SCOPE 3B) ENERGY AND AIR METRICS
Category
Construction Materials
Cement
Concrete
Gravel/sand/clay
HOPE
Photovoltaic system (installed)
PVC
Stainless Steel
Steel
Other refined construction materials
Other unrefined construction materials
Treatment Materials and Chemicals
Cheese Whey
Emulsified vegetable oil
Molasses
Treatment materials and chemicals*
Virgin GAC (coal based)
Fuel Processing
Biodiesel Produced
Diesel Produced
Gasoline Produced
Natural Gas Produced
Public water
Offsite Services
Offsite waste water treatment
Offsite Solid Waste Disposal
Offsite Haz. Waste Disposal
Offsite Laboratory Analysis
Units
dry-lb
Ib
Ib
Ib
W
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
gal
gal
gal
ccf
gal x 1000
gal x 1000
ton
ton
$
Use
Energy
Conv.
Factor
0.0021
0.00041
0.000028
0.031
0.034
0.022
0.012
0.0044
0.014
0.000028
0.0025
0.0077
0.0044
0.015
0.015
0.029
0.019
0.021
0.0052
0.0092
0.015
0.16
0.176
0.0065
MMBtus
5
GHGs
Conv.
Factor
0.9
0.171
0.0034
1.9
4.5
2.6
3.4
1.1
1.98
0.00335
0.031
3.44
0.48
1.7
5.8
-16.8
2.7
4.4
2.2
4.4
25
27.5
Ibs CO2
NOx
Conv.
Factor
0.0018
0.00035
0.000017
0.0032
0.015
0.0048
0.0075
0.0014
0.0037
0.000017
0.000062
0.0066
0.0011
0.003
0.014
0.018
0.0064
0.008
0.0037
0.0097
0.016
0.14
0.154
0.0048
Ibs
SOx
Conv.
Factor
0.00105
0.00021
0.000015
0.0041
0.032
0.0076
0.012
0.0017
0.0053
0.000015
0.000033
0.0019
0.00024
0.0065
0.034
0.033
0.013
0.019
0.0046
0.0059
0.015
0.075
0.0825
0.0036
Ibs
PM
Conv.
Factor
0.0000032
0.00001
0.0000020
0.00064
0.00063
0.0012
0.0044
0.00056
0.0014
0.000002
0.000002
0.000033
0.0000041
0.00061
0.00078
0.00082
0.00034
0.00052
0.000072
0.016
NP
0.4
0.44
0.0004
Ibs
NP
HAPs
Conv.
Factor
0.000029
0.00001
2.1E-10
0.0000034
0.0000029
0.00047
0.00014
0.000067
0.00014
2.1E-10
0.000016
0.0012
0.00012
0.00016
0.0000061
0.000015
NP
0.0014
0.00154
0.00013
Ibs
82
-------
TABLE B-5D. SUGGESTED FORMAT FOR CALCULATING AND PRESENTING OFFSITE (SCOPE 3B) ENERGY AND AIR METRICS (continued)
Category
Resource Extraction for Electricity
Coal extraction and processing
Natural gas extraction and processing
Nuclear fuel extraction and processing
Oil extraction and processing
Electricitv Transmission
Transmission and distribution losses
Offsite Totals
Units
MWh
MWh
MWh
MWh
MWh
Use
Energy
Conv.
Factor
3.1
1.6
0.16
2.3
10.3
MMBtus
(Al)
GHGs
Conv.
Factor
180
270
25
270
Ibs CO2
(A2)
NOx
Conv.
Factor
0.77
0.18
0.15
1.7
Ibs
(A3)
SOx
Conv.
Factor
0.15
13
0.5
0.069
Ibs
(A4)
PM
Conv.
Factor
0.018
0.0071
0.0015
0.042
Ibs
!N"r
(A5)
HAPs
Conv.
Factor
NP
NP
Ibs
(A6)
NP = not provided
1. Enter uses of each material or service into "Use " column in indicated units.
2. Convert uses into indicated units of each parameter by multiplying use by the indicated conversion factor. Enter result into blue cells in parameter columns.
3. Fuel processing refers to all fuel used, including that for onsite equipment use and transportation.
4. Electricity from various resources is obtained from generation mix that is used in Exhibit 3.17 and the resource extraction conversion factors from Exhibit 3. 14.
Use x Conversion factor = Footprint
6.
For electricity transmission, enter 10 percent of the grid electricity used for calculating energy and emissions from electricity generation. The conversion factors are the same as those used for electricity generation, but the energy conversion factor is 10.3
MMBtu/MWh (3.413 MMBtu/MWh for usable electricity plus 6.9 MMBtu/MWh for energy loss due to an assumed 33 percent efficiency at the power plant).
Resource extraction conversion factors are calculated using values in Exhibit 3.14 and the specified fuel blend for electricity generation.
This table is for calculation purposes only.
Items (Al) through (A6) are transferred to Table B-6.
83
-------
TABLE B-6. SUGGESTED FORMAT FOR SUMMARZING ENERGY AND AIR METRICS
Category
Onsite (Scope 1)
Electricity Generation (Scope 2)
Transportation (Scope 3a)
Other Offsite (Scope 3b)
Remedy Totals
GHG Footprint in Ton
Total Energy
MMbtus
(A)
(1 ton — 2,000 IDS)
GHGs
Ibs CO2e
(B)
(C)
NOx
Ibs
SOx
Ibs
PM
Ibs
NOx+SOx+PMlO
Ibs
(D)
(F)
HAPs
Ibs
(E)
(G)
Values for "On Site (Scope 1) " are items Bl through B6from Table B-5A.
Values for "Electricity Generation (Scope 2) " are items Al through A6 from Table B-5B.
Values for "Transportation (Scope 3 a) " are items Bl through B6 from Table B-5C.
Values for "Other Offsite (Scope 3b) " are items Al through A6 from Table B-5D
Sum Scope 1 through Scope 3b values in each column to obtain "Remedy Totals "
Divide item B by 2000 to obtain GHG metric in tons
Sum NOx, SOx, andPMlO values in each row to obtain "NOx+SOx+PMlO"
Voluntary Renewable Energy Use
Onsite generation or use
Onsite biodiesel use
Biodiesel use for transportation
Onsite generation or use and biodiesel use
Renewable electricity purchase
REC purchases
Unit
MMBtu
MMBtu
MMbtu
MMBtu
MWh
MWh
Quantity
(H)
(D
(J)
(K)
(L)
(M)
1. Value for "Onsite energy generation or use " is item A from Table B-5A.
2. Value for "Onsite biodiesel use" is from Table B-5A.
3. Value for "Biodiesel use for transportation " is item A from Table B-5C
4. Value for "Onsite generation or use and biodiesel use " (K) is calculated as follows: K = H +I+J.
5. Value for "Renewable electricity purchase" is item B from Table B-5B.
6. Value for "REC purchases" is item C from Table B-5B.
84
-------
SUGGESTED FORMAT FOR ILLUSTRATING CONTRIBUTIONS TO A METRIC
Project teams may find it helpful to graph the contributions to each metric to identify the values of the
contributions next to each other or next to some guide or threshold value. The following example figure
depicts the contributions to the total energy used metric from Energy and Air Scenario # 1. The total
energy used metric was chosen as an example. Figures might be generated for other metrics as well. The
organization operating the remedy has determined that any activity that uses more than 100 MMBtu
should be targeted for potential footprint reduction. The figure illustrates this 100 MMBtu guide.
4500
CO
31" 9fififi
5J innn
uj
cnn
0 -
Contributors to the Total Energy Used Metric
"large" footrprint - 100 MMBtu
||
^ _. J_
CDCDCD CD CDCD ^CD^U^—CC1-"!'!/)
i/i i/i i/i i/i i/ii/i C4-in3">n1oooaji/);r(1J
^^^ = ^^ ^^-n^Saj-B-sra^SiS
.^ a = .^ a = gy^l/1sllsgj°
Ell E 5° U5| |°°l^§
^(Dro !H ro ^ Sf^o-^ok1-
-"•S6" -~ U H S-^CD'3--^^^
<" « £ <" ra T3 S ,E £ tl -D
^ s= — ^ ^ ,i! .5i "5 _g x —
C p:r: ^
14^- i/i
O ^
On-Site Elec" Transportation Other Off-Site
Gen.
Some contributions (e.g., diesel for transportation, emulsified vegetable oil, and laboratory analysis) are
significantly higher than this 100 MMBtu target. These contributions are clear targets for applying
footprint reduction practices or BMPs. The figure is also regenerated on the following page with a
different vertical axis to visualize some of the smaller footprint contributions relative to the 100 MMBtu
guide.
85
-------
Contributors to the Total Energy Used Metric (Magnified)
Cflfl
450
CO
I/I
So 1 ^n -
c 100 -
UJ
cr\
1
"large" footrprint - 100 MMBtu
1 •
1 1
• II 1 1 1 _ 1 _
I
• 1
CDCDCD CD CDCD 4~lCD>-LJ~JT]~CC1-,i2,-:t/>
U QJ ™ U QJ ™ LJOC fB"O"OuroCDQ
t =5 S t 52 US SjiSSiEt^03
tuturo tu ro ajCLCL=!o£5H
uou "^^S^iS
E • — ^
LLJ f O
M- (/)
O c^
On-Site Elec" Transportation Other Off-Site
Gen.
This figure shows that onsite diesel use, gasoline use for transportation, diesel production (e.g., at a
refinery), and public water use are all contributions that are close to or larger than the 100 MMBtu guide.
The project team might consider use of biodiesel blends, carpooling, and use of alternate water supplies as
potential practices for reducing these footprints.
86
-------
Appendix C:
botprint Reduction Scenarios
Eight hypothetical cleanup scenarios are presented in this appendix to illustrate how the results of methodology
application could be screened to find potential strategies for reducing the project's environmental footprint. The
footprint reduction scenarios are categorized as follows:
• Materials and Waste
• Water
• Energy and Air
These scenarios are categorized for illustrative purposes and are independent of one another. As such, the site
conditions or other influential factors in each scenario are not necessarily common among the three categories.
Scenarios in this appendix are provided for illustrative purposes only and
do not constitute a recommendation by EPA.
87
-------
Footprint Reduction Scenarios:
Materials and Waste
MA TERIALS AND WASTE SCENARIO #1
MA TERIALS AND WASTE SCENARIO #2
MA TERIALS AND WASTE SCENARIO #3
88
-------
MATERIALS AND WASTE FOOTPRINT REDUCTION
SCENARIO #1
Background:
A P&T system is under design to treat arsenic through co-precipitation. The 50 percent design extraction
rate is 700 gpm, and the system is anticipated to operate for 30 years. The process water is oxidized with
hydrogen peroxide. Ferric chloride is added to provide iron to adsorb the arsenic, and sodium hydroxide is
added to neutralize the water. Polymer is added to assist with flocculation. Precipitated metals are
dewatered and disposed of off site as listed hazardous waste. No other significant waste streams are
associated with the site.
The following items will be constructed:
• Ten 6-inch extraction wells, each to 60 feet deep with 20-foot screens
• 3,000 feet of 6-inch HDPE piping with electrical conduit and wiring
• 80-foot xlOO-foot building that is 30 feet high
• 200-foot x 200-foot reinforced fly-ash concrete pad and containment area (20,000 ft3 of concrete)
• 50,000 pounds of primary treatment equipment
Screening:
The largest contributor to refined materials is expected to be the sodium hydroxide (over 6,000,000 Ibs of
pure sodium hydroxide) over a 30-year period. The largest contributor for unrefined materials is expected
to be the aggregate in the concrete for the building foundation (about 1,200 tons). No specific appreciable
non-hazardous waste streams have been identified. The dewatered sludge from metals removal is
expected to be 2,600 tons. The project team has chosen a percent-based screening limit of 1 percent for
refined and unrefined materials and magnitude based limits of 1,000 Ibs for refined materials and 1 ton for
unrefined materials and wastes. The limits are therefore as follows:
Category
Refined
materials
Unrefined
materials
Non-
hazardous
Waste
Hazardous
Waste
Largest
Contributor
Sodium
hydroxide
Concrete
aggregate
General
waste
Dewatered
sludge
Largest
Contribution
6,000,000 Ibs
1,200 tons
Unknown
2,600 tons
Selected %
of Largest
Contributor
1%
1%
1%
1%
Percent-
based Limit
60,000 Ibs
12 tons
Unknown
26 tons
Magnitude-
based Limit
1,000 Ibs
1 tons
1 ton
Iton
Applicable
Limit
60,000 Ibs
12 tons
Iton
26 tons
The data quality for the remedy information is considered poor to moderate. The extraction rate is subject
to change due to additional modeling and capture zone evaluation during startup. The chemical dosing is
highly dependent on actual influent chemical loading, and the remedy duration was loosely estimated for
cost estimating purposes. The footprint results are expected to be highly sensitive to these relatively
uncertain parameters. Because the metrics are direct presentation of expected materials use and waste,
89
-------
there is little or no added uncertainty associated with converting remedy information and engineering
estimates into the metrics as there would be for energy and air metrics.
MA TERIALS AND WASTE SCENARIO #1 (continued)
Estimated Materials Footprint over 30-Year Operation Period
Material and Use
Units
Quantity
Conversion
Factor to
Ibs
% Recycled
or Reused
Content
Quantity
Virgin
Recycled
Refined Materials (Ibs)
Wells - PVC casing and grout
Wells - screen
Piping and conduit
Building steel
Concrete reinforcing steel
Cement portion of concrete
Process equipment
Process controls
Hydrogen peroxide (50%)
Ferric chloride (37%)
Sodium hydroxide (20%)
Polymer (specific gravity = 1. 04)
ft
ft3
ft2
ft3
gal
gal
gal
gal
Expected to be
Expected to be
3,000
240,000
40,000
20,000
7.5 Ibs/ft
1 Ibs/ft3
1.3 Ibs/ft2
22 Ibs/ft3
less than screening limit
less than screening limit
55%
55%
20%
Expected to be
Expected to be
295,650
1,368,750
3,011,250
120,450
4.96 Ibs/gal
4.33 Ibs/gal
2.04 Ibs/gal
8.7 Ibs/gal
22,500*
108,000
23,400*
352,000
132,000
28,600*
88,000
less than screening limit
less than screening limit
0%
0%
0%
0%
Refined materials
Refined materials
Total (Ibs):
Total (Ibs):
Refined Materials Total (tons = Ibs / 2000):
Percent of Refined Materials that is Recycled or Reused Content
1,467,000
5,928,000
6,144,000
1,047,000
15,091,900
0
0
0
0
248,600
15,340,500
7,670
<2%
Unrefined Materials (tons)
Wells -sand pack
Aggregate for concrete
ft3
Expected to be
20,000
115 Ibs/ft3
2000 Ibs/ton
less than screening limit
Unrefined Materials Total (tons):
Unrefined Materials Total (tons):
Percent of Unrefined Materials that is Recycled or Reused Content:
1,150
1,150
0
1,150
0%
NOTE: polymer quantity includes unknown water content of aqueous solution
* Values for piping/conduit and concrete reinforcing steel are shown in the above table because the project team
determined that professional judgment alone was not sufficient to assume they were below the screening limit.
Because the project team invested the time and resources to estimate the values for the screening process, the
contributions from these items are retained in the analysis.
Values provided in the "Quantity" Column are obtained from engineering estimates during design.
Conversion factors in above tables obtained from Exhibit 3.3 through Exhibit 3.8.
90
-------
MA TERIALS AND WASTE SCENARIO #1 (continued)
Estimated Waste Footprint
Waste or Used Material
Quantity
% of Total
Potential Waste
Recycled/Reused Waste (tons)
Used On Site
None.
Used On Site Subtotal:
Recycled or Reused Off Site
None.
Recycled/Reused Off Site Subtotal:
Recycled/Reused Waste Total:
0
0
0
0%
0%
0%
Waste Disposal (tons)
Hazardous Waste
2,600 tons of dewatered precipitated metals sludge
Hazardous Waste Subtotal:
Non-Hazardous Waste
None.
Non-Hazardous Waste Subtotal:
Waste Disposal Total:
Total Potential Waste*:
2,600
2,600
0
2,600
2,600
100%
100%
0%
100%
100%
* Includes waste that is recycled or reused as well as waste that is disposed of in landfills, incinerators, or other
forms of disposal that do not allow for recycling or reuse.
Findings:
Overall materials use is dominated by the treatment chemicals. Efforts for footprint reduction can be
focused on identifying a potential waste stream of iron hydroxides that may help reduce some of the
sodium hydroxide and ferric chloride use. Use of this waste stream would also increase the percentage of
materials from recycling/reuse. The waste footprint is dominated by the precipitated sludge. The waste is
not characteristically hazardous. Delisting the waste may allow for non-hazardous waste disposal, which
would lower the hazardous waste footprint and increase the non-hazardous waste footprint. Effort will
also be placed on optimizing the extraction rate because the extraction rate directly influences treatment
chemical use and waste disposal.
91
-------
MA TERIALS AND WASTE SCENARIO #2
Background:
A biobarrier that involves routine injections of emulsified vegetable oil is designed to control
groundwater plume migration. A total of 20 permanent injection wells each with 20-foot screen intervals
will be used. Of the 20 wells, 10 will be 60 feet deep and 10 will be 40 feet deep. The wells will be
constructed with 2-inch PVC casing. A total of 400,000 Ibs of emulsified vegetable oil will be injected
over events spanning 10 years. Drill cuttings (approximately 9 tons) are disposed of off site at a landfill as
non-hazardous waste.
Screening:
The largest contributor to refined materials is expected to be the emulsified vegetable oil. The largest
contributor for unrefined materials is expected to be the sand (about 4 tons) for the sand packs of the
injection wells. The drill cuttings are the only anticipated waste stream. The project team has chosen a
percent-based screening limit of 1 percent for refined and unrefined materials and magnitude based limits
of 1,000 Ibs for refined materials and 1 ton for unrefined materials and wastes. The limits are therefore as
follows:
Category
Refined
materials
Unrefined
materials
Non-
hazardous
Waste
Hazardous
Waste
Largest
Contributor
Emulsified
vegetable oil
Sand
Drill cuttings
Largest
Contribution
400,000 Ibs
4 tons
9 tons
Selected %
of Largest
Contributor
1%
1%
1%
% - based
Limit
4,000 Ibs
0.04 tons
0.09 tons
Magnitude-
based Limit
1,000 Ibs
Iton
Iton
Applicable
Limit
4,000 Ibs
Iton
Iton
None expected
The data quality for the remedy information is considered moderate. The design for the injection well
network is finalized and is conservative. No additional wells are expected. The amount of emulsified
vegetable oil to be added in the first event has also been determined, but the frequency of maintenance
injections and the amount of oil to be injected in each maintenance injection event are estimates to be
refined during remedy implementation. The footprint results are expected to be highly sensitive to
parameters of the reinjection events. Because the metrics are direct presentation of expected materials use
and waste, there is little or no added uncertainty associated with converting remedy information and
engineering estimates into the metrics as there would be for energy and air metrics.
92
-------
MA TERIALS AND WASTE SCENARIO #2 (continued)
Estimated Materials Footprint
Material and Use
Units
Quantity
Conversion
Factor to
Ibs
% Recycled
or Reused
Content
Quantity
Virgin
Recycled
Refined Materials
Injection well PVC casing/screen
Injection well grout
Emulsified vegetable oil
Other items
ft
Ibs
Expected to be less than screening limit
800
400,000
13 Ibs/ft
1
0%
0%
10,400
400,000
0
0
Expected to be less than screening limit
Refined materials Total (Ibs):
Refined materials Total (Ibs):
Refined Materials Total (tons = lbs/2000):
Percent of Refined Materials that is
Recycled or Reused Content
410,400
0
410,400
205
0%
Unrefined Materials
Injection wells - sand pack
ft
400
0.01 tons/ft
0%
Unrefined Materials Total (tons):
Unrefined Materials Total (tons):
Percent of Unrefined Materials that is Recycled or Reused Content:
4
4
0
0
4
0%
Values provided in the "Quantity" Column are obtained from engineering estimates during design.
Conversion factors in above tables obtained from Exhibit 3.3 through Exhibit 3.8.
Estimated Waste Footprint
Waste or Used Material
Percent of Total
Quantity Potential Waste
Recycled/Reused Waste (tons)
Used On Site
None.
Used On Site Subtotal:
Recycled or Reused Off Site
None.
Recycled/Reused Off Site Subtotal:
Recycled/Reused Waste Total:
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
Waste Disposal (tons)
Hazardous Waste
None.
Hazardous Waste Subtotal:
Non-Hazardous Waste
Drill cuttings
Non-Hazardous Waste Subtotal:
Waste Disposal Total:
Total Potential Waste*:
0 0%
0 0%
9 100%
9 100%
9 100%
9 100%
* Includes waste that is recycled or reused as well as waste that is disposed of in landfills, incinerators, or other
forms of disposal that do not allow for recycling or reuse.
93
-------
MA TERIALS AND WASTE SCENARIO #2 (continued)
Findings:
Overall materials use is dominated by the emulsified vegetable oil. Efforts for footprint reduction can be
focused on identifying a potential off-spec food grade amendment that will otherwise be considered a
waste product. This may modify the total amount of materials used but will also increase the percentage
of materials from recycled/reused material. Performance monitoring data will be reviewed closely to
evaluate quantity and frequency of maintenance injections so that remedy protectiveness is maintained
without using much more vegetable oil than expected. The drill cuttings are not hazardous, and it may be
possible to use them as fill elsewhere on site to reduce the quantity of waste for offsite disposal and
increase the total potential waste that is recycled or reused.
94
-------
MA TERIALS AND WASTE SCENARIO #3
Background:
Contaminated soil is being consolidated on site and covered with a Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) Subtitle C cap. The total cap surface area is approximately 100,000 square feet. No waste is
being transported off site for disposal, so there is no waste footprint. The cap components are as follows:
• 24 inches of earthen material (200,000 ft3 or 7,400 cy = 9,000 tons)
• 12 inches of sand (100,000 ft3or 3,700 cy = 5,600 tons)
• 40-mil HOPE membrane (40 mils = 0.040 inches, total volume = 333 ft3 =19,900 Ibs)
• 24 inches of compacted clay (200,000 ft3or 7,400 cy = 11,100 tons)
• 12 inches of native soil/sand as a foundation for the cap (100,000 ft3or 3,700 cy = 5,600 tons)
The 12 inches of native soil/sand are used from an onsite borrow pit that will be converted to a required
stormwater retention basin. The 24-inch thick layer of earthen material will be a combination of onsite
soil (75 percent) and mulch/compost (25 percent) generated from onsite vegetation. The 12-inches of sand
for the drainage layer, the 24-inches of clay, and the HDPE are brought from offsite sources. The design
has been finalized, and little change is expected in these parameters.
Screening:
The largest contributor to refined materials is expected to be the HDPE liner. The largest contributor for
unrefined materials is the clay. The native soil is considered a reused product because the excavated area
will be converted to a stormwater retention basin. The mulch/compost is also considered a reused or
recycled material because it is generated from cleared vegetation that would otherwise need to be hauled
offsite. No waste streams have been identified. The project team has chosen a percent-based screening
limit of 1 percent for refined and unrefined materials and magnitude based limits of 1,000 Ibs for refined
materials and 1 ton for unrefined materials and wastes. The limits are therefore as follows:
Category
Refined
materials
Unrefined
materials
Non-
hazardous
Waste
Hazardous
Waste
Largest
Contributor
HDPE
Clay
Largest
Contribution
19,900 Ibs
11, 100 tons
Selected % of
Largest
Contributor
1%
1%
Percent-
based Limit
190 Ibs
1 10 tons
Magnitude-based
Limit
1,000 Ibs
1 ton
Applicable
Limit
1,000 Ibs
Iton
None expected
None expected
The data quality for the remedy information is considered good. The design has been completed and
construction is underway. No significant changes in materials use are anticipated. Because the metrics are
direct presentation of expected materials use and waste, there is little or no added uncertainty associated
with converting remedy information and engineering estimates into the metrics as there would be for
energy and air metrics.
-------
MA TERIALS AND WASTE SCENARIO #3 (continued)
Estimated Materials Footprint
Material and Use
Units
Quantity
Conversion
Factor
% Recycled
or Reused
Content
Quantity
Virgin
Recycled
Refined Materials (Ibs)
HOPE - 40 mil thickness
(40 mil = 0.040 inches)
ft3
333
59.6 lbs/ft3
0%
Refined materials Total (Ibs):
Refined materials Total (Ibs):
Refined Materials Total (tons = lbs/2000):
Percent of Refined Materials that is Recycled or Reused Content
19,900
19,900
0
0
19,900
9.95
0%
Unrefined Materials (tons)
Clay
Soil for 12-inch layer
Soil for 75% of 24-inch layer
Mulch/compost for 25% of 24-
inch layer
Sand
cy
cy
cy
cy
cy
7,400
3,700
5,550
1,850
3,700
1.5 tons/cy
1.5 tons/cy
1.5 tons/cy
0.4 tons/cy
1.5 tons/cy
0%
100%
100%
100%
0%
Unrefined Materials Total (tons):
Unrefined Materials Total (tons):
Percent of Unrefined Materials that is Recycled or Reused Content
11,100
0
0
0
5,600
16,700
0
5,600
8,300
700
0
14,600
31,300
47%
Values provided in the "Quantity" Column are obtained from engineering estimates during design.
Conversion factors in above tables obtained from Exhibit 3.3 through Exhibit 3.8.
Waste Footprint
NONE
Findings:
The materials metrics and waste metrics are the result of careful planning during design to use materials
for multiple purposes (e.g., excavated areas for retention basins and cleared vegetation for mulch). No
other materials and waste footprint reduction opportunities are expected to be identified for this remedy.
96
-------
Footprint Reduction Scenarios:
Water
WA TER SCENARIO #1
WA TER SCENARIO #2
WA TER SCENARIO #3
97
-------
WA TER SCENARIO #1
Background:
A P&T system at a site in the Eastern United States with non-aqueous phase liquid extracts 50 gpm from
a shallow aquifer to contain a continuing source of groundwater contamination and prevent the
contamination from discharging to a local creek. The aquifer from which water is extracted is considered
a potential source of drinking water by the State, but given the water quality, treatment would be required
prior to use. Treatment would include removal of dissolved iron and potentially other forms of treatment.
There are no current local users of the aquifer. Public water supply source in the area is either surface
water or groundwater from deeper, uncontaminated wells. Water treated by the P&T system is discharged
to the creek that is protected by the remedy. The P&T system is expected to operate for more than 30
years.
An optimization evaluation team suggested constructing a slurry wall and impermeable cap around the
contaminant source to reduce the required pumping rate to 10 gpm from 50 gpm. The slurry wall would
be 3,000 feet long, with an average depth of 30 feet, and a minimum width of 3 feet. Construction of the
slurry wall requires approximately 2 million gallons of extracted groundwater to prepare the slurry.
Treated water would be discharged to the same creek. The stormwater diverted by the cap (approximately
I million gallons per year) eventually discharges to the creek.
Screening:
Given the extraction rates and remedy duration for the existing and optimized remedy configurations,
extracted groundwater for treatment is expected to range between 157 and 800 million gallons. The
amount of extracted groundwater required for slurry wall construction (2 million gallons) is considered
negligible by comparison. No appreciable public water is used for the remedy.
Estimated Onsite Water Footprint:
See tables on following pages.
Findings:
The existing remedy configuration has the largest total water footprint, but the majority of the water use is
from the extraction and treatment of shallow groundwater that would otherwise discharge to a local creek.
The extracted water is treated and discharged to the same creek such that local water resources are not
significantly affected. The existing remedy and optimization configurations both have marginal effects on
local water resources, but other green remediation metrics may be substantially affected. The diverted
stormwater could be used to help construct wetlands to increase ecosystem services in the area.
98
-------
WATER SCENARIO #1 - Existing Remedy Configuration - Onsite Water Footprint Analysis
Water Resource
Public water supply
Extracted groundwater #1
Location: within 100 feet of creek
Aquifer: shallow
Surface water #1
Intake Location: not applicable
Collected/diverted stormwater
Description of Quality of Water Used
Shallow groundwater that discharges to creek
in relatively short distance. Groundwater
classified as drinking water by State. Requires
treatment prior to use. Other water resources
available
Volume Used
(million gals)
790
Uses
Extracted for treatment
Fate of Used Water
Discharged to creek
WATER SCENARIO #1 - Optimization Consideration (Slurry Wall) Water Footprint Analysis
Water Resource
Public water supply
Extracted groundwater #1
Location: within 100 feet of creek
Aquifer: shallow
Surface water #1
Intake Location: not applicable
Collected/diverted stormwater
Description of Quality of Water Used
Shallow groundwater that discharges to creek
in relatively short distance. Groundwater
classified as drinking water by State. Requires
treatment prior to use. Other water resources
available
Rain water quality
Volume Used
(million gallons)
160
30
Uses
Extracted for treatment
Prevented from recharging shallow
groundwater near creek
Fate of Used Water
Discharged to creek
Eventually discharged to nearby creek.
For the above tables, orange shading indicates areas of potential improvement in the water footprint. Yellow shading indicates no net or significant effect on the water footprint.
Green shading indicates examples of water best management practices.
99
-------
WA TER SCENARIO #2
Background:
Note that this scenario purposely includes similar features to Scenario #1, with the exception of the
quality and local use of groundwater that is extracted and treated as part of the remedy. The water
footprint differs significantly from that of Scenario #1 based on the quality of the water and its local use.
A P&T system in the Midwestern United States with non-aqueous phase liquid extracts 200 gpm from an
aquifer used as a local potable water supply. Water treated by the P&T system is discharged to surface
water. The P&T system is expected to operate for more than 30 years.
An optimization team has suggested two potential modifications to the existing remedy that are not
mutually exclusive:
Slurry wall and impermeable cap - A slurry wall and impermeable cap could be constructed
around the contaminant source to reduce the required pumping rate to 40 gpm from 200 gpm. The
slurry wall would be 3,000 feet long, with an average depth of 30 feet, and a minimum width of 3
feet. Construction of the slurry wall will require approximately 2 million gallons of water to
prepare the slurry. Water treated by the P&T system is discharged to surface water. The P&T
system is expected to operate for more than 30 years. The stormwater diverted by the cap
(approximately 1 million gallons per year) is directed to a nearby infiltration basin.
Beneficial reuse - The treated water can be used for irrigation during the growing season.
Approximately 40 percent of the extracted water could therefore be used beneficially.
Screening:
Given the extraction rates and remedy duration for the existing and optimized remedy configurations,
extracted groundwater for treatment is expected to range between 630 million gallons and more than 3
billion gallons. The amount of extracted groundwater for slurry wall construction (2 million gallons) is
considered negligible by comparison. No appreciable public water is used for the remedy.
Estimated Onsite Water Footprint:
See tables on following pages.
Findings:
The existing remedy configuration has the largest total onsite water footprint. The two optimization
suggestions both improve the onsite water footprint, and the two suggestions implemented together
improve the footprint further. The substantial volume of extracted water may also serve a beneficial
purpose if it can be used for heat transfer in a geothermal heat pump application. Water that is not used
for a beneficial purpose can be reinjected to maintain the water resource.
100
-------
WATER SCENARIO #2 - Existing Remedy Configuration - Water Footprint Analysis
Water Resource
Extracted groundwater #1
Location: on site
Aquifer: water supply aquifer
Collected/diverted stormwater
Description of Quality of Water Used
Groundwater used for local potable water supply.
Limited alternative potable water resources available
Volume Used
(million gals)
3,200
Uses
Extracted for treatment
Fate of Used Water
Discharged to surface water (not reusable)
WATER SCENARIO #2 - Optimization Suggestion (Slurry Wall) - Water Footprint Analysis
Water Resource
Extracted groundwater #1
Location: on site
Aquifer: water supply aquifer
Collected/diverted stormwater
Description of Quality of Water Used
Groundwater used for local potable water supply.
Limited alternative potable water resources available
Rain water quality
Volume Used
(million gals)
630
30
Uses
Extracted for treatment
Diverted from source area
Fate of Used Water
Discharged to surface water (not reusable)
Allowed to recharge aquifer in unimpacted area.
WATER SCENARIO #2 - Optimization Suggestion (Beneficial Reuse) - Water Footprint Analysis
Water Resource
Extracted groundwater #1
Location: on site
Aquifer: water supply aquifer
Extracted groundwater #1
Location: on site
Aquifer: water supply aquifer
Collected/diverted stormwater
Description of Quality of Water Used
Groundwater used for local potable water supply.
Limited alternative potable water resources available
Groundwater used for local potable water supply.
Limited alternative potable water resources available
Volume Used
(million gals)
1,920
1,280
Uses
Extracted for treatment
Extracted for treatment
Fate of Used Water
Discharged to surface water (not reusable)
Used beneficially. No net loss of water resource due to
groundwater extraction and treatment.
WATER SCENARIO #2 - Optimization Suggestion (Slurry Wall and Beneficial Reuse) - Water Footprint Analysis
Water Resource
Extracted groundwater #1
Location: on site
Aquifer: water supply aquifer
Extracted groundwater #1
Location: on site
Aquifer: water supply aquifer
Collected/diverted stormwater
Description of Quality of Water Used
Groundwater used for local potable water supply.
Limited alternative potable water resources available
Groundwater used for local potable water supply.
Limited alternative potable water resources available
Rain water quality
Volume Used
(million gals)
378
252
30
Uses
Extracted for treatment
Extracted for treatment
Diverted from source area
Fate of Used Water
Discharged to surface water (not reusable)
Used beneficially. No net loss of water resource due to
groundwater extraction and treatment.
Allowed to recharge aquifer in unimpacted area.
For the above tables, orange shading indicates areas of potential improvement in the water footprint. Yellow shading indicates no net or significant effect on the water footprint.
Green shading indicates examples of water best management practices.
101
-------
WA TER SCENARIO #3
Background:
This scenario compares two similar remedies considered at two different sites to illustrate how location
and local water resources affect the onsite water footprint.
Example #1 - A soil remedy for a site in the arid Western United States involves the excavation,
land farming, and backfill of treated soil. Up to 40 acres is expected to be disturbed by heavy
equipment. The underlying aquifer is a crucial local water resource for potable water and
irrigation. No other viable sources of potable water are available in the area. Over 2 million
gallons of extracted groundwater is anticipated to be used for dust control over the duration of the
remedy. Over 4 million gallons of extracted groundwater is anticipated to be used to foster
degradation of contaminants during landfarming over the duration of the remedy.
Example #2 - A soil remedy for a site in the Northern Central United States involves the
excavation, land farming, and backfill of treated soil. Up to 40 acres is expected to be disturbed
by heavy equipment. The underlying aquifer is not used for potable water or irrigation. Surface
water resources are the predominant sources of water in the area. No water is anticipated to be
needed for dust control over the duration of the remedy. Approximately 750,000 gallons of
extracted groundwater and 250,000 gallons of collected storm water, which would otherwise
discharge to surface water downgradient of the local reservoir, are anticipated to be used to foster
degradation of contaminants during landfarming over the duration of the remedy.
Screening:
There are no other appreciable water resource uses other than those specified.
Estimated Onsite Water Footprint:
See tables on following pages.
Findings:
Water use for a the same soil remedy is substantially higher in the arid Western United States than it is the
Northern Central United States due to the need for dust control and the high evaporation potential in west.
In addition, the water resource in the Western United States is of greater local value due to its use and the
absence of other potential sources of water. Timing some of the work associated for Example #1 with or
following precipitation events may help reduce the amount of water that needs to be extracted for dust
control. However, this could adversely affect schedule. Groundwater use for Example #2 is lower for the
same remedy as Example # 1. In addition, groundwater is the not the primary water resource used in the
area and storm water is an available resource.
102
-------
WATER SCENARIO #3 - Example #1 (Arid Western United States) - Water Footprint Analysis
Water Resource
Public water supply
Extracted groundwater #1
Location: on site
Aquifer: water supply aquifer
Extracted groundwater #1
Location: on site
Aquifer: water supply aquifer
Surface water #1
Intake Location: not applicable
Collected/diverted stormwater
Description of Quality of Water Used
Groundwater used for local potable water
supply and irrigation. Limited alternative
potable water resources available
Groundwater used for local potable water
supply and irrigation. Limited alternative
potable water resources available
Volume Used
(million gals)
2
4
Uses
Dust control
Landf arming
Fate of Used Water
Evaporated to atmosphere
Evaporated to atmosphere or microbial metabolism
WATER Scenario #3 - Example #2 (Northern Central United States) - Water Footprint Analysis
Water Resource
Public water supply
Extracted groundwater #1
Location: on site
Aquifer: water supply aquifer
Surface water #1
Intake Location: not applicable
Collected/diverted stormwater
Description of Quality of Water Used
Groundwater not used for local potable water
supply or irrigation.
Stormwater that would otherwise discharge to
local creek
Volume Used
(million gals)
0.75
0.25
Uses
Landf arming
Landf arming
Fate of Used Water
Evaporated to atmosphere or microbial metabolism
Evaporated to atmosphere or microbial metabolism
For the above tables, orange shading indicates areas of potential improvement in the water footprint. Yellow shading indicates no net or significant effect on the water footprint
Green shading indicates examples of water best management practices.
103
-------
Footprint Reduction Scenarios:
Energy and Air
ENERGY AND AIR SCENARIO #1
ENERGY AND AIR SCENARIO #2
104
-------
ENERGY AND AIR SCENARIO #1
Background:
Design of an in situ bioremediation remedy for chlorinated volatile organic compounds (VOCs) is
underway.
Remedy information is as follows:
• Restoration of 200-foot x 200-foot area of shallow aquifer (25 feet to 50 feet deep)
• Construction of 80 permanent 2-inch PVC wells, 50 feet deep with 20-foot screen intervals
• Drill cuttings left at well locations
• Injection of 500,000 pounds of emulsified vegetable oil (5 percent solution) over three injection
rounds
• Extracted groundwater used for chemical blending and injection
• Quarterly sampling at 30 points for 5 years, semi-annual sampling at 30 points for additional 5
years, annual sampling at 30 points for 10 additional years
• All samples analyzed for VOCs only
• Purge water disposed to ground surface
Screening:
This step identifies the largest contributors to the energy and onsite air metrics and develops screening
limits for use in identifying important potential contributors to the footprint and providing the rationale
for excluding minor contributors.
Onsite NOx+SOx+PM Emission Screening
The only sources of onsite emissions are expected to be the drill rig operation and the low-flow sampling
equipment. Both are expected to be above the screening limits.
Onsite HAP Emission Screening
No additional sources beyond those counted in the NOx+SOx+PM screening.
Total Energy Screening
The screening limit is based on the higher of a magnitude based limit of 100 screening units or a
percentage-based limit equal to I percent of the largest contributor to the total energy footprint. Because
no appreciable renewable energy is used, it is assumed that the total energy screening process reasonably
screens items/activities for the total air emissions metrics. Based on professional judgment, the two most
likely candidates for the largest total energy contributor are the 500,000 pounds of emulsified vegetable
oil and the well installation. Based on Exhibit 3.2, the 500,000 pounds of emulsified vegetable oil equates
to 500,000 screening units (500,000 * I), and the well installation equates to 200,000 screening
units (4,000 x 50). The emulsified vegetable oil is the largest contributor. Therefore, the percentage based
screening unit is 5,000 (500,000 * I percent). Items or activities associated with the remedy that would
equate to less than 5,000 screening units will be omitted.
105
-------
ENERGY AND AIR CASE STUDY#1 (continued)
The following table presents the primary items/activities associated with the remedy and preliminary
engineering estimates regarding the quantities of those items/activities. Screening unit conversions from
Exhibit 3.2 are applied to calculate the number of screening units, and a decision to include or exclude
each item/activity is stated. Items exceeding the screening limit of 5,000 will be quantified more
accurately during footprint calculation. As noted, some items that are available from the materials or
waste footprint or for the onsite emissions footprint are included even if the values are below the
screening limit because the information is already available.
Item
Vegetable oil
Drill rig operation
PVC, Grout, and Steel for wells
Sand for wells
Concrete for wells
Drill rig transport
Oversight transport
Well materials transport
Vegetable oil transport
Laboratory analysis
Electricity
Injection team travel
Sampling travel
Sampling equipment
Sampling materials
Quantity
500,000 Ibs
Screening
Units
500,000
Used for onsite NOx+SOx+PM footprint
Available from materials footprint
Available from materials footprint
Available from materials footprint
1 00,000 ton-miles
>$ioo,ooo
>5,000 kWh
>10,000 miles
-5,000 miles
<2,000
<500
<3,300
>33,000
>ioo,ooo
>5,000
>5,000
<5,000
Used for onsite NOx+SOx+PM footprint
<5,000 Ibs
<5,000
Limit = 5,000
Decision
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Exclude
Exclude
Exclude
Include
Include
Include
Include
Exclude
Include
Exclude
Footprint Calculation:
This part of the footprint calculation follows Step 5: Quantify Energy and Air Metrics. Step 5 is
comprised of 3 parts.
Part 1: Inventory Remedy Travel, Equipment Use, Materials, and Offsite Services
The following construction materials are available from the materials footprint (not shown)
2,700 pounds of PVC (estimated as noted in Exhibit 3.6)
30,400 Ibs of sand/gravel (estimated as noted in Exhibit 3.6)
31,200 Ibs of cement for grout (estimated as noted in Exhibit 3.6)
Bentonite negligible relative to other materials
2,000 Ibs of steel for well covers (estimated)
12 tons of concrete for surface finish (estimated)
Based on Exhibit 3.1 IB, drilling of 4,000 vertical feet might involve 40 days with a 150 HP rig operating
a 75 percent load.
The following are items associated with system operation that passed the screening process:
106
-------
ENERGY AND AIR CASE STUDY#1 (continued)
• 500,000 pounds (250 tons) of emulsified vegetable oil injected over three events, shipped from
approximately 1,000 miles away, empty return trip not required
• 10,000,000 gallons of water extracted, blended, and reinjected
• Average injection rate (multiple wells simultaneously) is 100 gpm
• Consultants and contractors visit site 200 times over three years
o Travel in three light-duty trucks
o Roundtrip daily commute is 40 miles
o Total is 3 x 40 x 200 = 24,000 miles
• Mixers and pumps powered by onsite electricity for 1,800 hours total
o Four 0.75 HP extraction pumps
o Two 0.5 HP mixers
o Two 1 HP transfer pumps
• Local fuel blend for electricity generation is as follows:
o 40 percent natural gas
o 15 percent coal
o 20 percent hydro
o 20 percent nuclear
o 2 percent biomass
o 3 percent wind
The following are items associated with monitoring that passed the screening process:
• 1,200 samples collected and analyzed for VOCs at $100/sample is $120,000
• Sampling requires a total of 2,500 hours of two 2.5 HP gasoline compressors (12,500 HP-hrs)
Part 2: Energy Inventory
This step converts the above transportation and equipment use into fuel use and converts electrical
equipment use into electricity use. For scenario expediency, energy inventory for three tasks are
combined. A formal analysis might split the inventory into three tasks: construction, operations and
maintenance (O&M), and long-term monitoring.
Fuel Use for Personnel Transportation
Personnel or
Equipment
Gasoline
Injection contractor #1
Injection contractor #2
Injection consultant
Trips
200
200
200
Roundtrip
Distance
(miles)
40
40
40
Total
Distance
(miles)
8,000
8,000
8,000
Vehicle Type
Truck
Truck
Truck
Fuel
Efficiency
17mpg
17 mpg
17mpg
Total Gasoline
Fuel Use
(gals)
470
470
470
1,410
*Driller and drill rig transport, drilling oversight, and sampling technician transportation to site excluded based on
screening.
107
-------
ENERGY AND AIR CASE STUDY#1 (continued)
Fuel Use for Equipment Use
Equipment Type
Diesel
Drill rig
Gasoline
Sampling compressors
HP
150
2x2.5
Hours
320
2,500
BFSC
0.052
0.057
PLF
0.75
0.75
Fuel Use
(gals)
1,900
530
Fuel Use for Equipment, Materials, and Waste Transport
Equipment
Diesel (transport)
Drill rig
Well PVC and Steel
Sand, cement, concrete
Sand, cement, concrete
Vegetable Oil
Tons
Travel
Distance
(miles)
Vehicle
Type
Fuel
Efficiency
Fuel Use
(gals)
Excluded
250
1,000
Truck
0.029 gptm
Total
7,250
7,250
gptm = gallons per ton-mile
Onsite Electricity Use
Equipment
Two 0.5 HP mixers
Four 0.75 HP extraction pumps
Two 1 HP transfer pumps
HP
1
3
2
% Full
Load
80%
80%
80%
Motor
Efficiency
65%
65%
75%
kW
0.92
2.75
1.6
Hours
1,800
1,800
1,800
Total
kWh
1,660
4,950
2,880
-9,500
1 HP = 0.746 kW, See Exhibit 3.13 for calculations and assumptions.
Part 3: Convert to Energy and Air Metrics
See accompanying tables
Findings:
The largest contributor to the energy and air metrics is the production of the emulsified vegetable oil, but
the following items and activities are also significant contributors that merit additional focus when
attempting to reduce the energy and air metrics:
108
-------
ENERGY AND AIR CASE STUDY#1 (continued)
• Transportation of the emulsified vegetable oil
• Laboratory analysis
• Drill rig operation
• Generators for low-flow sampling
The conversion factor to estimate energy use and emissions from laboratory analysis is generic and
derived without specific consideration of what occurs within a laboratory. This additional uncertainty in
the laboratory footprint should be considered when interpreting the footprint results. The materials for
well installation were generally insignificant with respect to the calculated energy and air metrics.
109
-------
ENERGY AND AIR SCENARIO #1 - DETERMINING FOOTPRINT CONVERSION FACTORS FOR GRID ELECTRICITY
BASED ON UTILITY OR LOCATION
Power Content from Electric Service Provider
Energy Source
Coal
Natural gas
Oil
Nuclear
Hydroelectric
Biomass
Geothermal
Wind
Solar
Percentage of
Power Mix
Delivered to
Customers
15%
40%
0%
20%
20%
2%
0%
3%
<1%
/
A
E
P
Converting Resource Mix to Footprint Conversion Factors
Type
Conventional Energy
Coal
Natural Gas
Oil
Nuclear
Renewable Enersv
Biomass
Geothermal
Hydroelectric
Solar
Wind
Total
%of
Total
Used
15%
40%
0%
20%
2%
0%
20%
0%
3%
100%
Energy
(MMbtu/MWh)
Full
Load
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
Adj. by
%
1.035
2.76
0
1.38
0.138
1.38
0.207
6.9
"ull load emission values for each fuel type obtained
11 values do not include energy and emissions for re
Energy conversion factors exclude the energy contair
"or simplicity, energy conversion factors are assume
CO2e (Ibs/MWh)
Full
Load
2200
1300
1800
0
0
0
0
0
0
Adj. by
%
330
520
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
850
NOx (Ibs/MWh)
Full
Load
6
1.1
2.2
0
1.4
0
0
0
0
from www.nrel.gov/lci.
Adj. by
%
0.9
0.44
0
0
0.028
0
0
0
0
1.4
SOx (Ibs/MWh)
Full
Load
15
0.0066
2.8
0
0.65
0
0
0
0
Adj.
by%
2.3
0.0026
0
0
0.013
0
0
0
0
2.4
PM (Ibs/MWh)
Full
Load
0.092
0.08
0.13
0
0.084
0
0
0
0
Adj.
by%
0.014
0.032
0
0
0.0017
0
0
0
0
0.048
HAPs (Ibs/MWh)
Full
Load
0.66
0.025
0.066
0
5.3E-6
0
0
0
0
Adj.
by%
0.099
0.01
0
0
1.1E-7
0
0
0
0
0.1
source extraction or for transmission losses, which are counted in of/site (Scope 3b).
red in the MWh of electricity used by the remedy to avoid double counting ofonsite energy use.
dto be 6.9 MMBtu per MWh (equivalent to 33 percent efficiency) for all energy sources.
110
-------
ENERGY AND AIR SCENARIO #1 - CALCULATING AND PRESENTING ONSITE (SCOPE 1) ENERGY AND AIR METRICS
Contributors to Footprints
Onsite Renewable Enersv
Electricity generated on site by renewable resources
Landfill gas combusted on site
Biodiesel used on site
Other onsite renewable energy use #1
Other onsite renewable energy use #2
Onsite Renewable Energy Subtotals
Other Onsite Enersv
Grid electricity
Onsite diesel use
Onsite gasoline use
Onsite natural gas use
Other forms of onsite energy use #1
Other forms of onsite energy use #2
Other Onsite Energy Subtotals
Other Onsite Emissions Contributions
Onsite HAP process emissions
Onsite GHG emissions
Onsite carbon storage
GHG reductions by combusting onsite landfill methane
Other onsite contributions
Other Onsite Subtotals
Onsite Totals
Units
MWh
ccfCH4
gal
MWh
gal
gal
ccf
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
Use
0
0
0
0
0
9.5
1,900
530
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Energy
Conv.
Factor
10.3
0.103
0.127
3.413
0.139
0.124
0.103
MMBtus
0
0
0
0
0
0
32.4
264.1
65.72
0
0
0
362
1
362
GHGs
Conv.
Factor
13.1
22.3
22.5
19.6
13.1
(1)
(20)
Ibs CO2e
0
0
0
0
0
42,750
10,388
0
0
0
53,138
0
0
0
0
0
53,138
NOx
Conv.
Factor
0.01
0.20
0.17
0.11
0.01
Ibs
0
0
0
0
0
323
58.3
0
0
0
381.3
0
0
381.3
SOx
Conv.
Factor
0.0000063
0
0.0054
0.0045
0.0000063
Ibs
0
0
0
0
0
10.26
2.385
0
0
0
12.645
0
0
12.645
PM
Conv.
Factor
0.00076
0.00099
0.0034
0.00054
0.00076
Ibs
0
0
0
0
0
6.46
0.2862
0
0
0
6.7462
0
1
6.7462
HAPs
Conv.
Factor
8.4E-06
NP
0.0003
0.0003
8.4E-06
Ibs
0
0
0
0
0.57
0.159
0
0
0
0.729
0
0
0
0.729
TBD = to be determined. Values in parentheses are negative values. Energy for electricity is only that energy of that electricity and not the energy required to generate the electricity.
ccfCH4 = 100 cubic feet of methane. Obtained by multiplying total volume of landfill gas in ccf by the percentage of the gas that is methane.
Energy associated with onsite generation of electricity is assumed to be 10.3 MMBtu/MWh (3.413 MMBtu/MWh for usable electricity plus 6.9 MMBtu/MWh for energy loss due to an assumed 33 percent efficiency). 33 percent efficiency is consistent with Exhibit 3.17.
Energy associated with onsite use of grid electricity is 3.413 MMBtu/MWh of electricity because the energy loss associated with 33 percent efficiency is counted in Scope 2 energy calculations
If fuel is a blend of conventional fuel and renewable resource fuel, enter the amount of fuel from conventional sources into appropriate conventional fuel categories and enter amount of fuel from renewable resources into appropriate renewable fuel categories (e.g., for
100 gallons ofB20 biodiesel blend, 20 gallons would be entered under biodiesel and 80 gallons would be entered under diesel).
1. Enter use into blue cells in "Use" column in indicated units.
2. Convert uses into indicated units of each parameter by multiplying use by the indicated conversion factors. Enter result into blue cells in parameter columns.
3. Sum Onsite Renewable Energy results for each parameter and enter in green "Onsite Renewable Energy Subtotals" cells.
4. Sum Other Onsite Energy results for each parameter and enter in green "Other Onsite Energy Subtotals " cells.
5. Sum Other Onsite Contributions results for each parameter and enter in green "Other Onsite Subtotals " cells.
6. Sum green cells for each parameter and enter result in green "Onsite Totals " cells.
Use x Conversion factor = Footprint
111
-------
ENERGY AND AIR SCENARIO #1 - CALCULATING AND PRESENTING ELECTRICITY GENERATION (SCOPE 2) ENERGY AND AIR METRICS
Contributors to Footprints
Grid electricity use
Green pricing or green marketing product purchases
REC purchase
Units
MWh
MWh
MWh
Use
9.5
0
0
Energy
Conv.
Factor
6.9
MMBtus
65.6
GHGs
Conv.
Factor
850
Ibs CO2e
8,075
NOx
Conv.
Factor
1.4
Ihs
13.3
SOx
Conv.
Factor
2.4
Ihs
22.8
PM
Conv.
Factor
0.048
Ihs
0.456
HAPs
Conv.
Factor
0.1
Ibs
0.99
See Exhibit 3.17 for how to determine the conversion factors for grid electricity.
1. Enter grid electricity use in MWh into blue cell in "Use " column.
2. Convert MWh use into indicated units of each parameter by multiplying use by the indicated conversion factors. Enter result into blue cells in parameter columns.
3. Enter quantity of voluntary purchased renewable electricity in the form of green pricing and green marketing products into the associated blue cell, and document information regarding that product in the table below.
4. Enter quantity of voluntary purchased renew able electricity in the form ofRECs into the associated blue cell, and document information regarding that product in the table below.
Use x Conversion factor = Footprint
Description of purchased green pricing or
green marketing product
Description of purchased RECs
Provider:
Type of product:
Type of renewable energy source:
Date of renewable system installation:
Provider:
Type of renewable energy source:
Date of renewable system installation:
112
-------
ENERGY AND AIR SCENARIO #1 -CALCULATING AND PRESENTING TRANSPORTATION (SCOPE 3A) ENERGY AND AIR METRICS
Category
Conventional Enersv
Diesel use
Gasoline use
Natural gas use
Conventional Energy Subtotals
Renewable Enersv
Biodiesel use
Transportation Totals
Units
gal
gal
ccf
gal
Use
7,250
1,410
0
0
Energy
Conv.
Factor
0.139
0.124
0.103
0.127
MMBtus
1008
175
0
1,183
0
1,183
GHGs
Conv.
Factor
22.5
19.6
13.1
22.3
Ibs CO2
163125
27636
0
190,761
0
190,761
NOx
Conv.
Factor
0.17
0.11
0.01
0.20
Ibs
1233
155
0
1,388
0
1,388
SOx
Conv.
Factor
0.0054
0.0045
0.0000063
0
Ibs
39
6
0
45
0
45
PM
Conv.
Factor
0.0034
0.00054
0.00076
0.00099
Ibs
25
1
0
25
0
25
HAPs
Conv.
Factor
0.000005
0.000039
0.0000084
NP
Ibs
0.038
0.055
0.000
0.093
0.093
1. Enter uses of each material or service into "Use " column in indicated units.
2. Convert uses into indicated units of each parameter by multiplying use by the indicated conversion factor. Enter result into blue cells in parameter columns.
3. Sum Conventional Energy results for each parameter and enter in green "Conventional Energy Subtotals " cells.
4. Sum Conventional Energy Subtotals and biodiesel use results for each parameter and enter in green "Transportation " cells.
Use x Conversion factor = Footprint
113
-------
ENERGY AND AIR SCENARIO #1 - CALCULATING AND PRESENTING OFFSITE (SCOPE 3B) ENERGY AND AIR METRICS
Category
Construction Materials
Cement
Concrete
Gravel/sand/clay
HOPE
Photovoltaic system (installed)
PVC
Stainless Steel
Steel
Other refined construction materials
Other unrefined construction materials
Treatment Materials and Chemicals
Cheese Whey
Emulsified vegetable oil
Molasses
Treatment materials and chemicals
Virgin GAC (coal based)
Fuel Processing
Biodiesel Produced
Diesel Produced
Gasoline Produced
Natural Gas Produced
Public water
Offsite Services
Offsite waste water treatment
Offsite Solid Waste Disposal
Offsite Hazardous Waste Disposal
Offsite Laboratory Analysis
Units
dry-lb
Ib
Ib
Ib
W
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
gal
gal
gal
ccf
gal x 1000
gal x 1000
ton
ton
$
Use
31,200
24,000
30,400
0
0
2,700
0
2,000
0
0
0
500,000
0
0
0
0
9,150
1,940
0
10,000
0
0
0
120,000
Energy
Conv.
Factor
0.0021
0.00041
0.000028
0.031
0.034
0.022
0.012
0.0044
0.014
0.000028
0.0025
0.0077
0.0044
0.015
0.015
0.029
0.019
0.021
0.0052
0.0092
0.015
0.16
0.176
0.0065
MMBtus
65.52
9.84
0.8512
0
0
59.4
0
8.8
0
0
0
3850
0
0
0
0
169.275
40.74
0
92
0
0
0
780
GHGs
Conv.
Factor
0.9
0.171
0.0034
1.9
4.5
2.6
3.4
1.1
1.98
0.00335
0.031
3.44
0.48
1.7
5.8
-16.8
2.7
4.4
2.2
5
4.4
25
27.5
1
Ibs CO2
28080
4104
101.84
0
0
7020
0
2200
0
0
0
1720000
0
0
0
0
24705
8536
0
50000
0
0
0
120000
NOx
Conv.
Factor
0.0018
0.00035
0.000017
0.0032
0.015
0.0048
0.0075
0.0014
0.0037
0.000017
0.000062
0.0066
0.0011
0.003
0.014
0.018
0.0064
0.008
0.0037
0.0097
0.016
0.14
0.154
0.0048
Ibs
56.16
8.4
0.5016
0
0
12.96
0
2.8
0
0
0
3300
0
0
0
0
58.56
15.52
0
97
0
0
0
576
SOx
Conv.
Factor
0.00105
0.00021
0.000015
0.0041
0.032
0.0076
0.012
0.0017
0.0053
0.000015
0.000033
0.0019
0.00024
0.0065
0.034
0.033
0.013
0.019
0.0046
0.0059
0.015
0.075
0.0825
0.0036
Ibs
32.76
5.04
0.456
0
0
20.52
0
3.4
0
0
0
950
0
0
0
0
118.95
36.86
0
59
0
0
0
432
PM
Conv.
Factor
0.0000032
0.00001
0.0000020
0.00064
0.00063
0.0012
0.0044
0.00056
0.0014
0.000002
0.000002
0.000033
0.0000041
0.00061
0.00078
0.00082
0.00034
0.00052
0.000072
0.016
NP
0.4
0.44
0.0004
Ibs
0.09828
0.24
0.0608
0
0
3.24
0
1.12
0
0
0
16.5
0
0
0
0
3.111
1.0088
0
160
0
0
48
HAPs
Conv.
Factor
0.000029
0.00001
2.1E-10
0.0000034
0.0000029
0.00047
0.00014
0.000067
0.00014
2.1E-10
NP
NP
NP
0.000016
0.0012
NP
0.00012
0.00016
0.0000061
0.000015
NP
0.0014
0.00154
0.00013
Ibs
0.9048
0.24
6.232E-06
0
0
1.269
0
0.134
0
0
0
0
1.098
0.3104
0
0.15
0
0
15.6
114
-------
ENERGY AND AIR SCENARIO #1 - CALCULATING AND PRESENTING OFFSITE (SCOPE 3B) ENERGY AND AIR METRICS (continued)
Category
Resource Extraction for Electricity
Coal extraction and processing
Natural gas extraction and processing
Nuclear fuel extraction and processing
Oil extraction and processing
Electricity Transmission
Transmission and distribution losses
Off Site Totals
Units
MWh
MWh
MWh
MWh
MWh
MWh
Use
1.425
3.8
1.9
0
0.95
Energy
Conv.
Factor
3.1
1.6
0.16
2.3
10.3
MMBtus
4.35
6.20
0.30
0
9.785
5,097
GHGs
Conv.
Factor
180
270
25
270
850
Ibs CO2
256.5
1026
47.5
0
807.5
1,966,884
NOx
Conv.
Factor
0.77
0.18
0.15
1.7
1.4
Ibs
1.09725
0.684
0.285
0
1.33
4,131
SOx
Conv.
Factor
0.15
13
0.5
0.069
2.4
Ibs
0.21375
49.4
0.95
0
2.28
1,712
PM
Conv.
Factor
0.018
0.0071
0.0015
0.042
0.048
Ibs
0.02565
0.02698
0.00285
0
0.0456
233
HAPs
Conv.
Factor
NP
NP
NP
NP
0.1
Ibs
0.095
20
Use x Conversion factor = Footprint
NP = not provided
1. Enter uses of each material or service into "Use " column in indicated units.
2. Convert uses into indicated units of each parameter by multiplying use by the indicated conversion factor. Enter result into blue cells in parameter columns.
3. Fuel processing refers to all fuel used, including that for onsite equipment use and transportation.
4. Electricity from various resources is obtained from generation mix that is used in Exhibit 3.17 and the resource extraction conversion factors from Exhibit 3.14.
5. For electricity transmission, enter 10 percent of the grid electricity used for calculating energy and emissions from electricity generation. The conversion factors are the same as those used for electricity generation, but the energy conversion factor is 10.3
MMBtu/MWh (3.413 MMBtu/MWh for usable electricity plus 6.9 MMBtu/MWh for energy loss due to an assumed 33 percent efficiency at the power plant).
6. Resource extraction conversion factors are calculated using values in Exhibit 3.14 and the specified fuel blend for electricity generation.
115
-------
ENERGY AND AIR SCENARIO #1 - SUMMARY OF METRICS
Category
Onsite (Scope 1)
Electricity Generation (Scope 2)
Transportation (Scope 3a)
Other Offsite (Scope 3b)
Remedy Totals
Total Energy
MMbtus
362
65.6
1,183
5,097
6,708
GHG Footprint in Tons (1 ton = 2,000 Ibs)
GHGs
Ibs CO2e
53,138
8,075
190,761
1,966,844
2,218,818
1,109
NOx
Ibs
381
13.3
1,388
4,131
5,913
SOx
Ibs
12.6
22.8
45
1,712
1,792
PM
Ibs
6.7
0.46
25
233
265
NOx+SOx+PM
Ibs
400.5
36.56
1,459
6,076
7,971
HAPs
Ibs
0.73
0.99
0.093
20
22
Voluntary Renewable Energy Use
Onsite energy generation or use
Onsite biodiesel use
Biodiesel use for transportation
Onsite generation or use and biodiesel use
Renewable electricity purchase
REC purchases
Unit
MMBtu
MMBtu
MMBtu
MMBtu
MWh
MWh
Quantity
1,229
0
0
0
0
0
116
-------
ENERGY AND AIR SCENARIO #2
Background:
This scenario involves quantifying the energy and air metrics over a 30-year period for an operating P&T
system (i.e., construction of the system is not included in the footprint analysis):
• O&M of P&T system that is containing VOC and semi-volatile organic compound (SVOC)
plume
• VOC influent is 1,000 micrograms per liter (ug/L), SVOC influent is 600 ug/L
• Combined extraction rate of 200 gpm from three extraction wells
• Onsite photovoltaic system generates 12,000 kWh per year (360,000 kWh over 30 years) of
renewable energy that is used on site
• 50 feet to water table
• Treatment with air stripping, GAC treatment of air stripper off-gas, and GAC treatment of air
stripper effluent
• GAC is 95 percent efficient for VOC removal and untreated VOCs are HAPs (according to
Exhibit 3.15, approximately 26,000 pounds of HAPs are emitted on site over 30 years)
• Treated water is reinjected
• Semi-annual sampling at 50 points for 30 years
• All samples analyzed for VOCs and SVOCs
• Estimated remedy duration of 30 years
Screening:
The step identifies the largest contributors to the energy and onsite air metrics and develops screening
limits for use in identifying important potential contributors to the footprint and providing the rationale
for excluding minor contributors.
Onsite NOx+SOx+PM Emission Screening
The only source of onsite emissions is expected to be the low-flow sampling equipment.
Onsite HAP Emission Screening
No additional sources beyond those counted in the NOx+SOx+PM screening.
Total Energy Screening
The screening limit is based on the higher of a magnitude based limit of 100 screening units or a
percentage-based limit equal to 1 percent of the largest contributor to the total energy footprint. Because
no appreciable renewable energy is used, it is assumed that the total energy screening process reasonably
screens items/activities for the total air emissions metrics. Based on professional judgment, the largest
total energy contributor is the electricity (204,000 kWh per year for 30 years, which translates to
6,120,000 kWh). Accounting for the electricity generated from the onsite photovoltaic system, this
translates to (6,120,000 kWh - 360,000 kWh = 5,760,000 kWh). According to Exhibit 3.2, this translates
777
-------
to 5,760,000 screening units. Therefore, the percentage based screening unit is 57,600 (57,600,000 x 1
percent). Items or activities associated with the remedy that would equate to less than 61,200 screening
units will be omitted.
The following table presents the primary items/activities associated with the remedy and preliminary
engineering estimates regarding the quantities of those items/activities. Screening unit conversions from
Exhibit 3.2 are applied to calculate the number of screening units, and a decision to include or exclude
each item/activity is stated. Items exceeding the screening limit of 57,600 will be quantified more
accurately during footprint calculation. As noted below, some items that are available from the materials
or waste footprint or for the onsite emissions footprint are included even if the values are below the
screening limit because the information is already available.
Item
Electricity
Laboratory analysis (GW monitoring)
Laboratory analysis (process)
GAC
GAC transport
Operator and sampling tech. transport
Sampling equip.
Sampling materials
Quantity
5,760,000 kWh
>$100,000
>$100,000
>100,000 Ibs
>100,000 ton-miles
>100,000 miles
Screening
Units
5,760,000
>100,000
>100,000
>100,000
>33,000
>50,000
Used for onsite NOx+SOx+PM footprint
< 1,000 Ibs
<1,000
Limit = 57,600
Decision
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Include
Exclude
The engineering estimates for GAC transport and personnel transport were not sufficiently detailed to
confirm they would be below the screening limit. Therefore, they are included in the footprint calculation
step, and will be included in the footprint analysis.
Footprint Calculation:
This part of the footprint calculation follows Step 5: Quantify Energy and Air Metrics. Step 5 is
comprised of 3 parts.
Part 1: Inventory Remedy Travel, Equipment Use, Materials, and Offsite Services
The following are items associated with remedy operation that passed the screening process:
• 7,000 pounds of GAC per year for 30 years (210,000 pounds or 105 tons)
o 1,000 miles round-trip distance from regeneration facility to local warehouse
o 100 miles round-trip distance from warehouse to site, two trips per year (60 trips total)
• Estimated 2000 operator/technician/oversight visits over next 30 years
o Travel in light-duty trucks
o Roundtrip daily commute is 40 miles
• Pumps and blowers powered by onsite electricity for 250,000 hours over next 30 years
o Typical electrical bill is 204,000 kWh per year
• Three 3 HP extraction pumps with VFDs
• One 3 HP transfer pump with VFD
• One 3 HP effluent pump with VFD
• One 10 HP blower with VFD
118
-------
ENERGY AND AIR CASE STUDY #2 (continued)
• Site located in Colorado, generation mix not available from utility, use eGRID Subregion RMPA
fuel blend for electricity generation is as follows:
o 71.7 percent coal
o 19.5 percent natural gas
o 7.4 percent hydro
o 1.4 percent wind
• Renewable Energy Certificates each year to offset all grid electricity use
o RECs purchased from wind facility located in RMPA (Colorado - Eastern Wyoming)
Subregion constructed in 2005
• Process sampling, 3 samples for VOCs ($100 /sample) and SVOCs ($200/sample) each month for
30 years
The following are items associated with long-term monitoring that passed the screening process:
• 500 trips to site by sampling team in one light-duty truck (100 miles round trip)
• 3,000 samples collected and analyzed for VOCs at $100 per sample and SVOCs at $200 per
sample (includes cost of QA samples)
• Sampling requires a total of 6,000 hours of 2.5 HP gasoline compressors
• Purge water disposed of in treatment plant
Part 2: Energy Inventory
This step converts the above transportation and equipment use into fuel use and converts electrical
equipment use into electricity use. For scenario expediency, energy inventory for three tasks are
combined. A formal analysis might split the inventory into three tasks: construction, O&M, and long-term
monitoring.
Fuel Use for Personnel Transportation
Personnel
Diesel
None
Gasoline
Operator
Sampling techs
Trips
2000
500
Roundtrip
Distance
(miles)
40
100
Total
Distance
(miles)
80,000
50,000
Vehicle Type
Truck
Truck
Fuel
Efficiency
17mpg
17mpg
Total Gasoline
Fuel Use
(gals)
4,706
2,941
7,647
119
-------
ENERGY AND AIR CASE STUDY #2 (continued)
Fuel Use for Equipment Use
Equipment Type
Diesel
None
Gasoline
Sampling compressors
Hours
6000
Fuel
Consumption
Rate
(gal/hr)
0.14
Fuel Use
(gals)
840
Fuel Use for Materials, Equipment, and Waste Transport
Equipment
Diesel
GAC facility to warehouse
GAC warehouse to site
Tons
105
105
Travel
Distance
(miles)
1,000
60x100
Vehicle
Type
Truck
Truck
Fuel
Efficiency
0.029 gptm
6mpg
Total
Fuel Use
(gals)
3,045
1,000
4,045
gptm = gallons per ton-mile
Onsite Electricity Use
Equipment
Extraction pumps
Two process pumps
One air stripper blower
HP
9
6
10
% Full
Load
80%
80%
80%
Motor
Efficiency
75%
75%
75%
kW
9.6
6.4
10.7
Hours
250,000
250,000
250,000
Calculated Total
Total from Electric Bills
kWh
2,160
5,760
3,780
6,675,000
6,120,000
Calculated and actual values are close. Use actual value from electric bills and use calculated values to help
understand breakdown of electricity use.
Part 3: Convert to Energy and Air Metrics
See accompanying tables
Findings:
Electricity generation accounts for approximately 40 percent of the total energy use but approximately 70
percent of the GHG emissions because a large percentage of the electricity is generated from the
120
-------
ENERGY AND AIR CASE STUDY #2 (continued)
combustion of coal. Resource extraction for electricity generation and electricity transmission losses are
also large contributors to energy use and air emissions. The onsite generation and use of renewable
energy provides a favorable metric related to the voluntary use of renewable energy and avoids some of
the emissions associated with the electricity generation. The purchase of RECs provides another favorable
metric related to voluntary use of renewable energy. Although this methodology focuses on air emissions
before potential reductions from REC purchases, some EPA programs and federal guidance supports air
emission reductions associated with a REC purchase.
Other significant contributors to the energy and air emissions metrics are laboratory analysis, GAC
manufacturing, and various aspects of transportation. Footprint reduction would likely focus on reducing
electricity use, potentially identifying an alternative source of electricity, optimization of GAC use, and
GAC transportation.
121
-------
ENERGY AND AIR SCENARIO #2 - DETERMINING FOOTPRINT CONVERSION FACTORS FOR GRID ELECTRICITY
BASED ON UTILITY OR LOCATION
Power Content from eGRID RPMA Subregion
Energy Source
Coal
Natural gas
Oil
Nuclear
Hydroelectric
Biomass
Geothermal
Wind
Solar
Percentage of
Power Mix
Delivered to
Customers
71.7%
19.5%
0%
0%
7.4%
0%
0%
1.4%
0%
/
A
E
P
Converting Utility Resource Mix to Footprint Conversion Factors
Type
Conventional Energy
Coal
Natural Gas
Oil
Nuclear
Renewable Energy
Biomass
Geothermal
Hydroelectric
Solar
Wind
Total
%of
Total
Used
71.7%
19.5%
0%
0%
0%
0%
7.4%
0%
1.4%
100%
Energy
(MMbtu/MWh)
Full
Load
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
Adj. by
%
4.947
1.346
0
0
0
0
0.511
0
0.0966
6.9
"ull load emission values for each fuel type obtained
11 values do not include energy and emissions for re
Energy conversion factors exclude the energy contair
"or simplicity, energy conversion factors are assume
CO2e (Ibs/MWh)
Full
Load
2200
1300
1800
0
0
0
0
0
0
Adj. by
%
1577
254
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1831
NOx (Ibs/MWh)
Full
Load
6
1.1
2.2
0
1.4
0
0
0
0
from www.nrel.gov/lci.
Adj. by
%
4.3
0.21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.5
SOx (Ibs/MWh)
Full
Load
15
0.0066
2.8
0
0.65
0
0
0
0
Adj.
by%
10.8
0.014
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10.8
PM (Ibs/MWh)
Full
Load
0.092
0.08
0.13
0
0.084
0
0
0
0
Adj.
by%
0.06596
0.0156
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.081
HAPs (Ibs/MWh)
Full
Load
0.66
0.025
0.066
0
5.3E-6
0
0
0
0
Adj.
by%
0.47322
0.00488
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.47
source extraction or for transmission losses, which are counted in Scope 3.
red in the MWh of electricity used by the remedy to avoid double counting of Scope 1 energy use.
dto be 6.9 MMBtu per MWh (equivalent to 33 percent efficiency) for all energy sources.
722
-------
ENERGY AND AIR SCENARIO #2 - CALCULATING AND PRESENTING ONSITE ENERGY AND AIR METRICS
Contributors to Footprints
Onsite Renewable Energy
Electricity generated on site by renewable resources
Landfill gas combusted on site
Biodiesel used on site
Other onsite renewable energy use #1
Other onsite renewable energy use #2
Onsite Renewable Energy Subtotals
Other Onsite Energv
Grid electricity
Onsite diesel use
Onsite gasoline use
Onsite natural gas use
Other forms of onsite energy use #1
Other forms of onsite energy use #2
Other Onsite Energy Subtotals
Other Onsite Emissions Contributions
Onsite HAP process emissions
Onsite GHG emissions
Onsite carbon storage
GHG reductions by combusting onsite landfill methane
Other onsite contributions
Other Onsite Subtotals
Onsite Totals
Units
MWh
ccfCH4
gal
MWh
gal
gal
ccf
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
Use
360
0
0
0
0
5,760
0
840
0
0
0
26,000
0
0
0
0
Energy
Conv.
Factor
3.413
0.103
0.127
3.413
0.139
0.124
0.103
MMBtus
1,229
0
0
0
0
1,229
19,659
0
104.16
0
0
0
19,763
0
20,992
GHGs
Conv.
Factor
13.1
22.3
22.5
19.6
13.1
1
-1
-20
Ibs CO2e
0
0
0
0
0
0
16464
0
0
0
16464
0
0
0
0
0
16,464
NOx
Conv.
Factor
0.01
0.20
0.17
0.11
0.01
Ibs
0
0
0
0
0
0
92.4
0
0
0
92.4
0
0
92
SOx
Conv.
Factor
0.0000063
0
0.0054
0.0045
0.0000063
Ibs
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.78
0
0
0
3.78
0
0
3.8
PM
Conv.
Factor
0.00076
0.00099
0.0034
0.00054
0.00076
Ibs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.4536
0
0
0
0.4536
0
0
0.45
HAPs
Conv.
Factor
8.4E-06
NP
0.0003
0.0003
8.4E-06
1
Ibs
0
0
0
0
0
0.252
0
0
0
0.252
26,000
0
0
26,000
TBD = to be determined. Values in parentheses are negative values. Energy for electricity is only that energy of that electricity and not the energy required to generate the electricity.
ccfCH4 = 100 cubic feet of methane. Obtained by multiplying total volume of landfill gas in ccf by the percentage of the gas that is methane.
Energy associated with onsite generation of electricity is assumed to be 10.3 MMBtu/MWh (3.413 MMBtu/MWh for usable electricity plus 6.9 MMBtu/MWh for energy loss due to an assumed 33 percent efficiency). 33 percent efficiency is consistent with Exhibit 3.17.
Energy associated with onsite use of grid electricity is 3.413 MMBtu/MWh of electricity because the energy loss associated with 33 percent efficiency is counted in Scope 2 energy calculations
If fuel is a blend of conventional fuel and renewable resource fuel, enter the amount of fuel from conventional sources into appropriate conventional fuel categories and enter amount of fuel from renewable resources into appropriate renewable fuel categories (e.g., for
100 gallons ofB20 biodiesel blend, 20 gallons would be entered under biodiesel and 80 gallons would be entered under diesel).
1. Enter use into blue cells in "Use" column in indicated units.
2. Convert uses into indicated units of each parameter by multiplying use by the indicated conversion factors. Enter result into blue cells in parameter columns.
3. Sum Onsite Renewable Energy results for each parameter and enter in green "Onsite Renewable Energy Subtotals" cells.
4. Sum Other Onsite Energy results for each parameter and enter in green "Other Onsite Energy Subtotals " cells.
5. Sum Other Onsite Contributions results for each parameter and enter in green "Other Onsite Subtotals " cells.
6. Sum green cells for each parameter and enter result in green "Onsite Totals " cells.
Use x Conversion factor = Footprint
123
-------
ENERGY AND AIR SCENARIO #2 - CALCULATING AND PRESENTING ELECTRICITY GENERATION ENERGY AND AIR METRICS
Contributors to Footprints
Grid electricity use
Green pricing or green marketing product purchases
REC purchase
Units
MWh
MWh
MWh
Use
5,760
0
5,760
Energy
Conv.
Factor
6.9
MMBtus
39,744
GHGs
Conv.
Factor
1831
Ibs CO2e
10,546,560
NOx
Conv.
Factor
4.5
Ihs
25,920
SOx
Conv.
Factor
10.8
Ihs
62,208
PM
Conv.
Factor
0.081
Ihs
467
HAPs
Conv.
Factor
0.47
Ibs
2,707
See Exhibit 3.17 for how to determine the conversion factors for grid electricity.
1. Enter grid electricity use in MWh into blue cell in "Use " column.
2. Convert MWh use into indicated units of each parameter by multiplying use by the indicated conversion factors. Enter result into blue cells in parameter columns.
3. Enter quantity of voluntary purchased renewable electricity in the form of green pricing and green marketing products into the associated blue cell, and document information regarding that product in the table below.
4. Enter quantity of voluntary purchased renewable electricity in the form ofRECs into the associated blue cell, and document information regarding that product in the table below.
Use x Conversion factor = Footprint
Description of purchased green pricing or
green marketing product
Description of purchased RECs
Provider:
Type of product:
Type of renewable energy source:
Date of renewable system installation:
Provider: REC Seller, LLP
Type of renewable energy source: Wind
Date of renewable system installation: 2005
124
-------
ENERGY AND AIR SCENARIO #2 -CALCULATING AND PRESENTING TRANSPORTATION ENERGY AND AIR METRICS
Category
Conventional Enersv
Diesel use
Gasoline use
Natural gas use
Conventional Energy Subtotals
Renewable Energv
Biodiesel use
Transportation Totals
Units
gal
gal
ccf
gal
Use
4,045
7,647
0
0
Energy
Conv.
Factor
0.139
0.124
0.103
0.127
MMBtus
562
948
0
1,510
0
1,510
GHGs
Conv.
Factor
22.5
19.6
13.1
22.3
Ibs CO2
91013
149881
0
240,894
0
240,894
NOx
Conv.
Factor
0.17
0.11
0.01
0.20
Ibs
688
841
0
1,529
0
1,529
SOx
Conv.
Factor
0.0054
0.0045
0.0000063
0
Ibs
22
34
0
56
0
56
PM
Conv.
Factor
0.0034
0.00054
0.00076
0.00099
Ibs
14
4
0
18
0
18
HAPs
Conv.
Factor
0.000005
0.000039
0.0000084
NP
Ibs
0.021
0.298
0.000
0.319
0.319
1. Enter uses of each material or service into "Use " column in indicated units.
2. Convert uses into indicated units of each parameter by multiplying use by the indicated conversion factor. Enter result into blue cells in parameter columns.
3. Sum Conventional Energy results for each parameter and enter in green "Conventional Energy Subtotals " cells.
4. Sum Conventional Energy Subtotals and biodiesel use results for each parameter and enter in green "Transportation " cells.
Use x Conversion factor = Footprint
125
-------
ENERGY AND AIR SCENARIO #2 -CALCULATING AND PRESENTING OFFSITE ENERGY AND AIR METRICS
Category
Construction Materials
Cement
Concrete
Gravel/sand/clay
HOPE
Photovoltaic system (installed)
PVC
Stainless Steel
Steel
Other refined construction materials
Other unrefined construction materials
Treatment Materials and Chemicals
Cheese Whey
Emulsified vegetable oil
Molasses
Treatment materials and chemicals
Virgin GAC (coal based)
Fuel Processing
Biodiesel Produced
Diesel Produced
Gasoline Produced
Natural Gas Produced
Public water
Offsite Services
Offsite waste water treatment
Offsite Solid Waste Disposal
Offsite Haz. Waste Disposal
Offsite Laboratory Analysis
Units
dry-lb
Ib
Ib
Ib
W
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
Ib
gal
gal
gal
ccf
gal x 1000
gal x 1000
ton
ton
$
Use
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
210000
0
0
4,045
8,487
0
0
0
0
0
1,100,000
Energy
Conv.
Factor
0.0021
0.00041
0.000028
0.031
0.034
0.022
0.012
0.0044
0.014
0.000028
0.0025
0.0077
0.0044
0.015
0.015
0.029
0.019
0.021
0.0052
0.0092
0.015
0.16
0.176
0.0065
MMBtus
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3150
0
0
74.8325
178.227
0
0
0
0
0
7150
GHGs
Conv.
Factor
0.9
0.171
0.0034
1.9
4.5
2.6
3.4
1.1
1.98
0.00335
0.031
3.44
0.48
1.7
5.8
-16.8
2.7
4.4
2.2
5
4.4
25
27.5
1
Ibs CO2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
350700
0
0
10921.5
37342.8
0
0
0
0
0
1100000
NOx
Conv.
Factor
0.0018
0.00035
0.000017
0.0032
0.015
0.0048
0.0075
0.0014
0.0037
0.000017
0.000062
0.0066
0.0011
0.003
0.014
0.018
0.0064
0.008
0.0037
0.0097
0.016
0.14
0.154
0.0048
Ibs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
630
0
0
25.888
67.896
0
0
0
0
0
5280
SOx
Conv.
Factor
0.00105
0.00021
0.000015
0.0041
0.032
0.0076
0.012
0.0017
0.0053
0.000015
0.000033
0.0019
0.00024
0.0065
0.034
0.033
0.013
0.019
0.0046
0.0059
0.015
0.075
0.0825
0.0036
Ibs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1365
0
0
52.585
161.253
0
0
0
0
0
3960
PM
Conv.
Factor
0.0000032
0.00001
0.0000020
0.00064
0.00063
0.0012
0.0044
0.00056
0.0014
0.000002
0.000002
0.000033
0.0000041
0.00061
0.00078
0.00082
0.00034
0.00052
0.000072
0.016
NP
0.4
0.44
0.0004
Ibs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
128.1
0
0
1.3753
4.41324
0
0
0
0
440
HAPs
Conv.
Factor
0.000029
0.00001
2.1E-10
0.0000034
0.0000029
0.00047
0.00014
0.000067
0.00014
2.1E-10
NP
NP
NP
0.000016
0.0012
NP
0.00012
0.00016
0.0000061
0.000015
NP
0.0014
0.00154
0.00013
Ibs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.36
0
0.4854
1.35792
0
0
0
0
143
126
-------
ENERGY AND AIR SCENARIO #2 -CALCULATING AND PRESENTING OFFSITE ENERGY AND AIR METRICS (continued)
Category
Resource Extraction for Electricity
Coal extraction and processing
Natural gas extraction and processing
Nuclear fuel extraction and processing
Oil extraction and processing
Electricity Transmission
Transmission and distribution losses
Off Site Totals
Units
MWh
MWh
MWh
MWh
MWh
MWh
Use
4,130
1,123
0
0
576
Energy
Conv.
Factor
3.1
1.6
0.16
2.3
10.3
MMBtus
12,803
1,797
0
0
5,933
31,086
GHGs
Conv.
Factor
180
270
25
270
1831
Ibs CO2
743,386
303,264
0
0
1,054,656
3,619,224
NOx
Conv.
Factor
0.77
0.18
0.15
1.7
4.5
Ibs
3,180
202
0
0
2,592
11,978
SOx
Conv.
Factor
0.15
13
0.5
0.069
10.8
Ibs
619
14,602
0
0
6,221
26,981
PM
Conv.
Factor
0.018
0.0071
0.0015
0.042
0.081
Ibs
74
8
0
0
47
703
HAPs
Conv.
Factor
NP
NP
NP
NP
0.47
Ibs
271
419
727
-------
ENERGY AND AIR SCENARIO #2 - SUMMARY OF METRICS
Category
Onsite (Scope 1)
Electricity Generation (Scope 2)
Transportation (Scope 3)
Other Offsite (Scope 3)
Remedy Totals
Total Energy
MMbtus
20,992
39,744
1,510
31,086
93,332
GHG Footprint in Tons (1 ton = 2,000 Ibs)
GHGs
Ibs CO2e
16,464
10,546,560
240,894
3,619,224
14,423,142
7,212
NOx
Ibs
92
25,920
1,529
11,978
39,519
SOx
Ibs
3.8
62,208
56
26,981
89,249
PM
Ibs
0.45
467
18
703
1,188
NOx+SOx+PM
Ibs
96
88,595
1,603
39,662
129,956
HAPs
Ibs
26,000
2,707
0.319
419
29,126
Voluntary Renewable Energy Use
Onsite energy generation or use
Onsite biodiesel use
Biodiesel use for transportation
Onsite generation or use and biodiesel use
Renewable electricity purchase
REC purchases
Unit
MMBtu
MMBtu
MMBtu
MMBtu
MWh
MWh
Quantity
1,229
0
0
1,229
0
5,760
128
------- |