&EPA
EPA 542-R-14-004
June 25, 2104
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINT ANALYSIS OF
STEAM ENHANCED EXTRACTION REMEDY
FORMER WILLIAMS AIR FORCE BASE, SITE ST012
MESA, AZ
FINAL REPORT
June 25, 2014
-------
NOTICE
Work described herein was performed by Tetra Tech, Inc. (Tetra Tech) for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). Work conducted, including preparation of this report, was performed under
Work Assignment #2-73 of EPA contract EP-W-07-078 with Tetra Tech. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
Environmental Footprint Analysis
Former Williams Air Force Base, Site ST012, Mesa, AZ, EPA Region 9
-------
PREFACE
This report was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Superfund
Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI) and EPA Region 9. This report is available for
download from EPA's Hazardous Waste Clean-Up Information (CLU-IN) Green Remediation webpage
available at www. cluin .org/greenremediation .The authors of this report recognize that green remediation
and the footprint analysis component of green remediation are developing practices, and comments and
feedback on this report are welcome. Comments and feedback should be directed to Carlos Pachon
(contact information below).
Organization
Key Contact
Contact Information
EPA OSRTI
Carlos Pachon
EPA Headquarters - Potomac Yard
2777 Crystal Drive
Arlington, VA 22202
phone: 703-603-9904
pachon.carlos@epa.gov
EPA Region 9
Carolyn d'Almeida
EPA Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
phone: 415-972-3150
dalmeida.carolyn@epa.gov
Carolyn Pitera
Tetra Tech
(Contractor to EPA)
1881 Campus Commons Drive, Suite 200
Reston,VA 20191
phone: 703-390-0621
carolyn .pitera@tetratech .com
Rob Greenwald
1020 SW Taylor Street, Suite 530
Portland, OR 97205
phone: 503-223-5388
rob.greenwald@tetratech.com
Environmental Footprint Analysis
Former Williams Air Force Base, Site ST012, Mesa, AZ, EPA Region 9
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NOTICE i
PREFACE ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
LIST OF ACRONYMS v
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Purpose 2
1.3 Brief Site Background 2
2.0 REMEDY OVERVIEW 4
2.1 Overview of Conceptual Site Model and Remedy Approach 4
2.2 Summary of Footprint-Related Remedy Items 6
2.3 Discussion of ISTT Pilot Test (2008 to 2010) 7
3.0 FOOTPRINTING APPROACH AND RESULTS 8
3.1 Footprinting Approach 8
3.2 Summary of Quantitative Footprints - Overall Results 9
3.3 Key Footprint Contributors for Specific Footprints 10
3.4 Non-Quantitative Items 13
4.0 GREEN REMEDIATION "OPTIMIZATION" AND "BEST PRACTICES"
HIGHLIGHTED FOR THIS APPLICATION OF SEE 14
4.1 Consideration of Using Heat Exchange to Recover Energy from the Extraction Zone for
Steam Generation 14
4.2 Steam Injection Optimization 15
4.3 Re-Use of Treated Water as Part of the Remedy Where Practical 15
4.4 Re-Use of Equipment from the Previous Pilot Test Where Feasible 15
4.5 Use of Alternative Fuels and Catalytic Converters 16
4.6 Inclusion of Fugitive Emissions Capture as Part of the Design 16
4.7 Consideration of "Greener" Options for Electricity Mix or Purchase of RECs 16
5.0 REFERENCES 17
Environmental Footprint Analysis
Former Williams Air Force Base, Site ST012, Mesa, AZ, EPA Region 9
iii
-------
Tables
Table 1 Footprint-Related Remedy Items from the Conceptual Design Report and Draft
Design Report
Attachments
Attachment 1: Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Conceptual Design Report - "Base Case"
(Recovered JP-4 Shipped Off-Site)
Attachment 2: Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Conceptual Design Report - "Alt 1"
(Recovered JP-4 Used Within the Remedy)
Attachment 3: Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Draft Design Report - "Base Case"
(Recovered JP-4 Shipped Off-Site)
Attachment 4: Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Draft Design Report - "Alt 1"
(Recovered JP-4 Used Within the Remedy)
Environmental Footprint Analysis
Former Williams Air Force Base, Site ST012, Mesa, AZ, EPA Region 9
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
% Percent
AFB Air Force Base
ALT Alternative
bgs Below ground surface
BTU British Thermal Units
Ccf 100 cubic feet
CHP Combined heat and power
CO26 Carbon dioxide equivalent of global warming potential
cy Cubic yards
CZ Cobble Zone
°C Degrees Celsius
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GAC Granular activated carbon
GHG Greenhouse gas
GPM Gallons per minute
gptm gallons per ton-mile (gptm)
GR Green Remediation
HAP Hazardous air pollutant
JP-4 Jet propellant grade 4
kWh kilowatt hour
ISTT In Situ thermal treatment
Ibs Pounds
LNAPL Light non-aqueous phase liquid
LPZ Lower Permeability Zone
LSZ Lower Saturated Zone
MMBTU Million British Thermal Units
MPE Multiphase extraction
NAPL Non-aqueous phase liquid
NG Natural gas
NOX Nitrogen oxides
O&M Operations and Maintenance
OSRTI Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
PM Particulate matter
POTW Publicly owned treatment works
REC Renewable Energy Certificate
ROD Record of Decision
PVC Polyvinyl chloride
SEE Steam enhanced extraction
SEFA Spreadsheets for Environmental Footprint Analysis
SOX Sulfur oxides
SRP Salt River Project
TTZ Target treatment zone
UWBZ Upper Water Bearing Zone
Environmental Footprint Analysis
Former Williams Air Force Base, Site ST012, Mesa, AZ, EPA Region 9
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
1.1 Introduction
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines green remediation (GR) as the
practice of considering all environmental effects of remedy implementation and incorporating
options to minimize the environmental footprints of a cleanup. To this end, GR involves
quantifying the environmental effects of a remedy and then taking steps to reduce negative
environmental effects and enhance positive environmental effects, while meeting the regulatory
requirements governing the remedy.
Two concepts are central to quantifying the environmental effects of a remedy. The first is to
establish the environmental parameters that are to be quantified, and the second is to establish a
straightforward methodology for quantifying those parameters. The term "footprint" refers to the
quantification or measure of a specific environmental parameter. For example, the greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions footprint is the quantification or measure of carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases emitted by a particular activity, facility, individual or remedy. The GHG
emissions footprint is of interest because such emissions have been linked to environmental
effects such as global warming and related climate change. The term "footprint" can be
expanded to other environmental parameters such as energy use, water use, land use and air
pollutant emissions. In addition, an environmental footprint can be local, regional or global. For
example, the combustion of diesel fuel at a site will result in nitrogen oxide emissions (among
other compounds) in the immediate vicinity of the site. Therefore, the most significant
environmental effects from this nitrogen oxide may be near the site where it is most concentrated
(a local effect). Contrastingly, diesel combustion at a site and diesel production at a refinery
located far from the site will both emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. A pound of carbon
dioxide emitted at the site or far from the site will have equal environmental effect with respect
to global warming potential (a global effect).
Estimating the environmental footprints of remediation projects is becoming increasingly
commonplace, as is the development of tools to assist with the effort. However, as yet there is no
standardized process, set of parameters or accepted tool. Some projects focus on the GHG
emissions footprint and omit other environmental parameters. Some projects limit the scope of
the footprint analysis to fuel consumption and electricity use and omit contributions from the
manufacture of materials or off-site services that are required for a remedy. In general, the
objective of the footprint analysis is to identify the most significant contributors to a remedy's
footprints so that efforts to reduce the footprints can be targeted appropriately. The approach
used in this footprint analysis focuses on the following environmental parameters: energy use,
GHG emissions, air pollutant emissions, materials use, waste and water use. The approach (1)
uses EPA's Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint
and (2) applies EPA's Spreadsheets for Environmental Footprint Analysis (SEFA) tool.
Environmental Footprint Analysis
Former Williams Air Force Base, Site ST012, Mesa, AZ, EPA Region 9
-------
1.2 Purpose
This GR study quantifies environmental footprint for an In-Situ Thermal Treatment (ISTT)
remedy using Steam Enhanced Extraction (SEE) for Site ST012 located on the Former Williams
Air Force Base (AFB) in Mesa, Arizona. The study estimates the footprint for a variety of
parameters and attempts to consider the key contributors to each footprint. This study is not a
formal life-cycle assessment that follows ISO Standards 14040 and 14044. Rather, it is a
footprint analysis that borrows from life-cycle assessment principles. Like a life-cycle
assessment, this study uses data from life-cycle inventory databases to convert energy usage,
materials usage and various services associated with site remediation into the environmental
footprints for that activity. Like life-cycle assessment, the environmental footprints associated
with resource extraction through use and "end-of-life" treatment are considered. Unlike a formal
life-cycle assessment, this study estimates environmental footprints but does not convert them
into actual human or ecological impacts or effects (such as global warming or toxicity) through a
formal impact assessment.
One of the objectives of this detailed analysis is to provide some of the information necessary to
determine the level of detail that is merited for environmental footprint analysis of site
remediation at Site ST012. The other primary objectives of this site-specific study are as follows:
• Evaluate the environmental footprint of the current ISTT design quantitatively for metrics
such as the carbon dioxide equivalent of global warming potential (CO2e), and evaluate
potential qualitative impacts associated with the remedy.
• Compare the estimated environmental footprint for the current design to the estimated
footprints for previous stages, such as the conceptual design and a scale-up from the
previous pilot test.
• Identify how optimization and/or "good practices" from the pilot test stage through the
current design stage have impacted the various types of environmental footprints at Site
ST012, and highlight these "good practices."
This GR evaluation addresses only the ISTT portion of the remedy at Site ST012 and not the
subsequent bioremediation portion that is planned after ISTT is completed. Additionally, this GR
evaluation is based on data available during the design phase of the ISTT remedy; a follow-on
GR evaluation using "actual" data can be conducted after the ISTT remedy is implemented. In
support of the GR evaluation, a meeting with the site team took place on November 19, 2013,
and included a visit to the site. This meeting allowed Tetra Tech to obtain additional information
required for the GR evaluation.
1.3 Brief Site Background
As described in the Draft Design Report (AMEC, 2013), the former Williams AFB is located in
Maricopa County and lies within the boundaries of the City of Mesa, AZ. The former Williams
AFB was a flight-training base that was first activated in 1941. ST012 is the location of the
Environmental Footprint Analysis
Former Williams Air Force Base, Site ST012, Mesa, AZ, EPA Region 9
-------
former Liquid Fuels Storage Area where fuel storage and distribution operations involving
aboveground and underground tanks and lines were conducted from 1941 until the fuel storage
and distribution system was decommissioned in 1991. Equipment and structures relating to the
fuel storage and transmission operations within ST012 have been removed. Soil and groundwater
at ST012 have been affected by releases of fuels from the historic operations. Williams AFB was
placed on the EPA National Priorities List in 1989. The base officially closed in 1993. The Air
Force transferred the property (including ST012) to the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport
Authority in 2008.
An ISTT remedy for Site ST012 using a steam enhanced extraction (SEE) system is currently
being designed. Key milestones in the design process include the following:
• ISTT pilot test activities performed 2008 to 2010
• Conceptual Design Report (TerraTherm, 2012)
• Draft Design Report (AMEC, 2013)
The SEE system is scheduled to begin operation in August 2014.
Environmental Footprint Analysis
Former Williams Air Force Base, Site ST012, Mesa, AZ, EPA Region 9
-------
2.0 REMEDY OVERVIEW
2.1 Overview of Conceptual Site Model and Remedy Approach
Petroleum hydrocarbons are present at Site ST012 resulting from weathered jet propellant grade
4 (JP-4) and aviation gasoline spills. A simplified representation of the stratigraphic layers that
comprise the Target Treatment Zone (TTZ) is provided below.
ftbgs
HO-T
160-
170-
180-
190-
200-
250-
260-1
Vadose Zone
Cob
Upper Water Bearing Zone
, Lower Permeability Zone
I
Aquitard
ftbgs
145
160
195
202.5
210
245
260
From Figure 3.2 of Appendix D in the Draft Design Report (AMEC, 2013). ft =feet; bgs = below ground
surface.
The remedy includes implementation of SEE to thermally enhance light non-aqueous phase
liquid (LNAPL) removal and reduce benzene concentrations in soil and groundwater. Three
specific zones within ST012 are targeted for treatment:
• The Cobble Zone (CZ) with treatment depth of 145 to 160 feet below ground surface
(bgs)
• The Upper Water Bearing Zone (UWBZ) with treatment depth from 160 to 195 feet bgs
• The Lower Saturated Zone (LSZ) with treatment depth of 210 to 240 feet bgs
Environmental Footprint Analysis
Former Williams Air Force Base, Site ST012, Mesa, AZ, EPA Region 9
-------
A 15 foot thick Lower Permeability Zone (LPZ) is located between the UWBZ and the LSZ.
Steam is not expected to directly heat the LPZ, but the LPZ will be heated indirectly by thermal
conduction from the hot layers above and below it. The areal extent of the TTZ is large for an
ISTT remedy, and varies by layer. In the current Draft Design (AMEC, 2013), the treatment
areas for the CZ and UWBZ are identical (approximately 72,000 square feet) and the treatment
area for the LSZ is larger (approximately 185,000 square feet). The ISTT treatment zone is
limited by major streets to south and southeast, and a tank farm to the south. The size of the
treatment areas increased between the Conceptual Design (TerraTherm, 2012) and the Draft
Design Report (AMEC, 2013) based on a pre-design investigation.
A general schematic of the remedy approach is included in the Draft Design Report (AMEC,
2013) and is presented below.
Steam Generator
\
Treated
V:i|..ir I i
Atmosphere
Water Treatment
DiKharge
Vapor Cap
Temperature and Pressure
Monitoring Holes
Example Process System
From Figure 4.1 of Appendix D in Draft Design Report (AMEC, 2013)
SEE will be used to heat the TTZ to boiling temperatures between 100 and 140 degrees Celsius
(°C), with the target treatment temperature increasing with depth bgs. The LNAPL will be made
less viscous through SEE treatment and will be pushed by the steam injection toward the
extraction wells for removal from the TTZ. The extracted fluids will be collected in a manifold
piping system and conveyed to an on-site process treatment system which consists of
condensation, phase separation and conditioning of the recovered weathered JP-4. The liquids
separated from the recovered fuel will be treated on-site in an air stripper and subsequently
polished using liquid carbon before being discharged to the sanitary sewer. Vapors will be
extracted from the subsurface under vacuum and routed to a vapor treatment system consisting of
multiple sequential treatment components to provide appropriate treatment and provide excess
Environmental Footprint Analysis
Former Williams Air Force Base, Site ST012, Mesa, AZ, EPA Region 9
-------
treatment capacity during peak loading. Primary vapor treatment will be provided by duplex
thermal accelerators.
The thermal remedy is not expected to achieve cleanup standards in groundwater; rather it is
expected to reduce groundwater concentrations for constituents of concern identified in the
Record of Decision (ROD) (such as benzene) to an extent that subsequent bioremediation can
achieve cleanup standards for those constituents in 10-20 years. Therefore, the decision to
terminate steam injection will not be based on one specific, absolute criterion, but will be based
on multiple criteria such as energy balance, rate of fuel recovery and temperature achieved.
Implementation of the full-scale remedy is expected in August 2014, and the Draft Design
Report (AMEC, 2013) anticipates 422 days of total operation (332 days with steam and 90 days
of extraction after steam is stopped). The current design estimates 100 days for mass removal
(including pressure cycling) once the design temperature is achieved, based on the ISTT
contractor's experience at previous sites.
2.2 Summary of Footprint-Related Remedy Items
Table 1 at the end of this report provides a summary of footprint-related remedy items based on
the Conceptual Design Report (TerraTherm, 2012), and also indicates changes to those items
based on the subsequent Draft Design Report (AMEC, 2013). The remedy items detailed in
Table 1 are as follows:
• Injection wells
• Extraction wells - multiphase extraction (MPE)
• Vapor probes
• Temperature monitoring points
• Abandonment of wells
• Manifolds and pipe fittings
• Electricity use
• Natural gas usage
• Use of recovered JP-4
• Water use
• Water treatment at the publicly owned treatment works (POTW)
• Soil disposal
• Granular activated carbon (GAC)
• Off-site laboratory
• Transportation of materials
• Transportation of equipment
• Transportation of personnel
Environmental Footprint Analysis
Former Williams Air Force Base, Site ST012, Mesa, AZ, EPA Region 9
-------
These data were entered in the EPA "Spreadsheets for Environmental Footprint Analysis"
(SEFA) (EPA, 2013) tool to quantify specific footprints. Section 3.0 and Attachments 1 to 4
describe how these remedy items were addressed within the SEFA tool.
2.3 Discussion of ISTT Pilot Test (2008 to 2010)
A pilot test was conducted from 2008 to 2010 to assess well spacing and expected effectiveness
of thermal treatment, using two injection wells in the center of a 70-foot radius circle,
surrounded by six extraction well clusters. The pilot was useful for evaluating the screen
intervals and well spacing needed for injections, but did not generate high enough temperatures
to achieve effective remediation. As a result, subsequent design efforts have integrated plans to
use much more steam to achieve the needed temperatures:
• The pilot test (2008-2010) had an average steam usage of 300 pounds (Ibs) of steam per
cubic yard (cy) of soil treated.
• The Conceptual Design Report (TerraTherm, 2012) included an estimate of 750 Ibs of
steam per cy of soil treated.
• The Draft Design Report (AMEC, 2013) included an estimate of 780 Ibs of steam per cy
of soil treated.
More than twice the amount of steam will be injected per cubic yard of soil in the full-scale
application as compared to the pilot test. The more aggressive steam injection is anticipated to
develop higher temperatures, provide more complete LNAPL displacement to extraction wells
and create a longer and more effective vaporization period compared to the pilot test. Based on
the pilot's lower steam use, a scale-up of the pilot test to a full-scale system would produce
unrealistically low footprint results compared to SEFA results for the full-scale system using
data from the Conceptual Design Report (TerraTherm, 2012) or the Draft Design Report
(AMEC, 2013). Therefore, data for this study's SEFA analysis are drawn from the Conceptual
Design Report and Draft Design Report.
Environmental Footprint Analysis
Former Williams Air Force Base, Site ST012, Mesa, AZ, EPA Region 9
-------
3.0 FOOTPRINTING APPROACH AND RESULTS
3.1 Footprinting Approach
The EPA SEFA tool was used to organize the pertinent remedy information and quantify the
following environmental footprints.
• Energy (million British thermal units [MMBTU])
• Total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (tons CO2e)
• On-site nitrogen oxides (NOx) + sulfur oxides (SOx) + particulate matter (PM) (Ibs)
• Total NOx + SOx + PM (Ibs)
• On-site hazardous air pollutants (HAP) (Ibs)
• Total HAPs (Ibs)
• Refined material use (tons)
• Unrefined material use (tons)
• Waste (tons)
• Public water use (gallons)
Other aspects of environmental impacts were considered qualitatively.
Both the Conceptual Design Report (TerraTherm, 2012) and Draft Design Report (AMEC, 2013)
were evaluated to illustrate how footprints can change as more information becomes available.
For instance, a pre-design investigation conducted between the conceptual design and subsequent
draft design increased the size of the TTZ, thus increasing the number of wells for injection and
extraction and the amount of energy required to execute the remedy. At the same time, design
improvements between the conceptual design and subsequent draft design incorporated
efficiencies such as identifying existing wells that could be used in place of new injection or
extraction wells. The SEFA tool was used to make calculations for quantitative footprints for
four cases, as follows:
• Conceptual Design Report - "Base Case" (Recovered JP-4 Shipped Off-Site)
• Conceptual Design Report - "Alt 1" (Recovered JP-4 Used Within the Remedy)
• Draft Design Report - "Base Case" (Recovered JP-4 Shipped Off-Site)
• Draft Design Report - "Alt 1" (Recovered JP-4 Used Within the Remedy)
Attachments 1 through 4 provide the basis of the SEFA inputs for each of the four cases.
Environmental Footprint Analysis
Former Williams Air Force Base, Site ST012, Mesa, AZ, EPA Region 9
-------
3.2 Summary of Quantitative Footprints - Overall Results
A summary of the overall quantitative footprints for each of the four cases is presented below.
Overall Quantitative Footprint Results
Metric
Energy
Total GHG
On-site NOx+SOx+PM
Total NOx+SOx+PM
On-site HAPs
Total HAPs
Refined Material Use
Unrefined Material Use
Waste
Public Water Use
Conceptual Design
(February 2012)
Base Case
662,738
48,395
40,239
401,106
29
2,479
550
44
693
53,000,000
Altl
461,976
34,190
223,569
364,327
44
2,451
550
44
693
53,000,000
Draft Design
(October 2013)
Base Case
837,999
61,021
44,632
549,671
33
3,455
367
32
465
62,662,000
Altl
581,230
42,852
313,072
502,628
57
3,419
367
32
465
62,662,000
Units
MMBTU
Tons CO2e
Pounds
Pounds
Pounds
Pounds
Tons
Tons
Tons
Gallons
GHG = greenhouse gas; NOx = nitrogen oxides; SOx = sulfur oxides, PM = particulate matter; HAPs = hazardous
air pollutants; MMBTU = million British Thermal Units; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent of global warming
potential.
Observations from the overall results for these footprints include the following:
• For results based on both the Conceptual Design Report (TerraTherm, 2012) and the
Draft Design Report (AMEC, 2013), there is a substantial reduction in energy and
emissions footprints between the "Base Case" (recovered JP-4 shipped off-site) and "Alt
1" (recovered JP-4 used within the remedy). As detailed in Table 1, this is due to several
factors:
o Within the "Alt 1" scenarios, the natural gas usage is reduced by re-use of the
recovered JP-4. The reduction in natural gas usage represents 95 to 99 percent of
the difference between the "Base Case" and "Alt-1" results for energy and
emissions footprints, depending on the metric. For "Alt 1," some other fuel is still
likely to be combusted off-site in place of the JP-4 not being recycled, but the
footprint for that combustion is not considered to be part of the footprints of this
remedy.
o Within the "Alt 1" scenarios, the recovered JP-4 does not require transport to an
off-site facility. This represents 1 to 5 percent of the difference between the "Base
Case" and "Alt-1" results for energy and emissions footprints, depending on the
metric.
Note that in both cases, the same amount of JP-4 is ultimately combusted (off-site in the
"Base Case" and on-site in "Alt-1"). Thus, the vast majority of the footprint reductions
afforded by re-use of the recovered JP-4 within the remedy results from reducing the
Environmental Footprint Analysis
Former Williams Air Force Base, Site ST012, Mesa, AZ, EPA Region 9
-------
amount of natural gas needed for the remedy.
• Some of the footprints (such as total energy use, GHG emissions, total NOx+SOx+PM,
emissions and water use) are higher for the calculations based on the draft design
compared to the earlier conceptual design. This is primarily due to the increased area of
the TTZ identified during the pre-design investigation (conducted after the conceptual
design but before the draft design), which requires more steam and electricity. The
increases for these footprints are slightly offset by optimization efforts (such as the option
to re-use existing wells that was incorporated between the conceptual design and draft
design). However, the dominant driver for these footprints are the steam and electricity
requirements which increased between conceptual and draft design based on the
associated increase in the TTZ area.
• On-site NOx+SOx+PM is much greater in the "Alt 1" scenarios than the base case, due
primarily to much higher on-site NOx emissions from the on-site combustion of JP-4.
• Other footprints (such as materials use and waste) are lower for the calculations based on
the draft design compared to the earlier conceptual design. This is primarily due to
optimization options identified between the conceptual design and draft design regarding
(1) re-using existing wells when possible and (2) reducing the number of wells to be
abandoned, which reduces the quantities of new well materials (steel, cement grout and
sand) and also reduces the amount of soil cuttings requiring off-site disposal.
Section 3.3 provides additional findings regarding key contributors to specific footprints.
3.3 Key Footprint Contributors for Specific Footprints
In addition to reviewing the overall results for specific footprints (such as total energy use), it is
instructive to develop an understanding of the relative contributions to those footprints from
different aspects of the remedy. A summary of key contributors to specific footprints is
summarized below.
Key Footprint Contributors - Energy Use
Total Energy Use
(MMBTU)
Construction
Abandoning Wells
O&M - Electricity
O&M-NG and JP-4
O&M -Other
Personnel Transport
Total
Conceptual Design
(February 2012)
Base Case
5,358
1,565
102,289
550,705
1,990
831
662, 738
0.8%
0.2%
15.4%
83.1%
0.3%
0.1%
100.0%
Altl
5,358
1,565
102,289
349,942
1,990
831
461,976
1.2%
0.3%
22.1%
75.7%
0.4%
0.2%
100.0%
Draft Design
(October 2013)
Base Case
4,647
212
145,088
684,695
2,533
825
837,999
0.6%
0.03%
17.3%
81.7%
0.3%
0.1%
100.0%
Altl
4,647
212
145,088
427,926
2,533
825
581,230
0.8%
0.04%
25.0%
73.6%
0.4%
0.1%
100.0%
MMBTU = million British thermal units; O&M = operations and maintenance; NG = natural gas;
JP-4 = jet propellant grade 4.
Environmental Footprint Analysis
Former Williams Air Force Base, Site ST012, Mesa, AZ, EPA Region 9
10
-------
Key Footprint Contributors - Total GHG Emissions
Total GHG
(Tons CO2e)
Construction
Abandoning Wells
O&M - Electricity
O&M-NGandJP-4
O&M - Other
Personnel Transport
Total
Conceptual Design
(February 2012)
Base Case
626
203
6,460
40,645
393
67
48,395
1.3%
0.4%
13.3%
84.0%
0.8%
0.1%
100.0%
Altl
626
203
6,460
26,440
393
67
34,190
1.8%
0.6%
18.9%
77.3%
1.1%
0.2%
100.0%
Draft Design
(October 2013)
Base Case
405
22
9,163
50,879
484
67
61,021
0.7%
0.04%
15.0%
83.4%
0.8%
0.1%
100.0%
Altl
405
22
9,163
32,711
484
67
42,852
0.9%
0.05%
21.4%
76.3%
1.1%
0.16%
100.0%
GHG = greenhouse gas; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent of global warming potential; O&M = operations and
maintenance; NG = natural gas; JP-4 = jet propellant grade 4.
Key Footprint Contributors - Total NOx + SOx + PM Emissions
Total NOx+SOx+PM
(Ibs)
Construction
Abandoning Wells
O&M - Electricity
O&M -NG and JP-4
O&M - Other
Personnel Transport
Total
Conceptual Design
(February 2012)
Base Case
6,403
2,085
116,818
269,699
5,143
957
401,106
1.6%
0.5%
29.1%
67.2%
1.3%
0.2%
100.0%
Altl
6,403
2,085
116,818
232,920
5,143
957
364,327
1.8%
0.6%
32.1%
63.9%
1.4%
0.3%
100.0%
Draft Design
(October 2013)
Base Case
6,264
320
165,696
370,055
6,386
951
549,671
1.1%
0.06%
30.1%
67.3%
1.2%
0.2%
100.0%
Altl
6,264
320
165,696
323,012
6,386
951
502, 628
1.2%
0.06%
33.0%
64.3%
1.3%
0.2%
100.0%
NOx = nitrogen oxides;
NG = natural gas; JP-4
SOx = sulfur oxides; PM = particulate matter; O&M = operations and maintenance;
=jet propellant grade 4.
Key Footprint Contributors - Total HAPs Emissions
Total HAPs
(Ibs)
Construction
Abandoning Wells
O&M - Electricity
O&M -NG and JP-4
O&M - Other
Personnel Transport
Total
Conceptual Design
(February 2012)
Base
42
9
2,320
81
26
1
2,479
1.7%
0.4%
93.6%
3.3%
1.0%
0.04%
100.0%
Altl
42
9
2,320
53
26
1
2, 451
1.7%
0.4%
94.7%
2.2%
1.1%
0.04%
100.0%
Draft Design
(October 4, 2013)
Base
34
1
3,290
102
26
1
3, 455
1.0%
0.03%
95.2%
3.0%
0.8%
0.03%
100.0%
Altl
34
1
3,290
66
26
1
3,419
1.0%
0.03%
96.2%
1.9%
0.8%
0.03%
100.0%
HAPs = hazardous air pollutants; O&M = operations and maintenance; NG = natural gas; JP-4 = jet propellant
grade 4.
Environmental Footprint Analysis
Former Williams Air Force Base, Site ST012, Mesa, AZ, EPA Region 9
11
-------
Observations regarding the key contributors to specific footprints include the following:
• For total energy use, the combustion of natural gas and recovered JP-4 is the dominant
contributor (approximately 74 to 83 percent), followed by electricity use (approximately
13 to 21 percent). Other energy use associated with well drilling equipment or
transportation of personnel is small compared to the energy use associated with remedy
O&M (that is primarily driven by steam production and treatment of vapors using natural
gas and JP-4 fuels).
• The same key footprint contributors that drive the energy use footprint also drive GHG
emissions and total NOx + SOx + PM emissions footprints. The percentage contributions
for the key contributors to the GHG emissions are similar to those for energy use.
However, electricity use provides a higher percentage of the total footprint for NOx +
SOx + PM emissions than for the footprints for energy use or GHG emissions.
• For total HAPs emissions, the dominant contributor is electricity usage, which causes
more than 90 percent of the HAPs emissions footprint. The next biggest contributor is the
combustion of natural gas and recovered JP-4, but those represent less than 5 percent of
the total.
Electricity use is a major contributor to the energy and emissions footprints. The site team
provided the following information for the key components of electrical usage incorporated in
the energy estimates for the Draft Design Report (AMEC, 2013):
• The steam injection system (boilers) accounts for approximately 4 percent of electricity
usage.
• The extraction system (educator feed pumps) accounts for approximately 42 percent of
electricity usage.
• The process system (vacuum blower, air stripper blower, thermal accelerators, treatment
process pumps, cooling tower, and several other treatment process items) accounts for
approximately 50 percent of electricity usage.
• Other utility items (load centers, air compressors) account for approximately 4 percent of
electricity usage.
Contributors to other footprints are limited:
• Materials - The sole contributors accounted for are the drilling activities for injection
wells, extraction wells, temperature monitoring points, and abandoning wells.
• Water Use - The sole contributor accounted for is the water use for steam production (for
instance, well development water was considered negligible and was not quantified).
Environmental Footprint Analysis
Former Williams Air Force Base, Site ST012, Mesa, AZ, EPA Region 9
12
-------
• Waste - The sole contributor accounted for is soil cuttings disposed of as non-hazardous
waste.
Note that water sent to the POTW is not considered "waste" in the same manner as soil cuttings,
but energy and emissions footprints for treatment at the POTW are included as part of the
"O&M-Other" remedy category included in the tables above.
3.4 Non-Quantitative Items
As part of a GR evaluation, it is also appropriate to consider qualitative impacts caused by the
remedy (positive or negative), in addition to the footprints that are quantified. The following are
examples of qualitative considerations associated with this remedy:
• According to the Draft Design Report (AMEC, 2013), fugitive emissions will be
prevented by maintaining negative pressures across most of the TTZ and keeping the
existing shallow soil vapor extraction system operational. In addition, most vapor
collection piping will be operated under a net negative pressure (until the inlet of the
thermal accelerators), so that any minute leaks will result in vapors staying within the
piping and not leaking out of the system. The control of fugitive emissions is part of the
air "core element" in GR but it is not possible to quantify the benefits of these aspects of
the design since there is no control system in place that quantifies it.
• There is no major improvement or degradation to ecosystems anticipated from this
remedy.
• There is potential for a minor, short-term community impact with respect to disruption of
traffic or parking patterns resulting from the remedy implementation. These are being
addressed with a site management plan and community relations plan.
• There is potential for aesthetic impacts from dust during remedy construction, and that is
being addressed with a dust control plan.
• There is no plan to use renewable energy as part of the remedy, which is consistent with
the short-term nature of this remediation technology.
Some of these items (such as traffic and dust management) are not mentioned in the Conceptual
Design Report (TerraTherm, 2012) but are addressed in the subsequent and more detailed Draft
Design Report (AMEC, 2013). This is similar to the quantitative aspects of a GR evaluation,
where latter phases of design have the benefit of additional information and detail.
Environmental Footprint Analysis
Former Williams Air Force Base, Site ST012, Mesa, AZ, EPA Region 9
13
-------
4.0 GREEN REMEDIATION "OPTIMIZATION" AND "BEST PRACTICES"
HIGHLIGHTED FOR THIS APPLICATION OF SEE
The design and planned implementation of ISTT using SEE at Site ST012 includes many
examples of optimization or best practices that support GR. Examples include the following:
• Consideration of using heat exchange to recover energy from the extraction zone for
steam generation
• Steam injection optimization
• Re-use of treated water as part of the remedy where practical
• Re-use of equipment from the pilot test where feasible
• Use of alternative fuels and catalytic converters
• Inclusion of fugitive emissions capture as part of the design
• Consideration of "greener" options for electricity mix or purchase of Renewable Energy
Certificates (RECs)
Information on these best practices is included below. Another practice that was considered but
could not be applied for this specific application of ISTT using SEE was cogeneration (combined
heat and power [CHP]). The site team determined that CHP was not feasible for this project
given high initial investment required for CHP and the short-term nature of the remedy (the
steam equipment will be rented, and CHP is not common in rental equipment). Instead, the site
team designed boilers (and thermal accelerators) that operate using gas, diesel and recovered
product to allow for reduced overall energy use and emissions (by using recovered JP-4 on-site
for these aspects of the remedy).
4.1 Consideration of Using of Heat Exchange to Recover Energy from the Extraction
Zone for Steam Generation
During the site visit meeting on November 19, 2013, TerraTherm indicated that energy
recovered from heat exchange associated with treatment of vapors and liquids (removed from the
ground at high temperatures) was being considered to help heat the water for steam generation.
This approach would reduce the energy use required for steam generation, resulting in reduced
emissions of GHG and priority pollutants (such as NOx, SOx and PM). The amount of energy
potentially afforded by this recovery option was not quantified in the Draft Design Report
(October 4, 2013), and ultimately this was not implemented due to site-specific cost-benefit
analysis, but recapture of heat for beneficial use is a general "best practice" for ISTT remedies.
Environmental Footprint Analysis
Former Williams Air Force Base, Site ST012, Mesa, AZ, EPA Region 9
14
-------
4.2 Steam Injection Optimization
The design of the ISTT remedy using SEE incorporates optimization of the steam injection in
several ways, including the following:
• Based on results from temperature modeling and monitoring, adjustments will be made to
the steam injection over time by zone. The injection of steam into three different vertical
zones is more complex than most steam remedies, because there are more opportunities
for heat leakage that could be represented inaccurately in the model. Thus, adjustments to
the design should be expected throughout the operating period of the remedy.
• Early injection of steam in the lower zone will provide "pre-heating" for the zone above.
• After the breakthrough of steam to the extraction wells, the use of pressure cycling will
enhance recovery and reduce the required amount of steam injection.
• Wells can be used for either injection or extraction, and therefore, well use can change as
the remedy progresses. A well initially planned for extraction can be used for injection if
that adds efficiency to the remedy, and vice versa.
During the site visit meeting on November 19, 2013, the site team indicated that there is no real
way to know how much steam use reduction is achieved by such optimization, but suggested it
could be on the order of 25 to 50 percent. If it is assumed that such optimization practices cut
steam usage and time of steam application on the order of 25 to 50 percent, and utilities required
for steam production represents the greatest contributor to the energy and emissions footprints,
then this optimization achieves a correspondingly significant reduction for the overall remedy.
4.3 Re-Use of Treated Water as Part of the Remedy Where Practical
Some of the treated water will be re-used as circulation water for the extraction pumps which are
self-cleaning, inductor-type "mud pumps." The re-use of this treated water within the remedy is a
"best practice." The draft design estimates that the remaining 235 gallons per minute (gpm) will
be treated and discharged. The site team believes that after the water goes through the POTW, it
is infiltrated back into the aquifer such that there is no net resource lost regionally. The site team
indicated it considered options for treating this water for subsequent re-use within the remedy
(such as making steam in the boiler), but the treatment process would be too costly to justify.
4.4 Re-Use of Equipment from the Previous Pilot Test Where Feasible
Some equipment from the previous pilot test is being re-used in the full-scale implementation of
the remedy including wells and a cooling tower. However, much of the equipment from the pilot
test could not be re-used because it is not compatible with the full-scale design or is not of
appropriate size.
Environmental Footprint Analysis
Former Williams Air Force Base, Site ST012, Mesa, AZ, EPA Region 9
15
-------
4.5 Use of Alternative Fuels and Catalytic Converters
During the site visit meeting on November 19, 2013, the well driller was observed to be using
ultra-low sulfur diesel or catalytic converters. The fuel use from drilling represents a very minor
contributor to the overall remedy footprints, but nevertheless this approach is a "best practice"
that was represented in the quantitative footprints presented in Section 3.
4.6 Inclusion of Fugitive Emissions Capture as Part of the Design
As discussed in Section 3.4, according to the Draft Design Report (AMEC, 2013), fugitive
emissions will be prevented by maintaining negative pressures across most of the TTZ and
keeping the existing shallow soil vapor extraction system operational. In addition, most vapor
collection piping will be operated under a net negative pressure (until the inlet of the thermal
accelerators), to allow for the capture of vapor from minute leaks into the piping, not out of the
system. The control of fugitive emissions is a "best practice" associated with the air "core
element" in GR.
4.7 Consideration of "Greener" Options for Electricity Mix or Purchase of RECs
The electricity for this project is purchased from the Salt River Project (SRP). The site team
indicated that although the SRP service territory is open to competitive electricity suppliers, there
are currently no competitive electricity suppliers certified by the Arizona Corporation
Commission. Thus, SRP is currently the sole option. The site team has determined that purchase
of RECs is available through SRP under a pilot program. Conceptually, purchase of RECS
supports development of renewable energy projects and can be considered to offset footprints
accordingly. The utility offers RECs (wind), currently priced at $1.39 per 100 kWh, and has
offered longer term programs for solar power. To date, the site contractor has not pursued the
purchase of RECs because such purchases were not part of the negotiated contract with the Air
Force. Therefore, there has been some consideration of energy mix and purchase of RECs for
this project, but there are no possible actions to be taken in those regards at this time.
Environmental Footprint Analysis
Former Williams Air Force Base, Site ST012, Mesa, AZ, EPA Region 9
16
-------
5.0 REFERENCES
AMEC. 2013. "Draft Remedial Design and Remedial Action Work Plan for Operable Unit 2,
Revised Groundwater Remedy, Site ST012." October 4.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2012a. "Methodology for Understanding and
Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint." EPA 542-R-12-002. Accessed in January 2014
at:
http://cluin.org/greenremediation/methodology/docs/GC Footprint Methodology Feb2012.pdf.
EPA. 2012b. "eGRID2012 Version 1.0 Year 2009 Summary Tables." April. Accessed in January
2014 at:
http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/documents/egridzips/eGRID2012Vl 0 yearQ9 SummaryTable
s.pdf.
EPA. 2013. "Spreadsheets for Environmental Footprint Analysis (SEFA)." January 28. Accessed
in January 2014 at: http://www.clu-in.org/greenremediation/methodologv/.
TerraTherm, Inc. 2012. "Conceptual Design Report, In Situ Thermal Treatment Project, Former
Williams Air Force Base, Site ST012" February.
Environmental Footprint Analysis
Former Williams Air Force Base, Site ST012, Mesa, AZ, EPA Region 9
17
-------
TABLES
-------
Table 1.
Footprint-Related Remedy Items from the
Conceptual Design Report and Draft Design Report
Item
Conceptual Design Report
(TerraTherm, 2012)
Changes Included in Draft
Remedial Design
(AMEC, 2013)
Injection
Wells
Cobble zone (6 injection wells)
o Casing to 145 feet (ft) (6*145 =
870 linear ft)
o Screen 145 to 160 ft (6*15 = 90
linear ft)
Upper Water Bearing Zone (UWBZ)
(10 injection wells)
o Casing to 170 ft (10*170 = 1700
linear ft)
o Screen 170 to 195 ft (10*25 = 250
linear ft)
Lower Saturated Zone (LSZ) (15
injection wells)
o Casing to 210 ft (15*210 = 3150
linear ft)
o Screen 210 to 245 ft (15*35 = 525
linear ft)
Casings are steel, screens are stainless
steel
Additional construction materials
include sand and cement grout
Report indicates "4 to 6 inch wells," use
estimate for pounds of materials and
cuttings, per linear foot, for 6 inch wells
from Exhibit 3.6 (EPA, 2012a)
Assume diesel for drilling equipment
Consider development water de
minimis for footprinting
• Cobble zone: no change (6 injection
wells)
• UWBZ: 2 of the 10 are existing wells
and do not require new drilling, so will
drill 8 new wells
• LSZ: Increase from 15 to 18 wells, but 6
of the 18 are existing wells and do not
require new drilling, so will drill 12 new
wells
• Chose biodiesel to represent ultra-low
sulfur diesel for drilling equipment since
it is a cleaner fuel choice than using
diesel and SEFA does not have an option
for ultra-low sulfur diesel (note: this
assumption is based on observation of
ultra-low sulfur diesel and catalytic
converters during site visit)
Table 1 - Page 1
-------
Table 1.
Footprint-Related Remedy Items from the
Conceptual Design Report and Draft Design Report
Item
Conceptual Design Report
(TerraTherm, 2012)
Changes Included in Draft
Remedial Design
(AMEC, 2013)
Extraction
Wells-
Multiphase
Extraction
(MPE)
Cobble zone (11 MPE wells)
o Casing to 145 ft (11*145 = 1595
linear ft)
o Screen 145 to 160 ft (11*15 =165
linear ft)
UWBZ zone (13 MPE wells)
o Casing to 170 ft (13*170 = 2210
linear ft)
o Screen 170 to 195 ft (13*25 = 325
linear ft)
LSZ zone (21 MPE wells)
o Casing to 210 ft (21*210 = 4410
linear ft)
o Screen 210 to 245 ft (21*35 = 735
linear ft)
Casings are steel, screens are stainless
steel
Additional construction materials
include sand and cement grout
Report indicates "4 to 6 inch wells", use
estimate for pounds of materials and
cuttings, per linear foot, for 6 inch wells
from Exhibit 3.6 (EPA, 2012a)
Assume diesel for drilling equipment
Consider development water de
minimis for footprinting
• Cobble zone: increase in number of MPE
wells from 11 to 13
• UWBZ: 6 of the 13 wells are existing
and do not require new drilling, so will
drill 7 new wells. Of the new wells, 5 are
being installed at location of overdrilled
wells. The report lists 14 "extraction
wells," but 1 of the 14 is "vapor probes"
and that is discussed below as a separate
item.
• LSZ: Increase from 21 to 24 wells, but
11 of the 24 wells are existing and do not
require new drilling, so will drill 13 new
wells. Of the new wells, 1 is being
installed at location of an overdrilled
well.
• Chose biodiesel to represent ultra-low
sulfur diesel for drilling equipment since
it is a cleaner fuel choice than using
diesel and SEFA does not have an option
for ultra-low sulfur diesel (note: this
assumption is based on observation of
ultra-low sulfur diesel and catalytic
converters during site visit)
• For new wells installed at locations of
overdrilled wells, only count well
cuttings once (not for overdrilling and
then for drilling)
Vapor Probes • None discussed in report so not
included
• Only one location, being installed at
location of an overdrilled well, only
count well cuttings once (not for
overdrilling and then for drilling)
• Footprint for one vapor probe location
considered de minimis
Table 1 - Page 2
-------
Table 1.
Footprint-Related Remedy Items from the
Conceptual Design Report and Draft Design Report
Item
Conceptual Design Report
(TerraTherm, 2012)
Changes Included in Draft
Remedial Design
(AMEC, 2013)
Temperature • Report says at least 15 temperature
Monitoring monitoring points to be installed to
Points bottom of target treatment zone (TTZ),
assume 15 X 245 ft = 3675 linear feet
• Assume steel casing and grout, use
estimate for pounds of materials and
cuttings, per linear foot, for 2 inch wells
from Exhibit 3.6 (EPA, 2012a)
• Increase number of temperature
monitoring points from 15 to 17
o 16 of the 17 are in the LSZ, assume
245 ft, 1 of the 17 will be to 195 ft
per Drawing C106
o Total length (16*245)+ (1*160) =
4080 linear feet, use same
assumption for well and boring size
• 12 of the 17 being installed at location
of an overdrilled well, only count well
cuttings once (not for overdrilling and
then for drilling)
• Chose biodiesel to represent ultra-low
sulfur diesel for drilling equipment since
it is a cleaner fuel choice than using
diesel and SEFA does not have an option
for ultra-low sulfur diesel (note: this
assumption is based on observation of
ultra-low sulfur diesel and catalytic
converters during site visit)
Table 1 - Page 3
-------
Table 1.
Footprint-Related Remedy Items from the
Conceptual Design Report and Draft Design Report
Item
Conceptual Design Report
(TerraTherm, 2012)
Changes Included in Draft
Remedial Design
(AMEC, 2013)
Abandon
Wells
• Based on Appendix A of the report,
assume 109 vertical wells to abandon.
Some have depth and material (steel or
polyvinyl chloride [PVC]) indicated,
some do not. For simplicity, assume
average depth per well is 200 ft, and
assume unknown material types are
evenly split between steel and PVC,
there would be 75 steel and 34 PVC.
o Assume steel wells require a
backhoe to dig down 5 feet to cut
off top of casing, and then wells
are filled with cement grout
assuming 4-inch wells
o Assume PVC wells overdrilled
with hollow stem auger for a 8-
inch boring consistent with a 4-
inch finished well, with associated
cuttings as waste, and filled with
cement grout
• Based on Section 7.4 of the Report, two
horizontal wells installed in the LSZ
will also be abandoned. Based on other
site information, assume these are steel
wells that will be cement grouted in
place, and assume 6-inch wells with
total of 1,400 linear feet to be filled
with cement grout
• Based on Section 4.2.1.2 and Appendix
G of the report, assume 25 vertical wells
to abandon, of which 19 then have new
wells or temperature monitoring points
installed such that for those 19 the
drilling is accounted for. Of the
remaining six that are being abandoned,
based on Appendix G there would be 4
PVC and 2 steel. For simplicity, assume
average depth per well is 200 ft.
o Assume steel wells require a
backhoe to dig down 5 feet to cut
off top of casing, and then wells are
filled with cement grout assuming 4-
inch wells
o Assume PVC wells overdrilled with
hollow stem auger for a 8-inch
boring consistent with a 4-inch
finished well, with associated
cuttings as waste, and filled with
cement grout
• Based on Section 7.4 of the Report, two
horizontal wells installed in the LSZ will
also be abandoned. These are steel wells
that will be cement grouted in place;
assume 6-inch wells with total of 1,400
linear feet to be filled with cement grout
Manifolds and
Pipe Fittings
• As a simplification, assume the
following:
o Estimate an average distance of
150 ft from wellhead to steam or
treatment infrastructure
o 76 total injection and extraction
wells, assume 76 * 150 ft= 11,400
linear ft of 4-inch steel piping
o Disregard materials for pipe
supports and disregard equipment
for installing the pipe
• Use same simplifying assumptions
except use different number of wells
o 84 total injection and extraction
wells, assume 84 * 150 ft = 12,600
linear ft of 4-inch steel piping
Electricity Use
• Table 6.1 of Report indicates 7,997,000
kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity usage
• Table 5.8 of Report indicates 11,343,000
kWh of electricity usage
Table 1 - Page 4
-------
Table 1.
Footprint-Related Remedy Items from the
Conceptual Design Report and Draft Design Report
Item
Conceptual Design Report
(TerraTherm, 2012)
Changes Included in Draft
Remedial Design
(AMEC, 2013)
Natural Gas • Table 6.1 of the Report indicates
Usage 3 50,000 MMBTU of natural gas usage,
assuming no recovered JP-4 is used to
offset natural gas usage for steam
generation and/or vapor treatment
o For "Base Case," assume no JP-4 is
used to offset natural gas usage
o For "Alt-1," based on Section 6.5
of the Report, assume 10,250,000
pounds (Ibs) of JP-4 is recovered
and is used to offset 190,000
MMBTU of natural gas usage
o The amount of natural gas offset is
based on Section 6.5 of the Report,
which indicates JP-4 has an
estimated heat content of 18,500
BTU/lb
The Report does not specifically indicate
natural gas usage; site team suggests
scaling value from the Conceptual
Design Report (TerraTherm, 2012)
based on steam usage estimate, which is
319,357,000 Ibs in the "draft design"
and 280,000,000 Ibs in the "conceptual
design." 350,000 MMBTU *
319,357,000 / 280,000,000 = 400,000
MMBTU of natural gas usage, assuming
no recovered JP-4 is used to offset
natural gas usage for steam generation
and/or vapor treatment
o For "Base Case," assume no JP-4 is
used to offset natural gas usage.
o For "Alt-1," assume 13,140,000 Ibs
of JP-4 is recovered and is used to
offset 243,000 MMBTU of natural
gas usage.
o The amount of natural gas offset is
based on Section 6.5 of the
Conceptual Design Report which
indicates JP-4 has an estimated heat
content of 18,500 BTU/lb.
Table 1 - Page 5
-------
Table 1.
Footprint-Related Remedy Items from the
Conceptual Design Report and Draft Design Report
Item
Conceptual Design Report
(TerraTherm, 2012)
Changes Included in Draft
Remedial Design
(AMEC, 2013)
Use of • Table 6.1 of the Report indicates
Recovered 1,3 83,000 gallons of JP-4 is expected to
JP-4 be recovered, and Section 6.4 indicates
10,250,000 Ibs of JP-4 is expected to be
recovered. This is approximately 7.41
pounds per gallon.
o For "Base Case" assume
10,250,000 Ibs of JP4 is combusted
offsite as fuel, and also requires
transportation to a recycling
facility
o For "Alt-1" assume 10,250,000 Ibs
of JP-4 is combusted on-site and
therefore, does not require
transportation to a recycling
facility. Conceptually, an
additional 10,250,000 Ibs of JP-4
or some other fuel is also assumed
to still be combusted off-site in
place of the JP-4 not being
recycled, but the footprint for that
combustion is not considered to be
part of the footprint of this remedy
Section 3.3 in Appendix D of the Report
states "The system is designed to treat a
maximum of approximately 2,000,000
gallons (13,140,000 Ibs) of non-aqueous
phase liquid (NAPL)." This is
approximately 6.57 pounds per gallon.
o For "Base Case" assume
13,140,000 Ibs of JP4 is combusted
offsite as fuel, and also requires
transportation to a recycling
facility
o For "Alt-1" assume 13,140,000 Ibs
of JP-4 is combusted on-site and
therefore, does not require
transportation to a recycling
facility. Conceptually, an
additional 13,140,000 Ibs of JP-4
or some other fuel is also assumed
to still be combusted off-site in
place of the JP-4 not being
recycled, but the footprint for that
combustion is not considered to be
part of the footprint of this remedy
Water Use • Table 6.1 of the Report indicates
53,000,000 gallons of fresh water will
be used for cooling tower make-up and
steam generation.
• Table 5.10 in Appendix D of Report
indicates 62,662,000 gallons of fresh
water will be used for cooling tower
make-up and steam generation.
Water
Treatment at
Publicly
Owned
Treatment
Works
(POTW)
• Table 6.1 of the Report indicates
80,000,000 gallons of water will be
discharged to the POTW.
• Table 6.1 of Report indicates
110,250,000 gallons of water will be
discharged to the POTW.
Table 1 - Page 6
-------
Table 1.
Footprint-Related Remedy Items from the
Conceptual Design Report and Draft Design Report
Item
Conceptual Design Report
(TerraTherm, 2012)
Changes Included in Draft
Remedial Design
(AMEC, 2013)
Soil Disposal
• Drill cuttings for the following (details
described above):
o 31 injection wells
o 45 extraction wells
o 15 temperature monitoring points
o 34 abandoned PVC wells
• Assume all waste transported on a ton
mile basis. Details regarding quantities
provided in waste transport/disposal
section of Attachment A. Materials
transported include soil cuttings for
wells, temperature monitoring points
and well abandonment
• Drill cuttings for the following (details
described above):
o 26 injection wells newly drilled
o 33 extraction wells newly drilled
o 1 vapor probe newly drilled
o 17 temperature monitoring points
o 4 abandoned PVC wells where new
wells or temperature monitoring
points listed above are not being
installed (23 PVC wells being
abandoned minus 19 of those where
a new well or temperature
monitoring point is being installed)
• Similar approach for transportation (ton
mile basis) but quantities change due to
different number of wells, temperature
monitoring points, well abandonments
and the addition of one vapor probe
location
Granular
activated
carbon
(GAC)
• For polishing water treated by air
stripper prior to discharge to POTW.
Assume 20,000 Ibs of virgin GAC
• No change. This is consistent with
Section 5.10.10 of Appendix D of the
Report which includes four 5,000-pound
vessels, and indicates carbon may not be
required throughout, so no carbon
changes assumed.
Off-Site Lab
• Assumed to be minor and not included
Assumed to be minor and not included
Transportation
of Materials
Assume all materials transported on a
ton mile basis. Details regarding
quantities are provided in materials
section of Attachment A. Materials
transported include the following:
o Sand, cement (grout), steel and
stainless steel for wells,
temperature monitoring points and
well abandonment
o GAC
o JP-4 sent off-site (for base case)
Similar approach (ton mile basis), but
quantities change due to different
number of wells, temperature monitoring
points, well abandonments and the
addition of one vapor probe location, as
well as the JP-4 quantity (for base case)
Table 1 - Page 7
-------
Table 1.
Footprint-Related Remedy Items from the
Conceptual Design Report and Draft Design Report
Item
Conceptual Design Report
(TerraTherm, 2012)
Changes Included in Draft
Remedial Design
(AMEC, 2013)
Transportation
of Equipment
Assume all drilling equipment is
transported on a per trip basis (to and
from site assuming rig is driven)
Assume backhoe for abandoning steel
wells is transported on a flatbed on a
per trip basis (two round trips)
Details for trips are provided in the
transport of materials and equipment
section of Attachment A
• Similar approach (per trip basis for drill
equipment and backhoe) but increase
number of drill rigs from 3 to 5.
Transportation
of Personnel
Included rough estimates for the
following types of travel:
o Transportation of personnel during
construction (drillers and
contractors)
o Operators during operation
o Monthly meetings (air and ground
transport)
Assumed quantities provided in
transport for personnel section of
Attachment A
Assume 402 days of operation
• Total operation period changes from 402
days to 422 days
Table 1 - Page 8
-------
Attachment 1:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Conceptual Design Report - "Base Case "
(Recovered JP-4 Shipped Off-Site)
Attachment 1:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on
Conceptual Design Report - "Base Case'
(Recovered JP-4 Shipped Off-Site)
Attachment 1 - Page 1
-------
Attachment 1:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Conceptual Design Report - "Base Case "
(Recovered JP-4 Shipped Off-Site)
Table 1-A: Fuel Use for Equipment: Conceptual Design
Item for Footprint Evaluation
Source of Information and/or Comments
SEFA Input - Conceptual Design
Equipment used for the construction of
the In-Situ Thermal Treatment (ISTT)
system:
• Installation of 31 steam
injection wells
Conceptual Design Report (TerraTherm, 2012) - Page 14 &
15
o 6 steam injection wells in Cobble Zone, 10 inches (in)
Upper Water Bearing Zone (UWBZ), and 15 in Lower
Saturated Zone (LSZ)
Injection wells in Cobble Zone = 145 feet (ft) of casing + 15
ft of screen each = 160 ft x 6 = 960 linear ft
Injection wells in UWBZ = 170 ft of casing + 25 ft of screen
each = 195 ft x 10 = 1950 linear feet
Injection wells in LSZ = 210 ft of casing + 35 ft of screen
each = 245 ft x 15 = 3675 linear feet
Air rotary drilling 6585 feet at 200 linear feet per day (EPA,
2012a) takes 32.925, 8-hour days = 263 hours of use
On-Site Equipment Use, etc.
Selected: "Drilling - large rig", 500 horsepower
(HP), 75% load factor, Diesel fuel, 263 hours
operated
4931.25 Gallons of Fuel Used
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const.
-New Wells ->Row 31
Equipment used for the construction of
the ISTT system:
• Installation of 45 multi-phase
extraction (MPE) wells
Conceptual Design Report, February 2012 - Page 14 & 16
o 11 MPE wells in Cobble Zone, 13 in Upper Water Bearing
Zone (UWBZ), and 21 in Lower Saturated Zone (LSZ)
MPE wells in Cobble Zone = 145 ft of casing + 15ft of
screen each = 160 ft x 11 = 1760 linear feet
MPE wells in UWBZ = 170 ft of casing + 25 ft of screen
each = 195 ft x 13 = 2535 linear feet
MPE wells in LSZ = 210 ft casing + 35 ft of screen each =
245 ft x 21 = 5145 linear feet
Air rotary drilling 9440 feet at 200 linear feet per day (EPA,
2012a) takes 47.2, 8-hour days = 378 hours of use
On-Site Equipment Use, etc.
Selected: "Drilling - large rig", 500 HP, 75% load
factor, Diesel fuel, 378 hours operated
7087.5 Gallons of Fuel Used
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const.
- New Wells -> Row 32
Equipment used for the construction of
the ISTT system:
• Installation of 15 temperature
monitoring points
Conceptual Design Report, February 2012 - Page 14 & 17
o "At least fifteen temperature monitoring points will be
installed to the bottom of the TTZ across the Site."
Temp. Monitoring Points = 245 ft x 15 = 3675 linear feet
Air rotary drilling 3675 feet at 200 linear feet per day (EPA,
2012a) takes 18.375, 8-hour days = 147 hours of use
On-Site Equipment Use, etc.
Selected: "Drilling - large rig", 500 HP, 75% load
factor, Diesel fuel, 147 hours operated
2756.25 Gallons of Fuel Used
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const.
- Temp Points ->Row 31
EPA (2012a) refers to "Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint, February 2012"
Attachment 1 - Page 2
-------
Attachment 1:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Conceptual Design Report - "Base Case "
(Recovered JP-4 Shipped Off-Site)
Item for Footprint Evaluation
Source of Information and/or Comments
SEFA Input - Conceptual Design
Equipment used for the abandonment
of PVC wells:
• Use of drill rig to overdrill 34
PVC wells
Conceptual Design Report, February 2012 - Appendix A
o Based on Appendix A, assume 109 vertical wells to be
abandoned
o Only PVC wells require overdrilling, of which we assume
there are 34
For simplicity assume average depth of wells is 200 feet
34 wells at 200 feet = 6800 of drilling required to abandon
wells
Air rotary drilling 6800 feet at 200 linear feet per day (EPA,
2012a) takes 34, 8-hour days = 272 hours of use
On-Site Equipment Use, etc.
Selected: "Drilling - large rig", 500 HP, 75% load
factor, Diesel fuel, 272 hours operated
5100 Gallons of Fuel Used
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Base_energy.xlsx ->
Abandoning ->Row 31
Equipment used for the abandonment
of Steel wells:
• Use ofbackhoe to dig down
to remove top of casing for
75 steel wells
Conceptual Design Report, February 2012 - Appendix A
o Based on Appendix A, assume 109 vertical wells to be
abandoned
o Only Steel wells require use ofbackhoe down to 5 feet, of
which we assume there are 75
For simplicity assume it takes a backhoe 2 hours at each well
to dig 5 feet
75 wells at 2 hours each ofbackhoe use =150 hours of
backhoe use
On-Site Equipment Use, etc.
Selected: "Backhoe", 100 HP, 75% load factor,
Diesel fuel, 150 hours operated
562.5 Gallons of Fuel Used
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Base_energy.xlsx ->
Abandoning ->Row 32
EPA (2012a) refers to "Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint, February 2012"
Attachment 1 - Page 3
-------
Attachment 1:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Conceptual Design Report - "Base Case "
(Recovered JP-4 Shipped Off-Site)
Table 1-B: Materials Use: Conceptual Design
Item for Footprint Evaluation
Source of Information and/or Comments
SEFA Input - Conceptual Design
Construction of 31 Injection Wells
• Steel for casing
Conceptual Design Report, February 2012 - Page 15 & 17
o "Injection and extraction wells will be constructed of 4
inch (") to 6" stainless steel screens and carbon steel
risers." Assume 6" casing
18.97 pounds (Ibs) of steel casing per foot of 6" well (EPA,
2012a)
18.97 Ibs per foot x 5720 total feet of casing = 108508 Ibs of
steel
Material Use and Trans.
Selected: "Steel"
Input: 108,508 Ibs
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const.
-New Wells -*Row 67
Construction of 31 Injection Wells
• Sand for annulus
Conceptual Design Report, February 2012 - Page 15
o Wells to have sandpack for entire screened interval plus 2
feet of additional sand above screen
3 9 Ibs of sand for annulus per foot of 6" well (EPA, 2012a)
39 Ibs per foot x (865 feet of screen + (2 feet of additional
sand x 31 wells)) = 36153 Ibs of sand
Material Use and Trans.
Selected: "Gravel/sand/clay"
Input: 36,153 Ibs
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const.
-New Wells -^ Row 68
Construction of 31 Injection Wells
• Grout for annulus
Conceptual Design Report, February 2012 - Page 15
o Wells to be grouted for entire length of well casing minus
the 2 feet of sand above screen
25 Ibs of grout for annulus per foot of 6" well (EPA, 2012a)
25 Ibs per foot x (5720 total feet of casing - 2 feet per well x
31 wells) = 141450 Ibs of cement
Material Use and Trans.
Selected: "Cement"
Input: 141,450 Ibs
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const.
-New Wells ->Row 69
Construction of 31 Injection Wells
• Stainless steel for screens
Conceptual Design Report, February 2012 - Page 15 & 17
o "Injection and extraction wells will be constructed of 4" to
6" stainless steel screens and carbon steel risers." Assume
6" screens
4.8 Ibs of stainless steel screen per foot of 6" well (EPA,
2012a)
4.8 Ibs per foot x 865 total feet of screen = 4152 Ibs of
stainless steel
Material Use and Trans.
Selected: "Stainless Steel"
Input: 4,152 Ibs
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const.
-New Wells ->Row 70
EPA (2012a) refers to "Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint, February 2012"
Attachment 1 - Page 4
-------
Attachment 1:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Conceptual Design Report - "Base Case "
(Recovered JP-4 Shipped Off-Site)
Item for Footprint Evaluation
Source of Information and/or Comments
SEFA Input - Conceptual Design
Construction of 45 Extraction (MPE)
Wells
• Steel for casing
Conceptual Design Report, February 2012 - Page 16 & 17
o "Injection and extraction wells will be constructed of 4" to
6" stainless steel screens and carbon steel risers." Assume
6" casing
18.97 Ibs of steel casing per foot of 6" well (EPA, 2012a)
18.97 Ibs per foot x 8215 total feet of casing = 155839 Ibs of
steel
Material Use and Trans.
Selected: "Steel"
Input: 155,839 Ibs
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const.
-New Wells -*Row 71
Construction of 45 MPE Wells
• Sand for annulus
Conceptual Design Report, February 2012 - Page 16
o Wells to have sandpack for entire screened interval plus 2
feet of additional sand above screen
3 9 Ibs of sand for annulus per foot of 6" well (EPA, 2012a)
39 Ibs per foot x (1225 feet of screen + (2 feet of additional
sand x 45 wells)) = 51285 Ibs of sand
Material Use and Trans.
Selected: "Gravel/sand/clay"
Input: 51,285 Ibs
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const.
-New Wells -*Row 72
Construction of 45 MPE Wells
• Grout for annulus
Conceptual Design Report, February 2012 - Page 16
o Wells to be grouted for entire length of well casing minus
the 2 feet of sand above screen
25 Ibs of grout for annulus per foot of 6" well (EPA, 2012a)
25 Ibs per foot x (8215 total feet of casing - 2 feet per well x
45 wells)= 203125 Ibs of cement
Material Use and Trans.
Selected: "Cement"
Input: 20,3125 Ibs
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const.
-New Wells ->Row 73
Construction of 45 MPE Wells
• Stainless steel for screens
Conceptual Design Report, February 2012 - Page 16 & 17
o "Injection and extraction wells will be constructed of 4" to
6" stainless steel screens and carbon steel risers." Assume
6" screens
4.8 Ibs of stainless steel screen per foot of 6" well (EPA,
2012a)
4.8 Ibs per foot x 1225 total feet of screen = 5880 Ibs of
stainless steel
Material Use and Trans.
Selected: "Stainless Steel"
Input: 5,880 Ibs
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const.
-New Wells ->Row 74
Connection Piping
• Steel for connecting wells to
treatment
Conceptual Design Report, February 2012 - Page 13
o Assuming an average of 150 feet from well head to
treatment with 4" steel piping
10.79 Ibs of steel per foot of 4" diameter piping (EPA,
2012a)
10.79 Ibs per foot x (150 feet x 76 injection and extraction
wells total) = 123006 Ibs of steel
Material Use and Trans.
Selected: "Steel"
Input: 123,006 Ibs
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const.
-New Wells ->Row 75
EPA (2012a) refers to "Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint, February 2012"
Attachment 1 - Page 5
-------
Attachment 1:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Conceptual Design Report - "Base Case "
(Recovered JP-4 Shipped Off-Site)
Item for Footprint Evaluation
Source of Information and/or Comments
SEFA Input - Conceptual Design
Initial GAC material Use
• Tetra Tech (TT) professional judgment: Initial GAC
required for treatment system will be approximately 10 tons.
Material Use and Trans.
Selected: "Virgin GAC (coal based)"
Input: 20,000 Ibs
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> O&M
- Other ->Row 68
Construction of 15 Temperature
Monitoring Points
• Steel for casing
Conceptual Design Report, February 2012 - Page 14 & 17
o "At least fifteen temperature monitoring points will be
installed to the bottom of the TTZ across the Site."
3.65 Ibs of steel casing per foot of 2" well (EPA, 2012a)
3.65 Ibs per foot x (15 temp, monitoring points x 245 feet
each) = 13413.75 Ibs of steel
Material Use and Trans.
Selected: "Steel"
Input: 13,414 Ibs
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const.
- Temp Points ->Row 67
Construction of 15 Temperature
Monitoring Points
• Grout for annulus
Conceptual Design Report, February 2012 - Page 14 & 17
o "At least fifteen temperature monitoring points will be
installed to the bottom of the TTZ across the Site."
13 Ibs of grout for annulus per foot of 2" well (EPA, 2012a)
13 Ibs per foot x (15 temp, monitoring points x 245 feet
each) = 47775 Ibs of cement
Material Use and Trans.
Selected: "Cement"
Input: 47,775 Ibs
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const.
- Temp Points -> Row 68
Abandonment of PVC wells:
• Grout for filling overdrilled,
abandoned PVC wells
For 34 PVC wells that required overdrilling to be
abandoned, assume 8-inch boring is used to removed wells
Using material calculations for 8" well (interior diameter of
8") - 25 Ibs of grout per foot to abandon 8" borehole (EPA,
2012a)
25 Ibs of grout per foot x 200 feet x 34 wells = 170000 Ibs of
cement
Material Use and Trans.
Selected: "Cement"
Input: 170,000 Ibs
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Base_energy.xlsx
Abandoning ->Row 67
EPA (2012a) refers to "Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint, February 2012"
Attachment 1 - Page 6
-------
Attachment 1:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Conceptual Design Report - "Base Case "
(Recovered JP-4 Shipped Off-Site)
Item for Footprint Evaluation
Source of Information and/or Comments
SEFA Input - Conceptual Design
Abandonment of Steel wells:
• Grout for filling 4-inch steel
wells
For 75 - 4" steel wells, cut off top 5 feet and fill remaining
195 feet with grout
6 Ibs of grout per foot to abandon 4-inch well (EPA, 2012a)
6 Ibs of grout per foot x 195 feet x 75 wells = 87750 Ibs of
cement
Material Use and Trans.
Selected: "Cement"
Input: 87750 Ibs
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Base_energy.xlsx
Abandoning ->Row 68
Abandonment of Horizontal wells:
• Grout for filling 6-inch steel
wells
For 6" Steel horizontal wells, assume 1400 linear feet total
are to be filled with cement grout
14 Ibs of grout per foot to abandon 6"well (EPA, 2012a)
14 Ibs of grout per foot x 1400 feet = 19600 Ibs of cement
Material Use and Trans.
Selected: "Cement"
Input: 19600 Ibs
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Base_energy.xlsx
Abandoning ->Row 69
Table 1-C: Transport for Materials and Equipment: Conceptual Design
Item for Footprint Evaluation
Source of Information and/or Comments
SEFA Input - Conceptual Design
Transportation of drilling equipment
for installation of new wells,
temperature monitoring points, and
well abandoning
• Air rotary drill rig
TT estimates that 3 air rotary rigs will be used on the Site
during construction process.
TT assumes that transportation for each rig will consist of
the rig driving itself to the Site and driving off-site once
construction is complete, for one roundtrip.
TT assumes a distance of 100 miles roundtrip to site.
On-Site Equipment Use, etc.
Input: 1 roundtrips, 100 miles, Diesel
16.7 Gallons of Fuel Used each
Input for each drill rig (3 times total)
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const.
-New Wells ->Row 31
Plus
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const.
- Temp Points ->Row 31
Plus
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Base_energy.xlsx ->
Abandoning ->Row 31
EPA (2012a) refers to "Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint, February 2012"
Attachment 1 - Page 7
-------
Attachment 1:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Conceptual Design Report - "Base Case "
(Recovered JP-4 Shipped Off-Site)
Item for Footprint Evaluation
Source of Information and/or Comments
SEFA Input - Conceptual Design
Transportation of backhoe for
abandonment of steel wells
• Backhoe
TT estimates that 1 backhoe will be used on the Site for
abandoning steel wells.
TT assumes that backhoe will be transported to site on
flatbed truck, consisting of 2 roundtrips to site.
TT assumes a distance of 100 miles roundtrip to site.
On-Site Equipment Use, etc.
Input: 2 roundtrips, 100 miles, Diesel
3 3.3 Gallons of Fuel Used
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Base_energy.xlsx
Abandoning ->Row 32
Transportation of materials used in
construction
• All materials
Professional judgment: The footprint for transportation of all
construction materials should be quantified based on truck
freight transport, in terms of gallons per ton-mile (gptm).
Weight for transportation of sand, cement, steel, stainless
steel and GAC are equal to the amounts calculated in the
Material Use section.
TT assumes 50 miles of transport to site for all materials.
Material Use and Transportation
For all materials
Input: 50 miles for transport
Selected: Truck freight (gptm) for Mode of
Transport, Diesel for Fuel Type
Make this selection for all construction materials in
Const. - New Wells, Const. - Temp Points, and
Abandoning tabs
861.4 Gallons of Fuel Used Total for all Materials
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const.
-New Wells ->Row 67thru 75
Plus
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const.
- Temp Points ->Row 67 & 68
Plus
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Base_energy.xlsx ->
Abandoning ->Row 67 - 69
Plus
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> O&M
- Other ->Row 68
EPA (2012a) refers to "Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint, February 2012"
Attachment 1 - Page 8
-------
Attachment 1:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Conceptual Design Report - "Base Case "
(Recovered JP-4 Shipped Off-Site)
Item for Footprint Evaluation
Source of Information and/or Comments
SEFA Input - Conceptual Design
Transportation of JP4 off site to fuel
recycler
For base case, assume no recovered JP4 is used on site and
all recovered JP4 is sent to recycler and will be combusted.
Amount of JP4 for transportation is given in Fuel Use for
Operation table.
TT assumes 50 miles of transport to offsite recycler.
Material Use and Transportation
Input: 50 miles for transport
Selected: Truck freight (gptm) for Mode of
Transport, Diesel for Fuel Type
7,431.2 Gallons of Fuel Used
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> O&M
-JP4Base -^ Row 67
Table 1-D: Waste Transport/Disposal: Conceptual Design
Item for Footprint Evaluation
Source of Information and/or Comments
Input Values to SEFA - Concept
Disposal of drill cuttings in landfill
• Cuttings from injection and
extraction wells
61 Ibs of drill cuttings for disposal per foot of 6" well (EPA,
2012a)
6585 feet of drilling for injection wells + 9440 feet of
drilling for extraction wells = 16025 feet total
16025 feet of drilling x 61 Ibs of cuttings per foot = 977525
Ibs of cutting for disposal / 2000 Ibs per ton = 488.7625 tons
of cuttings for disposal
TT professional judgment: The footprint for transportation
of all disposal to landfill should be quantified based on truck
freight transport, in terms of gallons per ton-mile.
Transport to landfill is assumed to be 50 miles.
Waste Transport and Disposal
Selected: Non-hazardous waste landfill
Input: 488.7625 tons, 50 miles of transport
Selected Truck freight (gptm), Diesel
708.7 Gallons of Fuel Used
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const.
-New Wells -^ Row 89
EPA (2012a) refers to "Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint, February 2012"
Attachment 1 - Page 9
-------
Attachment 1:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Conceptual Design Report - "Base Case "
(Recovered JP-4 Shipped Off-Site)
Item for Footprint Evaluation
Source of Information and/or Comments
Input Values to SEFA - Concept
Disposal of drill cuttings in landfill
• Cuttings from temperature
monitoring point installation
39 Ibs of drill cuttings for disposal per foot of 4" well (EPA,
2012a)
3675 feet of drilling for temperature monitoring point
installation
3675 feet of drilling x 39 Ibs of cuttings per foot = 143325
Ibs of cutting for disposal / 2000 Ibs per ton =71.6625 tons
of cuttings for disposal
TT professional judgment: The footprint for transportation
of all disposal to landfill should be quantified based on truck
freight transport, in terms of gallons per ton-mile.
Transport to landfill is assumed to be 50 miles.
Waste Transport and Disposal
Selected: Non-hazardous waste landfill
Input: 71.6625 tons, 50 miles of transport
Selected Truck freight (gptm), Diesel
103.9 Gallons of Fuel Used
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const.
- Temp Points -> Row 89
Disposal of drill cuttings in landfill
• Cuttings from overdrilling of
PVC wells to be abandoned
39 Ibs of drill cuttings for disposal per foot of 4" well (EPA,
2012a)
34 PVC wells x 200 feet each = 6800 feet of drilling for
abandonment
6800 feet of drilling x 39 Ibs of cuttings per foot = 265200
Ibs of cutting for disposal / 2000 Ibs per ton = 132.6 tons of
cuttings for disposal
TT professional judgment: The footprint for transportation
of all disposal to landfill should be quantified based on truck
freight transport, in terms of gallons per ton-mile.
Transport to landfill is assumed to be 50 miles.
Waste Transport and Disposal
Selected: Non-hazardous waste landfill
Input: 132.6 tons, 50 miles of transport
Selected Truck freight (gptm), Diesel
192.3 Gallons of Fuel Used
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Base_energy.xlsx
Abandoning ->Row 89
Treated water discharge to POTW
Conceptual Design Report, February 2012 - Page 28
o "An estimated 80,000,000 gallons of water will be
extracted and treated during the thermal implementation."
Waste Transport and Disposal
Selected: POTW
Input: 80,000 Gallons x 1000
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> O&M
- Operating Costs ->Row 89
EPA (2012a) refers to "Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint, February 2012"
Attachment 1 - Page 10
-------
Attachment 1:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Conceptual Design Report - "Base Case "
(Recovered JP-4 Shipped Off-Site)
Table 1-E: Transport for Personnel: Conceptual Design
Item for Footprint Evaluation
Source of Information and/or Comments
SEFA Input - Conceptual Design
Personnel transportation during
construction
• Drill rig operators
TT estimated 2 person crew per air rotary rig, 3 rigs total.
TT estimated 20 miles roundtrip for site labor to travel to
site.
19700 linear feet total for drilling of injection wells,
extraction wells, and temp monitoring points
6800 linear feet total for over drilling of PVC wells for
abandonment
26500 feet / 200 feet per day / 3 rigs operating at a time = 44
days drillers are on site
Labor, Mobilizations, Mileage, and Fuel
Input: 6 Drillers during construction, 6 crew, 44
days, 8 hours per day, 264 trips, 20 miles roundtrip
Selected: Car, Gasoline
220 Gallons of Fuel Used
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const.
-Personnel Transport ->Row 16
Personnel transportation during
construction
• Contractors
• TT estimated 6 person crew during drilling and other
construction for estimated 120 days.
• TT estimated 20 miles roundtrip for site labor to travel to
site.
Labor, Mobilizations, Mileage, and Fuel
Input: 6 Contractors during construction, 6 crew,
120 days, 8 hours per day, 720 trips, 20 miles
roundtrip Selected: Car, Gasoline
600 Gallons of Fuel Used
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const.
- Personnel Transport -> Row 17
Permanent operator transportation
during O&M period
Conceptual Design Report, February 2012 - Page 28
o 402 days of pre-heating, steam injection, and post-
treatment
TT estimated 20 miles roundtrip for site labor to travel to
site.
Labor, Mobilizations, Mileage, and Fuel
Input: 2 Permanent Operators, 2 crew, 402 days, 8
hours per day, 804 trips, 20 miles roundtrip
Selected: Car, Gasoline
670 Gallons of Fuel Used
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Base_energy.xlsx
- Operator Travel -> Row 16
O&M
EPA (2012a) refers to "Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint, February 2012"
Attachment 1 - Page 11
-------
Attachment 1:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Conceptual Design Report - "Base Case "
(Recovered JP-4 Shipped Off-Site)
Item for Footprint Evaluation
Source of Information and/or Comments
SEFA Input - Conceptual Design
Other support personnel transportation
during O&M period
• TT estimated 2 additional support staff on site for 100 days
during operation.
• TT estimated 20 miles roundtrip for site labor to travel to
site.
Labor, Mobilizations, Mileage, and Fuel
Input: 2 support personnel, 2 crew, 100 days, 8
hours per day, 200 trips, 20 miles roundtrip
Selected: Car, Gasoline
167 Gallons of Fuel Used
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> O&M
- Operator Travel -> Row 17
Personnel transportation for monthly
meetings
• Air travel for meeting
• TT estimated 4 personnel need to travel by air for meetings.
• Assume 18 meetings over period of construction and O&M.
Traveling 2000 miles roundtrip by airplane
Labor, Mobilizations, Mileage, and Fuel
Input: Travel for meetings - Air, 4 crew, 18 days, 8
hours per day, 72 trips, 2000 miles roundtrip
Selected: Airplane, Diesel
3,200 Gallons of Fuel Used
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> O&M
-Meeting Travel-> Row 16
Personnel transportation for monthly
meetings
• Travel by car for meetings
• TT estimated 8 personnel need to travel by car for meetings.
• Assume 18 meetings over period of construction and O&M
Traveling 100 miles roundtrip by car
Labor, Mobilizations, Mileage, and Fuel
Input: Travel for meetings - Ground, 8 crew, 18
days, 8 hours per day, 144 trips, 100 miles
roundtrip
Selected: Car, Gasoline
600 Gallons of Fuel Used
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> O&M
- Meeting Travel -> Row 17
EPA (2012a) refers to "Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint, February 2012"
Attachment 1 - Page 12
-------
Attachment 1:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Conceptual Design Report - "Base Case "
(Recovered JP-4 Shipped Off-Site)
Table 1-F: Electricity Use: Conceptual Design
Item for Footprint Evaluation
Source of Information and/or Comments
SEFA Input - Conceptual Design
Electricity use for ISTT system -
O&M
Conceptual Design Report, February 2012 - Page 25 & 28
o "The ISTT system will require an estimated 1,000-1,500
kVa power feed to the Site to power the steam generation
and effluent treatment systems."
o Utility usage estimated to be 7,997,000 kWh
On-Site Electricity Use
Input: 7,997,000
7,997,000 kWh, Energy Used
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> O&M
-Elec->Row 59
EPA (2012a) refers to "Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint, February 2012"
Attachment 1 - Page 13
-------
Attachment 1:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Conceptual Design Report - "Base Case "
(Recovered JP-4 Shipped Off-Site)
Table 1-G: Fuel Use for Operating: Conceptual Design
Item for Footprint Evaluation
Source of Information and/or Comments
SEFA Input - Conceptual Design
Natural Gas use for ISTT system -
O&M
Conceptual Design Report, February 2012 - Page 28
o " Approx. 70 MMBTU/hr of natural gas for use as fuel for
steam generation and for thermal oxidation."
o Gas usage estimated to be 350,000 MMBTU total
350,000 MMBTU = 3.5xlOn BTUs
1 ccf = 100 cubic feet = 103,000 BTUs
On-Site Natural Gas Use
Input: 350,000,000,000 BTUs, 3,398,058 ccf
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> O&M
- Natural Gas -> Row 48
Recovered JP4 combusted off-site -
O&M
Conceptual Design Report, February 2012 - Page 28
o Recovered fuel = 1,383,000 gallons
For base case, assume no recovered JP4 is used on site and
all recovered JP4 is sent to recycler and will be combusted.
JP4 combustion will be included in this remedy's footprint
as if it was combusted on site.
Material Use
Selected: JP4 Combustion
(JP4 Combustion is a user defined input for Activity
#1. See Table J for details regarding input)
Input: 1,383,000 gallons
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> O&M
- JP4 Base -> Row 67
EPA (2012a) refers to "Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint, February 2012"
Attachment 1 - Page 14
-------
Attachment 1:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Conceptual Design Report - "Base Case "
(Recovered JP-4 Shipped Off-Site)
Table 1-H: Water Use: Conceptual Design
Item for Footprint Evaluation
Source of Information and/or Comments
SEFA Input - Conceptual Design
Public Water use for cooling tower
and creation of steam
• Conceptual Design Report, February 2012 - Page 28
o "Approx. 150 gpm of fresh water for cooling tower make-
up and steam generation."
o Fresh water usage estimated to be 53,000,000 gallons total
Material Use
Selected: Public Water
Input: 53,000 gallons x 1000
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> O&M
- Operating Costs-> Row 67
EPA (2012a) refers to "Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint, February 2012"
Attachment 1 - Page 15
-------
Attachment 1:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Conceptual Design Report - "Base Case "
(Recovered JP-4 Shipped Off-Site)
Table 1-1: eGRID Subregion AZNM—WECC Southwest, 2009 Characteristics
Electricity Source
Nonrenewable Resource
Coal
Oil
Gas
Other Fossil
Nuclear
Other Unknown / Purchased Fuel
Nonrenewable Total
Renewable Resource
Wind
Solar
Geothermal
Biomass
Hydro
Renewable Total
Fuel Mix %
38.5979
0.0598
35.6808
0.0013
16.4726
0.0000
90.8124
0.5008
0.1012
2.1789
0.3166
6.0901
9.1876
Source: EPA eGRID 2012 files,
http.V/www. epa. sov/cleanenersv/enersv-resources/esrid/index. html
EPA (2012a) refers to "Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint, February 2012'
Attachment 1 - Page 16
-------
Attachment 1:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Conceptual Design Report - "Base Case "
(Recovered JP-4 Shipped Off-Site)
Table 1-J: User defined input for combustion of JP4 - Conceptual Design
Footprint for combustion of JP4 (per gallon)*
Tons per Gal
Energy
CO2e
NOx
SOx
PM
Air Toxics
0.0037057**
0.1315
21.05
0.14
0.00495
0.00197
0.0000221
tons
MMBTU/unit
Ibs/unit
Ibs/unit
Ibs/unit
Ibs/unit
Ibs/unit
* Based on the assumption that the footprint for combustion ofJP4 is equivalent
to 50% of the footprint for combustion of gasoline plus 50% of the footprint for
combustion ofdiesel.
** Weight per unit for JP4 is based on values provided in the Conceptual Design Report
that indicate recovered JP4 will be 1,383,000 gallons and 10,250,000 pounds.
EPA (2012a) refers to "Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint, February 2012'
Attachment 1 - Page 17
-------
Attachment 2:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Conceptual Design Report - "Alt 1"
(Recovered JP-4 Used Within the Remedy)
Attachment 2:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on
Conceptual Design Report - "Alt 1"
(Recovered JP-4 Used Within the Remedy)
Attachment 2 - Page 1
-------
Attachment 2:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Conceptual Design Report - "Alt 1"
(Recovered JP-4 Used Within the Remedy)
"Alt 1" specifies a different use of the recovered JP-4 fuel. In the "Base Case, " the recovered JP-4 is shipped off-
site and subsequently combusted as fuel. In "Alt 1, "the recovered JP-4 is used on site and offsets some of the
natural gas required (and the transportation of JP-4 offsite is eliminated). The only differences in SEFA input
relative to the "Base Case" using information from the Conceptual Design Report are the following:
Table 2-C: Transport for Materials and Equipment: Conceptual Design
Item for Footprint Evaluation
Transportation of JP4 off site to fuel
recycler
Source of Information and/or Comments
• JP4 Transport off site is eliminated
SEFA Input - Conceptual Design
NO INPUT
Table 2-G: Fuel Use for Operating: Conceptual Design
Item for Footprint Evaluation
Source of Information and/or Comments
SEFA Input - Conceptual Design
Natural Gas use for ISTT system -
O&M
Conceptual Design Report, February 2012 - Page 28
o Recovered JP4 = 1,383,000 gallons
o Original Natural Gas use = 3 50,000 MMBTUs
Assume that 10,250,000 Ibs of JP-4 is recovered and is used
to offset 190,000 MMBTUs of Natural Gas
Natural Gas consumption for Alternative 1 = 350,000
MMBTUs - 190,000 MMBTUs = 160,000 MMBTUs of
Natural Gas
160,000 MMBTUs = 1553398 ccf
On-Site Natural Gas Use
Input: 160,000,000,000 BTUs, 1553398 ccf
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Altl_energy.xlsx -> O&M-
Natural Gas -> Row 48
Attachment 2 - Page 2
-------
Attachment 2:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Conceptual Design Report - "Alt 1"
(Recovered JP-4 Used Within the Remedy)
Item for Footprint Evaluation
Source of Information and/or Comments
SEFA Input - Conceptual Design
Recovered JP4 use for Steam or
Oxidizer - O&M
• Conceptual Design Report, February 2012 - Page 28
o Recovered fuel = 1,383,000 gallons
• For alternative case assume all recovered JP4 is used on site
and no transportation for JP4 is required
On-Site: Other forms ofon-site conventional energy
use
Define: JP4 Combustion as Other form of on-site
conventional energy use #1 (Row 39 of User
Defined Factors tab)
(See Table J for details regarding input)
Input: 1,383,000 gallons
WAFB_ConceptDesign-Altl_energy.xlsx -> O&M-
JP4Altl^Row 101
Attachment 2 - Page 3
-------
Attachment 3:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Draft Design Report - "Base Case "
(Recovered JP-4 Shipped Off-Site)
Attachment 3:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on
Draft Design Report - "Base Case"
(Recovered JP-4 Shipped Off-Site)
Attachment 3 - Page 1
-------
Attachment 3:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Draft Design Report - "Base Case "
(Recovered JP-4 Shipped Off-Site)
Table 3-A: Fuel Use for Equipment: Draft Design
Item for Footprint Evaluation
Source of Information and/or Comments
SEFA Input - Draft Design
Equipment used for the construction of
the ISTT system:
• Installation of 26 newly drilled
steam injection wells
Draft Design Report, October 4, 2013 - Appendix G, Page
1-2
o 6 newly installed steam injection wells in Cobble Zone, 8
newly installed in Upper Water Bearing Zone (UWBZ),
and 12 newly installed in Lower Saturated Zone (LSZ)
Injection wells in Cobble Zone = 145 ft of casing + 15ft of
screen each = 160 ft x 6 = 960 linear feet
Injection wells in UWBZ = 170 ft of casing + 25 ft of screen
each = 195 ft x 8 = 1560 linear feet
Injection wells in LSZ = 210 ft of casing + 35 ft of screen
each = 245 ft x 12 = 2940 linear feet
Air rotary drilling and sonic (both large rigs) 5460 feet at
200 linear feet per day (EPA, 2012a) takes 27.3, 8-hour days
= 218 hours of use
Assume biodiesel based on observation of ultra-low sulfur
diesel use and catalytic converters for drill rigs during site
visit (SEFA has no option for ultra-low sulfur diesel)
On-Site Equipment Use, etc.
Selected: "Drilling - large rig", 500 horsepower
(HP), 75% load factor, BioDiesel fuel, 218 hours
operated
4,496.25 Gallons of Fuel Used
WAFB_DraftDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const. -
New Wells -*Row 31
Equipment used for the construction of
the ISTT system:
• Installation of 33 newly drilled
multi-phase extraction (MPE)
wells
Draft Design Report, October 4, 2013 - Appendix G, Page
1-2
o 13 newly installed MPE wells in Cobble Zone, 7 newly
installed in Upper Water Bearing Zone (UWBZ), and 13
newly installed in Lower Saturated Zone (LSZ)
MPE wells in Cobble Zone = 145 ft of casing + 15ft of
screen each = 160 ft x 13 = 2080 linear feet
MPE wells in UWBZ = 170 ft of casing + 25 ft of screen
each = 195 ft x 7 = 1365 linear feet
MPE wells in LSZ = 210 ft casing + 35 ft of screen each =
245 ft x 13 = 3185 linear feet
Air rotary drilling and sonic (both large rigs) 6630 feet at
200 linear feet per day (EPA, 2012a) takes 33.15, 8-hour
days = 265 hours of use.
Assume biodiesel based on observation of ultra-low sulfur
diesel use and catalytic converters for drill rigs during site
visit (SEFA has no option for ultra-low sulfur diesel)
On-Site Equipment Use, etc.
Selected: "Drilling - large rig", 500 HP, 75% load
factor, BioDiesel fuel, 265 hours operated
5,465.625 Gallons of Fuel Used
WAFB_DraftDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const. -
New Wells ->Row 32
EPA (2012a) refers to" Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint, February 2012"
Attachment 3 - Page 2
-------
Attachment 3:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Draft Design Report - "Base Case "
(Recovered JP-4 Shipped Off-Site)
Item for Footprint Evaluation
Source of Information and/or Comments
SEFA Input - Draft Design
Equipment used for the construction of
the ISTT system:
• Installation of 17 temperature
monitoring points
• 16 to 245 ft
• 1 to 195 ft
Draft Design Report, October 4, 2013 - Appendix G, Page 3
o "5 New Probes and 12 from Well to be Abandoned"
Temp. Monitoring Points = ((16 temp, monitoring points x
245 feet) + (1 temp, monitoring points x 195 feet)) = 4115
linear feet
Air rotary drilling and sonic (both large rigs) 4115 feet at
200 linear feet per day (EPA, 2012a) takes 20.575, 8-hour
days = 165 hours of use.
Assume biodiesel based on observation of ultra-low sulfur
diesel use and catalytic converters for drill rigs during site
visit (SEFA has no option for ultra-low sulfur diesel)
On-Site Equipment Use, etc.
Selected: "Drilling - large rig", 500 HP, 75% load
factor, BioDiesel fuel, 165 hours operated
3,403.125 Gallons of Fuel Used
WAFB_DraftDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const. -
Temp Points ->Row 31
Equipment used for the abandonment
of PVC wells:
• Use of drill rig to overdrill 4
PVC wells (others accounted
for in new wells or probes)
Draft Design Report, October 4, 2013 - Appendix G, Page 3
o Only PVC wells require overdrilling, of which we assume
there are 4
For simplicity assume average depth of wells is 200 feet
4 wells at 200 feet = 800 of drilling required to abandon
wells
Sonic drilling 800 feet at 200 linear feet per day (EPA,
2012a) takes 4 days, 8-hour days = 32 hours of use.
Assume biodiesel based on observation of ultra-low sulfur
diesel use and catalytic converters for drill rigs during site
visit (SEFA has no option for ultra-low sulfur diesel)
On-Site Equipment Use, etc.
Selected: "Drilling - large rig", 500 HP, 75% load
factor, BioDiesel fuel, 32 hours operated
660 Gallons of Fuel Used
WAFB_DraftDesign-Base_energy.xlsx ->
Abandoning ->Row 31
Equipment used for the abandonment
of Steel wells:
• Use ofbackhoe to dig down
to remove top of casing for 2
steel wells
Draft Design Report, October 4, 2013 - Appendix G, Page 3
o Only Steel wells require use ofbackhoe down to 5 feet, of
which we assume there are 2
For simplicity assume it takes a backhoe 2 hours at each well
to dig 5 feet
2 wells at 2 hours each ofbackhoe use = 4 hours ofbackhoe
use
On-Site Equipment Use, etc.
Selected: "Backhoe", 100 HP, 75% load factor,
Diesel fuel, 4 hours operated
15 Gallons of Fuel Used
WAFB_DraftDesign-Base_energy.xlsx ->
Abandoning ->Row 32
EPA (2012a) refers to" Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint, February 2012"
Attachment 3 - Page 3
-------
Attachment 3:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Draft Design Report - "Base Case "
(Recovered JP-4 Shipped Off-Site)
Table 3-B: Materials Use: Draft Design
Item for Footprint Evaluation
Source of Information and/or Comments
SEFA Input - Draft Design
Construction of 26 Newly Drilled
Injection Wells
• Steel for casing
Draft Design Report, October 4, 2013 - Appendix D, Page
33
o Injection and extraction wells will be constructed of 6"
steel pipe to surface.
18.97 Ibs of steel casing per foot of 6" well (EPA, 2012a)
18.97 Ibs per foot x 4750 total feet of casing = 90108 Ibs of
steel
Material Use and Trans.
Selected: "Steel"
Input: 90,108 Ibs
WAFB_DraftDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const.
New Wells ->Row 67
Construction of 26 Newly Drilled
Injection Wells
• Sand for annulus
Draft Design Report, October 4, 2013 - Appendix D, Page
33
o Wells to have sandpack for entire screened interval plus 2
feet of additional sand above screen.
3 9 Ibs of sand for annulus per foot of 6" well (EPA, 2012a)
39 Ibs per foot x (710 feet of screen + (2 feet of additional
sand x 26 wells)) = 29718 Ibs of sand
Material Use and Trans.
Selected: "Gravel/sand/clay"
Input: 29,718 Ibs
WAFB_DraftDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const.
New Wells ->Row 68
Construction of 26 Newly Drilled
Injection Wells
• Grout for annulus
Draft Design Report, October 4, 2013 - Appendix D, Page
33
o Wells to be grouted for entire length of well casing minus
the 2 feet of sand above screen.
25 Ibs of grout for annulus per foot of 6" well (EPA, 2012a)
25 Ibs per foot x (4750 total feet of casing - 2 feet per well x
26 wells) = 117450 Ibs of cement
Material Use and Trans.
Selected: "Cement"
Input: 117,450 Ibs
WAFB_DraftDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const.
New Wells ->Row 69
Construction of 26 Newly Drilled
Injection Wells
• Stainless steel for screens
Draft Design Report, October 4, 2013 - Appendix D, Page
33
o Injection and extraction wells will be constructed of 6"
stainless steel screen.
4.8 Ibs of stainless steel screen per foot of 6" well (EPA,
2012a)
4.8 Ibs per foot x 710 total feet of screen = 3408 Ibs of
stainless steel
Material Use and Trans.
Selected: "Stainless Steel"
Input: 3,408 Ibs
WAFB_DraftDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const.
New Wells -*Row 70
EPA (2012a) refers to" Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint, February 2012"
Attachment 3 - Page 4
-------
Attachment 3:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Draft Design Report - "Base Case "
(Recovered JP-4 Shipped Off-Site)
Item for Footprint Evaluation
Source of Information and/or Comments
SEFA Input - Draft Design
Construction of 33 Newly Drilled
Extraction (MPE) Wells
• Steel for casing
Draft Design Report, October 4, 2013 - Appendix D, Page
33
o Injection and extraction wells will be constructed of 6"
steel pipe to surface.
18.97 Ibs of steel casing per foot of 6" well (EPA, 2012a)
18.97 Ibs per foot x 5805 total feet of casing = 110121 Ibs of
steel
Material Use and Trans.
Selected: "Steel"
Input: 110,12 libs
WAFB_DraftDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const.
New Wells -*Row 71
Construction of 33 Newly Drilled
• Sand for annulus
Draft Design Report, October 4, 2013 - Appendix D, Page
33
o Wells to have sandpack for entire screened interval plus 2
feet of additional sand above screen.
3 9 Ibs of sand for annulus per foot of 6" well (EPA, 2012a)
39 Ibs per foot x (825 feet of screen + (2 feet of additional
sand x 33 wells)) = 34749 Ibs of sand
Material Use and Trans.
Selected: "Gravel/sand/clay"
Input: 34,749 Ibs
WAFB_DraftDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const.
New Wells -*Row 72
Construction of 33 Newly Drilled
• Grout for annulus
Draft Design Report, October 4, 2013 - Appendix D, Page
33
o Wells to be grouted for entire length of well casing minus
the 2 feet of sand above screen.
25 Ibs of grout for annulus per foot of 6" well (EPA, 2012a)
25 Ibs per foot x (5805 total feet of casing - 2 feet per well x
33 wells)= 143475 Ibs of cement
Material Use and Trans.
Selected: "Cement"
Input: 143,475 Ibs
WAFB_DraftDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const.
New Wells ->Row 73
Construction of 33 Newly Drilled
• Stainless steel for screens
Draft Design Report, October 4, 2013 - Appendix D, Page
33
o Injection and extraction wells will be constructed of 6"
stainless steel screen.
4.8 Ibs of stainless steel screen per foot of 6" well (EPA,
2012a)
4.8 Ibs per foot x 825 total feet of screen = 3960 Ibs of
stainless steel
Material Use and Trans.
Selected: "Stainless Steel"
Input: 3,960 Ibs
WAFB_DraftDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const.
New Wells ->Row 74
Connection Piping
• Steel for connecting wells to
treatment
Draft Design Report, October 4, 2013 - Figure 3-3
o Assuming an average of 150 feet from well head to
treatment with 4" steel piping
10.79 Ibs of steel per foot of 4" diameter piping (EPA,
2012a)
10.79 Ibs per foot x (150 feet x 84 total injection and
extraction wells total) = 135954 Ibs of steel
Material Use and Trans.
Selected: "Steel"
Input: 135,954 Ibs
WAFB_DraftDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const.
New Wells ->Row 75
EPA (2012a) refers to" Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint, February 2012"
Attachment 3 - Page 5
-------
Attachment 3:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Draft Design Report - "Base Case "
(Recovered JP-4 Shipped Off-Site)
Item for Footprint Evaluation
Source of Information and/or Comments
SEFA Input - Draft Design
Initial GAC material Use
• TT professional judgment: Initial GAC required for
treatment system will be approximately 10 tons.
Material Use and Trans.
Selected: "Virgin GAC (coal based)"
Input: 20,000 Ibs
WAFB_DraftDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> O&M -
Other ->Row 68
Construction of 17 Temperature
Monitoring Points
• Steel for casing
• 16 to 245 ft
• 1 to 195 ft
Draft Design Report, October 4, 2013 - Appendix D, Page
32&34
o 17 temperature monitoring strings installed to lower limit
ofTTZ
3.65 Ibs of steel casing per foot of 2" well (EPA, 2012a)
3.65 Ibs per foot x ((16 temp, monitoring points x 245 feet)
+ (1 temp, monitoring points x 195 feet)) = 15020 Ibs of
steel
Material Use and Trans.
Selected: "Steel"
Input: 15,020 Ibs
WAFB_DraftDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const.
Temp Points ->Row 67
Construction of 17 Temperature
Monitoring Points
• Grout for annulus
• 16 to 245 ft
• 1 to 195 ft
Draft Design Report, October 4, 2013 - Appendix D, Page
32&34
o 17 temperature monitoring strings installed to lower limit
ofTTZ
13 Ibs of grout for annulus per foot of 2" well (EPA, 2012a)
13 Ibs per foot x ((16 temp, monitoring points x 245 feet) +
(1 temp, monitoring points x 195 feet)) = 53495 Ibs of
cement
Material Use and Trans.
Selected: "Cement"
Input: 53,495 Ibs
WAFB_DraftDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const.
Temp Points -> Row 68
Abandonment of PVC wells:
• Grout for filling overdrilled,
abandoned PVC wells
Draft Design Report, October 4, 2013 - Appendix G, Page 3
For 4 PVC wells that required overdrilling to be abandoned,
assume 8-inch boring is used to removed wells
Using material calculations for 8" well (interior diameter of
8") - 25 Ibs of grout per foot to abandon 8" borehole (EPA,
2012a)
25 Ibs of grout per foot x 200 feet x 4 wells = 20000 Ibs of
cement
Material Use and Trans.
Selected: "Cement"
Input: 20,000 Ibs
WAFB_DraftDesign-Base_energy.xlsx
Abandoning ->Row 67
EPA (2012a) refers to" Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint, February 2012"
Attachment 3 - Page 6
-------
Attachment 3:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Draft Design Report - "Base Case "
(Recovered JP-4 Shipped Off-Site)
Item for Footprint Evaluation
Source of Information and/or Comments
SEFA Input - Draft Design
Abandonment of Steel wells:
• Grout for filling 4" steel
wells
Draft Design Report, October 4, 2013 - Appendix G, Page 3
For 2 - 4" steel wells, cut off top 5 feet and fill remaining
195 feet with grout
6 Ibs of grout per foot to abandon 4"well (EPA, 2012a)
6 Ibs of grout per foot x 195 feet x 2 wells = 2340 Ibs of
cement
Material Use and Trans.
Selected: "Cement"
Input: 2,340 Ibs
WAFB_DraftDesign-Base_energy.xlsx
Abandoning ->Row 68
Abandonment of Horizontal wells:
• Grout for filling 6" steel wells
Draft Design Report, October 4, 2013 - Appendix G, Page 3
For 6" Steel horizontal wells, assume 1400 linear feet total
are to be filled with cement grout
14 Ibs of grout per foot to abandon 6"well (EPA, 2012a)
14 Ibs of grout per foot x 1400 feet = 19600 Ibs of cement
Material Use and Trans.
Selected: "Cement"
Input: 19,600 Ibs
WAFB_DraftDesign-Base_energy.xlsx
Abandoning ->Row 69
EPA (2012a) refers to" Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint, February 2012"
Attachment 3 - Page 7
-------
Attachment 3:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Draft Design Report - "Base Case "
(Recovered JP-4 Shipped Off-Site)
Table 3-C: Transport for Materials and Equipment: Draft Design
Item for Footprint Evaluation
Source of Information and/or Comments
SEFA Input - Draft Design
Transportation of drilling equipment
for installation of new wells,
temperature monitoring points, and
well abandoning
• Air rotary drill rig
TT estimates that 5 air rotary rigs will be used on the Site
during construction process based on observation during site
visit.
TT assumes that transportation for each rig will consist of
the rig driving itself to the Site and driving off-site once
construction is complete, for one roundtrip.
TT assumes a distance of 100 miles roundtrip to site.
On-Site Equipment Use, etc.
Input: 1 roundtrips, 100 miles, Diesel
16.7 Gallons of Fuel Used each
Input for each drill rig (5 times total)
WAFB_DraftDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const.
New Wells -* Row 31 & 32
Plus
WAFB_DraftDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const.
Temp Points ->Row 31 & 32
Plus
WAFB_DraftDesign-Base_energy.xlsx ->
Abandoning ->Row 31
Transportation of backhoe for
abandonment of steel wells
• Backhoe
TT estimates that Ibackhoe will be used on the Site for
abandoning steel wells.
TT assumes that backhoe will be transported to site on
flatbed truck, consisting of 2 roundtrips to site.
TT assumes a distance of 100 miles roundtrip to site.
On-Site Equipment Use, etc.
Input: 2 roundtrips, 100 miles, Diesel
3 3.3 Gallons of Fuel Used
WAFB_DraftDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -
Abandoning ->Row 32
EPA (2012a) refers to" Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint, February 2012"
Attachment 3 - Page 8
-------
Attachment 3:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Draft Design Report - "Base Case "
(Recovered JP-4 Shipped Off-Site)
Item for Footprint Evaluation
Source of Information and/or Comments
SEFA Input - Draft Design
Transportation of materials used in
construction
• All materials
TT professional judgment: The footprint for transportation
of all construction materials should be quantified based on
truck freight transport, in terms of gallons per ton-mile.
Weight for transportation of sand, cement, steel, stainless
steel, and GAC are equal to the amounts calculated in the
Material Use section.
Assume 50 miles of transport to site for all materials
Material Use and Transportation
For all materials
Input: 50 miles for transport
Selected: Truck freight (gptm) for Mode of
Transport, Diesel for Fuel Type
Make this selection for all construction materials in
Const. - New Wells, Const. - Temp Points, and
Abandoning tabs
579.6 Gallons of Fuel Used Total for all Materials
WAFB_DraftDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const. -
New Wells ->Row 67 thru 75
Plus
WAFB_DraftDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const. -
Temp Points ->Row 67 & 68
Plus
WAFB_DraftDesign-Base_energy.xlsx ->
Abandoning ->Row 67 - 69
Plus
WAFB_DraftDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> O&M -
Other ->Row 68
Transportation of JP4 off site to fuel
recycler
For base case assume no recovered JP4 is used on site and
all recovered JP4 is sent to recycler and will be combusted.
Amount of JP4 for transportation is given in Fuel Use for
Operation table.
Assume 50 miles of transport to offsite recycler
Material Use and Transportation
Input: 50 miles for transport
Selected: Truck freight (gptm) for Mode of
Transport, Diesel for Fuel Type
9,526.5 Gallons of Fuel Used
WAFB_DraftDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -
JP4Base -^ Row 67
O&M-
EPA (2012a) refers to" Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint, February 2012"
Attachment 3 - Page 9
-------
Attachment 3:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Draft Design Report - "Base Case "
(Recovered JP-4 Shipped Off-Site)
Table 3-D: Waste Transport/Disposal: Draft Design
Item for Footprint Evaluation
Source of Information and/or Comments
SEFA Input - Draft Design
Disposal of drill cuttings in landfill
• Cuttings from injection and
extraction wells
61 Ibs of drill cuttings for disposal per foot of 6" well (EPA,
2012a)
5460 feet of drilling for injection wells + 6630 feet of
drilling for extraction wells = 12090 feet total
12090 feet of drilling x 61 Ibs of cuttings per foot = 737490
Ibs of cutting for disposal / 2000 Ibs per ton = 368.745 tons
of cuttings for disposal
TT professional judgment: The footprint for transportation
of all disposal to landfill should be quantified based on truck
freight transport, in terms of gallons per ton-mile.
Transport to landfill assumed to be 50 miles
Waste Transport and Disposal
Selected: Non-hazardous waste landfill
Input: 368.745 tons, 50 miles of transport
Selected Truck freight (gptm), Diesel
534.7 Gallons of Fuel Used
WAFB_DraftDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const.
New Wells ->Row 89
Disposal of drill cuttings in landfill
• Cuttings from temperature
monitoring point installation
39 Ibs of drill cuttings for disposal per foot of 4" well (EPA,
2012a)
4115 feet of drilling for temperature monitoring point
installation
4115 feet of drilling x 39 Ibs of cuttings per foot = 160485
Ibs of cutting for disposal / 2000 Ibs per ton = 80.243 tons of
cuttings for disposal
TT professional judgment: The footprint for transportation
of all disposal to landfill should be quantified based on truck
freight transport, in terms of gallons per ton-mile.
Transport to landfill assumed to be 50 miles
Waste Transport and Disposal
Selected: Non-hazardous waste landfill
Input: 80.243 tons, 50 miles of transport
Selected Truck freight (gptm), Diesel
116.4 Gallons of Fuel Used
WAFB_DraftDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const.
Temp Points -^ Row 89
Disposal of drill cuttings in landfill
• Cuttings from overdrilling of
PVC wells to be abandoned
(not counting wells/probes
being installed at overdrilled
locations, those already
accounted for)
39 Ibs of drill cuttings for disposal per foot of 4" well (EPA,
2012a)
4 PVC wells x 200 feet each = 800 feet of drilling for
abandonment
800 feet of drilling x 39 Ibs of cuttings per foot = 31200 Ibs
of cutting for disposal / 2000 Ibs per ton = 15.6 tons of
cuttings for disposal
TT professional judgment: The footprint for transportation
of all disposal to landfill should be quantified based on truck
freight transport, in terms of gallons per ton-mile.
Transport to landfill assumed to be 50 miles
Waste Transport and Disposal
Selected: Non-hazardous waste landfill
Input: 15.6 tons, 50 miles of transport
Selected Truck freight (gptm), Diesel
22.6 Gallons of Fuel Used
WAFB_DraftDesign-Base_energy.xlsx ->
Abandoning ->Row 89
EPA (2012a) refers to" Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint, February 2012"
Attachment 3 - Page 10
-------
Attachment 3:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Draft Design Report - "Base Case "
(Recovered JP-4 Shipped Off-Site)
Item for Footprint Evaluation
Source of Information and/or Comments
SEFA Input - Draft Design
Treated water discharge to POTW
• Draft Design Report, October 4, 2013 - Appendix D, Page
30
o 110,250,000 gallons total
Waste Transport and Disposal
Selected: POTW
Input: 110,250 Gallons x 1000
WAFB_DraftDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> O&M-
Other ->Row 89
EPA (2012a) refers to" Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint, February 2012"
Attachment 3 - Page 11
-------
Attachment 3:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Draft Design Report - "Base Case "
(Recovered JP-4 Shipped Off-Site)
Table 3-E: Transport for Personnel: Draft Design
Item for Footprint Evaluation
Source of Information and/or Comments
SEFA Input - Draft Design
Personnel transportation during
construction
• Drill rig operators
TT estimated 2 person crew per air rotary rig, 5 rigs total.
TT estimated 20 miles roundtrip for site labor to travel to
site.
16205 linear feet total for drilling of injection wells,
extraction wells, and temp monitoring points.
800 linear feet total for over drilling of PVC wells for
abandonment
17005 feet / 200 feet per day / 5 rigs operating at a time =17
days drillers are on site
Labor, Mobilizations, Mileage, and Fuel
Input: 10 Drillers during construction, 10 crew, 17
days, 8 hours per day, 170 trips, 20 miles roundtrip
Selected: Car, Gasoline
142 Gallons of Fuel Used
WAFB_DraftDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const. -
Personnel Transport ->Row 16
Personnel transportation during
construction
• Contractors
• TT estimated 6 person crew during drilling and other
construction for estimated 120 days
• TT estimated 20 miles roundtrip for site labor to travel to
site
Labor, Mobilizations, Mileage, and Fuel
Input: 6 Contractors during construction, 6 crew,
120 days, 8 hours per day, 720 trips, 20 miles
roundtrip Selected: Car, Gasoline
600 Gallons of Fuel Used
WAFB_DraftDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> Const. -
Personnel Transport -> Row 17
Permanent operator transportation
during O&M period
• Draft Design Report, October 4, 2013 - Appendix D, Page
27
o 422 days of pre-heating, steam injection, and post-
treatment
• TT estimated 20 miles roundtrip for site labor to travel to
site
Labor, Mobilizations, Mileage, and Fuel
Input: 2 Permanent Operators, 2 crew, 422 days,
hours per day, 844 trips, 20 miles roundtrip
Selected: Car, Gasoline
703 Gallons of Fuel Used
WAFB_DraftDesign-Base_energy.xlsx
Operator Travel^ Row 16
'O&M-
EPA (2012a) refers to" Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint, February 2012"
Attachment 3 - Page 12
-------
Attachment 3:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Draft Design Report - "Base Case "
(Recovered JP-4 Shipped Off-Site)
Item for Footprint Evaluation
Source of Information and/or Comments
SEFA Input - Draft Design
Other support personnel transportation
during O&M period
• TT estimated 2 additional support staff on site for 100 days
during operation.
• TT estimated 20 miles roundtrip for site labor to travel to
site.
Labor, Mobilizations, Mileage, and Fuel
Input: 2 support personnel, 2 crew, 100 days, 8
hours per day, 200 trips, 20 miles roundtrip
Selected: Car, Gasoline
167 Gallons of Fuel Used
WAFB_DraftDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> O&M-
Operator Travel^ Row 17
Personnel transportation for monthly
meetings
• Air travel for meeting
• TT estimated 4 personnel need to travel by air for meetings.
• Assume 18 meetings over period of construction and O&M.
Traveling 2000 miles roundtrip by airplane
Labor, Mobilizations, Mileage, and Fuel
Input: Travel for meetings - Air, 4 crew, 18 days, 8
hours per day, 72 trips, 2000 miles roundtrip
Selected: Airplane, Diesel
3,200 Gallons of Fuel Used
WAFB_DraftDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> O&M-
Meeting Travel^ Row 16
Personnel transportation for monthly
meetings
• Travel by car for meetings
• TT estimated 8 personnel need to travel by car for meetings.
• Assume 18 meetings over period of construction and O&M.
Traveling 100 miles roundtrip by car
Labor, Mobilizations, Mileage, and Fuel
Input: Travel for meetings - Ground, 8 crew, 18
days, 8 hours per day, 144 trips, 100 miles
roundtrip
Selected: Car, Gasoline
600 Gallons of Fuel Used
WAFB_DraftDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> O&M-
Meeting Travel -> Row 17
EPA (2012a) refers to" Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint, February 2012"
Attachment 3 - Page 13
-------
Attachment 3:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Draft Design Report - "Base Case "
(Recovered JP-4 Shipped Off-Site)
Table 3-F: Electricity Use: Draft Design
Item for Footprint Evaluation
Source of Information and/or Comments
SEFA Input - Draft Design
Electricity use for ISTT system -
O&M
Draft Design Report, October 4, 2013 - Appendix D, Page
28
o "The power usage for the SEE system is estimated to be
approximately 11.3 million kilowatt hours (kWh)."
o Utility usage estimated to be 11,343,000 kWh
On-Site Electricity Use
Input: 11,343,000
11,343,000 kWh, Energy Used
WAFB_DraftDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> O&M -
Elec->Row 59
EPA (2012a) refers to" Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint, February 2012"
Attachment 3 - Page 14
-------
Attachment 3:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Draft Design Report - "Base Case "
(Recovered JP-4 Shipped Off-Site)
Table 3-G: Fuel Use for Operating: Draft Design
Item for Footprint Evaluation
Source of Information and/or Comments
SEFA Input - Draft Design
Natural Gas use for ISTT system -
O&M
Draft Design Report does not specifically indicate natural
gas usage. See Table 1 in body of this report.
o Gas usage estimated to be 400,000 MMBTU total
400,000 MMBTU = 4.0xlOn BTUs
1 ccf = 100 cubic feet = 103,000 BTUs
On-Site Natural Gas Use
Input: 400,000,000,000 BTUs, 3,883,495 ccf
WAFB_DraftDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> O&M-
Natural Gas -> Row 48
Recovered JP4 combusted off-site -
O&M
Draft Design Report, October 4, 2013 - Appendix D, Page :
o "The system is designed to treat a maximum of
approximately 2,000,000 gallons of non-aqueous phase
liquid (NAPL)."
o Recovered fuel = 2,000,000 gallons
For base case assume no recovered JP4 is used on site and
all recovered JP4 is sent to recycler and will be combusted.
JP4 combustion will be included in this remedy's footprint
as if it was combusted on site.
Material Use
Selected: JP4 Combustion
(JP4 Combustion is a user defined input for Activity
#1. See Table J for details regarding input)
Input: 2,000,000 Gallons
WAFB_DraftDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> O&M-
JP4 Base -> Row 67
EPA (2012a) refers to" Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint, February 2012"
Attachment 3 - Page 15
-------
Attachment 3:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Draft Design Report - "Base Case "
(Recovered JP-4 Shipped Off-Site)
Table 3-H: Water Use: Draft Design
Item for Footprint Evaluation
Source of Information and/or Comments
SEFA Input - Draft Design
Public Water use for cooling tower
and creation of steam
• Draft Design Report, October 4, 2013 - Appendix D, Page
30
o Fresh water usage estimated to be 62,662,000 gallons total
Material Use
Selected: Public Water
Input: 62,662 gallons x 1000
WAFB_DraftDesign-Base_energy.xlsx -> O&M-
Other^Row 67
EPA (2012a) refers to" Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint, February 2012"
Attachment 3 - Page 16
-------
Attachment 3:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Draft Design Report - "Base Case "
(Recovered JP-4 Shipped Off-Site)
Table 3-1: eGRID Subregion AZNM—WECC Southwest, 2009 Characteristics
Electricity Source
Nonrenewable Resource
Coal
Oil
Gas
Other Fossil
Nuclear
Other Unknown / Purchased Fuel
Nonrenewable Total
Renewable Resource
Wind
Solar
Geothermal
Biomass
Hydro
Renewable Total
Fuel Mix%
38.5979
0.0598
35.6808
0.0013
16.4726
0.0000
90.8124
0.5008
0.1012
2.1789
0.3166
6.0901
9.1876
Source: EPA eGRID 2012 files,
http.V/www. epa. sov/cleanenersv/enersv-resources/esrid/index. html
EPA (2012a) refers to" Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint, February 2012'
Attachment 3 - Page 17
-------
Attachment 3:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Draft Design Report - "Base Case "
(Recovered JP-4 Shipped Off-Site)
Table 3-J: User defined input for combustion of JP4 - Draft Design
Footprint for combustion of JP4 (per gallon)*
Tons per Gal
Energy
CO2e
NOx
SOx
PM
Air Toxics
0.003285**
0.1315
21.05
0.14
0.00495
0.00197
0.0000221
tons
MMBTU/unit
Ibs/unit
Ibs/unit
Ibs/unit
Ibs/unit
Ibs/unit
* Based on the assumption that the footprint for combustion ofJP4 is equivalent
to 50% of the foot print for combustion of gasoline plus 50% of the footprint for
combustion ofdiesel.
** Weight per unit for JP4 is based on values provided in Draft Design Report
that indicate recovered JP4 will be 2,000,000 gallons and 13,140,000 pounds.
This is a different conversion rate between gallons and pounds than in the
Conceptual Design Report
EPA (2012a) refers to" Methodology for Understanding and Reducing a Project's Environmental Footprint, February 2012'
Attachment 3 - Page 18
-------
Attachment 4:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Draft Design Report - "Alt 1"
(Recovered JP-4 Used Within the Remedy)
Attachment 4:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on
Draft Design Report - "Alt 1"
(Recovered JP-4 Used Within the Remedy)
Attachment 4 - Page 1
-------
Attachment 4:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Draft Design Report - "Alt 1"
(Recovered JP-4 Used Within the Remedy)
"Alt 1" specifies a different use of the recovered JP-4 fuel. In the "Base Case, " the recovered JP-4 is shipped off-
site and subsequently combusted as fuel. In "Alt 1, "the recovered JP-4 is used on site and offsets some of the
natural gas required (and the transportation of JP-4 offsite is eliminated). The only differences in SEFA input
relative to the "Base Case" using information from the Conceptual Design Report are the following:
Table 4-C: Transport for Materials and Equipment: Draft Design
Item for Footprint Evaluation
Transportation of JP4 off site to fuel
recycler
Source of Information and/or Comments
• JP4 Transport off site is eliminated
SEFA Input - Draft Design
NO INPUT
Table 4-G: Fuel Use for Operating: Draft Design
Item for Footprint Evaluation
Source of Information and/or Comments
SEFA Input - Draft Design
Natural Gas use for ISTT system -
O&M
Draft Design Report, October 4, 2013 - Appendix D, Page 8
Draft Design Report does not specifically indicate natural
gas usage. See Table 1 of this report.
o Recovered JP4 = 2,000,000 gallons
o Original Natural Gas use = 400,000 MMBTUs
Assume that 13,140,000 Ibs of JP-4 is recovered and is used
to offset 243,000 MMBTUs of Natural Gas
Natural Gas consumption for Alternative 1 = 400,000
MMBTUs - 243,000 MMBTUs = 157,000 MMBTUs of
Natural Gas
157,000 MMBTUs = 1524272 ccf
On-Site Natural Gas Use
Input: 157,000,000,000 BTUs, 1,524,272 ccf
WAFB_DraftDesign-Altl_energy.xlsx -> O&M-
Natural Gas -> Row 48
Attachment 4 - Page 2
-------
Attachment 4:
Tables Detailing SEFA Input Based on Draft Design Report - "Alt 1"
(Recovered JP-4 Used Within the Remedy)
Item for Footprint Evaluation
Source of Information and/or Comments
SEFA Input - Draft Design
Recovered JP4 use for Steam or
Oxidizer - O&M
• Draft Design Report, October 4, 2013 - Appendix D, Page 8
o Recovered fuel = 2,000,000 gallons
• For alternative case assume all recovered JP4 is used on site
and no transportation for JP4 is required
On-Site: Other forms ofon-site conventional energy
use
Define: JP4 Combustion as Other form of on-site
conventional energy use #1 (Row 39 of User
Defined Factors tab)
(See Table J for details regarding input)
Input: 1,383,000 gallons
WAFB_DraftDesign-Altl_energy.xlsx -> O&M-
JP4Altl^Row 101
Attachment 4 - Page 3
------- |