Developing a Sustainable Remediation Approach for Portland, Oregon Sediment Site 4 th International Conference on Sustainable Remediation April 26, 2016; Montreal, Quebec, Canada Deborah A. Edwards (ExxonMobil) Anne Fitzpatrick, LHG (AECOM)
Presentation Outline – Background – Portland Harbor Sustainability Project • Net Environmental Benefit Analysis (NEBA) • Regional Economic Impact Analysis (using REMI model) • Social Sustainability Analysis Mapping sustainability metrics to stakeholder values; o identifying trade-offs – Conclusions & Next Steps Objective: Conduct sustainability analysis of four EPA FS remediation options to assist in selection of the most sustainable remedial option Portland Harbor April 26, 2016 Page 2
Portland Harbor Superfund Site Willamette River; 11 River Miles in Portland, Oregon, US Portland Harbor April 26, 2016 Page 3
Sustainability Approach for Sediment Remediation 1. Incorporate environmental metrics into a Net Environmental Benefit Analysis (NEBA) 2. Conduct regional economic impact analysis with state-of- the-art REMI Model to compare impacts of EPA alternatives 3. Map environmental, economic and social metrics to stakeholder values to develop holistic sustainability assessment • Identified ~ 300 community and stakeholder groups; values and priorities incorporated into assessment This is the first comprehensive sustainability analysis for a sediment remediation project Portland Harbor April 26, 2016 Page 4
EPA Feasibility Study Alternatives AECOM Total Dredging AECOM Adjusted Adjusted Remedial Acres Cubic Yards Capping EMNR Cost Construction (High) Alternative (acres) (acres) (Million US Time $) (Years) B 81 818,830 9 103 $1,290 5 D 152 1,563,900 22 88 $1,780 10 E 236 2,748,520 34 59 $2,430 17 F 424 5,843,380 90 24 $3,890 36 Portland Harbor April 26, 2016 Page 5
Alternatives Have Increasing Environmental Footprint Relative Impacts – SiteWise TM Results Remedial GHG Energy Onsite NOx Onsite SOx Onsite PM10 Total NOx Total SOx Total PM10 *Accident *Accident Alternatives Emissions Usage Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Risk Fatality Risk Injury Low Low Low Low Medium Low Low Low Low Low Alternative B Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Low Low Alternative D Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Alternative E High High High High High High High High High High Alternative F GHG ¡Emissions ¡(CO 2 , ¡CH 4 , ¡N 2 O) ¡ 600,000 ¡ 500,000 ¡ Metric ¡Tons ¡ 400,000 ¡ > 52 300,000 ¡ acres of Douglas Fir 200,000 ¡ needed to 100,000 ¡ sequester 0 ¡ 500,000 tons Alterna1ve ¡B ¡ Alterna1ve ¡D ¡ Alterna1ve ¡E ¡ Alterna1ve ¡F ¡ of GHG Portland Harbor April 26, 2016 Page 6
Remedial Construction Will Impact Shoreline Activities % Overlap of Remedial EPA Alternative Footprint with Shoreline Uses B 17% D 23% E 33% F 45% Portland Harbor April 26, 2016 Page 7
Net Environmental Benefit Analysis Aggregates Disparate Metrics to Generate Benefit Scores – To generate meaningful numbers, and develop a transparent, systematic framework: • Score measures using consistent values (e.g., 1-10) • Weight measures in terms of certainty or relevance • Aggregate/combine scores considering weights Remedial Alternatives and Scores Evaluation Criteria Weight A B D E F Overall Protectiveness of Human Health and the 25% 2.0 7.5 8.1 8.3 8.0 Environment Permanence 16% 0.0 2.4 2.9 3.6 5.1 Effectiveness Over the Long-Term 16% 0.0 6.2 6.4 6.7 7.1 Management of Short-term Risks 16% 10.0 7.7 6.4 4.5 0.0 Technical and Administrative Implementability 16% 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 Consideration of Public Concerns 10% 5.3 5.6 5.2 4.6 3.2 Total Weighted Benefits 4.3 6.4 6.1 5.6 4.6 AECOM ADJ Cost (0% Discount) ($millions net present value) $ - $ 1,272 $ 1,738 $ 2,317 $ 3,816 Benefit/cost (Benefit points per $billion) NA 5.0 3.5 2.4 1.2 Portland Harbor May 4, 2016 Page 8
Disproportionate Cost Analysis 10 4,500 More Expensive AECOM ADJ Cost (0% Discount) ($millions net present value) 9 Alternatives Have Lower 4,000 Benefit Scores 8 3,500 Weighted benefits 7 3,000 6 2,500 10 5 5 years years 2,000 17 4 36 years years 1,500 3 0 years 1,000 2 500 1 0 0 A B D E F Remedial Alternative Ranked by Cost and Construction Years Weighted Benefits AECOM ADJ Cost Portland Harbor April 26, 2016 Page 9
Portland Regional Economic Impact Analysis – Considers the aggregate impacts of EPA remedial options on the Portland regional economy • Market-based impacts (employment, income, regional output, population) • Inputs developed for city of Portland, metropolitan area , state – Includes some distributional impacts of EPA remedial options ( e.g., sectors, wage groups affected) Note: EPA has not evaluated the Portland regional economic impacts of the remedial options it has identified Portland Harbor April 26, 2016 Page 10
Prior Portland Harbor Regional Economic Impact Studies – Two prior economic studies come to seemingly conflicting conclusions on the regional economic impacts of Portland Harbor Superfund remediation (prior to EPA cost study) 1. Brattle Study (January 2012) • Evaluated impacts assuming all local financing of expenditures • Predicted negative regional economic impacts 2. ECONorthwest (June 2012) • Evaluated impacts assuming all non-local financing of expenditures • Predicted positive regional economic impacts NERA’s economic impact study uses EPA cost information to model the net impacts of expenditures and financing based on a mix of local and non-local financing Portland Harbor April 26, 2016 Page 11
Combined Expenditures and Financing: Average Annual Impacts (2020-2050) on Portland Regional Employment and Gross Regional Product (GRP) All EPA alternatives lead to net losses, and losses are substantially greater for the more expensive alternatives. The size of the negative impacts is uncertain and depends on uncertain financing assumptions. Portland Harbor April 26, 2016 Page 12
Inferred and Elicited Values – Where did we find data? Portland Harbor May 4, 2016 Page 13
Map Stakeholder Values to Metrics What do stakeholders Key Value Stakeholder Group Values value when selecting a remedial option? Fish & Wildlife Environ- Quality mental Restoration • Values identified in each Climate & Disaster pillar; narrowed and Resilience focused during project Low Impact Remedy • “Translate” technical Economic Economic Vitality Viability assessments into key Jobs stakeholder issues Infrastructure • These terms are used to Cost-Effectiveness aggregate metrics and assess remedial options in terms of stakeholder Quality of Life/Recreation Social Equity values Community Values Acceptable Remedy Health & Safety Portland Harbor April 26, 2016 Page 14
Values Evaluated Option trade-off evaluation Values Metrics Prioritized scored Metrics Values Aggregated Weighted Value Value weights scores Value scores * Value weights = Value ranks Portland Harbor April 26, 2016 Page 15
Consideration of Aggregate Weighted and Ranked Values stakeholder group values can change importance and perception of differences Economic Viability Portland Harbor April 26, 2016 Page 16
Sustainability Framework – Discussion & Next Steps – New metrics not previously considered • Habitat, beach access, shoreline and water dependent business disturbance during construction using overlap analysis • Realistic construction timeframes that recognize community burden • Environmental benefits quantified and compared to costs • Regional economic impact modeling that includes gains from expenditures and losses from local financing– a balanced analysis • Robust stakeholder & value mapping – White paper supporting a sustainable remedy for Portland Harbor • Summarize framework, analysis, results • Provide balanced information on trade-offs to diverse stakeholders • Submit white paper to USEPA during Proposed Plan public comment period (May– June 2016) – Apply framework to other sites to support sustainable remedy selection Portland Harbor April 26, 2016 Page 17
Questions? Thank you Contributing authors: Deborah A Edwards, PhD, ExxonMobil Anne Fitzpatrick, LHG, AECOM Amanda McNally, PE, AECOM Sabine Apitz, PhD, SEA Environmental Decisions Ltd David Harrison, PhD, NERA Economic Consulting Conor Coughlin, NERA Economic Consulting April 26, 2016
Recommend
More recommend
