Tools for Assessing Industrial Water Stewardship-Phenicie, 2012
•Descargar como PPTX, PDF•
2 recomendaciones•348 vistas
This workshop will present the results of a project conducted by the Council of Great Lakes Industries and funded by the Great Lakes Protection Fund to evaluate the applicability of global water stewardship tools at Great Lakes industrial facilities. Workshop presenters will review the results of pilot tests at four facilities — the Consumers Energy power plant in Grand Haven, Michigan; The Escanaba Paper Co. mill in Escanaba, Michigan; a Shell petroleum refinery in Sarnia, Ontario; and a Lafarge cement plant in Bath, Ontario — and provide an opportunity for participants to discuss water stewardship measures, public disclosure practices, and the potential for identifying water stewardship goals and tracking methodologies.
Recomendados
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
La actualidad más candente
La actualidad más candente (20)
Similar a Tools for Assessing Industrial Water Stewardship-Phenicie, 2012
Similar a Tools for Assessing Industrial Water Stewardship-Phenicie, 2012 (20)
Más de Healthy Lakes, Healthy Lives
Más de Healthy Lakes, Healthy Lives (20)
Último
Último (20)
Tools for Assessing Industrial Water Stewardship-Phenicie, 2012
- 1. Applying Water Stewardship Tools in North American Industry Dale Phenicie Council of Great Lakes Industries 1
- 2. Study Sponsors • Great Lakes Protection Fund (GLPF) • Council of Great Lakes Industries (CGLI) • National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI) • Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) • LimnoTech (LTI) 2
- 3. Why is Industry Interested? • Heightened focus on water • Many water tools • Concern that tools might become de facto regulation • New opportunities 3
- 4. Why So Many? 4
- 5. Global Water Initiatives • Aquawareness • UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle Initiative • Alliance for Water Stewardship • Strategic Water Management (EWP) Framework (Australia minerals) • BIER Water Footprint Working • UN CEO Water Mandate Group • Water Brief for Business • Carbon Disclosure Project -Water • Water Footprint Network Disclosure • Water Footprint Neutrality and • Corporate Water Gauge Efficiency Project (UN) • Federation House Commitment to • Water Neutral Offset Calculator Water Efficiency • WaterSense Certification Scheme • Global Environmental Management • Water Stewardship Initiative Initiative (GEMI) • ISO Water Footprint Standard • Global Reporting Initiative • Global Water Tool (WBCSD) Initiatives in bold text are those selected for more detailed analysis
- 6. Key Questions • Can water stewardship tools be useful in a water rich region? • Do available tools fit high volume, low consumptive use industrial situations? • Do the tools focus on evaluation of watershed impacts? • Do the tools account for or “give credit” for industrial water recycling/reuse practices? • Will the tools inform industrial water stewardship program development?
- 7. Key Questions - 2 • How do the tools fit-in with today’s industrial operational practices? • How do tool metrics compare with data/information already being reported? • Do the tools mesh with regulatory requirements? • Can the tools be used to support economic development initiatives? • How will the tools recognize the need to use water to support society’s needs, services and manufacture of products?
- 8. Study Approach • Reviewed available tools & underlying “metrics” • Selected metrics for evaluation • Applied to 4 industrial facilities • Developed findings & recommendations 8
- 9. Categories of Tools • Water use accounting • Business risk assessment frameworks • Reporting and disclosure protocols • Standards and certification frameworks 9
- 10. What are the Most Common Metrics? Tool 1 Tool 2 Tool 3 Tool 4 Tool 5 Tool 6 Metric A X X Metric B X X X X X Metric C X Metric D X X X Metric E X X X X X X 10
- 11. What are Most Relevant to Industry? Objective Examples Impact on water quantity Protect ecosystem uses Impact on water quality Availability for other users Not impair other human uses Reserve water for growth Establish and maintain efficient water use plan Sustain existing industrial use Response plans for dry periods Water reuse or recycling Maximize return flow Ethical governance Demonstrate good water stewardship Permit compliance Response actions where impacts Out of basin transfers (avoid) 11
- 12. 22 Metrics Evaluated Indicator Metrics Withdrawal Amounts total volume abstracted by source total volume consumed by source water transfers (inter-basin and ground/surface) peak/average/seasonal use by source Withdrawal Source Characterization sources under stress amount of renewable water Withdrawal Impact & Available Supply relative to total available supply effect on ecosystem services effect on human services total volume discharged to receiving body Discharge Amounts Discharge Quality regulated pollutant load non-regulated pollutant load eutrophication potential Discharge Impact effect on downstream human uses effect on ecosystem (generally) internal recycling and reuse Recycling/Reuse external recycling and reuse water consumption per unit product Equitable & Transparent Governance water resource management strategy (use & disclosure) permits and other consents (withdrawals) permits and other consents (discharges) Benefits economic and social benefits
- 13. Five Tools Evaluated Initiative Developer Category Global Water Tool (GWT) World Business Council for Managing business risk Sustainable Development (WBCSD) CEO-led global organization Water Footprint (WFN) Water Footprint Network Water use accounting Network of corporations, NGOs, academics and governments Global Reporting Initiative Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Reporting and disclosure (GRI) International multi-stakeholder network of experts CDP Water Disclosure Carbon Disclosure Project Water Reporting and disclosure Project Disclosure Non-profit organization holding corporate climate change database and acting on behalf of investors European Water European Water Partnership (EWP) Standards and certification Stewardship (EWS) Standard Regional initiative of Alliance for Water Stewardship (AWS) which is developing an international standards and certification program 13
- 14. Four Pilot Industries 14
- 15. Consumers Energy J.H. Campbell Generating Complex • Grand Haven, Michigan • 2,000-acre site • 1450 MW coal-fired power plant – Once-through cooling 15
- 16. Water Flows at J.H. Campbell Plant Evaporation Forced Evaporation 0.67 0.029 734.1 Lake Michigan (Outfall 001A) 350.47 a Discharge Canal Lake Michigan Total Units 1, 2, & 3 intake 0.657 738.52 (Outfall 001B) MGD Evaporation (2010) 0.09 (gw to sw - ash pond) 0.055 Pigeon Lake 0.341 contained in boiler 388.05 a steam cycle Demin. Consumption Leachate Ash Pond System Retention Ponds 0.0168 0.431 1.021 (Outfall 001C) Total 4.4 intake 0.01 0.01 Groundwater Discharge 0.744 Sanitary System (septic systems) Pigeon Lake MGD Groundwater (Outfall 002A) (2010) 0.303 (RAP Wells) (gw to sw) 16
- 17. Site Boundary Delineation Can Affect Results • Forced evaporation due to thermal discharge contributes to consumption Consumers Consumption Calculations 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 m3/yr 600,000 400,000 200,000 - Calculation usingState Reported to Also including pond Also including forced State methodology and canal evaporation evaporation October 9, 2008 17 Source: http://edcsns17.cr.usgs.gov/NewEarthExplorer/
- 18. Lafarge NA Cement Plant – Located in Bath, Ontario on Lake Ontario – Produces Portland cement – About 4 square mile site area 18
- 19. Lafarge NA Cement Plant CKD Landfill Site Quarry Plant MISA Pond and Lagoon Intake Outfall 19
- 20. Definitions Can Affect Results • What is “Consumption” ? • 3 results: 361,873 m3/yr 805,601 m3/yr - 299,108 m3/yr (negative value) 20
- 21. Shell Sarnia Manufacturing Centre • Located in Corunna, Ontario on St. Clair River • Produces refined oil products (fuels, petrochemicals, solvents) Water Intake Effluent Outfalls St. Clair River 21
- 22. Flow measurements Not Always Suitable for Metrics Calculations • Volume withdrawn is less than volume discharged plus volume evaporated – Possibly due to condensate blowdown, rainfall influx into system, and possible discrepancies with inlet and outlet meters • Negative consumption calculated by one tool • But measurement precision is suitable for current regulatory requirements and company uses. 22
- 23. NewPage Escanaba Pulp and Paper Mill • Produces about 700,000 metric tons/yr paper and 455,000 metric tons/yr of pulp 23
- 24. Relevance of Green and Grey Water Footprints? 24
- 25. Key Findings • Potential for significant value • No one tool provides all the answers • Devil in the details • Context is critical to defining value • Some metrics are redundant, insufficient or missing • Tools only partially address water stewardship evaluation needs 25
- 26. The ‘Ideal’ Tool • “Low maintenance” – One-time implementation, minimal ongoing maintenance • Minimum resource intensive (personnel/cost) • Compatible with today's highly automated/technology based systems • Non-duplicative of existing reporting systems, compatible with existing legislative/regulatory governance systems • Focused on stewardship demonstrations, incorporate social and economic elements • Provide information and outputs that can be transported into other tool systems • Produce local benefits that encourage tool use
- 27. Questions for Tool Developers and Users • How can water stewardship tools incorporate social and economic considerations in their assessments? • What tool design provisions can be made to make them resource efficient? • How can tools be made to work in concert with regulatory structures? • What are the incentives for tool use by industrial facilities?
- 29. Project Personnel CGLI • Project Director – George Kuper: ghk@cgli.org – 734 663-1944 • Project Manager – Dale Phenicie: dkphenicie@mindspring.com – 770 487-7585 • Communications Director – Evelyn Strader: StraderCo@AOL.com – 248 340-7062 • Office Assistant – Janet Rieke: JR@CGLI.org – 734 663-1944 LimnoTech • Wendy Larson: wlarson@limno.com – 734 332-1200 – Principal Investigator • Paul Freedman – Advisor NCASI • Paul Wiegand: pwiegand@ncasil.org – 919 941-6417 – Principal Investigator • Barry Malmberg – Project Analyst EPRI • Todd Maki: tmaki@epri.com – 650 855-2162 – Principal Investigator 29
- 30. Questions? 30
Notas del editor
- Heightened focus on waterGreater attention on water use performanceGreater international dialogueMany water toolsNeed for industry to understand emerging toolsExpectation for industry participationConcern that tools might become de facto regulationConcerns of water availability and access Focus on industrial effectsNew opportunitiesAbility to inform tool developmentImproved environmental reporting & leadership
- We identified almost 2 dozen tools, many came out or were updated during the course of our project.Water Footprint Network (WFN)Alliance for Water Stewardship (AWS) / European Water Stewardship (EWS) StandardGlobal Reporting Initiative (GRI)World Resources Institute (WRI) Aqueduct ProjectWBCSD Global Water Tool WWF-DEG Water Risk FilterCarbon Disclosure Project (CDP) Water Disclosure ProjectCERES Aqua GaugeGEMI Global Water Tool and Local Water Tool
- As Dale said, a key question related to the relevance of the water stewardship tools to Great Lakes industries. So in the early stage of our project we were interested in gaining a better understanding of the many “water stewardship tools” out there. So our Study Approach started with a review of the tools.We conducted a workshop for Great Lakes stakeholders to help improve understanding and awarenessWe then took a closer look to identify and select the underlying metrics in the toolsBy “metrics” I mean the numeric units of measurement – for example volume of water consumption - and the narrative descriptions in the tools.We selected a subset of metrics and applied them to 4 pilot industries and I’ll share a few examples with you today.Then we synthesized the findings
- We felt the need to categorize the “water stewardship tools” and we chose these 4 categoriesIn some cases one could argue that certain tools belong in a different category, but this worked for usFor example:Accounting: Water FootprintBusiness Risk: Ceres Aqua GaugeReporting: CDP Water DisclosureCertification: Alliance for Water StewardshipSee report for description of available tools organized by these categoriesNext step was to decide which tools to test. Rather than making that decision up front, which would require presupposing which were most relevant, we decided to select the underlying metrics that were most relevant to our project and test those.
- We created a large matrix and were most interested in the most common metrics – means they are important to a wide range of stakeholders.
- We were also interested in the metrics with relevance to large industrial water users
- So we had 88 separate results
- Most of the metrics were captured by these 5 tools.
- Coal-fired power plantCement plantOil refineryPulp and paper millConsumers Energy Power plantGrand Haven, Michigan on Lake MichiganLafarge North America Cement plantBath, Ontario on Lake OntarioEscanaba Paper Company, Subsidiary of NewPage Corporation Paper millEscanaba, Michigan on Lake MichiganShell Canada Oil refinerySarnia, Ontario on St. Clair River
- Lake MichiganLarge site – we realized that all of the pilot facilities were large sites with many complex processes and we need to get a handle on them first.Surface water intakes from Pigeon Lake and Lake Michigan (3,500 feet off shore)Surface water discharges to Lake Michigan (2,600 feet off shore)
- This diagram is simplified. Understanding water flows is complicatedSurface Water Intakes (~738 MGD)Surface Water Discharge (~738 MGD)Groundwater (0.734 MGD)
- Boundary of the site can affect results.Discharge is 2,600 feet off shore
- Discuss water withdrawal and discharge and how GRI defines withdrawal to be water drawn into the site boundary for ‘any use’ Storm water is not used. Affects GWT calculation of consumption.
- Results can vary significantly due to different definitions. We learned that it is really important to pay attention to definitions…This was eye opening for us and the industry.Industries are getting requests for information on water use and consumption – Make sure you understand what they really want.Reported consumption at the plant provided on the surveyReported consumption at the plant PLUS evaporation from quarry and stormwater pond (EWP and WFN)Withdrawal minus discharge (storm water collected on site is not accounted for as a withdrawal because it is not ‘used’ – just collected and discharged. (GWT based on GRI)
- Capacity ~75,000 barrels of crude oil daily
- Data needs can be significant
- Potential for significant valueTells a favorable story about Great Lakes water useEnables comparison of water use to available supplyProvides framework for reporting on regulatory environment, best practices and economic benefitsEffective mechanism for identifying gaps in knowledgeNo one tool provides all the answersIncreased understanding of differences between water footprinting and other toolsNo existing tools support optimal allocation of water resources by accounting for environmental, economic & social considerationsDevil in the detailsData precision, site boundaries and metric definitions can significantly affect resultsMeasurements sufficient for regulatory reporting or internal management are often insufficient for metrics calculationsWater budgets can be challenging due to spatial boundary & data availabilityContext is critical to defining valueMetrics alone have limited valueA large water footprint may be sustainable where water supply is sufficient to support the useImportant to consider return flows and contextImpacts must be assessed at the local level and consider:Magnitude and timing of use Location of withdrawal and discharge pointsVolume and quality of dischargeSome metrics are redundant, insufficient or missingMany metrics designed to address water scarcity concernsLess useful for water abundant regionToo much water is often a concernBut metrics not generally designed to address stormwater issuesGrey water footprint found to have limited valueMetrics for recycling/reuse can not account for tradeoffs such as increased energy use, in some cases increased consumption and costsTools only partially address water stewardship evaluation needsPrimary focus is on water quantityInvasive species, habitat loss, legacy contaminants not addressedNo guidance for assessing ecosystem impactsFocused on information gathering and discussion frameworksStructure for describing water stewardship practices but no guidelines for what is “good” or “bad” practice