A Study of the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project Based on Life-Cycle Stressor-Effects Assessment
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
— FINAL REPORT— March 3, 2000 A Study of the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project Based on Life-Cycle Stressor-Effects Assessment Prepared for the Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County, Washington Scientific Certification Systems Oakland, California T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S SECTION 1 — Introduction 1 1.1. Background 1 1.1.1. Environmental Impacts of Electricity Generation 1 1.1.2. Scientific Certification Systems 1 1.1.3. The Chelan County PUD No. 1 2 1.2. Study Overview 2 1.3. Study Goals 3 1.4. Study Deliverables 4 SECTION 2 — Calculation Methodology 5 2.1. LCSEA Technical Framework 5 2.2. LCSEA Protocols 5 2.3. Key Study Indicators 9 2.3.1. Ecosystem Disruption from Direct Physical Disturbance 11 2.3.2. Other Indicators 12 2.3.2.1. Water Resource Depletion 12 2.3.2.2. Fossil Fuel and Uranium Resources Depletion 12 2.3.2.3. Greenhouse Gas Loading 13 2.3.2.4. Acidification and Ground Level Ozone Loadings 13 S ECTION 3 — Goal and Scoping Definition 14 3.1. System Function and Functional Unit 14 3.2. Study Scope 16 3.3. System Description 16 3.3.1. General Description of the Lake Chelan Project 16 3.3.1.1. Ownership and Operation 16 3.3.1.2. Physical Description of the Project 17 3.3.1.3. Location and Geography 18 3.3.2. General Description of the WSCC Power Production Pool 19 3.3.2.1. Geographic Territory 19 3.3.2.2. Electricity Generation 19 3.3.2.3. Electricity Transmission and Delivery 21 3.4. Key Assumption for Calculating the WSCC Indicators 22 Section 4 — Inventory 23 4.1. Inventory Data Sources 23 4.2. Inventory Assumptions and Conventions 23 4.2.1. Raw materials 23 4.2.2. Electricity Inputs (Dam Construction) 23 4.2.3. Fuel Inputs 24 4.2.4. Emissions to Air 24 4.2.5. Discharges to Water 24 4.2.6. Solid and Hazardous Wastes 24 4.2.7. Processes Excluded from Inventory Calculations 25 4.3. Inventory Results 25 4.3.1. Raw Material Resource Requirements 25 4.3.2. Emissions and Wastes 26 4.3.3. Comparing the LCI Profiles of the Lake Chelan Project and the WSCC Average 27 S ECTION 5 — Classification 28 5.1. Identify Potential Stressor Effects Networks 28 5.2. Assign Inputs and Outputs to Identified Networks 28 S ECTION 6 — Energy Resources Depletion 29 S ECTION 7 — Renewable and Mineral Resource Depletion 31 7.1. Water Resource Depletion 31 7.2. Net Mineral and Metal Depletion 31 S ECTION 8 — Ecosystem Disruption 32 8.1. Calculation of the Ecosystem Disruption Indicator 32 8.1.1. Measuring Deviation from Baseline 32 8.1.2. Accounting for Temporal Nature of Disruptions 32 8.1.3. Key Species 32 8.1.4. Calculating the Indicator for General Habitats 33 8.2. Lake Chelan Project Ecosystem Disruption 34 8.2.1. Terrestrial and Aquatic Habitat 34 8.2.2. Key Species 36 S ECTION 9 — Emission Loadings 37 9.1. Greenhouse Gas Loadings 37 9.2. Acidifying Chemical Loading 39 9.3. Ground Level Ozone Loading 40 9.4. Stratospheric Ozone Depletion Loading 41 9.5. Hazardous Chemical (Air) Loading 41 9.6. Eutrophication and TOC Loading 42 9.7. Total Suspended Solids Loading 42 9.8. Hazardous Aquatic Loading 42 9.9 Thermal Loading 42 S ECTION 10 — Residual Hazardous Waste 43 10.1. Ash Wastes 43 10.2. Radioactive Waste 43 S ECTION 11 — Study Results 44 11.1. Summary of LCSEA Results 44 11.2. Conclusions and Recommendations 45 11.2.1. Ecosystem Disruption Indicator 45 11.2.2. Other Indicators 46 11.2.3. Environmentally Preferable Energy Source 47 11.2.4. Recommendations 48 S ECTION 12 — Practitioner Qualifications 49 Bibliography 52 Appendices 1. Life-Cycle Stressor Effects Assessment (LCSEA): 1999 Operational Manual 2. The Lake Chelan Project Ecological Review 3. Peer Review Comments 4. SCS Response to Peer Review Comments Report Acronyms The following acronyms appear in the study report. AES Applied Ecological Services CFS Cubic feet per second ECF Environmental characterization factor GWh Gigawatt hour HAPS Hazardous Air Pollutants, Title III of 1990 Clear Air Act Amendments HEP Habitat Evaluation Procedure HSI Habitat Sustainability Index IOU Investor owned utilities IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ISO International Organization for Standardization ISO-14000 Series of environmental management standards developed by international delegates under the auspices of the ISO Technical Committee (TC) 207 ISO-14042 Life-cycle impact assessment standard created as part of the ISO-14000 series LCA Life-cycle assessment LCI Life-cycle inventory LCIA Life-cycle impact assessment LCSEA Life-cycle stressor-effects assessment MW Megawatt NMIR No Measured Indicator Result WSCC Western System Coordinating Council RDF Resource depletion factor SCS Scientific Certification Systems, Inc. SW Soil and Water, Ltd. SCF Stressor characterization factor T/A Tons per annum TOE Tons of oil equivalents, a common unit of measure applied to energy resources ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The following individuals made major contributions toward the completion of this study. Scientific Certification Systems, Inc: Stanley Rhodes (SCS) Jim Wazlaw (CNEX) Chet Chaffee (SCS) Fjalar Kommonen (Soil and Water, Ltd.) Steve Apfelbaum (Applied Ecological Systems) Linda Brown (SCS) Chelan County PUD No. 1 Gregg Carrington Through its support in demonstrating the use of LCSEA methodology in the study of energy generation systems, the Chelan PUD has made an important contribution to the advancement of science-based claims of environmental impacts and achievement in the energy generation sector. Front cover photo: Mike Barnhart, Lake Chelan Chamber of Commerce Photo Library, www.lakechelan.com The Lake Chelan Project LCSEA Study Report Final Report March 3, 2000 S ECTION 1 — Introduction 1.1. Background 1.1.1. Environmental Impacts of Electricity Generation The environmental ramifications of electric power generation have been the focus of considerable attention over the past thirty years. Depending on the energy source (e.g., coal, natural gas, hydro-power, nuclear power), a wide array of environmental issues have been raised, such as the release of gases contributing to global warming, acidification and smog; the depletion of mineral resources; the disruption of eco-systems; and the production of non-treatable hazardous wastes. These impacts can vary significantly not only between energy sources, but also among power production systems using the same energy source, depending on differences in the technologies in place, as well as differences in the surrounding environments. As concern for the environment has grown, so too has interest in comparing and contrasting the relative environmental merits and disadvantages of various power production systems. But while many studies have been conducted and a variety of impacts have been documented, the analyses have varied considerably in terms of methodology, depth and focus, making comparisons between systems difficult to impossible. Nevertheless, government agencies and stakeholder groups have been pressing ahead with the establishment of “green power” criteria and similar initiatives in an attempt to reduce the impacts of electric power production and consumption. These issues have highlighted the need for a uniform methodology to assess and compare the relative environmental impacts of various power production systems on a level playing field — one that is comprehensive enough in scope to encompass a broad range of environmental issues related to power production. 1.1.2. Scientific Certification Systems Operating as an established neutral third-party certifier of environmental claims in the U.S., Scientific Certification Systems (SCS) of Oakland, California has studied the issues related to environmental claims and certification in the energy sector. Based on this research, SCS has established a program based on internationally standardized life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA) protocols to evaluate and certify the relative environmental Scientific Certification Systems Page 1 The Lake Chelan Project LCSEA Study Report Final Report March 3, 2000 merits and tradeoffs of various energy generation systems using a comprehensive, internationally standardized assessment methodology. In addition, SCS independently certifies power generation systems as “Environmentally Preferable” sources, if all relevant indicator results are lower than the comparable indicator results for the regional system power pool average. 1.1.3. The Chelan County PUD No.1 The Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County (the “Chelan PUD”) owns and operates the Lake Chelan Hydroelectric Project (the “Lake Chelan Project”) located in the city of Chelan, Washington, near the Columbia River. The Chelan PUD operates the hydroelectric project according to the terms and conditions contained in the existing license No. 637, issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which expires in 2004. 1.2. Study Overview In this study, the Chelan PUD commissioned SCS to conduct an independent assessment of the Lake Chelan Project. The purpose of this assessment was to demonstrate a scientific approach for evaluating and reporting the relative environmental impacts of a specific energy generation source. For the study, SCS has utilized an assessment technique known as “life-cycle stressor effects assessment” (“LCSEA”), a rigorous life-cycle impact assessment methodology conducted in accordance with international standards (ISO 14042). LCSEA was developed specifically for the purpose of evaluating the environmental performance of industrial systems, calculating environmental impact indicator values for a relevant set of local, regional and global impact indicators, and supporting comparative assertions. The project was broken down into four major tasks: Task 1 — Project Scoping, Data Collection, and Preliminary Calculations Task 2 — Data Review and Analysis for Ecosystem disruption (Terrestrial and Aquatic Habitat and Key Species) Indicators Scientific Certification Systems Page 2 The Lake Chelan Project LCSEA Study Report Final Report March 3, 2000 Task 3 — Preparation of LCSEA Report, including Environmental Performance Rating and Corresponding Eco-Efficiencies Compared to the Regional Power Pool, for Submission to Peer Review 1 Task 4 — Issuance of Final Report, Environmental Performance Rating and Eco- Efficiencies.