CCR Closure Cost Savings through Nature-based Solutions.pdf

John Watrous, Stantec
Josh Running, Stantec
Amanda Ludlow, Stantec

Description

Nature-based Solutions for CCR Closure Authors Mr. John Watrous - United States - Stantec Mr. Josh Running - United States - Stantec Ms. Amanda Ludlow - United States - Stantec Abstract Employing nature-based solutions (NbS) in CCR Unit closure can substantially reduce construction costs while supporting water treatment and management goals and investing in natural capital improvements. Real-world scenarios of natural capital development opportunities that support attaining carbon, biodiversity, and other environmental, social, and governance (ESG) goals are presented. Closure-by-Removal (CbR) is extremely expensive when compared to Closure-in-Place (CiP). The costs for CbR can be 400-1000% of CiP costs, which themselves can regularly range between $20-100 million. Fill material to replace the excavated CCR is a significant part of CbR costs. Not only are the costs of buying, transporting, and placing the fill material significant, so too is the cost of land necessary to source the millions of yards of soil for harvest. And even though the CCR is removed, regulatory closure is not achieved until the groundwater meets appropriate site criteria. Wetlands associated with NbS can provide treatment to groundwater and runoff. By employing NbS in CCR CbR projects, pollinator grasslands, low-lying wetlands, and water features are developed and the need for fill material is reduced, savings millions of dollars. In developing habitat, investments in natural capital grow as the vegetation and ecosystem mature.

 
May 15th, 1:30 PM May 15th, 2:00 PM

CCR Closure Cost Savings through Nature-based Solutions.pdf

Grand Rapids, Michigan

Nature-based Solutions for CCR Closure Authors Mr. John Watrous - United States - Stantec Mr. Josh Running - United States - Stantec Ms. Amanda Ludlow - United States - Stantec Abstract Employing nature-based solutions (NbS) in CCR Unit closure can substantially reduce construction costs while supporting water treatment and management goals and investing in natural capital improvements. Real-world scenarios of natural capital development opportunities that support attaining carbon, biodiversity, and other environmental, social, and governance (ESG) goals are presented. Closure-by-Removal (CbR) is extremely expensive when compared to Closure-in-Place (CiP). The costs for CbR can be 400-1000% of CiP costs, which themselves can regularly range between $20-100 million. Fill material to replace the excavated CCR is a significant part of CbR costs. Not only are the costs of buying, transporting, and placing the fill material significant, so too is the cost of land necessary to source the millions of yards of soil for harvest. And even though the CCR is removed, regulatory closure is not achieved until the groundwater meets appropriate site criteria. Wetlands associated with NbS can provide treatment to groundwater and runoff. By employing NbS in CCR CbR projects, pollinator grasslands, low-lying wetlands, and water features are developed and the need for fill material is reduced, savings millions of dollars. In developing habitat, investments in natural capital grow as the vegetation and ecosystem mature.