tom grieb futuregen risk assessment & site evaluation v2 grieb futuregen risk... ·...
TRANSCRIPT
11
FutureGenFutureGen Risk Assessment & Risk Assessment & Site EvaluationSite Evaluation
33rdrd Risk Assessment Network MeetingRisk Assessment Network MeetingImperial College, London, UKImperial College, London, UK
15 August 200715 August 2007
Tetra Tech, Inc.Tetra Tech, Inc.
22
FutureGenFutureGen ProjectProject
Produce electricity & Produce electricity & hydrogen from coal hydrogen from coal using advanced using advanced technologytechnology
Emit virtually no Emit virtually no air pollutantsair pollutants
Capture and Capture and permanently permanently sequester COsequester CO22
33
FutureGenFutureGen DOE Capture Requirements DOE Capture Requirements
275 275 MWMWee
Sequester at least 90 percent of COSequester at least 90 percent of CO22 by weightby weight
Remove > 99 percent of sulfur by weightRemove > 99 percent of sulfur by weight
Emit < 22.7 g Emit < 22.7 g NONOxx per million BTUper million BTU
Emit less than 2.3 grams particulates per million Emit less than 2.3 grams particulates per million BTUBTU
Remove > 90 percent Hg by weightRemove > 90 percent Hg by weight
Anticipated start up in 2012 Anticipated start up in 2012
44
FutureGenFutureGen Risk Assessment Risk Assessment & Site Evaluation& Site Evaluation
Final Risk Assessment Report for the Final Risk Assessment Report for the FutureGenFutureGenProject Environmental Impact Statement (April 2007)Project Environmental Impact Statement (April 2007)
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (May 2007)Draft Environmental Impact Statement (May 2007)
National Energy Technology Laboratory, U. S. National Energy Technology Laboratory, U. S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Fuel (lead Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Fuel (lead agency)agency)
FutureGenFutureGen Alliance, Inc., partnership with NETLAlliance, Inc., partnership with NETL
PotomacPotomac--Hudson Engineering (lead contractor for Hudson Engineering (lead contractor for EIS)EIS)
5
FutureGen Site Alternatives
66
FutureGenFutureGen Risk Assessment Risk Assessment
http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/futuregen/EIS/RA_http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/futuregen/EIS/RA_ALL.pdfALL.pdf
Conceptual Site ModelsConceptual Site Models
Toxicity Data and Benchmark Concentration Effect Toxicity Data and Benchmark Concentration Effect LevelsLevels
PrePre--injection RAinjection RA
PostPost--Injection RAInjection RA
Risk Screening and Performance AssessmentRisk Screening and Performance Assessment
77
FutureGenFutureGen –– Potential Exposure Potential Exposure Pathways & Receptors Pathways & Receptors
88
FutureGenFutureGen Conceptual Site Model Conceptual Site Model
99
Human Health and Ecological Risk Human Health and Ecological Risk Analysis: Example sitesAnalysis: Example sites
1010
PrePre--Injection Release Scenarios Injection Release Scenarios
1111
Failure Rate Frequencies for Pipelines & Failure Rate Frequencies for Pipelines & Injection WellsInjection Wells
Parameter Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4
Pipeline Length, km 84 99 0.8 18
Frequency of Failure by Rupture per year 0.005 0.0059 5.0E-05 0.002
Probability of at least one failure over lifetime 0.22 0.25 0.002 0.05
Number of Injection Wells 1 10 1 1
Frequency of Failure per year** 2.02E-05 2.02E-04 2.02E-05 2.02E-05
Incidents of Failure in 50 years 1.01E-03 1.01E-02 1.01E-03 1.01E-03
1212
Flow Conditions For COFlow Conditions For CO22 Released From Released From Pipeline Pipeline
Pipeline Temperature was 95°F (35°C) and absolute pressure was 2,200 psi.
Modeling assumes internal pipeline temperature, pressure, & emission rates remain constant during release.ID=inner diameter; m – meter; cm – centimeter; km – kilometer; kg – kilogram; sec – second.
Supercritical density = 850 Kg/m3 at 35°C & 2,200 psi. *Choked flow is based on CO2 properties.
8 km
1623,500568,000
32.5 cm
4
8km
1627,9501,290,000
49.1 cm
3
8 km
1624,444723,100
36.7 cm
2
0.8 km
164,44472,310
36.7 cm
1
(kg/sec)Release Duration (sec)CO2 Mass (kg)Relative Pipeline Diameter & LengthSite
1313
Phase Diagram For COPhase Diagram For CO22
1414
COCO22 Release From Pipeline, Jackson Release From Pipeline, Jackson Dome, MS. (June 2007)Dome, MS. (June 2007)
1515
““PipelinePipeline--walkwalk”” Methodology For Evaluating Methodology For Evaluating Effects Of GasEffects Of Gas--phase Pipeline Releasesphase Pipeline Releases
Summarize meteorological conditions Summarize meteorological conditions
Simulate the area potentially affected Simulate the area potentially affected •• SLAB ModelSLAB Model•• 112 atmospheric states112 atmospheric states•• Repeat simulation every 300 m along length of pipelineRepeat simulation every 300 m along length of pipeline
Estimate population affected for each Estimate population affected for each atmospheric stateatmospheric state•• Impact footprint determined for five gaseous concentration levelImpact footprint determined for five gaseous concentration levelss
Characterize potential exposure along Characterize potential exposure along entire pipelineentire pipeline
1616
Expected Population Impact to 0.51 Expected Population Impact to 0.51 ppmvppmv HH22SS
Site 2
Site 1Site 4
Site 1
1717
PostPost--Injection Release ScenariosInjection Release Scenarios
Upward leakage through Upward leakage through caprockcaprock, catastrophic , catastrophic failure or gradual releasefailure or gradual release
Release through existing faults or induced faultsRelease through existing faults or induced faults
Lateral or vertical leakage into nonLateral or vertical leakage into non--target aquiferstarget aquifers
Upward leakage through inadequatelyUpward leakage through inadequately--constructed, constructed, abandoned, or unabandoned, or un--documented wellsdocumented wells
1818
Analog Site DatabaseAnalog Site Database
Information on 4 existing injection sites, 16 natural Information on 4 existing injection sites, 16 natural sedimentary sites, and 16 VHM sitessedimentary sites, and 16 VHM sitesIncludes major factors that control• Capacity of a formation to store CO2• Leakage through sealing formations• Leakage or release along faults• Release from deep wells
CO2 flux and cause of release events to surface and consequent effects on humans and biotaProvides CO2 flux rates from existing injection sites and natural sites in sedimentary and volcanic/hydrothermal/metamorphic (VHM) regions
1919
Role of Analog Site Database in Risk AssessmentRole of Analog Site Database in Risk Assessment
2020
Analog Site Database Analog Site Database ––Sites Included Sites Included
SedimentarySheep Mountain, CO
SedimentaryEscalante, UT
SedimentaryGordon Creek, UT
SedimentaryBig Piney – La Barge Area, WY
SedimentaryBravo Dome, NM
SedimentaryMcElmo Dome, CO
SedimentaryJackson Dome, MS
SedimentaryVorderrhon, Germany
SedimentarySt. Johns Dome, AZ-NM
SedimentarySpringerville, AZ
SedimentaryOtway (Pine Lodge, Fault), Australia
SedimentaryOtway (Pine Lodge, Permeable Zone), Australia
SedimentaryOtway (Penola), Australia
SedimentaryFarnham Dome, UT
SedimentaryTeapot Dome, WY
SedimentaryCrystal Geyser-Ten Mile Graben (Fault Zone), UT
Natural CO2 Sites
SedimentaryIn Salah, CO2 Project, Algeria
SedimentaryRangely CO2 EOR Project, CO
SedimentaryWeyburn, CO2 Project, Canada
SedimentarySleipner, North Sea
Existing CO2 Injection Sites
Site TypeLocation/Site
VolcanicMiyakejima volcano, Japan
VolcanicCerro Negro, Nicaragua
VolcanicVulcano Island, Italy
VolcanicSolfatara crater, Italy
VolcanicOldoinyo Lengai volcano, Tanzania
VolcanicArenal volcano, Costa Rica
VolcanicPoas volcano, Costa Rica
Volcanic - hydrothermalDixie Valley Geothermal Field, NV
Volcanic - hydrothermalYellowstone volcanic system, WY
Volcanic - hydrothermalPoggio dell’Ulivo, Italy
Volcanic - hydrothermalLatera, Tuscany, Italy
Volcanic - hydrothermalAlban Hills, Italy
VolcanicMasaya volcano, Nicaragua
Volcanic - hydrothermalMatraderecske, Hungary (Fault)
Volcanic - hydrothermalMatraderecske, Hungary (Permeable Zone)
VolcanicMammoth Tree Kill Area, CA
Sedimentary -hydrothermalMesozoic carbonate, Central Italy
Volcanic/Geothermal Sites
Site TypeLocation/Site
2121
COCO22 Emission Rates at 28 Analog SitesEmission Rates at 28 Analog Sites
2222
Case Study Example Case Study Example –– Site ASite A
2323
Sequestered Gas Leakage Analysis Sequestered Gas Leakage Analysis
*Lifetime = 5,000 years
9.9 x 10-1
1 x 10-6
1 x 10-5
1 x 10-4
1 x 10-4
2 x 10-1
1 x 10-6
P(at least 1 failure)*Release Scenario Analog Site(s) Release Rate Annual Frequency
Upward leakage through caprock (catastrophic failure)
Stable sedimentary formations, underground natural gas storage
sites- 2 x 10-10
Upward leakage through caprock (gradual release)
Teapot Dome, Farnham Dome 0 - 0.17 µmol/m2-s 4 x 10-5
Release through existing faults Pine Lodge, (STOMP Model) 1 - 30 µmol/m2-s 2 x 10-8
Release through induced faults Pine Lodge, (STOMP Model) 1 - 30 µmol/m2-s 2 x 10-8
Leakage into non-target aquifer (unknown structural/stratigraphicconnections)
Crystal Geyser 5 - 170 µmol/m2-s -
Leakage into non-target aquifer (lateral migration)
Pine Lodge 1 - 30 µmol/m2-s 10-6 per 5,000 yr
Upward Migration(undocumented deep wells)
Underground natural gas and industrial storage sites 0.2 - 11 * 103 MT per yr 10-3 per year
24
Sequestered Gas Leakage AnalysisSequestered Gas Leakage Analysis
*Lifetime = 5,000 years
9.9 x 10-1
1 x 10-6
1 x 10-5
1 x 10-4
1 x 10-4
2 x 10-1
1 x 10-6
P(at least 1 failure)*Release Scenario Analog Site(s) Release Rate Annual Frequency
Upward leakage through caprock (catastrophic failure)
Stable sedimentary formations, underground natural gas
storage sites- 2 x 10-10
Upward leakage through caprock (gradual release) Teapot Dome, Farnham Dome 0 - 0.17 µmol/m2-s 4 x 10-5
Release through existing faults Pine Lodge, (STOMP Model) 1 - 30 µmol/m2-s 2 x 10-8
Release through induced faults Pine Lodge, (STOMP Model) 1 - 30 µmol/m2-s 2 x 10-8
Leakage into non-target aquifer (unknown structural/stratigraphicconnections)
Crystal Geyser 5 - 170 µmol/m2-s -
Leakage into non-target aquifer (lateral migration) Pine Lodge 1 - 30 µmol/m2-s 10-6 per 5,000 yr
Upward Migration(undocumented deep wells)
Underground natural gas and industrial storage sites 0.2 - 11 * 103 MT per yr 10-3 per year
2525
Uncertainties in Uncertainties in FutureGenFutureGen Risk Risk Assessment ResultsAssessment Results
Uncertainties in release rates and their probabilitiesUncertainties in release rates and their probabilities
Analysis based on affected population Analysis based on affected population remaining constantremaining constant
Design of Design of FutureGenFutureGen facilities and sequestration facilities and sequestration methodology evolvingmethodology evolving
Exposure and toxicity parameters conservatively chosenExposure and toxicity parameters conservatively chosen
PeerPeer--reviewed health effect levels not available for COreviewed health effect levels not available for CO22for all durations for all durations
2626
FutureGenFutureGen Risk Assessment SummaryRisk Assessment Summary
Potential serious effects exist from release of COPotential serious effects exist from release of CO22 to to workers in immediate vicinity of pipeline (or wellworkers in immediate vicinity of pipeline (or well--head) head) puncture or rupturepuncture or rupture
HH22S releases from pipeline or wellhead could result in S releases from pipeline or wellhead could result in health effects to local population at distances up to health effects to local population at distances up to several kilometers from the release pointseveral kilometers from the release point
Likelihood and consequence of releases of COLikelihood and consequence of releases of CO22 from from above plume footprint are not significantabove plume footprint are not significant
HH22S releases from abandoned, undocumented, or poorly S releases from abandoned, undocumented, or poorly constructed wells lead to potential human health riskconstructed wells lead to potential human health risk
2727
Risk Assessment Team Impressions Risk Assessment Team Impressions
Potential risks of transport and sequestration in the selected Potential risks of transport and sequestration in the selected saline formations are quantifiable and manageablesaline formations are quantifiable and manageable
Transport of compressed gas is a significant considerationTransport of compressed gas is a significant consideration
Well integrity is a key issueWell integrity is a key issue
Emphasis on frequencies not probabilities in CCS Emphasis on frequencies not probabilities in CCS investigationsinvestigations
Analog approach suitable for site risk assessments and basis Analog approach suitable for site risk assessments and basis of developing regulatory frameworkof developing regulatory framework
Recommend riskRecommend risk--based MMV program based MMV program
Public support for local Public support for local FutureGenFutureGen site selectionsite selection