tom grieb futuregen risk assessment & site evaluation v2 grieb futuregen risk... ·...

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