Risk Assessment and Management of Carbon Capture and Storage in a Canadian Context

Transcription

1 Risk Assessment and Management of Carbon Capture and Storage in a Canadian Context Learning from Nuclear Waste Disposal for CO 2 Disposal/Underground Drinking Water Contamination Risks by CO 2 Leakage Dr. Mamadou Fall Associate Professor Department of Civil Engineering, University of Ottawa, Canada M. Fall Risk Assessment and Management of Carbon Capture and Storage in a Canadian Context Presentation #1 Learning from Nuclear Waste Disposal for CO 2 Disposal/Underground Drinking Water Contamination Risks by CO 2 Leakage by M. Fall Presentation #2 Underg. Drinking Water Contamination Risks by CO 2 : New Numerical Tool for Coupled THMC Studies of CO 2 -Water-Rock Interactions in Deep Geological Repository for CO 2 by Z. Li and M. Fall M. Fall 1

2 Learning from Nuclear Waste Disposal for CO 2 Disposal/Underground Drinking Water Contamination Risks by CO 2 Leakage Learning from Nuclear Waste Disposal? Underground Drinking Water Contamination Risks by CO 2 Leakage Relationship of the Research Conducted to IRMF Source: McKone et al. M. Fall RA AND RM FOR GEOLOGICAL DISPOSALS (GD) OF CO2 : LESSONS LEARNED FROM GD OF NUCLEAR WASTES Concept of Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for Nuclear Wastes Disposal Source: NWMO DGR Objectives and Ongoing Works Part # 1 Review of nuclear wastes GD (GD-NW) RA methods Review of CO 2 GD (GD-CO 2 ) RA methods Comparative analysis of RA methods for GD-NW and GD-CO 2 Conclusions: Lessons Learned from GD- NW for RA of GD-CO 2 Concept of Deep Geological Disposal of CO m Part # 2 Review of GD-NW RM methods Review of GD-CO2 RM methods Comparative analysis of RM methods for GD-NW and GD-CO 2 Conclusions: Lessons Learned from GD- NW for RM of GD-CO 2 Source: McKone et al. 2

3 Learning from Nuclear Waste Disposal for CO 2 Disposal/Underground Drinking Water Contamination Risks by CO 2 Leakage Learning from Nuclear Waste Disposal? What is a deep geological disposal (DGD) of nuclear wastes (NW)? Why comparing DGD of NW to DGD of CO 2? What can we learn from DGD of NW for DGD of CO 2? Source: McKone et al. M. Fall What is deep geological disposal (DGD) of nuclear wastes (NW) Different types of radioactive waste and their sources M. Fall 3

4 Learning from Nuclear Waste Disposal? What is deep geological disposal (DGD) of nuclear wastes (NW) Source: S.Borufka Source: VAE Nuclear wastes are stored in special containers Learning from Nuclear Waste Disposal? What is deep geological disposal (DGD) of nuclear wastes (NW) Fresh groundwater m Host rock formation Natural barrier NW Repository Deep saline groundwater M. Fall Nuclear wastes are buried in deep underground rocks 4

5 Learning from Nuclear Waste Disposal? What is deep geological disposal (DGD) of nuclear wastes (NW) Source: wikipedia What is deep geological disposal (DGD) of nuclear wastes (NW) M. Fall 5

6 What is deep geological disposal (DGD) of nuclear wastes (NW) What is deep geological disposal (DGD) of nuclear wastes (NW) Where may a deep repository for nuclear wastes go in Canada? M. Fall 6

7 What is deep geological disposal (DGD) of nuclear wastes (NW) Source NWMO Source NWMO OPG Project of deep geological disposal of nuclear wastes in Bruce Site (Ontario) What is deep geological disposal (DGD) of nuclear wastes (NW) Source NWMO Natural barrier OPG Project of deep geological disposal of nuclear wastes in Bruce Site (Ontario) Source NWMO 7

8 Learning from Nuclear Waste Disposal for CO 2 Disposal/Underground Drinking Water Contamination Risks by CO 2 Leakage Learning from Nuclear Waste Disposal? What is deep geological disposal (DGD) of nuclear wastes (NW) Why comparing DGD of NW to DGD of CO 2 What can we learn from DGD of NW for DGD of CO 2 Underground Drinking Water Contamination Risks by CO 2 Leakage Relationship of the Research Conducted to IRMF Source: McKone et al. M. Fall Why comparing DGD of NW to DGD of CO 2? There are obvious technical as well as social and political similarities between the technologies of DGD of NW and DGD of CO 2 The advocates of CCS should have much to learn from the experience with nuclear power or deep geological disposal of nuclear wastes 8

9 Why comparing DGD of NW to DGD of CO 2? Deep geological disposal of hazardous wastes, and both techniques require at least on natural barrier against migration Shafts Wells NW m Source: McKone et al. CO2 Natural rock barriers Why comparing DGD of NW to DGD of CO 2? Leakage and consequences on the biosphere are the main safety issues in both techniques biosphere DGR SourceNWMO, modified Deep Geological Repository for Nuclear Wastes 9

10 Why comparing DGD of NW to DGD of CO 2? Leakage and consequences on the biosphere are the main safety issues in both techniques m Source: McKone et al. Deep Geological Disposal of CO2 Why comparing DGD of NW to DGD of CO 2? High quantity of gas will be generated within the DGR for NW High pressure of the gas and its leakage is a key safety issue in DGR for NW Origin of the gas Corrosion Radiolysis Microbial degradation of organic wastes 10

11 Why comparing DGD of NW to DGD of CO 2? DGR Why comparing DGD of NW to DGD of CO 2? High quantity of gas will be generated within the DGR for NW High pressure of the gas and its leakage is a key issue in DGR for NW 8 MPa Gas pressure and composition expected in a DGR in Ontario 11

12 Why comparing DGD of NW to DGD of CO 2? Source: IPCC 2005 Source: Alkanand Mueller, 2008 Source: G. Thomson Why comparing DGD of NW to DGD of CO 2? Research on RA and Safety on DGD of NW for many decades The long struggle and many failures in various countries in earlier attempts to search for, explore and select sites for RW repositories and the experience from more recent and successful site selection procedures could be a valuable source of information forthoseworkingonco 2 disposal. Example: The pitasseiiin Germany Between 1967 and 1978 radioactive waste was placed in storage; brine contaminated with radioactive caesium-137, plutonium and strontium was leakingfromtheminesince1988butwasnotreported untiljune

13 Learning from Nuclear Waste Disposal for CO 2 Disposal/Underground Drinking Water Contamination Risks by CO 2 Leakage Learning from Nuclear Waste Disposal? What is deep geological disposal (DGD) of nuclear wastes (NW) Why comparing DGD of NW to DGD of CO 2 What can we learn from DGD of NW for DGD of CO 2 Underground Drinking Water Contamination Risks by CO 2 Leakage Relationship of the Research Conducted to IRMF Source: McKone et al. M. Fall What can we learn from DGD of NW for DGD of CO 2 First lesson: Features Events Processes (FEPs) Methodology 2nd lesson: Uncertainties and their Treatment in DGD of NW 3rd lesson: Involvement of all communities 4th lesson: THMC Processes 4th lesson: Use of Natural Analogs 5th lesson: International collaborations 13

14 First lesson: Features Events Processes (FEPs) Methodology Nuclear waste storage programs around the world have developed and adopted a disciplined approach to define relevant scenarios for safety/performance or risk assessment of DGR for NW. The Features-Events- Processes (FEP) methodology for identifying and ranking the importance of various attributes of the site, containment approach, and human behavior may provide a useful framework for evaluating the safety of geologic disposal of CO 2. First lesson: Features Events Processes (FEPs) Methodology What are FEPs? Feature: An object, structure, or condition that has a potential to affect repository system performance. features would include the characteristics of the site, such as the type of geological formation the repository is to be built on, the presence of fault, natural barrier, existence of shafts or cap rock thickness, mineralogy of the storage zone, abandoned wells, location of the wells etc. or 14

15 First lesson: Features Events Processes (FEPs) Methodology What are FEPs? Event: A natural or human-caused phenomenon that has a potential to affect repository system performance and that occurs during an interval that is short compared to the period of performance (or events include things that may or will occur in the future such as: glaciations, droughts, earthquakes, or formation of faults, new exploration wells) Source: Nagra First lesson: Features Events Processes (FEPs) Methodology What are FEPs? Process: A natural or human-caused phenomenon that has a potential to affect repository system performance and that occurs during all or a significant part of the period of performance (or events include things that are ongoing: e.g., erosion, buoyancy-driven flow, mineral traping, solubility trapping, geomechanical changes in the caprock, etc.) 15

16 First lesson: Features Events Processes (FEPs) Methodology FEP list developed for DGD of NW? The NEA (Nuclear Energy Agency) International FEP list is the mother of all NEA lists Comprehensive NEA FEP list from NEA FEP database (NEA 2006) contains 2000 FEPs from 10 international programs in 6 countries First lesson: Features Events Processes (FEPs) Methodology Development of a more complete FEP database for the geological storage of CO 2 is needed Source: Maul (2011) 16

17 What can we learn from DGD of NW for DGD of CO 2 First lesson: Features Events Processes (FEPs) Methodology 2nd lesson: Uncertainties and their Treatment in DGD of NW 3rd lesson: Involvement of all communities 4th lesson: THMC Processes 4th lesson: Use of Natural Analogues 5th lesson: International collaborations 2nd lesson: Uncertainties and their Treatment in DGD of NW Sources of uncertainty and their causes Propagation of uncertainty in system performance analysis or RA Treatment of uncertainties 17

18 Sources of uncertainty and their causes Uncertainties occur in three major areas: Parameter and data uncertainties: Scenario uncertainties: Uncertainties in future states of the disposal systems Modelling uncertainties: (i) uncertainty in the formulation of a conceptual model of a disposal system for a given scenario; (ii) uncertainty in the mathematical model; (iii) uncertainty in the computer code Sources of uncertainty and their causes Performance Indicator Source: P. Marschall-NAGRA 18

19 Sources of uncertainty and their causes Parameter and Data uncertainties: The main sources of parameter and data uncertainties Measurement errors Paucity of data (e.g., limited hydrologic data from test wells) Misinterpretation of data Spatial variation of parameters and scaling issues (e.g., data may be available from small volumes, but may be used in the models to represent large volumes) Assumptions regarding behavior of the system Sources of uncertainty and their causes Scenario uncertainties: The main sources of scenario uncertainties Uncertainty associated with the completeness of scenarios Uncertainty associated with the probability of occurrence of a scenario Uncertainty associated with the estimation of the consequence of scenarios system 19

20 Sources of uncertainty and their causes Modelling uncertainties: The modelling uncertainties include Conceptual model uncertainty for a given scenario: the sources include simplification of the real system; assumption made; boundary conditions; initial conditions; spatial and temporal scale of the considered processes; preconceived notions about the behaviour of the system resulting from past experience Mathematical model uncertainties: the main sources are: lack of knowledge regarding relevant processes and couplings; a limited capability to mathematically represent processes and their couplings; insufficient data to describe the processes; extrapolation of the models to temporal and spatial scales beyond those for which they are tested Computer codes uncertainties: coding/computational errors (errors discretization of differential equations, evaluation of integrals, tec.); computational limitations, user error 2nd lesson: Uncertainties and their Treatment in DGD of NW Sources of uncertainty and their causes Propagation of uncertainty in system performance analysis Treatment of uncertainties 20

21 Scenario uncertainties Propagation of uncertainty in system performance analysis The effect of uncertainty propagates through the overall performance or risk assessment Parameter & data uncertainties Modelling uncertainties 2nd lesson: Uncertainties and their Treatment in DGD of NW Sources of uncertainty and their causes Propagation of uncertainty in system performance analysis Treatment of uncertainties 21

22 Treatment of uncertainties Scenario uncertainties: Treatment of uncertainty in selection and screening of scenarios can be addressed best with a technically sound methodology for scenario selection and screening such as use of established criteria such as physical reasonableness, probability of occurrence, consequences, and regulations; experts opinion also Scenario uncertainties: FEPs analysis and scenario development approach? 22

23 Scenario uncertainties: Comprehensiveness of the FEP list? Scenario uncertainties: Comprehensiveness of the FEP list? 23

24 Scenario uncertainties: An example of application of FEP to Yuca Mountain Project Source: Helton et al. Scenario uncertainties: An example of application of FEP to Yuca Mountain Project Source: G. Freeze (2010) 24

25 Scenario uncertainties: An example of application of FEP to Yuca Mountain Project Source: G. Freeze (2010) Scenario uncertainties: An example of application of FEP to Yuca Mountain Project Source: G. Freeze (2010) 25

26 Scenario uncertainties: An example of application of FEP to Yuca Mountain Project Source: G. Freeze (2010) Treatment of uncertainties Modeling uncertainties: Verification Benchmarking Software Quality Tests Use of well etablished code Lab. experiments Field measurements Natural Analogs Judgment of Experts 26

27 Treatment of uncertainties Parameter uncertainties: The following methods are used to deal with parameter uncertainty - Statistical methods (experimental design procedures, Monte Carlo simulation) - Stochastic models - Interpolation techniques such as kriging - Differential analysis technqiues What can we learn from DGD of NW for DGD of CO 2 3rd lesson: Involvement of all communities (academic, local, technical, etc.) involve the scientific community, local communities and the political system in advisory and decision making roles. For example, for the For the WIPP project, it was very useful to involve national academies and the scientific community at large from the beginning. the programs of nuclear waste in certain countries, were stopped partly because of ineffective communication with interested parties, and partly because of the attitude of "trust us, we know best that these programs were perceived to have. 27

28 What can we learn from DGD of NW for DGD of CO 2 4th lesson: Use of Natural Analogues 5th lesson: International collaborations 4th lesson: Use of Natural Analogues CO2 is naturally trapped in many rock formations around the world. These formations will be useful for understanding and validation of the safety of disposal of CO2. Image Source: Copyrighted material, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, 2005, (used by permission). 28

29 Risk Assessment and Management of Carbon Capture and Storage in a Canadian Context Presentation #1 Learning from Nuclear Waste Disposal for CO 2 Disposal/Underground Drinking Water Contamination Risks by CO 2 Leakage by M. Fall Presentation #2 Underg. Drinking Water Contamination Risks by CO 2 : New Numerical Tool for Coupled THMC Studies of CO 2 -Water-Rock Interactions in Deep Geological Repository for CO 2 by Z. Li and M. Fall M. Fall RISKS OF CONTAMINATION OF UNDERGROUND DRINKING WATER BY CO 2 DISPOSAL: CO 2 LEAKAGE CONSEQUENCES??? Concerns - Groundwater acidity will increase due to the dissolution of CO 2 in subsurface waters - Increased acidity may mobilize toxic metals and other contaminants present in rocks - Fluid pressure increase could force salted brine into drinking water reserves Objectives and Ongoing Works - Identification of the potential consequences of CO 2 leakage on UDW quality - Development of a simulator and modelling framework for the prediction and assessment of the consequences of CO 2 leakage on the quality of UDW - Application of the simulator to a Canadian CO 2 disposal site - Identification of methods of control and remediation of UDW contamination by CO 2 leakage - Integration into the general IRMF of CCS 29

30 Potential effects on groundwater chemistry ph decreases (immediate) Weathering will lead to increased alkalinity/tds Increase in major ions (Ca, Mg, Fe, K, Na, Al, Mn) Release of toxic metals (e.g., As, Pb, Ni, Cr.) Release of organic contaminants Movement of saline water into fresh water RISKS OF CONTAMINATION OF UNDERGROUND DRINKING WATER BY CO 2 DISPOSAL: CO 2 LEAKAGE CONSEQUENCES Sources: Statistics Canada, Environment Accounts and Statistics Division, special compilation using data from Environment Canada, Municipal Water Use Database. 30

31 RISKS OF CONTAMINATION OF UNDERGROUND DRINKING WATER BY CO 2 DISPOSAL: CO 2 LEAKAGE CONSEQUENCES Carbon Capture Sequestration Could Contaminate Berlin s Water Supply ByP Gosselinon26. April 2011 General CO2 sequestration process. Source: Gosselin RISKS OF CONTAMINATION OF UNDERGROUND DRINKING WATER BY CO 2 DISPOSAL: CO 2 LEAKAGE CONSEQUENCES 31

32 RISKS OF CONTAMINATION OF UNDERGROUND DRINKING WATER BY CO 2 DISPOSAL: CO 2 LEAKAGE CONSEQUENCES Risk = Hazard x Consequences Leakage RISKS OF CONTAMINATION OF UNDERGROUND DRINKING WATER BY CO 2 DISPOSAL: CO 2 LEAKAGE CONSEQUENCES CO 2 Leakage (Hazard) disaster Consequences or Impacts? Biosphere subsurface UDW 32

33 Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality Siirila et al Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality Siirila et al

34 RISKS OF CONTAMINATION OF UNDERGROUND DRINKING WATER BY CO 2 DISPOSAL: CO 2 LEAKAGE CONSEQUENCES Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality RISKS OF CONTAMINATION OF UNDERGROUND DRINKING WATER BY CO 2 DISPOSAL: CO 2 LEAKAGE CONSEQUENCES Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality (con`t) 34

35 RISKS OF CONTAMINATION OF UNDERGROUND DRINKING WATER BY CO 2 DISPOSAL: CO 2 LEAKAGE CONSEQUENCES Issues/Regulations Identification of the issues of UDW quality alteration due to CO2 leakage UDW quality criteria set by the regulatory agencies Leakage Scenarios D A B C Simulator Develop. Probabilistic Simulations MODELING Related to IRMF-Step 1 & 2 Related to IRMF-Step 4 Related to IRMF-Step 4 RISKS OF CONTAMINATION OF UNDERGROUND DRINKING WATER BY CO 2 DISPOSAL: CO 2 LEAKAGE CONSEQUENCES SIZE OF THE AREA AFFECTED km 2 m 2 unacceptable dm 2 acceptable cm 2 days months years kyears Time to CO 2 leakage consequences on UDW 35

36 RISKS OF CONTAMINATION OF UNDERGROUND DRINKING WATER BY CO 2 DISPOSAL: CO 2 LEAKAGE CONSEQUENCES Development of a Coupled Thermo- Hydro-Mechanical-Geochemical (TMHC) ModelingToolto assessthe impacts of CO2 leakage on the quality of the UDW RISKS OF CONTAMINATION OF UNDERGROUND DRINKING WATER BY CO 2 DISPOSAL: CO 2 LEAKAGE CONSEQUENCES??? 36

37 ??? Dissolution As + Porosity Acid water Ca e.g. Solid Ca As Na Precipitation - Porosity 37

38 T THMC Coupling C THMC M H FLOW CHART OF THE RESEARCH CONDUCTED BY DR. FALL S TEAM AND RELATIONSHIP TO IRMF Integration of Lessons learned from Deep Geological Disposal of Nuclear Waste Issues/Regulations Identification of the issues of UDW quality alteration due to CO2 leakage UDW quality criteria set by the regulatory agencies UDW quality indicator* Leakage Scenarios D A Adequate UDW Quality * [contaminant]; ph; TDS B C Simulator Develop. Probabilistic Simulations MODELING Control/Reduction UDW quality indicator* Consequences [Contaminant] Leakage Rate Acidity Groundwater (ph) Impacts Related to IRMF-Step 1 & 2 Related to IRMF-Step 4 Related to IRMF-Step 4 Related to IRMF-Step 4 Related to IRMF-RM Related to IRMF-Step 1-5 & RM UDW contamination control and reduction methods UDW acidity control and reduction methods UDW TDS control and reduction methods Related to IRMF-Step 5 TDS Regulatory quality criteria Integration of Lessons learned from Deep Geological Disposal of Nuclear Waste UDW quality indicator* Comparison with Unacceptable Acceptable Unacceptable Acceptable *[contaminant]; ph; TDS Relat. to IRMF-Step 4 &5 38

39 Risk Assessment and Management of Carbon Capture and Storage in a Canadian Context Presentation #1 Learning from Nuclear Waste Disposal for CO 2 Disposal/Underground Drinking Water Contamination Risks by CO 2 Leakage by M. Fall Presentation #2 Underg. Drinking Water Contamination Risks by CO 2 : New Numerical Tool for Coupled THMC Studies of CO 2 -Water-Rock Interactions in Deep Geological Repository for CO 2 by Z. Li and M. Fall M. Fall New Numerical Tool for Coupled THMC Studies of CO 2 -Water-Rock Interactions in Deep Geological Repository for CO 2 by Zhenze Li Mamadou Fall 39

40 Numerical Tool for THMC Study Flac3D: explicit finite-difference program; TOUGHREACT (TR): integral finite-difference codes for non-isothermal multiphase reactive flow in porous media. Hazardous waste disposal Environmental assessment Unsaturated hydrogeology Geotechnical engineering TOUGHREACT T Flac3D σ,ε k T k T k T,φ σ' η,ρ k h D e H k h,φ D e M NA C Coupling of Two Software P', T', φ', k' Damage model dd, dσ Flac3D P, T TOUGHREACT Legend D, σ, ε, p, q Historical Output Data Transfer Codes Flac3D Plotting 40

41 Time Series of Algorithm Save Flac3D TOUGHREACT Save Initialization Damage model dd, dσ Restore σ i-1,ε i-1 Flac3D P', T', φ', k' P i, T i Restore P i-1,s gi-1,t i-1 TOUGHREACT t i Save Save Restore σ i,ε i P', T', φ', k' Restore P i,s gi,t i Damage model dd, dσ Flac3D P i+1, T i+1 TOUGHREACT t i+1 Validation of Numerical Tool A series of gas injection tests were modeled; Implement elasto-plastic damage constitutive model; Conducted Flac-TR integrated simulation. Gas Collection Hole Po=1.0 bar Rock Sample Confining Pressure Pc Gas Injection Hole Pi 41

42 Test 1 Incremental injection pressure Damage induced permeability change Constant confinement pressure Cont Four stages; 3 fittings; Agree well; But, TOUGHREACT alone (Hydraulickxyz) cannot catch well the coupled fluid flow & mechanical effects (deformation, damage). 42

43 Test 2 Incremental confining pressure Volumetric strain-permeability coupling Comparison With Experiment 43

44 Future works Development of the simulator continues Validation tests will continue Against laboratory data Against field data Application to a Canadian CO 2 disposal site 44