Sep 12, 1981 - Hazards from Emerging Energy Technologies ... 145 ... petroleum from surface-mineable domestic tar-sand ore. 34 ..... Associate Director for the Biomedical and Environmental Research .... Agency Geothermal Power Plant (NCPA Project No. ..... At the Athabasca Deposit in Alberta, Canada, surface mining.
•y •'
••'••-"" -.-.•-'•
UCRL-53197 Thesis
Environmental, Health, Safety, and Socioeconomic Impacts Associated with Oil Recovery from Tar-Sand Deposits in the United States Jeffrey Irwin Daniels (Doctor of Environmental Science and Engineering, Thesis)
September 12, 1981
DISCLAIMER This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the University of California nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial products, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement recommendation, or favoring of the United States Government or the University of California. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or the University of California, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
UCRL-53197 Thesis
Environmental, Health, Safety, and Socioeconomic Impacts Associated with Oil Recovery from Tar-Sand Deposits in the United States Jeffrey Irwin Daniels (Doctor of Environmental Science and Engineering, Thesis)
Manuscript date: September 12, 1981
LAWRENCE LIVERMORE LABORATORY University of California • Livermore, California • 94550
Ir
Available from: National Technical Information Service • U.S. Department of Commerce S28S Port Royal Road • Springfield. VA 22161* $12.00 per copy • (Microfiche S3.50 )
The final report of Jeffrey Irwin Daniels is approved.
Robert Mah, Committee Chair
University of California, Los Angeles
iii
DEDICATION
"Man can live in harmony with his environment if he's willing to take responsibility for creating that harmony." — Florence L. Harrison, Ph.D. Assistant Division Leader Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
To Danita, our parents, and my brother and sister for their love, encouragement, friendship, and patience; to my Uncle Morris for his support; to my colleagues, especially Dr. Lynn Anspaugh, Yvonne Ricker, and Barbara Fox for their knowledge, cooperation, and constructive criticisms; and to the faculty and staff of the Environmental Science and Engineering Program at UCLA for their interest and guidance. All of these people created the necessary harmonious environment at home, at work, and at school to make it possible for me to achieve a doctoral degree in Environmental Science and Engineering from UCLA.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. List of Figures
xi
List of Tables
xiii
Glossary Acknowledgments
xvii xxi
Vita Abstract
xiii xxv
Preface Introduction Resource Characteristics and Properties Tar Sands: Definition Bitumen Properties and Distinguishing Characteristics
1 14 15 15 . .
Evolution of Tar-Sand Deposits U.S. Tar-Sand Resources Bitumen Recovery Methods Parameters Influencing Selection of a Recovery Process . . Federal Regulatory Framework Clean Air Act Clean Water Act Safe Drinking Water Act Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Toxic Substances Control Act Occupational Safety and Health Act
16 17 18 21 22 23 24 25 25 25 26 26
National Historic Preservation Act
27
Geological Survey Regulations
27
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
28
Proposed Regulations
28
Other Regulations Process Descriptions Surface Mining and Oil-Extraction Processes Coking Solvent Hot Water Cold Water
vii
29 30 30 32 37 41 43
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page No. In Situ Processes
44
Combustion
45
Steam Drive Upgrading Processes
49 51
Commercialization Environmental Analysis and Assessment Environmental, Health, Safety, and Socioeconomic Impacts. . Surface-Mining Activities Land Disturbance Atmospheric Emissions Noise Light
57 58 58 59 59 60 63 64
Worker Health and Safety
64
Water
65
Waste Generation and Disposal
66
Community Infrastructure Surface Retort or Solvent Processes Land Disturbance Atmospheric Emissions Noise Worker Health and Safety Water Waste Generation and Disposal Community Infrastructure
66 67 67 67 76 76 77 78 79
In Situ Combustion or Steam-Injection Processes
81
Land Disturbance Atmospheric Emissions Noise
81 83 91
Worker Health and Safety
91
Water
93
Waste Generation and Disposal
99
Community Infrastructure Elaboration of Socioeconomic Considerations
viii
100 102
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page No. Environmental Control Technologies Atmospheric Emission Controls Water Pollution Control Methodologies Land Preservation and Reclamation Risk Assessment Atmospheric Effects Surface-Water Contamination Ground-Water Contamination
104 106 Ill 113 114 .120 125 126
Land Subsidence and Induced Seismicity
127
Land-Surface Contamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
127
Worker Health
128
Conclusions Recommendations Appendix A: Technical Description of a Conceptual "Phased Multi-Bench Open-Pit Surface Mine" for Excavacating Tar-Sand Ore Appendix B: Methodology for Estimating Impacts of Atmospheric Emissions on Ambient Air Quality
131 132
134
138
Appendix C: Preliminary Cost Estimates for Sandia's Downhole Steam Generator
142
Appendix D: The Use of Bioassays to Estimate Health Hazards from Emerging Energy Technologies . . . Bibliography
ix
145 153
LIST OF FIGURES Figure No.
1
2
3
Page No.
Location of the six largest tar-sand deposits in Utah Schematic diagram of a representative 20,000-bbl/d commercial surface-retort system for extracting petroleum from surface-mineable domestic tar-sand ore
34
Schematic diagram of a representative 20,000-bbl/d commercial surface-solvent system for extracting petroleum from surface-mineable domestic tar-sand ore
4
20
39
Schematic diagram of an experimental hot-water process for the potential commercial extraction
5
6
of bitumen from surface-mineable tar-sand ore in Utah
42
Schematic diagram of a representative 20,000-bbl/d commercial in situ forward-combustion procedure for extracting petroleum directly from underground tar-sand deposits in the U.S
47
Schematic diagram of a representative 20,000-bbl/d commercial in situ reverse-combustion procedure for extracting petroleum directly from underground tar-sand deposits in the U.S
47
xi
Page No. Schematic diagram of a representative 20,000-bbl/d commercial in situ steam-injection procedure for extracting bitumen directly from underground tarsand deposits in the U.S
50
Diagram of a conceptual phased multi-bench openpit surface mine for excavating tar-sand ore . . . .
135
Maximum xu/Q as a function of plume height
140
Most plausible pathway for mutagenic and carcinogenic induction in humans exposed to genetic toxicants
147
xii
LIST OF TABLES Table No. 1
2
Page No. Comparison of liquid-condensate characteristics of different bitumens Comparison of results from the simulated distillation of bitumen-liquid products
3
4
5
53
53
Mole percent of C-j to Cc gases detected after coking bitumen from various sources
54
Comparison of coke characteristics from different bitumens
54
Estimated controlled criteria-pollutant atmospheric emission rates and control technologies for the typical "phased multi-bench open-pit surface mine" planned for use at the proposed 20,000 bbl/d commercial diatomaceous-earth tar-sand oil-recovery facility near McKittrick, California
6
Estimated controlled criteria-pollutant atmospheric emission rates and controltechnologies for a proposed 20,000-bbl/d commercial tar-sand surface-retort process
7
61
69
Estimated controlled criteria-pollutant atmospheric emission rates and controltechnologies for a proposed 20,000 bbl/d commercial tar-sand surface-solvent process
xiii
70
le No. 8
9
Page No Estimated ambient-air-auality impact for controlled stack-gas emissions of criteria pollutants from a proposed 20,000-bbl/d commercial tar-sand surfaceretort system
71
Estimated ambient-air-quality impact for controlled stack-gas emissions of criteria pollutants from a proposed 20,000-bbl/d
10
11
12
13
commercial tar-sand surface-
solvent system
73
Average composition of the product gas from the TS-2C in situ combustion experiment
85
Estimated emission rates and ambient-air-quality impacts from the uncontrolled release of product gases from a conceptual 20,000-bbl/d commercial in situ tar-sand combustion process
87
Estimated emission rates and ambient-air-quality impacts from the uncontrolled release of product gases from steam generators associated with a conceptual 20,000-bbl/d commercial in situ steam-injection tar-sand project
90
Emission-rate estimates of uncontrolled S0«, NO , and TSP pollutants from steam-injection systems in Kern County, California, and Vernal, Utah, with fuel-consumption rates normalized to 6700 bbl/d
14
92
Concentrations of selected effluents in water from in situ tar-sand experiments: Comparison of experimental data with standards
xiv
97
Page
e No. 15
Air-pollution-control systems potentially suitable for reducing emissions of criteria pollutants
16
17
18
C-l
(i.e., TSP, SOg, N0 X , HC, and CO) and H 2 S from commercial tar-sand projects
107
Estimated uncontrolled emissions from a prototype 5-MBtu/h downhole steam-generator
110
Water-pollution control technologies potentially suitable for removing contaminants from wastewater streams produced by commercial tar-sand oil-recovery processes
112
Likelihood-of-occurrence of effects from the operation operation of commercial tar-sand oil-recovery procedures
115
Representative input parameters for the downholesteam-delivery-system cost case-study performed by
C-2
D-l
Sandia National Laboratories
143
Tabulation of capital and operating costs required for a 10-MBtu/h non-vented downhole-steamdelivery system
144
Bioassays to test for presence of mutagens in energy-technology effluents
149
xv
GLOSSARY ACRONYM af
Acre-feet
API
American Petroleum Institute
bbl BOD Btu
Barrel Biochemical Oxygen Demand British thermal unit
CAA
Clean Air Act
CaO
Calcium oxide (lime)
CaS0 3
Calcium sulfite
CFR COp
Code of Federal Regulations Carbon dioxide
CO
Carbon monoxide
COD
Chemical Oxygen Demand
cP CR
Centipoise Threshold concentration of SOp for growth reduction (ppmv)
CWA dBA
DOE EDTA EPA GR
Clean Water Act Sound pressure level expressed in decibels with frequencies weighted according to the "A" scale. The A-weighted scale is a frequency response curve that simulates the response of the human ear. Department of Energy Ethylenediaminetetra-acetic acid Environmental Protection Agency Growth response
HpS
Hydrogen sulfide
KGRA
Known Geothermal Resource Area
L,
Average day/night sound level.
It is the A-weighted
equivalent sound level for a 24-hour period, with an additional 10-decibel weighting imposed on the equivalent sound levels occurring during night-time hours of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
xv ii
GLOSSARY (continued) ACRONYM LETC
Laramie Energy Technology Center
LLNL L-R
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
M mD
Million
MEG mm MSHA Na 2 C0 3
Lurgi-Ruhrgas Company Millidarcy (permeability unit) Multimedia Environmental Goals Millimetre Mining Safety and Health Act Sodium carbonate National Ambient Air Quality Standards National Commission on Air Quality
NAAQS NCAQ NH 3
Ammonia
NHPA
National Historic Preservation Act
N0 2
Nitrogen dioxide Nitrogen oxides
N0 x NPDES NTA
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Nitrilotriacetic acid
PL
Office of Oil and Natural Gas/Resource Applications U.S. Department of Energy Occupational Safety and Health Act Fraction of the growth potential lost per ppmv of SOp
PM
Particulate matter: considered to consist of any airborne
ONG/RA OSHA
solid particles and low vapor-pressure liquid droplets with diameters less than a few hundred micrometres.
ppmv PSD psig
Particulate-
matter measurements in the United States are made most frequently with a high-volume sampler that collects total suspended particulates (TSP) on a glass-fiber filter by 3 drawing air through the filter at about 1.5 m /min. Parts per million by volume Prevention of Significant Deterioration standards Pounds per square inch gauge
xviii
GLOSSARY (continued) ACRONYM RCRA SA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Seasonal average of SOp exposure
SDWA SMCRA SOp
Safe Drinking Water Act Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act Sulfur dioxide
SOHIO
Standard Oil of Ohio
THC
Total hydrocarbons
TS-1C
Tar-sands reverse in situ combustion field test number 1
TS-1S
Tar-sands steam-injection field test number 1
TS-2C
Tar-sands echoing in situ combustion field test number 2
TSCA TSP
UIC
Toxic Substances Control Act Total suspended particulates: considered to be a measurement of the particulate matter (PM) suspended in ambient air when the high-volume sampling method is used. Underground Injection Control program
USGS
United States Geological Survey
xix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Assessments, Office of Environmental Protection, Safety and Emergency Preparedness, has been conducting technology assessments of the evolving energy technologies. The purpose of these is to evaluate the potential environmental, health and socioeconomic impacts of each technology as it moves towards commercialization, in as quantitative a manner as possible. The assessments identify where further information is needed, provide an analysis of potential environmental, health, and socioeconomic consequences of each developing technology and define research and development (R&D) needed to ensure environmentally acceptable commercialization. The text of this manuscript represents material appearing in Technology Assessment: Environmental, Health, and Safety Impacts Associated with Oil Recovery from U.S. Tar-Sand Deposits. I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. Lynn R. Anspaugh, who directed and supervised the research which forms the basis for the manuscript, and Ms. Yvonne E. Ricker who along with Dr. Anspaugh and myself was a coauthor of the tar-sand oil-extraction technology assessment funded by the U.S. Department of Energy. Gratitude is extended to the following people and organizations for their contributions, cooperation, and assistance: Dr. George J. Rotariu, in the Technology Assessments Division, Office of Environmental Protection, Safety and Emergency Preparedness of the U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.; Dr. Arnold J. Goldberg, Manager, Fossil Fuels Programs, Technology Assessments Division, Office of Environmental Protection, Safety and Emergency Preparedness of the U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.; the Division of Oil and Gas, particularly Mr. H.R. (Bob) Anderson, Office of Fossil Energy of the U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.; the Environmental Control Technology Branch, especially Dr. Henry F. Walter, Office of Environmental Protection, Safety and Emergency Preparedness of the U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.; Mr. Leland C. Marchant and his colleagues on the Tar-Sand Project at
xxi
the U.S. Department of Energy Laramie Energy Technology Center, Laramie, Wyoming; members of the Downhole Steam-Generator Project of the Geoenergy Technology Department, particularly Dr. Burl Donaldson and Dr. Carolyn Nl. Hart, of Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico; Dr. Alex Oblad, Dr. James Bunger and their associates at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah; Ms. Carolyn Mangeng, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico; Dr. George Neeson, Syncrude Canada, Inc., Ft. McMurray, Alberta, Canada; Dr. WesPatrick of the Earth Sciences Division, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California; and finally, members of the Environmental Sciences Division, Analysis and Assessment Section, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, principally Ms. Barbara Fox. This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the University of California nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial products, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or the University of California. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government thereof, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
xx ii
VITA
December 26, 1951 — Born, San Mateo, California 1974 — B.A., University of California, Los Angeles 1978 ~ M.S., California State University, Northridge 1979 to Present — Senior Scientist, Environmental Sciences Division Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 1971 to 1979 — Administrative Assistant, Center for the Health Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles 1978 ~ Teaching Assistant, National Science Foundation Student Science Training Program, California State University, Northridge
PUBLICATIONS 1.
J.I. Daniels, The Survival of Non-Growing Populations of E. coli, M.S. thesis, California State University, Northridge, Northridge, CA (1978).
2.
J.I. Daniels, History of Prior Federal Action and NEPA Documentation for NCPA Project No. 2, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, UCID-18326 (1979).
3.
A.Z. Ullman, B.B. Sokolow, and J.I. Daniels, "Data Base and Methodology for the Estimation of Worker Injury Rates," in Worker Health and Safety in Solar Thermal Power Systems, Volume II, Laboratory for Biomedical and Environmental Science, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, UC12/1212 (1979).
xxiii
A.Z. Ullman, B.B. Sokolow, J.I. Daniels, and P.R. Hurt, "Thermal Energy Storage Subsystems," in Worker Health and Safety in Solar Thermal Power Systems, Volume III, Laboratory for Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, UC12/1213 (1979). J.I. Daniels, L.R. Anspaugh, and Y.E. Ricker, Technology Assessment: Environmental, Health and Safety Impacts Associated with Oil Recovery from U.S. Tar Sands Deposits, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC (in press). J.I. Daniels, L.R. Anspaugh, Y.E. Ricker, and G.J. Rotariu, "Risk Estimates of Impacts from Emerging Tar Sands Technologies," in Proceedings of the International Atomic Energy Agency Symposium on Health Impacts of Different Sources of Energy, Nashville, TN, June 22-26, 1981. J.I. Daniels, L.R. Anspaugh, and J.M. Ondov, Summary of Air-Quality and Atmospheric Guidelines for Oil-Shale Development in the Colorado Piceance Basin, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, UCRL-52992 (in press). J.M. Ondov, L.R. Anspaugh, and J.I. Daniels, "ECT, Oil-Shale Air-Emission Assessment," in Environmental and Safety Engineering Division Fiscal Year 1980 Annual Program Summary, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC (in press).
xxiv
ABSTRACT OF THE FINAL REPORT
Environmental, Health, Safety, and Socioeconomic Impacts Associated with Oil Recovery from Tar-Sand Deposits in the United States by Jeffrey Irwin Daniels Doctor of Environmental Science and Engineering University of California, Los Angeles, 1981 Professor Robert Mah, Chair
ABSTRACT The tar-sand resources of the United States have the potential to yield as much as 36 billion barrels (bbls) of oil. The tar-sand petroleum-extraction technologies now being considered for commercialization in the United States include both surface (above-ground) systems and in situ (underground) procedures. The surface systems currently receiving the most attention include (1) thermal decomposition processes (retorting), (2) suspension methods (solvent extraction), and (3) washing techniques (water separation). Underground bitumen extraction techniques now being field tested are (1) in situ combustion and (2) in situ steam-injection procedures. At this time, any commercial tar-sand facility in the U.S. will have to comply with at least 7 major federal regulations in addition to state regulations; building, electrical and fire codes; and petroleum-industry construction standards. Pollution-control methods
1 bbl of oil = 42 U.S. gallons (159 litres) xxv
needed by tar-sand technologies to comply with regulatory standards and to protect air, land, and water quality will probably be similar to those already proposed for commercial oil-shale systems.
The costs
of these systems could range from about 31*20 to 32.45 per barrel of oil produced. Estimates of potential pollution-emission levels affecting land, air, and water were calculated from available data related to current surface and in situ tar-sand field experiments in the U.S. These data were then extrapolated to determine pollutant levels expected from conceptual commercial surface and in situ facilities producing 20,000 bbl/d. The likelihood-of-occurrence of these impacts was then assessed. Experience from other industries, including information concerning health and ecosystem damage from air pollutants, measurements of ground-water transport of organic pollutants, and the effectiveness of environmental-control technologies was used to make this assessment. Conclusions reached from this assessment are that certain effects are more likely to occur than others. In this final report these effects are discussed and ordered according to their likelihood-ofoccurrence for surface and in situ tar-sand oil-extraction technologies.
xx vi
PREFACE THE LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) is operated by the University of California (UC) for the United States Department of Energy (US DOE). The laboratory is an applied science research and development (R&D) facility that is devoted to achieving specific technical goals in weapons design, energy development, and biomedical and environmental research. The LLNL facility was established on September 2, 1952 as a separate part of what was then the UC Radiation Laboratory (UCRL) at Berkeley, California. It is located about 45 miles southeast of Berkeley, at the eastern end of the rural Livermore Valley in Alameda County. The laboratory complex occupies 640 acres (1 mi ) of land that was once a World-War II Naval-air training station. Dr. E.O. Lawrence was director of the entire UCRL complex (both Berkeley and Livermore) from its inception until his death in 1958. After his death the UCRL complex was renamed the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, Berkeley and Livermore. This name remained until 1971 when the Regents of UC recognized the long-standing de facto autonomy of the programs at the Berkeley and Livermore laboratories, and formally separated them; changing their names to the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory (LLL) and the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL). Then, in 1980, the US DOE decided that the "national" nature of the research performed at LLL should be emphasized in the laboratory's title, and formally requested the Regents of UC to change the name accordingly. The UC Regents complied with this request and in the spring of 1980 LLL became the Lawrence Livermore National Labor atory—LLNL. Today, LLNL employs nearly 7,300 people: • •
approximately 11% are physicists, more than 4% are chemists,
1
/
•
nearly 14% are engineers,
• •
about 43% are "craft and technical" personnel, almost 22% are administrative and clerical workers, and
•
approximately 6% are in "other" job categories (e.g., Protective Service Officers).
The laboratory's operating budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 1981 was more than $426 million.
Dr. Roger E. Batzel is the current director of
LLNL and has been the person responsible for its entire operation since December 1971. While weapons development is the primary mission of LLNL, energy development (e.g., magnetic fusion, geothermal, coal gasification, in situ oil-shale retorting, solar energy, et al. technologies) receives approximately one-half of the laboratory's annual budget.
The
laboratory is also committed to performing biomedical and environmental research.
Dr. Mortimer L. Mendelsohn has been the
Associate Director for the Biomedical and Environmental Research Program (BERP) since 1972. The LLNL Biomedical and Environmental Research Program (BERP) The LLNL-BERP is organized into two research divisions: Biomedical Sciences and Environmental Sciences. These divisions naturally overlap with each other as well as with other research programs at LLNL. This division of BERP-endeavors and their overlapping (or matrix) application achieves a truly multidisciplinary team effort in accomplishing mission-oriented goals related to energy development, and environmental, health and safety issues. Funding for BERP studies was over $13 million during FY 1981. The Biomedical Sciences Division. The Biomedical Sciences Division performs studies concerning the kinetics, genetics, and molecular biology of cellular toxicology. Instrumentation and techniques developed by Biomedical Division researchers conducting biophysical cell studies have improved the cost and precision of
2
methods used for determining the causes of carcinogenicity, chromosome aberrations, and genetic mutations. In addition to his position as LLNL'Associate Director for BERP, Dr. Mortimer L. Mendelsohn is also the Division Leader of the Biomedical Sciences Division. He is assisted in these duties by his deputy, Dr. Barton L. Gledhill. The Biomedical Sciences Division is divided into five sections: • • • •
CYTOPHYSICS - M.A. VanDilla, Section Leader CYTOMORPHOMETRY - B.H. Mayall, Section Leader CELL BIOLOGY AND MUTAGENESIS - A.V. Carrano, Section Leader REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY - R.L. Dobson, Section Leader
•
CYTOCHEMISTRY - R.H. Jensen, Section Leader
The Environmental Sciences Division. The Environmental Sciences Research Program is designed to perform comprehensive studies that address the environmental, health and safety, and societal implications of energy technologies. These comprehensive studies involve determining the kind and concentration of effluent emissions and predicting their mobility in the biosphere; assessing the ecological impacts and damage to human health that could result from exposure to the released effluents; analyzing the societal implications from energy-technology development; and estimating the risks for the entire spectrum of concerns in as quantitative a manner as possible. Studies being performed by scientists in the Environmental Sciences Division are presented in the figure on the next page. Dr. Edward M. Morimoto is the Division Leader for the Environmental Sciences Division and his deputy is Dr. Richard C. Ragaini. Dr. Florence L. Harrison is the Assistant Division Leader for Program Development. The Environmental Sciences Division is also organized into five sections: •
ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT - L.R. Anspaugh, Section Leader
•
AQUATIC SCIENCES - V.E. Noshkin, Section Leader
3
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES RESEARCH PROGRAM FOSSIL FUELS CPAL COMBUSTION
NUCLEAR \ MARSHALL ISLANDS PROJECT
• EMISSIONS OF ADVANCED COMBUSTION SYSTEMS • EFFECTS OF ORGANICS IN' FLYASH ON ECDSYSTEMS
* * • •
X
DOSE ASSESSMENTS TERRESTRIAL RADIOECOLOGY MARINE BIOGEOCHEMISTRY • PLUTONIUM INHALATION
X UFFSHQRE OIL
REACTOR/WASTE DISPOSAL
• EFFECTS OF OIL SEEPS ON AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS
- COASTAL MARINE STUDIES • MARINE ECOSYSTEM EFFECTS OF POWER PLANT POLLUTANTS • RADIATION EFFECTS ON . POLYCHAETE WORMS • TRANSURANIC AEROSOL . MONITORING • MOBILE RADIOLOGICAL LABORATORY
X
ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY • ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
X IN SITU COAL GASIFICATION • GROUNDWATER QUALITY • CONTROL TECHNOLOGY • ECOSYSTEM EFFECTS
X OIL SHALE RETORTING • GROUNDWATER OUALITY • CONTROL TECHNOLOGY • ECOSYSTEM EFFECTS
TAW SAHUS
X
• ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH, AND SOCIOECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
X 6EHEKIC RESEARCH • POLLUTION STRESS ON TERRESTRIAL PLANTS • SUBLETHAL EFFECTS OF PQIIUTANTS • C02 SENSOR DEVELOPMENT
X
NEVADA TEST SITE • PLUTONIUM RESUSPENSION STUDIES • RADIONUCLIDE INVENTORY • OFF-SITE RADIATION SURVEY
GEOTHERMAL I HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT RISK ASSESSMENT OF GEOTHERMAL DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT GEYSERS SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT HOT DRY-ROCK ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT HYDROTHERMAL DIRECT USE ASSESSMENT
OTHERS "I TRANSPORTATION • ASSESSMENT OF PRODUCTIVE CONSERVATION IN URBAN TRANSPORTATION
X LIQUIFIED GASEOUS FUELS • LNG METEOROLOGICAL SUPPORT
X
WASTE MANAGEMENT • HAZARD ASSESSMENT SUPPORT
TOXIC SUBSTANCES • EPA OFFICE OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES SUPPORT
X MISCELLANEOUS • VISIOCEILOMETER DEVELOPMENT • FLUORESCENCE ACTINIDE DETECTOR DEVELOPMENT • HIGH-PURITY SILICON ' ANALYSIS ' LLNL SITE ENVIRONMENT SUPPORT
•
CHARACTERIZATION AND CONTROL - S.W. Mead, Section Leader
•
INSTRUMENTATION, DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT -
•
F.P. Milanovich, Section Leader TERRESTRIAL AND ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES - W.L. Robison, Section Leader
I am a member of the Analysis and Assessment Section. It is the responsibility of my section to perform multidisciplinary studies that carefully analyze and evaluate the environmental, health and safety, and societal acceptability of energy technologies. The disciplines of members of the Analysis and Assessment Section include land-use planning, economics, water-resources administration, health physics, biophysics, and environmental science and engineering. The majority of funding for the Environmental Sciences Division Research Program comes from the US DOE (other funding sources include the US Environmental Protection Agency, the Electric Power Research Institute, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the National Science Foundation). The organization of the DOE under Dr. James B. Edwards' leadership (appointed Secretary of Energy by President Ronald Reagan in 1981) is shown on the next page. The Tar-Sand Technology Assessment was funded by the Technology Assessments Division in the Office of Environmental Assessments, of the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Protection, Safety and Emergency Preparedness. While the Tar-Sand Technology Assessment represents a major emphasis of my internship, I was also involved in other activities. All of my assignments are summarized next. INTERNSHIP ACTIVITIES (October 1979 through June 1981) Upon arriving at LLNL, I was assigned the task of contributing to the first Joint Environmental Study (JES) being written to comply with both California State and US Federal Environmental Protection Regulations. This document concerned the Northern California Power Agency Geothermal Power Plant (NCPA Project No.. 2) being designed for use on the public lands of The Geysers Known Geothermal Resource Area
5
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY TABLE OF ORGANIZATION * SECRETARY James Edwards DEPUTY SECRETARY Hi Hard (Ken) Dav
&
Assistant Secretary Management and Administration William Hcffclfinger (Nominated)
General Counsel R. Tenney Johnson (Nominated)
Assistant Secretary, Congressional, Intergovernmental, and Public Affairs |DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY [Acclng]| Habere Odle, Jr. Robert Mogar (Nominated) UNDER SECRETARY [Acting]| Joe Lagrone
Assistant Secretary International Affairs
Inspector General Economic Regulatory Administration
CT»
Assistant Secretary Nuclear Energy Shelby Brewer (Nominated)
Office of Policy, Planning and Analysis J. Hunter Chiles. Ill
Assistant Secretary Fossil Energy Jan Hares (Nominated)
Assistant Secretary Conservation and Renewable Energy Joseph Tribble (Nominated)
Energy Information Administration J. Erich Evered
Operation Offices Albuquerque Chicago Idaho Nevada Oak Ridge Richland Son Francisco Savannah River
•This chart reflects information available through July 1981.
Assistant Secretary Defense Programs Herman Roser
Assistant Secretary Environmental Protection, Safety and Emergency Preparedness William Vaughan
Office of Energy Research Al Trivelpiece
(KGRA) in northern California. It was my responsibility to document the history of federal actions that were undertaken to ensure environmental protection during the leasing, exploration, development, and utilization of geothermal resources on the public lands of The Geysers KGRA. This contribution to the JES was published by LLNL as a separate document (UCID 18326) to facilitate easy reference. To acquire the necessary documentation, I needed to visit the Bureau of Land Management Office in Ukiah, CA, and the US Geological Survey Office in Menlo Park, CA. Furthermore, due to NCPA's application for a federally guaranteed loan, I also had the opportunity to have discussions with US DOE officials at the DOE San Francisco Office in Oakland, CA. My next assignment was to assist Dr. John Ondov and Dr. Lynn Anspaugh in performing an assessment of air-emissions from oil-shale technologies. This report is being prepared for the Environmental and Safety Engineering Division of the Office of Environmental Protection, Safety, and Emergency Preparedness of the US DOE. The rational for performing this study is based on four important facts: •
•
Oil-shale deposits in the US, particularly in the Green River Formation of the Piceance Basin in northwestern Colorado, represent an enormous potential oil resource (estimated to be 1.2 trillion barrels). Modified in situ oil-shale technologies may be the most applicable for recovery of the majority of the oil-shale resource, because most US deposits are buried so deep beneath the earth's surface that it may not be economically feasible or environmentally acceptable to recover the resource using more conventional mining methods.
•
LLNL has been conducting research and development of a process known as Rubble In Situ Extraction (RISE). Therefore data can be readily obtained during test runs (using Piceance Basin shale) of the LLNL experimental 6 tonne/day simulated RISE retort.
7
•
Major petroleum companies are embarking on R&D to develop a commercial-scale Modified In Situ oil-shale technology for the Piceance Basin. Pilot projects and experimental systems have been demonstrated to be successful by LLNL in California, and by the Rio Blanco Oil Shale Co., and Occidental Petroleum Co. in Colorado.
The RISE method of petroleum extraction involves a large underground retort, typically 20 to 100 m square and 100 to 300 m high. This retort "chamber" is prepared by using conventional mining techniques to bring to the surface about 20% of the shale. The remainder is broken into fragments (rubbelized) with explosives. Ideally the mining and fragmenting should provide uniform size distribution and void fraction within the chamber. Practically, the particles in the retort vary from dust-sized to about 1 m in diameter. After the retort is prepared, it is ignited at the top and a combustion zone is forced downward by a flow of oxygen-containing gas. The resulting heat causes the oil to be released from the shale ahead of the combustion zone. Some of the oil collects at the bottom of the retort and is pumped to the surface; the remainder is carried out of the retort by the gas stream. The RISE process under development by LLNL could be used to recover a substantial amount of the oil (estimates range up to an amount approximately equal to the recoverable oil in the Middle East nations) from the thick deposits of the Piceance Basin in Colorado. For shale oil to be commercially extracted in an environmentally acceptable manner, the industries must comply with federal and state environmental air-quality regulations. Our objectives are 1) to estimate the potential atmospheric emissions from proposed commercial in-situ oil-shale facilities being developed for use in the Piceance Basin of Colorado, and 2) to determine the needs for environmental controls to meet federal and Colorado state ambient air-quality standards, regulations, and recommended guidelines. The project milestones:
8
•
•
•
•
Publications in spring 1981 of measurements of potential inorganic atmospheric emissions from the LLNL RISE L-3 simulated in-situ oil-shale retort. Publication in spring 1981 of measurements of potential organic atmospheric emissions from the LLNL RISE L-3 in-situ oil-shale retort. Publication in summer 1981 of projected atmospheric emissions from experimental oil-shale retorts and preliminary assessment of commercial control needs based on off-gas and product measurements for these retorts. Publication in summer 1981 of an analysis of the applicability, reliability, and economic effectiveness of control-technology options for reducing uncontrolled atmospheric emissions from commercial oil-shale processes.
•
Publication in summer 1981 of an assessment of the potential ambient-air-quality impacts in the Piceance Basin from controlled atmospheric emissions produced by commercial oil-shale facilities.
Next, the Analysis and Assessment Section of the LLNL Environmental Sciences Division was requested by what was then the Office of Technology Impacts, Fossil Technologies Branch, of the Office of Environment in the US Department of Energy (DOE) in Washington, D.C., to prepare two documents concerning tar-sand development in the United States. I was given the responsibility to prepare these reports: A Technology Assessment, Oil Recovery from Tar Sand, and An Environmental Readiness Document, Oil Recovery from Tar Sand. The first report summarizes US tar-sand energy resources and technology options, and then presents and assesses the available data regarding environmental impacts. This includes an analysis of residuals, and an assessment of impacts related to airborne effluents, waterborne effluents, solid wastes, land subsidence, water use, and demands upon socioeconomic systems. Concerns regarding worker health and safety and ecological impacts are addressed in this report.
9
The material from the technology assessment will be condensed into a succinct statement of the "environmental readiness" of the tar-sand oil-extraction technology. The environmental readiness document will be prepared from that material. To assist with the rapid acquisition of information and to develop an understanding of the operations of in situ tar-sand oil extraction processes, I traveled to the Laramie Energy Technology Center (LETC) and its experimental test site. LETC is located in Laramie, Wyoming, and represents one of several Department of Energy research and development centers for fossil-fuel extraction. The personnel at LETC have 8 years of experience with in situ tar-sands techniques. LETC researchers have performed two 2P_ situ tar-sand combustion experiments since 1975 to recover oil from their Vernal, Utah, experimental site: a 10-acre parcel leased from Standard Oil of Ohio (SOHIO) in northeastern Utah. They also have performed a third (steam injection) field-test at the Vernal, Utah, site. Other organizations contacted during the writing of this report include the Getty Oil Co. in Bakersfield, California; Syncrude Canada, Inc., in Alberta, Canada; Sandia National Laboratories, in Albuquerque, New Mexico; and the University of Utah, in Salt Lake City, Utah. My efforts on the oil-shale and tar-sand projects were interrupted for a month during the spring of 1980 when I was given the opportunity to participate on the Synfuels Evaluation Board (SEB) in Washington, D.C. This "Board" consisted of scientists and engineers from the National Laboratories and the US DOE. Our job was to select those proposals concerning the production of synthetic fuels that should receive funding from the $200 million in federal money made available for this purpose. Proposals were evaluated on the basis of the technological merits of the process and the environmental assessment strategy to be used by the proposer. I was assigned to the "solid waste" alternative-fuel feasibility studies. My job was to review the proposals for their intended approach to evaluating the significant environmental, safety, health, and socioeconomic issues associated with the proposed technology.
10
The
deliberative process that I employed included reviewing the environmental, safety, health, and socioeconomic section of these feasibility studies on the following basis: •
The proposer's understanding of the potential impacts based on currently available data.
•
The proposer's capability to perform or to have performed an
•
environmental analysis. The comprehensiveness of environmental information to be developed.
•
The adequacy of the environmental assessment methodology to produce necessary information (e.g., modeling).
The technological evaluation was performed by Dr. William Holm and his colleagues from Argonne National Laboratory. The Argonne scientists were chosen because their projects involved the engineering aspects of solid-waste energy technologies (e.g., methane production, and refuse-derived fuels for boilers). All of us in the "solid waste group" were sequestered for four weeks in the basement of the Forrestal Building on Independence Avenue in Washington, D.C., with other groups of scientists and engineers evaluating other proposals. For my efforts I received letters of commendation from Maxine Savitz, then Deputy Assistant Secretary for Conservation and Solar Energy, and Ruth Clusen, then Assistant Secretary for Environment, both in the US DOE.
I also received a laudatory note from Dr.
Mortimer L. Mendelsohn—my Associate Director at LLNL. In addition to my research activities, I have also been fortunate enough to be invited to attend several meetings, conferences, and workshops: •
•
Environmental Regulation: Solutions to the Regulatory Maze, sponsored by the California Business Law Institute, in San Francisco, CA, on February 26 to 27, 1980. Workshop on Environmental Effects of Enhanced Oil Recovery, sponsored by the US DOE and Brookhaven National Laboratory, in Bozeman, MT, on August 25 to 29, I960.
11
•
•
Strategic Planning for Disposal of Solid Wastes, sponsored by the Center for Energy and Environmental Management, in San Francisco, CA, on October 20 to 21, 1980. Health and Environmental Risk Analysis Program—Contractors Meeting, sponsored by the Human Health and Assessments Division, Office of Health and Environmental Research, Office of Energy Research, US DOE, in Alexandria, VA, on February 3 to 6, 1981.
I was also informed that a paper I coauthored with Dr. Lynn R. Anspaugh, Ms. Yvonne E. Ricker, and Dr. George J. Rotariu, entitled "Risk Estimates of Impacts from Emerging Tar-Sand Technologies," had been accepted for oral presentation, and publication at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) sponsored International Symposium on Health Impacts of Different Sources of Energy. This conference is scheduled for June 22 through 26, 1981 in Nashville, TN. I am very pleased to have been selected to make the oral presentation of this paper at the symposium. The opportunities, experiences, and research activities that I have been able to take advantage of as an employee of the LLNL-BERP Environmental Sciences Division have been professionally rewarding. I have made many contacts in the US and Canada with whom I can exchange ideas, and improve my capabilities as an environmental professional. Furthermore, my colleagues at the laboratory are exceptional scientists, and have expanded my horizons through our exchange of ideas. For the above reasons I will be staying at LLNL after the completion of my internship. In my opinion no other research organization practices better than LLNL that which Dr. Willard F. Libby advocated for the graduates of the Environmental Science and Engineering Program he helped to create at UCLA: The cooperative interaction of many disciplines to resolve the complex problems concerning the environment.
12
For their support, encouragement, patience, and most importantly their cooperation I express my sincerest gratitude to Dr. Lynn R. Anspaugh, Dr. David W. Layton, Mr. Kerry O'Banion, Mr. Charles Hall, Dr. James Kercher, Ms. Yvonne Ricker, Dr. Joe Shinn, Dr. Richard Cederwall, Dr. John Ondov, and especially Ms. Barbara Fox, as well as the other dedicated scientists, engineers and secretaries in the Environmental and Biomedical Sciences Divisions. To paraphrase T.S. Eliot, these are people (and I include myself among them) who recognize "the fact that a problem will certainly take a long time to solve...", who understand that there "...is no justification for postponing the study" and realize "Our difficulties of the moment must always be dealt with somehow." Finally, not too many others have the technical "intuition" that my colleagues, and hopefully I, have evolved from experience analyzing emerging energy technologies. This "intuition", Igor Sikorski defined with regard to his aircraft design, is the "ability to visualize the completed project before it is done and to internalize how the device will perform." It is this acquired visualization that assists us in evaluating the environmental acceptability of emerging energy technologies.
13
INTRODUCTION Oil-price increases and supply interruptions by oil producing and exporting countries have focused attention on the need for the United States to reduce its dependence on foreign oil. This situation has created economic and political incentives for industry and government to examine seriously methods for recovering petroleum from significant domestic tar-sand resources. One recent synfuels cost survey even suggests that tar sands may be a relatively inexpensive synfuel to produce. Current activities in the United States to recover petroleum from tar sands involve experiments and small-scale field projects sponsored by either industry or the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). These research efforts have concentrated on two strategies. One strategy entails mining tar sands and then utilizing surface (above-ground) facilities to separate the petroleum from the sand grains. The separation methods currently receiving the most attention include (1) thermal decomposition (retorting), (2) suspension (solvent extraction), and (3) washing (hot-water separation). The other strategy for obtaining oil from tar sands involves inducing in situ (underground) flow of the hydrocarbon components through the tar-sand formation. The in situ procedures being field tested in the U.S. are combustion methods and steam-injection techniques, both of which are designed to heat the petroleum and drive it to collection wells where the fluids can be brought to the surface. The successful production of oil from tar sands by U.S. research projects and the existence of commercial tar-sand surface-recovery operations in Alberta, Canada, are encouraging indications that U.S. tar-sand resources can be used to augment domestic-oil production. However, because the Canadian surface-recovery methods are not directly applicable to U.S. tar sands and techniques for recovering oil from domestic tar-sand deposits are in an embryonic stage of development; investigators in the U.S. have concentrated primarily on producing technically successful processes. Environmental analyses have therefore been limited in scope.
14
The purpose of this technology assessment is to (1) define the tar-sand resources in the United States, (2) describe research involving representative surface and in situ tar-sand oil-recovery techniques potentially suitable for commercial use, (3) determine the nature and magnitude of the environmental, health, safety, and socioeconomic consequences from commercialization of these technologies, and (4) identify future research needs. This information will provide timely guidance to industry and government for furthering environmentally acceptable commercialization. RESOURCE CHARACTERISTICS AND PROPERTIES TAR SANDS: DEFINITION Tar sands are deposits of consolidated or unconsolidated clastic sediments (e.g., sandstone, limestone, diatomite) that have pore spaces partially or completely saturated with a heavy, viscous petroleum known as bitumen. Easily accessible tar sands, usually from surface outcrops, have been used effectively as roofing tar and asphalt pavement. In underground reservoirs the high viscosity and high specific gravity of tar-sand bitumen produce behavior superficially comparable to that of the heavier crude oils. For example, neither bitumen nor heavy-crude oils flow very well under natural reservoir conditions. Tar-sand deposits, however, may be distinguished from heavy-oil reservoirs because tar sands are generally coarse or fine sedimentary deposits that contain a semi-solid petroleum (bitumen) that cannot be pumped through its confining mineral matrix and collected at a well bore under natural reservoir conditions. Heavy oil, on the other hand, is a very viscous liquid petroleum that, in most circumstances, can be pumped and collected (albeit extremely slowly) under natural reservoir conditions. Thus, the pertinent similarities between heavy oil and tar-sand bitumen are that both are members of the petroleum family of organic substances and both are currently attractive sources of
15
liquid-hydrocarbon fuels, but neither can be economically recovered by the relatively simple techniques used for obtaining typical light-crude oils. Tar-sand reservoirs are also called oil sands, bituminous sands, oil-impregnated rocks, bitumen-bearing rocks, asphaltic rocks, and heavy-oil-producing rocks. BITUMEN PROPERTIES AND DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS The bitumen in tar-sand deposits generally has a high molecular weight, specific gravity, viscosity, and carbon-to-hydrogen ratio (C:H), and may also contain elevated concentrations of sulfur, 2 nitrogen, oxygen and heavy metals. A wide variability in these properties of bitumen may, however, exist within and among different tar-sand reservoirs. For example, the concentration of sulfur in some bitumen deposits in Utah is much lower than that found in Canadian tar sands and in many heavy- and even some light-crude oils; and, even though the heavy-metal content in bitumen may be high in some reservoirs, some heavy-crude oils also contain elevated quantities of 3 heavy metals. Tar-sand bitumen exhibits the following behavior that is characteristic of petroleum-family members, and is useful for tar-sand 2 oil-extraction processes : •
Decreasing viscosity with increasing temperature, and
•
General solubility in strong solvent members of the petroleum family (e.g., benzene and toluene).
The sand-grain mineral composition of tar sand is usually conducive to fluid flow through the mineral matrix; therefore, in many cases the need for mechanical fracturing for in situ recovery is eliminated. The specific characteristics used most frequently to classify and 4-7 identify tar-sand bitumen are
16
•
An API Gravity* generally (as N 0 2 )
24
3
45
40
27
Total
NOx(as N 0 2 )
114
14
111
99
67
None
None
None
None
National amblenta l r - q u a l l t y standard (ug/m)
(avg. time)
EmisslonEmlssion-eontrol technique
Lime injection and scrubbing LoH-sulfur (0.25* by wt) fuel 365
None Ammonia injection (NH3:N0„ ' 1.5) 100
1 y
CO
Fuel-combustion equipment
CO
4
O.S
e
7
4
Total
CO
4
0.5
8
7
4
Retort flue-gas
None
None
None
None
0.9
None
0.9
None
THC
None
Fuel-combustion equipment
THC
0.7
0.1
1.5
1.4
Total
THC
0.7
0.1
1.5
1.4
97
24 h
Retort flue-gas
None
J ? , * w „ efficiency
None
10,000
160
l'h
3 h (6am-9am)
• None
SO
Table 8. (continued)
Emission source0
Atmospheric emission
Emission rate (lb/h)
Estimated maximum amb1 ent air-quality impact (uq/m^jc (g/s) 27
M.3 162
Retort flue-gas
TSP
218
Fuel-combustion equipment
TSP
4
0.6
9
Total
TSP
222
27.6
171
*24 146
National ambientsir-quality standard (ug/m ) (avg. time)
Electrostatic precipitation hone
97 5
154
102
Emission-control technique
260
24 h
Based on projected emission rates, process-design operating parameters, and proposed control technologies for a Lurgi-Ruhrgas (L-R) retort. 26
ro
Flue-gas characteristics for the L-R retort: Volume flow-rate - 24.6 x 10 scf/h (193.4 m / s ) ; stack-gas temperature - 190°F (BP'C); stack height - 250 ft (76 m ) . Stack-gas characteristics for the fossil-fuel-burning equipment associated with L-R retort: Volume flow-rate • 2.8 x 10* scf/h (22 m 3 / s ) : stack-gas temperature * 500"F (260*C); stack height - 250 ft (76 m ) . x, - " maximum 1- or 3-hour averaging-time ground-level concentration; Xo * maximum 8-hour averaging-time grounrf-level concentration; x„. - maximum 24-hour averaging-time ground-level concentration; all calculated using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency "Simple Screening Procedure" (see Appendix B ) .
Emissioncontrol efficiency
(*) 99.5
Table 9.
Estimated amblent-alr-quality Impact for controlled stack-gas emissions of criteria pollutants from a proposed 20,000-bbl/d comnerclal tar-sand surface-solvent system.8
Emission source"
Atmospheric emission
Emission rate (lb/h) (g/s)
Auxiliary boiler flue-gas
S0 2
172
Heating oilfurnace flue-gas
S0 2
2
174
Total
S02
22
Estimated maximum ambientair-quality Impact (ug/m3)c M.3
*8
"24
National amblentair-quallty standard (ug/m ) (avg. time)
Emission-control technique
Emissioncontrol efficiency (I)
ISO
135
90
Low-sulfur (0.251 by wt) fuel
0.3
44
40
27
Low-sulfur (0.25% by wt) fuel
22.3
194
175
117
82
73
49
Amnionia injection (N0x:NH3 • 1.5)
50
9
Ameni a Injection (N0,:NH3 • 1.5)
50
12
365
24 h
Auxiliary boiler flue-gas
NO,(as M>2>
98
Heating oilfurnace flue-gas
N0,(as M>2)
1
0.1
15
13
Total
NO,(as N0 2 )
99
12.1
97
86
56
Auxiliary boiler flue-gas
CO
21
3
20
16
12
None
Heating oilfurnace flue-gas
CO
0.2
0.03
4
4
3
None
Total
CO
21.2
3.03
24
22
15
Auxiliary boiler flue-gas
THC
4.6
0.6
4
4
3
None
Heating oilfurnace flue-gas
THC
0.04
0.01
2
2
1
None
Total
THC
4.64
0.61
100
10,000
160
1 y
1 h
3 h (6am-9am)
*
*•
Table 9,
(continued) Emission
Emission
Atnospneric cnssicn
Estimated maximum ambientair-quality impact (Py/-n3)c
r • CELL IS ELIMINATED
1 or die |
Cancer may not be expressed by cell for several years
If a germ cell, mutation could be expressed as a congenital malformity
| Cancer cells can |
_I(Z ZlL_ Be killed
itol Grow into tumors
iJ
by immune system
- • CELL I S ELIMINATED
Figure D-I. Most plausible pathway for mutagenic and carcinogenic induction in humans exposed to genetic toxicants. Intervention strategies for preventing cancer are included in this figure.* 'Redrawn, with permission of the author, from Rcf. 73, p. 18
147
BIOASSAYS Scientists in the Biomedical Sciences Division of the Biomedical and Environmental Research Program (BERP) at LLNL use several bioassays to "...determine biological effects and then project these effects to humans." Each test is "...different in sensitivity and in what it reveals about the mutagen or carcinogen" being evaluated. These bioassays are presented in Table D-l, along with information concerning the biological system; the measured parameters; average process time; and approximate range of costs (in 1979 dollars) for each bioassay. The Ames Test The Ames test (named after Dr. Bruce Ames who developed the procedure) is used to determine if a chemical compound can cause mutations in bacteria. The bioassay involves exposing mutant strains of the bacteria Salmonella to the compounds that are to be tested, and then observing if the bacteria revert back to normal. Specifically, the strains are unable to synthesize the amino acid histidine and when they revert they can form colonies (grow) on media without histidine. Colonies of reverse-mutated Salmonella are large enough to be seen and counted with the naked-eye, but in most laboratories automatic electronic counters are used. In most cases the mutagenic potency of the chemical substance tested is proportional to the number of revertant colonies. In order for those compounds that require enzymatic activation to express their mutagenic action in the Ames test, it is usually necessary to add the appropriate enzymes. This is necessary because bacteria do not always duplicate the enzymatic responses of mammalian cells. Activating enzymes are usually "...taken from rat livers treated with Aroclor, a compound that induces the synthesis of activating enzymes." The Ames test determines mutagenicity and whether activation is required before a compound can express its mutagenic action. The
148
TABLE D-1.
Bioassays to test for presence of mutagens In energy-technology effluents. Approximate cost range , b per sample
Average Test
System
Bacteria for mutagenesis (Ames test)
Salmonella strains that require histidine for growth
Cultures of mammalian' cells for: Toxicity CH0 C cells Mutagenicity
CHO cells
Chromosome damage
CHO cells
Whole animals for: Chromosome damage
a D c
Male and female mice
Sperm morphology
Adult male mice
Oocyte depletion
Newly born female mice
End point or parameter measured
Growth of reverse-mutated bacteria in colonies without histidine added to media
Growth of cell colonies in presence of test substance Growth of drug-resistant mutants in presence of lethal doses of drugs Sister chromatid exchanges in cells Sister chromatid exchanges in bone marrow cells Abnormal morphology of epididymal sperm Survival of primary oocytes
Reproduced, with permission of the author, from Ref. 73, p. 19. Cost includes testing at several doses to give a dose-response curve. Chinese hamster ovary.
process time, weeks
(1979 dollars)
