The Management of NORM Esidues & NORM Waste Technologies

7/29/2019 The Management of NORM Esidues & NORM Waste Technologies

1/49

IAEAInternational Atomic Energy Agency

The Management of NORM Residues and NORM

Waste Technologies

WORKSHOP ON NORM IN THE OIL AND

GAS INDUSTRY

IAEA Technical Co-operation Project

Monitoring and Assessment of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM)

from the Oil and Gas Industry

QAT 9006


2/49

IAEA

IAEA Qatar 2-3 July 2012 2

Lecture contents

An overview of the principles of waste management

An overview of generation of NORM residues

NORM residues management plan Safety assessments

Strategies for NORM residues management

NORM waste management

Waste Technologies


3/49

IAEA


NORM w aste: Naturally occurring radioactive material(NORM) for which no further use is foreseen

NORM residues: Material that remains from a processand comprises or is contaminated by naturally occurringradioactive material (NORM).A NORM residue may or may notbe waste.

Residues - Waste


4/49

IAEA


Principles of the Safety fundamentals

Principle 7:Protection of present & future generations

People and the environment, present and future, must beprotected against radiation risks

Radioactive waste must be managed in such a way as to avoidimposing an undue burden on future generations; that is, thegenerations that produce the waste have to seek and applysafe, practicable and environmentally acceptable solutions forits long term management. The generation of radioactive wastemust be kept to the minimum practicable level by means ofappropriate design measures and procedures, such as therecycling and reuse of material.


5/49

IAEA


General requirements:

A national policy framework within which NORM residuesare managed;

A strategy for the implementation of this policy, includingthe provision of necessary resources;

An appropriate national legal and organisational

framework within which NORM residue managementactivities can be planned and carried out safely.

General aspects concerning NORM residues management


6/49

IAEA


The residues from processing NORM commonly containnon-radioactive, constituents that may be hazardous.

The national policy and strategy should ensure that themanagement system for NORM residues is consistent with

management systems and requirements for other industrialprocess residues.

The national policy should also ensure that the

management (including decontamination), storage anddisposal of contaminated items are taken into account.

Requirements (cont)


7/49

IAEA IAEA Qatar 2-3 July 2012 7

Member States should determine which industries within

their jurisdiction are concerned with the production andprocessing of NORM, including also a national inventoryof legacy sites, i.e. sites containing NORM residues fromdiscontinued and past practices.

To produce a national overview of operations processing NORMthat are:

Exempted from the requirements of the Standards

Subject to regulations

Management framework


8/49


The regulatory body should have a good understanding ofthe technical and financial circumstances of the operator ofeach facility.

The operators must have available sufficient financial andhuman resources to enable not only the safe and efficientmanagement of NORM residues, but also a capability tomanage all decommissioning and remediation activities.

Management framework - 2


9/49


Non-Radiological Contaminants

Often the impacts of non-radiological contaminants isas important or even more important than radiologicalimpacts (however potential radiological impacts may beperceived as more important by the public)

Non-radiological parameters may need to be assessedto understand the environmental processes driving thedispersion of radioactive contaminations (e.g. pH,

ground water head, etc.)


10/49


Residue management issues

Four possible scenarios to consider Legacy residues from old, closed operation

New residues, being generated from a newoperation

A site has a combination of legacy and currentoperational residues

Legacy residues but still has valuable by-productswhich may be reprocessed

Planned or existing exposure situation?


11/49


Residue management issues

The fundamental safety objective is to protect people and theenvironment from harmful effects of ionizing radiation.

So how do we work to achieve this in residue management?

By establishing a residues management plan according tothe Standards


12/49


Determination :

a) residue streams/items

b) quantities

c) radioactivity concentrations (total and nuclide specific)

d) physical and chemical form of the residue

e) other hazardous properties (non-radiological)

f) residues which have to be designated for disposal as waste.

The Residues management plan


13/49


Waste minimisation

Examples may include:

Recycling of contaminated waters in processing

Salvage and recycling of reagents

Agricultural use, e.g. phosphogypsum

Building materials, e.g. fly ash, phosphogypsum, red mud

Road construction, e.g. slag, phosphogypsum, fly ash

Recycling of contaminated scrap
http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dcement%26ei%3DUTF-8%26fr%3Dyfp-t-203-s%26fp_ip%3DAT%26x%3Dwrt%26js%3D1%26ni%3D20&w=200&h=171&imgurl=www.cement.org%2FSTUCCO%2Fimages%2Fcement.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cement.org%2FSTUCCO%2Ffaq_cements.asp&size=11.1kB&name=cement.jpg&p=cement&type=jpeg&no=1&tt=508,566&oid=28af4f1b08082726&ei=UTF-8


14/49


Disposal of NORM residues as waste

NORM w aste: Naturally occurring radioactive material(NORM)for which no further use is foreseen

Having minimised the amount of waste actually producedwe need to ensure that it is managed safely

Some NORM waste will be suitable for re-injection intowells/boreholes

Some waste may be disposed off by storage in nearsurface facilities

Some may require further conditioning prior to disposal

Some waste may be suitable for safe disposal throughdilute & disperse systems


15/49


The waste management plan will require the compilation of

a variety of waste related safety assessments.

The assessments should focus on: Occupational exposures related to waste management (in the process

plant and in waste management facilities).

Public exposures from effluents and wastes

Environmental impacts of waste management facilities.

Normal operations, maintenance activities and (non radiological)accident conditions.

The NORM waste management plan Safety assessments


16/49


Developing a waste management plan is a complexongoing process.

Development of the plan must commence at an earlystage in the project, well before construction commences.

Potential impacts on the workers, public and environmentmust be quantified and minimized.

Doses must be kept ALARA.

The final disposal option should preferably rely on passivemanagement controls to the greatest extent practicable.

The Regulatory Body must be involved at an early stage.

The waste management plan Overview


17/49


NORM Disposal Methods

Four main categories:

Dilution and dispersal of the waste into the environment, e.g.liquid or gaseous discharges;

Concentration and containment of the waste at authorizedwaste disposal facilities;

Processing of the waste with other chemical waste byincineration or other methods;

Disposal of the waste by returning it back to the initial source ofthe material ( e.g. reinjection into the reservoir).


18/49



For any proposed disposal method requiring regulatory

authorization, the owner/operator must conduct a riskassessment and submit it to the regulatory body for review.

The regulatory body must base its decision on the risk

assessment and must be satisfied that the method meets allrelevant national and international legal and regulatoryrequirements and long term safety requirements.

NORM wastes meeting the clearance criteria specified by theregulatory body may be disposed of as normal (non-

radioactive) waste.


19/49

IAEA IAEA Vienna 19-23 April 2010 19



20/49


Disposal methods for produced water

The large volumes of produced water preclude storage andtreatment as a practicable disposal method.

The impracticability of treatment applies to both radioactive andnonradioactive contaminants, although some form of treatmentis usually needed to meet the requirements set by regulatorybodies with respect to non-radioactive contaminants such asdissolved and dispersed hydrocarbons.


21/49


Disposal methods for produced water

There are three methods for disposal of producedwater:

reinjection into the reservoir,

discharge into marine waters, and

discharge into seepage ponds.


22/49


Reinjection into the reservoir

This method is commonly used onshore and offshore.

There are some technical constraints such as the potential forbreakthrough into production wells.

No added radiological risks would seem to be associated withthis disposal method as long as the radioactive material carriedby the produced water is returned in the same or lowerconcentration to the formations from which it was derived (the

confirmation of which might entail taking some measurements).Should this not be the case, it is important that any regulatorydecision on this method of disposal be supported by anappropriate risk assessment.


23/49


Discharge into marine waters

Many production installations on the continental shelf discharge theirproduced water into estuaries and the sea.

Regulatory requirements with respect to the discharge of NORM in this waydiffer between countries; in some cases there are no requirements at all andin others authorizations are required if activity concentrations exceed the

discharge criteria set by the regulatory bodies.

Some discharges may be subject to international maritime conventions suchas the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping ofWastes and Other Matter, 1972 (the London Convention) and the

Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-EastAtlantic, 1992 (the OSPAR Convention).


24/49


Discharge into marine waters

Risk assessments of discharges from platforms on the Dutch and Norwegiancontinental shelf are based on modelling of dispersion and exposurepathways.

These risk assessments show that the calculated level of risk to humans isstrongly dependent on local conditions (estuary, coastal or open sea) and on

the degree of conservatism applied in the dispersion and exposure pathwaymodelling.

It is important that risk assessments such as these are carried out and usedas the basis for regulatory requirements with respect to this method of

disposal.

In addition the modeling exercises to estimate dose should be based onrealistic assumptions confirmed by site specific measurements.


25/49


Discharge into seepage ponds

Produced water can be discharged to form artificial lagoons,

ponds or seepage pits. Subsequently, the released waters drainto ground leaving radioactive deposits associated with the soilthat eventually require remedial action.

It has been estimated that 30 000 contaminated waste pits andbottom sediment sites exist in coastal Louisiana, United Statesof America.

A key factor in determining the acceptability of this method isthe radiological impact of the contaminated water on localsurface water and groundwater and the potential accumulationof radionuclides in local biota.


26/49


Discharge into seepage ponds-2

The degree of impact depends on several factors, including:

The radionuclide activity levels in the produced water,

The proportion of the activity contained in the deposited salts,

The degree of dilution into local surface water and groundwater,

The volumes discharged.

Risk assessments incorporating mathematical modelling can beused to estimate the local contamination and the resulting dosesreceived by the critical group. The regulatory body will then haveto make a decision regarding the acceptability of the disposalmethods


27/49


Discharge into seepage ponds-3

This method can be considered as a form of waste treatment (concentrateand contain) in that the dissolved radionuclides are converted into soliddeposits.

The solid waste materials, including soil contaminated by the downwardmigration of radionuclides, will have to be collected, packaged and disposed

of in a manner similar to those specified for scales and sludges, ortransported in bulk to a burial site that will isolate the waste more effectivelythan the original seepage pond area.

The land areas require remediation and radiation surveys of residual

contamination to be undertaken in order to obtain clearance from theregulatory body for future unrestricted use of the land. The regulatory bodyneeds to specify the clearance levels to which the land must bedecontaminated.


28/49


Discharge into seepage ponds

In considering this disposal method, the following aspects need to beaddressed:

Selection of a suitable site;

Controls to prevent public access to the area;

Risk assessments to determine the human and environmental impacts, including

long term implications, arising from contamination of soil, groundwater and surfacewater;

Possible need for occupational risk assessments and radiation protectionprogrammes for certain activities or areas, to control exposures and limit the spreadof contamination into public areas;

Quality assurance (QA)

Record keeping programmes e.g. waste inventories;

Transport costs and compliance with transport regulations;

Clean-up and remediation costs;

Disposal of the solid residues as radioactive wastes.


29/49


Disposal of scales and sludge's

Various disposal methods are in regular use:

Discharge from offshore facilities into marine waters (subject tointernational maritime conventions such as the LondonConvention and the OSPAR Convention),

Injection into hydraulically fractured formations, Disposal in abandoned wells, and

Dispersal on land.

Disposal by shallow land burial and

Decontamination by melting of scrap metal is practised on alimited scale.

Deep underground disposal (e.g. Norway, Germany).

Discharge from offshore facilities into


30/49


Discharge from offshore facilities intomarine waters

The discharge of solid NORM wastes from offshore platforms is

an allowed practice on the continental shelf of the UnitedKingdom and Norway (this will change with OSPAR and zeroemission policy).

Operators are required to obtain authorization for thesedischarges and to keep records.

Intentional discharge of solid NORM wastes with produced

water is not allowed on the Dutch continental shelf.

Discharge from offshore facilities into


31/49


Discharge from offshore facilities intomarine waters

This method of disposal can result in the build-up of localized

concentrations of scales around offshore rigs over a period ofyears, and the following aspects need to be addressed:

The need for risk assessments to determine the human and

environmental impacts;

The possible need for occupational risk assessments andradiation protection programmes for certain activities or areas,

to control exposures and limit the spread of contamination intopublic areas;

The need for QA and record keeping programmes such as

waste inventories.

Injection into hydraulically fractured


32/49


Injection into hydraulically fracturedformations

Methods of disposal that employ hydraulic fracturing have been

developed and used for: Offshore generated solid NORM wastes in the Gulf of Mexico.

In considering this disposal method, the following aspects need to beaddressed:

Site selection in relation to the long term stability of the surrounding geologicalstructures and the required depth of emplacement;

The possible need for encapsulation or stabilization (e.g. in concrete);

The need for risk assessments to determine the human and environmental impacts; The possible need for occupational risk assessments and radiation protection

programmes for certain activities or areas, to control exposures and limit the spreadof contamination to public areas;

The need for QA and record keeping programmes such as those for waste

inventories.


33/49


Disposal in abandoned wells

Disposal in abandoned wells involves the emplacement

of NORM solids, whether encapsulated or not, betweenplugs in the casings of abandoned wells. The methodhas been the subject of radiological dose assessmentsand has been described as a preferred option for

onshore disposal of scales and mercury-containingsludge's.


34/49



In considering this disposal method, the following aspects need

to be addressed:

Site selection with respect to the long term stability of the surrounding geologicalstructures and the required depth of emplacement. This should be viewed in relation

to the half life of the longest lived radionuclide226

Ra (1600 years). It should also beborne in mind that long term stability of an abandoned and plugged well will berequired in any case to eliminate the risk of a blow-out.

Possible need for encapsulation and the associated costs.

Need for risk assessments to determine the human and environmental impacts,including long term implications, arising from groundwater contamination.

Possible need for occupational risk assessments and radiation protectionprogrammes for certain activities or areas, to control exposures and limit the spreadof contamination into public areas.

Need for QA and record keeping programmes such as those for waste inventories.


35/49



Proof of long term performance of the isolation of the

waste is likely to be more difficult to provide in the caseof non-radioactive constituents (which do not disappearby decay) than in the case of radioactive constituents.The Dutch Government requires proof of irretrievability

for sludge's disposed of in abandoned wells.


36/49


Dispersal on land

Land dispersal (also known as land spreading or

land farming), with or without dilution, has beendescribed as a long standing waste disposal methodthat has been available to the petroleum industry, butits acceptability for the disposal of sludge's is doubtful

because of the presence of heavy metals and toxichydrocarbons.


37/49


Dispersal on land

The following aspects need to be addressed:

The need for risk assessments to determine the human and environmentalimpacts, including long term implications, arising from groundwatercontamination;

The possible need for occupational risk assessments and radiationprotection programmes for certain activities or areas, to control exposuresand limit the spread of contamination into public areas;

The need for QA and record keeping programmes such as those for wasteinventories;

Transport costs and compliance with transport regulations.


38/49


Disposal by shallow land burial

Shallow land burial is discussed as one of the NORM waste

disposal options in a study made by the American PetroleumInstitute and is described as being practised on a limited scale inTexas and in three other states in the USA. Remediationproblems caused by earthen pit disposal of scale and sludgeappear to be considerable. The presence of non-radioactivecontaminants is one of the more important factors to beconsidered, and makes this method of disposal an unlikely optionfor sludge's.

The radiological assessment of NORM waste disposal in non-hazardous waste landfills is discussed. Operational guidance onpossible shallow ground disposal methods is available.


39/49



The following aspects need to be addressed:

Selection of a suitable site requiring minimum depth ofemplacement. It is particularly important that a suitable

site be selected for such a waste management facility.The site selection process should focus on takingmaximum advantage of desirable characteristics withregard to minimizing the impact of wastes and ensuring

the long term stability of the facility. The various optionsand the final decision will be subject to economic,technical and practical constraints.

Di l b h ll l d b i l


40/49



Factors that need to be considered in the site selection

process include:

Anticipated duration of the facility, i.e. temporary or final;

Climate and meteorology;

Hydrology and flooding; Geography;

Geology, geochemistry and geomorphology;

Seismicity;

Mineralogy; Demography and land use;

Biota;

Amenability to decommissioning and the permanent disposal of wastes.

Di l b h ll l d b i l


41/49



Institutional control issues.

Long term stability of the facility. Need for risk assessments to determine the human and

environmental impacts, including long term implications, arisingfrom groundwater contamination.

Possible need for occupational risk assessments and radiationprotection programmes for certain activities or areas, to controlexposures and limit the spread of contamination into publicareas.

Need for QA and record keeping programmes such as those forwaste inventories.

Transport costs and compliance with transport regulations.

Recycling by melting of contaminated


42/49


Recycling by melting of contaminatedscrap metal

The recycling, by melting, of scrap metal contaminated with

NORM can be regarded as a potential disposal method as wellas a decontamination method. The NORM contamination ismostly concentrated and contained in the slag, with low residualactivity being diluted and dispersed throughout the product orsteel billet. However, volatile radionuclides (210Pb and 210Po)become concentrated in the off-gas dust and fume and mayconstitute an exposure or waste management issue.

Recycling by melting of contaminated


43/49


Recycling by melting of contaminatedscrap metal

Issues that need to be addressed include:

The possible need for dilution of the contaminated scrap metal with uncontaminatedscrap metal to achieve clearance of the steel billets from regulatory control. This willdepend on contamination levels; the regulatory body will have to specify appropriateclearance levels for the radionuclides of concern.

The partitioning behaviour of the main radioactive elements associated with differentNORM types; Th (from the decay of 228Ra) and Ra partition to the slag, while Po andPb are emitted with, or recovered from, the off-gas.

The safe disposal of the contaminated slag and other wastes such as flue dust.

The need for risk assessments to determine the human and environmental impactsand possible need for radiation protection programmes for certain activities or areas,

and to control exposures and limit the spread of contamination into public areas.

The need for QA and record keeping programmes such as those for wasteinventories and activity levels in the slag and product.

D d d di l


44/49


Deep underground disposal

Deep underground disposal is a well-studied method for disposal of high andintermediate level radioactive wastes from the nuclear fuel cycle. Disposal insalt caverns has been described as a potential method for NORM wastefrom the oil and gas industry.

Other possibilities include deep disposal in nearby disused metal mines.

The practical potential of these methods depends strongly on the availabilityof suitable non-operating mines close to the oil and gas production regions.Transport costs could have a significant impact on the practicability of this

option as suitable sites may be located far away from the oil and gasproduction areas.

D d d di l


45/49


Deep underground disposal

The following aspects would need to be addressed in considering this disposalmethod:

The costs of setting up, operating and maintaining such a repository in comparisonwith the costs associated with other disposal methods;

The repository location in relation to the oil and gas producing areas;

The selection of a suitable site requiring minimum depth of emplacement;

Waste treatment, handling and packaging;

Institutional control issues;

The long term stability of the facility;

Transport costs and compliance with transport regulations;

The need for risk assessments to determine the impacts on the public and on theenvironment;

The possible need for occupational risk assessments and radiation protectionprogrammes for certain activities or areas, to control exposures and limit the spreadof contamination into public areas;

The need for QA and record keeping programmes such as waste inventories.

S


46/49


Summary

S


47/49


Summary

NORM residues should be minimised at every

opportunity (use - reuse recycling).

Waste management programme is a very important part

of the radiation protection programme

There are a wide variety of potential NORM disposalmethods.

All methods would require a risk assessment, and

Approval by the regulator, and most importantly

Public acceptability

Wh t t i f ti


48/49


Assessing the Need for Radiation Protection Measures in WorkInvolving Minerals and Raw Materials (IAEA Safety Reports Series,No.49, 2006)

Extent of Environmental Contamination by Naturally OccurringRadioactive Material (NORM) and Technological Options for Mitigation(IAEA Technical Report Series No.419, 2003)

Where to get more information

Radiation Monitoring in the Mining and Milling of Radioactive Ores (IAEASafety Series No. 95, 1989)

Radiation Protection and the Management of Radioactive Waste in theOil and Gas Industry (IAEA Safety Reports Series No. 34, 2003)

Occupational Radiation Protection in the Mining and Processing of RawMaterials (IAEA Safety Standards Series No. RS-G-1.6, 2004)

Thank Yo


49/49

Thank You

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	bob-smith
View:	232 times
Download:	0 times

The Management of NORM Esidues & NORM Waste Technologies

Documents