API PUBL 7100-1996 A Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) Disposal Cost Study《NORM处理成本研究.第1版》.pdf

1、STD.API/PETRO PUBL 7LUCI-ENGL 199b 0732270 0568D59 TLi3 = A Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) Disposal Cost Study API PUBLICATION 7100 FIRST EDITION, NOVEMBER 1996 American Petroleum Institute STD.API/PETRO PUBL 7100-ENGL 199b m 0732290 05bOb0 7b5 = A Naturally Occurring Radioactive Ma

2、terial (NORM) Disposal Cost Study Exploration and Production Department API PUBLICATION 71 O0 FIRST EDITION, NOVEMBER 1996 American Petroleum Institute STD.API/PETRO PUBL 7LO-ENGL L97b W 0732290 05bBObL bT1 = SPECIAL NOTES API publications necessarily address problems of a general nature. With respe

3、ct to par- ticular circumstances, local, state, and federal laws and regulations should be reviewed. API is not undertaking to meet the duties of employers, manufacturers, or suppliers to warn and properly train and equip their employees, and others exposed, concerning health and safety risks and pr

4、ecautions, nor undertaking their obligations under local, state, or federal laws. Information concerning safety and health risks and proper precautions with respect to particular materials and conditions should be obtained from the employer, the manufac- turer or supplier of that material, or the ma

5、terial safety data sheet. Nothing contained in any API publication is to be construed as granting any right, by implication or otherwise, for the manufacture, sale, or use of any method, apparatus, or product covered by letters patent. Neither should anything contained in the publication be construe

6、d as insuring anyone against liability for infringement of letters patent. Generally, API standards are reviewed and revised, reaffirmed, or withdrawn at least every five years. Sometimes a one-time extension of up to two years will be added to this review cycle. This publication will no longer be i

7、n effect five years after its publication date as an operative API standard or, where an extension has been granted, upon republica- tion. Status of the publication can be ascertained from the API Authoring Department telephone (202) 682-8OoOJ. A catalog of API publications and materials is publishe

8、d annually and updated quarterly by API, 1220 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005. This document was produced under API standardization procedures that ensure appro- priate notification and participation in the developmental process and is designated as an API standard. Questions concerning the i

9、nterpretation of the content of this standard or comments and questions concerning the procedures under which this standard was devel- oped should be directed in writing to the director of the Authoring Department (shown on the title page of this document), American Petroleum Institute, 1220 L Stree

10、t, N.W., Wash- ington, D.C. 20005. API publications may be used by anyone desiring to do so. Every effort has been made by the Institute to assure the accuracy and reliability of the data contained in them; how- ever, the Institute makes no representation, warranty, or guarantee in connection with t

11、his publication and hereby expressly disclaims any liability or responsibility for loss or dam- age resulting from its use or for the violation of any federal, state, or municipal regulation with which this publication may conflict. API standards are published to facilitate the broad availability of

12、 proven, sound engi- neering and operating practices. These standards are not intended to obviate the need for applying sound engineering judgment regarding when and where these standards should be utilized. The formulation and publication of API standards is not intended in any way to inhibit anyon

13、e from using any other practices. Any manufacturer marking equipment or materials in conformance with the marking requirements of an API standard is solely responsible for complying with all the applica- ble requirements of that standard. API does not represent, warrant, or guarantee that such produ

14、cts do in fact conform to the applicable API standard. All rights reserved. No pari of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or other- wise, without prior written permission from the publisher: Contact

15、 the Publisher, API Publishing Services, 1220 L Street, N. W, Washington, D.C. 20005. Copyright Q 1996 American Petroleum Institute STD.API/PETRO PUBL 7LOO-ENGL L77b D 0732270 05bOb2 538 FOREWORD This publication is based on oil and gas company questionnaires representing naturally occurring radioac

16、tive materials (NORM) accumulated to the end of 1992 and annually produced during 1993, along with some replies from 1994 also added. The production of oil and gas in the United States has resulted in the formation of scales and sludges contain- ing NORM. This study is based on the actual costs of N

17、ORM disposal obtained through questionnaire replies from oil and gas producers. The NORM questionnaire replies were received from companies representing 46 percent of the domestic U.S. oil. gas, and gas condensate production. The survey results were prorated to represent 100 percent of the U.S. oil

18、and gas industry. Most of the oil and gas producing states of the U.S. are repre- sented in the survey replies. This document details the reported quantities of NORM that have accumulated over the years and the annual rate of NORM production for 1993 from the domestic U.S. oil and gas condensate pro

19、duction. No data was received for NORM in the gas industry. This pub- lication documents the 1992 costs of the available NORM disposal options at that time and calculates the cost impact of disposing of the accumulated NORM and the annual cost of compliance with existing and proposed NORM regulation

20、s. Over a number of years, it is estimated that on a volume basis some 10 million drums (55 gallons each) of NORM have accumulated in widely scattered pieces of production and process equipment, produced water ponds, and treatment pits. Of this accumulation, some percentage has been processed and di

21、sposed of by routine industry disposal prac- tices. For instance, NORM-containing scrap steel such as old production tubulars were routinely recycled by the steel scrap industry, until that industry installed radiation detec- tors that screened steel scrap for radiation sources. The detectors became

22、 widely used in the late 1980s. Consequently, NORM-containing scrap steel recycled before the use of radiation detectors is no longer part of the waste stream. Similarly, some percentage of NORM-containing EtP waste may have undergone treatment such as land farming in which the concentration of NORM

23、 in the waste material is no longer distinguishable from background levels. Nevertheless, the 10 million drum accumulation figure is conservative and provides some margin for possible underreporting. Survey monitoring programs to detect and quantify NORM are in operation in virtually all domestic US

24、. oil and gas producing areas. These programs are designed to provide NORM data to satisfy regulatory reporting requirements. The questionnaire replies include two reports of very large NORM accumulations. These two reports, along with a concentration of reported NORM data from the Gulf Coast of Lou

25、isiana and Texas, were included in the database used to extrapolate the reported NORM quantities to represent the entire U.S. oil and gas condensate production industry. However, recent reports of NORM in the feed stocks to the downstream refining and processing industry that are not included in thi

26、s report may indicate an underreporting of the annual NORM accumulation rate of 140,000 drums per year. Other studies i, 21 have indicated that this annual figure could be four times higher than reported in the questionnaire replies, even after prorating to repre- sent the entire industry. There are

27、 a growing number of NORM disposal options defined by the specific activity of the NORM that they will accept, all of which are licensed or permitted by federal and state agencies. The NORM acceptance criteria are different for each disposal site, as are the disposal costs. The range of available NO

28、RM disposal options at the end of 1993 include the following: Burial sites. Surface treatment. Commercial injection disposal. Recycling of steel. iii STD.API/PETRO PUBL 7100-ENGL 1996 0732290 05bOb3 474 NORM recycling into shielding bricks. Plug and abandonment of wells, encapsulation and injection.

29、 Disposal costs per drum of NORM vary depending on the specific activity of the scale, the number of drums, and the disposai option selected. Costs range from approximately $74 minimum to $3333 per drum. Actual average costs to date reported in the NORM questionnaire from the U.S. domestic oil and g

30、as industry are $544 per drum with a maxi- mum of $20,000 per drum reported by more than one company. Using the average disposal cost per drum of $544, the annual cost impact of disposing of the 142,000 drums of accumulated NORM would be $77 million per year. The potential cleanup over 25 years of t

31、he accumulated NORM volume of lO,ooO,ooO drums at 400,000 drums per year adds an additional cost of $218 million per year. The total annual NORM disposal cost could be $295 million per year for the next 25 years. These figures do not include the costs to identify, sample, analyze, clean, and contain

32、 the NORM ready for dis- posal. NORM disposal costs may be reduced significantly if one or more of the following options are used: Volume discounts offered by the disposal companies. Cheaper disposal options becoming an operational reality. Disposal volume reduction due to regulatory compliance matc

33、hed to real risk. Exempt concentration level above 30 picocuries per gram (pCi/g). Other disposal options may have been introduced since the date of this survey in 1992-93. They are not evaluated in this publication. API publications may be used by anyone desiring to do so. Every effort has been mad

34、e by the Institute to assure the accuracy and reliability of the data contained in them; how- ever, the Institute makes no representation, warranty, or guarantee in connection with this publication and hereby expressly disclaims any liability or responsibility for loss or dam- age resulting from its

35、 use or for the violation of any federal, state, or municipal regulation with which this publication may conflict. Suggested revisions are invited and should be submitted to the director of the Explora- tion and Production Department, American Petroleum Institute, 1220 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.

36、C. 20005. iv STD-API/PETRO PUBL 7100-ENGL 197b 0732290 05bAObq 300 = CONTENTS SECTION 1-VOLUME ESTIMATES OF NORM WASTES . 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.1 . 1 Comments on the NORM Survey Data . 1 1.1.2 NORM Database Information 2 1.2 Volumes of NORM Waste-Past, Present. and Forecast . 3 1.2.1 General . 3 1.

37、2.2 Regions 1. 2, 3, and 5 . 4 1.2.3 1.2.4 Summary of NORM Quantities for Each Region 5 1.3 Reference List 6 Calculation of the NORM Accumulation Region most regions included more than one state. Because of the different grouping of states included by each company, the information was analyzed using

38、 the five, regions shown. Figure 1 illustrates the states from which the data was compiled and how the data are grouped into the five regions used in the data analysis. The NORM survey questionnaire was sent out to API member companies. The appendixes and tables in this docu- ment were derived from

39、the 50 questionnaire replies received, representing approximately 46 percent of the domestic U.S. oil, gas. and gas condensate production capacity. The questionnaire replies are summarized in Table 1 by total oil and gas condensate production as a percentage of each region?s total. Annual oil and ga

40、s condensate production figures from the Oil and Gar Joumf 3 are shown for com- parison. No replies were received relating to NORM in natural gas. The data for oil and condensate production was obtained in section I .6.1 of the questionnaire and is shown in Appen- dix C. This data was cross-checked

41、with reported oil and Region 3 gas condensate figures from the Dwights Energydata, Inc. 2 information database to ensure an accurate division of production by state and region for the responding compa- nies. This was done to prorate the figures for the total accu- mulated NORM to December 1992, and

42、the 1993 annual NORM accumulation to represent the total oil and gas con- densate production in each region. The Dwights 4 infor- mation also allowed the replies to be more accurately divided by state and grouped by region. No two questionnaire replies had the same regional grouping of states; hence

43、, the replies were adjusted to the regional groupings shown in Figure 1. The two survey replies with NORM drum disposal costs of $20.000 per drum were omitted due to the unusual operational problems causing these high costs which are not anticipated to recur. The first high-cost NORM disposal job re

44、ported was due to loss of the well use because junk steel was lost in the well bore. The second high-cost NORM disposal job was also due to an unusable well bore because a piece of equipment lodged in the well. 1.1 .I COMMENTS ON THE NORM SURVEY DATA The NORM surveys did not use a single, consistent

45、 sur- vey procedure or dose rate decision criteria. For example, M Figure 1-Responding States Grouped Into Regions 1 STD-API/PETRO PUBL 7100-ENGL L77b W 0732290 05b8Ob7 OIT = 150 120 90- 60 2 API Publication 7100 4 - 1 24 - - Table 1-Oil and Gas Questionnaire Replies 1992 _ _ Region Gulf Coast Mid-C

46、ontinent Rocky Mountains California Alaska Total Replies O00 BPD 912 323 (Percentage of region responding) (44%) (20%) o00 BPD (100 Percent) Ref 5 2233 1583 the distance of the detector from the item being surveyed (when known) varied from 1 centimeter to 18 inches. The dose rate decision criteria o

47、f either 25 or 50 micro Roentgen per hour (microh) was universally applied to NORM in equipment, in drums, on the ground, and in produced water pits. The reported data did not include the number of items surveyed and found to be free of NORM; the items would be more numerous than items found contain

48、ing NORM. Figure 2, prepared from the previously unpublished Loui- siana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association (LMOGA) NORM survey data, shows that 90 percent of the NORM held in storage in I992 using a 25 microWh decision criteria had a specific activity less than 100 picocuries per gram picocuries

49、 per gram. However, NORM surveys conducted Number of Barrels (OOO) 301 nL W,% 400 pcvg i (35%) 92% c100 pCi/g 24 (i 1%) 5 (2%) 2 I l I I I_ “ 5-30 30-100 100-500 500-1,OOO 1,ooO Specific Activity in picocunedgram Figure 2-Drums of Stored NORM by Specific Activity and Percentage of Total Stored Per Activity Range by surveying the outside surfaces of the oil, gas, and gas condensate equipment and tubulars and using an action level of 50 microw may have difficulty 5, depending on the quantity of NORM material accumulated inside the equipment an