skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Testimony for the CA Assembly Legislature Utilities and Commerce Committee

Abstract

Let me begin by thanking the Committee and the Assembly for inviting me to speak and present information on the topic of carbon capture and storage (sometimes called carbon sequestration or geosequestration). I am a research scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) leading the Carbon Management Program. Our Laboratory is administered by the University of California for the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration. Lawrence Livermore is a multi-program laboratory with special responsibilities in national security and state-of-the-art experimental and computational capabilities that are also applied to meet other pressing national needs. In particular, LLNL pursues a broad portfolio of innovative research and development programs in energy and environmental sciences, including carbon capture and storage. It is an honor, and I believe the time is good to discuss this very promising technology pathway for greenhouse gas emissions reduction. Here I will describe the current state of knowledge and practice for carbon capture and storage, and highlight specific opportunities for benefit by deployment in California.

Authors:
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Lawrence Livermore National Lab. (LLNL), Livermore, CA (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE
OSTI Identifier:
896617
Report Number(s):
UCRL-TR-220473
TRN: US200703%%870
DOE Contract Number:
W-7405-ENG-48
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
20 FOSSIL-FUELED POWER PLANTS; 45 MILITARY TECHNOLOGY, WEAPONRY, AND NATIONAL DEFENSE; 58 GEOSCIENCES; 99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS//MATHEMATICS, COMPUTING, AND INFORMATION SCIENCE; CALIFORNIA; CARBON; CARBON SEQUESTRATION; GREENHOUSE GASES; LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY; MANAGEMENT; NATIONAL SECURITY; PRESSING; SECURITY; STORAGE; TRADE

Citation Formats

Friedmann, S J. Testimony for the CA Assembly Legislature Utilities and Commerce Committee. United States: N. p., 2006. Web. doi:10.2172/896617.
Friedmann, S J. Testimony for the CA Assembly Legislature Utilities and Commerce Committee. United States. doi:10.2172/896617.
Friedmann, S J. Mon . "Testimony for the CA Assembly Legislature Utilities and Commerce Committee". United States. doi:10.2172/896617. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/896617.
@article{osti_896617,
title = {Testimony for the CA Assembly Legislature Utilities and Commerce Committee},
author = {Friedmann, S J},
abstractNote = {Let me begin by thanking the Committee and the Assembly for inviting me to speak and present information on the topic of carbon capture and storage (sometimes called carbon sequestration or geosequestration). I am a research scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) leading the Carbon Management Program. Our Laboratory is administered by the University of California for the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration. Lawrence Livermore is a multi-program laboratory with special responsibilities in national security and state-of-the-art experimental and computational capabilities that are also applied to meet other pressing national needs. In particular, LLNL pursues a broad portfolio of innovative research and development programs in energy and environmental sciences, including carbon capture and storage. It is an honor, and I believe the time is good to discuss this very promising technology pathway for greenhouse gas emissions reduction. Here I will describe the current state of knowledge and practice for carbon capture and storage, and highlight specific opportunities for benefit by deployment in California.},
doi = {10.2172/896617},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {Mon Apr 03 00:00:00 EDT 2006},
month = {Mon Apr 03 00:00:00 EDT 2006}
}

Technical Report:

Save / Share:
  • This testimony before the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment discussed the sulfur oxides problem and the roles of the workers at NIOSH in completing epidemiologic studies was intended for incorporation into the 1972 revision of the 'EPA Air Quality Criteria for Sulfur Oxides.' Instead, the work appeared as a monograph entitled 'Health Consequences of Sulfur Oxides: A Report from CHESS, 1970-1971' and was attacked in the press. Dr. Finklea defended the roles of both himself and his investigative team in their efforts to obtain the information requested in the time allowed, citing the complexities of the task of determiningmore » the health effects of ambient air pollution. Three approaches were taken to gather such information: use of experimental animals in the laboratory, intensive study of a few patients or volunteers in a clinical lab setting, and epidemiologic or community studies involving groups of people. A number of the factors in the efforts made were less than optimal. Even with these limitations, Dr. Finklea stated his belief that the monograph as published was technically sound and that appropriate caveats were included.« less
  • The testimony concerned the efforts of NIOSH in a study of worker exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) at selected General Services Administration (GSA) facilities in the area of metropolitan Washington. The GSA employees being studied were exposed to transformer fluids containing PCBs in the National Capital Region. NIOSH was to review work practices, recommend appropriate PCB handling procedures, and measure airborne levels of PCBs and certain other chemicals. An internal audit at the site had revealed that the PCB material was being improperly stored at the Switch Gear Shop; 43 employees reported various health problems such as sterility, headaches, nausea,more » skin rashes and loss of appetite. The health of these 43 workers will be compared with a comparison group of unexposed GSA employees. The workers will be given complete medical examinations, including special tests to determine if they suffer from infertility, liver damage, nerve damage, or impairment of lung function.« less
  • The statement concerned the occupational safety and health aspects of increased coal production, the conversion of oil- and gas-fired boilers to coal, and proposed coal conversion technologies. Studies continued to show that coal mining was one of the most hazardous occupations in the United States. Coal miners have excessive rates of chronic bronchitis and airway obstruction. Coal workers' pneumoconiosis continued to be a common finding in morbidity studies. Underground mining accounts for 82% of mining fatalities and 85% of nonfatal injuries. Increasing the production of coal would require that the coal-mining population be increased. Changes in mining techniques would alsomore » impact on the health of the miners. The introduction of diesel powered equipment into coal mines was of particular concern due to the possible health effects of long term exposure to a combination of coal dust and the gases and vapors of diesel exhaust. Conversion to coal-fired power-generation facilities would increase the public health hazards of emissions from coal combustion. Hazards to workers involved with large-scale coal-conversion technology included exposure to chemical carcinogens, toxic inorganic gases, noise, and heat stress.« less
  • The statement concerned National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) research programs relating to occupational exposure to radiation. Much epidemiological data points to exposure to radon daughters as hazards to uranium miners and milling operators. Problems also arise from the operation of radiation-generating equipment. Nonionizing radiation hazards included visible, ultraviolet, radiofrequency and microwave radiation, infrared and ultrasonic radiation. Ultraviolet radiation can cause sunburn, eye damage, depigmentation, precancerous tumors, basal and squamous cell cancers, and malignant melanomas. Infrared radiation has been implicated in the development of cataracts. Laser radiation was linked with burns and fire hazards. The only hazard associatedmore » with visible radiation thus far has been eyestrain due to the lack of sufficient light while performing a given task. Optical radiation exposures occurred among workers using cathode ray tubes, such as computer screens, in their jobs. Workers were exposed to many sources of microwave and radiofrequency radiation from radio and radar transmitters, industrial drying equipment, heat sealing and curing equipment, and certain medical research devices. Training and support services were mentioned.« less
  • This statement provides an overview of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's safeguards requirements for the protection of nuclear power plants, nuclear fuel reprocessing and fabrication facilities and special nuclear material in transit. Safeguards measures to meet these requirements are employed to prevent the theft or diversion of significant amounts of nuclear materials and prevent the sabotage of nuclear facilities which would be inimical to the national security or to the public health and safety. The statement includes a discussion of sabotage vulnerability of nuclear reactors, the consequences of theft of nuclear materials and the increased plutonium handling requirements associated with themore » widescale use of plutonium in light water reactors and the use of breeder reactors. (GRA)« less