Key Reports:

Operational and safety risk regulations

4.1.1 Regulations in Europe

The fundamental legal EUEuropean Union document is the Directive 2009/31/ECEuropean Commission of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the geological storage of carbon dioxide and amending Council Directive 85/337/EEC, European Parliament and Council Directives 2000/60/ECEuropean Commission, 2001/80/ECEuropean Commission, 2004/35/ECEuropean Commission, 2006/12/ECEuropean Commission, 2008/1/ECEuropean Commission and Regulation (ECEuropean Commission) No 1013/2006 (the so called CCSCarbon dioxide Capture and Storage Directive). This is a legally binding document for all EUEuropean Union Member States. The deadline for the transposition of this Directive into national laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States was 25 June, 2011. Currently, the process is progressing, but still ongoing. In order to assist potential stakeholders and to ensure consistent implementation of the CCSCarbon dioxide Capture and Storage Directive throughout the EUEuropean Union, the European Commission issued a set of four Guidance Documents (CE, 2011a ,b, c and d), which are legally non-binding documents. Guidance Document 2 (ECEuropean Commission, 2011b) is specifically devoted to characterisation of the storage complex, CO2 stream composition, monitoring and corrective measures and shall be discussed in further detail later in this Chapter.

The recitals to the EU CCS Directive include some specific statements related to monitoring and reporting. First of all, the need to establish a regulatory framework is recognized in Recital 7: The framework should be based on an integrated risk assessment for CO2Carbon dioxide leakage that should consider requirements for site selection, monitoring including reporting, and remediation measures to be applied should any damage occur.

Recital 28 stresses the importance of monitoring in assessing deviations from expected behaviour of the injected CO2Carbon dioxide, detecting (unexpected) migration or leakage, and finally assessing the impact of leakage on the environment and/or human health. The Member States (more specifically the competent authorities) are required to ensure that the operator monitors the entire storage complex and the injection facilities according to the specifically designed and approved monitoring plan during the pre-injection phase, during injection operations and during the post-closure phase. Interestingly, this article puts geological storage under the seabed in a particular position, for which adapted monitoring procedures are foreseen, as if onshore CO2Carbon dioxide storage is the norm.

The EU CCS Directive is also very explicit in terms of liability (for environmental damages, for climate damages). Depending on the type of damages, other related EUEuropean Union regulations come in play, as described in Recital 30.

Monitoring requirements after a storage site has been closed and after the transfer of responsibilities from operator to the competent authority consist for an operator of providing a financial security at the moment before transfer of responsibility, that covers at least anticipated monitoring costs for a period of 30 years (Recital 37). Individual member states can decide to deviate from this 30 years period. This demand is not very clear yet, and should be based on guidelines, that are not explicit though. Currently the amount of financial security demanded is difficult to predict, particularly since it may also cover contingency costs.

Monitoring is further mentioned and specified in Article 13 and Annex II of the CCSCarbon dioxide Capture and Storage Directive. In the following text this will be elaborated together with the more detailed description as provided in Guidance Document 2 (EUEuropean Union, 2011b).

According to Guidance Document 2, the principal objectives of monitoring are a) to confirm containment of CO2Carbon dioxide, b) to alert in case of increased leakage risk, c) to identify leakage and/or significant irregularities, and d) to verify the CO2 plume behaviour. Monitoring should be performed already during the project development and then run during the operational phase, and in the post-closure phase. According to the CCSCarbon dioxide Capture and Storage Directive the operator of the storage site is liable for monitoring and reporting from the beginning of storing activities to the moment of transfer of responsibilities from the operator to the competent authority. Article 13 of the EU CCS Directive precisely defines what needs to be monitored (i.e. generally three basic units: injection facilities, the storage complex including the CO2 plume when possible and the surrounding environment where appropriate). The operator must obtain the Storage Permit before the start of any injection activities. An initial monitoring plan is the obligatory constituent of the Storage Permit. It should be based on the risk assessment and the site characterisation provided within the CO2Carbon dioxide Storage life cycle risk management framework (Guidance Document 1, EUEuropean Union, 2011a). Here, monitoring requirements are defined and threshold values for specific parameters may be applied for preventive and corrective measures. Updates of the monitoring plan are required on a regular basis at least every five years. They should take into account new knowledge and best available technology at the time of the design. It is crucial to follow the behaviour of the storage complex and of the adjacent environment in order to evaluate its compliance with the predicted dynamic simulations. As long as the predicted models agree with the observed data (i.e. the storage complex behaves as expected), the monitoring can be considered as sufficient. If significant deviations from the expected behaviour are observed, the models should be re-calibrated and/or updates in the monitoring plan should follow and/or preventive and corrective measures should be imposed. The monitoring plan (and also corrective measures plan in case of leakage or significant irregularities) should be agreed and approved by the competent authority. Identification of preventive measures should be included in the Storage Permit application. Preventive and corrective measures are imperative in the EU CCS Directive. It is one of the monitoring aims to trigger early warning in case of any leakages and/or significant irregularities. Implementation of preventive measures is aimed at preventing irregularities to occur. It is explicitly required that the monitoring plan and the corrective measures plan are prepared hand in hand and are delivered at the time of the storage permitting procedure. Moreover, the operator should describe adequate preventive and corrective measures. It should also be possible to assess the effectiveness of corrective measures. Competent authorities may require additional corrective measures to be taken by the operator at any time.

The intensity and performance of monitoring are site specific and shall depend on risk assessment analysis. Higher degree of monitoring activities may be appropriate in the initial stages of storage site operations. After the transfer of responsibilities the intensity of monitoring may be reduced, but only to the degree which would ensure adequate detection of leakage or any significant irregularities.

The set-up of optimal monitoring methodologies will be strongly site-specific and risk based. The EU CCS Directive specifically requires to "be based on the best practice available at the time of the design", but it is not prescriptive in which measuring methods or technologies should be used. The appropriate monitoring options to be considered include (Annex II, EU CCS Directive):

Technologies that can detect the presence, location and migration paths of CO2Carbon dioxide in the subsurface and at the surface;
Technologies that provide information about pressure-volume behaviour and areal/vertical distribution of the CO2 plume to refine numerical 3D simulation to the 3D geological models of the storage formation;
Technologies that can provide a wide spatial spread in order to capture information on any previously undetected potential leakage pathways across the areal dimensions of the complete storage complex and beyond, in the event of significant irregularities or migration of CO2Carbon dioxide out of the storage complex.

The requirements for monitoring methodologies anticipate application of direct or indirect methods, static and dynamic modelling and spatial and temporal coverage.

Apart from the risk based monitoring plan, the EU CCS Directive explicitly defines a number of mandatory parameters to be monitored in all cases (Annex II, EU CCS Directive):

Fugitive emissions of CO2Carbon dioxide at the injection facility;
CO2Carbon dioxide volumetric flow at injection wellheads;
CO2Carbon dioxide pressure and temperature at injection wellheads (to determine mass flow);
Chemical analysis of the injected material;
Reservoir temperature and pressure (to determine CO2Carbon dioxide phase behaviour and state).

As mentioned earlier, the optimal monitoring plan should be site-specific and risk-based and the CCSCarbon dioxide Capture and Storage Directive is therefore not very prescriptive in terms of measurement methods or technologies to be applied, acknowledging the wide range of geological settings, site conditions and storage options across Europe. According to Guidance Document 2, about 60 different methods have been identified to be potentially appropriate for monitoring (reviews performed by IPCC, IEAInternational Energy Agency, ASPEN, NSBTF, the IEA GHG Report 2012/02 and Rütters et al., 2013). Guidance Document 2 proposes elements for monitoring to be considered (such as operational, plume, pathways, environment-leakage) and suggests suitable methods and techniques to be applied (see Fig. 4-1).

O. Fig. 4-1

Fig. 4-1: Different methods and techniques suitable for monitoring (Guidance Document 2, ECEuropean Commission, 2011b).

Regardless of the method, it is necessary to consider potential limitations of individual methods (i.e. detection limits, accuracy, resolution, applicability to the specific environment, frequency of measurements as well as costs). Because of these, an integrated monitoring approach is required.

Performance Standards and Key Performance Indicators can be introduced for monitoring to fulfil its objectives. Performance Standards should address the following issues: what to monitor, when and how often, accuracy of measurements, what are key monitoring parameters and their threshold values, establishing baseline for background emissions etc.

The monitoring plans must contain information which parameters are to be monitored, monitoring technology together with the justification for the technology choice, spatial and temporal coverage of monitoring as well as all mandatory parameters defined in Annex II (see earlier in this Chapter). If necessary, required monitoring and optional monitoring should be applied. GD 2 proposes a template for a monitoring plan (Tab. 4-1) in which the requirements pursuant EU CCS Directive are reflected. Moreover, the operator is required to present a portfolio of monitoring methods which are appropriate according to identified risks at individual location.

Tab. 4-1: Proposed format of monitoring plan template with example information (Guidance Document 2, EUEuropean Union, 2011b).

Monitoring results and all information arising from monitoring should be regularly reported to the competent authority. The frequency should be at least once a year until the transfer of responsibilities. Obligatory elements to be reported include all monitoring results, monitoring technology deployed, the quantities and properties of the injected CO2 stream, proof for providing financial security (Guidance Document 4) and any other information the competent authority considers necessary to assess compliance with the Storage Permit. Monitoring results shall be presented, interpreted and compared with the predicted models. If significant deviation between the observed and predicted values is identified, recalibration of models should follow and the monitoring plan updates are to be developed. In addition, any significant irregularity must be immediately reported to the competent authority. Data retention and data ownership are also addressed in Guidance Document 2.

Reporting requirements as well as approval procedures of the monitoring plan differ under the CCSCarbon dioxide Capture and Storage Directive and under the EUEuropean Union ETS Directive. As a consequence, close communication of both competent authorities (in case not the same) is required since parts of the documentation overlap. Tab. 4-2 shows the reporting requirements under the two Directives. In Annex V of the EUEuropean Union ETS Directive (2003/87/ECEuropean Commission), the methodology for verification is defined. This should include strategic analysis, process analysis and risk analysis, followed by the preparation of the validation report. Minimum competency requirements for the verifier are also stated. Evaluation of performance includes a comparison of the predicted and actually observed data. Under the EU CCS Directive the focus is on safety and environment and under the EUEuropean Union ETS Directive the focus is on effectiveness in emission reduction.

Tab. 4-2: Comparison of Reporting Requirements (Guidance Document 2, EUEuropean Union 2011b).

Monitoring reports need to be reviewed and approved. Moreover, inspections are also required. Routine and non-routine inspections could be in a form of site visits and/or the verification of records. The timings for routine inspections are defined, but frequency may vary according to the site performance history.

In Articles 19 and 20 the EU CCS Directive envisages that Member States establish an effective system for financial security. This involves the operator's obligation to ensure adequate financial resources for all obligations arising from the permit. It is up to Member States to decide which financial security instruments or their acceptable equivalents would be directed and how to define the amount of the financial contribution to be made available by the operator. The proofs for financial security should be an integer part of the application for Storage Permit. The Guidance Document 4 (EUEuropean Union, 2011d) describes criteria and principles for financial security and recommends the established and low risk options. Guidance Document 4 also describes options for determining the amount of the financial contribution. The list of obligations which must be covered by financial security instruments explicitly includes monitoring, updates of the monitoring plan, and the required reporting of monitoring results in operational as well as in the closure and post-closure period (Guidance Document 4, EUEuropean Union, 2011d ). In the event of changes to the assessed risk of leakage, updates of the financial contributions may be made.

It is important to also introduce another document EUEuropean Union CCSCarbon dioxide Capture and Storage Directive 2003/87/ECEuropean Commission of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 that establish a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/ECEuropean Commission (the so-called EUEuropean Union ETS Directive). Monitoring and Reporting Guidelines (MRG) (Commission Decision 2007/589/ECEuropean Commission and its amendment Commission Decision 2010/345/EUEuropean Union) were issued to the EUEuropean Union ETS Directive. MGR describes how CO2Carbon dioxide emissions from storage activities should be accounted and reported to comply with EUEuropean Union ETS. During injection and storage operations, potential sources can arise from the fuel use at the injection site, from vented and fugitive emissions at the injection site and/or enhanced hydrocarbon recovery (EOR, EGR) procedures, and from leaking from the storage complex. The term "leakage" is precisely defined in the EU CCS Directive. As soon as a leakage is identified under the EU CCS Directive, the provisions from the EUEuropean Union ETS Directive MRG are triggered and quantification of CO2Carbon dioxide releases into the air or into the water column is required. Such leakage is considered as a new emission source and is characterised as climate damage. The new source exclusion is previewed only after successful application of corrective measures and after the moment the emission is not detected any longer. Some monitoring methods have the potential for the quantification of the emissions resulting from leakage and can therefore accommodate the requirements of both Directives. If necessary, monitoring previewed under the EU CCS Directive should be intensified in order to meet requirements of the EUEuropean Union ETS Directive. The integration of the provisions of the EU CCS Directive and the EUEuropean Union ETS Directive with respect to monitoring is necessary in order to ensure the compliance of both documents. The coherence of the EUEuropean Union CCSCarbon dioxide Capture and Storage and ETS Directives is also relevant in reporting and verification procedures.

In summary, the EU CCS Directive and the EUEuropean Union ETS Directive (and its MRG) form the constituent EUEuropean Union regulatory framework regarding CCSCarbon dioxide Capture and Storage. However, other legal and regulatory documents have also influenced the two directives, the most important being IPCC Special Report on CCSCarbon dioxide Capture and Storage (2005) and the IPCC Guidelines (2006) and provisions from the OSPAR Convention (OSPAR, 2006).