4.1.2 Regulations in the US

The US geological storage legal and regulatory framework is based on the Safe Drinking Water Act from 1974, in which the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is given the jurisdiction to regulate underground injection of any substances and thus protecting underground sources of drinking water from contamination.

In 1980, EPA issued the Underground Injection Control (UIC) programme. This distinguishes several classes of injection wells, e.g. Class II being relevant for EOR operations and Class V for experimental injections. It is worth mentioning here that the existing federal and state legal regimes developed for the EOR operations address many aspects of the requirements of geological storage, especially if the early phase of CCS implementation is performed within EOR operations. In December 2010, EPA adopted the rules for regulations of CO2 injection wells for permanent underground storage of CO2 within the UIC programme (USEPA, 2010a) by introducing a new Class VI.

In the USA, clarification of property rights which includes access to pore space was also a prerequisite legal issue in the implementation of commercial underground storage projects. The EPA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (USEPA, 2011) exempts CO2 stored underground as part of CCS operations from hazardous waste regulations (Pollak, 2012).

EPA UIC rules cover all phases from pre-injection to post injection site care. In order to support owners and operators of Class VI injection wells and the UIC Program permitting authorities, EPA issued a Guidance manual (EPA, 2013) which is just one of the series of technical Guidance Documents that EPA has developed. The requirements for Class VI refer to site characterization, modelling of the injected area, well construction and operations, monitoring of the CO2 stream, financial responsibility, and periodic re-evaluation of the area and the updates of the project plan. Owners or operators are required to test and monitor the elements according to a Testing and Monitoring Plan submitted with a Class VI permit application and implemented throughout the storage operation and beyond. The Testing and Monitoring Plan must describe planned injectate monitoring, corrosion monitoring, pressure fall-off testing, ground water quality monitoring, CO2 plume and pressure front tracking, and (if required) surface air and/or soil gas monitoring. The monitoring of mechanical integrity of injection wells is required. A set of available methods for internal and external mechanical integrity testing exist. In the operational phase, analysis of CO2 stream and continuous monitoring of injection rate, pressure and volume, corrosion monitoring and pressure fall-off testing are required. Geochemical monitoring of ground water quality above the confining zone is required by using appropriate sampling techniques and sampling frequencies. Available methods for plume and pressure-front tracking include in-situ fluid pressure monitoring, indirect geophysical monitoring, ground water geochemical monitoring combined with computational modelling. The suite of testing and monitoring methodologies used shall be site specific, complementary; the monitoring frequency shall differ according to specific site conditions. If applicable, and if required by the UIC Program Director, the surface should be monitored as well.

Monitoring is required to be extended in the post-injection phase. The monitoring actions should define the area of review and should form an integer part of corrective action plans, testing and monitoring plans, injection well abandonment plans, post-injection site closure plans, emergency and remedial response plans. (USEPA, 2010a; Baker and McKenzie, 2011). The application document shall enclose all basic information of the site (maps, models, plans, designs, injection well construction etc.). Guidance to the EPA rules (USEPA, 2013) recommends a format and required reporting frequency of collected data and interpretation and the type of information and data that should be included. EPA serves as a permitting agency, but States may administer the UIC programme themselves, subject to the EPA approval.

Apart from the federal regulation framework, the States (about a dozen at a time) are developing their own frameworks to address geological storage. Dedicated legislation at the state level treats CO2 as a valuable commodity rather than waste (as is the case for the EU). Some States provide for site review and permitting rules, monitoring and testing, site closure and post-closure rules. Transfer of liability and stewardship to government is foreseen.

Several sources notify there are still remaining uncertainties in the regulatory and legal frameworks for CO2 storage. Consistent requirements will therefore be needed for monitoring, verifying, and reporting injected CO2, and releases, if any. Liability issues will need to be clarified. In 2010, the EPA finalized its Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases from Carbon Dioxide Injection and Geologic Sequestration (Reporting Rule - Subparts RR for CO2 geological storage facilities and Subpart UU that conduct all other CO2 injections) (Baker and McKenzie, 2011). Facilities covered by Subpart RR must monitor and report CO2 received, injected, produced, emitted from surface leakage and equipment leaks and CO2 sequestered in subsurface geologic formations. They must also submit a Monitoring, Reporting and Verification plan (which is to include leakage risk assessment, monitoring strategy and pre-injection baselines) for EPA approval. Facilities covered by Subpart UU have a lesser reporting requirements. These facilities must report the source of the CO2 and mass of CO2 received.

Greenhouse gas reduction targets have still not been adopted at the federal level. However, numerous States have accepted greenhouse gas limitations and adopted binding documents. Because of these facts, in the USA the driver for CCS deployment is EOR, not policy or emission reduction. According to some sources (Hunton and Williams, 2012), industry has expressed concerns the Class VI requirements are too stringent and may impede geologic sequestration. It is noted that CO2 used for enhanced oil recovery is a subject to less restrictive standards (Class II).

Act (RCRA) (USEPA, 2011) exempts CO2 stored underground as part of CCS operations from hazardous waste regulations (Pollak, 2012).

EPA UIC rules cover all phases from pre-injection to post injection site care. In order to support owners and operators of Class VI injection wells and the UIC Program permitting authorities, EPA issued a Guidance manual (EPA, 2013) which is just one of the series of technical Guidance Documents that EPA has developed. The requirements for Class VI refer to site characterization, modelling of the injected area, well construction and operations, monitoring of the CO2 stream, financial responsibility, and periodic re-evaluation of the area and the updates of the project plan. Owners or operators are required to test and monitor the elements according to a Testing and Monitoring Plan submitted with a Class VI permit application and implemented throughout the storage operation and beyond. The Testing and Monitoring Plan must describe planned injectate monitoring, corrosion monitoring, pressure fall-off testing, ground water quality monitoring, CO2 plume and pressure front tracking, and (if required) surface air and/or soil gas monitoring. The monitoring of mechanical integrity of injection wells is required. A set of available methods for internal and external mechanical integrity testing exist. In the operational phase, analysis of CO2 stream and continuous monitoring of injection rate, pressure and volume, corrosion monitoring and pressure fall-off testing are required. Geochemical monitoring of ground water quality above the confining zone is required by using appropriate sampling techniques and sampling frequencies. Available methods for plume and pressure-front tracking include in-situ fluid pressure monitoring, indirect geophysical monitoring, ground water geochemical monitoring combined with computational modelling. The suite of testing and monitoring methodologies used shall be site specific, complementary; the monitoring frequency shall differ according to specific site conditions. If applicable, and if required by the UIC Program Director, the surface should be monitored as well.

Monitoring is required to be extended in the post-injection phase. The monitoring actions should define the area of review and should form an integer part of corrective action plans, testing and monitoring plans, injection well abandonment plans, post-injection site closure plans, emergency and remedial response plans. (USEPA, 2010a; Baker and McKenzie, 2011). The application document shall enclose all basic information of the site (maps, models, plans, designs, injection well construction etc.). Guidance to the EPA rules (USEPA, 2013) recommends a format and required reporting frequency of collected data and interpretation and the type of information and data that should be included. EPA serves as a permitting agency, but States may administer the UIC programme themselves, subject to the EPA approval.

Apart from the federal regulation framework, the States (about a dozen at a time) are developing their own frameworks to address geological storage. Dedicated legislation at the state level treats CO2 as a valuable commodity rather than waste (as is the case for the EU). Some States provide for site review and permitting rules, monitoring and testing, site closure and post-closure rules. Transfer of liability and stewardship to government is foreseen.

Several sources notify there are still remaining uncertainties in the regulatory and legal frameworks for CO2 storage. Consistent requirements will therefore be needed for monitoring, verifying, and reporting injected CO2, and releases, if any. Liability issues will need to be clarified. In 2010, the EPA finalized its Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases from Carbon Dioxide Injection and Geologic Sequestration (Reporting Rule - Subparts RR for CO2 geological storage facilities and Subpart UU that conduct all other CO2 injections) (Baker and McKenzie, 2011). Facilities covered by Subpart RR must monitor and report CO2 received, injected, produced, emitted from surface leakage and equipment leaks and CO2 sequestered in subsurface geologic formations. They must also submit a Monitoring, Reporting and Verification plan (which is to include leakage risk assessment, monitoring strategy and pre-injection baselines) for EPA approval. Facilities covered by Subpart UU have a lesser reporting requirements. These facilities must report the source of the CO2 and mass of CO2 received.

Greenhouse gas reduction targets have still not been adopted at the federal level. However, numerous States have accepted greenhouse gas limitations and adopted binding documents. Because of these facts, in the USA the driver for CCS deployment is EOR, not policy or emission reduction. According to some sources (Hunton and Williams, 2012), industry has expressed concerns the Class VI requirements are too stringent and may impede geologic sequestration. It is noted that CO2 used for enhanced oil recovery is a subject to less restrictive standards (Class II). It may appear necessary to develop a transitional regulatory framework for shifting from EOR operations (incidental injections) to CCS operations (incremental injections). Financial security aspects for a post-injection period would also need to be assured and regulated.