CCS Technical Workshop:
Efforts to address concerns over CO2 seepage from reservoir
Tokyo, Japan, 24th January 2013

Site Selection and Environmental
Impacts Assessment– Regulations and Case Studies –Jun Kita

CO2 Storage Research GroupCCS development and regulatory issues
Expansion and scale-up of CCS technology
Regulatory issues associated with ensuring theprotection of public health, safety and theenvironment
Regulations are required to build publicconfidence in, and acceptance of , the CCS
technology
Governments have started to amend existing
regulatory frameworks to allow CCS projects tomove forwardLegal and regulatory review
Recent progress
US

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized
Safe Drinking Water Act rule that sets requirements for geologicstorage, including the development of a newclass of injection well, termed Class VI, established under EPA’s
Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program.

EU

EU member states had to transpose the EU CO2 Storage Directive109
into national legislation by 25 June 2011.
CCS project proposals were submitted to NER 300 funding
programme.

Australia

The Commonwealth has finalized the Offshore Petroleum andGreenhouse Gas Storage (Greenhouse Gas Injection and Storage)Regulations 2011 (Commonwealth), which came into force in June
2011.

CanadaAlberta expects to conclude the regulatory framework assessment(RFA) by the end of 2012.

Source: OECD/IEA 2012 Carbon Capture and Storage Legal and Regulatory Review – Edition 3

Japanese guideline
For Safe Operation of a CCS Demonstration Project
6. Safety consideration
on CO2 injection andoperation

2. Transportationof CO2

3. Safety considerationof the surface facilities
4. Environmental
impact assessment

7. Standard of CO2
concentration forinjection
5. Safety
considerationof the well
1. Assessment of the storage sitefrom geological aspects

8. Monitoring

9. Possible
abnormalities
and measures

By CCS Study Group, Industrial Science and Technology Policy and Environment Bureau, METI
4
August 2009 (http://www.meti.go.jp/english/press/data/20090807_02.html)

For Safe Operation of a CCS Demonstration Project
1. Assessment of the storage site from geological aspects
 Formulation of hydrogeological and geological structuremodel• Hydrogeological and geological structure of the reservoir• Injected CO2 behavior• Environmental impact or possibility of leakage of injected CO2
 Assessment to perform large-scale demonstration project• Confirmation of the existence of reservoir and cap rock• Setting of adequate CO2 injection plan
• Sealing property of cap rock• Seismic activities occurred in the past in the vicinity of CO2injection site
 Data to be acquired, acquisition methods, and time-frame foracquisition

For Safe Operation of a CCS Demonstration Project
2. Transportation Standard Compliance with the High Pressure Gas Safety Act
3. Safety consideration for placing CCS-related facilities
 Compliance with the Mine Safety Act
4. Environmental Impact Assessment
 Compliance with the Prevention of Marine Pollution andMaritime Disaster
5. Safety consideration for the drilling, completion and plugging
and abandonment for CO2 injection and storage wells
 Formulation of casing plan, Blowout prevention procedure,
Cementing to prevent CO2 leakage, Well completion, Explosion
protection, Compliance with the Mining Act, the Mine Safety Act,and the Petroleum and Combustible Natural Gas Resources
Development Act

For Safe Operation of a CCS Demonstration Project
6. Safety considerations for CO2 injection and operation
 Formulating plans for CO2 injection and operation
 Optimizing CO2 injection and operation through updating thedetailed model of the storage system
7. Concentration standard of CO2 to be injected Compliance with the Prevention of Marine Pollution andMaritime Disaster8. Monitoring Compliance with the Prevention of Marine Pollution andMaritime Disaster9. Measures to be taken when abnormalities occur
 Possible abnormalities, Setting standards to detect abnormalities,
Assumption, preparation and implementation of measuresrequired when abnormalities occur, Measures to be taken after
settling abnormalities, Actions to be prepared to deal withabnormalities

Regulation for Environmental Impact Assessment of offshore
CCS in JAPAN

Offshore CCS and London ConventionLondon Convention
An agreement to control pollution of the sea by dumping
and to encourage regional agreements supplementary to theConvention.
1996 Protocol: The Parties are obligated to prohibit thedumping of any waste or other matter that is not listed inAnnex 1 (the reverse list).
Adopted on 2006: Carbon dioxide streams may only beconsidered for dumping, if disposal is into a sub-seabedgeological Formation”

Regulation for Environmental Impact
Assessment of offshore CCS in JAPANAct for the Prevention of Marine Pollution andMaritime Disasters
May 2007: The act was revised for license procedure ondumping CO2 stream into sub-seabed formation.

Operator of Offshore CCS,Should receive clearances from environment minister.
Should implement Environmental Impact Assessment.
Should monitor surrounding sea environment.

License application of Offshore CCS in Japan
 Project plan
 Marine Environment Monitoring Plan
 Preliminary Assessment Document forDumping Waste Under the Seabed“Point and extent, volume and the estimation
method of CO2 stream seepage on theassumption that CO2 stream dumped into subseabed formation seeps out to the sea”
Demonstration ProjectWhat is Environmental Impact Assessment?
The process of identifying the futureconsequences of a proposed action
HistoryUSA, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 1969
“EIA, as a national instrument, shall be undertaken forproposed activities that are likely to have a significant
adverse impact on the environment and are subject to adecision of a competent national authority.” Principle 17,
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 1992

Environmental Impact Assessment aims to:Provide information for decision-making that analyzes
the biophysical, social, economic and institutional
consequences of proposed actions.
Promote transparency and participation of the public indecision-making.
Identify procedures and methods for the follow-up(monitoring and mitigation of adverse consequences) inpolicy, planning and project cycles.
Contribute to environmentally sound and sustainabledevelopment.
International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA), 2009Comparison of Environmental Impact Assessment frameworks
Countries /Regions

Environmental Impact Assessment frameworks

US

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 1969

EU

Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effectsof certain public and private projects on the environment, 1988

AustraliaEnvironmental protection and biodiversity conservation act,
1999

CanadaCanadian environment assessment act, 1992

CHINA

基本建設項目環境保護管理弁法, 1981

Germany

Environmental impact assessment act, 2001

JAPAN

Environmental impact assessment law, 1997 (環境影響評価法)

Netherlands

Environmental management assessment regulations, 2005

NorwayUK (England &Wales)

Regulations relating to environmental impact assessment, 2005
Town and country planning (EIA) regulations, 1999

Procedure of Environmental Impact Assessment
Screening
Scoping
Environmental Impact
Assessment
Environmental Impact
Statement
Decision-making
Monitoring

Consultation withbodies concernedand publicExample of Environmental Impact Statement for the CCS

Gorgon project
Location: Barrow Island, Australia
Proponent: Gorgon Joint Venture

CO2: captured fromLNG plant, stored
in deep saline
formation
Progress:• FEED: Completed,• Construction: Sep.
2009,
• Operation: 2015,
40years

Source: www.chevronaustralia.com/ourbusinesses/gorgon.aspx

Environmental Impact Statement of Gorgon project
2005, Draft EIS/Environmental Review and Management
Programme (ERMP)••

Chapter 13: Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Risks andManagement
Greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed development
Proposal to dispose of reservoir CO2 by subsurface injection
into the Deputy formation

2006, Final EIS/Response to Submissions on the ERMP•Part B: Response to submissions
Approx. 1,300 separate questions and answers to them weredescribed in detail.

Source: www.chevronaustralia.com/ourbusinesses/gorgon/environmentalresponsibility/environmentalapprovals.aspx

Example of Environmental Impact Statement for the CCS

FutureGen project US government project, 2003
 Construction of a near zeroemissions coal-fueled power
plant to produce hydrogen andelectricity while using CCS
 Four candidate sites, 2006 Final EIS, 2007
 DOE announced arestructuring, 2008
 DOE announced a retooling,
FutureGen 2.0, 2010.
Source: FUTUREGEN PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, DOE/EIS-0394, 2007

Environmental Impact Statement of FutureGen projectapproximately 2,500 pages !!
Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Agency Action
Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternative
Chapter 3 – Summary of Environmental Consequences
Chapter 4-7 – Mattoon Site, Tuscola Site, Jewett Site, Odessa Site
Chapter 8 – References
Chapter 9 – Index
Chapter 10 – Glossary
Chapter 11 – Distribution List
Chapter 12 – List of Preparers
Chapter 13 – Comments and Responses on the Draft EIS
Risk Assessment Report
Source: www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/futuregen/eis/

Final Risk Assessment Reportfor the FutureGen Project Environmental Impact Statement

1. Intorduction
2. Conceptual site models
3. Toxicity data, benchmark
concentration effect levels
4. Pre-Injection risk
assessment
5. Post-Injection risk
assessment
6. Risk screening &performance assessment

Chapter 5CO2 leakage from the reservoir
Relevant industry experiences
Natural analog studies
ModelingExpert judgment

Collaboration with QICS project UK
Quantifying and Monitoring Potential Ecosystem Impacts of Geological Carbon Storage
Funded by the Natural Environment Research Council of the UK, with support from the Scottish Government

 Information that will support an ecological risk assessment of CCS.
 A guide to minimising potential ecological impacts from CCS.
 Models that can evaluate a variety of hypothetical leak scenarios.
 Guidelines for the detection and monitoring of leaks.

QICS project: Research consortium
UKJAPANQICS project: CO2 injection facility

QICS project: CO2 injection, 2012MayJuneJuly

CO2 injection
36 days

September

Recovery phase
90 days(kg)(kg/day)
400
300

August4000
Injection rate (kg/day)

3000

Cumulative input (kg)

200

2000

100

1000

0
May 17th, Injection Start

0
June 22nd, Injection End

QICS project: RITE’s experiment Underwater camera observation for Macro-organisms
behavior
 Effect on nitrification (Ammonium oxidation rate) ofbenthic micro-organism

Macro-organisms

Snail

Swimming crab

Sea star

Spider crab

Sea pen

CodHermit crab

GobyConclusion
 Laws and regulations for CCS has been provided
in the world.
 Site Selection and Environmental Impact
Assessment are important for public acceptanceof CCS
 Gaps in knowledge, such as “monitoringmethod” and “leakage scenario” for offshore
CCS is filled through the field experiment.
 International collaboration is highly desirable