This r ed li ne strikeout revision of the Work Group's January 7 Memorandum ref lects the requested changes and comments provided by Chartered SAB members during the January 21, 2014 conference call. 

### MEMORANDUM

SUBJEC T : Rev ised Recommendations on the Adequacy of the Science S upp orting th e Stand ards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Em iss ions from N ew Stat ionar y Sou rc es : Electric Utility Generation U nits (2060AQ-9 1) lis ted in the Sprin g 2013 R egu latory Age nd a 

### DATE: January 

### + 24, 2014 

### FROM: James R. M ihelcic , C hair , SA B Work Group on EPA P lanned Actions for SA B Cons ider ation of th e Underl y in g Science 

### TO: Members of the C h artered SAB a nd SAB L iaisons The C hartered SAB willcompletec o mplete d its discussion of whe th er to review the ade qu acy of the scie nc e supporting planned r egu latory act ions announced in the Spri n g 2013**Regula~ory** Agenda at a public teleconference planned for J anuary 21 , 2014. This teleconference was sc hedu led after the SAB received additi ona l in formation on one planned agency action , the Standard s of Perfo rman ce for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from N ew Stat i onary Sources: Electr ic Uti lity Generation Un its (2060AQ9 1) , at a public meeting on D ece mb er 4-5,2013. Based on the information provided by EPA staff and the deliberations among SAB members , the chartered SA B asked the SAB Work G r o up on EPA Planned Actio n s for SA B Consideration of the Unde rl ying Sc ie nce to gather some add itiona l in formation andreeva luate based o n thi s addit i ona l in formation , it s r ecommendations r egardin g thi s planned action
. Thi s memorandum supp l eme nt s the memorandum provided to the C h artered SA B o n N ovember 12 , 20 1 3 and updates the Work Group recommendations o n that act i o n . 

### Summary of the process u sed b y 

### the SAB Work Group for the New So urc e Performance Standards for Electricity Generating Units The Work Group presented it s recommendations in the November 1 2 , 20 1 3 memorandum to the Charter ed SA B at the D ecem b er 4-5 , 20 1 3 meeting. In addition to those recommendations , the C hartere d SAB received agency briefings on the New So urce Perfo rm ance Standards for Electricity Gene rating Un it s (2 060 AQ91) proposed rule and othe r E PA cl im ate cha n ge initiatives, and discussed the Work Gro up ' s recommendations. The meeting mater ials and a s ummary ofth at discussion are avai lable o n the SAB we b site
. B ased o n new information provided at the D ecember 4

- 5 , 2013 meeting , the C hartered SA B requ ested the Work Group to conduct an additional fact finding ca ll w ith E PA staff and re - eva luate th e recommendation for this proposed ru l e to reflect th e C hartered SA B discussions a nd the results of the fact finding call. Add iti o n al informati on was provided to the Work Group throug h severa l pub li c comments and by the EPA. T he fact finding call was he ld on D ecembe r 17 , 20 13. A sum mary of that teleconference is presented in Attachment A
.

Page 1 of 4This red line strikeout revision of the Work Group's January 7 Memo r andum refle cts the requested changes and commen ts provided by Chartered SAB members during the January 21, 2014 conference call. 

### W ork Group Recommendation s Regarding Plann ed EPA Action 2060 AQ91 The SA B Work Group reco mmend s that th e SAB n ot rev iew the sc ience s upportin g the Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emi ss io n s from New Stationary Sou r ces: E l ectric Utility Generati o n Units (2060

- AQ91 ). Th is recommendation is based o n th e ( 1) infonnati o n provided on the Clean Air Act statutory r equ irements for feas ibl e technology, the (2) status of carbon sequestrat i o n under the Un derground Inj ection Contro l Pr ogram, and (3) ad diti onal information on the EPA peer review process. The wo rk group find s that a review by the SAB woul d not provide additional benefit to the proposed rule. This proposed rule was sig n ed by Administrator McCarthy o n September 20, 20 1 3 a nd released to the public during the W o rk Group 's deliberati o n s . In a fact find in g teleconfere nc e o n De ce mber 17 , 2013 , EPA s tated that th e sc i e nc e and te c hnical ba ses o f thi s action do not rel y o n n ew sc i ence, are based o n the B est Sys tem of E mi ss i o n Reduction (BS ER), a nd th e act i o n is techno l ogy based. The Work Group initially co n sidered that thi s action involved precedential a nd novel issues that rely on ne w technologie s fo r carbon captu re a nd storage (CCS). H owever, as di sc u ssed be l ow, E PA ha s made a

**~legal** decision that thi s ac ti o n o nl y appl ies to c a rb on emissions a nd the capture of carbon emissions, a nd thus does not directly addre ss carbon sequ estrat i on. This legal dec isio n re sulted in the Work Group having to consider a narrower focus of the underlying science related to an important issue that did not include carbon sequestration. Durin g the December 17 , 20 1 3 fact finding teleconference , EPA Staff explained that the agency ' s co n s ide ra ti o n of feasibi li ty and co mmerc ia ll y ava il ab ili ty ofCCS provisions wo uld be techn i ca ll y bindin g only o n coa l-fi red EGUs and were ba se d on three examples o f impl ementing partial CCS
. They stated that th e agency 's co nside rati o n s meet the s tatutory require me nt s to determine if tec hn olog ies w ill be ava iI ab l e for the re g ulated commun ity at th e time of construction 1 • They prov ided several exam ple s of fac iliti es w ith s imilar e n g inee rin g and technolog ica l processes used in electricity ge nerating un its (EGUs) employing carbo n capture and re ite rated that the demonstration of these fac il ities provides reasonabl e assuran ce fo r the future avai la bili ty of the technology (See Attachme n t C in the Work Group 's November 12. 2013 M emo randum,). The EPA also noted that thi s proposed rul e does n o t address ca rb o n se questration and rel ies o n the pennitting and r epo rtin g requ ire ments for carbon dioxide se questration r eq uire d in the Offi ce of W ate r 's Underground Inj ect i o n Co ntrol Program for Ca rb o n Di ox id e Geo l ogic Seq ues tration
. At the D ecember 17 , 2013 fact finding teleco nf e r

ence, E PA prov ide d some additional inf ormati o n o n the basis a nd peer review process used by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Nati ona l Energy Technology Laborator y (NETL) for the studies 2 used in d eve loping the propo sed rule. The EPA staff exp lained that existi n g and plan n ed E G Us that u se various energy sources and techno logy were used as the bas i s fo r the BSER assumptions fo r n ew natural gas and coa l fuel sou rc es fo r n ew E G Us. The EPA s taff noted that these EGUs may be und e r co n s tru ct ion or in advanced s tages of development and n ot fully o perational. After th e Work Group r equ es ted add iti o nal informati o n o n th e peer review proc ess
1 Senate Report on C lean A ir Ac t 1970 as c ited in Portland Ce ment Association vs. Ru cke ls h au s. 2 Volume I of the series

- "Cos t and Perfo rm ance Baseline for Fossi l Energy Power Plants , Volume I : Bituminous Coal a nd Natural Gas to E lectri city" (and subsequent updates)

- available at hllp: / www.netl .doe.gov /energv-analyseslbaseline studies.html August 20 II report "Cost and Performance of PC and IG CC Plants for a Range of Carbon Dioxide Capture" which modified the C02 capture rates for select cases presented in the "Cost and Performance Ba se l ine for Fossi l Energy P lants" did not undergo peer review. That report can be found here: http: //www.netl.doe.gov/cncrgvana I yses/ re fshel f/Pub Detai I s.aspx?Action = View& Pub I d = 3 96

Pa ge 2 of 4This red line strikeout rev is ion of the Work Group's January 7 Memorandum reflects t he requested c hange s and comments provided by Chartered SAB members during the Jan ua ry 21 , 2014 conference call. support in g the proposed rul e , EPA staff exp lained that the NETL studies were a ll peer r eviewed under DOE peer r eview protocols and that EPA did not actua ll y conduct additional peer review(s). However , E PA provided furt he r informat i on to the Work G r o up from NETL in add ition to that c ited in the November memorandum. A summary of merit reviews and a comment response document on the 

### 2006 Cost and Performance Comparison of Fossil Energy Power Plants for DOE documents was provided (See Attachment A). EPA staff n oted that the different l eve ls of review of th e s e DOE documents met the r e quirements to s upp ort the ana l yses as defined by th e EPA Pe er Review Handbook 3

. They also stated that peer review of economic data typ i ca ll y occu rs only if new modeling procedures are emp loyed. The Work Group finds that while the scie ntific and technical bas is for carbon storage provisions is new and e m erging science, the agency is using th e best ava il ab le science and has conduc te d peer rev i ew o n the DO E documents at a level requ ired by agency gu i dance. The Work Group notes that the proposed rule estimates a limited numb er of newly constructed coal-fired powe r plants in the future and is also subject to a required review in e i ght yea rs from promulgation. The Work Group e ncourages the agency to consider decreasing the initial review peri o d and to carefu ll y monitor the post rule r eal ity compared to its esti m ated construct i on of coa l- fired power plants and ca rb on sequestration demand to ensu r e that the technologies are feasible and avai labl e to newly constructed electricity generatin g units to meet the new standards. The specific technical and scientifi c matters that can be examined as part of th at review the agency cou ld include 

### (1) fea s ibi lity and ri s k a ss ociat e d with carbon capture a nd storage as a BSER for coa l-fired plants, (2) underlying sc i ent ific assump ti ons around carbon pollution em iss ions technolog ical controls , (3) estimatingprojections for cons tru ctio n of coal...fi.Fefi red power plants , and (4) the l evel of carbon dioxide em ission set by the stand ard
. Attachment B provides informati on provided by EPA and the revised r ecommendat ion for 2060 AQ9l. 

### Work Group Recommendations Regarding lmp
. rovements to the Process for Identifying EPA Planned Actions for SAB Consideration The Work Group acknow l edges that the EPA provided additiona l clar ify in g inf ormation for cons iderat i on upon req u est and thanks the agency for providing th is information. However , the Work Group emphasizes that the SAB needs the agency to provide more complete and time ly informat ion earlier in the process so that th e Board can make r ecomme nd ations and decisions regar ding the science supporting planned act ions. The Work Group finds that the prel imin ary in format i on provided by the Agency for th is action (See Attachment B of th is Memorandum) d id n ot fully meet the requ irements or the spi rit of the framework adopted by EPA (See Work Group November 12,2013 Memo randum Attachme nt A) to facilitate the SAB r eview of planned regulatory ac ti ons . The om ission of c ri tical information , espec ially regard in g peer review of in fo rm at i o n used as the basis of parts of the planned action , created delays in r eview in g the adequacy of the sc i e nt ific and technical information that support p lanned actio n s. To improve the process for f uture review of t he semi -annual regulatory agenda , the SAB Work Group continu es to s tro n g ly recommend that EPA enhance descriptions of future planned actio n s by providing spec ifi c information on the peer rev i ew associated w ith the science basis fo r act i ons and more description of the sc ient ifi c and techno l ogica l bases fo r the actions. EPA s hou l d provide such information in the init ia l descriptions prov i ded to the work group.

3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Peer Review Handbook, 3rd Edition EPA/100/ B-06/002. Page 3 of 4This redline strikeout rev isio n of the Work Group's January 7 Memorandum reflect s the requested change s and com ments provided by Chartered SAB members durin g th e January 21, 2014 conference call. In su mmary, effective SAB evaluation of plann ed act ions requires the agency to c h arac teri ze the se e le me nt s in th e initial d esc ripti o n s of planned actions:

• All re l evant key in formation associated w ith th e p lanned action; • The sc ienc e supportin g the re g ulato ry act i o n . If there is new scien ce to be u se d , prov ide a description of w hat is being developed. lfthe agency is relyin g o n ex ist in g sc ienc e, pro v ide a s h o rt description. • The nature of p lanned o r completed peer rev iew. T o the extent possible , provide in formation about the type of peer review , th e charge ques ti ons provided to the reviewers , how rele vant peer review comments were integrated into the planned act io n , and information about the qualificati o n s of th e r ev iewer (s)
. T hi s SAB Work Gro up m ade these recommend at ions in Marc h 2 013 and in Nove mber 20 1 3. We request that the c h arte r ed SAB hi g hlight to th e Adm ini strato r the need for the age ncy to pro v ide m ore complete information to support fut ur e SAB decisions about the adequacy of the science s upp o rtin g actions in future re gulatory agendas. A tt achmen t s Attac hment A Attac hment 8: S umm a ry of th e D ece mber 17 , 20 1 3 fact-finding teleconference , que s ti o ns se nt to National Prog ram Offices at th e SA B ' s request and the agency Descript i o n s of the Standard s of Pe rf o rmance for Greenhou se Gas Emissions from N ew S ta ti o nary Sou rce s : Electric Utility Generation Units (2060AQ-91) with updated SAB Work Group Recommendat i on

Page 4 of 4

### Introduction Attachment A Summary of Science Advisory Board Fact-Finding Meeting on New Source Performance Standards for Electricity Generating Units (2060 AQ91) December 17,2013

The SAB Work Group on EPA Planned Actions for SAB Consideration of the Underlying Science presented it s recommendations in a November 12, 2013 Memorandum to the Chartered SABat a public meeting on December 4-5, 2013
. Tn addition to the Work Group 's recommendations the Chartered SAB received information on the New Source Performance Standards for Electric Util ity Generating Units (2060 AQ91) proposed rule , other EPA climate change initiatives, and discussed the Work Groups recommendations. The Chartered SAB requested the Work Group to conduct an add iti ona l fact finding call with EPA staff and revise the recommendation for this proposed rule to reflect the Chartered SAB discussions and the re s ults of the fact finding call peer review requirements , feasibility and commercialization of sequestration technology , and analyses support in g the proposed rule 's emiss i ons standard coal fired EGUs. Dr. James Mihelcic , Chair of the Work Group , led members and EPA staff through a discussion ofthe propose rule and the Work Group's questions on December 17,2013. Participants in the discussion are listed in Attachment 1. 

### Summary of Teleconference The Work Group provided a set of questions requesting additional inf ormation on the planned activity after the Chartered SAB meeting on December 4

- 5, 20 1 3. The questions are li sted below w ith a summary of the agency's responses.
Mr. Kevin Cu lli gan p rov ided opening remarks and an overview of the proposed rule. Mr. Culligan described the Clean Air Act's unique statutory guidance on setting performance standards based on the determination of the Best System of Em ission Reduction (BSER) and for determining the technical feasib ili ty and commercial avai labil i ty of those systems. H e also noted that the conference report 1 and legislative history for the C l ean Air Act make it clear that the BSER technology does not need to be in actual routine use but can projected based on existing technology
... When setting a standard, this BSER determination is a pol ic y judgment based on an evaluation of the available techno l ogies and sector trends. There are a range of carbon capture projects in operation today. These include sma ll er-sca l e project s at coa l-fired power plants that are connected to the grid and are selling the captured C02 for commerc ial use. They also include larger-scale projects that are gasifying coal or petroleum coke and capturing C0 2 using the same technologies that would be utilized at a new IGCC plant There are also several full-scale utility projects in var i ous stages of development- including two that are more than 75percent complete.

1 Senate Report on Clean Air Act 1970 , as cited in Portland Ceme nt Associati on vs. RuckelshausQuestions from the Work Group for OAR 

### Peer Review Questions: Question: What are the EPA peer review requirements for studies of the feasibility and commercia li zat i on of sequestration techno l ogy that support the Standar ds of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emiss i ons from New Stat i onary Sources: Electri c Utility Generation Units (2060

- AQ9 1 )? Response: In addit i on to th e comment Mr. Cu ll igan provided, EPA staff noted that carbon d ioxide (C0 2 ) sequestrat i on regulations were developed under separate rul es. The agency v i ews the technical documents u sed in support of this proposed ru le as economic in nature and focused on the cost of CCS, n ot on the technical feas ibi l ity . The agency used prev i ous ly peer-reviewed reports to conduct th is analysis and dete rmin ed th at addit i onal peer rev iew was not required as described in the EPA Peer Review Handbook 2

. Agency staff noted that techno l ogy , cost , and performan ce information from research conducted by the Department of E n ergy ' s Nati o n Energy Technology Labo rato ri es (NETL) was u sed in deve l oping the proposed ru le . The process NETL used to develop the cost and performance analyses involved a mu lti

- step process th at included conven in g of expert panels to r eview the research agendas , work in g with experts in the spec ifi c sectors ( i .e . , electri city generat in g un it s) to develop specific reports, and subseque nt peer r ev iew of th e product reports. CCS was also addressed in comments to the 

### 2006 Cost and Performance Comparison of Fossil Energy Power Plant (see below) Question: Pl ease provide infonnation that documents the required peer reviews, includin g the charge, peer reviewers' report , names of peer r ev iewers , and how the peer rev i ewe rs' concerns were add r essed
. Response: EPA noted that NET L conducted reviews of the cost a nd performance analyses. EPA staff provided information on the merit review and comments received on analyses conducted by NETL These documents we r e provided as examp les ofNETL's level of review on ana lyses EPA used in developing the New Sou rce Performance Standards (2060 AQ91 )
. NETL conducted a merit r eview on Project B2A that compared performance and cos t o n a cons istent basis of cur rentl y available technolog i es and considered sh ift s in the power indu stry since the p r evious study was published in 1998. (See page 22 of the NETL Systems Analysis Merit Review, August 2005) The cost and performance analyses inc lud ed state
- of

- th e - art n atur al gas comb in ed cycle (NGCC) and coa l-fired power plants and capture of approxi m ate ly 90 percent C0 2 from each of the generat i on technologies. A summary of the NETL review is avai lable on the SAB webs ite . NETL states that "(t )he merit reviews provide a means of guid in g future act ivities to ensu r e intended object ives are met. Projects are reviewed by a team of technical experts from industry , academia , outs ide research laborator ies in cluding the national laboratori es, and the relevant NETL pe rsonne l. " EPA also provided the comments and partia l NETL responses from a r eview of the 

### 2006 Cost and Pe1jormance Comparison of Fossil Energy Power Plants
. The review was conducted in September 2006 by a 13 member panel of reviewers. The bl in ded rev iewers co m ments and NETL response are availab le on the SAB website at: In sert link

2 U.S. Environment a l Prote cti on Age ncy Pe e r Review Handbook, 3rd Edition 

### EPA/I 00/B-06/002 A

- 2

### Feasibility of Carbon Sequestration Questions:

In addition to Mr. Culligan's description of the factors that the Clean A ir Act requ ires for cons i derat i on, EPA staff i dentified severa l coa l- fired plants that utilize carbon capture and sequestration technologies at differe nt l evels of capture. The agency cites these plants as demonstration the technology will be ava i lab l e for new plants bui lt in the future. The agency, based on the industry trend analys is 3
, estimates that the r e will on ly be a "handful of plants " that wou ld consider coal as a fuel source, further support i ng the agency's determinatio n that the techno l ogy is feasib l e and adequately demonstrated and the standard is ach ievable. Questions: What is the basis for EPA's understanding of the feasibi l ity and commercialization of carbon sequestration technology? What EPA programs current ly regulate carbon sequestrat i on? What is the status ofthose cu rrent regu lations? What are EPA's assumptions about future carbon sequestration technology, activities and regu lat i ons that give it confidence that carbo n sequestration is an appropriate part of this rulemaking? Response: EPA staff provided a PowerPo int presentat i on (see Attachment 2) that prov i des informat i on on geo l ogic sequestration in the context of the proposed carbon pollution standards for new power plants , provides an overview of geo l ogic sequestration technology , and describes EPA's geolog ic sequestrat ion regulation s . Under the proposed rule, captured C0 2 must be sent to a faci li ty that meets the existing regulatory requirements for monitoring and reporting geo l og i c sequestration (Subpart RR of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program). Th e presentation pr ov ides background on the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program requ irements. The presentation a lso describes the perm i tting requirements ' under the Underground Injection Contro l Program, including traditiona l enhanced oil recovery (C l ass 11 we ll s) and large - scale geo l ogic sequestration (Class V I wells)
. A rule under the Resource Recovery Act w ill clarify how EPA waste regu lations app ly to C02 streams that ar e injected into Class VI we ll s. EPA staff a lso noted that the EPA developed a peer reviewed Vulnerabi lity Evaluation Framework to he lp eva luate site spec i fic vu lnerabil i ties at geo log i c sequestration projects. 

### Analyses for new coal-firedplants standard Q uestion: What analyses support the proposed rule's em issions standard of I , I 

### 00 lb C02/MW hr for coa l fired EGUs? Response: The agency cons i dered a range of technolog i es and fuel sources to deve l op the proposed emissions standards for coal fired EGUs. Both cost and performance were taken into account. The agency co n sidered carbon capture technologies ranging from 

### 0-90% capture and proposed a standard based on a reasonable and achievab le level of carbon emission reductio n . The age ncy a lso compared coal-fired plants to other fue l sources to better unde rstand the policy

3 "Trend s in Structure of Electric Power Sector L imiting Amount ofNew Coal", Techn ical Support Document available in the docket for the proposed rule at: regulations.gov (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-20 13-0495). A

- 3implications for propo s ing the standard at I , I 00 lb 

### C0 2 /MWh. Agency s taff u sing inf ormation from the Energy Inf ormation Administration (E I A) and NET L , estimated costs for systems using other fuel sources (e.g., coa l without 

### CCS, natural gas, and nuclear) to rang e between $80/MWh to $ 130/MWh. The se costs were considered in proposing the standard at I , I 00 lb 

### C0 2 /MWh.

A-4

### Attachment 1 Participants in the Science Advisory Board Fact-Find i ng Meeting on EPA P lanned Actions in the Spring 2013 Regulatory Agenda December 17 , 2013 Members of Work Group on EPA Planned Act ion s for SAB Consideration ofthe Unde rl ying Science Dr. James R. Mihelcic , Cha ir Dr. Taylor E ig hm y Dr. R. William F ield Dr. H. Ch ris top h er Frey Dr. Madh u Khann a Dr. PeterS. T horne SAB S t aff Offic e Mr. Th omas Carpe n te r , Desig n ate d Federal Officer EPA Office of A ir and Radiation Staff M r. Kevin C ulli gan , Associate Director, Sector Policies and Program Division, Office of Air Quality P lannin g and Standards D r . Mark D e Figueiredo, Team Leader , Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program , Office of Atmospheric Pro g ram s Dr. Nick Hutson , Sen io r Technical Adv iso r, Energy S trateg i es G roup , Sect or Policies and Program Division , Office of Air Quality Pl a nnin g and Stand ards Ms
. A nh a r K arim jee , Chief, Gree nh ouse Gas R epo rtin g Program , Office of Atmos ph eric Programs Mr. Carl Mazza, Sen io r A d viso r , OAR Mr P eter T sirigotis Dir ecto r , Sector Policies a nd Prog ram Division , Office of Air Quality Pl anning and Stand ards

A-5

### A tt a chm e n t 2



## Geologic Sequestration

December 17, 2013



## P r oposed Carbon Pollution Standards f or N e w Power Plants

• Under the proposed carbon pollut i on standards for new po w er p la n ts, '""'"T" r••n C0 2 must be sent t o a facility that meets the existing regulatory requireme n ts for monitoring and reporting geologic sequestration (Subpart RR of the G H GRP) • Proposal relies upon the existing requirements and does not set any new requirements related to sequestration

- EPA already has a regulatory framework in place for monitoring and permitting C0 2 injection and geologic sequestration

- Only requiring any new fossil fuel
- fired power plant owners to meet the proposed emission limit

A-6

### A ttac hm e nt 2



### Overv i ew of Geologic Sequestration (GS)

Industry, researchers, government agencies, and other stakeholders have been evaluating CCS technologies since the 1990s Existing project and regulatory experience, research, and analogs indicate that GS is a viable long -term C0 2 storage option

- About 50 million metric tons of C0 2 are transported each year in the US through 3,600 mi l es of pipe l ines

- Industry has 40+ yea r s experience conduct ing EOR

- Geologic storage potential is widespread across the US (over 2,300 billion metric tons of C0 2 ) Four existing commercia l CCS facilities in other countries and a numb e r of studies have demon strated geologic sequestration of C0 2 "W

i th appropriate site selection

... , o moni to ring program ... , o regula tory system, and the appropriate use ofremed iat

i on methods

. . ., th e loco/he alth, safety and environmental r i sks ofgeolog i cal storage would be comparab l e to r isks of current act i v

i ties . . .

**~** -IPCC Speci al Report on Carbon Capture and Storage (2005)

**L- --------------------**  **----~----~**



## Regulatory Background

• EPA has spent over 10 years analyzing geo l ogic sequestration issues a nd engaging with stakeholders to eva l uate regu l atory or other barriers to CCS dep l oyment and ensure continued protection of human health and the environment • EPA has closely coordinated deve l opment of GS regulations across applicable statutes

- Safe Dr in ki ng Water Act • Underground Inj ect i on Cont r ol (UIC) Program: Stan d ards a nd req uir emen ts for

permitting wells used to inje ct C02 underground

- Cl ean A ir Act • Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: Monitoring and reporting fo r geologic

sequestrati on Resource Conservati on and Recovery Act

• Proposed rule clarifying how EPA's w as t e regulations a pp ly to captured C02 str eams

that are ge olo gi cally sequestered via injectio n wells designated for that purpose under th e Saf e Drinking Water Act

A-7

### Attachment 2


## Underground Injection Control Program



# . • Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) authorized the establishment of the Underground Injection Control (UIC} Program to ens ure protection of underground sources of drinking water (USDWs)

- 30+ years of experience on regulating underground injection in an informed, sc i entific and transparent manner • SDWA provides permitting framework for C02 i njection

- Class II wells: Traditional enhanced oil recovery (EOR) projects

- Class VI wells: large -scale geo lo gic sequestration projects



## Underground Injection Control -Class VI Overview

Considerations for GS UIC Program Elements • Large Volumes • Site Characterization • Buoyancy • Area of Review (AoR} • Viscosity (Mobility} • Well Construction • Corrosivity • Well Operation • Site Monitori ng New we ll class establ i shed : Class V I • Post - Injection Site Care • Public Part icipat ion • Financ ial Responsibil ity • Site Closure

A-8

### Attachment 2



## Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP}

• Launched in response to FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations

- Statutory authority: Clean Air Act, Section 114 • Annual report i ng of GHGs by 41 source categories

- 33 types of d i rect emitters - 6 types of suppliers of fuel and industrial GHGs

- Facilities that inject C02 underground for geo l ogic sequestration, enhanced oil recovery , or any other purpose • Most source categories began collecting data in 2010, with first annual reports submitted to EPA in September 2011

- An additional12 source categories began collecting data in 2011, w i th first annual reports submitted to EPA i n September 2012 • Direct reporting to EPA electronically • EPA verifi cation of G H G data



## GHGRP Subparts Related to CCS

co l source

M:Meter EL&V: Eq u ip m e n t L eaks and Ven t ed Emiss i o n s

A-9 C02 surface leakage, if anyAttachment 2


## Geologic Sequestration in the GHGRP (Subpart RR)

• Subpart RR provides a mechanism f o r facilities t o mo ni t or and re port to EP

A t h e quantity of C0 2 seq u es t e r e d on an annual basis • Comp l ementary to and bui l ds on U n de rground I njection C o ntrol r equireme nt s • EP A developed a Vul n erability E v a l u at i on Framework (V EF ) for Geologic Sequestratio n t h at su p ported t he pro p o se d ru l e



## Geologic Sequestration in the GHGRP (Subpa rt RR)

• All facilities subjec t t o Subpart RR must develop and imp l eme n t an EPA-a pprov ea monitoring, report i ng an d verification (MRV) plan

- Delineation o f the monito r ing areas

- I den t ification of potential surface leakage pathways for C0 2

- Strategy for detecting and quantify i ng surface l eakage of C0 2

- Strategy for estab l ishing the expected baseline for monito r ing C0 2 surface leakage

- Site-specific variables • Once the facility has an approved MRV plan, the following are required t o b e r eported annually:

- C0 2 received and the source of the received C02, if known

- Mass ba l ance equat i on inputs (C0 2 injected, C0 2 produced, C0 2 emitted by surface l eakage, C0 2 emitted from equipmen t leaks and vented C0 2 emissions)

- An ann u a l monitoring report , which includes a narrative history of monitoring efforts, non - materia l changes to MRV Pl an, narrative history of mon i tor i ng anomalies, and description of surface leakage of C0 2 , if any

A -10 10

### Attachment B Descriptions of the Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New

Stationary Source s: Electric Ut ility Generation Units (2060AQ-91) with updated SAB Work Group Recommendation Description of Potential EPA Tier 1 or Tier 2 Action (EPA provided in August 2013) Na me of action: S tand ard s of Pe rf ormance fo r Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New Stationary Sources: Electric Ut il ity Ge ne rating Units RIN N umber: 2060-AQ9 1 EPA Office originating action: OAR Brief description of action and statement of need for the action: Power plants are the largest concentrated sou rce of emissions in the United States , together account in g fo r roug hl y one-th ird of all domestic greenhouse gas emissions. President Obama ' s C limate Acti on Pl an , and the June 25 , 2013 presidential memorandum on power sector carbon pollution standards , direct EPA to take severa l actions to reduce gree nh ouse gas emiss i ons from power plants. One of these is to propose, and then finalize, carbon pollution standards for new power plants. In this action, EPA plans to establish new sou rc e performance standards (NS P S) fo r new e l ectri c utility generat in g units (EGUs) under the author ity of section I l l of the Clean Air Act. Timetable: EPA intends to issue new proposed carbon pol lution standards by September20 , 2013 , and final standards w i thin one year of publication of the proposal. Does the action rely on science that meets the EPA 

### Peer Review Handbook definition of "an influential scientific or technical work product" that "has a m a jor impact , involves precedential , novel , and/or controversial issues, or the Agency has a legal and/or statutory obligation to conduct a peer review? " This action does not rely on new sc i ence. This action wi ll rely on the identification of existing , proven techno log ies to set achievable em ission standard s that , by statute , offer the " best system of em ission reduction " (B SE R). Scientific questions to be addresse d and approach: This is a technology based r u l

e (as described above). Plans for scientific analyse s and peer review: See description above
.

B -1Recommendation from the SAB Work Group on EPA Planned Actions for SAB Consideration of the U nd erly in g Science (Revised Januarv 

### 2 014)
Name of planned action: Standards of Performance for Greenhous e Gas Emissions from New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generation Un its (AQ91) Please respond to the following questions based on the short description EPA provided for the planned action
. Yes No Is the action planned or und e r review by the SAB? If not, has EPA id e ntified 

### X other high-level external peer review (i.e., by the NAS, CASAC, or FIFRA SAP)? Is the action primarily administrative (i.e., in v olve reporting or record keeping)? 

### X Has EPA characterized the action as one that has "an influential scientific or 

### X technical work product" that "has a major impact , involves precedential, novel, and/or controversial issues , or the Agency has a le gal and/or statutory obligation to conduct a peer review? " Is the action an extension of an existing initiative? 

### X
Please indicate whether the action merits a high, medium or low level of interest regarding the following historical SAB science- and problem-driven criteria, based on the short d EPA .d d f h I d

escnpt10n provt e or t e p i anne act10n. High Medium Low Involves scientific approaches that are new to the agency X Addresses areas of substantial uncertainties X Involves major environmental risks 

### X Relates to emerging environmenta l issues 

### X Exhibits a**lon~- term**  outlook 

### X Please provide a recommendation regarding whether the SAB shou ld consider this action for review and comment on the adequacy of the supporting science and provide a brief rationale. The SAB Work Group recommends that the SAB not review The Standards of Performance for Greenhou se Gas E missions from New Stationary Sources: E l ectric Uti li ty Generation Un it s (2060-AQ9l). This recommendation is based on the 

### ( 1) inf ormati on provided on the statutory requirements on feasible technology, (2) the status of carbon sequestration under the Underground Injection Control Program , and 

### (3) additional information on the EPA peer review process provided to the Work Group. The Work Group finds that a review by the SAB wou ld not provid e additional benefit to the proposed rule. This act i on in volves development of new performance standards for greenhouse gas emissions (C0 2 ) from new Electric Util i ty Generation Units (EGUs) under new source performance rules. B-2The Work Group r eview of this action 1 considered all items in the table in the previous page including: (1), whether there was an adequate scientific and technological basis for the proposed provisions to achieve emissions reductions in coal-fueled EGUs and (2), whether th e peer review of the scientific and techn ical information supporting the action was adequate. The Agency's expectation is that most new power plants will utilize natural gas combined cycle technology to impl ement this proposal. The EPA considered industry trends, available techno lo gy, and best systems of emission reduction to develop the proposal. The Agency concludes that the proposed standard will not be technology forc in g for such plants. In a fact -finding call held on September 26 , 2013, the EPA Staff explained that shou ld new EGUs not utilize natural gas and opt for coal as a fuel source , these new coal plants will need to implement new carbon capture and sto rage (CCS) technologies to meet the standards. The EPA is identifying partial CCS as a viable technology for new efficient coal units that would meet the criteria of the best system of emiss ion reduction (BSER) for imp lem entat ion of the proposed standards. In setting B SERs, the EPA considers the standard and whether: the system is technically feas ibl e; the costs are reasonable; the amount of emissions achieved by the technology meets the standard; and does the proposal promote the impl eme ntat i on and further development of a technology. EPA Staff expla ined that the CCS provisions are based on three examples of implem enting partial CCS and the strong demonstration these facilities make for the feasibility of th is technology (See Attachment C of the November 12, 2013 Memorandum to the Chartered SAB). EPA Staff expla ined that the feasibility and commercially available considerations for CCS provisions would only be binding to coal-fired EGUs and meet the statutory elementsreguirementsin the Clean Air Act to determine if the tech nol ogies w ill be availab le for the regulated community at the time of construction 2

. They provided several examp le s of facilities with s imil ar engineering and technology processes to e l ectr icity generat in g units using CCS and state d that the demonstration of these fac ilitie s provides a reasonable assurance for the availability of the technology. EPA also noted during two December meetings (December 4-5 and 17) that this proposed rule does not address carbon sequestration and relies on the establ ished permitting and reporting requirements for carbon dioxide sequestration required in the Underground Injection Contro l Pro gram for Carbo n Di ox ide Geologic Seq u estration. The Work Group finds that while the scientific and technical basis for carbon storage provisions is new and emerging science, the agency is using the best available science and has conducted peer r eview of DOE documents at a level required by agency gu idanc e. The Work Group notes that the proposed rule estimates a limited number of newly constructed coal -fired power plants and is also subject to a required review in eight years from promulgation. The Work Group encourages the agency to consider decrea s ing the initial review period and to carefully m onitor the post rule reality compared to its estimated construction of coal -fir e power plants and carbon sequestration demand to ensure that the technologies are feasib le and availab le to newly constructed electricity generating units to meet the new standa rd s. The spec ifi c tec hni cal and scientific matters that can be examined as part of that review could include 

### (l) fea s ibility and ri s k as s ociated with carbon capture and storage as a BSER for coa l-fired plants, (2) underlying scientific assumptions around

1 Administrator McCarthy signed the proposed Standards ofPerformance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New Stationary Sources: Electric Utili ty Generation Un its on September 20 , 2013. 2 Senate Report on Clean Air Act 1970 , as cited in Portland Cement Association vs . Ruckelshaus 

### B-3

### carbon pollution emi ss ion s technological contro ls, (3) e stimating future acc ur acy of projecti o ns of construction of coal-fired power plants , and (4) 

### th e level of carbon di oxide set by the standard. The EPA Staff cited Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) studies as well as existing EGUs under construction and in advanced stage s of development as the basis for the BSER a s sumptions for new natura l gas and coal fuel sources for new EGUs. EPA staff explained that the N ETL studie s are all peer reviewed and EPA did not conduct additional peer re view(s)
. The SAB Staff requ es ted additional inf onn ati o n on the technol o gical ba s i s and peer re v iew f or the action from OAR and NETL for a Septemb er 2 6 

### teleconference with th e Work Group. OAR Staff notes that th e EPA relied on information N E TL released in a serie s of reports on the ' Cost and Performance Ba se lin es for Fossil En e r gy Plants. " 

### The studies were conducted to establish estimates for the co st and performance of combu stion and gasification based power plants as well as options for co-generating synthetic natural ga s and fuels , a ll w ith and without carbon di oxide capture and s t o rage. Volume I 

### of thes e studie s explains that
... " [t]he initial results of thi s analysis were s ubjected to a s ignificant peer revi ew by industr y exp ert s, acad emia and gov ernment resea rch a nd r egulato r y agen c ies . " 3 

### N ETL Staff respond ed that ··rev iewers w ere sent the report and given sev eral we eks f o r re v ie w and the regulatory age nc y that provided the revi ew wa s the EPA. " N ETL n oted that this peer review process was specifically tailored for thi s report and NETL does not have a publicallyava il able description of the re view
. NETL staff also notes that a ll the in format ion presented for coal-fue led source s wa s not peer reviewed. 4 

### I n the December 17 , 201 3 fact-finding teleco nf e r

ence, the wo rk group learn ed that EPA did not pro v ide the peer r ev i ew o f the NETL stud y; r ather the peer re v iew wa s manage d by DOE. For the December 17 , 201 3 f ac t-finding telec o nf eren ce , EPA provided additional inf o nnation from NETL on the revi ew proce ss. A summary o f merit r ev ie w s and a c omm ent r es po nse document on the 2006 C o s t and Pe1j o rmance C ompari s on of Fo ss il Energy Pow e r Plant s 

### f or DOE documents wa s provided (Attachment A). EPA s taff noted that the different levels ofreview..Q.[ these DO E doc um ent s met the requirements to s upport the analyses as defined by the EPA Peer Review H andbook 5

. 

### They also stated that peer review of economic data typically occurs on ly if new modeling pr o cedures were employed.

3 Vo lume I of the seri es - "Cos t and Performance Ba se lin e f o r Foss il Energy Po wer Plant s, Vo lume 1: Bitumino u s Coa l a nd N atural G as to Ele c tri c it y" ( and sub se qu e nt upd ates)

- available at http: //ww w. ne tl.d oe. go v /energya na lvses/b a se lin e s tudi es. html 4 Aug u s t 20 II re po rt "Cos t and Pe rf o rm ance of P C an d IGCC Pl ant s f o r a Ran ge o f C arbo n D iox id e C apture " whi c h m od ifi e d th e C 0 2 captur e rates f o r selec t c as es pr ese nte d in th e "Cos t and Perf o rm ance B ase lin e fo r Fossil En e rgy Plant s" did n o t und e rgo p eer r eview. That rep o rt can b e fo un d he re: http: //www. nc tl. doc .gov/e ne rg v an alvses/refs he lf / PubD e ta ils.aspx?Ac ti o n= Vie w&Publd = 396 5 U.S. Environme n tal Protection Agencv P eer Review Handbook, 3 rd Editi o n 

### EPA/ I 00/ B-06/ 002 

### B-4