This red line strikeout revision of the Work Group's January 7 Memorandum reflects the requested changes and 

comments provided by Chartered SAB members during the January 21, 2014 conference call. 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Revised Recommendations on the Adequacy of the Science Supporting the Standards of 

Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New Stationary Sources: Electric 

Utility Generation Units (2060AQ-9 1) listed in the Spring 2013 Regulatory Agenda 

DATE: January +24, 2014 

FROM: James R. Mihelcic, Chair, SAB Work Group on EPA Planned Actions for SAB 

Consideration of the Underlying Science 

TO: Members of the Chartered SAB and SAB Liaisons 

The Chartered SAB willcompletecompleted its discussion of whether to review the adequacy of the 

science supporting planned regulatory actions announced in the Spring 2013 Regula~ory Agenda at a 

public teleconference planned for January 21 , 2014. This teleconference was scheduled after the SAB 

received additional information on one planned agency action, the Standards of Performance for 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generation Units (2060AQ9 1), at a public meeting on December 4-5,2013. Based on the information provided by EPA staff and 

the deliberations among SAB members, the chartered SAB asked the SAB Work Group on EPA Planned 

Actions for SAB Consideration of the Underlying Science to gather some additional information andreevaluate based on this additional information, its recommendations regarding this planned action. This 

memorandum supplements the memorandum provided to the Chartered SAB on November 12, 20 13 

and updates the Work Group recommendations on that action. 

Summary of the process used by the SAB Work Group for the New Source Performance 

Standards for Electricity Generating Units 

The Work Group presented its recommendations in the November 12, 20 13 memorandum to the 

Chartered SAB at the December 4-5, 20 13 meeting. In addition to those recommendations, the 

Chartered SAB received agency briefings on the New Source Performance Standards for Electricity 

Generating Units (2060 AQ91) proposed rule and other EPA climate change initiatives, and discussed 

the Work Group's recommendations. The meeting materials and a summary ofthat discussion are 

available on the SAB website. Based on new information provided at the December 4-5, 2013 meeting, 

the Chartered SAB requested the Work Group to conduct an additional fact finding call with EPA staff 

and re-evaluate the recommendation for this proposed ru le to reflect the Chartered SAB discussions and 

the results of the fact finding call. Additional information was provided to the Work Group through 

several public comments and by the EPA. 

The fact finding call was held on December 17, 20 13. A summary of that teleconference is presented in 

Attachment A. 

Page 1 of 4 
This red line strikeout revision of the Work Group's January 7 Memorandum reflects the requested changes and 

comments provided by Chartered SAB members during the January 21, 2014 conference call. 

Work Group Recommendations Regarding Planned EPA Action 2060 AQ91 

The SAB Work Group recommends that the SAB not review the science supporting the Standards of 

Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generation 

Units (2060-AQ91 ). This recommendation is based on the ( 1) infonnation provided on the Clean Air 

Act statutory requirements for feasible technology, the (2) status of carbon sequestration under the 

Underground Injection Control Program, and (3) additional information on the EPA peer review 

process. The work group finds that a review by the SAB would not provide additional benefit to the 

proposed rule. 

This proposed rule was signed by Administrator McCarthy on September 20, 20 13 and released to the 

public during the Work Group's deliberations. In a fact find ing teleconference on December 17, 2013, 

EPA stated that the sc ience and technical bases of this action do not rely on new science, are based on 

the Best System of Emission Reduction (BSER), and the action is techno logy based. The Work Group 

initially considered that this action involved precedential and novel issues that rely on new technologies 

for carbon capture and storage (CCS). However, as discussed below, EPA has made a ~legal 

decision that this action only applies to carbon emissions and the capture of carbon emissions, and thus 

does not directly address carbon sequestration. This legal decision resulted 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. During the December 17, 20 13 fact finding teleconference, EPA Staff explained 

that the agency's consideration of feasibi lity and commercially availability ofCCS provisions would be 

technica ll y binding only on coal-fired EGUs and were based on three examples of implementing partial 

CCS. They stated that the agency's considerations meet the statutory requirements to determine if 

technologies will be ava i I able for the regulated community at the time of construction 1 • They provided 

several examples of facilities with similar engineering and technological processes used in electricity 

generating units (EGUs) employing carbon capture and reiterated that the demonstration of these 

facilities provides reasonable assurance for the future availability of the technology (See Attachment C 

in the Work Group's November 12. 2013 Memorandum,). The EPA also noted that this proposed rule 

does not address carbon sequestration and relies on the pennitting and reporting requ irements for carbon 

dioxide sequestration required in the Office of Water's Underground Injection Control Program for 

Carbon Dioxide Geologic Sequestration. 

At the December 17, 2013 fact finding teleconference, EPA provided some additional information on 

the basis and peer review process used by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Nationa l Energy 

Technology Laboratory (NETL) for the studies2 used in developing the proposed rule. The EPA staff 

explained that existing and planned EGUs that use various energy sources and technology were used as 

the basis for the BSER assumptions for new natural gas and coal fuel sources for new EGUs. The EPA 

staff noted that these EGUs may be under construction or in advanced stages of development and not 

fully operational. After the Work Group requested additional information on the peer review process 

1 Senate Report on Clean Air Act 1970 as cited in Portland Cement Association vs. Ruckelshaus. 2 Volume I of the series - "Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Power Plants, Volume I: Bituminous Coal and 

Natural Gas to Electricity" (and subsequent updates) - available at 

hllp:/www.netl.doe.gov/energv-analyseslbaseline studies.html 

August 20 II report "Cost and Performance of PC and IGCC Plants for a Range of Carbon Dioxide Capture" which 

modified the C02 capture rates for select cases presented in the "Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants" 

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 

Page 2 of 4 
This red line strikeout revision of the Work Group's January 7 Memorandum reflects t he requested changes and 

comments provided by Chartered SAB members during the January 21, 2014 conference call. 

supporting the proposed rule, EPA staff explained that the NETL studies were all peer reviewed under 

DOE peer review protocols and that EPA did not actually conduct additional peer review(s). However, 

EPA provided further information to the Work Group from NETL in addition to that cited 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 noted that the different levels of review of these DOE documents met the 

requirements to support the ana lyses as defined by the EPA Peer Review Handbook 3

. They also stated 

that peer review of economic data typically occurs only if new modeling procedures are employed. 

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 review on 

the DOE documents at a level requ ired by agency guidance. The Work Group notes that the proposed 

rule estimates a limited number of newly constructed coal-fired power plants in the future and is also 

subject to a required review in eight years from promulgation. The Work Group encourages the agency 

to consider decreasing the initial review period and to carefully monitor the post rule reality compared to 

its estimated construction of coa l-fired power plants and carbon sequestration demand to ensure that the 

technologies are feasible and available to newly constructed electricity generating units to meet the new 

standards. The specific technical and scientific matters that can be examined as part of that review the 

agency could include (1) feasibility and risk associated with carbon capture and storage as a BSER for 

coal-fired plants, (2) underlying scientific assumptions around carbon pollution emissions technological 

controls, (3) estimatingprojections for construction of coal...fi.Fefired power plants, and ( 4) the level of 

carbon dioxide emission set by the standard. 

Attachment B provides information provided by EPA and the revised recommendation for 2060 AQ9l. 

Work Group Recommendations Regarding lmp.rovements to the Process for Identifying EPA 

Planned Actions for SAB Consideration 

The Work Group acknowledges that the EPA provided additional clarifying information for 

consideration upon request and thanks the agency for providing this information. However, the Work 

Group emphasizes that the SAB needs the agency to provide more complete and timely information 

earlier in the process so that the Board can make recommendations and decisions regarding the science 

supporting planned actions. The Work Group finds that the preliminary information provided by the 

Agency for this action (See Attachment B of this Memorandum) did not fully meet the requ irements or 

the spirit of the framework adopted by EPA (See Work Group November 12,2013 Memorandum 

Attachment A) to facilitate the SAB review of planned regulatory actions. The omission of critical 

information, especially regarding peer review of information used as the basis of parts of the planned 

action, created delays in reviewing the adequacy of the scientific and technical information that support 

planned actions. To improve the process for future review of the semi-annual regulatory agenda, the 

SAB Work Group continues to strongly recommend that EPA enhance descriptions of future planned 

actions by providing specific information on the peer review associated with the science basis for 

actions and more description of the scientific and technological bases for the actions. EPA should 

provide such information in the initial descriptions provided to the work group. 

3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Peer Review Handbook, 3rd Edition EPA/100/B-06/002. 

Page 3 of 4 
This redline strikeout revision of the Work Group's January 7 Memorandum reflects the requested changes and 

comments provided by Chartered SAB members during the January 21, 2014 conference call. 

In summary, effective SAB evaluation of planned actions requires the agency to characterize these 

elements in the initial descriptions of planned actions: 

• All relevant key information associated with the planned action; 

• The science supporting the regulatory action. If there is new science to be used, provide a 

description of what is being developed. lfthe agency is relying on existing science, provide a 

short description. 

• The nature of planned or completed peer review. To the extent possible, provide information 

about the type of peer review, the charge questions provided to the reviewers, how relevant peer 

review comments were integrated into the planned action, and information about the 

qualifications of the reviewer(s). 

This SAB Work Group made these recommendations in March 2013 and in November 20 13. We 

request that the chartered SAB highlight to the Administrator the need for the agency to provide more 

complete information to support future SAB decisions about the adequacy of the science supporting 

actions in future regulatory agendas. 

Attachments 

Attachment A 

Attachment 8: 

Summary of the December 17, 20 13 fact-finding teleconference, questions sent to 

National Program Offices at the SAB's request and the agency 

Descriptions of the Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New 

Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generation Units (2060AQ-91) with updated SAB 

Work Group Recommendation 

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 its 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 Utility 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 additional fact finding call with EPA staff and revise 

the recommendation for this proposed rule to reflect the Chartered SAB discussions and the 

results of the fact finding call peer review requirements, feasibility and commercialization of 

sequestration technology, and analyses supporting the proposed rule's emissions 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 information on the planned 

activity after the Chartered SAB meeting on December 4-5, 20 13. The questions are listed 

below with a summary of the agency's responses. 

Mr. Kevin Culligan provided 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 Emission Reduction (BSER) and for 

determining the technical feasibility and commercial availability of those systems. He also noted 

that the conference report 1 and legislative history for the Clean 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 policy judgment based on an 

evaluation of the available technologies and sector trends. 

There are a range of carbon capture projects in operation today. These include sma ller-scale projects 

at coal-fired power plants that are connected to the grid and are selling the captured C02 for 

commercial use. They also include larger-scale projects that are gasifying coal or petroleum coke and 

capturing C02 using the same technologies that would be utilized at a new IGCC plant There are 

also several full-scale utility projects in various stages of development- including two that are more 

than 75percent complete. 

1 Senate Report on Clean Air Act 1970, as cited in Portland Cement Association vs. Ruckelshaus 
Questions from the Work Group for OAR 

Peer Review Questions: 

Question: What are the EPA peer review requirements for studies of the feasibility and 

commercialization of sequestration technology that support the Standards of Performance for 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generation Units 

(2060-AQ9 1)? 

Response: In addition to the comment Mr. Culligan provided, EPA staff noted that carbon 

dioxide (C02) sequestration regulations were developed under separate rules. The agency views 

the technical documents used in support of this proposed rule as economic in nature and focused 

on the cost of CCS, not on the technical feasibility. The agency used previously peer-reviewed 

reports to conduct th is analysis and determined that additional peer rev iew was not required as 

described in the EPA Peer Review Handbook2

. Agency staff noted that technology, cost, and 

performance information from research conducted by the Department of Energy's Nation Energy 

Technology Laboratories (NETL) was used in deve loping the proposed rule. The process NETL 

used to develop the cost and performance analyses involved a multi-step process that included 

convening of expert panels to review the research agendas, working with experts in the specific 

sectors (i.e., electricity generating un its) to develop specific reports, and subsequent peer review 

of the product reports. CCS was also addressed in comments to the 2006 Cost and Performance 

Comparison of Fossil Energy Power Plant (see below) 

Question: Please provide infonnation that documents the required peer reviews, including the 

charge, peer reviewers' report, names of peer reviewers, and how the peer reviewers' concerns 

were addressed. 

Response: EPA noted that NETL conducted reviews of the cost and performance analyses. EPA 

staff provided information on the merit review and comments received on analyses conducted by 

NETL These documents were provided as examples ofNETL's level of review on analyses 

EPA used in developing the New Source Performance Standards (2060 AQ91 ). 

NETL conducted a merit review on Project B2A that compared performance and cost on a 

consistent basis of currently available technologies and considered shifts in the power industry 

since the previous study was published in 1998. (See page 22 of the NETL Systems Analysis 

Merit Review, August 2005) The cost and performance analyses included state-of-the-art natural 

gas combined cycle (NGCC) and coal-fired power plants and capture of approximately 90 

percent C02 from each of the generation technologies. 

A summary of the NETL review is available on the SAB website. NETL states that "(t)he merit 

reviews provide a means of guiding future activities to ensure intended objectives are met. 

Projects are reviewed by a team of technical experts from industry, academia, outside research 

laboratories including the national laboratories, and the relevant NETL personnel." 

EPA also provided the comments and partia l NETL responses from a review 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 blinded rev iewers comments and 

NETL response are available on the SAB website at: Insert link 

2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Peer 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 Air Act requ ires for 

consideration, EPA staff identified several coa l-fired plants that utilize carbon capture and 

sequestration technologies at different levels of capture. The agency cites these plants as 

demonstration the technology will be available for new plants built in the future. The agency, 

based on the industry trend analysis

3

, estimates that there will only be a "handful of plants" that 

would consider coal as a fuel source, further supporting the agency's determination that the 

technology is feasible and adequately demonstrated and the standard is achievable. 

Questions: What is the basis for EPA's understanding of the feasibi lity and commercialization 

of carbon sequestration technology? What EPA programs currently regulate carbon 

sequestration? What is the status ofthose current regu lations? What are EPA's assumptions 

about future carbon sequestration technology, activities and regu lations that give it confidence 

that carbon sequestration is an appropriate part of this rulemaking? 

Response: EPA staff provided a PowerPoint presentation (see Attachment 2) that provides 

information on geologic sequestration in the context of the proposed carbon pollution standards 

for new power plants, provides an overview of geologic sequestration technology, and describes 

EPA's geologic sequestration regulations. Under the proposed rule, captured C02 must be sent 

to a faci lity that meets the existing regulatory requirements for monitoring and reporting 

geologic sequestration (Subpart RR of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program). The 

presentation provides background on the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program requ irements. The 

presentation also describes the permitting requirements 'under the Underground Injection Control 

Program, including traditional enhanced oil recovery (Class 11 wells) and large-scale geologic 

sequestration (Class VI wells). A rule under the Resource Recovery Act will clarify how EPA 

waste regu lations apply to C02 streams that are injected into Class VI wells. EPA staff also 

noted that the EPA developed a peer reviewed Vulnerability Evaluation Framework to help 

evaluate site specific vulnerabilities at geologic sequestration projects. 

Analyses for new coal-fired plants standard 

Question: What analyses support the proposed rule's emissions standard of I, I 00 lb C02/MW hr 

for coal fired EGUs? 

Response: The agency considered a range of technologies and fuel sources to develop the 

proposed emissions standards for coal fired EGUs. Both cost and performance were taken into 

account. The agency considered carbon capture technologies ranging from 0-90% capture and 

proposed a standard based on a reasonable and achievable level of carbon emission reduction. 

The agency also compared coal-fired plants to other fuel sources to better understand the policy 

3 "Trends in Structure of Electric Power Sector Limiting Amount ofNew Coal", Technical Support Document 

available in the docket for the proposed rule at: regulations.gov (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-20 13-0495). 

A-3 
implications for proposing the standard at I, I 00 lb C02/MWh. Agency staff using information 

from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) and NETL, estimated costs for systems using 

other fuel sources (e.g., coal without CCS, natural gas, and nuclear) to range between $80/MWh 

to $ 130/MWh. These costs were considered in proposing the standard at I, I 00 lb C02/MWh. 

A-4 
Attachment 1 

Participants in the Science Advisory Board Fact-Finding 

Meeting on EPA Planned Actions in the 

Spring 2013 Regulatory Agenda 

December 17, 2013 

Members of Work Group on EPA Planned Actions for SAB Consideration ofthe Underl ying 

Science 

Dr. James R. Mihelcic, Chair 

Dr. Taylor Eighmy 

Dr. R. William Field 

Dr. H. Christopher Frey 

Dr. Madhu Khanna 

Dr. PeterS. Thorne 

SAB Staff Office 

Mr. Thomas Carpenter, Designated Federal Officer 

EPA Office of Air and Radiation Staff 

Mr. Kevin Culligan, Associate Director, Sector Policies and Program Division, Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Dr. Mark De Figueiredo, Team Leader, Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, Office of 

Atmospheric Programs 

Dr. Nick Hutson, Senior Technical Advisor, Energy Strategies Group, Sector Policies and 

Program Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Ms. Anhar Karimjee, Chief, Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, Office of Atmospheric 

Programs 

Mr. Carl Mazza, Senior Advisor, OAR 

Mr Peter Tsirigotis Director, Sector Policies and Program Division, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards 

A-5 
Attachment 2 

Geologic Sequestration 

December 17, 2013 

Proposed Carbon Pollution Standards 

for New Power Plants 

• Under the proposed carbon pollution standards for new power plants, '""'"T"r••n 

C02 must be sent to a facility that meets the existing regulatory requirements 

for monitoring and reporting geologic sequestration (Subpart RR of the GHGRP) 

• 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 C02 injection and geologic sequestration 

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

proposed emission limit 

A-6 
Attachment 2 

Overview 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 C02 storage option 

- About 50 million metric tons of C02 are transported each year in the US through 

3,600 miles of pipelines 

- Industry has 40+ years experience conducting EOR 

- Geologic storage potential is widespread across the US (over 2,300 billion metric 

tons of C02) 

Four existing commercial CCS facilities in other countries and a number of studies have 

demonstrated geologic sequestration of C02 

"With appropriate site selection ... , o monitoring program ... , o regulatory system, and the appropriate use 

of remediation methods ... , the loco/ health, safety and environmental risks of geological storage would 

be comparable to risks of current activi ties ... ~ 

-IPCC Special Report on Carbon Capture and Storage (2005) 

L-------------------------~----~ 

Regulatory Background 

• EPA has spent over 10 years analyzing geologic sequestration issues and 

engaging with stakeholders to evaluate regulatory or other barriers to CCS 

deployment and ensure continued protection of human health and the 

environment 

• EPA has closely coordinated development of GS regulations across applicable 

statutes 

- Safe Drinking Water Act 

• Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program: Standards and requirements for 

permitting wells used to inject C02 underground 

- Clean Air Act 

• Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program: Monitoring and reporting for geologic 

sequestration 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

• Proposed rule clarifying how EPA's waste regulations apply to captured C02 streams 

that are geologically sequestered via injection wells designated for that purpose 

under the Safe 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 ensure protection of 

underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) 

- 30+ years of experience on regulating underground injection in an 

informed, scientific and transparent manner 

• SDWA provides permitting framework for C02 injection 

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

- Class VI wells: large-scale geologic 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 Monitoring 

New well class established: Class VI 

• Post-Injection Site Care 

• Public Participation 

• Financial 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 reporting of GHGs by 41 source categories 

- 33 types of direct emitters 

- 6 types of suppliers of fuel and industrial GHGs 

- Facilities that inject C02 underground for geologic 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, 

with first annual reports submitted to EPA in September 2012 

• Direct reporting to EPA electronically 

• EPA verification of GHG data 

GHGRP Subparts Related to CCS 

col source 

M:Meter 

EL&V: Equipment Leaks and Vented Emissions 

A-9 

C02 

surface 

leakage, if 

any 
Attachment 2 

Geologic Sequestration in the GHGRP 

(Subpart RR) 

• Subpart RR provides a mechanism for facilities to monitor and report to 

EPA the quantity of C02 sequestered on an annual basis 

• Complementary to and builds on Underground Injection Control 

requirements 

• EPA developed a Vulnerability Evaluation Framework (VEF) for Geologic 

Sequestration that supported the proposed rule 

Geologic Sequestration in the GHGRP 

(Subpart RR) 

• All facilities subject to Subpart RR must develop and implement an EPA-approvea 

monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) plan 

- Delineation of the monitoring areas 

- Identification of potential surface leakage pathways for C02 

- Strategy for detecting and quantifying surface leakage of C02 

- Strategy for establishing the expected baseline for monitoring C02 surface leakage 

- Site-specific variables 

• Once the facility has an approved MRV plan, the following are required to be reported 

annually: 

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

- Mass balance equation inputs (C02 injected, C02 produced, C02 emitted by surface 

leakage, C02 emitted from equipment leaks and vented C02 emissions) 

- An annual monitoring report, which includes a narrative history of monitoring 

efforts, non-material changes to MRV Plan, narrative history of monitoring 

anomalies, and description of surface leakage of C02, if any 

A-10 

10 
Attachment B 

Descriptions of the Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New 

Stationary Sources: Electric Utility 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) 

Name of action: Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New Stationary 

Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units 

RIN Number: 2060-AQ91 

EPA Office originating action: OAR 

Brief description of action and statement of need for the action: 

Power plants are the largest concentrated source of emissions in the United States, together 

accounting for roughly one-third of all domestic greenhouse gas emissions. President Obama's 

Climate Action Plan, and the June 25, 2013 presidential memorandum on power sector carbon 

pollution standards, direct EPA to take several actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 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 source performance standards (NSPS) 

for new electric utility generating units (EGUs) under the authority of section I l l of the Clean 

Air Act. 

Timetable: 

EPA intends to issue new proposed carbon pollution standards by September20, 2013, and final 

standards within 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 major 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 science. This action will rely on the identification of existing, 

proven technologies to set achievable emission standards that, by statute, offer the "best system 

of emission reduction" (BSER). 

Scientific questions to be addressed and approach: 

This is a technology based rule (as described above). 

Plans for scientific analyses and peer review: 

See description above. 

B-1 
Recommendation from the SAB Work Group on EPA Planned Actions for SAB 

Consideration of the Underlying Science (Revised Januarv 2014) 

Name of planned action: Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New 

Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generation Units (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 under review by the SAB? If not, has EPA identified X 

other high-level external peer review (i.e., by the NAS, CASAC, or FIFRA 

SAP)? 

Is the action primarily administrative (i.e., involve 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 legal 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 escnpt10n EPA provt .d d e f or t h e pi Ianne d 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 environmental issues X 

Exhibits a lon~-term outlook X 

Please provide a recommendation regarding whether the SAB should 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 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generation Units 

(2060-AQ9l). This recommendation is based on the (1) information 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 would not 

provide additional benefit to the proposed rule. 

This action involves development of new performance standards for greenhouse gas emissions 

(C02) from new Electric Utility Generation Units (EGUs) under new source performance rules. 

B-2 
The Work Group review 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 the peer 

review of the scientific and technical information supporting the action was adequate. 

The Agency's expectation is that most new power plants will utilize natural gas combined cycle 

technology to implement this proposal. The EPA considered industry trends, available 

technology, and best systems of emission reduction to develop the proposal. The Agency 

concludes that the proposed standard will not be technology forc ing for such plants. 

In a fact-finding call held on September 26, 2013, the EPA Staff explained that should 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 storage (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 emission reduction (BSER) for implementation of the proposed 

standards. In setting BSERs, the EPA considers the standard and whether: the system is 

technically feasible; the costs are reasonable; the amount of emissions achieved by the 

technology meets the standard; and does the proposal promote the implementation and further 

development of a technology. 

EPA Staff explained that the CCS provisions are based on three examples of implementing 

partial CCS and the strong demonstration these facilities make for the feasibility of this 

technology (See Attachment C of the November 12, 2013 Memorandum to the Chartered SA B). 

EPA Staff explained 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 technologies will be available for 

the regulated community at the time of construction2

. They provided several examples of 

facilities with similar engineering and technology processes to electricity generating units using 

CCS and stated that the demonstration of these facilities 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 

established permitting and reporting requirements for carbon dioxide sequestration required in 

the Underground Injection Control Program for Carbon Dioxide Geologic Sequestration. 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 

review of DOE documents at a level required by agency guidance. 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 decreasing the initial review period and to carefully monitor the post rule 

reality compared to its estimated construction of coal-fire power plants and carbon sequestration 

demand to ensure that the technologies are feasible and available to newly constructed electricity 

generating units to meet the new standards. The specific technical and scientific matters that can 

be examined as part of that review could include (l) feasibility and risk associated with carbon 

capture and storage as a BSER for coal-fired plants, (2) underlying scientific assumptions around 

1 Administrator McCarthy signed the proposed Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New 

Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generation Units on September 20, 2013. 2 Senate Report on Clean Air Act 1970, as cited in Portland Cement Association vs. Ruckelshaus 

B-3 
carbon pollution emissions technological controls, (3) estimating futureaccuracy of projections 

of construction of coal-fired power plants, and (4) the level of carbon dioxide 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 stages of development as 

the basis for the BSER assumptions for new natura l gas and coal fuel sources for new EGUs. 

EPA staff explained that the NETL studies are all peer reviewed and EPA did not conduct 

additional peer review(s). 

The SAB Staff requested additional infonnation on the technological basis and peer review for 

the action from OAR and NETL for a September 26 teleconference with the Work Group. OAR 

Staff notes that the EPA relied on information NETL released in a series of reports on the 'Cost 

and Performance Baselines for Fossil Energy Plants." The studies were conducted to establish 

estimates for the cost and performance of combustion and gasification based power plants as 

well as options for co-generating synthetic natural gas and fuels, all with and without carbon 

dioxide capture and storage. Volume I of these studies explains that ... "[t]he initial results of 

this analysis were subjected to a significant peer review by industry experts, academia and 

government research and regulatory agencies." 3 

NETL Staff responded that ··reviewers were sent the report and given several weeks for review 

and the regulatory agency that provided the review was the EPA." NETL noted that this peer 

review process was specifically tailored for this report and NETL does not have a publicallyavailable description of the review. NETL staff also notes that all the information presented for 

coal-fueled sources was not peer reviewed. 4 

In the December 17, 201 3 fact-finding teleconference, the work group learned that EPA did not 

provide the peer review of the NETL study; rather the peer review was managed by DOE. For 

the December 17, 201 3 fact-finding teleconference, EPA provided additional infonnation from 

NETL on the review process. A summary of merit reviews and a comment response document 

on the 2006 Cost and Pe1jormance Comparison of Fossil Energy Power Plants for DOE 

documents was provided (Attachment A). EPA staff noted that the different levels ofreview..Q.[ 

these DOE documents met the requirements to support the analyses as defined by the EPA Peer 

Review Handbook 5

. They also stated that peer review of economic data typically occurs only if 

new modeling procedures were employed. 

3 Vo lume I of the series- "Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Power Plants, Vo lume 1: Bituminous 

Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity" (and subsequent updates) - available at http://www.netl.doe.gov/energyanalvses/baseline studies.html 4 August 20 II report "Cost and Performance of PC and IGCC Plants for a Range of Carbon Dioxide Capture" which 

modified the C0 2 capture rates for select cases presented in the "Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy 

Plants" did not undergo peer review. That report can be found here: http://www.nctl.doc.gov/energvanalvses/refshel f/PubDetai ls.aspx? Action=View&Publd=396 5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agencv Peer Review Handbook, 3rd Edition EPA/ I 00/B-06/002 

B-4