Carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) projects can face considerable challenges while navigating the Class VI permitting and review process. Once the permit is submitted and deemed administratively complete, an extended review time can cause financial impacts for a Class VI project, delay project deadlines, or even lead to project termination.
A lengthy back-and-forth with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or state reviewer requesting clarifications, edits, or additional information on the permit application—often called a Request for Additional Information (RAI)—can substantially extend the time before a permit to inject is issued.
In general, there are two ways to approach submitting a Class VI permit application.
One strategy is to submit a barebones permit application sufficient for a completeness review. The application will be technically deficient and may have numerous RAI comments; however, it places the permit application earlier in the EPA’s or state agency’s queue.
A second strategy is submitting a thorough and polished permit application with the aim of fewer RAI comments. Permit applications will enter the queue later than a barebones application but may save time later with fewer RAI iterations.
This Delve explores strategies and tools for operators following the second approach—how to reduce RAIs to streamline the Class VI permit application process and expedite a project’s transition to pre-injection and injection operations.
Choosing the Right Computational Tools for Your Class VI Permit Application
The “Rules and Tools Crosswalk” was developed by the US Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management to provide information on tools that can be used to develop sections of the Class VI permit application. The document includes a fact sheet as well as a website and contact information for 59 computational tools. CCUS professionals and project stakeholders can use this resource to identify and select tools needed to develop a Class VI permit application.
Other resources are also available, but using a product that isn’t on the Crosswalk may delay the permit approval process because the EPA or state agency will need to familiarize themselves with the software, application, or process to understand how the data are treated. Though CO2 injection is a technology that has been around for a while, the Class VI permit review process is still in its infancy; using technology that the regulators are familiar with can save considerable amounts of time in the long run.
Communicate Early and Often with the Regulator
Meet in person with regulators to familiarize them with your Class VI project goals, site conditions, project managers, and project operators. This may take the form of an informal presentation in which the area of review, geology, target formations, CO2 source and transportation, engineering designs, and site conditions are discussed. Understanding regulators’ areas of expertise (geologist, engineer, ecologist, remediation background) and their expectations of how the permit will be presented is helpful when developing the application and anticipating areas of focus for RAIs.
Be Site-Specific
Trihydro has encountered RAIs related to a lack of site-specific details or standard operating procedures. Many projects will use standard guidance documents from EPA regions for tasks such as groundwater sampling or gas sampling. It is essential to outline procedures that are specific to your CO2 injection site. The purpose of designing site-specific material is twofold:
First, site-specific documents provide information that will not be captured in general guidance documents, such as site access and location, on-site equipment, contact information, and field forms. Including such project-specific information clarifies nuances for the regulator.
Secondly, site-specific guidance documents help prevent overcommitting the project to irrelevant requirements. For example, if a project uses a general EPA sampling procedure, it may list field blank sampling methodology and frequency requirements that are meant for contaminated sites but aren’t applicable to Class VI projects. If this information is submitted with the permit application, the project will be expected to uphold these requirements and potentially analyze for extraneous constituents.
Develop and Use Permit Templates
It’s important to have a document that is easy for regulators to digest. Consistent formatting across Class VI permit sections helps readability and can reduce RAIs. Agencies such as the EPA provide permit application completeness review checklists. These guidance documents help permit preparers check that components of the application are complete and ready for submission, reducing the chance of RAIs. Additionally, including a regulatory cross-reference sheet as a “guidebook” for the permit application is advantageous and can reduce RAI comments regarding completeness.
Conclusion
The biggest delay in completing a Class VI permit application is often the RAI review process. Choosing the right computational tools, proactive communication with regulators, being site-specific and using approved templates can help to reduce the overall review and approval timeframes.
Need help navigating the Class VI permit application process or limiting agency RAIs? Contact Trihydro’s experienced CCUS team.
