Core Energy, LLC (Board decision, January 15, 2008)

Plain-English summary

Robert and Joan LeBlanc sought review of EPA Region 5's permit authorizing Core Energy, LLC to convert a test well in Otsego County, Michigan, into a Class V carbon-dioxide injection well. They argued that the permit raised questions about liability for damage and the property rights of neighboring landowners. After the Board denied review, the petitioners moved for reconsideration and repeated their concerns about subsurface trespass. The Board denied reconsideration because the motion did not show that the earlier order contained a demonstrable error of law or fact, and it did not show that the Region's response was clearly erroneous.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: 42 U.S.C. § 300h; 40 C.F.R. pts. 124, 144, 146, 147, and 148; 40 C.F.R. § 1.25(e)(1).
• Outcome: The motion for reconsideration was denied.
• Key point: Reconsideration was denied because the petitioners did not identify a demonstrable error of law or fact in the Board's earlier order.

Full text (EPA EAB public release)

               UNITEDSTATESENVIRONMENTAL        AGENCY
                                       PROTECTION
                          WASHINGTON,
                                    D.G- 20460




                                       JANi 5 trOB
                                                                                           ENVIRONMENTALAPPEALSBOARD.

VIA Certified Mail
RobertB. LeBlanc
9300IslandDrive
GrosseIle,MI 48138

YIA PouchMail
Erik H. Olson
Asst.RegionalCounsel
U.S.EPA Region5
77 WestJacksonBlvd.
Chicago,Illinois 60604

                             Re: CoreEnergy,LLC
                             AppealNumber:UIC AppealNo. 07-02

DearMr. LeBlancandMr. Olson:

  Enclosedis a correctedversionof the OrderDenlng Motion for Reconsiderationin this


  Pleasesubstitutethis cor:rected
                                versionfor flre one senton Januarv14-2008.

                                                          Sincerely,

                                                          /l
                                                    &*^l-40{/'"-
                                                          EurikaDurr
                                                          Clerk of the Board

Enclosure

                                lntenet Address(URL) . http://www.epa.gov
     Recyelsd/Becyclabls. PrintedwithVegelableoit BasedInkson Recycledpaper(Min'mumgo"/.postcon$ner)


             BEF'ORETHE ENVIRONMENTAL APPEALS BOARD
         UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                         WASHINGTON,D.C.
                                                               rr-          I

In re:

CoreEnergy,LLC

PermitNo. MI-137-5X25-0001
UIC AppealNo. 07-02
t;rt
'L-
ill JAl]i5 M8
C l e r Inviro
INITIAL
k,l
.S
d
Board

            ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

     On September
               21,2007,Mr. RobertB. LeBlanc,on behalfof himselfandhis wife, Joan

S. LeBlanc("Petitioners"),filed a petitionfor reviewfrom U.S.EPA Region5's("the Region")

decisionto issuean Underground
InjectionControl("UIC") permitto CoreEnergy,LLC. The

permit,issuedpursuantto the SafeDrinkingWaterAit, 42 U.S.C.$$ 300hto 300h-8,andEpA's

implementing
regulationsat 40 C.F.R.parts124,144,and 146-48,authorizedthe conversionofa

pre-existing
testwell in OtsegoCounty,Michigan,to a ClassV injectionwell for the permanent

storage,or "sequestration,"
of carbondioxide("CO;'). Petitioners
raisedtwo arguments
in

supportof reviewby this Board. First,thePetitionexpressed
concemaboutwho might beliable

for anydamages
thatmight resultfrom operationof theinjectionwell. Second,Petitioners

arguedthatthepermitviolaledthepropertyrightsof adjacentlandowners
underwhoselandthe

injectionwouldoccurandthat a permitshouldnot havebeenissuedabsentproof thatthe

permitteeactually'owned
all subsurface
rightson this land. Id.atl-3.

     On December19,2007,theBoarddeniedreviewin this matter.SeeOrderDenying

Review("Order")(Dec.19,2007). By motionfiled on December28,2007,Petitionerseek

reconsideration
ofthe Board'sOrder. SeeTheLeblancs'Motion for Reconsideration
of Sisned

12-20-07Order("Motion for Reconsideration")
(Dec.28,2007). The Motion for

Reconsideration
reiterates
Petitioners'concemsregardingsubsurface
trespass.In particular,

      asserthatthe permitimproperlyallowsthepermitteeto "trespass

Petitioners on the sub-surface

ofthe Leblancs'land(andadjacentlandowners)
and/orto convertanyandall of theminerals

from undemeaththe Leblancs'land (andother adjacentlandowners)\,\r'ithoutany consent

whatsoever
of the LeBlancs'andto theirdetriment."Motion for Reconsideration
at 2. As stated

in the Board'sOrder,however.thbRegionresponded
to Petitioners'concemsin this regard.In

panicular.the Regionstated:

  TheUIC programdoesnot haveauthorityto determinesurface,mineral,or
  storagerightswhenissuingpermitdecisions.Issuesrelatingto property
  ownershipor lesseerightsarelegalissuesbetweenthepermitteeandproperty
  owners.UnderfederalUIC regulation,a pemitteeis not requiredto demonstrate
  ownershipor legalaccessto all properties,  onlythatthe operationof thewell will
  not allow contaminants  into [anUnderground   Sourceof DrinkingWater].
  Issuance ofa permitneitherconferstheright to trespass  noi conveysproperty
  rightsofany sorl or anyexclusiveprivilege;nor doesit authorizeanyinjury to
  personsor property,anyinvasionof otherprivaterights,or anyinfringementof
  Stateor local law or regulations.This is the casewith respectto all classesof
  wells,includingthosewhichinjectCO, for permanent      sequestration  in an
  undergroundformation.

Orderat 9. TheBoarddeniedreviewon this issuebecause
Petitionersfailedto demonstrate
why

the Region'sresponse
wasclearlyerroneous
or otherwisewarrantedreview. 1d.

   Petitioners'Motion for Reconsideration
                                       againfails to indicatewhy the Region's

response
to this concemwasclearlyerroneous.Further,the Motionfails to establishthatthe

Board'sOrderresultedfrom a demonstrable
errorof law or fact. See40 C.F.R.$ na J9@;)

(authorizingmotionsfor reconsideration
andrequiringthatsuchmotions"set forth thematters

claimedto havebeenerroneously
decidedandthenatureofthe allegederrors.").Underthese

circumstances,
Petitionershavefailedto convinceusthattheBoard'sOrderDenyingReview

wasin error. TheMotion for Reconsideration
is therelbredenied.l

     So ordered.2




                                   ENVIRONMENTAL APPEALS BOARD
         lstztof,

l-""^f

 ' Further,to the extentthattheMotion
                                      for Reconsideration
                                                        raisesadditionalarguments
                                                                                not

raisedin the Petitionfor Review,we declineto considersucharguments.As the Boardhas recentlystated,reconsiderationis not anoppotunityto rearguea casein a moreconvincing fashion.In re Environmental DisposalSystems, Inc,lJIC AppealNo. 07-01(EAB July21,2007) (OrderDenyingMotionsfor Leaveandfor Reconsideration). Rather:

       Motionsfor reconsideration   servea limitedllrnction:to corxectmanifesterrorsof
     ' law
            or fact or to presentnewlydiscovered evidence.Suchmotionscannotin any
       casebe employedasa vehicleto introducenewevidencethatcouldhavebeen
       adducedduringthependencyofthe [original]motion.** * Nor shoulda motion
       for reconsideration  serveasthe occasionto tendernewlesaltheoriesfor the first
     tlme.

Id. (qtotingPublishersRes.,Inc. v. Walker-Davis
Publ'ns,Inc.,762F.2d 557,562(7thCir.
1985).
2Thethree-member paneldecidingthis matteris comprisedof Environmental
AppealsJudges
EdwardE. Reich,KathieA. Stein,andAnnaL. Wolgast.,!ee40 C.F.R.g 1.25(e)(l).

                        CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I herebycertifythatcopiesofthe forgoingOrderDenyingMotion for Reconsiderationin

thematterof CoreEnergy,LLC, UIC AppealNo. 07-02,weresentto the followingpersonsin themannerindicated:

By CertifiedMail
RetumReceiptRequested:

                            RobertB. LeBlanc
                            9300IslandDrive
                            Grosselle, MI 48138

By PouchMail:
Erik H. Olson
Asst.RegionalCounsel
U.S.EPA Region5
77 WestJacksonBlvd.
Chicago,Illinois 60604

Dated:
(1641