Hazardous Waste Management System: Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste: Carbon Dioxide (CO2, 48073-48093 [2011-19915]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 50
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–1145; FRL–9449–1]
RIN 2060–AO72
Public Hearing for Secondary National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Announcement of public
hearing.
AGENCY:
The EPA is announcing a
public hearing to be held for the
proposed rule titled ‘‘Secondary
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur’’
which was published in the Federal
Register on August 1, 2011. The hearing
will be held in Arlington, Virginia on
Thursday, August 25, 2011.
DATES: The public hearing will be held
on August 25, 2011. Please refer to
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for
additional information on the public
hearing.
SUMMARY:
Hearing. The hearing will
be held at the following location:
Potomac Yard Conferencing Center,
First Floor Conference Room South,
Room S–1204–06), Office of Pesticides
Programs, 1 Potomac Yard, 2777 S.
Crystal Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22202,
phone: 703–347–8930.
ADDRESSES:
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Note: All persons entering the Potomac
Yard Conferencing Center must have a valid
picture ID such as a driver’s license and go
through federal security procedures. All
persons must go through a magnetometer and
all personal items must go through x-ray
equipment, similar to airport security
procedures. After passing through the
equipment, all persons must sign in at the
guard station and show their picture ID.
Comments. Written comments on this
proposed rule may also be submitted to
the EPA electronically, by mail, by
facsimile, or through hand delivery/
courier. Please refer to the notice of
proposed rulemaking published in the
Federal Register on August 1, 2011, (76
FR 46084) for the addresses and detailed
instructions for submitting written
comments.
A complete set of documents related
to the proposal is available for public
inspection at the EPA Docket Center,
located at 1301 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Room 3334, Washington, DC
between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. A reasonable fee may be
charged for copying. Documents are also
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:42 Aug 05, 2011
Jkt 223001
available through the electronic docket
system at https://www.regulations.gov.
The EPA Web site for the rulemaking,
which includes the proposal and
information about the public hearing,
can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/
naaqs/standards/no2so2sec/cr_fr.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you would like to speak at the public
hearing or have questions concerning
the public hearing, please contact Mrs.
Sherry Russell at the address given
below under SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.
Questions concerning the ‘‘Secondary
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur’’
proposed rule should be addressed to
Rich Scheffe, U.S. EPA, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Air
Quality Assessment Division, (C304–
02), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
telephone: (919) 541–4650, e-mail:
scheffe.rich@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
proposal for which the EPA is holding
a public hearing was published in the
Federal Register on August 1, 2011, (76
FR 46084) and is available on the
following Web site: https://www.epa.gov/
ttn/naaqs/standards/no2so2sec/
cr_fr.html.
The public hearing will provide
interested parties the opportunity to
present data, views, or arguments
concerning the proposed rule. The EPA
may ask clarifying questions during the
oral presentations, but will not respond
to the presentations at that time. Written
statements and supporting information
submitted during the comment period
will be considered with the same weight
as any oral comments and supporting
information presented at the public
hearing. Written comments must be
postmarked by the last day of the
comment period, as specified in the
proposal.
The public hearing will be held in
Arlington, Virginia on August 25, 2011.
The public hearing will begin at 10 a.m.
and continue until 7 p.m. or later, if
necessary, depending on the number of
speakers wishing to participate. The
EPA will make every effort to
accommodate all speakers that arrive
and register before 7 p.m. The EPA is
scheduling a lunch break from 1 until
2:30 p.m. If you would like to present
oral testimony at the hearing, please
notify Mrs. Sherry Russell, (C504–02)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, e-mail (preferred method for
registering): russell.sherry@epa.gov;
telephone: (919) 541–0306 no later than
5 p.m. on August 23, 2011. She will
arrange a general time slot for you to
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48073
speak. The EPA will make every effort
to follow the schedule as closely as
possible on the day of the hearing.
Oral testimony will be limited to five
(5) minutes for each commenter to
address the proposal. We will not be
providing equipment for commenters to
show overhead slides or make
computerized slide presentations unless
we receive special requests in advance.
Commenters should notify Mrs. Russell
if they will need specific audiovisual
(AV) equipment. Commenters should
also notify Mrs. Russell if they need
specific translation services for nonEnglish speaking commenters. The EPA
encourages commenters to provide
written versions of their oral testimonies
either electronically on computer disk
or CD–ROM or in paper copy.
The hearing schedule, including lists
of speakers, will be posted on EPA’s
Web site for the proposal at https://
www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/
no2so2sec/cr_fr.html prior to the
hearing. A verbatim transcript of the
hearing and written statements will be
included in the rulemaking docket.
How can I get copies of this document
and other related information?
The EPA has established the official
public docket for the ‘‘Secondary
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur’’
under Docket Number EPA–HQ–OAR–
2007–1145. The EPA has also developed
a Web site for the proposal at the
address given above. Please refer to the
proposal, published in the Federal
Register on August 1, 2011, (76 FR
46084) for detailed information on
accessing information related to the
proposal.
Dated: August 2, 2011.
Mary Henigin,
Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2011–20029 Filed 8–5–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 260 and 261
[EPA–HQ–RCRA–2010–0695; FRL–9448–9]
RIN 2050–AG60
Hazardous Waste Management
System: Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste: Carbon Dioxide
(CO2) Streams in Geologic
Sequestration Activities
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM
08AUP1
48074
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA or the Agency) is
proposing to revise the regulations for
hazardous waste management under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) to conditionally exclude
carbon dioxide (CO2) streams that are
hazardous from the definition of
hazardous waste, provided these
hazardous CO2 streams are captured
from emission sources, are injected into
Class VI Underground Injection Control
(UIC) wells for purposes of geologic
sequestration (GS), and meet certain
other conditions. EPA is taking this
action because the Agency believes that
the management of these CO2 streams
under the proposed conditions does not
present a substantial risk to human
health or the environment, and therefore
additional regulation pursuant to
RCRA’s hazardous waste regulations is
unnecessary. EPA expects that this
amendment will substantially reduce
the uncertainty associated with
identifying these CO2 streams under
RCRA subtitle C, and will also facilitate
the deployment of GS by providing
additional regulatory certainty.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before October 7, 2011. Under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on
the information collection provisions
must be received by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) on or
before September 7, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
RCRA–2010–0695, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: rcra-docket@epa.gov.
• Fax: 202–566–9744
• Mail: RCRA Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mailcode: 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Please include a
total of two copies. In addition, please
mail a copy of your comments on the
information collection provisions to the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725
17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver two copies
of your comments to EPA West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket’s normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2010–
0695. EPA’s policy is that all comments
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:42 Aug 05, 2011
Jkt 223001
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
For additional instructions on
submitting comments, go to the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the RCRA Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566–1744, and the telephone
number for the RCRA Docket is (202)
566–0270.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Ross
Elliott, Office of Resource Conservation
and Recovery (5304P), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number: 703–308–8748; fax
number: 703–308–0514; e-mail address
elliott.ross@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
A. Does this action apply to me?
This is a proposed regulation. If
finalized, this rule may apply to
generators, transporters, and owners or
operators of treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities engaged in the
management of carbon dioxide streams
that would otherwise be regulated as
hazardous wastes under the RCRA
subtitle C hazardous waste regulations
as part of geologic sequestration
activities. This includes entities in the
following industries: Operators of
carbon dioxide injection wells used for
geologic sequestration; and certain
industries identified by their North
American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) code: oil and gas
extraction facilities (NAICS 211111);
utilities (NAICS 22); transportation
(NAICS 48–49); and manufacturing
(NAICS 31–33). More detailed
information on the potentially affected
entities is presented in Section VI of this
preamble. If you have questions
regarding the applicability of this action
to a particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. What should I consider as I prepare
my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this
information to EPA through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information
that you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information on a disk or CD–ROM that
you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the
disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then
identify electronically within the disk or
CD–ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that
includes information claimed as CBI, a
copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI
must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in
accordance with the procedures set
forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments.
When submitting comments, remember
to:
• Identify the rulemaking by docket
number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal
Register date and page number).
E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM
08AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
• Follow directions—The agency may
ask you to respond to specific questions
or organize comments by referencing a
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
or section number.
• Explain why you agree or disagree,
suggest alternatives, and substitute
language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and
provide any technical information and/
or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or
burdens, explain how you arrived at
your estimate in sufficient detail to
allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to
illustrate your concerns, and suggest
alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as
possible.
• Make sure to submit your
comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
3. Docket Copying Costs. The Docket
Center no longer has hard copies of
original OSWER documents. The
documents were converted to PDF
format. Oversized documents were
retained and may be copied. Patrons are
allowed 93 free copied-pages.
Thereafter, they are charged 15 cents per
page. When necessary, an invoice
stating how many copies were made, the
cost of the order, and where to send a
check will be issued to the patron.
There is also an administrative fee of
$14.00 added to the cost of the order.
Documents also are available on
microfilm. The EPA/DC staff can help
patrons locate needed documents and
operate the microfilm machines. There
is no fee for printing documents from
microfilm or microfiche.
Patrons who are outside of the
metropolitan Washington, DC, area can
request documents by telephone,
however, patrons are asked to submit
requests by e-mail to ensure accuracy.
The photocopying fee is the same as for
walk-in patrons. There is no charge for
converting microfilm/microfiche to PDF
format and sending it to a customer. If
an invoice is necessary, EPA/DC staff
can mail one with the order.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Preamble Outline
I. Statutory Authority
II. Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Definitions
A. Abbreviations and Acronyms
B. Definitions Used in This Preamble
III. Background
A. What is Geologic Sequestration?
B. Why is Geologic Sequestration being
considered as a climate change
mitigation technology?
C. What other recent EPA rulemakings are
related to CCS?
D. RCRA Applicability to GS Activities
E. CO2 Stream Characterization
IV. Detailed Discussion of This Proposed
Rule
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:42 Aug 05, 2011
Jkt 223001
A. Authority for Conditional Exclusion
From RCRA Subtitle C Requirements
B. CO2 Streams Managed Prior to
Underground Injection
1. CO2 Streams Generated at Capture Sites
2. Transportation of CO2 Streams to UIC
Class VI Injection Well
C. Underground Injection of CO2 Streams
at UIC Class VI Wells
1. Development of UIC Class VI Wells
Under SDWA
2. Key Elements of the UIC Class VI Well
Requirements
3. RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions
4. Subtitle C Corrective Action
5. Conclusion
D. Prohibition on Introduction of Other
RCRA Hazardous Wastes
E. Loss of the Conditional Exclusion
F. Adaptive Approach
G. Definition of Carbon Dioxide Stream
V. State Authorization
A. Applicability of the Rule in Authorized
States
B. Effect on State Authorization
VI. What are the costs and benefits of the
proposed rule?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order (EO)
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Usage
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. Statutory Authority
These regulations are proposed under
the authority of sections 2002, 3001–
3009 and 3013 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act (SWDA) of 1970, as
amended by the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, and
the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), 42
U.S.C. 6912, 6921–6929, 6934.
II. Abbreviations, Acronyms, and
Definitions
A. Abbreviations and Acronyms
AoR Area of Review.
CAA Clean Air Act.
CCS Carbon Capture and Storage.
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act.
CO2 Carbon Dioxide.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48075
EOR Enhanced Oil and Natural Gas
Recovery.
EPA Environmental Protection Agency.
GHG Greenhouse Gas.
GS Geologic Sequestration.
HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments.
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act.
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act.
TC Toxicity Characteristic.
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure.
UIC Underground Injection Control.
USDW Underground Source of Drinking
Water.
B. Definitions Used in This Preamble
Authorized representative: The
person responsible for the overall
operation of a facility or an operational
unit (i.e., part of a facility), e.g., the
plant manager, superintendent or
person of equivalent responsibility.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) stream: Carbon
dioxide that has been captured from an
emission source (e.g., power plant), plus
incidental associated substances derived
from the source materials and the
capture process, and any substances
added to the stream to enable or
improve the injection process.
Enhanced Oil or Gas Recovery (EOR/
EGR): Typically, the process of injecting
a fluid (e.g., water, brine, or CO2) into
an oil or gas bearing formation to
recover residual oil or natural gas. The
injected fluid thins (decreases the
viscosity) or displaces small amounts of
extractable oil and gas, which is then
available for recovery. This is also
known as secondary or tertiary recovery.
Supercritical CO2: Carbon dioxide
that is above its critical temperature
(31.1 ° C, or 88 °F) and pressure (73.8
bar, or 1070 psi). Supercritical
substances have physical properties
intermediate to those of gases and
liquids.
III. Background
A. What is Geologic Sequestration?
Geologic Sequestration (GS) is the
process of injecting carbon dioxide
(CO2) captured from an emission source
(e.g., a power plant or industrial facility)
into deep subsurface rock formations in
order to isolate the CO2. GS is a key
component of a set of climate change
mitigation technologies referred to as
‘‘carbon capture and storage’’ or CCS.
CCS can be described as a three-step
process, beginning with the capture and
compression of the CO2 stream from
fossil-fuel power plants or other
industrial sources, after which the CO2
stream is transported (usually in
pipelines) to an on-site or off-site
location, where it is then injected
E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM
08AUP1
48076
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
underground for purposes of
sequestration.1
To transport the captured CO2 stream
for GS, the CO2 stream will typically be
compressed into a supercritical fluid.2
CO2 exists as a supercritical fluid at
approximately 1,070 pounds per square
inch (psi) and 88 °Fahrenheit (F), and in
this state it exhibits physical properties
intermediate to those of a liquid and a
gas. As mentioned, the majority of CO2
is expected to be delivered to the
sequestration site by dedicated
pipeline; 3 however, transport by truck,
rail, barge or supertanker may also
occur, but these have been described as
‘‘logistically impractical’’ for large-scale
CCS operations.4 Whether by pipeline,
or these other means, the transportation
of supercritical CO2 is regulated by the
U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT) under regulations found in 49
CFR parts 171–180 (governing the
transportation by air, rail, highway, and
water) and parts 190 and 195–199
(governing the transportation of
hazardous liquids and carbon dioxide
by pipeline). The CO2 stream is then
injected into deep subsurface rock
formations via one or more wells, using
technologies that have been developed
and refined by the oil and gas and
chemical manufacturing industries over
the past several decades. To sequester
the CO2 stream, EPA believes that many
GS site owners or operators will inject
the CO2 stream to depths of greater than
800 meters (or 2,625 feet), for the
purpose of maximizing capacity and
storage, and where ambient pressure
and temperature are sufficient to
maintain the CO2 stream in a
supercritical state. December 10, 2010
(75 FR at 77233).
When injected in an appropriate
receiving formation, the CO2 stream is
sequestered by a combination of
trapping mechanisms, including
physical and geochemical processes, as
summarized below.
Æ Physical trapping occurs when the
relatively buoyant CO2 rises in the
formation until it reaches a stratigraphic
zone with low fluid permeability (i.e.,
geologic confining system) that inhibits
further upward migration. Physical
trapping can also occur as residual CO2
is immobilized in formation pore
1 Report of the Interagency Task Force on Carbon
Capture and Storage, August 2010, p. 8.
2 Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
2005.
3 Guidelines for Carbon Dioxide Capture,
Transport, and Storage. World Resources Institute,
2008.
4 CRS Report for Congress. Carbon Dioxide (CO )
2
Pipelines for Carbon Sequestration: Emerging Policy
Issues. Paul W. Parfomak and Peter Folger. January
17, 2008.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:42 Aug 05, 2011
Jkt 223001
spaces. A portion of the CO2 will
dissolve into the groundwater and
hydrocarbons present in the receiving
formation, and CO2 molecules can also
attach onto the surfaces of coal and
certain organic-rich shales (a process
called preferential sorption), displacing
other molecules, such as methane. The
effectiveness of physical CO2 trapping is
demonstrated by natural analogs
worldwide in a range of geologic
settings, where CO2 has remained
trapped for millions of years. For
example, CO2 has been trapped for more
than 65 million years under the Pisgah
Anticline, northeast of the Jackson
Dome in Mississippi and Louisiana,
with no evidence of leakage from the
confining formation.5
Æ Geochemical trapping occurs when
chemical reactions between the
dissolved CO2 and minerals in the
receiving formation result in the
precipitation of solid carbonate
minerals.6 The timeframe over which
CO2 will be trapped by these
mechanisms depends on the properties
of the receiving formation and the
injected CO2 stream. Research is
currently ongoing to further understand
these mechanisms and the time required
to trap CO2 under various conditions.
Additional background information
on the GS of CO2 streams can also be
found in the final rule and associated
record for the final rule for UIC Class VI
wells published on December 10, 2010
(75 FR 77230).
B. Why is Geologic Sequestration being
considered as a climate change
mitigation technology?
Climate change is happening now,
and the effects can be seen on every
continent and in every ocean. While
certain effects of climate change can be
beneficial, particularly in the short term,
current and future effects of climate
change pose considerable risks to
human health and the environment.7
There is now clear evidence that the
Earth’s climate is warming: 8
Æ Global surface temperatures have
risen by 1.3 °F when estimated by a
linear trend from 1906 to 2005.9
5 Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. IPCC,
2005.
6 Ibid.
7 National Research Council (2011) Climate
Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations,
and Impacts over Decades to Millennia.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
8 Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson (Eds.) (2009)
Global Climate Change Impacts in the United
States. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
United Kingdom.
9 Trenberth, K.E. et al. (2007) Observations:
Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change. In:
Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Æ Worldwide, the last decade has
been the warmest on record.10
Æ Ocean temperatures and sea levels
are rising and glaciers are retreating
around the world.11
Most of this recent warming is very
likely the result of human activities.12
Many human activities (such as the
combustion of fossil fuels) release
greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the
atmosphere. The levels of several of
these gases, including CO2, have
reached concentrations not seen on
Earth in hundreds of thousands of
years.13
In addition, fossil fuels are expected
to remain the main source of energy
production well into the 21st century,
and increased concentrations of CO2 are
expected unless energy producers
reduce CO2 emissions to the
atmosphere. For example, CCS could
enable the continued use of coal in a
manner that greatly reduces the
associated CO2 emissions, while other
alternative energy sources are developed
in the coming decades. CCS has the
potential to be key to achieving
domestic GHG emissions reductions,
and as already mentioned, GS is a key
component of CCS.14
GS is therefore one of a portfolio of
options that could be deployed to
reduce CO2 emissions to the atmosphere
and help to mitigate climate change.
Other options include, but are not
limited to, energy conservation,
efficiency improvements, and the use of
alternative fuels and renewable energy
sources, including solar and wind
power.
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M.
Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.
Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and
New York, NY, USA.
10 National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) (2009a) The Annual Global
(land and ocean combined) Anomalies (degrees C).
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/
annual.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_19012000mean.dat. Accessed April 28, 2011.
11 Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson (Eds.) (2009)
Global Climate Change Impacts in the United
States. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
United Kingdom.
12 IPCC (2007b) Summary for Policymakers. In:
Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and
Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to
the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [M.L.
Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der
Linden and C.E. Hanson (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and
New York, NY, USA.
13 Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson (Eds.) (2009)
Global Climate Change Impacts in the United
States. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
United Kingdom.
14 Report of the Interagency Task Force on Carbon
Capture and Storage, August 2010, p. 14.
E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM
08AUP1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
C. What other recent EPA rulemakings
are related to CCS?
In an effort to establish a regulatory
framework that supports the future
development and deployment of CCS
technologies, EPA has set out a goal to
provide the regulatory certainty needed
to foster industry adoption of CCS. As
mentioned above, EPA believes that GS
is a key climate change mitigation
technology. Therefore, providing a
consistent regulatory approach to GS
will promote its future use in the United
States. Two important EPA rulemakings
that directly address GS activities are
requirements under the Greenhouse Gas
(GHG) Reporting Program; and Federal
Requirements under the Underground
Injection Control (UIC) Program for
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Geologic
Sequestration (GS) Wells. These are
described in more detail below.
• EPA Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
Reporting Program: The GHG Reporting
Program was established under
authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
and requires reporting of GHG
emissions and other relevant
information from certain source
categories in the United States. On
October 30, 2009, EPA issued a final
rule (74 FR 56260) that requires
reporting by facilities with production
process units that capture a CO2 stream
under subpart PP of the program. These
facilities are required to report the
amount of CO2 in a stream captured,
and provide information on the
downstream CO2 end use (e.g., food and
beverage, EOR, GS, etc.). On December
1, 2010, EPA issued a final rule (75 FR
75060) that requires reporting from
facilities that inject CO2 underground
for GS under subpart RR of the program.
The rule requires facilities that inject
CO2 underground for GS to report basic
information on CO2 received for
injection, develop and implement an
EPA-approved site-specific monitoring,
reporting and verification plan, and
report the amount of CO2 sequestered
using a mass balance approach and
annual monitoring activities.
• EPA Class VI Underground
Injection Control (UIC) Rule: On July 25,
2008, EPA proposed to amend the UIC
program (73 FR 43492) to establish a
new class of injection well (Class VI)
and to establish minimum Federal
requirements under the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA) for the underground
injection of CO2 for the purpose of GS.
The proposed requirements would
ensure that GS is conducted in a manner
that protects Underground Sources of
Drinking Water (USDWs) from
endangerment, by tailoring existing
components of the UIC program to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:42 Aug 05, 2011
Jkt 223001
address the unique nature of GS. On
December 10, 2010, EPA finalized the
new UIC Class VI injection well
standards. These requirements are
intended to provide certainty to
industry and the public about the
requirements that would apply to
injection for purposes of GS, by
providing consistency regarding the
requirements across the U.S., and
transparency about what requirements
apply to permitted UIC Class VI facility
owners or operators. For a more detailed
discussion of these requirements, see
the final rule in the December 10, 2010
Federal Register (75 FR 77230).
D. RCRA Applicability to GS Activities
In response to the July 25, 2008
proposed rule for UIC Class VI wells,
EPA received a number of comments
regarding the potential applicability of
RCRA subtitle C to CO2 streams being
geologically sequestered. As a result of
those comments, EPA decided to initiate
work on today’s proposal. EPA also
considered those RCRA-related
comments in the development of today’s
proposed rule. EPA notes, however, that
should persons wish to comment on the
RCRA applicability issues raised by
today’s proposal, it is necessary to
submit comments to the docket
established for today’s proposed rule as
described above in the ADDRESSES
section of this Federal Register notice.
EPA will not provide further responses
to comments submitted on the UIC rule
as part of this rulemaking. In addition,
today’s proposal is not reopening the
UIC Class VI final rule, nor will EPA
respond to comments related only to
that rule.
At this time, EPA has little
information to conclude that CO2
streams would qualify as RCRA
hazardous wastes, which would make
them subject to EPA’s comprehensive
RCRA hazardous waste management
regulations. However, commenters have
cited the potential for RCRA hazardous
waste requirements to attach to some
CO2 streams (i.e., some CO2 streams
might be classified as hazardous waste
and therefore, would be subject to RCRA
subtitle C), as a significant impediment
to widespread deployment of CCS
technologies. Today’s proposal seeks to
address this concern and provide
regulatory clarity through a revised
RCRA regulatory approach for CO2
streams. Simultaneously, as discussed
below, EPA expects that management in
accordance with the conditions in
today’s proposal will provide no
reduced protection to human health and
the environment.
After issuance of the proposed UIC
Class VI rule, EPA received public
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48077
comments that the proposed
requirements were unclear as to
whether the CO2 stream would be a
RCRA hazardous waste, and expressed
concern that this created uncertainty
regarding the type of permit needed for
GS. Many commenters stated that a CO2
stream should not be treated as a RCRA
hazardous waste on the grounds that it
is neither a listed hazardous waste nor
exhibits a hazardous characteristic, or is
even a solid waste. Other commenters,
however, asserted that CO2 in the
presence of water could exhibit the
RCRA corrosivity characteristic.
Additionally, some commenters raised
the issue of whether the analytic
procedures used under RCRA (in
particular, the toxicity characteristic
leaching procedure, TCLP) 15 can be
applied to supercritical CO2 streams,
and whether or not the UIC Class VI
regulations would better ensure the
proper management of CO2 streams,
compared with the RCRA subtitle C
hazardous waste requirements.
EPA believes that the RCRA
hazardous waste regulations can apply
to CO2 streams being geologically
sequestered. Subtitle C of RCRA and its
implementing regulations establish a
‘‘cradle to grave’’ regulatory scheme
over certain ‘‘solid wastes’’ which are
also ‘‘hazardous wastes.’’ RCRA defines
solid waste as ‘‘any garbage, refuse,
sludge from a waste treatment plant,
water supply treatment plant, or air
pollution control facility and other
discarded material, including solid,
liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous
material * * *.’’ See RCRA 1004(27), 42
U.S.C. 6903(27). EPA has further
defined the term ‘‘solid waste’’ for
purposes of its RCRA hazardous waste
regulations. 40 CFR 261.2. To be
considered a hazardous waste, a
material first must be classified as a
solid waste. Under EPA’s regulations,
generators of solid waste are required to
determine whether their wastes are
hazardous wastes. 40 CFR 262.11. A
solid waste is a hazardous waste if it
exhibits any of four characteristics
(ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or
toxicity), 40 CFR 261.20–.24, or is a
listed waste, 40 CFR 261.30–.33 (these
include wastes from non-specific
sources, such as spent solvents; byproducts from specific industries; and
discarded, unused commercial chemical
products).
A supercritical CO2 stream injected
into a permitted UIC Class VI well for
15 Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure, or
TCLP. See 40 CFR 261.24. A solid waste is defined
as hazardous when a representative sample of that
waste leaches a particular chemical or compound—
for example, arsenic—above a specified regulatory
concentration, using the TCLP.
E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM
08AUP1
48078
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
purposes of GS is a RCRA solid waste,
as it is a ‘‘discarded material’’ within
the plain meaning of the term in RCRA
§ 1004(27). Courts have stated that the
plain meaning of ‘‘discarded material’’
refers to materials that have been
disposed of, abandoned or thrown
away.16 This clearly applies to
supercritical CO2 stream (which, as
already stated, is rather unique in that
it has properties intermediate between a
liquid and a gas) injected into UIC Class
VI wells, regardless of whether the
material is a hazardous waste or not. An
entity involved in the CCS process may
generate CO2 that qualifies as a solid
waste under the RCRA hazardous waste
regulations by making the decision to
discard the material through
abandonment by disposing of the
material (see 40 CFR 261.2(a)(2)(i) and
(b)(1)). Once the decision is made that
the supercritical CO2 stream will be sent
to a UIC Class VI well for discard, EPA
considers this material to be a solid
waste. This decision may be made
upstream of the injection well facility.
As discussed above, EPA’s regulations
require that generators of a solid waste
determine whether their wastes are
hazardous wastes, and if so, manage
them in accordance with EPA’s RCRA
hazardous waste regulations. 40 CFR
262.11.
One commenter to the UIC proposed
rule suggested that the captured CO2
stream was exempt from the RCRA
hazardous waste regulations under the
exemption for ‘‘fly ash waste, bottom
ash waste, slag waste, and flue gas
emission control waste, generated
primarily from the combustion of coal
or other fossil fuels,’’ also referred to as
the ‘‘Bevill exemption.’’ (See 40 CFR
261.4(b)(4).)
EPA studied the fossil fuel
combustion wastes as directed by
Congress, and published two Reports to
Congress,17 and issued two Regulatory
Determinations on the management and
use of coal and other fossil fuel
combustion products, one on August 9,
1993 and a second one on May 22, 2000
(58 FR 42466 and 65 FR 32214,
respectively). CO2 captured for purposes
of GS was not included in either of
these Regulatory Determinations, or in
16 The proposed rule is not intended to affect the
status of CO2 that is injected into wells other than
UIC Class VI wells. For example, CO2 that is used
for enhanced oil or gas recovery (EOR/EGR) in other
than UIC Class VI wells, where some sequestration
may occur in the process of recovering gas or oil,
is beyond the scope of this proposal.
17 Report to Congress: Wastes from the
Combustion of Coal by Electric Utility Power
Plants, February 1988, EPA–530–SW–88–002; and
Report to Congress: Wastes From the Combustion of
Fossil Fuels, Vol. 1 & 2, U.S. EPA, March 1999,
EPA–530–S–99–010 and EPA–530–R–99–010.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:42 Aug 05, 2011
Jkt 223001
the underlying studies upon which
these determinations were based. The
Agency has consistently interpreted the
§ 261.4(b)(4) exemption as only
encompassing those wastes that were
studied, and EPA did not study CO2 that
has been captured for GS. Therefore,
EPA believes that the CO2 streams
discussed in today’s proposed rule are
not included within the Bevill
exemption under § 261.4(b)(4).18
EPA notes that CO2 streams are not
listed RCRA hazardous wastes (i.e., CO2
streams are not specifically identified as
one of the hazardous wastes listed in 40
CFR part 261, subpart D). However, the
CO2 stream would be a hazardous waste
if it exhibits any of the hazardous
characteristics in 40 CFR part 261,
subpart C, or, is mixed with a listed
hazardous waste. See § 261.3(a)(iv).
Under the UIC Class VI final rule,
injection site owners and operators must
determine whether the CO2 stream is
hazardous under the RCRA regulations,
and if so, injection of the CO2 stream
may only occur in a UIC Class I
hazardous waste injection well.19
Conversely, UIC Class VI wells cannot
be used for the injection of RCRA
hazardous wastes. Today’s proposal, if
finalized, would allow CO2 streams that
would otherwise qualify as RCRA
hazardous wastes to be managed in a
Class VI well, provided that they meet
the conditions of this proposed rule.
As already noted, commenters to the
UIC Class VI proposed rule also raised
questions about the appropriateness and
feasibility of applying the RCRA
hazardous waste characteristics to CO2
streams and, in particular, the Toxicity
Characteristic (TC). See § 261.24. Some
commenters stated that the TCLP test
method associated with the TC could
not be used on materials other than
solids or liquids, and that EPA would
have to develop new testing regulations
and guidelines specifically for
evaluating supercritical CO2.
Commenters also stated that the TC
regulation was inappropriate for CO2
streams because the TC was ‘‘* * *
designed to assess the threat waste
18 EPA notes that even if CO streams from the
2
combustion of fossil fuels were exempt from
regulation as hazardous waste under § 261.4(b)(4)—
which it does not believe to be the case—the Bevill
exemption would only apply to CO2 generated from
the combustion of materials in boilers to generate
steam for the purpose of generating energy, and not
to other CO2 streams generated from other sources.
19 As already mentioned, a hazardous waste
determination must be made when a waste is first
generated (§ 262.11); however, knowing whether a
solid waste is a hazardous waste is necessary at any
point during the management of that waste, in order
for persons to ensure that they are in compliance
with the hazardous waste requirements if and when
they are managing hazardous waste. See 40 CFR
261.3(b)(3) and 45 FR 33096 (May 19, 1980).
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
would have in a municipal landfill
disposal scenario, a scenario that * * *
is inherently inapplicable to
uncontained supercritical CO2.’’ Many
commenters also expressed concern
over the uncertainty in determining how
the RCRA hazardous waste regulations,
including the hazardous waste
identification issues described here,
apply to CO2 streams being sequestered
in UIC Class VI wells.
In light of these comments, EPA
reiterates that no hazardous waste
listings apply specifically to CO2
streams; therefore, a CO2 stream could
only be defined as a hazardous waste if
it exhibits a hazardous waste
characteristic as defined in 40 CFR part
261, subpart C.20 Regarding the
feasibility of testing CO2 streams, EPA
acknowledges the commenter’s concern,
but also notes that the hazardous waste
regulations allow generators to apply
their knowledge—in lieu of testing—of
the hazard characteristic of a waste, in
light of the materials or processes used,
to determine whether that waste is a
characteristic hazardous waste under
RCRA.21 40 CFR 262.11(c)(2). EPA also
notes that methods exist for sampling
and analyzing gaseous emissions in
order to identify and quantify hazardous
constituents that may be present.22
Regarding whether a TCLP leach test
can be applied to a supercritical CO2
stream, EPA notes that the TC
regulation, and the TCLP test method,
allow for measurement of total
constituent concentrations in a waste, in
lieu of running the leach test, and under
certain circumstances even require it
(such as where wastes are liquids that
contain less than 0.5% solids).23
However, EPA acknowledges the
commenters’ underlying concerns
related to RCRA characterization, and
requests comment on this issue.
E. CO2 Stream Characterization
As noted above, EPA is proposing to
conditionally exclude from the
20 It is also possible that a CO stream could
2
become a hazardous waste if it is mixed with a
listed hazardous waste, or, mixed with a
characteristic hazardous waste and the resultant
mixture exhibits a characteristic of hazardous
waste. This is commonly referred to as the ‘‘mixture
rule.’’ See 40 CFR 261.3. We note that today’s
proposed exemption includes the condition that
prohibits the mixing of CO2 streams with hazardous
waste.
21 Any persons claiming that a waste is nonhazardous, based on knowledge in lieu of testing,
should be prepared to substantiate this claim.
22 E.g., EPA notes that existing analytical test
methods, such as SW–846 Methods 0060, 0010, and
0031, are available to quantify the levels of various
hazardous constituents in gaseous streams,
although sampling a supercritical CO2 stream may
require particular sampling protocols.
23 See SW–846, Method 1311, Section 2.1.
E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM
08AUP1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
definition of hazardous waste CO2
streams captured, transported (or
otherwise delivered to) and injected into
permitted UIC Class VI wells for
purposes of GS. At this time, EPA has
little information to conclude that CO2
streams would qualify as RCRA
hazardous wastes, which would make
them subject to EPA’s comprehensive
RCRA hazardous waste management
regulations. Today’s proposal is
intended to provide clarity for
deployment of CCS under conditions
that EPA believes would not present a
substantial risk to human health and the
environment. However, EPA
acknowledges that at this time, it does
not have full knowledge of the range of
possible CO2 stream compositions.
Today’s proposed conditional exclusion
is based upon EPA’s existing knowledge
of the composition of CO2 streams, and
its analysis that compliance with the
existing standards and regulations
designed to prevent any exposure of
CO2 (and any associated impurities)
would render additional regulation
under RCRA subtitle C unnecessary.
Nevertheless, EPA is proceeding with
this proposal, and notes that the UIC
Class VI regulations include
requirements that the owner or operator
of the injection well provide an analysis
of the physical and chemical
characteristics of the CO2 stream, both
during permit application and
periodically during operation (See 40
CFR 146.82, 146.90 and 146.91). The
permit-issuing authority is also
authorized under EPA’s UIC permit
regulations to add any additional
conditions to the permit, as necessary,
to assure compliance with applicable
SDWA requirements (40 CFR 146.52(b)).
Under this authority, the UIC Program
Director (EPA or a State permitting
authority) may add specific testing or
chemical/waste limitations to the permit
to prevent endangerment of USDWs, or
to assure that unauthorized wastes are
not injected with the CO2 stream.
EPA has reviewed estimates of CO2
stream composition that were calculated
using information, such as the
composition of flue gas from the
burning of fossil fuels and other likely
sources, existing flue gas emission
control technologies (e.g., electrostatic
precipitators and scrubbers), and data
from applied capture technology.24
These estimates indicate that captured
CO2 could contain (based upon the
information used in developing those
estimates) low concentrations of
24 Apps, J.A., A Review of Hazardous Chemical
Species Associate with CO2 Capture from CoalFired Power Plants and Their Potential Fate in CO2
Geologic Storage, Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, March 2006.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:42 Aug 05, 2011
Jkt 223001
hazardous constituents (e.g., estimated
concentrations expressed in parts per
million by volume, or ppmv, are:
0.0022–0.0097 arsenic, 0.0462–0.4623
barium, 0.0002–0.0085 cadmium,
0.0016–0.0171 chromium, 0.0022–
0.0028 mercury, 0.0011–0.0045 lead,
and 0.0074–0.0244 selenium). EPA
notes that these contaminants derived
from the combustion flue gas are
relevant to the TC regulation in
§ 261.24.25 These estimates also indicate
that the types of impurities and their
concentrations would likely vary by
facility, coal composition, plant
operating conditions, and pollutant
removal and carbon capture
technologies.
EPA solicited comment in the July 25,
2008 proposed UIC Class VI rule on the
presence of impurities in CO2 streams,
but did not receive any analytical data
on the composition of captured CO2
streams in response. As various CCS
pilot projects 26 move forward and
continue to generate information, EPA
expects the amount of available
analytical data on captured CO2 to
increase. In addition, EPA expects that
data will become available under the
recently promulgated UIC Class VI
regulations. As discussed above, the
final UIC Class VI regulations require
that prior to issuance of a permit, the
owner or operator of the well must
submit to the Director 27 proposed
operating data for the proposed GS site,
including an analysis of the chemical
and physical properties of the CO2
stream (40 CFR 146.82(a)(7)(iv)). The
UIC rule also requires that, throughout
the operational life of the Class VI well,
the injected CO2 stream be analyzed by
owners or operators with sufficient
frequency to yield data representative of
its physical and chemical characteristics
(40 CFR 146.90(a)). Owners or operators
must also submit semi-annual reports
that include any changes to the
25 Ibid, Table 13b. EPA notes that the presence of
hazardous constituents or contaminants does not
automatically mean that a CO2 stream is a
hazardous waste.
26 See Exhibits 1 and 2 in EPA’s analysis of the
potential costs and benefits associated with this
action, entitled Assessment of the Potential Costs,
Benefits, and Other Impacts of the Conditional
Exclusion from the RCRA Definition of Hazardous
Waste for CO2 Streams Managed in UIC Class VI
Wells for the Purposes of Geologic Sequestration, as
Proposed. A copy of this document is available in
the docket established for this action.
27 As used here in the context of the UIC program,
‘Director’ means the person responsible for
permitting, implementation, and compliance of the
UIC program. For UIC programs administered by
EPA, the Director is the EPA Regional
Administrator or his/her authorized representative;
for UIC programs in Primacy States, the Director is
the person responsible for permitting,
implementation, and compliance of the State,
Territorial, or Tribal UIC program. 40 CFR 144.3.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48079
physical, chemical, and other relevant
characteristics of the CO2 stream from
the proposed operating data (40 CFR
146.91(a)(1)). While guidance is still
being developed regarding these
requirements, at a minimum, the
physical characteristics of the CO2
stream will include temperature and
pressure, while the chemical
characteristics will include pH, carbon
dioxide purity (as a percent), as well as
concentrations of non-CO2 constituents
(either in ppmv or in percent). These
non-CO2 constituents may include, but
are not limited to, sulfur dioxide (SO2),
hydrogen sulfide (H2S), nitrous oxides
(NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), methane
(CH4), other hydrocarbons, water vapor
(H2O), as well as certain contaminants,
that are also defined as hazardous
contaminants in 40 CFR 261.24, such as
arsenic, mercury, and selenium. EPA
expects that these data will provide an
indication of any impurities that may be
present, their concentrations, and
whether such impurities might alter the
corrosivity or other properties of the
CO2 stream after injection.
EPA today requests analytical data on
the physical and chemical
characteristics of captured CO2,
including the concentrations of
hazardous contaminants, CO2 content,
information on the type of CO2 capture
process used, and how the samples were
collected and analyzed. This data will
allow EPA to gain a better
understanding of the nature and
characteristics of captured CO2 streams.
IV. Detailed Discussion of This
Proposed Rule
EPA is proposing to revise the
regulations for hazardous waste
management under RCRA to exclude
from the definition of hazardous waste
CO2 streams that would otherwise be
defined as hazardous, when these CO2
streams are managed under certain
conditions. The Agency believes that
this amendment to the RCRA hazardous
waste rules, if finalized, will
substantially reduce the uncertainty
associated with defining and managing
these CO2 streams under RCRA subtitle
C. For the reasons discussed below, EPA
believes that the management of these
CO2 streams in accordance with the
proposed conditions does not present a
substantial risk to human health and the
environment. These proposed
conditions include, but are not limited
to, compliance with the existing
regulatory regimes governing the
transportation of the CO2 stream, and its
injection in a UIC Class VI permitted
well.
E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM
08AUP1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
48080
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
A. Authority for Conditional Exclusion
From RCRA Subtitle C Requirements
EPA has previously interpreted RCRA
section 3001(a) to authorize the issuance
of ‘‘conditional exemptions’’ from the
requirements of subtitle C, where it
determines that ‘‘a waste might pose a
hazard only under limited management
scenarios, and other regulatory
programs already address such
scenarios.’’ 62 FR at 6636 (February 12,
1997); 66 FR at 27222–27223 (May 16,
2001). Today’s proposal takes a similar
approach to those earlier rules.
Section 3001(a) provides the Agency
with flexibility to consider the need for
regulation in deciding whether to list or
identify a waste as hazardous.
Specifically, RCRA section 3001(a)
requires that EPA, in determining
whether to list a waste as a hazardous
waste, or to otherwise identify a waste
as a hazardous waste, decide whether a
waste ‘‘should be subject to’’ the
requirements of subtitle C. Hence, RCRA
section 3001 authorizes EPA to
determine when subtitle C regulation is
appropriate. EPA has consistently
interpreted section 3001 of RCRA to
give it broad flexibility in fashioning
criteria for hazardous wastes to enter or
exit the subtitle C regulatory system.
EPA’s longstanding regulatory criteria
for determining whether wastes pose
hazards that require regulatory control
incorporate the idea that a waste that is
otherwise hazardous may not present a
hazard if already subject to adequate
regulation. (See, e.g., 40 CFR
261.11(a)(3)(x), which requires EPA to
consider action taken by other
governmental agencies or regulatory
programs based on the health or
environmental hazard posed by the
waste.)
EPA’s interpretation is further
supported by the text of RCRA sections
1004(5), and 3002–3004, and RCRA’s
legislative history. This interpretation
has also been upheld upon judicial
review. See, e.g., Military Toxics Project
v. EPA, 146 F.3d 948 (D.C. Cir. 1998)
(upholding conditional exemption for
storage of military munitions, based on
EPA determination that such wastes are
subject to binding standards that meet
or exceed RCRA standards, in addition
to an institutional oversight process).
The statutory definition of hazardous
waste, section 1004(5)(B), informs EPA’s
interpretation that EPA may consider
good management practices in
determining the need to regulate waste
as hazardous. That section defines a
‘hazardous waste’ as ‘‘a solid waste, or
combination of solid wastes, which
because of its quantity, concentration, or
physical, chemical or infectious
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:42 Aug 05, 2011
Jkt 223001
characteristics may * * * (B) pose a
substantial present or potential hazard
to human health or the environment
when improperly treated, stored,
transported, or disposed of, or otherwise
managed.’’ (Emphasis added.) EPA has
interpreted the statutory definition as
incorporating the idea that a waste that
is otherwise hazardous does not require
regulation so long as it is properly
managed. For example, EPA’s standards
for listing hazardous wastes require
consideration of a waste’s potential for
mismanagement. See 40 CFR
261.11(a)(3)(vii) (incorporating the
language of RCRA section 1004(5)(B)
and requiring EPA to consider
‘‘plausible types of improper
management’’).
The statute also directs EPA to
regulate hazardous waste generators
(RCRA § 3002(a)), transporters (RCRA
§ 3003(a)) and treatment, storage and
disposal facilities (RCRA § 3004(a)) ‘‘as
may be necessary to protect human
health and the environment.’’ By
extension, the decision of when a waste
should be subject to the regulatory
requirements of subtitle C is a question
of whether such regulatory controls are
necessary to protect human health and
the environment.
Thus, where a waste might pose a
hazard only under limited management
scenarios, and other regulatory
programs already address such
scenarios, EPA is not required to
classify a waste as hazardous waste
subject to regulation under subtitle C. At
least three decisions by the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit provide
support for this approach to regulating
wastes as hazardous waste only where
necessary to protect human health and
the environment. In Military Toxics
Project v. EPA, 146 F.3d 948 (D.C. Cir.
1998), the court upheld a conditional
exemption whereby the storage and
transportation of certain military
munitions are not considered hazardous
waste subject to regulation under RCRA
subtitle C, provided the munitions are
stored and transported in compliance
with regulations issued by the
Department of Defense and the
Department of Transportation,
respectively. See 40 CFR 266.203,
266.205. The court ruled that EPA’s
interpretation of RCRA as authorizing a
conditional exemption is ‘‘a permissible
construction of the statute.’’ 146 F.3d at
958. The court cited its own precedent
as recognizing ‘‘‘that Congress intended
the agency to have substantial room to
exercise its expertise in determining the
appropriate grounds for listing,’ ’’ id.
(citing NRDC v. EPA, 25 F.3d 1063,
1070 (D.C. Cir. 1994)), and concluded
that, although the military munitions
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
rule ‘‘does not involve the listing
regulations at issue in NRDC v. EPA, we
think the principle at work there also
supports the conditional exemption at
issue here.’’ Id.
In NRDC v. EPA, the court held that
EPA appropriately used its discretion in
relying on several existing regulatory
frameworks governing used oil in
determining not to list certain used oils
as a hazardous waste. NRDC, 25 F.3d at
1071. Similarly, in Edison Electric
Institute v. EPA, 2 F.3d 438 (D.C. Cir.
1993), the court upheld a temporary
exemption from subtitle C for
petroleum-contaminated media based
on the fact that the potential hazards of
such materials are already controlled
under the underground storage tank
regulations under RCRA subtitle I. In
reaching its decision, the court
considered the fact that the subtitle I
standards could prevent threats to
human health and the environment to
be an important factor supporting the
exemption. Id. at 453.
The legislative history of RCRA
subtitle C also supports this
interpretation, stating that ‘‘the basic
thrust of this hazardous waste title is to
identify what wastes are hazardous in
what quantities, qualities, and
concentrations, and the methods of
disposal which may make such wastes
hazardous.’’ H. Rep. No. 94–1491, 94th
Cong., 2d Sess. 6 (1976), reprinted in A
Legislative History of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, as Amended,
Congressional Research Service, Vol.1,
567 (1991) (emphasis added). Finally, as
discussed above, in proposing this
conditional exemption from RCRA, EPA
is in part relying on the regulatory
controls for Class VI wells, under the
UIC program of the SDWA, 42 U.S.C.
300f et seq. EPA notes that such reliance
is also consistent with the direction
provided in section 1006(b) of RCRA,
which directs EPA to integrate the
provisions of RCRA, for purposes of
administration and enforcement and to
avoid duplication, to the maximum
extent practicable, with those of certain
other statutes, including the SDWA, to
the extent that it can be done in a
manner that is consistent with the goals
and policies of both RCRA and the other
relevant statute(s).
B. CO2 Streams Managed Prior to
Underground Injection
Under the subtitle C hazardous waste
program, the generator requirements (40
CFR part 262) contain provisions
designed to ensure that hazardous
wastes are properly managed by persons
who generate the wastes. This is
accomplished through certain
requirements governing the temporary
E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM
08AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
storage (i.e., accumulation) of hazardous
wastes, in units, such as tanks or
containers, at the site of generation.
These requirements include technical
requirements for the tanks or containers,
and time limits on hazardous waste
storage, if the waste is to be sent off-site
to a treatment, storage or disposal
facility.28 These requirements also
include recordkeeping and reporting,
and certain pre-transport requirements,
such as packaging, labeling, and
preparing a hazardous waste manifest to
accompany the waste. Generators must
also notify EPA of their hazardous waste
management activity, and obtain an EPA
identification (ID) number. Likewise,
hazardous waste transporters (e.g.,
persons transporting waste, including
over the highway or by rail) have certain
requirements in 40 CFR part 263, to
ensure that the hazardous wastes are
properly transported to a hazardous
waste treatment, storage, or disposal
facility. These transporter requirements
include notifying EPA and obtaining an
EPA ID number, recordkeeping, and
compliance with the hazardous waste
manifest. EPA notes that under the
RCRA subtitle C regulations, a
hazardous waste manifest is not
required for hazardous wastes sent offsite via pipeline.29
For CO2 streams that are captured,
compressed, and transported to a UIC
Class VI well, EPA believes that the full
set of subtitle C generator and
transporter requirements are not
necessary, because they do not provide
any additional protection over existing
regulatory requirements. Regarding the
generator requirements, EPA believes
that the process of capturing and
compressing CO2 prior to delivery to a
UIC Class VI facility via a pipeline, as
the Agency understands it, will not
involve storage at the generator facility
(i.e., at the CO2 source), but rather will
occur in a continuous fashion (capture
process → compression/dehydration →
pipeline insertion). Once in the
pipeline, EPA believes the applicable
DOT requirements (which apply to
supercritical CO2 streams regardless of
whether or not these materials meet the
definition of hazardous waste) will
ensure that CO2 streams are managed in
28 The generator regulations in 40 CFR part 262
provide for limited, temporary on-site hazardous
waste storage (accumulation) without a RCRA
permit or being subject to the interim status
standards, provided certain conditions are met (see
§ 262.34). While generators are not required to send
hazardous waste off-site for disposal, they often do
so because they do not wish to engage in RCRApermitted hazardous waste activity on-site.
29 This is because use of the hazardous waste
manifest is triggered by the transport of hazardous
waste (see discussion in Section IV.B.2. in this
preamble, including Footnote 41).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:42 Aug 05, 2011
Jkt 223001
a manner that addresses the potential
risks to human health and the
environment that these materials may
pose, prior to arrival at a Class VI
injection well facility.
1. CO2 Streams Generated at Capture
Sites
While certain technologies for
removing (capturing) CO2 have been in
use commercially for over 60 years (e.g.,
natural gas processing, production of
food-grade CO2), research has been
underway to develop more cost-effective
technologies to capture CO2 for
purposes of CCS. Regardless of the
capture technology that is ultimately
implemented, information currently
available to EPA indicates that once the
CO2 stream is captured at the source
(e.g., coal-fired power plant), it will be
dehydrated (to meet pipeline
specifications preventing corrosion) and
compressed (to match designated
pipeline pressures) in preparation for
transport, primarily via CO2
pipeline.30 31
However, evaluating in more detail
how CO2 streams will be managed at the
CO2 source prior to GS in a UIC Class
VI facility, and what regulations or other
standards might apply to these activities
in lieu of the RCRA generator standards,
has proven somewhat difficult based on
a review of the literature. This is either
because many of the newer capture
technologies are still in the
developmental stages, or because the
more established capture technologies
used in commercial CO2 capture have
not yet been scaled up to large facilities,
such as coal-fired power plants.
Nonetheless, EPA attempted to assess
how captured CO2 streams would be
managed in the context of the RCRA
generator requirements identified above
(e.g., EPA notification, standards for
tanks or containers, time limits for onsite storage, recordkeeping and
reporting, packaging, labeling,
manifesting, etc.).
First, it is unclear from existing
information sources whether captured
CO2 has been or will be stored at the
generator site prior to insertion into a
pipeline, so EPA examined the
feasibility of storing captured CO2
streams at the source, since storage is a
hazardous waste management activity of
concern at RCRA generator sites
30 DOE/NETL’s Carbon Capture R&D Program for
Existing Coal-Fired Power Plants, DOE/NETL–
2009–1356, February 2009.
31 Figueroa, Jose D. et al., 2008. Advances in CO
2
capture technology—the U.S. Department of
Energy’s Carbon Sequestration Program,
International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 2,
2008 (9–20).
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48081
generally.32 EPA looked at estimates of
CO2 capture rates both in the CCS
projects currently underway, as well as
future scenarios where CO2 capture is
deployed at full scale. A review of
commercially-available CO2 capture
facilities in 2009 identified 17 facilities,
with CO2 capture rates ranging from
50,000 metric tons/year to 3.63 million
metric tons per year.33 According to the
2010 CCS Task Force Report, the largest
of these capture rates (3.63 million
metric tons/yr) is close to the volume of
CO2 required for capture at electric
utility generating plants. It is also
estimated that a 500MW (megawatt)
coal-fired power plant emits close to 3
million metric tons of CO2 per year.34
Similarly, the Mountaineer, West
Virginia CCS project, which is currently
capturing 100,000 metric tons CO2/year,
will eventually scale up to 1.5 million
metric tons of CO2 per year from an
emission slipstream representing
235MW. See 75 FR 32171, June 7, 2010.
An annual CO2 capture rate of 1.5
million metric tons translates to
approximately 4,100 metric tons CO2
per day, or (at temperatures and
pressures close to supercritical) 34,000
cubic meters, which is approximately 9
million gallons of CO2 per day. Even the
smallest annual capture rate mentioned
above (50,000 metric tons per year)
equates to approximately 137 metric
tons of CO2 per day, or 1,142 cubic
meters, which is approximately 301,568
gallons per day.
Based on these estimates, the volume
of CO2 streams either being captured, or
anticipated to be captured, are quite
large, and would require pressure
vessels (i.e., tanks engineered for
pressurized material) of inordinate size
at the low end of these estimates, and
are not likely to exist or be practicable
at the upper end of these estimates.
Therefore, EPA does not envision these
large volumes of captured CO2 streams
being stored on-site, and instead
assumes that the CO2 streams will be
dehydrated, compressed, and either
injected on-site, or sent off-site, in a
continuous fashion. EPA believes that
even if the CO2 were defined as a
hazardous waste, under the scenario
described above, where captured CO2
streams are delivered in a continuous
fashion to either on-site injection wells,
32 The term ‘‘store’’ or ‘‘storage’’ used throughout
this preamble refers to the holding of waste for a
temporary period above ground, and does not refer
to the placement of CO2 streams in underground
formations through the process of GS. See 40 CFR
260.10.
33 CCS Task Force Study, August, 2010,
Appendix A.
34 Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
2005, p. 61.
E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM
08AUP1
48082
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
or to a pipeline for off-site injection (and
presumably in a totally-enclosed
manner, due to the need to maintain
proper pressures) there would not be
any substantive 35 RCRA subtitle C
requirements applicable to this activity.
EPA notes that there are no RCRA
hazardous waste standards for
pipelines, unless the pipelines are
ancillary to a regulated hazardous waste
tank, which does not appear to be the
case here.36
Regarding other generator
requirements, such as notification to
EPA of hazardous waste activity, and
recordkeeping and reporting, EPA
believes there will be equivalent notice
and reporting for facilities engaged in
CO2 capture for purposes of GS. The
new GHG reporting requirements
promulgated on October 30, 2009 (74 FR
56260) will provide information to the
Agency regarding individual facilities
engaged in CO2 capture activities. Under
40 CFR part 98, subpart PP, of the GHG
rule, facilities with production process
units that capture a CO2 stream must
annually report certain information to
EPA, such as the amount of CO2 in the
stream captured, and information on the
fate of the CO2 stream (i.e., the
downstream ‘end use’ of the CO2),
including GS. See 40 CFR 98.426. The
GHG rule also requires comprehensive
recordkeeping, and records that must be
retained for three years. See § 98.3(g)
and § 98.427. EPA points out that these
GHG requirements apply irrespective of
whether a facility claims the RCRA
exclusion being proposed today, if
finalized.
Therefore, with respect to generators
of CO2 streams, EPA believes there
would not be any additional protection
to human health or the environment
through the RCRA hazardous waste
regulations of these operations. Absent
any storage, the regulation of the
movement of captured CO2 streams from
the point of capture to either an on-site
UIC Class VI injection well, or to an offsite DOT-regulated pipeline (discussed
below), would not be significantly
different in the presence or absence of
today’s proposed conditional exclusion.
While it is not clear what would be the
procedure during maintenance or upset
35 ‘‘Substantive’’ as used here describes those
requirements that are directly related to storage,
transportation, treatment, or disposal, and not
notification or biennial reporting.
36 EPA notes that there are no stand-alone RCRA
hazardous waste standards for pipelines only;
rather, EPA regulates hazardous waste ‘‘tank
systems’’ which includes technical standards for
piping where that piping is ancillary to hazardous
waste tanks. See 40 CFR 260.10 for the definition
of tank system; see also July 14, 1986 Federal
Register for discussion of ancillary equipment, 51
FR at 25441.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:42 Aug 05, 2011
Jkt 223001
circumstances (such as if the capture
process could not function), EPA
assumes that the source emissions
would be diverted for release under the
facility’s Clean Air Act permit.
EPA requests information on whether
EPA’s estimates for captured CO2
volumes are accurate and reasonable,
and whether the CO2 that is captured
could be stored on-site prior to being
sent elsewhere for GS or any other
purpose; if so, EPA requests detailed
information on the duration and method
of storage, and what existing regulatory
or voluntary controls and standards
apply to such storage. EPA also requests
information on the units and processes
involved after the CO2 is captured, and
before it is either injected on-site, or
sent off-site. Finally, EPA requests
comment and information on the
procedures that have been or are
expected to be used during maintenance
and upset circumstances of the carbon
capture system.
2. Transportation of CO2 Streams to UIC
Class VI Injection Well
While there may be instances where
captured CO2 streams are injected onsite, most generators will likely
transport their captured CO2 streams to
UIC Class VI wells located off-site, and
therefore EPA considered the
transportation of CO2 streams under
today’s proposed conditional exclusion.
Carbon dioxide itself is listed under the
DOT regulations as a Class 2.2
hazardous material (non-flammable gas).
See definitions in 49 CFR 172.101 and
173.115(b). By this designation as a
hazardous material, CO2 becomes
subject to regulations established by
DOT for the safe and secure
transportation of hazardous materials in
commerce. DOT’s Pipeline Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA) is charged with overseeing the
movement of hazardous materials,
including CO2, over all modes of
transportation. For purposes of this
proposal, EPA examined existing
requirements for pipeline, and nonpipeline, modes of transportation.
Pipeline Transport—EPA presumes
that pipeline transport of CO2 streams
will be the principal mode of transport
for CCS activities, either using existing
or newly-built pipelines. For example,
in 2008, a Congressional Research
Service report stated that ‘‘[t]ransporting
captured CO2 in relatively limited
quantities is possible by truck, rail, and
ship, but moving the enormous
quantities of CO2 implied by a
widespread implementation of CCS
technologies would likely require a
dedicated interstate pipeline
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
network.’’ 37 In the United States, there
are approximately 3,600 miles of
dedicated CO2 pipelines, carrying about
50 million metric tons of CO2 per year,
primarily for EOR activities in the oil
and gas industry.38 Experience and
knowledge gained by the oil and gas
industry, which has used CO2 pipelines
over the past 35 years to transport large
volumes of CO2 to oil fields, is directly
applicable to carbon capture and GS
operations and, thus, there is much
experience with this activity.
Pipeline transportation of CO2 is
subject to the PHMSA requirements in
49 CFR part 195, which apply to
pipeline facilities used in the
transportation of hazardous liquids or
supercritical CO2.39 As defined in 49
CFR 195.2, carbon dioxide is ‘‘a fluid
consisting of more than 90 percent
carbon dioxide molecules compressed
to a supercritical state,’’ which would
include supercritical CO2 streams
transported for purposes of CCS. The
requirements in 49 CFR part 195 govern
pipeline design, construction, operation
and maintenance, and emergency
response planning, and EPA believes
that by addressing these areas, the
PHMSA requirements are consistent
with the RCRA subtitle C goal of
preventing releases in order to protect
human health and the environment.
Additionally, PHMSA’s goal is to
improve the overall integrity of pipeline
systems and reduce risks. See January
10, 2011 Federal Register (76 FR 1504).
To evaluate risk adequately, the
Hazardous Liquid and Gas Transmission
Pipeline Integrity Management (IM)
requirements were created (49 CFR
195.450 and § 195.452), which
supplement PHMSA’s safety regulations
mentioned above. The goal of the IM
requirements is to identify and evaluate
the physical and operational
characteristics of each individual
pipeline system, in order to ensure the
quality of pipeline integrity in areas
with a higher potential for adverse
consequences (high consequence areas
or HCAs).40 In addition, PHMSA’s IM
37 CRS Report for Congress. Carbon Dioxide (CO )
2
Pipelines for Carbon Sequestration: Emerging Policy
Issues. Paul W. Parfomak and Peter Folger. January
17, 2008.
38 CRS Report for Congress. Regulation of Carbon
Dioxide (CO2) Sequestration Pipelines:
Jurisdictional Issues. Adam Vann and Paul W.
Parfomak. April 15, 2008.
39 The pipeline transportation of carbon dioxide
and hazardous liquids are both regulated under the
same regulatory framework. ‘‘Hazardous liquids,’’
for purposes of 49 CFR part 195, are defined by
DOT as petroleum, petroleum products, and
anhydrous ammonia, and are not the subject of this
proposed rule. 49 CFR 195.2.
40 HCAs include populated areas, and other areas
particularly vulnerable to pipeline releases, such as
E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM
08AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
requirements promote a more rigorous
and systematic management of pipeline
integrity and risk by operators; maintain
the government’s prominent role in the
oversight of pipeline operator integrity
plans and programs; and increase the
public’s confidence in the safe operation
of the nation’s pipeline network. EPA
believes that these requirements, which
focus on preventing releases that might
affect human populations and
ecologically-sensitive areas, further
support the conclusion in today’s
proposal that additional regulation of
pipeline transportation under RCRA
subtitle C is not necessary in order to
protect human health and the
environment.
With respect to there being no
requirement to use a hazardous waste
manifest under today’s proposal for CO2
streams that are conditionally excluded,
it is important to note that under the
RCRA subtitle C regulations, moving
hazardous waste off-site through a
pipeline does not trigger the use of a
manifest, because pipelines are not
included in the definition of
‘‘transportation’’ under RCRA subtitle
C.41 With respect to the use of a
manifest, because the applicable
requirements would not change under
either the existing RCRA subtitle C
regulations, or when managed in
accordance with today’s proposed
conditional exclusion, there is no
change in protection to human health
and the environment under today’s
proposed rule. In fact, EPA notes that
were CO2 streams to be subject to RCRA
subtitle C as hazardous waste, they
would not be regulated any differently
under the part 195 regulations that are
applicable to supercritical CO2 streams.
Consultations with PHMSA staff
indicate that whether a CO2 stream is
defined as hazardous waste under RCRA
subtitle C (in this instance, if it were to
exhibit a RCRA characteristic) does not
change the technical and other
requirements applicable to the
transportation of supercritical CO2
under PHMSA.42
Finally, EPA notes that it may be the
case that some pipelines used to
transport CO2 are not subject to the DOT
requirements, because they are located
on-site at the generator facility or at the
UIC Class VI facility. See, e.g., 49 CFR
drinking water resources or certain ecologicallysensitive areas. 49 CFR 195.450.
41 40 CFR 260.10, 262.20(a)(1), and 263.20(a)(1).
See also Memorandum from Marcia Williams,
Director, Office of Solid Waste, to Barry [sic]
Seraydarian, Director, Toxics and Waste
Management Division, EPA Region 9, April 30,
1986.
42 Memorandum to Docket EPA–HQ–RCRA–
2010–0695, Personal Communication with Vince
Holohan, PHMSA, U.S. DOT.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:42 Aug 05, 2011
Jkt 223001
195.1(b)(8). EPA requests information
on how these pipelines are currently
regulated, including any design and
operating standards that apply to such
pipelines. As discussed earlier in
today’s preamble, EPA assumes that in
the typical case, captured CO2 will not
be stored at the generator facility, and
will be transferred in a continuous
manner either to an on-site or off-site
UIC Class VI well. EPA is not proposing
to apply RCRA subtitle C requirements
to these pipelines as a condition of
today’s proposed rule (as stated earlier,
absent storage of hazardous waste by
generators, piping alone would not be
subject to subtitle C regulation in any
event); but EPA still requests comment
on the appropriateness of applying the
RCRA subtitle C standards to these nonDOT regulated pipelines.
Non-Pipeline Transport—While EPA
expects that pipelines will be the most
commonly used transportation method
for moving supercritical CO2 from its
source to a UIC Class VI injection well,
other forms of transportation other than
pipeline (e.g., highway, rail) are still
possible. Supercritical CO2 streams
being transported by means other than
by pipeline must comply with
applicable DOT hazardous materials
transportation regulations, which
address (for these modes of
transportation) requirements, such as
packaging, labeling, marking,
placarding, emergency response,
training, and shipping documentation.
These regulations are found in 49 CFR
parts 100–180 (hazardous materials
regulations). EPA believes that these
DOT requirements will adequately
address risks to human health and the
environment from the transportation of
CO2 and, therefore, additional RCRA
subtitle C requirements specifically
relating to transportation will not
provide substantially more protection.
Where a hazardous waste manifest
would otherwise be required for
transporting CO2 streams that meet the
definition of hazardous waste, under
today’s proposed conditional exclusion,
no hazardous waste manifest would be
required. While the DOT hazardous
materials shipping paper ensures that
important information regarding the
CO2 stream accompanies the shipment,
and that persons offering the CO2 stream
for transport must keep copies of the
DOT shipping paper for two years, there
is no tracking feature provided by the
DOT shipping paper (as is the case for
a hazardous waste manifest). EPA
believes, however, that today’s proposed
rule will provide adequate incentive to
ensure that the CO2 stream is delivered
to a UIC Class VI facility (for example,
as discussed later in today’s preamble,
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48083
EPA is proposing a condition requiring
generators to certify that any CO2
stream, which they claim to be excluded
from RCRA subtitle C, has been
delivered to a UIC Class VI facility).
EPA believes that this proposed
certification statement, which must be
signed by the generator, provides a
strong incentive to ensure delivery to
the designated UIC Class VI facility; this
is because generators who claim the
exclusion, but fail to ensure delivery of
their CO2 stream that is hazardous to a
Class VI facility, risk losing the
exclusion and invoking the full
hazardous waste requirements.
Nonetheless, EPA notes that this
certification statement does not provide
the same type of tracking as a hazardous
waste manifest would provide.
Therefore, EPA requests comment on
the extent to which non-pipeline
transportation will be used specifically
for transporting CO2 streams to UIC
Class VI facilities, and whether the use
of the certification statement, together
with compliance with applicable DOT
hazardous material transportation
requirements, are effective substitutes
for the RCRA hazardous waste
regulations that would apply to these
specific circumstances.
C. Underground Injection of CO2
Streams at UIC Class VI Wells
The UIC Class VI regulations
specifically preclude CO2 streams that
are defined as RCRA hazardous waste
from being injected into a UIC Class VI
well. See 40 CFR 146.81(d) (definition
of Carbon Dioxide Stream in the UIC
Class VI regulation). Instead, under the
existing UIC and RCRA regulations,
hazardous wastes (including CO2
streams that meet the definition of
hazardous waste)—if injected—must be
injected into a Class I hazardous waste
well. As already discussed, EPA has
little information about whether CO2
streams would exhibit a RCRA
hazardous waste characteristic (in
particular, the TC). However, because it
is possible that captured CO2 streams
could contain low concentrations of
contaminants which could cause a
waste to be identified as hazardous by
the TC (e.g., arsenic, mercury,
selenium),43 EPA considered whether
the injection of captured CO2 streams
into UIC Class VI wells would be
properly managed, such that subtitle C
regulation was duplicative and
unnecessary.
43 Apps, J.A., A Review of Hazardous Chemical
Species Associate with CO2 Capture from Coal-Fired
Power Plants and Their Potential Fate in CO2
Geologic Storage, Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, March 2006.
E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM
08AUP1
48084
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
The UIC Class VI requirements are
designed to ensure that the CO2 and any
incidental associated substances will be
isolated within the injection zone, and
thus protect USDWs from
endangerment. The UIC Class VI
requirements are designed for the
unique characteristics of CO2, including
its buoyancy relative to other fluids in
the subsurface, which requirements
account for the potential presence of
impurities (including hazardous
contaminants which could cause the
waste to be identified as hazardous by
the TC) in captured CO2. See 75 FR at
77234–5 (December 10, 2010). Thus,
EPA expects that compliance with the
UIC Class VI requirements, which are
designed to ensure isolation of
supercritical CO2 streams, will also
address the potential for effects on
human health and the environment
from the contaminants present in the
stream. Below is a description of key
elements of the UIC Class VI
requirements that EPA believes will
ensure protection of human health and
the environment, such that RCRA
subtitle C regulation would be
duplicative and unnecessary.
1. Development of UIC Class VI Wells
Under SDWA
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Section 1421(d)(2) of the SDWA
provides, ‘‘Underground injection
endangers drinking water sources if
such injection may result in the
presence in underground water which
supplies or can reasonably be expected
to supply any public water system of
any contaminant, and if the presence of
such contaminant may result in such
system’s not complying with any
national primary drinking water
regulation or may otherwise adversely
affect the health of persons.’’ Pursuant
to § 1421(d)(2), the UIC program
requirements for all well classes,
promulgated under the authority of the
SDWA, are designed to
comprehensively ensure that an
injection well is appropriately sited,
operated, tested, monitored, and closed
in a manner that ensures USDW
protection and does not otherwise
adversely affect the health of persons.44
44 For example, the following general standard in
the SDWA regulations applies to all classes of UIC
wells: ‘‘No owner or operator shall construct,
operate, maintain, convert, plug, abandon, or
conduct any other injection activity in a manner
that allows the movement of fluid containing any
contaminant into underground sources of drinking
water, if the presence of that contaminant may
cause a violation of any primary drinking water
regulation under 40 CFR part 142 or may otherwise
adversely affect the health of persons. The applicant
for a permit shall have the burden of showing that
the requirements of this paragraph are met.’’ 40 CFR
144.12(a).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:42 Aug 05, 2011
Jkt 223001
In developing standards for CO2
injection for GS, the Agency evaluated
the applicability of the existing UIC
program requirements for Class I wells
(hazardous and non-hazardous) through
Class V wells, and determined that new,
tailored regulations to address the
injection of supercritical CO2 streams
for GS, including any associated
constituents that may be present in the
CO2 streams, were warranted in order to
protect USDWs from endangerment. In
October 2007, EPA announced that it
would develop tailored regulations for
GS, by adapting the existing UIC
program framework and by relying on
that program’s experience—over 25
years—in regulating the injection of
fluids, including CO2 injected for
enhanced hydrocarbon recovery. The
Class VI rule, finalized in December
2010, includes specific requirements
designed to address the unique nature of
CO2 injection for GS, including the large
CO2 injection volumes anticipated at GS
projects, the relative buoyancy of CO2,
its mobility within subsurface geologic
formations, and its corrosivity in the
presence of water. In addition, EPA
recognized that the CO2 stream could
contain impurities, including those
which could cause the waste to exhibit
the TC under the RCRA subtitle C
regulations.
Throughout the regulatory
development process for the Class VI
requirements, the UIC program, in
coordination with other EPA program
offices, stakeholders, and the public
relied upon the existing UIC regulatory
framework and applicable requirements
of other well classes (i.e., Class II, Class
I industrial, Class I hazardous), as
appropriate. However, the Agency
recognized that these established
programmatic requirements required
certain modifications and enhancements
with respect to CO2 injection for GS in
order to ensure USDW protection.
2. Key Elements of the UIC Class VI
Well Requirements
The UIC Class VI final regulations
include specific requirements tailored to
the particular nature of CO2 injection for
GS. These program elements include
site characterization, area of review
(AoR) delineation, corrective action,45
45 EPA notes that the term ‘‘corrective action’’ is
used in both the SDWA and RCRA programs, but
refers to different activities under each. Under the
UIC Class VI rule, the phrase refers to actions taken
to correct situations where artificial penetrations
(e.g., wells) could serve as unwanted conduits for
CO2 or other fluid movement into or between
USDW within the AoR. See 40 CFR 144.55, 146.7,
and 146.64. Under RCRA subtitle C, corrective
action generally refers to actions taken to address
releases of hazardous wastes or hazardous
constituents from solid waste management units at
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
well construction and operation, testing
and monitoring, post-injection site care,
site closure, and financial
responsibility. Together, these program
elements provide a comprehensive
approach for verifiable isolation of the
CO2 stream within the injection zone to
ensure protection of USDWs from
endangerment. Although not an
exhaustive list, some requirements
tailored for GS (Class VI) include:
Æ Class VI well owners or operators
must conduct and submit, with the
permit application, an extensive,
detailed assessment of the geologic,
hydrogeologic, geochemical, and
geomechanical properties of the
proposed GS site to ensure that GS wells
are located in suitable geologic
formations, and that the geology
provides containment. The owner or
operator must also select a site with an
injection zone of sufficient areal extent,
thickness, porosity and permeability to
receive the total anticipated volume of
the CO2 stream, and, confining zones
free of transmissive faults or fractures
and of sufficient areal extent and
integrity to contain the injected CO2
stream and displaced formation fluids.
Class VI requirements also mandate a
thorough process for the identification
of features that might compromise the
integrity of the containment system
(e.g., abandoned wells) and remediation
of those features through corrective
action, within the AoR. Existing UIC
regulations, including those for Class I
hazardous wells, require that owners or
operators define the AoR, within which
they must identify artificial penetrations
and determine whether they have been
properly constructed or plugged; the
Class VI regulations are consistent with
this approach.
Æ Class VI well owners or operators
must delineate the AoR using a
sophisticated computational model that
incorporates available site
characterization data and planned
operational conditions. Throughout the
life of the project, the AoR must be
periodically reevaluated (at least once
every 5 years) through the use of
monitoring and operational data to
verify that the CO2 plume and the
associated area of elevated pressure are
moving as predicted within the
subsurface, and that the injected CO2
stream is isolated within the injection
zone. With the exception of the UIC
Class VI regulations, the existing UIC
regulations (including Class I
hazardous) do not include a
requirement to reevaluate the AoR and
a treatment, storage, or disposal facility. The RCRA
corrective action aspects of this proposed rule are
discussed in Section IV.C.4 of this preamble.
E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM
08AUP1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
corrective action plan. This reevaluation
is an additional level of protection that
has been added for Class VI wells in
order to address the unique
characteristics of the CO2 stream
injectate. This reevaluation will provide
an ongoing dialogue between the
Director and the owners or operators,
while ensuring that if a circumstance
changes, the AoR will be updated to
address those changes, while ensuring
protection of USDW. Because there will
be inevitable plume movement, a
reevaluation was deemed to be
necessary to protect USDW for Class VI
wells.
Æ Class VI well owners or operators
must also identify and evaluate all
artificial penetrations within the AoR,
and based on this review, identify the
wells that need corrective action to
prevent the movement of CO2 or other
fluids into or between USDWs. Owners
or operators must perform corrective
action to address deficiencies in any
wells (regardless of ownership) that are
identified as potential conduits for fluid
movement into USDWs. The Director
must approve the methods used to
identify the wells and the corrective
action selected by the owners or
operators. This inventory and review
process is similar to what is required of
all Class I and Class II injection well
owners or operators.
Æ Class VI wells must meet the same
stringent injection well construction
standards as Class I hazardous waste
wells, in order to ensure that the well
itself does not serve as a conduit for
fluid movement. In addition, the Class
VI rule requires that all well
construction materials be compatible
with the fluids with which the materials
may come in contact (e.g., fluid
formations; CO2 streams) over the life of
the GS project. Class VI operating
requirements also ensure that injection
in a Class VI well will not propagate
fractures within the injection and/or
confining zones that could compromise
containment.
Æ Class VI owners or operators must
conduct robust monitoring to ensure the
integrity of the injection well, detect any
changes in groundwater geochemistry
that may indicate leakage, and track the
evolution of the CO2 stream and
associated pressure front. Class VI
monitoring requirements are generally
more detailed and rigorous than those
for Class I hazardous waste injection
wells, and are designed to verify
isolation of the injected CO2 stream, and
allow for early-warning of any possible
fluid leakage.
Æ The Class VI rule contains tailored
requirements for extended,
comprehensive post-injection
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:42 Aug 05, 2011
Jkt 223001
monitoring and site care of GS projects
following cessation of injection, until it
can be demonstrated that movement of
the CO2 plume and pressure will not
pose a risk of endangerment to USDWs.
Owners or operators must also plug
injection and monitoring wells in a
manner that protects USDWs. Proper
plugging of injection and monitoring
wells is a long-standing requirement in
the UIC Program to ensure that existing
wells do not serve as conduits for fluid
movement following cessation of
injection and site closure. Post-injection
site care (PISC), which is unique to GS
and Class I hazardous wells in the UIC
program, is a protective measure that
requires site monitoring to continue in
order to ensure the injectate and any
mobilized fluids do not pose a risk to
USDW.
Æ Class VI provisions require that
owners or operators maintain financial
responsibility obligations guaranteeing
that funds will be available for all
SDWA corrective action, injection well
plugging, PISC, site closure, and
emergency and remedial response.
These elements of the Class VI
requirements are designed to provide
verifiable control of the CO2 stream at
the Class VI well, and containment of
that stream within the injection zone, in
order to ensure protection of USDW
from endangerment. EPA believes that
the elimination of exposure routes
through these requirements will ensure
protection of human health and the
environment, and views this as
determinative in its evaluation of
whether the RCRA subtitle C regulatory
requirements for hazardous waste
disposal provide any substantial,
additional protection for CO2 streams
which exhibit a characteristic of
hazardous waste and are disposed in
UIC Class VI wells. Thus, EPA
concludes (subject to consideration of
public comment) that a conditional
exclusion from RCRA subtitle C
requirements is warranted for CO2
streams that are injected into UIC Class
VI wells for purposes of GS.
3. RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions
Under today’s proposed rule, a CO2
stream that is conditionally excluded
from the definition of hazardous waste
would not be subject to the RCRA land
disposal restriction (LDR) requirements
in 40 CFR part 148 that apply to
restricted hazardous wastes that are
disposed of in UIC wells. EPA
considered how the conditions
proposed in today’s rule compare to the
protections afforded by the RCRA LDR
requirements (that would otherwise
apply to a CO2 stream that exhibits a
RCRA characteristic and is disposed of
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48085
in an injection well). As discussed
below, EPA believes that with respect to
CO2 streams that are conditionally
excluded for purposes of GS, the LDR
requirements would not provide more
protection to human health and the
environment than the UIC Class VI
requirements provide.
The LDR program ensures that
hazardous waste cannot be placed on or
under the land—i.e., land disposed—
until the waste meets specific treatment
standards to reduce the mobility or
toxicity of the hazardous constituents in
the waste. These treatment standards are
waste-code specific, and either specify
an allowable concentration of hazardous
constituents or specify a method of
treatment. These treatment standards
must be satisfied before land disposal of
the waste occurs. The alternative to
meeting the treatment standards is to
make a successful demonstration to EPA
that no hazardous constituents will
migrate from the disposal unit (or, in the
case of injection wells, the ‘‘injection
zone’’ (see RCRA section 3004(d)(1)) for
as long as the waste remains hazardous
(a ‘‘no-migration’’ petition). See RCRA
sections 3004(f) and (m). The LDR
requirements are found in 40 CFR part
268, and the LDR requirements
regarding injection wells are located in
40 CFR part 148.
LDR requirements attach to wastes
that are hazardous at the point of
generation. Chemical Waste
Management v. EPA, 976 F. 2d 2, 13,14
(D.C. Cir. 1992), so that if a waste is
conditionally excluded from being a
hazardous waste, LDRs do not apply.
EPA evaluated the protections afforded
under the Class VI regulations and the
LDR program to assure that this is an
appropriate outcome here.
Class VI wells are required to
demonstrate (through the initial
permitting process, and periodically
during the operational life of the well),
on a well-by-well basis, that there are no
features near an injection well that
would allow injected fluid to move into
a USDW or displace native fluids into
USDWs resulting in their endangerment.
EPA interprets the UIC Class VI
isolation requirements as meeting the
objectives of the RCRA LDR
requirements. This is because the same
individualized determination, using the
same or similar decision tools, with
essentially the same ultimate
determination (no migration of
hazardous constituents from the
injection zone of either a Class VI well
or a Class I hazardous waste well)
would apply in either instance.
EPA thus believes (subject to
consideration of public comment) that
the Class VI well review process and
E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM
08AUP1
48086
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
isolation requirements will meet
essentially the same requirements and
objectives as the RCRA no-migration
process, affords similar procedural
safeguards (individualized
determinations in both instances), and
will protect human health and the
environment via proper management
under the Class VI regulations. Thus,
the proposed conditional exclusion
appears reasonable with respect to
otherwise-applicable LDR requirements.
In addition, we note that RCRA
section 1006(b) provides that EPA ‘‘shall
integrate all provisions of this chapter
for purposes of administration and
enforcement and shall avoid
duplication, to the maximum extent
practicable, with the appropriate
provisions of the * * * Safe Drinking
Water Act.’’ For the reasons just
discussed, it appears that the RCRA LDR
provisions duplicate the requirements
and procedures of the Class VI rules and
that a conditional exclusion from being
a hazardous waste avoids this
duplication. See Chemical Waste
Management v. EPA, 976 F. 2d 2, 23–
24 (integration of RCRA LDR and Clean
Water Act direct discharger
requirements).
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
4. Subtitle C Corrective Action
EPA also reviewed the subtitle C
corrective action requirements, which
apply to any hazardous waste treatment,
storage or disposal facility, including
Class I UIC hazardous waste facilities.
Under today’s proposed conditional
exclusion, CO2 streams that would
otherwise be defined as RCRA
hazardous waste (because they exhibit a
RCRA characteristic) and meet the
proposed conditions, would not be
defined as hazardous waste. Therefore,
the RCRA corrective action
requirements would not be triggered at
the UIC Class VI facility as a result of
the management of conditionallyexcluded CO2 streams. EPA does not
believe, however, that the absence of
RCRA corrective action authority at a
Class VI UIC facility is of concern with
respect to the management of excluded
CO2 streams in the Class VI UIC well
under a SDWA permit. In EPA’s view,
the comprehensive Class VI UIC
regulations provide multiple,
enforceable mechanisms to correct
permit violations and other situations
that may pose a risk to USDW. These
include enforceable requirements to
develop, maintain, and update an
emergency and remedial response plan,
and to undertake emergency or remedial
response actions for any unauthorized
releases from the well or injection zone.
See 40 CFR 146.94.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:42 Aug 05, 2011
Jkt 223001
5. Conclusion
In conclusion, consistent with the
SDWA and RCRA, the integrated
application, implementation, and
enforcement of the UIC Class VI
requirements will protect human health
and the environment by ensuring that
the CO2 streams (which may include
low concentrations of hazardous
constituents as discussed above) remain
isolated in the injection zone and
confined by confining zones in an
appropriate, well-characterized geologic
setting, that is continuously monitored
to ensure that the CO2 streams remain
in the injection zone. EPA believes that
with respect to CO2 streams as
discussed in today’s proposed
conditional exclusion, the existing UIC
Class VI requirements sufficiently
address any potential risk to human
health and the environment, such that
subtitle C regulation is unwarranted.
D. Prohibition on Introduction of Other
RCRA Hazardous Wastes
The UIC Class VI well program was
specifically developed for the unique
purpose of GS of CO2 streams. Today’s
proposed conditional exclusion only
applies to CO2 streams that have been
captured for purposes of GS and are to
be injected into a UIC Class VI well.
EPA is proposing to limit the scope of
this exclusion by including a condition
that no other hazardous waste can be
mixed with, or otherwise co-injected
with, the CO2 streams as defined in
today’s proposed rule. Thus, if
hazardous waste is mixed with the CO2
stream, under today’s proposal that
stream would not be eligible for the
conditional exclusion. That stream
would need to be managed as a RCRA
hazardous waste, and, if well injection
is selected as the means of disposal,
injected into a UIC Class I hazardous
well.
EPA expects that where facilities have
made the significant economic
commitment to capture and/or inject
CO2 streams for purposes of GS, such
facilities will not wish to jeopardize this
arrangement by mixing hazardous waste
into the CO2 stream in violation of the
explicit prohibition in the UIC Class VI
rule, as well as the condition being
proposed today in 40 CFR
261.4(h)(1)(iii). EPA seeks to safeguard
the efforts of the CO2 sources and
injection facilities that comply with the
mixing prohibition by designing a
regulatory scheme that is enforceable
and is structured to ensure compliance,
thus obtaining the full benefit of the
regulation that the public expects.
In order to better ensure that CO2
sources and UIC Class VI injection
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
facilities choosing to use this
conditional exclusion fully comply with
the conditions of the exclusion,
including the prohibition on mixing
hazardous waste with the CO2 stream,
EPA is proposing that a certification
statement be executed by an authorized
representative of the generator and the
Class VI injection facility owner/
operator. The term ‘‘authorized
representative’’ is defined in the RCRA
regulations to mean ‘‘the person
responsible for the overall operation of
a facility or an operational unit (i.e., part
of a facility), e.g., the plant manager,
superintendent or person of equivalent
responsibility.’’ 40 CFR 260.10.
Because the function of the
certification statement is to ensure
compliance with the conditions of the
proposed conditional exclusion, EPA
requests comment on whether it should
limit the categories of employees who
would be required to sign this
certification statement, to senior
employees in the same manner as that
which is required for RCRA permit
applications under 40 CFR 270.11(a).
Under this alternative approach,
certification statements (for
corporations) would need to be signed
by a ‘‘responsible corporate officer’’ as
defined in § 270.11(a)(1)(i), or, plant
managers for facilities over a certain size
as defined in § 270.11(a)(1)(ii); by a
general partner or proprietor (for general
partnerships or sole proprietorships,
respectively) as specified in
§ 270.11(a)(2); or, for public agencies,
the chief executive officer, or certain
other senior officers of that agency, as
defined in § 270.11(a)(3). Accountability
and enforceability may be improved
when signatories to these types of
certifications are at the highest levels of
an organization.
EPA is not requiring that these
certifications be submitted to the
Agency; rather, EPA is proposing that
the signed certification statement be
kept on-site for no less than three years,
and that these signed certifications be
made available within 72 hours of a
written request from the Regional
Administrator (or state Director, if
located in a state implementing the
conditional exclusion as part of their
authorized RCRA program).46 EPA
believes the retention time of three years
is reasonable and appropriate, and
consistent with the existing subtitle C
recordkeeping requirements (e.g., 40
CFR 262.40 and 268.7(a)(8) for
46 ‘‘Regional Administrator’’ as defined under
RCRA subtitle C (40 CFR 260.10) includes any
designee of the Regional Administrator; therefore,
written requests may be made by a designee of the
Regional Administrator or state Director. Today’s
proposed regulatory text reflects this.
E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM
08AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
generators; 264.73 for TSDFs). Because
EPA is not requiring the submittal of
signed certification statements, today’s
proposed rule does not impose any new
reporting requirements; however, EPA
will be aware of the universe of
generator and UIC Class VI facilities that
may potentially claim this proposed
conditional exclusion, because under
the existing regulatory framework for
GS, facilities that capture and sequester
CO2 must identify themselves, and
report specific information regarding
their CO2 capture and GS activity, to the
Agency.47 Therefore, EPA believes that
it will have adequate opportunity to
determine whether any particular
facility is claiming the exclusion, as it
anticipates a relatively gradual increase
in the deployment of CCS activities in
the near term. EPA is also proposing
that these certifications shall be
renewed every year that the generator or
UIC Class VI well owner/operator
claims the RCRA conditional exclusion,
in order to ensure that the certification
is kept current (e.g., facility personnel
may change, etc.). This yearly renewal
of the certification statement means that
an authorized representative must
annually prepare and sign a new copy
of the certification statement, to be
retained on-site for no less than three
years.
The language for this certification is
in proposed 40 CFR 261.4(h)(1)(iv), and
reads as follows:
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
I certify under penalty of law that the
carbon dioxide stream that I am claiming to
be excluded under 40 CFR 261.4(h)(1) meets
all of the conditions set forth in that
paragraph.’’
While EPA is not currently aware of
specific examples where hazardous
wastes are being mixed into or with CO2
streams, particularly at this early stage
of CCS deployment, well-designed rules
are essential to the success of future
enforcement efforts. EPA requests
comment on the certification statement,
and particularly seeks comment on
whether this measure will appropriately
ensure compliance with the conditional
exclusion, including the mixing
prohibition. EPA also requests comment
on how CO2 sources, who add excluded
CO2 streams into an existing (or future)
CO2 pipeline network, can ensure that
the CO2 reaches a UIC Class VI facility.
Finally, EPA requests comment on
whether transporters, as well as pipeline
47 Under subparts PP and RR of the GHG
reporting program, facilities that capture CO2 and
facilities that inject CO2 underground for GS
(including UIC Class VI facilities) have certain
reporting requirements. For more information, see
Section III of this preamble.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:42 Aug 05, 2011
Jkt 223001
owners and operators, should also sign
such a certification statement.
In addition to the conditions and
requirements being proposed today, the
Agency recognizes that other conditions
or requirements could possibly improve
EPA’s and the states’ ability to monitor
compliance with the mixing
prohibition. For example, there are
certain existing requirements for the
physical and chemical characterization
of CO2 streams that apply at the UIC
Class VI facility (discussed in Section
III.E. of this preamble), and the
prohibition that no hazardous waste be
injected in the UIC Class VI well.
However, there are no CO2 stream
characterization requirements that EPA
could identify upstream of the UIC Class
VI well, such as at the CO2 source or in
a pipeline, other than the general
requirement that generators make a
hazardous waste determination for any
solid waste they generate (40 CFR
262.11), and the PHMSA requirement
that supercritical CO2 streams be
chemically compatible with the pipeline
and any commodities in the pipeline (49
CFR 195.4), and will not corrode the
pipeline and pipeline system (49 CFR
195.579).48 EPA requests comment,
including supporting information, on
whether (and if so, what type of)
additional monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting of the CO2 composition by
generators and transporters (including
pipeline operators), might aid EPA and
the states in their ability to detect
improper mixing of hazardous waste
with CO2 streams. EPA also requests
comment on whether there are other
conditions, such as a minimum CO2
content, that could enhance compliance
with the proposed ‘‘no mixture’’
condition. For example, EPA is aware
that under the PHMSA requirements for
the pipeline transportation of
supercritical carbon dioxide, the
definition of carbon dioxide specifies a
CO2 content of greater than ninety
percent. 49 CFR 195.2. EPA also
requests comment on what commercial,
operational, or regulatory requirements
or specifications already exist regarding
CO2 content in the management of
supercritical CO2.
EPA notes that it is requesting
comment on whether persons engaged
in the movement of conditionallyexcluded CO2 streams, including
48 The Agency is also aware that supercritical CO
2
pipeline owner/operators follow certain
requirements and specifications related to
monitoring supercritical CO2 composition,
including water content, and the identification of
any impurities or other inert materials, that might
negatively affect CO2 transport, or otherwise take up
needed space. Pers. comm., Doug McMurrey, V.P.
for Marketing and Business Development, Kinder
Morgan, 7–21–2010.
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48087
transporters, as well as pipeline owners
or operators, should certify that they
meet the conditions of today’s proposed
conditional exclusion. EPA is also
requesting comment on whether any
new monitoring, recordkeeping or
reporting requirements are necessary
(including as those might apply to
pipeline owners or operators) to ensure
that the conditions of the proposed
exclusion are met. EPA emphasizes that
aside from seeking comment in these
two areas, EPA is not proposing any
new requirements applicable to
pipelines or pipeline owner/operators.
EPA understands that much of the
existing U.S. pipeline infrastructure is
used to transport materials that are not
RCRA solid wastes. EPA also
appreciates that because of this, the
potential application of subtitle C
jurisdiction may raise questions over
whether EPA is proposing to extend its
existing RCRA jurisdiction in today’s
proposed rule. EPA wishes to clarify
that this is not the case, as EPA
generally already has RCRA jurisdiction
over solid and hazardous waste. While
pipelines are not included in the
definition of ‘‘transportation’’ under the
RCRA subtitle C regulations (40 CFR
260.10), EPA retains RCRA subtitle C
jurisdiction over solid and hazardous
wastes generally, including when these
materials are in pipelines. At the same
time, however, EPA again notes that,
provided the conditions proposed today
are met (when final), persons engaged in
transportation or pipeline delivery of
conditionally-excluded CO2 streams are
not managing a RCRA hazardous waste.
E. Loss of the Conditional Exclusion
The conditional exclusion being
proposed today does not preclude
regulation or enforcement by EPA or the
states against generators, transporters, or
treatment, storage, or disposal facilities
who are not eligible for the conditional
exclusion, or who do not meet the
conditions of the exclusion. Because
this hazardous waste exclusion is
conditional, a claimant must meet the
conditions to qualify for and maintain
the exclusion from the hazardous waste
regulations. Failure to meet the
conditions results in the loss of the
exclusion. As proposed, a violation of a
condition at any point in the
management of a CO2 stream would
result in that CO2 stream being subject
to all applicable subtitle C regulatory
requirements, from the point of
generation. Thus, a violation of a
condition at a UIC Class VI facility, for
example, would mean that in addition
to the UIC Class VI facility, the
generator and transporter would also be
considered to be managing (or to have
E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM
08AUP1
48088
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
managed) a hazardous waste. Moreover,
imminent and substantial endangerment
provisions under § 7003 of RCRA will
continue to apply to conditionallyexcluded CO2 streams as a safeguard in
the unlikely event of a release which
could pose a health or environmental
threat. This is true even if the CO2
stream does not otherwise meet the
regulatory definition of hazardous
waste.49
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
F. Adaptive Approach
EPA is using an adaptive approach in
the UIC Class VI final rule to allow it to
consider making changes to the UIC
Class VI program to incorporate new
research, data, and information about
GS and associated technologies. In the
UIC Class VI final rule, EPA stated that
the Agency plans, every six years, to
review the rulemaking and data on GS
projects to determine whether the
appropriate amount and types of
information and appropriate
documentation are being collected, and
to determine if modifications to the UIC
Class VI requirements are appropriate or
necessary. See December 10, 2010
Federal Register (75 FR at 77240–41,
77243, and 77257). This new
information may increase
protectiveness, streamline
implementation, or otherwise inform
the requirements for GS injection of
CO2.
Consistent with EPA’s stated intent in
the UIC Class VI rule, EPA also plans to
evaluate any new information related to
the conditional exclusion being
proposed today at the same time as is
planned for the UIC Class VI rule. EPA
intends to use the information gathered
by the UIC Class VI program described
above, as well as additional information,
such as data on the chemical and
physical characteristics of the CO2
streams being injected, to inform its
consideration of whether changes
should be made to the conditional
exclusion (such changes could require
additional rulemaking). Thus, the
Agency commits to reviewing, in
coordination with the adaptive
approach planned for the UIC Class VI
rule, new research, data, and
information related to today’s proposed
49 EPA also notes that existing obligations to
address corrective action at RCRA treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities would not be
affected by this proposed rule. In addition, today’s
proposed conditional exemption would not
preclude RCRA corrective action requirements from
applying to a Class VI UIC facility if the facility
were to engage in the management of hazardous
waste that would require a RCRA permit (e.g., if the
conditions of today’s proposed exemption were not
met and the previously exempt CO2 streams were
no longer exempt; or, if other hazardous wastes
were treated, stored, or disposed of at the facility).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:42 Aug 05, 2011
Jkt 223001
conditional exclusion (if finalized),
particularly with respect to compliance
with the conditions of the exclusion,
and the nature and composition of the
CO2 stream.
G. Definition of Carbon Dioxide Stream
Today, EPA is also proposing to add
a definition for the term carbon dioxide
(CO2) stream to the hazardous waste
regulations in 40 CFR 260.10. Under
today’s proposed rule, carbon dioxide
(CO2) stream is defined as ‘‘carbon
dioxide that has been captured from an
emission source (e.g., a power plant),
plus incidental associated substances
derived from the source materials and
the capture process, and any substances
added to the stream to enable or
improve the injection process.’’ The
same definition is used in the UIC Class
VI regulations in 40 CFR 146.81(d), with
one exception. The definition in
§ 146.81(d) includes additional language
that reads, ‘‘This subpart does not apply
to any carbon dioxide stream that meets
the definition of a hazardous waste
under 40 CFR part 261,’’ thus,
prohibiting the injection of hazardous
waste into UIC Class VI wells. Because
today’s conditional exclusion would
apply to CO2 streams that are otherwise
RCRA hazardous wastes, EPA did not
include similar language in today’s
proposed definition of carbon dioxide
stream. EPA intends for the two
definitions to work in concert, however,
such that it is clear that both RCRA
hazardous CO2 streams (that are
excluded when managed pursuant to
the terms of today’s proposed
conditional exclusion) and nonhazardous CO2 streams may be injected
into a UIC Class VI well. Finally, EPA
notes that in today’s proposed
definition, ‘‘substances added to the
stream to enable or improve the
injection process’’ refers to non-waste
substances that serve the legitimate
purpose as stated (i.e., to enable or
improve the injection process), and does
not include listed or characteristic
hazardous wastes. EPA requests
comment on the types and
characteristics of substances that are
added to CO2 streams to enable or
improve the injection process.
V. State Authorization
A. Applicability of the Rule in
Authorized States
Under Section 3006 of RCRA, EPA
may authorize qualified states to
administer their own hazardous waste
programs in lieu of the Federal program
within the state. Following
authorization, EPA retains enforcement
authority under Sections 3008, 3013,
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and 7003 of RCRA, although authorized
states have primary enforcement
responsibility. The standards and
requirements for state authorization are
found at 40 CFR part 271.
Prior to enactment of the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
(HSWA), a state with final RCRA
authorization administered its
hazardous waste program entirely in
lieu of EPA administering the Federal
program in that state. The Federal
requirements no longer applied in the
authorized state, and EPA could not
issue permits for any facilities in that
state, since only the state was
authorized to issue RCRA permits.
When new, more stringent Federal
requirements were promulgated, the
state was obligated to enact equivalent
authorities within specified time frames.
However, the new Federal requirements
did not take effect in an authorized state
until the state adopted the Federal
requirements as state law.
In contrast, under RCRA Section
3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), which was
added by HSWA, new requirements and
prohibitions imposed under HSWA
authority take effect in authorized states
at the same time that they take effect in
unauthorized states. EPA is directed by
the statute to implement these
requirements and prohibitions in
authorized states, including the
issuance of permits, until the state is
granted authorization to do so. While
states must still adopt HSWA related
provisions as state law to retain final
authorization, EPA implements the
HSWA provisions in authorized states
until the states do so.
Authorized states are required to
modify their programs only when EPA
enacts Federal requirements that are
more stringent or broader in scope than
existing Federal requirements. RCRA
Section 3009 allows the states to impose
standards more stringent than those in
the Federal program (see also 40 CFR
271.1). Therefore, authorized states may,
but are not required to, adopt Federal
regulations that are considered less
stringent than previous Federal
regulations.
B. Effect on State Authorization
The provisions in today’s notice are
proposed pursuant to non-HSWA
authority, and would eliminate the
hazardous waste requirements for those
CO2 streams that would otherwise meet
the definition of hazardous waste, when
these streams are managed in
accordance with certain conditions.
Therefore, this proposed exclusion is
less stringent than the Federal program,
and states are not required to adopt this
E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM
08AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
provision.50 Nevertheless, while states
do not have to adopt this provision, EPA
strongly encourages them to do so,
because this amendment will
substantially reduce the uncertainty
associated with defining and managing
these CO2 streams under RCRA subtitle
C, which will remove the uncertainty
regarding the type of permit needed for
the GS of CO2 streams.
EPA notes that because the
conditional exclusion is less stringent
than the current RCRA program, states
are not required to adopt this rule, if
finalized.51 In situations involving the
interstate transportation of
conditionally-excluded waste, the
exclusion must be authorized in the
state where the waste is generated, any
states through which the waste passes,
and the state where the UIC Class VI
injection well is located, in order for
that conditionally-excluded waste to be
managed as excluded from subtitle C
from point of generation to injection in
a UIC Class VI well. A state that has not
adopted the conditional exclusion may
impose state requirements, including
the uniform hazardous waste manifest
requirement, if characteristicallyhazardous CO2 streams are being
transported through that state.52
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
VI. What are the costs and benefits of
the proposed rule?
The economic assessment conducted
in support of this action evaluated the
costs, benefits, small entity impacts,
environmental justice, and other
impacts (e.g., children’s health,
unfunded mandates, federalism) of the
proposal. As part of the evaluation of
potential costs and benefits, EPA first
prepared a baseline characterization of
the potentially affected universe. We
then assessed the ‘‘baseline’’ behavior
that the affected entities could be
expected to display in the absence of the
proposed rule. This baseline provided a
reference point from which the
incremental costs and benefits of the
proposed rule were measured. Finally,
50 EPA notes that decisions regarding whether a
state rule is more stringent or broader in scope than
the Federal program are made when the Agency
authorizes state programs.
51 Some states incorporate the Federal regulations
by reference, or have specific state statutory
requirements that their state program can be no
more stringent than the Federal regulations. In
those cases, EPA anticipates that the conditional
exemption proposed today, if finalized, would be
adopted by these states, consistent with state laws
and administrative procedures (unless explicit
action is taken by such a state to decline the
revisions, as specified under that state’s laws).
52 As discussed in Section IV.B.2. of this
preamble, the off-site movement of hazardous waste
through pipelines does not require the use of a
hazardous waste manifest under the Federal subtitle
C hazardous waste regulations.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:42 Aug 05, 2011
Jkt 223001
we estimated how the affected entities
would likely change their behavior in
response to the rule, as proposed. The
analysis estimated incremental costs
and benefits of the proposed rule over
a 50-year period.53
The universe of entities that may be
directly affected by the proposed rule
include CO2 generators/capturers,
transporters, and sequestration facilities.
CO2 generator facilities are likely to be
entities that capture their CO2
byproducts and manage them in a
manner other than releasing them into
the atmosphere. Currently, EPA
estimates that, at a maximum, there
could be up to 27 CO2 capture facilities
affected by the proposed rule. This
estimate includes ten facilities that
currently capture CO2, along with 17
facilities expected to begin CO2 capture
in the future. These 27 capture facilities
include fossil fuel electric power
generators, oil and gas extraction
facilities, natural gas distribution
facilities, ethyl alcohol manufacturers,
and nitrogenous fertilizer
manufacturers. Our low-end estimate
considers only 13 CO2 capture facilities.
This includes ten existing capture
facilities, two capture projects
associated with named DOE pilot
projects, and one capture facility
associated with the FutureGen Federal/
private partnership.
EPA expects that captured CO2 will
generally be transported by pipeline. As
of 2008, there were 30 operating CO2
pipelines in the U.S., operated by 29
separate entities. CO2 sequestration
facilities inject the CO2 streams into UIC
wells for the purposes of sequestration.
This sequestration may be conducted
either with or without concurrent EOR.
However, EOR itself is outside the scope
of this rule, as proposed.54 EPA
estimates that as many as 29 planned
sequestration facilities could be affected
by the proposed rule. This estimate
includes 15 planned commercial CO2
sequestration projects and 14 planned
projects funded by DOE. The 15
planned commercial projects are
expected to include 12 EOR projects
that transition to sequestration in the
53 This 50-year time period is consistent with the
Office of Water Analysis for the Final Geologic
Sequestration Rule: Draft Cost Analysis for the
Federal Requirements Under the Underground
Injection Control Program for Carbon Dioxide
Geologic Sequestration Wells (Final GS Rule), EPA
816–R–10–013, July 2010.
54 EPA notes that today’s proposed conditional
exclusion only applies to CO2 streams that are to
be injected into UIC Class VI wells; however, other
classes of UIC wells that inject CO2 streams (e.g.,
Class II wells conducting EOR and Class V
experimental wells) can transition to Class VI wells
under certain conditions outlined in the final UIC
Class VI rule. December 10, 2010 (75 FR at 77243–
77249).
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48089
long term and 3 saline reservoir
sequestration projects.55 Our low-end
estimate considers only six CO2
sequestration facilities that will be Class
VI UIC wells. This includes five
sequestration projects associated with
named DOE pilot projects and one
sequestration facility associated with
the FutureGen Federal/private
partnership.
In the baseline (absence of the
proposed rule), generators of the
captured CO2 streams would have to
determine if their CO2 stream(s) is (are)
a RCRA hazardous waste. Depending
upon this determination, a capture
facility is most likely to engage in one
of four baseline management practices:
(1) For CO2 streams that are determined
to be nonhazardous waste, transport the
material to a sequestration facility for
injection in a Class VI well; for CO2
streams that are determined to be
hazardous waste, either (2) cease
capturing the CO2 stream—that is,
continue to allow the CO2 stream to be
emitted into the atmosphere; or (3)
transport the CO2 stream to a
sequestration facility for injection in a
Class I hazardous well; or (4) treat the
CO2 stream so that it is no longer
hazardous and transport it to a
sequestration facility for injection in a
Class VI well. A generator’s
determination as to how to manage a
RCRA hazardous waste CO2 stream
would depend on several factors. Due to
the lack of definitive data on the RCRA
hazardous characteristics of CO2
streams, we applied bounding estimates
in our analysis. The high-end assumes
that 90% of the CO2 streams are
generated as RCRA hazardous waste,
while the low-end assumes that only
10% of the CO2 streams are RCRA
hazardous waste.56 For all generators
that capture CO2, we further assume the
following: each facility would incur
costs to determine if the CO2 stream is
a RCRA hazardous waste; facilities that
generate a CO2 stream that is
characterized as a non-hazardous RCRA
waste would face no further costs
associated with the hazardous waste
regulations, as would facilities who
cease to capture CO2; facilities that
generate RCRA hazardous waste CO2
streams and do not cease capturing the
55 Department of Energy, National Energy
Technology Laboratory, Carbon Capture and Storage
Database, https://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/
carbon_seq/database/.
56 We employ this bounding estimate for
analytical purposes only due to the absence of
supporting data. This assumption should not be
construed as an EPA determination of CO2 stream
status on a nationwide basis. These assumptions
were developed solely for this proposed rule, and
were not used in, or derived from, the supporting
analysis in the UIC Class VI rulemaking.
E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM
08AUP1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
48090
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
CO2 would likely qualify as large
quantity generators (LQGs) in the
baseline and would be subject to
applicable hazardous waste generator
requirements; and, CO2 capture facilities
that treat their RCRA hazardous waste
CO2 streams would incur treatment
costs, and may also incur RCRA
permitting costs.
The baseline universe of CO2
sequestration facilities is assumed to
include a mix of facilities with Class VI
wells and facilities with Class I
hazardous wells that will meet the Class
VI requirements. This analysis assumes
that, under the high-end baseline
assumption, approximately 57 percent
of the sequestration wells would
manage non-hazardous CO2 streams and
treated CO2 streams in Class VI wells.57
The remaining wells would manage
RCRA hazardous CO2 streams in Class I
hazardous wells. For the low-end, our
analysis assumes that approximately 97
percent of the sequestration wells would
manage non-hazardous CO2 streams and
treated CO2 streams in Class VI wells.
The remaining sequestration wells
would manage RCRA hazardous CO2
streams in Class I hazardous waste
wells.
Under the proposed rule, CO2 streams
that are captured, stored, transported,
and injected into Class VI UIC wells in
accordance with the conditions in the
proposed rule would be excluded from
the definition of hazardous waste and
would therefore not be subject to EPA’s
RCRA hazardous waste requirements.
The exclusion would not apply if the
CO2 stream was mixed or co-injected
with any other hazardous wastes.
Our analysis also assumes all affected
states will adopt the conditional
exclusion and all generators that capture
CO2 will claim the proposed conditional
exclusion and send their CO2 streams to
Class VI wells. These facilities would
avoid the costs of determining whether
their CO2 stream is RCRA hazardous or
non-hazardous, and would also avoid
possible RCRA permitting costs and
generator requirements. They would
only be required to submit an annual
certification in accordance with the
rule. These generators that capture CO2
would also be able to send their CO2
streams to UIC Class VI wells without
any additional cost of treating the CO2
stream. Under the proposed rule, all
CO2 sequestration facilities are assumed
57 The reasoning behind this assumption is
discussed in the supporting economic assessment
document: Assessment of the Potential Costs,
Benefits, and Other Impacts of the Conditional
Exclusion from the RCRA Definition of Hazardous
Waste for CO2 Streams Managed in UIC Class VI
Wells for the Purpose of Geologic Sequestration, as
Proposed.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:42 Aug 05, 2011
Jkt 223001
to be permitted as UIC Class VI wells,
resulting in no need for a UIC Class I
hazardous permit for those wells.
The CO2 stream exclusion, as
proposed, would result in three areas of
savings for generators of CO2 streams:
exclusion from the hazardous waste
determination, exclusion from the need
for hazardous waste treatment, and
exclusion from compliance with any
other hazardous waste-related
requirements. CO2 sequestration
facilities managing hazardous CO2
under a Class I hazardous well permit
in the baseline would experience
savings related to the hazardous waste
determination and compliance with
applicable hazardous waste regulations.
Requirements and associated costs for
pipeline transportation would be
unchanged.
Due to the high level of uncertainty
regarding the percent of CO2 that may be
generated as RCRA hazardous waste,
and the uncertainty regarding the actual
number of facilities potentially affected
over the projected 50 year period, EPA’s
best estimate for the impacts of the
proposed rule ranges from a low-end
annualized net savings of $7.3 million
(7% discount rate) to the high-end
annualized net savings of $44.9 million
(3%discount rate).58 These cost savings
are expected to occur without any
discernible increase in negative impacts
to human health and the environment.
In addition to industry impacts, we
project negligible cost increases to EPA
and state governments for rule
implementation.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order (EO)
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
Under Executive Order (EO) 12866
(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a ‘‘significant regulatory
action.’’ Pursuant to the terms of
Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ because
it raises novel legal or policy issues.
Accordingly, EPA submitted this action
to the Office of Management and Budget
58 Under the high-end estimate, the proposed rule
is expected to result in undiscounted annualized
net savings of approximately $56.6 million.
Applying a 3 percent discount rate, the annualized
net savings were found to be approximately $44.9
million, while a 7 percent discount rate resulted in
annualized net savings of approximately $32.0
million. Under the low-end estimate, the
undiscounted annualized net savings are $9.3
million. Applying a 3 percent and 7 percent
discount rate, the annualized net savings were
found to be approximately $8.5 million and $7.3
million, respectively.
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(OMB) for review under Executive
Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011) and any changes made
in response to OMB recommendations
have been documented in the docket for
this action. In addition, EPA prepared
an analysis of the potential costs and
benefits associated with this action.
This analysis is presented in the
following support document:
Assessment of the Potential Costs,
Benefits, and Other Impacts of the
Conditional Exclusion From the RCRA
Definition of Hazardous Waste for CO2
Streams Managed in UIC Class VI Wells
for the Purposes of Geologic
Sequestration, as Proposed. A copy of
this document is available in the docket
established for this action. The
methodology and findings from this
analysis are briefly summarized in
Section VI above. The reader is
encouraged to review and comment on
the full assessment document. The final
rule will respond to any substantive
comments received on the assessment
document.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the
Office of Management and Budget under
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. The Information Collection
Request (ICR) document prepared by
EPA has been assigned EPA ICR number
2421.01.
The Agency believes that this
proposal is an important part of its
efforts to establish a regulatory
framework for GS.59
The certification included in the
proposed rule would be required for
entities wishing to take advantage of the
flexibility provided by the conditional
exclusion. The certification statements
would be used by regulators to hold
generators and UIC Class VI well owner/
operators accountable for knowing the
conditions applicable to them (e.g.,
during an on-site inspection). The
certification statements also would be
used by generators and owner/operators
to demonstrate that they are aware of,
and complying with, the conditions.
We believe that the certifications are
a practical way to assure compliance
because they hold a single person at
each facility accountable for compliance
(i.e., the authorized representative).
Because of this, the representative has a
personal incentive to make sure that the
facility complies with the conditions.
The proposed rule requires that the
certification be renewed every year that
59 See Section III of this preamble for a discussion
of other recent EPA rules related to this strategy.
E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM
08AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
the generator or UIC Class VI well
owner/operator claims the RCRA
conditional exclusion, in order to
ensure that the certification is kept
current.
EPA estimates the total annual burden
to respondents under the new
paperwork requirements to be 79 hours
and $6,753. However, EPA also
estimates an annual burden savings
under the existing RCRA subtitle C
paperwork requirements of 303 hours
and $25,428. Thus, this would result in
a net annual savings of 224 hours and
$18,675. The bottom-line burden
savings over three years is estimated to
be 672 hours and $56,025. There are no
capital costs associated with this burden
requirement. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
To comment on the Agency’s need for
this information, the accuracy of the
provided burden estimates, and any
suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, EPA has established
a public docket for this proposed rule,
which includes this ICR, under Docket
ID number EPA–HQ–RCRA–2010–0695.
Submit any comments related to the ICR
to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES
section at the beginning of this notice
for where to submit comments to EPA.
Send comments to OMB at the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, 725
17th Street, NW., Washington, DC
20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.
Since OMB is required to make a
decision concerning the ICR between 30
and 60 days after August 8, 2011, a
comment to OMB is best assured of
having its full effect if OMB receives it
by September 7, 2011. The final rule
will respond to any comments on the
information collection requirements
contained in this proposal.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:42 Aug 05, 2011
Jkt 223001
For purposes of assessing the impacts
of today’s rule on small entities, small
entity is defined as: (1) A small business
(based on Small Business
Administration (SBA) size standards),
that is primarily engaged in the
generation, capture, storage,
transportation, and GS of excluded
hazardous CO2 streams, as defined by
NAICS codes 211111, 221112, 322121,
324110, 324199, 325120, 325193,
325311, and 327310, with total
corporate employment ranging from 500
to 1,500 persons 60 (based on SBA size
standards); (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a
city, county, town, school district or
special district with a population of less
than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impacts of today’s proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. In determining whether a
proposed rule has a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, the impact of
concern is any significant adverse
economic impact on small entities,
since the primary purpose of the
regulatory flexibility analyses is to
identify and address regulatory
alternatives ‘‘which minimize any
significant economic impact of the
proposed rule on small entities’’ 5
U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency
may certify that a proposed rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities if
it relieves regulatory burden, or
otherwise has a positive economic effect
on all of the small entities subject to the
proposed rule. This rule, as proposed, is
projected to reduce the burden on
regulated entities by conditionally
exempting them from the RCRA subtitle
C hazardous waste management
requirements associated with CO2
streams captured, transported, and
injected into UIC Class VI wells. We
have, therefore, concluded that today’s
proposed rule will relieve regulatory
burden for all affected small entities. We
continue to be interested in the
potential impacts of the proposed rule
on small entities and welcome
comments on issues related to such
impacts.
60 211111 (500 persons), 221112 (500 persons),
322121 (750 persons), 324110 (1,500 persons),
324199 (500 persons), 325120 (1,000 persons),
325193 (1,000 persons), 325311 (1,000 persons),
and 327310 (750 persons).
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48091
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action contains no Federal
mandates under the provisions of Title
II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531–
1538 for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. As
explained above, this proposed
exclusion is less stringent than the
current RCRA Federal program, and
states are therefore not required to adopt
it. Moreover, the rule does not contain
a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more
for state, local, and tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or the private sector in
any one year. Our analysis indicates that
the proposed rule is expected to result
in undiscounted annualized net savings
to the regulated community ranging
from $7.3 million to $44.9 million (3%
discount rate). Incorporated into these
net saving estimates is a negligible total
estimated annualized cost to states of
$70 to nearly $565, depending on the
discount rate. Thus, this proposed rule
is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
This proposed rule is also not subject
to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.
Occasional requests for and review of
certification statements is the only
potential impact on small governments.
Furthermore, no small governments are
known to be owners or operators of
compressed CO2 facilities, storage
facilities, transporters, or sequestration
facilities. We encourage comments on
potential unfunded mandates associated
with this proposed action.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999), because the rule will
not impose any requirements on States
or any other level of government. As
explained above, today’s proposed rule
conditionally excludes CO2 streams that
are hazardous from the definition of
hazardous waste, where such streams,
in accordance with the rule, are
captured from emission sources and
injected into UIC Class VI wells for
purposes of GS, but States would not be
required to adopt the rule. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this action.
E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM
08AUP1
48092
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132,
and consistent with EPA policy to
promote communications between EPA
and State and local governments, EPA
specifically solicits comment on this
proposed action from State and local
officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000). No tribal governments are known
to generate CO2 streams or own or
operate UIC Class VI wells subject to the
proposed rule. Furthermore, we have
identified no existing CO2 pipelines that
cross tribal lands. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this
action. EPA specifically solicits
additional comment on this proposed
action from tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to EO 13045
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because
it is not economically significant as
defined in EO 12866, and because the
Agency does not believe the
environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action presents a
disproportionate risk to children. The
public is invited to submit comments or
identify peer-reviewed studies and data
that are relevant to assessing the effects
of early life exposure to CO2 streams
captured from emission sources and
transported to and injected into UIC
Class VI wells for purposes of GS.
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ as defined in Executive
Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22,
2001), because it is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. The only
effect of this action will be to
conditionally exclude CO2 streams that
are hazardous from the definition of
hazardous waste, where such streams
are captured from emission sources and
injected into UIC Class VI wells for
purposes of GS. This conditional
exclusion would allow for the GS of
CO2, while maintaining protection of
human health and the environment, and
would not significantly disrupt the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:42 Aug 05, 2011
Jkt 223001
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 260 and
261
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law
104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations
when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards.
This proposed rulemaking does not
involve technical standards. Therefore,
EPA is not considering the use of any
voluntary consensus standards.
Environmental protection, Hazardous
waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
2. Section 260.10 is amended by
adding in alphabetical order the
definition of ‘‘Carbon dioxide stream’’ to
read as follows:
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR
7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on
environmental justice. Its main
provision directs Federal agencies, to
the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make
environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this
proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority or low-income populations
because it does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or
the environment. The only effect of this
action will be to conditionally exclude
CO2 streams that are hazardous from the
definition of hazardous waste, where
such streams are captured from
emission sources and injected into UIC
Class VI wells for purposes of GS, and
meet other conditions. Existing
regulations governing the generation,
transportation, and injection of CO2
streams in UIC Class VI wells are
expected to provide safety to human
health and the environment, making
additional regulation under RCRA
subtitle C unnecessary (see discussion
under Section IV).
§ 260.10
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Dated: August 1, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, Parts 260 and 261 of title 40,
Chapter I of the Code of Federal
Regulations are proposed to be amended
as follows:
PART 260—HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL
1. The authority citation for Part 260
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921–
6927, 6930, 6935, 6937–6939, and 6974.
Subpart B—Definitions
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Carbon dioxide stream means carbon
dioxide that has been captured from an
emission source (e.g., power plant), plus
incidental associated substances derived
from the source materials and the
capture process, and any substances
added to the stream to enable or
improve the injection process.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
3. The authority citation for Part 261
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921,
6922, 6924(y), and 6938.
4. Section 261.4 is amended by
adding a new paragraph (h) to read as
follows:
§ 261.4
Exclusions.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) Carbon Dioxide Stream Injected
for Geologic Sequestration. Carbon
dioxide streams that are captured and
transported for purposes of injection
into an underground injection well
subject to the requirements for Class VI
Underground Injection Control wells,
including the requirements in 40 CFR
parts 144 and 146 of the Underground
Injection Control Program of the Safe
Drinking Water Act, are not a hazardous
waste, provided the following
conditions are met.
E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM
08AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 152 / Monday, August 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
(1) Carbon dioxide streams that meet
all of the following conditions are
excluded from the definition of
hazardous waste:
(i) Transportation of the carbon
dioxide stream must be in compliance
with applicable Department of
Transportation requirements;
(ii) Injection of the carbon dioxide
stream must be in compliance with the
applicable requirements for Class VI
Underground Injection Control wells,
including the applicable requirements
in 40 CFR parts 144 and 146;
(iii) No other hazardous wastes may
be mixed with, or otherwise co-injected
with, the carbon dioxide stream; and
(iv) Any generator of a carbon dioxide
stream, and any Class VI Underground
Injection Control well owner or
operator, who claims that a carbon
dioxide stream is excluded under
paragraph (h)(1) of this section, must
have an authorized representative (as
defined in 40 CFR 260.10) sign a
certification statement worded as
follows:
I certify under penalty of law that the
carbon dioxide stream that I am claiming to
be excluded under 40 CFR 261.4(h)(1) meets
all of the conditions set forth in that
paragraph.
The signed certification statement
must be kept on-site for no less than
three years. The signed certification
statement must be made available
within 72 hours of a written request
from the Regional Administrator or state
Director (if located in an authorized
state), or their designee, and shall be
renewed every year by persons claiming
the exclusion in 40 CFR 261.4(h). The
yearly renewal of a certification
statement under this paragraph means
that an authorized representative must
annually prepare and sign a new copy
of the certification statement.
[FR Doc. 2011–19915 Filed 8–5–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 370
[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2010–0763; FRL–9448–8]
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
RIN 2050–AG64
Hazardous Chemical Reporting:
Revisions to the Emergency and
Hazardous Chemical Inventory Forms
(Tier I and Tier II)
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The U.S Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency)
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:42 Aug 05, 2011
Jkt 223001
is proposing to revise the Emergency
and Hazardous Chemical Inventory
Forms (Tier I and Tier II) under Section
312 of the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)
to add new data elements and revise
some existing data elements.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before October 7, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
SFUND–2010–0763 by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: superfund.docket@epa.gov.
• Fax: (202) 566–0224.
• Mail: EPA Docket Center,
Superfund Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. In addition,
please mail a copy of your comments on
the information collection provisions to
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for
EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC
20503.
• Hand Delivery: Environmental
Protection Agency West Building, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket’s
normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2010–
0763. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48093
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Superfund Docket, EPA/DC, EPA
West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744,
and the telephone number for the
Superfund Docket is (202) 566–0276.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sicy
Jacob, Office of Emergency
Management, Mailcode 5104A,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington
DC 20004; telephone number: (202)
564–8019; fax number: (202) 564–2620;
e-mail address: jacob.sicy@epa.gov. You
may also contact the Superfund, TRI,
EPCRA, RMP and Oil Information
Center at (800) 424–9346 or (703) 412–
9810 (in the Washington, DC,
metropolitan area). You may wish to
visit the Office of Emergency
Management (OEM) Internet site at
https://www.epa.gov/emergencies.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Here are
the contents of today’s preamble.
I. General Information
A. Who is affected by this proposed rule?
B. What should I consider as I prepare my
comments for EPA?
C. What is the statutory authority for this
proposed rule?
D. What is the background of this proposed
rule?
II. What are the revisions that EPA is
proposing on the Tier I and Tier II forms?
A. Facility Identification
B. Name of the Facility’s Parent Company
and Owner or Operator of the Facility
C. Facility Emergency Coordinator
E:\FR\FM\08AUP1.SGM
08AUP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 152 (Monday, August 8, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48073-48093]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19915]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 260 and 261
[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2010-0695; FRL-9448-9]
RIN 2050-AG60
Hazardous Waste Management System: Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Streams in Geologic Sequestration
Activities
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 48074]]
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is
proposing to revise the regulations for hazardous waste management
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to
conditionally exclude carbon dioxide (CO2) streams that are
hazardous from the definition of hazardous waste, provided these
hazardous CO2 streams are captured from emission sources,
are injected into Class VI Underground Injection Control (UIC) wells
for purposes of geologic sequestration (GS), and meet certain other
conditions. EPA is taking this action because the Agency believes that
the management of these CO2 streams under the proposed
conditions does not present a substantial risk to human health or the
environment, and therefore additional regulation pursuant to RCRA's
hazardous waste regulations is unnecessary. EPA expects that this
amendment will substantially reduce the uncertainty associated with
identifying these CO2 streams under RCRA subtitle C, and
will also facilitate the deployment of GS by providing additional
regulatory certainty.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 7, 2011. Under
the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection
provisions must be received by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) on or before September 7, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2010-0695, by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: rcra-docket@epa.gov.
Fax: 202-566-9744
Mail: RCRA Docket, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Please include a total of two copies. In addition, please mail a copy
of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503.
Hand Delivery: Deliver two copies of your comments to EPA
West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-
2010-0695. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through https://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional instructions on submitting
comments, go to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the RCRA Docket, EPA/
DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.
The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the
RCRA Docket is (202) 566-0270.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ross Elliott, Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery (5304P), Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:
703-308-8748; fax number: 703-308-0514; e-mail address
elliott.ross@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Does this action apply to me?
This is a proposed regulation. If finalized, this rule may apply to
generators, transporters, and owners or operators of treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities engaged in the management of carbon
dioxide streams that would otherwise be regulated as hazardous wastes
under the RCRA subtitle C hazardous waste regulations as part of
geologic sequestration activities. This includes entities in the
following industries: Operators of carbon dioxide injection wells used
for geologic sequestration; and certain industries identified by their
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code: oil and gas
extraction facilities (NAICS 211111); utilities (NAICS 22);
transportation (NAICS 48-49); and manufacturing (NAICS 31-33). More
detailed information on the potentially affected entities is presented
in Section VI of this preamble. If you have questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk
or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
[[Page 48075]]
Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives,
and substitute language for your requested changes.
Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
Explain your views as clearly as possible.
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
3. Docket Copying Costs. The Docket Center no longer has hard
copies of original OSWER documents. The documents were converted to PDF
format. Oversized documents were retained and may be copied. Patrons
are allowed 93 free copied-pages. Thereafter, they are charged 15 cents
per page. When necessary, an invoice stating how many copies were made,
the cost of the order, and where to send a check will be issued to the
patron. There is also an administrative fee of $14.00 added to the cost
of the order.
Documents also are available on microfilm. The EPA/DC staff can
help patrons locate needed documents and operate the microfilm
machines. There is no fee for printing documents from microfilm or
microfiche.
Patrons who are outside of the metropolitan Washington, DC, area
can request documents by telephone, however, patrons are asked to
submit requests by e-mail to ensure accuracy. The photocopying fee is
the same as for walk-in patrons. There is no charge for converting
microfilm/microfiche to PDF format and sending it to a customer. If an
invoice is necessary, EPA/DC staff can mail one with the order.
Preamble Outline
I. Statutory Authority
II. Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Definitions
A. Abbreviations and Acronyms
B. Definitions Used in This Preamble
III. Background
A. What is Geologic Sequestration?
B. Why is Geologic Sequestration being considered as a climate
change mitigation technology?
C. What other recent EPA rulemakings are related to CCS?
D. RCRA Applicability to GS Activities
E. CO2 Stream Characterization
IV. Detailed Discussion of This Proposed Rule
A. Authority for Conditional Exclusion From RCRA Subtitle C
Requirements
B. CO2 Streams Managed Prior to Underground Injection
1. CO2 Streams Generated at Capture Sites
2. Transportation of CO2 Streams to UIC Class VI
Injection Well
C. Underground Injection of CO2 Streams at UIC Class
VI Wells
1. Development of UIC Class VI Wells Under SDWA
2. Key Elements of the UIC Class VI Well Requirements
3. RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions
4. Subtitle C Corrective Action
5. Conclusion
D. Prohibition on Introduction of Other RCRA Hazardous Wastes
E. Loss of the Conditional Exclusion
F. Adaptive Approach
G. Definition of Carbon Dioxide Stream
V. State Authorization
A. Applicability of the Rule in Authorized States
B. Effect on State Authorization
VI. What are the costs and benefits of the proposed rule?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order (EO) Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Usage
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. Statutory Authority
These regulations are proposed under the authority of sections
2002, 3001-3009 and 3013 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) of
1970, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
of 1976, and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA),
42 U.S.C. 6912, 6921-6929, 6934.
II. Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Definitions
A. Abbreviations and Acronyms
AoR Area of Review.
CAA Clean Air Act.
CCS Carbon Capture and Storage.
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act.
CO2 Carbon Dioxide.
EOR Enhanced Oil and Natural Gas Recovery.
EPA Environmental Protection Agency.
GHG Greenhouse Gas.
GS Geologic Sequestration.
HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments.
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act.
TC Toxicity Characteristic.
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure.
UIC Underground Injection Control.
USDW Underground Source of Drinking Water.
B. Definitions Used in This Preamble
Authorized representative: The person responsible for the overall
operation of a facility or an operational unit (i.e., part of a
facility), e.g., the plant manager, superintendent or person of
equivalent responsibility.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) stream: Carbon dioxide that has been captured
from an emission source (e.g., power plant), plus incidental associated
substances derived from the source materials and the capture process,
and any substances added to the stream to enable or improve the
injection process.
Enhanced Oil or Gas Recovery (EOR/EGR): Typically, the process of
injecting a fluid (e.g., water, brine, or CO2) into an oil
or gas bearing formation to recover residual oil or natural gas. The
injected fluid thins (decreases the viscosity) or displaces small
amounts of extractable oil and gas, which is then available for
recovery. This is also known as secondary or tertiary recovery.
Supercritical CO2: Carbon dioxide that is above its critical
temperature (31.1 [deg] C, or 88 [deg]F) and pressure (73.8 bar, or
1070 psi). Supercritical substances have physical properties
intermediate to those of gases and liquids.
III. Background
A. What is Geologic Sequestration?
Geologic Sequestration (GS) is the process of injecting carbon
dioxide (CO2) captured from an emission source (e.g., a
power plant or industrial facility) into deep subsurface rock
formations in order to isolate the CO2. GS is a key
component of a set of climate change mitigation technologies referred
to as ``carbon capture and storage'' or CCS. CCS can be described as a
three-step process, beginning with the capture and compression of the
CO2 stream from fossil-fuel power plants or other industrial
sources, after which the CO2 stream is transported (usually
in pipelines) to an on-site or off-site location, where it is then
injected
[[Page 48076]]
underground for purposes of sequestration.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Report of the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and
Storage, August 2010, p. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To transport the captured CO2 stream for GS, the
CO2 stream will typically be compressed into a supercritical
fluid.\2\ CO2 exists as a supercritical fluid at
approximately 1,070 pounds per square inch (psi) and 88 [deg]Fahrenheit
(F), and in this state it exhibits physical properties intermediate to
those of a liquid and a gas. As mentioned, the majority of
CO2 is expected to be delivered to the sequestration site by
dedicated pipeline; \3\ however, transport by truck, rail, barge or
supertanker may also occur, but these have been described as
``logistically impractical'' for large-scale CCS operations.\4\ Whether
by pipeline, or these other means, the transportation of supercritical
CO2 is regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT) under regulations found in 49 CFR parts 171-180 (governing the
transportation by air, rail, highway, and water) and parts 190 and 195-
199 (governing the transportation of hazardous liquids and carbon
dioxide by pipeline). The CO2 stream is then injected into
deep subsurface rock formations via one or more wells, using
technologies that have been developed and refined by the oil and gas
and chemical manufacturing industries over the past several decades. To
sequester the CO2 stream, EPA believes that many GS site
owners or operators will inject the CO2 stream to depths of
greater than 800 meters (or 2,625 feet), for the purpose of maximizing
capacity and storage, and where ambient pressure and temperature are
sufficient to maintain the CO2 stream in a supercritical
state. December 10, 2010 (75 FR at 77233).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC), 2005.
\3\ Guidelines for Carbon Dioxide Capture, Transport, and
Storage. World Resources Institute, 2008.
\4\ CRS Report for Congress. Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Pipelines for Carbon Sequestration: Emerging Policy Issues. Paul W.
Parfomak and Peter Folger. January 17, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When injected in an appropriate receiving formation, the
CO2 stream is sequestered by a combination of trapping
mechanisms, including physical and geochemical processes, as summarized
below.
[cir] Physical trapping occurs when the relatively buoyant
CO2 rises in the formation until it reaches a stratigraphic
zone with low fluid permeability (i.e., geologic confining system) that
inhibits further upward migration. Physical trapping can also occur as
residual CO2 is immobilized in formation pore spaces. A
portion of the CO2 will dissolve into the groundwater and
hydrocarbons present in the receiving formation, and CO2
molecules can also attach onto the surfaces of coal and certain
organic-rich shales (a process called preferential sorption),
displacing other molecules, such as methane. The effectiveness of
physical CO2 trapping is demonstrated by natural analogs
worldwide in a range of geologic settings, where CO2 has
remained trapped for millions of years. For example, CO2 has
been trapped for more than 65 million years under the Pisgah Anticline,
northeast of the Jackson Dome in Mississippi and Louisiana, with no
evidence of leakage from the confining formation.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. IPCC, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[cir] Geochemical trapping occurs when chemical reactions between
the dissolved CO2 and minerals in the receiving formation
result in the precipitation of solid carbonate minerals.\6\ The
timeframe over which CO2 will be trapped by these mechanisms
depends on the properties of the receiving formation and the injected
CO2 stream. Research is currently ongoing to further
understand these mechanisms and the time required to trap
CO2 under various conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional background information on the GS of CO2
streams can also be found in the final rule and associated record for
the final rule for UIC Class VI wells published on December 10, 2010
(75 FR 77230).
B. Why is Geologic Sequestration being considered as a climate change
mitigation technology?
Climate change is happening now, and the effects can be seen on
every continent and in every ocean. While certain effects of climate
change can be beneficial, particularly in the short term, current and
future effects of climate change pose considerable risks to human
health and the environment.\7\ There is now clear evidence that the
Earth's climate is warming: \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ National Research Council (2011) Climate Stabilization
Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts over Decades to
Millennia. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
\8\ Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson (Eds.) (2009) Global
Climate Change Impacts in the United States. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[cir] Global surface temperatures have risen by 1.3 [deg]F when
estimated by a linear trend from 1906 to 2005.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Trenberth, K.E. et al. (2007) Observations: Surface and
Atmospheric Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt,
M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[cir] Worldwide, the last decade has been the warmest on
record.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
(2009a) The Annual Global (land and ocean combined) Anomalies
(degrees C).
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat. Accessed April 28, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[cir] Ocean temperatures and sea levels are rising and glaciers are
retreating around the world.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson (Eds.) (2009) Global
Climate Change Impacts in the United States. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Most of this recent warming is very likely the result of human
activities.\12\ Many human activities (such as the combustion of fossil
fuels) release greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere. The levels
of several of these gases, including CO2, have reached
concentrations not seen on Earth in hundreds of thousands of years.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ IPCC (2007b) Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change
2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working
Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change [M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof,
P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson (eds.)]. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
\13\ Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson (Eds.) (2009) Global
Climate Change Impacts in the United States. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, fossil fuels are expected to remain the main source of
energy production well into the 21st century, and increased
concentrations of CO2 are expected unless energy producers
reduce CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. For example, CCS
could enable the continued use of coal in a manner that greatly reduces
the associated CO2 emissions, while other alternative energy
sources are developed in the coming decades. CCS has the potential to
be key to achieving domestic GHG emissions reductions, and as already
mentioned, GS is a key component of CCS.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Report of the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and
Storage, August 2010, p. 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GS is therefore one of a portfolio of options that could be
deployed to reduce CO2 emissions to the atmosphere and help
to mitigate climate change. Other options include, but are not limited
to, energy conservation, efficiency improvements, and the use of
alternative fuels and renewable energy sources, including solar and
wind power.
[[Page 48077]]
C. What other recent EPA rulemakings are related to CCS?
In an effort to establish a regulatory framework that supports the
future development and deployment of CCS technologies, EPA has set out
a goal to provide the regulatory certainty needed to foster industry
adoption of CCS. As mentioned above, EPA believes that GS is a key
climate change mitigation technology. Therefore, providing a consistent
regulatory approach to GS will promote its future use in the United
States. Two important EPA rulemakings that directly address GS
activities are requirements under the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting
Program; and Federal Requirements under the Underground Injection
Control (UIC) Program for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Geologic
Sequestration (GS) Wells. These are described in more detail below.
EPA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting Program: The GHG
Reporting Program was established under authority of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) and requires reporting of GHG emissions and other relevant
information from certain source categories in the United States. On
October 30, 2009, EPA issued a final rule (74 FR 56260) that requires
reporting by facilities with production process units that capture a
CO2 stream under subpart PP of the program. These facilities
are required to report the amount of CO2 in a stream
captured, and provide information on the downstream CO2 end
use (e.g., food and beverage, EOR, GS, etc.). On December 1, 2010, EPA
issued a final rule (75 FR 75060) that requires reporting from
facilities that inject CO2 underground for GS under subpart
RR of the program. The rule requires facilities that inject
CO2 underground for GS to report basic information on
CO2 received for injection, develop and implement an EPA-
approved site-specific monitoring, reporting and verification plan, and
report the amount of CO2 sequestered using a mass balance
approach and annual monitoring activities.
EPA Class VI Underground Injection Control (UIC) Rule: On
July 25, 2008, EPA proposed to amend the UIC program (73 FR 43492) to
establish a new class of injection well (Class VI) and to establish
minimum Federal requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
for the underground injection of CO2 for the purpose of GS.
The proposed requirements would ensure that GS is conducted in a manner
that protects Underground Sources of Drinking Water (USDWs) from
endangerment, by tailoring existing components of the UIC program to
address the unique nature of GS. On December 10, 2010, EPA finalized
the new UIC Class VI injection well standards. These requirements are
intended to provide certainty to industry and the public about the
requirements that would apply to injection for purposes of GS, by
providing consistency regarding the requirements across the U.S., and
transparency about what requirements apply to permitted UIC Class VI
facility owners or operators. For a more detailed discussion of these
requirements, see the final rule in the December 10, 2010 Federal
Register (75 FR 77230).
D. RCRA Applicability to GS Activities
In response to the July 25, 2008 proposed rule for UIC Class VI
wells, EPA received a number of comments regarding the potential
applicability of RCRA subtitle C to CO2 streams being
geologically sequestered. As a result of those comments, EPA decided to
initiate work on today's proposal. EPA also considered those RCRA-
related comments in the development of today's proposed rule. EPA
notes, however, that should persons wish to comment on the RCRA
applicability issues raised by today's proposal, it is necessary to
submit comments to the docket established for today's proposed rule as
described above in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register
notice. EPA will not provide further responses to comments submitted on
the UIC rule as part of this rulemaking. In addition, today's proposal
is not reopening the UIC Class VI final rule, nor will EPA respond to
comments related only to that rule.
At this time, EPA has little information to conclude that
CO2 streams would qualify as RCRA hazardous wastes, which
would make them subject to EPA's comprehensive RCRA hazardous waste
management regulations. However, commenters have cited the potential
for RCRA hazardous waste requirements to attach to some CO2
streams (i.e., some CO2 streams might be classified as
hazardous waste and therefore, would be subject to RCRA subtitle C), as
a significant impediment to widespread deployment of CCS technologies.
Today's proposal seeks to address this concern and provide regulatory
clarity through a revised RCRA regulatory approach for CO2
streams. Simultaneously, as discussed below, EPA expects that
management in accordance with the conditions in today's proposal will
provide no reduced protection to human health and the environment.
After issuance of the proposed UIC Class VI rule, EPA received
public comments that the proposed requirements were unclear as to
whether the CO2 stream would be a RCRA hazardous waste, and
expressed concern that this created uncertainty regarding the type of
permit needed for GS. Many commenters stated that a CO2
stream should not be treated as a RCRA hazardous waste on the grounds
that it is neither a listed hazardous waste nor exhibits a hazardous
characteristic, or is even a solid waste. Other commenters, however,
asserted that CO2 in the presence of water could exhibit the
RCRA corrosivity characteristic. Additionally, some commenters raised
the issue of whether the analytic procedures used under RCRA (in
particular, the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure, TCLP) \15\
can be applied to supercritical CO2 streams, and whether or
not the UIC Class VI regulations would better ensure the proper
management of CO2 streams, compared with the RCRA subtitle C
hazardous waste requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure, or TCLP. See 40
CFR 261.24. A solid waste is defined as hazardous when a
representative sample of that waste leaches a particular chemical or
compound--for example, arsenic--above a specified regulatory
concentration, using the TCLP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA believes that the RCRA hazardous waste regulations can apply to
CO2 streams being geologically sequestered. Subtitle C of
RCRA and its implementing regulations establish a ``cradle to grave''
regulatory scheme over certain ``solid wastes'' which are also
``hazardous wastes.'' RCRA defines solid waste as ``any garbage,
refuse, sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment
plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded material,
including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material * *
*.'' See RCRA 1004(27), 42 U.S.C. 6903(27). EPA has further defined the
term ``solid waste'' for purposes of its RCRA hazardous waste
regulations. 40 CFR 261.2. To be considered a hazardous waste, a
material first must be classified as a solid waste. Under EPA's
regulations, generators of solid waste are required to determine
whether their wastes are hazardous wastes. 40 CFR 262.11. A solid waste
is a hazardous waste if it exhibits any of four characteristics
(ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity), 40 CFR
261.20-.24, or is a listed waste, 40 CFR 261.30-.33 (these include
wastes from non-specific sources, such as spent solvents; by-products
from specific industries; and discarded, unused commercial chemical
products).
A supercritical CO2 stream injected into a permitted UIC
Class VI well for
[[Page 48078]]
purposes of GS is a RCRA solid waste, as it is a ``discarded material''
within the plain meaning of the term in RCRA Sec. 1004(27). Courts
have stated that the plain meaning of ``discarded material'' refers to
materials that have been disposed of, abandoned or thrown away.\16\
This clearly applies to supercritical CO2 stream (which, as
already stated, is rather unique in that it has properties intermediate
between a liquid and a gas) injected into UIC Class VI wells,
regardless of whether the material is a hazardous waste or not. An
entity involved in the CCS process may generate CO2 that
qualifies as a solid waste under the RCRA hazardous waste regulations
by making the decision to discard the material through abandonment by
disposing of the material (see 40 CFR 261.2(a)(2)(i) and (b)(1)). Once
the decision is made that the supercritical CO2 stream will
be sent to a UIC Class VI well for discard, EPA considers this material
to be a solid waste. This decision may be made upstream of the
injection well facility. As discussed above, EPA's regulations require
that generators of a solid waste determine whether their wastes are
hazardous wastes, and if so, manage them in accordance with EPA's RCRA
hazardous waste regulations. 40 CFR 262.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The proposed rule is not intended to affect the status of
CO2 that is injected into wells other than UIC Class VI
wells. For example, CO2 that is used for enhanced oil or
gas recovery (EOR/EGR) in other than UIC Class VI wells, where some
sequestration may occur in the process of recovering gas or oil, is
beyond the scope of this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter to the UIC proposed rule suggested that the captured
CO2 stream was exempt from the RCRA hazardous waste
regulations under the exemption for ``fly ash waste, bottom ash waste,
slag waste, and flue gas emission control waste, generated primarily
from the combustion of coal or other fossil fuels,'' also referred to
as the ``Bevill exemption.'' (See 40 CFR 261.4(b)(4).)
EPA studied the fossil fuel combustion wastes as directed by
Congress, and published two Reports to Congress,\17\ and issued two
Regulatory Determinations on the management and use of coal and other
fossil fuel combustion products, one on August 9, 1993 and a second one
on May 22, 2000 (58 FR 42466 and 65 FR 32214, respectively).
CO2 captured for purposes of GS was not included in either
of these Regulatory Determinations, or in the underlying studies upon
which these determinations were based. The Agency has consistently
interpreted the Sec. 261.4(b)(4) exemption as only encompassing those
wastes that were studied, and EPA did not study CO2 that has
been captured for GS. Therefore, EPA believes that the CO2
streams discussed in today's proposed rule are not included within the
Bevill exemption under Sec. 261.4(b)(4).\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Report to Congress: Wastes from the Combustion of Coal by
Electric Utility Power Plants, February 1988, EPA-530-SW-88-002; and
Report to Congress: Wastes From the Combustion of Fossil Fuels, Vol.
1 & 2, U.S. EPA, March 1999, EPA-530-S-99-010 and EPA-530-R-99-010.
\18\ EPA notes that even if CO2 streams from the
combustion of fossil fuels were exempt from regulation as hazardous
waste under Sec. 261.4(b)(4)--which it does not believe to be the
case--the Bevill exemption would only apply to CO2
generated from the combustion of materials in boilers to generate
steam for the purpose of generating energy, and not to other
CO2 streams generated from other sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA notes that CO2 streams are not listed RCRA hazardous
wastes (i.e., CO2 streams are not specifically identified as
one of the hazardous wastes listed in 40 CFR part 261, subpart D).
However, the CO2 stream would be a hazardous waste if it
exhibits any of the hazardous characteristics in 40 CFR part 261,
subpart C, or, is mixed with a listed hazardous waste. See Sec.
261.3(a)(iv). Under the UIC Class VI final rule, injection site owners
and operators must determine whether the CO2 stream is
hazardous under the RCRA regulations, and if so, injection of the
CO2 stream may only occur in a UIC Class I hazardous waste
injection well.\19\ Conversely, UIC Class VI wells cannot be used for
the injection of RCRA hazardous wastes. Today's proposal, if finalized,
would allow CO2 streams that would otherwise qualify as RCRA
hazardous wastes to be managed in a Class VI well, provided that they
meet the conditions of this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ As already mentioned, a hazardous waste determination must
be made when a waste is first generated (Sec. 262.11); however,
knowing whether a solid waste is a hazardous waste is necessary at
any point during the management of that waste, in order for persons
to ensure that they are in compliance with the hazardous waste
requirements if and when they are managing hazardous waste. See 40
CFR 261.3(b)(3) and 45 FR 33096 (May 19, 1980).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As already noted, commenters to the UIC Class VI proposed rule also
raised questions about the appropriateness and feasibility of applying
the RCRA hazardous waste characteristics to CO2 streams and,
in particular, the Toxicity Characteristic (TC). See Sec. 261.24. Some
commenters stated that the TCLP test method associated with the TC
could not be used on materials other than solids or liquids, and that
EPA would have to develop new testing regulations and guidelines
specifically for evaluating supercritical CO2. Commenters
also stated that the TC regulation was inappropriate for CO2
streams because the TC was ``* * * designed to assess the threat waste
would have in a municipal landfill disposal scenario, a scenario that *
* * is inherently inapplicable to uncontained supercritical
CO2.'' Many commenters also expressed concern over the
uncertainty in determining how the RCRA hazardous waste regulations,
including the hazardous waste identification issues described here,
apply to CO2 streams being sequestered in UIC Class VI
wells.
In light of these comments, EPA reiterates that no hazardous waste
listings apply specifically to CO2 streams; therefore, a
CO2 stream could only be defined as a hazardous waste if it
exhibits a hazardous waste characteristic as defined in 40 CFR part
261, subpart C.\20\ Regarding the feasibility of testing CO2
streams, EPA acknowledges the commenter's concern, but also notes that
the hazardous waste regulations allow generators to apply their
knowledge--in lieu of testing--of the hazard characteristic of a waste,
in light of the materials or processes used, to determine whether that
waste is a characteristic hazardous waste under RCRA.\21\ 40 CFR
262.11(c)(2). EPA also notes that methods exist for sampling and
analyzing gaseous emissions in order to identify and quantify hazardous
constituents that may be present.\22\ Regarding whether a TCLP leach
test can be applied to a supercritical CO2 stream, EPA notes
that the TC regulation, and the TCLP test method, allow for measurement
of total constituent concentrations in a waste, in lieu of running the
leach test, and under certain circumstances even require it (such as
where wastes are liquids that contain less than 0.5% solids).\23\
However, EPA acknowledges the commenters' underlying concerns related
to RCRA characterization, and requests comment on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ It is also possible that a CO2 stream could
become a hazardous waste if it is mixed with a listed hazardous
waste, or, mixed with a characteristic hazardous waste and the
resultant mixture exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste. This
is commonly referred to as the ``mixture rule.'' See 40 CFR 261.3.
We note that today's proposed exemption includes the condition that
prohibits the mixing of CO2 streams with hazardous waste.
\21\ Any persons claiming that a waste is non-hazardous, based
on knowledge in lieu of testing, should be prepared to substantiate
this claim.
\22\ E.g., EPA notes that existing analytical test methods, such
as SW-846 Methods 0060, 0010, and 0031, are available to quantify
the levels of various hazardous constituents in gaseous streams,
although sampling a supercritical CO2 stream may require
particular sampling protocols.
\23\ See SW-846, Method 1311, Section 2.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. CO2 Stream Characterization
As noted above, EPA is proposing to conditionally exclude from the
[[Page 48079]]
definition of hazardous waste CO2 streams captured,
transported (or otherwise delivered to) and injected into permitted UIC
Class VI wells for purposes of GS. At this time, EPA has little
information to conclude that CO2 streams would qualify as
RCRA hazardous wastes, which would make them subject to EPA's
comprehensive RCRA hazardous waste management regulations. Today's
proposal is intended to provide clarity for deployment of CCS under
conditions that EPA believes would not present a substantial risk to
human health and the environment. However, EPA acknowledges that at
this time, it does not have full knowledge of the range of possible
CO2 stream compositions. Today's proposed conditional
exclusion is based upon EPA's existing knowledge of the composition of
CO2 streams, and its analysis that compliance with the
existing standards and regulations designed to prevent any exposure of
CO2 (and any associated impurities) would render additional
regulation under RCRA subtitle C unnecessary.
Nevertheless, EPA is proceeding with this proposal, and notes that
the UIC Class VI regulations include requirements that the owner or
operator of the injection well provide an analysis of the physical and
chemical characteristics of the CO2 stream, both during
permit application and periodically during operation (See 40 CFR
146.82, 146.90 and 146.91). The permit-issuing authority is also
authorized under EPA's UIC permit regulations to add any additional
conditions to the permit, as necessary, to assure compliance with
applicable SDWA requirements (40 CFR 146.52(b)). Under this authority,
the UIC Program Director (EPA or a State permitting authority) may add
specific testing or chemical/waste limitations to the permit to prevent
endangerment of USDWs, or to assure that unauthorized wastes are not
injected with the CO2 stream.
EPA has reviewed estimates of CO2 stream composition
that were calculated using information, such as the composition of flue
gas from the burning of fossil fuels and other likely sources, existing
flue gas emission control technologies (e.g., electrostatic
precipitators and scrubbers), and data from applied capture
technology.\24\ These estimates indicate that captured CO2
could contain (based upon the information used in developing those
estimates) low concentrations of hazardous constituents (e.g.,
estimated concentrations expressed in parts per million by volume, or
ppmv, are: 0.0022-0.0097 arsenic, 0.0462-0.4623 barium, 0.0002-0.0085
cadmium, 0.0016-0.0171 chromium, 0.0022-0.0028 mercury, 0.0011-0.0045
lead, and 0.0074-0.0244 selenium). EPA notes that these contaminants
derived from the combustion flue gas are relevant to the TC regulation
in Sec. 261.24.\25\ These estimates also indicate that the types of
impurities and their concentrations would likely vary by facility, coal
composition, plant operating conditions, and pollutant removal and
carbon capture technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Apps, J.A., A Review of Hazardous Chemical Species
Associate with CO2 Capture from Coal-Fired Power Plants
and Their Potential Fate in CO2 Geologic Storage,
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, March 2006.
\25\ Ibid, Table 13b. EPA notes that the presence of hazardous
constituents or contaminants does not automatically mean that a
CO2 stream is a hazardous waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA solicited comment in the July 25, 2008 proposed UIC Class VI
rule on the presence of impurities in CO2 streams, but did
not receive any analytical data on the composition of captured
CO2 streams in response. As various CCS pilot projects \26\
move forward and continue to generate information, EPA expects the
amount of available analytical data on captured CO2 to
increase. In addition, EPA expects that data will become available
under the recently promulgated UIC Class VI regulations. As discussed
above, the final UIC Class VI regulations require that prior to
issuance of a permit, the owner or operator of the well must submit to
the Director \27\ proposed operating data for the proposed GS site,
including an analysis of the chemical and physical properties of the
CO2 stream (40 CFR 146.82(a)(7)(iv)). The UIC rule also
requires that, throughout the operational life of the Class VI well,
the injected CO2 stream be analyzed by owners or operators
with sufficient frequency to yield data representative of its physical
and chemical characteristics (40 CFR 146.90(a)). Owners or operators
must also submit semi-annual reports that include any changes to the
physical, chemical, and other relevant characteristics of the
CO2 stream from the proposed operating data (40 CFR
146.91(a)(1)). While guidance is still being developed regarding these
requirements, at a minimum, the physical characteristics of the
CO2 stream will include temperature and pressure, while the
chemical characteristics will include pH, carbon dioxide purity (as a
percent), as well as concentrations of non-CO2 constituents
(either in ppmv or in percent). These non-CO2 constituents
may include, but are not limited to, sulfur dioxide (SO2),
hydrogen sulfide (H2S), nitrous oxides (NOX),
carbon monoxide (CO), methane (CH4), other hydrocarbons,
water vapor (H2O), as well as certain contaminants, that are
also defined as hazardous contaminants in 40 CFR 261.24, such as
arsenic, mercury, and selenium. EPA expects that these data will
provide an indication of any impurities that may be present, their
concentrations, and whether such impurities might alter the corrosivity
or other properties of the CO2 stream after injection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Exhibits 1 and 2 in EPA's analysis of the potential
costs and benefits associated with this action, entitled Assessment
of the Potential Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts of the
Conditional Exclusion from the RCRA Definition of Hazardous Waste
for CO2 Streams Managed in UIC Class VI Wells for the Purposes of
Geologic Sequestration, as Proposed. A copy of this document is
available in the docket established for this action.
\27\ As used here in the context of the UIC program, `Director'
means the person responsible for permitting, implementation, and
compliance of the UIC program. For UIC programs administered by EPA,
the Director is the EPA Regional Administrator or his/her authorized
representative; for UIC programs in Primacy States, the Director is
the person responsible for permitting, implementation, and
compliance of the State, Territorial, or Tribal UIC program. 40 CFR
144.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA today requests analytical data on the physical and chemical
characteristics of captured CO2, including the
concentrations of hazardous contaminants, CO2 content,
information on the type of CO2 capture process used, and how
the samples were collected and analyzed. This data will allow EPA to
gain a better understanding of the nature and characteristics of
captured CO2 streams.
IV. Detailed Discussion of This Proposed Rule
EPA is proposing to revise the regulations for hazardous waste
management under RCRA to exclude from the definition of hazardous waste
CO2 streams that would otherwise be defined as hazardous,
when these CO2 streams are managed under certain conditions.
The Agency believes that this amendment to the RCRA hazardous waste
rules, if finalized, will substantially reduce the uncertainty
associated with defining and managing these CO2 streams
under RCRA subtitle C. For the reasons discussed below, EPA believes
that the management of these CO2 streams in accordance with
the proposed conditions does not present a substantial risk to human
health and the environment. These proposed conditions include, but are
not limited to, compliance with the existing regulatory regimes
governing the transportation of the CO2 stream, and its
injection in a UIC Class VI permitted well.
[[Page 48080]]
A. Authority for Conditional Exclusion From RCRA Subtitle C
Requirements
EPA has previously interpreted RCRA section 3001(a) to authorize
the issuance of ``conditional exemptions'' from the requirements of
subtitle C, where it determines that ``a waste might pose a hazard only
under limited management scenarios, and other regulatory programs
already address such scenarios.'' 62 FR at 6636 (February 12, 1997); 66
FR at 27222-27223 (May 16, 2001). Today's proposal takes a similar
approach to those earlier rules.
Section 3001(a) provides the Agency with flexibility to consider
the need for regulation in deciding whether to list or identify a waste
as hazardous. Specifically, RCRA section 3001(a) requires that EPA, in
determining whether to list a waste as a hazardous waste, or to
otherwise identify a waste as a hazardous waste, decide whether a waste
``should be subject to'' the requirements of subtitle C. Hence, RCRA
section 3001 authorizes EPA to determine when subtitle C regulation is
appropriate. EPA has consistently interpreted section 3001 of RCRA to
give it broad flexibility in fashioning criteria for hazardous wastes
to enter or exit the subtitle C regulatory system. EPA's longstanding
regulatory criteria for determining whether wastes pose hazards that
require regulatory control incorporate the idea that a waste that is
otherwise hazardous may not present a hazard if already subject to
adequate regulation. (See, e.g., 40 CFR 261.11(a)(3)(x), which requires
EPA to consider action taken by other governmental agencies or
regulatory programs based on the health or environmental hazard posed
by the waste.)
EPA's interpretation is further supported by the text of RCRA
sections 1004(5), and 3002-3004, and RCRA's legislative history. This
interpretation has also been upheld upon judicial review. See, e.g.,
Military Toxics Project v. EPA, 146 F.3d 948 (D.C. Cir. 1998)
(upholding conditional exemption for storage of military munitions,
based on EPA determination that such wastes are subject to binding
standards that meet or exceed RCRA standards, in addition to an
institutional oversight process).
The statutory definition of hazardous waste, section 1004(5)(B),
informs EPA's interpretation that EPA may consider good management
practices in determining the need to regulate waste as hazardous. That
section defines a `hazardous waste' as ``a solid waste, or combination
of solid wastes, which because of its quantity, concentration, or
physical, chemical or infectious characteristics may * * * (B) pose a
substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the
environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed
of, or otherwise managed.'' (Emphasis added.) EPA has interpreted the
statutory definition as incorporating the idea that a waste that is
otherwise hazardous does not require regulation so long as it is
properly managed. For example, EPA's standards for listing hazardous
wastes require consideration of a waste's potential for mismanagement.
See 40 CFR 261.11(a)(3)(vii) (incorporating the language of RCRA
section 1004(5)(B) and requiring EPA to consider ``plausible types of
improper management'').
The statute also directs EPA to regulate hazardous waste generators
(RCRA Sec. 3002(a)), transporters (RCRA Sec. 3003(a)) and treatment,
storage and disposal facilities (RCRA Sec. 3004(a)) ``as may be
necessary to protect human health and the environment.'' By extension,
the decision of when a waste should be subject to the regulatory
requirements of subtitle C is a question of whether such regulatory
controls are necessary to protect human health and the environment.
Thus, where a waste might pose a hazard only under limited
management scenarios, and other regulatory programs already address
such scenarios, EPA is not required to classify a waste as hazardous
waste subject to regulation under subtitle C. At least three decisions
by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit provide support for
this approach to regulating wastes as hazardous waste only where
necessary to protect human health and the environment. In Military
Toxics Project v. EPA, 146 F.3d 948 (D.C. Cir. 1998), the court upheld
a conditional exemption whereby the storage and transportation of
certain military munitions are not considered hazardous waste subject
to regulation under RCRA subtitle C, provided the munitions are stored
and transported in compliance with regulations issued by the Department
of Defense and the Department of Transportation, respectively. See 40
CFR 266.203, 266.205. The court ruled that EPA's interpretation of RCRA
as authorizing a conditional exemption is ``a permissible construction
of the statute.'' 146 F.3d at 958. The court cited its own precedent as
recognizing ```that Congress intended the agency to have substantial
room to exercise its expertise in determining the appropriate grounds
for listing,' '' id. (citing NRDC v. EPA, 25 F.3d 1063, 1070 (D.C. Cir.
1994)), and concluded that, although the military munitions rule ``does
not involve the listing regulations at issue in NRDC v. EPA, we think
the principle at work there also supports the conditional exemption at
issue here.'' Id.
In NRDC v. EPA, the court held that EPA appropriately used its
discretion in relying on several existing regulatory frameworks
governing used oil in determining not to list certain used oils as a
hazardous waste. NRDC, 25 F.3d at 1071. Similarly, in Edison Electric
Institute v. EPA, 2 F.3d 438 (D.C. Cir. 1993), the court upheld a
temporary exemption from subtitle C for petroleum-contaminated media
based on the fact that the potential hazards of such materials are
already controlled under the underground storage tank regulations under
RCRA subtitle I. In reaching its decision, the court considered the
fact that the subtitle I standards could prevent threats to human
health and the environment to be an important factor supporting the
exemption. Id. at 453.
The legislative history of RCRA subtitle C also supports this
interpretation, stating that ``the basic thrust of this hazardous waste
title is to identify what wastes are hazardous in what quantities,
qualities, and concentrations, and the methods of disposal which may
make such wastes hazardous.'' H. Rep. No. 94-1491, 94th Cong., 2d Sess.
6 (1976), reprinted in A Legislative History of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, as Amended, Congressional Research Service, Vol.1, 567
(1991) (emphasis added). Finally, as discussed above, in proposing this
conditional exemption from RCRA, EPA is in part relying on the
regulatory controls for Class VI wells, under the UIC program of the
SDWA, 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq. EPA notes that such reliance is also
consistent with the direction provided in section 1006(b) of RCRA,
which directs EPA to integrate the provisions of RCRA, for purposes of
administration and enforcement and to avoid duplication, to the maximum
extent practicable, with those of certain other statutes, including the
SDWA, to the extent that it can be done in a manner that is consistent
with the goals and policies of both RCRA and the other relevant
statute(s).
B. CO2 Streams Managed Prior to Underground Injection
Under the subtitle C hazardous waste program, the generator
requirements (40 CFR part 262) contain provisions designed to ensure
that hazardous wastes are properly managed by persons who generate the
wastes. This is accomplished through certain requirements governing the
temporary
[[Page 48081]]
storage (i.e., accumulation) of hazardous wastes, in units, such as
tanks or containers, at the site of generation. These requirements
include technical requirements for the tanks or containers, and time
limits on hazardous waste storage, if the waste is to be sent off-site
to a treatment, storage or disposal facility.\28\ These requirements
also include recordkeeping and reporting, and certain pre-transport
requirements, such as packaging, labeling, and preparing a hazardous
waste manifest to accompany the waste. Generators must also notify EPA
of their hazardous waste management activity, and obtain an EPA
identification (ID) number. Likewise, hazardous waste transporters
(e.g., persons transporting waste, including over the highway or by
rail) have certain requirements in 40 CFR part 263, to ensure that the
hazardous wastes are properly transported to a hazardous waste
treatment, storage, or disposal facility. These transporter
requirements include notifying EPA and obtaining an EPA ID number,
recordkeeping, and compliance with the hazardous waste manifest. EPA
notes that under the RCRA subtitle C regulations, a hazardous waste
manifest is not required for hazardous wastes sent off-site via
pipeline.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ The generator regulations in 40 CFR part 262 provide for
limited, temporary on-site hazardous waste storage (accumulation)
without a RCRA permit or being subject to the interim status
standards, provided certain conditions are met (see Sec. 262.34).
While generators are not required to send hazardous waste off-site
for disposal, they often do so because they do not wish to engage in
RCRA-permitted hazardous waste activity on-site.
\29\ This is because use of the hazardous waste manifest is
triggered by the transport of hazardous waste (see discussion in
Section IV.B.2. in this preamble, including Footnote 41).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For CO2 streams that are captured, compressed, and
transported to a UIC Class VI well, EPA believes that the full set of
subtitle C generator and transporter requirements are not necessary,
because they do not provide any additional protection over existing
regulatory requirements. Regarding the generator requirements, EPA
believes that the process of capturing and compressing CO2
prior to delivery to a UIC Class VI facility via a pipeline, as the
Agency understands it, will not involve storage at the generator
facility (i.e., at the CO2 source), but rather will occur in
a continuous fashion (capture process [rarr] compression/dehydration
[rarr] pipeline insertion). Once in the pipeline, EPA believes the
applicable DOT requirements (which apply to supercritical
CO2 streams regardless of whether or not these materials
meet the definition of hazardous waste) will ensure that CO2
streams are managed in a manner that addresses the potential risks to
human health and the environment that these materials may pose, prior
to arrival at a Class VI injection well facility.
1. CO2 Streams Generated at Capture Sites
While certain technologies for removing (capturing) CO2
have been in use commercially for over 60 years (e.g., natural gas
processing, production of food-grade CO2), research has been
underway to develop more cost-effective technologies to capture
CO2 for purposes of CCS. Regardless of the capture
technology that is ultimately implemented, information currently
available to EPA indicates that once the CO2 stream is
captured at the source (e.g., coal-fired power plant), it will be
dehydrated (to meet pipeline specifications preventing corrosion) and
compressed (to match designated pipeline pressures) in preparation for
transport, primarily via CO2 pipeline.30 31
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ DOE/NETL's Carbon Capture R&D Program for Existing Coal-
Fired Power Plants, DOE/NETL-2009-1356, February 2009.
\31\ Figueroa, Jose D. et al., 2008. Advances in CO2
capture technology--the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon
Sequestration Program, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas
Control 2, 2008 (9-20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, evaluating in more detail how CO2 streams will
be managed at the CO2 source prior to GS in a UIC Class VI
facility, and what regulations or other standards might apply to these
activities in lieu of the RCRA generator standards, has proven somewhat
difficult based on a review of the literature. This is either because
many of the newer capture technologies are still in the developmental
stages, or because the more established capture technologies used in
commercial CO2 capture have not yet been scaled up to large
facilities, such as coal-fired power plants. Nonetheless, EPA attempted
to assess how captured CO2 streams would be managed in the
context of the RCRA generator requirements identified above (e.g., EPA
notification, standards for tanks or containers, time limits for on-
site storage, recordkeeping and reporting, packaging, labeling,
manifesting, etc.).
First, it is unclear from existing information sources whether
captured CO2 has been or will be stored at the generator
site prior to insertion into a pipeline, so EPA examined the
feasibility of storing captured CO2 streams at the source,
since storage is a hazardous waste management activity of concern at
RCRA generator sites generally.\32\ EPA looked at estimates of
CO2 capture rates both in the CCS projects currently
underway, as well as future scenarios where CO2 capture is
deployed at full scale. A review of commercially-available
CO2 capture facilities in 2009 identified 17 facilities,
with CO2 capture rates ranging from 50,000 metric tons/year
t