Memo randum to Docket EPA

- HQ

- RCRA

- 2010

- 0695

Subje ct: Personal Communication with Vince Holohan, PHMSA, U.S. DOT From : Ross Elliott, U.S. EPA , Mark Baldwin, U.S. EPA. Date: 03/09/2011 Summary On 3/9/2011, in response to an inquiry from Ross Elliott of U.S. EPA regarding the regulatory status and definition of supercritical CO 2 under 49 CFR Part 195, U.S. Department of Transportation’s (U.S. DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) engineer Vincent Holohan p rovided clarity on how PHMSA regulates the transportation of CO 2 via pipeline. Of particular interest to U.S. EPA was determining if federal regulations governing the transportation of supercritical CO 2 via pipeline would be affected by a potential RCRA hazardous waste classification. Mr Holohan stated, “ Accordingl y, if EPA classifies CO 2 as a hazardous waste for purposes of the environmental laws it enforces, that would not diminish or otherwise affect the authority of PHMSA 's Office of Pipeline Safety to regulate the safe transportation of CO 2 as a liquid. ” Furthermore, because PHMSA’s pipeline regulations do not differentiate between a commodity supercritical CO 2 stream and a waste supercritical CO 2 stream, all CO 2 pipelines would need to comply with safety requirements found in 49 CFR 195 . For additional information regarding the correspondence p lease see the attached email.Elliott,

Sorry for the delayed response as I was checking with other parts of PHMSA. F irst, to the extent your question involves hazmat (HM) authority in Chapter 51 of Title 49, U.S. Code and CFR Parts 172 and 173, be advised that pipeline safety authority comes from an entirely different organic act and is found in Chapter 601 of Title 49, U.S. Code. Even if a (non

- petroleum) substance is regulated for HM purposes under Chapter 51 and is in the HM table in Part 172, that does not mean it is automatically regulated for pipeline safety purposes under Chapter 601. Second, with respect to the safe transportation of CO2 by pipeline, there is a specific controlling statute: 49 USC 60102(i). It clearly gives PHMSA authority to regulate the transportation of CO2 by pipeline as a liquid (i.e., in a supercritical fluid phase), but expressly exclude s the transportation of CO2 as a gas. Third, note that PHMSA does not need to classify a substance as "waste" to regulate its safe transportation by pipeline. If a substance is flammable, toxic, or corrosive it would likely be regulated for purposes of p ipeline safety regardless of whether it was in pure "virgin" form or was mixed with other substances/contaminates as a result of being produced from some industrial process. In other words, if it is flammable, toxic or corrosive, its origin does not matte r for purposes of PHMSA's pipeline safety authority and there is no need for PHMSA to designate it as "waste." Accordingly, if EPA classifies CO2 as a hazardous waste for purposes of the environmental laws it enforces, that would not diminish or otherwise affect the authority of PHMSA's Office of Pipeline Safety to regulate the safe transportation of CO2 as a liquid. To the extent you have questions about the hazmat table in Part 172 or the transportation of CO2 by means other than pipeline (such as in ta nks, containers, and vessels), please contact Joe Solomey, Asst. Chief Counsel for HAZMAT, at 202

- 366

- 0977. Let me know if you have further questions regarding pipelines. I hope that this helps. Thanks. Vinnie Vincent D. Holohan Engineer US Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE E22

- 203 Washington, DC 20590 202

- 366

- 1933 (o) 202

- 493

- 2311 (f) vincent.holohan@dot.gov