***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do No Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 1 Color Codes for Source of Revisions :

Non OMB related (e.g., Agency management, editorial)

Changes made in response to OMB (and interagency) review

EO12866_CO2 RCRA Exclusion 2050-AG60 FINAL EA_20130122



### ASSESSMENT OF THE POTENTIAL COSTS, BENEFITS, AND OTHER IMPACTS

HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: CONDITIONAL EXCLUSION FOR CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2) STREAMS IN GEOLOGIC SEQUESTRATION ACTIVITIES

FINAL RULE

Economics and Risk Analysis Staff Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N. W. Washington, DC 20460

August 27, 2013***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do No Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 2 Introduction and Purpose

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulates the generation, transfer, treatment, and disposal of hazardous waste under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The hazardous waste regulations are de signed to ensure that hazardous waste is handled in a manner that protects human health and the environment. Currently, carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) streams are not listed as RCRA hazardous wa stes, but may be classified as a RCRA hazardous waste if they exhibit hazardous charact eristics such as ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity.

On August 8, 2011 the EPA proposed to revise the regulations for hazardous waste management under the RCRA to conditionally exclude carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) streams that are hazardous from the definition of hazardous waste, provided thes e streams are captured from emission sources, are injected into Class VI Underground Injectio n Control (UIC) wells for purposes of geologic sequestration (GS), and meet certain other conditions. The EPA took this action because we determined that additional regulation under RCRA’s hazardous waste program would be unnecessary when these CO 2 streams are managed under the proposed conditions. Furthermore, the rule, as proposed, was expected to substantially reduce the uncertainty associated with identifying these CO 2 streams under RCRA subtitle C. This improved regulatory certainty could be expected to help facilitate the deployment of GS. Comments on this proposed rule were generally supportive.

The Agency has concluded determined that the management of these CO 2 streams under

conditions outlined in the final ru le will not present a substantial risk to human health or the environment. As a result, EPA is finalizing the regulations for hazardous waste management under RCRA to conditionally exclude carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) streams from the definition of hazardous waste, provided these CO 2 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.

This final action is expected to substantially re duce the uncertainty associated with identifying

these CO 2 streams under RCRA subtitle C, and may also help facilitate the deployment of GS by providing regulatory clarity. Wi th this final rule, additional CO 2 regulations pursuant to RCRA’s hazardous waste are considered unnecessary. The purpose of this Assessment is to present the Agency’s best estimate of the potential costs and cost savings, benefits, and other impacts of the

final rule.

Summary of Changes to the Assessment from Proposal to Final Comment [A1]: This statement would be more informative if it was preceded by

additional information r egarding the proposed rule, or as it is referred to below, the Proposal.

[See insert. LL]

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt,

Font color: Red***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do No Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 3 This final rule Assessment applies the same general met hodology as was used in the Assessment for the proposal. 1 However, there are three general areas of change that will impact findings. One is a minor change to the regulatory requirements of the rule, and the two others reflect changes in market conditions and analytical assumptions. These are described below:

a) Certification Statements : Requirements for the signed certification statements change slightly. This modification is expected to result in negligible cost impacts , beyond those estimated for the proposal.

b) Number of Facilities Affected: Market dynamics affecting the capture, compression, and sequestration of CO 2 streams have changed since the Agency prepared the Assessment document for the proposed action. These altered market conditions will be reflected in the revised number of facilities believed to be affected by the final rule. Compared to proposal findings, this change will result in a decrease in the high-end aggregate annualized net cost savings estimate for the

rule.

c) Percent of CO 2 Streams that are RCRA Hazardous Waste: The preamble to the proposed rule and the June 2, 2011 Assessment document discussed the Agency’s high level of uncertainty regarding the percent of CO 2 streams that may be characterized as RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste. Available information at the time indicated that it was possible that some CO 2 streams might meet the definition of hazardous waste, but the Agency considered this information to be insufficient to make a justifiable point estimate or reasonable range. As a result, the Assessment prepared in support of the proposed rule applied a broad range of 10 percent to 90 percent of CO 2 streams that would be defined as RCRA hazardous waste, reflecting significant uncertainty. The proposed rule requested that commenters provide characterization data relevant to whether CO 2 streams meet the definition of RCRA hazardous wa ste, and indicated that the Agency would continue to research and assess this issue. In response to our request, EPA received no new

information or data that would indi cate what percentage of captured CO 2 streams would be defined as a RCRA hazardous waste; instead, many commenters asserted that CO 2 streams are not hazardous wastes, do not exhibit hazardous characteristics, and are unlikely to be mixed with

hazardous wastes. Two commenters indicated con cern over the potential hazardous waste status of these streams but provided no data or support ing information indicating that such streams could, or are likely to be hazardous waste. Therefore, there remains a degree of uncertainty as to what percentage of CO 2 streams might be defined as a RCRA hazardous waste. However, within this uncertainty, EPA believes that the high-end estimate of 90 percent is probably an overestimate, based on the Agency’s best professional judgemen t judgment

. In addition, the high-end estimate results in a commensurately high estimated costs savings for the rule. Therefore, in an effort to present a more conser vative estimate of costs savings, we are dropping the high-end 90 percent hazardous waste scenario for our final rule Assessment

.

1 U.S. EPA, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery. June 2, 2011. A ssessment of the Potential Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts of the Conditional Exclusion from the RCRA Definition of Hazardous Waste for CO 2 Streams Managed in UIC Class VI Wells for the Purposes of Geologic Sequestration, as Proposed***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do No Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 4 Need for Regulation

Without this rule, a carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) stream that is determined to be a hazardous waste would be subject to the requirements of RCRA Subt itle C. EPA has determined that the full set of hazardous waste regulations is unnecessary for captured CO 2 streams. Existing regulations governing the transport and injection of CO2 in to a UIC Class VI permitted injection well are sufficient to ensure protection of human health and the environment. Furthermore, as indicated above, this action is expected to substantially reduce the uncertainty associated with identifying

CO 2 streams under RCRA subtitle C, and may also help facilitate the deployment of GS.

Summary of Current Rules

Without this rule, if a captured CO 2 stream is a solid waste and determined to be a RCRA hazardous waste that is discarded, the generator would be subject to the various hazardous waste generator standards in 40 CFR 262. Hazardous waste CO 2 streams destined for disposal would be required to be managed in a Class I UIC hazardous waste well that is permitted to accept

RCRA hazardous waste. A RCRA hazardous waste CO 2 stream could not be injected into a well that is permitted as a Class VI well under the UIC Class VI regulations. The owners and operators of Class I hazardous waste wells are subject to the hazardous waste management requirements in 40 CFR 264 (Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities) and 265 (Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities) if they store or treat hazardous waste prior to injection. The UIC Class I hazardous well, permitted under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), is subject to RCRA permit-by-rule (see 270. 60(b)). In addition, these Class I hazardous waste well owners and operators would have to build their sequestration units to meet EPA’s requirements for a Class VI UIC well. 2

If the CO 2 stream is not a RCRA hazardous waste, the generator would not be subject to the hazardous waste generator standards, and could transport the waste to a Class VI well for injection. The Class VI well would be required to meet the Class VI UIC requirements, which in some regards are similar to the requirements for hazardous waste wells permitted under UIC Class I, but are geared specifically toward CO 2 sequestration. 3

CO 2 streams captured for the purpose of injection are typically transported by pipeline and are subject to the Department of Transportation (DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) regulations in 49 CFR 195 (Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline) through 199 (Drug and Alcohol Testing) . Pipelines are not classified as modes of transportation under RCRA and therefore pipeline transportation would be subject to the same

2 Permit writers may require the RCRA hazardous waste CO 2 injection well to meet both the Class VI UIC requirements and the Class I hazardous UIC requirements; however, there is no specific UIC regulation that would require this..

3 Certain U.S. Department of Energy CO 2 injection demonstration projects have been permitted under the UIC Class V experimental technology well progr am, while other demonstration project s have been permitted under the UIC Class I non-hazardous waste well program.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do No Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 5 DOT requirements regardless of a CO 2 stream’s RCRA status. If a RCRA hazardous waste CO 2 stream was to be transported by other means, such as truck or rail, the transporter would be subject to EPA’s standards for transporters of hazardous waste in 40 CFR 263 (Standards Applicable to Transporters of Hazardous Waste) , as well as the applicable PHMSA Hazardous Materials Regulations in 49 CFR Parts 171 (General Information, Regulations, and Definitions) through 180 (Continuing Qualification and Maintenance of Packagings)

.

Summary of Changes Estab lished in the Final Rule

Under the final rule, 4 carbon dioxide streams that are captured and transported for purposes of injection into an underground injection well are not hazardous waste if managed according to Class VI Underground Injection Control well requirements, including the requirements in 40 CFR Parts 144 and 146 of the Underground Inj ection Control Program of the Safe Drinking Water Act. However, selected conditions must be met. 5 Class VI wells injecting excluded CO 2 would therefore not be subject to EPA’s RCRA hazardous waste requirements. The exclusion would apply to captured CO 2 streams only and would not apply to any hazardous wastes that are mixed with or co-injected with CO 2 streams.

Owners and operators of CO 2 capture facilities and sequestra tion wells claiming the exclusion would be required to sign, annually renew, and make available independent certification

statements. These statements must indicate that the CO 2 stream for which they are claiming the exclusion meets the conditions of the exclusion and is being injected into a well subject to the Class VI UIC requirements.

Characterization of the Regulated Community

The entities that may be directly aff ected by the final rule include CO 2 capture facilities, transporters, and sequestration facilities.

CO 2 Capture Facilities:

CO 2 capture facilities are entities that collect their CO 2 byproducts and manage them in a manner other than releasing them into the atmosphere. For the Proposal, we estimated that anywhere from 13 to 27 capture facilities 6 may be affected by the rule. This range was based on the best

available data at the time of our analysis. The low-end estimate considered only 13 CO 2 capture facilities. This included ten existing capture facilities, two capture pr ojects associated with named DOE pilot projects, and one capture facility that was an ongoing federal/private partnership. The high-end estimate included the th irteen low-end facilities plus an additional 14 planned commercial projects that were expected to begin CO 2 capture at some point in the future.

The Assessment for the Proposal recognized that some of the planned projects may be cancelled or delayed due to approval and funding issues. It was further recognized that, without climate

4 Hazardous Waste Management Systems: Conditional Exclusion for Carbon Dioxide (CO 2 ) Streams in Geological Sequestration Activities – Final Rule

5 See: §261.4 Exclusions (h) – Carbon Dioxide Stream Injected for Geologic Sequestration

6 See Section 2 of the June 2, 2011 Assessment

. Comment [A2]: Is this plural?

[ Yes, It is correct, as is. LL]***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do No Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 6 change legislation, a significant economic driv er for both capture and sequestration would be

lost.

The future market for CO 2 capture depends, to a large extent, on the degree to which Federal and

state governments pass legislation and adopt regulations designed to restrict or penalize CO 2 emissions. Aside from research and subsidized pilot projects, a facility is unlikely to install the expensive technology necessary to capture CO 2 from emissions until it is requir ed, or there is an

economic reason to do so. Since the Proposal, it has become apparent that Federal climate change legislation is will not materialize anytime in the near future. Increasing CO 2 demand is important to the creation of a sustainable mar ket for captured carbon. Unfortunately, in addition to the lack of climate change legislation (and only limited EPA regulatory enhancements)

, current market conditions continue to diminish the economic incentives for expanded CO 2 capture. For example, the Global CCS Institute estimates that the current market price for bulk

CO 2 is in the range of $15 metric ton to $19 per metric ton , and that this is believed to represent

an upper limit of prices that may be expected in the future. 7 Recent m odel calculations indicate that CCS systems will begin to be deployed on a wide scale when the market price for CO 2 reaches approximately $25/ton to $ 30/ton, assuming that capture plus sequestration costs decline

to at least this level. 8 This pric e range compares unfavorably to the estimated cost of capture

alone ranging from $15/ton to $75/ton for coal or gas

- fired power plants, which ar e the largest

source of CO 2 emissions. 9

, 10 Furthermore, t he addition of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) systems to both existing and future power plants will likely add between 25 percent and

100 percent to the cost of producing electricity

. 11

, 12 This is an unlikely scenario in a continued slow economy, as we have at the time of this writing

.

The future market for CO 2 capture depends, to a large extent, on the degree to which Federal and state governments pass legislation and adopt re gulations designed to restrict or penalize CO 2 emissions. Aside from research and subsidized pi lot projects, a facility is unlikely to install the expensive technology necessary to capture CO 2 from emissions until it is required, or there is an economic reason to do so. Federal climate change legislation has not materialized since the Proposal. Requirements or incentives designed to reduce CO 2 emissions are important to ensure

the creation of a sustainable market for CO 2 capture or corresponding credits influencing CCS projects. Unfortunately, in addition to the lack of federal climate change legislation, current market conditions appear to be diminishing the economic incentives for expanded CO 2 capture.

7 Global CCS Institute at: http://www.globalccsinstitute.com

At Site See: http://www.globalccsinsti tute.com/publications/accelerating

- uptake

- ccs

- industrial

- use

- captured

carbon

- dioxide/online/28461 . (Note: Prices do not include pipeline infrastructure capital costs.)

8 World Energy Council. Carbon Capture and Storage: A WEC Interim Balance. 2007

9 Gl obal CCS Institute at: http://www.globalccsinstitute.com

10 We recognize that CO 2 demand is largely regional specific, a nd that the more expensive captured CO 2 may represent a low cost option in selected regions where industries may be located far away fro m natural reservoir
pipelines or low

- cost emitters

. 11 World Energy Council. Carbon Capture and Storage: A WEC Interim Balance. 2007. [Note: Another source estimates increases production costs between 50 to 70 percent.(Carbon Capture and Sequestration. Pike Research Report, December 2009)]

12 Part of this increased cost is due to the parasitic load from CCS, resulti ng in as much as a 30 percent increase in coal usage (See: Richard k. Morse, Varun Rai, and Gang He. August 2009. “T he Real Drivers of Carb on Capture and Storage in China and Implications for Climate Policy”) Comment [A3]: Is it necessary to say this? Suggest deleting.

Also, do you mean “will not”? [See new

para g raph below. LL]

Comment [A4]: Since the draft EPA NSPS for new sources requires CCS on coal-fired plants, is this still true? We suggest deleting.

[See new para g raph below. LL]

Comment [A5]: Please revise this language (and other language in this document) regarding the likelihood of climate change legislation. The statement should be fact based, such as “Federal climate change legislation is not currently proposed”.

. [See new paragraph below. LL]

Comment [A6]: Please clarify if these are estimated global prices or more specific to the
US market. (North American

. See para g raph below. LL]

Comment [A7]: If EPA has information on the cost range of sequestration, it would be helpful to provide it here.

(See insert reference to Shu in paragraph below. LL)***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do No Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 7 For example, the Global CCS Institute es timates that the current North American market price

for bulk CO 2 is in the range of $15 metric ton to $19 per metric ton, and that this is believed to represent an upper limit of prices that may be expected in the future. 13 Recent model calculations indicate that CCS sy stems will begin to be deployed on a wide scale when the market price for CO 2 reaches approximately $25/ton to $ 30/ton, assuming that capture plus sequestration costs decline to at least this level. 14 This price range compares unfavorably to the estimated cost of capture alone ranging from $1 5/ton to $75/ton for coal or gas-fired power plants, which are the largest source of CO 2 emissions. 15,16 In addition, Shu 17 found that the cost of retrofitting CCS technology onto supercritical pulverized coal (SCPC) power plants could be substantial, ranging from $50 to more than $100 per ton. The World Energy Council indicates

that Furthermore, the addition of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) systems to both existing and future power plants will could likely add between 25 percent and 100 percent to the cost of producing electricity. 18

, 19

, More recent estimates indicate that this cost increase could be in the range of a 10 percent to 36 percent

, using projected U.S. average levelized costs for coal plants entering service in 2018. 20

The total number of CO 2 capture facilities potentially affected by the final rule remains uncertain. However, based upon current market conditions and the existing regulatory framework, as discussed above, it appears unlikely that there will be any significant expansion in CCS management for CO 2 over the next several years. 21 As a result, we have revised our high-end estimate of the number of capture facilities potentially affected, as presented in the Assessment for the Proposal. We now estim ate that there may be a maxi mum of 19 capture facilitiespotentially affected by the final rule. These facilities are identified in Appendix A. Our lowend estimate of 13 capture facilities remains unchanged from the proposal.

13 Global CCS Institute at: http://www.globalccsinstitute.com

At Site See: http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/ accelerating-uptake-ccs-industrial-use-capturedcarbon-dioxide/online/28461 . (Note: Prices do not include pipeline infrastructure capital costs.)

14 World Energy Council. Carbon Capture and Storage: A WEC Interim Balance. 2007

15 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2005. “Carbon Capture and Storage.” Edited by B. Metz, O. Davidson, H. de Coninck, M. Loos, and L. Meyer. Cambridge University Press.

16 We recognize that CO 2 demand is largely regional specific, and that the more expensive captured CO 2 may represent a low cost option in selected regions where indu stries may be located far away from natural reservoir pipelines or low-cost emitters.

17 Shu, Gary, MIT, February 2010. Economics and Polici es for Carbon Capture and Sequestration in the Western
United States: A Marginal Cost Analysis of Potential Power Plant Deployment (pg. 21)

18 World Energy Council. Carbon Capture and Storage: A WEC Interim Balance. 2007. [Note: Another source estimates increases production costs between 50 to 70 per cent.(Carbon Capture and Sequestration, Pike Research Report, December 2009)]

19 Part of this increased cost is due to the parasitic load from CCS, resulting in as much as a 30 percent increase in coal usage (See: Richard k. Morse, Varun Rai, and Gang He. August 2009. “The Real Drivers of Carbon Capture and Storage in China and Implications for Climate Policy”)

20 20 U.S. Energy Informat i on Administration, Levelized Cost of New Generat i on Resources in the Annual Energy
Outlook 2013. January 2013 (Table 1).

21 A recent report by the U.S. EIA incorporates a 3 percen tage point increase in the cost of capital (CoC) beyond the
standard weighted average used for CoC . This increase is added for GHG intensive technologies (e.g. coal-fired
power plants) operating without CCS under the assumption that such projects may eventually be required to
purchase allowances or invest in other GHG emissi ons reduction projects to offset their emissions , suggesting that
there may be an expansion in CCS projects over the next few years

. Ibid

. Formatted: Space After: 0 pt Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Font

color: Red

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Font

color: Red

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Font

color: Red

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Font

color: Red

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Font

color: Red

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Font

color: Red

Formatted: Font: Times New Roman, Font

color: Red***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do No Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 8 CO 2 Transporters

Pipeline transportation of captured CO 2 falls under the “all other pipe line transportation” (i.e., transportation of substances other than crude oil, natural gas and refined petroleum products) industry (NAICS 486990). 22 In response to EPA’s request for comments on non-pipeline transportation, all commenters who replied indicated that, given the volumes of CO 2 involved, non-pipeline transport is not anticipated, except at pilot scales. Therefore, our analysis for the

final rule will continue to assu me that all transportation of CO 2 for any use other than demonstration and research projects will be conducted via pipeline, subject to appropriate Department of Transportation (DOT) Pipeline a nd Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA) requirements.

In the Assessment for the proposal, we estimated there were 30 operating CO 2 pipelines, operated by 29 separate entities. These operators were estimated to be transporting 34.4 billion barrel-miles of carbon dioxide in 2008. The analysis for the proposal addressed only these 29 operators of pipelines reported to be operating in 2008. Our post-proposal research indicated that for 2010, there were an estimated 25 operators transporting nearly 2 trillion barrel-miles of

carbon dioxide. 23 The 2010 barrel-mile quantities repres ent a significant in crease over the 2008

values. The reason for this increase has not been determined . The largest shipper of carbon dioxide in 2010 was Exxon/Mobil, followed by Kinder Morgan, Enmark, and Bravo. All of the major operators saw significant increases between 2008 and 2010.

Sequestration Facilities:

CO 2 sequestration facilities receive captured CO 2 streams and inject them into UIC wells for the purposes of sequestration. In the Assessment for the Proposal, we estimated that a potential maximum of 29 planned sequestration facilities coul d be affected by the rule. This estimate, projected over a fifty-year time frame, included 15 planned commercial CO 2 sequestration projects and 14 planned projects funded by DOE. The 15 planned commercial projects included 12 enhanced oil recovery projects that were projected to transition to sequestration over the long term (beyond twenty years but w ithin the fifty-year time frame). 24 Our low-end estimate for the proposal considered only six potential CO 2 Class VI UIC sequestration facilities. This included five sequestration projects associated with na med DOE pilot projects and one sequestration facility associated with the FutureGen federal/pr ivate partnership. Class VI UIC wells fall under “Other Non-Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal” (i.e., management by methods other than landfill, combustion, and incinera tion) industry (NAICS 562219). These Class VI well facilities are not currently operational.

22 Some of the entities conducting pipeline transportation of CO 2 also may fall into other industrial source categories (e.g., oil and gas extraction), but this analysis only considers NAICS 486990 because it is the industry category most relevant to the activity affected by the rule.

23 U.S. EPA Report. Carbon Dioxide Pipelines in the United States. Submitted by The Cadmus Group, Inc., Under Subcontract to Eastern Research Group, Inc. June 25, 2012

24 U.S. EPA, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery. June 2, 2011. A ssessment of the Potential Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts of the Conditional Exclusion from the RCRA Definition of Hazardous Waste for CO 2 Streams Managed in UIC Class VI Wells for the Purposes of Geologic Sequestration, as Proposed***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do No Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 9 We recognize that if there is no federal climate legislation, or related legislative in tervention within the early part of the projected fifty-year time frame

, a significant economic driver for Class VI storage may not be realized. It is possible that these projects may store CO 2 in domes as a staging point for future enhanced oil recovery (EOR) or enhanced gas recovery (EGR ), and working fluids for fracturing tight gas sands and shale. Under this model, it is possible that many of these projects would never be subject to the final rule. Based on these considerations, our analysis for the final rule adjusts the high-end estimate for the number of potentially affected sequestration facilities based on the range for capture facilities (13 low to 19 high). Thus, the low-end number of potentially affected sequestratio n facilities for the final action remains at six, while the calculated high-end number is now estimated at just under nine facilities [(13-19/(- 13)+1)*6)) = 8.8, rounded to 9 facilities]. 25

Baseline Conditions and Post-Rule Practices

This part of the Assessment analyzes the expected costs and benefits of the final rule. The analytical methodology remains generally unchanged from the Assessment developed for the proposal. 26 However, our cost impact range now reflects only the discount rate and the number of facilities potentially affected. For this final analysis we apply only a single point estimate for the percent of CO 2 streams potentially RCRA hazardous waste (see further discussion below). Furthermore, because cost impacts are directly linked to the number of facilities affected, the revised high-end estimates for the final rule are derived as a simple linear adjustment based on the number of affected facilities, for both cap ture and sequestration facilities. Government impacts (EPA and States) remain unchanged from the proposal.

Assessment of Baseline Conditions:

This section discusses hazardous waste determination and expected baseline practices. A more comprehensive discussion of baseline practices and conditions can be found in Section 3.2 of the June 2, 2011 Assessment . This section does not address baseline transportation practices. Because the most efficient and most commonly used method of transporting CO 2 is by pipeline (as confirmed by commenters on the proposal), our analysis assumes that all CO 2 transportation is done via pipelines both in the baseline and under the final rule. Thus, as with the proposal, no incremental impacts to CO 2 transporters are estimated or e xpeCarpiancted under the final rule.

Hazardous Waste Determination

Without the final rule, generators of captured CO 2 streams must determine whether these streams, if destine d for geological sequestration, would be a RCRA hazardous waste. A captured

CO 2 stream may be a RCRA hazardous waste depend ing on its characteristics. Facilities may determine whether the captured CO 2 stream qualifies as hazardous waste either by testing the

25 The InterAgency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Stor age estimates 5-10 commercial wells will come online by 2016. [See: http://www.whitehouse.gov /administration/eop/ceq/initiatives/ccs)

26 See the June 2, 2011 Assessment document for a complete discussion of the analytical methodology. Comment [A8]: This is unclear.

[See edits. LL]

Comment [A9]: Please spell out acronyms when they first appear

. [See edits. LL]***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do No Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 10 waste for hazardous characteristics or by appl ying knowledge of the materials and processes used to generate the waste, as required by 40 CFR 262.11 (Hazardous waste determination).

As for the proposal, this analysis assumes that the facilities capturing CO 2 streams from fossil fuel electric power generation, natural gas distribution, ethyl alcohol manufacturing, and nitrogenous fertilizer manufacturing would rely on process knowledge and limited testing to

determine if their CO 2 stream is a RCRA hazardous waste. This analysis further assumes that the remaining facilities capturing CO 2 streams from oil and gas extraction would test their CO 2 streams as a gas to determine if it is a RCRA hazardous waste. Section 3.2.1 of the June 2, 2011

Assessment presents a full discussion of waste determination methods and costs.

Throughout the development of the proposal, the Agency was unable to identified adequate information necessary to confirm the percent of captured CO 2 streams that may be RCRA hazardous waste. As a result, our analysis for the proposal applied a broad range of 10 percent to 90 percent of CO 2 streams that would be defined as RCRA hazardous waste in an effort to address this uncertainty. The proposed rule requested that commenters provide characterization

data relevant as to whether CO 2 streams meet the definition of hazardous waste in the hope of deriving a more refined estimate for the final rule.

In response to our request, EPA did not receive any new information or data that would indicate what percentage of captured CO 2 streams would be defined as a RCRA hazardous waste. One commenter provided information indicating that CO 2 levels in all five samples exceeded 99.7% (i.e., few impurities), without any correlation to RCRA hazardous waste characterization. Most commenters asserted only that CO 2 streams do not meet the RCRA definition of hazardous waste, without providing any supporting data. These commenters generally stated that CO 2 streams are not hazardous wastes, do not exhibit hazardous characteristics, and are unlikely to be mixed with any hazardous wastes. Some commenters cited a study by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory which conclude d that impurities in captured CO 2 from coal plants would be insignificant or at concentrations similar to ambi ent levels. Once again, no correlation was made

to the level of RCRA hazardous waste that this finding may represent. One commenter stated that, “EPA should not exempt CO 2 streams from subtitle C without a better understanding of the

hazards” (EPA-HQ-RCRA-2010-0695-0082). Another commenter expressed concern about the “dangerous gases considered without being defined as hazardous” (EPA-HQ-RCRA-2010-0695- 0081).

There remains a high level of uncertainty regarding the percentage of CO 2 streams that might be defined as a RCRA hazardous waste. However, within this uncertainty, EPA believes that the high-end estimate of 90 percent is probably an overestimate, based on the Agency’s best professional judgement. In addition, the high-end estimate results in a commensurately high estimated costs savings for the rule. Therefore, in an effort to present a more conservative estimate of costs savings, we are dropping the high-end 90 percent hazardous waste scenario for

our final rule Assessment . For the final rule Assessment we are only using the low-end single point estimate of 10 percent RCRA hazardous wast e. This change is the main driver for the significant decline decrease since the proposal in the high-end estimate for aggregate annualized cost savings. The new range presented in the Assessment reflects only the high and low

estimated number of affected facilitie s, and the assumed discount rate. Comment [A10]: Suggest making this change here and anywhere else

[OK. LL]***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do No Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 11 Expected Baseline Practices

Capture Facilities:

Applying the same approach used in the Assessment for the proposal, we assume that a capture facility would engage in one of four baseline practices to manage its CO 2 stream: 1) transportation of a non hazardous CO 2 stream to a sequestration facility for injection in a Class VI well, and, 2) one of the following for CO 2 determined to be hazardous waste, a) cease capturing the CO 2 stream, b) transport the CO 2 stream to a facility for injection in a Class I hazardous well, c) treat the CO 2 stream and transport it to a seques tration facility for injection in a Class VI well. Each generator’s choice in how to manage a RCRA hazardous waste CO 2 stream would depend on several factors, with the cost of each management option likely to be a significant factor. However, a generator’s manage ment decision will be affected by factors beyond the cost of managing the CO 2 stream, including: eligibility for government subsidies, improved public image, and preparation for anticipated regulatory or market changes.

As discussed above, we have assumed that 10 percent of the captured and managed CO 2 is

RCRA hazardous waste. We further assume that there will be equal distribution among baseline management practices for this hazardous material (3.3 percent each), and that all non hazardous material (remaining 90%) will be sent directly to a Class VI sequestration well. These assumptions are the same as those applied for the low-end analysis in the Assessment for the proposal. A complete discussion of this appro ach, including all assumptions and the projected facility impact schedule, may be found in Section 3.2.2 of the June 2, 2011 Assessment

.

Sequestration Facilities:

Our analysis for the final rule applies the same methodology and assumptions in the determination of baseline practices as was applied in the analysis for the proposal (see Section 3.2.3 of the June 2, 2011 Assessment ). However, consistent with our justification for the revised facility count for CO 2 generators/capturers, we use only the low-end assumptions for the sequestration facilities. Thus, this analysis assumes that, in the baseline, approximately 97 percent of the sequestration wells would manage non-hazardous CO 2 streams and treated CO 2 streams in Class VI wells. 27 The remaining sequestration wells would manage RCRA hazardous

CO 2 streams as Class I hazardous waste wells.

Post Final Rule Practices

27 Consistent with the methodology applied for the proposal, our analysis assumes that 93.3 percent of CO 2 capture facilities would transport no n-hazardous or treated CO 2 streams to Class VI sequestration wells for injection. Another 3.3 percent of CO 2 capture facilities woul d transport hazardous CO 2 streams to Class I sequestration wells for injection. Of this total (96.6 per cent), 93.3 percent transport their waste to Class VI wells only. Thus, to match the practices of CO 2 capture facilities, we estimate that 97 percent (93.3/96.6) of CO 2 sequestration wells in the

baseline would be Class VI well s. The remaining 3 percent of CO 2 sequestration wells in the baseline would be

Class I wells.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do No Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 12 Our analysis for the final rule assumes that all CO 2 capture facilities will claim the exclusion and

send their CO 2 streams to Class VI wells as a result of th e final rule. Under the final rule, exempt generators/capture facilities would not be required to conduct testing of their CO 2 streams for hazardous characteristics or be required to ev aluate the hazardous cons tituent content of the CO 2 stream based on the materials and processes used to generate the waste. These facilities would only be required to post and potentially submit an annual certification that the captured CO 2 stream is exempt. CO 2 capture facilities would also be able to send their CO 2 streams to Class VI wells without the additional cost of treating the CO 2 stream.

Under the final rule, all CO 2 sequestration facilities are expected to be permitted as Class VI

wells. 28 Under the rule, CO 2 managed through geological sequest ration in Class VI wells would not be classified as RCRA hazardous waste. Thus, there would be no need for the owners and operators of these wells to pursue a Class I hazardous waste well permit.

Incremental Costs and Cost Savings

This section presents aggregate annual incremental net cost savings under the low-end and revised high-end scenario. Both scenarios assume only 10 percent of managed CO 2 streams are RCRA hazardous waste (See above under Hazardous Waste Determination).

Compliance Costs:

Incorporated into the net cost savings estimates presented into this section are the estimated compliance cost requirements 29 for both capture and sequestrati on facilities. Also included are costs to government entities (states and the Fede ral government) associated with the request and

review of selected certification statements. 30 Total compliance costs are negligible compared to overall cost savings and are therefore not discusse d further in this supplementary analysis. A complete discussion of these costs, including the analytical methodology and assumptions is presented in Section 3.4 of the June 2, 2011 Assessment

.

Cost Savings:

Under the final rule, management of CO 2 streams by geological sequestration would result in

various exclusions from the RCRA hazardous wa ste requirements. These exclusions would result in three areas of savings for CO 2 stream capturers/generators: exclusion from hazardous waste determination, exclusion from compliance with RCRA training, planning, and reporting requirements, and exclusion from hazardous waste treatment requirements. CO 2 sequestration facilities managing RCRA hazardous waste CO 2 streams in an Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class I hazardous waste or Class VI well would also realize savings related to hazardous waste determination, and compliance with the training, planning, and reporting requirements.

28 With the possible exception of some sequestration demonstration projects that may be permitted as Class V experimental wells.

29 I nitial certification statement preparation, annual certificat ion renewals, and selected certification submissions to

the state or EPA authorities.

30 As with the analysis for the proposal, this analysis assumes that, combined, EPA and state governments will request certification statements from approximately 30 per cent of capture facilities and Class VI well operators annually, and that state governments will acco unt for about 90 percent of those requests.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do No Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 13 Any Class I wells potentially accepting the excluded CO 2 streams may also experience these savings.

On a per facility basis, avoided CO 2 treatment costs were found to account for approximately 99.9 percent of all cost savings to capture facilities that generate hazardous CO 2 streams in the baseline. Total savings (waste determination, training/recordkeeping/reporting, and treatment) are calculated for the number of facilities affected each year, projected over a 50-year period.

, beginning in 2012. These results are then averaged without a discount rate and annualized using a 3 and 7 percent discount rate. Sections 3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.5.3, and 3.5.4 of the June 2, 2011

Assessment contain a comprehensive discussion of how cost savings for capture facilities were derived. This analysis incorporates the same approach used for the proposal but refined the aggregate and annualized findings based on a si mple linear adjustment for the number of facilities estimated to be affected by th e final action (see discussion above under CO 2 Capture Facilities).

Cost savings to sequestration facilities as a result of the final rule represent less than one percent of total cost savings. On a per facility basis, waste determination savings represent approximately 68 percent of all cost savings to sequestration facilities. As for capture facilities, total savings (waste determinati on, and hazardous waste requirement s) to sequestration facilities are calculated for the number of facilities affected each year, projected over a 50-year period, then averaged without a discount rate and annu alized using a 3 and 7 percent discount rate. Sections 3.5.5 and 3.5.6 of the June 2, 2011 Assessment discuss the methodology, data, and findings for sequestration facility cost savings. Again, our analysis for the final rule incorporates this same approach, but develops refined aggregate and annualized estimates based on a simple linear adjustment for the number of facilities affe cted by the final action (see discussion above under Sequestration Facilities).

Findings

The Tables below summarizes 50-year net savings, average annual net savings, and annualized net savings in total, and for capture/generat ion facilities, sequestration facilities, and governmental entities. Findings assume 10 percent of all managed CO 2 is RCRA hazardous waste, and reflect high-end and low-end scenarios based on th e total number of facilities potentially affected over the projected 50-year period. Annualized estimates assume a 3 percent and 7 percent discount rate.

Our findings indicate that CO 2 capture/generation facilities an d sequestration facilities will experience net cost savings as a result of the final rule. 31 CO 2 transporters must continue to meet the baseline Department of Transportation requirements and are expected to experience no incremental costs, or cost savings. Increased co sts associated with the review of selected CO 2 exclusion certification statements are exp ected for EPA and state governments.

31 This analysis does not attempt to model any potential pr oductivity impact of the fina l rule. However, any such impacts are likely to be primarily positive, as affected faci lities could use savings associated with the rule to increase productive efficiency and/or output.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do No Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 14 The Tables below indicate that the final rule is expected to result in undiscounted total average net cost savings ranging from $4 .96 million/year to $7.23 million/year. Applying a 3 percent discount rate, total annualized net savings were found to range from $4.68 million/year to $6.83 million/year. Application of the 7 percent discount rate resulted in total annualized net savings ranging from $4.24 million/year to $6.19 million/ year. These figures re present more than an eighty percent reduction from estimates presented for the proposal, reflecting our revised assumptions concerning the percent of CO 2 streams that may be hazardous and the total number of potentially affect ed facilities. Impacts to sequestration facil ities represent less than one half of one percent of the total annualized net cost savings, in all cases examined. The revised annualized estimates for EPA and state government costs associated with the review of selected

CO 2 exclusion certification statements remain negligible (i.e.,< $1,000/year), compared to total impacts.

Estimated Net Cost Savings for the Final Rule:

Conditional Exclusion from the RRA Definition of Hazardous Waste for CO 2 Streams Managed in UIC Class VI Wells for the Purpose of Geologic Sequestration

Undiscounted (2010 dollars)

Type of Entity 50-year Net Savings Average Annual Net Savings 50-year Net Savings Average Annual Net Savings

L ow-End Estimate H igh-End Estimate

Capture Facilities $247,009,847 $4,940,197 $361,014,392 $7,220,288

Sequestration

Facilities $438,453 $8,769 $640,816 $12,817

State Governments -$12,444 -$249 -$18,187 -$364

EPA -$1,504 -$30 -$2,198 -$44

Total $247,816,205 $4,956,324 $361,634,822 $7,232,697

3% Discount Rate (2010 dollars)

Type of Entity Present Value of 50-year Net

Savings Annualized Net Savings Present Value of 50-year Net

Savings Annualized Net Savings
Low-End Estimate High-End Estimate

Capture Facilities $123,718,061 $4,668,314 $180,818,704 $6,822,921

Sequestration

Facilities $223,177 $8,421 $326,181 $12,308

State Governments -$5,779 -$218 -$8,446 -$319

EPA -$580 -$22 -$848 -$32

Total $124,110,91 2 $4,683,13 8 $181,135,59 2 $6,834,87 8

7% Discount Rate (2010 dollars)***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do No Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 15 Type of Entity Present Value of 50-year Net

Savings Annualized Net Savings Present Value of 50-year Net

Savings Annualized Net Savings
Low-End Estimate High-End Estimate

Capture Facilities $62,471,161 $4,230,515 $91,304,004 $6,183,061

Sequestration

Facilities $114,714 $7,768 $167,659 $11,354

State Governments -$2,656 -$180 -$3,882 -$263

EPA -$188 -$13 -$275 -$19

Total $62,666,600 $4,243,750 $91,467,507 $6,194,132

Human Health, Environmen tal and Other Benefits

The baseline requirements that apply to captured RCRA hazardous waste CO 2 streams are designed to protect the human health and the environment. However, EPA has determined that

CO 2 streams may be managed in an equally protective manner outside of the RCRA hazardous waste program. The Class VI UIC well re quirements are designed to isolate the CO 2 stream and prevent it from migrating to Underground Sources of Drinking Water (USDWs). In addition, permit writers for Class VI UIC wells have disc retion in whether to allow the sequestration of certain wastes depending on factors such as the composition of the waste, the structure of the well, and the proximity of the well to USDWs. Therefore, EPA has determined that the management of exempted CO 2 streams in Class VI UIC wells would not pose an unacceptable

risk to human health and the environment. 32

In addition to the quantified savings discussed above, this final rule represents a step toward establishing a supporting regulatory framework for the future development and deployment of carbon capture sequestration (CCS) technology. The rule will help provide the regulatory certainty needed to foster industry adoption of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).

Relevant Executive Orders and Acts

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

EPA, in conjunction with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this final rule is a "significant regulatory action" as defined by Executive Order 12866 because it raises novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Accordingly, EPA submitted the proposed and final action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations are documented in the docket for this action.

32 The final rule conditional exclusion is based upon the Agency’s existing knowledge of the composition of CO 2 streams, and its analysis that compliance with the exis ting standards and regulations designed to prevent any exposure of CO 2 (and any associated impurities) would rende r additional regulation under RCRA subtitle C unnecessary. We reserve the right to modify the conditional exclusion in the future.***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do No Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 16 This final rule is not an economically significant action. The expected annual costs and benefits of the final rule do not exceed $100 million. Furthermore, the rule does not create

inconsistencies or interfere with an action take n or planned by another agency. This rule is designed to complement related actions from the EPA Office of Water and Office of Air. Finally, this rule does not materially alter the budgetary impact or the rights and obligations of recipients of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-612, generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements 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 not-forprofit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.

This final rule relieves the regulatory burden associated with EPA’s hazardous waste regulations

on CO 2 capture and sequestration facilities by exempting CO 2 captured for the purpose of GS in Class VI well from the definition of hazardous waste. For each small entity claiming the exclusion, savings are expected to outweigh costs necessary to prepare, post, maintain and potentially submit the required certification statem ent. Furthermore, the Agency interprets SBREFA to be concerned only with net cost increas es to small entities. Net cost savings are not considered under SBREFA. Therefore, this final rule is determined to not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

The final rule does not have Federalism implicatio ns. EPA does not anticipate that the rule will have substantial direct impacts on the states, the relationship between the Federal government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of

government.

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

The final rule is not expected to have substantial tribal implications. No Tribal governments are known to own or operate current or planned CO 2 capture or sequestration facilities.

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks

EPA does not find that the final rule will have environmental health or safety impacts that disproportionately affect children. Therefore, Executive Order 13045 does not pertain to this

action.

Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Usage***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do No Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 17 Although the affected universe of the final rule includes energy suppliers such as coal power plants, the rule is not expected to result in be havioral changes that would affect energy supply, distribution, or usage.

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

This final rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the consideration of voluntary consensus standards is not applicable.

Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to A ddress Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

The final rule is not expected to have disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations. EPA finds that the actions allowed by the final exclusions are safe and do not present significant adverse health or environmental impacts. Appendix C of the June 2, 2011 Assessment presents a comprehensive review of Environmental Justice Impacts.

Executive Order 12630: Regulatory Takings Analysis

The final rule does not constitute a regulatory taki ng because it is not expected to result in the physical invasion of pr operty and should not negatively impact the economic viability of

property.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Analysis

No analysis is required under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) because the final rule does not include any mandate that is expected to result in expenditure by the private sector or aggregate expenditure by State, local, and tr ibal governments in excess of $100 million in any one year. The rule is expected to result in net savings to the private sector and insignificant costs

to state governments.

Joint Impacts of Rules

The final rule will exempt CO 2 streams captured for the purpose of geological sequestration in a

Class VI UIC well from the definition of hazardous waste. Such waste will not be subject to EPA’s hazardous waste regulations. These CO 2 streams may still qualify as solid wastes per the definition in 40 CFR 261.2 (Definition of solid waste). The management of these CO 2 streams would be subject to the Underground Injection Control Program (UICP) requirements in 40 CFR Parts 144 (Requirements for wells injecting h azardous waste) and the technical criteria and standards for Class VI UIC wells in 40 CFR Part 146 (Underground Injection Control Program: Criteria and Standards). CO 2 capture and sequestration facilitie s claiming the exclusion would remain subject to the mandatory reporting requirements for greenhouse gas emissions in 40 CFR Part 98 (Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting). The transportation of captured CO 2 streams by pipeline would remain subject to the Department of Transportation (DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) under 49 CFR Parts 195-199. The***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do No Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 18 transportation of captured CO 2 by air, water, or highway would remain subject to the PHMSA requirements in 49 CFR Parts 171-180.

Appendix A***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do No Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 19***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do No Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***Page 20IdentifiedU.S.CarbonCaptureProjectsandEstimatedStatusFacility NameandProject TypeOperating Status(May 2012)First Year of ClassVI Sequestration(estimated)CurrentCO2FateCommentsMaintain forFinal Rule?CountLowEstimate(Y-L)HighEstimate(Y-L+Y-H)DKRW Energy LLC, Medicine BowCaptureActive - Permitting Planning2034 EOR GS year is an estimate. Y-H XAlabama Power Co. Plant MillerCaptureUndergoing engineeringdesign for retrofit2013? undetermined Assumed to GS after retrofit. On-site or off-site, unknown. Y-H XExcelsior Energy, Mesaba CoalCaptureUndergoing Plant Design 2034 EOR and some Saline GS?Fossil fuel electric power generation.Planning full CCS according to WEB site.Y-H XCCS Project - CoffeyvilleCapture and InjectionPlanning2013 uncertainNitrogenous Fertilizer manufacturingPlanning GS for 2013?Y-L x xDuke Energy - Edwardsport PlantCapture and InjectionActive – in operation 2012 GS (plus EOR?)Fossil fuel electric power generationGS believed to have been started in 2012 (See 2011Assessment)Y-H XFutureGen 2.0 - MeredosiaCapture and InjectionFull project underconstruction, expected tobe completed in lateSummer 20152015? - 2017?SalineFossil fuel electric power generation.Planned sequestrationY-L x xGreat Plains Synfuels PlantCapture and InjectionActive–EOR InjectionOngoing2030 EOR Natural Gas Distribution. Y-L x xAntrim Gas PlantcaptureActive – Operational asEOR2030 EOR GS switch-over uncertain Y-L x xKoch Nitrogen Company's Enid Fertilizer PlantCapture and InjectionActive - Injection Ongoing 2030 EOR Assumed GS switchover. Y-L x xSECARB Plant James M. BarryCapture and InjectionActive operation(Preparation for permanentcapture andsequestration?).Planned sequestrationfirm but date unknownEOR (according to MIT)Coal and natural gas powered power plant.Started as CCS pilot projectSee: Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership(SECARB) Newsletter, April 20, 2010.Y-H x***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do No Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***Page 21Facility NameandProject TypeOperating Status(May 2012)First Year of ClassVI Sequestration(estimated)CurrentCO2FateCommentsMaintain forFinal Rule?CountLowEstimate(Y-L)HighEstimate(Y-L+Y-H)Shute Creek Plant (La Barge), Exxon MobileCapture and InjectionActive – EOR InjectionOngoing2030 EORMost CO2 is currently sold to companies for EORAssumed will switch over to GS in 20 yrs but may beuncertainY-L x xTexas Val Verde Natura Gas Plants, TerrellfiveCapture and InjectionActive and operational 2030 EORAssumed will switch over to GSafter approximately 20 yrs ofEOR operationY-L x xTexas Val Verde Natura Gas Plants, Gray RanchCapture and InjectionActive and operational 2030 EORAssumed will switch over to GSafter approximately 20 yrs ofEOR operationY-L x xTexas Val Verde Natura Gas Plants, MitchellCapture and InjectionActive and operational 2030 EORAssumed will switch over to GSafter approximately 20 yrs ofEOR operationY-L x xTexas Val Verde NaturaGas Plants, PuckettCapture and InjectionActive and operational 2030 EORAssumed will switch over to GSafter approximately 20 yrs ofEOR operationY-L x xTexas Val Verde Natura Gas Plants, Pikes PeakCapture and InjectionActive and Operational 2030 EORAssumed will switch over to GSafter approximately 20 yrs ofEOR operationVerified by Cadmus as one of Val Verde facilities.Y-L x xWESTCARB Kimberlina Test FacilityCapture and InjectionOn Hold or cancelled?undetermined(2012 previouslyplanned)salineCCS pilot project that is on hold(MIT)Fossil fuel electric power generation. Project has beencancelled.Left in analysis for final rule due to uncertainty of status.Y-L x xKentucky NewGasCapture and InjectionActive - Site Selection 2017 GSAssumed one or more units will be operational for GS by2017Y-H X***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do No Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***Page 22Facility NameandProject TypeOperating Status(May 2012)First Year of ClassVI Sequestration(estimated)CurrentCO2FateCommentsMaintain forFinal Rule?CountLowEstimate(Y-L)HighEstimate(Y-L+Y-H)Cincinnati Arch Mt. Simon Saline ReservoirDOE Pilot Project (capture and Inject)Status uncertainProject may have beencancelled or moved toMichigan.Originally was targetedfor 2010unknownEthyl Alcohol ManufacturingFacility included in low-end Assessment for proposal. Left inFinal Analysis due to uncertainty of status.Y-L x xTOTAL1319Notes:Low facility count is all “Y-L” (13 facilities)High facility count is all “Y-L” plus “Y-H” (19 facilities)Facility information presented in this table is used for general analytical estimates only and should not be considered the Agency’s final determination as tofacility status or plans.Sources:U.S. EPA. June 2, 2011. Assessment of the Potential Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts of the Conditional Exclusion from the RCRA Definition of Hazardous Waste for CO2Streams Managed in UIC Class VIWells for the Purposes of Geologic Sequestration, as Proposed,Cadmus/ERG,. June 25, 2012. A Review of CO2Capture and ProcessingCarbon Capture and Sequestration Technologies @ MIT Located at: http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/index_capture.html