***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 designed to ensure that hazardous waste is 

handled in a manner that protects human health and the environment. Currently, carbon dioxide 

(CO2) streams are not listed as RCRA hazardous wastes, but may be classified as a RCRA 

hazardous waste if they exhibit hazardous characteristics 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 (CO2) streams that are hazardous from 

the definition of hazardous waste, provided these 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. The EPA took this action because we 

determined that additional regulation under RCRA’s hazardous waste program would be 

unnecessary when these CO2 streams are managed under the proposed conditions. Furthermore, 

the rule, as proposed, was expected to substantially reduce the uncertainty associated with 

identifying these CO2 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 CO2 streams under 

conditions outlined in the final rule 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 (CO2) streams from the definition of 

hazardous waste, provided these 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. 

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

these CO2 streams under RCRA subtitle C, and may also help facilitate the deployment of GS by 

providing regulatory clarity. With this final rule, additional CO2 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 regarding 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 methodology 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 CO2 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 CO2 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 CO2 streams that may be characterized as RCRA Subtitle C hazardous 

waste. Available information at the time indicated that it was possible that some CO2 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 CO2

streams that would be defined as RCRA hazardous waste, reflecting significant uncertainty. The 

proposed rule requested that commenters provide characterization data relevant to whether CO2

streams meet the definition of RCRA hazardous waste, 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 indicate what percentage of captured CO2 streams would be 

defined as a RCRA hazardous waste; instead, many commenters asserted that CO2 streams are 

not hazardous wastes, do not exhibit hazardous characteristics, and are unlikely to be mixed with 

hazardous wastes. Two commenters indicated concern over the potential hazardous waste status 

of these streams but provided no data or supporting 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 CO2 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 judgement 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 conservative 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. 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
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do No Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 4 

 

Need for Regulation 

Without this rule, a carbon dioxide (CO2) stream that is determined to be a hazardous waste 

would be subject to the requirements of RCRA Subtitle C. EPA has determined that the full set 

of hazardous waste regulations is unnecessary for captured CO2 streams. Existing regulations 

governing the transport and injection of CO2 into 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 

CO2 streams under RCRA subtitle C, and may also help facilitate the deployment of GS. 

Summary of Current Rules 

Without this rule, if a captured CO2 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 CO2 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 CO2 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 CO2 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 CO2 sequestration.3 

CO2 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 CO2 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 CO2 injection demonstration projects have been permitted under the UIC Class 

V experimental technology well program, while other demonstration projects 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 CO2 stream’s RCRA status. If a RCRA hazardous waste CO2 

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 Established 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 Injection Control Program of the Safe Drinking 

Water Act. However, selected conditions must be met.5

 Class VI wells injecting excluded CO2 

would therefore not be subject to EPA’s RCRA hazardous waste requirements. The exclusion 

would apply to captured CO2 streams only and would not apply to any hazardous wastes that are 

mixed with or co-injected with CO2 streams. 

Owners and operators of CO2 capture facilities and sequestration wells claiming the exclusion 

would be required to sign, annually renew, and make available independent certification 

statements. These statements must indicate that the CO2 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 affected by the final rule include CO2 capture facilities, 

transporters, and sequestration facilities. 

CO2 Capture Facilities: 

CO2 capture facilities are entities that collect their CO2 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 facilities6

 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 CO2 capture 

facilities. This included ten existing capture facilities, two capture projects associated with 

named DOE pilot projects, and one capture facility that was an ongoing federal/private 

partnership. The high-end estimate included the thirteen low-end facilities plus an additional 14 

planned commercial projects that were expected to begin CO2 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 (CO2) 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 driver for both capture and sequestration would be 

lost. 

The future market for CO2 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 CO2

emissions. Aside from research and subsidized pilot projects, a facility is unlikely to install the 

expensive technology necessary to capture CO2 from emissions until it is required, 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 CO2 demand is 

important to the creation of a sustainable market 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 CO2

capture. For example, the Global CCS Institute estimates that the current market price for bulk 

CO2 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 model calculations indicate 

that CCS systems will begin to be deployed on a wide scale when the market price for CO2

reaches approximately $25/ton to $30/ton, assuming that capture plus sequestration costs decline 

to at least this level.8 This price 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 are the largest 

source of CO2 emissions.9,

10 Furthermore, the 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 CO2 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 CO2

emissions. Aside from research and subsidized pilot projects, a facility is unlikely to install the 

expensive technology necessary to capture CO2 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 CO2 emissions are important to ensure 

the creation of a sustainable market for CO2 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 CO2 capture. 

 

7 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.) 8 World Energy Council. Carbon Capture and Storage: A WEC Interim Balance. 2007 9 Global CCS Institute at: http://www.globalccsinstitute.com 10 We recognize that CO2 demand is largely regional specific, and that the more expensive captured CO2 may 

represent a low cost option in selected regions where industries may be located far away from 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, 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”)

Comment [A3]: Is it necessary to say this? 

Suggest deleting. 

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

paragraph 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 paragraph 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 paragraph 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 estimates that the current North American market price 

for bulk CO2 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 systems will begin to be deployed on a wide scale when the 

market price for CO2 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 $15/ton to $75/ton for coal or gas-fired power 

plants, which are the largest source of CO2 emissions.15,16 In addition, Shu17 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 CO2 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 CO2 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 estimate that there may be a maximum of 19 capture facilities 

potentially 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 CO2 demand is largely regional specific, and that the more expensive captured CO2 may 

represent a low cost option in selected regions where industries may be located far away from natural reservoir 

pipelines or low-cost emitters. 

17 Shu, Gary, MIT, February 2010. Economics and Policies 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 percent.(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 Information Administration, Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy 

Outlook 2013. January 2013 (Table 1).

21 A recent report by the U.S. EIA incorporates a 3 percentage 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 emissions 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 

CO2 Transporters 

Pipeline transportation of captured CO2 falls under the “all other pipeline 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 CO2 involved, 

non-pipeline transport is not anticipated, except at pilot scales. Therefore, our analysis for the 

final rule will continue to assume that all transportation of CO2 for any use other than 

demonstration and research projects will be conducted via pipeline, subject to appropriate 

Department of Transportation (DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration 

(PHMSA) requirements. 

In the Assessment for the proposal, we estimated there were 30 operating CO2 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 represent a significant increase 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: 

CO2 sequestration facilities receive captured CO2 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 could be affected by the rule. This estimate, 

projected over a fifty-year time frame, included 15 planned commercial CO2 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 within the fifty-year time frame).24 Our low-end estimate for the 

proposal considered only six potential CO2 Class VI UIC sequestration facilities. This included 

five sequestration projects associated with named DOE pilot projects and one sequestration 

facility associated with the FutureGen federal/private partnership. Class VI UIC wells fall under 

“Other Non-Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal” (i.e., management by methods other than 

landfill, combustion, and incineration) industry (NAICS 562219). These Class VI well facilities 

are not currently operational. 

 

22 Some of the entities conducting pipeline transportation of CO2 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. 

23U.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. 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
***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 intervention

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 CO2 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 sequestration 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 CO2 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 capture 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 CO2 is by pipeline 

(as confirmed by commenters on the proposal), our analysis assumes that all CO2 transportation 

is done via pipelines both in the baseline and under the final rule. Thus, as with the proposal, no 

incremental impacts to CO2 transporters are estimated or expeCarpiancted under the final rule. 

Hazardous Waste Determination 

Without the final rule, generators of captured CO2 streams must determine whether these 

streams, if destined for geological sequestration, would be a RCRA hazardous waste. A captured 

CO2 stream may be a RCRA hazardous waste depending on its characteristics. Facilities may 

determine whether the captured CO2 stream qualifies as hazardous waste either by testing the 

 

25 The InterAgency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage 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 applying 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 CO2 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 CO2 stream is a RCRA hazardous waste. This analysis further assumes that 

the remaining facilities capturing CO2 streams from oil and gas extraction would test their CO2

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 CO2 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 CO2 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 CO2 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 CO2 streams would be defined as a RCRA hazardous waste. One 

commenter provided information indicating that CO2 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 CO2 streams do not meet the RCRA definition of hazardous 

waste, without providing any supporting data. These commenters generally stated that CO2

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 concluded that impurities in captured CO2 from coal plants would be 

insignificant or at concentrations similar to ambient 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 CO2 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 CO2 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 waste. 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 facilities, 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 CO2 stream: 1) 

transportation of a non hazardous CO2 stream to a sequestration facility for injection in a Class 

VI well, and, 2) one of the following for CO2 determined to be hazardous waste, a) cease 

capturing the CO2 stream, b) transport the CO2 stream to a facility for injection in a Class I 

hazardous well, c) treat the CO2 stream and transport it to a sequestration facility for injection in 

a Class VI well. Each generator’s choice in how to manage a RCRA hazardous waste CO2 

stream would depend on several factors, with the cost of each management option likely to be a 

significant factor. However, a generator’s management decision will be affected by factors 

beyond the cost of managing the CO2 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 CO2 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 approach, 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 CO2 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 CO2 streams and treated CO2 

streams in Class VI wells.27 The remaining sequestration wells would manage RCRA hazardous 

CO2 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 CO2 capture 

facilities would transport non-hazardous or treated CO2 streams to Class VI sequestration wells for injection. 

Another 3.3 percent of CO2 capture facilities would transport hazardous CO2 streams to Class I sequestration wells 

for injection. Of this total (96.6 percent), 93.3 percent transport their waste to Class VI wells only. Thus, to match 

the practices of CO2 capture facilities, we estimate that 97 percent (93.3/96.6) of CO2 sequestration wells in the 

baseline would be Class VI wells. The remaining 3 percent of CO2 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 CO2 capture facilities will claim the exclusion and 

send their CO2 streams to Class VI wells as a result of the final rule. Under the final rule, exempt 

generators/capture facilities would not be required to conduct testing of their CO2 streams for 

hazardous characteristics or be required to evaluate the hazardous constituent content of the CO2

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 CO2 

stream is exempt. CO2 capture facilities would also be able to send their CO2 streams to Class VI 

wells without the additional cost of treating the CO2 stream. 

Under the final rule, all CO2 sequestration facilities are expected to be permitted as Class VI 

wells.28 Under the rule, CO2 managed through geological sequestration 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 CO2 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 requirements29 for both capture and sequestration facilities. Also included are 

costs to government entities (states and the Federal 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 discussed 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 CO2 streams by geological sequestration would result in 

various exclusions from the RCRA hazardous waste requirements. These exclusions would 

result in three areas of savings for CO2 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. CO2 sequestration 

facilities managing RCRA hazardous waste CO2 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 Initial certification statement preparation, annual certification 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 percent of capture facilities and Class VI well operators 

annually, and that state governments will account 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 CO2 streams may also experience these 

savings. 

On a per facility basis, avoided CO2 treatment costs were found to account for approximately 

99.9 percent of all cost savings to capture facilities that generate hazardous CO2 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 simple linear adjustment for the number of 

facilities estimated to be affected by the final action (see discussion above under CO2 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 determination, and hazardous waste requirements) 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 annualized 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 affected 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/generation facilities, sequestration facilities, and 

governmental entities. Findings assume 10 percent of all managed CO2 is RCRA hazardous 

waste, and reflect high-end and low-end scenarios based on the 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 CO2 capture/generation facilities and sequestration facilities will 

experience net cost savings as a result of the final rule.31 CO2 transporters must continue to meet 

the baseline Department of Transportation requirements and are expected to experience no 

incremental costs, or cost savings. Increased costs associated with the review of selected CO2

exclusion certification statements are expected for EPA and state governments. 

 

31 This analysis does not attempt to model any potential productivity impact of the final rule. However, any such 

impacts are likely to be primarily positive, as affected facilities 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 represent more than an 

eighty percent reduction from estimates presented for the proposal, reflecting our revised 

assumptions concerning the percent of CO2 streams that may be hazardous and the total number 

of potentially affected facilities. Impacts to sequestration facilities 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 

CO2 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 CO2 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 

Low-End Estimate High-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 $124,110,912 $4,683,138 $181,135,592 $6,834,878

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, Environmental and Other Benefits 

The baseline requirements that apply to captured RCRA hazardous waste CO2 streams are 

designed to protect the human health and the environment. However, EPA has determined that 

CO2 streams may be managed in an equally protective manner outside of the RCRA hazardous 

waste program. The Class VI UIC well requirements are designed to isolate the CO2 stream and 

prevent it from migrating to Underground Sources of Drinking Water (USDWs). In addition, 

permit writers for Class VI UIC wells have discretion 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 CO2 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 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. 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 taken 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 CO2 capture and sequestration facilities by exempting CO2 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 statement. Furthermore, the Agency interprets 

SBREFA to be concerned only with net cost increases 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 implications. 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 CO2 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 behavioral 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 Address 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 taking because it is not expected to result in the 

physical invasion of property 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 tribal 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 CO2 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 CO2 streams may still qualify as solid wastes per the 

definition in 40 CFR 261.2 (Definition of solid waste). The management of these CO2 streams 

would be subject to the Underground Injection Control Program (UICP) requirements in 40 CFR 

Parts 144 (Requirements for wells injecting hazardous waste) and the technical criteria and 

standards for Class VI UIC wells in 40 CFR Part 146 (Underground Injection Control Program: 

Criteria and Standards). CO2 capture and sequestration facilities 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 CO2 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 CO2 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 20 

Identified U.S. Carbon Capture Projects and Estimated Status

Facility Name 

and 

Project Type 

Operating Status 

(May 2012)

First Year of Class 

VI Sequestration 

(estimated) 

Current 

CO2 Fate Comments 

Maintain 

Final Ru

DKRW Energy LLC, Medicine Bow

Capture Active - Permitting Planning 2034 EOR GS year is an estimate. Y-H 

Alabama Power Co. Plant Miller

Capture 

Undergoing engineering 

design for retrofit 2013? undetermined Assumed to GS after retrofit. On-site or off-site, unknown. Y-H 

Excelsior Energy, Mesaba Coal

Capture Undergoing Plant Design 2034 EOR and some Saline GS? 

Fossil fuel electric power generation. Planning full CCS according to WEB site. 

Y-H 

CCS Project - Coffeyville

Capture and Injection 

Planning 2013 uncertain Nitrogenous Fertilizer manufacturing

Planning GS for 2013? 

Y-L 

Duke Energy - Edwardsport Plant

Capture and Injection Active – in operation 2012 GS (plus EOR?) 

Fossil fuel electric power generation

 GS believed to have been started in 2012 (See 2011 Assessment) 

Y-H 

FutureGen 2.0 - Meredosia

Capture and Injection 

Full project under 

construction, expected to 

be completed in late 

Summer 2015 

2015? - 2017? Saline Fossil fuel electric power generation. 

Planned sequestration 

Y-L 

Great Plains Synfuels Plant

Capture and Injection 

Active – EOR Injection 

Ongoing 2030 EOR Natural Gas Distribution. Y-L 

Antrim Gas Plant

capture 

Active – Operational as 

EOR 2030 EOR GS switch-over uncertain Y-L 

Koch Nitrogen Company's Enid Fertilizer Plant

Capture and Injection Active - Injection Ongoing 2030 EOR Assumed GS switchover. Y-L 

SECARB Plant James M. Barry

Capture and Injection 

Active operation 

(Preparation for permanent 

capture and 

sequestration?). 

Planned sequestration 

firm but date unknown EOR (according to MIT) 

Coal and natural gas powered power plant.

Started as CCS pilot project See: Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (SECARB) Newsletter, April 20, 2010. 

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

Page 21 

Facility Name 

and 

Project Type 

Operating Status 

(May 2012)

First Year of Class 

VI Sequestration 

(estimated) 

Current 

CO2 Fate Comments 

Maintain 

Final Ru

Shute Creek Plant (La Barge), Exxon Mobile

Capture and Injection 

Active – EOR Injection 

Ongoing 2030 EOR 

Most CO2 is currently sold to companies for EOR

Assumed will switch over to GS in 20 yrs but may be uncertain 

Y-L 

Texas Val Verde Natura Gas Plants, Terrellfive

Capture and Injection Active and operational 2030 EOR Assumed will switch over to GS after approximately 20 yrs of EOR operation Y-L 

Texas Val Verde Natura Gas Plants, Gray Ranch

Capture and Injection Active and operational 2030 EOR Assumed will switch over to GS after approximately 20 yrs of EOR operation Y-L 

Texas Val Verde Natura Gas Plants, Mitchell

Capture and Injection Active and operational 2030 EOR Assumed will switch over to GS after approximately 20 yrs of EOR operation Y-L 

Texas Val Verde Natura Gas Plants, Puckett

Capture and Injection Active and operational 2030 EOR Assumed will switch over to GS after approximately 20 yrs of EOR operation Y-L 

Texas Val Verde Natura Gas Plants, Pikes Peak

Capture and Injection Active and Operational 2030 EOR 

Assumed will switch over to GS after approximately 20 yrs of 

EOR operation Verified by Cadmus as one of Val Verde facilities. 

Y-L 

WESTCARB Kimberlina Test Facility

Capture and Injection On Hold or cancelled? 

undetermined 

(2012 previously 

planned) 

saline 

CCS pilot project that is on hold (MIT)Fossil fuel electric power generation. Project has been cancelled. Left in analysis for final rule due to uncertainty of status. 

Y-L 

Kentucky NewGas

Capture and Injection 

Active - Site Selection 2017 GS Assumed one or more units will be operational for GS by 2017 Y-H 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do No Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Page 22 

Facility Name 

and 

Project Type 

Operating Status 

(May 2012)

First Year of Class 

VI Sequestration 

(estimated) 

Current 

CO2 Fate Comments 

Maintain 

Final Ru

Cincinnati Arch Mt. Simon Saline Reservoir

DOE Pilot Project (capture and Inject) 

Status uncertain

Project may have been 

cancelled or moved to 

Michigan. 

Originally was targeted 

for 2010 unknown 

Ethyl Alcohol ManufacturingFacility included in low-end Assessment for proposal. Left in Final Analysis due to uncertainty of status. 

Y-L 

TOTAL Notes: 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 

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 CO2 Str

Wells for the Purposes of Geologic Sequestration, as Proposed, Cadmus/ERG,. June 25, 2012. A Review of CO2 Capture and Processing 

Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technologies @ MIT Located at: http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/index_capture.html