EPA DELAYS ROLLOUT OF CO2 HAZARDOUS WASTE EXCLUSION

Tamar Hallerman
GHG Monitor
4/19/13

The Environmental Protection Agency has pushed back finalization of a rulemaking that would conditionally exclude geologically sequestered CO2 from its definition of hazardous waste. The agency confirmed this week that it has officially delayed the finalization of the rule—whose promulgation is already behind schedule—for several more months. “EPA projects publication of a final rule in the [Federal Register] in July of 2013, and continues to work towards that date,” an EPA spokeswoman told GHG Monitor. EPA had initially planned on finalizing the exclusion earlier this year. The agency spokeswoman would not comment on why the rule was delayed or on any specific plans EPA has moving forward.

Proposed in August 2011, the rulemaking aims to ease the regulatory burden on the operators of carbon sequestration sites by conditionally excluding supercritical CO2 streams injected into Class VI Underground Injection Control (UIC) wells from EPA’s definition of hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA said it proposed the exclusion for the Class VI wells—but not enhanced oil recovery projects permitted under UIC’s Class II—because the practice does not appear to provide “substantial” harm to public health or the environment. “Based on review of existing regulatory programs, EPA’s proposal concludes that the management of CO2 streams under the proposed conditions does not present a substantial risk to people’s health or the environment, provides regulatory certainty to industries considering the use of CCS technologies and encourages the deployment of CCS technologies in a safe and environmentally protective manner,” the agency said in 2011.

Operators Must Continue to Comply with SDWA

Under the RCRA exclusion as proposed, storage site operators would still be required to comply with EPA Safe Drinking Water Act standards for planning, construction, testing, monitoring and closure. While no CO2 sequestration projects are currently being operated under the Class VI categorization, two large-scale projects in Illinois—FutureGen 2.0 and Archer Daniels Midland’s ethanol capture project near Decatur—have begun pursuing that class of permit. While some CCS stakeholders have spoken out in favor of the exclusion, saying that it would cut down on paperwork, compliance costs and time required to move forward on the regulatory front, some environmental groups have argued that the exemption is premature given the state of the technology.

The CO2-RCRA exclusion is not the only regulation that has been delayed by the agency in recent months. The agency most recently missed its April 13 finalization deadline for its greenhouse gas New Source Performance Standards. Reports have speculated that EPA is treading cautiously in terms of issuing rulemakings as the Senate vets the Obama Administration’s nominee for Administrator, Gina McCarthy.