Domestic Carbon Capture and Storage

Bobbak Talebi

SMEA 521 - Nives Dolšak

December 6, 2011

Domestic Carbon Capture and Storage

“Carbon capture and storage (CCS) refers to a set of technologies that can greatly reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from new and existing coal- and gas-fired power plants, industrial processes, and other stationary sources of CO2. CCS is a three-step process that includes capture and compression of CO2 from power plants or industrial sources; transport of the captured CO2 (usually in pipelines); and storage of that CO2 in geologic formations, such as deep saline formations, oil and gas reservoirs, and unmineable coal seams.”[1] According to the Department of Energy (DOE) and the International Energy Agency (IEA),“studies indicate that areas of the United States with appropriate geology could theoretically provide storage potential for more than 3,000 billion tonnes of CO2.”[2] Based on this potential, the United States has initiated mechanisms to develop and test small-scale domestic CCS programs prior to launchinglarge-scale commercial application. Although there are still major concerns of near-and long-term deployment of CCS technologies, federally funded research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) programs were established to help reduce project uncertainties. In response, regional, state and local action is being taken to implement these programs, which are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency’s(EPA) finalized geologic sequestration and greenhouse gas reporting requirements and state law.

In 2003,DOE launched the Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (RCSPs) initiative. This initiative created a network of seven RCSPs to help develop the technology, infrastructure, and regulations to implement large-scale CO2 sequestration in different regions and geologic formations within the Nation.[3] During the first phase of the program, the Partnerships characterized the potential for CO2 storage in deep oil-, gas-, coal-, and saline-bearing formations. This work led to the publication of the Carbon Sequestration Atlas of the United States and Canada, and laid the foundation for Federal support for future project developmentphases. The two RCPSs located in Washington State are the West Coast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (WESTCARB), and the Big Sky Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (BSCSP).

February 2010, President Obama established an Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage composed of 14 Executive Departments and Federal Agencies. The Task Force, co-chaired by the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency, was charged with proposing a plan to overcome the barriers to the widespread, cost-effective deployment of CCS within 10 years, with a goal of bringing 5 to 10 commercial demonstration projects online by 2016.[4] $3.4 billion of available budgetary resources from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act[5]have been allocated to facilitation the achievement of these goals. In addition to prior year appropriations, various other incentives, such as tax credits and loan guarantees are also available to many of these projects.[6] Given the framework of the RCSPs, funding was filtered into projects that are currently testing the strengths and weaknesses of various methods of geologic carbon sequestration.

Washington State has two maintypes of substantial geologic formations that are probable for CCS. The first are saline. These basins contain sandstone and shale sequences up to 10,000 meters (33,000 feet) thick. The largest in terms of potential CO2 storage resource is Washington’s Puget Trough. The total CO2 storage resource for the sedimentary basins is in the range of 40 billion to 590 billion metric tons (50 billion to 650 billion tons).[7] The second, and less certain, are basalt. There are still outstanding questions regarding large-scale injection into basalts due to concerns of leakage, the evolution of plume once injected, and difficulties in monitoring the CO2 once injected.[8]

Using funds from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, DOE has partnered with RCSPs and other federal, state, and local entities to conduct two pilot projects in Washington to test these geologic formations. The Centralia-Chehalis Basin investigation is a targeted study of CO2 storage potential in deep coal seams and saline formations. This basin, estimated up to 345 million metric tons (380 million tons) storage resource, would be sufficient for 22 to 86 years of emissions from the nearby TransAlta coal-fired power plant at 50 percent capture.[9] The second project is the Wallula Basalt carbon dioxide sequestration pilot study. Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific Northwest Division will conduct a five year pilot study to inject a maximum of 1,000 metric tons of food grade carbon dioxide (CO2) into a target basalt injection zone over a period of 14 to 30 days. The injection zone will be at a depth of 2,700 to 2,900 feet below ground surface in a borehole that is located within the boundary of the Boise Whitepaper Mill property.[10]

These new geologic carbon storage projects are regulated at the federal and state levels. At the federal level, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took action in 2010. The Agency finalized the “Class VI rule builds on existing UIC Program requirements, with extensive tailored requirements that address carbon dioxide injection for long-term storage to ensure that wells used for geologic sequestration are appropriately sited, constructed, tested, monitored, funded, and closed.”[11] Additionally, “in a separate, yet complimentary, rulemaking under authority of the Clean Air Act, EPA has finalized reporting requirements under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program for facilities that inject CO2 underground for geologic sequestration and all other facilities that inject CO2 underground.”[12] These regulatory actions enforce national best practices, however, the EPA is not the lead entity of state permitting authority on such projects.

To regulate statesubstantial development permits the Washington State Department of Ecology (DoE) administers State Law, which is then implemented by local jurisdictions. Interestingly, geologic carbon storage is not listed under DoE’s Climate Policy Laws and Executive Orders Policy Framework.[13] In an effort to determine what state regulations are being applied for the pilot study and project located in Washington, I had to locate the permits for each project. The Centralia-Chehalis Basin investigation is a targeted study was initiated due to Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill (ESSB) 6001 adopted in 2007. The Bill requires new power generation plants that produce over 1,100 pounds of greenhouse gases per megawatt-hour (lb GHG/MWh) to develop a plan with economically and technically feasible sequestration to be implemented within five years of plant operation.[14]The Wallula Basalt pilot study, Washington State law requires any facility to obtain a permit before discharging chemicals to waters of the state, which includes groundwater. A State Waste Discharge Permit limits the types and amounts of pollution the facility may discharge. Ecology bases those limits either on (1) the pollution control or wastewater treatment technology available to the industry, or on (2) the effects of the pollutants on the groundwater.[15] In addition to State regulations and policies, local governments also have permitting authority on developments within their boundaries. In this case, however, I could not locate local government laws or policies that pertain to geologic carbon storage.

From this brief overview of CCS actions taken at the federal, state, and local levels, it is evident that policies and regulations are instruments that foster change. The initial regional studies of domestic feasibility conducted by RCSPs were supported by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and the President’s Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage. The implementation of specific small-scale projects to test these projections, narrowed the focus to specific States. This transition inherently triggered State policy and regulations to address the impacts of these projects on the local community. EPA regulations ensure that specific standards are being met throughout the nation, based on best available science. Without the creation and allowances of these domestic polices and regulations, projects like CCS would not be feasible.

References and Supporting Information:

Table 1 - Department of Energy, National Carbon Sequestration Database and Geographic Information System (NATCARB)

Table 2 - West Coast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (WESTCARB) Atlas Report 2010

Figure 1 - Big Sky Carbon Sequestration Regional Partnership, Basalt Pilot

Carbon Capture and Storage Interagency Task Force:

US Department of Energy, Carbon Sequestration Regional Partnerships

Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum:

2011 U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report

Geological carbon sequestration options in WA. September 13, 2007. George Peridas. Natural Resources Defense Council

Report of the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage August 2010

Department of Energy Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Emission capture study funded for paper industry October 19, 2009, Geoffrey Harvey

Department of Energy Carbon Sequestration
2010 Carbon Sequestration Atlas of the United States and Canada – Third Edition (Atlas III)

Department of Energy, National Carbon Sequestration Database and Geographic Information System (NATCARB)

West Coast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership

West Coast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership WESTCARB Atlas Report 2010

Big Sky Carbon Sequestration Regional Partnership, Basalt Pilot

Washington State Climate Policy Laws and Executive Orders

Policy Framework (2005-2010)

Department of Ecology. State of Washington. 2008. Growing Washington’s Economyin a Carbon-Constrained World: A Comprehensive Plan to Address the Challenges and Opportunities of Climate Change. December 2008.

Sedimentary basin database for Washington and Oregon States for the geologic carbon dioxide assessment.

Carbon Sequestration Role in State and Local Actions DOE/NETL-2005/1212. Melissa Chan and Sarah Forbes, January 2005

Department of Ecology. State of Washington. Washington State Climate Policy Laws and Executive Orders Policy Framework (2005-2010)

Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Permitting and Reporting Information System, “Battelle.” Project Fact Sheet, March 2011.

Environmental Protection Agency, Water: Underground Injection Control, Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide

Centralia-Chehalis Basin project - Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan Submitted to Washington Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council Application 2006-01. July 30, 2007

Washington State Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6001

1

[1] Report of the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage August 2010

[2] Report of the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage August 2010

[3] US Department of Energy, Carbon Sequestration Regional Partnerships

[4] Carbon Capture and Storage Interagency Task Force

[5] Public Law 111-5

[6] Report of the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage August 2010

[7]West Coast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (WESTCARB) Atlas Report 2010

[8] Geological carbon sequestration options in WA. September 13, 2007. George Peridas. Natural Resources Defense Council

[9]West Coast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (WESTCARB) Atlas Report 2010

[10]Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Permitting and Reporting Information System, “Battelle.” Project Fact Sheet, March 2011.

[11]EPA Water: Underground Injection Control

[12]EPA Water: Underground Injection Control

[13]Department of Ecology. State of Washington. Washington State Climate Policy Laws and Executive Orders Policy Framework (2005-2010)

[14] Washington State Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6001

[15]Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Permitting and Reporting Information System, “Battelle.” Project Fact Sheet, March 2011.