Carbon Capture and Storage - don't ignore the waste connections

The below article was first published this month by the Chartered Institute of Wastes Management.

Introduction

The EU, UK, US and elsewhere are in the process of bringing forward major legislative proposals to cater for and incentivise the capture and geological storage of carbon dioxide emissions (generally called carbon capture and storage or "CCS") from industrial installations particularly from coal fired power stations. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas and promoting CCS is seen as a potential major mechanism for reducing emissions of this gas. The EU and UK are very committed in this regard. The EU is committed to a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. The UK, EU and US are running competitions, and will fund the winners, to set up commercial demonstration plants for CCS from power plants. It is thought that commercial demonstration will prove the technology by 2014.

The UK has passed appropriate legislation (part of the Energy Act 2008) to facilitate CCS. This legislation relates to offshore storage only (i.e. in former oil and gas fields). The EU is close behind, intending to pass a framework directive which will cover geological storage both onshore and offshore. This article concentrates on the EU's proposed framework directive (com(2008) 18) ("CCS Directive"). This was first produced in January 2008 and endorsed by the EU Parliament (with certain amendments) on 17th December 2008. It will need to pass through some further legislative steps and may be amended during this process but the bones of the proposals are clear. It is thought that the legislation will become EU law in Spring - mid 2009. It will then need to be transposed into national law within 2 years thereafter.

Magnitude

There should be no misunderstanding the potential magnitude of the proposals. Within the EU itself, it is anticipated that around one third of existing coal fired power capacity will be replaced within the next 9-10 years. The EU estimates that 7 million tonnes of CO2 could be stored by 2020 and 160 million tonnes by 2030. Whilst the EU has stepped back from making it mandatory for new power stations to fit CO2 capture technology, this will probably be reviewed if the technology is proved to be technically feasible (hence the competitions for commercial demonstration projects). What the EU is however contemplating is that at the planning permission stage of such new power stations, room may need to be incorporated into the facility to later retrofit the technology if such technology proves feasible and suitable storage sites and transport facilities are available. Also we should not overlook the other large industrial emitters of CO2 from the equation. To incentivise take up of CCS, the EU intends to allow CCS into Phase III of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme.

And the waste industry - so what?

The focus of discussion on CCS relates to capture of CO2 from fossil fuel power stations and subsequent geological storage. The most often quoted storage being in exhausted oil and gas fields. Transport of the gas will most likely be by pipeline. Thus the tendency has been (not unnaturally) to view CCS as an extension of the energy sector or an energy project. However from another perspective (and perhaps in reality), CO2 is a waste gas and CCS is an extension of waste management or an amalgamation (indeed another facet of amalgamation) of the waste and energy sectors.

Skills are likely to be needed from both sectors and indeed it is not difficult to imagine partnering between the sectors. The potential danger for the waste management sector is that if it does not engage, it may find that it misses a significant opportunity. A danger for the energy sector is that it may find itself reinventing the wheel.

Wry smile

Interestingly whilst the CO2 is clearly waste gas, nowhere in the CCS Directive is any reference made to the CO2 as a waste. Interestingly also, the title to the CCS Directive and most of its provisions refer to the "storage" of CO2. This is a strange word to have adopted. "Storage" implies a temporary resting place; that somehow the CO2 will be later removed, which of course will be the last thing on anybody's mind. However tucked away in Article 1 (2) is the purpose of the CCS Directive and this could not be clearer. It states that the "purpose of geological storage is permanent containment of CO2 in such a way as to prevent and, where this is not possible, eliminate as far as possible negative effects and any risks to the environment and human health". Also (see 8 below) Article 18 contains provisions which relate to the transfer of responsibility from the operator to the regulator once the site is closed and the CO2 is "completely and permanently contained". In other words CCS is waste disposal to land.

To be fair to the EU Commission, it did first consider whether CO2 storage could be governed by IPPC (environmental permitting in the UK) or EU waste legislation and concluded that too much amendment to existing EU waste and other legislation (including water legislation) would be required and that it would be better to produce a bespoke legislative package. This was sensible. Nonetheless, reading the CCS Directive it is plain to see that the CCS Directive leans very heavily on waste law concepts and principles which are bread and butter to the waste sector (see further below). A cynic might not be too far off the mark by suggesting that the promoters and lobbyists for this Directive were knowledgeable about the difficulties associated with the EU's notorious definition of waste and that they did not want the CCS Directive to be associated with this dreaded definition.

So how does the CCS Directive compare with waste law?

Below are requirements set out in the CCS Directive which will readily feel and look very familiar to the waste sector, especially landfills operators. Even a quick cross reference with an Environmental Permit (and related application and supporting documentation) for a landfill site will confirm much of this.

1. Site selection. Storage sites must be characterised and assessed to determine that they will not pose any significant risk of leakage or environment or human harm (Article 4 and Annex 1).

2. Requirement for a permit. The operator cannot operate a storage site without a permit. Many of the requirements of the permit will not be dissimilar to those of landfill sites. Any operational changes must be notified to the regulator and a variation will be required for any "substantial change". Otherwise the regulator will be obliged to keep the permit under review, particularly if there have been any serious breaches or irregularities. In any event the regulators must carry out reviews (5 years after issue of the permit and then every 10 years) (Articles 9 and 11).

3. Monitoring and notification. The operator will be required to notify the regulator of breaches and significant irregularities and to monitor for compliance (Articles 9 and 13).

4. Technical competence. A storage permit may not be issued to an operator unless the operator is "technically competent and reliable to operate and control the site and that professional and technical development and training of the operator and all staff are provided" (Article 8).

5. Waste acceptance criteria ("WAC") and Duty of Care. Not surprisingly the CCS Directive is restricted to streams of CO2 that are "overwhelmingly of carbon dioxide. To this end, no waste and other matter may be added for the purpose of disposing of that waste or other matter". The storage permit must set out requirements for the composition of the CO2 and acceptance procedures. Audit trail documentation is also required to be produced and retained (albeit that as there should be only one waste stream and, most likely, this will be transported by pipeline, perhaps this aspect will be relatively easy. (Articles 9 and 12).

6. Financial provision. A storage permit may not be issued unless the operator provides adequate financial security to ensure that all obligations arising under the permit (including closure and post closure) are met (Article 19).

7. Inspection and enforcement powers. The regulators must be provided with the usual array of powers to inspect, enforce breaches and vary, suspend or revoke permits (Articles 3, 15 and16).

8. Closure, decommissioning and aftercare. A provisional closure plan is required in the application for a permit. The permit will contain provisions relating to closure and the operator will be required to implement the closure plan on the cessation of operations (Articles 7 and 9). The big difference between a CCS site and a waste management site, is that after a storage site has been properly closed by the operator, and "all available evidence indicates that the stored CO2 will be completely and permanently contained" (with a minimum period of 20 years of proof of this containment - such period may be less if the regulator is convinced of the permanent containment) responsibility for the closed site and certain legal obligations under the CCS Directive are to be transferred to the regulator (Article 18) albeit that the operator will need to make a financial contribution to the regulator's future costs of monitoring (for 30 years) (Article 20).

Conclusion

Neither the waste management sector nor the energy sector is likely to have all the skills for CCS. Careful analysis will be required of the potential opportunities. It is not inconceivable that there could be partnering between players in the waste and energy sectors. It is also conceivable that skilled personnel in one sector might be poached by the other sector.