Monday, 

April 12, 2010 

Part II 

Environmental 

Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 98 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse 

Gases: Injection and Geologic 

Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide; 

Proposed Rule 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

18576 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 98 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0926; FRL–9131–2] 

RIN 2060–AP88 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse 

Gases: Injection and Geologic 

Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a rule to 

require reporting on carbon dioxide 

(CO2) injection and geologic 

sequestration (GS). The proposed 

rulemaking does not require control of 

greenhouse gases (GHGs), rather it 

requires only monitoring and reporting 

of CO2 injection and geologic 

sequestration. EPA first proposed that 

suppliers of CO2 be subject to 

mandatory GHG reporting requirements 

in April 2009 and finalized the rule for 

suppliers of CO2 on October 30, 2009. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before June 11, 2010. 

Public hearings. There will be one 

public hearing. The hearing date and 

location is: April 19, 2010 from 9 a.m. 

to 1 p.m. at One Potomac Yard, 2777 S. 

Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202. 

To obtain information about the 

public hearing or to register to speak at 

the hearing, please go to http://www.

epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/

ghgrulemaking.html. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2009–0926, by one of the 

following methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

E-mail: GHGReportingRR@epa.gov. 

Fax: (202) 566–1741. 

Mail: EPA Docket Center, Attention 

Docket OAR–2009–0926, Mailcode 

2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket 

Center Public Reading Room, Room 

3334, EPA West Building, Attention 

Docket OAR–2009–0926, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20004. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Docket’s normal 

hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0926. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA’s Docket Center, Public Reading 

Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC. This Docket Facility is 

open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Air 

Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information, e-mail the 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Hotline 

at ghgmrr@epa.gov with the name of 

this action in the e-mail subject line, or 

contact Barbora Master, Climate Change 

Division, Office of Atmospheric 

Programs (MC–6207J), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; 

telephone number: (202) 343–9899; fax 

number: (202) 343–2359. To obtain 

information about the public hearings or 

to register to speak at the hearings, 

please go to http://www.epa.gov/ 

climatechange/emissions/ 

ghgrulemaking.html. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Additional Information on Submitting 

Comments: To expedite review of your 

comments by Agency staff, you are 

encouraged to send a separate copy of 

your comments, in addition to the copy 

you submit to the official docket, to 

Carole Cook, Climate Change Division, 

Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC– 

6207J), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460; e-mail address: 

GHGReportingRule@epa.gov. 

In drafting this proposed rulemaking, 

EPA reviewed and considered 

comments submitted on the proposed 

subpart PP. However, as this is a new 

proposal, EPA will not be responding to 

comments received on the April 2009 

proposed subpart PP in this rulemaking. 

To ensure that their comments are 

considered, stakeholders should submit 

comments relevant to this rulemaking as 

instructed in this document. 

Regulated Entities. The Administrator 

has determined that this action is 

subject to the provisions of Clean Air 

Act (CAA) section 307(d). See CAA 

section 307(d)(1)(V) (the provisions of 

CAA section 307(d) apply to ‘‘such other 

actions as the Administrator may 

determine’’). This is a proposed 

regulation. If finalized, these regulations 

would affect owners or operators of CO2

injection wells. Regulated categories 

and entities include those listed in 

Table 1 of this preamble: 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18577 

TABLE 1—EXAMPLES OF AFFECTED ENTITIES BY CATEGORY

Category NAICS Examples of affected facilities 

CO2 Enhanced Oil and Gas Recovery Projects ......................... 211 Oil and gas extraction projects using CO2 enhanced oil and 

gas recovery. 

GS Sites ...................................................................................... N/A CO2 geologic sequestration projects. 

Table 1 of this preamble is not 

intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide for readers regarding 

facilities likely to be affected by this 

action. Table 1 of this preamble lists the 

types of facilities that EPA is now aware 

could be potentially affected by the 

reporting requirements. Other types of 

facilities not listed in the table could 

also be subject to reporting 

requirements. To determine whether 

you are affected by this action, you 

should carefully examine the 

applicability criteria found in proposed 

40 CFR part 98, subpart A or the 

relevant criteria in the sections related 

to the injection and GS of CO2. If you 

have questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular facility, consult the person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

Some facilities that are affected by 

today’s proposed rule have GHG 

emissions from multiple source 

categories. Table 2 of this preamble has 

been developed as a guide to help 

potential CO2 injection and GS reporters 

subject to the proposed rule identify the 

source categories (by subpart) that they 

may need to (1) consider in their facility 

applicability determination, and/or (2) 

include in their reporting. The table 

should only be seen as a guide. 

Additional subparts in 40 CFR part 98 

may be relevant for a given reporter. 

Similarly, not all listed subparts are 

relevant for all reporters. 

TABLE 2—SOURCE CATEGORIES AND RELEVANT SUBPARTS

Source category 

(and main applicable subpart) Other subparts recommended for review to determine applicability 

Injection and Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide ........................ 40 CFR part 98, subpart C. 

40 CFR part 98, subpart W (proposed). 

40 CFR part 98, subpart PP. 

Acronyms and Abbreviations. The 

following acronyms and abbreviations 

are used in this document. 

3–D three-dimensional 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBI confidential business information 

CCS carbon dioxide capture and geologic 

sequestration 

CDM Clean Development Mechanism 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CH4 methane 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

DOE Department of Energy 

EC European Commission 

ECBM enhanced coalbed methane 

EIA Economic Impact Analysis 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

EO Executive Order 

ER enhanced oil and gas recovery 

GHG greenhouse gas 

GPG Good Practice Guidance 

GS geologic sequestration 

HFC hydrofluorocarbon 

HFE hydrofluoroether 

ICR Information Collection Request 

IMO International Maritime Organization 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change 

IRS Internal Revenue Service 

MRR Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse 

Gases Rule 

MRV monitoring, reporting, and 

verification 

N2O nitrous oxide 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

O&GJ Oil and Gas Journal 

OAR Office of Air and Radiation 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OW Office of Water 

PFC perfluorocarbon 

QA/QC quality assurance/quality control 

R&D research and development 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

SBREFA Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act 

SF6 sulfur hexafluoride 

TSD technical support document 

UIC Underground Injection Control 

UNFCCC United Nations Framework 

Convention on Climate Change 

US United States 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

USDA United States Department of 

Agriculture 

USDW underground source of drinking 

water 

VEF Vulnerability Evaluation Framework 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. Organization of This Preamble 

B. Background on the Proposed Rule 

C. Overview of the Proposal 

D. Legal Authority 

E. Relationship to the Proposed UIC Class 

VI Rulemaking Under the Safe Drinking 

Water Act 

F. Relationship to Other CO2 Injection 

Information Collection and Reporting 

Efforts 

II. Rationale for Reporting, Recordkeeping 

and Verification Requirements 

A. Definition of Reporting Facilities 

B. Selection of Reporting Thresholds 

C. Selection of Data To Be Reported 

D. Selection of Monitoring, Reporting, and 

Verification (MRV) Plan Requirements 

and Approval Process 

E. Selection of Schedule and Process for 

Reporting 

F. Selection of Procedures for Estimating 

Missing Data 

G. Selection of Records to Retain 

III. Economic Impacts of the Proposed Rule 

A. How were compliance costs estimated? 

B. What are the costs of the proposed rule? 

C. What are the economic impacts of the 

proposed rule? 

D. What are the impacts of the proposed 

rule on small businesses? 

E. What are the benefits of the proposed 

rule for society? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

18578 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1These gases influence the climate system by 

trapping in the atmosphere heat that would 

otherwise escape to space. Additional information 

about GHGs, climate change, climate science, and 

other related issues, can be found at EPA’s climate 

change Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ 

climatechange/. 

2U.S. EPA Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990–2007, Draft Report, 

EPA 430–R–09–004. Available at: http://epa.gov/ 

climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html. 

3 Dooley, JJ, CL Davidson, RT Dahowski, MA 

Wise, N Gupta, SH Kim, EL Malone. 2006. ‘‘Carbon 

Dioxide Capture and Geologic Storage: A Key 

Component of a Global Energy Technology Strategy 

to Address Climate Change.’’ Joint Global Change 

Research Institute, Battelle Pacific Northwest 

Division. PNWD–3602. 

4 DOE. 2008. Carbon Sequestration Atlas of the 

United States and Canada (Atlas II). Available at: 

http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/ 

refshelf/atlasII/. 

I. Background 

A. Organization of This Preamble 

This preamble is broken into several 

large sections, as detailed in the Table 

of Contents. The following paragraphs 

describe the layout of the preamble and 

provide a brief summary of each section. 

Section I of this preamble contains the 

basic background information about the 

origin of this proposed rulemaking, 

including a discussion of how it relates 

to the finalized requirements for 

Suppliers of CO2 (under 40 CFR, part 

98, subpart PP) and to the Underground 

Injection Control (UIC) program. This 

section also discusses EPA’s legal 

authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

to collect the proposed data, and the 

benefits of collecting the data. 

Section II of this preamble 

summarizes the general provisions of 

this proposed rulemaking for reporting 

CO2 injection and GS. This section also 

provides a brief summary of, and 

rationale for, the selection of key design 

elements. Specifically, this section 

describes EPA’s rationale for the 

proposed (i) definition of reporting 

facilities, (ii) applicability thresholds, 

(iii) data reporting requirements, (iv) 

monitoring, reporting and verification 

(MRV) plan requirements and process, 

(v) schedule and process for reporting, 

(vi) procedures for estimating missing 

data, and (vii) recordkeeping 

requirements. Thus, for example, there 

is a specific discussion regarding 

appropriate applicability thresholds, 

monitoring methodologies and reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements for all 

CO2 injection facilities, and additional 

requirements for facilities that conduct 

GS. EPA describes the proposed options 

for each design element as well as the 

other options considered. Throughout 

this discussion, EPA highlights specific 

issues on which the Agency solicits 

comment. 

Section III of this preamble provides 

the summary of the cost impacts, 

economic impacts, and benefits of this 

proposed rule from the Economic 

Impact Analysis (EIA). Finally, Section 

IV of this preamble discusses the 

various statutory and executive order 

requirements applicable to this 

proposed rulemaking. 

B. Background on the Proposed Rule 

On December 26, 2007, President 

Bush signed the fiscal year 2008 

Consolidated Appropriations Act 

authorizing funding for EPA to issue a 

rule requiring the mandatory reporting 

of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 

(Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, 

Pub. L. 110–161, 121 Stat. 1844, 2128 

(2008)). An accompanying joint 

explanatory statement directed EPA to 

‘‘use its existing authority under the 

Clean Air Act’’ to develop a mandatory 

GHG reporting rule. 

The proposed Mandatory Reporting of 

Greenhouse Gases Rule (MRR) was 

signed on March 10, 2009, by 

Administrator Lisa Jackson and was 

published a month later (74 FR 16448, 

April 10, 2009). After a 60-day comment 

period, two public hearings, and 

meeting with over 4,000 additional 

people in over 150 groups via Webinars, 

conferences, individual meetings, and 

other forms of outreach, EPA issued a 

final rule on October 30, 2009 (74 FR 

56260). The MRR requires reporting of 

GHG emissions and supply from all 

sectors of the economy, including fossil 

fuel suppliers, industrial gas suppliers, 

and direct emitters of GHGs. The rule 

does not require the control of GHGs; 

rather the rule requires only that sources 

above certain threshold levels monitor 

and report those GHGs. 

The final MRR covers the major GHGs 

that are directly emitted by 

anthropogenic activities. These include 

carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), 

nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons 

(HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur 

hexafluoride (SF6), and other specified 

fluorinated compounds (e.g., 

hydrofluoroethers (HFEs)) used in 

boutique applications such as 

electronics and anesthetics.1

The final rule contains 31 subparts, 

each requiring reporting from a defined 

source category. In order to meet the 

reporting time, quality assurance, and 

verification requirements of the rule, 

EPA is establishing a facility-to-EPA 

electronic reporting system to facilitate 

collection of data under this rule. All 

facilities that are covered under this rule 

as reporters will use this data system to 

submit required data. 

Subpart PP requires the reporting of 

CO2 supplied to the economy. Subpart 

PP applies to all facilities with CO2

production wells, facilities with 

production process units that capture 

and supply CO2 for commercial 

applications or that capture and 

maintain custody of a CO2 stream to 

sequester or otherwise inject it 

underground, and to importers and 

exporters of bulk CO2. During the public 

comment period on the rule, EPA 

received many comments on subpart PP 

that CO2 injected underground should 

be considered when estimating 

emissions from the CO2 supply 

industry. Some commenters specified 

that some of the CO2 supplied for the 

purposes of enhanced oil and gas 

recovery (ER) is additionally 

sequestered rather than emitted and 

characterized ER operations as ‘‘closed 

systems’’ rather than emissive. Other 

commenters stated that including 

reporting requirements for geologically 

sequestered CO2 would fill a critical gap 

in the reporting system. EPA agrees that 

ER is a potentially non-emissive end use 

and that GS data reporting from ER sites 

can assist EPA in quantifying the 

amount of CO2 that is permanently and 

securely geologically sequestered. In 

addition, EPA agrees that GS reporting 

requirements would provide 

information and transparency on the 

amount of CO2 injected and geologically 

sequestered in the United States. 

Although CCS is occurring now on a 

relatively small scale, it could play a 

larger role in mitigating GHG emissions 

from a wide variety of stationary 

sources. According to the Inventory of 

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and 

Sinks: 1990–2007, stationary sources 

contributed 67 percent of the total CO2

emissions from fossil fuel combustion in 

2007.2 These sources represent a wide 

variety of sectors amenable to CO2

capture: electric power plants (existing 

and new), natural gas processing 

facilities, petroleum refineries, iron & 

steel foundries, ethylene plants, 

hydrogen production facilities, 

ammonia refineries, ethanol production 

facilities, ethylene oxide plants, and 

cement kilns. Furthermore, 95 percent 

of the 500 largest stationary sources are 

within 50 miles of a candidate GS 

reservoir.3 Estimated GS capacity in the 

United States is over 3,500 Gigatons CO2

(GtCO2) (13,000 Gigatons CO2 at the 

high end),4 although the actual capacity 

may be lower once site-specific 

technical and economic considerations 

are addressed. Even if only a fraction of 

that geologic capacity is used, CCS is 

poised to play a sizeable role in 

mitigating U.S. GHG emissions. 

Many of the injection and monitoring 

technologies that may be applicable for 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18579 

5 Dooley, JJ, CL Davidson, RT Dahowski. 2009. 

‘‘An Assessment of the Commercial Availability of 

Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Technologies 

as of June 2009.’’ Joint Global Change Research 

Institute. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. 

PNNL–18520. 

6These projects are: Sleipner (Norwegian North 

Sea)—1 Mt CO2/yr injected since 1996; Weyburn 

(Canada)—1 Mt CO2/yr injected since 2000; In 

Salah (Algeria)—1.2 Mt CO2/yr injected since 2004; 

and Snohvite (Norwegian Barents Sea)—0.7 Mt 

CO2/yr injected since 2008. 

7Leakage in this proposed rule is defined as the 

movement of CO2 from the injection zone to the 

surface (for example to the atmosphere, indoor air, 

oceans or surface water). 

GS are commercially available today 

and will be more widely demonstrated 

over the next 10 to 15 years.5 The oil 

and natural gas industry in the United 

States has over 35 years of experience of 

injection and monitoring of CO2 in the 

deep subsurface for the purposes of 

enhancing oil and natural gas 

production. This experience provides a 

strong foundation for the injection and 

monitoring technologies that will be 

needed for commercial-scale CCS. U.S. 

experience with ER combined with the 

experience of four end-to-end 

commercial CCS projects 6 and ongoing 

research, demonstration, and 

deployment programs throughout the 

world, are building confidence that 

geologic sequestration of large amounts 

of CO2 can be achieved. 

C. Overview of the Proposal 

Today, EPA is proposing to amend the 

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse 

Gases Program at 40 CFR part 98 to add 

reporting requirements covering 

facilities that conduct injection and 

geologic sequestration of CO2. 

EPA is proposing a tiered approach 

for reporting requirements under this 

subpart. The first tier of proposed 

regulations would establish a set of 

reporting requirements that would cover 

all facilities that inject CO2

underground. As described in Section 

II.C of this preamble, all facilities would 

be required to report CO2 transferred 

onsite from offsite sources, the source of 

the CO2 (if known), and CO2 injected 

underground. 

The second tier of reporting 

requirements would apply to GS 

facilities. As described in Section II.C of 

this preamble, GS facilities would be 

required to calculate CO2 sequestered by 

subtracting total CO2 emissions from the 

CO2 injected in the reporting year. The 

emitted quantity would include the 

injected CO2 that leaked from the 

subsurface to the surface (if any), CO2

produced with oil or natural gas where 

ER operations are conducted at the GS 

facility, fugitive or vented CO2

emissions from surface equipment, and 

emissions from combustion sources 

located within the facility boundary, 

such as compressors. 

EPA considered several options for 

monitoring, reporting and verification 

(MRV) of potential CO2 leakage 7 at GS 

sites: do not require a MRV plan, require 

a universal MRV plan that applies to all 

GS sites, or require a site-specific MRV 

plan. EPA is proposing to require 

monitoring according to a site-specific 

MRV plan, but is seeking comment on 

all of the options considered. While the 

risk of leakage at a well-selected and 

well-managed GS site is expected to be 

low, the Agency considers it important 

for all facilities conducting GS to 

demonstrate that they have met MRV 

standards. The options described above 

are discussed in more detail in Section 

II.D of this preamble. 

Data on CO2 injection and GS are 

critical to informing CAA GHG policies. 

This data would provide information 

and transparency on the amount of CO2

injected and geologically sequestered in 

the United States and, in combination 

with other subparts of the MRR, would 

enable EPA to track the flow of CO2

across a CCS system. In addition, this 

information would enable EPA to 

monitor the growth and efficacy of GS 

(and therefore CCS) as a GHG mitigation 

technology over time and to evaluate 

relevant policy options. For example, 

EPA would be able to track whether 

incentives or regulations are needed to 

encourage faster or further GS project 

development. EPA would also be able to 

track whether ER sites are reporting GS 

and consider whether incentives or 

regulations are needed. Where ER 

facilities are reporting GS, EPA would 

be able to evaluate ER as a potentially 

non-emissive end use. In combination 

with subpart PP, EPA would be able to 

reconcile this data with CO2 supplied in 

order to better understand the quantity 

of CO2 supplied to emissive and nonemissive end uses. Furthermore, this 

data would inform Agency policy 

decisions under CAA sections 111 and 

112 related to the use of CCS for 

mitigating GHG emissions. 

In developing this proposal, EPA 

considered overlap between this 

program and other programs. In July 

2008, EPA proposed to amend its UIC 

program to establish a new class of 

injection well for GS projects (73 FR 

43492 (July 25, 2008)). Today’s proposal 

provides a pathway for CO2 injection 

facilities to report to EPA as GS facilities 

under the CAA, regardless of their UIC 

permit classification. Under this 

proposal, any facility sequestering CO2

underground can choose to qualify and 

report as a GS facility for purposes of 

this proposed rule. 

Since subpart RR is an amendment to 

the MRR, the general provisions of the 

MRR (40 CFR part 98, subpart A) apply 

to today’s proposed subpart RR unless a 

provision is superseded by this subpart 

that applies uniquely to facilities that 

inject CO2 or that conduct GS. The 

general provisions address the following 

topics: The purpose and scope (40 CFR 

98.1); who must report (40 CFR 98.2); 

the general monitoring, reporting, 

recordkeeping and verification 

requirement (40 CFR 98.3); the 

authorization and responsibilities of the 

designated authority (40 CFR 98.4); how 

a report is submitted (40 CFR 98.5); 

definitions (40 CFR 98.6); the 

standardized methods incorporated by 

reference (40 CFR 98.7); the compliance 

and enforcement provisions (40 CFR 

98.8); and the mailing addresses (40 

CFR 98.9). 

Amendments to the General 

Provisions. In a separate rulemaking, 

package that was recently published 

(March 16, 2010), EPA issued minor 

harmonizing changes to the general 

provisions for the GHG reporting rule 

(40 CFR part 98, subpart A) to 

accommodate the addition of source 

categories not included in the 2009 final 

rule (e.g., subparts proposed in April 

2009 but not finalized in 2009, any new 

subparts that may be proposed in the 

future). The changes update 98.2(a) on 

rule applicability and 98.3 regarding the 

reporting schedule to accommodate any 

additional subparts and the schedule for 

their reporting obligations (e.g., source 

categories finalized in 2010 would not 

begin data collection until 2011 and 

reporting in 2012). 

In particular, we restructured 40 CFR 

98.2(a) to move the lists of source 

categories from the text into tables. A 

table format improves clarity and 

facilitates the addition of source 

categories that were not included in 

calendar year 2010 reporting and would 

begin reporting in future years. A table, 

versus list, approach allows other 

sections of the rule to be updated 

automatically when the table is 

updated; a list approach requires 

separate updates to the various list 

references each time the list is changed. 

In addition to reformatting the 

98.2(a)(1)–(2) lists into tables, other 

sections of subpart A were reworded to 

refer to the source category tables 

because the tables make it clear which 

source categories are to be considered 

for determining the applicability 

threshold and reporting requirements 

for calendar years 2010, 2011, and 

future years. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

18580 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

8Since we changed the list of covered 

subcategories to tables, we are not providing 

regulatory text in this proposal because the 

preamble is clear. 

9See EPA UIC Guidance #83. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/ 

wells_sequestration.html. 

As part of today’s proposed rule, EPA 

is proposing changes to subpart A to 

accommodate subpart RR. Because all 

CO2 injection and geologic sequestration 

facilities (as defined in proposed 40 CFR 

part 98, subpart RR) would be subject to 

proposed subpart RR, EPA is proposing 

that this source category be added to the 

table of ‘‘all-in’’ source categories 

referenced from 40 CFR 98.2(a)(1).8 For 

facilities that become subject to the 

MRR due to CO2 injection or geologic 

sequestration, the first annual GHG 

report would cover calendar year 2011 

rather than 2010. 

EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 

98.2(a) so that the MRR applies to 

facilities located on or under the Outer 

Continental Shelf. These revisions are 

necessary to ensure that any CO2

injection or GS facilities located on or 

under the Outer Continental Shelf of the 

United States would be required to 

report. In addition, EPA is proposing 

revisions to the definition of United 

States to clarify that the United States 

includes the territorial seas. Other 

facilities located offshore of the United 

States covered by the MRR program at 

40 CFR part 98 would also be affected 

by this change in the definition of 

United States. For example, EPA is 

proposing in a separate rule to revise the 

MRR requirements to add a new 

subpart, subpart W, to address 

petroleum and natural gas systems. Any 

comments specific to that issue should 

be directed to the Agency in that 

rulemaking, not this one. Finally, in 

addition to the change to the definition 

of United States, EPA is adding a 

definition of ‘‘Outer Continental Shelf.’’ 

This definition is drawn from the 

definition in the U.S. Code. Together, 

these changes make clear that the MRR 

applies to facilities on land, in the 

territorial seas, or on or under the Outer 

Continental Shelf of the United States, 

and that otherwise meet the 

applicability criteria of the MRR. 

EPA also is proposing to amend 40 

CFR 98.7 (incorporation by reference) to 

include standard methods used in 

proposed subpart RR. 

D. Legal Authority 

EPA is proposing subpart RR under 

the existing authority provided in CAA 

section 114. As noted in the MRR, CAA 

section 114 provides EPA with broad 

authority to require information 

mandated by this rule because such data 

will inform and are relevant to EPA’s 

carrying out a wide variety of CAA 

provisions (74 FR 66264). Under CAA 

section 114(a)(1), the Administrator may 

require emissions sources, persons 

subject to the CAA, or persons whom 

the Administrator believes may have 

necessary information to monitor and 

report emissions and provide such other 

information as the Administrator 

requests for the purposes of carrying out 

the provisions in the CAA (except for a 

provision of title II with respect to 

motor vehicles). 

As discussed in greater detail in the 

response to comments for the final 

MRR, the CAA provides EPA with broad 

authority to require the comprehensive 

and accurate information mandated in 

this rule because such data will inform, 

and are relevant to, EPA’s analyses of 

various CAA provisions (Mandatory 

Reporting of Greenhouse Gases, EPA’s 

Response to Public Comment’s Section 

3–Legal Issues). EPA may gather 

information for a variety of purposes, 

including for the purpose of assisting in 

the development of implementation 

plans or of emissions standards under 

CAA section 111, determining 

compliance with implementation plans 

or such standards, or more broadly for 

‘‘carrying out any provision’’ of the CAA. 

In addition, CAA section 103 authorizes 

EPA to establish a national research and 

development program, including nonregulatory approaches and technologies 

for the prevention and control of air 

pollution as it relates to GHGs and 

climate change. 

The information from CO2 injection 

and GS facilities will allow EPA to make 

well-informed decisions about whether 

and how to use the CAA to regulate 

these facilities and encourage voluntary 

reductions. 

E. Relationship to the Proposed UIC 

Class VI Rulemaking Under the Safe 

Water Drinking Act 

The Agency maintains a high-level of 

coordination across EPA offices and 

regions on GS activities and regulatory 

development. EPA’s Office of Air and 

Radiation (OAR) and Office of Water 

(OW) work closely to promote safe and 

effective implementation of GS 

technologies while ensuring protection 

of human health and the environment. 

All Agency efforts related to GS, 

including the UIC Class VI proposal 

which is discussed in more detail 

below, and this MRR proposal, are 

closely coordinated. 

EPA’s UIC program was established in 

the 1970s to prevent endangerment of 

underground sources of drinking water 

(USDWs) from injection of various 

fluids, including CO2 for ER, oil field 

fluids, water stored for drinking water 

supplies, and municipal and industrial 

waste. The UIC program, which is 

authorized by Part C of the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (42 U.S.C. 

300h et seq.), is designed to prevent the 

movement of such fluid into USDWs by 

addressing the potential pathways 

through which injected fluids can 

migrate and potentially endanger 

USDWs. 

When EPA initially promulgated its 

UIC program regulations, the Agency 

defined five classes of injection wells at 

40 CFR 144.6, based on similarities in 

the fluids injected, construction, 

injection depth, design, and operating 

techniques. Wells injecting industrial 

non-hazardous liquids, municipal 

wastewaters or hazardous wastes 

beneath the lowermost USDW are 

categorized as Class I. Those injecting 

fluids in connection with conventional 

oil or natural gas production, enhanced 

oil and gas production, and the storage 

of hydrocarbons which are liquid at 

standard temperature and pressure are 

categorized as Class II. Class III wells 

inject fluids associated with the 

extraction of minerals, and those 

categorized as Class IV inject hazardous 

or radioactive wastes into or above 

USDWs. Class IV injection wells are 

banned unless authorized under an 

approved Federal or State ground water 

remediation project. Class V includes all 

injection wells that are not included in 

Classes I–IV. This well class provides 

for Class V experimental technology 

wells including those permitted as GS 

pilot projects.9

In 2008, EPA proposed to amend the 

UIC program to establish a new class of 

injection well—Class VI—to cover the 

underground injection of CO2 for the 

purpose of GS, or long-term storage of 

CO2 (73 FR 43492, July 25, 2008). The 

proposed requirements would tailor 

existing components of the UIC program 

to address the unique nature of GS 

projects so as to ensure that the 

injection of large volumes of CO2 in a 

variety of geologic formations for the 

purposes of long term storage would not 

endanger USDWs. The UIC Class VI 

proposal does not require any facilities 

to capture and/or sequester CO2; rather 

the proposed requirements, if finalized, 

would protect USDWs under the SDWA. 

The SDWA does not provide authority 

to develop regulations for all areas 

related to GS such as capture or 

transport. As outlined in the UIC Class 

VI proposal, injection wells used for 

injecting CO2 for the purposes of ER 

would continue to be regulated and 

permitted as Class II as long as any 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18581 

10Under the 1605(b) program an ‘‘entity’’ is 

defined as ‘‘the whole or part of any business, 

institution, organization or household that is 

recognized as an entity under any U.S. Federal, 

State or local law that applies to it; is located, at 

least in part, in the U.S.; and whose operations 

affect U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.’’ Available at: 

http://www.pi.energy.gov/enhancingGHGregistry. 

11Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ 

data_reports.html. 

12Available at: http://www.irs.gov/irb/2009- 

44_IRB/ar11.html. 

production is occurring. EPA received 

significant comments on this proposed 

approach and is currently evaluating 

these comments for the final 

rulemaking. 

Facilities regulated under the UIC 

program are required to collect and 

report data, with minimum 

requirements for the collection and 

reporting of data established at the 

Federal level. Where States are given 

primacy over the UIC program, the data 

collected under the UIC program varies. 

Data currently collected under a Stateissued UIC permit is submitted to States 

while, under today’s subpart RR 

proposal, reporters will be submitting 

data directly to EPA. The Agency 

believes that State, local, and tribal 

input is valuable in ensuring that the 

subpart RR reporting requirements 

appropriately build on the UIC program 

requirements. EPA is seeking comment 

on a number of topics and will look for 

opportunities to conduct outreach with 

State, local and tribal organizations 

between proposal and finalization. 

Today’s proposal builds on the UIC 

program requirements for monitoring 

with the additional goals of verifying 

the amount of CO2 sequestered and 

collecting data on CO2 surface emissions 

from GS facilities. As described in 

Section II.D of this preamble, EPA is 

proposing that a facility’s UIC permit 

may be used to demonstrate that certain 

MRV plan requirements have been 

fulfilled. 

In the Agency’s August 2009 Notice of 

Data Availability supplementing the 

UIC Class VI proposal, EPA noted that 

it was evaluating the need for a more 

comprehensive regulatory framework 

for GS. The Agency acknowledges that 

regulatory clarity is essential for 

enabling GS to move forward in a 

manner that protects human health and 

the environment. It is EPA’s intention to 

coordinate GS requirements across 

relevant statutory or other programs in 

order to minimize any redundancies 

and increase clarity for stakeholders. 

The Agency seeks comment on whether 

this is appropriate. 

The proposed UIC Class VI rule is a 

separate rulemaking action; the 

comment period for that rulemaking 

closed on December 24, 2008. EPA will 

not be accepting or responding to 

comments on the proposed UIC Class VI 

rule through today’s proposal unless 

related to a specific issue raised by this 

action. 

F. Relationship to Other CO2 Injection 

Information Collection and Reporting 

Efforts 

In considering how to design this 

proposal, EPA reviewed and took into 

account other domestic and 

international reporting and monitoring 

programs. Key programs are 

summarized in this section. 

The Department of Energy (DOE) 

Energy Information Administration 

implements a voluntary GHG reporting 

program under section 1605(b) of the 

Energy Policy Act of 1992, which 

directed DOE to issue guidelines 

establishing a voluntary greenhouse gas 

reporting program (42 U.S.C. 13385(b)). 

Under the Energy Information 

Administration’s ‘‘1605(b) program,’’ 

reporters can choose to prepare an 

entity-wide GHG inventory and identify 

specific GHG reductions made by the 

entity.10 Reporting tools were revised 

and published in 2009 to assist entities 

in preparing a preliminary estimate of 

emissions. The 2007 updated 1605(b) 

guidance outlines a voluntary process to 

report data on CO2 sequestration. 

Currently, no CO2 injection or 

sequestration entity has reported under 

the 1605(b) program per the 2007 

guidelines. According to the Energy 

Information Administration Web site, 

the first reporting cycle under the 

revised Voluntary Reporting of 

Greenhouse Gases Program has not been 

completed as of January 15, 2010. The 

Energy Information Administration 

anticipates issuing an annual report and 

public use database for data reported 

through 2008 by early 2010.11 The 

1605(b) guidance requires the 

implementation of a site-specific 

monitoring plan, but this plan is not 

evaluated by DOE to determine whether 

the plan will provide for appropriate 

monitoring. Four prescriptive 

monitoring scenarios are offered with 

grades ranging from ‘‘A’’ to ‘‘C’’, any of 

which would be acceptable for 

compliance with the 1605(b) program. 

Furthermore, although the 1605(b) 

guidance cites the importance of 

reporting CO2 leakage should it occur, 

the guidance does not include a 

discussion of, procedures for, or 

methodologies for using monitoring 

technologies and techniques to quantify 

the leakage. As a result of this, and the 

fact that reporting is voluntary, the 

1605(b) program would not meet the 

data needs of this proposed rule. 

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 

made public IRS Notice 2009–83 Credit 

for Carbon Dioxide Sequestration under 

section 45Q on its Web site on October 

8, 2009.12 The notice provides 

procedures for the allocation of credits 

for CO2 sequestration under section 45Q 

of the Internal Revenue Code. Section 

45Q was enacted by section 115 of the 

Energy Improvement and Extension Act 

of 2008, (October 3, 2008) and was 

amended by section 1131 of the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009 (February 17, 2009). To 

claim this credit, a taxpayer must follow 

general monitoring and verification 

principles, calculate CO2 sequestered in 

the fiscal year using a mass-balance 

equation, and report to IRS the amount 

of qualified CO2 sequestered in the 

fiscal year. Seventy-five million metric 

tons of qualified CO2 can be taken into 

account for this credit. The IRS 

included a provision in the notice to 

supersede its monitoring and 

verification procedures and 

requirements with procedures and 

requirements finalized by EPA in future 

GS rulemaking such as the UIC Class VI 

proposal and this proposed rule. 

EPA has concluded for a number of 

reasons that the IRS data would not 

meet the needs outlined in this 

proposed rule. First, the IRS reporting 

requirement will expire after 75 million 

metric tons of CO2 is reported as 

sequestered to IRS, at which point the 

data collection will end. Second, the 

level of reporting and transparency 

would not meet the verification needs of 

this proposed rule. GS facilities only 

report the quantity of CO2 sequestered 

to IRS. The data used to calculate 

sequestration and the specific 

monitoring procedures followed will 

only be reviewed by IRS staff in the case 

of an audit. Given the variability in 

geology and other conditions at GS 

facilities, EPA believes that the 

monitoring approach at each GS facility 

must be reviewed on a case-by-case 

basis to ensure that it is appropriate for 

the site-specific geologic and 

operational conditions. Third, the IRS 

does not outline procedures or provide 

a mechanism for quantifying and 

reporting any CO2 leakage that may 

occur as is necessary for this proposed 

rule. 

EPA notes that the United States 

submits an inventory of GHG emissions 

that accounts for CCS to the Secretariat 

of the United Nations Framework 

Convention on Climate Change 

(UNFCCC) each year. The UNFCCC, 

ratified by the United States in 1992, 

establishes an overall framework for 

intergovernmental efforts to tackle the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

18582 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

13 IPCC, 1996. ‘‘Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for 

National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.’’ National 

Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme. Available: 

http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gl/ 

invs1.html. 

14 IPCC. 2000. ‘‘Good Practice Guidance and 

Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse 

Gas Inventories.’’ National Greehouse Gas 

Inventories Programme. Available at: http:// 

www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/english/. 

15 IPCC. 2003. ‘‘Good Practice Guidance for Land 

Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry.’’ National 

Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme. Available 

at: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/ 

gpglulucf/gpglulucf.html. 

16 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse 

Gas Inventories: Volume 2—Energy. Chapter 5 

Carbon Dioxide Transport, Injection, and Geological 

Storage. Available at: http://www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.htm. 

17Tier 3 methods include either detailed 

emission models or measurements and data at 

individual plant level where appropriate. 

18Available at: http://www.imo.org/includes/blast

Data.asp/doc_id=10531/9%20%20CO2%20

Sequestration%20English.pdf. 

challenge posed by climate change. The 

United States has submitted the 

Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and Sinks (Inventory) to the 

United Nations every year since 1993. 

The annual Inventory is consistent with 

national inventory data submitted by 

other UNFCCC parties, and uses 

internationally accepted methods for its 

emission estimates. For more 

information about the Inventory, please 

refer to the following Web site: http:// 

www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ 

usinventoryreport.htm. 

The United States currently follows 

the 1996 13 Intergovernmental Panel of 

Climate Change (IPCC) guidelines in 

preparing its Inventory, as 

supplemented by IPCC Good Practice 

Guidance (GPG) from 2000 14 and 

2003 15. Since these guidelines do not 

provide information on the accounting 

of GS, EPA addressed CO2 usage in the 

2007 Inventory by accepting some 

general, top-down assumptions about 

the end-use of supplied CO2. First, EPA 

collected CO2 production data for 

natural CO2 domes and estimated for 

each dome the amount of CO2 used for 

ER operations and the amount of CO2

used for non-ER operations. EPA 

assumed that the percentage of naturally 

produced CO2 used for non-ER 

operations (e.g., food processing, 

chemical production) was all emitted to 

the atmosphere. The percentage used for 

ER operations was assumed to be 

sequestered. Second, EPA collected data 

from industry on anthropogenic CO2

emitted from natural gas processing and 

ammonia plants and accounted it as 

emitted, regardless of whether the CO2

was captured or not. 

The IPCC published new inventory 

guidelines in 2006 16, which directly 

address accounting for GS and include 

methodologies for the estimation of 

emissions from capture, transport, 

injection, and GS of CO2. The guidelines 

are based on the principle that the CCS 

system should be accounted for in a 

complete and consistent manner across 

the entire Inventory. The approach 

accounts for CO2 produced from natural 

CO2 domes and captured at industrial 

facilities as well as emissions from 

capture, transport, and use. For GS 

specifically, the IPCC guidelines outline 

a Tier 3 methodology 17 for estimating 

and reporting emissions based on sitespecific evaluations of each storage site. 

EPA believes that the GS monitoring, 

reporting, and verification requirements 

of this proposed rule are consistent with 

the 2006 IPCC guidelines. 

In considering how to design this 

proposal, EPA also took into account the 

monitoring requirements adopted in 

other countries, in particular other 

UNFCCC member countries that have 

already taken steps towards collecting 

information for CCS to meet the 2006 

IPCC guidelines. The Directive of the 

European Parliament and of the Council 

on the geological storage of carbon 

dioxide (Commission decision 2007/ 

589/EC) establishes a legal framework 

for the environmentally safe geological 

storage of CO2. It requires European 

Council (EC) member States to ensure 

that each GS site operator will carry out 

monitoring of the injection facilities, the 

storage complex (including the CO2

plume), and, where appropriate, the 

surrounding environment for detection 

of any significant migration or leakage 

of CO2 or any significant adverse effect 

on the surrounding environment. 

The directive requires that monitoring 

frequency be determined by the 

competent authority, and should be at 

least once a year. A monitoring report 

should be developed that describes the 

quantities and properties of the CO2

streams delivered and injected, 

including concentration of the CO2

streams, in the reporting period. The 

parameters to be monitored include: 

• Fugitive emissions of CO2 at the 

injection facility; 

• CO2 volumetric flow at injection 

wellheads; 

• CO2 pressure and temperature at 

injection wellheads (to determine mass 

flow); 

• Chemical analysis of the injected 

material; and 

• Reservoir temperature and pressure 

(to determine CO2 phase behavior and 

state). 

Per the directive, each GS site should 

choose monitoring technology based on 

best practices available at the time the 

monitoring plan is designed. The 

following options should be considered 

and used when appropriate: 

• Technologies that can detect the 

presence, location, and migration paths 

of CO2 in the subsurface and at the 

surface; 

• Technologies that provide 

information about pressure-volume 

behavior and aerial/vertical distribution 

of CO2-plume to refine numerical 3–Dsimulation to the 3–D-geological models 

of the storage formation; and 

• Technologies that can provide a 

wide aerial spread in order to capture 

information on any previously 

undetected potential leakage pathways 

across the aerial dimensions of the 

complete storage complex and beyond, 

in the event of significant irregularities 

or migration of CO2 out of the storage 

complex. 

In Australia, the Proposed 

Greenhouse Gas Geological 

Sequestration Regulations 2009 were 

proposed to support the implementation 

and administration of the Greenhouse 

Gas Geological Sequestration Act 2008 

and to address several CCS related 

issues, including monitoring 

requirements for GS. These regulations 

require that each GS site develop a 

monitoring and verification plan which 

includes the following: 

• Characteristics of the geological 

formation into which the GHG 

substance is to be injected and any 

geological or other conditions that may 

influence containment of a stored GHG; 

• A description of the existing 

environment above, on and below the 

surface of the ground; and any resource 

above, on and below the surface of the 

ground that a person is entitled to 

extract or use under a resource 

authority; 

• Details of the equipment proposed 

to be used to monitor the behavior of 

stored greenhouse gas substances, and 

where it is to be located; 

• Details of the techniques to be used 

to monitor, the length of time that each 

technique is to be used, and how often 

each monitoring technique is to be 

carried out; and 

• The regulation also specifies that a 

report on the outcome of all monitoring 

and verification activities carried out 

should be completed quarterly. 

Other international efforts have also 

been useful to EPA in developing the 

requirements of this proposed rule. The 

International Maritime Organization 

(IMO) has published under the London 

Protocol 18 two documents to provide 

guidelines to parties for the assessment 

of and implementation of disposal of 

CO2 in sub-seabed geologic formations: 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18583 

19Available at: http://cdm.unfccc.int/about/ccs/ 

index.html. 

Specific Guidelines for Assessment of 

Carbon Dioxide Streams for Disposal 

into Sub-Seabed Geological Formations 

(2009) and Risk Assessment and 

Management Framework for CO2

Sequestration in Sub-Seabed Geological 

Structures (2007). These guidelines 

focus on several aspects of CCS 

including: 

• CO2 stream characterization 

(chemical and physical properties); 

• Waste prevention audit; 

• Consideration of waste management 

options; 

• Action lists; 

• Identification and characterization 

of sub-seabed geological formation; 

• Assessment of potential impacts; 

• Monitoring and risk management; 

and 

• Permitting and permit condition. 

Under the Kyoto Protocol, the Clean 

Development Mechanism (CDM) is a 

market-based mechanism that aids 

countries in meeting their emission 

limitation and reduction goals through 

emission reduction (or removal) projects 

in developing nations. These projects 

allow companies in industrialized 

countries to receive credits that can 

either be put towards their emission 

limitation or reduction, traded, or sold. 

Two new proposed CDM methodologies 

(NM0167 and NM0168) address CCS 

activities.19 These new baseline and 

monitoring methodologies have not yet 

been approved by the CDM Executive 

Board, but EPA continues to follow their 

progress and to monitor for other GS 

methodology proposals. 

II. Rationale for Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Verification 

Requirements 

A. Definition of Reporting Facilities 

1. CO2 Injection Facility 

EPA is proposing that the CO2

injection facility be defined broadly to 

cover wells or a group of wells that 

inject CO2 into the subsurface or subseabed geologic formations. This 

definition would encompass both 

onshore and offshore facilities. 

EPA is proposing a broad definition of 

CO2 injection facility to ensure complete 

reporting of basic information regarding 

the CO2 transferred onsite, the source of 

the CO2 if known, and the CO2 injected. 

The broad definition also provides 

reporters with flexibility either to report 

this basic information on a well by well 

basis or to group wells in an area for 

reporting purposes. Given the proposed 

threshold and applicability for CO2

injection facilities, a more specific 

definition addressing the aggregation of 

groups of wells in an area is not 

necessary. As discussed in more detail 

in Section II.B of this preamble, 

however, EPA is soliciting comment on 

the question of how to define the source 

category if a more precise definition is 

necessary. 

2. GS Facility 

EPA is proposing facilities injecting 

CO2 for the long-term containment in 

subsurface geologic formations would 

meet the definition of GS in this 

proposed rule and would report 

additional information. EPA is 

proposing that facilities that inject CO2

for ER would not be GS facilities unless 

they inject CO2 for the long-term 

containment in subsurface geologic 

formations and submit and gain EPA 

approval of an MRV plan. 

To comply with the specific reporting 

requirements discussed in Section II.C 

of this preamble, the reporter would 

need to identify the sources and surface 

equipment making up the GS facility. 

However, EPA recognizes that defining 

the extent of a GS facility source may be 

difficult. For example, there may be a 

number of injection wells in an oilfield 

under common ownership or common 

control of which only a subset would be 

considered GS facilities. In that 

example, the question of whether and 

how to aggregate various wells arises. In 

addition, the CO2 plume and pressure 

front associated with a GS facility may 

extend for a distance beyond the 

injection point, and widely separated 

wells may be injecting into the same 

pore space. Because EPA is seeking data 

on the amount of CO2 sequestered by 

these facilities and because EPA is 

proposing an all-in threshold for these 

facilities, EPA is proposing a narrow 

definition of GS source to simplify the 

reporting requirements associated with 

emissions from combustion and surface 

equipment. For purposes of this 

reporting rule, EPA is proposing to 

define a GS facility to include all 

structures associated with the injection 

of CO2 located between the points of 

CO2 transfer onsite from offsite and the 

injection well (or wells). A GS facility 

that injects CO2 to enhance the recovery 

of oil or natural gas will also include all 

structures associated with production 

located between the production wells 

and the separators. 

Although EPA is proposing a narrow 

definition of GS facility, the proposed 

rule would require GS facilities to 

monitor over a spatial area that will 

almost certainly extend beyond the 

boundaries of the facility, as defined 

here. Given that a main focus of this 

proposal is to obtain information 

regarding the efficacy of GS, EPA 

anticipates that the MRV plans for GS 

facilities will need to require monitoring 

over a broad area. This is discussed in 

Section II.D of this preamble. 

EPA seeks comment on its approach 

to defining the boundary of the GS 

facility. In particular, EPA seeks 

comment on the question of whether 

EPA should require the aggregation of 

wells located in an area, and if so, what 

rules should be applied for determining 

what equipment comprises the source. 

EPA seeks comment on whether the GS 

facility should be defined to include the 

spatial area of monitoring proposed in 

Section II.D of this preamble. EPA also 

seeks comment on whether it should 

follow the approach for onshore 

facilities in the proposed subpart W 

regulations, which requires the 

aggregation of equipment to the 

geographic boundary of a single 

hydrocarbon basin as defined by the 

American Association of Petroleum 

Geologists. 

EPA is proposing to exempt research 

and development (R&D) as defined at 40 

CFR Part 98.6 from subpart RR, 

consistent with the approach taken in 

subparts C through QQ of the MRR. EPA 

is also proposing that, for the purposes 

of GS facility requirements under 

subpart RR, research and development 

means those projects receiving Federal 

funding to research practices and 

monitoring techniques that will enable 

safe and effective long-term 

containment of a gaseous, liquid, or 

supercritical CO2 stream in subsurface 

geologic formations. R&D projects 

would not be required to submit an 

MRV plan under subpart RR. EPA seeks 

comment on how R&D projects are 

defined and treated in this proposal. 

3. Other CO2 End-Users 

In developing this proposed rule, EPA 

considered requiring reporting from 

various other end-users of the CO2 that 

is produced and supplied to the 

economy, including both emissive and 

potentially non-emissive applications. 

EPA considered but is not proposing 

requiring reporting from these other 

end-users; EPA has concluded that 

collecting information pursuant to 

subpart PP on CO2 supplied to the 

economy will provide EPA with the 

necessary data on emissive volumes 

while minimizing the number of 

facilities impacted by this rule. EPA 

seeks comment on this conclusion. The 

Agency also seeks comment on whether 

applications, such as precipitated 

calcium carbonate and some cement 

production, permanently sequester CO2

and if so, which industries this would 

include; how many facilities operate in 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

18584 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

20A miscible CO2 flood injects CO2 as a liquid at 

high pressure to completely mix with oil and make 

it flow more easily. An immiscible CO2 flood uses 

lower pressures of CO2 to swell the oil and provide 

additional gas pressure to move the oil. 

21U.S. EPA Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse 

Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990–2007, Draft Report, 

EPA 430–R–09–004. Available at: http://epa.gov/ 

climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html. 

22Subpart RR General TSD (see docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0926). 

each of these industries; how much of 

the CO2 consumed in each industry 

would be sequestered; whether a 

sequestration factor would be 

reasonable in any case; and what 

methodologies could be used to verify 

this sequestration. 

B. Selection of Reporting Thresholds 

To determine the appropriate 

threshold for reporting under subpart 

RR, EPA considered both a threshold 

based on the amount of CO2 emitted and 

a threshold based on the amount of CO2

injected underground. EPA concluded 

that an emissions-based threshold 

would be problematic because of the 

lack of data on the incidence and scale 

of surface emissions and leakage from 

injection and GS of facilities. EPA seeks 

comment on how the Agency could 

determine an emissions-based threshold 

and detailed data underlying such an 

approach. EPA accordingly analyzed 

injection facilities based on the quantity 

of CO2 injected underground and 

considered whether an injection 

threshold should apply. EPA evaluated 

a no threshold option (i.e., all facilities 

that inject CO2 would be required to 

report), 1,000 metric tons per year, 

10,000 metric tons per year, 25,000 

metric tons per year, and 100,000 metric 

tons per year per facility of CO2

injected. 

To establish a count of CO2 injection 

facilities, EPA relied on data reported in 

the Oil and Gas Journal (O&GJ) 

Enhanced Oil Recovery Survey 

published in April 2008 (Volume 106, 

Issue 15). EPA compiled all the projects 

listed for miscible and immiscible CO2

floods 20 reported in the O&GJ survey. A 

total of 105 active ER projects were 

reported. In some cases multiple 

projects were conducted by the same 

company in an oil field. For the 

purposes of this analysis, EPA grouped 

these reported projects by field and by 

owner or operator to align with typical 

industry practices for reporting project 

information to State oil and gas 

commissions. This computation results 

in eighty facilities for the facility count. 

The O&GJ survey does not provide the 

specific volume of CO2 used in each of 

the active ER projects. To calculate the 

estimated volume of CO2 injected at 

each ER project, EPA took the total 

amount of CO2 used daily for ER, as 

reported by the U.S. EPA in the Draft 

1990–2007 Inventory of U.S. 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks,21

apportioned it to each ER project 

according to an average value for the 

fractional production of oil attributed to 

ER using CO2 as presented in the O&GJ 

survey, and normalized the amount of 

CO2 injection on an annual basis. EPA 

recognizes that this is likely an 

oversimplification of the actual 

injection volumes used at each facility 

and is seeking comment on whether it 

is reasonable to rely on the principle 

that higher production is a function of 

higher CO2 injection volumes. If a 

different analytical approach would be 

more appropriate, EPA seeks detailed 

recommendations on the alternative 

approach as well as additional data that 

would enable EPA to conduct a more 

comprehensive analysis. 

The results of the threshold analysis 

are presented in Table 3 of this 

preamble. For further information on 

the assumptions underlying the 

threshold analysis, please refer to the 

general technical support document 

(TSD) for this proposal.22

TABLE 3—CO2 INJECTION FACILITIES: EFFECT OF INJECTION THRESHOLD ON REPORTED AMOUNT OF CO2 INJECTED AND

NUMBER OF FACILITIES REQUIRED TO REPORT

Threshold level (metric tons/yr of CO2

injected) 

Total estimated 

national (metric 

tons/yr of CO2

injected) 

Total number of U.S. 

facilities 

Reported amount of CO2 injected Number of facilities 

required to report 

Metric tons/yr of 

CO2 injected 

Percent 

covered Number Percent 

covered 

All In ............................................................. 40,111,639 80 40,111,639 100.0 80 100.0 

1,000 ............................................................ 40,111,639 80 40,111,115 100.0 74 92.5 

10,000 .......................................................... 40,111,639 80 40,099,065 100.0 71 88.8 

25,000 .......................................................... 40,111,639 80 40,005,238 100.0 65 81.3 

100,000 ........................................................ 40,111,639 80 39,065,039 97.4 48 60.0 

The analysis shown in Table 3 of this 

preamble suggests that nearly all 

injection data can be collected from 

roughly half of operating facilities at an 

injection threshold of 100,000 metric 

tons/yr of CO2 injected. EPA considered 

establishing an injection threshold of 

100,000 metric tons/yr of CO2 injected. 

However, a low CO2 injection or 

production quantity in one year is not 

a reliable prediction of the quantity that 

may be injected in the following year or 

in a year of full-scale operation. For 

example, six of the eighty facilities 

reported zero or near zero production 

and therefore did not exceed the 1,000 

metric tons threshold as shown in Table 

3 of this preamble. However, these six 

facilities may inject over this threshold 

in the following year. In addition, more 

than 40 of the 105 projects in this 

analysis were described in the OG&J 

survey as ‘‘just started’’ or pilot projects, 

indicating that they may not be at fully 

operational levels of CO2 injection. 

Given the variability of CO2 injection 

rates, EPA is proposing that all facilities 

report irrespective of injection or 

production quantities in the reporting 

year. 

EPA is proposing that all CO2

injection facilities would be required to 

report the minimum information in 

subpart RR (quantity of CO2 injected, 

quantity of CO2 transferred onsite from 

offsite, and source of the CO2 if known) 

at no threshold. An all-in reporting 

threshold would allow the Agency to 

comprehensively track all CO2 supply 

(as reported in Suppliers of CO2, subpart 

PP) that is injected underground. This 

approach is consistent with the all-in 

requirements in the MRR for suppliers 

of petroleum, natural gas, and coal-toliquid products (subparts LL, MM, and 

NN), producers of industrial gases 

(subpart OO), and suppliers of CO2

(subpart PP). It was reasonable to 

require all of the facilities in these 

source categories to report because it 

would result in the most comprehensive 

accounting possible, simplify the rule, 

and permit facilities to quickly 

determine whether or not they must 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18585 

report; the same rationale applies for 

this source category proposed today. 

Furthermore, it would create a uniform 

burden for all covered facilities, 

ensuring a level playing field in, and 

preventing fragmentation of, the ER 

sector. EPA has estimated the cost for 

CO2 injection facilities to comply with 

the minimum reporting requirements in 

this proposed rule and has determined 

that the burden would be small, given 

the equipment and data collection 

efforts already in place at ER projects. 

EPA seeks comment on whether an 

all-in reporting threshold for injection 

facilities is appropriate or if a 100,000 

metric tons/yr of CO2 injected or other 

threshold on quantity injected (e.g., 1 

million metric tons/yr of CO2 injected) 

should be applied, leveraging 

information collected through the UIC 

program. To apply a reporting threshold 

to injection facilities, EPA would need 

to more specifically define which wells 

should be grouped together to delineate 

an injection facility. One option would 

be to group wells together by field as 

EPA did with the OG&J data in this 

threshold analysis. This definition 

would not be appropriate for injection 

facilities that are not producing oil or 

gas, however, such as those injecting 

into saline formations or coal seams. A 

second option would be to group wells 

together by basin. This definition would 

not be appropriate for injection facilities 

that are not producing oil or gas, 

however, such as those injecting into 

saline formations or coal seams. A third 

option would be to group wells by UIC 

permit; an injection well would be 

delineated by individual well if 

permitted by UIC as such and by a 

group of wells if permitted by UIC as a 

group. This definition would not be 

appropriate for sub-seabed injection 

wells outside the jurisdiction of SDWA. 

A fourth option would be to define 

injection facility as one individual well. 

This definition could be impractical for 

injection facilities that operate hundreds 

of wells, however, such as some ER 

projects. EPA seeks comment on which 

of these options for delineating an 

injection facility, or any options not 

discussed, would be most appropriate in 

the case that a reporting threshold based 

on injection quantity is appropriate. 

2. GS Facilities 

Under this action, EPA is proposing 

that the subset of CO2 injection facilities 

that are conducting GS (i.e., a GS 

facility) must report to EPA a second 

tier of data. EPA considered whether a 

threshold should apply to this second 

tier of data given that it would place a 

reporting burden on GS facilities. 

However, EPA could not perform an 

analysis on GS facilities based on 

emissions without data on actual or 

expected GS facility emissions. EPA 

also could not perform a threshold 

analysis based on injection due to the 

uncertainty around predictions of 

injection quantities for potential GS 

facilities. In addition, it is difficult to 

predict how many injection facilities 

would choose to report GS. Therefore, 

EPA is proposing to exempt GS R&D 

projects but otherwise require all GS 

facilities to comply with the GS 

monitoring, reporting, and verification 

requirements of subpart RR, and that 

they report fugitive, vented, and 

combustion emissions from surface 

equipment (under subpart W, RR, or C, 

as applicable). An all-in threshold will 

allow EPA to work with the earlymovers of this nascent industry and to 

strengthen EPA’s understanding of GS. 

EPA is seeking comment on the 

proposed injection-based threshold 

analysis approach and how the Agency 

might use an alternative threshold 

approach, such as an emissions-based 

threshold or risk-based threshold. The 

Agency is also seeking comment on 

whether the threshold analysis 

conducted for CO2 injection facilities 

could also be applied to GS and, if so, 

whether a 100,000 metric tons/yr of CO2

injected or other threshold (e.g., 1 

million metric tons/yr of CO2 injected) 

should be applied. The Agency requests 

supporting data which could be used to 

establish a threshold. 

C. Selection of Data To Be Reported 

This section describes the data that 

injection facilities and GS facilities must 

report under subpart RR. The first tier 

of reporting requirements described is 

for all facilities that inject CO2

underground. The second tier of 

reporting requirements described is for 

GS facilities only. 

The first tier has three proposed 

reporting requirements. First, EPA is 

proposing that all CO2 injection 

facilities report the mass of CO2

injected. This would be determined by 

the mass flow or volumetric flow and 

CO2 concentration of the CO2 stream 

injected. Facilities must use mass flow 

meters to accurately measure the mass 

of the CO2 injected or volumetric flow 

meters to accurately measure the 

volumetric flow of the CO2 injected. To 

minimize the purchase and installation 

of new equipment, facilities subject to 

the UIC program would be allowed to 

measure the mass or volume of CO2

injected with the flow meters installed 

for purposes of compliance with their 

UIC permits. EPA accordingly is 

proposing two methodologies for 

making these calculations, depending 

on whether the facility is using a 

volumetric or a mass flow meter. EPA is 

proposing this approach so that 

facilities can comply with these 

reporting requirements regardless of the 

type of flow meter already installed. In 

the case of a facility using a volumetric 

flow meter, EPA assumes that the 

facility can determine operating 

temperature and pressure, which would 

allow for the volumetric flow of CO2 to 

be converted from operating conditions 

to standard conditions and, using a 

density value for CO2 at standard 

conditions and the measured 

concentration of CO2 in the flow, 

determine the mass of CO2. EPA seeks 

comment on the assumption that 

facilities can determine operating 

temperature and pressure, and 

alternative approaches for determining 

the mass of CO2 using a volumetric flow 

meter where operating temperature and 

pressure cannot be determined. 

Facilities would measure the CO2

concentration by sampling and testing 

the injected stream at the flow meter. 

With this approach, the flow and the 

concentration would be measured at the 

same point in the system for maximized 

data accuracy. Accordingly, if the flow 

meter were installed at the 

compressor(s), then the concentration 

would be measured at the 

compressor(s). If the flow meter were 

installed at the well(s), then the 

concentration would be measured at the 

well(s). EPA recognizes that a facility 

with tens or hundreds of injection wells, 

all of which have flow meters already 

installed at the wellheads, may face a 

significant burden in testing 

concentration at each of those flow 

meters. EPA seeks comment on 

alternative locations other than the flow 

meter(s) where concentration of the CO2

injected could be measured at decreased 

burden without decreasing accuracy. 

EPA also seeks comment on potential 

methodologies to estimate concentration 

of the flow injected if flow is measured 

elsewhere, such as apportioning the 

concentration of CO2 transferred onsite 

and the concentration of recycled CO2 to 

the quantities from each source. 

Second, EPA is proposing that all CO2

injection facilities report the mass of the 

flow transferred onsite from offsite to 

verify the mass of CO2 reported as 

injected. This would be determined by 

the mass flow or volumetric flow and 

CO2 concentration of the flow 

transferred onsite from offsite. A subset 

of CO2 injection facilities—facilities 

conducting ER—inject a combination of 

new CO2 transferred onsite from offsite 

and old CO2 recycled from the 

operation. Therefore, EPA would use 

reported data on CO2 transferred onsite 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

18586 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

from offsite to estimate the amount of 

CO2 recycled from ER operations. 

EPA is proposing that all CO2

injection facilities monitor the CO2

concentrations and mass flow or 

volumetric flow quarterly. The purpose 

of these measurements is to account for 

fluctuations in the CO2 concentration 

over the reporting year. EPA seeks 

comment on this proposal and on the 

level of burden this frequency of 

reporting requires for facilities following 

different frequency parameters for their 

UIC permit. 

Third, EPA is proposing that all CO2

injection facilities would report the 

source contracted to supply the CO2, if 

known. EPA would seek information on 

whether the CO2 was contracted from a 

natural source (i.e., produced from a 

natural CO2 dome) or an industrial 

source. If an industrial source, EPA 

would seek information on the type of 

source if known (captured at a power 

plant, pulp and paper mill, ethanol 

plant, natural gas processing facility, or 

other type of industrial source). This 

would allow EPA to track the movement 

of CO2 through a CCS system and any 

shift toward anthropogenic CO2 supply 

sources. Pipelines that carry CO2 to the 

CO2 injection facility may contain a mix 

of CO2 from various sources. EPA 

recognizes that facilities may not know 

the source of CO2 that they purchase. 

Accordingly, EPA would require the 

data to be reported only if known. EPA 

seeks comment on the proposed 

approach for reporting the source 

contracted to supply the CO2 if known. 

EPA recognizes that at this time the 

source of CO2 injected underground is 

predominantly CO2 produced from 

natural CO2 domes. It is possible that GS 

using naturally sourced CO2 may not 

qualify as a GHG mitigation action 

because the purpose of GS is to isolate 

CO2 that would otherwise have been 

emitted to the atmosphere. Under this 

proposed rule, however, GS facilities 

must report annual CO2 sequestered 

regardless of the source. 

EPA seeks comment on whether the 

three reporting requirements described 

above are sufficient or if there are 

additional reporting requirements that 

should apply to all CO2 injection 

facilities. EPA is proposing that the best 

available monitoring methods (BAMM) 

provision outlined in § 98.3(d) of the 

MRR would apply in 2011 to injection 

facilities for the first tier of reporting 

requirements. EPA seeks comment on 

this proposal. 

For this proposed rule, EPA also 

considered, but is not proposing, that a 

CO2 injection facility be required to 

report only the CO2 injection data it 

collects under its current UIC permit 

(under any class) or relevant permit in 

the case of a facility that is outside 

SDWA jurisdiction. Although this 

would impose the lowest burden on the 

reporter since no new data would need 

to be collected, EPA would not receive 

complete data on the mass of CO2

injected. While collection of injection 

volume is a minimum monitoring 

requirement for all UIC well classes, 

CO2 concentration data are not. 

Furthermore, facilities are not required 

to report CO2 transferred onsite from 

offsite sources or the source of CO2

under any UIC permit class. 

EPA is proposing that GS facilities 

would be required to report a second 

tier of data in subpart RR. These 

reporting requirements include the 

amount of leakage of CO2 to the surface 

(if any), the amount of CO2 in produced 

oil or gas (for GS facilities conducting 

active ER operations), the amount of 

fugitive and vented CO2 emissions from 

surface equipment, and the total annual 

amount of CO2 sequestered using a mass 

balance equation. In this equation, the 

sum of the CO2 emissions listed above 

would be subtracted from the amount of 

CO2 injected to equal the amount of CO2

sequestered. These four reporting 

requirements are described in more 

detail below. 

GS facilities must report CO2 leakage, 

if any occurs from the subsurface 

geologic formation to the surface. EPA is 

not proposing specific procedures or 

methodologies for detecting or 

quantifying CO2 leakage. However, each 

GS facility would be required to develop 

and implement a site-specific approach 

to monitoring, detecting, and 

quantifying CO2 leakage based on five 

requirements that are described in 

Section II.D of this preamble. 

Second, EPA is proposing that GS 

facilities that are actively producing oil 

or gas would be required to report the 

quantity of CO2 produced out of the 

subsurface with produced oil or natural 

gas. This would be done by measuring 

at each separator the volumetric flow or 

mass flow and the concentration of a 

CO2 stream. These GS facilities would 

also report CO2 that remains in the oil 

or gas after separation. 

Third, unless already reported in the 

petroleum and natural gas system 

subpart, subpart W, EPA is proposing 

that all GS facilities would be required 

to report fugitive and vented CO2

emissions from surface components 

located within the facility for which 

procedures and methodologies are 

provided in subpart W. This could 

include pump blow-downs and fugitive 

emissions from valves, flanges, and 

compressors. EPA seeks these data to 

better understand the volume of fugitive 

and vented GHG emissions at GS 

facilities as compared to the volume of 

CO2 sequestered. This information is an 

important indicator of the effectiveness 

of GS as a GHG mitigation technology. 

In addition, fugitive and vented CO2

emissions will need to be included in 

the mass balance calculation of GS if 

they occur downstream of the CO2

injection flow meter or (if applicable for 

ER projects) upstream of the production 

flow meter. This is further discussed in 

Section II.D.3 of this preamble. This 

proposed rule does not impose a general 

requirement for all CO2 injection 

facilities to report fugitive and vented 

CO2 emissions from surface components 

since facilities that are not sequestering 

CO2 would not report GS. EPA seeks 

comment on this approach. 

Lastly, EPA is proposing that GS 

facilities use a mass balance equation to 

calculate and report CO2 sequestered in 

the subsurface geologic formation in the 

reporting year. This reported data point 

would be valuable for EPA as the 

Agency tracks CO2 across a CCS system 

and will provide EPA with information 

on the performance of GS projects over 

time. EPA seeks comment on this 

approach. 

Alternatively, EPA could approximate 

CO2 sequestered in the subsurface 

without proposing additional reporting 

requirements for GS facilities, by using 

data already reported on CO2 transferred 

from offsite and CO2 injected. EPA 

considered but did not propose this 

approach because it does not account 

for potential leakage from the subsurface 

and does not properly account for CO2

fugitive or vented emissions from 

surface equipment during postproduction, processing, transport, or 

compression. Given the importance of 

GS as a GHG mitigation technology, 

EPA seeks to achieve an accurate 

reporting of GS. EPA seeks comment on 

the proposed requirements for GS 

facilities. 

EPA recommends that CO2 injection 

and GS facilities review subparts C and 

PP and proposed subpart W. Subpart C 

provides GHG calculation procedures 

and reporting requirements for 

stationary fuel combustion devices that 

combust solid, liquid, or gaseous fuel. 

CO2 injection and GS facilities should 

pay close attention to compressors and 

pumps located within the facility 

boundary. Subpart PP provides 

procedures for calculating and reporting 

quantities of CO2 supplied to the 

economy. The subpart W proposal 

covers petroleum and natural gas 

systems by defining eight types of 

facilities and providing calculation 

procedures and reporting requirements 

for the GHG emissions of specific 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18587 

equipment that may be located in those 

facilities. CO2 injection and GS facilities 

should review in particular the 

definitions of onshore and offshore 

petroleum and natural gas production 

facilities. 

EPA is proposing that if an injection 

facility is not conducting GS, it would 

determine applicability to other 

subparts of the rule separately from 

applicability to subpart RR (see Table 4 

of this preamble). This is similar to the 

approach taken by reporters of upstream 

petroleum products supply, natural gas 

supply, natural gas liquids supply, and 

carbon dioxide supply (reporters in 

subparts MM, NN, and PP). For 

example, an injection facility not 

characterized as a GS facility would not 

automatically trigger reporting under 

subpart C by this proposal, but would 

make a separate applicability 

determination under subpart C. A GS 

facility would automatically trigger 

applicability under other subparts of the 

rule. This is similar to the approach 

taken by reporters of downstream 

emissions in the rest of the MRR. For 

example, the GS facility would report 

under subpart C the emissions from 

combustion sources located within the 

facility boundary, such as compressors. 

TABLE 4—REPORTING REQUIREMENTS IN MRR FOR CO2 INJECTION AND GS FACILITIES (IN SUBPART RR, SUBPART C, 

AND PROPOSED SUBPART W) 

Data to report 

Injection facilities (no GS) GS facilities 

ER Other With ER Other 

Quantity of CO2 transferred 

onsite.

subpart RR ........................... subpart RR ........................... subpart RR ........................... subpart RR. 

Source of CO2 if known ........ subpart RR ........................... subpart RR ........................... subpart RR ........................... subpart RR. 

Quantity of CO2 injected ....... subpart RR ........................... subpart RR ........................... subpart RR ........................... subpart RR. 

Fugitive and vented CO2

emissions from surface 

equipment.

subpart W ............................. Not Applicable ...................... subpart W or subpart RR 1 ... subpart RR. 

Emissions from combustion 

sources.

Separate applicability determination.Separate applicability determination.subpart C 2 ............................ subpart C 2. 

Quantity of CO2 produced 

with oil or natural gas.

Not Required ........................ Not Required ........................ subpart RR ........................... subpart RR. 

Percent of CO2 estimated to 

remain with the oil and gas.

Not required .......................... Not required .......................... subpart RR ........................... Not applicable. 

Quantity of CO2 emitted from 

the subsurface.

Not Required ........................ Not Required ........................ subpart RR ........................... subpart RR. 

Quantity of CO2 sequestered Not Applicable ...................... Not Applicable ...................... subpart RR ........................... subpart RR. 

1Subpart W if the facility meets the subpart W threshold; if not then report in subpart RR. 

2All GS facilities will be required to report combustion emissions according to subpart C. 

In selecting data to be reported under 

today’s proposal, EPA compared 

reporting requirements under today’s 

subpart RR proposal with reporting 

under the UIC Class VI proposal (see 

Table 5 of this preamble). EPA found 

two data elements with potential 

overlap. The first area of potential 

overlap is the reporting of the amount 

(flow rate) of injected CO2. The UIC 

Class VI and subpart RR proposals differ 

in the measurement unit and collection/ 

reporting frequency. EPA determined 

that reporting of the amount (flow rate) 

of injected CO2 was necessary in order 

to harmonize the data with other 

subparts of the MRR. To ensure that 

data needs are harmonized between the 

MRR and the UIC program requirements 

and to reduce burden, and because this 

data under a State-issued UIC permit is 

currently submitted to States while, 

under today’s subpart RR proposal, 

reporters will be submitting data 

directly to EPA. EPA will look for ways 

to integrate data management between 

the UIC and MRR programs and the 

Agency is seeking comment on 

reporting the amount (flow rate) of CO2

injected for purposes of this proposal. 

TABLE 5—DATA ELEMENTS REPORTED UNDER UIC CLASS VI PROPOSAL AND SUBPART RR PROPOSAL

Data element UIC class VI proposal 

Subpart RR proposal 

CO2 injection facilities (no 

GS) GS facilities 

Quantity of CO2 transferred onsite .................................. No ...................................... Yes .................................... Yes. 

Quantity (flow rate) of CO2 injected ................................ Yes .................................... Yes .................................... Yes. 

Fugitive and vented emissions from surface equipment No ...................................... No ...................................... Yes. 

Quantity of CO2 produced with oil or natural gas (ER) .. No ...................................... No ...................................... Yes. 

Percent of CO2 estimated to remain with the oil and gas 

(ER).

No ...................................... No ...................................... Yes. 

Quantity of CO2 emitted from the subsurface ................. No ...................................... No ...................................... Yes. 

Quantity of CO2 sequestered in the subsurface ............. No ...................................... No ...................................... Yes. 

Cumulative mass of CO2 sequestered in the subsurface No ...................................... No ...................................... Yes. 

Monitoring plan ................................................................ Yes .................................... No ...................................... Yes. 

The second area of potential overlap 

relates to monitoring plans. Although 

both the UIC Class VI proposal and 

today’s subpart RR proposal have 

monitoring plan requirements, the UIC 

Class VI proposal is focused on 

protection of USDWs, while today’s 

subpart RR proposal is focused on air 

emissions. Potential differences include 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

18588 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

baseline data and detection and 

measurement of CO2 leakage to the 

surface. Recognizing that air monitoring 

under the UIC Class VI proposal is at the 

discretion of the UIC director, EPA 

notes that a UIC Class VI permit may 

fulfill requirements under today’s 

proposal. 

EPA considered whether a GS facility 

should also report methane (CH4) 

leakage emissions from the subsurface. 

CH4 emissions from the subsurface may 

occur at oil and natural gas reservoirs or 

ECBM sites. The cases in which leakage 

of CH4 could occur at these sites may be 

similar to the potential for CO2 leakage. 

CH4 leakage could potentially occur 

through improperly sealed wells, open 

faults, and other pathways that have 

also been identified as potential CO2

leakage pathways. However, CH4 is 

present as a gas, and thus may be more 

upwardly mobile than CO2 which is 

injected as a supercritical fluid. 

Therefore, the potential for leakage of 

methane at depleted oil and gas or 

ECBM sites may be greater than for CO2.

EPA is proposing to focus on CO2

emissions. EPA recognizes the potential 

for CH4 leakage from the subsurface at 

facilities conducting GS in oil and gas 

reservoirs or coal seams and therefore 

seeks comment on whether to require 

reporting on CH4 leakage. If the 

potential for CH4 leakage exists, the GS 

reporter could include in the MRV plan 

a monitoring strategy to detect and 

quantify potential CH4 leakage. CH4

fugitive and vented emissions from 

surface equipment are covered under 

the proposed oil and gas subpart, 

subpart W. 

Under subparts C through QQ of the 

MRR, adjacent or contiguous equipment 

in actual physical contact under 

common ownership or common control 

constitute a facility (see Section 98.6 of 

the MRR). In the case of petroleum and 

natural gas systems and GS, equipment 

are not necessarily in physical contact 

with one another in the conventional 

sense of the term. Subparts W and RR 

are each proposing interpretations of 

what would constitute a facility. As a 

result, a GS facility conducting ER may 

apply one facility boundary for 

reporting under subpart W and a 

different facility boundary for reporting 

under subpart RR. EPA acknowledges 

that this may present a challenge for 

submitting annual reports, depending 

on how the data system is designed. A 

CO2 injection or GS operation would 

submit an annual report to EPA 

according to the proposed definition of 

facility discussed in Section II.A of this 

preamble. EPA seeks comment on a 

resolution that would reduce reporting 

burden while still meeting the data 

needs of both proposed subparts W and 

RR. 

EPA also recognizes that, in the case 

of an ER operation conducting GS, the 

combustion emissions from equipment 

within the GS facility would be 

included in both annual reports. 

Though this approach results in 

duplicative reporting, EPA has 

concluded that to analyze the efficacy of 

GS as a GHG mitigation tool, EPA needs 

to collect information on combustion 

emissions from GS facility equipment at 

only the GS facility level rather than 

aggregated with emissions from 

additional equipment. EPA seeks 

comment on this approach for reporting 

combustion emissions from GS 

facilities. 

D. Selection of Monitoring, Reporting, 

and Verification (MRV) Plan 

Requirements and Approval Process 

1. Selection of MRV Plan Option 

EPA considered three alternatives for 

monitoring, reporting and verification of 

potential CO2 leakage at GS sites: do not 

require an MRV plan, require a 

universal MRV plan that applies to all 

GS sites, or require a site-specific MRV 

plan. The three alternatives vary in 

stringency and specificity as described 

below. EPA outlines the advantages and 

disadvantages of each alternative and 

seeks comment on each alternative, as 

well as any alternatives not discussed. 

Under the first alternative, EPA would 

allow GS facilities to report the amount 

of CO2 sequestered without requiring an 

MRV plan. Under this alternative, the 

Agency would rely on published 

information and existing studies to 

assume that injected CO2 remains 

sequestered and would assume these 

results can be generalized to all GS 

projects. This alternative would impose 

the least burden on reporters. EPA notes 

that international guidelines on 

information collection and reporting 

efforts outlined in Section I.E of this 

preamble do not support this approach. 

Furthermore, EPA did not propose this 

approach because of the limited 

empirical data and the variability in 

geology and other conditions among GS 

facilities. 

The second alternative that EPA 

considered was a one-size-fits-all MRV 

plan approach under which the Agency 

would prescribe specific monitoring 

technologies and quantification 

methods for GS facilities. The advantage 

of this approach is that all GS facilities 

would use the same monitoring 

technologies and methods. The 

disadvantage of this approach is that the 

geology and other conditions at 

potential GS facilities will vary from site 

to site and a one-size-fits all approach 

may not provide the most effective 

monitoring strategy for all facilities. 

EPA notes that international guidelines 

on information collection and reporting 

efforts outlined in Section I.E of this 

preamble do not support this approach. 

In addition, since the monitoring and 

testing plans implemented under the 

UIC program are necessarily sitespecific in nature, it would be difficult 

to prescribe a one-size-fits-all MRV plan 

that would complement and build upon 

the UIC program. This alternative would 

likely be the least cost effective and 

most burdensome approach for 

reporters. 

The third alternative, and the 

alternative that EPA is proposing, is that 

GS facilities be required to develop a 

site-specific MRV plan and submit it to 

EPA for approval. Facilities would 

report CO2 injection until the final MRV 

plan has been approved. Once a final 

MRV plan has been approved by EPA, 

GS facilities would implement the plan, 

including the reporting of the amount of 

CO2 that has been sequestered. The 

advantage of this approach is that it 

provides a flexible and cost-effective 

option for reporters and complements 

monitoring requirements under the 

proposed UIC Class VI rule. EPA 

recognizes that the rigorous proposed 

UIC Class VI requirements will provide 

the foundation for the safe sequestration 

of CO2 and should serve to reduce the 

risk of CO2 leakage to the atmosphere 

when finalized. An adequate MRV plan 

would be tailored to site-specific 

conditions and be designed for each 

stage of the GS project. In addition, the 

MRV plan would allow for modification 

or adaptation of the plan based on 

monitoring results. Although the risk of 

leakage at an appropriately selected and 

managed GS facility may be low, the 

MRV plan would ensure that if leakage 

occurs, the GS reporter would have an 

approved methodology for measuring 

the emitted CO2. If leakage occurs, the 

MRV plan would also provide a process 

for revising the MRV plan, if necessary, 

as described in section II.E of this 

preamble. 

It is important to recognize that this 

proposed rule is a data collection and 

monitoring proposal which does not 

directly address the potential human 

health and welfare, ground or surface 

water, ecosystem or geosphere impacts 

of GS. Therefore, the proposed rule does 

not address these potential impacts from 

CO2 leakage (e.g., requiring remediation 

or mitigation) as this is outside the 

scope of this proposal. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18589 

23Arts, R, O Eiken, A Chadwick, P Zweigel, L van 

der Meer, B Zinszner. 2004. ‘‘Monitoring of CO2

injected at Sleipner using time-lapse seismic data.’’ 

Energy 29: 1383–1392; Wilson, M. and M. Monea 

(Eds.). 2004. ‘‘IEA GHG Weyburn CO2 Monitoring 

and Storage Project,’’ Seventh International 

Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control 

Technologies, Vol. 3; Klusman, RW. 2003. ‘‘Rate 

Measurements and Detection of Gas Microseepage 

to the Atmosphere from an Enhanced Recovery 

Sequestration Project, Rangely, Colorado, USA,’’ 

Applied Geochemistry, 18, 1825–1838; 2006 IPCC 

Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas 

Inventories: Volume 2—Energy. Chapter 5 Carbon 

Dioxide Transport, Injection, and Geological 

Storage. Available at: http://www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.htm.; DOE/ 

NETL. 2009. ‘‘Best Practices for Monitoring, 

Verification, and Accounting for CO2 Stored in 

Deep Geologic Formations.’’ U.S. Department of 

Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory. 24Benson, SM. 2006. ‘‘Monitoring Carbon Dioxide 

Sequestration in Deep Geological Formations for 

Inventory Verification and Carbon Credits.’’ Society 

of Petroleum Engineers Paper 102833. 25FutureGen Alliance. 2006. ‘‘Mattoon Site 

Environmental Information Volume.’’ December 

2006. 26Benson, S and L Myer. 2002. ‘‘Monitoring to 

Ensure Safe and Effective Geological Sequestration 

of Carbon Dioxide.’’ Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, 

Berkeley, California; Benson, SM. 2002. ‘‘Geologic 

Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide.’’ The Carbon 

Dioxide Dilemma, Promising Technologies and 

Policies, Proceedings of a Symposium, National 

Academy of Engineering, April 23–24, 2002, 

Washington, DC, pp. 29–39. 

27Subpart RR General TSD (see docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0926). 

28Monitoring Plans for Geologic Sequestration 

TSD (see docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0926). 

29 Vulnerability Evaluation Framework for 

Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide (see 

docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0926). 

2. Background on MRV Approaches 

EPA has identified published studies 

and/or guidelines on monitoring 

programs that identify and quantify CO2

leakage from GS facilities.23 While the 

science of quantifying CO2 leakage from 

GS facilities is evolving, it is generally 

recognized that, when properly planned 

and implemented, monitoring methods 

will be effective at detecting 

leakages.24, 25

Though the methodologies for 

detecting and quantifying leakage of 

CO2 from GS facilities have not been 

standardized, EPA has concluded that a 

GS facility would be able to propose a 

site-specific plan for leak detection and 

quantification under this rule based on 

the current availability of monitoring 

technologies. A wide range of 

techniques for monitoring sequestration 

of CO2 have been used for a number of 

years in other applications, including 

oil and natural gas production, natural 

gas storage, disposal of liquid and 

hazardous waste in deep geologic 

formations, groundwater monitoring, 

and ecosystem research.26 Some 

monitoring techniques such as seismic 

monitoring can detect the presence and 

location of CO2 in the subsurface, 

including both vertical and lateral 

spread, although the accuracy of seismic 

monitoring for quantifying the amount 

of CO2 may be more limited than other 

approaches. Other techniques, such as 

soil gas monitors or eddy covariance 

techniques, can detect, within a certain 

limit, leakage of CO2 from the confining 

system. Many of these technologies have 

excellent sensitivity, and have been 

shown to be able to detect relatively low 

concentrations of CO2 above background 

levels. The minimum leakage rate 

detectable is a function of parameters 

such as the volume of CO2 making its 

way to the surface, the size of the leak 

area, and the sensitivity of the 

monitoring device. 

Descriptions of the various 

monitoring technologies that could be 

deployed at a GS facility can be found 

in the general TSD to this proposal.27

EPA seeks comment on the general TSD 

and seeks additional data and 

information on monitoring technologies 

for leak detection and quantification. 

Additional information on GS 

monitoring technologies can also be 

found in the IPCC Guidelines for 

National Greenhouse Gas Inventories 

(2006), the API/IPECA Inventory 

Guidelines for CCS (2007), Department 

of Energy MVA Best Practices Manual 

(2009), and the International Energy 

Agency GHG R&D Programme 

monitoring tool Web site 

(www.co2captureandstorage.info/ 

co2monitoringtool). 

3. MRV Plan Requirements 

EPA is proposing that each submitted 

MRV plan must include at a minimum 

the four requirements described below: 

• Step 1—Assessment of Risk of 

Leakage: All potential pathways that 

may result in CO2 leakage have been 

identified and characterized and the risk 

of CO2 leakage at each pathway has been 

evaluated; 

• Step 2—Strategy for Detecting and 

Quantifying CO2 Leakage to Surface: 

Potential pathways will be monitored 

according to the risk of CO2 leakage to 

ensure that any leakage to the surface 

will be detected and that leakage to the 

surface, should it occur, will be 

quantified according to a specified 

methodology; 

• Step 3—Strategy for Establishing 

Pre-Injection Environmental Baselines: 

Environmental baselines against which 

the monitoring results will be evaluated 

have been established at potential 

leakage pathways; and 

• Step 4—Tailor Mass Balance 

Equation: Site-specific variables have 

been considered and developed for the 

mass balance equation provided in the 

regulatory text to calculate the amount 

of CO2 sequestered. 

These requirements are consistent 

with the IPCC Guidelines for National 

Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2006), as 

well as the other information collection 

and reporting efforts outlined in Section 

I.F of this preamble. 

EPA developed a monitoring plan 

TSD that describes characteristics of a 

robust monitoring plan, and provides 

descriptions of potential GS geologic 

settings, potential leakage pathways, 

and the goals of monitoring.28 The 

monitoring plan TSD uses EPA’s 

Vulnerability Evaluation Framework 

(VEF) to describe potential 

vulnerabilities that may influence the 

risk for CO2 leakage from a GS project 

and is not intended to be used as a step 

by step guide to develop an MRV plan. 

The VEF includes a holistic discussion 

of the potential impacts of GS. The VEF 

is also provided in the docket.29 EPA 

seeks comment on the monitoring plan 

TSD. 

In developing the proposed MRV plan 

requirements, EPA compared 

monitoring requirements under the UIC 

Class VI proposal with those under 

today’s MRR proposal, as shown in 

Table 6 of this preamble. Monitoring 

requirements under the UIC Class VI 

proposal are focused on demonstrating 

that USDWs are not endangered as a 

result of CO2 injection into the 

subsurface. As proposed, a UIC Class VI 

permit would require a site 

characterization and assessment of 

leakage pathways for the purpose of 

protection of USDWs. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing that a UIC Class VI permit 

may be used to demonstrate to EPA that 

the assessment of risk of leakage step of 

the MRV plan has been satisfied. The 

UIC Class VI proposal indicates that UIC 

Class VI permits may include surface 

monitoring at the UIC Director’s 

discretion. To the extent that the UIC 

Class VI permit includes these surface 

monitoring and related environmental 

baseline components, it may be used to 

demonstrate to EPA that the strategy for 

detection and measurement of leakage 

to the surface and the strategy for 

establishing pre-injection environmental 

baselines have been satisfied. EPA seeks 

comment on allowing the use of a UIC 

Class VI permit to fulfill certain MRV 

plan requirements, whether there are 

situations where EPA’s proposal to rely 

on a UIC Class VI permit would not be 

sufficient. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

18590 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

30 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse 

Gas Inventories: Volume 2—Energy. Chapter 5 

Carbon Dioxide Transport, Injection, and Geological 

Storage. Available at: http://www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.htm; see also 

UIC Class VI proposal, 73 FR 43492 (July 25, 2008). 

31EPA recognizes that surface rights access to the 

entire spatial area required for site characterization 

and monitoring may not conveniently rest with the 

owner or operator of the CO2 injection wells (i.e., 

the GS facility reporter in subpart RR). Issues 

associated with surface and pore space ownership 

are outside the scope of this proposed rule. 

However, the Agency recognizes that the MRV plan 

will need to take into account the relevant 

ownership rights and property access. 

32A confining system is a geological formation, 

group of formations, or part of a formation that is 

comprised of impermeable or distinctly less 

permeable material stratigraphically overlying the 

injection zone that acts as a barrier to CO2

movement. (73 FR 43492). 

33The injection zone is a geologic formation, 

group of formations, or part of a formation that is 

of sufficient areal extent, thickness, porosity, and 

permeability to receive carbon dioxide through a 

well or wells associated with a GS project. (73 FR 

43492). 

34 Gasda, SE, S Bachu and MA Celia. 2004. ‘‘The 

potential for CO2 leakage from storage sites in 

geological media: Analysis of well distribution in 

mature sedimentary basins,’’ Environmental 

Geology 46 (6–7), pp. 707–720; Benson, SM. 2005. 

‘‘Monitoring to Ensure Safe and Effective Geologic 

Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide,’’ IPCC Workshop 

on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage; IPCC. 

2005. ‘‘IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide 

Capture and Storage,’’ by Working Group III of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

Available at: http://www1.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ 

srccs.htm; Carey, J, M Wigand, SJ Chipera, G 

WoldeGabriel, R Pawar, PC Lichtner, SC Wehner, 

MA Raines, GD Guthrie, Jr. 2007. ‘‘Analysis and 

performance of oil well cement with 30 years of 

CO2 exposure from the SACROC Unit, West Texas, 

USA.’’ 8th International Conference on Greenhouse 

Gas Control Technologies, International Journal of 

Greenhouse Gas Control Volume 1, Issue 1, April 

2007, Pages 75–85. 

35Monitoring Plans for Geologic Sequestration 

TSD (see docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0926). 

TABLE 6—PROPOSED MRV PLAN ELEMENTS UNDER UIC CLASS VI PROPOSAL AND SUBPART RR PROPOSAL

Proposed MRV plan element Required under UIC Class VI 

proposal 

Required under subpart RR 

proposal 

Assessment of Risk of Leakage ............................................................. to USDWs ...................................... to surface. 

Strategy for Detecting and Quantifying CO2 Leakage to Surface .......... No .................................................. Yes. 

Strategy for Establishing Pre-Injection Environmental Baselines at Surface.No .................................................. Yes. 

Tailor Mass Balance Equation ................................................................ No .................................................. Yes. 

Reporters that do not hold UIC Class 

VI permits would be required to provide 

the MRV plan element information 

outlined in this section. 

Assessment of Risk of Leakage to the 

Surface. EPA is proposing that the GS 

facility reporter must provide sufficient 

information in the MRV plan to 

demonstrate to EPA that the potential 

risk for CO2 leakage to the surface has 

been evaluated. This evidence must be 

‘‘a combination of site characterization 

and realistic models that predict the 

movement of CO2 over time and 

locations where emissions might 

occur’’.30 EPA seeks this information to 

evaluate the leak detection strategy put 

forth by the reporter in the MRV plan. 

EPA believes this information is 

reasonable to request because it 

determines the boundaries of the area 

which will be monitored for potential 

CO2 leakage. The risk assessment for 

CO2 leakage allows the reporter to target 

monitoring in specific areas within 

these boundaries. 

EPA is proposing that to demonstrate 

to the Agency that the risk of leakage to 

the surface has been evaluated over the 

appropriate spatial area,31 the GS 

facility must determine through site 

characterization and computational 

modeling the spatial area that may be 

impacted by the CO2 injection activity 

over the lifetime of the project, 

accounting for the physical and 

chemical properties of all phases of the 

injected CO2 stream. This spatial area 

must be determined to account for all 

potential leakage pathways, including 

wells. If the GS facility is producing oil 

or gas, the spatial area would also need 

to contain the production wells 

associated with CO2 injection. 

EPA is proposing that the GS facility 

would be required to re-evaluate and remodel the spatial area of evaluation at 

least every ten years or to describe the 

rationale for a different frequency in its 

MRV plan and, once approved, apply 

that frequency. Requiring re-evaluation 

of the spatial area of monitoring through 

updating simulation models with new 

monitoring data will provide the most 

accurate representation of subsurface 

CO2 movement. 

EPA seeks comment on the proposed 

re-evaluation frequency and whether the 

spatial area required for site 

characterization is adequate to detect 

and quantify potential leakage to the 

surface. Specifically, EPA seeks 

comment on whether there will be cases 

in which the spatial area should be 

larger to detect unexpected leakage to 

the surface beyond the pressure front 

boundary. Alternatively, EPA seeks 

comment on whether the spatial area 

should be larger than the lateral extent 

of the CO2 plume, but smaller than the 

area defined by the pressure front. EPA 

also seeks comment on whether the 

spatial area should be defined by the 

lateral extent of the CO2 plume. 

The MRV plan should include a 

description of the site characterization 

that confirms that the geology and the 

local and regional hydrogeology of the 

GS facility have been evaluated and that 

explains how the spatial area was 

established. This should include a 

narrative description of the geologic 

formation(s) along with simple 

stratigraphic depictions showing 

formation depths and locations, 

information on the presence of an 

effective confining system 32 overlying 

the injection zone,33 and a map showing 

the modeled spatial area of evaluation 

over the lifetime of the project. 

The MRV plan should also 

demonstrate to EPA that all potential 

leakage pathways for CO2 escape to the 

surface from the injection zone in the 

spatial area have been identified and 

characterized. Wells (and other artificial 

penetrations such as boreholes) are one 

of the most probable conduits for the 

escape of CO2 from the injection zone.34

If a well penetrates the confining 

system, the site characterization should 

include an assessment of supporting 

documentation such as well 

construction and plugging. Faults and 

fractures that are natural or that may be 

induced by pressure changes may also 

serve as pathways for CO2 leakage out 

of the confining zone and to the surface. 

Additionally, geologic heterogeneities, 

such as high permeability zones in the 

confining system or an insufficient 

lateral extent of the confining system, 

may be potential leakage pathways for 

CO2. The MRV plan should include the 

location and depth of all potential 

leakage pathways along with a 

qualitative description of their 

condition. For more information on 

leakage pathways, see the monitoring 

plan TSD.35 The MRV plan should 

include an overview of the methods 

used to characterize the site; actual data 

can but does not need to be initially 

submitted. 

Finally, the risk assessment 

component of the MRV plan should 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18591 

include an overview of the methods 

used to model the subsurface behavior 

of CO2 and the modeling results that 

estimate the timing, location, route and 

flux of potential leakage to the surface. 

It should include a brief overview of the 

input data quantity and the level of 

uncertainty associated with the models, 

as well as sensitivity analysis to assess 

the range of potential CO2 leakage 

emissions. 

Strategy for Detecting and 

Quantifying CO2 Leakage to the Surface. 

EPA is proposing that the MRV plan 

must provide a strategy for leak 

detection. The MRV plan would include 

the methodology for, rationale for, and 

frequency of monitoring that will be 

conducted to detect potential leakage of 

CO2 to the surface. The strategy for leak 

detection should be based on the risk 

assessment required in this Section 

II.D.3 of this preamble and be targeted 

to where and when leakage to the 

surface is most likely to occur. 

Therefore, the MRV plan should also 

describe the methodology for, rationale 

for, and frequency of evaluation of the 

entire spatial area of the GS facility to 

detect any CO2 emissions from 

unexpected leakage pathways. The MRV 

plan should describe the monitoring 

technologies that will be employed at 

the facility, the assumed detection 

limits of the technologies, the 

monitoring locations, spatial array, and 

frequency of sampling. The MRV plan 

should provide the rationale and 

justification for each of these choices. A 

leak detection strategy that adequately 

meets this proposed rule’s requirements 

may include a combination of 

subsurface, vadose zone, soil zone, 

ocean, surface water, and/or 

atmospheric monitoring and modeling. 

For the purposes of this proposed rule, 

CO2 leakage to the surface includes CO2

emitted to the atmosphere, CO2 emitted 

to the ocean from the sub-seabed, CO2

emitted to surface water, and CO2

emitted to indoor air environments. The 

Agency notes that continuous air 

monitoring or mitigation is not required 

by this proposal. 

Even though only the CO2 that leaks 

to the surface must be quantified for this 

proposed rule, information about the 

movement of CO2 in the subsurface and 

near-surface can serve as an early 

warning of a potential leak at the 

surface. This information will lead to a 

better understanding of the GS facility 

and the anticipated movement of the 

CO2 plume, and it will help to pinpoint 

the area and the timing in which a 

potential leak to the surface may occur. 

This in turn will inform where 

monitoring for leak detection at the 

surface must be deployed. 

For example, sampling at a deep 

monitoring well may indicate migration 

of the CO2 out of the confining system. 

Though this monitoring result does not 

necessarily mean that CO2 will 

eventually leak to the surface, the GS 

reporter would use this information on 

the sub-surface movement of CO2 to 

deploy monitoring equipment according 

to the strategy outlined in the MRV plan 

in case detection and quantification of 

CO2 leakage to the surface is necessary. 

Generally, an iterative process should 

be in place to update the predictive 

models by applying results of ongoing 

monitoring. The GS reporter needs to 

consider how the monitoring results 

will change the leak detection and 

quantification strategies in the MRV 

plan approved by EPA. Adjustments to 

the MRV plan may result from updates 

to the models that were used to identify 

the leakage pathways, assess the risk of 

leakage, and predict the scope of 

potential leakage scenarios. If the MRV 

plan is adjusted in these circumstances, 

the reporter must submit an addendum 

to EPA that describes how the leak 

detection and quantification strategy 

was adjusted (see Section II.E of this 

preamble for more detail). 

EPA is proposing that the MRV plan 

would not need to include methods for 

monitoring fugitive and vented CO2

emissions from surface equipment (e.g., 

CO2 compression systems) at GS 

facilities because, in EPA’s view, those 

methods need not vary from site to site 

in order to estimate emissions 

effectively. Universal methods are 

proposed in subpart W, and those 

methods would be used to quantify 

fugitive and vented CO2 emissions from 

surface equipment and to report those 

emissions under subpart W or subpart 

RR as appropriate (see Section II.C of 

this preamble). 

If a CO2 leak is detected at the surface, 

the GS reporter must quantify the 

amount of CO2 leaked. EPA considered 

three alternatives for reporting CO2

leakage: assuming that all injected CO2

remains sequestered, assuming that a 

proportion of injected CO2 remains 

sequestered, and reporting of CO2

leakage based on site-specific 

monitoring. EPA outlines the 

advantages and disadvantages of each 

alternative and seeks comment and data 

on each alternative, as well as any 

alternatives not discussed. 

Under the first alternative, EPA would 

rely on published information and 

existing studies to assume that all 

injected CO2 remains sequestered. EPA 

would assume these results can be 

generalized to all GS projects. EPA notes 

that international guidelines on 

information collection and reporting 

efforts outlined in Section I.E of this 

preamble do not support this approach. 

Furthermore, EPA did not propose this 

approach because of the limited 

empirical data and the variability in 

geology, site management and/or 

business practices, and other conditions 

among GS facilities. In addition, 

assuming that all injected CO2 remains 

sequestered would not take into account 

potential fugitive or vented emissions 

from surface equipment or CO2

produced from oil or gas production 

wells, during or after operations. 

Under the second alternative, EPA 

would assume that a proportion of 

injected CO2 remains sequestered. EPA 

would assume that this proportion can 

be generalized to all GS projects. 

International guidelines on information 

collection and reporting efforts outlined 

in Section I.E of this preamble do not 

support this approach. Furthermore, 

EPA did not propose this approach 

because of the limited empirical data 

and the variability in geology, site 

management and/or business practices, 

and other conditions among GS 

facilities. EPA also seeks comment and 

data on whether a sequestration factor 

could be applied to ER operations in 

cases where CO2 injection and site 

operations are not specifically designed 

with GS in mind. 

The third approach, and the approach 

EPA is proposing today, is that the MRV 

plan describe the approaches that the 

GS reporter will take to quantify CO2

emissions if leakage is detected. The 

approach should be specific to the type 

of potential leak. For example, for point 

sources of CO2 (e.g., leakage from wells), 

bagging or tenting methods could be 

used. EPA recognizes that quantifying 

CO2 emissions and distinguishing CO2

leakage from background emissions is 

challenging, but necessary for the 

purposes of determining the total 

amount of CO2 that is sequestered at a 

GS facility. EPA is proposing that a leak 

could be quantified through estimation 

or by direct measurement and seeks 

comment on allowing either estimation 

or direct measurement for quantifying a 

leak. 

In cases where a leak is not quantified 

by estimation, EPA is proposing that if 

a leak is detected, the reporter must 

assume that the duration of the leak is 

equal to the duration between 

demonstrated null monitoring results 

unless subsurface monitoring can be 

used to provide a better indication on 

the timing of the leak. EPA finds this 

conservative approach reasonable 

because the estimate of the duration of 

the leak directly influences the estimate 

of the amount of CO2 emitted to the 

surface. The Agency recognizes that this 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

18592 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

36Benson, S, E Gasperikova, and M Hoversten. 

2004. ‘‘Overview of Monitoring Techniques and 

Protocols for Geologic Storage Projects.’’ Prepared 

for the IEA GHG Programme. PH4–29; Johnson, J. 

2009. ‘‘Integrated modeling, monitoring, and site 

characterization to assess the isolation performance 

of geologic CO2 storage: Requirements, challenges, 

and methodology.’’ Energy Procedia 1:1855–1861; 

Forbes, S, P Verma, T Curry, J Friedman, S Wade. 

2008. ‘‘Guidelines for carbon dioxide capture, 

transport, and storage.’’ World Resources Institute. 

Available at: http://pdf.wri.org/ccs_guidelines.pdf. 

37American Petroleum Institute and International 

Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation 

Association. 2007. ‘‘Oil and Natural Gas Industry 

Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Reduction Projects 

Part II: Carbon Capture and Geological Storage 

Emission Reduction Family,’’ June, 2007. 

38 Klusman, RW. 2003. ‘‘Rate measurements and 

detection of gas microseepage to the atmosphere 

from an enhanced oil recovery/sequestration 

project, Rangely, Colorado, USA.’’ Applied 

Geochemistry, volume 18, issue 12. 

approach could overestimate emissions 

of CO2. EPA considered requiring that 

the MRV plan include a site-specific 

strategy for determining duration of any 

leakage detected in cases where a leak 

is not determined by estimation, but 

EPA concluded that this approach 

would allow too much variation in 

reporting on CO2 leakage (if any occurs) 

and would make the quantities of CO2

reported as sequestered less comparable. 

EPA seeks comment on the selected 

approach for determining the duration 

of the leak event and the alternatives. 

EPA is proposing that if multiple CO2

leaks to the surface occur in a reporting 

year, the mass of each leak should be 

quantified and the totals then aggregated 

for reporting. 

An approach for an uncertainty 

assessment of the leakage estimates and 

measurements derived from the 

proposed modeling and monitoring at 

the GS facility should also be included 

in this component of the MRV plan. 

As further outlined in Section II.E of 

this preamble, EPA is proposing that if 

leakage is detected during a given 

reporting year, the GS reporter must 

submit an annual report addendum to 

coincide with submission of the next 

annual report (March 31 of a following 

year). 

Strategy for Establishing Pre-Injection 

Environmental Baselines. EPA is 

proposing that the MRV plan describe 

when and how pre-injection 

environmental baselines would be 

established based on the strategy for 

leak detection described in this section 

of the preamble. The GS reporter is 

required to establish baselines at 

potential leakage pathways (based on 

the risk of leakage from these pathways), 

and over the entire spatial area of 

evaluation for periodic evaluation of 

unidentified leakage pathways. Preinjection baselines will be used to 

evaluate the performance of the site and 

are essential to detect CO2 leakage from 

the site. 

CO2 is ubiquitous in the environment 

and concentrations may vary over space 

and time (e.g., diurnally, seasonally, 

annually). Therefore, determining 

background levels of CO2 and 

understanding natural fluctuations is 

necessary to discern whether detected 

CO2 is attributable to leakage or to 

preexisting sources. It is also important 

to establish baselines before injection 

because many of the instruments used 

to monitor CO2 at the surface do not 

measure fluxes of CO2 directly; rather, 

the instruments are useful for tracking 

the injected CO2 because one can 

compare parameters before and after 

injection and over time.36

Environmental baselines at the facility 

before injection must reflect diurnal, 

seasonal, and annual changes in not 

only the levels of CO2 but also in other 

relevant surface and/or near-surface 

conditions (e.g., wind speed). Baseline 

monitoring could also include gas 

composition and isotopic analysis of 

any background fluxes of CO2, which 

may be useful for distinguishing 

between natural (biogenic or 

thermogenic) and anthropogenic CO2.37

There may be cases in which CO2

injection has taken place for some time 

(potentially years, as in the case of 

currently operating ER projects) and the 

baseline was not evaluated preinjection. EPA is proposing that a 

facility in this situation would outline 

in this component of the MRV plan 

alternatives to establishing pre-injection 

baselines. In such situations, 

alternatives to characterizing baseline 

conditions could include identification 

of proximal locations where diurnal, 

seasonal, and annual measurements that 

are assumed to be similar to preinjection conditions at the site can be 

taken. This technique was used by a site 

that detected annual CO2 emissions of 

about 3,800 tonnes/year (0.01 percent of 

total injected CO2) from surface 

monitoring but could not compare the 

flux to a pre-injection baseline to 

determine what percentage was 

attributable to injected CO2.38 Other 

approaches could include permanent 

continuous monitor networks with 

upwind and downwind correlation or 

mobile monitoring capable of 

determining local ambient background 

levels. EPA recognizes the challenge in 

establishing a baseline in these cases 

and seeks comment on this proposed 

case-by-case approach and on whether 

real-time determination of 

environmental baseline upwind of 

potential leakage is preferred. 

Tailor Mass Balance Equation for 

Sequestration. As explained in Section 

II.C of this preamble, a GS reporter 

would be required to report the annual 

amount of CO2 sequestered at a facility 

using a mass balance equation, in which 

the sum of CO2 emissions would be 

subtracted from the amount of CO2

injected to equal the amount of CO2

sequestered. A specific mass balance 

equation is provided in the regulatory 

text, to which the facility must apply 

site-specific variables based on 

operational conditions. Accordingly, 

EPA is proposing that a GS reporter 

must consider whether any fugitive or 

vented CO2 surface emissions were 

measured downstream of the injection 

flow meters (i.e., between the injection 

flow meter and the injection well). If so, 

these quantities should not be 

accounted as stored and should be 

subtracted from the mass balance 

equation as a variable. A GS facility 

with ER operations must additionally 

consider whether any fugitive or vented 

CO2 emissions were measured upstream 

of the production flow meters (i.e., 

between the production well and the 

separator) and how much produced CO2

is not successfully measured by the 

production flow meter because it 

remains dissolved in the produced oil or 

gas. For ER operations, these quantities 

should not be accounted as stored and 

should also be subtracted from the mass 

balance equation as variables. 

EPA is proposing that GS reporters be 

required to include a written summary 

of these considerations, including any 

assumptions made and methodologies 

used to calculate these site-specific 

variables over the reporting year. 

4. MRV Plan Approval Process 

EPA is proposing to evaluate each 

MRV plan to ensure that the GS facility 

has an appropriate strategy in place to 

effectively quantify geologically 

sequestered CO2. EPA will evaluate the 

adequacy of the methodologies 

proposed to detect and quantify leakage, 

including whether the chosen 

monitoring technologies are suitable for 

the type of leakage pathway and for the 

type of risk evaluated at that pathway. 

This proposal is being conducted 

under CAA section 114. As such, it does 

not require control measures, 

remediation, or any other actions that 

would alter operations at a facility. In 

order to develop, gain approval of, and 

implement its MRV plan, a GS facility 

would not be expected to shut down or 

delay its operations. EPA developed the 

proposed reporting requirements with 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18593 

consideration for business-as-usual 

operations in order to minimize burden. 

Although MRV plan approval would 

be an inherently EPA function, the 

Agency is considering approaches and 

processes to streamline and facilitate 

external technical input in the 

development of specific evaluation 

criteria or guidelines, particularly at the 

outset of the program. EPA recognizes 

that an adaptive approach to the GS 

portion of this proposal will be 

necessary to take advantage of the 

experience gained in developing and 

implementing MRV plans and in 

complying with the proposed UIC Class 

VI requirements. EPA expects to update 

the guidelines and requirements of an 

MRV plan over time as technologies, 

methodologies, and scientific 

understanding of GS evolve; and the 

Agency believes that the site-specific 

nature of the MRV plan enables the 

proposed approach to adapt and 

improve over time. 

E. Selection of Schedule and Process for 

Reporting 

1. First Tier Reporting Requirements for 

Injection Facilities 

All injection facilities that meet the 

definitions in subpart RR and that are in 

active operation when this proposed 

rule is finalized would begin collecting 

data on CO2 injected, CO2 transferred 

from offsite, and source of CO2, if 

known, on January 1, 2011, covering a 

period between January 1 to December 

31. Data would be submitted to EPA by 

operating facilities in an annual report 

on each March 31 of each calendar year, 

beginning with March 31, 2012, for data 

collected in the previous calendar year. 

The Agency plans to issue the final 

rule in sufficient time for existing 

injection facilities to prepare for 

monitoring and reporting before January 

1, 2011, and to begin monitoring CO2

injection and CO2 transferred from 

offsite on January 1, 2011. Preparation 

would include studying the final rule, 

determining whether it applies to the 

facility, identifying the requirements 

with which the facility must comply, 

and preparing to monitor and collect the 

required data needed to calculate and 

report GHG emissions. However, EPA 

recognizes that meeting that goal may be 

challenging and seek comments on 

alternative effective dates. 

The date on which a new facility 

begins injecting CO2 is the date on 

which a new facility must begin 

monitoring the first tier of requirements 

for subpart RR. The annual report 

submitted by the new facility on March 

31 of the year following start-up 

therefore may include data for only part 

of the year. 

2. Second Tier Reporting Requirements 

for GS Facilities—Submission, 

Approval, and Reporting 

EPA is proposing that all GS facilities 

and any injection facilities that opt-in to 

the GS monitoring and reporting 

requirements would submit MRV plans 

to EPA and seek EPA approval. Where 

the GS facility would be relying on a 

new UIC Class VI permit for MRV plan 

requirements, EPA anticipates that the 

MRV plan review would be conducted 

concurrently with the UIC Class VI 

permit review. EPA would require the 

unique identification number associated 

with the permit application and 

notification of approval of the UIC Class 

VI permit. Once an MRV plan is 

approved by EPA, the GS facility would 

implement it and then begin collecting 

data on CO2 emitted and CO2

sequestered. Finally, the reporter would 

include this additional quantitative data 

in the first annual report submitted to 

EPA after the approved MRV plan has 

been implemented and in all subsequent 

annual reports. An annual report 

addendum would also be required to be 

submitted if the GS facility triggered any 

of the addendum submission 

requirements outlined in this proposal. 

The Agency seeks to establish an 

MRV plan submission and approval 

schedule that allows the GS facility 

reporter to implement its plan without 

delay. Therefore, EPA is proposing a 

rolling schedule for submission of the 

MRV plan to EPA whereby the reporter 

could submit the plan to EPA on any 

calendar date. From the date submitted, 

EPA would determine if the application 

is complete, review the plan, work with 

each reporter to ensure that the MRV 

plan appropriately addresses the 

requirements, and revise the plan 

accordingly. This interactive process 

would be limited to a reasonable time 

period, after which EPA would approve 

a revised MRV plan. 

EPA is proposing to provide for an 

appeal process in situations where the 

GS facility does not agree with the 

Agency’s approved plan. One option 

would be for a reporter to request a 

formal administrative review (and if 

appropriate, an evidentiary hearing) 

with the Environmental Appeals Board 

using the appeal procedures provided in 

40 CFR Part 78. Under this approach, 

filing an appeal and exhausting all 

administrative remedies would be a 

prerequisite to seeking judicial review. 

Another option would allow the 

reporter to appeal directly with the 

appropriate court, pursuant to CAA 

section 307(b)(1). EPA seeks comment 

on both options for resolving disputes 

regarding MRV plans, or whether any 

alternative, expedited process is more 

appropriate. 

EPA is proposing that the GS facility 

must begin implementing the MRV plan 

within thirty days of EPA approval. 

Because implementation may require 

more than thirty days (e.g., in order to 

establish environmental baselines), it is 

possible that implementation would not 

be completed within 30 days of EPA 

approval, depending on the MRV plan; 

the facility would follow 

implementation as set forth in the 

facility’s MRV plan. If the MRV plan is 

appealed, EPA is proposing to require 

the GS facility to begin implementation 

of the approved plan until such a time 

that the MRV plan appeal process is 

complete. EPA seeks comment on 

whether the implementation of the MRV 

plan should be delayed until the appeal 

is resolved. 

Every annual report submitted by the 

GS facility after MRV plan 

implementation begins would include 

both the first tier of data required of all 

CO2 injection facilities and the second 

tier of data related to GS. In the first year 

following initial MRV plan 

implementation, it is possible that the 

GS-related data collected and reported 

may only cover part of the year. 

EPA is proposing that an injection 

facility opting in to the GS portion of 

this proposed rule may submit an MRV 

plan at any time. All other GS facilities 

will be required to submit an MRV plan 

to EPA (A) within six months from the 

time that their UIC permitting authority 

confirms the area of review or (B) by 

December 31 of the year that the UIC 

permitting authority confirms the area 

of review, whichever date is later. If 

such facilities already have a UIC permit 

as of the date of publication of the final 

subpart RR in the Federal Register, they 

must submit the MRV plan to EPA 

within six months of the date of 

publication of this subpart. This 

submission deadline would allow the 

facility to implement all monitoring 

required by EPA as quickly and 

seamlessly as possible, and in parallel 

with a facility’s UIC permit 

requirements. All facilities that are 

required to submit an MRV plan to EPA 

will be allowed to request an extension 

of up to an additional six months. In the 

case of a facility that is not under the 

jurisdiction of the SDWA, the MRV plan 

submission schedule would be based on 

the facility’s relevant permit, rather than 

a UIC permit. EPA seeks comment on 

this approach for MRV plan 

submissions and on whether an 

alternative deadline, such as a 

submission deadline based on when a 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

18594 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

GS facility’s UIC permit is issued, 

would be more appropriate and 

efficient. 

EPA seeks comment on the proposed 

rolling submission process and whether 

an alternative would be more 

appropriate. For example, GS facilities 

(both required and opt-in facilities) 

could be required to submit an MRV 

plan by a specific date or within a 

specific window of time each calendar 

year if they plan to begin operating in 

the subsequent calendar year. 

3. Second Tier Reporting Requirements 

for GS Facilities—Post Implementation 

Once a reporter begins implementing 

an EPA-approved MRV plan, it may be 

required to submit additional 

information to EPA, either through an 

annual report addendum, or through resubmitting a revised MRV plan for EPA 

approval. 

When a reporter initially develops an 

MRV plan, it does so based on its 

existing understanding of the GS facility 

site characterization and in some cases 

previous experience with CO2 injection, 

modeling, and monitoring. When EPA 

reviews the plan, it evaluates whether 

the procedures proposed will result in 

the most effective collection of data 

possible and practical, given this 

existing understanding. However, EPA 

recognizes that a reporter’s 

understanding of the GS facility may 

evolve because of new information or 

altered site conditions. Under these 

circumstances, the site should continue 

to prioritize the most effective collection 

of data possible and practical, even if it 

requires an adjustment in the 

monitoring procedures used. The site 

would implement these adjustments as 

needed and would inform EPA about 

them via an annual report addendum, 

submitted at the same time as the next 

annual report (March 31 of the 

subsequent calendar year). An annual 

report addendum should also describe 

changes to the spatial area of 

monitoring. Data reporting should not 

be disrupted as a result. EPA is 

proposing that the annual report 

addendum will not require EPA 

approval. 

A reporter would also be required to 

submit an annual report addendum if 

leakage is detected. The addendum 

should outline the procedures or 

equipment that detected the leakage, 

what assumptions were made to 

quantify the detected leakage to the 

surface, including assumptions about 

when the leak began and the duration of 

the leak, and any adjustment made to 

the MRV plan. If the number reported 

for leakage represents more than one 

leakage event, the addendum should 

describe how each leak was detected 

and quantified. 

In general, the MRV plan should be 

revised as experience is gained over the 

course of the project (for example, as 

monitoring results are used to validate 

and update model predictions) and 

should keep pace with the development 

of monitoring instruments and methods. 

These revisions will be shared with EPA 

through annual report addenda. 

EPA seeks comment on whether the 

GS facility should resubmit an MRV 

plan at a minimum frequency that 

compiles all revisions over the previous 

years into one updated document and 

that undergoes an EPA approval 

process. EPA seeks comment on 

whether such a routine resubmission is 

appropriate, and if so how the minimum 

frequency for re-submittal should be 

established. This minimum frequency 

could be a fixed number for all facilities, 

such as every ten years. Alternatively, it 

could be established on a site-by-site 

basis based on the reporter’s technical 

justification or on the minimum 

frequency associated with the reevaluation of the facility’s spatial area of 

evaluation. 

EPA is proposing that the MRV plan 

must be revised and re-submitted to 

EPA for approval if the reporter is out 

of compliance with its UIC permit (or 

relevant permit in the case of a facility 

that is not under the jurisdiction of the 

SDWA), or if EPA deems a resubmission 

necessary as the result of an annual 

report addendum received or an EPA 

on-site audit conducted as part of the 

MRR verification provisions. EPA seeks 

comment on whether any other events 

or conditions should require 

resubmission of the MRV plan. In 

addition, EPA is proposing that the GS 

facility under its own volition could 

submit a revised MRV plan in any 

reporting year. Resubmitted MRV plans 

would be accepted on a rolling basis just 

as initial MRV plans. 

4. Annual Reports 

For this proposed rule, EPA seeks 

quantitative data from all facilities in a 

consistent format and at a consistent 

level, in a timely fashion at the 

beginning of every reporting year 

(covering the previous year’s data) in 

order to electronically verify the data, 

publish it as authorized by the CAA, 

and use the collected information for 

the purposes described in this proposal. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing that, as 

with the other data reported in the MRR, 

CO2 injection and sequestration data 

would be reported directly to EPA 

electronically via an annual report. EPA 

is also proposing that MRV plans and 

annual report addenda developed by GS 

facilities would be submitted 

electronically to EPA. To minimize 

redundancy and burden on industry, 

EPA has considered the procedures, 

methodologies, units, quality assurance 

and quality control (QA/QC) 

requirements, and formats required 

under the UIC permit classes when 

developing the requirements of this 

proposed rule. EPA’s intention is that 

reporters use the same data to meet the 

reporting requirements of both programs 

to the greatest extent possible. 

All injection facilities would submit 

reports with quantitative data annually 

on an ongoing basis. The snapshot of 

information provided by a one-time 

information collection request would 

not provide the type of ongoing 

information which could inform the 

variety of potential policy options being 

evaluated for addressing climate change. 

Due to the comprehensive reporting and 

monitoring requirements in this 

proposal, the Agency has concluded 

that it is not appropriate to require 

reporting of historical emissions data. 

EPA proposed and evaluated comments 

on this reporting provision under the 

MRR. The historical data provision of 

the MRR also applies to today’s 

proposed rule. 

Most voluntary and mandatory GHG 

reporting programs include provisions 

for operators to revise previously 

submitted data. Under the final MRR, 

EPA requires the reporter to submit a 

revised report within 45 days of 

discovering or being notified by EPA of 

errors in an annual GHG report. The 

revised report must correct all identified 

errors. The reporter must retain 

documentation for three years to 

support any revisions made to an 

annual GHG report. EPA proposed and 

evaluated comments on this reporting 

provision under the MRR. As a final 

provision of that rule, the requirement 

to submit a correct report within 45 

days and retention of documentation for 

three years applies to today’s rule. 

The final MRR provides a mechanism 

for facilities to exit the reporting 

program when they are below a 

reporting threshold for five or three 

consecutive years, depending on the 

exact emissions levels. Because of the 

unique nature of CO2 injection and GS 

activities as noted in the threshold 

analysis discussion in Section II.B of 

this preamble, EPA is proposing that 

this provision would not apply to GS 

facilities. Instead, EPA is proposing that 

all CO2 injection facilities would be 

allowed to cease reporting CO2 injection 

upon the plugging of the injection well 

or wells that constitute the facility. GS 

facilities will be allowed to cease all 

other reporting requirements under this 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18595 

subpart once the CO2 plume and 

pressure front have stabilized. EPA will 

accept demonstrations made to fulfill 

UIC Class VI permit requirements in 

order to meet requirements for ceasing 

GS reporting under this proposal. EPA 

seeks comment on this approach for 

allowing facilities to cease reporting. 

EPA recognizes that there are other 

possible approaches. For example, the 

Agency could conform the mechanism 

that other facilities use for exiting the 

MRR to subpart RR, allowing CO2

injection facilities that are not GS 

facilities to cease reporting if they are 

below an injection threshold for five or 

three consecutive years, depending on 

the exact injection levels. EPA did not 

propose this alternative because of a 

lack of data on the incidence and scale 

of surface emissions and leakage. 

Another approach would be to provide 

a ‘‘no exit’’ approach for GS facilities, 

which would allow EPA to obtain 

valuable data on the long-term efficacy 

of GS. EPA is not proposing a ‘‘no exit’’ 

approach because the Agency wanted to 

provide an opportunity for reporters to 

cease reporting. However, EPA seeks 

comment on these alternative 

approaches for allowing facilities to 

cease reporting. 

Each annual report developed under 

this proposed rule would contain a 

signed certification by a Designated 

Representative of the facility. On behalf 

of the reporter, the Designated 

Representative would certify under 

penalty of law that the report has been 

prepared in accordance with the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 98 and that 

the information contained in the report 

is true and accurate, based on a 

reasonable inquiry of individuals 

responsible for obtaining the 

information. EPA proposed and 

evaluated comments on these reporting 

provisions under the MRR. As final 

provisions of the MRR, they apply to 

today’s proposal. 

5. Data Verification 

In the MRR, EPA will verify emissions 

data electronically using numerous 

approaches such as: Executing 

equations and comparing the results to 

reported data; comparing reported data 

to a realistic data range; comparing 

trends in reported data across years; 

comparing data from one year across 

reporters; conducting a pass/fail check 

on binary data; collecting secondary 

data that can proxy emissions; and 

conducting statistical analysis to 

identify outliers. EPA may conduct 

selective audits on facilities whose data 

raises questions during the verification 

process. In addition, all reporting 

entities will select a Designated 

Representative to certify that the data 

reported is accurate to the best of his/ 

her knowledge. 

For this proposed rule, EPA is 

proposing that the data submitted by GS 

facilities may be evaluated and verified 

manually by EPA along with the 

qualitative contents of the MRV plan 

(see Section II.D of this preamble). It 

may be that electronic verification of GS 

data would not be adequate to verify 

whether the EPA-approved MRV plan 

was followed and whether any leakage 

was detected in the reporting year at a 

particular facility. EPA seeks comment 

on manual evaluation of data and 

qualitative elements of an MRV plan. 

6. Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) 

EPA’s public information regulations 

contain a definition of ‘‘emissions data’’ 

at 40 CFR 2.301, and EPA has discussed 

in an earlier Federal Register notice 

what data elements constitute emissions 

data that cannot be withheld as CBI (56 

FR 7042–7043, February 21, 1991). 

While determinations about whether 

information claimed as CBI and whether 

the information meets the definition of 

emissions data are usually made on a 

case-by-case basis, EPA recognizes that 

such an approach would be 

cumbersome given the scope of the MRR 

and the compelling need to make data 

that are not CBI, or are emissions data, 

available to the public. For this reason, 

EPA will be initiating a separate notice 

and comment process to make CBI and 

emissions data determinations for the 

categories of data collected under the 

MRR. 

As stated in the MRR, EPA will 

protect any information claimed as CBI 

in accordance with regulations in 40 

CFR part 2, subpart B. However, in 

general, emissions data collected under 

CAA section 114 shall be available to 

the public and cannot be withheld as 

CBI. 

F. Selection of Procedures for Estimating 

Missing Data 

EPA has concluded that it is 

important to have missing data 

procedures in order to ensure a 

complete report of amounts of CO2 and 

emissions from a particular facility. In 

this rule, EPA is proposing missing data 

procedures for the quarterly values of 

mass or volume and concentration of 

these streams, and CO2 transferred from 

offsite. EPA is proposing that these 

procedures can be used by all injection 

facilities, including GS facilities. EPA is 

also proposing procedures for missing 

data on CO2 production from GS 

facilities. EPA seeks comment on these 

procedures and on whether it is 

appropriate to provide missing data 

procedures for GS facilities. 

EPA is not proposing missing data 

procedures for leakage quantification. 

EPA is proposing that the MRV plan 

include quantification methods and 

assumptions for all potential leakage 

scenarios. If leakage is detected for 

which a quantification approach is not 

outlined in the plan, this information 

must be included in the addendum. 

G. Selection of Records To Retain 

EPA is proposing that, in addition to 

the records required by § 98.3(g), each 

facility must retain quarterly records of 

injected CO2 and CO2 transferred from 

offsite sources, including mass flow or 

volumetric flow at standard conditions 

and operating conditions, operating 

temperature and pressure, and 

concentration of these streams. EPA is 

proposing that GS facilities would also 

retain quarterly records of produced 

CO2, if applicable, including mass flow 

or volumetric flow at standard 

conditions and operating conditions, 

operating temperature and pressure, and 

concentration of these streams; annual 

records of the emitted CO2 from 

subsurface geologic formation leakage 

pathways; and any other records as 

outlined for retention in your MRV 

plan. EPA seeks comment on these 

record retention requirements. 

III. Economic Impacts of the Proposed 

Rule 

This section of the preamble examines 

the costs and economic impacts of the 

proposed rulemaking for CO2 injection 

and GS and the estimated economic 

impacts of the rule on affected entities, 

including estimated impacts on small 

entities. Complete detail of the 

economic impacts of the proposed rule 

can be found in the text of the economic 

impact analysis (EIA) (EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0926). EPA seeks comment on the 

methodology and data used for the 

analysis. 

A. How were compliance costs 

estimated? 

1. Summary of Method Used To 

Estimate Compliance Costs 

EPA estimated costs of complying 

with this proposed rule and the total 

incremental annual cost of compliance. 

A base case is created assuming relevant 

monitoring costs required under UIC 

requirements (including the UIC Class 

VI proposal). Then incremental 

reporting from geologic storage sites 

were evaluated in terms required 

technologies, practices, and costs. 

The estimated costs include capital 

and operating and maintenance (O&M) 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

18596 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

including labor costs. The cost of 

drilling and equipping wells represents 

a large component of sequestration 

costs. Examples of other costs include 

seismic data acquisition, periodic 

sampling and testing of the injected 

CO2. 

The estimated costs are based on 

hypothetical or pro-forma sites for 

various types of projects such as R&D 

GS projects, commercial saline 

formation projects, and ER GS projects. 

The geologic and engineering 

assumptions for these pro-forma 

projects are the same as those used by 

the EPA Office of Water in the proposed 

UIC Class VI rule for CO2 injection 

wells. The costs are presented in 2008 

dollars. 

The capital costs are annualized using 

an interest rate of 7% with projects 

lasting 7 years or 20 years. Next, annual 

O&M costs are added to the annualized 

capital costs to determine total annual 

direct costs. Finally, a 20 percent 

overhead and general and 

administrative cost factor is added to 

obtain total annual costs. These are then 

divided by the amount assumed to be 

injected each year in the pro-forma 

project to arrive at total costs per metric 

ton of CO2 injected. These per-ton costs 

are then used to estimate total annual 

costs for the level of injection expected 

in the activity baseline. 

B. What are the costs of the proposed 

rule? 

1. Summary of Costs 

The total annualized costs incurred 

under the rule by these entities would 

be approximately $714,000 ($2008 

dollars), as illustrated in Table 7 of this 

preamble. The public sector burden 

estimate is $344,000 for program 

implementation and verification 

activities. This may underestimate the 

total public sector burden depending on 

the extent to which DOE R&D projects 

funded with public dollars transition to 

demonstration or commercial GS, and 

consequently incur costs associated 

with monitoring, reporting and 

verification. Given uncertainties related 

to project adoption and the costs of the 

reporting program, EPA considered two 

other private cost scenarios (one higher 

and one lower than the reference cost 

scenario) in order to assess a range of 

economic impacts on affected entities, 

as illustrated in table 8 of this preamble. 

TABLE 7—NATIONAL ANNUALIZED MANDATORY REPORTING COSTS ESTIMATES (2008$): SUBPART RR 

Type Number of 

projects 

Metric tons 

CO2 injected 

per year 

Total annual 

cost 

(thousand, 

2008$) 

R&D ............................................................................................................................................. 9 5,320,000 37 

CO2 Injection Facilities (no GS) 1 ................................................................................................ 80 36,815,442 332 

Private Sector, Total All Projects ................................................................................................. 89 45,435,442 369 

Private Sector, Average ($/ton) ................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 0.01 

Public Sector, Total ..................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 344 

National Total ............................................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 714 

1 Includes Class II ER Facilities. 

TABLE 8—ANNUALIZED REPORTING COSTS PER PROJECT (2008$): SUBPART RR 

Type 

Average 

Alternative cost scenarios 

Reference 

($1,000) 

Low 

($1,000) 

High 

($1,000) 

GS Facilities (commercial saline) 1 .............................................................................................. 289 7 470 

GS Facilities (ER opt in) .............................................................................................................. 1,679 1,485 1,804 

CO2 Injection Facilities 1 .............................................................................................................. 4 4 4 

1 Includes Class II ER Facilities. 

C. What are the economic impacts of the 

proposed rule? 

1. Summary of Economic Impacts 

EPA assessed how the regulatory 

program may influence the profitability 

of companies by comparing the 

monitoring program costs to total sales 

(i.e., a ‘‘sales’’ test). Given limited data 

on commercial GS operations, EPA 

restricted the analysis to ER operations 

(approximately 90 percent of the fields). 

To do this, EPA divided the average 

annualized mandatory reporting costs 

per field by the estimated revenue for a 

representative field. Sales test ratios are 

between 3.1 to 3.3 percent for GS 

facilities (ER opt in). In contrast, ER CO2

injection facilities (no GS) sales test 

ratios are below 0.01 percent, as 

illustrated in Table 9 of this preamble. 

TABLE 9—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REVENUE FOR A REPRESENTATIVE COMMERCIAL ER FIELD OPERATION (2008$) 

Cost-to-Sales Ratios (CSRs) 

Alternative cost scenarios 

Reference 

(percent) 

Low 

(percent) 

High 

(percent) 

GS Facilities (ER opt in) .............................................................................................................. 3.1 2.7 3.3 

CO2 Injection Facilities (no GS) 1 ................................................................................................ <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 

1 Includes Class II ER Facilities. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18597 

39Although CBI determinations are usually made 

on a case-by-case basis, EPA has issued guidance 

Continued 

D. What are the impacts of the proposed 

rule on small businesses? 

1. Summary of Impacts on Small 

Businesses 

As required by the RFA and SBREFA, 

EPA assessed the potential impacts of 

the rule on small entities (small 

businesses, governments, and non-profit 

organizations). (See Section IV.C of this 

preamble for definitions of small 

entities.) 

After considering the economic 

impact of the rule on small entities, EPA 

has concluded that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Currently EPA believes small ER 

operations will most likely be UIC Class 

II ER projects. As shown in Table 9 of 

this preamble, the average ratio of 

annualized reporting program costs to 

revenues of a typical ER operation likely 

owned by a representative small 

enterprise was less than 0.1%. 

Although this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

EPA nonetheless took several steps to 

reduce the impact of this rule on small 

entities. For example, EPA is proposing 

monitoring and reporting requirements 

that build off of the UIC program. In 

addition, EPA is proposing equipment 

and methods that may already be in use 

by a facility for compliance with its UIC 

permit. Also, EPA is requiring annual 

reporting instead of more frequent 

reporting. 

In addition to the public hearing that 

EPA plans to hold, EPA has an open 

door policy, similar to the outreach 

conducted during the development of 

the proposed and final MRR. Details of 

these meetings are available in the 

docket (EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0926). 

E. What are the benefits of the proposed 

rule for society? 

EPA examined the potential benefits 

of this proposed rule. EPA’s previous 

analysis of the MRR discussed the 

benefits of a reporting system with 

respect to policy making relevance, 

transparency issues, market efficiency. 

Instead of a quantitative analysis of the 

benefits, EPA conducted a systematic 

literature review of existing studies 

including government, consulting, and 

scholarly reports. 

The greatest benefit of mandatory 

reporting of industry GHG emissions to 

government will be realized in 

developing future GHG policies. For 

example, in the EU’s Emissions Trading 

System, a lack of accurate monitoring at 

the facility level before establishing CO2

allowance permits resulted in allocation 

of permits for emissions levels an 

average of 15 percent above actual levels 

in every country except the United 

Kingdom. 

Benefits to industry of GHG emissions 

monitoring include the value of having 

independent, verifiable data to present 

to the public to demonstrate appropriate 

environmental stewardship, and a better 

understanding of their emission levels 

and sources to identify opportunities to 

reduce emissions. Such monitoring 

allows for inclusion of standardized 

GHG data into environmental 

management systems, providing the 

necessary information to achieve and 

disseminate their environmental 

achievements. 

Standardization will also be a benefit 

to industry, once facilities invest in the 

institutional knowledge and systems to 

report emissions, the cost of monitoring 

should fall and the accuracy of the 

accounting should improve. A 

standardized reporting program will 

also allow for facilities to benchmark 

themselves against similar facilities to 

understand better their relative standing 

within their industry. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Section 3(f)(1) of Executive 

Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 

1993), this proposed action is not by 

itself an ‘‘economically significant 

regulatory action’’ because it is unlikely 

to have an annual economic effect of 

less than $100 million. EPA’s cost 

analysis, presented in Section 4 of the 

EIA, estimates that for the minimum 

reporting under the recommended 

regulatory option, the total annualized 

cost of the rule will be approximately 

$713,000 (in 2008$) during the first year 

of the program and $713,000 in 

subsequent years (including $0.3 

million of programmatic costs to the 

Agency). This proposed action adds 

subpart RR to the MRR, which was a 

significant regulatory action. Thus, EPA 

has chosen to analyze the impacts of 

subpart RR as if it were significant. EPA 

submitted this proposed action to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review under Executive 

Order 12866, and any changes made in 

response to OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the docket for 

this proposed action. 

In addition, EPA prepared an analysis 

of the potential costs associated with 

this proposed action. This analysis is 

contained in the ‘‘Economic Impact 

Analysis for the Mandatory Reporting of 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Subpart RR’’ 

(EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0926). A copy of 

the analysis is available in the docket 

for this action and the analysis is briefly 

summarized here. In this report, EPA 

has identified the regulatory options 

considered, their costs, the emissions 

that would likely be reported under 

each option, and explained the selection 

of the option chosen for the rule. 

Overall, EPA has concluded that the 

costs of this proposed rule are 

outweighed by the potential benefits of 

more comprehensive information about 

GHGs. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this proposed rule have 

been submitted for approval to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 

Information Collection Request (ICR) 

document prepared by EPA has been 

assigned EPA ICR number 2372.01. 

EPA has identified the following goals 

of the mandatory reporting system, 

including: 

• Obtain data that is of sufficient 

quality that it can be used to analyze 

and inform the development of a range 

of future climate change policies and 

potential regulations. 

• Balance the rule’s coverage to 

maximize the amount of emissions 

reported while excluding small emitters. 

• Create reporting requirements that 

are, to the extent possible and 

appropriate, consistent with existing 

GHG reporting programs in order to 

reduce reporting burden for all parties 

involved. 

The information from CO2 injection 

and GS facilities will allow EPA to make 

well-informed decisions about whether 

and how to use the CAA to regulate 

these facilities and encourage voluntary 

reductions. Because EPA does not yet 

know the specific policies that will be 

adopted, the data reported through the 

mandatory reporting system should be 

of sufficient quality to inform policy 

and program development. Also, 

consistent with the Appropriations Act, 

the reporting rule covers a broad range 

of sectors of the economy. 

This information collection is 

mandatory and will be carried out under 

CAA section 114. Information identified 

and marked as Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) will not be disclosed 

except in accordance with procedures 

set forth in 40 CFR Part 2. However, 

emissions information collected under 

CAA section 114 generally cannot be 

claimed as CBI and will be made 

public.39

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

18598 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

in an earlier Federal Register notice on what 

constitutes emissions data that cannot be 

considered CBI (956 FR 7042–7043, February 21, 

1991). As discussed in Section II.R of the Final 

MRR preamble, EPA will be initiating a separate 

notice and comment process to make CBI 

determinations for the data collected under this 

proposed rulemaking. 

The projected ICR cost and 

respondent burden is $0.8 million and 

4,510 hours per year. The estimated 

average burden per response is 6.8 

hours; the frequency of response is 

annual for all respondents that must 

comply with the rule’s reporting 

requirements, except for electricitygenerating units that are already 

required to report quarterly under 40 

CFR Part 75 (acid rain program); and the 

estimated average number of likely 

respondents per year is 89. The cost 

burden to respondents resulting from 

the collection of information includes 

the total capital and start-up cost 

annualized over the equipment’s 

expected useful life (averaging $0.1 

million per year) a total operation and 

maintenance component (averaging $0.3 

million per year), and a labor cost 

component (averaging $0.3 million per 

year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 

1320.3(b). 

These cost numbers differ from those 

shown elsewhere in the EIA because 

ICR costs represent the average cost over 

the first three years of the rule, but costs 

are reported elsewhere in the EIA for the 

first year of the rule. Also, the total cost 

estimate of the rule in the EIA includes 

the cost to the Agency to administer the 

program. The ICR differentiates between 

respondent burden and cost to the 

Agency. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR Part 9. When 

this ICR is approved by OMB, the 

Agency will publish a technical 

amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the 

Federal Register to display the OMB 

control number for the approved 

information collection requirements 

contained in the final rule. 

To comment on the Agency’s need for 

this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates, and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, EPA has established 

a public docket for this proposed rule, 

which includes this ICR, under Docket 

ID number EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0926. 

Submit any comments related to the ICR 

to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this notice 

for where to submit comments to EPA. 

Send comments to OMB at the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 725 

17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. 

Since OMB is required to make a 

decision concerning the ICR between 30 

and 60 days after [date of publication], 

a comment to OMB is best assured of 

having its full effect if OMB receives it 

by [publication plus 30]. The final rule 

will respond to any OMB or public 

comments on the information collection 

requirements contained in this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The RFA generally requires an agency 

to prepare a regulatory flexibility 

analysis of any rule subject to notice 

and comment rulemaking requirements 

under the Administrative Procedure Act 

or any other statute 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 organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s regulations at 13 CFR 

121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. Currently EPA 

believes small ER operations will most 

likely be CO2 injection facilities, 

including Class II ER projects. The 

average ratio of annualized reporting 

program costs to revenues of a typical 

ER operation likely owned by 

representative small enterprises is less 

than 1% 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, I therefore certify that 

this proposed rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Although this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

EPA nonetheless took several steps to 

reduce the impact of this rule on small 

entities. For example, EPA is proposing 

monitoring and reporting requirements 

that build off of the UIC program. In 

addition, EPA is proposing equipment 

and methods that may already be in use 

by a facility for compliance with its UIC 

permit. Also, EPA is requiring annual 

reporting instead of more frequent 

reporting. In addition to the public 

hearing that EPA plans to hold, EPA has 

an open door policy, similar to the 

outreach conducted during the 

development of the proposed and final 

MRR. Details of these meetings are 

available in the docket (EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2009–0926). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L. 

104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for final rules with ‘‘Federal 

mandates’’ that may result in 

expenditures to State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

in any one year. 

This proposed rule does not contain 

a Federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more 

for State, local, and tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or the private sector in 

any one year. Overall, EPA estimates 

that the total annualized costs of this 

proposed rule are approximately 

$713,000 per year. Thus, this proposed 

rule is not subject to the requirements 

of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. 

This proposed rule is also not subject 

to the requirements of section 203 of 

UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

Facilities subject to the proposed rule 

include facilities that inject CO2 for 

enhanced recovery of crude oil, and 

those intending to sequester CO2. None 

of the facilities currently known to 

undertake these activities are owned by 

small governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. This regulation 

applies directly to facilities that inject 

CO2 underground. Few, if any, State or 

local government facilities would be 

affected. This regulation also does not 

limit the power of States or localities to 

collect GHG data and/or regulate GHG 

emissions. Thus, Executive Order 13132 

does not apply to this action. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18599 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and State and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicits comment on this 

proposed action from State and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (59 FR 

22951, November 6, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ 

This proposed rule is not expected to 

have tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. This regulation 

applies to facilities that inject CO2

underground. Few facilities expected to 

be affected by the rule are likely to be 

owned by tribal governments. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this proposed rule. 

Although Executive Order 13175 does 

not apply to this proposed rule, EPA 

sought opportunities to provide 

information to tribal governments and 

representatives during development of 

the MRR. In consultation with EPA’s 

American Indian Environment Office, 

EPA’s outreach plan included tribes. 

During the proposal phase, EPA staff 

provided information to tribes through 

conference calls with multiple Indian 

working groups and organizations at 

EPA that interact with tribes and 

through individual calls with two tribal 

board members of TCR. In addition, 

EPA prepared a short article on the GHG 

reporting rule that appeared on the front 

page of a tribal newsletter—Tribal Air 

News—that was distributed to EPA/ 

Office of Air Quality Planning & 

Standards’ network of tribal 

organizations. EPA gave a presentation 

on various climate efforts, including the 

MRR, at the National Tribal Conference 

on Environmental Management in June, 

2008. In addition, EPA had copies of a 

short information sheet distributed at a 

meeting of the National Tribal Caucus. 

EPA participated in a conference call 

with tribal air coordinators in April 

2009 and prepared a guidance sheet for 

Tribal governments on the proposed 

rule. It was posted on the MRR Web site 

and published in the Tribal Air 

Newsletter. For a complete list of tribal 

contacts, see the ‘‘Summary of EPA 

Outreach Activities for Developing the 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule,’’ in the 

MRR Docket (EPA–HQ–OAR–2008– 

0508–055). In addition to the 

consultation activities supporting the 

MRR, EPA continues to provide 

requested information to tribal 

governments and representatives during 

development of MRR source categories 

that have not been finalized (Track II 

rules) such as this proposed rulemaking. 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed action from 

tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This proposed action is not 

subject to EO 13045 because it does not 

establish an environmental standard 

intended to mitigate health or safety 

risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ as defined in 

EO 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) 

because it is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. Further, 

EPA has concluded that this proposed 

rule is not likely to have any adverse 

energy effects. This proposed rule 

relates to monitoring, reporting and 

recordkeeping at facilities that inject 

CO2 underground and does not impact 

energy supply, distribution or use. 

Therefore, EPA concludes that this 

proposed rule is not likely to have any 

adverse effects on energy supply, 

distribution, or use. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 

113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to 

use voluntary consensus standards in its 

regulatory activities unless to do so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA 

to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

This proposed rulemaking involves 

technical standards. EPA will use 

voluntary consensus standards from at 

least seven different voluntary 

consensus standards bodies, including 

the following: American Society for 

Testing and Materials (ASTM), 

American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers (ASME), International 

Standards Organization (ISO), Gas 

Processors Association, American Gas 

Association, American Petroleum 

Institute, and National Lime 

Association. These voluntary consensus 

standards will help facilities monitor, 

report, and keep records of CO2

injections or geologic sequestration, and 

any associated GHG emissions. No new 

test methods were developed for this 

proposed rule. Instead, from existing 

rules for source categories and voluntary 

greenhouse gas programs, EPA 

identified existing means of monitoring, 

reporting, and keeping records of 

greenhouse gas emissions. The existing 

methods (voluntary consensus 

standards) include a broad range of 

measurement techniques, such as 

methods to measure gas or liquid flow; 

and methods to gauge and measure 

petroleum and petroleum products. The 

test methods are incorporated by 

reference into the proposed rule and are 

available as specified in 40 CFR 98.7. 

By incorporating voluntary consensus 

standards into this proposed rule, EPA 

is both meeting the requirements of the 

NTTAA and presenting multiple 

options and flexibility in complying 

with the proposed rule. EPA welcomes 

comments on this aspect of the 

proposed rulemaking and, specifically, 

invites the public to identify 

potentially-applicable voluntary 

consensus standards and to explain why 

such standards should be used in this 

proposed regulation. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

EO 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 

1994) establishes Federal executive 

policy on environmental justice. Its 

main provision directs Federal agencies, 

to the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law, to make 

environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

18600 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

because it does not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. This proposed rule 

does not affect the level of protection 

provided to human health or the 

environment because it is a rule 

addressing information collection and 

reporting procedures. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 98 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by 

reference, Air pollution control, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: March 22, 2010. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 98—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 98 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. 

Subpart A—[Amended] 

2. Section 98.2 is amended by revising 

paragraph (a) introductory text to read 

as follows: 

§ 98.2 Who must report? 

(a) The GHG reporting requirements 

and related monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting requirements of this part 

apply to the owners and operators of 

any facility that is located in the United 

States or under or attached to the Outer 

Continental Shelf (as defined in 43 

U.S.C. 1331) and that meets the 

requirements of either paragraph (a)(1), 

(a)(2), or (a)(3) of this section; and any 

supplier that meets the requirements of 

paragraph (a)(4) of this section: 

* * * * * 

3. Section 98.6 is amended by adding 

the following definitions in alphabetical 

order to read as follows: 

§ 98.6 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Outer Continental Shelf means all 

submerged lands lying seaward and 

outside of the area of lands beneath 

navigable waters as defined in 43 U.S.C. 

1301, and of which the subsoil and 

seabed appertain to the United States 

and are subject to its jurisdiction and 

control. 

* * * * * 

United States means the 50 States, the 

District of Columbia, the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 

American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, 

Guam, and any other Commonwealth, 

territory or possession of the United 

States, as well as the territorial sea as 

defined by Presidential Proclamation 

No. 5928. 

* * * * * 

4. Section 98.7 is amended by revising 

paragraph (e)(39) to read as follows: 

§ 98.7 What standardized methods are 

incorporated by reference into this part? 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(39) ASTM E1747–95 (Reapproved 

2005) Standard Guide for Purity of 

Carbon Dioxide Used in Supercritical 

Fluid Applications, IBR approved for 

§ 98.424(b) and § 98.444(a). 

* * * * * 

5. Part 98 is amended by adding 

subpart RR to read as follows: 

Sec. 

98.440 Definition of the source category. 

98.441 Reporting threshold. 

98.442 GHGs to report. 

98.443 Calculating CO2 Injection and 

Sequestration. 

98.444 Monitoring and QA/QC 

requirements. 

98.445 Procedures for estimating missing 

data. 

98.446 Data reporting requirements. 

98.447 Records that must be retained. 

98.448 Geologic Sequestration Monitoring, 

Reporting, and Verification (MRV) Plan. 

98.449 Definitions. 

Subpart RR—Injection and Geologic 

Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide 

§ 98.440 Definition of the source category. 

(a) The injection and geologic 

sequestration of carbon dioxide (CO2) 

source category comprises any well or 

group of wells that inject CO2 into the 

subsurface, which includes under a 

seabed offshore. The source category 

consists of all wells that inject CO2 into 

the subsurface, including wells for 

geologic sequestration (GS) or for any 

other purpose. 

(b) A facility that is subject to this rule 

only because of CO2 injection wells that 

do not meet the definition of geologic 

sequestration facility in paragraph (c) of 

this section is not required to report 

emissions under any other subpart of 

part 98. 

(c) Geologic sequestration (GS) 

facility. 

(1) For the purposes of this source 

category, a geologic sequestration 

facility is a facility that injects CO2 for 

the long-term containment of a gaseous, 

liquid, or supercritical CO2 stream in 

subsurface geologic formations. A 

facility that injects CO2 to enhance the 

recovery of oil or natural gas is not a 

geologic sequestration facility for the 

purposes of this source category unless 

the facility also injects the CO2 in 

subsurface geologic formations for longterm containment of a gaseous, liquid, 

or supercritical CO2 stream and chooses 

to submit a monitoring, reporting, and 

verification (MRV) plan to EPA that is 

then approved by EPA. 

(2) A facility that is not required to 

report for the purposes of this source 

category as a geologic sequestration 

facility, injects CO2 for the long-term 

containment of a gaseous, liquid, or 

supercritical CO2 stream in subsurface 

geologic formations, and chooses to 

submit an MRV plan to EPA that is then 

approved by EPA, is a geologic 

sequestration facility. 

(3) A geologic sequestration facility 

includes all structures associated with 

injection located between the points of 

CO2 transfer onsite and the injection 

wells. 

(4) A geologic sequestration facility 

that injects CO2 to enhance the recovery 

of oil or natural gas includes all 

structures associated with production 

located between the production wells 

and the separators. 

(d) This source category does not 

include the following: 

(1) Storage of CO2 above ground. 

(2) Temporary storage of CO2 below 

ground. 

(3) Transportation or distribution of 

CO2. 

(4) Purification, compression, or 

processing of CO2 at the surface. 

(5) Capture of CO2. 

(6) CO2 in cement, precipitated 

calcium carbonate (PCC), or any other 

technique that does not involve 

injection of CO2 into the subsurface. 

§ 98.441 Reporting threshold. 

(a) You must report under this subpart 

if your facility is an injection facility 

that injects CO2 into the subsurface and 

the facility meets requirements of either 

§ 98.2(a)(1) or (a)(2). 

(b) The requirements of § 98.2(i) do 

not apply to this subpart. Once a facility 

is subject to the requirements of this 

subpart, the owner or operator must 

continue for each year thereafter to 

comply with all requirements of this 

subpart, including the requirement to 

submit annual GHG reports, even if the 

facility does not meet the applicability 

requirements in paragraph (a) of 

§ 98.2(a) of this part in a future year, 

unless paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this 

section apply. 

(1) If the injection well or wells 

constituting the facility are plugged in 

compliance with the facility’s 

Underground Injection Control permit 

requirements (or relevant permit 

requirements, if any, in the case of a 

facility that is not under the jurisdiction 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18601 

of the Safe Drinking Water Act), a 

facility conducting geologic 

sequestration subject to the 

requirements of this subpart may 

discontinue complying with § 98.442(a) 

and § 98.442(b) and all other facilities 

subject to the requirements of this 

subpart may discontinue complying 

with this subpart. The owner or operator 

of the facility must notify EPA that the 

injection well or wells constituting the 

facility have been plugged in 

compliance with the facility’s 

Underground Injection Control permit 

requirements (or relevant permit 

requirements, if any, in the case of a 

facility that is not under the jurisdiction 

of the Safe Drinking Water Act), and 

such notification must be certified as 

accurate by the owner or operator of the 

facility. The owner or operator must 

resume reporting for any future calendar 

year during which any activities that are 

source categories of this subpart resume 

operation. 

(2) If the CO2 plume and pressure 

front have stabilized and the GS facility 

has been closed in compliance with the 

facility’s Underground Injection Control 

permit requirements (or relevant permit 

requirements, if any, in the case of a 

facility that is not under the jurisdiction 

of the Safe Drinking Water Act), a 

facility conducting geologic 

sequestration may discontinue 

complying with the remainder of this 

subpart. The owner or operator of the 

facility must notify EPA that the CO2

plume and pressure front have 

stabilized and the GS facility has been 

closed in compliance with the facility’s 

Underground Injection Control permit 

requirements (or relevant permit 

requirements, if any, in the case of a 

facility that is not under the jurisdiction 

of the Safe Drinking Water Act), and 

such notification must be certified as 

accurate by the owner or operator of the 

facility. The owner or operator must 

resume reporting for any future calendar 

year during which any activities that are 

source categories of this subpart resume 

operation. 

§ 98.442 GHGs to report. 

You must report: 

(a) Mass of CO2 received onsite. 

(b) Mass of CO2 injected into the 

subsurface. 

(c) Facilities conducting geologic 

sequestration also report: 

(1) Mass of CO2 produced, if any. 

(2) Mass of CO2 sequestered in the 

subsurface geologic formation. 

(3) Mass of CO2 emitted from 

subsurface leaks. 

(4) Mass of fugitive and vented CO2

emissions from surface equipment at the 

facility if not reported under subpart W 

of this part. 

§ 98.443 Calculating CO2 Injection and 

Sequestration. 

(a) A facility must calculate and 

report the annual mass of CO2

transferred to the facility from offsite 

sources using the procedures in 

paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3) of 

this section. 

(1) For each transfer point for which 

flow is measured using a mass flow 

meter, you must calculate the total 

annual mass of CO2 in a CO2 stream 

transferred onsite from offsite sources in 

metric tons by multiplying the mass 

flow by the CO2 concentration in the 

flow, according to Equation RR–1 of this 

section. You must collect these data 

quarterly. Mass flow and concentration 

data measurements must be made in 

accordance with § 98.444. 

CO Eq 2 v

1

4

2 , , = ∗ ( .

=

∑ Q C p,v CO

p p,v RR-1)

Where: 

CO2,v = Annual CO2 mass transferred onsite 

from offsite sources (metric tons) through 

transfer point v. 

Qp,v = Quarterly mass flow rate measurement 

for transfer point v in quarter p (metric 

tons per quarter). 

CCO2,p,v = Quarterly CO2 concentration 

measurement in flow for transfer point v 

in quarter p (wt. %CO2/100). 

p = quarter. 

v = transfer point. 

(2) For each transfer point for which 

flow is measured using a volumetric 

flow meter, you must calculate the total 

annual mass of CO2 in a CO2 stream 

transferred onsite from offsite sources in 

metric tons by multiplying the 

volumetric flow at standard conditions 

by the CO2 concentration in the flow 

and the density of CO2 at standard 

conditions, according to Equation RR–2 

of this section. You must collect these 

data quarterly. Volumetric flow and 

concentration data measurements must 

be made in accordance with § 98.444. 

CO Eq 2 v

1

4

2 2 , , = ∗∗ ( .

=

∑ Q C p,v CO

p p,v Dp,v RR- )

Where: 

CO2,v = Annual CO2 mass transferred onsite 

from offsite sources (metric tons) through 

transfer point v. 

Qp,v = Quarterly volumetric flow rate 

measurement for transfer point v in quarter 

p at standard conditions (standard cubic 

meters per quarter). 

Dp,v = Density of CO2 at standard 

conditions (metric tons per standard cubic 

meter): 0.0018704. 

CCO2,p,v = Quarterly CO2 concentration 

measurement in flow for transfer point v in 

quarter p (wt. %CO2/100). 

p = quarter. 

v = transfer point. 

(3) To aggregate transfer data at the 

facility level, you must sum the mass of 

all CO2 transferred onsite from offsite 

sources through all facility transfer 

points in accordance with the procedure 

specified in Equation RR–3 of this 

section. 

CO Eq 2T

1

= 3

=

∑CO RR- ) 2,v ( .

v

V

Where: 

CO2T = Total annual CO2 mass transferred 

onsite from offsite sources (metric tons) 

through all transfer points at the facility. 

CO2,v = Annual CO2 mass transferred (metric 

tons) through transfer point v. 

v = transfer point. 

(b) A facility must report annually the 

mass of CO2 injected in accordance with 

the procedures specified in paragraphs 

(b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section. 

(1) For each point at which the flow 

of an injected CO2 stream is measured 

using a mass flow meter, you must 

calculate annually the total mass of CO2

in the CO2 stream injected in metric 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP12AP10.025</MATH> EP12AP10.026</MATH> EP12AP10.027</MATH>
18602 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

tons by multiplying the mass flow by 

the CO2 concentration in the flow, 

according to Equation RR–4 of this 

section. You must collect these data 

quarterly. Mass flow and concentration 

data measurements must be made in 

accordance with § 98.444. 

CO Eq 2 u

1

4

2 4 , , = ∗ ( .

=

∑ Q C p,u CO

p p,u RR- )

Where: 

CO2,u = Annual CO2 mass injected (metric 

tons) as measured by flow meter u. 

Qp,u = Quarterly mass flow rate measurement 

for flow meter u in quarter p (metric tons 

per quarter). 

CCO2,p,u = Quarterly CO2 concentration 

measurement in flow in quarter p (wt. 

%CO2/100). 

p = quarter. 

u = flow meter. 

(2) For each point at which the flow 

of an injected CO2 stream is measured 

using a volumetric flow meter, you must 

calculate annually the total mass of CO2

in the CO2 stream injected in metric 

tons by multiplying the volumetric flow 

at standard conditions by the CO2

concentration in the flow and the 

density of CO2 at standard conditions, 

according to Equation RR–5 of this 

section. You must collect these data 

quarterly. Volumetric flow and 

concentration data measurements must 

be made in accordance with § 98.444. 

CO Eq 2 u

1

4

2 5 , , = ∗∗ ( .

=

∑ Q C p,u CO

p p,u Dp,u RR- )

Where: 

CO2,u = Annual CO2 mass injected (metric 

tons) as measured by flow meter u. 

Qp,u = Quarterly volumetric flow rate 

measurement for flow meter u in quarter 

p at standard conditions (standard cubic 

meters per quarter). 

Dp,u = Density of CO2 at standard conditions 

(metric tons per standard cubic meter): 

0.0018704. 

CCO2,p,u = CO2 concentration measurement in 

flow for transfer point u in quarter p (wt. 

%CO2/100). 

p = quarter. 

u = flow meter. 

(3) To aggregate injection data at the 

facility level, you must sum the mass of 

all CO2 injected through all injection 

wells at the facility in accordance with 

the procedure specified in Equation RR– 

6 of this section. 

CO CO 2 2 I u

1

=

=

∑ ,

u

U

(Eq. RR-6)

Where: 

CO2I = Total annual CO2 mass injected 

(metric tons) through all injection wells. 

CO2,u = Annual CO2 mass injected (metric 

tons) as measured by flow meter u. 

u = flow meter. 

(c) All GS facilities must also report 

the mass of CO2 emitted as fugitive or 

vented emissions from surface 

equipment (if this information is not 

required to be reported under subpart W 

of this part), the mass of CO2 produced 

(if applicable), the mass of CO2 emitted 

from subsurface leakage, and the mass 

of CO2 geologically sequestered in 

accordance with the procedures as 

specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through 

(c)(4) of this section. 

(1) If you do not report CO2 emitted 

as fugitive or vented emissions from 

surface equipment at your facility in the 

reporting year under subpart W of this 

part, you must report them under 

subpart RR of this part in accordance 

with the procedures specified in subpart 

W of this part for each type of surface 

equipment. If you report these 

emissions under subpart W of this part, 

you do not need to report these 

emissions under subpart RR of this part. 

(2) You must calculate the annual 

mass of CO2 produced from oil or gas 

production wells (if applicable) at the 

facility for each separator that sends a 

stream of gas into a recycle or end use 

system in accordance with the 

procedures specified in paragraphs 

(c)(2)(i) through (c)(2)(iii) of this section. 

(i) For each gas-liquid separator for 

which flow is measured using a mass 

flow meter, you must calculate annually 

the total mass of CO2 produced from an 

oil or gas stream in metric tons by 

multiplying the mass flow by the CO2

concentration in the flow, according to 

Equation RR–7 of this section. You must 

collect these data quarterly. Mass flow 

and concentration data measurements 

must be made in accordance with 

§ 98.444. 

CO Eq 2 w

1

4

2 7 , , = ∗ ( .

=

∑ Q C p,w CO

p p,w RR- )

Where: 

CO2,w = Annual CO2 mass produced (metric 

tons) through separator w. 

Qp,w = Quarterly mass flow rate measurement 

for separator w in quarter p (metric tons 

per quarter). 

CCO2,p,w = Quarterly CO2 concentration 

measurement in flow for separator w in 

quarter p (wt. % CO2/100). 

p = quarter. 

w = separator. 

(ii) For each gas-liquid separator for 

which flow is measured using a 

volumetric flow meter, you must 

calculate annually the total mass of CO2

produced from an oil or gas stream in 

metric tons by multiplying the 

volumetric flow at standard conditions 

by the CO2 concentration in the flow 

and the density of CO2 at standard 

conditions, according to Equation RR–8 

of this section. You must collect these 

data quarterly. Volumetric flow and 

concentration data measurements must 

be made in accordance with § 98.444. 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP12AP10.028</MATH> EP12AP10.029</MATH> EP12AP10.030</MATH> EP12AP10.031</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18603 

CO Eq 2 w

1

4

2 8 , , = ∗∗ ( .

=

∑ Q C p,w CO

p p,w Dp,w RR- )

Where: 

CO2,w = Annual CO2 mass produced (metric 

tons) through separator w. 

Qp,w = Volumetric flow rate measurement for 

separator w in quarter p at standard 

conditions (standard cubic meters per 

quarter). 

Dp,w = Density of CO2 at standard conditions 

(metric tons per standard cubic meter): 

0.0018704. 

CCO2,p,w = CO2 concentration measurement in 

flow for separator w in quarter p (wt. % 

CO2/100). 

p = quarter. 

w = separator. 

(iii) To aggregate production data at 

the facility level, you must sum the 

mass of all of the CO2 separated at each 

gas-liquid separator at the facility in 

accordance with the procedure specified 

in Equation RR–9 of this section. You 

must assume that the total CO2

measured at the separator(s) represents 

(100–X)% of the total CO2 produced. In 

order to account for the X% of CO2

produced that is estimated to remain 

with the produced oil and gas, you must 

multiply the quarterly mass of CO2

measured at the separator(s) by 

(100+X)%. The value of X must be 

estimated using a methodology 

approved by EPA per your MRV plan. 

CO X Eq 2P

1

=+ ∗ 100 9

=

( )% ( . ∑CO RR- ) 2,w

w

W

Where: 

CO2P = Total annual CO2 mass produced 

(metric tons) through all separators in 

the reporting year. 

CO2,w = Annual CO2 mass produced (metric 

tons) through separator w in the 

reporting year. 

X = Percent of CO2 that is estimated to 

remain with the produced oil and gas. 

w = separator. 

(3) You must report the annual mass 

of CO2 that is emitted from each leakage 

pathway identified in your MRV plan. 

You must calculate the total annual 

mass of CO2 emitted from all leakage 

pathways at the facility in accordance 

with the procedure specified in 

Equation RR–10 of this section. 

CO Eq 2E

1

= 10

=

∑CO RR- ) 2,x ( .

x

X

Where: 

CO2E = Total annual CO2 mass emitted from 

the subsurface geologic formation (metric 

tons) at the facility in the reporting year. 

CO2,x = Annual CO2 mass emitted (metric 

tons) at leakage pathway x in the 

reporting year. 

x = leakage pathway. 

(4) You must report the annual mass 

of CO2 that is sequestered in the 

subsurface geologic formation in the 

reporting year in accordance with the 

procedures specified in paragraphs 

(c)(4)(i) and (c)(4)(ii) of this section. 

(i) GS facilities that are conducting 

enhanced recovery operations and that 

are actively producing oil or natural gas 

must calculate the annual mass of CO2

that is sequestered in the underground 

subsurface formation in the reporting 

year in accordance with the procedure 

specified in Equation RR–11 of this 

section. 

CO CO CO CO CO CO 22 2 2 2 2 =−− − − I P E FI FP (Eq. RR-11)

Where: 

CO2 = Total annual CO2 mass sequestered in 

the subsurface geologic formation (metric 

tons) at the facility in the reporting year. 

CO2I = Total annual CO2 mass injected 

(metric tons) at the facility in the 

reporting year. 

CO2P = Total annual CO2 mass produced 

(metric tons) at the facility in the 

reporting year. 

CO2E = Total annual CO2 mass emitted 

(metric tons) from the subsurface 

geologic formation in the reporting year. 

CO2FI = Total annual CO2 mass emitted 

(metric tons) as fugitive or vented 

emissions from equipment located on the 

surface between the flow meter used to 

measure injection quantity and the 

injection wellhead. 

CO2FP = Total annual CO2 mass emitted 

(metric tons) as fugitive or vented 

emissions from equipment located on the 

surface between the production wellhead 

and of the flow meter used to measure 

production quantity. 

(ii) GS facilities that are not actively 

producing oil or natural gas must 

calculate the annual mass of CO2 that is 

sequestered in the subsurface geologic 

formation in the reporting year in 

accordance with the procedures 

specified in Equation RR–12 of this 

section. 

CO CO CO CO 22 2 2 =− − I E FI (Eq. RR-12)

Where: 

CO2 = Total annual CO2 mass sequestered in 

the subsurface geologic formation (metric 

tons) at the facility in the reporting year. 

CO2I = Total annual CO2 mass injected 

(metric tons) at the facility in the 

reporting year. 

CO2E = Total annual CO2 mass emitted 

(metric tons) from the subsurface 

geologic formation in the reporting year. 

CO2FI = Total annual CO2 mass emitted 

(metric tons) as fugitive or vented 

emissions from equipment located on the 

surface between the flow meter used to 

measure injection quantity and the 

injection wellhead. 

§ 98.444 Monitoring and QA/QC 

requirements. 

(a) All reporters must adhere to the 

requirements and procedures in 

paragraph (a) in this section if there has 

been no EPA direction or order 

specifying a preferred method of 

measurement. 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP12AP10.032</MATH> EP12AP10.033</MATH> EP12AP10.034</MATH> EP12AP10.035</MATH> EP12AP10.036</MATH>
18604 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(1) You must determine the quantity 

transferred by following the most 

appropriate of the following procedures: 

(i) A reporter can measure quantity at 

the custody transfer meter installed at 

the facility boundary prior to any 

subsequent processing operations at the 

facility. 

(ii) If you took ownership of the CO2

in a commercial transaction, you can 

use the quantity data from the sales 

contract if it is a one-time transaction or 

from invoices or manifests if it is an 

ongoing commercial transaction with 

discrete shipments. 

(2) The point of measurement for the 

quantity injected is specified in 

paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(ii) of this 

section. 

(i) For facilities regulated by the 

Underground Injection Control program, 

the point of measurement is the flow 

meter installed at the facility you 

already use to comply with the flow 

monitoring and reporting provisions of 

your Underground Injection Control 

permit. 

(ii) For facilities not regulated by the 

Underground Injection Control program 

because they are outside of Safe 

Drinking Water Act jurisdiction, the 

point of measurement is the flow meter 

installed at the facility you already use 

to comply with the flow monitoring and 

reporting provisions of your relevant 

permit. If no such requirement exists, 

the point of measurement is the flow 

meter installed closest to the point of 

injection at your facility. 

(3) You must determine the quantity 

injected by using a flow meter or meters. 

(4) You must operate and calibrate all 

flow meters used to measure quantities 

reported in § 98.443 according to the 

following procedure: 

(i) You must use an appropriate 

standard method published by a 

consensus-based standards organization 

if such a method exists. Consensusbased standards organizations include, 

but are not limited to, the following: 

ASTM International, the American 

National Standards Institute (ANSI), the 

American Gas Association (AGA), the 

American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers (ASME), the American 

Petroleum Institute (API), and the North 

American Energy Standards Board 

(NAESB). 

(ii) Where no appropriate standard 

method developed by a consensus-based 

standards organization exists, you must 

follow industry standard practices. 

(iii) You must ensure that any flow 

meter calibrations performed are NIST 

traceable. 

(5) You must determine concentration 

of the transferred CO2 stream by 

following the most appropriate of the 

following procedures: 

(i) A reporter can sample the CO2

stream at the point of transfer and 

measure its concentration. 

(ii) If you took ownership of the CO2

in a commercial transaction for which 

the sales contract was contingent on 

CO2 concentration, and if the supplier of 

the CO2 sampled the CO2 stream and 

measured its concentration per the sales 

contract terms, you can use the CO2

concentration data from the sales 

contract. 

(6) You must determine the CO2

concentration of the injected CO2 stream 

by measuring immediately downstream 

of the flow meter as specified in 

paragraph (a)(2)(i) or (a)(2)(ii) of this 

section. 

(7) If you measure the concentration 

of any CO2 quantity for reporting, you 

must use methods that conform to 

applicable chemical analytical 

standards. Acceptable methods include 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

food-grade specifications for CO2 (see 21 

CFR 184.1240) and ASTM standard 

E1747–95 (Reapproved 2005) Standard 

Guide for Purity of Carbon Dioxide Used 

in Supercritical Fluid Applications 

(incorporated by reference, see § 98.7). 

(8) You must determine the 

transferred CO2 concentration and flow 

quarterly. 

(9) You must sample the injected CO2

concentration and calculate the flow 

quarterly. 

(10) You must use the same 

calculation methodology throughout a 

reporting period unless you provide a 

written explanation of why a change in 

methodology was required. 

(11) If you measure the flow of the 

CO2 transferred or injected with a 

volumetric flow meter, you shall 

convert all measured volumes of carbon 

dioxide to the following standard 

industry temperature and pressure 

conditions for use in equations RR–2 

and RR–5: Standard cubic meters at a 

temperature of 60 degrees Fahrenheit 

and at an absolute pressure of 1 

atmosphere. 

(b) GS facilities must additionally 

submit an MRV plan to EPA, receive 

approval from EPA, and adhere to the 

requirements and procedures in 

paragraph (b) of this section. 

(1) You must adhere to paragraphs 

(a)(1) through (a)(11) of this section. 

(2) For reporters who are not required 

to report the quantity of CO2 emitted as 

fugitive or vented emissions from 

surface equipment at the injection site 

under subpart W of this part, and are 

thereby required to report fugitive and 

vented emissions from surface 

equipment under this subpart, 

monitoring and QA/QC requirements for 

these data should be followed in 

accordance with procedures specified in 

subpart W of this part. 

(3) The point of measurement for the 

quantity of CO2 produced from oil or 

natural gas production wells at the GS 

facility is a flow meter directly 

downstream of each separator that sends 

a stream of gas into a recycle or end use 

system. 

(4) The point of measurement for the 

concentration of the stream of CO2

produced is directly downstream of 

each separator that sends a stream of gas 

into a recycle or end use system. 

(5) You must sample the produced 

CO2 concentration and flow quarterly. 

(6) A reporter must follow the 

procedures outlined in the most recent 

MRV plan submitted to and approved 

by EPA to determine the quantity of CO2

emitted from the subsurface geologic 

formation and the percent of CO2 that is 

estimated to remain with the produced 

oil and natural gas. 

(c) For 2011, a facility that is subject 

to this rule only because of a CO2

injection well(s) that does not meet the 

definition of GS facility in § 98.440(c) 

may follow the provisions of § 98.3(d)(1) 

through (3) for best available monitoring 

methods rather than follow the 

monitoring requirements of this section. 

For purposes of this subpart, any 

reference to the year 2010 in § 98.3(d)(1) 

through (3) shall mean 2011. 

(d) All flow meters must be operated 

continuously. 

(e) If you measure the flow of the CO2

produced with a volumetric flow meter, 

you shall convert all measured volumes 

of carbon dioxide to the following 

standard industry temperature and 

pressure conditions for use in equation 

RR–8: Standard cubic meters at a 

temperature of 60 degrees Fahrenheit 

and at an absolute pressure of 1 

atmosphere. 

§ 98.445 Procedures for estimating 

missing data. 

(a) A complete record of all measured 

parameters used in the GHG quantities 

calculations is required. Whenever the 

quality assurance procedures for all 

facilities covered under this subpart 

cannot be followed to measure flow and 

concentration, the most appropriate of 

the following missing data procedures 

must be followed if EPA has not 

specified a preferred procedure: 

(1) A quarterly quantity of CO2

injected that is missing must be 

estimated using the quantity of CO2

injected from the nearest previous 

period of time at a similar injection 

pressure. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 18605 

(2) A quarterly quantity of new CO2

transferred onto the facility from offsite 

that is missing must be estimated using 

the quantity of new CO2 flow based on 

supplier data or supplier-operated flow 

meters. 

(3) A quarterly concentration value 

that is missing must be estimated using 

a concentration value from the nearest 

previous time period. 

(b) A complete record of all measured 

parameters used in the GHG quantities 

calculations is required. Whenever the 

quality assurance procedures for 

facilities conducting GS cannot be 

followed, the most appropriate of the 

following missing data procedures must 

be followed: 

(1) For any values associated with 

fugitive or vented CO2 emissions from 

surface equipment at the facility that are 

reported in this supbart, missing data 

estimation procedures should be 

followed in accordance with those 

specified in subpart W of this part. 

(2) The annual quantity of CO2

produced from the subsurface geologic 

formation that is missing must be 

estimated according to the following: 

(i) If an applicable procedure was 

included in the reporter’s MRV plan 

submitted to EPA, that procedure must 

be applied. 

(ii) If the procedure included in the 

reporter’s MRV plan is not applicable, 

or if the reporter did not include a 

procedure in the MRV plan, the reporter 

must estimate annual quantity of CO2

produced by subtracting the annual 

quantity of CO2 transferred onsite from 

offsite from the annual quantity of CO2

injected. 

(3) The annual quantity of CO2

emitted from the subsurface geologic 

formation must be estimated following 

the procedure included in the reporter’s 

MRV plan submitted to EPA. 

(4) All other missing data procedures 

as outlined in your approved MRV plan 

must be followed. 

§ 98.446 Data reporting requirements. 

In addition to the information 

required by § 98.3(c), report the 

information listed in this section. 

Facilities that are subject to this rule 

only because of CO2 injection wells and 

that do not meet the definition of GS 

facility in § 98.440(c) do not report the 

information in § 98.3(c)(4). 

(a) For each transfer point flow meter 

(mass or volumetric), report: 

(1) CO2 quantity transferred onsite 

(metric tons or standard cubic meters, as 

appropriate) in each quarter. 

(2) CO2 concentration in flow (volume 

or wt. % CO2/100) in each quarter. 

(3) If a volumetric flow meter is used, 

volumetric flow rate at standard 

conditions (standard cubic meters) in 

each quarter. 

(4) If a mass flow meter is used, mass 

flow rate (metric tons) in each quarter. 

(5) The standard used to calculate 

each value in paragraphs (a)(1) through 

(a)(4) of this section. 

(6) The number of times in the 

reporting year for which substitute data 

procedures were used to calculate 

values reported in paragraphs (a)(1) 

through (a)(4) of this section. 

(b) For each injection flow meter 

(mass or volumetric), report: 

(1) CO2 quantity injected (metric tons 

or standard cubic meters) in each 

quarter. 

(2) CO2 concentration in flow (volume 

or wt. % CO2/100) in each quarter. 

(3) If a volumetric flow meter is used, 

volumetric flow rate at standard 

conditions (standard cubic meters) in 

each quarter. 

(4) If a mass flow meter is used, mass 

flow rate (metric tons) in each quarter. 

(5) The standard used to calculate 

each value in paragraphs (b)(1) through 

(b)(4) of this section. 

(6) The number of times in the 

reporting year for which substitute data 

procedures were used to calculate 

values reported in paragraphs (b)(1) 

through (b)(4) of this section. 

(c) The source of the supplied CO2, if 

known, according to the following 

categories: 

(1) CO2 production wells. 

(2) Electric generating unit. 

(3) Ethanol plant. 

(4) Pulp and paper mill. 

(5) Natural gas processing. 

(6) Other anthropogenic source. 

(7) Unknown. 

(d) The total CO2 received onsite 

(metric tons) in the reporting year as 

calculated in Equation RR–3. 

(e) The total CO2 injected (metric 

tons) in the reporting year as calculated 

in Equation RR–6. 

(f) GS facilities must also report the 

following information: 

(1) If you do not report under subpart 

W of this part, report the annual fugitive 

and vented CO2 emissions from surface 

equipment (metric tons) located in the 

GS facility under this subpart. 

(2) Annual CO2 mass emitted (metric 

tons) as fugitive or vented emissions 

from equipment located on the surface 

between the flow meter used to measure 

injection quantity and the injection 

wellhead. 

(3) Annual CO2 mass emitted (metric 

tons) as fugitive or vented emissions 

from equipment located on the surface 

between the production wellhead and of 

the flow meter used to measure 

production quantity. 

(4) For each separator flow meter 

(mass or volumetric), report: 

(i) CO2 quantity produced (metric tons 

or standard cubic meters) in each 

quarter. 

(ii) CO2 concentration in flow (volume 

or wt. % CO2/100) in each quarter. 

(5) For each separator volumetric flow 

meter, volumetric flow rate at standard 

conditions (standard cubic meters) in 

each quarter. 

(6) For each separator mass flow 

meter, mass flow rate (metric tons) in 

each quarter. 

(7) The standard used to calculate 

each value in paragraphs (f)(4) through 

(f)(6) of this section. 

(8) The number of times in the 

reporting year for which substitute data 

procedures were used to calculate 

values reported in paragraphs (f)(4) 

through (f)(6) of this section. 

(9) The value for X (%) used in 

Equation RR–9 and as determined in 

your MRV plan. 

(10) Annual CO2 produced in the 

reporting year as calculated in Equation 

RR–9. 

(11) For each leakage pathway, report 

the CO2 (metric tons) emitted through 

that pathway in the reporting year. 

(12) Annual CO2 mass emitted (metric 

tons) from the subsurface geologic 

formation at the facility in the reporting 

year as calculated by Equation RR–10. 

(13) Annual CO2 (metric tons) 

sequestered in the subsurface geologic 

formation in the reporting year as 

calculated by Equation RR–11 or RR–12. 

(14) Cumulative mass of CO2 reported 

as sequestered in the subsurface 

geologic formation in all years since you 

began reporting. 

(15) Date that the most recent MRV 

plan was approved and the MRV plan 

approval number that was issued by 

EPA. 

(16) Whether any of the MRV plan 

resubmissions scenarios were triggered 

in the reporting year such that you must 

submit a new MRV plan in the 

following year. 

(17) If the well is permitted by an 

Underground Injection Control 

permitting authority, for each injection 

well, report: 

(i) The well ID number used for the 

Underground Injection Control permit. 

(ii) The Underground Injection 

Control permit class. 

(18) Any other reporting requirement 

that is specified in your MRV plan. 

§ 98.447 Records that must be retained. 

In addition to the records required by 

§ 98.3(g), you must retain the records 

specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of 

this section, as applicable. 

(a) You must retain quarterly records 

of injected CO2 and CO2 transferred onto 

the facility from offsite sources, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2

18606 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

including mass flow or volumetric flow 

at standard conditions and operating 

conditions, operating temperature and 

pressure, and concentration of these 

streams. 

(b) GS facilities must retain: 

(1) Quarterly records of produced 

CO2, if applicable, including mass flow 

or volumetric flow at standard 

conditions and operating conditions, 

operating temperature and pressure, and 

concentration of these streams. 

(2) Annual records of the emitted CO2

from subsurface geologic formation 

leakage pathways. 

(3) Any other records as outlined for 

retention in your MRV plan. 

§ 98.448 Geologic Sequestration 

Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification 

(MRV) Plan. 

(a) A GS facility as defined in 

§ 98.440(c) of this subpart must follow 

the procedures outlined in this section 

to develop a monitoring, reporting, and 

verification (MRV) plan, submit it to 

EPA, receive approval from EPA on the 

plan, implement the plan, and submit 

annual report addenda. 

(1) You must develop an MRV plan 

that contains the following components. 

(i) An assessment of the risk of 

leakage of CO2 to the surface. 

(ii) A strategy for detecting and 

quantifying any CO2 leakage to the 

surface. 

(iii) A strategy for establishing preinjection environmental baselines. 

(iv) Summary of considerations made 

to calculate site-specific variables for 

the mass balance equation. 

(2) A facility that injects CO2 to 

enhance the recovery of oil or natural 

gas or a facility that is not required to 

report as a GS facility can voluntarily 

submit the MRV plan to EPA at any 

time. 

(3) A GS facility that does not inject 

CO2 to enhance the recovery of oil or 

natural gas must submit the MRV plan 

on the following schedule. 

(i) A GS facility must submit the MRV 

plan to EPA (A) within six months from 

the time the facility’s Underground 

Injection Control permitting authority 

(or relevant permitting authority in the 

case of a facility that is not under the 

jurisdiction of the Safe Drinking Water 

Act) confirms the area of review or (B) 

by December 31 of the year that that the 

Underground Injection Control 

permitting authority (or relevant 

permitting authority in the case of a 

facility that is not under the jurisdiction 

of the Safe Drinking Water Act) 

confirms the area of review, whichever 

date is later. A facility will be allowed 

to request one extension of up to an 

additional six months. 

(ii) If the GS facility holds an 

Underground Injection Control permit 

(or relevant permit in the case of a 

facility that is not under the jurisdiction 

of the Safe Drinking Water Act) as of the 

date of publication of this subpart or if 

the Underground Injection Control 

permitting authority (or relevant 

permitting authority in the case of a 

facility that is not under the jurisdiction 

of the Safe Drinking Water Act) has 

confirmed the area of review as of the 

date of publication of this subpart, such 

facility must submit the MRV plan to 

EPA within six months of the date of 

publication of this subpart. A facility 

will be allowed to request one extension 

of up to an additional six months. 

(4) If you are using an Underground 

Injection Control Class VI permit to 

demonstrate that MRV plan 

requirements have been satisfied and 

the Underground Injection Control Class 

VI permit has not been approved, you 

must submit the identification number 

associated with the Underground 

Injection Control Class VI permit 

application and notify EPA when the 

Underground Injection Control Class VI 

permit has been approved. 

(5) Upon MRV plan submission, the 

following approval process will apply. 

(i) On a case-by-case basis, EPA will 

determine if the submitted MRV plan is 

complete, and evaluate the MRV plan to 

ensure that the facility has an 

appropriate strategy in place to 

effectively quantify geologically 

sequestered CO2. 

(ii) You must implement the EPAapproved MRV plan once the plan is 

final, regardless of the point in the 

reporting year. 

(6) If adjustments to the MRV plan are 

made due to new information or altered 

site conditions or if a leak is detected in 

a calendar year, you must submit an 

addendum at the same time as the next 

annual report (March 31 of the 

subsequent calendar year) that includes 

the following components. 

(i) A description of the leak including 

all assumptions, methodology, and 

technologies involved in leakage 

detection and quantification, if a leak 

was detected. 

(ii) A description of how the 

monitoring strategy was adjusted, if 

adjustments were made. 

(7) The MRV plan must be revised 

and resubmitted to EPA by March 31 of 

the calendar year following any of the 

following events. 

(i) The reporter is out of compliance 

with its Underground Injection Control 

permit (or relevant permit in the case of 

a facility that is not under the 

jurisdiction of the Safe Drinking Water 

Act). 

(ii) An EPA audit conducted under 

the verification procedures of this part 

determines it to be necessary. 

(8) An MRV plan may be resubmitted 

in any reporting year on a reporter’s 

own volition. 

(9) Each MRV plan and annual report 

addendum must be submitted 

electronically in a format specified by 

the Administrator. 

(b) [Reserved] 

§ 98.449 Definitions. 

All terms used in this subpart have 

the same meaning given in the Clean Air 

Act and subpart A of this part. 

Leakage means the movement of CO2

from the injection zone to the surface, 

including to the atmosphere, indoor air, 

oceans or surface water. 

Research and development means, for 

the purposes of geologic sequestration 

facility requirements in this subpart, 

those projects receiving Federal funding 

to research practices and monitoring 

techniques that will enable safe and 

effective long-term containment of a 

gaseous, liquid, or supercritical CO2

stream in subsurface geologic 

formations that are neither 

demonstration nor commercial projects. 

Separator means a vessel in which 

streams of multiple phases are gravity 

separated into individual streams of 

single phase. 

[FR Doc. 2010–6766 Filed 4–9–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS2