6560.50 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 98

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0926; FRL- ] 

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 (subpart PP) on 

October 30, 2009. 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 
2

should submit comments relevant to this rulemaking as 

instructed in this document. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or 

before 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. 

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.ht

ml.

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. 
3

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 
4

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 
5

is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the Air 

Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER GENERAL INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information, email the Greenhouse Gas Reporting 

Rule Hotline at ghgmrr@epa.gov with the name of this action 

in the email 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.ht

ml. 

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. 

Regulated Entities. The Administrator has determined 

that this action is subject to the provisions of Clean Air 
6

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: 

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, 
7

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 
8

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 
9

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? 
10

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 LowIncome Populations 

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 
11

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 
12

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. No. 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 
13

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), 

hydroflourocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur 

hexafluoride (SF6), and other specified fluorinated 

compounds (e.g., hydroflouroethers (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 facilityto-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 

 

1 These 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/. 
14

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 
15

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. 

 

2

U.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/. 
16

Many of the injection and monitoring technologies that 

may be applicable for 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 commercialscale CCS. U.S. experience with ER combined with the 

experience of four end-to-end commercial CCS projects6 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. 

 

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. 

6 These 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. 
17

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 leakage7

at GS sites: do not require a MRV plan, require a universal 

 

7 Leakage 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). 
18

MRV plan that applies to all GS sites, or require a sitespecific 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 
19

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 non-emissive 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 
20

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 
21

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. 

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

 

8 Since we changed the list of covered subcategories to tables, we are 

not providing regulatory text in this proposal because the preamble is 

clear. 
22

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 
23

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 
24

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 non-regulatory 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. 
25

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 nonhazardous 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 
26

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 projects9. 

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 

 

9 See EPA UIC Guidance #83. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/wells_sequestration.html
27

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 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 

state-issued 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 
28

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
29

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 

 

10 Under 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. 
30

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 sitespecific 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 

 

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

12 Available at: http://www.irs.gov/irb/2009-44_IRB/ar11.html. 
31

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 
32

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 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: 
33

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryrepor

t.htm

The United States currently follows the 199613

Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) guidelines 

in preparing its Inventory, as supplemented by IPCC Good 

Practice Guidance (GPG) from 200014 and 200315. 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 enduse 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 

 

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.ipccnggip.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. 
34

accounted it as emitted, regardless of whether the CO2 was 

captured or not. 

The IPCC published new inventory guidelines in 200616, 

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 methodology17 for estimating and reporting 

emissions based on site-specific 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 

 

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. 

17 Tier 3 methods include either detailed emission models or 

measurements and data at individual plant level where appropriate. 
35

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: 

Χ Fugitive emissions of CO2 at the injection facility; 

Χ CO2 volumetric flow at injection wellheads; 

Χ CO2 pressure and temperature at injection wellheads (to 

determine mass flow); 

Χ Chemical analysis of the injected material; and 
36

Χ 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: 

Χ Technologies that can detect the presence, location, 

and migration paths of CO2 in the subsurface and at 

surface; 

Χ Technologies that provide information about pressurevolume behavior and aerial/vertical distribution of 

CO2-plume to refine numerical 3-D-simulation to the 3-

D-geological models of the storage formation; and 

Χ 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: 

Χ 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; 
37

Χ 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; 

Χ Details of the equipment proposed to be used to 

monitor the behavior of stored greenhouse gas 

substances, and where it is to be located; 

Χ 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 

Χ 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 Protocol18 two documents to provide 

guidelines to parties for the assessment of and 

implementation of disposal of CO2 in sub-seabed geologic 

formations: 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: 

 

18 Available at: 

http://www.imo.org/includes/blastData.asp/doc_id=10531/9%20%20CO2%20Seq

uestration%20English.pdf. 
38

Χ CO2 stream characterization (chemical and physical 

properties); 

Χ Waste prevention audit; 

Χ Consideration of waste management options; 

Χ Action lists; 

Χ Identification and characterization of sub-seabed 

geological formation; 

Χ Assessment of potential impacts; 

Χ Monitoring and risk management; and 

Χ 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. 

 

19 Available at: http://cdm.unfccc.int/about/ccs/index.html. 
39

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 sub-seabed 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 
40

EPA is proposing facilities injecting CO2 for the longterm 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 
41

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 
42

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 
43

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 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 
44

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 floods20 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 

 

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. 
45

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. 

 

21 U.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. 
46

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 

Reported Amount of 

CO2 Injected 

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

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 

 

22 Subpart RR General TSD (see docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0926) 
47

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-to-liquid 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 
48

accounting possible, simplify the rule, and permit 

facilities to quickly determine whether or not they must 

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 
49

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 
50

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 early-movers 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
51

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 
52

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 
53

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 from offsite to estimate the amount 

of CO2 recycled from ER operations. 
54

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 
55

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 
56

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-
57

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 blowdowns 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 
58

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 post-production, 
59

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 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 
60

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) 

Injection Facilities (no GS) GS Facilities 

Data to Report 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 

RR1

subpart RR 

Emissions from 

combustion sources 

Separate 

applicability 

determination 

Separate 

applicability 

determination 

subpart 

C

2 subpart C2

Quantity of CO2

produced with oil 

or natural gas 

Not Required Not Required subpart 

RR 

subpart RR 
61

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 

(1) subpart W if the facility meets the subpart W threshold; if not 

then report in subpart RR. 

(2) All 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 stateissued 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 
62

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 

Subpart RR Proposal 

Data Element UIC Class 

VI 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 

baseline data and detection and measurement of CO2 leakage 

to the surface. Recognizing that air monitoring under the 
63

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 
64

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 
65

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 sitespecific 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 
66

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 onesize-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 site-specific in nature, it 
67

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 
68

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. 

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 

 

23 Arts, 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. 
69

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 

 

24 Benson, SM. 2006. “Monitoring Carbon Dioxide Sequestration in Deep 

Geological Formations for Inventory Verification and Carbon Credits.” 

Society of Petroleum Engineers Paper 102833. 

25 FutureGen Alliance. 2006. “Mattoon Site Environmental Information 

Volume.” December 2006. 

26 Benson, 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, D.C., pp. 29-39. 
70

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 proposal27. 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 

 

27 Subpart RR General TSD (see docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0926) 
71

EPA is proposing that each submitted MRV plan must 

include at a minimum the four requirements described below: 

Χ 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; 

Χ 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; 

Χ 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 

Χ 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 

 

28 Monitoring Plans for Geologic Sequestration TSD (see docket ID No. 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0926) 
72

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 

 

29 Vulnerability Evaluation Framework for Geologic Sequestration of 

Carbon Dioxide (see docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0926) 
73

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 preinjection 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. 

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 
74

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 

 

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). 

31 EPA 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. 
75

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 re-model 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 reevaluation 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. 
76

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 system32 overlying the injection zone33, 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 

 

32 A 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). 

33 The 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 
77

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 include an overview of the methods used to model the 

 

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. 

35 Monitoring Plans for Geologic Sequestration TSD (see docket ID No. 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0926) 
78

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 
79

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 
80

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 
81

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 
82

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
83

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 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 
84

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. 

Pre-injection baselines will be used to evaluate the 
85

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 

 

36 Benson, 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. 
86

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 pre-injection. 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 pre-injection 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 

 

37 American 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.
87

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 realtime 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 
88

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 
89

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 

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 
90

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 
91

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. 
92

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 
93

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 
94

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 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 
95

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 re-submitting 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 
96

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 
97

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 resubmittal 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 re-evaluation 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 onsite 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. 
98

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 
99

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 
100

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 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 
101

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. 
102

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. 
103

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 
104

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 
105

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 
106

storage sites were evaluated in terms required 

technologies, practices, and costs. 

The estimated costs include capital and operating and 

maintenance (O&M) 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 proforma 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 
107

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 

 
108

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 

Average

Alternative Cost Scenarios 

Type 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 

Facilities1

$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 
109

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 Low High 

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 

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 
110

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 relavence, transparency issues, market efficiency. 

Instead of a quantitative analysis of the benefits, EPA 

conducted a systematic literature review of existing 
111

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 
112

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. 
113

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: 

Χ Obtain data that is of sufficient quality that it can 

be used to analyze and inform the development of a 
114

range of future climate change policies and potential 

regulations. 

Χ Balance the rule’s coverage to maximize the amount of 

emissions reported while excluding small emitters. 

Χ 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

 

39 Although CBI determinations are usually made on a case-by-case basis, 

EPA has issued guidance in an earlier Federal Register notice on what 
115

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 Part 

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 

 

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. 
116

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 
117

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
118

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)
119

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA), P.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 
120

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. 

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, 
121

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 
122

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 F.R. 19885, April 23, 

1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that 

concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis 
123

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 No. 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 
124

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 
125

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 potentiallyapplicable 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 LowIncome 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 
126

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 

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. 
Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases 

Page 127 of 163 

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: 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 
128 

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.
129

* * * * * 

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). 

* * * * * 
130

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. 
131

(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 

long-term 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. 
132

(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 
133

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 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 
134

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. 
135

(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. 
136

CO2,v = CO p v

p

Qp v C 2, ,*

4

1

∑ ,

=

(Eq. 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. 

CO2,v = CO p v p v

p

Qp v D C 2, ,* * ,

4

1

∑ ,

=

(Eq. RR-2) 

Where: 

CO2,v = Annual CO2 mass transferred onsite from offsite 

sources (metric tons) through transfer point v. 
137

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. 

CO2T = ∑=

V

v 1

CO2, v (Eq. RR-3) 

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 
138

calculate annually the total mass of CO2 in the CO2 stream 

injected in metric 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. 

CO2,u = CO p u

p

Qp u C 2, ,*

4

1

∑ ,

=

(Eq. RR-4) 

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 
139

concentration data measurements must be made in accordance 

with §98.444. 

CO2,u = p u CO p u

p

Qp u D C 2, ,* * ,

4

1

∑ ,

=

(Eq. RR-5) 

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. 

CO2I = ∑=

U

u 1

CO2, 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 
140

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 
141

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. 

CO2,w = CO p w

p

Qp w C 2, ,*

4

1

∑ ,

=

(Eq. RR-7) 

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. 

CO2,w = p w CO p w

p

Qp w D C 2, ,* * ,

4

1

∑ ,

=

(Eq. RR-8) 
142

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. 

CO2P = (100+X)% * ∑=

W

w 1

CO2, w (Eq. RR-9) 

Where: 

CO2P = Total annual CO2 mass produced (metric tons) 

through all separators in the reporting year. 
143

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. 

CO2E = ∑=

X

x 1

CO2, x (Eq. RR-10) 

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 
144

reporting year in accordance with the procedure specified 

in Equation RR-11 of this section. 

CO2 = CO2I - CO2P – CO2E – CO2FI – CO2FP (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. 

CO2 = CO2I – CO2E – CO2FI (Eq. RR-12) 

Where: 
145

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. 

(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. 
146

(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. Consensus-based standards 
147

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 
148

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 foodgrade 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. 
149

(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. 
150

(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. 
151

§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. 

(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: 
152

(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.
153

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: 
154

(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. 
155

(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. 
156

(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. 
157

(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, 

including mass flow or volumetric flow at standard 
158

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. 
159

(iii) A strategy for establishing pre-injection 

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. 
160

(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 
161

to ensure that the facility has an appropriate strategy in 

place to effectively quantify geologically sequestered CO2. 

(ii) You must implement the EPA-approved 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). 
162

(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. 
163

Separator means a vessel in which streams of multiple 

phases are gravity separated into individual streams of 

single phase.