[Federal Register: April 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 69)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 18575-18606]
[DOCID:fr12ap10-20]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

40 CFR Part 98

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Injection and Geologic
Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide; Proposed Rule

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 98

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0926; FRL-9131-2]
RIN 2060-AP88

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Injection and Geologic
Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a rule to require reporting on carbon dioxide
(CO2) injection and geologic sequestration (GS). The
proposed rulemaking does not require control of greenhouse gases
(GHGs), rather it requires only monitoring and reporting of
CO2 injection and geologic sequestration. EPA first proposed
that suppliers of CO2 be subject to mandatory GHG reporting
requirements in April 2009 and finalized the rule for suppliers of
CO2 on October 30, 2009.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before June 11, 2010.
    Public hearings. There will be one public hearing. The hearing date
and location is: April 19, 2010 from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. at One Potomac
Yard, 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202.
    To obtain information about the public hearing or to register to
speak at the hearing, please go to http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
emissions/ghgrulemaking.html.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0926, by one of the following methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments.
    E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Mail: EPA Docket Center, Attention Docket OAR-2009-0926, Mailcode
2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room, Room
3334, EPA West Building, Attention Docket OAR-2009-0926, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0926. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA's Docket Center,
Public Reading Room, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information, e-mail the
Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule Hotline at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>with the name
of this action in the e-mail subject line, or contact Barbora Master,
Climate Change Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC-6207J),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 343-2359. To obtain information about the public hearings or to
register to speak at the hearings, please go to http://www.epa.gov/
climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additional Information on Submitting
Comments: To expedite review of your comments by Agency staff, you are
encouraged to send a separate copy of your comments, in addition to the
copy you submit to the official docket, to Carole Cook, Climate Change
Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC-6207J), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    In drafting this proposed rulemaking, EPA reviewed and considered
comments submitted on the proposed subpart PP. However, as this is a
new proposal, EPA will not be responding to comments received on the
April 2009 proposed subpart PP in this rulemaking. To ensure that their
comments are considered, stakeholders should submit comments relevant
to this rulemaking as instructed in this document.
    Regulated Entities. The Administrator has determined that this
action is subject to the provisions of Clean Air Act (CAA) section
307(d). See CAA section 307(d)(1)(V) (the provisions of CAA section
307(d) apply to ``such other actions as the Administrator may
determine''). This is a proposed regulation. If finalized, these
regulations would affect owners or operators of CO2
injection wells. Regulated categories and entities include those listed
in Table 1 of this preamble:

           Table 1--Examples of Affected Entities by Category
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Examples of affected
            Category                  NAICS             facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 Enhanced Oil and Gas                    211  Oil and gas extraction
 Recovery Projects.                               projects using CO2
                                                  enhanced oil and gas
                                                  recovery.
GS Sites.......................             N/A  CO2 geologic
                                                  sequestration
                                                  projects.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but
rather provides a guide for readers regarding facilities likely to be
affected by this action. Table 1 of this preamble lists the types of
facilities that EPA is now aware could be potentially affected by the
reporting requirements. Other types of facilities not listed in the
table could also be subject to reporting requirements. To determine
whether you are affected by this action, you should carefully examine
the applicability criteria found in proposed 40 CFR part 98, subpart A
or the relevant criteria in the sections related to the injection and
GS of CO2. If you have questions regarding the applicability
of this action to a particular facility, consult the person listed in
the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Some facilities that are affected by today's proposed rule have GHG
emissions from multiple source categories. Table 2 of this preamble has
been developed as a guide to help potential CO2 injection
and GS reporters subject to the proposed rule identify the source
categories (by subpart) that they may need to (1) consider in their
facility applicability determination, and/or (2) include in their
reporting. The table should only be seen as a guide. Additional
subparts in 40 CFR part 98 may be relevant for a given reporter.
Similarly, not all listed subparts are relevant for all reporters.

            Table 2--Source Categories and Relevant Subparts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Other subparts recommended for
  Source category (and main applicable         review to determine
                subpart)                          applicability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injection and Geologic Sequestration of  40 CFR part 98, subpart C.
 Carbon Dioxide.
                                         40 CFR part 98, subpart W
                                          (proposed).
                                         40 CFR part 98, subpart PP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and
abbreviations are used in this document.

3-D three-dimensional
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI confidential business information
CCS carbon dioxide capture and geologic sequestration
CDM Clean Development Mechanism
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CH4 methane
CO2 carbon dioxide
DOE Department of Energy
EC European Commission
ECBM enhanced coalbed methane
EIA Economic Impact Analysis
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
EO Executive Order
ER enhanced oil and gas recovery
GHG greenhouse gas
GPG Good Practice Guidance
GS geologic sequestration
HFC hydrofluorocarbon
HFE hydrofluoroether
ICR Information Collection Request
IMO International Maritime Organization
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IRS Internal Revenue Service
MRR Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule
MRV monitoring, reporting, and verification
N2O nitrous oxide
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
O&GJ Oil and Gas Journal
OAR Office of Air and Radiation
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OW Office of Water
PFC perfluorocarbon
QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
R&D research and development
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
TSD technical support document
UIC Underground Injection Control
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
US United States
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USDW underground source of drinking water
VEF Vulnerability Evaluation Framework

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Organization of This Preamble
    B. Background on the Proposed Rule
    C. Overview of the Proposal
    D. Legal Authority
    E. Relationship to the Proposed UIC Class VI Rulemaking Under
the Safe Drinking Water Act
    F. Relationship to Other CO2 Injection Information
Collection and Reporting Efforts
II. Rationale for Reporting, Recordkeeping and Verification
Requirements
    A. Definition of Reporting Facilities
    B. Selection of Reporting Thresholds
    C. Selection of Data To Be Reported
    D. Selection of Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV)
Plan Requirements and Approval Process
    E. Selection of Schedule and Process for Reporting
    F. Selection of Procedures for Estimating Missing Data
    G. Selection of Records to Retain
III. Economic Impacts of the Proposed Rule
    A. How were compliance costs estimated?
    B. What are the costs of the proposed rule?
    C. What are the economic impacts of the proposed rule?
    D. What are the impacts of the proposed rule on small
businesses?
    E. What are the benefits of the proposed rule for society?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

I. Background

A. Organization of This Preamble

    This preamble is broken into several large sections, as detailed in
the Table of Contents. The following paragraphs describe the layout of
the preamble and provide a brief summary of each section.
    Section I of this preamble contains the basic background
information about the origin of this proposed rulemaking, including a
discussion of how it relates to the finalized requirements for
Suppliers of CO2 (under 40 CFR, part 98, subpart PP) and to
the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program. This section also
discusses EPA's legal authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to
collect the proposed data, and the benefits of collecting the data.
    Section II of this preamble summarizes the general provisions of
this proposed rulemaking for reporting CO2 injection and GS.
This section also provides a brief summary of, and rationale for, the
selection of key design elements. Specifically, this section describes
EPA's rationale for the proposed (i) definition of reporting
facilities, (ii) applicability thresholds, (iii) data reporting
requirements, (iv) monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) plan
requirements and process, (v) schedule and process for reporting, (vi)
procedures for estimating missing data, and (vii) recordkeeping
requirements. Thus, for example, there is a specific discussion
regarding appropriate applicability thresholds, monitoring
methodologies and reporting and recordkeeping requirements for all
CO2 injection facilities, and additional requirements for
facilities that conduct GS. EPA describes the proposed options for each
design element as well as the other options considered. Throughout this
discussion, EPA highlights specific issues on which the Agency solicits
comment.
    Section III of this preamble provides the summary of the cost
impacts, economic impacts, and benefits of this proposed rule from the
Economic Impact Analysis (EIA). Finally, Section IV of this preamble
discusses the various statutory and executive order requirements
applicable to this proposed rulemaking.

B. Background on the Proposed Rule

    On December 26, 2007, President Bush signed the fiscal year 2008
Consolidated Appropriations Act authorizing funding for EPA to issue a
rule requiring the mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. 110-161, 121
Stat. 1844, 2128 (2008)). An accompanying joint explanatory statement
directed EPA to ``use its existing authority under the Clean Air Act''
to develop a mandatory GHG reporting rule.
    The proposed Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule (MRR) was
signed on March 10, 2009, by Administrator Lisa Jackson and was
published a month later (74 FR 16448, April 10, 2009). After a 60-day
comment period, two public hearings, and meeting with over 4,000
additional people in over 150 groups via Webinars, conferences,
individual meetings, and other forms of outreach, EPA issued a final
rule on October 30, 2009 (74 FR 56260). The MRR requires reporting of
GHG emissions and supply from all sectors of the economy, including
fossil fuel suppliers, industrial gas suppliers, and direct emitters of
GHGs. The rule does not require the control of GHGs; rather the rule
requires only that sources above certain threshold levels monitor and
report those GHGs.
    The final MRR covers the major GHGs that are directly emitted by
anthropogenic activities. These include carbon dioxide
(CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide
(N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs),
sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and other specified fluorinated
compounds (e.g., hydrofluoroethers (HFEs)) used in boutique
applications such as electronics and anesthetics.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule contains 31 subparts, each requiring reporting from
a defined source category. In order to meet the reporting time, quality
assurance, and verification requirements of the rule, EPA is
establishing a facility-to-EPA electronic reporting system to
facilitate collection of data under this rule. All facilities that are
covered under this rule as reporters will use this data system to
submit required data.
    Subpart PP requires the reporting of CO2 supplied to the
economy. Subpart PP applies to all facilities with CO2
production wells, facilities with production process units that capture
and supply CO2 for commercial applications or that capture
and maintain custody of a CO2 stream to sequester or
otherwise inject it underground, and to importers and exporters of bulk
CO2. During the public comment period on the rule, EPA
received many comments on subpart PP that CO2 injected
underground should be considered when estimating emissions from the
CO2 supply industry. Some commenters specified that some of
the CO2 supplied for the purposes of enhanced oil and gas
recovery (ER) is additionally sequestered rather than emitted and
characterized ER operations as ``closed systems'' rather than emissive.
Other commenters stated that including reporting requirements for
geologically sequestered CO2 would fill a critical gap in
the reporting system. EPA agrees that ER is a potentially non-emissive
end use and that GS data reporting from ER sites can assist EPA in
quantifying the amount of CO2 that is permanently and
securely geologically sequestered. In addition, EPA agrees that GS
reporting requirements would provide information and transparency on
the amount of CO2 injected and geologically sequestered in
the United States.
    Although CCS is occurring now on a relatively small scale, it could
play a larger role in mitigating GHG emissions from a wide variety of
stationary sources. According to the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007, stationary sources contributed 67
percent of the total CO2 emissions from fossil fuel
combustion in 2007.\2\ These sources represent a wide variety of
sectors amenable to CO2 capture: electric power plants
(existing and new), natural gas processing facilities, petroleum
refineries, iron & steel foundries, ethylene plants, hydrogen
production facilities, ammonia refineries, ethanol production
facilities, ethylene oxide plants, and cement kilns. Furthermore, 95
percent of the 500 largest stationary sources are within 50 miles of a
candidate GS reservoir.\3\ Estimated GS capacity in the United States
is over 3,500 Gigatons CO2 (GtCO2) (13,000
Gigatons CO2 at the high end),\4\ although the actual
capacity may be lower once site-specific technical and economic
considerations are addressed. Even if only a fraction of that geologic
capacity is used, CCS is poised to play a sizeable role in mitigating
U.S. GHG emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 commercial-scale CCS.
U.S. experience with ER combined with the experience of four end-to-end
commercial CCS projects \6\ and ongoing research, demonstration, and
deployment programs throughout the world, are building confidence that
geologic sequestration of large amounts of CO2 can be
achieved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Overview of the Proposal

    Today, EPA is proposing to amend the Mandatory Reporting of
Greenhouse Gases Program at 40 CFR part 98 to add reporting
requirements covering facilities that conduct injection and geologic
sequestration of CO2.
    EPA is proposing a tiered approach for reporting requirements under
this subpart. The first tier of proposed regulations would establish a
set of reporting requirements that would cover all facilities that
inject CO2 underground. As described in Section II.C of this
preamble, all facilities would be required to report CO2
transferred onsite from offsite sources, the source of the
CO2 (if known), and CO2 injected underground.
    The second tier of reporting requirements would apply to GS
facilities. As described in Section II.C of this preamble, GS
facilities would be required to calculate CO2 sequestered by
subtracting total CO2 emissions from the CO2
injected in the reporting year. The emitted quantity would include the
injected CO2 that leaked from the subsurface to the surface
(if any), CO2 produced with oil or natural gas where ER
operations are conducted at the GS facility, fugitive or vented
CO2 emissions from surface equipment, and emissions from
combustion sources located within the facility boundary, such as
compressors.
    EPA considered several options for monitoring, reporting and
verification (MRV) of potential CO2 leakage \7\ at GS sites:
do not require a MRV plan, require a universal MRV plan that applies to
all GS sites, or require a site-specific MRV plan. EPA is proposing to
require monitoring according to a site-specific MRV plan, but is
seeking comment on all of the options considered. While the risk of
leakage at a well-selected and well-managed GS site is expected to be
low, the Agency considers it important for all facilities conducting GS
to demonstrate that they have met MRV standards. The options described
above are discussed in more detail in Section II.D of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Data on CO2 injection and GS are critical to informing
CAA GHG policies. This data would provide information and transparency
on the amount of CO2 injected and geologically sequestered
in the United States and, in combination with other subparts of the
MRR, would enable EPA to track the flow of CO2 across a CCS
system. In addition, this information would enable EPA to monitor the
growth and efficacy of GS (and therefore CCS) as a GHG mitigation
technology over time and to evaluate relevant policy options. For
example, EPA would be able to track whether incentives or regulations
are needed to encourage faster or further GS project development. EPA
would also be able to track whether ER sites are reporting GS and
consider whether incentives or regulations are needed. Where ER
facilities are reporting GS, EPA would be able to evaluate ER as a
potentially non-emissive end use. In combination with subpart PP, EPA
would be able to reconcile this data with CO2 supplied in
order to better understand the quantity of CO2 supplied to
emissive and 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
general monitoring, reporting, recordkeeping and verification
requirement (40 CFR 98.3); the authorization and responsibilities of
the designated authority (40 CFR 98.4); how a report is submitted (40
CFR 98.5); definitions (40 CFR 98.6); the standardized methods
incorporated by reference (40 CFR 98.7); the compliance and enforcement
provisions (40 CFR 98.8); and the mailing addresses (40 CFR 98.9).
    Amendments to the General Provisions. In a separate rulemaking,
package that was recently published (March 16, 2010), EPA issued minor
harmonizing changes to the general provisions for the GHG reporting
rule (40 CFR part 98, subpart A) to accommodate the addition of source
categories not included in the 2009 final rule (e.g., subparts proposed
in April 2009 but not finalized in 2009, any new subparts that may be
proposed in the future). The changes update 98.2(a) on rule
applicability and 98.3 regarding the reporting schedule to accommodate
any additional subparts and the schedule for their reporting
obligations (e.g., source categories finalized in 2010 would not begin
data collection until 2011 and reporting in 2012).
    In particular, we restructured 40 CFR 98.2(a) to move the lists of
source categories from the text into tables. A table format improves
clarity and facilitates the addition of source categories that were not
included in calendar year 2010 reporting and would begin reporting in
future years. A table, versus list, approach allows other sections of
the rule to be updated automatically when the table is updated; a list
approach requires separate updates to the various list references each
time the list is changed. In addition to reformatting the 98.2(a)(1)-
(2) lists into tables, other sections of subpart A were reworded to
refer to the source category tables because the tables make it clear
which source categories are to be considered for determining the
applicability threshold and reporting requirements for calendar years
2010, 2011, and future years.

    As part of today's proposed rule, EPA is proposing changes to
subpart A to accommodate subpart RR. Because all CO2
injection and geologic sequestration facilities (as defined in proposed
40 CFR part 98, subpart RR) would be subject to proposed subpart RR,
EPA is proposing that this source category be added to the table of
``all-in'' source categories referenced from 40 CFR 98.2(a)(1).\8\ For
facilities that become subject to the MRR due to CO2
injection or geologic sequestration, the first annual GHG report would
cover calendar year 2011 rather than 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.2(a) so that the MRR applies to
facilities located on or under the Outer Continental Shelf. These
revisions are necessary to ensure that any CO2 injection or
GS facilities located on or under the Outer Continental Shelf of the
United States would be required to report. In addition, EPA is
proposing revisions to the definition of United States to clarify that
the United States includes the territorial seas. Other facilities
located offshore of the United States covered by the MRR program at 40
CFR part 98 would also be affected by this change in the definition of
United States. For example, EPA is proposing in a separate rule to
revise the MRR requirements to add a new subpart, subpart W, to address
petroleum and natural gas systems. Any comments specific to that issue
should be directed to the Agency in that rulemaking, not this one.
Finally, in addition to the change to the definition of United States,
EPA is adding a definition of ``Outer Continental Shelf.'' This
definition is drawn from the definition in the U.S. Code. Together,
these changes make clear that the MRR applies to facilities on land, in
the territorial seas, or on or under the Outer Continental Shelf of the
United States, and that otherwise meet the applicability criteria of
the MRR.
    EPA also is proposing to amend 40 CFR 98.7 (incorporation by
reference) to include standard methods used in proposed subpart RR.

D. Legal Authority

    EPA is proposing subpart RR under the existing authority provided
in CAA section 114. As noted in the MRR, CAA section 114 provides EPA
with broad authority to require information mandated by this rule
because such data will inform and are relevant to EPA's carrying out a
wide variety of CAA provisions (74 FR 66264). Under CAA section
114(a)(1), the Administrator may require emissions sources, persons
subject to the CAA, or persons whom the Administrator believes may have
necessary information to monitor and report emissions and provide such
other information as the Administrator requests for the purposes of
carrying out the provisions in the CAA (except for a provision of title
II with respect to motor vehicles).
    As discussed in greater detail in the response to comments for the
final MRR, the CAA provides EPA with broad authority to require the
comprehensive and accurate information mandated in this rule because
such data will inform, and are relevant to, EPA's analyses of various
CAA provisions (Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases, EPA's Response
to Public Comment's Section 3-Legal Issues). EPA may gather information
for a variety of purposes, including for the purpose of assisting in
the development of implementation plans or of emissions standards under
CAA section 111, determining compliance with implementation plans or
such standards, or more broadly for ``carrying out any provision'' of
the CAA. In addition, CAA section 103 authorizes EPA to establish a
national research and development program, including 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. All Agency
efforts related to GS, including the UIC Class VI proposal which is
discussed in more detail below, and this MRR proposal, are closely
coordinated.
    EPA's UIC program was established in the 1970s to prevent
endangerment of underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) from
injection of various fluids, including CO2 for ER, oil field
fluids, water stored for drinking water supplies, and municipal and
industrial waste. The UIC program, which is authorized by Part C of the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (42 U.S.C. 300h et seq.), is designed to
prevent the movement of such fluid into USDWs by addressing the
potential pathways through which injected fluids can migrate and
potentially endanger USDWs.
    When EPA initially promulgated its UIC program regulations, the
Agency defined five classes of injection wells at 40 CFR 144.6, based
on similarities in the fluids injected, construction, injection depth,
design, and operating techniques. Wells injecting industrial non-
hazardous liquids, municipal wastewaters or hazardous wastes beneath
the lowermost USDW are categorized as Class I. Those injecting fluids
in connection with conventional oil or natural gas production, enhanced
oil and gas production, and the storage of hydrocarbons which are
liquid at standard temperature and pressure are categorized as Class
II. Class III wells inject fluids associated with the extraction of
minerals, and those categorized as Class IV inject hazardous or
radioactive wastes into or above USDWs. Class IV injection wells are
banned unless authorized under an approved Federal or State ground
water remediation project. Class V includes all injection wells that
are not included in Classes I-IV. This well class provides for Class V
experimental technology wells including those permitted as GS pilot
projects.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See EPA UIC Guidance 83. Available at: http://
www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/wells_sequestration.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2008, EPA proposed to amend the UIC program to establish a new
class of injection well--Class VI--to cover the underground injection
of CO2 for the purpose of GS, or long-term storage of
CO2 (73 FR 43492, July 25, 2008). The proposed requirements
would tailor existing components of the UIC program to address the
unique nature of GS projects so as to ensure that the injection of
large volumes of CO2 in a variety of geologic formations for
the purposes of long term storage would not endanger USDWs. The UIC
Class VI proposal does not require any facilities to capture and/or
sequester CO2; rather the proposed requirements, if
finalized, would protect USDWs under the SDWA. The SDWA does not
provide authority to develop regulations for all areas related to GS
such as capture or transport. As outlined in the UIC Class VI proposal,
injection wells used for injecting CO2 for the purposes of
ER would continue to be regulated and permitted as Class II as long as
any

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 verifying the amount of
CO2 sequestered and collecting data on CO2
surface emissions from GS facilities. As described in Section II.D of
this preamble, EPA is proposing that a facility's UIC permit may be
used to demonstrate that certain MRV plan requirements have been
fulfilled.
    In the Agency's August 2009 Notice of Data Availability
supplementing the UIC Class VI proposal, EPA noted that it was
evaluating the need for a more comprehensive regulatory framework for
GS. The Agency acknowledges that regulatory clarity is essential for
enabling GS to move forward in a manner that protects human health and
the environment. It is EPA's intention to coordinate GS requirements
across relevant statutory or other programs in order to minimize any
redundancies and increase clarity for stakeholders. The Agency seeks
comment on whether this is appropriate.
    The proposed UIC Class VI rule is a separate rulemaking action; the
comment period for that rulemaking closed on December 24, 2008. EPA
will not be accepting or responding to comments on the proposed UIC
Class VI rule through today's proposal unless related to a specific
issue raised by this action.

F. Relationship to Other CO2 Injection Information
Collection and Reporting Efforts

    In considering how to design this proposal, EPA reviewed and took
into account other domestic and international reporting and monitoring
programs. Key programs are summarized in this section.
    The Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Information Administration
implements a voluntary GHG reporting program under section 1605(b) of
the Energy Policy Act of 1992, which directed DOE to issue guidelines
establishing a voluntary greenhouse gas reporting program (42 U.S.C.
13385(b)). Under the Energy Information Administration's ``1605(b)
program,'' reporters can choose to prepare an entity-wide GHG inventory
and identify specific GHG reductions made by the entity.\10\ Reporting
tools were revised and published in 2009 to assist entities in
preparing a preliminary estimate of emissions. The 2007 updated 1605(b)
guidance outlines a voluntary process to report data on CO2
sequestration. Currently, no CO2 injection or sequestration
entity has reported under the 1605(b) program per the 2007 guidelines.
According to the Energy Information Administration Web site, the first
reporting cycle under the revised Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse
Gases Program has not been completed as of January 15, 2010. The Energy
Information Administration anticipates issuing an annual report and
public use database for data reported through 2008 by early 2010.\11\
The 1605(b) guidance requires the implementation of a site-specific
monitoring plan, but this plan is not evaluated by DOE to determine
whether the plan will provide for appropriate monitoring. Four
prescriptive monitoring scenarios are offered with grades ranging from
``A'' to ``C'', any of which would be acceptable for compliance with
the 1605(b) program. Furthermore, although the 1605(b) guidance cites
the importance of reporting CO2 leakage should it occur, the
guidance does not include a discussion of, procedures for, or
methodologies for using monitoring technologies and techniques to
quantify the leakage. As a result of this, and the fact that reporting
is voluntary, the 1605(b) program would not meet the data needs of this
proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
    \11\ Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/data_
reports.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) made public IRS Notice 2009-83
Credit for Carbon Dioxide Sequestration under section 45Q on its Web
site on October 8, 2009.\12\ The notice provides procedures for the
allocation of credits for CO2 sequestration under section
45Q of the Internal Revenue Code. Section 45Q was enacted by section
115 of the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008, (October 3,
2008) and was amended by section 1131 of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (February 17, 2009). To claim this credit, a
taxpayer must follow general monitoring and verification principles,
calculate CO2 sequestered in the fiscal year using a mass-
balance equation, and report to IRS the amount of qualified
CO2 sequestered in the fiscal year. Seventy-five million
metric tons of qualified CO2 can be taken into account for
this credit. The IRS included a provision in the notice to supersede
its monitoring and verification procedures and requirements with
procedures and requirements finalized by EPA in future GS rulemaking
such as the UIC Class VI proposal and this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    EPA has concluded for a number of reasons that the IRS data would
not meet the needs outlined in this proposed rule. First, the IRS
reporting requirement will expire after 75 million metric tons of
CO2 is reported as sequestered to IRS, at which point the
data collection will end. Second, the level of reporting and
transparency would not meet the verification needs of this proposed
rule. GS facilities only report the quantity of CO2
sequestered to IRS. The data used to calculate sequestration and the
specific monitoring procedures followed will only be reviewed by IRS
staff in the case of an audit. Given the variability in geology and
other conditions at GS facilities, EPA believes that the monitoring
approach at each GS facility must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis
to ensure that it is appropriate for the site-specific geologic and
operational conditions. Third, the IRS does not outline procedures or
provide a mechanism for quantifying and reporting any CO2
leakage that may occur as is necessary for this proposed rule.
    EPA notes that the United States submits an inventory of GHG
emissions that accounts for CCS to the Secretariat of the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) each year. The
UNFCCC, ratified by the United States in 1992, establishes an overall
framework for intergovernmental efforts to tackle the

challenge posed by climate change. The United States has submitted the
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (Inventory) to the
United Nations every year since 1993. The annual Inventory is
consistent with national inventory data submitted by other UNFCCC
parties, and uses internationally accepted methods for its emission
estimates. For more information about the Inventory, please refer to
the following Web site: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/
usinventoryreport.htm.
    The United States currently follows the 1996 \13\ Intergovernmental
Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) guidelines in preparing its Inventory,
as supplemented by IPCC Good Practice Guidance (GPG) from 2000 \14\ and
2003 \15\. Since these guidelines do not provide information on the
accounting of GS, EPA addressed CO2 usage in the 2007
Inventory by accepting some general, top-down assumptions about the
end-use of supplied CO2. First, EPA collected CO2
production data for natural CO2 domes and estimated for each
dome the amount of CO2 used for ER operations and the amount
of CO2 used for non-ER operations. EPA assumed that the
percentage of naturally produced CO2 used for non-ER
operations (e.g., food processing, chemical production) was all emitted
to the atmosphere. The percentage used for ER operations was assumed to
be sequestered. Second, EPA collected data from industry on
anthropogenic CO2 emitted from natural gas processing and
ammonia plants and accounted it as emitted, regardless of whether the
CO2 was captured or not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ IPCC, 1996. ``Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories.'' National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Programme. Available: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gl/
invs1.html.
    \14\ IPCC. 2000. ``Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty
Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.'' National
Greehouse Gas Inventories Programme. Available at: http://www.ipcc-
nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/english/.
    \15\ IPCC. 2003. ``Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use
Change, and Forestry.'' National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Programme. Available at: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/
gpglulucf/gpglulucf.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The IPCC published new inventory guidelines in 2006 \16\, which
directly address accounting for GS and include methodologies for the
estimation of emissions from capture, transport, injection, and GS of
CO2. The guidelines are based on the principle that the CCS
system should be accounted for in a complete and consistent manner
across the entire Inventory. The approach accounts for CO2
produced from natural CO2 domes and captured at industrial
facilities as well as emissions from capture, transport, and use. For
GS specifically, the IPCC guidelines outline a Tier 3 methodology \17\
for estimating and reporting emissions based on 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.ipcc-
nggip.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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In considering how to design this proposal, EPA also took into
account the monitoring requirements adopted in other countries, in
particular other UNFCCC member countries that have already taken steps
towards collecting information for CCS to meet the 2006 IPCC
guidelines. The Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council
on the geological storage of carbon dioxide (Commission decision 2007/
589/EC) establishes a legal framework for the environmentally safe
geological storage of CO2. It requires European Council (EC)
member States to ensure that each GS site operator will carry out
monitoring of the injection facilities, the storage complex (including
the CO2 plume), and, where appropriate, the surrounding
environment for detection of any significant migration or leakage of
CO2 or any significant adverse effect on the surrounding
environment.
    The directive requires that monitoring frequency be determined by
the competent authority, and should be at least once a year. A
monitoring report should be developed that describes the quantities and
properties of the CO2 streams delivered and injected,
including concentration of the CO2 streams, in the reporting
period. The parameters to be monitored include:
     Fugitive emissions of CO2 at the injection
facility;
     CO2 volumetric flow at injection wellheads;
     CO2 pressure and temperature at injection
wellheads (to determine mass flow);
     Chemical analysis of the injected material; and
     Reservoir temperature and pressure (to determine
CO2 phase behavior and state).
    Per the directive, each GS site should choose monitoring technology
based on best practices available at the time the monitoring plan is
designed. The following options should be considered and used when
appropriate:
     Technologies that can detect the presence, location, and
migration paths of CO2 in the subsurface and at the surface;
     Technologies that provide information about pressure-
volume behavior and aerial/vertical distribution of CO2-
plume to refine numerical 3-D-simulation to the 3-D-geological models
of the storage formation; and
     Technologies that can provide a wide aerial spread in
order to capture information on any previously undetected potential
leakage pathways across the aerial dimensions of the complete storage
complex and beyond, in the event of significant irregularities or
migration of CO2 out of the storage complex.
    In Australia, the Proposed Greenhouse Gas Geological Sequestration
Regulations 2009 were proposed to support the implementation and
administration of the Greenhouse Gas Geological Sequestration Act 2008
and to address several CCS related issues, including monitoring
requirements for GS. These regulations require that each GS site
develop a monitoring and verification plan which includes the
following:
     Characteristics of the geological formation into which the
GHG substance is to be injected and any geological or other conditions
that may influence containment of a stored GHG;
     A description of the existing environment above, on and
below the surface of the ground; and any resource above, on and below
the surface of the ground that a person is entitled to extract or use
under a resource authority;
     Details of the equipment proposed to be used to monitor
the behavior of stored greenhouse gas substances, and where it is to be
located;
     Details of the techniques to be used to monitor, the
length of time that each technique is to be used, and how often each
monitoring technique is to be carried out; and
     The regulation also specifies that a report on the outcome
of all monitoring and verification activities carried out should be
completed quarterly.
    Other international efforts have also been useful to EPA in
developing the requirements of this proposed rule. The International
Maritime Organization (IMO) has published under the London Protocol
\18\ two documents to provide guidelines to parties for the assessment
of and implementation of disposal of CO2 in sub-seabed
geologic formations:

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%20Sequestration%20English.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     CO2 stream characterization (chemical and
physical properties);
     Waste prevention audit;
     Consideration of waste management options;
     Action lists;
     Identification and characterization of sub-seabed
geological formation;
     Assessment of potential impacts;
     Monitoring and risk management; and
     Permitting and permit condition.
    Under the Kyoto Protocol, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is
a market-based mechanism that aids countries in meeting their emission
limitation and reduction goals through emission reduction (or removal)
projects in developing nations. These projects allow companies in
industrialized countries to receive credits that can either be put
towards their emission limitation or reduction, traded, or sold. Two
new proposed CDM methodologies (NM0167 and NM0168) address CCS
activities.\19\ These new baseline and monitoring methodologies have
not yet been approved by the CDM Executive Board, but EPA continues to
follow their progress and to monitor for other GS methodology
proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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
    EPA is proposing facilities injecting CO2 for the long-
term containment in subsurface geologic formations would meet the
definition of GS in this proposed rule and would report additional
information. EPA is proposing that facilities that inject
CO2 for ER would not be GS facilities unless they inject
CO2 for the long-term containment in subsurface geologic
formations and submit and gain EPA approval of an MRV plan.
    To comply with the specific reporting requirements discussed in
Section II.C of this preamble, the reporter would need to identify the
sources and surface equipment making up the GS facility. However, EPA
recognizes that defining the extent of a GS facility source may be
difficult. For example, there may be a number of injection wells in an
oilfield under common ownership or common control of which only a
subset would be considered GS facilities. In that example, the question
of whether and how to aggregate various wells arises. In addition, the
CO2 plume and pressure front associated with a GS facility
may extend for a distance beyond the injection point, and widely
separated wells may be injecting into the same pore space. Because EPA
is seeking data on the amount of CO2 sequestered by these
facilities and because EPA is proposing an all-in threshold for these
facilities, EPA is proposing a narrow definition of GS source to
simplify the reporting requirements associated with emissions from
combustion and surface equipment. For purposes of this reporting rule,
EPA is proposing to define a GS facility to include all structures
associated with the injection of CO2 located between the
points of CO2 transfer onsite from offsite and the injection
well (or wells). A GS facility that injects CO2 to enhance
the recovery of oil or natural gas will also include all structures
associated with production located between the production wells and the
separators.
    Although EPA is proposing a narrow definition of GS facility, the
proposed rule would require GS facilities to monitor over a spatial
area that will almost certainly extend beyond the boundaries of the
facility, as defined here. Given that a main focus of this proposal is
to obtain information regarding the efficacy of GS, EPA anticipates
that the MRV plans for GS facilities will need to require monitoring
over a broad area. This is discussed in Section II.D of this preamble.
    EPA seeks comment on its approach to defining the boundary of the
GS facility. In particular, EPA seeks comment on the question of
whether EPA should require the aggregation of wells located in an area,
and if so, what rules should be applied for determining what equipment
comprises the source. EPA seeks comment on whether the GS facility
should be defined to include the spatial area of monitoring proposed in
Section II.D of this preamble. EPA also seeks comment on whether it
should follow the approach for onshore facilities in the proposed
subpart W regulations, which requires the aggregation of equipment to
the geographic boundary of a single hydrocarbon basin as defined by the
American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
    EPA is proposing to exempt research and development (R&D) as
defined at 40 CFR Part 98.6 from subpart RR, consistent with the
approach taken in subparts C through QQ of the MRR. EPA is also
proposing that, for the purposes of GS facility requirements under
subpart RR, research and development means those projects receiving
Federal funding to research practices and monitoring techniques that
will enable safe and effective long-term containment of a gaseous,
liquid, or supercritical CO2 stream in subsurface geologic
formations. R&D projects would not be required to submit an MRV plan
under subpart RR. EPA seeks comment on how R&D projects are defined and
treated in this proposal.
3. Other CO2 End-Users
    In developing this proposed rule, EPA considered requiring
reporting from various other end-users of the CO2 that is
produced and supplied to the economy, including both emissive and
potentially non-emissive applications. EPA considered but is not
proposing requiring reporting from these other end-users; EPA has
concluded that collecting information pursuant to subpart PP on
CO2 supplied to the economy will provide EPA with the
necessary data on emissive volumes while minimizing the number of
facilities impacted by this rule. EPA seeks comment on this conclusion.
The Agency also seeks comment on whether applications, such as
precipitated calcium carbonate and some cement production, permanently
sequester CO2 and if so, which industries this would
include; how many facilities operate in

each of these industries; how much of the CO2 consumed in
each industry would be sequestered; whether a sequestration factor
would be reasonable in any case; and what methodologies could be used
to verify this sequestration.

B. Selection of Reporting Thresholds

    To determine the appropriate threshold for reporting under subpart
RR, EPA considered both a threshold based on the amount of
CO2 emitted and a threshold based on the amount of
CO2 injected underground. EPA concluded that an emissions-
based threshold would be problematic because of the lack of data on the
incidence and scale of surface emissions and leakage from injection and
GS of facilities. EPA seeks comment on how the Agency could determine
an emissions-based threshold and detailed data underlying such an
approach. EPA accordingly analyzed injection facilities based on the
quantity of CO2 injected underground and considered whether
an injection threshold should apply. EPA evaluated a no threshold
option (i.e., all facilities that inject CO2 would be
required to report), 1,000 metric tons per year, 10,000 metric tons per
year, 25,000 metric tons per year, and 100,000 metric tons per year per
facility of CO2 injected.
    To establish a count of CO2 injection facilities, EPA
relied on data reported in the Oil and Gas Journal (O&GJ) Enhanced Oil
Recovery Survey published in April 2008 (Volume 106, Issue 15). EPA
compiled all the projects listed for miscible and immiscible
CO2 floods \20\ reported in the O&GJ survey. A total of 105
active ER projects were reported. In some cases multiple projects were
conducted by the same company in an oil field. For the purposes of this
analysis, EPA grouped these reported projects by field and by owner or
operator to align with typical industry practices for reporting project
information to State oil and gas commissions. This computation results
in eighty facilities for the facility count.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ A 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

     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        Number of facilities
                                                                 Total estimated      Total                injected                required to report
       Threshold level (metric tons/yr of CO2  injected)         national (metric   number of  ---------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  tons/yr of CO2       U.S.     Metric tons/yr of    Percent                   Percent
                                                                    injected)       facilities     CO2 injected      covered       Number      covered
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All In........................................................         40,111,639           80         40,111,639        100.0           80        100.0
1,000.........................................................         40,111,639           80         40,111,115        100.0           74         92.5
10,000........................................................         40,111,639           80         40,099,065        100.0           71         88.8
25,000........................................................         40,111,639           80         40,005,238        100.0           65         81.3
100,000.......................................................         40,111,639           80         39,065,039         97.4           48         60.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The analysis shown in Table 3 of this preamble suggests that nearly
all injection data can be collected from roughly half of operating
facilities at an injection threshold of 100,000 metric tons/yr of
CO2 injected. EPA considered establishing an injection
threshold of 100,000 metric tons/yr of CO2 injected.
However, a low CO2 injection or production quantity in one
year is not a reliable prediction of the quantity that may be injected
in the following year or in a year of full-scale operation. For
example, six of the eighty facilities reported zero or near zero
production and therefore did not exceed the 1,000 metric tons threshold
as shown in Table 3 of this preamble. However, these six facilities may
inject over this threshold in the following year. In addition, more
than 40 of the 105 projects in this analysis were described in the OG&J
survey as ``just started'' or pilot projects, indicating that they may
not be at fully operational levels of CO2 injection. Given
the variability of CO2 injection rates, EPA is proposing
that all facilities report irrespective of injection or production
quantities in the reporting year.
    EPA is proposing that all CO2 injection facilities would
be required to report the minimum information in subpart RR (quantity
of CO2 injected, quantity of CO2 transferred
onsite from offsite, and source of the CO2 if known) at no
threshold. An all-in reporting threshold would allow the Agency to
comprehensively track all CO2 supply (as reported in
Suppliers of CO2, subpart PP) that is injected underground.
This approach is consistent with the all-in requirements in the MRR for
suppliers of petroleum, natural gas, and coal-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 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
formations or coal seams. A second option would be to group wells
together by basin. This definition would not be appropriate for
injection facilities that are not producing oil or gas, however, such
as those injecting into saline formations or coal seams. A third option
would be to group wells by UIC permit; an injection well would be
delineated by individual well if permitted by UIC as such and by a
group of wells if permitted by UIC as a group. This definition would
not be appropriate for sub-seabed injection wells outside the
jurisdiction of SDWA. A fourth option would be to define injection
facility as one individual well. This definition could be impractical
for injection facilities that operate hundreds of wells, however, such
as some ER projects. EPA seeks comment on which of these options for
delineating an injection facility, or any options not discussed, would
be most appropriate in the case that a reporting threshold based on
injection quantity is appropriate.
2. GS Facilities
    Under this action, EPA is proposing that the subset of
CO2 injection facilities that are conducting GS (i.e., a GS
facility) must report to EPA a second tier of data. EPA considered
whether a threshold should apply to this second tier of data given that
it would place a reporting burden on GS facilities. However, EPA could
not perform an analysis on GS facilities based on emissions without
data on actual or expected GS facility emissions. EPA also could not
perform a threshold analysis based on injection due to the uncertainty
around predictions of injection quantities for potential GS facilities.
In addition, it is difficult to predict how many injection facilities
would choose to report GS. Therefore, EPA is proposing to exempt GS R&D
projects but otherwise require all GS facilities to comply with the GS
monitoring, reporting, and verification requirements of subpart RR, and
that they report fugitive, vented, and combustion emissions from
surface equipment (under subpart W, RR, or C, as applicable). An all-in
threshold will allow EPA to work with the 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 injected) should be applied. The Agency requests
supporting data which could be used to establish a threshold.

C. Selection of Data To Be Reported

    This section describes the data that injection facilities and GS
facilities must report under subpart RR. The first tier of reporting
requirements described is for all facilities that inject CO2
underground. The second tier of reporting requirements described is for
GS facilities only.
    The first tier has three proposed reporting requirements. First,
EPA is proposing that all CO2 injection facilities report
the mass of CO2 injected. This would be determined by the
mass flow or volumetric flow and CO2 concentration of the
CO2 stream injected. Facilities must use mass flow meters to
accurately measure the mass of the CO2 injected or
volumetric flow meters to accurately measure the volumetric flow of the
CO2 injected. To minimize the purchase and installation of
new equipment, facilities subject to the UIC program would be allowed
to measure the mass or volume of CO2 injected with the flow
meters installed for purposes of compliance with their UIC permits. EPA
accordingly is proposing two methodologies for making these
calculations, depending on whether the facility is using a volumetric
or a mass flow meter. EPA is proposing this approach so that facilities
can comply with these reporting requirements regardless of the type of
flow meter already installed. In the case of a facility using a
volumetric flow meter, EPA assumes that the facility can determine
operating temperature and pressure, which would allow for the
volumetric flow of CO2 to be converted from operating
conditions to standard conditions and, using a density value for
CO2 at standard conditions and the measured concentration of
CO2 in the flow, determine the mass of CO2. EPA
seeks comment on the assumption that facilities can determine operating
temperature and pressure, and alternative approaches for determining
the mass of CO2 using a volumetric flow meter where
operating temperature and pressure cannot be determined.
    Facilities would measure the CO2 concentration by
sampling and testing the injected stream at the flow meter. With this
approach, the flow and the concentration would be measured at the same
point in the system for maximized data accuracy. Accordingly, if the
flow meter were installed at the compressor(s), then the concentration
would be measured at the compressor(s). If the flow meter were
installed at the well(s), then the concentration would be measured at
the well(s). EPA recognizes that a facility with tens or hundreds of
injection wells, all of which have flow meters already installed at the
wellheads, may face a significant burden in testing concentration at
each of those flow meters. EPA seeks comment on alternative locations
other than the flow meter(s) where concentration of the CO2
injected could be measured at decreased burden without decreasing
accuracy. EPA also seeks comment on potential methodologies to estimate
concentration of the flow injected if flow is measured elsewhere, such
as apportioning the concentration of CO2 transferred onsite
and the concentration of recycled CO2 to the quantities from
each source.
    Second, EPA is proposing that all CO2 injection
facilities report the mass of the flow transferred onsite from offsite
to verify the mass of CO2 reported as injected. This would
be determined by the mass flow or volumetric flow and CO2
concentration of the flow transferred onsite from offsite. A subset of
CO2 injection facilities--facilities conducting ER--inject a
combination of new CO2 transferred onsite from offsite and
old CO2 recycled from the operation. Therefore, EPA would
use reported data on CO2 transferred onsite

from offsite to estimate the amount of CO2 recycled from ER
operations.
    EPA is proposing that all CO2 injection facilities
monitor the CO2 concentrations and mass flow or volumetric
flow quarterly. The purpose of these measurements is to account for
fluctuations in the CO2 concentration over the reporting
year. EPA seeks comment on this proposal and on the level of burden
this frequency of reporting requires for facilities following different
frequency parameters for their UIC permit.
    Third, EPA is proposing that all CO2 injection
facilities would report the source contracted to supply the
CO2, if known. EPA would seek information on whether the
CO2 was contracted from a natural source (i.e., produced
from a natural CO2 dome) or an industrial source. If an
industrial source, EPA would seek information on the type of source if
known (captured at a power plant, pulp and paper mill, ethanol plant,
natural gas processing facility, or other type of industrial source).
This would allow EPA to track the movement of CO2 through a
CCS system and any shift toward anthropogenic CO2 supply
sources. Pipelines that carry CO2 to the CO2
injection facility may contain a mix of CO2 from various
sources. EPA recognizes that facilities may not know the source of
CO2 that they purchase. Accordingly, EPA would require the
data to be reported only if known. EPA seeks comment on the proposed
approach for reporting the source contracted to supply the
CO2 if known.
    EPA recognizes that at this time the source of CO2
injected underground is predominantly CO2 produced from
natural CO2 domes. It is possible that GS using naturally
sourced CO2 may not qualify as a GHG mitigation action
because the purpose of GS is to isolate CO2 that would
otherwise have been emitted to the atmosphere. Under this proposed
rule, however, GS facilities must report annual CO2
sequestered regardless of the source.
    EPA seeks comment on whether the three reporting requirements
described above are sufficient or if there are additional reporting
requirements that should apply to all CO2 injection
facilities. EPA is proposing that the best available monitoring methods
(BAMM) provision outlined in Sec.  98.3(d) of the MRR would apply in
2011 to injection facilities for the first tier of reporting
requirements. EPA seeks comment on this proposal.
    For this proposed rule, EPA also considered, but is not proposing,
that a CO2 injection facility be required to report only the
CO2 injection data it collects under its current UIC permit
(under any class) or relevant permit in the case of a facility that is
outside SDWA jurisdiction. Although this would impose the lowest burden
on the reporter since no new data would need to be collected, EPA would
not receive complete data on the mass of CO2 injected. While
collection of injection volume is a minimum monitoring requirement for
all UIC well classes, CO2 concentration data are not.
Furthermore, facilities are not required to report CO2
transferred onsite from offsite sources or the source of CO2
under any UIC permit class.
    EPA is proposing that GS facilities would be required to report a
second tier of data in subpart RR. These reporting requirements include
the amount of leakage of CO2 to the surface (if any), the
amount of CO2 in produced oil or gas (for GS facilities
conducting active ER operations), the amount of fugitive and vented
CO2 emissions from surface equipment, and the total annual
amount of CO2 sequestered using a mass balance equation. In
this equation, the sum of the CO2 emissions listed above
would be subtracted from the amount of CO2 injected to equal
the amount of CO2 sequestered. These four reporting
requirements are described in more detail below.
    GS facilities must report CO2 leakage, if any occurs
from the subsurface geologic formation to the surface. EPA is not
proposing specific procedures or methodologies for detecting or
quantifying CO2 leakage. However, each GS facility would be
required to develop and implement a site-specific approach to
monitoring, detecting, and quantifying CO2 leakage based on
five requirements that are described in Section II.D of this preamble.
    Second, EPA is proposing that GS facilities that are actively
producing oil or gas would be required to report the quantity of
CO2 produced out of the subsurface with produced oil or
natural gas. This would be done by measuring at each separator the
volumetric flow or mass flow and the concentration of a CO2
stream. These GS facilities would also report CO2 that
remains in the oil or gas after separation.
    Third, unless already reported in the petroleum and natural gas
system subpart, subpart W, EPA is proposing that all GS facilities
would be required to report fugitive and vented CO2
emissions from surface components located within the facility for which
procedures and methodologies are provided in subpart W. This could
include pump blow-downs and fugitive emissions from valves, flanges,
and compressors. EPA seeks these data to better understand the volume
of fugitive and vented GHG emissions at GS facilities as compared to
the volume of CO2 sequestered. This information is an
important indicator of the effectiveness of GS as a GHG mitigation
technology. In addition, fugitive and vented CO2 emissions
will need to be included in the mass balance calculation of GS if they
occur downstream of the CO2 injection flow meter or (if
applicable for ER projects) upstream of the production flow meter. This
is further discussed in Section II.D.3 of this preamble. This proposed
rule does not impose a general requirement for all CO2
injection facilities to report fugitive and vented CO2
emissions from surface components since facilities that are not
sequestering CO2 would not report GS. EPA seeks comment on
this approach.
    Lastly, EPA is proposing that GS facilities use a mass balance
equation to calculate and report CO2 sequestered in the
subsurface geologic formation in the reporting year. This reported data
point would be valuable for EPA as the Agency tracks CO2
across a CCS system and will provide EPA with information on the
performance of GS projects over time. EPA seeks comment on this
approach.
    Alternatively, EPA could approximate CO2 sequestered in
the subsurface without proposing additional reporting requirements for
GS facilities, by using data already reported on CO2
transferred from offsite and CO2 injected. EPA considered
but did not propose this approach because it does not account for
potential leakage from the subsurface and does not properly account for
CO2 fugitive or vented emissions from surface equipment
during post-production, 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 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     subpart RR.......  subpart RR.......  subpart RR.......  subpart RR.
 onsite.
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         subpart W........  Not Applicable...  subpart W or       subpart RR.
 emissions from surface                                                subpart RR \1\.
 equipment.
Emissions from combustion       Separate           Separate           subpart C \2\....  subpart C \2\.
 sources.                        applicability      applicability
                                 determination.     determination.
Quantity of CO2 produced with   Not Required.....  Not Required.....  subpart RR.......  subpart RR.
 oil or natural gas.
Percent of CO2 estimated to     Not required.....  Not required.....  subpart RR.......  Not applicable.
 remain with the oil and gas.
Quantity of CO2 emitted from    Not Required.....  Not Required.....  subpart RR.......  subpart RR.
 the subsurface.
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 State-issued UIC permit is
currently submitted to States while, under today's subpart RR proposal,
reporters will be submitting data directly to EPA. EPA will look for
ways to integrate data management between the UIC and MRR programs and
the Agency is seeking comment on reporting the amount (flow rate) of
CO2 injected for purposes of this proposal.

               Table 5--Data Elements Reported Under UIC Class VI Proposal and Subpart RR Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               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     No.....................  No.....................  Yes.
 surface equipment.
Quantity of CO2 produced with oil or   No.....................  No.....................  Yes.
 natural gas (ER).
Percent of CO2 estimated to remain     No.....................  No.....................  Yes.
 with the oil and gas (ER).
Quantity of CO2 emitted from the       No.....................  No.....................  Yes.
 subsurface.
Quantity of CO2 sequestered in the     No.....................  No.....................  Yes.
 subsurface.
Cumulative mass of CO2 sequestered in  No.....................  No.....................  Yes.
 the subsurface.
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 UIC Class VI
proposal is at the discretion of the UIC director, EPA notes that a UIC
Class VI permit may fulfill requirements under today's proposal.
    EPA considered whether a GS facility should also report methane
(CH4) leakage emissions from the subsurface. CH4
emissions from the subsurface may occur at oil and natural gas
reservoirs or ECBM sites. The cases in which leakage of CH4
could occur at these sites may be similar to the potential for
CO2 leakage. CH4 leakage could potentially occur
through improperly sealed wells, open faults, and other pathways that
have also been identified as potential CO2 leakage pathways.
However, CH4 is present as a gas, and thus may be more
upwardly mobile than CO2 which is injected as a
supercritical fluid. Therefore, the potential for leakage of methane at
depleted oil and gas or ECBM sites may be greater than for
CO2.
    EPA is proposing to focus on CO2 emissions. EPA
recognizes the potential for CH4 leakage from the subsurface
at facilities conducting GS in oil and gas reservoirs or coal seams and
therefore seeks comment on whether to require reporting on
CH4 leakage. If the potential for CH4 leakage
exists, the GS reporter could include in the MRV plan a monitoring
strategy to detect and quantify potential CH4 leakage.
CH4 fugitive and vented emissions from surface equipment are
covered under the proposed oil and gas subpart, subpart W.
    Under subparts C through QQ of the MRR, adjacent or contiguous
equipment in actual physical contact under common ownership or common
control constitute a facility (see Section 98.6 of the MRR). In the
case of petroleum and natural gas systems and GS, equipment are not
necessarily in physical contact with one another in the conventional
sense of the term. Subparts W and RR are each proposing interpretations
of what would constitute a facility. As a result, a GS facility
conducting ER may apply one facility boundary for reporting under
subpart W and a different facility boundary for reporting under subpart
RR. EPA acknowledges that this may present a challenge for submitting
annual reports, depending on how the data system is designed. A
CO2 injection or GS operation would submit an annual report
to EPA according to the proposed definition of facility discussed in
Section II.A of this preamble. EPA seeks comment on a resolution that
would reduce reporting burden while still meeting the data needs of
both proposed subparts W and RR.
    EPA also recognizes that, in the case of an ER operation conducting
GS, the combustion emissions from equipment within the GS facility
would be included in both annual reports. Though this approach results
in duplicative reporting, EPA has concluded that to analyze the
efficacy of GS as a GHG mitigation tool, EPA needs to collect
information on combustion emissions from GS facility equipment at only
the GS facility level rather than aggregated with emissions from
additional equipment. EPA seeks comment on this approach for reporting
combustion emissions from GS facilities.

D. Selection of Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) Plan
Requirements and Approval Process

1. Selection of MRV Plan Option
    EPA considered three alternatives for monitoring, reporting and
verification of potential CO2 leakage at GS sites: do not
require an MRV plan, require a universal MRV plan that applies to all
GS sites, or require a site-specific MRV plan. The three alternatives
vary in stringency and specificity as described below. EPA outlines the
advantages and disadvantages of each alternative and seeks comment on
each alternative, as well as any alternatives not discussed.
    Under the first alternative, EPA would allow GS facilities to
report the amount of CO2 sequestered without requiring an
MRV plan. Under this alternative, the Agency would rely on published
information and existing studies to assume that injected CO2
remains sequestered and would assume these results can be generalized
to all GS projects. This alternative would impose the least burden on
reporters. EPA notes that international guidelines on information
collection and reporting efforts outlined in Section I.E of this
preamble do not support this approach. Furthermore, EPA did not propose
this approach because of the limited empirical data and the variability
in geology and other conditions among GS facilities.
    The second alternative that EPA considered was a one-size-fits-all
MRV plan approach under which the Agency would prescribe specific
monitoring technologies and quantification methods for GS facilities.
The advantage of this approach is that all GS facilities would use the
same monitoring technologies and methods. The disadvantage of this
approach is that the geology and other conditions at potential GS
facilities will vary from site to site and a one-size-fits all approach
may not provide the most effective monitoring strategy for all
facilities. EPA notes that international guidelines on information
collection and reporting efforts outlined in Section I.E of this
preamble do not support this approach. In addition, since the
monitoring and testing plans implemented under the UIC program are
necessarily site-specific in nature, it would be difficult to prescribe
a one-size-fits-all MRV plan that would complement and build upon the
UIC program. This alternative would likely be the least cost effective
and most burdensome approach for reporters.
    The third alternative, and the alternative that EPA is proposing,
is that GS facilities be required to develop a site-specific MRV plan
and submit it to EPA for approval. Facilities would report
CO2 injection until the final MRV plan has been approved.
Once a final MRV plan has been approved by EPA, GS facilities would
implement the plan, including the reporting of the amount of
CO2 that has been sequestered. The advantage of this
approach is that it provides a flexible and cost-effective option for
reporters and complements monitoring requirements under the proposed
UIC Class VI rule. EPA recognizes that the rigorous proposed UIC Class
VI requirements will provide the foundation for the safe sequestration
of CO2 and should serve to reduce the risk of CO2
leakage to the atmosphere when finalized. An adequate MRV plan would be
tailored to site-specific conditions and be designed for each stage of
the GS project. In addition, the MRV plan would allow for modification
or adaptation of the plan based on monitoring results. Although the
risk of leakage at an appropriately selected and managed GS facility
may be low, the MRV plan would ensure that if leakage occurs, the GS
reporter would have an approved methodology for measuring the emitted
CO2. If leakage occurs, the MRV plan would also provide a
process for revising the MRV plan, if necessary, as described in
section II.E of this preamble.
    It is important to recognize that this proposed rule is a data
collection and monitoring proposal which does not directly address the
potential human health and welfare, ground or surface water, ecosystem
or geosphere impacts of GS. Therefore, the proposed rule does not
address these potential impacts from CO2 leakage (e.g.,
requiring remediation or mitigation) as this is outside the scope of
this proposal.

2. Background on MRV Approaches
    EPA has identified published studies and/or guidelines on
monitoring programs that identify and quantify CO2 leakage
from GS facilities.\23\ While the science of quantifying CO2
leakage from GS facilities is evolving, it is generally recognized
that, when properly planned and implemented, monitoring methods will be
effective at detecting leakages.\24, 25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.ipcc-nggip.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.
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Though the methodologies for detecting and quantifying leakage of
CO2 from GS facilities have not been standardized, EPA has
concluded that a GS facility would be able to propose a site-specific
plan for leak detection and quantification under this rule based on the
current availability of monitoring technologies. A wide range of
techniques for monitoring sequestration of CO2 have been
used for a number of years in other applications, including oil and
natural gas production, natural gas storage, disposal of liquid and
hazardous waste in deep geologic formations, groundwater monitoring,
and ecosystem research.\26\ Some monitoring techniques such as seismic
monitoring can detect the presence and location of CO2 in
the subsurface, including both vertical and lateral spread, although
the accuracy of seismic monitoring for quantifying the amount of
CO2 may be more limited than other approaches. Other
techniques, such as soil gas monitors or eddy covariance techniques,
can detect, within a certain limit, leakage of CO2 from the
confining system. Many of these technologies have excellent
sensitivity, and have been shown to be able to detect relatively low
concentrations of CO2 above background levels. The minimum
leakage rate detectable is a function of parameters such as the volume
of CO2 making its way to the surface, the size of the leak
area, and the sensitivity of the monitoring device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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, DC, pp. 29-39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Descriptions of the various monitoring technologies that could be
deployed at a GS facility can be found in the general TSD to this
proposal.\27\ EPA seeks comment on the general TSD and seeks additional
data and information on monitoring technologies for leak detection and
quantification. Additional information on GS monitoring technologies
can also be found in the IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories (2006), the API/IPECA Inventory Guidelines for CCS (2007),
Department of Energy MVA Best Practices Manual (2009), and the
International Energy Agency GHG R&D Programme monitoring tool Web site
(www.co2captureandstorage.info/co2monitoringtool).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

3. MRV Plan Requirements
    EPA is proposing that each submitted MRV plan must include at a
minimum the four requirements described below:
     Step 1--Assessment of Risk of Leakage: All potential
pathways that may result in CO2 leakage have been identified
and characterized and the risk of CO2 leakage at each
pathway has been evaluated;
     Step 2--Strategy for Detecting and Quantifying
CO2 Leakage to Surface: Potential pathways will be monitored
according to the risk of CO2 leakage to ensure that any
leakage to the surface will be detected and that leakage to the
surface, should it occur, will be quantified according to a specified
methodology;
     Step 3--Strategy for Establishing Pre-Injection
Environmental Baselines: Environmental baselines against which the
monitoring results will be evaluated have been established at potential
leakage pathways; and
     Step 4--Tailor Mass Balance Equation: Site-specific
variables have been considered and developed for the mass balance
equation provided in the regulatory text to calculate the amount of
CO2 sequestered.
    These requirements are consistent with the IPCC Guidelines for
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2006), as well as the other
information collection and reporting efforts outlined in Section I.F of
this preamble.
    EPA developed a monitoring plan TSD that describes characteristics
of a robust monitoring plan, and provides descriptions of potential GS
geologic settings, potential leakage pathways, and the goals of
monitoring.\28\ The monitoring plan TSD uses EPA's Vulnerability
Evaluation Framework (VEF) to describe potential vulnerabilities that
may influence the risk for CO2 leakage from a GS project and
is not intended to be used as a step by step guide to develop an MRV
plan. The VEF includes a holistic discussion of the potential impacts
of GS. The VEF is also provided in the docket.\29\ EPA seeks comment on
the monitoring plan TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Monitoring Plans for Geologic Sequestration TSD (see docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0926).
    \29\ Vulnerability Evaluation Framework for Geologic
Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide (see docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-
0926).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In developing the proposed MRV plan requirements, EPA compared
monitoring requirements under the UIC Class VI proposal with those
under today's MRR proposal, as shown in Table 6 of this preamble.
Monitoring requirements under the UIC Class VI proposal are focused on
demonstrating that USDWs are not endangered as a result of
CO2 injection into the subsurface. As proposed, a UIC Class
VI permit would require a site characterization and assessment of
leakage pathways for the purpose of protection of USDWs. Therefore, EPA
is proposing that a UIC Class VI permit may be used to demonstrate to
EPA that the assessment of risk of leakage step of the MRV plan has
been satisfied. The UIC Class VI proposal indicates that UIC Class VI
permits may include surface monitoring at the UIC Director's
discretion. To the extent that the UIC Class VI permit includes these
surface monitoring and related environmental baseline components, it
may be used to demonstrate to EPA that the strategy for detection and
measurement of leakage to the surface and the strategy for establishing
pre-injection environmental baselines have been satisfied. EPA seeks
comment on allowing the use of a UIC Class VI permit to fulfill certain
MRV plan requirements, whether there are situations where EPA's
proposal to rely on a UIC Class VI permit would not be sufficient.

   Table 6--Proposed MRV Plan Elements Under UIC Class VI Proposal and
                           Subpart RR Proposal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Required under
    Proposed MRV plan element     Required under UIC      subpart RR
                                  Class VI  proposal       proposal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment of Risk of Leakage...  to USDWs..........  to surface.
Strategy for Detecting and        No................  Yes.
 Quantifying CO2 Leakage to
 Surface.
Strategy for Establishing Pre-    No................  Yes.
 Injection Environmental
 Baselines at Surface.
Tailor Mass Balance Equation....  No................  Yes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reporters that do not hold UIC Class VI permits would be required
to provide the MRV plan element information outlined in this section.
    Assessment of Risk of Leakage to the Surface. EPA is proposing that
the GS facility reporter must provide sufficient information in the MRV
plan to demonstrate to EPA that the potential risk for CO2
leakage to the surface has been evaluated. This evidence must be ``a
combination of site characterization and realistic models that predict
the movement of CO2 over time and locations where emissions
might occur''.\30\ EPA seeks this information to evaluate the leak
detection strategy put forth by the reporter in the MRV plan. EPA
believes this information is reasonable to request because it
determines the boundaries of the area which will be monitored for
potential CO2 leakage. The risk assessment for
CO2 leakage allows the reporter to target monitoring in
specific areas within these boundaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.ipcc-
nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.htm; see also UIC Class VI
proposal, 73 FR 43492 (July 25, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing that to demonstrate to the Agency that the risk of
leakage to the surface has been evaluated over the appropriate spatial
area,\31\ the GS facility must determine through site characterization
and computational modeling the spatial area that may be impacted by the
CO2 injection activity over the lifetime of the project,
accounting for the physical and chemical properties of all phases of
the injected CO2 stream. This spatial area must be
determined to account for all potential leakage pathways, including
wells. If the GS facility is producing oil or gas, the spatial area
would also need to contain the production wells associated with
CO2 injection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 re-evaluation
of the spatial area of monitoring through updating simulation models
with new monitoring data will provide the most accurate representation
of subsurface CO2 movement.
    EPA seeks comment on the proposed re-evaluation frequency and
whether the spatial area required for site characterization is adequate
to detect and quantify potential leakage to the surface. Specifically,
EPA seeks comment on whether there will be cases in which the spatial
area should be larger to detect unexpected leakage to the surface
beyond the pressure front boundary. Alternatively, EPA seeks comment on
whether the spatial area should be larger than the lateral extent of
the CO2 plume, but smaller than the area defined by the
pressure front. EPA also seeks comment on whether the spatial area
should be defined by the lateral extent of the CO2 plume.
    The MRV plan should include a description of the site
characterization that confirms that the geology and the local and
regional hydrogeology of the GS facility have been evaluated and that
explains how the spatial area was established. This should include a
narrative description of the geologic formation(s) along with simple
stratigraphic depictions showing formation depths and locations,
information on the presence of an effective confining system \32\
overlying the injection zone,\33\ and a map showing the modeled spatial
area of evaluation over the lifetime of the project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MRV plan should also demonstrate to EPA that all potential
leakage pathways for CO2 escape to the surface from the
injection zone in the spatial area have been identified and
characterized. Wells (and other artificial penetrations such as
boreholes) are one of the most probable conduits for the escape of
CO2 from the injection zone.\34\ If a well penetrates the
confining system, the site characterization should include an
assessment of supporting documentation such as well construction and
plugging. Faults and fractures that are natural or that may be induced
by pressure changes may also serve as pathways for CO2
leakage out of the confining zone and to the surface. Additionally,
geologic heterogeneities, such as high permeability zones in the
confining system or an insufficient lateral extent of the confining
system, may be potential leakage pathways for CO2. The MRV
plan should include the location and depth of all potential leakage
pathways along with a qualitative description of their condition. For
more information on leakage pathways, see the monitoring plan TSD.\35\
The MRV plan should include an overview of the methods used to
characterize the site; actual data can but does not need to be
initially submitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Gasda, SE, S Bachu and MA Celia. 2004. ``The potential for
CO2 leakage from storage sites in geological media:
Analysis of well distribution in mature sedimentary basins,''
Environmental Geology 46 (6-7), pp. 707-720; Benson, SM. 2005.
``Monitoring to Ensure Safe and Effective Geologic Sequestration of
Carbon Dioxide,'' IPCC Workshop on Carbon Dioxide Capture and
Storage; IPCC. 2005. ``IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture
and Storage,'' by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change. Available at: http://www1.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/
srccs.htm; Carey, J, M Wigand, SJ Chipera, G WoldeGabriel, R Pawar,
PC Lichtner, SC Wehner, MA Raines, GD Guthrie, Jr. 2007. ``Analysis
and performance of oil well cement with 30 years of CO2
exposure from the SACROC Unit, West Texas, USA.'' 8th International
Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, International
Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control Volume 1, Issue 1, April 2007,
Pages 75-85.
    \35\ Monitoring Plans for Geologic Sequestration TSD (see docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0926).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the risk assessment component of the MRV plan should

include an overview of the methods used to model the subsurface
behavior of CO2 and the modeling results that estimate the
timing, location, route and flux of potential leakage to the surface.
It should include a brief overview of the input data quantity and the
level of uncertainty associated with the models, as well as sensitivity
analysis to assess the range of potential CO2 leakage
emissions.
    Strategy for Detecting and Quantifying CO2 Leakage to
the Surface. EPA is proposing that the MRV plan must provide a strategy
for leak detection. The MRV plan would include the methodology for,
rationale for, and frequency of monitoring that will be conducted to
detect potential leakage of CO2 to the surface. The strategy
for leak detection should be based on the risk assessment required in
this Section II.D.3 of this preamble and be targeted to where and when
leakage to the surface is most likely to occur. Therefore, the MRV plan
should also describe the methodology for, rationale for, and frequency
of evaluation of the entire spatial area of the GS facility to detect
any CO2 emissions from unexpected leakage pathways. The MRV
plan should describe the monitoring technologies that will be employed
at the facility, the assumed detection limits of the technologies, the
monitoring locations, spatial array, and frequency of sampling. The MRV
plan should provide the rationale and justification for each of these
choices. A leak detection strategy that adequately meets this proposed
rule's requirements may include a combination of subsurface, vadose
zone, soil zone, ocean, surface water, and/or atmospheric monitoring
and modeling. For the purposes of this proposed rule, CO2
leakage to the surface includes CO2 emitted to the
atmosphere, CO2 emitted to the ocean from the sub-seabed,
CO2 emitted to surface water, and CO2 emitted to
indoor air environments. The Agency notes that continuous air
monitoring or mitigation is not required by this proposal.
    Even though only the CO2 that leaks to the surface must
be quantified for this proposed rule, information about the movement of
CO2 in the subsurface and near-surface can serve as an early
warning of a potential leak at the surface. This information will lead
to a better understanding of the GS facility and the anticipated
movement of the CO2 plume, and it will help to pinpoint the
area and the timing in which a potential leak to the surface may occur.
This in turn will inform where monitoring for leak detection at the
surface must be deployed.
    For example, sampling at a deep monitoring well may indicate
migration of the CO2 out of the confining system. Though
this monitoring result does not necessarily mean that CO2
will eventually leak to the surface, the GS reporter would use this
information on the sub-surface movement of CO2 to deploy
monitoring equipment according to the strategy outlined in the MRV plan
in case detection and quantification of CO2 leakage to the
surface is necessary.
    Generally, an iterative process should be in place to update the
predictive models by applying results of ongoing monitoring. The GS
reporter needs to consider how the monitoring results will change the
leak detection and quantification strategies in the MRV plan approved
by EPA. Adjustments to the MRV plan may result from updates to the
models that were used to identify the leakage pathways, assess the risk
of leakage, and predict the scope of potential leakage scenarios. If
the MRV plan is adjusted in these circumstances, the reporter must
submit an addendum to EPA that describes how the leak detection and
quantification strategy was adjusted (see Section II.E of this preamble
for more detail).
    EPA is proposing that the MRV plan would not need to include
methods for monitoring fugitive and vented CO2 emissions
from surface equipment (e.g., CO2 compression systems) at GS
facilities because, in EPA's view, those methods need not vary from
site to site in order to estimate emissions effectively. Universal
methods are proposed in subpart W, and those methods would be used to
quantify fugitive and vented CO2 emissions from surface
equipment and to report those emissions under subpart W or subpart RR
as appropriate (see Section II.C of this preamble).
    If a CO2 leak is detected at the surface, the GS
reporter must quantify the amount of CO2 leaked. EPA
considered three alternatives for reporting CO2 leakage:
assuming that all injected CO2 remains sequestered, assuming
that a proportion of injected CO2 remains sequestered, and
reporting of CO2 leakage based on site-specific monitoring.
EPA outlines the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative and
seeks comment and data on each alternative, as well as any alternatives
not discussed.
    Under the first alternative, EPA would rely on published
information and existing studies to assume that all injected
CO2 remains sequestered. EPA would assume these results can
be generalized to all GS projects. EPA notes that international
guidelines on information collection and reporting efforts outlined in
Section I.E of this preamble do not support this approach. Furthermore,
EPA did not propose this approach because of the limited empirical data
and the variability in geology, site management and/or business
practices, and other conditions among GS facilities. In addition,
assuming that all injected CO2 remains sequestered would not
take into account potential fugitive or vented emissions from surface
equipment or CO2 produced from oil or gas production wells,
during or after operations.
    Under the second alternative, EPA would assume that a proportion of
injected CO2 remains sequestered. EPA would assume that this
proportion can be generalized to all GS projects. International
guidelines on information collection and reporting efforts outlined in
Section I.E of this preamble do not support this approach. Furthermore,
EPA did not propose this approach because of the limited empirical data
and the variability in geology, site management and/or business
practices, and other conditions among GS facilities. EPA also seeks
comment and data on whether a sequestration factor could be applied to
ER operations in cases where CO2 injection and site
operations are not specifically designed with GS in mind.
    The third approach, and the approach EPA is proposing today, is
that the MRV plan describe the approaches that the GS reporter will
take to quantify CO2 emissions if leakage is detected. The
approach should be specific to the type of potential leak. For example,
for point sources of CO2 (e.g., leakage from wells), bagging
or tenting methods could be used. EPA recognizes that quantifying
CO2 emissions and distinguishing CO2 leakage from
background emissions is challenging, but necessary for the purposes of
determining the total amount of CO2 that is sequestered at a
GS facility. EPA is proposing that a leak could be quantified through
estimation or by direct measurement and seeks comment on allowing
either estimation or direct measurement for quantifying a leak.
    In cases where a leak is not quantified by estimation, EPA is
proposing that if a leak is detected, the reporter must assume that the
duration of the leak is equal to the duration between demonstrated null
monitoring results unless subsurface monitoring can be used to provide
a better indication on the timing of the leak. EPA finds this
conservative approach reasonable because the estimate of the duration
of the leak directly influences the estimate of the amount of
CO2 emitted to the surface. The Agency recognizes that this

approach could overestimate emissions of CO2. EPA considered
requiring that the MRV plan include a site-specific strategy for
determining duration of any leakage detected in cases where a leak is
not determined by estimation, but EPA concluded that this approach
would allow too much variation in reporting on CO2 leakage
(if any occurs) and would make the quantities of CO2
reported as sequestered less comparable. EPA seeks comment on the
selected approach for determining the duration of the leak event and
the alternatives. EPA is proposing that if multiple CO2
leaks to the surface occur in a reporting year, the mass of each leak
should be quantified and the totals then aggregated for reporting.
    An approach for an uncertainty assessment of the leakage estimates
and measurements derived from the proposed modeling and monitoring at
the GS facility should also be included in this component of the MRV
plan.
    As further outlined in Section II.E of this preamble, EPA is
proposing that if leakage is detected during a given reporting year,
the GS reporter must submit an annual report addendum to coincide with
submission of the next annual report (March 31 of a following year).
    Strategy for Establishing Pre-Injection Environmental Baselines.
EPA is proposing that the MRV plan describe when and how pre-injection
environmental baselines would be established based on the strategy for
leak detection described in this section of the preamble. The GS
reporter is required to establish baselines at potential leakage
pathways (based on the risk of leakage from these pathways), and over
the entire spatial area of evaluation for periodic evaluation of
unidentified leakage pathways. Pre-injection baselines will be used to
evaluate the performance of the site and are essential to detect
CO2 leakage from the site.
    CO2 is ubiquitous in the environment and concentrations
may vary over space and time (e.g., diurnally, seasonally, annually).
Therefore, determining background levels of CO2 and
understanding natural fluctuations is necessary to discern whether
detected CO2 is attributable to leakage or to preexisting
sources. It is also important to establish baselines before injection
because many of the instruments used to monitor CO2 at the
surface do not measure fluxes of CO2 directly; rather, the
instruments are useful for tracking the injected CO2 because
one can compare parameters before and after injection and over
time.\36\ Environmental baselines at the facility before injection must
reflect diurnal, seasonal, and annual changes in not only the levels of
CO2 but also in other relevant surface and/or near-surface
conditions (e.g., wind speed). Baseline monitoring could also include
gas composition and isotopic analysis of any background fluxes of
CO2, which may be useful for distinguishing between natural
(biogenic or thermogenic) and anthropogenic CO2.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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