A rn* United Stales
H p*£l Environmental Protection
^I Agency
Mandatory Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Rule: EPA's
Response to Public Comments
Geologic Sequestration and
Injection of Carbon Dioxide:
Subparts RR and UU
-------
Geologic Sequestration and
Injection of Carbon Dioxide:
Subparts RR and UU
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Atmospheric Programs
Climate Change Division
Washington, D.C.
-------
FOREWORD
This document provides responses to public comments on the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) Proposed Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: Injection and Geologic
Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide. EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the
Federal Register (FR) on April 12, 2010 (75 FR 18576). EPA received comments on this
proposed rule via mail, e-mail, facsimile, and at a public hearing held in Arlington, Virginia on
April 19, 2010. Copies of all comments submitted are available at the EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room. Comments letters and transcripts of the public hearings are also available
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov by searching Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-
0926.
EPA prepared this document in multiple chapters, with each chapter focusing on a different
broad category of comments on the rule. In light of the large number of comments received and
the significant overlap between many comments, this document does not respond to each
comment individually. Rather, EPA summarized and provided a single response to each
significant argument, assertion, and question contained within the totality of comments. Within
each comment summary, EPA provides in parentheses one or more lists of Docket ID numbers
for commenters who raised particular issues; however, these lists are not meant to be exhaustive
and EPA does not individually identify each and every commenter who made a certain point in
all instances, particularly in cases where multiple commenters expressed essentially identical
arguments.
EPA's responses to comments are generally provided immediately following each comment
summary. In some cases, EPA provided responses to specific comments or groups of similar
comments in the preamble to the final rulemaking. Rather than repeating those responses in this
document, EPA has referenced the preamble.
Comments were assigned to specific chapters of this document based on an assessment of the
principal subject of the comment; however, some comments inevitably overlap multiple subject
areas. For this reason, EPA encourages the public to read the other chapters of this document
relevant to their interests. In addition, Appendix A describes the Sierra Club mass mailer
campaign. EPA's responses to the comments submitted by these commenters are found in this
document. Appendix B provides an index of commenters.
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 LEGAL AUTHORITY 8
2 DEFINITION OF REPORTING FACILITIES 15
2.1 Definition of Source Category 15
2.2 Stationary Source vs. Facility 21
2.3 Definition of Facility 22
2.4 Opt-in for ER 28
2.5 Research and Development (R&D) Definition/Exemption 30
2.6 Not Included in the Source Category 36
2.7 Other Definitions Used in Subpart RR 39
3 REPORTING THRESHOLD 41
3.1 Thresholds for "Tier 1" Reporting 41
3.2 Thresholds for "Tier 2" Reporting 42
3.3 Comments on EPA's Methodology for Determining Reporting Threshold 45
4 MONITORING AND SAMPLING REQUIREMENTS 46
4.1 Location Requirements for Measurement 46
4.2 Converting to Standard Conditions 51
4.3 Measuring (Sampling) Composition and Flow Quarterly 53
4.4 Best Available Monitoring Methods (B AMM) 55
4.5 Standardized Methods Incorporated into the MRR 56
4.6 Calibration of Instrumentation 57
4.7 Other - Monitoring and Sampling Requirements 57
5 CALCULATION AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 61
5.1 General "Tier 1" Reporting Requirements 61
5.2 General "Tier 2" Reporting Requirements (Subpart RR) 68
5.3 Vented and Fugitive Emissions and Mass-Balance Equation for GS 73
5.4 Other 79
6 MRV PLAN REQUIREMENTS 85
6.1 Site-specific MRV Plan Approach 85
6.2 General MRV Plan Requirements 86
6.3 Definition of Leakage 94
6.4 MRV Plan Requirement to Assess Risk of Leakage to the Surface 96
6.5 MRV Plan Requirements for Monitoring Area 97
6.6 MRV Plan Requirements for Detection and Quantification of Surface Leakage 102
6.7 MRV Plan Requirement for Establishing Baselines 105
6.8 General Comments on Monitoring 108
7 MRV PLAN SUBMISSION AND APPROVAL 110
7.1 Review Process for MRV Plans 110
7.2 Public Involvement and MRV Plans 113
7.3 Schedule for MRV Plan Submission to EPA 115
7.4 MRV Appeal Process 120
7.5 MRV Plan Implementation 121
8 CEASE REPORTING. 124
8.1 Cease Reporting Provisions 124
9 MISSING DATA PROCEDURES, RECORD RETENTION, AND CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS
INFORMATION 132
iv
-------
9.1 Missing Data Procedures 132
9.2 Record Retention Requirements 132
9.3 Confidential Business Information Issues 133
10 ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS (EIA) AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS (EOS) 136
10.1 Comments on the EIA 136
10.2 Scenarios Regarding Future Deployment of CCS 142
10.3 Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 144
11 RELATIONSHIP TO THE UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM 146
12 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER SUBPARTS OF THE GHG REPORTING PROGRAM 162
13 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER INFORMATION COLLECTION AND REPORTING EFFORTS 168
14 GENERAL COMMENTS 172
14.1 General Comments on the Rule 172
14.2 General Comments on CCS and Climate Change 178
APPENDIX A: SIERRA CLUB MASS MAILER CAMPAIGN 190
APPENDIX B: INDEX OF COMMENTERS 191
v
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AAPG
American Association of Petroleum Geologists
AMA
active monitoring area
AoR
Area of Review
BAMM
best available monitoring methods
BIA
Bureau of Indian Affairs
BLM
Bureau of Land Management
CAA
Clean Air Act
CBI
confidential business information
CCS
carbon dioxide capture and geologic sequestration
CEMS
continuous emission monitoring system
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
co2
carbon dioxide
DOE
Department of Energy
EAB
Environmental Appeals Board
EIA
Economic Impact Analysis
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
ENGO
Environmental Non-Governmental Organization
EO
Executive Order
EOR
enhanced oil recovery
ER
enhanced oil and gas recovery
FR
Federal Register
GHG
greenhouse gas
GS
geologic sequestration
HAP
hazardous air pollutant
IRS
Internal Revenue Service
IOGCC
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission
LDAR
Leak Detection and Repair
MMA
maximum monitoring area
MMS
Minerals Management Service
MRV
monitoring, reporting, and verification
NACCSA
North American Carbon Capture and Storage Association
NESHAP
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
OAR
Office of Air and Radiation
OMB
Office of Management and Budget
OW
Office of Water
PEMS
predictive emission monitoring system
QA/QC
quality assurance/quality control
R&D
research and development
RTC
response to comment
SDWA
Safe Drinking Water Act
SPE
Society of Petroleum Engineers
TCEQ
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
TSD
technical support document
UIC
Underground Injection Control
vi
-------
US United States
USDW underground source of drinking water
VEF Vulnerability Evaluation Framework
vii
-------
1 Legal Authority
Comment 1-a:
One commenter (0811) and a coalition of Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations
(ENGOs) (0809) assert that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is within its authority
under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to require reporting related to the geologic sequestration (GS) of
carbon dioxide (CO2). In particular, the coalition of ENGOs (0809) asserts that EPA's
jurisdiction under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) does not extend to the monitoring and
reporting of airside leakages from GS, and that therefore regulation under the CAA is necessary
to address those emissions. This commenter also states that information gathered from enhanced
oil and gas recovery (ER) and GS monitoring and reporting can and will inform the degree to
which GS can be considered a greenhouse gas (GHG) control technology for CO2.
Response 1-a:
EPA agrees that it is within its authority to promulgate this rule under CAA Section 114 and that
it is appropriate to require reporting related to GS. Please refer to Section I.C and Section HE of
the preamble for a discussion of EPA's legal authority to promulgate this rule and the purposes
of this rule.
Comment 1-b:
One commenter (0805) argues that EPA has over-reached its statutory authority, stating that the
CAA authorizes the regulation of air emissions, not CO2 injection or GS.
Response 1-b:
EPA disagrees that it has over-reached its statutory authority in promulgating this reporting rule.
EPA is promulgating this reporting rule under its existing CAA authority; specifically,
authorities provided in CAA Section 114. Please refer to Section I.C and Section II.E of the
preamble for a discussion of EPA's legal authority to promulgate this rule. The rule does not
require facilities to conduct C02 injection or GS, nor does it establish operational standards or
permitting requirements for facilities conducting GS; rather, it requires facilities to report GHG
information to EPA if they conduct such activities.
Comment 1-c:
One commenter (0797) questions whether a CAA Section 114 reporting rule should be the legal
"trigger" for sequestration, particularly given that GS sites will be aggressively regulated and
permitted under a host of other federal and state authorities.
Response 1-c:
This rule is a reporting rule and not a permitting rule. The rule does not authorize the
construction or operation of GS sites and does not establish operational criteria. For example,
wells that are subject to SDWA will be permitted under the Underground Injection Control
(UIC) program. However, EPA has concluded that CAA Section 114 provides EPA with the
authority to require the information mandated by subpart RR because such data will inform and
8
-------
are relevant to EPA's implementation of a wide variety of CAA provisions, as discussed in
Section I.C and Section II.E of the preamble. As discussed further in Chapter 11 of this
document, this rule and the UIC rule were developed to work together and redundancies have
been avoided.
Comment 1-d:
One commenter (0805) states that EPA asserts that information not related to emissions (e.g.,
movement of C02 through commerce) is policy relevant because it may allegedly help the
Agency formulate a GHG regulatory program in the future. The commenter states that the cost
and effort required to implement upstream reporting requirements only make sense in the context
of a "clear regulatory agenda," under which it is reasonably certain that these particular activities
may actually be regulated under the CAA. The commenter also suggests that knowing the
quantity of CO2 supplied to emissive and non-emissive uses does not advance the Agency's
understanding of which facilities are emitting GHGs and how EPA's authority under the CAA
applies to these emitters. Furthermore, the commenter asserts that EPA is exceeding the bounds
of its authority under Section 114 of the CAA by seeking precise information on the amount of
CO2 received on site and the amount of CO2 injected, and believes that this information is not
useful in the context of CO2 emissions. The commenter asserts that EPA must provide greater
latitude in the final rule on how data are monitored and reported.
A commenter (0816) states that EPA has over-reached its authority under CAA Section 114 in
promulgating the GHG reporting rules, including subpart RR. This commenter asserts that EPA
is over-stepping its authority under CAA Section 114 by proposing what the commenter refers to
as indefinite and broad monitoring and reporting under this action and that EPA fails to specify
any purpose under the CAA provisions for which it needs this particular information and how it
will be used. The commenter expresses concern that none of EPA's stated purposes provide
adequate justification for the proposed data collection requirements (e.g., frequency of reporting,
duration of reporting), imposition of new measurement protocols, or installation of new
instrumentation. The commenter points out that EPA is requesting the data "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" (75 FR
18580). However, the commenter states that ER or GS is not currently regulated under specific
CAA provisions and EPA has not indicated that it intends to do so in the future. The commenter
requests that EPA reevaluate their specific authority to promulgate subpart RR as proposed, and
at a minimum, consider limiting its request for data to air emissions.
Response 1-d:
As noted in Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments,
Volume No.: 9, Legal Issues (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508), Section 114 generally
authorizes EPA to gather information from any person who owns or operates an emissions
source, who is subject to a requirement of the CAA, who manufacturers control or process
equipment, or who the Administrator believes has information necessary for the purposes of
Section 114(a). EPA may gather information for purposes of establishing implementation plans
or emissions standards, determining compliance, or "carrying out any provision" of the CAA.
For these reasons, the Administrator may request that a person, on a one-time, periodic or
9
-------
continuous basis, establish and maintain records, make reports, install and operate monitoring
equipment and, among other things, provide such information the Administrator may reasonably
require. This language has been interpreted to grant EPA broad authority. See, e.g., Dow
Chemical Co. v. U.S., 467 U.S. 227, 233 (1986) ("Regulatory and enforcement authority
generally carries with it all modes of inquiring and investigation traditionally employed or useful
to execute the authority granted.").
EPA disagrees that the information obtained under this rule on the amount of C02 received and
the amount of CO2 injected is not useful in the context of CO2 emissions. Information reported
under subpart RR on the quantity of C02 injected is necessary to perform a mass balance
calculation quantifying the amount of CO2 sequestered, which will enable EPA to evaluate
policy options relevant to carbon dioxide capture and geologic sequestration (CCS). Information
obtained under this rule on the quantity of CO2 received can be reconciled with information
obtained under subpart PP on the quantity of C02 supplied to the economy.
The comprehensive information being collected in this rulemaking from facilities that conduct
GS and CO2 injection will allow EPA to fully evaluate the options before it to address climate
change, without having to decide to narrow its options at the outset. The more targeted approach
advocated by the commenter would require some level of decision making without the benefit of
the information gathered by this rule. In Section I of the preamble to the proposed rule and
Section I of the preamble to the final rule, EPA has outlined a variety of purposes for gathering
the information required by this rule. These purposes justify the level of accuracy in reporting
that the rule strives to achieve, as well as the ongoing annual reporting requirements. For
example, subpart RR information will enable EPA to evaluate relevant policy options related to
the use of CCS for reducing GHGs. As another example, subpart UU information on CO2
received will provide EPA with information that can be reconciled with subpart PP information
on CO2 supplied to the economy. Understanding the amount of CO2 received for injection from
CO2 production wells will provide information on the amount of CO2 that is available to be
displaced with CO2 captured from production process units. As noted in Mandatory Greenhouse
Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments, Volume No.: 9, Legal Issues (Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508), if and when EPA does move forward to address GHGs under
the CAA from the source categories subject to this rule, it may revise this rule as appropriate.
EPA notes that comments relating to regulatory requirements of C02 suppliers under subpart PP
are beyond the scope of this rule.
Comment 1-e:
Four commenters (0806, 0807, 0810, 0816) oppose any reporting requirements for C02 injection
facilities based on their belief that subpart RR is outside the scope of the Mandatory Reporting
Rule's enabling statute, the Consolidated Appropriations Act. The commenters states that the
requirements for CO2 injection facilities in subpart RR focus exclusively on the injection of CO2,
not on C02 emissions and that EPA acknowledges in the proposal preamble that ER is a "non-
emissive end use" of CO2. These commenters conclude that EPA lacks the authority to require
anything more than GHG emissions to be reported. One commenter (0805) argues that the
Congressional legislation funding the Mandatory Reporting rule constrains the scope of EPA's
10
-------
information gathering to GHG emissions, which does not include GS. The commenter also
argues that the legislation directs EPA to establish a national GHG emissions inventory, and that
this purpose can be entirely served for ER and GS operators if EPA collects data on actual CO2
emissions under subpart W. One commenter (0789) mentions that the proposed rule was
adopted pursuant to an enabling statute seeking to regulate the emission of CO2 and in this case
would regulate the injection of C02. The commenter opines that neither ER nor GS involves
emissions of CO2 into the air and that the proposed regulation is beyond the authority granted in
the enabling statute.
Response 1-e:
Neither the FY2008, FY2009 nor FY2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act are the statutory
basis for this action or the GHG Reporting Program. Please also refer to Mandatory Greenhouse
Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments, Volume No. 9, Legal Issues (Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508). Rather, EPA is promulgating this rule under its existing
CAA authority provided in CAA Section 114. EPA's authority under Section 114 is not tied to,
or limited by, the Appropriations Acts. Furthermore, EPA does not agree that the appropriations
language constrains EPA's ability to collect the information under this action. Language in the
joint explanatory statement of the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act directs EPA to
include reporting from "upstream production and downstream sources." The language does not
say upstream production or downstream sources, indicating that Congress recognized that
information from both types of sources could be collected "to the extent the Administrator deems
it appropriate."
Comment 1-f:
One commenter (0816) asserts that EPA already possesses and collects GHG emissions
inventory data in a manner that is sufficient to meet the Agency's stated purposes that underlie
the proposed rule.
Response 1-f:
As discussed in Section I.F of the proposal preamble, EPA carefully considered current
information and reporting efforts from facilities conducting GS and CO2 injection, including the
Inventory of US (United States) GHG Emissions and Sinks. The Inventory of US GHG
Emissions and Sinks is a top-down national assessment of national GHG emissions and the US
has submitted this inventory to the United Nations every year since 1993. EPA found that the
inventory does not provide facility-specific data that is needed to analyze many potential GHG
policies and regulatory programs. However, EPA recognizes that the rule will improve the
development of future national inventories and aid in confirming the national statistics and
emission estimation methodologies used to develop the top-down inventory.
Comment 1-g:
Two commenters (0794, TRANS-VA-02) assert that subpart RR resembles an attempt at
emissions control regulation, rather than an information-gathering exercise or reporting rule. One
commenter (TRANS-VA-02) agrees that it is appropriate for EPA to have proposed a separate
rule for reporting possible emissions from CCS rather than include it with another source
11
-------
category, but note that EPA treats CCS differently from other source categories. The commenter
argues that EPA is proposing rules that are intended to prevent emissions and that thereby EPA is
using this rule to demonstrate the efficacy of long-term storage.
Response 1-g:
EPA disagrees that this is an emissions control regulation or is intended to prevent emissions,
because the rule does not require facilities to capture CO2, to sequester CO2, or if sequestering
C02, to ensure that the C02 remains sequestered. EPA only requires facilities that conduct GS or
other facilities that inject CO2 underground to report certain information to EPA. EPA
acknowledges that this rule will provide information to EPA on leakage to the surface, if any,
and quantification of the amount of CO2 that has been sequestered but the rule does not purport
to limit any such leakage. Such information will prove valuable to EPA as it considers the role of
CCS in future policy.
Comment 1-h:
One commenter (0808) states that MRV by definition is a technical document and one that seems
to go beyond the scope of the air emissions intent of the proposed rule while intruding on core
site permitting requirements, and that it is not clear that the monitoring, reporting, and
verification (MRV) requirements are appropriate within the context of an emissions reporting
rule. One commenter (0815) asserts that the MRV requirements in the proposed rule go beyond
air emissions reporting and may be construed as carbon capture requirements, which is more
appropriate to the UIC program. In particular, the proposed rule goes beyond simply specifying
requirements for reporting of CO2 emissions by including provisions that act more like
regulation of the emissions or potential emissions (i.e. leakage) from GS sites.
Commenter 0813 states that EPA's proposed reporting rule for CO2 injection and storage is more
like an emissions control regulation than a reporting rule. The commenter states that requiring
that potential pathways be assessed and monitored 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, is an emissions control requirement for GS and not a reporting
requirement.
One commenter (0800) states that EPA's proposal that MRV plans contain "information
certifying that 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" goes beyond air
emission reporting. One commenter (0803) states that the proposed MRV requirements for
identifying and evaluating leakage pathways goes far beyond air emission reporting. One
commenter (0797) asserts that a risk-based evaluation of potential leakage pathways would be
expected under an emissions control or permitting program, but not a reporting rule. The
commenter suggests that the North American Carbon Capture and Storage Association
(NACCSA)/Pew methodology will address project (with "project" defined not on a facility-by-
facility basis; instead, a CCS project will include the source-pipeline-sink) leakage in relatively
granular detail but through a more-efficient process than assessing pathway leakage, particularly
pathways that may be irrelevant to the project boundaries at inception.
12
-------
One commenter (0808) asserts that the proposed requirement to detect and quantify leakage to
the surface differs markedly from the approach used in the Mandatory Reporting Rule, which
generally aims to provide methodologies for quantifying emissions to be reported. This RR
requirement comes close to an emissions control requirement for GS. The commenter further
states that if EPA intends to issue such requirements, EPA should do so in a separate rulemaking
and in reliance on CAA authorities.
Response 1-h:
EPA has considered the above comments and has concluded that the MRV plans are appropriate
within the context of this reporting rule. EPA disagrees that this rule regulates or controls
emissions or leakage; the MRV plan requirements in this rule do not require facilities to capture
C02 or otherwise minimize or control GHG emissions or leakage. Rather, the MRV plan
provides a site-specific approach for quantifying surface leakage should it occur and establishes
reporting obligations regarding that information.
EPA agrees with the commenter that the MRV plan will have technical components, but
disagrees that MRV plan requirement goes beyond the scope of the rule. The MRV plan is
necessary to ensure that all facilities reporting GS under subpart RR have an appropriate strategy
in place to effectively quantify geologically sequestered CO2.
EPA considered the commenter's suggestion that there may be leakage pathways that may not be
necessary to monitor at the inception of the project. In light of this and other comments, EPA has
added an MRV plan requirement for delineating a maximum monitoring area (MMA) and active
monitoring area (AMA). This requirement allows facilities to phase in monitoring over time.
Please refer to Section II.B of the preamble for a description of the MMA and AMA delineation
and Chapter 6 of this document for EPA's responses to comments regarding this MRV plan
requirement. EPA has finalized MRV requirements that include identification of potential
surface leakage pathways for CO2 in the MMA and the likelihood, magnitude, and timing, of
surface leakage of CO2 through these pathways. Please refer to Chapter 6 of this document for
EPA's responses to comments regarding this MRV plan requirement. EPA applauds NACCSA
and Pew for working together to advance efforts for monitoring and reporting quantities of CO2
that are geologically sequestered. Please refer to Chapter 13 of this document for EPA's
responses to comments regarding this methodology.
EPA recognizes that the geologic and operational characteristics of sites may vary and therefore
acknowledges that subpart RR differs in some important ways (e.g. requiring a MRV plan) from
other subparts of the GHG Reporting Program. Because the geologic and operational conditions
of sites vary and based on public comments, EPA decided to allow sites to choose monitoring
technologies that are best suited to the individual site, rather than taking a prescriptive approach.
Please refer to Chapter 6 of this document for EPA's responses to comments regarding this MRV
plan requirement. Identifying leakage pathways on a site-specific basis and developing an
approach for detecting and quantifying surface leakage through these pathways (should leakage
occur) will provide a mechanism for facilities to effectively quantify the amount of CO2 that is
sequestered.
13
-------
Comment 1-i:
Three commenters (0800, 0803, 0813) suggest that data on environmental baselines is more
relevant to a leak detection or comparable emissions control rule than a reporting rule. Two
commenters (0800, 0813) state that the reporting rule should not pertain to emissions control
because such matters will be addressed as part of other regulatory programs, including state-
based permitting of GS sites. One commenter (0813) believes that establishing a pre-injection
baseline should not be required under the reporting rule. One commenter (0803) states that the
proposed MRV requirements for establishing environmental baselines goes far beyond air
emission reporting.
Response 1-i:
In response to public comments, EPA revised this requirement so that MRV plans are now
required to provide a strategy for establishing the expected baselines. Please refer to Chapter 6 of
this document for EPA's responses to comments regarding this MRV plan requirement. EPA
agrees with commenters that the rule requires detection of surface leakage, but disagrees that
data on expected environmental baselines causes this rule to be an emissions control rule or goes
beyond reporting. Rather, data on baselines is used in conjunction with the facility's monitoring
strategy in order to detect and quantify surface leakage should it occur. EPA clarifies that this
rule does not require facilities to control GHGs.
Comment 1-i:
One commenter (0816) requests that EPA clearly state that the MRV plan constitutes a
recordkeeping requirement, but it does not, in and of itself, constitute regulatory monitoring
requirements, because the performance of the methods discussed in the MRV plan technical
support document (TSD) has not been evaluated for compliance.
Response 1-i:
EPA agrees that the rule contains recordkeeping requirements, but notes that facilities subject to
subpart RR are required to implement the EPA approved MRV plan. Facilities that fail to
monitor or report data according to the requirements of this rule could potentially be subject to
an enforcement action by EPA under the CAA. The monitoring specified in the facility's MRV
plan will depend on geologic and other site-specific characteristics, and therefore EPA is not
prescribing the use of particular monitoring technologies in this rule. In addition, more generally,
EPA may use any credible evidence to determine compliance with applicable requirements under
the CAA.
14
-------
2 Definition of Reporting Facilities
2.1 Definition of Source Category
Comment 2.1-a:
One commenter (0788) states that EPA is correct to cover both onshore and offshore injection of
CO2 under this action.
Response 2.1-a:
EPA appreciates the commenter's shared view that this rule should cover both onshore and
offshore injection of CO2. In this final rule, we have maintained the coverage as we proposed.
Comment 2.1-b:
One commenter (0798) asserts that the definition of the source category introduces confusion
and is restrictive because of inconsistent terminology used ("any" versus "all") and because of
the qualifier in the source category definition ("wells for GS or for any other purpose"). The
commenter also states that to track CO2 flow through a system, the purpose of the injection (GS
or otherwise) should not be relevant because injection systems are closed systems isolated from
the atmosphere. The commenter suggests that the following revision to text 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part 98.440 and offers that EPA could include illustrative examples in the
preamble to indicate what types of operations are included in the source category:
(a) The injection and geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide (CO2) source category comprises
any well or group of wells that inject C02 into the subsurface, which includes under a seabed
offshore. The source category consists of all wolls that inject COa into the subsurface, including
wells for geologic sequestration (GS) or for any other purpose.
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) suggests that the sentence at hand be modified,
rather than removed, to read "The source category consists of all wells that inject CO2 into the
subsurface, including wells [used] for geologic sequestration (GS) or for any other purpose."
[NOTE: Text appearing as strikethrough above appears as strikethrough tracked change text in
original document; Text appearing in [bold] above appears as inserted tracked change text in
original document.]
Response 2.1-b:
EPA drafted the proposed text in 40 CFR part 98.444(a) to provide maximum clarity. Upon
reviewing these comments, EPA understands that 40 CFR part 98.444(a) in the proposed
regulatory text may have instead created confusion. EPA has concluded that the second sentence
provides no benefit and is redundant with the first sentence and concurs with the commenter who
recommends deleting the sentence. EPA does not concur with the commenter who recommends
editing one word in the sentence because EPA has concluded that it creates confusion and
redundancy to leave the sentence in the regulatory text. Therefore, in the final regulatory text,
EPA has deleted the second sentence. This edit does not change the intent of the paragraph.
15
-------
Comment 2.1-c:
Three commenters (0792, 0802, 0816) suggest that EPA set a clear distinction between the types
of facilities covered under the proposed subpart RR by defining three types of covered
operations:
"(a) C02-E0R - as is currently practiced by operators and where C02-E0R
related pieces of equipment are intermingled with other field operations
equipment and for which GHG emissions would be accounted for only under
the applicable requirements of subpart W;
(b) CO2-EOR-GS -where the operator opts into conduct additional reporting
under the proposed subpart RR - in addition to subpart W reporting
requirements - on specific, discrete portions of the GS aspects of the operation;
and
(c) GS only - where the operation is dedicated only to the injection and
geological storage of CO2 in non-EOR geological formations, and where
reporting requirements would be spelled out solely under the proposed subpart
RR"
One commenter (0802) asserts that it is clear from the proposed subpart RR preamble that EPA
expects reporters to fall into one of these three categories, but that this does not align with EPA's
use of only two terms, GS and non-GS, and unnecessarily promotes confusion. The commenter
finds the language in proposed 40 CFR part 98.440 confusing because it defines all facilities that
inject CO2 for long-term containment as GS facilities, and then attempts to describe a set of
facilities that are not GS facilities, but nevertheless also inject CO2 for long-term containment.
Therefore it is not clear to the commenter if GS-only requirements apply to enhanced oil and gas
recovery (ER) facilities that have opted to be classified as GS facilities. Another commenter
(0816) specifically requests that EPA provide regulatory clarity for these three categories of
reporting entities.
One commenter (0816) supports EPA's stated intent to coordinate GS requirements across
relevant statutory programs in order to minimize any redundancies and alleviate the reporting
burden. The commenter recommends that EPA promulgate a reporting program that sets a clear
distinction between routine CO2-ER operations and those circumstances where the reporter also
opts-in to report GS by means that will be specified in the required MRV plan and with
consideration of - the yet to be promulgated - UIC wells classification. A fourth commenter
(0805) also supports the distinction between routine ER and GS, and provides examples of the
difference between these two types of operations, such as differences in pressure build up in the
geologic formation.
A coalition of ENGOs (0809) states that for ER opt-in GS facilities, EPA's proposal reasonably
requires basing the MRV plan on the same criteria as those developed for GS facilities that do
not also produce oil or gas. The coalition of ENGOs highlights that all of the "Tier 2" reporting
16
-------
requirements for ER facilities that wish to be GS facilities are critical to EPA's development of a
clear understanding of the effectiveness of ER/GS as a GHG mitigation technology.
Response 2.1-c:
EPA does not agree that three source categories need to be defined. EPA agrees with the ENGOs
that all of the calculation procedures, reporting and MRV plan requirements that EPA
promulgates for "CO2-ER-GS" projects to demonstrate and report GS should be the same as the
calculation procedures, reporting requirements, and MRV plan guidelines that EPA promulgates
for "GS only" projects because this is technically reasonable and is critical for EPA to
understand the efficacy of ER/GS as a GHG mitigation technology. As such, it is more efficient
and straightforward for the Agency to cover both of these types of projects under one source
category. Therefore, under today's final action, any wells that inject C02 streams for long-term
containment in subsurface geologic formations are covered by the CO2 GS source category
(subpart RR), whether or not they also conduct ER operations. On the other hand, "C02-ER"
projects do face different procedures and requirements from those projects conducting GS and
therefore do merit their own source category. Therefore, any additional wells that inject C02
streams underground are covered by the CO2 injection source category (subpart UU), whether or
not they also conduct ER operations.
EPA agrees that the proposed 40 CFR part 98.440 regulatory text may have been confusing and
has updated it in this final action in two ways to improve clarity. First, EPA has separated the
regulatory text into two subparts, as described further in Section I.E of the preamble. Second,
EPA has streamlined the text in the source category definition sections of both subparts (40 CFR
part 98.440 and 98.470). EPA has concluded that the structure in today's final regulatory action
creates a clear distinction between ER operations that do not want to report GS and ER
operations that do want to submit an MRV plan and report GS, which EPA interpreted to be the
main point of these comments.
Comment 2.1-d:
One commenter (0802) feels that the structure of the source category definition section in the
proposal ignores the likelihood that ER operations will engage in commercial-scale GS in the
immediate future. The commenter presents an example of a CO2-ER operation that, in a second
generation of project activity, injects CO2 into an underlying saline reservoir for GS using the
existing ER wells. The commenter suggests that EPA's current approach to defining "ER and
GS" as non-GS, but opting in to GS is inappropriate and will cause confusion as to how such an
operation would be categorized, or make it difficult to operate the same well first for ER-based
sequestration and then for GS-only sequestration. The commenter recommends EPA instead
directly address the case of an ER facility that engages in permanent GS as a part of ER
operation, which is different from the situation in which a facility engages in GS by continuing
to inject CO2 for GS purposes (and hence may over-pressurize a reservoir) after C02-for-ER
operations at the site have ceased.
Response 2.1-d:
EPA recognizes that ER operations are likely to be among the first projects to verify CO2 GS at a
commercial scale as a climate change mitigation technology. EPA has restructured the source
17
-------
category definition section in today's final action and has concluded that it does not ignore this
likelihood and instead provides GS projects at ER operations a clear path to comply with this
rule. With regards to second generation projects, EPA notes that today's final action is a first step
in defining the MRV requirements for C02 injection and GS projects. EPA cannot predict with
certainty how the industry will evolve in the future, and EPA may update the requirements in
today's final action in the future to adapt to real world industry conditions. At this time, under
today's final action, wells that are injecting CO2 are clearly covered by subpart RR if they meet
the source category definition in 40 CFR part 98.440.
Comment 2.1-e:
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) recommends that EPA revise 40 CFR part
98.440(b) to read:
"A facility that is subject to this rule [part 98 and meets the definition of this subpart] only
because of CO2 injection wells that do not meet the definition of GS facility in paragraph (c) of
this section is not required to report emissions under any other subpart of part 98."
[NOTE: Text appearing as strikethrough above appears as strikethrough tracked change text in
original document; Text appearing in [bold] above appears as inserted tracked change text in
original document.]
This revision would clarify the rule and help to avoid ambiguity of what "this rule" means.
Another commenter (0816) suggests that the text in 40 CFR part 98.440(b) should be revised to
read:
"(b) [CO2 injection for enhanced oil and gas recovery.] (1) [A] facility that is subject to this
rule part 98 [and meets the definition of this subpart] only because of CO2 injection wells that
do not meet the definition of geologic sequestration facility in paragraph (c) of this section is not
required to report emissions under any other subpart of part 98."
[NOTE: Text appearing as strikethrough above appears as strikethrough tracked change text in
original document; Text appearing in [bold] above appears as inserted tracked change text in
original document.]
The commenter finds the original language vague and unclear because the commenter believes
that the precise definition of "facility" is unclear. The commenter is concerned that this
regulatory text could be misinterpreted.
Response 2.1-e:
EPA agrees that proposed 40 CFR part 98.440(b) may have been confusing. The regulatory text
in this final action was reorganized, and the contents of proposed 40 CFR part 98.440(b) have
been moved to 40 CFR part 98.470(b) because they were intended to exclude only subpart UU
facilities from triggering applicability automatically in other subparts. EPA has concluded that
this reorganization carries out the intended purpose more clearly. EPA agrees that the term "this
18
-------
rule" in the regulatory text is confusing. Therefore, EPA has replaced the term "this rule" with
"this part" in today's final action.
Comment 2.1-f:
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) recommends that EPA revise 40 CFR part
98.440(c) by deleting the reference to specific phases of C02 (of a gaseous, liquid, or
supercritical CO2 stream) in the definition of the source category. The commenter argues that
such text is unnecessary and inherently suggests that other references to C02 without these
modifiers are intended to be less inclusive.
Response 2.1-f:
EPA agrees with this comment and has made the suggested edit in today's final action.
Comment 2.1-g:
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) recommends that EPA revise 40 CFR part
98.440(c) as follows:
"A facility that injects CO2 to enhance the recovery of oil or natural gas is not a
geologic sequestration facility for the purposes of this source category unless
the facility also injects the CO3 in subsurface geologic formations for long term
containment of a gaseous, liquid, or supercritical CO3 stream and chooses [to be
a geologic sequestration facility by] submitting] a monitoring, reporting, and
verification (MRV) plan to EPA that is then approved by EPA."
[NOTE: Text appearing as strikethrough above appears as strikethrough tracked change text in
original document; Text appearing in [bold] above appears as inserted tracked change text in
original document.]
The commenter states that some long-term containment of CO2 is unavoidable at all ER
operations. A second commenter (0816) also recommends and provides regulatory text to reflect
a modification to the definition of source category under this action that emphasizes the choice
made by an ER project reporter to submit an MRV plan rather than whether long-term
containment is occurring. The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) also recommends that
EPA delete 40 CFR part 98.440(c)(2) entirely because the commenter finds it confusing and
unnecessary.
Response 2.1-g:
EPA drafted the proposed 40 CFR part 98.440(c) in an attempt to be clear. EPA understands
from the above comments that the paragraph was instead confusing. Therefore, in this final
action, EPA has revised this text and provided the needed clarity. EPA disagrees with the
comments suggesting that any portion of the paragraph is unnecessary and should be deleted.
While EPA agrees that some CO2 retention occurs at ER operations, EPA has concluded that this
is not the same as "injecting the C02 stream for long-term containment." Therefore EPA has
retained this qualifying phrase in this final action. EPA understands the point made by the
19
-------
commenter that an ER operation should be covered by the subpart RR source category based on
the reporter's choice to submit an MRV plan. EPA has concluded the language in this final
action adequately emphasizes that this choice is a basis for coverage under subpart RR.
Comment 2.1-h:
One commenter (0814) inquires whether their operation, the primary intent of which is to
sequester H2S and not CO2, would meet the source category definition in 40 CFR part 98.440
since 40 CFR part 98.440(a) identifies that sources that inject C02 into the subsurface for any
purpose are subject while 40 CFR part 98.440(c)(4) and (d)(5) exempt facilities that simply
capture CO2.
Response 2.1-h:
An operation that injects a stream of H2S and CO2 underground is subject to this final rule. As
the commenter indicates, EPA specified in the proposed 40 CFR part 98.440(a) that the injection
of CO2 into the subsurface for any purpose met the proposed source category definition because
EPA concluded that all data on CO2 received for injection or sequestration - regardless of the
purpose of or use of that CO2 - would help EPA evaluate future climate change policies. That
conclusion applies in this final rule. As explained in Section I.B of the preamble, all facilities
that conduct GS of CO2 are covered under subpart RR and all other facilities that conduct
injection of CO2 are covered under subpart UU.
In today's final action, EPA removed from the regulatory text the list of activities that are not
included in the source category (proposed as 40 CFR part 98.440(d)) because we concluded that
it created confusion and is not necessary. Please see Section II.E of the preamble for a full
discussion of this change.
Comment 2.1-i:
One commenter (0793) disagrees with the EPA's proposed method of aggregating GHG
reporting of injection and GS facilities from point of generation to point of injection and
sequestration, because this methodology creates inconsistencies between the MRR and
Prevention of Significant Deterioration and the Title V Operating Permit programs under the
CAA. The commenter argues that the MRR places too much emphasis on "control," rather than
on ownership or operation of CCS equipment. The commenter further suggests that this action
addresses emissions from CO2 injection wells, CO2 leaking components, and venting devices, all
of which are outside of the scope of the PSD and Title V Permitting Programs. The commenter
also asserts that the proposed rule disregards local agency, state, or national boundaries by
requiring emission sources to report emissions aggregated based on geological boundaries, which
may require coordination of multiple local, state, and national authorities. The commenter
opines that inconsistencies will create confusion within the regulated community and make
reporting inconsistent with permits and permitting inventories, and that once EPA's Tailoring
Rule takes effect, these violations may trigger further action under EPA's High Priority Violator
Guidance.
Response 2.1-i:
20
-------
In this rule, EPA is not aggregating GHG reporting from point of generation to point of injection
and sequestration. Facilities that conduct GS would report information under subpart RR and all
other facilities that conduct CO2 injection would report information under subpart UU. Some
facilities that are affected by this final rule are required to report under multiple source
categories. Please refer to Table 2 of the preamble for a guide to other subparts recommended for
review to determine applicability.
EPA disagrees that this rule places too much emphasis on control, rather than on ownership and
operation. This rule uses the same definition of facility that is used in other subparts of the GHG
Reporting Program. Facility is defined on the basis of common ownership or common control.
EPA determined that changing the definition of facility for subparts RR and UU would confuse
reporters, rather than provide clarity. EPA disagrees that this rule will create confusion within the
regulated community that will trigger violations in other permitting programs. In developing the
GHG Reporting Program, EPA determined that the GHG Reporting Program serves a different
purpose than the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and the Title V Operating Permits, and
that conforming the definitions of facility was not appropriate. EPA therefore finalized the rule
establishing the GHG Reporting Program with a different definition of facility. For more
information, please refer to Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to
Public Comments, Volume No. 14, Subpart A: Definitions, Incorporation by Reference, and
Other Subpart A Comments (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508). Furthermore, EPA
disagrees that this rule is inconsistent with the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and the
Title V Operating Permits. Analysis of common control is a useful way to address complex
ownership arrangements and as an emerging technology, it is unclear how the business model for
GS will play out.
EPA is requiring facilities subject to subpart RR to report the mass of C02 emitted from surface
leakage (should it occur) and fugitive and vented CO2 emissions to the extent they are a
component of the GS mass balance. EPA determined that this information was necessary for a
proper accounting of the quantity of CO2 sequestered. This action is not the forum for debate on
the scope of the PSD and Title V Permitting Programs.
This rule does not require facilities to aggregate reporting on the basis of geological boundaries.
Rather, reporting is based on the definition of "facility" used by other subparts of the GHG
Reporting Program at 40 CFR part 98, subpart A. EPA notes that for facilities conducting GS,
EPA is requiring facilities reporting under subpart RR to define a MMA and monitor surface
leakage within an AMA. This is analogous to other CAA programs that require a source to
model or monitor the impacts of its air emissions on air quality some distance away from the
facility.
2.2 Stationary Source vs. Facility
Comment 2.2-a:
Two commenters (0805, 0816) express concern that EPA's proposed definition of a facility
under this action establishes a facility definition for GHG reporting purposes that is different
from the definition of "stationary source" under the CAA. These commenters suggest that the
21
-------
proposed definition of facility is problematic because, according to EPA, the primary purpose of
the MRR is to gather information that might be used to establish GHG emissions standards under
the CAA, and that the information obtained from the MRR will not be useful in developing CAA
regulatory programs that are tied to the statutory definition of stationary source. They suggest
therefore that the proposed definition of facility is inappropriate and that the basic reporting
entity should be referred to as a "stationary source" (as currently defined under the CAA) and
that EPA should revise its proposed approach to determining facilities under this action to
require information to be reported from GS operations comprising a stationary source. Two
commenters (0816, 0805) propose regulatory text edits in 40 CFR part 98.440 to address this
issue and suggest reporters reporting on stationary sources be allowed to aggregate multiple GS
stationary sources into a single GHG annual report.
One commenter (0793) suggests that the definition of facility in the proposed rule departs from
the traditional use of the three-part test to determine a single source. The commenter states that
while the MRR does not specifically revise any definition of a stationary source specific to the
PSD and Title V Programs, the MRR requires companies to report contractual agreements that in
effect control specific equipment or a specific process, which is beyond the typical definition of
stationary source tied to direct ownership and direct operation. The commenter suggests that the
MRR be revised such that aggregated emissions are consistent with the traditional three-part test
for standard stationary source permitting purposes.
Response 2.2-a:
When the GHG Reporting Program was finalized (74 FR 56260, October 30, 2010), "facility"
was used instead of "stationary source." That decision was made because "facility" aligned better
with the intention to require reporting from facilities that emit the most significant amounts of
GHG emissions while minimizing the number of reporters. EPA determined that the Title V
definition of facility was not appropriate for this GHG Reporting Program. The GHG Reporting
Program serves a different purpose than Title V programs and therefore defines a facility in a
way that is more inclusive of all large emitters. At that time, EPA also concluded that to the
extent that the definition of stationary source in the GHG Reporting Program is similar to that of
other programs, EPA may draw on general principles established under those programs, but EPA
will not be bound by precedents of other rules in implementing the GHG Reporting Program. For
additional background on facility definition, please refer to Mandatory Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments, Volume No. 14, Subpart A: Definitions,
Incorporation by Reference, and Other Subpart A Comments (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0508). We did not revisit that decision in this action, so all subparts of the GHG Reporting
Program continue to be subject to the definition of facility in 40 CFR part 98.6. EPA has
determined that it is important to maximize consistency in facility definition across the GHG
Reporting Program to minimize administrative burden. Therefore, EPA does not concur with
these comments and has not used the term "stationary source" in this final action.
2.3 Definition of Facility
Comment 2.3-a:
22
-------
One commenter (0791) asserts that EPA should not change the definition of facility or a CO2
injection and GS sites.
Response 2.3-a:
EPA interpreted this comment as support for relying on the definition of facility in 40 CFR part
98.6 that the rest of the GHG Reporting Program relies on. EPA agrees with this comment and
has clarified in the final regulatory text that the definition of facility in 40 CFR part 98.6 applies
by removing the word "facility" from the source category definition.
Comment 2.3-b:
Two commenters (0792, 0816) suggest that EPA adopt a unique facility definition for GS
operations. One commenter (0792) opines that the full reporting requirements under proposed
subpart RR should be limited only to dedicated GS aspects of the operation, including specific
discrete portions of CO2-ER facilities, as defined by operators that choose to opt-in to GS
reporting. The commenters suggest that all ER equipment be part of a subpart W reporting entity
and that the cluster of equipment associated solely with GS operations be part of the GS facility.
Therefore, GS-only and ER-GS operations should be defined on a project level under the
proposed subpart RR within boundaries that contain only equipment dedicated to GS in a certain
field or formation. One commenter (0816) states that this would require all GS projects to submit
the same level of data under the proposed subpart RR, thereby reducing the disincentive for ER
operators to opt in to the proposed subpart RR. This commenter also adds that that no new
facility definitions should be developed due to the intermingled nature of field operations.
Several comments refer to or provide a specific list of equipment and structures that should be
associated solely with GS operations. Two commenters (0816, 0800) state that the list should
only include equipment and structures on the injection side of operations: the injection and
monitoring wells, pipelines, compressors, valves, and associated equipment from the point of
receipt of the CO2 to the injection wells. One of the commenters (0816) proposes that the CO2-
ER-GS facility would not include separators, compressors, vent stacks, structures and equipment
associated with production operations (and which would be reported under subpart W). The
multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) states that in addition to equipment and structures
associated with GS operations, the list should also include the production side of operations, such
as the recapture plant, separators, compressors, vent stacks, structures and equipment associated
with production operations. Two commenters (0808, 0813) state that in the case of CO2-ER,
CO2 recapture facilities should be included in the definition of GS facility.
One commenter (0816) recommends that the definition of a GS facility include combustion
devices that are critical components of GS operations (such as compressors), and that emissions
from such equipment be reported within the GS facility boundaries in order to create a self-
contained reporting unit for monitoring and tracking of CO2. The commenter notes that for CO2-
ER-GS facilities, it is unlikely that GS-related combustion devices will be distinct from CO2-ER-
related operations combustion devices. As such, the commenter recommends retaining the
pertinent reporting requirements under subpart W or subpart C for CO2-ER-GS facilities.
Response 2.3-b:
23
-------
EPA disagrees with comments that a facility should be defined uniquely by being delineated
from onshore petroleum and natural gas production structures. Subpart W is focused on fugitive
and vented emissions from surface equipment while subparts UU and RR are focused on
quantities of C02 received and sequestered. As a result of two edits made to subparts W, UU,
and RR since proposal, whether the two groups of source categories are mutually exclusive no
longer has any bearing on the reporting efforts of ER project owners and operators. First,
facility-wide fugitive and vented emissions are no longer included as reporting requirements in
this final rule (see Section HE of the preamble for a discussion of this decision). For subparts
RR and UU, the only structures or equipment on which the source category definition depends
are injection wells. Second, under a separate action, EPA has clarified in the subpart W
rulemaking that the annual GHG report for a facility that meets the definition in 40 CFR part
98.6 shall not cover onshore petroleum and natural gas production. This means that the annual
report containing subpart RR and UU data will not include combustion emissions data for
equipment and structures that are part of subpart W1. Therefore, there is no need or reason to
delineate the two groups of source categories from one another in the GHG Reporting Program.
Instead, EPA is using the definition of facility in 40 CFR part 98.6 for the source categories in
today's final action for several reasons. First, EPA has determined that it is important to
maximize consistency in facility definition across the GHG Reporting Program to minimize
administrative burden. Second, the data will be most useful and meaningful to EPA if it is
grouped by a project, which is accomplished with this facility definition. Third, this facility
definition can be applied to both subparts UU and RR so that facilities transitioning from UU to
RR can do so seamlessly.
EPA notes that even though the subpart RR and UU source categories only depend on injection
wells, other equipment and structured are necessary for following calculation procedures. In
order to follow the subpart UU calculation procedures and reporting requirements, the facility
reporter must measure the quantity of CO2 received with equipment such as a custody transfer
meter. Likewise for subpart RR, in order to follow the subpart RR calculation procedures and
reporting requirements, the facility reporter must measure or determine: the quantities of CO2
received, injected, and produced with equipment such as flow meters; fugitive or vented
emissions from equipment located between the injection flow meter and the injection wellhead,
if any; fugitive or vented emissions from equipment located between the production flow meter
and the production wellhead, if any; and surface leakage, if any, using equipment and/or
techniques as outlined in the MRV plan. While a facility determination can only be made by a
reporter on a case-by-case basis, EPA has reviewed typical ER and GS project configurations
and has concluded that the flow meters, the wellheads, and any equipment in between will
almost certainly be on contiguous or adjacent properties, under common ownership or common
control, and grouped according to a commonsense definition of facility. Please see the final
General TSD for illustrations and descriptions of these configurations. In the unique situation
where this is not the case, however, EPA notes a reporter can use measurement equipment
located outside of the facility boundary in order to calculate the amount of CO2 received or
sequestered by the facility, as further discussed in Response 2.3-d.
1 See 40 CFR part 98.230 for further details on types of non-self-propelled equipment to reported under Subpart W.
24
-------
Comment 2.3-c:
One commenter (0796) suggests that EPA allow operators to define the "facility" for reporting
purposes as narrowly or as broadly as needed for accounting or operational purposes. Two
commenters (0792, 0816) believe that it may be necessary for a reporting entity to be defined on
a case-by-case basis.
Response 2.3-c:
EPA is using the definition of facility in 40 CFR part 98.6 for the source categories in today's
final action for the reasons articulated in Response 2.3-b. While the definition of facility is clear,
EPA recognizes that a reporter must apply the definition and determine the facility boundaries on
a case by case basis. Please see the final General TSD for illustrations and descriptions of how
facility delineations could be made given various likely ER and GS project configurations.
Comment 2.3-d:
Three commenters (0800, 0808, 0813) suggest that EPA's definition of a GS facility is too broad.
The commenters are concerned that there is a geographic disconnect between a GS facility and
MRV requirements for monitoring over a broad area beyond the fenceline of the GS facility.
One commenter (0800) finds that EPA is "unclear if CO2 recapture facilities are included in the
definition of a GS facility". The three commenters (0800, 0808, 0813) state that in addition, the
definition of "GS facility" should be limited to the immediate surface spatial extent of the
permitted facility and include all surface infrastructure that is involved in CO2 operations
(including recapture plants). Similarly, another commenter (0812) proposes a GS facility
definition that is equivalent to a proposed spatial area for monitoring. The commenter suggests
defining it as the domain identified by reservoir modeling that is expected to include the injected
CO2 during the injection period plus a buffer zone that would cover the continued migration of
the CO2 until the reservoir pressure stabilizes after injection has ceased.
Response 2.3-d:
EPA is using the definition of facility in 40 CFR part 98.6 for the source categories in today's
final action for the reasons articulated in Response 2.3-b. Meanwhile, EPA has considered the
comments and concluded that a different area (the MMA) must be defined in today's final action
to ensure adequate monitoring for potential surface leakage as limiting monitoring to the area
inside the facility boundary would not allow the facility to adequately assess or measure any
leaks. EPA recognizes that the facility will likely not be the same spatial extent as the MMA, but
a reporter can use measurement equipment located outside of the facility boundary in order to
calculate the amount of CO2 received or sequestered by the facility. Requiring monitoring
outside the fenceline of the facility can be standard practice in the CAA. Furthermore, suppliers
reporting under 40 CFR part 98 are using equipment located outside of the fenceline to measure
product quantities in some cases.
Comment 2.3-e:
One commenter (0810) believes that an adequate definition of a GS site is lacking for EPA CAA
and UIC rulemakings. In particular, the proposed subpart RR preamble uses the phrase "spatial
25
-------
area" and other related EPA rules discuss the GS "site." The site and spatial areas allude to and
discuss the plume of C02-saturated reservoir or aquifer, but then add in pressure
fronts/boundaries to these definitions. Significant operational and legal issues exist related to
what definition is promulgated from these various rulemaking processes of what constitutes the
GS site.
Response 2.3-e:
EPA is using the definition of facility in 40 CFR part 98.6 for the source categories in today's
final action for the reasons articulated in Response 2.3-b. In addition, today's final action defines
areas for monitoring geologically sequestered C02 under subpart RR. This action has been
designed so that a reporter can comply without disrupting operations. It is a reporting program -
not a permitting or control program. EPA recognizes that a GS project may face future
operational and legal issues, but EPA has determined that those are outside of the scope of
today's final action. EPA refers the commenter to the Report of the Interagency Task Force on
Carbon Capture and Storage for further discussion of this issue.2
Comment 2.3-f:
One commenter (0796) suggests that if the EPA finalizes a rule with a reporting threshold,
"facility" should be defined in terms of the facility's UIC permit. A second commenter (TRANS-
VA-05) agrees that facility definition should be consistent with requirements under other
regulatory programs for similar operations.
The commenter (0796) suggests that for operations not covered by the SDWA, EPA should look
to geologic or hydrologic connections to determine whether a group of wells is a single facility.
The commenter opines that operators should be able to retain the flexibility to submit reports for
as narrow or broad a subset of its wells as desired by the operator for efficiency purposes. The
multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) similarly suggests that it would be appropriate for
EPA to allow reliance on sufficient existing facility delineations, particularly for facilities that
already inject into reservoirs with defined and understood seals and traps, and should coordinate
as appropriate with state regulators.
One commenter (0783) asserts that it may be no less work (i.e., cost) for a facility to report at the
well-level and that some companies may even prefer this method. The commenter appreciates
the reporting level options currently proposed for proposed subpart RR.
Response 2.3-f:
EPA is using the definition of facility in 40 CFR part 98.6 for the source categories in today's
final action for the reasons articulated in Response 2.3-b. EPA considered defining the facility
by UIC permit, which is issued at the individual well under the UIC Class VI and Class II
programs. EPA decided against this approach because data on CO2 received and sequestered is
not meaningful at the individual well level and because it would be unreasonable for reporters to
submit hundreds or thousands of annual reporters under the GHG Reporting Program.
2 http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/policy/ccs_task_force.html
26
-------
EPA understands the point made by commenters that wells connected to a single geologic or
hydrologic connection/reservoir constitute a single operation, and EPA agrees with the logic.
EPA has reviewed typical ER and GS project configurations and has concluded that wells
injecting into the same reservoir are generally located on contiguous or adjacent property under
common ownership or common control and grouped according to a commonsense definition of
facility. As such, the point made by the commenter is addressed by the relying on the definition
of facility in 40 CFR part 98.6.
Comment 2.3-g:
In light of concerns regarding uncontrolled migration of CO2, one commenter (0811) suggests
that EPA should define a GS facility as all injection wells within a given sequestration reservoir
that are bounded in the horizontal and vertical dimensions. The commenter argues that wells that
are not within a bounded reservoir should not be allowed.
Response 2.3-g:
The commenter's request to require injection only in geologic structures that exhibit clear
vertical and lateral confinement through subpart RR is out of scope of this reporting rulemaking.
Subpart RR requires monitoring and reporting for the purposes of quantifying GS and does not
regulate site selection; facilities will have to comply with applicable permitting requirements for
site selection. Please see the UIC Program website for further information on GS site
permitting.3 Subpart RR has been designed so that operators can comply without disrupting or
delaying operations. The data collected through this program will inform future CAA regulations
and policies.
Comment 2.3-h:
Two commenters (0806, 0807) suggest that EPA revise the definition of a CO2 injection facility
(non-GS facility) to be consistent with subpart W by allowing the option to report on a basin-
wide or state-wide level. Although they state that they do not oppose the proposed definition of
CO2 injection facility, commenter (0807) specifically states that allowing the option for basin
level reporting would increase flexibility to those reporters subject to both subpart RR and W.
Both commenters (0806, 0807) note that by allowing ER operators to focus on a single definition
of a facility, this change would reduce burden on ER operators and allow for the streamlining of
data gathering and reporting under both subpart W and RR. A third commenter (0816) suggests
that a GS reporting entity be defined by the equipment within a boundary of a field or formation,
and should not be aggregated to the basin level. One commenter (0812) opines that defining GS
facility as the geographic boundary of a hydrocarbon basin is inappropriate, and another
commenter (0791) agrees that basin level reporting is not appropriate.
One commenter (0811) expresses concern that EPA chose not to group wells in saline formations
by "field." The commenter interpreted this decision as a view that grouping wells in saline
formations is inappropriate. The commenter states that aggregating the injection wells as part of
a GS facility definition is necessary because it provides a comprehensive picture of CO2 injection
3 http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm
27
-------
into a well defined geologic structure. One commenter (0114) opines that EPA fails to provide
any justification for the proposal.
Response 2.3-h:
EPA is using the definition of facility in 40 CFR part 98.6 for the source categories in today's
final action for the reasons articulated in Response 2.3-b. EPA considered defining the facility
by state or basin but decided against it because data on CO2 received and sequestered is most
useful to EPA at a project level, because some projects span multiple states, and because basins
are not applicable to saline aquifers reporting under subpart RR.
EPA recognizes that an ER operation that meets the applicability requirements of subpart W,
which was finalized in a separate action from this one, will be required to apply a different
definition of facility to onshore petroleum and natural gas production based on basin-level
aggregation. Such an ER operation will thus be required to submit multiple annual reports to
EPA under the GHG Reporting Program.
EPA agrees with comments that a facility covered by subpart RR should be an aggregation of
wells. EPA has concluded and clarifies here that it would be inappropriate to aggregate saline
formations wells by "field" because saline formations are not delineated by "fields" as oil and
gas reservoirs are.
2.4 Opt-in for ER
Comment 2.4-a:
Three commenters (0805, 0788, TRANS-VA-07) and a coalition of ENGOs (0809/TRANS-VA-
01) support EPA's proposed approach for ER facilities to be allowed to choose to be treated as
GS facilities by meeting "Tier 2" monitoring and reporting requirements.
One commenter (TRANS-VA-01) notes that the opt-in option for ER facilities recognizes the
important role of ER in improving sequestration technologies and that the provision will provide
new data leading to a more robust understanding of geological CO2 retention processes. One
commenter (0805) and a coalition of ENGOs (0809) point out that ER facilities that are granted
UIC Class II permits may want to add a layer of monitoring and reporting requirements so that
they can take advantage of future opportunities for credit or certifications that may come under a
Federal GHG policy.
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) commends EPA for its efforts to reduce the
reporting burden for ER operations by allowing the option to choose between reporting as either
CO2-ER facilities or CO2-ER-GS facilities.
Response 2.4-a:
EPA appreciates the commenters' shared view that ER operations should be allowed to choose to
submit an MRV plan to EPA and report GS under subpart RR. EPA agrees with the comment
that such an approach recognizes the important role of ER in the developing GS industry. EPA
has retained the general ER opt-in provision in the final rule.
28
-------
EPA notes that an update has been made to the source category definition in 40 CFR part 98.440
to align this final action with the UIC Class VI rule, which EPA is finalizing in a separate action.
The UIC Class VI rule specifies criteria that an injection well must meet to receive a UIC Class
VI permit, and these criteria also clearly relate to a well that injects a CO2 stream for long-term
containment in subsurface geologic formations. Therefore, EPA has concluded that a well
permitted as Class VI under the UIC program meets the subpart RR source category definition,
and this is stated in 40 CFR part 98.440(b) so that UIC Class VI permit holders can easily and
unambiguously determine applicability to the GHG Reporting Program. As fully explained in
the UIC Class VI rule, EPA has concluded that some ER wells may meet the UIC Class VI
criteria and obtain a Class VI permit. Such UIC Class VI ER operations are not subject to the
opt-in provision in this final rule and are required to submit an MRV plan for EPA approval to
report GS.
With respect to the comment about future credits and certification, EPA notes that this is a data
collection rule under the CAA and no actions regarding credits or certification are outlined or
discussed.
Comment 2.4-b:
One commenter (0802) notes that while it is appropriate for EPA to require ER facilities that
intend to engage in long term containment to submit MRV plans and obtain EPA's approval of
their plans, it is not appropriate to condition their status as GS facilities on EPA's plan approval.
The commenter states that no such condition applies to GS-only facilities.
Response 2.4-b:
EPA is clarifying here that in order for any facility to report GS in the GHG Reporting Program,
it must receive EPA approval of an MRV plan. This is equally true for "GS-only" facilities and
"ER facilities that intend to engage in" GS. EPA disagrees that ER facilities should be able to
achieve GS facility status without an EPA approved MRV plan. As further explained in response
2.4-a, EPA is generally allowing ER operators the flexibility to choose for themselves whether to
submit an MRV plan for EPA approval in order to report GS.
EPA agrees that the definition of a GS facility may have been confusing in the proposed rule. In
today's final action, EPA has revised the subpart RR source category definition and has deleted
the word "facility" from the text to increase clarity.
Comment 2.4-c:
One commenter (0805) suggests that if an ER facility opts to become a GS facility under the
proposed subpart RR, this decision should not have any implications as to how the affected
injection wells are regulated under the UIC Program. The commenter summarizes comments
submitted to EPA under the UIC Class VI rulemaking process and requests that EPA address the
comments in today's final action, in order to clarify whether unavoidably sequestered CO2
causes an ER operation to be considered GS even though the ER operator has not opted to be
treated as GS under the GHG Reporting Program.
29
-------
Response 2.4-c:
The UIC Class VI rulemaking is a separate action from today's action. ER injection well
regulation under the UIC Program is outside of the scope of today's rulemaking. The commenter
should look to the UIC Class VI rulemaking to see the requirements that have been finalized for
UIC Class VI wells. As further explained in response 2.4-a, EPA is generally allowing ER
operators the flexibility to choose for themselves whether to submit an MRV plan for EPA
approval in order to report GS.
2.5 Research and Development (R&D) Definition/Exemption
Comment 2.5-a:
A coalition of ENGOs (0809) notes that the proposed rule is ambiguous about whether all R&D
activities are exempt from all reporting and monitoring requirements, or whether the exemption
extends only to small bench scale R&D projects. Furthermore, the coalition of ENGOs believes
it is unclear whether both "Tier 1" and "Tier 2" requirements are exempted for R&D projects.
The coalition of ENGOs suggests that EPA clarify both the definition of R&D, as well as the
extent of exemption that is allowed. The coalition of ENGOs (0809) and two commenters (0806,
0810) suggest that, at a minimum, "Tier 1" reporting requirements should be applicable to all
R&D projects.
Response 2.5-a:
The R&D exemption and the R&D definition that were proposed in subpart RR were intended to
apply to "Tier 2" (now subpart RR) requirements only. After reviewing these comments, EPA
understands that the text about the R&D exemption may have been confusing. In today's final
action, "Tier 1" requirements and provisions have been moved to subpart UU, and "Tier 2"
requirements and provisions remain in subpart RR. See Section HE of the preamble for a full
discussion of the rationale for this restructuring. In today's final action, EPA has retained the GS
R&D exemption provisions and definition in subpart RR and has not moved them to subpart UU.
Comment 2.5-b:
Three commenters (0806, TRANS-VA-04, 0810) and a coalition of ENGOs (0809/TRANS-VA-
01) disagree with EPA's exclusion of R&D facilities from reporting under the proposed subpart
RR and affirm that these projects should be covered. Two of the commenters (0806, 0810)
oppose the exclusion on the basis that it is unwarranted and counter-intuitive. The other
commenters point out that information from early R&D projects is important for determining the
appropriateness and efficacy of surface and subsurface monitoring methods, and that the projects
represent an opportunity to test and verify EPA's MRV approach. The commenters also state that
the exemption for all R&D is directly contradictory to EPA's stated objective of gaining
understanding in the near term about the potential and effectiveness of GS alternatives and
airside monitoring techniques because in the near term R&D projects are the only source of such
information. Finally, they assert that large R&D projects will provide the most learning about
sequestration potential, and failing to ask for information from them would be a lost opportunity
for EPA.
30
-------
Three commenters (0803, 0790, 0807) support EPA's exemption of R&D projects.
Response 2.5-b:
In today's final action, EPA agrees with the commenters that support a mechanism for R&D
projects to be exempt from subpart RR monitoring and reporting requirements and is providing
one in this final rule. For a full discussion of the R&D project exemption process, please see
Section II.B of the preamble. EPA has determined that the exemption of R&D projects is
warranted and intuitive because some early R&D projects are focused on testing specific
scientific issues or monitoring techniques rather than verifying GS.
As stated in the preamble to the proposal and in the preamble to today's final action, EPA is
finalizing this rule to monitor the growth and efficacy of GS and to evaluate relevant policy
options. The Agency is mainly focused on evaluating policy options for demonstration and
commercial GS projects and has concluded that it would not be as useful to the Agency at this
time to evaluate policy options for projects that meet our definition of R&D project - whether
the projects are large or small, near term or further in the future. In addition, EPA has concluded
that it will be most useful to the Agency to monitor the growth and efficacy of GS at projects
focused on verifying GS rather than at projects focused on testing specific scientific issues or
monitoring techniques.
EPA disagrees that any projects are needed to test or verify EPA's MRV approach because the
Agency has full confidence in the MRV approach finalized in today's action. We have designed
the MRV plan provisions to be site-specific, flexible, adaptive to future technology
developments, and effective at demonstrating with certainty that the CO2 injected underground is
staying underground.
Comment 2.5-c:
Seven commenters (0803, 0806, 0807, 0808, 0816/TRANS-VA-05, 0810, 0813) and the multi-
stakeholder discussion group (0799) suggest that EPA should not limit the definition of R&D to
only those that receive federal funding, as the definition is too narrow. One commenter (0816)
suggests that a broader definition will encourage research and innovation in the emerging
technology field of CCS. This commenter also provides EPA with a modified definition of R&D
reflecting this point of view. Two commenters (0806, 0810) disagree with limiting R&D
projects to only those that are federally supported because this would be a disincentive to the
private sector in pursuing and undertaking valuable R&D GS projects. One commenter (0803)
states that some R&D projects could receive state or academic funding. Commenter 0807
suggests that EPA expand the proposed definition of R&D to allow for any R&D projects to be
exempt (provided that they meet some yet to be determined criteria).
Several commenters provide examples of scenarios that should be covered by a "federally
funded" term. One commenter (0790) suggests that any amount of federal or state funding for
CCS research purposes should allow a project to qualify for R&D exemption, including federal
grants to monitor groundwater long term for research purposes. One commenter (0790) suggests
that EPA maintain the R&D status of projects if federal support has been temporarily
31
-------
discontinued and the source expects additional federal support to be forthcoming. Requiring
R&D facilities to obtain an interim GS status (if funding is temporarily stopped) would create a
significant financial disincentive for further participation in federal R&D program and slow
down the advancement of needed R&D. Two commenters (0813, 0800) request that EPA clarify
whether projects receiving tax credits, low-interest loans, and other incentives would qualify for
the exemption as R&D projects.
One commenter (0813/TRANS-VA-02) and a coalition of ENGOs (0809) note that all CCS
demonstration plants currently operating today or being planned in the future would be part of
the R&D facilities, as defined by EPA in the proposed rule, because they all receive (or will
receive) some amount of federal support. A coalition of ENGOs (0809) state that this results in a
blanket exemption for all GS projects, which is a significant loophole of the requirements in the
proposed action.
One commenter (0788) is unsure that there is a significant benefit or sufficient rationale provided
in the proposed rule for excluding R&D projects that are supported by the federal government.
Response 2.5-c:
The Agency agrees with commenters that an R&D exemption should not be limited to projects
receiving Federal funding because there are non-Federal funding sources which could fund GS
R&D projects. For example, sources of funding that may indicate that a project is conducting GS
R&D include Federal, State, and academic sources. Funding from the R&D budget of a private
sector entity may also indicate that a project is conducting GS R&D. EPA is not requiring that a
GS R&D project be federally funded in order to be exempt from subpart RR. EPA agrees that a
GS R&D project may receive funding from states, the private sector, or academia. EPA
recognizes that a GS project could be financed through grants, tax credits, and low-interest loans,
or it may have a more complex situation (such as federal funding that lapses but is expected to
resume) that needs to be considered individually. In order for EPA to have basic information
about projects operating under an R&D exemption, EPA is requiring that a project requesting an
R&D exemption include information on the source and type of funding of the project in the
request. See Section HE of the preamble for a full discussion on EPA's rationale for excluding
R&D projects from subpart RR and for making the decisions that are described in this response.
With respect to the concern that excluding R&D projects creates a loophole in this action, EPA
notes that only R&D projects would be exempted from subpart RR. Therefore, EPA does not
agree that the R&D exemption process will result in a blanket exemption for all operating and
planned projects.
Comment 2.5-d:
Two commenters (0788, 0800) suggest that if federally supported R&D projects have to report
under this subpart, then additional federal support should be provided to cover the reporting
costs. One of them commenters (0800) believes that EPA should recognize that existing CCS
R&D projects with federal funding have established budgets and the funding needed for these
reporting activities may not be available.
32
-------
Response 2.5-d:
Whether federally funded projects get more funding to cover the cost of reporting as the result of
this rule is outside of the scope of today's final action. For information on the costs of this action,
please see Chapter 10 of this document and the Economic Impact Analysis for this final action.
Comment 2.5-e:
One commenter (0788) notes that by going through the reporting process, federally supported
R&D projects could help the private sector to quickly learn what their reporting responsibilities
would be once they deploy commercial CCS projects. The commenter notes that the rationale for
DOE supported CCS R&D projects is to advance the state-of-the-art with respect to CCS, and
that in the commenter's mind, that mandate extends to learning how to comply with all relevant
laws and regulations. Two commenters (0806, 0810) opine that projects that are federally funded
projects are in the business of gathering data anyway and that they should report under the
proposed rule solely because they are getting federal funding. A fourth commenter (0800)
believes that R&D projects are very important to the development of CCS as a commercial scale
GHG mitigation technology and supports R&D incorporation into the reporting requirements at
the demonstration scale as a test bed for MRV plans.
Response 2.5-e:
EPA disagrees that any projects are needed to test or verify EPA's MRV approach because the
Agency has full confidence in the MRV approach finalized in today's action. We have designed
the MRV plan provisions to be site-specific, flexible, adaptive to future technology
developments, and effective at demonstrating with certainty that the CO2 injected underground is
staying underground. EPA has concluded that it is appropriate to allow GS R&D projects to
exempt from subpart RR. See Section II.B and II.E of the preamble for a full discussion of the
rationale for maintaining a GS R&D exemption process. In general, however, EPA expects that
the industry and regulators will continue to gain valuable information from R&D projects.
Comment 2.5-f:
Two commenters (0808, 0813) recommend that EPA define an R&D project as a facility that is
engaged in R&D, as opposed to commercial operations. One commenter (0803) suggests
defining R&D as a facility that is "engaged in research and development rather than commercial
operation 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."
Response 2.5-f:
EPA does not agree that the recommendation offered by the first two commenters is an
appropriate definition because it is vague and circular. EPA agrees that the language
recommended by the third commenter is true and that projects that are not R&D projects, such as
commercial GS operations, are not eligible for the exemption, but has concluded that it is not
sufficient because it leaves out important information describing R&D projects. Therefore, no
edit was made to today's final rule as a result of these comments.
33
-------
To the extent that the language proposed by these commenters excludes a Federally funded
limitation, EPA agrees that an R&D exemption should not be limited to projects receiving
Federal funding. For the rationale on this conclusion, please see Response 2.5-c in this
document.
Comment 2.5-g:
Two commenters (0798, 0816), a coalition of ENGOs (0809), and the multi-stakeholder
discussion group (0799) suggest that the definition of R&D should be based on a specific
quantity threshold in order to reduce the burden on small R&D projects. One commenter (0798)
recommends the threshold be set at 200,000 tons per year, which would cover pilot plants that
handle the full CO2 output captured from a typical ethanol facility. Another commenter (0816)
recommends a threshold of 100,000 tons of CO2 per year received from off-site sources. A
coalition of ENGOs (0809) and a multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) recommend an
injection threshold of 25,000 metric tons per year. One ENGO recommends an injection
threshold of 25,000 metric tons over the lifetime of the project. One commenter (0816) and the
multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) note that collecting data from projects below the
recommended threshold will add disproportionately to costs while yielding little value.
Response 2.5-g:
In today's final action, EPA is not basing the R&D definition or the R&D exemption mechanism
on a threshold. It would be challenging to define a threshold for GS R&D projects because
project size could vary depending on the R&D goals and other factors such as availability and
source of CO2. Therefore, as explained fully in Section II.E of the preamble to this action, EPA
is establishing a process through which GS R&D projects can apply for an exemption from
subpart RR. This approach allows GS R&D projects to exempt from subpart RR regardless of
size. Projects applying for an exemption must submit information on planned annual CO2
injection volumes, and EPA will take this information into consideration in determining if a
project is an R&D project. The exemption for R&D projects and subpart UU cease reporting
provisions discussed in Chapter 8 of this document ensure that projects injecting small amounts
of CO2 will not be disproportionately burdened by the reporting requirements.
Comment 2.5-h:
A coalition of ENGOs (0809) suggests that EPA include R&D projects in the source category
(above their recommended 25,000 ton threshold) but allow projects to be exempt subject to
approval by EPA. This would ensure that most R&D projects are included in the source
category, but certain R&D projects can be excluded after an exemption is granted by EPA.
Meanwhile, four commenters (0803, 0816, 0800, 0813/TRANS-VA-02) recommend that an
R&D project should be excluded from the source category definition unless they choose to opt-
in.
Response 2.5-h:
EPA agrees with comments that the most effective and sensible way to design the R&D
exemption process is for the default to be that all wells injecting C02 underground for long term
containment meet the source category definition and only the wells in those projects that EPA
34
-------
determines are R&D projects be exempt. For a full discussion of the waiver criteria and the
Agency's evaluation process, see Section II.B of the preamble.
Comment 2.5-i:
A coalition of ENGOs (0809) recommends that revisions be made to 40 CFR part 98.440 and 40
CFR part 98.441 to address the R&D exemption mechanism.
Response 2.5-i:
EPA agrees with the comment that it would be more clear to amend 40 CFR 98.440 (source
category definition) with the provisions for how an R&D facility can apply to be exempt from
the definition of the subpart RR source category. EPA has made this edit in today's final rule.
EPA does not agree that an amendment is needed in 40 CFR 98.441 (reporting threshold),
because the R&D waiver process is not related to a specific threshold. Therefore, EPA has not
made an edit to 40 CFR 98.441 in today's final rule.
Comment 2.5-i:
One commenter (0790) suggests that EPA provide a transition time for R&D facilities. Once
such facilities are no longer considered R&D facilities, the commenter believes that they should
be allowed at least one year to prepare for the monitoring and reporting requirements under the
proposed subpart RR.
Response 2.5-i:
EPA agrees that a project should be allowed some time to develop an MRV plan for submission
to EPA after it becomes subject to subpart RR. The deadlines outlined in today's final action
provide a GS project with up to 360 days from the date it becomes subject to subpart RR to
develop and submit an MRV plan. EPA notes, however, that it must continue monitoring the
mass of CO2 received. Facilities that make a submission to EPA in support of an exemption are
subject to subpart RR until the exemption decision is made and report basic information on CO2
received under subpart RR. If the exemption request is denied or when an exemption expires, the
facility must submit a proposed MRV plan to EPA within 180 days, and may request one
extension of up to an additional 180 days.
Comment 2.5-k:
Two commenters (0816, 0811) and the multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) recommend
that pilot tests, test injection wells for commercial GS projects, and site characterization tests be
included in the definition of R&D project because developing a site characterization and realistic
models to predict the movement of C02 over time would be problematic and burdensome for
such tests. One commenter (0811) provides the example of a test that injects a one-time volume
of 10,000 tons of C02 for the purposes of evaluating reservoir characteristics where it may not be
possible to develop an MRV plan for such a well. In this example, the commenter points out that
without the information from the test well, it may be impossible to develop the site
characterization and realistic models to predict CO2 movement over time. This commenter
suggests that a test injection well could be defined as one that injects a fixed one-time amount
35
-------
over a defined, limited timeframe as per local considerations. The multi-stakeholder discussion
group (0799) also provides the example of a test that injects up to 25,000 tons of C02 or a C02
stream to assist in identifying, evaluating or characterizing a potential site to be used for GS or
for enhanced recovery of oil or natural gas.
Response 2.5-k:
EPA has addressed this comment by including projects for the purpose of investigating injection
verification in the definition of R&D project. This includes research and short duration CO2
injection tests conducted as a precursor to long-term storage. See Section II.B of the preamble
for a full discussion of the GS R&D exemption process in today's final action.
2.6 Not Included in the Source Category
Comment 2.6-a:
One commenter (0788) and a coalition of ENGOs (0809) agree with the proposed exclusion of
certain cement production processes and other techniques that do not involve subsurface
injection of CO2. The commenters do not support the delay of this rulemaking while research is
continued on the other processes. One commenter (0788) states that the research community
needs more time to perform rigorous life cycle assessments of these processes to have a firm
understanding of the degree to which they permanently isolate CO2 from the atmosphere.
Response 2.6-a:
EPA appreciates the commenters' shared view that certain cement production processes and
other techniques be excluded from this final action. No change has been made to this exclusion
in this final action.
Comment 2.6-b:
One commenter (0774) suggests that the captured CO2 could be used in carbon fiber
technologies. One commenter (0479) requests to know EPA's position on carbon capture by
algae and further conversion to biofuels. The commenter asserts that the technology is available
and well tested for reducing GHG emissions significantly.
Response 2.6-b:
EPA has concluded that CO2 captured in carbon fiber technologies or by algae are not
appropriate for the C02 GS source category in today's final action. EPA has concluded that the
research community needs more time to perform rigorous life cycle assessments of these end
uses to have a firm understanding of the degree to which they permanently isolate C02 from the
atmosphere. No changes have been made to this final action as a result of these comments.
Comment 2.6-c:
One commenter (0805) asserts that there are fundamental differences between the anthropogenic
CO2 production industry and the natural CO2 production industry, and that these differences
merit unique treatment under EPA's reporting rule. The commenter also asserts that, since the
36
-------
anthropogenic CO2 production industry could grow rapidly as GHG emissions become more
significantly regulated, it may be useful for EPA to have an annual reporting requirement for
only anthropogenic CO2 source production in order to track the industry's development and help
determine when the industry may need to be regulated under the CAA. Conversely, the
commenter asserts that the natural CO2 production industry is quite small and that there is no
reason to believe that the industry will experience significant growth in the future, especially
once the anthropogenic CO2 industry starts to grow rapidly. As such, the commenter does not
find it reasonable for EPA to impose annual production reporting requirements on the natural
CO2 production industry when such data is likely to remain the same year after year. The
commenter believes that if EPA thinks it needs production data from natural C02 producers, it
should be requested on a one-time basis and EPA should be confident that the data will be
accurate for years to come. The commenter also asserts that natural source production data are
already available to the public through state reporting.
Another commenter (0788) asserts that it is appropriate for the EPA to require that CO2 injected
for ER be reported regardless of whether the C02 comes from an anthropogenic source or a
natural CO2 dome. The commenter suggests that GS using naturally sourced CO2 should not
qualify as a GHG mitigation action.
Response 2.6-c:
The CO2 production source category is defined under subpart PP of the GHG Reporting Program
at 40 CFR part 98.420(a), and whether the natural C02 production industry is covered by subpart
PP is outside of the scope of today's action.
EPA agrees with the comment that both naturally sourced CO2 and anthropogenic CO2 should be
covered and reported under subparts RR and UU. EPA has concluded that it needs data on C02
from both types of sources because they are both GHGs that will play a role in CCS and that
EPA needs to consider when evaluating options to address climate change. Therefore, naturally
sources CO2 continues to be covered in this final rule, and no change was made as a result of
these comments.
Comment 2.6-d:
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) asserts that the source category should exclude
natural gas or other formation fluids, which are often re-injected back into the field and may
contain some CO2. The commenter advises that this type of incidental CO2 injection should not
be subject to this action as it is not covered under the definition of "carbon dioxide stream." The
commenter recommends that the reinjection of such a stream be included in the list proposed in
40 CFR part 98.440(d). Another commenter (0816) explains that in many situations produced
natural gas or other formation fluids, which may have some level of CO2 concentration (typically
15%) are directly, or after minimal treatment, reinjected into the field. They state that the "Tier
1" reporting requirements for these situations would represent an unintended expansion in the
scope of the reporting rule and pose a significant burden. The commenter therefore proposes this
language to be added to 40 CFR part 98.440(d): "(8) Injection of CO2 that is incidental to
production and reinjection of natural gas or other formation fluids."
37
-------
Response 2.6-d:
EPA interprets the above comment as recommending that EPA should only collect data under
subparts UU and RR on CO2 that was also reported under subpart PP in order to assemble the
complete picture of the CCS system. EPA agrees with this principle and therefore uses the term
"CO2 stream" in the source category definitions of subparts RR and UU. The term "CO2 stream"
is defined in 40 CFR part 98.6 and is used in the source category definition of subpart PP. As
such, an owner or operator of an injection well who can trace the injected CO2 with certainty to a
source that is not subject to the reporting requirements of subpart PP can conclude that the
injection well is not injecting a "CO2 stream" and therefore does not meet the definition of the
source category in subpart UU or RR.
For example, if a reporter produces natural gas from a natural gas production well and re-injects
some of that produced natural gas without processing it first to pressurize the reservoir, the
injection well would not be covered by subparts UU or RR even if the gas contains some C02.
This is because the natural gas production well is not covered under subpart PP and does not
produce a "C02 stream." In such a situation, the reporter should keep records that trace the
injected CO2 to its source. However, EPA notes that natural gas processing facilities that separate
C02 and other contaminants from natural gas are subject to the reporting requirements of subpart
PP and do produce a "CO2 stream." Therefore, in the current example, the injection well meets
the definition of the source category in subpart UU or RR if the produced natural gas is
processed and separated from CO2 and the resulting "CO2 stream" is injected. EPA also notes
that the reporter of any well that injects C02 underground must assume that the C02 meets the
definition of a "CO2 stream" unless the reporter can trace the injected CO2 with certainty to a
source other than a "C02 stream" as specified in 40 CFR part 98.444(a)(5) and 98.474(a)(4) of
this final action.
In today's final action, EPA removed from the regulatory text the list of activities that are not
included in the source category (proposed as 40 CFR part 98.440(d)) because we concluded that
it created confusion and is not necessary. Please see Section II.E of the preamble for a full
discussion of this change. Therefore, the commenter's recommendation to explicitly exclude
reinjected natural gas or other formation fluids from the source category was not implemented in
this final rule. EPA has concluded that the fact that reinjected natural gas or other formation
fluids are excluded from the source category definitions in some cases is clear from the use of
the term "CO2 stream" in 40 CFR part 98.440(a) and 40 CFR part 98.474(a) and is further
clarified in this response to comments.
Comment 2.6-e:
One commenter (0803) asks EPA to change "precipitated calcium carbonate" to "precipitated
carbonates" in section 40 CFR part 98.440(d)(6) because other cations, such as magnesium, can
form precipitated carbonates that can sequester CO2.
Response 2.6-e:
In today's final action, EPA removed from the regulatory text the list of activities that are not
included in the source category (proposed as 40 CFR part 98.440(d)) because we concluded that
it created confusion and is not necessary. Please see Section II.E of the preamble for a full
38
-------
discussion of this change. Therefore, the commenter's recommendation to amend an activity in
that list was not implemented in this final rule. EPA notes, however, that it is clear from 40 CFR
part 98.440(a) and 98.470(a) that precipitated carbonates do not meet the source category
definitions in this rule because they are not involved in the injection of C02 underground.
2.7 Other Definitions Used in Subpart RR
Comment 2.7-a:
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) suggests that EPA define CO2 capture as "the
initial separation and removal of a CO2 stream from a manufacturing process, flue gas, a fuel
source or any other process for purposes of supplying CO2 for commercial applications or to
maintain custody of a CO2 stream in order to sequester or otherwise inject it underground." The
commenter took this definition from 40 CFR part 98.420(a)(1), definition of subpart PP CO2
supplier category. (74 FR 56260, 56506 (October 30, 2009)).
Response 2.7-a:
EPA has concluded that the term "CO2 capture" does not need to be defined in subpart RR or
subpart UU. Subparts RR and UU focus on GS and the injection of CO2, and do not use the term
"CO2 capture." No change was made to this final action as a result of this comment.
Comment 2.7-b:
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) suggests that EPA define CO2 production as
"using wells to extract or produce a CO2 stream for purposes of supplying CO2 for commercial
applications or to extract and maintain custody of a CO2 stream in order to sequester or otherwise
inject it underground," as defined in 40 CFR part 98.420(a)(2) definition of subpart PP CO2
supplier category. (74 FR 56260, 56506 (October 30, 2009)).
Response 2.7-b:
EPA has concluded that the term "CO2 production" does not need to be defined in subpart RR or
subpart UU. Subparts RR and UU focus on GS and the injection of C02, and do not use the term
"CO2 production." No change was made to this final action as a result of this comment.
Comment 2.7-c:
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) suggests that the rule include definitions of
"Underground Injection Control permit" and "Underground Injection Control program."
The commenter suggests that UIC permit should be defined as a permit issued EPA or a State
pursuant to the applicable UIC program as defined in Section 1422(d) of the SDWA, 42 USC
§§300h—1.
The commenter suggests that UIC program should be defined as "the program established or
approved by EPA pursuant to Sections 1421 through 1425 of the SDWA, 42 USC §§300h -
39
-------
300h-4. The applicable UIC program with respect to a State is defined in Section 1422(d) of the
SDWA, 42 USC §§300h-l "
Response 2.7-c:
EPA agrees that UIC permit and the UIC program should be defined in subpart RR, and EPA has
included definitions of these terms in today's final action. EPA used definitions for these terms
that were developed by the Office of Water (OW) rather than those suggested in the comment, in
order to maintain consistency across the Agency and the rules.
Comment 2.7-d:
One commenter (0810) requests that in the definition for source category for subpart RR, EPA
should define the phrase "long-term containment" in terms of a duration threshold (i.e., number
of years that would be considered "long-term containment").
Response 2.7-d:
EPA does not agree that the term "long-term containment" needs a definition because it is
commonly understood to mean the indefinite future. No change was made to this final action as a
result of this comment.
40
-------
3 Reporting Threshold
3.1 Thresholds for "Tier 1" Reporting
Comment 3.1-a:
Six commenters (0788, 0790, 0042, 0067, 0186, 0403) and a coalition of ENGOs (0809) support
the 'all-in' reporting requirement that would require all entities that inject CO2 to report "Tier 1"
data. The Sierra Club mass mailers (0023) state that the rule should cover all facilities. One
commenter (0790) notes that "Tier 1" requirements pose a minimal burden and therefore all-in
reporting is reasonable. The coalition of ENGOs (0809) suggests that the all-in requirement is
necessary because there is currently no workable way to establish a sensible threshold reporting
level. Furthermore, the commenter asserts that the amount of CO2 injected in any ER site could
vary over time and operators could cross in and out of the reporting threshold, which could result
in higher compliance and enforcement costs, lowered data quality, and loss of significant
learning opportunities. They state that because CO2 injection for ER is substantially expanding,
capturing new ER projects is important both because they are likely to grow and in order to
accurately map the flow of GHGs within this expanding industry. Likewise, capturing aging
projects will allow the development of a robust data set tracking the lifecycle of ER sites. The
coalition of ENGOs states that comprehensive reporting is also necessary to complement
information collected under subpart PP. They state that if EPA were to exempt sites injecting
less than 100,000 tons annually, a significant disconnect would arise between subpart PP data
and "Tier 1" data.
Four commenters (0791, 0806, 0807, 0810) oppose the all-in reporting requirement for "Tier 1"
data.
Response 3.1-a:
EPA agrees that "Tier 1" reporters (now known as subpart UU reporters) should report at no
threshold because it will result in the most comprehensive data tracking and reporting at a
minimal cost to reporters. Please see Section II.E of the preamble in today's final action for a full
discussion of EPA's rationale for this decision. EPA agrees that information on CO2 received by
ER projects will provide useful information to inform future EPA policies and that a disconnect
would arise between subpart PP UU data if subpart UU were subject to a threshold.
Comment 3.1-b:
Four commenters (0806, 0807, 0810) recommend a threshold of 100,000 tons of CO2 injected per
year for reporters "Tier 1" data rather than no threshold, as was proposed. The commenters note
that Table 3 of the Preamble shows that nearly 100% of the injected C02 will be reported while
covering nearly 50% fewer facilities.
Response 3.1-b:
EPA notes that reporting of C02 injected is not required under subpart UU (reporters of "Tier 1"
data) of today's final action, so a threshold on injected CO2 would not be practical. Nonetheless,
EPA understands the point of these comments that the threshold analysis conducted for the
proposal suggests that 97.4 percent of CO2 received would be reported at a threshold of 100,000
41
-------
tons of CO2 received per year while covering 60 percent of facilities. The remaining 40 percent
of facilities are mostly characterized in the threshold analysis data as pilot projects, projects that
have just started, or projects nearing completion. EPA has concluded that despite this analysis,
subpart UU reporters should report at no threshold. Please see Section HE of the preamble in
today's final action for a full discussion of EPA's rationale for this decision.
However, given these comments, EPA is allowing subpart UU reporters to cease reporting in
today's final action, further reducing the need for a threshold under subpart UU. Analogous to
the majority of reporters under Part 98, a subpart UU reporter can stop reporting after three years
if the facility receives less than 15,000 tons of C02 per year for three consecutive years or after
five years if the facility receives less than 25,000 tons of CO2 per year for five consecutive years.
This is different from the proposed rule, which allowed reporting to cease only once the well was
plugged. EPA has concluded that this adjustment will allow projects, especially those that buy
less C02 as they near completion, to cease reporting after only a few years.
3.2 Thresholds for "Tier 2" Reporting
Comment 3.2-a:
Six commenters (0042, 0067, 0186, 0403, TRANS-VA-04, 0788) and a coalition of ENGOs
(0809) support the all-in approach for GS facility reporting without any thresholds. Four
commenters (0808, 0790, 0791, 0816) oppose the all-in reporting and recommend a threshold for
GS facility reporting. One of these commenters (0790) opines that "Tier 2" data from small GS
operations will be relatively insignificant and have no practical bearing on the overall CO2 mass
reported, and that "Tier 2" data will only be of consequence for very large GS projects.
Response 3.2-a:
EPA agrees with comments that GS "Tier 2" reporters (now known as subpart RR reporters)
should report at no threshold because it will result in the most comprehensive data tracking and
reporting and because there is no one obvious sensible threshold. Furthermore, EPA has
concluded that because of the GS R&D exemption process in this final rule, projects injecting
small amounts of CO2 will not be disproportionately burdened by the reporting requirements.
Please see Section II.E of the preamble in today's final action for a full discussion of EPA's
rationale on reporting thresholds and a GS R&D exemption.
Comment 3.2-b:
Two commenters (0808, 0787) suggest that reporting of air emissions to the atmosphere should
be based on amount actually emitted rather than on size of operation and that the threshold
should be set at emissions of 25,000 tons per year in order to be consistent with other subparts of
40 CFR part 98. They note that storage sites are not expected to result in air emissions if the GS
facilities are properly sited and regulated. One commenter (0787) opines that MRV plan
requirements would be applied to an activity that is unlikely to even trigger the minimum GHG
threshold for reporting in other sectors. The commenter states that atmospheric releases are more
likely to indicate a regulatory failure, an operational failure and/or faulty site selection than any
type of business as usual outcome. The commenter states that costs of the site-specific MRV plan
42
-------
will be largely spent on measuring very low CO2 emissions, perhaps not even detectable above
background levels, that are not likely to occur at all.
One commenter (0808) states that while reporting the amount of C02 injected will meet the goal
of determining the efficiency of GS, reporting on emissions to the atmosphere should be based
on the amount actually emitted. The commenter argues that i) experts agree that well-selected
and well-managed sites are not expected to result in atmospheric emissions, ii) data from existing
sites show no leakage, and iii) the proposal is an air emissions reporting rule under the CAA, it
may not be appropriate to depart from an "emissions based" approach. The commenter states
that smaller sites are unlikely to ever handle sufficient quantities of C02 that could result in a
scenario under which a significant CO2 atmospheric release would occur and should not be
subject to the same level of permitting scrutiny as the large sites.
One commenter (0787) notes that under an unlikely, worst-case scenario due to regulatory
failure, operational failure and/or faulty site selection, a GS facility could have a 1% leakage rate
over 100 years. Based on an example from EPA's June 2008 document, "Geologic C02
Sequestration Technology and Cost Analysis: Technical Support Document," the maximum
worst case leakage would be under 4,000 tons per year for a project that injects 1.84 MMT C02
per year over 20 years. Based on the worst case scenario, the threshold of 25,000 tons per year
would be reached only for a project that injects over 12 MMT C02 per year.
Response 3.2-b:
EPA disagrees that an emissions threshold would be appropriate for subpart RR for three
reasons. First, basing subpart RR reporting on emissions would be in opposition to EPA's stated
objectives for subpart RR, to provide public information on quantities of C02 sequestered and to
reconcile information obtained from this rule with subpart PP data. Since the vast majority of
well-selected sites and well-managed GS projects are expected to emit below 25,000 tons of C02
per year, the GHG Reporting Program would provide a very misleading picture of the level of
GS in the U.S. under a subpart RR emissions threshold. Second, the data would significantly
overvalue the C02 supply in the CCS system that is emitted to the atmosphere. Second, in order
for GS projects to evaluate whether emission levels are above or below a 25,000 threshold, the
GS projects would need to implement monitoring for C02 surface leakage and quantify any
leakage detected. Such a threshold applicability determination would defeat the purpose of a
threshold in the first place. Third, 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 facilities
With regard to the suggestion that an emissions threshold of 25,000 tons per year is a standard
across the GHG Reporting Program, please see Section II.E.5 of the preamble in today's final
action under the heading "Reporting Threshold" for a discussion of other subparts in 40 CFR
part 98 with all-in requirements.
Comment 3.2-c:
One commenter (0816) recommends a threshold of 100,000 tons per year of C02 delivered from
off-site sources to in order to reduce the burden for small or temporary R&D projects. This
43
-------
commenter suggests that the calculation of whether a new GS operation meets the threshold can
be calculated from process simulation, reservoir assessment and/or information for injection
wells under UIC program, while CO2-ER projects that opt in to be GS could use available
process data such as amount of new C02 brought on site. The commenter suggests that this
threshold would exempt small operators, research or temporary installations from the excessive
burden of reporting under subpart RR, including the need to prepare and execute a detailed MRV
plan. Another commenter (0790) suggests an injection threshold of 2 or 3 million tons/year to
reduce the burden of "Tier 2" data reporting requirements on small facilities, such as recent
federally funded industrial demonstration projects that are designed to sequester between 1 and
4.5 million tons of C02 per year.
Response 3.2-c:
EPA disagrees that a threshold on CO2 injected or delivered would be appropriate for GS "Tier
2" reporters (now known as subpart RR reporters). Please see Section HE of the preamble for a
full discussion of EPA's rationale for this decision.
EPA understands the commenter's suggestion that small, temporary R&D projects should not be
required to face the reporting and monitoring burden of subpart RR. In today's final action, to
address this point, R&D projects will receive an exemption from subpart RR. Please see Section
HE of the preamble for a full discussion of EPA's rationale for this decision. EPA notes that a
threshold would not be relevant for CO2-ER projects that opt in to be GS because they can
choose to report under subpart RR independently (unless they hold a UIC Class VI permit, in
which case they are required to report under subpart RR). In making a determination of whether
a project meets the definition of R&D project, EPA will take into account any information
submitted demonstrating that the planned annual CO2 injection volumes during the duration of
the project are consistent with the purpose of the R&D project.
Comment 3.2-d:
One commenter (0813) recommends that EPA should adopt a de minimis threshold of 100 tons
per year for emissions from surface equipment.
Response 3.2-d:
EPA disagrees that a de minimis threshold would be appropriate. As explained in the preamble to
the final GHG Reporting Program rulemaking, (74 FR 56260, October 30, 2010) de minimis
provisions are included in some reporting programs to avoid potentially unreasonable reporting
burdens. EPA concluded that such provisions were not necessary for that rulemaking because the
rule already avoided burdensome reporting requirements for small emissions sources. The same
argument can be applied to today's rulemaking because fugitive and vented emissions from
surface equipment can be calculated using simplified emissions calculation methods, such as
engineering estimates and emission factors. Furthermore, as a result of changes to today's rule
from proposal, fugitive and vented emissions from surface equipment need not be measured for
compliance with subpart RR where they are not related to the GS mass balance. See Section 5.3
of this Response to Comments document for more information on fugitive and vented emissions
reporting requirements under today's final action.
44
-------
3.3 Comments on EPA's Methodology for Determining Reporting Threshold
Comment 3.3-a:
One commenter (0812) addressed the issue that the Threshold Analysis methodology is based on
the concept that higher oil production is a function of higher CO2 injection volumes. The
commenter states that the relationship between C02 injection and oil production varies
significantly by field and basin, and hence, the use of a constant proportionality between these
quantities is inappropriate for all basins. Therefore, higher oil production is not always a function
of higher injected volumes of CO2.
Response 3.3-a:
The commenter is correct that the relationship between CO2 injection and oil production rates
varies significantly by field and basin. EPA agrees that it is inappropriate to use a constant ratio
of proportionality between these quantities across all basins. EPA did not do this in the threshold
analysis. In the threshold analysis; as described in Chapter 2 of the final General TSD, EPA
calculated net CO2 utilization by basin so the relationship between purchased CO2 and
incremental production rate is not compared across basins.
Comment 3.3-b:
A coalition of ENGOs (0809) suggests that EPA update their findings on the percent of ER and
GS facilities that inject CO2 below different levels based on the April 2010 Oil and Gas Journal's
Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) Survey that was released after the proposed rule.
Response 3.3-b:
EPA used Oil and Gas Journal data together with US GHG Inventory data to conduct the
threshold analysis because no one data source contained all of the information we needed. Even
though the Oil and Gas Journal data was updated in 2010 to reflect data through 2009, the US
GHG Inventory does not yet reflect 2009 data. EPA has concluded that both sets of data must be
from the same year in order for the threshold calculations to be accurate and for the analysis to
be meaningful. Therefore, though EPA reviewed the April 2010 survey while preparing today's
final action, we did not update the threshold analysis to reflect this new data and we continued to
use 2007 data from both data sources. Please see Chapter 2 of the final General TSD for an
explanation of the threshold analysis and a comparison of the data in the 2010 survey and the
2008 survey.
45
-------
4 Monitoring and Sampling Requirements
4.1 Location Requirements for Measurement
Comment 4.1-a:
Three commenters (0816, 0812, 0795) assert that CO2 injection should not need to be measured
at each individual injection well. Two of the commenters (0816, 0795) argue that existing
monitoring at custody transfer points would provide a higher degree of measurement accuracy
and would serve as a more efficient point for data collection when compared to measurement at
injection wells. Commenter (0795) notes that measurement at injection wells may require costly
capital upgrades while adding no additional accuracy. The commenter recommends adopting
requirements focused on CO2 received onsite, and that for ER GS operations, custody transfer
information in combination with fugitive emissions monitoring under subpart W, is the most
accurate and cost-effective approach for validating the GS mass balance equation. According to
one commenter (0816), custody transfer meters meet rigorous metering requirements, track
composition, temperature and pressure, are very well calibrated, and are used for CO2
measurements. Three commenters (0795, 0812, 0816) explain that expensive capital upgrades
would be required at in-field flow meters if injection data were required to be collected there; the
commenter (0816) further explains that such meters are currently not calibrated with the same
rigor as custody transfer meters, are not used for CO2 measurements as the measured rates and
volumes vary widely, and do not necessarily have the capability to provide temperature and
pressure data. Commenter 0816 suggests specific regulatory text changes that accomplish that
goal. A fourth commenter (0805) agrees generally that EPA should provide greater flexibility
for how injection must be monitored.
One commenter (0812) advises that flow and C02 concentrations should be measured at the
header upstream of the group of injection wells rather than at each well because testing CO2
concentrations at each wellhead is burdensome and unnecessary. The commenter suggests that
this approach will maintain data accuracy while reducing the costs associated with requiring
several hundred flow meters.
Response 4.1-a:
EPA proposed that CO2 injection be measured at individual injection wells because EPA wanted
to minimize burden for reporters by requiring the use of meters already in place for compliance
with the UIC program. As a result of these comments, EPA understands that adequate data on
injection of a C02 stream can be collected through fewer flow meters in locations other than the
location proposed. EPA further understands that the most efficient way to collect data on
injection of a C02 stream will depend on site configuration. Therefore, in this final rule, EPA is
promulgating quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) requirements that allow for
measurement of C02 injected at a location or at locations other than an in-field flow meter as
long as all measured flows are additively representative of the flow being injected (i.e., the
mixture of "new" C02 received and recycled C02). These QA/QC requirements are general and
do not list every specific location where measurements could be taken, so EPA is clarifying here
that the flow of injected C02 can be measured at a common header, as requested by one of the
commenters, as long as it is representative of the flow being injected.
46
-------
Comment 4.1-b:
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) suggests that sampling the produced gas stream
for purposes of establishing C02 concentration levels should occur either upstream of the meter,
between the separator and the meter, or downstream of the meter. The commenter suggests that it
would be unnecessarily difficult and costly to attempt to obtain concentration levels at individual
wells if there are no further actions designed to alter that concentration, and obtaining the
concentration after the stream exits the separator should be sufficiently representative.
Response 4.1-b:
EPA proposed that produced gas be sampled and a flow meter be placed directly downstream of
each separator so that the location for data samples is consistent with the location for volume
measurement. As a result of this comment, EPA has reconsidered this approach. EPA agrees that
sampling of the produced gas stream can be done effectively either directly downstream of the
flow meter (i.e. between the separator and the flow meter) or directly upstream of the flow meter
(i.e., between the flow meter and the recycle or end use system). Therefore, EPA has revised the
monitoring and QA/QC requirements for sampling the produced gas so that the location can be
either upstream or downstream of the flow meter used to measure flow.
EPA agrees that sampling at each individual well could be very costly. For this reason, EPA
proposed to require measurement and sampling of the gas flow after the oil-gas separator. As a
result of this comment, EPA has maintained this provision in the final rule.
Comment 4.1-c:
One commenter (0803) notes that non-ER GS facilities do not recycle CO2 from the same
operation and requests that EPA remove the requirement for GS facilities in the proposed 40
CFR part 98.442(a) that the mass of CO2 received onsite must be reported, particularly because
the amount of CO2 being sequestered is already required to be metered at the subsurface
injection point per proposed 40 CFR part 98.442(b). The commenter states that this would avoid
redundant flow metering.
The commenter also asserts that EPA should allow the flow to be monitored by a flow meter that
is not on the GS facility site, provided that the flow meter meets the criteria and is located on an
un-branched line.
Response 4.1-c:
EPA agrees that some GS facilities inject the same flow of CO2 that they receive but notes that
some GS facilities (those also conducting ER) do not. Therefore, EPA does not agree that the
requirement in the proposed paragraph (a) in 40 CFR part 98.442 should be deleted. In today's
final action EPA continues to require all facilities conducting GS to report CO2 received and CO2
injected under subpart RR. EPA agrees that burden should be minimized for reporters who
receive and inject the same CO2 stream. Therefore, in paragraph (a)(4) of 40 CFR part 98.444 of
today's final action, EPA allows a reporter to use the C02 injected mass as the C02 received
mass if the flow is wholly injected and not mixed with any other flow(s). EPA has concluded that
47
-------
this revision adequately addresses the commenter's point and minimizes burden while
maintaining a uniform regulatory and reporting structure.
EPA clarifies that a flow meter located outside of the facility may be used to measure flow, and
that data may be reported by the reporter in the annual GHG report. In such a situation, the
reporter must ascertain and report the appropriate consensus-based standard or industry standard
practice followed to operate the measurement equipment as specified in today's final action and
must ensure that the equipment calibration requirements as specified in 40 CFR part 98.3(i) are
met. The reporter is responsible for retaining records to support quantities reported to EPA under
this subpart. As specified in 40 CFR part 98.3(g), records must be kept in an electronic or hard-
copy format (as appropriate) and may be retained off site if they are readily available for
expeditious inspection and review.
Comment 4.1-d:
One commenter (0790) suggests that measuring CO2 concentration at the flow meter could
present a safety hazard for operators collecting manual bag samples for analysis because the flow
meter will typically be downstream of the compressors and a sampling port located at the flow
meter would be at very high pressure. The commenter suggests that the sample be collected at a
low-pressure point in the system if the CO2 stream is not commingled with any other streams
downstream of the sample collection port. The commenter recommends that concentration be
reported on a dry basis, to provide comparable results regardless of the moisture content at the
sampling location versus the flow meter location.
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) similarly suggests that operators be able to select
a location to sample the CO2 stream(s) that is either immediately upstream or downstream of the
flow meter to accommodate site-specific operational configurations. The multi-stakeholder
discussion group provides specific edits to regulatory text in proposed 40 CFR part 98.444(a)(6)
to reflect this suggestion. The multi-stakeholder discussion group further explains that operators
should be able to select an appropriate location for sampling that is anywhere between the exit
from the separator unit and the injection well.
Three commenters (0806, 0807, 0810) suggest that EPA provide flexibility to ER reporters and
CO2 injection facilities on where CO2 concentration, pressure and temperature may be measured
rather than limit the location to where the flow meters are installed. One commenter (0806)
believes that requiring the same temperature, pressure and concentration readings at each of its
nearly 300 CO2 injection wells would be a step backwards, as the data would be much lower
quality than data from the central control facilities, and the cost would be significantly greater.
A fourth commenter (0805) proposed that if flow meters are used at individual wellheads, the
operator should be able to obtain a representative value for concentration, pressure, and
temperature at an upstream point on a common supply header.
Response 4.1-d:
In the proposed rule, EPA required that CO2 concentration be measured immediately
downstream of the flow meter used to measure the flow of the CO2 stream. EPA concluded that
it was necessary for the concentration and flow measurements to occur at the same location in
48
-------
order to maintain data integrity, consistency, and accuracy. A low pressure point may a great
distance from the flow meter, and losses may occur or streams may be added (though not at the
site described by the commenter) between these two points. Furthermore, the compressor
between these two points may remove constituents from the C02 stream other than water. After
consideration of the comment received on this issue, EPA's original conclusion stands in this
final rule. EPA notes that flow meters are available on the market that sample the C02 stream
and measure concentration as part of the flow meter. EPA also notes that procedures for
manually sampling the C02 stream safely are outlined in the Chapter 3 of the final General TSD.
As the result of these comments, however, EPA understands that reporters should be allowed as
much flexibility as possible with respect to measurement location, as long as data accuracy is
maintained. Therefore, EPA has amended the requirement for the location of C02 concentration
measurement in today's final rule so that reporters can take measurements either immediately
downstream or upstream of the flow meter rather than just immediately downstream. In this
context, the word "immediately" means in advance of any of the following: other equipment on
the line (such as a compressor), an intersection with another line, or a branching of the line. If,
for the purposes of subpart UU or RR, a reporter uses a flow meter on a line between the
separator unit and the injection well, the sample can be taken immediately downstream or
immediately upstream from that flow meter. EPA notes that we have also amended the
requirements for the flow meter location in this final rule as the result of other comments
received and that this amendment provides even more flexibility on the location of the C02
concentration measurement.
In the proposed rule, EPA required that all measured volumes of C02 be converted to the
standard industry temperature and pressure conditions outlined in the regulatory text. EPA did
not specify a requirement that flow pressure and flow temperature be determined at the same
location as flow. As the result of this comment, EPA has retained this flexibility on pressure and
temperature determination in this rule. EPA expects reporters to measure the operating pressure
and temperature that are representative of the C02 stream being injected.
Comment 4.1-e:
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) suggests that the term "injected C02 stream" be
replaced with the term "C02 stream injected into the subsurface" in proposed 40 CFR part
98.444. Another commenter (0817) provided the same regulatory text suggestion.
Response 4.1-e:
In today's final action, EPA did not make the edit provided by the commenter to the term
"injected C02 stream". The commenter did not provide a reason for this edit, and EPA has
concluded that the original text is clear.
Comment 4.1-f:
One commenter (0797) asserts that the NACCSA/Pew methodology is likely to contain specific
recommendations on the location of meters for mass or volumetric flow determination. The
49
-------
commenter suggests that subpart RR accommodate the scenarios suggested by NACCSA and
Pew.
Response 4.1-f:
EPA applauds NACCSA and Pew for working together to advance efforts for monitoring and
reporting quantities of C02 that are geologically sequestered. Please refer to Chapter 13 of this
document for EPA's responses to comments regarding this methodology.
Comment 4.1-g:
In regards to EPA's request for comment on potential methodologies to estimate the
concentration of the flow injected, such as apportioning the concentration of CO2 transferred
onsite and the concentration of recycled CO2 to the quantities from each source, one commenter
(0816) stated that there is no need for apportionment of concentration. The commenter states
that industry practice tracks volumes/mass of streams separately and adds them together rather
than homogenizing (or apportioning) them. This commenter recommends that EPA not
prescribe how reporters should provide volumes or mass data of CO2. The commenter believes
that standard industry practices tailored to the specific project configuration can provide
sufficient data.
Response 4.1-g:
EPA disagrees with this comment. For quality assurance and to ensure consistency in data from
all reporters, EPA has concluded that calculation and monitoring requirements are a necessary
and important part of today's final action; please see Response 4.2-a for a further discussion of
this conclusion. EPA did not make changes to this final action as a result of this comment.
Comment 4.1-h:
A coalition of ENGOs (0809) agrees with EPA that volumetric flow meters, where present, can
be used for monitoring and reporting.
Response 4.1-h:
EPA appreciates the commenter's shared view that volumetric flow meters can be used for
monitoring and reporting. In this final rule, EPA has maintained this provision.
Comment 4.1-i:
One commenter (0812) asserts that in Equations RR-2, RR-5, and RR-8, the C02 concentration
measurement should be in volume (or molar) % CO2 instead of wt. % CO2.
Response 4.1-i:
EPA agrees that in Equations RR-2, RR-5, and RR-8, the units for quarterly C02 concentration
measurement should be in volume percent CO2. It was an EPA oversight to specify the units for
that parameter in the proposed rule as weight percent C02. EPA has corrected the units to
volume percent CO2 in this final rule.
50
-------
4.2 Converting to Standard Conditions
Comment 4.2-a:
Four commenters (0805, 0806, 0807, 0810) argue that, because mass measuring equipment is
costly and burdensome, EPA should allow reporting on a volumetric basis at operating
conditions without requiring conversion to standard conditions. The commenters suggest that
reporting on a volumetric basis would be far less burdensome and still provide the information
EPA seeks in proposed subpart RR.
One commenter (0805) states that this flexibility would allow ER operators to use volumetric
data already required under the existing UIC Class II injection well permits, and that such
volumetric data could provide EPA with additional useful information that could be used to
better understand site operations (such as relative proportion of CO2 injected in a particular well
or group of wells).
Two commenters (0806, 0810) note that installing CO2 temperature and measuring equipment is
costly and burdensome and they recommend that EPA not require reporting of CO2 temperature.
Response 4.2-a:
EPA does not agree with comments that reporters should not be required to convert all CO2
volumes from operating temperature and pressure to standard temperature and pressure in order
to determine mass. EPA has concluded that all quantities reported in subparts UU and RR must
be reported in the same units and under the same conditions so that they can be compared across
the industry and added together for a picture of the whole industry. All quantities must also be
comparable to data reported under subpart PP, which is required to be reported in metric tons
(mass). Therefore, no changes were made to this final rule as the result of these comments.
EPA notes that a reporter can use the volumetric data collected under an existing UIC permit
along with data on temperature, pressure, and CO2 concentration to calculate mass of CO2
injected under subpart RR. One of EPA's priorities when developing and finalizing this rule was
to minimize redundancy between the UIC Program and GHG Reporting Program and to build the
reporting requirements in this final rule on top of requirements for UIC permits. Please also
refer to Chapter 11 of this document for a discussion of the relationship of UIC permit
requirements and this rule.
In response to the comment that temperature monitoring may not take place at the injection flow
meters required for the proposed rule, EPA has amended the requirements for the flow meter
location in this final rule as the result of comments received so that reporters have more
flexibility on the location of the flow meter and hence on the location of temperature
measurements. The requirement to measure CO2 temperature is considered an important
component of today's final action and has been maintained. Please see Response 4.1-d for a
discussion of these amendments.
Comment 4.2-b:
51
-------
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) submitted a copy of a document about regulatory
standards. The document states that many state reporting standards require state-specific standard
pressure base and temperature and contains a table of state-specific standards. The document also
states that many companies pay royalties to the Minerals Management Service (MMS), Bureau
of Land Management (BLM), and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for gas produced on federal
and Indian-owned lands, which require 14.73 psia and 60 degrees F as standard conditions. The
document states that differences between state and federal standards may require an additional
volume pressure base conversion after state reporting, before reporting to the MMS and BIA.
The document also includes a Standard Pressure Base Table for Oil and Gas Producing State.
which is found in the Summary of State Statutes and Regulations for Oil and Gas Production.
Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC), 2007 edition and MMS Minerals
Production Reporter Handbook.
Response 4.2-b:
EPA has reviewed the submitted information on the standard conditions required for reporting to
states and other agencies. EPA notes that the standard conditions in today's final action are the
same as the standard conditions required by the federal agencies listed in this comment. No
change was made to this final action as a result of this comment.
Comment 4.2-c:
One commenter (0816) and the multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) support EPA's
specification of industry standard conditions in this action and to avoid confusion with other
subparts, they request that EPA clarify that the same industry standard conditions (60 F and 1
atmosphere) should be used for all flow and concentration measurements for all subparts of the
MRR. The commenter opines that such an approach will minimize the burden of recalculation
and inadvertent quantification errors.
Response 4.2-c:
EPA appreciates the commenters' shared view that all volume measurements should be
converted to mass by converting operating conditions to the standard conditions of 60 degrees F
and 1 atmosphere. EPA has maintained these conditions in today's final rule. Other subparts in
the 40 CFR part 98 may require conversion to different standard conditions, and revising them is
outside of the scope of this rulemaking.
Comment 4.2-d:
One commenter (0798) argues that data errors and inconsistencies will likely occur because
volumetric quantities will be initially measured and reported to state and UIC authorities under
regulation-specific pressure base standards and that data conversion inherently results in some
data error. The commenter notes that flow meters are accurate within a range (such as +/- 1%),
which is generally accepted by industry. The commenter states that EPA should not expect the
data measurements to achieve actuarial perfection and suggests that the rule should recognize
these underlying measurement realities since its objective is to encourage injection of captured
CO2. The commenter recommends that EPA explicitly recognize in the Final Rule a variety of
metering errors, tolerance bands, and other good faith data errors that may arise.
52
-------
Response 4.2-d:
EPA recognizes these underlying measurement realities and understands that the data reported
may not be perfect. In the proposed rule, EPA did not specify the operating conditions at which
CO2 stream volume must be measured; rather, EPA required that the CO2 volume be converted
to the standard conditions specified in the proposed rule so that the volume can be further
converted to metric tons (mass). These requirements stand in today's final rule. Therefore, a
reporter that measures C02 stream volume at state-specific pressure base standards that vary
from the standard conditions in this rule can comply with today's final action.
EPA understands that measurement equipment is inherently accurate to within a range. The
General Provisions of the GHG Reporting Program apply to subparts RR and UU unless
otherwise specified in the regulatory text, so reporters are required to calibrate all flow meters to
within the accuracy range specified in 40 CFR part 98.3(i), which is 5 percent in most situations.
Comment 4.2-e:
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) suggests that EPA consider publishing both
reported volume and mass numbers in order to allow for cross-comparison of the EPA reported
volumes with similar reported volumes for state agencies. Different states have their own
standardization requirements, and hence the reported volumes to state agencies could be different
than the volumes reported to EPA. The multi-stakeholder discussion group recommends that
EPA address this issue in the preamble to the rule, with the recognition that state reporting
requirements are also linked to reporting for tax purposes.
Response 4.2-e:
In today's final action, EPA requires that any volume measurements be reported in the annual
GHG report in standard conditions specified in the rule. When that volume data is converted to
mass, the mass must be reported in the annual GHG report as well. EPA plans to publish all
collected data that is not determined to be confidential as a result of the confidential business
information (CBI) rulemaking.
EPA considered also requiring that operating pressure, operating temperature, and volume in
operating conditions be reported so that volumes reported to EPA could be compared with
volumes reported to states as recommended by the multi-stakeholder discussion group. Such data
reporting requirements would also allow EPA to conduct electronic verification on the
conversion of volume from operating to standard conditions. EPA determined that there was no
logical outgrowth from the proposal to add such requirements. Therefore, EPA does not require
reporting of any data in operating conditions in this final rule. However, EPA continues to
require under today's final action that records on operating conditions be retained.
4.3 Measuring (Sampling) Composition and Flow Quarterly
Comment 4.3-a:
53
-------
Three commenters (0791, 0806, 0807) suggest that collecting concentration and some types of
flow data on a quarterly basis is unreasonable. One commenter (0791) suggests that data
collection and record keeping should be done on an annual basis if there are no significant
changes in the source or process. One commenter (0812) argues that quarterly measurements of
CO2 concentration is reasonable and adequate, as ER operators have strict requirements on the
quality of C02 transferred on-site and the amount of C02 recycled is also consistent.
Two commenters (0806, 0807) state that they already measure C02 concentration and pressure
on a quarterly basis but argue that taking quarterly C02 temperature measurements at each
injection well flow meter will impose a substantial burden on facilities.
Response 4.3-a:
EPA agrees with comments that quarterly data collection on the flow and CO2 concentration of
each C02 stream is reasonable because it is necessary for data accuracy and quality control. The
concentration of CO2 in the CO2 stream can fluctuate throughout the year, and quarterly sampling
and testing compared to annual sampling and testing improves EPA's understanding of these
fluctuations and makes the data more representative of actual conditions. Therefore, quarterly
data collection continues to be required in this final rule.
EPA notes that today's final rule does not specify a frequency at which operating pressure and
temperature must be measured, although quarterly volume data must be reported in standard
conditions. EPA also notes that we have amended the requirements for the flow meter location in
this final rule as the result of comments received so that reporters have more flexibility on the
location of the flow meter.
Comment 4.3-b:
One commenter (0797) notes that the NACCSA/Pew methodology will include potential
methods to estimate the concentration of the injected CO2 flow if the 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.
Response 4.3-b:
EPA applauds NACCSA and Pew for working together to advance efforts for monitoring and
reporting quantities of CO2 that are geologically sequestered. Please refer to Chapter 13 of this
document for EPA's responses to comments regarding this methodology.
Comment 4.3-c:
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) suggests that, rather than writing in the proposed
40 CFR part 98.443 that data must be collected quarterly, EPA should write that data
measurements must be made in accordance with 40 CFR part 98.444.
Response 4.3-c:
No rationale was provided by the multi-stakeholder discussion group for altering this language,
and EPA has concluded that the existing language is adequate.
54
-------
4.4 Best Available Monitoring Methods (BAMM)
Comment 4.4-a:
Five commenters (0805, 0806, 0807, 0810, 0816) supported the use of BAMM for a CO2
injection facility's first tier reporting requirements. All of these commenters expressed concern
over the lack of sufficient time between when the proposed subpart RR would be finalized and
the date by which facilities must begin to measure data. In order to avoid having to purchase and
install the equipment needed to accurately measure CO2 in a small window of time, the
commenters support using BAMM during the first reporting year.
Response 4.4-a:
EPA appreciates the commenters' shared view that BAMM be made available to reporters for
"Tier 1" data through 2011. EPA is maintaining the provision in today's final action that
reporters under subparts RR and UU may use BAMM for determining the mass of CO2 received
where it is not reasonably feasible to acquire, install, and operate a required piece of monitoring
equipment during January 1, 2011 through March 31, 2011. Reporters may submit a request to
the Administrator to use one or more BAMMs beyond March 31, 2011 but not beyond
December, 31, 2011.
Comment 4.4-b:
One commenter (0816) recommends that the final rule also specify that the use of BAMM would
be available beyond 2011 if the metering equipment can only be installed safely during a full
process unit shutdown that may not occur before 2011.
Response 4.4-b:
When EPA established the GHG Reporting Program, EPA determined one year was a sufficient
amount of time to allow BAMM to be used. This time period addresses concerns that monitoring
equipment cannot be installed by January 1, 2011, while also ensuring the timely submission of
more consistent and verifiable data than the alternatives. For additional background on rationale
for providing a one-year BAMM period, please refer to 74 FR 56273, Section G: Summary of
Comments and Responses on Initial Reporting Year and Best Available Monitoring Methods.
EPA has concluded that this rationale is the same for today's final rule and that one year is
adequate for reporters to meet subparts UU and RR monitoring requirements and procedures. No
changes have been made in today's final action as a result of this comment.
Comment 4.4-c:
One commenter (0783) notes that facilities may not currently be monitoring the flow,
temperature and pressure for all of the proposed parameters. The commenter inquires whether
engineering estimates and mass balances will be acceptable in cases where the facility is not
currently monitoring the flow, temperature, and pressure for all parameters, or whether facilities
55
-------
may provide the best available data beyond the currently proposed BAMM timeframe of
calendar year 2011.
Response 4.4-c:
Engineering estimates and mass balances are two good examples of procedures that would
qualify as BAMM under subparts RR and UU for 2011. In today's final rule, BAMM will not be
available to reporters after 2011. Beginning in 2012, all reporters under subparts RR and UU
must follow the calculation procedures and other requirements of this rule. No changes have
been made in today's final action as a result of this comment.
4.5 Standardized Methods Incorporated into the MRR
Comment 4.5-a:
One commenter (0798) supports EPA's approach of incorporating by reference a list of non-
exclusive specific methods for testing CO2 concentration while allowing any appropriate
standard method to be used. This commenter advised EPA to finalize this provision as proposed.
Two commenters (0798, 0816) and the multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) request that
the EPA amend citations in 40 CFR part 98.7 paragraph (e)(39) and provide references to other
standards such as GPA Standard 2261-00 - "Analysis for Natural Gas and Similar Gaseous
Mixtures by Gas Chromatography" and GPA Standard 2177-03 - "Analysis of Natural Gas
Liquid Mixtures Containing Nitrogen and Carbon Dioxide by Gas Chromatography." These
additional citations are applicable for ER or GS streams, and these standards are used in practice
in the industry. They note that the sole standard incorporated by reference in the proposed rule
(ASTM E1747-95, 2005) is only intended for quantification of impurities in CO2 stream used for
clinical or food quality supercritical fluids and is not applicable to ER or GS streams. The ASTM
methodology is mostly used for compliance with FDA requirements. These three commenters
also request that EPA specify that reporting entities can use more recent versions of published
standards in accordance with accepted industry practices and available instrumentations and
methodologies.
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) recommends that the term "methods that conform
to applicable chemical analytical standards" be replaced with "an appropriate standard method
published by a consensus-based standards organization if such a method exists." This language
is consistent with the requirements for measurement devise operation in the proposed rule.
Response 4.5-a:
EPA realizes that by citing two methods in the proposed regulatory text and incorporating one of
them by reference, commenters may have been confused about the monitoring procedures and
requirements for sampling and testing flow for CO2 concentration in the proposal. In the
proposal and in today's final action, the regulatory text allows for any method to be used to
sample and test flow for CO2 concentration. To relieve the source of confusion, EPA has deleted
the reference to the two methods and has not incorporated either of them by reference in today's
final action. Instead, the two methods along with the other methods raised in comments are
outlined in the final General TSD as a useful reference for reporters. Any of these methods can
56
-------
be used, as can more recent versions of these methods or any other method that meets the
QA/QC requirements in today's final rule.
EPA agrees that the wording provided by the commenter is clearer than the phrase "applicable
chemical analytical standards" and allows for consistency across the two subparts in this final
action. Therefore, EPA has accepted the commenter's suggestion and edited the QA/QC
requirements for CO2 concentration determination so that they are identical to the other QA/QC
requirements across subparts RR and UU: If you measure the concentration of any C02 quantity
for reporting, you must measure according to one of the following. You may use an appropriate
standard method published by a consensus-based standards organization if such a method exists
or an industry standard practice.
4.6 Calibration of Instrumentation
Comment 4.6-a:
One commenter (0798) recommends that reporting entities should use the same calibration for
preparing the calculations for this action as is used for reporting required under the applicable
UIC permit.
Response 4.6-a:
The calibration requirements in today's rule are very broad and flexible. EPA has concluded that
the equipment calibration requirements are consistent with standard industry practices for quality
assurance and that reporters can meet the calibration requirements in today's final rule without
duplicating or contradicting any effort with respect to requirements in the applicable UIC permit.
EPA also notes that UIC regulations do not specifically identify methods by which or how often
instruments are to be calibrated. No changes have been made in today's final action as a result of
this comment.
4.7 Other - Monitoring and Sampling Requirements
Comment 4.7-a:
One commenter (0785) suggests the use of predictive emission monitoring systems (PEMS) as
an alternative to continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS). Commenter asserts that
PEMS are a very cost effective and robust alternative to a CEMS and has proven itself in many
40 CFR part 60 and 40 CFR part 75 applications. The commenter requests that PEMS be written
in the rule as an alternative wherever CEMS are required and provides information on the
commenter's PEMS products.
Response 4.7-a:
EPA has concluded that the commenter has misunderstood the scope of this action. CEMS and
PEMS are not relevant to today's final action. No changes have been made in today's final action
as a result of this comment.
57
-------
Comment 4.7-b:
In a section of the comment submission about flow measurement requirements, One commenter
(0807) urges the EPA not to overly focus on excessive precision or measurement for the
monitoring and sampling requirements. Greater precision and measurements come at high cost
and is difficult to do in diverse operating conditions. The commenter requests EPA to focus
mainly on ensuring that the injected volume of CO2 remains in geological sinks for GS and
remains within the 'closed system' in ER.
Response 4.7-b:
EPA has considered the information provided in this comment carefully. EPA has concluded that
the monitoring and sampling requirements for flow measurement in this final action are not
excessive and do not require perfect precision. Please see response 4.2-d for a more thorough
discussion of this point. Today's final action is a data collection effort - not a permitting or
regulatory program. EPA is therefore focused on collecting data to inform future climate change
policy. EPA has designed this rule so that facilities can comply with the reporting requirements
without disrupting or delaying normal operations.
Comment 4.7-c:
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) requests clarification about whether the CO2
concentration in flow that needs to be reported for an injection flow meter (see the proposed 40
CFR part 98.446(b)(2)) is an effort to prescribe the point at which the concentration is
determined. The commenter requests that the concentration reported in proposed 40 CFR part
98.446(b)(2) be the concentration determined pursuant to proposed 40 CFR part 98.444(a)(6) or
(b)(4).
Response 4.7-c:
EPA confirms that the data proposed for reporting under 40 CFR part 98.446(b)(2) and finalized
for reporting under 40 CFR part 98.446(c)(2) must be determined pursuant to the location
requirements in proposed 40 CFR part 98.444(a)(6) and 40 CFR part 98.444(b)(3). No changes
have been made in today's final action as a result of this comment.
Comment 4.7-d:
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) understands the term "produced CO2" to be the
CO2 that is separated out of an oil or gas stream for recycle or for an end use as CO2. The
commenter does not understand this term to mean the CO2 that may remain in any oil, gas, or
other stream sent off site for end use.
Response 4.7-d:
The term "CO2 produced" means the quantity of CO2 that is produced from oil or gas production
wells or from other fluid production wells. This includes the CO2 that is separated from the fluid
with gas and the CO2 that remains with the fluid after separation. Please see the final General
TSD for more background on this. Equations RR-7 through RR-9 should be used to calculate this
quantity. No changes have been made in today's final action as a result of this comment.
58
-------
Comment 4.7-e:
Two commenters (0803, 0805) and the multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) suggest that
the regulatory text in 40 CFR part 98.444(d), "All flow meters must be operated continuously,"
be modified. The commenters argue that the rule should recognize the need to allow for
malfunctions, maintenance and calibration, if no flow is occurring, and if the flow meter is
primary and a redundant flow meter is still operating or if the flow meter is redundant and the
primary meter is still operating.
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) suggests the requirement be modified to read,
"All flow meters must be operated continuously except as necessary for maintenance and
calibration." Another commenter (0803) suggests the requirement be modified to read, "Flow
must be measured continuously."
Response 4.7-e:
EPA concurs that flow meters that are designed for continuous operation do not always run
continuously because of maintenance, calibration, or malfunctions. In today's final rule, EPA has
accepted the commenter's recommendation and requires that all flow meters must be operated
continuously except as necessary for maintenance and calibration.
Comment 4.7-f:
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) and one commenter (0817-2) emphasizes the
importance of providing consistent terminology throughout this action in order to avoid
confusion. To accomplish this, the group provided specific edits to regulatory text in 40 CFR
part 98.443, 444, and 446, and the other commenter provided specific edits to regulatory text in
40 CFR part 98.442, 443, 444, 445, and 446.
First, the commenters have the same recommendation for two issues. Both the group and the
other commenter recommend that the terms "transferred," "transferred to the facility from offsite
sources," and "received onsite" be replaced with "received from sources outside the facility."
Furthermore, both recommended that the term "quantity injected" be replaced with the term
"mass of CO2 injected into the subsurface" and that "quantity" be replaced with "mass."
Second, the two commenters have different recommendations for one issue. Both the group and
the other commenter recommend that the terms "point of transfer" and "transfer point" be edited
for clarity, but the group recommends the term "custody transfer point" while the other
commenter recommends "the point of receipt."
Third, the multi-stakeholder discussion group alone also recommends the following: replace the
term "by following" with "by using;" and replace "sample the injected CO2 concentration" with
"sample and determine the CO2 concentration of the CO2 stream injected into the subsurface."
Response 4.7-f:
59
-------
EPA agrees that the rule should use consistent and meaningful terminology. First, EPA agrees
that the language used in the proposed action to refer to "new" C02 received by a well or group
of wells injecting CO2 underground may have been confusing. In today's final action, EPA has
defined a term "CO2 received" in 40 CFR part 98.449 and 40 CFR part 98.478 which clearly
explains the CO2 stream, to which this language was meant to refer. This defined term is the only
term used throughout the two subparts in today's final action to refer to the C02 stream, and
terms such as "transferred to the facility," from offsite sources," and "onsite" have been deleted.
EPA has concluded that these revisions meet the main purpose of the recommended regulatory
text edits on this issue. Second, EPA is using the word "mass" in the regulatory text as
appropriate but is retaining the word "quantity" when it is necessary to refer to both mass and
volume, for example when referencing flow meters that could be either mass or volumetric flow
meters.
Furthermore, EPA agrees with the commenter that the term "custody transfer meter" provides
more clarity than "point of transfer" or "transfer point." EPA has concluded that "custody
transfer meter" is clearer than "point of receipt" because it is consistent with terminology already
used commonly in industry. In today's final action, the term "custody transfer meter" is used,
and a reporter that receives C02 through a custody transfer meter may measure flow rate of C02
received at that meter.
Finally, the multi-stakeholder discussion group did not provide any reason that the term "by
using" is preferable to "by following," so EPA did not make a change in this final rule as a result
of that comment. Also, EPA understands from the multi-stakeholder discussion group's
comment on sampling injectate that the proposed text was not grammatically correct because
CO2 concentration cannot be sampled. In today's final rule, EPA corrected the grammatical error
in all appropriate paragraphs.
Comment 4.7-g:
One commenter (0814) notes that 40 CFR part 98.433(a)(1) requires the use of a mass flow
meter at each transfer point, but acid gas emissions are calculated, rather than directly measured,
using a mass-balance approach, a method which has been accepted with regulatory agencies.
The commenter points out that acid gas is high in H2S, which is highly corrosive and that flow
meters for acid gas have a high rate of failure and are highly unreliable due to the corrosive
environment. The commenter proposes the use of an additional monitoring methodology to
calculate acid gas using the "mass-balance" approach, rather than direct measurement.
Response 4.7-g:
In today's final action, an acid gas operation can report the mass of C02 received under subpart
UU by using the mass of CO2 supply that it reports under subpart PP, following the subpart PP
methods and requirements. Subpart PP requires reporting at no threshold, and acid gas separation
and injection meets the source category definition in subpart PP, so all acid gas operations will
already be using subpart PP methods to calculate and report CO2 supply. Therefore, EPA
concludes that such methods would not be necessary in subpart UU. No changes have been made
in today's final action as a result of this comment.
60
-------
5 Calculation and Reporting Requirements
5.1 General "Tier 1" Reporting Requirements
Comment 5.1-a:
One commenter (0786) notes that EPA proposes that for all wells permitted by a UIC permitting
authority, the well ID number used for the permit and UIC permit class number be reported. The
commenter recommends that for wells that are permitted under a permitting authority other than
a UIC permitting authority, the well ID number and the permit ID number be reported.
Response 5.1-a:
EPA agrees with this comment and has added the suggested reporting requirement in both
subparts UU and RR in today's final action.
Comment 5.1-b:
Three commenters (0792, 0805, 0816/TRANS-VA-05) recommend that routine CO2-ER
operations report only under subpart W and not under the proposed subpart RR. Specifically, one
commenter (0805) advises that EPA should not require reporting of CO2 received under this
action, as subpart W requires reporting of actual CO2 emissions from ER and GS operations. A
second commenter (0816) also requests EPA to limit reporting under subpart RR only to GS
facilities and to the GS portions of those facilities that opt into CO2-ER-GS status, while routine
CO2-ER operations should report only under the applicable subpart W provisions. One
commenter (0805) asserts that reporting the amount of CO2 received on-site would not be useful
in determining how much CO2 is emitted from ER operations (as the majority of such CO2 is
retained in the subsurface formation) or in developing a complete GHG emissions inventory.
One commenter (0792) states that C02-ER is an enhanced oil and gas production technique in
the same vein as water injection or thermal enhancement, and that emissions, if any, should be
reported in association with subpart W. The commenter states that such an approach will
minimize confusion since CO2-ER is a production tool used in many basins and, when used, all
field operations equipment are intermingled on site. The commenter also states that C02-ER-GS
equipment reported under subpart W should continue to be reported only under subpart W and
should not also be required to be reported under subpart RR.
Response 5.1-b:
EPA disagrees that "Tier 1" projects should not be required to report any data under this action.
In today's final action, any well that injects a C02 stream underground must report at least the
quantity of CO2 received. EPA notes that Section 114 of the CAA allows EPA to collect data
beyond direct emissions, such as quantities of GHGs. EPA is requiring reporting on quantities of
CO2 received from any well that injects a CO2 stream underground in order to enable EPA to
reconcile this information with data obtained from subpart PP of the GHG Reporting Program on
CO2 supplied to the economy. See Section 1 of this response to comments document for more
detailed responses to questions of legal authority.
EPA does not agree that this source category should be defined and included in subpart W rather
than in the proposed subpart RR and subpart UU. As discussed further in Response 2.3-b in this
61
-------
document, the subpart RR and UU data will be most useful and meaningful to EPA if it is subject
to the 40 CFR part 98.6 facility definition, which is different than the onshore petroleum and
natural gas production definition in subpart W. Furthermore, although subpart W refers to the oil
and gas industry, the purpose, scope, provisions, and requirements of subpart W are very
different than subparts RR and UU. EPA had concluded that it is appropriate to retain subpart
RR and UU and has done so in this final action.
Comment 5.1-c:
Three commenters (0805, 0792, 0816/TRANS-VA-05) oppose the requirement to report the
amount of CO2 injected. Two of the commenters (0792, 0816) assert that focusing on the amount
of CO2 injected in this action would distort the view of the CO2 material balance within ER
operations, as it is impossible to distinguish between new and recycled CO2 after injection. The
two commenters suggest that this will consequently distort emissions reporting. One commenter
(0816) claims that this distorted view of CO2 emissions will not inform proper policy decisions.
Specifically, two commenters (0816, 0792) request that EPA reconsider its request for mass
balance information, as the commenters are concerned about how collection of the detailed
information could lead to a misunderstanding of CO2-ER operations. The commenters request
that if EPA insists on collecting injection information from CO2-ER facilities, EPA should limit
the requirement (beyond those in subpart W) for CO2-ER projects to the amounts of CO2
received on-site from off-site sources. One of these commenters (0816) suggests specific
regulatory text changes that reflect this view. The commenter states that when determining the
quantity of CO2 that is retained in the formation as a result of the ER process, the newly sourced
amount of CO2, rather than the injection amount of CO2, is directly related to the amount
permanently trapped in the formation as a result of the ER process. The commenter states the
amount of CO2 injected is not directly related to air emissions or leakage and that information on
CO2 received is readily available to operators and could approximate the amount of CO2 being
retained in the oil and gas formation when analyzed in conjunction with subpart W emissions
information. Another commenter (0805) claims that the proposed injection reporting
requirements are unnecessarily and unreasonably prescriptive, especially for ER operations, as a
significant amount of the injected CO2 will later be produced, separated, and reinjected. The
commenter argues that EPA should instead collect data on the amount of CO2 received. One
commenter (0792) describes the CO2-ER process and mentions that the amount of CO2 injected
is a function of the reservoir properties and the stage of the project, and is not directly related to
air emissions or leakage.
Three commenters (0806, 0807, 0810) do not support any additional "Tier 1" reporting
requirements aside from those already proposed (CO2 injected, CO2 transferred on-site, and
supply source of CO2), and believe that these three requirements provide EPA with sufficient
information to meet the stated purpose of this action. The commenters claim that additional
reporting requirements would not yield useful data to EPA, and would be a burden upon the
sector that could discourage development of ER and/or GS facilities.
A coalition of ENGOs (0809) agree that EPA acts reasonably in requiring all injectors to submit
information sufficient to allow the Agency to comprehensively track the fate of all CO2 supply.
The coalition states that the Agency correctly recognizes that in order to determine whether or
62
-------
not supplied CO2 has been or will be released to the atmosphere, it must monitor injection points.
The coalition asserts that the proposed "Tier 1" monitoring and reporting requirements allow, for
the first time, the compilation and evaluation of quantitative data on the volume of CO2 injected
for ER operations. Furthermore, the coalition states that EPA presented background documents
that show that this type of data acquisition effort is cost-effective and consistent with good
business practices. However, the coalition claims that the "Tier 1" reporting requirements as
currently proposed do not allow for sufficient and complete data collection from ER facilities
since they do not require reporting of data on C02 at the separators. The coalition recommends
that EPA retain the proposed "Tier 1" reporting requirements and add the mass/volume of CO2 at
the separators as part of the "Tier 1" reporting requirements in order to construct a more
complete mass balance. The coalition claims that, in some states (where re-injected volumes are
already reported by ER facilities, e.g., Texas and New Mexico), such a requirement would not
pose much of an additional burden on facilities to report the net CO2 injected based on reinjected
volumes measured at the manifold.
Response 5.1-c:
In today's final action, EPA is requiring reporting under subpart UU (previously referred to as
"Tier 1" facilities) of basic information on C02 received (a term which EPA is defining in this
final action for what commenters described as "new" CO2). EPA is not requiring reporting on
total C02 injection or on recycled C02 under subpart UU. Reporting on the mass of C02
injected and the mass of CO2 produced is required under subpart RR for facilities conducting GS
(previously referred to as "Tier 2" facilities). Please see Section II.E of the preamble for a
discussion of EPA's rationale for these decisions.
Comment 5.1-d:
One commenter (0798) requests that in the final rule, EPA clarify that once CO2 has been taken
into an ER-based operation, the process of isolating the CO2 emissions from the atmosphere (i.e.,
sequestration) has commenced. The commenter asserts that once a CO2 molecule is within an
ER-based system, it will remain sequestered (even if it is repeatedly recycled within that field or
at another ER site) unless there is a leak from the equipment (to be reported under subpart W), a
sale to an emissive end-use (to be reported by end-use emitter), or a leak from the subsurface
formation into which it had been injected. The commenter believes that this interpretation was
intended as part of the various reporting rules (i.e., subpart PP, subpart C, subpart W, and this
action). A second commenter (0805) similarly asserts that the vast majority CO2 received on site
at an ER site ultimately is retained in the geologic formation. A third commenter (0810)
emphasizes that CO2 injected for ER or GS is 100% sequestered and does not leak and that at ER
sites, all gas volumes are in a closed system.
Two commenters (0792, 0816/TRANS-VA-05) state that they agree with EPA's statement in the
preamble that CO2-ER operations are a "closed-system" and non-emissive. One of these
commenters (0792) states that EPA has acknowledged that CO2-ER operations are closed
systems and non-emissive. The commenters assert that CO2-ER is an oil and gas production
technique that falls in the same category as water injection or thermal enhancement. The other
commenter (0816) suggests that CO2-ER be viewed for what it is and its emissions (if any) be
63
-------
reported in association with oil and gas production. Both commenters state that collecting this
information will not provide any emissions data.
Response 5.1-d:
EPA recognizes that the geology of an oil and gas reservoir can create a good barrier to trap CO2
underground and that many projects in the ER industry could successfully verify and report GS
with an EPA-approved MRV plan. EPA does not agree that all ER is inevitably a closed system
or that the isolation of C02 inevitably commences when C02 is received by an ER operation. In
order for EPA to determine that ER is a closed system that isolates CO2 for a particular facility,
that facility must demonstrate GS by following the monitoring and reporting requirements of
subpart RR.
EPA notes that the only use of the term "closed-system" in the proposed package was in
reference to comments received to the proposed GHG Reporting Program rulemaking in 2009.
EPA did not make a statement in the preamble that we acknowledge CO2-ER operations are a
"closed-system" and non-emissive.
EPA notes that the data collected under subpart UU on C02 received does not represent the
amount of CO2 emitted to the atmosphere, but it does provide EPA with information on the
amount of C02 handled by the facility and thus the amount that could be emitted to the
atmosphere by the facility in the reporting year.
Comment 5.1-e:
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) recommends that EPA use the phrase "part 98"
instead of "this rule" in 40 CFR part 98.446.
Response 5.1-e:
EPA agrees with this comment and has replaced the term "this rule" with "this part."
Comment 5.1-f:
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) recommends the following revision and insertion
of new text into 40 CFR part 98.443(b):
40 CFR part 98.443(b)
(b) A facility must report annually the mass of CO2 injected in accordance with
the procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section [or
obtain approval for an alternative reporting requirements pursuant to
(b)(4) of this section ]
40 CFR part 98.443(b)(4)
[(4) A facility that is required to report pursuant to this subpart but is not a
GS facility may submit to EPA and obtain approval of alternative
64
-------
reporting provisions designed to provide the net mass of C02 injected
during the year, by quantifying the mass of CO2 produced and recycled for
ER. The details of the calculations in such a plan may be claimed as
confidential business information, but the total mass of CO2 injected must
be reported along with the calculated net mass of CO2 injected.]
[NOTE: Text appearing in [bold] above appears as inserted tracked change text in original
document.]
The multi-stakeholder discussion group asserts that this revision would give operators the
opportunity to propose an alternative approach that meets EPA's request for useful information
while also allowing them to take necessary steps to protect company sensitive information.
Additionally, the multi-stakeholder discussion group raises concern that the annual reporting of
mass of C02 injected by ER operations may create a data-point that is not easily understood by
the general public/media, as it will include recycled CO2 produced with the oil and gas stream.
As such, the multi-stakeholder discussion group recommends allowing ER operators to establish
procedures for generating the mass of CO2 injected (minus the mass that represents the recycled
C02) without requiring these operators to comply with all of the reporting elements that are
required for GS facilities. The multi-stakeholder discussion group suggests the above revisions
that are designed to allow operators to provide additional information voluntarily, in order to
improve the "contextual interpretation" of the reported mass of injected CO2.
Response 5.1-f:
EPA is not requiring reporting in subpart UU of today's action the mass of C02 injected.
Therefore, the commenter's concerns about the reporting provisions for providing CO2 injection
and the business confidentiality of such data are not applicable. Please see response 5.1-c for a
discussion of EPA's decision on this reporting requirement.
In generally, EPA does not agree that facilities reporting under subpart UU should be allowed to
obtain approval for and follow alternative reporting provisions. All of the requirements in
today's final action must be followed as written by applicable facilities. EPA has determined that
all reporters must follow the same procedures specified in the regulatory text so that the data can
be compared across facilities. For responses to comments on CBI, please see Chapter 9.3 of this
document.
Comment 5.1-g:
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) seeks the opportunity to work with EPA toward
the initiation of a potential study that would address use of CO2 in ER operations from both
natural and anthropogenic sources in order to determine how to design reporting provisions for
ER operations that inject CO2 but have not chosen to opt-into GS facility reporting requirements
under this action. A coalition of ENGOs (0809) supports such a study but cannot support it
taking the place of or being used to delay the start of "Tier 1" reporting requirements beginning
in 2011.
Response 5.1-g:
65
-------
EPA commends the commenter for its transparency and willingness to work cooperatively with
the Agency to improve understanding of ER operations. EPA greatly values such cooperation.
Whether EPA works with the commenter on a study is outside of the scope of this rulemaking
and will be addressed after this rulemaking is finalized. EPA confirms that the start of today's
final action will not be affected by such a study.
Comment 5.1-h:
Two commenters (0808, 0813) do not believe the EPA is justified in requiring quarterly
reporting. One commenter (0808) suggests that EPA require facilities to report the mass of CO2
transferred onsite from offsite once a year, as part of each facility's annual reporting. The
commenter suggests that the facilities should have the ability to decide upon the best way to
make that determination. The commenter asserts that the reporting rule should not require
reporting beyond that which is currently required under source contracts and that it is not clear
what purpose quarterly reporting serves. One commenter (0813) asserts that EPA has not
provided a regulatory justification for requiring quarterly reporting for the purposes of the
reporting rule, particularly when the proposed UIC rule would require that such data be included
in semiannual reports. The commenter suggests that EPA make every effort to harmonize
requirements across the UIC and reporting rules.
Response 5.1-h:
In the proposed rule, EPA did not require quarterly reporting. In the proposed rule and in today's
final action, EPA requires that the collection of data be conducted quarterly and that all data be
calculated and submitted annually, once a year. For a response to comments on harmonizing
efforts between the UIC Class VI rule and this rule, please see Chapter 11 of this document.
Comment 5.1-i:
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) suggests that EPA add two categories to the list
from which a facility must report the source of the CO2 received: "other specified natural
sources" for processes under development such as capture of atmospheric CO2; and "gasification
operations."
Response 5.1-i:
In today's final rule, EPA added a category for "gasification operations" to the list from which a
facility must report the source of the CO2 received. EPA agrees with the commenter that this
could be a source of CO2. EPA did not add a category for "other specified natural sources"
because EPA concluded that CO2 captured from the atmosphere is not yet a demonstrated or
developed process. EPA notes that this list can be updated in future rulemakings to address
developments in technology.
Comment 5.1-i:
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) notes that 40 CFR part 98.426(f) already requires
suppliers to report quantities supplied to various types of destinations.
66
-------
Response 5.1-i:
EPA will use data collected under today's final action in combination with data collected under
subpart PP of the GHG Reporting Program (40 CFR part 98.420 through 40 CFR part 98.428 for
suppliers of C02). Information reported by injection wells on the source of the C02 stream will
be used in combination with information reported by CO2 suppliers on the destinations of the
C02 stream to better understand the quantity of C02 supplied to emissive and potentially non-
emissive end-uses, to better monitor the growth of GS (and therefore CCS) as a GHG mitigation
technology over time, and to conduct electronic verification. No changes were made to this final
rule as a result of this comment.
Comment 5.1-k:
Two commenters (0788, 0805), a coalition of ENGOs (0809), and the multi-stakeholder
discussion group (0799) argue that facilities should be required to report CO2 source. A coalition
of ENGOs (0809) and a multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) assert that because source
accounting is critical for accurate estimation of the amount and sources of sequestered
anthropogenic CO2, EPA should take steps to resist defaulting to an "unknown" supply category
and eliminate the "unknown" category from 40 CFR part 98.446(c). The multi-stakeholder
discussion group (0799) further suggests that EPA should amend the "other anthropogenic
sources" category to "other specified anthropogenic sources." For cases in which it would be
difficult for the injector to know the source of the CO2 stream injected, such as when the
purchased CO2 is a mix of anthropogenic and natural CO2 sources, a coalition of ENGOs (0809)
recommends that EPA require pipelines to report so that the original source of the CO2 can be
ascertained. Another commenter (0805) asserts that simple and detailed source information ought
to be available to ER operators from communication with the supplier, such as monthly invoices,
and from knowledge about the pipeline that makes physical connection to their facility. As such,
asking facilities to report the name of the source facility would be reasonable. One commenter
(0788) opines that having reporters detail the source of injected CO2 would allow regulators, the
scientific community and the public to better understand real world CO2 injection facility
operations and that knowledge of the source could give some indication of the composition of
the injectate that could be used to validate data. The commenter suggests that EPA should only
allow the reporter to report "unknown" as the source of CO2 if the reporter seeks and is granted
an exemption to this requirement.
Four commenters (0812, 0816, 0808, 0813) assert that ascertaining the source of the CO2
brought on-site should be optional and reported only if known. Two commenters (0808, 0813)
emphasize that storage sites are likely to contract with pipeline companies as opposed to
individual industrial sources, and thus the original CO2 sources will be difficult to ascertain. One
commenter (0812) notes that in the future, some CO2 ER operators may purchase CO2 from
anthropogenic sources, and this CO2 will then be delivered into a common carrier pipeline and
become commingled with CO2 sourced from underground natural sources. The CO2 ER operator
will be able to report the amount of CO2 received but will not be able to verify its source. The
commenter agrees with the proposed reporting requirements, which will be able to accommodate
this issue of commingled CO2 sourced from both anthropogenic and natural sources.
67
-------
One commenter (0790) supports the inclusion of cogeneration, noting that cogeneration is more
efficient than separate generation of electricity and thermal energy, and that collecting
information on cogeneration can be useful for the future development of GHG emissions data
and mitigation policies.
Response 5.1-k:
In today's final action, EPA is allowing reporters to report "unknown" as the source of CO2 if
they do not know the source because EPA agrees with commenters that it may be impossible for
an end-user of CO2 to identify the origin of each CO2 molecule used. EPA notes that if a reporter
is aware of the source, due to the transfer arrangement or payment contract for example, the
reporter must choose from the other categories in the list of sources in order to comply with this
final rule. Likewise, EPA is allowing reporters to report under the category "other anthropogenic
sources" because it may be impossible for an end-user of CO2 to identify the origin of each CO2
molecule used. EPA will provide space in the data system for this category for reporters to write
the type of anthropogenic source if it is known. Furthermore, today's final action is not an
accounting protocol meant to track each molecule of C02 from source to end-use. EPA included
this reporting requirement in the proposed action and in subpart PP to better understand which
industries receive C02 supply and generally how much in order to track industry trends and
inform future industry-specific climate policy.
EPA disagrees with the comment that pipelines should be added as reporters in today's final
action. EPA will propose new rulemakings in the future to add new source categories, such as
pipelines, when and if EPA determines that such source categories are necessary to inform
potential climate change policy. See Section 14 of this document for a comment response on
reporting from pipelines.
Comment 5.1-1:
One commenter (0788) observes that the assumption that a CO2 injection well would not know
the source of CO2 is reflective of an implicit view of how CCS will be deployed on a commercial
basis in the US. More specifically, the commenter observes that some phrases in the proposed
action suggest that EPA is basing its expectations of how CCS will deploy on CO2 ER practices
in West Texas, and that it is not clear that this particular system architecture will be replicated for
CCS.
Response 5.1-1:
Today's final action has been written so that it can be applied to projects in operation today. EPA
notes that reporters of some injection wells today do not know the source of every molecule of
CO2 received. As a result, in today's final action, EPA continued to allow reporters to report
"unknown" as the source of CO2 if they do not know the source. EPA is prepared to amend the
features and provisions of this final action to adapt to industry developments in the future as
needed.
5.2 General "Tier 2" Reporting Requirements (Subpart RR)
68
-------
Comment 5.2-a:
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) suggests that in proposed 40 CFR part 98.442(c)
and 40 CFR part 98.446(f), the language used by EPA should refer to 'leakage' rather than
'leaks' to be consistent with the definitions provided in the rule (i.e., 40 CFR part 98.449). The
multi-stakeholder discussion group further suggests that the term "subsurface geologic
formation" be pluralized and that the term "leakage pathways" be amended to mean those that
are "separately distinguishable."
Response 5.2-a:
EPA agrees that terms defined in 40 CFR part 98.449 and 40 CFR part 98.478 should be used
throughout the regulatory language for consistency and clarity. In today's final action, EPA has
defined the term "surface leakage" in 40 CFR part 98.449 and has used the term throughout
subpart RR. EPA has implemented the suggestion in today's final rule to pluralized "subsurface
geologic formation" in the regulatory text where appropriate. EPA has not used the term
"separately distinguishable leakage pathways" because it is clear that the leakage pathways
distinguished in the MRV plan are the ones for which data must be reported.
Comment 5.2-b:
Two commenters (0798, 0816) and the multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) assert that
with ER projects there are times when the amount of CO2 produced is larger than the amount of
CO2 injected. This situation may happen in cases when CO2 that is injected at one time is
produced at a later time (longer than a year) when there is no injection. Therefore, Equation RR-
11 (the mass-balance equation to calculate GS) would result in a negative number even though
there is no real loss of CO2 or emissions from the facility. One commenter (0798) further opines
that Equation RR-11 does not accurately account for the sale and transfer of CO2 from one ER
site to another and that the amount of CO2 reported as sequestered in that year by the second ER
project will be over-counted. One commenter (0798) and the multi-stakeholder discussion group
(0799) requests EPA to consider this possibility and address this issue in the preamble and in any
published material that includes data by ER facilities. Because of the dynamic nature of ER
projects and their concern over reporting negative annual mass sequestered, the multi-
stakeholder discussion group (0799) provides specific regulatory text to add to 40 CFR part
98.442 so that the cumulative mass of CO2 sequestered is listed as a GHG to report. The third
commenter (0816) expresses concern that reporting of negative annual sequestered masses could
be incorrectly interpreted as a failure of the storage capabilities of the reservoir and therefore
also suggests that EPA request the reporting of cumulative mass of CO2 sequestered in ER
projects after they become subject to reporting under the proposed subpart RR. EPA is not
including a discussion of this in the preamble to today's action because it is sufficient to provide
the requested clarity in this response to comments document and in data publication.
Response 5.2-b:
EPA agrees that the snapshot of data in the annual report may not be reflective of the activity
conducted over the lifetime of the project. EPA acknowledges that the quantity of CO2 reported
as geologically sequestered under subpart RR in one year may be negative in some cases and
agrees with comments that this does not always indicate project failure or leakage. EPA also
acknowledges that the quantity of CO2 reported as sequestered in one year may not reflect the
69
-------
total amount of CO2 sequestered over the life of the project if most of that CO2 is produced and
transferred to another site in the following year. EPA contends that the summation of the
quantities of CO2 reported as sequestered in all years will ultimately be an accurate reflection of
the total C02 actually sequestered even under situations of C02 sale and transfer. EPA is
therefore including a reporting requirement in today's rule on cumulative mass of CO2
sequestration and is committing to publish and distribute all GS data carefully and accurately.
In the proposed rule, EPA included cumulative mass of C02 sequestered as a reporting
requirement under 40 CFR part 98.446 but worded it slightly differently than recommended by
the commenter. EPA made an oversight and did not also include cumulative mass of C02
sequestered under 40 CFR part 98.442. In today's final action, EPA has remedied the oversight
and added the item as worded in the commenter's recommendation to the list of GHGs to report
under 40 CFR part 98.442. EPA is retaining the reporting requirement in 40 CFR part 98.446
but has reworded it as recommended by the commenter so that it is clear and consistent across
the rule.
Comment 5.2-c:
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) suggests a revision to 40 CFR part
98.443(c)(4)(i) to include circumstances where a GS facility is producing oil or natural gas
incidentally without engaging in the business of ER. The multi-stakeholder discussion group
mentions that such wells would fall under the category of UIC Class 11(b)(5) that was
recommended in comments submitted to EPA under the UIC Class VI proposal.4
(i) GS facilities that are conducting enhanced recovery operations and [GS facilities] that are
actively producing oil or natural gas must calculate the annual mass of CO2 that is
sequestered in the underground subsurface formation in the reporting year in accordance with
the procedure specified in Equation RR-11 of this section.
[NOTE: Text appearing in [bold] above appears as inserted tracked change text in original
document.]
Response 5.2-c:
In today's final action, EPA has deleted the words "that are conducting ER operations and" from
the explanation to equation RR-11 rather than add the phrase "GS facilities" as recommended by
the commenter. EPA has concluded that this averts any possible confusion or ambiguity which
was the main concern of the comment.
Comment 5.2-d
One commenter (0788) is not aware of there being much literature on the amount of CO2 that
might remain in the oil produced from C02-based ER. The commenter recommends that EPA
investigate further whether there are robust industrial best practices that would rigorously
account for CO2 produced with oil and gas from C02-based enhanced recovery methods. The
4 Multi-stakeholder discussion group comments can be found under docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0926-0799.
70
-------
commenter provides a reference that might be of interest in this regard: "Greenhouse Gas
Emission Reduction Verification for Anadarko's Monell Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)
Project." FINAL REPORT Audit Date: March 3, 2009. Report prepared by: Duncan Rotherham,
Nathan Muegge, P.Eng., Zachary Schaffer ICF International 277 Wellington St. West, Suite
808,Toronto, Ontario. M5V 3E4.
Response 5.2-d:
EPA has reviewed the reference provided by the commenter. The referenced document identifies
that after the fluid separation stage, some incremental amount of CO2 may be entrained in the
produced oil and produced gas. In the document, the project owner proposes to analyze a sample
of the finished oil and produced gas to quantify the amount of entrained CO2, but no specific
method for analysis is referenced. EPA has provided a discussion in the final General TSD on
calculation of the amount of CO2 that remains in the oil or fluid produced. EPA has concluded
that the requirements for accounting for C02 produced with oil and gas in today's final rule are
sufficiently rigorous. No changes have been made to this final action as the result of this
comment.
Comment 5.2-e:
Two commenters (0798, 0816) and the multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) assert that the
definition of the term 'X' in Equation RR-9 is unclear; one commenter (0798) specifically
concurs with the comments of the multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799). They suggest that
EPA further clarify the definition of 'X," because as currently written, 'X' may be interpreted as
either the CO2 that is entering the separator or CO2 that is exiting the separator. One commenter
(0798) requests that the clarification of 'X' be made either in the preambular language or in the
regulatory text. The commenters suggest that Equation RR-9 may or may not produce an
accurate result depending on how 'X' is defined. One of the commenters (0798) suggests that the
X be defined as the entrained volume of CO2 in the produced (Oil and/or Gas) divided by the
volume of CO2 exiting the separator. The other commenter (0816) suggests that X be defined as
"Percent of CO2 that is expected to remain with the produced oil and gas when referenced to the
CO2 separated for recycle or end-use." The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799)
recommends adding the following language to 40 CFR part 98.443(c)(2)(iii) to define X: "The
value of X must be a ratio, expressed as a percentage, of CO2 that is expected to remain with the
produced oil and gas to CO2 separated for recycle or end-use." The group proposes a further edit
to this regulatory paragraph so that a reporter may (rather than must) use a methodology in the
EPA-approved MRV plan to estimate the value of X.
Response 5.2-e:
EPA understands the comments that the input "X" to equation RR-9 should be more clearly
defined. In today's final action EPA has used suggestions from both commenters to define "X"
as "entrained CO2 volume or mass in produced oil or other fluid divided by the CO2 separated
through all separators in the reporting year (weight percent CO2, expressed as a decimal
fraction)." Furthermore, EPA has retained the requirement that a reporter use a methodology in
the EPA-approved MRV plan to estimate X. The commenter provided no rationale for replacing
the word "must" with "may." In the proposal, EPA concluded that the quantity of CO2 that
remains in the produced fluid would be appropriate for a reporter to determine on a site by site
71
-------
basis given potential variability across the industry, for example with oil and gas processing
infrastructure configurations. EPA further concluded in the proposal that it would be best for
quality assurance for such a site by site approach to be reviewed and approved by EPA as part of
the MRV plan. Those conclusions hold for today's final action.
Comment 5.2-f:
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) asserts that the language used by EPA for
reporting the annual mass of C02 emitted from each leakage pathway is too limiting because
leakage pathways are not discrete. The commenter suggests that proposed 40 CFR part
98.443(c)(3) be revised as follows:
(3) You must report the annual mass of CO2 that is emitted from each [by] leakage
pathway identified in [accordance with] your MRV plan. You must calculate the total
annual mass of CO2 emitted from all leakage pathways at the facility in accordance with
the procedure specified in Equation RR-10 of this section.
[NOTE: Text appearing as strikethrough above appears as strikethrough tracked change text in
original document; Text appearing in [bold] above appears as inserted tracked change text in
original document.]
Response 5.2-f:
EPA has adopted the edit recommended by this comment in 40 CFR part 98.443(e) of today's
final action. However, EPA retains the requirement that the reporter must identify and evaluate
all potential leakage pathways to inform the development of a site-specific leakage detection and
quantification strategy. Please refer to Chapter 6 for responses to comments on MRV plan
requirements.
Comment 5.2-g:
One commenter (0788) asserts that the use of the pronoun "you" is confusing in the reporting
requirement listed in proposed 40 CFR part 98.446(f)(14) because "you" is subject to
interpretation. Such language might limit the reporting to only the current operator of the field,
but the commenter believes that the data should be aggregated across all operators of the field
over its history. The commenter recommends that EPA edit the language and provide a more
explicit definition of the reporting period.
Response 5.2-g:
EPA understands the comment that the pronoun "you" may be confusing in this particular
context. In today's final rule, EPA has clarified that to comply with the reporting requirement
listed in 40 CFR part 98.446(e)(10) (the same paragraph as proposed 40 CFR part 98.446(f)(14)),
the cumulative mass of CO2 sequestered must be reported for all years since the well or group of
wells became subject to reporting requirements under subpart RR. As a result, if CO2 is reported
by a group of wells as sequestered under subpart RR, the quantity should be accounted for in the
cumulative total of C02 sequestered even if the group of wells changes ownership.
72
-------
5.3 Vented and Fugitive Emissions and Mass-Balance Equation for GS
Comment 5.3-a:
One commenter (0811) believes that the accounting of CO2 on a mass-balance basis is
appropriate. One commenter (0805) states that a mass balance equation in which fugitive and
vented emissions are subtracted from the quantity of CO2 received is appropriate for calculating,
or at least, validating GS. Four commenters (0797, 0808, 0813, 0800) state that approximating
the amount of CO2 sequestered based on the amount injected is a more valid approach to
reporting emissions from storage facilities than what was proposed. One of these commenters
(0800) states that a formulaic-based approach accounting for CO2 injected and stored may not be
appropriate. The other three (0797, 0808, 0813) suggest that facilities should report tons
sequestered based on existing data, and one commenter (0797) offers two reasons: (i) there
should be no potential leakage of CO2 from the subsurface, and (ii) emissions from subsurface
equipment should be minimal and not germane to GS as a mitigation technique.
The three commenters suggest EPA should impose an additional requirement that facilities report
excess CO2 air emissions from surface facilities above a threshold. They believe this threshold
would only be triggered in the case of process upset or malfunction, rather than in the ordinary
course of business. One commenter (0797) advocates including fugitive emissions in the mass
balance if the emissions are from sources that affect the mass balance equations. The commenter
further suggests that if subpart RR is focused on emissions from surface facilities at GS sites,
then it should be renamed to reflect that focus.
Two commenters (0808, 0813) state that a mass balance approach is more appropriate than a
formulaic based approach for CCS reporting, to the extent that it suggests a molecule by
molecule standard of perfection that is simply not appropriate for CCS. One of these commenters
(0808) further states that the "Tier 2" data elements are too prescriptive to the extent that the rule
is intended to flesh out reporting on air emissions of CO2 and of CO2 sequestered at GS facilities.
The commenter suggests only requiring reporting on those two elements and not requiring
monitoring and reporting of inconsequential leakage from the injection system.
The rejection of the proposed mass balance equation by these commenters is based in some part
on the perspective that a well-sited, well-managed GS project will not result in emissions from
subsurface leakage and should not include an input in its GS mass balance equation for
emissions from surface leakage. Two commenters (0813, 0815) elaborate that EPA does not treat
projects with this perspective, resulting in an imbalance between the value of reporting de
minimis emissions and the burden of monitoring, collecting, and reporting this data. According
to one commenter (0813), EPA has not designed a reporting system that advances public
acceptance of CCS as a climate mitigation technology and that is grounded in the minimal actual
risk of air emissions from GS projects, and EPA has missed the opportunity to recognize that de
minimis emissions do not undercut the efficacy of GS and ultimately is treating GS projects like
an anticipated major source of emissions. One commenter (0797) echoes this concern about
public confidence, stating that "it would be unfortunate if public confidence in CCS were
undermined because a GS site reported C02 emissions to the atmosphere of 100 pounds in Year
1 due to a leaking valve seal at a surface recycle facility when that same facility in Year 1
73
-------
successfully injected and securely stored 10 million tons of CO2." A third commenter (0811)
takes the opposite view, stating that public trust will not be sustainable over the long term
without comprehensive and transparent reporting such as the approach proposed by EPA.
Response 5.3-a:
In today's final action, a facility subject to subpart RR must calculate the quantity of C02
geologically sequestered using a mass balance equation that takes into account CO2 injected,
C02 emitted from subsurface leakage (if any), C02 produced (if any), and fugitive or vented
emissions from surface equipment (if any) located between the flow meter(s) and the
wellhead(s). EPA has concluded that a full mass balance is required to calculate and verify the
quantity of CO2 geologically sequestered. The quantity of CO2 received is not adequate to
calculate this number.
EPA agrees that well-sited, well-operated GS projects with effective trapping mechanisms are at
a low risk of having CO2 emitted by surface leakage. EPA has concluded that today's final action
will strengthen public confidence in CCS by providing data transparency, availability, and
uniformity and by allowing GS project reporters to demonstrate the degree of monitoring that is
in place to keep the public and the environment safe. EPA has concluded that emissions from
surface equipment and any surface leakage must be accounted for in the GS mass balance
equation for accuracy and completeness. This rule allows reporters to report information to EPA
and to the public in a transparent and credible way.
Comment 5.3-b:
One commenter (0802) suggests that for ER projects in which the EPA requires reporting of
"produced CO2," EPA should require reporting of the volume of CO2 that is separated from
produced oil and gas and then recycled by the facility separately from reporting of the releases of
CO2 to the atmosphere (equipment leaks, venting, and subsurface leaks) and from reporting of
CO2 in products (CO2 remaining entrained or dissolved in oil and gas produced from the site).
The commenter is concerned about the distinction between CO2 separated from produced oil and
gas and recycled by the facility because there are a number of existing financial incentives for
CO2 or GHG capture and sequestration that require a minimum level of CO2 containment, and
future legislation or regulations may also define sequestration by referencing the effectiveness of
GS.
Response 5.3-b:
EPA understands the commenter's assertion that it may be desirable for users of this data to
evaluate these components of the GS mass balance equation separately. In today's final action,
EPA has required that these components be reported separately.
Comment 5.3-c:
One commenter (0802) suggests that EPA's approach to "produced CO2" is an appropriate
correction to the calculation of how much new CO2 is sequestered at a facility in a given year. A
coalition of ENGOs (0809) believes that the requirement to report the quantity of C02 produced
with oil or gas, and the amount of CO2 that remains in the oil or gas after separation will help
74
-------
EPA to develop a better understanding of the amount of CO2 that remains sequestered in ER
projects.
One commenter (0802) believes it would give a misleading impression of the effectiveness of
sequestration at that facility. The commenter (0802) notes that the fate of re-injected CO2 that
remains sequestered after re-injection is no different from that of C02 that is injected and never
comes to the surface in the first instance. The ability to sequester a large percentage of CO2 via
an ER operation depends on the physical and geological fact that a high and fairly constant
fraction of injected CO2 - and re-injected CO2 - ultimately remains sequestered underground.
The commenter is concerned because EPA proposed calculation would not reveal this fact.
Response 5.3-c:
EPA agrees with comments that the quantity of CO2 produced with oil and gas or with other
fluids, including the C02 that remains in the oil or fluid after separation, is a critical component
of the mass balance equation to calculate geologically sequestered CO2. EPA agrees with the
commenter that produced C02 is usually re-injected into the formation and can be retained in the
subsurface. EPA has concluded that the approach to calculating GS in today's final action
properly accounts for such a situation.
Comment 5.3-d:
A coalition of ENGOs (0809) and the multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) state that in
developing the "Tier 2" reporting requirements contained in 40 CFR part 98.443(c)(4)(ii) for GS
facilities in saline formations that are not actively producing oil or natural gas, EPA has
inadvertently overlooked the situation that might result when such injectors are producing fluids
from the injection zone, in order to manage the extent of the plume or create more efficient
storage. The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) recommends adding a paragraph to 40
CFR part 98.443(c)(4)(iii) to capture any data on produced CO2 under such circumstances. A
coalition of ENGOs (0809) suggests that Equations RR-7 through RR-11 apply rather than
Equation RR-12.
Response 5.3-d:
EPA agrees with the comments that CO2 from any produced fluids must be accounted for in the
GS mass balance equation. As a result of these comments, EPA is requiring a GS facility in
saline formations that is not actively producing oil or natural gas but is producing fluids (e.g.
brine) to use Equation RR-11 rather than RR-12 so that CO2 produced with fluids is accounted
for.
Comment 5.3-e:
Five commenters (0790, 0797, 0803, 0808, 0813) generally disagree with requiring reporting of
the mass of fugitive and vented CO2 emissions from surface equipment and think that EPA
should scale back or eliminate such proposed requirements in subpart RR. The commenters
argue that emissions from surface equipment will be minute, inconsequential, and statistically
meaningless. For two commenters in particular (0808, 0813), it is not clear why EPA needs
"granular level" data on fugitive emissions from GS facilities. Three commenters (0808, 0803,
75
-------
0813) believe that detecting minute levels of emissions from surface equipment will be difficult
if not impossible, and two of these commenters (0808, 0813) cite background C02 levels. The
third commenter (0803) states that any measurement or calculation of immaterial emission
sources upstream of the injection pump is unnecessary. Three commenters (0808, 0797, 0813)
disagree with EPA's proposed rationale that fugitive and vented emissions from surface
equipment are an indicator of the effectiveness of GS as a GHG mitigation technology, and two
of them (0797, 0813) believe that the public release of such data would not be good public
policy. Two commenters (0813, 0808) state that only minute levels of C02 emissions from
surface facilities are likely to occur from a well-selected and well-managed site. One commenter
(0794) asserts that the risks of major air emissions from CCS projects are slight and suggests that
EPA should approach this action with the assumption that any de minimis emissions that occur
would be outweighed by the hundreds of millions of tons of C02 that commercial-sized CCS
projects would sequester each year. One commenter (0797) asserts that EPA's motivation for
fugitive and vented emissions reporting provision appears to be premised on information that it
will be "helpful to have." The commenter opposes this motivation, arguing that emissions
reporting should be required when non-trivial levels of emissions are expected and they are
concerned that the public acceptance of CCS may be undermined by the occasional failure of
equipment that leads to fugitive emissions. One commenter (0813) argues that EPA should
recognize that minimal fugitive emissions do not undercut the value or efficiency of storage as a
climate mitigation tool.
One commenter (0808) argues that while flange level leak reporting is proposed for natural gas
storage facilities under the separate subpart W proposal, the natural gas and CCS industries are
different. The commenter describes that natural gas storage is temporary, it has relatively high
volumes of seasonal-based inflows and outflows, it typically occurs in shallower geologic
formations, methane is easier to monitor than C02, and it poses greater environmental hazards
than C02 as it is a more potent GHG.
On the other end of the spectrum, a coalition of ENGOs (0809) asserts that if an ER project
wishes to be considered as GS and potentially gain credit for permanent sequestration of C02
under a future regulatory program, it is appropriate that the facility must also report fugitive and
vented C02 emissions from surface components.
Response 5.3-e:
In today's final action, EPA is requiring reporting under subpart RR of fugitive and vented
emissions with respect to equipment located on the surface between the flow meter used to
measure injection quantity and the injection wellhead and between the production wellhead and
the flow meter used to measure production quantity. EPA has eliminated from this final rule the
proposed provision that all GS projects report facility level vented and fugitive C02 emissions
from surface equipment irrespective of the GS mass balance equation. EPA notes that a GS
project with no fluid or gas production and with a flow meter at the injection wellhead(s) need
not include any fugitive or vented C02 emissions from surface equipment in its GS mass balance
equation or in its annual GHG report (for subpart RR).
EPA agrees with comments that fugitive and vented emissions from surface equipment do not
provide adequate indication of the efficacy of a subsurface geologic formation to permanently
76
-------
sequester CO2 and mitigate climate change. Furthermore, EPA emphasizes that an objective for
collecting data under subpart RR is to collect data on the quantity of C02 geologically
sequestered and recognizes that facility-wide data on fugitive and vented emissions do not
contribute towards meeting this objective. For these reasons, and as a result of comments
received, EPA has eliminated from this final rule the proposed provision that all GS projects
report facility level vented and fugitive C02 emissions from surface equipment irrespective of
the GS mass balance equation.
After careful consideration of all comments received, EPA has concluded that the GS mass
balance equation must account for fugitive and vented emissions from surface equipment where
necessary to ensure data uniformity, accuracy, and completeness of the GS mass balance
equation. To accomplish this, EPA could have required that all flow meters measuring injection
be placed on the injection wellhead(s), but EPA decided against this in order to provide
flexibility to reporters and as a result of numerous public comments on the issue of flow meter
placement (see Section 4.1). In today's final action, a reporter has flexibility in the placement of
injection-side flow meter(s) but must account for any fugitive or vented emissions from surface
equipment between the flow meter(s) and the wellhead(s) in the GS mass balance equation if
applicable so that all reporters are reporting the same data. The Agency considered the burden
and the feasibility of determining such emissions when we proposed this reporting requirement.
We concluded that the burden would be very low because subpart W provides methods that rely
on simply engineering estimates or equipment count times emission factor for almost all
potential equipment. Only vented emissions from reciprocating compressor rods and packing and
centrifugal compressor wet seals would need to be measured directly at the vent stack once a
year. (EPA has included a discussion of these components and of the methods to determine their
fugitive and vented emissions in the final General TSD.) Given the straightforward nature of
these methods and the extensive guidance on them offered in subpart W material, EPA does not
consider the requirements in the final rule to be difficult to meet. By limiting the requirement to
report fugitive and vented emission only where this input affects the GS mass balance equation,
we have addressed the comment that the collection of such data would be meaningless. Again,
EPA notes that a GS project with no fluid or gas production and with a flow meter at the
injection wellhead(s) need not include any fugitive or vented CO2 emissions from surface
equipment in its GS mass balance equation or in its annual GHG report (for subpart RR).
Comment 5.3-f:
Three commenters (0790, 0797, 0813) oppose EPA's proposed reporting requirement of fugitive
and vented CO2 based on the argument that the CO2 molecule is not a hazardous air pollutant
(HAP), and that requiring such flange-level leak reporting would unwarrantedly shift the CO2
molecule into a HAP-like category. In particular, one commenter (0790) opines that a fugitive
CO2 monitoring system would require a program modeled after the Part 60 National Emissions
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR)
regulations, but that the lack of toxicity of CO2 - barring the safety issue of asphyxiation -
makes an LDAR-style monitoring program unwarranted. The commenter notes that fugitive CO2
monitoring is unnecessarily burdensome when leak rates from fugitive leaks (on the order of tens
of pounds per hour) are compared to injection rates (hundreds of thousands of pounds per hour).
Furthermore, one commenter (0813) asserts that shifting the CO2 molecule into a HAP-like
77
-------
category would be unwarranted as a matter of public health and safety, and that such a shift
could mislead the public by undermining the environmental and public health benefits that CCS
is intended to provide.
Response 5.3-f:
EPA disagrees with comments that the requirements in this rule shift the C02 molecule into a
HAP-like category. In order for reporters to comply with the fugitive and vented emissions
monitoring and reporting requirements in this rule, reporters will need to follow straightforward
methods provided in subpart W regulatory text and explained in the final General TSD to this
rule and in similar subpart W materials. These methods rely on engineering estimates or
equipment count times emission factor for almost all potential equipment; only vented emissions
from reciprocating compressor rods and packing and centrifugal compressor wet seals would
need to be measured directly at the vent stack once a year. EPA notes that a GS project with no
fluid or gas production and with a flow meter at the injection wellhead(s) need not include any
fugitive or vented CO2 emissions from surface equipment in its GS mass balance equation or in
its annual GHG report (for subpart RR). Furthermore, EPA also notes that the GHG Reporting
Program does not prescribe emissions standards or repair regulations; the Agency is collecting
data under this action as part of the GHG Reporting Program to inform potential future climate
change policy. Finally, EPA has concluded that today's final action will strengthen public
confidence in CCS by providing data transparency, availability, and uniformity.
Comment 5.3-g:
One commenter (0810) asserts that in the context of 40 CFR part 98.442(c)(4), the phrase "if not
reported under subpart W" is not meaningful since GS is not a covered source under subpart W.
Response 5.3-g:
A GS project that produces oil or natural gas is covered by subpart W if it meets the subpart W
threshold. Subparts W and RR are not mutually exclusive. Subpart W has been finalized in a
different action from this one, so please refer to that rulemaking for further information on
applicability to subpart W.
The phrase to which the commenter refers was part of the facility-wide fugitive and vented
emissions reporting requirement proposed under this action. EPA has eliminated this facility-
wide reporting requirement from today's final action and has deleted the specific phrase from the
regulatory text since it no longer has any context. See Section HE of the preamble for a full
discussion of the rationale for eliminating this reporting requirement.
Comment 5.3-h:
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) recommends revising the 40 CFR part 98.443(c)
to read "the mass of CO2 emitted by leakage" rather than "the mass of CO2 emitted from
subsurface leakage," since "leakage" is the defined term.
Response 5.3-h:
78
-------
The paragraph to which this comment refers has been deleted in today's final action. EPA has
applied the term "C02 emitted by surface leakage" consistently throughout the regulatory text to
maximize clarity.
Comment 5.3-i:
Three commenters (0806, 0807, 0810) support EPA's proposal not to require C02 injection
facilities to report fugitive and vented emissions under this action, claiming that such a
requirement would increase the burden on C02-ER facilities and result in double-counting of
emissions (and diluting the accuracy) of the data reported under EPA's GHG reporting program.
One commenter (0816) requests that EPA set a clear differentiation between reporting of vented
and fugitive emissions from component leaks at GS and non-GS facilities, and recommends that,
for CO2-ER operations, EPA state that fugitive emissions would be reported under subpart W
provisions with no additional reporting requirements applicable for non-GS facilities.
One commenter (0788) asserts that it is acceptable to exempt "Tier 1" facilities from reporting
fugitive emissions and vented CO2 if there is an underlying assumption that all CO2 that is
injected that is not within the articulated reporting requirements for GS is assumed to be vented.
The commenter suggests that EPA clarify that this difference between "Tier 1" and "Tier 2"
reporting requirements and other such differences mean that a group of injection wells cannot
retroactively account for previous years of injection as GS under the GHG Reporting Program.
Response 5.3-i:
In today's final action, subpart UU does not contain any emissions reporting requirements. EPA
agrees with comments that it would not be meaningful or valuable for EPA to collect data on
fugitive or vented CO2 emissions under subpart UU given EPA's rationale behind subpart UU.
As further explained in Section II.B of the preamble in today's final action, EPA is making clear
in this action that the quantity of CO2 geologically sequestered can only be verified and reported
to EPA by developing and implementing an EPA-approved MRV plan and reporting GS under
subpart RR.
5.4 Other
Comment 5.4-a:
One commenter (0788) encourages EPA to require a reporter to include in the MRV plan a
monitoring strategy to detect and quantify potential CH4 leakage. The commenter asserts that if
there is reason to believe that an important GHG (such as methane) could leak as a result of GS,
monitoring requirements for those emissions should be mandatory.
One commenter (0816) supports EPA's approach of focusing efforts on quantifying and
reporting CO2 only under this action. Additionally, the commenter notes that for GS facilities
that show no evidence of CO2 leakage, it should similarly be presumed that there is no leakage of
methane.
Response 5.4-a:
79
-------
In today's final action, facilities covered by subpart RR are not required to monitor for CH4
emissions from surface leakage. EPA agrees with the comment that the Agency should focus
subpart RR efforts on quantifying and reporting the mass of CO2 that is geologically sequestered.
EPA notes that MRV plan requirements can be updated in future rulemakings if and when EPA
determines that CH4 emissions from surface leakage should be added as subpart RR
requirements.
Comment 5.4-b:
One commenter (0791) and a coalition of ENGOs (0809) mention the schedule for data
collection and reporting. One commenter (0791) mentions that the proposed submission
deadline conflicts with other reporting requirements (e.g. SARA Title III, Title II reports) and
requests EPA change the reporting date from March 31 to July 1 to allow industry (especially
small businesses) time to adequately address all their reporting requirements. The commenter
also recommends that the data collection begin no earlier than 2012, with the first reports due in
2013, because of the burdensome and costly proposed requirements. On the other hand, a
coalition of ENGOs (0809) supports the January 2011 start date for ER and GS facility
monitoring and reporting requirements because information will help inform the degree to which
GS can be considered a GHG control.
Response 5.4-b:
When EPA established the GHG Reporting Program in 2009 (74 CFR 56260, October 30, 2009),
it was determined that the reporting deadline of March 31 allows a sufficient amount of time for
compiling, reviewing, certifying, and submitting annual GHG reports. The March deadline will
ensure timely collection of the data necessary to inform decisions regarding future GHG policy
and program development. EPA did not revisit that decision in this action, and EPA concluded
that, in order to maintain consistency, it is important for subpart RR to be subject to the same
reporting standards as the rest of the rule. Therefore, EPA does not concur with these comments
and has not revised the annual submissions deadline in this final action.
In regards to the initial reporting year, EPA carefully reviewed input from all commenters with
the goal of balancing the urgent need for data against the legitimate concerns raised regarding
timing, and determined that data collection for calendar year 2011 is a priority. Today's final
action will take effect on December 31, 2011, and facilities covered by subpart RR or UU must
begin monitoring and collecting data on CO2 received for their annual GHG reports on January
1, 2011. EPA notes that facilities covered by subpart RR and that were issued a final UIC permit
authorizing the injection of CO2 into the subsurface on or before December 31, 2010 must
submit a proposed MRV plan or R&D exemption information to EPA by June 30, 2011 (plus up
to an additional 180 days extension if requested). EPA has concluded that this timeline is
reasonable because the initial data element to be monitored and collected (CO2 received) is
already being monitored and collected by most facilities with injection wells. Furthermore, EPA
agrees with the comment that it will be useful for EPA to receive and publish data as soon as
possible to help inform climate change policy.
Comment 5.4-c:
80
-------
One commenter (0788) commends the EPA for allowing the use of electronic reporting and
states that it will ease the burden associated with mandatory reporting and help reduce
redundancies. The commenter encourages EPA to explore best practices for electronic reporting
and analysis tools that might allow key pieces of information to be used to meet multiple
regulatory needs. The commenter explains that the use of electronic reporting tools under this
rule and the UIC Class VI rule is an important way to reduce redundancies and lessen the
reporting burden.
Response 5.4-c:
When EPA established the GHG Reporting Program in 2009, EPA determined that data should
be provided to EPA electronically to reduce the burden on the reporters and EPA, and to increase
the accuracy of the reported emissions. EPA plans to follow well-known design practices within
the constraints of security, accessibility and Agency design requirements, and the electronic data
reporting system will be designed to be "user friendly" and allow data reporters to be able to
confirm that their data were accepted by the system and to compare the data in the system to the
data that they reported to ensure it was accurately incorporated into the database. For additional
background on the electronic data reporting system, please see the Preamble of the Final Rule for
Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases (October 2009). EPA did not revisit that decision in
this action, so all subparts of the GHG Reporting Program continue to be subject to the electronic
data submittal system addressed in Section V.B.3 of the preamble to the final part 98 rule
establishing the GHG Reporting Program (74 FR 56358, October 30, 2009). EPA has concluded
that it is important for consistency that subparts RR is subject to the same electronic reporting
standards as the rest of the rule. Therefore, EPA does not concur with the commenter and has not
revised the use of electronic reporting in this final action.
Comment 5.4-d:
A coalition of ENGOs (0809) argues that quarterly data collection and annual reporting from GS
projects does not allow for immediate reporting of leakage. The coalition of ENGOs notes that
airside leakage signals a serious problem with geologic containment, and it is critical that
leakage be detected and communicated as early as possible. The commenter suggests that this
would be difficult if the balance between injected, sequestered, fugitive and vented emissions is
not reported for months after the leakage incident begins. The coalition of ENGOs suggests that
EPA require more frequent reporting, such as quarterly, along with an annual summary.
Response 5.4-d:
In today's final action, EPA continues to require facilities subject to subpart RR to submit the
GHG report annually, by March 31 of every year. EPA notes that the requirements in today's
action are for reporting only and do not trigger any remediation actions. EPA has designed an
annual reporting cycle for the GHG Reporting Program that balances the value of data
publication with the administrative burden of data submission, processing, and verification. EPA
has concluded that facilities covered under subpart RR should be consistent with the rest of the
GHG Reporting Program in this approach. EPA notes that the final UIC Class VI rulemaking
requires that the Director be notified if the reporter obtains evidence that the injected CO2 stream
may cause an endangerment to an underground source of drinking water (USDW). This may
81
-------
include evidence of leakage. Please see the final UIC Class VI rulemaking for more information
on this topic.5
Comment 5.4-e:
Multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) states that they interpret 40 CFR part 98.444(a)(10),
which states that "you must use the same calculated methodology through a reporting period
unless you provide a written explanation of why a change in methodology was required," to
include the use of "averaging" as appropriate to arrive at quarterly numbers.
Response 5.4-e:
EPA has deleted the proposed paragraph 40 CFR part 98.444(a)(10) from this final rule because
this requirement is already contained in the General Provisions (subpart A) of Part 98 at 40 CFR
part 98.3(e). It was an EPA oversight to repeat the same requirement twice, and therefore EPA
deleted this text from subparts UU and RR so that it only appears in subpart A.
EPA interprets the main point of the comment to be that a reporter should be able to sample a
flow more than once a quarter, test the multiple flow samples for CO2 concentration, and average
the results in order to calculate the quarterly CO2 concentration value. EPA agrees with this
comment and has concluded that multiple samples per quarter should be allowed if this approach
results in a more representative value for the quarter and if they reporter chooses to take on this
additional sampling and testing. To implement this suggestion, EPA has amended the monitoring
requirements for determining CO2 concentration of all flows in subparts UU and RR of this final
rule so that samples must be taken at least once per quarter.
It is unclear from the written comment whether the commenter is also stating that the reporter
should be able to average the flow value to calculate a quarterly value. EPA notes that it is not
appropriate or correct to average a measured flow value at any point because the measurements
would be continuous.
Comment 5.4-f:
One commenter (0798) suggests that the language describing the reporting equations in 40 CFR
part 98.443 be reworked and simplified. The commenter asserts that each paragraph explaining
an equation contains certain provisions that are identical to paragraphs explaining other
equations (although the commenter notes this is only apparent after reading/comparing each
equation). The commenter suggests that these equations be grouped together according to the
five activities they measure (e.g., RR-1 through RR-3 are transfer point equations; RR-4 through
RR-6 are injection equations; RR-7 through RR-9 are production/recycling equations; RR-10 is a
leakage pathway equation; and RR-11 through RR-12 are sequestration equations).
The commenter also suggests that it may ease compliance with 40 CFR part 98.443 if the
provisions that apply to all equations are listed in one set of paragraphs rather than duplicated
throughout the section. The commenter believes that this approach would allow differences
5 Please refer to the following Web Site for UIC program information:
http ://water. epa. gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration. cfm
82
-------
between the equations to be seen more readily. The commenter provides an alternative
organization of the regulatory text at 40 CFR part 98.443. In the alternative organization, one
paragraph is assigned to each of the five activities, plus a sixth paragraph for fugitive and vented
emissions from surface equipment for which the equations appear in 40 CFR part 98.233. Within
each paragraph, subparagraphs outline in prose each step of the activity. At the end of the
section, the commenter proposes that a table list all equations so that they are displayed only
once in the section, together in one place.
Response 5.4-f:
EPA agrees that grouping equations and organizing paragraphs by activity may provide further
clarity for reporters. In this final rule, EPA is making two edits to implement these organization
recommendations. First, EPA is amending the introductory paragraph at 40 CFR part 98.443 to
describe the five activity groups to which the equations belong. Second, EPA is assigning each
activity a paragraph so that C02 received by pipeline is contained in 40 CFR part 98.443(a), C02
received by container in 40 CFR part 98.443(b), CO2 injected in 40 CFR part 98.443(c), CO2
produced in 40 CFR part 98.443(d), C02 emitted by surface leakage in 40 CFR part 98.443(e),
and CO2 sequestration in 40 CFR part 98.443(f). A paragraph is not necessary for fugitive and
vented emissions from surface components because facility-wide reporting on such emissions as
proposed is no longer required in this final rule.
EPA does not agree with the commenter that it would be clearer to put all equations into a table
at the end of 40 CFR part 98.443 rather than throughout the section. EPA has concluded that it is
clearer for the equations to be located throughout the section because each equation can be
accompanied by the text that describes how to use it and by definitions and units of its terms.
Furthermore, this organization is consistent with the organization of all other subparts in 40 CFR
part 98 so that the GHG Reporting Program has a consistent reporting structure, allowing
facilities and suppliers to navigate from one subpart to another more easily and build a comfort
with the regulatory text more quickly. Therefore, EPA did not move the equations to a table at
the end of 40 CFR part 98.443 in this final rule.
Comment 5.4-g:
One commenter (0816) raises concern that the proposed subpart RR requires data to be reported
in metric units (e.g., metric tons of C02). In particular, the commenter states that this may
increase the burden on reporting entities since all commercial transactions of bringing C02 on-
site and measurement of flows (e.g., instrument calibration, standard operating procedures) are
developed in "common engineering units" that are not metric. As such, the commenter
recommends that all the equations in subpart RR be revised to include English units, with
conversions to metric units only as the final step of the calculation prior to summarizing the data
for reporting purposes.
Response 5.4-g:
EPA does not agree with the commenter's suggestion to specify all equations in English units
and then convert to metric units as a final step. As stated in the October 2009 preamble (74 FR
56356), to maintain consistency with existing State-level and Federal-level GHG programs in the
U.S. and internationally, all emission measurements must be reported in the SI, also referred to
83
-------
as metric units. EPA has concluded that this rationale is true for today's final rule. Therefore,
EPA is continuing to require reporting of all data in metric units and has not made a change to
today's rule as a result of this comment.
84
-------
6 MRV Plan Requirements
6.1 Site-specific MRV Plan Approach
Comment 6.1-a:
A number of commenters (0788, 0795, 0797, 0798, 0800, 0802, 0803, 0808, 0812,
0813/TRANS-VA-02, 0816), and a coalition of ENGOs (0809/TRANS-VA-01), support EPA's
site-specific MRV plan approach.
One commenter (0798) states that, given the wide range of site-specific variables, changes in
conditions through time during the life of the project, and the evolution of technology, the site-
specific approach is essential. A coalition of ENGOs (0809, TRANS-VA-01) states that without
meaningful plans for monitoring and verification of CO2 injection at GS facilities, EPA's GS
monitoring system will not be effective. They agree with EPA that the plans should be
developed on a case by case basis to reflect the unique character of the local geology and other
conditions at the GS site.
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) finds that monitoring requirements should be
tailored to each and project and should reflect and understanding of what is required and
implemented (even if not required) under both the UIC program and subpart RR. One
commenter (0797) supports EPA's site-specific approach, but is concerned that it could and
would overlap with other state and federal permitting regimes. Another commenter (0800)
supports EPA's decision for MRV plan that are site-specific, but finds that the proposed scope of
the MRV plan is too broad. This commenter believes that a site-specific approach to regulation
of GS is appropriate given that site-specific characteristics such as geology and surface
topography will differ from project to project.
Response 6.1-a:
EPA agrees with commenters that support the Agency's approach for allowing site-specific
MRV plans due to the wide range of site-specific geologies and conditions, to allow for
leveraging monitoring required by other authorities, and to be adaptive to evolving GS
technologies, and has therefore retained this approach in the final rule. See Section II.E of the
preamble for further discussion on site-specific MRV plans. In response to concerns about
overlap with other state and federal permitting regimes, please see Chapter 13 of this document.
In response to the concerns that the proposed scope of the MRV plan is too broad, please see
Chapter 6.2 of this document.
Comment 6.1-b:
One commenter (0813/TRANS-VA-02) recommends that lower risk sites should be rewarded
with appropriately tailored regulatory requirements. Two commenters (0803, 0813) note that the
requirements are too extensive in light of the acknowledgement by EPA in the proposed
rulemaking and in the UIC Class VI proposed rulemaking that well managed sites are not
expected to leak.
85
-------
Response 6.1-b:
Regarding the suggestion that EPA tailor regulatory requirements for lower risk sites, this site-
specific approach for developing MRV plans allows facilities to structure their monitoring
strategies commensurate with the risk of leakage of C02to the surface.
Comment 6.1-c:
A commenter (0805) affirms that it is correct for EPA to require a broader suite of monitoring
requirements to be applicable to GS facilities to account for C02 emissions that might result
from long term sequestration of CO2 at an ER site. One commenter (0812) argues against a pre-
determined check list of monitoring technologies that would have to be employed for each GS
site. One commenter (TRANS-VA-01) suggests that EPA reserve the right to prescribe certain
universal MRV methods (e.g., above injection zone monitoring).
Response 6.1-c:
EPA agrees with the commenter that stated that a broad suite of monitoring requirements should
be applicable at all facilities conducting GS, including ER projects that choose to opt in the
subpart RR requirements. EPA decided to retain the site-specific MRV approach instead of
prescribing a checklist of required monitoring technologies because of the variability in geology,
conditions, and operations at facilities conducting GS. EPA may revisit the requirements in the
future once more experience with GS is gained to ascertain whether certain monitoring should be
applicable to all facilities conducting GS,
Comment 6.1-d:
One commenter (0798) states that GS is being researched by the Department of Energy (DOE)
and other entities and the purpose of the DOE projects is to evaluate and test approaches to
monitoring and verification in various settings. Based on this, the commenter states that it would
be premature to require the use of specific monitoring approaches, technologies or techniques.
Response 6.1-d:
EPA considered research by DOE and other organizations while developing the MRV
requirements and determined that there is a suite of technologies that are currently available for
facilities to design an effective MRV plan according to subpart RR requirements. Instead of
prescribing monitoring approaches or technologies, the site-specific MRV approach taken in
subpart RR allows facilities to design their monitoring strategies based on what technologies or
techniques were most suitable to the site's geology and conditions. EPA will continue to track
research on monitoring approaches and technologies.
6.2 General MRV Plan Requirements
Comment 6.2-a:
Some commenters (0800, 0808, 0810) assert that the proposed subpart RR MRV requirements
are too extensive, are generally unnecessary, and will likely be a disincentive to new GS projects.
Commenter 0808 states that well selected and well managed sites will not have the types of
86
-------
leakage pathways that EPA seems to assume would exist. One commenter (TRANS-VA-07)
suggests that the MRV reporting is somewhat prescriptive and may not leave room for other
approaches (e.g., standards and protocols developed through consensus-based procedures that
industry may have already done or may be conducting in the future).
One commenter (0815) implores the EPA to ensure that the regulatory burden imposed by the
monitoring and reporting requirements for leakage should not be so excessive as to discourage
the development of this technology. One commenter (0795) states that a tailored and phased plan
will help to avoid regulatory and cost burdens that create disincentives to ER and GS project
development and delay the advancement of beneficial C02 injection and GS technologies.
Response 6.2-a:
EPA disagrees with the suggestions that the MRV requirements are too extensive, prescriptive,
and unnecessary, and maintains that the requirements allow reporters to tailor MRV plans based
on site-specific features (such as potential leakage pathways) and conditions, allows reporters to
use methods developed by other entities, and ensures accurate accounting of sequestered C02.
See Chapter 6.1 of this document and Section HE. of the preamble for further discussion of
EPA's site specific MRV plan approach. See the Chapter 13 of this document for a discussion of
EPA's consideration of existing MRV protocols.
Providing regulatory certainty on MRV requirements for facilities conducting GS is important to
the development and deployment of CCS technology. EPA concluded allowing a site-specific
MRV plan approach that can be tailored to each facility actually minimizes disincentives to new
GS projects.
Comment 6.2-b:
One commenter (0798) states that, although they strongly support site specific MRV rules, the
impact of the rules will not be clear until the MRV plans are acted upon some time in the future.
The commenter also asserts that if ER operations are subject to the full range of monitoring
technologies that are currently being tested in pilot projects, then the end result may be that ER is
not be a viable option for GS of anthropogenic sources. The commenter is confident that with
proper site selection and site-based MRV plans, the cost of monitoring and verification will
prove to be reasonable, and ER will have a major impact on GS. However, the commenter urges
the EPA to bear in mind that if its assessment turns out to be wrong, the costs of unnecessary
monitoring tools or unduly burdensome procedures could readily erect an insurmountable
regulatory barrier to deployment of carbon capture and storage technology.
Response 6.2-b:
EPA appreciates the support for the site-specific MRV approach. EPA agrees with the
commenter that with proper site selection and site-based MRV plans, the cost of monitoring and
verification will prove to be reasonable. The site-specific MRV approach taken in subpart RR
allows facilities to design their monitoring strategies based on what technologies or techniques
are most cost effective and suitable to the site's geology and conditions. The commenter asserts
that if ER is subject to the "full range" of monitoring technologies being tested at pilot projects
the end result would be that ER might not be a viable option for GS, but the commenter does not
87
-------
provide any detail about the types of technologies in question, and why a given technology could
not be applied to ER.
Comment 6.2-c:
Two commenters (0796, TRANS-VA-04) and a coalition of ENGOs (0809/TRANS-VA-01)
assert that clearer guidelines are needed from EPA on which technologies would be considered
adequate to meet the MRV requirements under subpart RR. One commenter (TRANS-VA-04)
expresses concern that the rule may not provide sufficient guidance to guarantee a consistent
level of quality across plans or to ensure that reports from different facilities are readily
comparable. The commenter suggests that EPA provide further structure to the case by case plan
requirement by: i) identifying baseline accuracy and provision standards that all plans must meet,
ii) ranking preferred monitoring technologies that may be used in many instances, and iii)
providing regulatory standards charting out in some detail, elements all plans must contain and
questions all plans must consider. These suggestions would ensure that regional variations do not
inadvertently diminish the rigor of the overall reporting structure. One commenter (0796) urges
EPA to carefully consider the regulatory burden and uncertainty it may be creating by failing to
provide clear guidance on acceptable MRV methodologies. The commenter notes that high
regulatory burdens will delay and discourage development and deployment of CCS. Another
commenter (0802) is concerned that the flexibility would disappear if EPA were to incorporate
the sort of detailed expectations set out in the preamble into the final regulations. The
commenter (0802) states that EPA should remain open to facility's site-specific leak detection
strategies.
Response 6.2-c:
EPA agrees that providing greater clarity on the regulatory requirements and evaluation criteria
may improve the rigor of the reporting program. Therefore, EPA has refined the regulatory
requirements to provide more clarity on the minimum required elements of an MRV plan, has
expanded the preamble discussion, and has revised the final General TSD to provide further
detail on the technical evaluation of MRV plans. The final General TSD provides illustrative
examples describing aspects of MRV plan development. This includes delineating the
monitoring area, both the maximum monitoring area over the life of the project and how
monitoring can be phased in over this area; selecting a leakage detection system that is suitable
for the site; detecting and quantifying a CO2 leak; and identifying baseline conditions. EPA
disagrees with the commenter (0802) that the details in the proposal preamble would preclude
site-specific flexibility. Rather, EPA asserts that the details provide reporters with more clarity
regarding the requirements of MRV plans.
Comment 6.2-d:
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) suggests a two-stage approach for the monitoring
process: 1) the first stage includes a process for addressing changes in fluid migration or pressure
front that extend beyond the area of review (AoR) but do not result in leakage and would require
review and potential reevaluation and revision of the AoR (i.e., the project envelope) and/or the
MRV plan; unanticipated fluid movement could also trigger additional monitoring steps; and 2)
the second stage would be triggered by actual leakage and would i) determine and implement
appropriate response pursuant to the UIC emergency and remedial response plan, and ii) quantify
88
-------
that release for subpart RR emission reporting purposes. "Additional monitoring and
measurement steps and MRV plan revisions would be taken on a fit for purpose basis as
necessary to locate and/or address the type of release involved."
Response 6.2-d:
EPA recognizes that the monitoring strategy will likely have at least two stages, as the
commenter describes above, and asserts that the subpart RR MRV requirements allow for
monitoring to be implemented in this manner. The reporter is required to outline strategies for
assessing the likelihood, magnitude, and timing, of surface leakage of CO2 through identified
leakage pathways, for establishing expected baselines, and for detecting and quantifying surface
leakage. EPA refers the reader to Chapter 6.5 of this document for a discussion on EPA's
revisions to the monitoring area for subpart RR in response to the commenter's suggestion on
monitoring outside of the UIC AoR. EPA agrees that further monitoring may be triggered by
detected leakage and that the reporter must quantify any surface leakage, but requiring
emergency or remedial response plan is outside the scope of this rulemaking.
Comment 6.2-e:
A coalition of ENGOs (0809) recommends the following two-stage MRV strategy to safeguard
the integrity of the plans and also lend greater clarity to the project owners/operators: 1) cost-
effective MRV subsurface methods (and surface methods if vulnerabilities are identified)
affirming that the CO2 plume and pressure front is conforming to the reservoir model, and 2)
second stage/level pre-planned rigorous subsurface review and comprehensive surface MRV that
would be implemented only if a threshold established in the MRV plan is crossed. The
commenter recommends that EPA amend the proposed 40 CFR part 98.448 (a) (1) to add this
two-stage approach and overall make the criteria for acceptable MRV plans more robust. The
following changes were recommended:
Amend 40 CFR part 98.448 (a)(1) to read:
"(1) You must develop an MRV plan that contains the following components.
a. A two stage strategy including a rigorous site assessment and risk evaluation
as part of a first stage monitoring and verification strategy including methods
for tracking the CO2 plume and pressure front relative to the reservoir model
and the geologic seal(s), and that addresses identified vulnerabilities and
establishes thresholds for revision. The first stage strategy must include:
(1) Identification of potential leakage pathways as well as a risk assessment of
leakage of the CO2 from the subsurface through these pathways;
(2) A strategy for establishing pre-injection environmental baselines sufficient
to allow assessment of any material or relevant change in CO2 that would
amount to leakage. For oil and gas applications, baselines should be
established adjacent to but outside ER fields and compared with parallel
data within the field to identify any existing adverse CO2 fluxes.
89
-------
(3) A plan for periodic re-measurement of baseline CO2 flux conditions as
established in (2) to ensure there are no significant changes.
(4) Identified monitoring techniques and technologies that enable the timely
and reliable detection and immediate reporting to EPA and to the permit
issuing authority for the GS facility of any leakage of C02 through the
identified pathways.
(5) Predictive modeling for comparison with actual collected data to validate
the accuracy of any assumptions about leakage on an ongoing basis, to
allow periodic assessment of the MRV plan.
(6) Identification of thresholds and identified events which would trigger a
revision of the MRV plan, an increase in the frequency of reporting and
data retention, and the requirement to communicate with the permit issuing
authority so that action can be taken to mitigate leakage.
(7) The requirement for sufficient continuous data acquisition to enable event
reconstruction and modeling for the purposes of quantification with
sufficient precision and accuracy in the event of leakage.
(8) A cross reference to the monitoring and reporting plan proposed or
approved as part of the GS facility's injection permit (if any), and
procedures for immediate notification to the permitting authority if leakage
is detected.
b. a second stage, modeling and verification strategy that is triggered if the
thresholds established in (a)(6) are exceeded, and any other monitoring or
verification methods EPA deems necessary on a case-by-case basis, in the event
of a monitored leakage, in order to establish the exact nature of the leakage and
its pathway(s), quantify it with sufficient accuracy, and examine whether any
other pathways are resulting in leakage.
The commenter states that these changes will significantly clarify for both the
prospective GS reporter, and the public, what the minimum criteria are for an
approvable MRV plan.
Response 6.2-e:
EPA notes that the MRV requirements in the final rule do not limit a reporter's ability to design a
leakage detection and quantification strategy that reflects the commenter's suggested two stage
approach. For example, the first stage would consist of monitoring to track the location of the
plume and to detect any potential leakages, using subsurface or surface technologies. The second
stage, quantifying the surface leakage, would be triggered if a leak is detected and verified. See
Response 6.2-d for further discussion of the two stage approach.
90
-------
EPA did not take all of the regulatory text suggested in (a) and (b). Below is a step-by-step
explanation of EPA's actions.
Amend 40 CFR part 98.448 (a)(1) to read:
(1) You must develop an MRV plan that contains the following components.
a. A two stage strategy including a rigorous site assessment and risk evaluation
as part of a first stage monitoring and verification strategy including methods
for tracking the CO 2 plume and pressure front relative to the reservoir model
and the geologic seal(s), and that addresses identified vulnerabilities and
establishes thresholds for revision. The first stage strategy must include:
(1) Identification of potential leakage pathways as well as a risk assessment of
leakage of the CO2 from the subsurface through these pathways;
EPA retained in the final rule the requirement to include in the MRV plan the identification of
potential surface leakage pathways for CO2 in the MMA (see Chapter 6.4) and the likelihood,
magnitude, and timing, of surface leakage of C02 through these pathways.
(2) A strategy for establishing pre-injection environmental baselines sufficient
to allow assessment of any material or relevant change in CO 2 that would
amount to leakage. For oil and gas applications, baselines should be
established adjacent to but outside ER fields and compared with parallel
data within the field to identify any existing adverse CO2 fluxes.
EPA retained the requirement for the MRV plan to include the strategy for establishing expected
baselines (see Chapter 6.7). EPA decided not to specify the approach for establishing the
baseline at an operating injection site to retain the flexibility for reporters to propose other
methods. Please see the final General TSD for more information on establishing baselines.
(3) A plan for periodic re-measurement of baseline CO2 flux conditions as
established in (2) to ensure there are no significant changes.
EPA did not include this specific regulatory text in the final rule as it is reflected in the revised
provisions related to re-submission of the MRV plan for EPA approval (see Chapter 7).
(4) Identified monitoring techniques and technologies that enable the timely
and reliable detection and immediate reporting to EPA and to the permit
issuing authority for the GS facility of any leakage of CO 2 through the
identified pathways.
EPA retained in the final rule the requirement for the MRV plan to include a strategy for
detecting surface leakage. EPA did not add in a provision to provide notification of surface
leakage to EPA and a permitting authority as that is out of scope of this GHG reporting
rulemaking. However, EPA notes that there are provisions for emergency notification in UIC
91
-------
regulations (see Chapter 11). In addition, CAA section 307(d) includes provisions for
emergency notification.
(5) Predictive modeling for comparison with actual collected data to validate
the accuracy of any assumptions about leakage on an ongoing basis, to
allow periodic assessment of the MRV plan.
EPA did not include this specific regulatory text in the final rule as it is reflected in the revised
provisions related to re-submission of the MRV plan for EPA approval (see Chapter 7).
(6) Identification of thresholds and identified events which would trigger a
revision of the MRV plan, an increase in the frequency of reporting and
data retention, and the requirement to communicate with the permit issuing
authority so that action can be taken to mitigate leakage.
EPA revised the requirements for re-submission of MRV plans to include events that would
trigger re-submission (see Chapter 7). EPA decided not to increase the frequency of reporting as
data on quantity of C02 sequestered does not need to be reported more than yearly for GHG
reporting purposes. As noted above, EPA did not add a requirement to communicate with the
permitting authority.
(7) The requirement for sufficient continuous data acquisition to enable event
reconstruction and modeling for the purposes of quantification with
sufficient precision and accuracy in the event of leakage.
EPA retained the requirement for the MRV plan to include a strategy for quantifying any surface
leakage. EPA is not prescribing continuous monitoring for surface leakage so therefore did not
adopt the suggested regulatory text.
(8) A cross reference to the monitoring and reporting plan proposed or
approved as part of the GS facility's injection permit (if any), and
procedures for immediate notification to the permitting authority if leakage
is detected.
As noted above, EPA did not add a requirement to communicate with the permitting authority as
this is out of scope of this GHG reporting rulemaking.
b. a second stage, modeling and verification strategy that is triggered if the
thresholds established in (a)(6) are exceeded, and any other monitoring or verification
methods EPA deems necessary on a case-by-case basis, in the event of a monitored
leakage, in order to establish the exact nature of the leakage and its pathway(s), quantify
it with sufficient accuracy, and examine whether any other pathways are resulting in
leakage.
92
-------
EPA retained the requirement that surface leakage must be quantified and that the MRV plan
must include a strategy describing the methodologies. Please see the final General TSD for more
information on the MRV plan requirements.
Comment 6.2-f:
A commenter (0800) recommends that the MRV plan should be designed as a contingency
strategy and deployed to quantify leakage to the atmosphere if there is CO2 movement from the
permitted target formation that suggests undetected leakage to the atmosphere or if the
monitoring plan as required by the UIC permit detects other direct evidence (e.g., natural
resource damage).
Response 6.2-f:
EPA agrees that the MRV plan must include a contingency strategy to quantify any leakage to
the atmosphere if it occurs, but emphasizes that the plan must also identify methods for detecting
leakage. The leakage detection strategy may take advantage of monitoring required by a
facility's UIC permit, including CO2 plume tracking and groundwater monitoring.
Comment 6.2-g:
A coalition of ENGOs (0809) asserts that there is the potential for some sequestration facilities to
evade the MRV requirements and hence, linking the MRV plan requirement to the UIC
permitting process may be unhelpful. This may occur where there is no USDW present and
therefore no UIC Class VI permit. Although the rule does provide that the MRV plan
requirement can be triggered if another "relevant permitting authority in the case of a facility that
is not under the jurisdiction of the [SDWA]" confirms an AoR, but it does not specify what these
other "relevant" authorities might be. The coalition of ENGOs mentions that EPA does not
confirm that these other authorities will necessarily identify an "AoR," or when they may do so.
The coalition of ENGOs suggests that EPA:
• 'Confirm what minimum permit and monitoring and reporting requirements must be in
place for GS facilities located in areas that lack USDWs.'
• 'Confirm that the suite of monitoring and reporting that is needed to track the location
and fate of the underground CO2 plume, as well as an airside MRV plan, will be in place
for such facilities prior to injection commencing.'
• 'Estimate, in the preamble and support documents for any final rule, what the potential is
for any future GS facility to fall outside the UIC program because of the absence of
USDWs, and if so, whether there are any "relevant" permitting programs that would
govern. This exercise will help clarify whether, and when, programs outside the UIC
system are needed. The results of this investigation should inform the design of the final
MRV timing provisions, by ensuring that the entire population of GS facilities will be
covered by the MRV system.'
• 'Add clear backstop language clarifying that all new GS facilities not only must submit
an MRV plan but must have an approved plan before injection commences. No GS
facility should be able to begin injecting C02 without an MRV plan sufficient to ensure
that the operator, regulators, and the public can determine whether injection and
93
-------
The coalition of ENGOs states that 'EPA has authority pursuant to CAA Section 114 to impose
such requirements in order to safeguard emissions baseline data, insofar as the Agency may
"require any person" to "establish and maintain such records," "install, use, and maintain such
monitoring equipment," and "sample such emissions ... as the Administrator shall prescribe."
42 U.S.C. § 7414(a). Simply put, if proper monitoring is not in place prior to injection, EPA's
emissions data monitoring will be inherently uncertain, as the EPA recognizes in the preamble to
the proposed rule. If EPA fails to use its Section 114 authority in this way, or wishes to
supplement its authority, it still has useful ways of ensuring that MRV plans are in place before
injection commences: EPA could, for instance, include an air-side MRV plan requirement in its
UIC regulations, cross-referencing its CAA authority under Section 114. Monitoring for airside
leakage will help determine and demonstrate to the public that injected CO2 remains sequestered
as predicted, neither damaging USDWs or escaping to atmospheric release.'
Response 6.2-g:
In response to the comment that the potential exists for GS sites to evade MRV requirements, all
facilities that are covered by the source category for subpart RR, including offshore facilities that
are not under the jurisdiction of SDWA, must comply with the regulations. Please refer to the
Report of the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage for a discussion of selected
environmental laws that may be applicable to onshore and offshore GS.6
In addition, the requirements for a proposed MRV plan are the same regardless of the type of
permit that a facility holds. Therefore, if a facility does not hold a UIC permit, they will still need
to address all of the MRV requirements, including the delineation of the monitoring area, and a
strategy for detecting and quantifying surface leakage. This leakage detection strategy may
include subsurface monitoring.
Please see Chapter 7.3 of this document for EPA's response to the comment on requiring airside
monitoring to be in place prior to the commencement of injection. Please refer to Section I.D. of
the preamble for a discussion of the relationship of subpart RR to UIC requirements.
6.3 Definition of Leakage
Comment 6.3-a:
One commenter (0816) and the multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) recommend that the
definition of CO2 leakage be modified to state that leakage only occurs when CO2 moves to the
surface and is not subsequently captured for re-use, as it is in C02-ER operations. The
commenters recommend this revision to clarify that leakage only occurs when the CO2 is not
recaptured before entering the atmosphere, indoor air, oceans or surface water. The multi-
stakeholder discussion group mentions that this clarification is consistent with the preamble that
6 http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/policy/ccs_task_force.html
94
-------
states, "For the purposes of this proposed rule, CO2 leakage to the surface includes CO2 emitted
to the atmosphere, C02 emitted to the ocean from the sub-seabed, C02 emitted to surface water,
and CO2 emitted to indoor air environments."
Recommended Revisions to 40 CFR part 98.449:
Leakage means the movement of C02 from the injection zone to the surface, including [and
in]to the atmosphere, indoor air, oceans or surface water.
[NOTE: Text appearing as strikethrough above appears as strikethrough tracked change text in
original document; Text appearing in [bold] above appears as inserted tracked change text in
original document.]
Response 6.3-a:
EPA accepts the recommended revision to 40 CFR part 98.499 and has modified the definition of
leakage in the final rule.
Comment 6.3-b:
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) recommends that the regulatory language be
modified to not mention "to the surface" as "leakage," since it is defined to include the element
"to the surface." In particular, the commenter recommends that the following text for 40 CFR
part 98.448(a)(l)(ii):
(i) An assessment of the risk of leakage of CO2 to the surface.
(ii) A strategy for detecting and quantifying any CO2 leakage to the surface.
[NOTE: Text appearing as strikethrough above appears as strikethrough tracked change text in
original document; Text appearing in [bold] above appears as inserted tracked change text in
original document.]
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) also suggests modifying 40 CFR part 98.448
(a)(6)(i) to use the term leakage as it is a defined term.
A description of the leak[age] including all assumptions, methodology, and technologies
involved in leakage detection and quantification, if a leak was detected.
[NOTE: Text appearing as strikethrough above appears as strikethrough tracked change text in
original document; Text appearing in [bold] above appears as inserted tracked change text in
original document.]
Response 6.3-b:
EPA revised the final rule to include a definition for 'surface leakage' and uses the term
consistently throughout the regulatory text.
95
-------
6.4 MRV Plan Requirement to Assess Risk of Leakage to the Surface
Comment 6.4-a:
Three commenters (0808, 0810, 0813) assert that it is unreasonable for EPA to require the
identification and risk assessment of all potential leakage pathways. A commenter (0808)
believes that identifying all possible potential leakage pathways over the lifetime of a project is
unreasonable and infeasible and that well-selected and well-managed CCS sites will not leak.
The commenter indicates that at a minimum, phased characterization of potential leakage
pathways should be allowed, and highlighted that EPA proposed a phased corrective action
approach for the UIC Class VI rule.
One commenter (0800) agrees with the idea of phased characterization and believes the that
storage operators should only be required to perform any additional characterization of leakage
pathways, as needed based on evidence of plume movement.
Another commenter (0810) states that currently available technology precludes identification and
characterization, with reasonable certainty, of all possible leakage pathways within the spatial
area. The commenter points out limitations to seismic monitoring, wellbore logging, and
computational modeling.
One commenter (0813) also believes that the requirement is divorced from the way in which
commercial CCS sites will be permitted and operated in practice. The commenter states that the
requirement is also inconsistent with the way that the C02 plume is expected to move within the
target geologic formation: slowly and, depending upon the geologic characteristics of the target
formation, over a potentially very large area. The commenter notes that EPA is effectively asking
storage operators to characterize leakage pathways over an extensive area that may not be
affected by the injection for decades, if ever. The commenter asserts that EPA has provided no
justification as to how this requirement will improve the quality of the emissions data reported
by GS operators.
Response 6.4-a:
EPA concluded that it is necessary for the reporter to identify and evaluate all potential leakage
pathways over the lifetime of the project in the MRV plan. EPA determined that this information
is reasonable to request because it influences how the monitoring areas are delineated (see
Section 6.5) and also is the basis for designing an appropriately risk-based, site-specific
monitoring program. EPA agrees that the risk of surface leakage is minimized at sites that are
well-selected and well-managed.
EPA determined that currently available technology will allow reporters to identify and assess
potential CO2 leakage pathways at GS sites. Please see the final General TSD for more
information on MRV plan requirements, including identification and assessment of leakage
pathways.
EPA disagrees with the commenter (0813) that the identification and evaluation of leakage
pathways requirement is divorced from the way commercial sites will be permitted and operated
in practice. All GS sites that are subject to the Safe Drinking Water Act will be regulated under
96
-------
the UIC program, and the UIC requirements, including those tailored for GS (in the UIC Class
VI rule), require owners or operators to gather information to appropriately characterize the
entire AoR including information on geologic structure (e.g., faults and fractures) and the
location of artificial penetrations within the AoR. The UIC Class VI requirements allow the use
of phased corrective action — meaning the use of UIC Director-approved methods to ensure that
wells within the AoR do not serve as conduits for the movement of fluids into USDWs — if the
UIC Director determines such methods are appropriate and protective of USDWs. EPA notes
that the MRV plan requirements in subpart RR have been revised in the final rule to redefine the
monitoring areas and to allow phased deployment of the monitoring strategy (see Chapter 6.5 of
this document).
Comment 6.4-b:
One commenter (0800) suggests that the risk assessment be limited and focused, and it include
the analysis of site-specific exposure pathways that are probable leakage mechanisms, such as
active and abandoned deep wells or fractures and faults with surface expression.
Response 6.4-b:
EPA acknowledges that the risk assessment and the monitoring strategy should focus on likely
leakage pathways at the site. EPA disagrees that the focus of the risk assessment should be on
exposure pathways because this rule does not require the reporter to report impacts of CO2
leakage to the surface, but rather the reporter must quantify and report any CO2 leakage to the
surface. While the nature of individual GS systems can be expected to differ with respect to site-
specific geologic attributes, potential leakage pathways that may exist at GS sites include:
• Wells,
• Fractures, faults, and partings along bedding planes,
• Pathways dependent on competency, extent and dip of the confining system.
EPA requires the information about the leakage pathways in the MRV plan to determine if the
chosen monitoring program will be effective at detecting and quantifying CO2 leakage.
6.5 MRV Plan Requirements for Monitoring Area
Comment 6.5-a:
One commenter (0786) recommends that the spatial area of monitoring take the most
conservative approach, which is to characterize and model beyond the pressure front boundary.
This commenter notes that though the pressure front is not chemically affected by the CO2
plume, physical effects are possible, including fracturing of the caprock.
One commenter (0816) supports the proposal that the spatial area of evaluation be delineated by
the CO2 plume plus pressure front or that it should be equal to the UIC Class VI AoR. The
commenter recommends that the pressure front boundary be defined as threshold pressure
change because some small pressure changes may present no risk. The commenter recommends
97
-------
that EPA adopt for subpart RR the definition that the commenter proposed for the UIC Class VI
proposed rule:
"Pressure front means the zone of elevated pressure that is created by the injection of the carbon
dioxide stream into the subsurface, where there is a pressure differential sufficient to cause
movement of the carbon dioxide stream or formation fluids from the injection zone into a
USDW."
Three commenters (0810, 0812, 0811) recommend that the spatial area of evaluation be
restricted to the C02 plume. One commenter (0810) believes the definition of GS site should be
restricted to only the "plume" of CO2 saturation, but recognizes a need for MRV beyond this
area. This commenter suggests that when evaluating the spatial area of analysis, EPA should
avoid subjective terms such as "sufficient" and "reasonable," as they are concerned with who
will make these determinations and the result may be potentially costly to the operator. The
commenter gives an example of how different pressure differentials in a definition can make a
very large difference in the spatial area under consideration. The commenter believes that
requiring that the spatial area include the pressure front would raise issues with property rights,
costs, and project siting. Another commenter (0812) suggests that the spatial area to be
monitored should be determined by the reservoir modeling submitted by the facility operator and
that it should include the area that will cover the C02 migration during the injection phase and
post injection periods until pressure front stabilization. The commenter suggests that it may be
appropriate to include a buffer zone of approximately one mile past the spatial area to take into
account conduits for leakage outside of the spatial area identified in the reservoir model. One
commenter (0811) states that EPA should require monitoring of the entire area over which the
CO2 plume may migrate and that EPA should take the potential for lateral plume migration due
to irregularities in the cap rock and other factors seriously. For example, a slight upward angle in
the cap rock in one direction may bias CO2 migration in that direction. High permeability
channels between the confining and reservoir layers can also affect migration. The commenter
states that the MRV plan should cover the entire area over which the plume may migrate.
Response 6.5-a:
EPA disagrees with the commenter that suggested that the monitoring area should be as large as
possible to monitor for effects such as fracturing of the confining zone. In this rule, EPA is
primarily concerned with the area that could be impacted by CO2 leakage to the surface, and not
with monitoring for physical effects of injection (see the UIC Class VI rulemaking for
requirements for injection well site characterization, construction, and operation).
Based on comments, EPA also re-evaluated the proposed monitoring area which was proposed
based on the CO2 plume plus pressure front (consistent with the concept of the AoR in the UIC
Class VI proposed rule). EPA determined that the monitoring area should be focused on where
the CO2 plume is and will migrate over the lifetime of the project until it has stabilized based on
site characterization, monitoring and reservoir modeling (please refer to Chapter 8 of this
document for responses to comments on cease reporting provisions). The monitoring area need
not include the entire pressure front (as the UIC Class VI AoR does). Therefore, in today's final
rule, EPA defined a MMA based on the area of the free phase CO2 plume plus a buffer zone (to
take into account conduits for leakage outside of the area identified in the reservoir model but
98
-------
that may act as a leakage pathway), and defined an AMA to allow for monitoring to be phased in
over time based on C02 plume movement. These two concepts replace the proposed "spatial area
of evaluation" and are described in more detail in Section II.B of the preamble. The new
monitoring area definitions in the final rule improve the clarity of what is required of reporters
for this element of the MRV plan.
Comment 6.5-b:
Three commenters (0800, 0808, 0813) recommended that EPA allow a phased approach for the
identification of leakage pathways throughout the monitoring area, and in particular, highlighted
the relationship to the UIC AoR. One commenter (0808) suggests that the scope of EPA's
proposal duplicates the site information necessary to site and permit the injection wells, and the
commenter recommends that EPA coordinate with the OW when addressing the AoR re-
evaluation over the course of a project, using computational modeling techniques, as opposed to
requiring the permittee to do an initial evaluation of the potential largest extent of the AoR over
the lifetime of a project. The commenter mentions that EPA noted in the proposed UIC rule, that
a phased approach "can prevent the unnecessary burden of performing corrective action in areas
far from the injection zone that may never be impacted." At a minimum, the commenter
recommends that EPA allow sequestration sites to propose phased characterization of possible
leakage pathways in the MRV plans under the proposed subpart RR.
Two commenters (0800, 0813) recommend that EPA should be consistent with UIC permitting
and only require leakage assessment within the AoR at the time the MRV plan is submitted. The
commenters suggests that storage operators should then only be required to perform any
additional characterization of leakage pathways, if needed, based on evidence of plume
movement (including appropriate computational modeling) and any subsequent expansion of the
AoR as required by the UIC program. The commenter (0800) states that EPA should not require
leakage pathway characterization outside of the AoR unless plume movement has made such
leakage a potential risk. One commenter (0795) asserts that because sites used for ER are well
characterized and already permitted under the UIC program, it is not necessary to increase the
AoR delineation and monitoring requirements for these sites.
Response 6.5-b:
EPA agrees with the commenters that suggested a phased monitoring approach and this is
reflected in the final rule in the definition of the AMA. The AMA is the area that will be
monitored over a specified time interval chosen by the reporter that is greater than one year. The
first time interval will begin from the date determined in your MRV plan through the date at
which the MRV plan calls for the first expansion of the AMA. The boundary of the AMA is
established by overlaying two areas. The first is the area projected to contain the free phase CO2
plume at the end of the specified time interval plus an all around buffer zone of at least one-half
mile or greater if known leakage pathways extend laterally more than one-half mile. The second
is the area projected to contain the free phase CO2 plume five years beyond the specified time
interval.
EPA has also considered commenters' concerns about the relationship to the UIC AoR in the
design of the final requirements related to the area in which leakage pathways must be
99
-------
characterized and where active monitoring must take place. EPA determined that for UIC Class
VI sites, the AoR will be a larger area than will be necessary for monitoring under subpart RR.
This is because the UIC program is concerned with not only CO2 plume movement, but also with
pressure effects of the injection operation. Therefore, since subpart RR is concerned with
potential CO2 leakage to the surface, the monitoring area can be targeted to where the actual CO2
plume is migrating. This is reflected in the final regulatory requirements at 40 CFR part 98.448.
Comment 6.5-c:
One commenter (0786) recommends that the spatial area of evaluation be re-evaluated and
remodeled every five years rather than every ten years, due to the heterogeneity of geological
systems and limited experience with GS in the US. One commenter (0811) supports the proposed
requirement that a "GS facility would be required to re-evaluate and re-model the spatial area of
evaluation at least every ten years." The commenter believes that such re-evaluation should
require updated plume migration modeling based upon data of actual migration to date. In
particular, the re-evaluation must incorporate data acquired during the monitoring process to test
the original plume projections under the original MRV Plan.
Response 6.5-c:
The purpose of requiring a minimum frequency of re-evaluation of the monitoring area is to
ensure that the monitoring is targeted at potential leakage pathways in the area where the actual
CO2 plume is. EPA determined that a more effective solution than requiring a minimum
frequency for re-evaluating the spatial area was to have the reporter certify annually that the
MMA and the AMA have not changed from the approved MRV plan. If either monitoring area
does change in a way that requires revision of the MRV plan, the reporter will need to re-submit
the MRV plan for approval, including submittal of updated plume migration modeling, as
specifically called out by this commenter. Please refer to Chapter 7 of this document for more
information on MRV plan re-submission.
Comment 6.5-d:
One commenter (0786) recommends that actual data be submitted when the MRV plan is
initially submitted and whenever a GS facility is required to re-evaluate the spatial area of
monitoring. The commenter emphasizes that this data will provide the EPA the opportunity to
establish a baseline for each GS project, and better understand subsurface CO2 movement, the
efficacy of computational models, and the behavior of reservoir formations and confining layers,
and subsurface CO2 monitoring technologies in different geologic settings. The commenter
believes that a narrative description of geologic formations, simple stratigraphic descriptions,
maps of the modeled spatial area of evaluation, and an overview of methods used to characterize
the site, in the absence of actual data, are of limited use to the worldwide scientific community
for increasing our understanding of GS in various geological settings.
Response 6.5-d:
For the purposes of subpart RR, actual data need not be submitted unless it is part of the
demonstration that the reporter has met the MRV plan requirements, both in the first submittal
and in monitoring reports submitted after the plan is implemented (please refer to Chapter 7 of
100
-------
this document). One of the purposes of gathering data under subpart RR is to verify the amount
of C02 that is geologically sequestered at a facility conducting GS, and the information gathered
will additionally provide EPA and the public with a better understanding of GS in various
settings,.
Comment 6.5-e:
One commenter (0810) asserts that use of the pressure front in defining the spatial area could be
very problematic in several respects. The commenter suggests that this definition would include
a very large surface area and may raise the expectations of lease owners to be paid for pore
space, even if the leased region is far removed from the injection site. They state that it would be
impossible to obtain GS rights from the owners of a very large leasehold position. The
commenter suggests that requiring such payments could make a sequestration project cost-
prohibitive. In addition, it would likely result in spatial area overlap of two or more projects,
providing disincentives to subsequent projects. The commenter also notes that, under such
definitions of spatial area, a proposed subsequent new capture facility that may have considered
GS in this spatial overlap area with an initial facility may decide to sequester CO2 at a different
site that is not in an overlap area. Thus, this second operator would be required to pipe its CO2
over long distances to reach an exclusive sequestration site, affecting project economics. The
commenter notes that if a leak were to develop in an area of spatial overlap of two or more
injection sites, the offending party could not necessarily be determined. This may be a
disincentive to a second operator establishing a GS site within a spatial overlap area. The
commenter provides an example to illustrate their comments.
Response 6.5-e:
After consideration of this and related comments, EPA has redefined the spatial area for
monitoring so that it is not defined by the pressure front, but rather is defined by the extent of the
CO2 plume. See Response 6.5-a and 6.5-b for a description of the MMA and AMAs. This
rulemaking does not address property rights. Please refer to the Report of the Interagency Task
Force on Carbon Capture and Storage for a discussion of property rights issues and CCS.7
Comment 6.5-f:
One commenter (0811) suggests that monitoring CO2 injected into geologic structures which
lack lateral confinement is inherently a far more difficult and error-prone process than is
monitoring CO2 injected into structures with lateral confinement. The commenter believes that
the injection of CO2 for sequestration should only be allowed in geologic structures that exhibit
clear vertical and lateral confinement to minimize the risk of leakage and ground water
contamination. The commenter mentions that the UIC rules address confinement zones. The
commenter recommends a clear project boundary be defined prior to operations, both
horizontally and vertically. The project boundary would establish the real limit for which CO2
will migrate in the subsurface during and after the injection. As such, monitoring plans should
address lateral constraints on migration. The commenter suggests that public confidence in the
performance of GS will be greatly strengthened if EPA only authorizes CO2 injection into
7 http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/policy/ccs_task_force.html
101
-------
geologic formations that will result in complete confinement of CO2 within a specified and
defined geologic reservoir area. The proposed rule implies that C02 could be injected into a
geologic formation that is capped in the vertical dimension (i.e., above the injection formation),
and allowed to freely migrate in the lateral dimension within that formation. The commenter
suggests that the lack of a horizontal constraint dramatically increases the risks of a sequestration
project as an unconstrained C02 plume could encounter more potential escape pathways (e.g.,
outcrops, faults, old wells). The commenter believes that the Proposed Rule (as well as the UIC
rules) would be greatly enhanced by requiring extremely high hurdles for any C02 injection for
sequestration into any reservoirs that do not clearly confine the C02, both horizontally and
vertically.
Response 6.5-f:
The commenter's request to require injection only in geologic structures that exhibit clear
vertical and lateral confinement to minimize the risk of leakage and ground water contamination
through subpart RR is out of scope of this reporting rulemaking. Subpart RR requires
monitoring and reporting for the purposes of quantifying GS and does not regulate site selection;
facilities will have to comply with applicable permitting requirements for site selection. Please
see the UIC Class VI rulemaking for further information on GS site permitting.
6.6 MRV Plan Requirements for Detection and Quantification of Surface
Leakage
Comment 6.6-a:
A commenter (0795) states that monitoring of potential leakage pathways should be conducted
only as appropriate based on identified risks and in accordance with subpart RR MRV plans. The
commenter states that such plans should be reviewed annually against monitoring data and
revised as needed.
Response 6.6-a:
EPA acknowledges that the monitoring strategy presented in the MRV plan should be focused on
detecting and quantifying surface leakage, and therefore should focus on likely leakage pathways
at the site. While the nature of individual GS systems can be expected to differ with respect to
site-specific geologic attributes, potential leakage pathways that may exist at GS sites include:
• Wells,
• Fractures, faults, and partings along bedding planes,
• Pathways dependent on competency, extent and dip of the confining system.
EPA agrees that the monitoring strategy should be reviewed annually against monitoring data to
verify that the strategy is working appropriately and has added a provision in 40 CFR part 98.446
outlining this requirement.
Comment 6.6-b:
102
-------
One commenter (0810) mentions that 40 CFR part 98.442(c)(3) of the proposal requires
reporting of the mass of C02 emitted from subsurface leaks, however, they believe that no
reliable scientific method exists to actually measure subsurface leak events except after a long
time (years) when the reservoir pressure changes enough to calculate a pressure/volume
relationship. The commenter asserts that leakage detection and quantification has never been
done on a commercial scale, and the ability to detect a potential leakage pathway is almost
impossible unless reservoir failure occurs.
One commenter (0800) is concerned with overall MRV costs, and asserts that the ultimate MRV
approach will include surface monitoring technologies that are unproven, including soil gas, soil
flux, tracers, and atmospheric monitoring. The commenter believes that these technologies can
result in false positives and a lack of stakeholder confidence in GS, by implying that the UIC
permit does not adequately protect from a release to the surface. The multi-stakeholder
discussion group (0799) suggests EPA mention in the preamble of the final rule that the need to
meet the additional MRV plan requirements under this subpart does not necessarily require the
use of atmospheric or soil monitoring methods.
Response 6.6-b:
EPA disagrees with the comment that no reliable methods exist to detect and quantify surface
leakage. EPA has included information in the final General TSD to provide reporters with more
information on MRV plan requirements, including quantification of surface leakage and
applicable monitoring technologies. EPA is not prescribing monitoring technologies that must be
deployed at every GS site but rather is finalizing MRV plan requirements that give reporters the
flexibility to design an MRV strategy that is site-specific and cost-effective. See Chapter 10.1 of
this document for a discussion of MRV costs. Please see the final General TSD for more
information.
Comment 6.6-c:
One commenter (0816) responds to EPA request for comment on the proposed approach for
reporting CO2 leakage based on site-specific monitoring, and the two alternatives that were
considered: (i) assuming all injected CO2 remains sequestered, and (ii) assuming that a
proportion of injected CO2 remains sequestered. The commenter recommends that EPA should
adopt a working assumption that all injected CO2 remains sequestered unless site-specific
monitoring, as defined in the MRV plan, detects leakage. They also assert that given the high
dependence on site specific characteristics and the variety of methods of leakage, use of rule-of-
thumb assumptions for leakage may not be valid in all circumstances.
Response 6.6-c:
Although EPA acknowledges that a well characterized, selected and managed GS site minimizes
the potential for surface leakage, the amount of CO2 injected is not necessarily equal to the
amount of CO2 ultimately sequestered. Subpart RR uses a mass balance approach for calculating
the total annual CO2 sequestered. Variables to subtract from the amount of CO2 injected include
surface leakage, if any, CO2 produced, fugitive and vented emissions between flow meters and
injection or production wells, and CO2 remaining in produced fluids. Please refer to Chapter 5.3
of this document for a discussion of quantifying CO2 based on the mass balance. EPA agrees
103
-------
that rule-of-thumb assumptions for quantifying leakage may not be applicable at every site due to
variability in geology, conditions, and operations. Therefore EPA retains that the reporter must
determine the appropriate methodologies for quantifying surface leakage in the MRV plan
according to specific site characteristics.
Comment 6.6-d:
One commenter (0800) states that subsurface CO2 plume movement is expected, and therefore
has no bearing on the risk of possible air emissions from GS. Another commenter (0808) asserts
that reporting of the "movement of CO2 in the subsurface and near-surface" should not be
included in the final rule. The commenter notes that EPA concedes that subsurface movement
data "does not necessarily mean that CO2 will eventually leak to the surface." Three commenters
(0800, 0808, 0813) assert that data related to subsurface plume movement of CO2 that are
unrelated to air emissions are apt to be misunderstood by the public and potentially
mischaracterized by regulators, and that this type of reporting could potentially undermine the
objectives of the reporting rule, which focuses on air emissions.
Response 6.6-d:
EPA disagrees that subsurface plume movement has no bearing on the air emissions at GS sites.
Predicting and tracking the location of the CO2 plume is critical for determining targeted
monitoring of potential leakage of CO2. The leakage of CO2 to the surface will be dependent on
site specific factors, and EPA acknowledges that a well characterized, selected and managed GS
site minimizes the potential for leakage. See Chapter 1 of this document for further discussion of
EPA's legal authority to require monitoring under subpart RR.
EPA also disagrees with commenters that this information will be misunderstood by the public
and mischaracterized by regulators. EPA has concluded that today's final action will strengthen
public confidence in CCS by providing data transparency, availability, and uniformity and by
allowing GS project reporters to demonstrate the degree of monitoring that is in place to keep the
public and the environment safe.
Comment 6.6-e:
One commenter (0810) asserts that seismic technology has very significant limitations, and
because the resolution of seismic is no better than 40 feet, a large movement of CO2 could go
undetected and that it has limitations in identifying leakage pathways. The commenter's and their
members' experience indicates that this technology has only been successful half of the time. It
is uncertain that this technology will work and it is very expensive. The commenter suggests that
the best approach for leakage detection is to employ strategic placement of monitoring wells,
especially at geological spill points or across faults. The commenter requests that EPA limit
monitoring for leaks to such key points in the system, and within a limited area intended to
monitor only the "plume" of CO2. The commenter also states that seismic methods cannot
always be relied upon to evaluate leakage pathways.
Response 6.6-e:
104
-------
EPA is aware that seismic monitoring has limitations on resolution and in some cases it may be
difficult to use surface seismic for plume tracking. This is one reason why the MRV plan must be
developed on a site specific basis and that EPA is not prescribing monitoring technologies that
must be used at every site. In a setting where seismic may not be useful, the plan may use other
approaches and technologies such as monitoring wells in the injection zone.
Comment 6.6-f:
One commenter (0816) asserts that EPA should allow estimation in quantifying leakage, because
direct measurement is unlikely to be accurate or cost effective. This commenter also suggests
that alternative methods, including reasonable estimates of leak duration, should be accepted in
lieu of subsurface monitoring.
Response 6.6-f:
EPA has clarified in the final rule that leakage quantification can be a combination of estimation
and direct measurement. EPA acknowledges that reasonable estimates of leak duration may be
acceptable as long as the methodologies that the reporter is following to estimate leak duration
are presented in the MRV plan that is submitted to EPA for review and EPA approves the MRV
plan.
Comment 6.6-g:
One commenter (0813) asserts that EPA should not require a GS operator to monitor potential
leakage pathways outside of the AoR unless and until evidence exists that plume movement has
made leakage from those pathways a possible risk. The commenter believes that if no CO2 is in
the vicinity of a potential leakage pathway, monitoring would provide no useful emissions data
to EPA and would not be an efficient use of resources.
Response 6.6-g:
EPA agrees with the commenter that monitoring should be focused on those areas with a risk of
surface leakage. See Chapter 6.5 of this document for a discussion of the monitoring area.
6.7 MRV Plan Requirement for Establishing Baselines
Comment 6.7-a:
A coalition of ENGOs (0809) states that EPA is correct in requiring reporters to include baseline
monitoring in all MRV plans, which will allow the Agency to discern whether detected CO2 is
attributable to leakage or other pre-existing sources. Another commenter (0788) is in favor of
developing an atmospheric baseline of CO2 concentration, but questions whether EPA is
adequately considering potential variations through time in the baseline due to such factors as
changes in land cover, nearby development, changes in surface use at the GS site, and other
factors. The commenter states that EPA should clarify whether they expect a one time, static
baseline from initial conditions, or a baseline that can evolve over time to account for these
changes that are unrelated to leakage. One commenter (0816) suggests that pre-injection
105
-------
baselines be considered on a case-by-case basis to account for different site characteristic and
previous knowledge.
Response 6.7-a:
EPA agrees that requiring baseline setting is a critical aspect of monitoring and leakage detection
and quantification and should be established based on the site specific characteristics. In order to
account for potential variations through time in the baseline, the final rule includes provisions for
the reporter to re-submit the MRV plan in the case that material changes to baselines occur.
Comment 6.7-b:
Six commenters (0803, 0808, 0810, 0813/TRANS-VA-02, 0800, 0802) questioned the feasibility
and utility of establishing atmospheric environmental baselines. Four commenters (0803, 0808,
0810, 0813) assert that the establishment of environmental baseline data should not be required
because such data cannot be reliably collected and therefore the approach is not useful in
quantifying emissions. Commenters (0803, 0810) state that ambient local CO2 concentrations
can be highly variable due to many environmental factors, and can vary temporally from year to
year. They state that the potential result of using such a baseline as an indicator is to establish
leak criteria that may not be accurate when compared to future conditions. One commenter
(0813) states that EPA has not made clear how such variable baselines could be used to quantify
leakage and suggests that EPA not require establishment of a pre-injection environmental
baseline without a justification for how this information will improve the quality of emissions
data collected and reported. A commenter (0800) states that atmospheric baseline data cannot be
reliably determined. One commenter (0815) questions the value of establishing pre-injection
environmental baselines as required in 40 CFR part 98.448(a)(l)(iii) given that atmospheric
background concentrations of CO2 would be expected to be constant across the injection site and
surrounding area prior to injection, and that levels above background after injection begins
would be indicative of fugitive or vented emissions.
Another commenter (0802) asserts that EPA's focus on CO2 concentration in the atmosphere
could lead to a large number of "false positive" leak determinations and possible disputes over
mass balance calculations.
One commenter (0810) asserts that the only environmental baseline that "makes sense for a GS
project would be for the water pathway which could be reasonably monitored at specific
locations prior to initiating the project."
Response 6.7-b:
The establishment of baselines is a critical aspect of monitoring for leakage detection and of
quantifying surface leakage and will allow the Agency to discern whether detected CO2 is
attributable to leakage or other pre-existing sources. EPA revised the term from 'pre-injection
environmental baseline', to 'expected baselines' because the establishment of a baseline may in
some cases occur after the initial injection (as in existing CO2-ER projects reporting under
subpart RR) and may include environmental baselines such as surface CO2 concentrations and
fluxes, subsurface pressures and geochemistry, other monitored environmental parameters,
and/or operational baselines associated with the injection operation (e.g. injection pressure).
106
-------
EPA acknowledges the difficulty of establishing an atmospheric C02 baseline in particular, due
to expected natural seasonal and diurnal variation of CO2 concentration, and other natural
variations due to weather conditions. In addition, EPA acknowledges that the natural
concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere near a GS site can vary through time for reasons
unrelated to the injection. However, baseline conditions can be established through various
existing and appropriate methods. For example, subsurface pressure and geochemistry baselines
can be established through well testing and sampling. Atmospheric C02 baselines can be
developed through statistical analysis of seasonal, diurnal, and weather effects on CO2
concentration. These effects can be modeled to establish an expected atmospheric C02 baseline
in many instances. EPA also acknowledges the potential for false positives in monitoring for
leakage detection. See the final General TSD for more information on establishing baselines for
the MRV plan, including considerations for determining whether a monitoring anomaly is actual
leakage or a false positive.
Comment 6.7-c:
Two commenters (0802, 0812) assert that EPA should be open to leak determination methods
other than those relying upon atmospheric baselines. Other methods could include the use of
injected tracers and CO2 isotope analysis. One commenter (0802) states that these approaches
would be much more precise and useful than ambient CO2 monitoring of the atmosphere. Three
commenters (0802, 0812, 0816) are against the use of real-time "upwind" monitoring as a point
of comparison to "downwind" ambient CO2 concentrations as the approach would be both more
expensive and unreliable. A commenter (0816) states that atmospheric CO2 measurements are
currently of very limited use and that beyond the difficulty in estimating reliable atmospheric
baselines, the determination of where to measure baselines upwind of potential leakage is
difficult and bound to be highly inaccurate. They state that given the wide variation of leakage
pathways and unpredictability of wind, pursuit of such an estimate is likely to be extremely
costly and very ineffective.
Response 6.7-c:
EPA retains the requirement in the final rule for including a strategy for establishing baselines in
the MRV plan. However, EPA is not prescribing how these baselines are determined and
recognizes that there are appropriate and effective approaches toward establishing baselines that
may not involve relying upon atmospheric measurements. See other comments in this Chapter
for discussion of establishing atmospheric CO2 baselines.
Comment 6.7-d:
One commenter (0812) notes that the selection of a surrogate site to develop pre-injection
baselines would be a challenge since finding an appropriate site that would be representative of
the injection site in terms of diurnal and seasonal variations in ambient conditions and vegetation
growth and decay would be difficult. The commenter suggests that since the objective of the pre-
injection baseline monitoring is to identify leakage from the GS site to determine net CO2
sequestered, it may be more accurate and cost effective to monitor for the presence of natural or
introduced tracers at the surface of the reservoir as an indicator of leakage. The commenter
107
-------
suggests that if leakage is detected then an appropriate CO2 flux monitoring technique could be
implemented to measure leakage.
Response 6.7-d:
EPA agrees with the commenter that there may be site specific characteristics that would favor
one baseline setting approach over another and that an approach using tracers may be the most
effective and accurate method for some sites. EPA does not require specific monitoring
technologies or specify methods for baseline setting for that reason, and allows the reporter to
outline the approach best suited to the site.
6.8 General Comments on Monitoring
Comment 6.8-a:
One commenter (0057) states that a simple monitoring system around the perimeter of the GS
site would be sufficient to detect leakage.
Response 6.8-a:
EPA disagrees that monitoring around the perimeter of a GS site would be sufficient to detect
leakage. Rather, the MRV plan should include a strategy for monitoring the area where surface
leakage of CO2 may occur. See Chapter 6.5 of this document for further discussion of the
requirements for the monitoring area under subpart RR.
Comment 6.8-b:
One commenter (0186) states that in addition to monitoring gases on a real-time basis, EPA
should review seismic data that may indicate that the injected CO2 is re-activating faults and
fractures that could allow seepage, either at the injection site or some distance away. Both
geophysical and geochemical monitoring are needed.
Response 6.8-b:
EPA does not prescribe monitoring technologies in subpart RR (as discussed in Chapter 1 of this
document), but agrees with the commenter that geophysical and geochemical monitoring
techniques, including seismic monitoring, may be included in an MRV plan. As a reporting
program, the purpose of monitoring under subpart RR is not to monitor the safety of GS, but
EPA notes that permitting requirements exist under the purview of the UIC program. Please
refer to the UIC Web site at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells_sequestration.cfm
for more information on the UIC program.
Comment 6.8-c:
One commenter (0801) states that Departments of Building and Safety and of Planning8 are not
trained for MRV tasks and that state, regional, and local agencies have no requirements to
address or include MRV plans.
8 The organization is not indicated.
108
-------
Response 6.8-c:
EPA is responsible for reviewing or enforcing MRV plans, and is not delegating the program to
Departments of Building and Safety and of Planning.
Comment 6.8-d:
A coalition of ENGOs (0809) applauds the EPA's guidance provided in the draft Monitoring
Plan TSD.
Response 6.8-d:
EPA developed the Monitoring Plan TSD in conjunction with the proposal to provide a broad
overview of monitoring at GS sites. We are glad that the commenter found it useful and
informative.
109
-------
7
MRV Plan Submission and Approval
7.1 Review Process for MRV Plans
Comment 7.1-a:
One commenter (0786) expresses confidence in EPA's ability to evaluate proposed MRV plans
in onshore areas. However, in the case of offshore sub-seabed GS sites, the commenter
recommends that MRV plans be submitted to the Department of Interior - Minerals Management
Service Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement for approval. Alternately, such plans
could be submitted both to EPA and the Department of Interior for joint approval.
A coalition of ENGOs (0809/TRANS-VA-01) assert that it will be important for EPA to reach
out to state UIC permitting agencies, especially in the area of developing site-specific MRV
plans, as these state agencies are likely to have available the best information on the geology,
injection control history and local atmospheric monitoring that must serve as the foundation for
case by case MRV plans. Communication between EPA and permitting authorities will be key to
safeguarding the local environment. The commenters suggest that sufficient resources will be
needed both at EPA and at the state agencies to devote staff and time to data sharing and
coordinated development of MRV and reporting plans. See preamble Section II. A. for a
discussion of offshore jurisdiction.
Response 7.1-a:
The GHG Reporting Program, including subpart RR, is implemented by EPA and approval of
MRV plans is not delegated to another Agency, such as the Department of the Interior. The
Agency has significant expertise on GS and acknowledges that MRV plan approval will require
the involvement of quality trained staff. EPA also values the technical expertise of other federal
and state agencies.
Comment 7.1-b:
One commenter (0802) states that the proposed rule should include the substantive criteria that
EPA will use to evaluate submitted MRV plans. The commenter mentions that 40 CFR part
98.488(a)(5)(i) of the proposed rule provides only that EPA will evaluate the MRV plan to
ensure that the facility has an appropriate strategy in place to effectively quantify geologically
sequestered C02, which the commenter argues is entirely subjective. The commenter suggests
that, while EPA should retain substantial flexibility, the discretion should not be unfettered, and
EPA's MRV approval criteria should at least reference the MRV plan elements set forth in 40
CFR part 98.488 (a)(1).
Three commenters (0813/TRANS-VA-02, 0800, 0815) assert that the proposed MRV approval
process appears to have no objective standards by which EPA will accept or reject plans. One
commenter (0813) mentions that EPA's goal should be to ensure a streamlined approach for
approval so that projects can move forward without delay. They suggest that EPA provide clear
standards by which monitoring plans will be assessed and accept permit requirements adopted by
other permitting agencies, particularly in the UIC context. A coalition of ENGOs (0809)
mentions that the proposed rule does not establish standards by which EPA or the Environmental
110
-------
Appeals Board (EAB) can assess the MRV plans and that EPA should establish criteria against
which the MRV plans will be evaluated.
Response 7.1-b:
EPA disagrees with comments that the MRV plan approval process is subjective and that no
standards are provided by which to judge submitted MRV plans. EPA outlines the requirements
of an MRV plan in 40 CFR part 98.448 and further discusses them in the preamble to the final
rule and in the final General TSD. Refer to Chapter 6.1 of this document for further discussion
on allowing for site-specific MRV plan flexibility. Refer to Chapter 11 of this document for a
discussion of the role of the UIC permit in subpart RR. See Section II.B of the final preamble
for a discussion of the EAB public appeals process and ability for the public to challenge MRV
plans.
Comment 7.1-c:
One commenter (0815) asserts that the regulatory review of an MRV plan under a CAA
regulation goes beyond the scope of a regulatory review that the commenter would expect to be
performed by a state or federal air quality regulatory agency. The commenter does not expect the
EPA Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) to have the expertise to evaluate the effectiveness of GS
MRV plans. The commenter is also concerned about potential approval delays, due to the lack of
defined criteria or timelines for EPA approval (e.g. requiring approval within 180 days following
submittal).
Response 7.1-c:
With regard to the commenter's suggestion that MRV plan approval is outside the scope of the
CAA, EPA disagrees with the commenter and asserts that approval of MRV plans is within
EPA's authority under the CAA (see Chapter 1 of this document). The Agency has significant
expertise on GS and acknowledges that MRV plan approval will require the involvement of
additional trained staff. EPA has designed this rule so that facilities can comply with the
reporting requirements without disrupting or delaying normal operations. That said, EPA has
outlined specific timelines for the approval process in the preamble to the final rule (see Chapter
7.3 of this document).
Comment 7.1-d:
A coalition of ENGOs (0809) asserts that EPA should be provided adequate resources to
implement the regulatory program for GS both under the SDWA and these CAA rules. The
commenter states that it will be important for EPA to develop additional in-house experience
with GS. The commenter supports the ongoing efforts of EPA to coordinate the proposed rule
with the UIC rule for GS and ER facilities, as this may lead to a new section of EPA that is
dedicated to CO2 sequestration. The commenter generally supports additional funding to EPA for
implementation.
Response 7.1-d:
MRV plan approval will require the involvement of quality trained staff and though EPA has
significant expertise on GS, the Agency agrees that it will be important to continue to develop in-
111
-------
house experience with GS. EPA is also committed to continue to coordinate between programs
to ensure a comprehensive regulatory framework for GS.
Comment 7.1-e:
One commenter (0800) does not agree with EPA's proposed approach for the approval of MRV
plans. Two commenters (0800, 0813) believe that subjecting MRV plans for reporting to a
heightened level of scrutiny or a significantly more complex process for obtaining regulatory
approval than UIC permitting is not appropriate or necessary. The commenter proposes that any
review for reporting purposes should not involve a reopening of any element in an EPA (or a
state that has primacy) approved permit or reporting plan. If additional information is required,
the comment proposes that EPA approval be limited to a review for completeness that must be
completed within 180 days of submission or the permit will be deemed complete and approved.
Two commenters (0813, 0815) also state that an MRV plan under an air emissions rule is not the
appropriate means for evaluating or re-evaluating a GS site's monitoring plan on a site by site
basis.
One commenter (0808) asserts that EPA should deemphasize the proposal's MRV requirements
and leave that to site permitting authorities. To the extent that a modest amount of MRV is
deemed necessary for air emissions reporting, the commenter suggests that EPA's evaluation of
the MRV plan be subject to a completion check only and a deadline for approval.
Response 7.1-e:
EPA disagrees with the commenter that the MRV plan review process is more complex than the
UIC permitting process. EPA has determined that the MRV review process is necessary to
ensure that geologically sequestered CO2 is accurately reported. The reporter will be responsible
for submitting the information required by EPA in the MRV plan, including relevant information
and data from the facility's UIC permit. The first step of the review process will be a check that
the submitted MRV plan contains all of the required components. The MRV plan must include
the following components:
• Delineation of the MMA and AMA;
• Identification of the potential surface leakage pathways and an assessment of the
likelihood, magnitude and timing, of surface leakage of C02 through these pathways ;
• Strategy for detection and quantification of surface leakage;
• Approach for establishing expected baselines; and
• Considerations made to calculate site-specific variables for the mass balance equation.
EPA does not agree with the commenters that the review of the MRV plan should be limited to a
completeness check. Without the capability to review the technical information provided in the
MRV plans, the Agency would not be able to ensure accurate reporting. After the MRV plan is
determined to be complete, EPA will commence a thorough technical review and if requested,
the reporter will be expected to provide EPA with additional information. See Section I.D. of the
preamble for a discussion of the relationship between subpart RR and regulations under the UIC
program.
112
-------
Comment 7.1-f:
One commenter (0594) asserts that someone from outside the GS operations should review the
monitoring reports.
Response 7.1-f:
EPA agrees with the commenter and will review MRV plans and annual reports submitted by
reporters.
7.2 Public Involvement and MRV Plans
Comment 7.2-a:
A coalition of ENGOs (0809) asserts that numerous reports stress that public acceptance will be
critical to the success of CCS, and the need to gain public acceptance will be especially
important for the early projects. The commenter stresses that information should be made
available to the public throughout the life of the GS project. The commenter states that "the
International Risk Governance Council recommends that regulatory frameworks must include
effective risk communication to engage and educate the public, involve all stakeholders in risk-
related decisions, and build confidence in the institutions governing CCS." They also assert that
both Congress's original request for a reporting rule and Section 114 of the CAA recognizes the
public's vital interest in emissions data and that the proposed rule lacks some of this
transparency.
Two commenters (0140, 0213) assert that the results of all monitoring should be made public.
One commenter (0811) asserts that it is important to enhance transparency to the public in
reporting and monitoring wherever possible. One commenter (TRANS-VA-06) encourages EPA
to bring the same transparency to the MVR process as they have brought to the rest of the final
reporting rule. The commenter believes that this will allow for public participation in the MVR
process and will ensure public awareness of monitoring and verification.
One commenter (0811) asserts that a provision should be applied to the Proposed Rule to the
effect that the results of any publicly required monitoring should be forwarded to the EPA and
made available to the public. These publicly required monitoring data may be either those that
are required by EPA or the state permitting agency, or may be at the state level or via
qualification for federal emissions reduction incentives. If publicly required performance
information is generated, the commenter suggests that the information be available to the public
via a central agency, of which EPA is the natural lead.
Response 7.2-a:
EPA agrees with commenters and views transparency as key to encouraging public education
and acceptance of this technology. EPA will post final MRV plans to a publicly accessible Web
site subject to any limitations or requirements resulting in its CBI determination (see Section I.B
of this preamble). Any reporter, or interested person, objecting to EPA's final decision, may
appeal it to EPA's Environmental Appeals Board. In addition, EPA will publish reports
113
-------
containing data that reporters submit yearly (the contents of the public report are also dependent
on the outcome of the CBI determination). See Section I.B. of the final preamble for a
discussion of the CBI rulemaking.
Comment 7.2-b:
A coalition of ENGOs (0809) mentions that EPA is proposing that MRV plans can be developed
without public involvement or review. The commenter believes that this lack of public
involvement is a major oversight and proposes that the final MRV plans are offered for public
comment. The commenter suggests that the public will be particularly interested in, and also
have information on potential leakage pathways.
The commenter proposes that i) EPA direct the project participants to initiate outreach to local
communities as part of the MRV planning process; ii) EPA inform the local community when
the Agency begins working with a plan, and make the application materials public and easily
accessible online; iii) EPA and the permit applicant should hold public information sessions in
the affected community and work to address public concerns; iv) the final rule include at least a
60-day public comment period on a proposed MRV plan once it is developed; v) as part of
outreach, the EPA compile and maintain a list of interested persons for each proposed/completed
project and inform this list of every new application change, hearing, comment period, annual
report, and post these materials on the internet; and vi) EPA continue to make information about
the permit and the MRV plan available throughout the life of the project, including monitoring
and leakage addendums, re-evaluation of plans, and annual reports.
One commenter (TRANS-VA-04) asserts that both Congress's original Request for Reporting
Rule and Section 114 of the CAA on which the rule is based, recognize the public's vital interest
in emissions data. The commenter asserts that the preamble to the proposed rule posits that CCS
operators may be able to challenge inappropriate plans before the EAB, but does not discuss
public challenges and lacks transparency. The commenter recommends that the final rule ensure
that MRV plans are offered for public comment and that the public and CCS operators have
parallel rights to challenge plans. The commenter believes that allowing only operator challenges
to MRV plans would bias the review process. Another commenter (TRANS-VA-01) encourages
EPA to consider public participation by incorporating notice and comment in the MRV
development process.
One commenter (0140) states that there must be provision for public review and input of
monitoring plans and their implementation as well as a process for the public to challenge in a
neutral forum adequacy of plans and the effectiveness of their implementation. One commenter
(0801) states that the public is not made abreast of the MRV tasks because no law exists for the
process to be circulated for public comment.
The Sierra Club mass mailers (0023) support a strong rule which ensures that the public has a
strong voice in reviewing monitoring plans and challenging them if they're inadequate.
Response 7.2-b:
114
-------
EPA agrees with commenters that there should be a process for public involvement. See
Response 7.2-a for a discussion on providing reported information to the public. In response to
comments on providing a public comment and notice period for MRV plans, EPA has decided
not to finalize with such a process as this is a reporting rule, and not a C02 emissions control
rule. Though there is no formal public comment process prior to approval of individual MRV
plans in today's rule, EPA believes the administrative appeals process provides an opportunity
for involvement by any member of the public who is concerned about the provisions of an
approved plan. Further, if future GS policies or programs are promulgated as a result of the data
collected through today's rule for which a formal public notice and comment period would be
appropriate, EPA will establish a public notice and comment period for such a policy or program
at that time. See Section II.B and the response to comments on public involvement in Section
HE of the final preamble for a discussion of the EAB public appeals process and ability for the
public to challenge MRV plans.
Comment 7.2-c:
One commenter (0801) states that EPA fails to state the options for the public in all categories
for private ownership of the facilities.
Response 7.2-c:
Regulatory requirements regarding private ownership of facilities is beyond the scope of this
rulemaking.
7.3 Schedule for MRV Plan Submission to EPA
Comment 7.3-a:
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) asserts that confirmation of the AoR only comes
with final permit approval. The multi-stakeholder discussion group provides recommended
language to clarify that there is no intention to create an additional step that would precede the
issuance of a final permit along with responses to comments received on the proposed permit.
The multi-stakeholder discussion group proposes the following edits to 40 CFR part
98.448(a)(3)(i):
(i) A GS facility must submit the MRV plan to EPA (A) within six months from
the time the facility's Underground Injection Control permitting authority
[program Director] (or relevant permitting authority in the case of a facility
that is not [subject to] under the jurisdiction of the Safe Drinking Water Act)
[issues a final permit confirming] the area of review or (B) by December 31 of
the year that that [in which] the Underground Injection Control permitting
authority (or relevant permitting authority in the case of a facility that is not
[subject to] under the jurisdiction [of] the Safe Drinking Water Act) [issues a
final permit confirming] the area of review, whichever date is later. A facility
will be allowed to request one extension of up to an additional six months.
115
-------
[NOTE: Text appearing as strikethrough above appears as strikethrough tracked change text in
original document; Text appearing in [bold] above appears as inserted tracked change text in
original document.]
Response 7.3-a:
EPA concurs with the comment that confirmation of the UIC AoR only occurs with the final
issuance of the UIC permit and the Agency does not intend to add a step to the UIC permit
process. Therefore, EPA revised the final rule to reflect that the submission date is linked to the
issuance of a final permit.
Comment 7.3-b:
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) asserts that agencies have "jurisdiction" and
statutes have applicability. Also, because the AoR will not be finally confirmed until a final
permit is issued, the commenter recommends a text revision to avoid suggesting that some
alternate "confirmation" could be issued prior to the issuance of a final permit. The commenter
proposes the following edits to 40 CFR part 98.448(a)(3)(ii):
(ii) If the GS facility holds an Underground Injection Control permit (or
relevant permit in the case of a facility that is not [subject to] under the
jurisdiction of the Safe Drinking Water Act) as of the date of publication of this
subpart or if the Underground Injection Control permitting authority (or relevant
permitting authority in the case of a facility that is not under the jurisdiction of
the Safe Drinking Water Act) has confirm[ing]ed the area of review as of the
date of publication of this subpart, such facility must submit the MRV plan to
EPA within six months of the date of publication of this subpart. A facility will
be allowed to request one extension of up to an additional six months.
[NOTE: Text appearing as strikethrough above appears as strikethrough tracked change text in
original document; Text appearing in [bold] above appears as inserted tracked change text in
original document.]
Response 7.3-b:
EPA concurs with the comments and revised the final rule to reflect the text changes regarding
'jurisdiction' in order to accurately reflect that Agencies have jurisdiction and statutes have
applicability. See Response 7.3-a on the decision to link the submission date to the issuance of a
final permit.
Comment 7.3-c:
One commenter (0800) notes that EPA proposes that each facility must submit an MRV plan
within six months of the publication of this subpart. The commenter encourages EPA to allow a
facility to request one extension of up to six months.
Response 7.3-c:
116
-------
EPA agrees with the commenter and retained the six month extension for submissions of the
MRV plan in the final rule to accommodate cases in which the reporter may need additional time
to develop their MRV plan.
Comment 7.3-d:
A coalition of ENGOs (0809) expresses concern that the proposed rule may allow some
operators to begin injecting without an approved MRV plan in place. The coalition of ENGOs
states that MRV plans should be in place prior to injection at GS facilities and as soon as
possible at an ER facility that elects to convert to GS. The coalition of ENGOs suggests that this
is a loophole and proposes that it be closed. The provision in question is 40 CFR part
98.448(a)(3). Under this provision, GS facilities would be required to submit the MRV plan after
the permitting authority confirms the AoR. Once the permitting authority confirms the AoR, the
operator has either six months or until December 31 of that year, whichever is later to submit
MRV plans. Consequently, under the proposed rule, GS facilities can take up to a year and a
half to submit their MRV plans after the AoR is confirmed. The coalition of ENGOs mentions
that the rule does not provide any rational justification for such an extension, or standards by
which such requests will be judged and believes that this relaxed approach is inconsistent with
the comprehensive reporting rule's efforts to prevent facilities from reporting using substandard
methods (i.e., this schedule gives facilities too long to develop and implement MRV plans and
risks losing important data).
The coalition of ENGOs states that the GS facilities would be allowed to begin injection without
baseline monitoring. The coalition of ENGOs is concerned that 40 CFR part 98.448(a)(5)(ii)
allows operators to being injection without an approved MRV as the section reads 'You must
implement the EPA-approved MRV plan once the plan is final, regardless of the point in the
reporting year'. The coalition of ENGOs recommends that EPA correct this section. The
coalition of ENGOs also asserts that the rule does not establish minimum reporting requirements
for the period between when an MRV plan is submitted and when it is approved, in the event that
injection has begun. The net result is that a facility could wait over a year before submitting its
plan and then spend months waiting on EPA approval. The coalition of ENGOs asserts that this
outcome is not acceptable, in particular, as new GS sites do not need six months to a year and a
half to submit MRV plans. The coalition of ENGOs believes that any responsible operator will
have MRV plans in place prior to beginning operations. The coalition of ENGOs recommends
that the reporting calendar should be tightened and integration of the reporting rule with the UIC
requirements be improved.
The coalition of ENGOs suggests that EPA should establish strong defaults that would be
applicable if an MRV plan is not in place. As an example, the commenter states that it is not
clear that companies can wait until their AOR is confirmed to submit a draft MRV plan. EPA
could consider requiring draft MRV plans be submitted as part of the UIC permit application. As
operators will already be developing monitoring systems, they should be able to simultaneously
develop MRV plans. The coalition of ENGOs also suggests that EPA structure the reporting rule
itself to create very strong incentives to put MRV plans in place prior to injection by establishing
strong default rules rewarding responsible operators. The coalition of ENGOs states that 'these
defaults, applicable if an MRV plan is not yet approved, could be set very conservatively,
117
-------
assuming maximum emissions in the absence of an air-side monitoring plan. These defaults
could, for instance, set the ambient baseline level of C02 at zero for all measurement purposes,
subject only to rebuttal via direct measurements, until an MRV plan is in place. Setting such
conservative default values is plainly within EPA's broad authority to specify the "procedures"
and "methods" by which emissions are to be measured under Section 114. 42 U.S.C. §
7414(a)(1)(D).'
Regarding timing and comprehensiveness, the commenter (TRANS-VA-04) suggests that CCS
operations only go forward if monitoring and reporting procedures are in place before injection,
and monitoring and reporting should continue well after injection has finished. The commenter
notes that the proposed rule allows facilities to delay finalizing their MRV permits for as much
as one year after they receive an injection permit. The commenter believes that this schedule is
unacceptable because MRV plans are required to include baseline information of pre-injection
conditions. Monitoring should be in place before the final UIC permit is issued.
The Sierra Club mass mailers (0023) support careful and comprehensive monitoring starting
before injection can begin.
Response 7.3-d:
EPA allows early submittal of an MRV plan to enable the monitoring and reporting procedures
to be in place before injection begins. However, EPA does not consider it appropriate to
condition operation of a GS facility on compliance with the MRV plan given the scope of the
Agency's authority under Section 114. The purpose of the reporting rule is to gather information
and is not intended to condition or restrict the operation of sources. See other responses in this
chapter for discussions on the schedule for submitting MRV plans to EPA. A facility that does
not have an implemented MRV plan (per the date determined in the MRV plan) will not be able
to report CO2 sequestered to EPA under the GHG Reporting Program. The reporter will only be
allowed to report GS to the GHG Reporting Program data system based on the timeline outlined
in their approved MRV plan.
Comment 7.3-e:
One commenter (0816, 0816) asserts that since the timeline for the proposed rule is expected to
be similar to that of the first round of the MMR in 2009, the anticipated time interval between
the subpart RR promulgation and data collection is expected to be extremely short and does not
allow reporters sufficient time to properly develop their MRV and obtain EPA approval and
prepare for data collection. The commenter requests that EPA recognize the practical difficulties
with the suggested timeline and allow operators engaging in GS to prepare for monitoring and
develop an adequate MRV plan in 2011, then start collecting data no earlier than January 1, 2012
and make initial reports due no earlier than July 1, 2013. They recommend that for facilities that
are either GS only, or currently operate CO2-ER and opt to define themselves as CO2-ER-GS a
different timeline should be established. They suggest that EPA should also allow more time for
filing facility reports, which should be due no earlier than July 1st following the calendar year
for which they report, starting with July 1, 2013. The commenter (0816) also recommends that
EPA stagger reporting to require subpart RR reports to be filed by June 30th of the following
118
-------
year, allowing reporters to first focus on GHG emissions reporting under subpart C and W prior
to summarizing the data for GS operations under subpart RR.
Response 7.3-e:
EPA disagrees with the comment that facilities will not have sufficient time to properly develop
their MRV plans, obtain EPA approval, and prepare for data collection. For existing facilities
conducting GS, MRV plans are due by June 30, 2011, and such facilities are allowed to request
one extension of up to an additional 180 days. New facilities conducting GS are required to
submit their MRV plan to EPA within 180 days of authorization of receiving a final UIC permit,
or within 180 days of receiving authorization to begin GS of C02 for an offshore facility not
subject to SDWA. Facilities are also allowed to request one extension of up to an additional 180
days. This is reasonable because facilities that are required to submit MRV plans will already
have a strong foundation for building their MRV plan from their existing UIC permit. Facilities
conducting ER and that are not permitted as UIC Class VI under the UIC program, may choose
to submit an MRV plan any time. EPA retains the March 31 reporting date, consistent with the
rest of the GHG Reporting Program. See Chapter 5.4 of this document for more information on
this issue.
Comment 7.3-f:
A commenter (0816) mentions that EPA is proposing that i) the GS site begin implementing the
MRV plan within thirty days of EPA approval, even if the operator disagrees with the approved
plan; and ii) if the operator chooses to appeal, EPA is proposing to require the operator to begin
implementing the plan until the appeals process is complete. The commenter (0816) supports
delayed implementation of the MRV plan, or at least those aspects of the plan under dispute,
until the appeals process is complete. The comment asserts that requiring GS operators to
implement the plan during the appeals process would force the operators to spend significant
resources for a plan that may not even be implemented. The commenter recommends a policy
under which the GS operator would be responsible for implementing the MRV plan that has been
proposed by the operator, while postponing implementation of those portions of the plan that are
subject to dispute during the pendency of an appeal.
A coalition of ENGOs (0809) states that the implementation of the MRV plan must not be stayed
pending review of the Administrator's decision. They mention that it is preferable for an
incomplete set of monitoring and reporting requirements to be in place during the period when
CO2 is being injected at the GS facility, rather than for injection to continue without any airside
monitoring and reporting.
Response 7.3-f:
EPA agrees with the commenter (0816) that requiring GS operators to implement the plan during
the appeals process would force the operators to spend resources for implementing a plan that
may be subject to change due to the appeals process. In order to maintain the most accurate data
collection possible, EPA will not accept partial implementation of an MRV plan, and therefore if
an MRV plan is not final or is under appeal, the reporter would only collect and report data on
CO2 received. EPA has clarified in the final rule that once the MRV plan is final and no longer
119
-------
subject to administrative appeal, the reporter must implement the plan starting on the day after
the day on which the plan becomes final and is no longer subject to appeal.
7.4 MRV Appeal Process
Comment 7.4-a:
One commenter (0816) and a coalition of ENGOs (0809) state that because of the technical
nature of the decision to approve or disapprove an MRV plan, appeals should take place before
the EAB prior to being subject to judicial review. Commenter 0816 believes that, in some
instances, review of the approved MRV plan could benefit from the opportunity for the GS
operator and EPA to adduce evidence and develop a more robust administrative record than may
exist at the time the review is conducted. They believe that bypassing the potentially useful step
of administrative review and only allowing direct appeal to a federal appellate court could in
some cases work to the detriment of the review. Two commenters (0800, 0813) assert that such
judicial review could lead to years of administrative and judicial process for each MRV plan.
Two commenters (0800, 0813) also point out that UIC permits are not subject to evidentiary
hearings and judicial review though they would require monitoring plans that are equally if not
more complex than those required for the proposed reporting rule.
One commenter (0808) asserts that the approval approach for MRV plans appears to give the
Agency an unfettered discretion to act upon plan submissions and that it is not clear that it is
appropriate in the context of an air emissions rule. They state that so elaborate is the anticipated
MRV process that EPA is considering mechanisms such as formal administrative reviews,
possibly including formal evidentiary hearings, and judicial review thereafter. They state that
while judicial review is a check on Agency action, the approach set forth by EPA could lead to
years of administrative and judicial process for each MRV plan submitted for approval.
Response 7.4-a:
EPA agrees with the commenters that an administrative appeals process is appropriate for
subpart RR. Therefore, under today's final rule, final decisions of the Administrator under 40
CFR part 98, subpart RR are appealable to EPA's EAB under the regulations that are set forth in
40 CFR part 78. 40 CFR part 78 is revised to accommodate such appeals. Refer to Section II.B
and Section II.E of the final preamble for a discussion of the EAB public appeals process and
ability for the public to challenge MRV plans. Regarding the commenter who stated that the
administrative review could take years, EPA concludes that without an administrative appeals
process, the reporters' and the publics' only option becomes litigation, which EPA believes
would be more disruptive, costly, and delay implementation of MRV plans further.
Comment 7.4-b:
A coalition of ENGOs (0809) suggests that the proposed rule does not discuss whether the
appeals process will be available to members of the public who do not agree that the Agency's
approved plan is sufficient. The commenter argues that the final rule should grant people
affected by subpart RR the ability to challenge approved plans.
Response 7.4-b:
120
-------
EPA agrees with the commenter that the public should be allowed to appeal MRV plans and has
included a process for public appeal in the final rule. Refer to Section II.B and Section HE of
the final preamble for a discussion of the EAB public appeals process and ability for the public
to challenge MRV plans.
7.5 MRV Plan Implementation
Comment 7.5-a:
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) suggests text modifications to convert a provision
to being exclusively based upon leakage, with the provisions of (7) addressing all other bases for
updating the MRV. The commenter proposes the following edits to 40 CFR part 98.448(a)(6):
(6) If adjustments to the MRV plan are made duo to now information or altered site
conditions or if a leak [leakage] is detected in a calendar year, you must submit an
addendum at the same time as the next annual report (March 31 of the subsequent
calendar year) that includes the following components.
[NOTE: Text appearing as strikethrough above appears as strikethrough tracked change text in
original document; Text appearing in [bold] above appears as inserted tracked change text in
original document.]
Specifically, the multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) recommends the following revision
to 40 CFR part 98.448 (a)(6)(ii) because the commenter believes that this revision would clarify
that the provision is based solely on leakage:
40 CFR part 98.448 (a)(6)(ii):
(ii) A description of how the monitoring strategy was adjusted, if adjustments were made
in [response to the leakage],
[NOTE: Text appearing as strikethrough above appears as strikethrough tracked change text in
original document; Text appearing in [bold] above appears as inserted tracked change text in
original document.]
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) also suggests revisions to 40 CFR part
98.448(a)(7) of the proposed rule. The recommended revision is based upon the MSD revisions
submitted to EPA's UIC program for revision of the proposed GS rules under the SDWA. The
commenter recommends imposing a continual obligation on operators to assess whether the AoR
itself or plans be revised. The commenter recommends that it is useful to break down the term
"reevaluation" into two concepts: "assessment" and "revision." The commenter believes that i)
these suggestions will result in increased accuracy and reliability in the site performance data
while avoiding work that is not warranted by the site data and site performance; and ii) a
continuous obligation to assess whether revisions are needed, coupled with an annual statement
requirement will create a clear accountability for operator and Director in the case of disputes. It
121
-------
is unnecessary to require a reevaluation of the AOR on a fixed basis in every case. The
commenter proposes the following edits to 40 CFR part 98.448(a)(7):
(7) [You must maintain, and update the MRV plan in accordance with the
provisions of this section.
(i) You must submit with the annual report a statement, signed by an
appropriate company official, confirming that you have:
(A) reviewed the monitoring and operational data that are relevant to a
decision on whether to reevaluate the area of review or the MRV plan; and
(B) determined whether any updates were warranted by material change in
the monitoring and operational data or in your evaluation of the
monitoring and operational data.
(ii) The MRV plan must be revised and resubmitted to EPA by March 31 of
the calendar year following any year in which:
(A) You determine an update of the MRV plan to be warranted pursuant to
subparagraph (i) of this paragraph; or]
[NOTE: Text appearing in [bold] above appears as inserted tracked change text in original
document.]
Response 7.5-a:
EPA agrees with the commenter's recommendation to require a continual obligation on operators
to assess whether the monitoring areas or MRV plan needs to be revised as this will provide EPA
assurance that the strategies for monitoring in the MRV plan are based on the latest monitoring
and modeling results. Therefore EPA revised the final rule to include a provision for an annual
monitoring report that describes the monitoring efforts conducted over the previous calendar
year, any changes to the monitoring program that you concluded were not material changes
warranting submission of a revised MRV plan under paragraph, any monitoring anomalies that
were detected in the previous calendar year and how they were investigated and resolved, and
surface leakages of CO2.
Facilities must re-submit the MRV plan for EPA approval if a material change was made to
monitoring and/or operational parameters that was not anticipated in the original MRV plan, if
the facility's UIC permit class changes, or if an EPA review of the annual report determines that
it is necessary. Examples of material changes include but are not limited to large changes in the
volume of CO2 injected; the construction of new injection wells not identified in the MRV plan;
failures of the monitoring system including monitoring system sensitivity, performance, location,
or baseline; changes to surface land use that affects baseline or operational conditions; observed
plume location that differs significantly from the predicted plume area used for developing the
MRV plan; a change in the maximum monitoring area or active monitoring area; or a change in
monitoring technology that would result in coverage or detection capability different from the
MRV plan.
Comment 7.5-b:
122
-------
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) asserts that the language of 40 CFR part
98.448(a)(7)(i) is overly broad and misdirected, and should be deleted. The commenter claims
that there are many types of noncompliance regarding permit requirements that will not have an
impact on MRV plans, such as failure to have the wellhead painted. The specific deletion in 40
CFR part 98.448 (a)(7)(i) suggested by the commenter is shown below:
40 CFR part 98.448 (a)(7)(i):
(i) The reporter is out of compliance with its Underground Injection Control permit (or
relevant permit in the case of a facility that is not under the jurisdiction of the Safe
Drinking Water Act).
[NOTE: Text appearing as strikethrough above appears as strikethrough tracked change text in
original document.]
Response 7.5-b:
EPA agrees with the commenter and has deleted this provision. See Response 7.5-a for a
description of the MRV plan re-submission requirements.
Comment 7.5-c:
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) suggests the following revision to 40 CFR part
98.448 (a)(7)(ii) for greater clarity:
40 CFR part 98.448 (a)(7)(ii):
(ii) An EPA audit conducted under the verification procedures of this part determines it
[an update of the MRV plan] to be necessary.
[NOTE: Text appearing as strikethrough above appears as strikethrough tracked change text in
original document; Text appearing in [bold] above appears as inserted tracked change text in
original document.]
Response 7.5-c:
EPA has revised this regulatory text to clarify that the MRV plan must be revised if EPA notifies
the reporter of substantive errors in the MRV plan or monitoring report. See 40 CFR part 98.448
for the specific regulatory text.
123
-------
8 Cease Reporting
8.1 Cease Reporting Provisions
Comment 8.1-a:
One commenter (0816) had difficulty ascertaining the regulatory intent of proposed 40 CFR part
98.441. In particular, the commenter perceived a conflict between the statement that 40 CFR part
98.2(i) does not apply to this subpart and the cease reporting provisions outlined in 40 CFR part
98.441(b). The commenter also asserts that terms are mixed and confusing. The commenter
proposed specific regulatory text changes to 40 CFR part 98.441(b)(1) to specify that reporters
must resume reporting if the facility resumes operations "by transferring CO2 from off-site
sources in excess of the appropriate volume threshold for the purpose of injecting CO2 into the
subsurface."
Response 8.1-a:
EPA agrees that the wording of 40 CFR part 98.441 may have been confusing in the proposed
action. In today's final action, EPA has made a number of clarifying edits to make the regulatory
text clear. EPA is retaining procedures and requirements for facilities conducting GS ("Tier 2")
in subpart RR and is moving all procedures and requirements for all other facilities conducting
CO2 injection ("Tier 1") into a new subpart UU. EPA has concluded that this organizational
change allows for two source category definitions while clearly distinguishing the two sets of
provisions and procedures. The cease reporting provisions proposed for facilities conducting GS
have remained in subpart RR of today's final action and are different from the provisions in 40
CFR part 98.2(i). The cease reporting provisions proposed for other wells that inject CO2 have
been moved to subpart UU in today's final action. In response to public comment, in today's
final action EPA adopted the cease reporting provisions in 40 CFR part 98.2(i) for subpart UU.
Comment 8.1-b:
A commenter (0817) and the multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) recommend similar
changes to the cease reporting provisions in 40 CFR part 98.441(b)(2). The commenter (0817)
mentions that the recommendations are consistent with those made to EPA by Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality's (TCEQ's) Executive Director, the Ground Water
Protection Council, and other commenters on post-injection site care and closure requirements of
the proposed UIC Class VI rule (73 FR 43492 (July 25, 2008)). The specific regulatory text that
each of these commenters recommends is at the end of this comment summary.
The commenter (0817) suggests that the specifications of 40 CFR part 98.441(b)(2) be based on
those to be adopted for the UIC Class VI well rules in order to enable cessation of GHG
reporting when the state or EPA-administered UIC program verifies the performance of post-
injection site care and project closure (i.e., cessation of post-injection site care (which includes
monitoring) and GHG reporting should be allowed upon demonstration to the UIC program that
the injected C02 plume and pressure front pose no future endangerment to underground sources
of drinking water). Similarly, the multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) advocates that if the
GS facility has been closed in compliance with the facility's UIC permit requirements (or
relevant permit requirements, if any, in the case of a facility that is not subject to the SDWA), a
124
-------
facility conducting GS may discontinue complying with the remainder of the proposed subpart
RR.
The commenter (0817) recommends that EPA adopt the specific recommendations made by the
Ground Water Protection Council (of which TCEQ is a member) and the December 23, 2008,
letter from a multi-stakeholder group of companies and environmental organizations to Cynthia
C. Dougherty, Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, concerning the proposed
UIC Class VI well rules, noting particularly their recommended criteria (A) through (F).
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) also provides these specific criteria that they
suggest will provide UIC Directors and EPA with the requisite information to make the
appropriate determination for ceasing of reporting. The criteria are the same that the commenter
provided in response to the proposed UIC Class VI rule (73 FR 43491 (July 25, 2008)). The
commenter suggests that their recommendation for changes to the regulatory language establish
clear criteria that an operator must demonstrate before obtaining site closure and approval to
cease reporting based upon particular site characteristics and the criteria are reasonably
applicable to any storage site as opposed to a standard based upon a fixed-duration. The
commenter also suggests that the criteria are more stringent than a purely discretionary approach
because it establishes specific criteria that must be shown before site closure and approval to
cease reporting may be granted.
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) also referred to their comments on the proposed
UIC Class VI rule and recommends that their comments on UIC Class 11(b)(5) wells be
incorporated into the subpart RR requirements to assure that UIC Class 11(b)(4) operations that
opt to report as GS facilities under this rule will also meet the same closure requirements.
However, the commenter warns that closure of a UIC Class 11(b)(4) operation without
conversion to UIC Class 11(b)(5) will involve a different risk profile and that therefore UIC Class
11(b)(4) operators may more readily be able to satisfy the closure requirements than UIC Class
11(b)(5) operators.
A commenter (0817) recommends the following changes to the proposed language:
40 CFR part 98.441(b)(2) [(i)] If the €€h plume and pressure front have
stabilized and the GS facility has been closed in compliance with the facility's
Underground Injection Control permit requirements (or relevant permit
requirements, if any, in the case of a facility that is not under the jurisdiction of
the Safe Drinking Water Act), a facility conducting GS may discontinue
complying with the remainder of this subpart [by meeting the GS closure
requirements of its Underground Injection Control permit or, if the permit
does not include GS closure requirements, by demonstrating to EPA, based
on monitoring, other site-specific data, and modeling that is reasonably
consistent with site performance, that no additional monitoring is needed to
assure that the geologic sequestration project does not pose an
endangerment to Underground Sources of Drinking Water. The EPA shall
approve discontinuation of reporting if the owner or operator
demonstrates, based on the current understanding of the site, including
monitoring data and/or modeling, all of the following:]
125
-------
[(A)the estimated magnitude and extent of the project footprint
(CO2 plume and the area of elevated pressure);
(B)the estimated location of the detectable C02 plume;
(C)that there is no significant leakage of CO2;
(D)that the injected or displaced fluids are not expected to migrate
in the future in a manner that encounters a potential leakage
pathway;
(E)that the injection wells at the site completed into or through the
injection zone or confining zone are plugged and abandoned in
accordance with applicable requirements; and
(F)any remaining project monitoring wells at the site are being used
and managed pursuant to a plan approved by the Underground
Injection Control program Director.]
(ii)The owner or operator of the facility must notify EPA that the €€h plumo
and pressure front have stabilized and the GS facility has been closed in
compliance with the facility's Underground Injection Control permit
requirements (or relevant permit requirements, if any, in the case of a facility
that is not under the jurisdiction of the Safe Drinking Water Act), and such
notification must be certified as accurate by the owner or operator of the
facility.
(iii)The owner or operator must resume reporting for any future calendar year
during which any activities that are source categories of [facility subject] to this
subpart resumes operation [by injecting CO2 into the subsurface].
[NOTE: Text appearing as strikethrough above appears as strikethrough tracked change text in
original document; Text appearing in [bold] above appears as inserted tracked change text in
original document.]
The multi-stakeholder group (0799) recommends the following changes to the proposed
language:
40 CFR part 98.441(b)(2)
[(i)] If the €€h plume and pressure front have stabilized and the GS facility has
been closed in compliance with the facility's Underground Injection Control
permit requirements (or relevant permit requirements, if any, in the case of a
facility that is not [subject to] under the jurisdiction of the Safe Drinking Water
Act) [and has met the GS closure requirements of subsection (3)], a facility
conducting geologic sequestration may discontinue complying with the
remainder of this subpart.
(ii) The owner or operator of the facility must notify EPA that the COg plume
and pressure front have stabilized and the GS facility has been closed in
compliance with the facility's Underground Injection Control permit
requirements (or relevant permit requirements, if any, in the case of a facility
that is not [subject to] under the jurisdiction of the Safe Drinking Water Act),
126
-------
and such notification must be certified as accurate by the owner or operator of
the facility.
(iii) The owner or operator must resume reporting for any future calendar year
during which any activities that are source categories of [facility subject to]
this subpart resumes operation [by injecting C02 into the subsurface],
[NOTE: Text appearing as strikethrough above appears as strikethrough tracked change text in
original document; Text appearing in [bold] above appears as inserted tracked change text in
original document.]
40 CFR part 98.441(b)(3)
[(3) EPA shall approve discontinuation of reporting if the owner or operator has
demonstrated, based on the current understanding of the site, including
monitoring data and/or modeling, all of the following:
(A) the estimated magnitude and extent of the project footprint (C02 plume
and the area of elevated pressure);
(B) the estimated location of the detectable C02 plume;
(C) that there is no significant leakage of C02;
(D) that the injected or displaced fluids are not expected to migrate in the
future in a manner likely to result in leakage;
(E) that the injection wells at the site completed into or through the
injection zone or confining zone are plugged and abandoned in accordance
with applicable requirements; and
(F) any remaining project monitoring wells at the site are being used and
managed pursuant to a plan approved by the applicable Underground
Injection Control program Director.]
[NOTE: Text appearing in [bold] above appears as inserted tracked change text in original
document.]
Response 8.1-b:
Per these comments EPA has added the additional criteria in (D) to ensure that the reporter may
only discontinue reporting when they can demonstrate through monitoring and modeling that the
injected CO2 is not expected to migrate in the future in a manner likely to result in surface
leakage. EPA did not take the criteria in (E) or (F) as these are comments germane to UIC
requirements for plugging and closing injection and monitoring wells. EPA did not take the
criteria provided in (A) and (B) because if the CO2 plume is in a location that is significantly
different than was not predicted by the reporter, they will have to re-submit their MRV plan. If
the CO2 plume location is as predicted, that does not mean that it has necessarily stabilized at
that time. EPA did not take the criteria in (C) because EPA has not set a minimum detectable
leakage value under subpart RR.
EPA agrees with the commenter that the reporter can discontinue reporting if the facility has
been closed pursuant to its UIC Class VI permit and has clarified the final regulatory text to state
127
-------
that EPA will accept a UIC Class VI Director's authorization of site closure in lieu of a separate
C02 plume stabilization demonstration. EPA agrees that a UIC Class VI site closure
demonstration will be evidence to ensure to EPA that there is no risk of C02 leakage to the
surface. Comments on UIC well classification are out of scope of this rulemaking. EPA
proposed and considered comments on the UIC Class VI regulation through a separate notice and
comment process. Please see the subpart RR docket for the multi-stakeholder discussion group's
UIC comments (docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0926-0799) and refer to the final UIC Class VI
regulation for a discussion the UIC Class II to UIC Class VI transition.
Comment 8.1-c:
One commenter (TRANS-VA-04) notes that carbon capture and sequestration is useful only if it
permanently sequesters GHGs, therefore the EPA needs to be able to determine whether leaks
continue or commence long after injection ceases. Instead of the proposed cease reporting
provision, the commenter recommends that the EPA consider a low cost long-term leakage
monitoring requirement that would be permanently applicable to all facilities. Four commenters
(0042, 0067, 0186, 0403) emphasize that ideally monitoring would be carried out through the life
of the project or for a long time. The Sierra Club mass mailers (0023) state that monitoring
should continue for long-term leakage.
Response 8.1-c:
EPA clarified in the final rule that for non-UIC Class VI wells and as an alternative for UIC
Class VI wells, the reporter must demonstrate that current monitoring and model(s) show that the
injected CO2 stream is not expected to migrate in the future in a manner likely to result in surface
leakage. After injection ceases, the risks of leakage will decrease over time as the CO2 is trapped
in the subsurface through a variety of trapping mechanisms.9 Based on this demonstration, EPA
will issue a final decision on the request to discontinue reporting.
Comment 8.1-d:
One commenter (0788) noted it is not in the public's best interest to cease all reporting under the
MRR once all CO2 injection wells have been plugged, because there exists no published
literature indicating that the risk of leakage goes to zero immediately after the wells are plugged.
The commenter suggests that EPA consider a de minimis level of monitoring and reporting that
extends into the post-closure period of CO2 injection and GS wells. The commenter provides
several references that address the risk of leakage beginning to diminish once injection has
ceased:
• Benson SM, 2008. Multi-Phase Flow and Trapping of CO2 in Saline Aquifers. (Paper No.
OTC 19244). Published in the Proceedings of 2008 Offshore Technology Conference held in
Houston, TX, USA, May 5-8, 2008.
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (IPCC 2005). Special Report on Carbon
Dioxide Capture and Storage. IPCC,2005 - Bert Metz, Ogunlade Davidson, Heleen de
Coninck, Manuela Loos and Leo Meyer (Eds.). Cambridge University Press,UK. pp 431.
9 See the Vulnerability Evaluation Framework (VEF) for a description of trapping mechanisms (docket ID EPA-
HQ-OAR-2009-0926)
128
-------
• Dooley JJ, C Trabucchi, and L Patton .2010. "Design Considerations for Financing a
National Trust to Advance the Deployment of Geologic C02 Storage and Motivate Best
Practices." International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 4(2):381-387.
Response 8.1-d:
EPA has reviewed the suggested references and agrees with the commenter that the risk of
leakage does not immediately go to zero after the wells are plugged. Based on this and other
comments, EPA revised the rule so that the reporter must demonstrate to EPA that the injected
CO2 stream is not expected to migrate in the future in a manner likely to result in surface
leakage. Alternatively, if the site is permitted under UIC Class VI, the reporter may provide the
Director's authorization of site closure to discontinue reporting. EPA agrees with the commenter
that if the risk of leakage has decreased after wells are plugged, then the reporter may re-submit
their MRV plan to EPA for approval of a monitoring strategy that is commensurate with the risk
of leakage at the site.
Comment 8.1-e:
One commenter (0816) recommends that GS facilities reporting under this action be able to
cease reporting either when the amount of CO2 delivered to the site per year falls below the
reporting threshold for three consecutive years, or when the facility is being closed in accordance
with the applicable UIC permits.
Response 8.1-e:
EPA agrees with the commenter that the reporter can discontinue reporting if the facility has
been closed pursuant to its UIC Class VI permit. In accordance with EPA's intent to maximize
coordination between this and the UIC Class VI rule, EPA has clarified the final regulatory text
to state that EPA will accept a UIC Class VI Director's authorization of site closure. EPA
disagrees that GS sites would be able to discontinue reporting if the amount of CO2 received falls
below a reporting threshold for 3 years because the reporter must demonstrate to EPA that the
injected CO2 is not expected to leak to the surface. In addition, EPA retained no reporting
threshold in the final rule.
Comment 8.1-f:
A coalition of ENGOs (0809) recommends that monitoring on the airside should be subject to
the same timeframes as the requirement to continue post-injection monitoring under the UIC
permit. The coalition of ENGOs mentions that some comments on the UIC Class VI proposed
rule (73 FR 43492, July 25, 2008) suggest that the reporter must continue to monitor the GS
facility in accordance with the monitoring and reporting plan under the UIC permit, following
the cessation of injection until closure is authorized, unless the reporter can demonstrate that
monitoring and reporting should be revised to reduce the frequency of reporting during the post-
injection, pre-closure period. In addition, these comments on the UIC Class VI proposed rule
suggest that no GS facility closure could be authorized until the reporter demonstrates (based on
monitoring data) that no additional monitoring is necessary to prevent endangerment to a
USDW. The coalition of ENGOs suggests that the same or a parallel formulation be included in
the final rule on the airside.
129
-------
One commenter (0811) recommends that post-injection monitoring must continue until the C02
plume has stabilized, due to various continuing risks. The commenter recommends that the
notion of plume stability should be strengthened by EPA to include a criterion that the plume has
ceased to migrate detectably for a period of 7 years. The multi-stakeholder discussion group
(0799) recommends text changes for the proposed rule in 40 CFR part 98.448(a)(1).
[(v) A strategy for demonstrating at closure, based on monitoring, other
site-specific data, and modeling that is reasonably consistent with site
performance that no additional monitoring is needed to assure that the
geologic sequestration project does not pose an endangerment to USDWs
and is not likely to cause leakage],
[NOTE: Text appearing in [bold] above appears as inserted tracked change text in original
document.]
Response 8.1-f:
EPA agrees with the commenters that post-injection monitoring is necessary but that if the risk
of leakage has decreased after wells are plugged, then the reporter may reflect this in the MRV
plan through a lower level of monitoring that is commensurate with the risk of leakage at the site.
Based on this and other comments, EPA also revised the rule so that rather than demonstration of
stabilization of the C02 plume, the reporter must demonstrate to EPA that the injected C02
stream is not expected to migrate in the future in a manner likely to result in surface leakage. In
accordance with EPA's intent to maximize coordination between this and the UIC Class VI rule,
EPA has clarified the final regulatory text to state that EPA will accept a UIC Class VI
Director's authorization of site closure.
Comment 8.1-g:
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) provides a specific change to the regulatory text
to 40 CFR part 98.441(b)(1) in order to make the terminology more consistent:
40 CFR part 98.441(b)(1)
(1) If the injection well or wells constituting the facility are plugged in
compliance with the facility's Underground Injection Control permit
requirements (or relevant permit requirements, if any, in the case of a facility
that is not [subject to] under the jurisdiction of the Safe Drinking Water Act), a
[geologic sequestration] facility conducting geologic sequestration subject to
the requirements of this subpart may discontinue complying with §98.442(a)
and §98.442(b) and all other facilities subject to the requirements of this subpart
may discontinue complying with this subpart. The owner or operator of the
facility must notify EPA that the injection well or wells constituting the facility
have been plugged in compliance with the facility's Underground Injection
Control permit requirements (or relevant permit requirements, if any, in the case
of a facility that is not facility that is not [subject to] under the jurisdiction of
the Safe Drinking Water Act), and such notification must be certified as
130
-------
accurate by the owner or operator of the facility. The owner or operator must
resume reporting for any future calendar year during which any activities that
are source categories of [facility subject to] this subpart resumes operation [by
injecting C02 into the subsurface ]
[NOTE: Text appearing as strikethrough above appears as strikethrough tracked change text in
original document; Text appearing in [bold] above appears as inserted tracked change text in
original document.]
Response 8.1-g:
EPA has clarified these provisions in the final regulatory text at 40 CFR part 98.441(b)(1) and
(2).
Comment 8.1-h:
One commenter (0791) recommends that facilities be allowed to cease reporting below a defined
threshold or when wells are plugged.
Response 8.1-h:
For facilities conducting GS (covered by subpart RR), EPA revised the rule so that rather than
demonstration of stabilization of the CO2 plume, the reporter must demonstrate to EPA that the
injected CO2 stream is not expected to migrate in the future in a manner likely to result in surface
leakage. For all other facilities injecting CO2 (covered by subpart UU), and in response to public
comment, EPA has adopted the cease reporting provisions in 40 CFR part 98.2(i).
131
-------
9 Missing Data Procedures, Record Retention, and Confidential Business Information
9.1 Missing Data Procedures
Comment 9.1-a:
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) suggests missing data procedures should be
tailored on a site specific basis in each facility's proposed MRV plan. The multi-stakeholder
discussion group suggests that if the MRV plan is approved by the EPA, all the reporting needs
and appropriate procedures for estimating missing data would be covered.
Response 9.1-a:
In the final rule, EPA has retained missing data procedures for a number of subpart RR and UU
provisions. See 40 CFR part 98.445 and 40 CFR part 98.475 for regulatory text that specifies
these procedures. EPA agrees with the commenter and did not specify missing data procedures
for elements of the MRV plan because each MRV plan will be designed differently, however, the
Agency specifies in the regulatory text that these procedures must be included in the MRV plan
if they are to be used.
Comment 9.1-b:
One commenter (0816) states that the proposed procedures for estimating missing data are highly
site-specific and there is not enough experience with collecting such data to ascertain whether the
procedures specified by EPA could be implemented in practice. The commenter suggests that the
rule should be amended and simplified to allow tailoring of these procedures on a site-specific
basis, as part of the MRV plan. Such an approach would prevent over-specifying missing data
procedures when the data collection methods are not specified yet.
Response 9.1-b:
In the final rule, EPA has retained missing data procedures for a number of subpart RR and UU
provisions. See 40 CFR part 98.445 and 40 CFR part 98.475 for regulatory text that specifies
these procedures. These provisions will ensure that the reported data is as accurate and
defensible as possible but provides flexibility to the reporter in the case of equipment
maintenance or failure.
9.2 Record Retention Requirements
Comment 9.2-a:
One commenter (0801) asserts that the EPA does not state a timeline for the retention of records.
Response 9.2-a:
Reporters must retain all required records for at least three years. For further detail, EPA refers
the commenter to the general provisions for record retention in 40 CFR part 98.3.
Comment 9.2-b:
132
-------
A coalition of ENGOs (0809) states that EPA's proposed rule in 40 CFR part 98.447 is
insufficient, in that it does not require data retention beyond the three year period described by
the comprehensive monitoring and reporting rule. Since GS facilities have a long-term purpose, a
coalition of ENGOs recommends that the data be retained at least through the full period when
CO2 is being injected in the reservoir, and annual reports should be retained even after this
period, until the facility is closed, pursuant to UIC requirements for closure. The coalition of
ENGOs notes that some have suggested to the Agency that UIC monitoring and reporting
activity should continue post injection, either for some specified (and rebuttable) period, or until
the reporter demonstrates to the Administrator's satisfaction that the sequestered CO2 no longer
poses a threat to USDWs. The coalition of ENGOs proposes that the same requirement be in
place for airside record retention, and at the very least, airside records be retained in some form
that they can be reviewed at the time of a GS facility closure determination. A coalition of
ENGOs (0809) believes that without a robust data set, reported regularly, and retained during the
period of injection, and beyond, demonstrating that C02 injected remains sequestered over the
very long time periods contemplated by using this technology to mitigate climate change will not
be possible.
Response 9.2-b:
EPA disagrees with the commenter and retains the record retention provision of three years in
the final rule. The MRV plan and the yearly monitoring reports submitted by the reporter will
provide EPA with a record of monitoring activities for facilities conducting GS. Please refer to
Chapter 8 of this document regarding cease reporting provisions..
9.3 Confidential Business Information Issues
Comment 9.3-a:
One commenter (0816) requests the EPA to treat the reporting of amounts of CO2 injected and
produced for CO2-ER and CO2-ER-GS facilities as CBI. The commenter (0816) asserts that if
CO2-ER operations include GS, there should be an optional approach that allows reporters to
provide EPA with useful information while protecting their proprietary data as CBI. As such, the
commenter proposes specific changes in the regulatory language in section 40 CFR part
98.443(b) and adds a new section 40 CFR part 98.443(b)(4):
(b) A GS facility must report annually the mass of CO2 injected in accordance
with the procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section
[or obtain approval for an alternative reporting procedure pursuant to
(b)(4) of this section.
(4) A facility that is required to report pursuant to this subpart but is not a
GS facility may submit to EPA and obtain approval of alternative
reporting requirements that will be designed to provide for the net quantity
of CO2 injected during the year, but excluding the amounts produced and
recycled for EOR, where the details of the calculations may be claimed as
confidential business information.]
133
-------
[NOTE: Text appearing in [bold] above appears as inserted tracked change text in original
document.]
The commenter provides the following reasons arguing for such confidential treatment of the
information requested under this action:
• Information requested in this action, in particular the CO2 injection data, is extremely
sensitive to industry and therefore the industry can assert confidential treatment of the data.
In particular, the injection data is protected under EPA's regulations governing the
confidentiality of business information. (Business information is entitled to confidential
treatment if: (a) "[t]he business has asserted a business confidentiality claim which has not
expired by its terms, nor been waived nor withdrawn;" (b) "[t]he business has satisfactorily
shown that it has taken reasonable measures to protect the confidentiality of the information,
and that it intends to continue to take such measures; (c) "[t]he information is not, and has
not been, reasonably obtainable without the business's consent;" (d) "[n]o statute
specifically requires disclosure of the information; and (e) either the business shows that
disclosure of the information "is likely to cause substantial harm to the business's
competitive position" or, if the information is voluntarily submitted, "its disclosure would be
likely to impair the Government's ability to obtain necessary information in the future."
40 CFR part 2.208. See 40 CFR part 2.208, 40 CFR part 2.301(e)). The industry has
historically protected C02 injection information and taken reasonable measures to ensure its
continued protection.
• The information cannot be reasonably obtained by EPA without industry consent, nor is it
required by statute. Further, the commenter notes that cost or difficulty associated with
obtaining information is an important consideration in assessing whether it is "reasonably
obtainable." The commenter notes that EPA has not asserted that the requested information
is required by statute. The commenter also notes that injection volumes reported from ER
operations under the UIC program for Class II wells are not equivalent to what EPA
proposes to collect under this action. In particular, under the UIC program, EPA collects
annual "injection volumes" from ER facilities. When more than one fluid is injected, the
volumes of each are summed and reported as a single number. For example, water and C02
are frequently injected in the same well over the course of a year and the volume is reported
collectively. The determination of the amount of C02 injected in each well based on this
information is not apparent.
• Publishing and public reporting of the information would substantially harm the competitive
position of the industry as the data about the relative amounts of CO2 transferred on-site,
recycled, and injected can indicate information about the reservoir and project. This
information would be valuable to competitors as they can learn about the essential terms of
the contracts between injection facilities and C02 suppliers. Public disclosure would
substantially harm facilities' competitive position in the marketplace by eroding the
proprietary vale of the injection facilities' contractual relationships and ongoing business
activity with suppliers of C02. In addition, public access to data requested under this action
would discourage C02-ER operators from opting-in to report as a C02-ER-GS facility due to
the resulting competitive disadvantage.
134
-------
• "CO2 injection information is not "emission data," and therefore is eligible for confidential
treatment under EPA regulations. "Emission data" is only information necessary to
determine characteristics related to past actual emissions from the emission source itself.
See, e.g., 40 CFR part 2.301(a)(2)(i) (defining emission data, in part, as "Information
necessary to determine the identity, amount, frequency, concentration, or other
characteristics ... of any emission which has been emitted by the source . . ."). In contrast,
the requested information bears no relationship to past actual emissions from any of the
sources providing such data. The requested information is not "emission data" because the
term "emission" unambiguously means material that is actually discharged into the air. See,
e.g., NRDC v. Leavitt, Civ. No. 04-01295, 2006 WL 667327, at *3 (D.D.C. March 14, 2006)
(citing 40 CFR part 2.301(a)(2)(i)(A) & (B)) (holding that "'emissions data' is defined
narrowly to focus on information obtained from a source of emissions, not a producer of
materials that will later contribute to emissions"). As such, information related to CO2
injection, including quantities of C02 transferred onsite, the source of C02, and the amount
of CO2 injected at CO2-ER-GS facilities, by no means meets the regulatory definition of
"emission data" and, therefore, that information is still eligible for CBI protection."10
• "The information does not qualify as emission data because it is not "necessary to
determine" the characteristics of any emissions. See 40 CFR part 2.301(a)(2)(i). Importantly,
before concluding that the requested information is "necessary" to determine emissions or
source, EPA must consider all relevant factors, "including available alternatives, so that
release of information claimed to be proprietary could be avoided unless required by
statute." RSR Corp. v. EPA, 588 F. Supp. 1251, 1256 (D.C. Tex. 1984) (remanding to EPA
to determine if information was "necessary to determine" emissions). A "strict interpretation
of the 'necessary to determine' requirement is warranted in order to ensure that the exception
does not swallow the rule." NRDC, 2006 WL 667327, at *4. The quantities of CO2
transferred onsite, the source of C02, and the amounts of C02 injected are wholly unrelated
to and unnecessary to determine future emissions from the CO2-ER-GS facility. As
explained above, the plain unambiguous meaning of the term "emissions" is material that is
actually discharged into the air. For these reasons, the CO2 injection data warrants
confidential treatment and should be protected as such under any final rulemaking."11
Thus, the commenter notes that data about C02 injection is eligible for confidential treatment.
Response 9.3-a:
Today's final rule does not address whether data reported under subparts RR or UU will be
released to the public or will be treated as CBI. See Section I.B. of the preamble for a discussion
of the CBI rulemaking. For a discussion on EPA's authority to collect injection data under this
rulemaking, see Chapter 1 of this RTC.
10 Verbatim text from comment letter, hence in quotes.
11 Verbatim text from comment letter, hence in quotes.
135
-------
10 Economic Impact Analysis (EIA) and Executive Orders (EOs)
10.1 Comments on the EIA
Comment 10.1-a:
A coalition of ENGOs (0809) agrees with EPA that the total national cost of reporting under this
action (barely over $332,000) and the average per facility cost ($4,500) are very reasonable for
the benefits of such comprehensive all-in reporting. These commenters agree with EPA that the
reporting burden for ER operators to report CO2 received onsite and injected would be small,
given the equipment and data collection efforts already in place at ER projects. One commenter
(0783) raises concern that the estimated annual cost of $4,000 for ER facilities that is shown in
Table 8 of the preamble to the proposed subpart RR is an unrealistic cost estimate. The
commenter asserts that labor costs will be significantly higher and facilities will need to hire
additional personnel in order to adequately capture and maintain the data.
Response 10.1-a:
EPA cost estimates for ER facilities (no GS) included labor cost estimates associated with
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting. EPA has reviewed the labor cost assumptions and
continues to view them as reasonable estimates. Labor rates were obtained from the US Bureau
of Labor Statistics and from surveys of oil and gas professional performed by the American
Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) and the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE).
The Agency's economic analyses considered a variety of alternative ER opt-in scenarios that
included low, reference, and high cost scenarios. The reporting costs for ER facilities and other
non-GS facilities are covered by subpart UU. Section 4 of the EIA for this rule covers unit costs,
including labor rates, as well as reporting cost estimates for facilities covered by the rule.
Comment 10.1-b:
One commenter (0806) states that only volumetric flow meters are used for operating
approximately 300 of their CO2 injection wells for their ER operation, and, consequently, they
would need to convert volumetric flows recorded by these meters to mass for reporting under
proposed subpart RR. Each of their injection wells are presently setup to CO2 concentration and
pressure, however, they do not measure C02 temperature. In order to measure C02 temperature
at each well, the commenter asserts that they would need to purchase, install, calibrate, and test
temperature measuring equipment on each of their approximately 300 C02 injection wells. The
commenter estimates that it would cost approximately $1,500,000 and 7,500 man-hours for
installation alone, and that additional costs would be incurred for calibrating and maintaining the
equipment. The commenter believes that the rule would impose a significant burden and cost on
them.
Response 10.1-b:
Under subpart UU of the final rule, ER operators are subject to the reporting provisions outlined
in subpart UU and must only report C02 received on-site. Therefore, there is no need for
volumetric flow meters or C02 temperature measurement. Section 5.2 of the EIA for this rule
outlines the national cost estimates for subpart UU.
136
-------
Comment 10.1-c:
Three commenters (0813, 0815, 0787, TRANS-VA-03) raise concern about the total costs that
the MRV requirements will impose on the GS industry. Two commenters (0813, 0787) opine
that the estimated cost of around $300,000 per year for each GS facility is significantly higher
than the cost for most other sources to comply with the GHG Reporting Program, One
commenter (0815) mentions that such costs are excessive and believes that these costs could
dissuade developers and investors from pursuing CCS technologies due to high regulatory risk
and regulatory burden. One commenter (0789) claims that the proposed rule would create an
unnecessarily expensive regulatory program.
One commenter (TRANS-VA-03, 0787) claims that assuming a per-project cost of $300,000 per
year, the costs of the program could exceed $100 million annually for a large-scale commercial
saline GS industry comprised of over several hundred sites (assuming a national rate of one
billion tons per year and an average injection rate per site of two to three million tons per year).
The commenter mentions that this cost would more than double the entire private sector cost of
EPA's reporting program, without possibly not increasing the total amount of emissions
reported. The commenter asserts that EPA did not include commercial saline GS projects in the
economic analysis and that the EIA focused on ER and R&D project costs rather than
commercial GS sites.
Four commenters (0794, 0789, 0815, 798) claim that such high compliance costs may discourage
investment in and development of CCS technologies due to high regulatory burden. One
commenter (0789) opines that the rule would reduce the benefits to the public from injection for
ER and sequestration purposes. One commenter (0798) mentions that the potential cost of
imposing unnecessary, duplicative or inapplicable requirements could discourage ER operators
from making use of anthropogenic C02, which in turn could delay the deployment of carbon
capture technology among power plant and other industrial CO2 emitters. The commenter
suggests that the proposed 40 CFR part 98.448 requirements avoid this risk, and recommends
that the EPA avoid changes to this section in the final rule that increase significantly the risks or
costs of ER operators opting to document and report sequestration quantities through approval of
the additional MRV plan provided for here or that would result in duplicative compliance
requirement to those that will apply under the UIC program.
One commenter (0794) questions why a duplicative layer of monitoring is required and believes
that regulated sources should be able to satisfy EPA's needs by reporting to the agency under
other CCS or ER permitting requirements and other federal emissions reporting regimes, some of
which were identified by EPA. The commenter argues that in order for meaningful investment
in CCS technologies to occur, there need to be clear regulatory programs in place that encourage
robust CCS project development and help to eliminate liability risk for early investments. The
commenter states that the misalignment of risk and regulatory burden has negative consequences
by subjecting storage operators to unnecessarily burdensome and expensive recordkeeping and
reporting for very limited emissions.
Response 10.1-c:
The economic analysis discusses the MRV cost estimates in detail and reports the costs of the
developing a MRV plan in Tables 4-13 and 4-14. The final rule was analyzed against a projected
137
-------
project baseline assuming current regulations. There is no current market or legal driver for large
scale CCS. However, EPA's economic analysis considered two additional scenarios for the
number of CO2 injection facilities that choose to report as GS facilities (Section 5.2.1 of the
EIA). In the medium scenario, all Anthropogenic C02 projects (16) choose to report as GS
facilities (ER opt in)(subpart RR). In the high scenario, all Anthropogenic CO2 projects (16) and
fifty percent of other C02 projects (32) choose to report as GS facilities (ER opt in)(subpart RR).
The national cost estimate is $35 million under the medium ER opt in outcome (first year) and
$33 million in subsequent years. The national cost estimate is $103 million under the high ER
opt in outcome (first year) and $97 million in subsequent years. In addition to scenarios around
the number of facilities that choose to report as GS facilities, EPA also conducted another
scenario analysis around alternative baseline CCS deployment levels (Section 5.2.2 of the EIA).
Assuming deployment levels consistent with economic modeling of possible climate legislation,
the first year national cost estimate would increase by $17.2 million. The economic analysis also
presents cost-to-sales ratios for ER projects that choose GS (Table 5-9) and noted they exceed 3
percent of baseline revenues.
Comment 10.1-d:
Three commenters (0813, 0815, 0787, TRANS-VA-03) raise concern about the cost per ton
associated with compliance with the proposed rule. Three commenters (0815, 0787, 0813,
TRANS-VA-03) assert that the EPA's expected cost of reporting for each GS facility will be
significantly higher on a tonnage basis than the cost for other sources to comply with the MRR,
because GS sites are expected to be very small emitters of CO2. One commenter (0787, TRANS-
VA-03) asserts that the reporting costs per ton for GS facilities are at least 10 times that of other
facilities under EPA's GHG reporting program.
One commenter (0787) states that a compelling explanation is needed as to why potential CO2
emissions from GS facilities face higher reporting costs than other likely small-volume GHG
sources. This commenter insists that the estimated costs of MRV activities should be weighed
against the estimated marginal benefits of reporting tons of CO2 emitted (which the commenter
argues will be minimal compared to most other facilities required to report under the GHG
Reporting Program). This commenter notes that the MRV rules are being proposed under an
EPA reporting program, rather than an air quality regulatory program. The commenter suggests
that the criteria for economic effectiveness should be comparable to the criteria used on the other
subparts for GHG reporting. The commenter mentions that EPA concluded that a 25,000 metric
threshold suited the needs of reporting program promulgated in October 2009. This commenter
claims that it is appropriate for EPA to consider the cost of compliance with the MRV
requirements versus the benefit of additional tons reported. This commenter believes that the
framework established for the rest of the GHG reporting program seems appropriate for making
such a comparison, but claims that if this action had been made concurrently with the other
subparts it is highly likely that its economic analysis would have been included in the economic
analysis for the larger program.
One commenter (0787) points out that the reporting cost for GS facilities based on the proposed
rule is very high—over $10/ton, which is at least 10 times more than the marginal cost for
reporting under the rest of the GHG reporting program. The commenter notes that if the leakage
rate is only 4000 tons per year, then the reporting cost would be $70/ton. In contrast, the
138
-------
commenter opines that EPA considered that a marginal cost of $l/ton of CO2 reported was too
high for the rest of the GHG reporting program. The marginal cost was calculated by the
commenter based on the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the GHG reporting program. The
commenter mentions that in selecting the threshold of 25,000 tons per year, EPA estimated that
the average reporting cost for GHG reporting would be $0.03 per ton, whereas the reporting cost
for GS is $10/ton in the worst case leakage and even higher if leakage rates are smaller.
Response 10.1-d:
EPA acknowledges certain sectors face different reporting costs per ton. EPA estimates the
average reporting cost for subparts RR/UU is $0.02 per ton. If a higher number of injection
facilities voluntarily choose GS, average costs increase to $2.00 per ton. While the cost per ton
provides a comparison to other subpart in the mandatory reporting rule, the values are uncertain
since actual injection values may be higher or lower than those used in the pro forma projects.
While in some cases the per ton reporting costs are higher than other subparts, the overall goal of
the GHG reporting is to provide a comprehensive and accurate reporting system. The cost
effectiveness metric of cost per ton reported may not be the most appropriate means to evaluate
the economic impact of the rule, and is just one means of doing so. Another metric presented in
the EIA is cost-to-sales ratios, which evaluates the compliance cost against average receipts for
like facilities. EPA found sales test ratios are between 3.1 to 4.0 percent for facilities conducting
GS (subpart RR). In contrast, facilities conducting C02 injection (no GS, which includes UIC
Class IIER operations) sales test ratios are below 0.01 percent.
Comment 10.1-e:
One commenter (0787) raises concern that none of the 89 projects used by EPA to calculate
estimated compliance costs in the March 2010 draft EIA for the proposed subpart RR are
commercial scale GS facilities. Therefore, the commenter claims that these facilities referenced
in the economic analysis are only subject to basic and relatively inexpensive reporting
requirements (such as amount of CO2 received on-site and the amount injected) rather than the
far more expensive second Tier requirements associated with developing an MRV plan and
reporting the amount of CO2 sequestered using a mass balance approach.
Response 10.1-e:
Subpart UU covers ER facilities that can voluntarily opt-in to the GS reporting program. Under
subpart UU, facilities will incur minimal reporting costs for CO2 transferred onsite. EPA's
baseline considers the number and makeup of projects that will be injecting in 2012. There are 9
GS R&D and 1 commercial saline. In the core scenario, the remaining 83 ER injectors are
assumed to not choose GS and report under subpart UU. EPA's economic analysis also considers
two alternative scenarios where ER injectors voluntarily choose GS (16 and 48 injectors). The
economic analysis also presents cost-to-sales ratios for ER projects that choose GS.
Comment 10.1-f:
One commenter (0787) summarizes EPA's comparison between the MRV requirements of the
proposed subpart RR and those of the UIC Class VI proposal in an effort to identify which MRV
activities associated with the proposed subpart RR are incremental to the UIC Class VI proposal.
139
-------
Using Table 4-9 (Assumptions for Application of Technologies by Regulatory Alternative) from
EPA's EIA for the proposed subpart RR, the commenter compares the assumptions of
applicability of MRV requirements under the proposed UIC Class VI regulations for commercial
saline GS facilities to the assumed level of applicability under the lowest, middle, and highest
level alternatives for the proposed subpart RR. Based on this comparison, the commenter asserts
that there are no incremental requirements for the lowest level the proposed subpart RR
alternative for commercial saline GS facilities. However, the commenter concludes that six MRV
activities are more stringent for the middle level proposed subpart RR alternative, and seven
MRV activities are more stringent for the highest level proposed subpart RR alternative,
including:
• Estimation of Fugitive Emission from Surface Facilities,
• Periodic Digital Color Infrared Ortho-Imagery and Hyper-Spectral Imaging,
• Periodic Airborne Survey,
• Soil Zone Monitoring with Accumulation Chamber,
• Vadose Zone Monitoring,
• Monitoring Wells for Water Table Sampling, and
• Eddy Covariance (incremental for the highest level proposed subpart RR alternative but
not for the middle level).
Furthermore, the commenter summarizes EPA's incremental costs associated with the above
activities. The commenter notes that the bulk of costs for EPA's middle alternative of $289,000
are associated with periodic digital color infrared ortho-imagery and hyper-spectral imaging to
detect changes in vegetation, periodic airborne surveys to detect surface leaks, and monitoring
wells for water table sampling. The incremental cost estimate associated with the highest level
proposed subpart RR alternative amounted to $470,000 above the UIC Class VI proposal or
$181,000 above the middle alternative, with the bulk of the costs associated with the addition of
eddy covariance measurement, quarterly rather than annual reporting for soil zone monitoring,
vadose zone monitoring, and monitoring wells for water table sampling.12 The commenter
asserts that the MRV costs per site for saline GS storage are significant at hundreds of thousands
of dollars annually.
Response 10.1-f:
The calculations of the incremental costs made the commenter are generally consistent (within
$5,000 per year per GS project) with the cost computed by EPA.
Comment 10.1-g:
One commenter (0787) states that the MRV requirements fail to recognize the high reporting
costs that could be imposed on a full scale commercial GS industry. The commenter claims that
the reporting costs per ton associated with the proposed subpart RR would be at least ten times
higher than the rest of the GHG reporting program, and that total reporting costs for the proposed
subpart RR alone could exceed the cost of the rest of the GHG reporting program combined.
12 For specific incremental cost estimates, please see Twenty-First Strategies, EPA-HW-OAR-2009-0926-0787,
Re: Mandatory GHG Reporting Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0926, June 11, 2010, Table 4-7.
140
-------
The commenter also suggests that as an EPA reporting program and not an air quality regulatory
program, the criteria for economic effectiveness should be comparable to the criteria used on
other subparts for GHG reporting. The commenter mentions that EPA concluded that a 25,000
metric threshold suited the needs of reporting program promulgated in October 2009. The
commenter suggests that EPA weigh the estimated costs of MRV activities to the estimate
benefits of additional tons reported. The commenter believes that the framework established for
the rest of the GHG reporting program is appropriate for this task.
Response 10.1-g:
EPA's economic analysis considered two additional scenarios for the number of CO2 injection
facilities that choose to report as GS facilities. In one scenario, all Anthropogenic C02 projects
(16) choose to report as GS facilities (ER opt in)(subpart RR). In another scenario, all
Anthropogenic C02 projects (16) and fifty percent of other C02 projects (32) choose to report as
GS facilities (ER opt in)(subpart RR). The national cost estimate is $39 million under the
medium ER opt in outcome (first year) and $37 million in subsequent years. The national cost
estimate is $104 million under the high ER opt in outcome (first year) and $98 million in
subsequent years.
EPA also considered three additional scenarios of the number of large scale saline aquifer GS
(commercial saline) project deployment by 2050: low (5 projects), medium (9 projects), and high
(54 projects). The low scenario is based on the low end of the range of deployment targeted by
the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage.13 The medium scenario is based on
large scale saline project deployment projected in the cost analysis prepared for the UIC Class VI
final rule. The high scenario is based on EPA modeling of the projected deployment of CCS
under proposed climate legislation. The first year national 1 cost estimates increase by $1.6
million under the low outcome; $2.9 million under the medium outcome, and $17.2 million
under the high outcome.
Comment 10.1-h:
One commenter (0787) raises concern that EPA's economic analysis did not include saline GS
facilities. The commenter claims that if a large-scale commercial GS industry becomes a reality,
commercial saline GS facilities are likely to become the most predominate type of facility, far
more than the 0, 3, 6, or 9 facilities contemplated in the EIA.
Response 10.1-h:
EPA's economic analysis includes pro-forma costs for commercial saline projects. Of the 13
baseline projects included in the analysis, there is one commercial saline facility (Archer Daniels
Midland Co.'s Decatur, 111 project at its ethanol plant). Section 4 of the EIA discusses
commercial saline costs (Table 4-10 through Table 4-14).
Comment 10.1-i:
13 http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/policy/ccs_task_force.html
141
-------
One commenter (0810) believes that the cost of installing and operating a monitoring system has
been vastly underestimated by EPA. As stated in Table 6 of the preamble, developing strategies
for establishing a pre-injection environmental baseline at the surface and for detecting and
quantifying C02 leakage to surface are not required under the UIC Class VI proposal. The
commenter mentions that establishing the baseline and conducting ongoing ambient CO2
monitoring would be an additional cost beyond what is proposed by UIC permitting. In addition,
setting up, operating, and reporting for an ambient CO2 monitoring network comprised of
multiple locations could easily exceed $1,000,000 annually. This estimate is substantially higher
cost than the $300,000 per year that EPA estimated. Given this high cost and technical issues, the
commenter suggests that EPA remove reference to ambient air monitoring of C02 as a means for
establishing pre-injection environmental baselines. One commenter (0783) opines that a
significant portion of wells are stripper wells and is concerned that it may not be cost effective to
operate these wells and that the impact to small businesses will be significantly negative.
Response 10.1-i:
EPA determined that establishment of baselines is a critical aspect of monitoring for leakage
detection and quantification. EPA does not prescribe monitoring technologies or methodologies
for establishing expected baselines due to the site specific nature of MRV plans. Therefore, the
example system described by the commenter may not be representative of sites that may employ
near-surface monitoring for leak detection. In any case, the rule does not require near-surface
leak detection monitoring when subsurface monitoring under a UIC Class VI permit can be
shown to be adequate.
10.2 Scenarios Regarding Future Deployment of CCS
Comment 10.2-a:
One commenter (0787, TRANS-VA-03) notes that EPA states that EPA provided a scenario
assumption of no GS facilities for the reference case, and one commenter (0787, TRANS-VA-
03) raises concern that the scenarios presented in EPA's economic analysis for subpart RR did
not include commercial saline projects. The commenter (TRANS-VA-03) suggests that
commercial saline projects were not included in the scenarios possibly because there was no way
of reasonably estimating how many such projects exist and notes that EPA recognized that its
economic analysis excluded commercial saline facilities by including a brief side analysis in
Section 5.2.2 of its EIA for subpart RR.
Response 10.2-a:
EPA's economic analysis considered two additional scenarios for the number of CO2 injection
facilities that choose to report as GS facilities. In the medium scenario, all Anthropogenic CO2
projects (16) choose to report as GS facilities (ER opt in)(subpart RR). In the high scenario, all
Anthropogenic CO2 projects (16) and fifty percent of other CO2 projects (32) choose to report as
GS facilities (ER opt in)(subpart RR). The national cost estimate is $35 million under the
medium ER opt in outcome (first year) and $33 million in subsequent years. The national cost
estimate is $103 million under the high ER opt in outcome (first year) and $97 million in
subsequent years.
142
-------
EPA's economic analysis includes pro-forma costs for commercial saline projects. Of thel3
baseline projects included in the analysis, there is one commercial saline facility (Archer Daniels
Midland Co.'s Decatur, 111 project at its ethanol plant). EPA considered three additional scenarios
of the number of large scale saline aquifer GS (commercial saline) project deployment by 2050:
low (5 projects), medium (9 projects), and high (54 projects). The low scenario is based on the
low end of the range of deployment targeted by the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture
and Storage.14 The medium scenario is based on large scale saline project deployment projected
in the cost analysis prepared for the UIC Class VI final rule. The high scenario is based on EPA
modeling of the projected deployment of CCS under the American Power Act. The national first
year annual cost estimates increase by $1.6 million under the low outcome; $2.9 million under
the medium outcome, and $17.2 million under the high outcome.
Comment 10.2-b:
One commenter (0787), regarding the costs associated with ER operations opting-in to report as
GS operations, claims that two of the most important tables in EPA's economic analysis (Table
5-2 and Table 5-3) did not include commercial saline GS facilities.
Response 10.2-b:
The EIA considers commercial saline facilities. Table 5-1 includes 1 commercial saline facility.
The second row of Table 5-3 reports the national annualized mandatory reporting costs estimates
for the 1 commercial saline facility in subpart RR. The second row of Table 5-4 reports the low
and high national annualized mandatory reporting costs estimates for 1 commercial saline facility
estimated to be injecting by 2012.
Comment 10.2-c:
One commenter (TRANS-VA-03) asserts that in order to think about national costs, it is
reasonable to consider how large a commercial [GS] program could become. The commenter
(TRANS-VA-03, 0787) claims that given the large-scale effort to reduce national GHG
emissions, billions of tons of CO2 emissions could potentially need to be reduced annually in
order to meet long term reduction targets; and as such, the commenter claims it is reasonable and
foreseeable to hypothesize that a commercial sequestration program could reach a storage rate of
one billion tons per year. Assuming the annual injection rate of EPA's UIC proposal (1.84
MMTCO2 per year), one commenter (0787) calculates that over 500 storage sites would be
needed. As another analogy, the commenter (TRANS-VA-03) similarly claims that if an average
site stores two or three million tons per year, that could potentially equate to several hundred
sites nationally. Additionally, one commenter (0787) asserts that it is quite possible that a large
number of commercial saline GS sites will be deployed in the future, and that commercial saline
facilities have the potential to become the most important and numerous type of CCS site.
Furthermore, this commenter (0787) claims that a large commercial saline GS industry (e.g.,
consisting of several hundred sites) would "dwarf' the industry size used in EPA's economic
analysis, which was comprised of 89 projects total (9 R&D and 80 CO2 injection facilities, but
no commercial saline GS facilities).
14 http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/policy/ccs_task_force.html
143
-------
Response 10.2-c:
Given the potential for future deployment of CCS technologies, EPA considered two additional
scenarios of the number of large scale saline aquifer GS (commercial saline) project deployment
by 2050: low (5 projects), medium (9 projects), and high (54 projects). The low scenario is based
on the low end of the range of deployment targeted by the Interagency Task Force on Carbon
Capture and Storage.15 The medium scenario is based on large scale saline project deployment
projected in the cost analysis prepared for the UIC Class VI final rule. The high scenario is based
on EPA modeling of the projected deployment of CCS under proposed climate legislation. The
national first year annual cost estimates increase by $1.6 million under the low outcome; $2.9
million under the medium outcome, and $17.2 million under the high outcome.
10.3 Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Comment 10.3-a:
One commenter (0114) suggests that EPA did not bother to determine the cost/benefit analysis
and contends that EPA is trying to avoid the issue by stating that, "Under Section 3(f)(1) of EO
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not by itself an 'economically
significant regulatory action' because it is unlikely to have an annual economic effect of less
than $100 million" (75 FR 18597, April 12, 2010).
Response 10.3-a:
EPA prepared an economic analysis the costs associated with the regulatory action [Docket ID
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0926], EPA has also qualitatively considered the benefits in Section 5.5 of
the EIA. With the statement, EPA intended to address the requirements of EO 12866. EPA has
made the following determination: Under EO 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action
is a "significant regulatory action" because it may raise novel legal or policy issues arising out
of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the EO. Accordingly,
EPA submitted this action to the OMB for review under EO 12866 and any changes made in
response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action. While it
is a significant regulatory action, it is not an economically significant action because it is likely
to have an annual economic effect of less than $100 million.
EPA has addressed the requirements of EO 12866. In doing so, EPA has made the following
determination: Under EO 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a "significant
regulatory action" because it may raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the EO. Accordingly, EPA
submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO
12866 and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in
the docket for this action. While it is a significant regulatory action, it is not an economically
significant action because it is likely to have an annual economic effect of less than $100 million.
To make the determination that the action is not economically significant, EPA prepared an EIA,
which can be found in the docket for this rule.
15 http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/policy/ccs_task_force.html
144
-------
145
-------
11 Relationship to the Underground Injection Control Program
Comment 11-a:
Seven commenters (0798, 0804, 0811, 0815, 0816, TRANS-VA-02, TRANS-VA-07) support
harmonizing the reporting requirements between the UIC Program and the proposed subpart RR
whenever possible in order to minimize overlap and avoid duplicative and/or conflicting
requirements. One commenter (0816) suggests that any additional reporting for GS facilities
(beyond the three requirements required of all CO2 injection facilities: CO2 transferred on site,
source of CO2, if known and CO2 injected) should be consistent with those required for permit
conditions under the UIC program. The commenter (0816) believes that streamlining the GS
requirements and harmonizing them with other reporting requirements, such as under the UIC
rules, will encourage the use of CCS technology. Another commenter (0815) believes that such
streamlining will help facilitate development and deployment of CCS technology and it will help
ensure public acceptance of GS.
One commenter (0804) is concerned that the proposed subpart RR rule has major reporting
requirement differences when compared to other source categories, and claims that the reporting
requirements covering a monitoring program should be part of the UIC GS rule, and not part of
the proposed rule.
Another commenter (0798) suggests that EPA should avoid changes to 40 CFR part 98.448 in
the Final Rule that increase significantly the risks or costs of ER operators opting to the
document and report sequestration quantities through approval of the additional MRV plan
provided for here which would result in duplicative compliance requirements to those in the UIC
program.
Response 11-a:
EPA agrees with the commenters that supported harmonizing reporting requirements between
the UIC program and this rule. EPA coordinated requirements in this rule with UIC requirements
in order to minimize overlap, avoid, duplicative and/or conflicting requirements, and ensure
consistency with the UIC program. Although this rule does not require facilities to undertake GS,
EPA agrees that regulatory clarity is important for enabling the development of CCS
technologies. EPA also agrees that clear regulatory requirements are important for effective
public engagement.
Comment 11-b:
One commenter (0810) finds subpart RR's reference to the proposed UIC Class VI permit to be
problematic since the UIC Class VI regulation has not yet been finalized. To remedy the issue,
this commenter (0810) suggests EPA either remove the references to the proposed UIC Class VI
permit or delay implementation of proposed subpart RR until the UIC Class VI regulation is
finalized. Another commenter (0816) finds subpart RR's reference to the proposed UIC Class VI
permit to be premature since the UIC Class VI regulation has not yet been finalized but that in
principle they support allowing requirements for permits for the proposed classes of injection
wells to be sufficient for the injection aspects of the MRV plan. One commenter (0798) urged
146
-------
EPA not to prejudge the outcome of the pending UIC rule. The commenter (0798) believes that
40 CFR part 98.448(a)(4) should refer more generally to a MRV plan under a UIC permit that
allows for non-ER based geological sequestration, rather than referencing the UIC Class VI
proposal. Furthermore, one commenter (0816) claims that harmonizing proposed subpart RR
with the UIC program is especially important since the UIC Class VI proposal has not yet been
promulgated. One commenter (0798) believes that the proposed rule builds appropriately on
what is anticipated to be the final outcome of the pending UIC rulemaking.
Response 11-b:
EPA is finalizing the UIC Class VI rule concurrently with this rule. Please refer to Section I.D of
the preamble for a comparison of reporting requirements under subpart RR with the UIC Class
VI rule.
Comment 11-c:
Regarding the CO2 injection reporting requirements, one commenter (0813/TRANS-VA-02)
support EPA's decision to allow storage sites to use their UIC permit to demonstrate compliance
with certain portions of the proposed rule. One commenter (0808) supports EPA's suggestion
that facilities subject to the UIC program would be able to satisfy the CO2 injection reporting
requirement using flow meters installed for the UIC program. One commenter (0813) suggests
that EPA's final rule should codify that facilities subject to the GS UIC program would be able
to satisfy the requirement to report the mass of CO2 injected by using the flow meters installed
for the UIC program and the data captured and recorded.
Response 11-c:
With respect to the reporting under subpart RR of CO2 injected by facilities conducting GS,
facilities may use as the point of measurement the location of the flow meter used to comply
with the flow monitoring and reporting provisions in their UIC permit. EPA notes that for all
other facilities injecting CO2 underground (subpart UU), EPA has removed the requirement that
facilities report the amount of CO2 injected.
Comment 11-d:
One commenter (0798) suggests that EPA should allow reporting entities to use the same
standards for reporting used under a UIC permit for the purposes of reporting under proposed
subpart RR. The commenter finds that while the CAA does not have a "primacy" provision, it
would be appropriate for EPA to allow reporting on the same basis as required by various State
agencies under the UIC permit program and other state regulatory requirements. In particular,
the commenter notes that under the proposed rule, 40 CFR part 98.444 (a) (11) requires
quantities that are measured by a volumetric flow meter to be converted to mass flow using an
absolute pressure of 1 atmosphere. The commenter claims that this is inconsistent with reporting
required under the UIC Program, and suggests that EPA modify the provision so that the same
figures reported under the UIC program can be used for reporting under the proposed subpart RR
in order to avoid confusion, data inconsistencies, and unnecessary and duplicative compliance
costs.
147
-------
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) notes that many states utilize established
standards for gas volume reporting, and most gas sales contracts define the standard pressure
base and temperature, which can differ from the state-established standard base. The commenter
notes that additional conversions may be necessary for the gas accounting system under this
action.
Response 11-d:
EPA considered allowing reporters to use the same conversion standards as used for their UIC
permits and gas volume reporting (both of which may vary from state to state), but ultimately
decided that all reporting entities should use the same conversion standards for purposes of
reporting under this rule. This rule has been designed to collect data based on consistent
reporting methods. EPA selected requirements that were appropriate to serve the objectives of a
national reporting rule. To serve this purpose, EPA is requiring all facilities that use volumetric
flow meters convert measured volumes using the same standard industry temperature and
pressure conditions of 60 degrees Fahrenheit and one atmosphere. If facilities used different
standard temperature and pressure conditions in order to convert measured volumes that were
reported to EPA, EPA would not be able to compare data across facilities using a consistent
metric. EPA notes that facilities may use the flow meter installed at the facility that is already
being used to comply with flow monitoring and reporting provisions of the facility's UIC permit
for reporting the quantity of C02 injected. EPA also notes that a reporter can use the volumetric
data collected under an existing UIC permit along with data on temperature, pressure, and CO2
concentration to calculate mass of C02 injected under subpart RR. One of EPA's priorities when
developing and finalizing this rule was to minimize redundancy between the UIC Program and
GHG Reporting Program and to build the reporting requirements in this final rule on top of
requirements for UIC permits. Please refer to Chapter 4.2 of this document for comments on
converting to standard conditions.
Comment 11-e:
Two commenters (0812, 0816) suggest that EPA should allow a single form or report to be used
to sufficiently meet the requirements of both the UIC and MRR programs. One commenter
(0816) recommends that EPA allow companies to submit the same annual report submitted to
meet UIC permit requirements, in order to reduce reporting burdens.
Response 11-e:
EPA considered allowing a single form or report to be used for reporting requirements under
both the UIC and GHG Reporting Programs, but ultimately concluded that a single form or
report would not be practical. Facilities may report GS under subpart RR regardless of the class
of UIC permit that they hold. Although the UIC Class VI rule requires that reporters submit data
to EPA in an electronic format, data reporting for other UIC permit classes may be reported to
states (rather than directly to EPA) and the data collected and reported may vary depending on
state requirements. Therefore, because reporting under the GHG Reporting Program is neutral
with respect to UIC well class, EPA determined that a single form or annual report that meets
both the requirements of the UIC and GHG Reporting Programs for purposes of this rule would
not feasible.
148
-------
EPA disagrees that no additional measurements should be required unless specifically included
in the MRV plan. The MRV plan relates to the detection and quantification of surface leakage.
However, there are other measurements that are necessary in order to quantify the amount of
C02 that is sequestered using a mass balance approach, such as measuring the mass of C02
injected. Data collection requirements are set forth in the subpart RR regulatory text at 40 CFR
part 98.443.
Comment 11-f:
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) recommends that EPA revise the definitions in 40
CFR part 98.449 to allow for proper understanding and application of UIC program terms in the
proposed subpart RR.
Response 11-f:
EPA found that commenters were confused by the definition of GS facility in the proposed
regulatory text and therefore deleted this definition in the final rule in order to make clear that
this rule relies on the definition of facility located at 40 CFR part 98.6. Please refer to Section
II.E of the preamble for further discussion regarding this change in the regulatory text. EPA
notes that this rule is UIC class neutral and that any facility that conducts GS may report under
subpart RR regardless of the class of UIC permit that the facility holds.
EPA agrees with the commenter that regulatory clarity is important. As a result of the comment,
EPA reviewed the definitions at 40 CFR part 98.449. EPA added definitions for the terms
"Underground Injection Control permit" and "Underground Injection Control program" in order
to provide proper understanding and application of UIC program terms in the rule.
Comment 11-g:
One commenter (0794) argues that much of the monitoring and reporting proposed under subpart
RR is the same as that required for the UIC program, and the EPA's approach to reporting from
GS and CO2 injection facilities is overly heavy-handed.
Response 11-g:
EPA notes that the reporting requirements in this rule are not the same as UIC requirements.
Please refer to Section I.D of the preamble for a discussion on the relationship of the UIC
program to this rule, as well as a comparison of reporting requirements under subpart RR with
the UIC Class VI rule.
EPA disagrees that its approach to reporting from facilities conducting GS and other facilities
conducting CO2 injection is overly heavy-handed. With respect to reporting requirements under
subpart UU, EPA is requiring facilities to report basic information on the amount of CO2
received. This is information which facilities already collect as part of their ordinary course of
business. With respect to reporting requirements under subpart RR, EPA is providing for a site-
specific approach to monitoring. As a result, facilities may utilize monitoring that is best suited
for the particular conditions of their site, including where applicable monitoring used for a
facility's UIC permit requirements.
149
-------
Comment 11-h:
Four commenters (0794, 0797, 0810, 0813) argue that properly sited and well-managed CO2
storage sites are not at high risk of sudden releases of air emissions. The commenters suggest
that the EPA revise the proposal's assumption that GS sites will leak CO2 into the atmosphere,
and instead should approach the reporting rules for CCS from the assumption that leakage is
unlikely, especially because the UIC program ensures that storage sites will be properly sited and
monitored. One commenter (TRANS-VA-02) notes that the UIC program ensures storage sites
will be properly sited and monitored and that EPA should recognize this in the context of
possible air emissions.
Two commenters (0790, 0797) assert that the leakage of CO2 from the reservoir to the surface is
unlikely in a properly permitted UIC injection scheme, and any such leaks are insignificant as
compared to the mass of CO2 injected. Hence, they recommend that EPA not have any
requirement to detect, quantify, or report reservoir-to-surface leaks that are not detected by UIC
permit requirements. A commenter (0797) opines that GS sites are expected to report a null set
for such kind of air emissions, as would be confirmed by MMV that will be required under
federal or state-based CCS permitting programs. The commenter opines that requiring detection
and quantification of leaks not captured by UIC permit requirements imposes an unnecessary
burden.
Commenter (0813) believes that the inclusion of reporting on the "movement of CO2" in the
subsurface and near surface is inappropriate and the information required under the UIC program
should be sufficient for purposes of the MRV plan. The commenter suggests that EPA be
required to accept without additional review the subsurface monitoring plan included in a
project's UIC permit. The commenter notes that subsurface plume position must be monitored
and must be included in the semi annual reports that EPA has proposed to require from UIC
permit holders as proposed in40C.F.R. §§ 146.90(g) and 146.91.
Response 11-h:
EPA agrees with commenters that the risk of leakage to the surface is minimized at properly
sited and well-managed sites and that the UIC program provides the foundation for the safe
sequestration of CO2 by ensuring that injected fluids remain isolated in the subsurface and do not
endanger underground sources of drinking water. EPA does not make the assumption that
injected CO2 will leak to the atmosphere at GS sites. Subpart RR does, however, require
monitoring to ensure that if leakage occurs, it will be detected and properly quantified and
reported.
EPA considered the relationship of requirements under this rule and UIC permit requirements,
and concluded that additional monitoring and reporting requirements were necessary for a proper
mass balance of GS. The UIC program does not provide for quantification of the amount
sequestered or the amount of surface leakage, if any. Therefore, EPA disagrees that it should not
have any requirements to detect, quantify, or report surface leakage that is not detected by UIC
permit requirements.
150
-------
Please refer to Section I.D of the preamble for a comparison of reporting requirements under
subpart RR with the UIC Class VI rule.
Comment 11-i:
One commenter (0804) asserts that the requirements of proposed subpart RR include increased
reporting over that in the UIC rule and a provision requiring reporting of fugitive and vented C02
emissions from surface components. As such, the commenter expresses concern that that the
proposed rule is treating sequestration as a major source of emissions, which will undermine
public confidence in CCS technology.
Response 11-i:
EPA agrees that UIC permitted facilities would be required to collect additional data under this
rule in order to quantify the amount of CO2 that is sequestered. However, EPA disagrees that this
rule predetermines the extent of emissions of facilities conducting GS. Rather, this rule will
provide information on the effectiveness of GS over time in order to inform future policies
relating to CCS for GHG reductions. EPA also disagrees that this rule will undermine public
confidence in CCS technology. By providing a transparent framework for monitoring and
reporting the quantities of CO2 sequestered, information obtained under this rule could build
public confidence in CCS.
Comment 11-i:
One commenter (0797) questions the utility of collecting data on CO2 surface emissions under
subpart RR. In addition, the commenter suggests that the monitoring under the UIC program
will detect air emissions. In particular, the commenter interprets the proposed UIC CCS rule as a
fairly expansive MMV program to verify the location of the injected fluids and the location of
the pressure front, and to demonstrate that injected fluids are confined to intended storage zones.
The commenter mentions that 'by definition, air emissions from a GS site would mean that the
injected fluids were not confined to the intended storage zones, and thus would have been
detected by monitoring under the UIC program.' The commenter notes that 'even in the unlikely
event that MMV reporting under the UIC program suggested that injected fluids were not
behaving in complete accordance with modeling, such an event would not necessarily mean that
air emissions would result. Even in that scenario, air emissions from the storage site would be
highly unlikely because, for example, operational steps (to include, if necessary, cessation of
injections to diminish reservoir pressures) could be taken well before the passage of the years or
decades that would be required for the CO2 from such an anomaly to reach the surface.'
Response 11-i:
EPA disagrees that collecting data on surface leakage from facilities that conduct GS lacks
utility. Quantification of surface leakage, should it occur, is an important for quantifying GS.
EPA agrees that the UIC program provides a robust monitoring program for ensuring that
USDWs are protected from endangerment. EPA also agrees that monitoring under a facility's
UIC permit could be utilized for purposes of monitoring requirements under subpart RR.
However, as discussed in Section I.D of the preamble, data collected under the UIC program
does not provide all of the data elements necessary to conduct a proper mass balance for
151
-------
quantifying the amount of CO2 sequestered. Please refer to Section I.D of the preamble for a
comparison of reporting requirements under subpart RR with the UIC Class VI rule. EPA agrees
that injected fluids not behaving in accordance with modeling does not necessarily mean that
there is surface leakage. With respect to remediation, EPA notes that this rule is a reporting rule
and does not require facilities to control GHGs.
Comment 11-k:
One commenter (TRANS-VA-04) claims that the airside protocols of subpart RR that focus on
detecting and reporting atmospheric leaks from CCS facilities are necessary supplements to the
UIC Program's rules that focus on protecting underground sources of drinking water. The
commenter asserts that, while the regulatory framework to ensure that CCS is properly controlled
is incomplete, it should ultimately cover subsurface injection practices under SDWA, airside
monitoring under the CAA, and also present a detailed liability and enforcement system.
Furthermore, the commenter recommends that EPA consider how both the SDWA and CAA
would interact with/support a liability and enforcement system.
Response 11-k:
EPA agrees with the commenter that subpart RR supplements UIC requirements by providing a
mechanism to quantify the amount of CO2 that is sequestered. EPA notes that this rule is a
reporting rule and does not require the control of GHGs. Therefore, there is no liability under this
rule associated with surface leakage. However, compliance with subpart RR requirements is
mandatory for facilities that meet the source category definition, subject to penalties of the CAA.
Comment 11-1:
One commenter (0815) mentions that their organization is participating in a pilot project in
Michigan and has conducted monitoring, verification, and assessment after completing each of
two injection tests: i) 10,000 tons of CO2; and ii) 50,000 tons of CO2. They state that monitoring,
verification, and assessment were performed after each test to validate the effectiveness of
sequestration.
Response 11-1:
EPA notes that R&D projects may receive an exemption from subpart RR. Please refer to
Section II.B of the preamble and Chapter 2.5 of this document for further information on
obtaining an R&D exemption.
Comment 11-111:
Four commenters (0151, 0266, 0277, 0309) are concerned about the effects of CCS operations
on underground sources of drinking water. Commenter 0226 particularly emphasizes the
importance of verifying that the system is not leaking, testing the pH of groundwater to ensure
that it does not change, and ensuring the stability of underground rock formations after CO2
injections. One commenter (0578) particularly emphasized a need for the legislation to protect
groundwater.
152
-------
Response 11-m:
Although the protection of underground sources of drinking water is beyond the scope of this
rule, concurrently with this rule EPA is finalizing requirements under the UIC program that
establish a new class of GS injection well. Please refer to Section I.D of the preamble for further
information.
Comment 11-n:
One commenter (0797) suggests that the EPA should clarify that MRV reporting is not related to
site permitting. The commenter specifically wishes to ensure that the MRV plan mechanism
under the proposed subpart RR may not be used as a means to challenge GS site permits issued
under other federal or state programs, including the UIC Program.
Response 11-n:
EPA agrees with the commenter that this is a reporting rule and not a permitting rule. However,
please refer to Section I.D of the preamble for further information on the relationship of MRV
requirements under this rule to the UIC Class VI rule.
Comment ll-o:
Two commenters (0788, 0786) and a coalition of ENGOs (0809) stated that the UIC
requirements are not sufficient for complying with the proposed subpart RR MRV requirements.
One commenter (0788) suggests that EPA avoid implying that the UIC Class VI permit will be
all that is needed to satisfy the requirements as situations will differ. The commenter suggests
that EPA continue to find ways that will allow reporters to make maximal use of data collected
for a UIC Class VI permit in order to complete the MRV for the reporting rule but for EPA to
avoid implying that the data and methodologies required for monitoring by a UIC Class VI
permit is always and everywhere equivalent to what is need for an MRV for the reporting rule.
A coalition of ENGOs (0809) believes that UIC monitoring and reporting is essential, and indeed
likely to be the first source of information suggesting that there is the risk of lost containment,
and eventual leakage; however, the data collected and reported under the UIC monitoring and
reporting plan is not sufficient to demonstrate that no airside leakage has occurred. The
commenter suggests EPA clarify the ability of the use of a UIC Class VI permit to demonstrate
that the MRV requirements have been satisfied.
One commenter (0786) believes that allowing the use of a UIC Class VI permit would not be
sufficient. The commenter notes that advances in horizontal drilling may give rise to a case in
which a GS facility's injection site is onshore but the geological repository is offshore. In this
situation, reliance on a UIC Class VI permit to fulfill the MRV leakage risk assessment would
not be sufficient. The injection well would fall under the jurisdiction of the SDWA, and would
require a UIC Class VI permit, however, the repository would fall outside of SDWA jurisdiction
(i.e., requirements for site characterization and assessment of leakage pathways for sub-seabed
repositories will be governed under a permitting authority other than the SDWA).
153
-------
One commenter (TRANS-VA-04) claims that the airside protocols of subpart RR that focus on
detecting and reporting atmospheric leaks from CCS facilities are necessary supplements to the
UIC Program's rules that focus on protecting underground sources of drinking water. The
commenter asserts that, while the regulatory framework to ensure that CCS is properly controlled
is incomplete, it should ultimately cover subsurface injection practices under SDWA, airside
monitoring under the CAA, and also present a detailed liability and enforcement system.
Furthermore, the commenter recommends that EPA consider how both the SDWA and CAA
would interact with/support a liability and enforcement system.
Response ll-o:
EPA agrees with commenters that the UIC monitoring is essential at GS sites, but that data
collected and reported under the UIC program is not sufficient to quantify total C02 sequestered.
Furthermore, EPA agrees that subpart RR supplements UIC requirements by providing a
mechanism to quantify the amount of C02 that is sequestered. EPA clarifies in the final rule that
a facility's UIC permit may be used to demonstrate that certain MRV plan requirements have
been fulfilled. This approach allows the reporter to leverage the site characterization, risk
assessment, and/or monitoring required by other authorities as the foundation for demonstrating
compliance with the MRV plan requirements of subpart RR. However, provisions are needed
that go beyond what is required of UIC permits in order quantify GS. See Section I.D of the
preamble for a more detailed discussion of subpart RR and UIC Class VI requirements.
EPA notes that this rule is a reporting rule and does not require the control of GHGs. Therefore,
there is no liability under this rule associated with surface leakage. However, compliance with
subpart RR requirements is mandatory for facilities that meet the source category definition,
subject to penalties of the CAA.
Comment 11-p:
Several commenters (0797, 0804, 0800, 0803, 0815) are concerned that there is overlap between
the proposed MRV plan and the UIC rule. One commenter (0797) suggests that the final subpart
RR rule acknowledge that the forthcoming UIC CCS rule alone may provide sufficient
monitoring and reporting to meet EPA's needs under subpart RR. The commenter believes that
most, if not all, of subpart RR's MRV plan requirements could be addressed under the UIC
program. The commenter (0797) notes that EPA suggests that possible data gaps in the UIC
program that will be filled by the subpart RR MRV are the UIC program's failure to "verify []
the amount of CO2 sequestered and collecting data on CO2 surface emission." Id The
commenter (0797) concurs with the EPA that it could be construed as a data gap, but suggest that
rather than using subpart RR, the gap should be filled by defining tons sequestered as tons
injected and monitored in compliance with all applicable federal and state GS-based
requirements, including the UIC program.
Another commenter (0804) proposes that requirements for MRV of potential CO2 leakage (i.e.,
an assessment of risk of leakage, detection and quantification of leakage to the surface, strategy
for establishing pre-injection environmental baselines, and development of a mass balance
equation) be part of the monitoring program required for a permit under the UIC rule not the
subpart RR rule.
154
-------
A commenter (0800) supports not overlapping with the requirements proposed for the UIC Class
VI program, but drawing upon data obtained from UIC Class VI program requirements. The
commenter believes that information certifying that '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'" (75 FR 18589) bears upon requirements that will be addressed under the
proposed UIC permitting program and separate state permitting processes. This commenter notes
that extensive geological characterization will go into the UIC site selection process and the UIC
sites will be well managed for compliance.
One commenter (0803) states that the MRV plan requirements appear to be redundant with the
UIC Class VI proposed requirements. They assert that leakage risk assessment is part of the site
approval process under the UIC rule in which well-selected and well-managed sites are not
anticipated to have potential leakage pathways. This commenter requests that EPA remove the
risk assessment requirement from subpart RR as well as any provisions that are redundant to the
UIC Class VI rules. This commenter suggests that EPA refer to UIC Class VI rule by reference
with respect to MRV and address any of the provisions not specified under the UIC Class VI
rule.
One commenter (0815) believes that the requirements of 40 CFR part 98.448(a)(1) are
assessments and strategies for evaluating the effectiveness of GS sites and are potentially
important components of the long term effectiveness of a GS site, but these requirements do not
belong in a GHG monitoring plan. The commenter mentions that the effectiveness of and
strategy for evaluating leakage to the surface is a complex geological evaluation and
recommends that these requirements be included in the UIC permit or similar regulatory
instrument, that regulates the injection of C02 through a permitted well. As potential leakage
pathways develop and change over time (i.e., as the CO2 plume expands in the subsurface), the
characterization of potential leakage pathways may be required to be re-evaluated as part of the
permit compliance program. The MRV should only be required to use the results of this
evaluation to estimate CO2 emissions, not to prescribe how this geologic evaluation should be
conducted.
Response 11-p:
EPA designed subpart RR so that a facility's UIC permit may be used to demonstrate that certain
MRV plan requirements have been fulfilled. This approach allows the owner or operator to
leverage the site characterization, risk assessment, and/or monitoring required by other
authorities as the foundation for demonstrating compliance with the MRV plan requirements of
subpart RR. The UIC program provides the foundation for the safe sequestration of CO2 by
helping to ensure that injected fluids remain isolated in the subsurface and away from
underground sources of drinking water, thereby serving to reduce the risk of CO2 leakage to the
atmosphere. However, provisions are needed that go beyond what is required of UIC permits in
order to quantify CO2 sequestered. MRV requirements of subpart RR were designed so that
accurate data on the quantity of CO2 sequestered is reported to EPA, regardless of the type of
permit the facility holds. In addition, quantification of surface leakage and CO2 sequestered does
not fall under the authority of SDWA.
155
-------
See Section I.D of the preamble for a more detailed discussion of subpart RR and UIC Class VI
requirements. See Section 6.2 for a discussion of the necessity for the MRV requirements in this
final rule and Section 6.4 for a defense of the requirement for assessing the risk of leakage of
C02 to the surface.
Comment 11-q:
One commenter (0794) gives several reasons why they think EPA's approach in subpart RR is
'heavy handed'. One reason mentioned was that much of the proposed monitoring and reporting
requirements are duplicative of requirements for CCS and ER projects under other regulations
such as the SDWA UIC Program and voluntary and regulatory requirements implemented by
other government agencies, such as DOE and Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Another
commenter (0798) states that GS is being researched by DOE and other entities and the purpose
of the DOE projects is to evaluate and test approaches to monitoring and verification in various
settings. This commenter states that these kinds of site-specific considerations are already
addressing in UIC permitting and will be modified in the final UIC Class VI rule.
Response 11-q:
EPA coordinated requirements in this rule with UIC requirements in order to minimize overlap,
avoid duplicative and/or conflicting requirements, and ensure consistency with the UIC program.
See Chapter 13 for a discussion of the relationship of this final rule with other voluntary and
regulatory requirements. See Chapter 6.1 for a discussion of the relationship of this rule to DOE
research.
Comment 11-r:
A commenter (0795) and the multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) state that a very
effective manner for protecting USDWs will be ensuring that the injected CO2 stream and
displaced formation fluids are fully contained within the injection and confining zones, as is
done under the UIC permit. One commenter (0795) suggests that EPA clarify in the final rule
preamble that the use of UIC permits and monitoring plans can satisfy the majority of the
proposed subpart RR MRV plan requirements. In particular, for UIC Class II (b)(4) wells, the
current monitoring practices of ER operators should meet most of the same requirements. The
commenter mentions that, based on experience, the most effective manner for protecting
underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) is accomplished by ensuring that the injected
CO2 stream and displaced formation fluids are contained within the injection and confining
zones. The commenter believes that protection of USDWs adequately assures protection against
releases to the atmosphere. The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) notes that wells
meeting criteria for their proposed classification 11(b)(4) have a risk profile that reflects more than 35
years of experience with the safe and effective injection of C02for ER, 75 FR at 18579, and EPA's
final subpart RR rule should allow implementation of the requirements to reflect that reality.
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) states that sites have been carefully selected to
meet applicable siting requirements (i.e., criteria that mandate sites capable of accepting and
containing the injected fluids), and, therefore the monitoring requirements should also be tailored
to each site. The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) opines for clarification about the
156
-------
applicability of UIC Class II requirements where GS occurs with ER activities. The monitoring
methods and procedures adopted under the UIC permit and additional monitoring procedures that
are already being implemented could be sufficient to fully satisfy the MRV requirements of this
subpart and if not, monitoring plans will need to be modified to demonstrate compliance with the
MRV plan requirements of this subpart. The commenter suggests that the determination for the
need for modifications be made on a case-by-case basis.
Response 11-r:
EPA agrees with commenters that the UIC monitoring is essential at GS sites, but that data
collected and reported under the UIC program is not sufficient to quantify total C02 sequestered
annually. EPA clarifies in the final rule that a facility's UIC permit may be used to demonstrate
that certain MRV plan requirements have been fulfilled. This approach allows the owner or
operator to leverage the site characterization, risk assessment, and/or monitoring required by
other authorities as the foundation for demonstrating compliance with the MRV plan
requirements of subpart RR. However, provisions are needed that go beyond what is required of
UIC permits in order quantify GS. See Section I.D of the preamble for a more detailed
discussion of subpart RR and UIC Class VI requirements.
Comment 11-s:
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) suggests modifications to the regulatory text
regarding use of UIC Class VI permit in demonstrating that the MRV plan requirements have
been satisfied. The commenter suggested that reference to UIC Class VI be eliminated as GS
wells may be permitted in other classes (e.g., recommendations have been submitted to EPA for
GS wells to be permitted under UIC Class II for GS operations in oil and gas reservoirs and
under UIC Class V for GS operations and in basalts, coal beds, salt caverns or shales). This
commenter also suggests an explicit revision to the regulatory language by inserting the word
'help' to recognize that MRV plans associated with UIC permits can be helpful even if not
sufficient in demonstrating compliance with the MRV requirements of this subpart:
(4) If you are using a MRV plan incorporated in an Underground Injection
Control [[Class VI]] permit to [help] demonstrate that the MRV plan requirements
of this subpart have been satisfied and the Underground Injection Control [[Class
VI]] permit has not been approved, you must submit the identification number
associated with the Underground Injection Control [[Class VI]] permit application
and notify EPA when the Underground Injection Control [[Class VI]] permit has
been approved. [NOTE: Text appearing inside [[ ]] above appears as strikethrough
tracked change text in original document; Text appearing inside [ ] above appears
as inserted tracked change text in original document]
One commenter (0802) suggests that EPA consider accepting a facility's UIC Class II permit to
satisfy this same element of MRV requirements. In particular, the injection wells at ER sites are
likely to be UIC Class II wells, not UIC Class VI wells. To obtain a UIC Class II well, the
applicant also must evaluate the potential for leakage resulting from well injection.
157
-------
One commenter (0816, 0816) proposes that EPA accept an MRV plan that would be applicable
to all classes of wells, including UIC Class II and Class VI wells, if the plan is appropriate for
GS activities with or without CO2-ER operations. The commenter suggests that for GS facilities,
any additional reporting requirements should be consistent with those required by permit
conditions under the UIC program.
Response 11-s:
EPA agrees with the commenter that any UIC permit can be used to demonstrate that certain
MRV plan requirements have been fulfilled and has clarified this in the final rule and has deleted
the reference to UIC Class VI in this section of the regulatory text. EPA has also revised the
regulatory text in this section to refer to well identification numbers rather than UIC permit
application numbers, as this will enable EPA to coordinate more efficiently across programs.
Comment 11-t:
A few commenters (0795, TRANS-VA-01, 0767) encourage coordination and communication
across EPA and other programs on GS regulations and implementation, particularly between the
UIC and GHG Reporting program. One commenter (0795) emphasizes the importance for EPA
to coordinate GS requirements across relevant statutory or regulatory programs, especially with
respect to the UIC program requirements for delineation of the AoR for GS facilities,
development and implementation of MRV plans, review and updating of AoR plans and closure.
One commenter (TRANS-VA-01) mentions that a UIC Rule finalized in parallel with the
Mandatory Reporting Rule is critical to ensure integrated water and airside environmental health
protections. The commenter suggests that EPA's rules harmonize the development and approval
of airside and UIC monitoring strategies because permitting will largely be overseen by the states
and airside monitoring tools are largely the same as those for ground water protection under the
UIC program.
One commenter (TRANS-VA-01) suggests that all information collected by the MRV program
be reported to the UIC permitting authorities in a timely manner. The commenter mentions that
immediate reporting will be particularly important where evidence of leakage or pressure front
migration exists such that the shutdown triggers and airside mitigation measures in the permits
can be put in place by the state agencies in addition to the revision of the MVR plan that's
required under the proposal.
One commenter (0767) suggests that subpart RR be restructured to provide that 'in the event that
monitoring under the UIC CCS rule indicated that air emissions were resulting from the GS site,
such air emissions would have to be quantified and separately reported under subpart RR.
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) mentioned that coordination is critical between
program offices and EPA regional offices, and between EPA and state agencies involved in
administering the UIC and air programs. This coordination includes support for development,
implementation, and review of MRV plans.
Response 11-t:
158
-------
EPA believes that the requirements of the UIC Class VI rule and subpart RR complement one
another by concurrently ensuring USDW protection, as appropriate, and requiring reporting of
CO2 surface emissions under subpart RR. For example, for those UIC Class VI sites where a
UIC Director uses his/her discretion to include surface air or soil gas monitoring as required by
the facilities MRV plan, that monitoring will be incorporated by reference into the UIC permit.
Please refer to http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/wells sequestration.cfm for
information on regulatory requirements for GS under the UIC program. EPA is also committed
to working closely within the agency to coordinate implementation of the UIC and GHG
Reporting programs, reduce burden on reporters, provide timely access to verified emissions
data, establish mechanisms to efficiently share data, and harmonize data systems to the extent
possible. Pending CBI determination, information reported to EPA under subpart RR will be
publicly available and accessible by any State and permitting authorities.
Comment 11-u:
A coalition of ENGOs (0809) notes that there is no requirement in the proposed rule that a plan
must be outlined for communication with the UIC permitting authority in the event of an adverse
CO2 plume or pressure front migration, or any airside leakage.
The coalition suggests that the MRV plan required by EPA reflect the synergies between UIC
monitoring and reporting and the need for airside monitoring and reporting, by including
additional requirements that are triggered at the point when a potential problem is observed
through the UIC monitoring program or under the MRV, and well before any documented actual
airside "leakage." Detection of "leakage" - defined in proposed 40 CFR part 98.449 as "the
movement of CO2 from the injection zone to the surface" - means that one of the underground
mechanical or geologic barriers to CO2 release has been severely compromised. As such,
detection of leakage is significant, and should trigger immediate remedial action by the permit
issuing authority - which, under the system of permits and monitoring that EPA is developing
for GS facilities, will be a state or perhaps EPA under the SDWA UIC Program's system of
delegated permit authority. A leakage should trigger a remedial response.
The coalition believes that EPA has the authority to build into the MRV plan the requirement to
communicate information about a leakage sufficient to trigger a remedial response. The
communication should include explicit directions about required communication between i) EPA
and the UIC permitting authority in the event of detection of leakage; and ii) between the UIC
permitting authority and EPA at the first evidence of potentially lost containment. They assert
that EPA should provide directions on the required communication between EPA and the UIC
permitting agency, especially when there is evidence of leakage.
The commenters suggests where there is no UIC permit, the MRV plan must include subsurface
monitoring and reporting requirements similar to those in place for a UIC Class VI well, under
the UIC program, or demonstrate that some other monitoring and reporting protocol is
appropriate and will provide sufficient early warning of potential loss of containment/leakage.
Another commenter (0811) also recommended that EPA establish mechanisms to link the
reporting under this proposed rule to the UIC program to ensure that, in the unlikely event of
159
-------
significant deviations from the original plume projections, communication with the UIC
authorities is required.
Response 11-u:
EPA concluded that remedial action is beyond the scope of the reporting requirements of subpart
RR and determined that all reporting must be to EPA directly. In the case of a UIC permit holder,
the owner or operator is responsible for reporting to the UIC Director, any evidence that CO2 has
migrated from the intended injection zone and has triggered a remedial response. Additionally,
information on surface leakage reported to EPA as required by subpart RR is intended to be
public, subject to any limitations or requirements in its CBI determination (see Section I.B of the
preamble).
Comment 11-v:
A coalition of ENGOs (0809) mentions that the four required components for a MRV plan in 40
CFR part 98.448 (a) (1) do not require the inclusion or reference the monitoring and reporting
requirements for a UIC permit.
Response 11-v:
Although the MRV requirements at 40 CFR part 98.448 (a) do not explicitly include or reference
the UIC permit, any UIC permit can be used to demonstrate that certain MRV plan requirements
have been fulfilled.
Comment 11-w:
Two commenters (0808, 0813) suggest that the rule and any MRV requirement begin with the
understanding that sites will be heavily regulated and permitted at the federal and state levels,
and that monitoring will separately be required as part of the UIC program. These commenters
are pleased that EPA is considering ways to minimize overlap between the reporting rule and the
UIC rule and suggest that EPA allows regulated sources to report to EPA the monitoring that
they are conducting as part of separate CCS permitting requirements. Commenter 0808 also
states that utilizing a material balance approach for reporting CO2 sequestered and the fugitive
emissions emitted will allow the MRV plan utilized when permitting the well to be utilized.
Response 11-w:
EPA acknowledges the commenter's input and shared view of the desire to minimize overlap
between the GHG Reporting Program and UIC requirements. Therefore, EPA clarifies in the
final rule that a facility's UIC permit may be used to demonstrate that certain MRV plan
requirements have been fulfilled. This approach allows the owner or operator to leverage the site
characterization, risk assessment, and/or monitoring required by other authorities as the
foundation for demonstrating compliance with the MRV plan requirements of subpart RR. Refer
to Chapter 13 of this document for a discussion on the relationship of this final rule to federal
and state permitting. Also, please refer to Section I.D of the preamble and for a discussion of
how this rule relates to the UIC program.
160
-------
Comment 11-x:
One commenter (0800) suggests that EPA assure that the MRV plan is not used as an extension
of the UIC Class VI rules to confirm or qualify target reservoir containment or migration.
Response 11-x:
The purpose of the MRV requirements of subpart RR is for the reporting the quantity of C02
sequestered, and not to confirm reservoir containment. However, if a facility can confirm that the
C02 has not migrated our of the injection zone, this information can be used towards
demonstrating no surface leakage.
Comment 11-v:
One commenter (0798) claims that while the proposed subpart RR addresses reporting and
monitoring only, the MRV plans to be adopted under the UIC program will include requirements
for sealing leaks in the confining systems.
Response 11-v:
EPA agrees that subpart RR addresses reporting and monitoring only. Please refer to Section I.D
of the preamble for a discussion of how this rule relates to the UIC program.
Comment 11-z:
A commenter (0807) supports EPA's declaration to continue to regulate wells used for injection
for ER of oil and gas using the existing Class II UIC Program. The commenter states that the
added economic burden related to construction and MRV requirements being considered for the
proposed UIC Class VI Wells may discourage certain operators from developing much needed
US oil reserves, that are unlikely to be recovered without the employment of CO2-ER.
Response 11-z:
The commenter is referring to the proposal preamble discussion on the relationship between the
UIC Class VI rulemaking and the subpart RR rulemaking. The discussion refers to the UIC
proposal and did not discuss any final decisions in the UIC Class VI rulemaking related to UIC
Class II wells. Please see the final UIC rulemaking for UIC Class VI injection well
requirements.
161
-------
12 Relationship to Other Subparts of the GHG Reporting Program
Comment 12-a:
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) suggests that the preamble mention that injection
of CO2 into a geologic formation such as a CO2 dome should not result in double counting if the
CO2 is subsequently extracted and delivered for some other use. In particular, subpart PP
excludes the 'Storage of CO2 above ground or in geologic formations' (40 CFR part 98.420(b)(1)
and proposed subpart RR excludes 'Temporary Storage of CO2 below ground' (40 CFR part
98.440(d)(2) 75 FR 18600, April 12, 2010).
Response 12-a:
EPA considered the hypothetical described by the multi-stakeholder discussion group and
concluded that the hypothetical would not result in double counting and is not necessary to be
included in the preamble. The subpart PP source category includes facilities with CO2 production
wells that extract a CO2 stream for the purpose of supplying CO2 for commercial applications. A
CO2 production well is any hole drilled in the earth for the primary purpose of extracting CO2
from a geologic formation or group of formations which contain deposits of CO2. The subpart
UU source category includes any well or group of wells that injects a CO2 stream into the
subsurface. Since the CO2 stream is not being injected for long-term containment in subsurface
geologic formations, it would not be subject to subpart RR. The facility would report basic
information on the amount of CO2 received under subpart UU. If the facility also included a CO2
production well extracting the CO2 stream for the purpose of supplying CO2 for commercial
applications, the facility would separately report information on the amount of CO2 supplied
under subpart PP.
Comment 12-b:
One commenter (0805) references the section of the proposal that explains that EPA is proposing
to collect information on whether the C02 was contracted from a natural sources or an industrial
source as EPA sees value in being able to "track the movement of CO2 through a CCS system
and any shift toward anthropogenic C02 supply sources." The commenter argues that reporting
CO2 production and supply information bears no relationship to the amount of CO2 that is
eventually actually emitted, and that it makes little sense for the EPA to track a potential "shift
toward anthropogenic CO2 supply sources," because full-scale GS systems will be built primarily
to sequester anthropogenic C02, and there will be no economic incentive to purchase natural
C02to re-sequester in a GS facility.
Additionally the commenter references the section of the preamble that mentions that EPA will
use the proposed subpart RR data in combination with subpart PP data to better understand the
quantity of CO2 supplied to emissive and non-emissive end uses. The commenter suggests that
the objectives to track the shift to anthropogenic C02 and to improve understanding of sources of
CO2 supplied are not in keeping with Congress's direction that EPA establishes a national GHG
emissions inventory. The commenter mentions that EPA has not provided justification for the
162
-------
reporting of CO2 production and supply information and its relationship to the amount of CO2
that is eventually emitted.
Response 12-b:
This rule requires reporting by facilities that conduct GS (subpart RR) and all other facilities that
inject C02 underground (subpart UU). The comment regarding the reporting of C02 production
and supply is beyond the scope of this rule and relates to the reporting by suppliers of CO2 under
subpart PP of the GHG Reporting Program. EPA disagrees that it does not make sense for EPA
to track the sources of CO2 received for injection and GS. EPA noted in the preamble to the
proposed rule (75 FR 18586) that the source of C02 currently injected underground is
predominantly CO2 produced from natural CO2 domes. EPA further notes that facilities may
report under subpart RR irrespective of the source of C02. Because facilities that report under
subpart RR may receive naturally sourced CO2 or anthropogenic CO2, EPA concluded that there
is value in understanding the source of C02 received. EPA also notes that it is possible that GS
using naturally sourced CO2 may not qualify as a GHG mitigation action in future policies
because the purpose of GS is to isolate C02 that would otherwise have been emitted to the
atmosphere.
EPA is issuing this rule under its authority in CAA Section 114. While EPA is not citing prior
Appropriations Acts as authority for this rule, this rule is consistent with Congress's direction to
EPA for establishing the GHG Reporting Program. Please refer to Chapter 1 of this document
regarding EPA's legal authority to promulgate this rule.
Comment 12-c:
One commenter (0805) disagrees with EPA's methods of tracking CO2 movements, as proposed
in subparts PP and RR. The commenter notes that EPA aims to determine the amounts of non-
emissive CO2 used in ER by comparing natural source production to emissions. However, the
commenter argues that this approach cannot be achieved under the proposed rules, because if the
natural CO2 producer does not own the entire interest in the source field, the operator will report
100% of the production volumes under subpart PP. The commenter states that "The source
operator may use CO2 in its own ER projects and sell the balance of its entitled production to
other ER operators. If all of the source operator's customers correctly identify the source
operator and its source facility as the source, the source operator's entitled source production
would be offset by non-emissive uses. However, if the source operator's co-working interest
owners sell their entitled production to emissive or non-emissive customers, and those customers
do not identify the source operator as the source (as opposed to the co-working interest owner
who sold and delivered the CO2 to them), then there will be a gap in tracking the source
production."
Response 12-c:
The hypothetical situation posed by the commenter would not be problematic. EPA is requiring
facilities that conduct GS or facilities that inject CO2 underground to report, if known, the
general category from which the CO2 is being received, such as an electric generating unit. The
reporter is not required to identify the particular source operator and source facility.
163
-------
Comment 12-d:
One commenter (0805) suggests that C02 suppliers differ significantly from other upstream
suppliers that EPA regulates under the MRR. The commenter argues that, unlike upstream GHG
emitters such as motor fuels, there is no exact correlation between the amount of C02 supplied to
CCS facilities for injection and the amount that is accidentally emitted to the atmosphere. The
commenter asserts that there is no justification for requiring upstream reporting of C02
production.
Response 12-d:
This comment is beyond the scope of this rule because it relates to reporting by C02 suppliers
under subpart PP and does not relate to reporting by facilities that conduct GS (subpart RR) or
other facilities that inject C02 underground (subpart UU).
Comment 12-e:
One commenter (0814) requests clarification on how subparts W, PP, and proposed subpart RR
will work in concert with minimum overlap. The commenter notes that acid gas injection
activities are being reported both under 40 CFR part 98 subpart PP and 40 CFR part 98.440(a) of
the proposed subpart RR for the same activity. The commenter also mentioned that the two
subparts require the reporting of fugitive and vented emissions. The commenter is seeking
clarification on how subparts W, PP and proposed subpart RR work in concert and how a facility
is to comply with the three subparts concurrently.
Response 12-e:
EPA agrees that some owners and operators are required to report on their operations under
multiple source categories, such as subparts W or PP. Please refer to Table 2 of this preamble,
which provides a guide to the subparts that reporters may need to consider in their facility
applicability determination, and/or include in their reporting. In general, subpart PP focused on
C02 supplied, subpart UU focused on C02 received, subpart RR focuses on C02 sequestered
underground, and subpart W focuses on fugitive and vented emissions from surface equipment.
With respect to the hypothetical posed by the commenter, the reporter would comply with the
subparts concurrently as follows. Subparts PP, UU, and RR rely on the same definition of
facility in 40 CFR part 98.6 and require reporting at no threshold, so a subpart UU or RR reporter
should first establish the facility parameters. EPA has reviewed the typical configurations of
projects that inject C02 streams underground and has illustrated and described these project
configurations with respect to the 40 CFR part 98.6 definition of facility in the final General
TSD. The reporter should next assess whether the facility contains a production process unit that
captures a C02 stream16 for purposes of supplying C02 for commercial applications or injecting
it underground. If so, then the reporter must submit one annual GHG report for that facility with
subpart PP data as well as subpart RR or UU data. EPA notes that subpart PP does not require
reporting of acid gas injection; rather, the facility must report under subpart PP if it is capturing
16 See 40 CFR part 98.6 for the definition of C02 stream.
164
-------
acid gas that contained CO2 from an emission source. A facility that injects acid gas containing
C02 underground must report basic information on C02 received at the facility under subpart
UU.
Onshore petroleum and natural gas production in subpart W, which was finalized in a separate
action from this one, relies on a different definition of facility, and subpart W is subject to a
threshold. Therefore, an owner/operator must determine separately whether any of its operations
are covered under subpart W according to the applicability determination outlined in that action.
EPA recognizes that an ER operation that meets the applicability requirements of subpart W will
be required to submit multiple annual reports to EPA under the GHG Reporting Program. Please
see Response 2.3-b in today's final action for an explanation of why EPA is using the definition
of facility in 40 CFR part 98.6 and not the definition for onshore petroleum and natural gas
production in subpart W.
Comment 12-f:
A coalition of ENGOs (0809) and the multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) assert that EPA
needs to amend 40 CFR part 98.2 to include proposed subpart RR facilities in the new Tables A-
3 and A-4 (Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Minor Harmonizing Changes to the
General Provisions, 75 FR 12451, 12456-58 (March 16, 2010)). Specifically, the multi-
stakeholder discussion group (0799) recommends inserting the following new text into 40 CFR
part 98.2:
40 CFR part 98.2
[Subpart A, Table A-3 is amended by adding "Injection and Geologic
Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide (Subpart RR) under the heading
"Additional Source Categories 1 Applicable in 2011 and Future Years."
Subpart A, Table A-4 is amended by adding "Petroleum and Natural Gas
Systems (Subpart W) under the heading "Additional Source Categories 1
Applicable in 2011 and Future Years."]
[NOTE: Text appearing in [bold] above appears as inserted tracked change text in original
document.]
However, as an alternative, the multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) suggests making the
following revision to 40 CFR part 98.441(a):
40 CFR part 98.441(a)
(a)You must report under this subpart if your facility is an injection facility that
injects C02 into the subsurface and the facility meets requirements of either
§98.2(a)(1) or (a)(2) [§98.440(b) or (c).]
165
-------
[NOTE: Text appearing as strikethrough above appears as strikethrough tracked change text in
original document; Text appearing in [bold] above appears as inserted tracked change text in
original document.]
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) further asserts that once a facility is
subject to the requirements of 40 CFR part 98.2, they must continue to comply with the
requirements even if the facility does not meet the applicability requirements in future
years.
A coalition of ENGOs (0809) mentions that the reference to 40 CFR part 98.2(a)(2) should be
removed from the final rule as this section references a table of source categories in which only
sources emitting 25,000 tons per year or more must report. The coalition of ENGOs also
suggests that EPA clarify that the proposed subpart RR facilities must begin reporting in January
2011.
Response 12-f:
EPA has amended Table A-3 of subpart A to include the source categories covered by subpart
RR and subpart UU. Please note that comments on subpart W are being addressed in a separate
rulemaking (see Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0923). Please refer to Chapter 8 of this
document for a discussion of when facilities may cease reporting under this rule.
Comment 12-g:
The multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) provides a comparison of the language of 40 CFR
part 98.441(b) in relation to 40 CFR part 98.2(i) however, the commenter provides no
recommended revisions. The comment reiterates the sections from the proposed rule as indicated
below.
40 CFR part 98.441(b)
The requirements of §98.2(i) do not apply to this subpart. Once a facility is
subject to the requirements of this subpart, the owner or operator must continue
for each year thereafter to comply with all requirements of this subpart, including
the requirement to submit annual GHG reports, even if the facility does not meet
the applicability requirements in paragraph (a) of §98.2(a) of this part in a future
year, unless paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section apply.
40 CFR part 98.2(i)
"(b) Except as provided in this paragraph, once a facility or supplier is subject to
the requirements of this part, the owner or operator must continue for each year
thereafter to comply with all requirements of this part, including the requirement
to submit annual GHG reports, even if the facility or supplier does not meet the
applicability requirements in paragraph (a) of this section in a future year."
Response 12-g:
EPA notes that the commenter does specify what, if any changes, it would recommend making to
the above cited text in 40 CFR part 98.441(b) or 40 CFR part 98.2(i). However, please refer to
166
-------
Chapter 8 of this document for EPA's responses to comments regarding when a facility may
discontinue reporting under this rule.
167
-------
13
Relationship to Other Information Collection and Reporting Efforts
Comment 13-a:
One commenter (0797) suggests that subpart RR should acknowledge that some states, including
Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, and Texas, are adopting comprehensive permitting
regimes for GS sites that should complement the forthcoming UIC CCS rule. The commenter
finds that the relationship between EPA's proposed subpart RR MRV requirements and these
state-based permitting programs is unclear. The commenter advises that the final subpart RR
rule acknowledge that it is not intended to supplant state or federal permit-based MMV
requirements that already address air emissions reporting for GS sites.
Response 13-a:
EPA affirms that States can collect additional data under State rules and GHG programs, and that
this rule does not preempt or replace State reporting programs. Please also refer to Section II.O
of the preamble to the rule establishing the GHG Reporting Program (74 FR 56283, Oct. 30,
2009) for a discussion on the role of states.
Comment 13-b:
One commenter (0797) emphasizes that GS sites will be aggressively regulated and permitted
under many other state and federal authorities which may overlap with the proposed reporting
requirements under the proposed subpart RR. The commenter supports EPA's site-specific
approach; however, the commenter expects state and federal CCS permitting regimes will
impose separate MMR/MRV requirements that could overlap with subpart RR requirements.
One commenter (0794) asserts that CCS and ER sites are already subject to extensive regulatory
oversight and monitoring at both the federal and state levels. The commenter opines that
regulated sources should be able to satisfy EPA's needs by reporting to the Agency on the
monitoring they are required to do under other CCS or ER permitting requirements and a variety
of other federal emissions reporting regimes.
Response 13-b:
This is a reporting rule and not a permitting rule. EPA recognizes that facilities will be regulated
and permitted under other state and federal authorities. Please refer to Section I.D of the
preamble and Section 11 of this document for a discussion of how this rule relates to the UIC
program.
In developing this rule, EPA carefully analyzed other information collection and reporting
efforts, including state and federal programs. EPA applauds the efforts that other authorities are
taking to ensure that C02 is being sequestered safely and securely. However, EPA found that this
rule is necessary in order to provide a nationally consistent framework for determining the
amount of C02 that is received for injection and quantifying the amount of C02 that is
sequestered.
168
-------
Comment 13-c:
One commenter (0788) opines that the proposed rule makes clear that its approach is consistent
with C02 storage regulatory requirements around the world and why lesser standards such as
those in the 1605b program and the IRS Section 45Q tax credit are not appropriate.
Response 13-c:
EPA agrees with the commenter that this rule goes beyond other information collection and
reporting efforts and the approach taken by this rule is consistent with regulatory requirements
around the world.
Comment 13-d:
One commenter (0801) emphasizes that the connections to state and local laws and regulations
are not included in the MRV plans. The commenter asserts that states do not have the protocols
established at the local level for safe control and basic level budgetary decisions. The commenter
emphasizes that there exists no state certification for CCS personnel, nor is there a "state
clearinghouse" for the scientific information necessary for site-specific MRV.
Response 13-d:
EPA agrees that, for purposes of this reporting rule, MRV plans will be used to report
information to EPA and that facilities will need to obtain relevant permits from federal, state and
local permitting authorities. This rule does not require any facilities to inject CO2 underground or
conduct GS. Similarly, state certification of CCS personnel and state clearinghouses of
information are beyond the scope of this rule. State and local agencies have no obligations under
this rule to assist EPA with rule implementation or enforcement. It is possible, however, that the
information to be made publicly available and accessible after finalization of this rule will be of
use to State and local entities.
Comment 13-e:
One commenter (0786) notes that the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(NJDEP) recently began an assessment of potential CCS sites in New Jersey and adjacent
offshore regions. This initial assessment is designed to build a basis for future decisions about
CCS in New Jersey. The NJDEP highlights the importance of identifying areas that are
unsuitable for GS as well as those areas that warrant further research.
Response 13-e:
EPA thanks the commenter for this information.
Comment 13-f:
One commenter (0797) mentions that, the proposed subpart RR could be read to suggest that a
party cannot claim the Section 45Q CCS tax credit until EPA approves the relevant MRV plan.
The commenter believes that this result would be unfortunate.
169
-------
Response 13-f:
Please refer to Section I.F of the preamble for a discussion of how this rule relates to the Internal
Revenue Code Section 45Q credit for CO2 sequestration.
Comment 13-g:
Two commenters (0792, 0797) assert that the MRV requirements of the proposed subpart RR
should allow the use of third-party protocols or methodologies. One commenter (TRANS-VA-
07) states that industry has developed consensus-based procedures for MRV that should be
considered by EPA.
One commenter (0797) notes that NACCSA and the Pew Center on Global Climate Change are
currently developing the first comprehensive CCS protocol for use in the US, to be finished by
the end of 2010. The commenter emphasizes that the NACCSA/Pew methodology is being
conducted through an open, science-based review process, with a broader external stakeholder
consultation process that will incorporate the comments of industry entities, NGOs,
governmental agencies and other stakeholders, and a period for public comment. The commenter
encourages the EPA to allow use of third-party methodologies such as this protocol in the MRV
components of the proposed subpart RR. The commenter describes the NACCSA and Pew
Center methodology, and how this methodology will mirror the EPA's approach to the MRV
plans. The commenter expects that the upcoming NACCSA/Pew methodology will satisfy most
of the specific MRV plan criteria proposed for the proposed subpart RR and will assist in
succinctly identifying the best practice guidance into a comprehensive methodology for
application to many North American projects. The commenter suggests that the EPA's proposed
MRV requirements effectively propose a government-mandated CCS methodology, as topics
such as monitoring, leak detection, and use of mass balance equations are typical attributes of
CCS methodologies. The commenter notes that the NACCSA/Pew methodology plans to include
detailed procedures for establishing baseline scenarios for projects. The commenter asserts that
EPA's proposal to use a mass balance approach to calculate the amount of CO2 sequestered is
precisely the purpose of the methodology currently being developed by NACCSA/Pew. This
methodology will likely impose a material balance on the captured CO2 stream, and will directly
measure the volume of CO2 captured and injected, accounting for losses during compression,
transportation, injection and recycling. The commenter suggests that the NACCSA/Pew protocol
for CCS may address the issue of quantifying leakage through various means, including project-
based monitoring and monitoring that is intended to ensure the permanence of the injected CO2.
One commenter (0792) also describes the NACCSA/Pew methodology and encourages EPA to
ensure that this rule allow the use of protocols such as those being developed by NACCSA/Pew.
Response 13-g:
In developing this rule, EPA considered allowing the use of third-party protocols and standards.
EPA applauds NACCSA and Pew for working together to advance efforts for monitoring and
reporting quantities of CO2 that are geologically sequestered. EPA is allowing measurement
devices to be operated according to an appropriate standard method published by a consensus-
based standards organization if such a method exists; or an industry standard practice. With
respect to MRV plan requirements, EPA notes that it is allowing a site-specific approach for the
development of MRV plans and that a facility may incorporate those techniques that are best
170
-------
suited for their geological operational conditions. EPA agrees that a facility could choose to use a
third party protocol in developing its MRV plan so long as the plan meets the requirements of
subpart RR.
Comment 13-h:
One commenter (0797) asserts that a variety of documents have been developed for the
quantification of GHG emission reductions from CCS projects. The commenter states that they
have used these documents have been part of the foundation for their monitoring methodology:
Alberta Offset System. Quantification Protocol for EOR Projects.
Alberta Offset System. Draft GHG Quantification Methodology for Carbon Capture and
Storage Projects
American Carbon Registry. Merit Energy, PetroSource, Sandridge Pikes Peak, Anadarko
Monell, and Salt Creek ER Projects.
American Petroleum Institute- International Petroleum Industry Environmental
Conservation Association. Oil and Natural Gas Industry Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Projects. Part II: Carbon Capture and Geological Storage Emission Reduction
Family.
Clean Development Mechanism. NM0167: Recovery of Anthropogenic CO2 from Large
Industrial GHG Emission Sources and Storage in an Oil Reservoir.
Clean Development Mechanism. NM0168: The Capture of CO2 from Natural Gas
Processing Plants and Liquefied Natural Gas Plants and its Storage in Underground
Aquifers or Abandoned Oil/Gas Reservoirs.
Clean Development Mechanism. Capture of CO2 from the Front-End of Integrated Gas-
to-Liquid Plants, Transport via Pipeline and Long-Term Containment in Appropriately
Selected and Well-Managed Geological Storage Complexes.
Canadian Standards Association GHG Reductions Registry. Anadarko Monell, Salt
Creek and Hays ER Projects; MEGlobal Prentiss 1&2 ER Projects, PetroSource ER
Project, and Denbury Resources ER Project.
Response 13-h:
EPA reviewed CO2 injection and GS information collection and reporting efforts, such as those
referenced in Section I.F of the preamble to the proposed rule and the documents referenced by
the commenter. The documents referenced by the commenter outline various approaches for
MRV and quantification. Some of the documents provided general methodologies while others
were specific to a given project. In general, these documents support the need for a nationally
consistent methodology for quantifying the amount of CO2 that is sequestered.
171
-------
14 General Comments
14.1 General Comments on the Rule
Comment 14.1-a:
Thirteen commenters (0074, 0163, 0340, 0428, 0435, 0463, 0512, 0525, 0569, 0764, 0788, 0798,
TRANS-VA-06), the Sierra Club mass mailers (0023) and a coalition of ENGOs (0809/TRANS-
VA-01), support the reporting requirements outlined in the proposed subpart RR, and emphasize
the importance of requiring GS operations to monitor their operations and GHG emissions.
One commenter (TRANS-VA-08) appreciates that there is recognition of CCVbased ER as
highly likely path forward towards the application of CCS technologies and practices and
believes that it is an important aspect of the EPA's proposed rule. The commenter (TRANS-VA-
08) thinks that the broad structure of the proposed rule is reasonable and sensible.
Another commenter (TRANS-VA-07) thanks EPA for its work to date on CCS, and appreciates
EPA's recognition of the important role that CCS can play in future carbon management
schemes. The commenter (TRANS-VA-07) notes that this reporting proposal is EPA's latest
effort to clarify this topic.
One commenter (0788) commends EPA for realizing that reporting of GHG emissions needs to
be done at the federal level. The commenter believes that while aspects of UIC implementation
can be delegated to states, a rigorous accounting of the nation's GHG emissions is a federal
responsibility.
Response 14.1-a:
EPA agrees with commenters supporting the monitoring and reporting requirements in this rule.
Comment 14.1-b:
Nineteen commenters (0020, 0021, 0074, 0217, 0403, 0434, 0435, 0569, 0721, 0786, 0796,
0797, 0799, 0800, 0811, 0813, 0815, TRANS-VA-01, TRANS-VA-06), the Sierra Club mass
mailers (0023), and the multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) support the EPA's effort to
develop and establish a comprehensive regulatory program for the development of CCS in the
US.
One commenter (TRANS-VA-07) notes that the establishment of a stable, predictable, and
workable regulatory framework for CCS that encourages the development of CCS industry to
manage missions and maximize energy recovery is very important. This commenter (TRANS-
VA-07 stated that including reporting on CCS within the scope of the existing GHG reporting
rule is a prudent next step in reassuring regulators and the public that GS in well-sited and well-
managed formations results in sequestration.
A coalition of ENGOs (0809) states that this rule, and the concurrent EPA Class VI rulemaking,
when final, will represent a significant step forward for ensuring the reliability of GS.
172
-------
Response 14.1-b:
EPA agrees with commenters supporting a comprehensive regulatory approach to CCS.
Comment 14.1-c:
Two commenters (TRANS-VA-06, TRANS-VA-07) note that the data from the EPA's proposed
rule will provide transparency on the amount of CO2 injected and geologically sequestered in the
US, and will allow EPA to track the flow of C02 across the CCS system.
Response 14.1-c:
EPA agrees that the rule will provide transparency regarding of reported information and that
this rule will allow EPA to track information reported by facilities conducting GS and all other
facilities that inject CO2 underground.
Comment 14.1-d:
Seven commenters (0074, 0340, 0512, 0525, 0569, 0788, TRANS-VA-01), the Sierra Club mass
mailers (0023), and the multi-stakeholder discussion group (0799) emphasize the importance of
monitoring CCS operations in order to discover leaks in the system. A coalition of ENGOs
(0809) emphasizes the need for airside monitoring, and for an appropriate framework to monitor
and report any leakages, which the commenter believes is imperative to ensure that GS is secure
and permanent.
Response 14.1-d:
EPA agrees with commenters supporting monitoring requirements to detect and quantify surface
leakage, should it occur.
Comment 14.1-e:
Twenty-seven commenters (0035, 0039, 0043, 0044, 0058, 0099, 0114, 0164, 0192, 0298, 0317,
0341, 0342, 0345, 0364, 0388, 0398, 0403, 0404, 0429, 0492, 0508, 0530, 0539, 0585, 0612,
0620, 0707, 0720, 0726) express concern and skepticism about the effectiveness of CCS
technology. Twenty commenters (0041, 0060, 0073, 0106, 0165, 0214, 0294, 0337, 0403, 0418,
0428, 0463, 0493, 0539, 0567, 0588, 0605, 0687, 0749, 0754, 0771, TRANS-VA-06) were
skeptical about using CCS technology, but agreed that if the technology is used it must be
stringently monitored. The commenters emphasize the importance of effective emissions
reporting program, and the need for careful, long-term monitoring of emissions by CCS
facilities, and the government. Five commenters (0042, 0044, 0081, 0342, 0403, 0428)
requested that all facilities be included in the regulatory requirements.
Four commenters (0690, 0712, 0734, 0737) assert that CCS should not be attempted, and
requests that EPA not purse this technology. Two commenters (0492, 0505) were hopeful about
the prospect of CCS, but wanted to ensure that it would work. Another commenter (0574)
believed that CCS was a great step forward, but that it was necessary to ensure the system was
173
-------
safe, which would improve the perception of CCS and guarantee that future similar systems are
held to high standards.
One commenter (0449) notes that if CCS operations leak large amounts of C02, it will be a waste
of money, materials, public trust, and time. Another commenter (0114) mentions a potential
problem of sequestering C02 in a closed reservoir and opines that the data requested by EPA is
of no value for injection into a closed reservoir because producing wells will remove oil and gas
as reservoirs fill with C02. One commenter (0044) calls for research in productive uses for the
carbon in C02.
Response 14.1-e:
The report of the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage notes that CCS could
play an important role in achieving national and global GHG reduction goals. This rule does not
require that facilities conduct GS; rather, it requires that facilities that conduct GS develop and
implement an EPA-approved MRV plan and report the quantity of C02 sequestered. For further
information on CCS, please refer to the report of the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture
and Storage.17
Also, this rule does not require facilities to undertake CCS. Rather it requires facilities that
conduct GS to implement an EPA-approved MRV plan and quantify the amount of C02 that is
sequestered. EPA agrees that through monitoring of GS projects, EPA will be able to better
understand the effectiveness of GS over time.
Comment 14.1-f:
Thirty-one commenters opine (0052, 0078, 0099, 0100, 0104, 0108, 0111, 0158, 0160, 0216,
0218, 0310, 0330, 0337, 0342, 0357, 0374, 0441, 0444, 0478, 0486, 0503, 0520, 0546, 0682,
0685, 0693, 0727, 0736, 0771) that industry should be regulated and monitored to ensure
compliance.
One commenter (0588) suggests that not only should companies be required to follow strict
regulations and continuously monitor their GHG emissions under government oversight, but
citizens' groups should also be allowed to monitor emissions independently and receive
monetary rewards if they find that companies have not reported significant C02 leaks. Five
commenters (0025, 0330, 0337, 0354, 0526, 0728) would like companies undertaking CCS to
have independent monitoring and verification. Three commenters (0337, 0403, 0583) request a
role for the public access to data and two commenters (0337, 0403) cited the need for public
review and challenge of monitoring plans if inadequate.
Two commenters (0358, 0569) implore the EPA to give the legislation "teeth." One commenter
(0569) reminds EPA to fund this program and to hold CCS companies accountable for their
actions and emissions.
Response 14.1-f:
17 http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/policv/ccs task force.html
174
-------
EPA is requiring facilities to implement an MRV plan to detect and quantify surface leakage, if
any, but continuous air monitoring or mitigation is not required by this rule. Because this rule is
being promulgated pursuant to CAA Section 114, facilities that fail to monitor or report data
according to the requirements of this rule could potentially be subject to an enforcement action
under the CAA. In developing the rule establishing the GHG Reporting Program, EPA received
comments such as the one provided by this commenter stating that they should be able to petition
EPA to enforce against violators where they have evidence of or suspect violations. Please refer
to Section VI of the preamble to the rule establishing the GHG Reporting Program (74 FR
56359) for a response to this comment, as well as other information regarding compliance and
enforcement. Please refer to Chapter 7.2 of this document for responses to comments on public
involvement in the MRV plan process.
Comment 14.1-g:
One commenter (0709) emphasizes the importance of emissions monitoring and reporting
requirements for ER facilities. In particular, the commenter mentions active ER operations in
Wyoming that have been publicized as a way to transition to potential to permanent
sequestration. However, because the formations were used for oil production through numerous
wells and chosen because of the presence of hydrocarbons, not because of their geologic
characteristics for sequestration of CO2, there is a risk of leak of injected CO2. The commenter is
interested in this issue and learning more about the effectiveness of these formations to
permanently store CO2.
Response 14.1-g:
EPA is requiring that all projects that report GS under subpart RR, including ER projects that
report under subpart RR, identify potential surface leakage pathways for CO2 in the MMA and
the likelihood, magnitude, and timing, of surface leakage of CO2 through these pathways, and
develop a strategy for detecting and quantifying any surface leakage of CO2.
Comment 14.1-h:
One commenter (0813) supports the development of clear and appropriately tailored regulatory
regimes that will facilitate the deployment of CCS, and applauds the Agency for taking this
additional step toward establishing such a regime for GS. This commenter suggests that
reporting should serve to advance public acceptance of CCS as an emissions management
technology. In order to accomplish this, the commenter suggests that EPA's approach to this
proposed reporting rule assume the minimal actual risk of air emissions from GS projects, and
should strive to balance the value of reporting de minimis emissions with the burdens of
monitoring and reporting this data.
Response 14.1-h:
Please refer to Chapter 3 of this document regarding de minimis reporting. EPA agrees that
information collected under this rule will provide information to EPA and the public regarding
the effectiveness of GS over time.
175
-------
Comment 14.1-i:
Two commenters (0789, 0791) express concern that the proposed rule will negatively impact
both CO2 injection for ER and GS activities. They believe that the proposed subpart RR appears
to be excessively burdensome and will most likely either inhibit or prevent GS activities from
continuing or new facilities from beginning operations in the future. One commenter (0805)
emphasizes that regulations such as the Mandatory Reporting Rule should not unfairly burden
the natural gas industry or hinder its continued growth. One commenter (0795) opines that the
rule should reflect the commenter's and the petroleum industry's extensive experience with ER
and not impose costs or other burdens on domestic ER operations beyond what is necessary to
fulfill EPA's mandate to collect data on GHG emissions. One commenter (0789) requests that
the proposed rule be revised to minimize the regulatory burden on ER and sequestration
operations. One commenter (0794) notes that ER presents a meaningful opportunity to utilize
CO2 in a way that is beneficial to the global environment and to our nation's economy and
energy security. The commenter agrees with having an organized way to evaluate the
effectiveness of EOR and CCS as CO2 mitigation tools.
One commenter states that the IPCC Special Report on CCS concludes that the fraction of CO2
retained in appropriate selected and managed geological reservoirs is very likely to exceed 99%
over 100 years and is likely to exceed 99% over 1000 years, that DOE's CCS projects will retain
99% of C02 and that there is over 30 cumulative years of operating experience at 5 major CCS
projects worldwide that has indicated no leakage to date.
Response 14.1-i:
EPA disagrees that this rule will negatively impact ER and GS activities. EPA also disagrees that
this rule would unfairly burden the natural gas industry or hinder its continued growth.
Information on C02 received that is reported by ER projects under subpart UU is already
collected by such projects and is readily available. With respect to facilities conducting GS and
reporting under subpart RR, these facilities would not be expected to shut down or delay
operations in order to develop, gain approval of, and implement an MRV plan. EPA developed
the reporting requirements with consideration for business-as-usual operations in order to
minimize burden.
Comment 14.1-i:
One commenter (0810) suggests that subpart RR should be designed to encourage companies to
engage in sequestration, and suggests that the rule should be simplified to provide meaningful
encouragement, rather than complex, expensive regulation that has unintended disincentives.
Response 14.1-i:
EPA agrees with the commenter that simplified monitoring and reporting mechanisms are
important. Therefore EPA is not prescribing specific monitoring technologies, but rather is
allowing facilities subject to subpart RR to develop and implement an MRV plan that is best
suited to the site. The rule neither encourages nor discourages facilities to undertake GS. Rather,
subpart RR provides monitoring and reporting mechanisms for facilities that conduct GS. Please
refer to the EIA located in the docket, Section III of the preamble, and Chapter 10 of this
document for a discussion of the economic impacts of this rule.
176
-------
Comment 14.1-k:
One commenter (0783) is concerned about the negative public perception related to reporting
C02 injection from ER as part of emissions reporting, and that it may be confusing or concerning
to the public to see the quantity of CO2 injected included with the data regarding emissions. One
commenter (0794) notes that EPA's actions set the tone for how the public perceives CCS and
that the rule undermines public confidence in CO2 injection and CCS projects by sending
inaccurate signals about the environmental implications.
Response 14.1-k:
Please refer to Section HE. of the preamble and Section 5.1 of this document. For facilities
conducting GS (subpart RR), reporting the amount of CO2 injected is necessary to calculate the
amount of CO2 being sequestered using a mass balance approach. For all other facilities injecting
CO2 underground (subpart UU), EPA has removed the requirement that facilities report the
amount of CO2 injected, but retained requirements that facilities subject to subpart UU report the
amount of CO2 received and the source of CO2. This change in the reporting requirements
addresses the commenters concern that reporting of the amount of CO2 injected could be
misconstrued as emissions.
Comment 14.1-1:
One commenter (0801) advises that First Responders including fire, police, emergency services,
bomb squads, park and school personnel and Homeland Security personnel have not been and
need to be considered in the proposal. The commenter notes that migrating explosive gas is an
issue in the city of Los Angeles.
Response 14.1-1:
This rule does not require facilities to control GHGs. Rather, it requires facilities that conduct GS
to monitor and report certain information. Therefore, the role of first responders is beyond the
scope of this rule. EPA also notes that CO2 is neither explosive nor combustible.
Comment 14.1-m:
One commenter (0798) cautioned that it is important to not lose sight of the ultimate objective in
adopting emissions reporting rules, which is to set the stage for reducing atmospheric emissions
of CO2. The commenter emphasized that the reporting rules and the review of the MRV plans
must be technologically and economically reasonable in order to remove barriers to the
deployment of CCS.
Response 14.1-m:
EPA carefully analyzed the monitoring and reporting requirements in this rule and found that the
requirements are both technologically and economically reasonable. Please refer to the final
General TSD for further information regarding monitoring technologies and the EIA for EPA's
analysis of the costs of this rule.
177
-------
Comment 14.1-n:
One commenter (0784) requests additional information on consequences for organizations that
produce high levels of GHGs.
Response 14.1-n:
This rule does not require facilities to control GHGs.
Comment 14.1-o:
One commenter (0794) opines that EPA's MRR is intended to build off of the CAA Acid Rain
Program and that makes sense as a general point of reference. The commenter appreciates
EPA's initial overall approach, which endeavored to strike a balance between the need to
develop accurate pictures of various sectors' GHG footprints and the cost and resources for
individual facilities within sectors to compile and report data.
Response 14.1-o:
Please refer to Section UN of the preamble to the rule establishing the GHG Reporting Program
(74 FR 56282, Oct. 30, 2009) regarding the approach of the GHG Reporting Program as
compared to the Acid Rain Program. EPA agrees with the commenter about the need to balance
the need for a complete dataset with the cost and resources for reporting. Please refer to the EIA
located in the docket, Section III of the preamble, and Chapter 10 of this document for a
discussion of the economic impacts of this rule.
14.2 General Comments on CCS and Climate Change
Comment 14.2-a:
One commenter (0412) does not believe that anthropogenic CO2 is causing climate change, and
opines that CCS should be used in addition to other methods to clean up C02 pollution caused by
the burning of fossil fuels.
Five commenters (0091, 0116, 0402, 0465, 0794) emphasize the importance of CCS as a key
climate change mitigation technology, and these commenters voice their support for the current
R&D projects underway to facilitate CCS projects. One commenter (0402) notes that
sequestration projects have been active in ER since the 1970s, and that CCS is an acceptable
method of storing CO2. Commenter (0465) believes that that CCS systems should be located in
every town with a coal-fired power plant. Commenter (0790) believes that encouraging CCS
development is a crucial component of the nation's efforts to achieve sustainable domestic
energy security and reduce the GHG footprint in the US. One commenter (0331) wanted the
EPA to combat climate change by continuing to test underground storage systems of carbon.
One commenter (0789) opines that ER is important to the commenter's members and the general
public because it allows for the recovery of oil and gas which would otherwise not be produced
from subsurface reservoirs. The commenter notes that GS may present a practical long-term
solution for reducing the amount of CO2 emitted to the atmosphere. One commenter (0794)
opines that CCS and ER programs require resolution of a broad range of technical, policy and
178
-------
legal questions, most of which are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. The commenter notes
that strong and early investment in CCS and ER technologies and related infrastructure is a
necessary foundation for any viable climate change regulatory regime, and urges EPA to align its
regulatory policies with its stated objectives: promotion of CCS and ER as key climate change
mitigation technologies.
Response 14.2-a:
For background information about GHGs and climate change science, please see EPA's climate
change Web site at: www.epa.gov/climatechange.
The report of the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage notes that CCS could
play an important role in achieving national and global GHG reduction goals. This rule does not
require that facilities conduct GS; rather, it requires that facilities that conduct GS develop and
implement an EPA-approved MRV plan and report the quantity of C02 sequestered. For further
information on CCS, please refer to the report of the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture
and Storage.18
Comment 14.2-b:
Three commenters (0218, 0754, 0777) emphasize the need for strong regulations for CCS.
Commenter (0777) suggests that site picking should not be left up to state decision makers, and
instead suggests that EPA should establish a body to choose and monitor sequestration sites, in
order to avoid political corruption and provide for better environmental protection. Twenty-five
commenters (0081, 0099, 0188, 0192, 0218, 0222, 0231, 0241, 0244, 0252, 0261, 0295, 0303,
0310, 0326, 0342, 0367, 0374, 0386, 0460, 0467, 0473, 0478, 0485, 0502, 0514, 0517, 0520,
0541, 0546, 0584, 0600, 0606, 0679, 0682, 0727, 0732, 0736, 0765) opined that large corporate
entities cannot be trusted to do honest and transparent reporting of their operations. As a result,
the commenters (0099, 0218, 0467) emphasizes the need for strong continual oversight and
strong regulatory practices of CCS operations and emissions. Two commenters (0274, 0289)
noted that there are a number of examples of industry not following self-regulation.
Response 14.2-b:
This rule requires reporting by facilities that conduct GS, and does not require facilities to
undertake GS. However, EPA agrees with the commenter that regulations are necessary to
address the safety, efficacy, and environmental soundness of injecting and sequestering CO2
underground. Concurrently with this rule EPA is finalizing requirements under the UIC program
that establish a new class of GS injection well and addresses issues such as site selection; please
refer to Section I.D of the preamble for further information.
Comment 14.2-c:
Two commenters (0554, 0560) emphasize the importance of choosing trained, independent
scientists to monitor carbon sequestration. The commenters recommended that these scientists
must be "fair, honest, and free of outside influences."
18 http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/policv/ccs task force.html
179
-------
Response 14.2-c:
EPA agrees with the commenter about the importance of having qualified and unbiased
individuals review MRV plans.
Comment 14.2-d:
Two commenters (0720, TRANS-VA-04) favor strategies that primarily emphasize efficiency,
renewable power and shifts to lower carbon fossil fuel sources. If large-scale CCS is to be
implemented, the commenter believes this technology will be most useful for lower carbon gas
power plants rather than for coal facilities.
Response 14.2-d:
Although EPA agrees that CCS could play an important role in achieving national and global
GHG reduction goals, the use of and investment in these technologies is outside the scope of the
this rulemaking.
Comment 14.2-e:
One commenter (0585) emphasizes the need to monitor the effectiveness of CCS at its current
initial stages, so that any problems will be resolved before the technology becomes more widely
used. The commenter stresses that if problems are not discovered in the initial stages, the future
cost of resolving technology issues will cost the companies, the shareholders, and the
environment significantly more than if CCS is not used.
Response 14.2-e:
EPA agrees that monitoring the effectiveness of CCS is important and that such information can
inform future CAA policies.
Comment 14.2-f:
Eleven commenters (0073, 0099, 0250, 0266, 0429, 0464, 0555, 0562, 0608, 0613, 0687) argue
that storing CO2 in the ground is not a solution to climate change, and instead is a short-term
solution that merely delays addressing the larger problem of fossil fuel dependency.
Response 14.2-f:
The report of the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage notes that CCS could
play an important role in achieving national and global GHG reduction goals. This rule does not
require that facilities conduct GS; rather, it requires that facilities that conduct GS develop and
implement an EPA-approved MRV plan and report the quantity of C02 sequestered.
Comment 14.2-g:
Seven commenters (0162, 0175, 0337, 0341, 0342, 0539, 0604) assert that CCS technologies are
excessively expensive, and not economically practical. Commenter (0175) argues that the cost of
power will greatly increase with the use of CCS. Commenters (0162, 0341, 0604) emphasize that
180
-------
CCS is economically unjustified, and that the money to be invested in this technology is better
spent pursuing alternative forms of energy.
Response 14.2-g:
This rule does not require that facilities conduct GS or the control of GHGs. The cost of CCS
technologies relative to other technologies for mitigating GHG emissions is beyond the scope of
this rule. Please refer to the EIA located in the docket, Section III of the preamble, and Chapter
10 of this document for a discussion of the economic impacts of this rule.
Comment 14.2-h:
Three commenters (0463, 0530, 0612, 0773) want EPA to consider the impact that earthquakes
and tectonic plate movement could have on the safety and effectiveness of CCS. Two
commenters (0319, 0324) argue that there are serious geological (such as the presence of existing
faults and thermodynamic considerations that must be taken into account with CCS operations.
One commenter (0319) is concerned with the presence of large faults in CCS project areas. They
note that fault gouge is often more permeable to underground gases than the hot rock cut by the
faults. They find that promoters of CCS avoid dialogue about faults. Ten commenters (0114,
0226, 0266, 0277, 0283, 0309, 0336, 0688, 0712, 0734) express serious concerns about the
engineering and safety issues associated with CCS. Commenter (0336) argues that CCS
technologies should not be implemented without extensive testing and safeguards. Commenters
(0035, 0754) argue that there is not enough space underground to adequately and safely store
CO2 waste.
Response 14.2-h:
This rule requires facilities that conduct GS to identify potential surface leakage pathways for
CO2 in the MMA and the likelihood, magnitude, and timing, of surface leakage of CO2 through
these pathways. If faults were identified as causing a potential surface leakage pathway, the
facility would be required to identify such pathways as part of the development of the MRV
plan.
Comment 14.2-i:
Seven commenters (0020, 0046, 0064, 0230, 0255, 0275, 0276, 0155, 0179, 0330, 0409, 0533,
0572, 0578, 0679) emphasize the importance of protecting the nation's natural resources. Four
commenters (0151, 0155, 0277, 0578) specifically note that water resources need to be protected
from CO2 which will be injected underground. One commenter (0276) asserts that stronger
environmental enforcement is necessary to protect resources. One commenter (0418) called for
protection of the storage site to prevent natural and man-made disasters.
Response 14.2-i:
EPA agrees with commenters supporting the protection of the nation's natural resources and the
need for proper enforcement. With respect to protection of water resources, please refer to
Section I.D of the preamble and Chapter 11 of this document for a discussion of the relationship
of this rule to the UIC Program.
181
-------
Comment 14.2-i:
One commenter (0572) implores the EPA to ensure that the proposed rules apply to coal power
plants on Native American lands.
Response 14.2-i:
This rule applies to facilities in the US that conduct GS (subpart RR) and all other facilities that
inject C02 underground (subpart UU). This rule would only apply to facilities with coal power
plants if they conduct GS or inject CO2 underground. EPA did not find that this rule would have
Tribal impacts. Please refer to Section IV.F of the preamble for a discussion of this analysis.
Comment 14.2-k:
A coalition of ENGOs (0809) states that the EPA should require CO2 pipeline companies to
report the amounts of CO2 that they receive and the amounts that they transfer to injection
facilities. The coalition of ENGOs notes that pipelines are not currently required to report under
the GHG monitoring and reporting rule, which makes it that much more difficult for the Agency
to ascertain how much of the total CO2 produced remains un-sequestered.
Response 14.2-k:
This rule applies to facilities in the US that conduct GS (subpart RR) and all other facilities that
inject CO2 underground (subpart UU). GHG reporting from pipelines is beyond the scope of this
rule. However, EPA will obtain information on CO2 received and will be able to reconcile this
information with data obtained from subpart PP on CO2 supplied.
Comment 14.2-1:
One commenter (0019) asserts that the proposed rule should require full control of GHGs. Along
the same lines, another commenter (0784) believes that the proposed rule is a step in the right
direction, but that more steps should be taken to decrease GHG emissions. Another commenter
(0788) notes that the GHG Reporting Program does not include enforcement mechanisms to
require CO2 that is leaking from a storage reservoir to be remediated, but that EPA should state
that existing authorities could be implemented to stop leakage. The commenter believes that
these mechanisms should be included in this action.
Response 14.2-1:
Consistent with other subparts of the GHG Reporting Program, this rule does not require
facilities to control GHGs. However, information obtained under this rule will inform future
CAA policies. EPA notes that facilities should comply with relevant permitting requirements.
Please refer to Section I.D of the preamble for further information on the relationship between
this rule and the UIC program.
Comment 14.2-m:
One commenter (0077) believes that a carbon tax should be implemented, for which revenues
can be used to fund renewable energy and efficient transportation.
182
-------
Response 14.2-m:
The implementation of a carbon tax is beyond the scope of this reporting rule.
Comment 14.2-n:
Two commenters (0345, 0477) believe that the rule should strongly follow the precautionary
principle in order to adequately monitor the projects. Three commenters (0151, 0277, 0578)
mention support for EPA action to safeguard human health and the environment for both current
and future generations. One commenter (0477) recommends that this rule regulate the coal
industry.
Response 14.2-n:
This rule applies to facilities in the US that conduct GS (subpart RR) and all other facilities that
inject CO2 underground (subpart UU). The commenter does not provide any detail with regard to
what, if any, changes should be made to the rule.
Comment 14.2-o:
Twenty-four commenters (0024, 0030, 0037, 0090, 0143, 0169, 0177, 0185, 0188, 0192, 0232,
0293, 0386, 0430, 0444, 0449, 0460, 0466, 0467, 0473, 0485, 0494, 0502, 0541, 0569, 0586,
0600, 0707, 0732, 0734) reference historical or recent mining disasters, such as the April 2010
coal mine explosion in West Virginia, as examples of the current lack of safeguards and
accountability in the coal mining industry. Given the lack of trust, several commenters mention
the need for regulatory oversight. One commenter (0576) asserts that mountain top removal
mining should be banned.
Response 14.2-o:
Regulation of coal mining is beyond the scope of this rule.
Comment 14.2-p:
Nineteen commenters (0111, 0119, 0162, 0179, 0231, 0270, 0277, 0330, 0388, 0521, 0544,
0563, 0587, 0592, 0605, 0688, 0752) express concern for health effects of coal and CCS. Four
commenters (0155, 0183, 0338, 0409) particularly emphasized the need to protect America's
water resources.
One commenter (0688) notes that current CCS projects do not seem to be reducing the net
amount of C02 over time.
Two commenters (0489, 0688) advocate EPA to take action on climate change because we are
running out of time and need to make a decision.
Response 14.2-p:
183
-------
Regulation governing the health effects of coal, and the protection of water resources are beyond
the scope of this rule. For background information about GHGs, climate change science, and
EPA activities, please see EPA's climate change Web site at: www.epa.gov/climatechange.
Comment 14.2-q:
One commenter (0333) requests that EPA ensure that fossil fuel-dependent projects, such as the
South Fraser Freeway in Canada, will be stopped in favor of transit transportation solutions that
would reduce GHG emissions.
Response 14.2-q:
The development of the South Fraser Freeway in Canada is beyond the scope of this rule.
Comment 14.2-r:
Seven commenters (0154, 0236, 0243, 0321, 0369, 0477, 0713) express general support for
holding polluters accountable for their GHG emissions. Seven commenters (0019, 0408, 0412,
0455, 0544, 0591, 0744) note the need to mitigate the release of pollutants and GHGs from coal
burning power plants. One commenter (0796) believes that the proposed "Tier 2" monitoring
methodologies may become the generally accepted monitoring framework for the purposes of
certifying carbon offsets and carbon emissions reductions.
Response 14.2-r:
Because this rule is a reporting rule, it does not require the control of GHGs. However
information obtained by this rule will inform future CAA policies related to reducing GHG
emissions.
Comment 14.2-s:
Twenty commenters (0124, 0278, 0334, 0336, 0352, 0359, 0368, 0395, 0415, 0432, 0435, 0559,
0567, 0570, 0585, 0627, 0679, 0697, 0738, 0757) emphasize the importance of comprehensive
testing to ensure efficiency and safety of CCS technology and placement of proper safeguards
before any activity begins.
Response 14.2-s:
Although the permitting of GS projects is beyond the scope of this rule, please refer to Section
I.D of the preamble for a description of EPA's UIC Program.
Comment 14.2-t:
Seventy-five commenters (0028, 0054, 0081, 0082, 0094, 0098, 0115, 0118, 0129, 0137, 0140,
0142, 0147, 0148, 0149, 0152, 0155, 0163, 0166, 0173, 0174, 0175, 0179, 0194, 0201, 0202,
0227, 0228, 0244, 0251, 0255, 0257, 0300, 0301, 0307, 0313, 0314, 0326, 0330, 0338, 0347,
0350, 0358, 0387, 0395, 0403, 0420, 0434, 0447, 0472, 0477, 0478, 0482, 0483, 0493, 0500,
0503, 0505, 0522, 0526, 0538, 0542, 0577, 0583, 0585, 0603, 0679, 0682, 0684, 0693, 0698,
184
-------
0750, 0769, 0811, TRANS-VA-04) and a coalition of ENGOs (0809) strongly support careful
monitoring and regulation of CCS operations. Reasons for support include monitoring will
provide safeguards for trying an unproven technology, proof of the need to identify the resource
and contain the leak (0082), early warning system regarding whether system is working (0115),
verification that GS operations are being managed successfully (0173), and transparency of
untested activities.
In addition to the commenters mentioned above, twelve commenters (0086, 0110, 0257, 0286,
0296, 0359, 0441, 0615, 0685, 0713, 0718, 0736) opined about their support for regulating the
monitoring and reporting of GHG emissions and resulting leakage from CCS operations.
Commenters mention several reasons for their support: the need for stakeholders to know if the
system in leaking, the need for good monitoring to ensure that the system does not leak, need to
measure so that stakeholders can control releases, need for information to assist public policy
decision makers make informed decisions on energy and pollution policy, need to identify
whether CCS is successful in avoiding leakage of GHGs, reporting will help in controlling mines
and their associated pollution, concern about CCS going unchecked and discovering later harm
that could have been prevented, and public concern in industry voluntarily disclosing leaks.
One commenter (0709) supports monitoring and reporting requirements related to ER. A
coalition of ENGOs (0809) states that GHG monitoring and reporting from C02 injection and GS
facilities is critical to gaining the detailed understanding about the potential for GS as a climate
mitigation tool, and for information national GHG policy. The multi-stakeholder discussion
group (0799) emphasizes their support of EPA's effort to minimize the reporting burden for both
ER operators who do and do not choose to report as GS facilities. Ten additional commenters
(0068, 0092, 0097, 0182, 0361, 0374, 0397, 0528, 0740, 0770) supported EPA in monitoring
and reporting and emphasize the importance of discovering and correcting gaps for facility level
reporting (i.e., potential missing of major polluters, avoiding grandfathering of facilities and
loopholes) in the proposed rule.
Two commenters (0115, 0118) mention the importance of monitoring a risky venture to prevent
unforeseen problems. One commenter (0391, 0736) highlights the importance of transparency in
monitoring for untested CCS activities.
Response 14.2-t:
EPA agrees with commenters supporting the promulgation of this rule. EPA also agrees with
commenters that a critical component of CCS is monitoring for both environmental protection
and GHG accounting purposes. The report of the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture
and Storage emphasizes that appropriate monitoring, oversight, and accountability for CCS
activities will be essential to ensure the integrity of CCS operations, enable a sustainable CCS
industry, and provide a strong foundation for public confidence. See Section I.B. of the preamble
for a discussion of the purpose and importance of collecting data on GS.
Comment 14.2-u:
Fourteen commenters (0028, 0064, 0081, 0086, 0134, 0141, 163, 0225, 0255, 0281, 0344, 0337,
0402, 0570, 0620, 0679, 0688, 0691, 0723, 0736) express general concern for global warming
185
-------
and climate change. Two commenters (0236, 0401) note the need for the government to protect
citizens.
One commenter (0114) opposes the rule and believes that EPA failed to support the need for the
rule as EPA did not provide peer reviewed citations that the earth's temperature is rising. The
commenter opines that EPA shows a lack of interest in demonstrating anthropogenic climate
change is occurring and looking at scientific papers. One commenter (0164) argues that CCS is
unnecessary because "C02 has not been shown scientifically to cause any harm... [and] global
warming is not understood well enough to link it to a particular remediation effort." One
commenter (0022) expresses skepticism about manmade global warming and contends that C02
is not a dangerous GHG.
Response 14.2-u:
This rule does not require GS, only the monitoring and reporting from facilities that conduct GS.
For background information about GHGs and climate change science, please see EPA's climate
change Web site at: www.epa.gov/climatechange.
Comment 14.2-v:
Forty-five commenters (0034, 0037, 0072, 0073, 0080, 0090, 0103, 0109, 0125, 0140, 0161,
0181, 0185, 0189, 0190, 0200, 0204, 0211, 0227, 0229, 0232, 0239, 0279, 0282, 0285, 0292,
0295, 0299, 0304, 0323, 0326, 0329, 0385, 0405, 0420, 0433, 0450, 0465, 0491, 0493, 0545,
0681, 0731, 0733, 0757) opine that there is no such thing as "clean coal." One commenter (0319)
is concerned about the application of "clean coal." One commenter (0187) requested EPA to
show them a piece of coal.
Forty-five commenters (0027, 0032, 0064, 0073, 0088, 0095, 0125, 0141, 0143, 0167, 0180,
0181, 0185, 0189, 0205, 0223, 0225, 0238, 0266, 0284, 0285, 0295, 0311, 0404, 0429, 0450,
0454, 0465, 0488, 0493, 0495, 0501, 0518, 0555, 0562, 0592, 0602, 0696, 0714, 0716, 0720,
0727, 0729, 0733, 0746) opine that dependence on coal needs to end. Four commenters (0180,
0225, 0456, TRANS-VA-04) request EPA to reduce emissions with improved energy efficiency.
Several commenters suggest alternatives such as transitioning to renewable energy sources (e.g.,
solar, geothermal, and wind power). Sixteen commenters (0180, 0412, 0604, 0141, 0143, 0190,
0205, 0225, 0238, 0450, 0465, 0714, 0720, 0727, 0123, 0355) are in favor of funding more solar
energy projects and thirteen commenters (0180, 0412, 0604, 0141, 0143, 0190, 0205, 0225,
0465, 0714, 0727) suggest wind power as a viable alternative to coal. Four commenters (0205,
0225, 0450, 0555) emphasize the potential of geothermal sources of power. One commenter
(0205) suggests EPA explore wave power as an alternative to coal. One commenter (0225)
suggests EPA use fuel cells as an alternative to coal. One commenter (0450) suggests EPA
consider using steam power generation as an alternative to coal. Eleven commenters (0180,
0284, 0501, 0613, 0206, TRANS-VA-04, 0077, 0088, 0125, 0185, 0189) express general support
for moving away from coal and renewable energy.
Response 14.2-v:
186
-------
GS is one technology in a portfolio of options that could be deployed to reduce CO2 emissions.
However, the use of and investment in these technologies is outside the scope of this rulemaking.
Comment 14.2-w:
One commenter (0249) emphasizes that new coal plants should be built only if they employ the
newest pollution reduction technologies. Two commenters (0033, 0598) suggest increasing the
efficiency of power plants in order to decrease the amount of carbon that needs to be
sequestered.
Response 14.2-w:
This rule does not require the capture and sequestration of CO2, only the monitoring and
reporting of GHGs from facilities that conduct GS and all other facilities that inject CO2
underground.
Comment 14.2-x:
Six commenters (0044, 0055, 0463, 0479, 0740, 0774) proposed alternative uses of CO2. Two
commenters (0774) support utilizing CO2 in carbon fiber technologies. Commenter (0044)
advises that there are other ways to utilize carbon emissions. The commenter specifically
suggests using carbon in carbon fiber, nanotubes, biochar, and embedded in building materials
such as cement. Four commenters (0055, 0463, 0479, 0740) suggested the use of CO2 for algae-
based products such as biofuels and animal feed.
Response 14.2-x:
EPA acknowledges that there are alternative end uses of CO2 to ER and GS. For further
information on CO2 reuse, please refer to the report of the Interagency Task Force on Carbon
Capture and Storage, which is available at
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/policv/ccs task force.html.
Comment 14.2-v:
One commenter (0140) asserts that monitoring should encompass the entire system from fuel
acquisition and combustion to CO2 capture to storage.
Response 14.2-v:
This rule is focused on monitoring and reporting GHGs from facilities that conduct GS and all
other facilities that inject CO2 underground. Monitoring from other types of facilities is beyond
the scope of this rule. However, EPA notes that the GHG Reporting Program requires reporting
of GHG emissions and other relevant information from certain source categories in the US. For
more detailed background information on the GHG Reporting Program, see the preamble to the
final Part 98 rule establishing that program (74 FR 56260, October 30, 2009).
Comment 14.2-z:
187
-------
One commenter (0053) asserts that all waste should be recycled and research should be
underway to biologically recycle all of the waste created.
Response 14.2-z:
Biological recycling of waste is beyond the scope of this rule.
Comment 14.2-aa:
One commenter (0601) suggests that EPA look into the results of recent CCS testing in other
countries, such as Norway.
Response 14.2-aa:
The commenter did not mention specific projects in Norway, but EPA noted in the notice of
proposed rulemaking (75 FR 18579, April 12, 2010) that the Sleipner and Snohvit projects as
providing experience on CCS. EPA examined the experiences of projects such as these in
developing the final rule.
Comment 14.2-bb:
One commenter (0025) asserts that leakage of even a fraction of one percent of CO2 at a GS site
is enough to negate the long-term benefits of a future national CCS system.
Response 14.2-bb:
Through this rulemaking EPA will gain information necessary to form the basis for future policy
decisions. See Section I.B. of the preamble for further discussion on the importance of collecting
this data. The performance of GS sites is out of scope of this rulemaking as EPA is not regulating
GS as a control option through this action. EPA is not changing the verification approach from
the proposal and is requiring self-certification with EPA emissions verification. Please refer to
Section II.N of the preamble to the rule establishing the GHG Reporting Program (74 FR 56282,
Oct. 30, 2009) for a further discussion on the verification approach of the program.
Comment 14.2-cc:
One commenter (0038) asserts that monitoring facilities at a GS site must be secure and
accessible only by EPA officials.
Response 14.2-cc:
EPA's view is that the reporter, and not EPA officials, is the most appropriate party to implement
the regulations set forth by subpart RR.
Comment 14.2-dd:
One commenter (0318) believes that it would be helpful for the U.S. Government to end its
suppression of energy inventions, and asks that the U.S. Patent Office stop protection the oil and
gas industry and declassify 5000 classified secret energy patents.
188
-------
Response 14.2-dd:
Patent classification is beyond the scope of this rule.
189
-------
APPENDIX A: SIERRA CLUB MASS MAILER CAMPAIGN
Approximately 15,000 comment letters were submitted in response to EPA's April 12, 2010
request for comments on the proposed subpart RR of the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting
Rule: Injection and Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide (75 FR 18576) that were either
identical to or substantively the same as the form letter prepared by the Sierra Club.
Approximately 650 additional comment letters were submitted that were unique versions of the
Sierra Club form letter (i.e., versions that contained additional text that was not represented in
the standard Sierra Club form letter). EPA's responses to the Sierra Club form letter (0023) and
to the unique versions of the letter can be found throughout this document. Appendix B to this
document identifies the commenters whose submissions were unique and where EPA's
responses to the comments can be found in this document.
Text of Sierra Club Form Letter (0023):
"Dear Administrator Jackson,
EPA took a big step forward when it finalized a national reporting system for the biggest sources
of global warming pollution last year. Now it's time to finish the job. I strongly support your
decision to fill the gaps in the rule by including big polluters missed in the first round. In
particular, I applaud your decision to require carbon capture and sequestration operations to
carefully monitor their operations.
Carbon capture and sequestration is touted as a way of allowing power plants to pump their
emissions underground and keep them there. It's expensive, and largely untested. But if someone
tries it, it's vital that we know whether or not the system is leaking. I support a strong rule
requiring careful and comprehensive monitoring of these projects, starting before injection can
begin, and which ensures that the public has a strong voice in reviewing monitoring plans and
challenging them if they're inadequate. The rule should cover all facilities, and make sure
monitoring continues for long-term leakage. Global warming is too dangerous to just trust that
these systems work. Thank you for including them in the reporting system."
190
-------
Subii
Num
0019
0020
0021
0022
0023
0024
0025
0027
0028
0030
0032
0033
0034
0035
0037
0038
0039
0041
0042
0043
0044
0046
0052
0053
0054
0055
0057
0058
0060
0064
0067
0068
0072
0073
0074
0077
0078
0080
0081
0082
0086
0088
0090
0091
APPENDIX B: INDEX OF COMMENTERS
Commenter
Chapter Number
J. Public
14.2
Anonymous
14.1,14.2
Anonymous
14.1
Anonymous
14.2
Sierra Club
3.1,7.2,7.3,8.1, 14.1
E. Salmon
14.2
R. Brecha
14.1, 14.2
J. Zeigler
14.2
M. Dickerson
14.2
M. Stewart
14.2
N. Godoy
14.2
S. Hebert
14.2
W. Root
14.2
A.E. Coates
14.1, 14.2
A. Jones
14.2
E. Blumensaadt
6.8, 14.2
S. Rudnick
14.1
J. Marx
14.1
G. Vanderwerker
3.1, 3.2, 8.1, 14.1
J. Unruh
14.1
J. Caldwell
14.1, 14.2
J. Kambeitz
14.2
J. Spragens
14.1
L. Schumacher
14.2
S. Smith
14.2
C. Wilson
14.2
S. Alexander-Larkin
6.S
M. Wenzel
14.1
T. Kane
14.1
F.J. Santiago-Avila
14.2
C. Schreter
3.1, 3.2, 8.1
K. Harper
14.2
B. Brenneman
14.2
M. Woelfel
14.1, 14.2
C. Flum
14.1
P. Richards
14.2
D. Barnett
14.1
J. and W. MacDonald
14.2
T. Henize
14.1, 14.2
W. Taylor
14.2
P.B. Popinchalk
S. Skal
S. Cates
D. McCarley
14.2
14.2
14.2
14.2
191
-------
Subii
Num
0092
0094
0095
0097
0098
0099
0100
0103
0104
0106
0108
0109
0110
0111
0114
0115
0116
0118
0119
0123
0124
0125
0129
0134
0137
0140
0141
0142
0143
0147
0148
0149
0151
0152
0154
0155
0158
0160
0161
0162
0163
0164
0165
0166
0167
Commenter
R. Marra
B. Hughes
R. Rudy
R. Byrnes
L. Bowles-Goldstein
J. Mac Queen
S. M. Bushberg
J. Lenting
R. Dell
A. and J. Aurelio
K. Stone
L. Smith
L. Clark
D. Miller-Boyle
Holliday Environmental
Services, Inc.
J. Butera
L. and V. Pearson
J. Butera
N. Tatlock
C. Fletcher
A. Adams
E. Tylenda
M. Johnson
M. Olsen
E. Koopman
C. Yoder
C. Yount
G. Washburn
J. Shepherd
N. McKay
S. Mursu
L. Youngman
J. Pellaton
S. Leuty
E. and R. Nordstrom
D. Koss
S. Andersen
F. Harriman
D. Shearer
K. Mills
O. Balaguer
J. Barker
M. Porubcan
E. Lee
D. Corigliano
Chapter Number
~U2
14.2
14.2
14.2
~U2
14.1, 14.2
14.1
14.2
Til
Til
Til
14.2
14.2
14.1, 14.2
2.3, 10.3, 14.1, 14.2
14.2
14.2
~U2
Ti~2
~U2
T4~2
14.2
~U2
Ti~2
~U2
7.2, 14.2
14.2
~U2
Ti~2
~U2
~U2
14.2
11, 14.2
l4~2
14.2
14.2
14.1
Til
l4~2
14.2
14.2
~U2
Til
l4~2
14.2
192
-------
Subii
Num
0169
0173
0174
0175
0177
0179
0180
0181
0182
0183
0185
0186
0187
0188
0189
0190
0192
0194
0200
0201
0202
0204
0205
0206
0211
0213
0214
0216
0217
0218
0222
0223
0225
0226
0227
0228
0229
0230
0231
0232
0236
0238
0239
0241
0243
0244
Commenter
Chapter Number
N. Caiy
14.2
M. Adams
14.2
T. Sedlmeyer
14.2
N. Dawley
14.2
R. Von Ehrenkrook
14.2
J. Meehan
14.2
D. Foster
14.2
J. Hayes
14.2
J. Dolwick
14.2
H. Niese
14.2
J. Denoo
14.2
C. Rowe
3.1,3.2,6.:
i.l
D. Bridgeman
14.2
H. Schulze
14.2
G. Chamberlain
14.2
J. Lindner
14.2
J. Batchelor
14.1, 14.2
G. Munroe
14.2
R. Kranzdorf
14.2
T. Galvin
14.2
R. Middleton
14.2
D. Depauw
14.2
D. Arnason
14.2
K. Bagwell
14.2
G. Stafford
14.2
S. Cross
7.2
D. Hitt
14.1
E. Wedlock
14.1
G. and F. Alderson
14.1
R. Cooper
14.1, 14.2
A. Ohen
14.2
L. Gill
14.2
E. Law
14.2
D. Underwood
11, 14.2
B. Williams-Pemberton
14.2
M. Defoe
14.2
J. Lynch
14.2
S. Glover
14.2
D. and J. Nash
14.2
S. Cates
14.2
T. Barnes
14.2
T. Davenport
14.2
M. Southwell
14.2
E. Levinson
14.2
C. Denney
14.2
M. Hubbert
14.2
193
-------
Subii
Num
0249
0250
0251
0252
0255
0257
0261
0266
0270
0274
0275
0276
0277
0278
0279
0281
0282
0283
0284
0285
0286
0289
0292
0293
0294
0295
0296
0298
0299
0300
0301
0303
0304
0307
0309
0310
0311
0313
0314
0317
0318
0319
0321
0323
0324
0326
Commenter
Chapter Number
M. Willis
14.2
B. Birdsong
14.2
S. Booher
14.2
J. Cooper
14.2
G. Casey
14.2
L. Heath
14.2
L. Bower
14.2
J. Reefe
11, 14.2
J. Scharnberg
14.2
S. Drucker
14.2
J. Schauffler-Vircsik
14.2
K. Hoffman
14.2
M. Rice
11, 14.2
J. Marini
14.2
J. Oneal
14.2
R. Sain
14.2
K. Lux
14.2
S. Ross
14.2
R. Lord
14.2
W. Robinson
14.2
P. Stickney
14.2
B. Wolf
14.2
B. Wilson
14.2
P. Alexander
14.2
D. Johnson
14.1
C.E. Murphy
14.2
D. Flair
14.2
B. White
14.1
P. Heisel
14.2
J. Mauiy
14.2
S. Armstrong
14.2
J.K. Burden
14.2
A. Gaylord
14.2
S. Teaford
14.2
B. Dudley
11, 14.2
J. Durham
14.1, 14.2
R. Venable
14.2
S. Teisher
14.2
M. Pace
14.2
R. Boyce
14.1
G. Vesperman
14.2
J. and L. Lillegraven
14.2
J. Verry
14.2
R. Kelly
14.2
H. Bennett
J. Naples
14.2
14.2
194
-------
Subii
Num
0329
0330
0331
0333
0334
0336
0337
0338
0340
0341
0342
0344
0345
0347
0350
0352
0354
0355
0357
0358
0359
0361
0364
0367
0368
0369
0374
0385
0386
0387
0388
0391
0395
0397
0398
0401
0402
0403
0404
0405
0408
0409
0412
0415
0418
0420
Commenter
Chapter Number
E. Root
14.2
M. Hyde
14.1, 14.2
B. Shepherd
14.2
B. Keenan
14.2
S. Couche
14.2
K.Ely
14.2
R. Sanders
14.1, 14.2
C. Negaard
14.2
A. Kidder
14.1
M. Maynard
14.1, 14.2
K. Allen
14.1, 14.2
N. Worontzoff
14.2
T. Huey
14.1, 14.2
T. Riggs
14.2
D. Woods
14.2
J. Kmansky
14.2
D. Duncan
14.1
D. Brandy-Condon
14.2
K. Gupton
14.1
F. Gravois
14.1, 14.2
K. Hugenschmidt
14.2
R. Kriel
14.2
R. Skaar
14.1
A. Schaffer
14.2
L. Blanchard
14.2
J. Smith
14.2
M. Strom
14.1, 14.2
J. Clark
14.2
D. andH. Marion
14.2
R. Narkevicius
14.2
M.L. Crimmins
14.1, 14.2
M. Min
14.2
D. Vines-Sharp
14.2
K. Webb
14.2
J. Draper
14.1
E. Riebschlaeger
14.2
D. Koch
14.2
C. Mead
3.1, 3.2, 8.1, 14.1, 14.2
S. Nienkark
14.1, 14.2
D. Valenza
14.2
K. Moore
14.2
D. Thatcher
14.2
Anonymous
14.2
H. Christofersen
14.2
J. Pence
14.1, 14.2
P. Gardiner
14.2
195
-------
Subii
Num
0428
0429
0430
0432
0433
0434
0435
0441
0444
0447
0449
0450
0454
0455
0456
0460
0463
0464
0465
0466
0467
0472
0473
0477
0478
0479
0482
0483
0485
0486
0488
0489
0491
0492
0493
0494
0495
0500
0501
0502
0503
0505
0508
0512
0514
0517
Commenter
Chapter Number
L. Kauffman
14.1
R. Karaffa
14.1, 14.2
B. Deckman
14.2
G. Kedzior
14.2
J. Thacker
14.2
D. Palmieri
14.1, 14.2
M. Schulz
14.1, 14.2
P. Waterworth
14.1, 14.2
R. Pilato
14.1, 14.2
H. Powers
14.2
A.B. Butterfield
14.1, 14.2
A. Forgione
14.2
M. Lusch
14.2
K. Moore
14.2
K. Lange
14.2
M. Damero
14.2
V. Nguyen
14.1, 14.2
M. V
14.2
R. Hoekstra
14.2
B. Bryant
14.2
T. Poychronis
14.2
M. Scott
14.2
K. Cothern
14.2
E. Swanson
14.2
A. Queen
14.1, 14.2
J. Gilbert
2.6, 14.2
S. Stanfield
14.2
N. Bartol
14.2
A. Butterfield
14.2
M. Briton
14.1
D. Steele
14.2
D. Deremus
14.2
J. Whittington
14.2
E. Moore
14.1
J. Sconyers
14.1, 14.2
K. Tripp
14.2
J. Skolte
14.2
B. Berger
14.2
D. Shimek
14.2
J. Tighe
14.2
C. Carpenter
14.1, 14.2
H. Gray
14.1, 14.2
T. Hildebrandt
P. Phillips
A. Dahl
P. Coutre
14.1
14.1
14.2
14.2
196
-------
Subii
Num
0518
0520
0521
0522
0525
0526
0528
0530
0533
0538
0539
0541
0542
0544
0545
0546
0554
0555
0559
0560
0562
0563
0567
0569
0570
0572
0574
0576
0577
0578
0583
0584
0585
0586
0587
0588
0591
0592
0594
0598
0600
0601
0602
0603
0604
0605
Commenter
Chapter Number
K. Marx
14.2
C. Bowser
14.1, 14.2
A. Hanscom
14.2
S. Box
14.2
J. Wright
14.1
M. Devernoe
14.1, 14.2
T. Mac Krell
14.2
R. Herbener
14.1, 14.2
G. McLaird
14.2
P. Mcculley
14.2
T. Passarella
14.1, 14.2
S. Young
14.2
R. Bruner
14.2
C. Hansen
14.2
C. and M. Forgone
14.2
S. Davis
14.1, 14.2
J. Baldwin
14.2
M. Parks
14.2
D. Klinke
14.2
L. Wilson
14.2
N. Rogers
14.2
T. and C. Johnson
14.2
T. Anderson
14.1, 14.2
L. Griffin
14.1, 14.2
S. Kim
14.2
W. Vandergriff
14.2
A. Salmon
14.1
S. Koch
14.2
H. Peterson
14.2
M. Plotnick
11, 14.2
D. and S. Giffen
14.1, 14.2
M. Hessman
14.2
D. Friedman
14.1, 14.2
K. Hemmingsen
14.2
C. Shoupe
14.2
K. Pomeroy
14.1
J. Strong
14.2
Y. Neal
14.2
E. Hoffman
7.1
J. Doubleday
14.2
D. Brower
14.2
W. Thomas
14.2
M. Verano
14.2
K. Sanders
C. Bradley
P. Deleon
14.2
14.2
14.1, 14.2
197
-------
Subii
Num
0606
0608
0612
0613
0615
0620
0627
0679
0681
0682
0684
0685
0687
0688
0690
0691
0693
0696
0697
0698
0707
0709
0712
0713
0714
0716
0718
0720
0721
0723
0726
0727
0728
0729
0731
0732
0733
0734
0736
0737
0738
0740
0744
0746
0749
Commenter
C. Boyington
J. ODonnell
W. White ~
J. Varner
P. Waterworth
M. Neal
M. Verano
R. Nichols
T. Woods
E. Borie
B. Measelle
G. Epailly
S. Ritchie
A. Tucker
T. Davin
S. Bogard
K. Lynn
P. Wilkey
P. Lefebvre
M. Roglaski
W. Leist
Powder River Basin Resource
Council
J. Witte ~
D. Hamblin
L. Zimmerman
B. Jones
D. Dobranchin
B. Dale
C. Calvo ~
J. Schimpff
B. Koch
A. Bell
P. Go lion
L. Gorsuch
E. Lapinsky
T. Schram
W. Ware ~
N. MacKinnon
E. Kappos
W. Krupnick
J. Kelly ~
N. Refes
J. Cassidy
R. Sales
A. and L. McClaine
Chapter Number
142
14.2
14.1, 14.2
14.2
142
14.1, 14.2
14.2
14.2
142
14.1, 14.2
142
14.1, 14.2
14.1, 14.2
142
7TT
142
14.1, 14.2
14.2
142
142
14.1, 14.2
14.1, 14.2
14.1, 14.2
142
142
142
14.2
14.1, 14.2
TO
142
14~1
14.1, 14.2
TO
142
14.2
14.2
14.2
14.1, 14.2
14.1, 14.2
14.1
14.2
142
142
142
14.1
198
-------
Submission
Number
Commenter
Chapter Number
Sierra Club Mass
Mailer
0750
R. Levy
14.2
X
0752
J. Quetua
14.2
X
0754
R. Dunaway
14.1, 14.2
X
0757
T. Mcintosh
14.2
X
0764
J. Ehrlich
14.1
0765
R. Lewis
14.2
X
0767
B. Luecke
11
0769
W. Crane
14.2
X
0770
BJ M. Leven
14.2
X
0771
D. Grommon
14.1
X
0773
T. Langford
14.2
X
0774
J. Farina
2.6, 14.2
X
QUI
Anonymous
14.2
0783
Cardinal Engineering, Inc.
2.3,4.4, 10.1, 14.1
0784
Matthew M. McDonnell
14.1, 14.2
0785
CMC Solutions and CMC
Support
4.7
0786
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
5.1,6.5,7.1, 11, 13, 14.1
0787
Twenty-First Strategies
3.2, 10.1, 10.2
0788
Joint Global Change Research
Institute, Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory
2.1, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 3.1, 3.2, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3,
5.4,6.1,6.7, 8.1, 11, 13, 14.1, 14.2
0789
Michigan Oil And Gas
Association
1, 10.1, 14.1, 14.2
0790
Archer Daniels Midland
Company
2.5,3.1,3.2,4.1,5.1,5.3, 11, 14.2
0791
Oklahoma Independent
Petroleum Association
2.3,3.1,3.2,4.3,5.4, 8.1, 14.1
0792
Anadarko Petroleum
Corporation
2.1,2.3,5.1, 13
0793
Colorado Department of
Public Health and
Environment
2.1,2.2
0794
Western Business Roundtable
1,5.3, 10.1, 11, 13, 14.1, 14.2
0795
Occidental Petroleum
Corporation
4.1,6.1,6.2,6.5,6.6, 11, 14.1
0796
Clean Coal Technology
Foundation of Texas
2.3,6.2, 14.1, 14.2
0797
North American Carbon
Capture and Storage
Association
1,4.1,4.3,5.3,6.1, 11, 13, 14.1
0798
Denbury Resources, Inc.
2.1, 2.5, 4.2, 4.5, 4.6, 5.1, 5.2, 5.4, 6.1,
6.2, 10.1, 11, 14.1
0799
Multi-stakeholder Discussion
Group
2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3,
4.5, 4.7, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3,
6.6, 7.3, 7.5, 8.1, 9.1, 11, 12,14.1, 14.2
199
-------
Submission
Number
Commenter
Chapter Number
Sierra Club Mass
Mailer
0800
Southern Company
1, 2.3, 2.5, 5.3, 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6,
6.7,7.1,7.3,7.4, 11, 14.1
0801
Joyce Dillard
6.8,7.2, 9.2, 13, 14.1
0802
Summit Texas Clean Energy
2.1,2.4,5.3,6.1,6.2,6.7,7.1, 11
0803
Dominion Resources Service,
Inc.
1,2.5,2.6,4.1,4.7,5.3,6.1,6.7, 11
0804
Xcel Energy Inc.
11
0805
Kinder Morgan Energy
Partners, L.P.
1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.6, 4.1, 4.2, 4.4, 4.7,
5.1,5.3,6.1, 12, 14.1
0806
Resolute Energy Corporation
1,2.3,2.5,3.1,4.1,4.2,4.3,4.4,5.1,
5.3, 10.1
0807
Core Energy, LLC
1,2.3,2.5,3.1,4.1,4.2,4.3,4.4,4.7,
5.1, 5.3, 11
0808
American Electric Power
1,2.3,2.5,3.2,5.1,5.3,6.1,6.2, 6.4,
6.5,6.6,6.7,7.1,7.4, 11
0809
Clean Air Task Force,
Environmental Defense Fund,
Natural Resources Defense
Council, and Sierra Club
1,2.1,2.4,2.5,2.6,3.1,3.2,3.3,4.1,
5.1, 5.3, 5.4, 6.1, 6.2, 6.7, 6.8, 7.1, 7.2,
7.3,7.4, 8.1,9.2, 10.1, 11, 12, 14.1,
14.2
0810
The Independent Petroleum
Association of Mountain
States
1,2.3,2.5,2.7,3.1,4.1,4.2,4.4,5.1,
5.3, 6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 10.1, 11, 14.1
0811
C12 Energy
1,2.3,2.5,5.3,6.5,7.2, 8.1, 11, 14.1,
14.2
0812
Blue Strategies, LLC
2.3,3.3,4.1,4.3,5.1,6.1,6.5,6.7, 11
0813
Edison Electric Institute
1,2.3,2.5,3.2,5.1,5.3,6.1,6.4,6.5,
6.6,6.7,7.1,7.4, 10.1, 11, 14.1
0814
Yates Petroleum Corporation
2.1,4.7, 12
0815
DTE Energy
1,5.3,6.2,6.7,7.1, 10.1, 11, 14.1
0816
American Petroleum Institute
1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 2.6, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2,
4.4, 4.5, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 6.1, 6.3, 6.5,
6.6,6.7,7.3,7.4, 8.1,9.1,9.3, 11
0817
Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality
4.1,4.7, 8.1
TRANS-VA-01
Clean Air Task Force
2.4,2.5,6.1,6.2,7.1,7.2, 11, 14.1
TRANS-VA-02
Edison Electric Institute
1,2.5,6.1,6.7,7.1, 11
TRANS-VA-03
21st Strategies
10.1, 10.2
TRANS-VA-04
Sierra Club
2.5,3.2,6.2,7.2,7.3,8.1, 11, 14.2
TRANS-VA-05
American Petroleum Institute
2.3,2.5,5.1
TRANS-VA-06
Environmental Defense Fund
7.2, 14.1
TRANS-VA-07
North American Carbon
Capture and Storage
Association
2.4,6.2, 11, 13, 14.1
TRANS-VA-08
Marston Law
14.1
Note: In Sierra Club Mass Mailer column, X indicates Sierra Club Mass Mailers and blanks indicate non-Sierra
Club Mass Mailers.
200
------- |