T H E ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Mr. E ric Schaeffer , Execut ive Dir ector Mr. Adam K ron, Atto rn ey Env iro nm en t a l Integrity Project 1000 Vermont Ave nu e, NW, 11 111 floor Washington , D.C. 20005 Dear Mess r s. Sc h aeffe r and Kron: WASHINGTON. 0 C 20460



## O

CT 

## 2 2 2 01 5

The E n vi r o nm e nt a l Inte g rit y Projec t , together w ith 16 o th e r orga ni za ti ons, sub mitte d in an Oct o b er 24, 2012 , letter a petition to the U.S. E nvironm e nt a l Pro tect i o n Age n cy pursuant to the A dmini s trati ve Procedure Act to add the Oil a nd Gas Extract i o n indu s tri al sec tor to th e sco pe of secto r s covered by the reportin g req uire ments of section 313 of the Emergency Pl a nnin g a nd Commu ni ty Ri ght -to-Kn ow Act, commonly known as the Taxies R e lease In ve nt o ry. Th e Env iro nm e nt a l Int eg rit y Project supplemented the p et iti on by s ubmittin g a dd itional m aterials on three other occas ions: communications dated Janu ary 30, 2014; May I , 20 14; and May 12,20 14. The E P A i s g ran tin g in part and deny in g in part yo ur pe titi o n , and I h ave enclosed ou r formal respo n se. I app reciate yo ur intere s t i n th ese i ss u es and in ensuring th a t we provid e the public w ith inform ation about tox ic-chem ica l re leases and p oll uti o n-preve nti o n ac tiv iti es, cons i ste nt w ith the E P A's statutory autho rit y.

Gi n a McCa rth y

E nclo sure

Th1s paper IS pnnted w1lh vegetable-Oil-based mks and 1s 100-percent postconsumer recycled matena l

. chlonne- f ree-processed and recyc l able

.

### Fo rm a l Re s pon se to October , 24 , 2012 , Petition t o Add th e Oil a nd Gas E xtraction Indu s try , S t a nd ard Indu s trial C la ss ifi ca ti o n Co de 13, to the Li s t of Fac iliti es Required to R e p o rt und er S ection 313 

### ofthe E m erge n cy Pl a nnin g a nd Co mmuni ty Right-to-Know Act 

### By a let t e r dated Octo be r 24, 20 12, the Envi r o nm e nt a l In tegr ity Pro j ect (EIP) , toget her w ith 1 6 othe r o rga ni zat ion s (co ll ect iv e ly, Pe titioners ), 1 

### s ubmitt ed a pet it ion to the U.S. Environmental Protecti on Agency (EPA o r the Agency) pursuant to sec ti o n 553(e) of the Admini s tra ti ve Procedure Act (A PA ) to add the Oil and Gas Ex traction industrial sector (Standard In dustr i a l Classificat i on (S IC) code 13 ) to the scope of industrial sectors covered by the reportin g req uireme nt s of section 313 of th e Emergency Planning and Community Ri g ht-to-Know Act (E PCRA ), 42 U.S.C. § 

### II 023 , com monly known as th e Toxics Release In vento ry (TR I )
. EIP s uppl emented the Peti tion by submitt ing addit io nal materials on three othe r occasions : communicatio n s dated January 30, 2014; May 1 , 20 14 ; and May 12 , 2014. T hi s document con s titutes the EPA 's respon se t o th e Pe tition
. As expla in ed be low, th e Agency hereb y GRANTS in p art and DEN IES in part th e Pet itio n. I. Background A. Ge n e r al 

### Facilities must ann ually file T RI repo rt s w ith EPA fo r each year in whi ch the fac ilit y meets three criter ia: I. Th e fac ili ty ma nu fac ture s, proc esses, or othe rw ise uses a T RI

- Ii s ted c hemical in excess of the app li cab le r epo rtin g threshold ; 2. The fac ilit y ha s I0 or more full-time employees (o r equivalent); and 3. The fac il ity is in a TRI-co vered industry sec to r. 2 

### The Petition requests that EPA modify the scope oft he third criterion: the in du st ry secto rs to which th e TRl repo rtin g requirement s apply. Co ngress es t ab li s hed the origina l scope ofTR I secto rs su bj ect to Sectio n 3 1 3 rep o rtin g, req uirin g reporting by facilities in th e manufacturin g sec to rs covered by S IC codes 20 th r o ug h 39. Congress al so granted the E PA Adm ini strator th e di sc retionary autho rity to add o r de le te secto rs t o/ from the sco pe ofT RT. 3 

### Th e Pe titi on req uests that E PA exe r c ise it s discretionary 

### TRT sec tor addit i o n a uth or ity to add the Oil and Gas Extrac ti on sector, as defined by S IC code 13. S I C 13 is broad in sco pe , compris ing the followi ng subsecto rs:
• C rud e Petroleum and Natural Gas (S I C 13 11 ) ; • Natura l Gas L iquids (S IC 1321 ); • Drillin g Oil a nd Gas Well s (SIC 1 38 1 );

1 The signatories to the Oc tober 24, 20 1 2 Petition were Environmenta llnteg ri ty Proj ec t, Chesapeake C limate Action Network , CitizenShale, Clean Air Co uncil , Clean Water Action, Delawa r e Riverkeeper Network, Earthworks, Elected Officials to Protect New York , Environmental Advocates of New York , Lower Susquehanna Ri verkeeper , Natural Resources Defense Council , OMB Watch (now Cente r for Effective Governmen t), PennEn vironmen t , Powder River Basin Re source Co uncil, San Juan Citizens Council, Sierra Club , and Texas Campaign for the Environment. PennFuture and Re sponsible Drilling Alliance also joined as signato ri es to the Petition , each by separate leners dated December 3 1 , 2014
. 2 EPCRA § 3 13(b){l)(A). 3 EPCRA § 313(b)( l )(B).• Oil and Gas Field Explorat ion Serv i ces (SIC 1382); and • Oil and Gas Field Services, Not E lsewhere Class ified (SIC 1 389). While the scope ofTR1 is defined in EPCR.A using S IC codes, the SIC c lassification system has been largely superseded by the North American Industrial Classification System (NA ICS), which EPA adopted for TRI purposes in 2006
. 4 Thus , it is important to note that the S IC-defined subsectors li sted above co rrespond to t he following NA ICS sectors, in whole or in part :

• Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction (NAICS 211111); • Natural Gas Liquid Extraction (NAICS 21 1 1 12); • Drilling O il and Gas Wel ls (NA ICS 2131 1 1); • Support Activit i es for Oil and Gas Operations (NA ICS 213112); • Oil and Gas Pipe l ine and Re lated Structures Construction (NA ICS 237120); • Site Preparation Contractors (NA ICS 23891 0) ; and • Geophysical Surveying and Mapping Serv ices (NA ICS 541360) By r equesti ng that EPA extend the TRI report ing requirements to SIC 13, the Petition requested that EPA add to 

### TRl the S IC codes 1311 , 1321 , 1381 , 1382 , and 1389 , a long with the relevant portion of each corresponding NA ICS code
. To determine whether any or all of S IC 13 is appropriate for addition to TRI , it is useful not only to understand the oil and gas industry 's sector class i fication but a lso the p rocesses involved
. Accord ing to EPA's 

### Profile of th e Oil and Gas Extraction Jndustry, 5 the oi l and gas extraction industry can be viewed as consisting of four major process steps :


### • Exploration- Ex plorat ion involves the search for rock formations associated w i th oi l or natura l gas deposits , and involves geophysical prospecting and / or exploratory drilling
. 

### • Well development and completion- Well deve lopment occ urs after exploration has located an economically recoverab le field, and involves the construct ion of one or more we ll s from the beg inning (ca ll ed "s p udd ing ") to either abandonn1ent if no hydrocarbons are found, or to we ll completion if hydrocarbons are found i n suffic ient quantities. During well development , the we ll is drilled using a drill bit in conj unction with dri ll ing fluids , which often contain chemical additives, then cased to prevent the hole from cav ing in
. Next, well comp letion occurs , which may invo lve such steps as tes t ing , well casing perforation, we ll stimulation (including stimulation via hydrau li c fractur i ng an d/ or ac idiz ing) , a nd prod uction equipment install at ion. 

### • Production

- P roduction is the process of ex tr acti ng t he hydrocarbons and separating the m ixtme of li qu id hyd r ocarbons , gas, water, and solids, removing t he constituents that are non - saleable, and selling the liquid hydrocarbons and gas . Production sites often handle cntde oil from more than one well. Oil is nearly always processed at oi l refineries , which are classified as manufacturing faci l ities (SIC 2911, Pe troleum Refining; NA ICS 324110 , Petro l eum Refi n eries) and are thus required to repo r t TR1 informati on to EPA. Natural gas**~See** 71 Fed
. Reg. 32464 (Jun. 6, 2006). 5 "Profile of the Oil and Gas Extraction Industry ," EPA Office of Compliance Sector Notebook Project (Oct. 2000), available at < http: // www.epa .gov/compI iance/ resource s/ pub I ications/ assistance/ sectors/ notebooks/oi I gas. pdf>. 

### 2may be processed to remove impurities either in the field or at a natural gas processing plant. With limited exception, 6 natural gas processing plants are not currently covered by the TRI reporting r equirements
. 

### • Site abandonment- Site abandonment involves plugging the well(s) and restoring the site when a recently-drilled we ll lacks the potential to produce econom ic quantities of oil or gas , or when a production well is no longer economically viable. The Oil and Gas Extraction sector may also be viewed as cons ist in g of we ll-l evel operat ions and nonwell

- level operations , the latter including refineries , natural gas processing plants, compressor stations , and booster stations
. 

### B. Petition To support it s request that E P A add S IC 13 to TRI , the Petition points to three factors that E PA considered when it added six sectors to 

### TRl in 1997: 7



### • Chemical Factor

- Whether one or more toxic chem ica ls are reasonably anticipated to be present at facilities within the candidate industry group. 

### • Activity Factor- Whether facilities with in the candidate industry group " manufacture , " "process , " or "otherwise use" these toxic chemicals
. 

### • Information Factor

- Whether faci liti es within the cand id ate industry group can reasonably be anticipated to increase the information made avai lable pursuant to EPCRA section 313, or otherwise further the purposes of EPCRA 

### § 313. This factor may in c lud e considerat ion of: (I) whether the addition of the candidate industry groi.tp would lead to reporting by facil it ies within that cand id ate indu stry group (e.g., whether fac ili t ies within the candidate industry group would conduct activities which exceed the reporting thresholds in sect ion 313(f)); (2) whether facilities within the candidate industry group we r e lik e ly to be subject to an existing statutory or regulatory exemption from the requirement to fi le a Form R; (3) whether submitted Form R reports from that industry group could be expected to contain release and waste management data ; or (4) whether a s ignificant portion of the facilities in the industry group would be expected to file a Form A. 8 The Petition argues that TRI coverage of SIC 13 would meet each of these factors. With respect to the chemical and activity factors, the Petition argues that TR I-Ii sted chem icals are manufactured, processed , and / or otherwise used, as we ll as released to various environmental media, at oil and gas extraction facilities during each stage of the oil and gas ext raction process. With respect to the information factor , the Petition contends that TRI coverage of SIC 13 would increase the information available to the public and further the purposes of EPCRA 

### § 313 , arguing that existing federal and state disclosure and

6 Manufacturing sector SIC 2819 (Industrial I norganic Chemicals, Not El s ewhere Classified) includes facilities that manufacture " sulfur, recovered or refined , including from sour natural ga s ." Office of Mgmt. & Budget , Exec. Office of the President, Standard Industrial Classification Manual ( 1987) (S I C Manual) at 135.
7 In 1997 , EPA added metal mining , coal mining, electric utilities , commercial hazardous waste treatment , chemicals and allied products-wholesale , petroleum bulk plants and terminals-wholesale , and solvent recovery services to the scope ofTRI. 62 Fed. Reg. 23843 (May I , 1997). 8 S ee 61 Fed. Reg. 33588, 33594 (June 27, 1996). 3

### regulatory requirements are inadequate and that a s ignificant number of oil and gas extraction facilities will meet the TRl reporting requirements and therefore submit TRl information to EPA. 

### C. Sup pl ementa l Materials In support of the Petition , EIP a lso subm itted additional materials on three separate occasions : communications dated January 30, 2014 ; May 1, 2014; and May 12 , 2014. 

### 1. January 30, 2014 Submission On January 30 , 2014 , EIP submitted an analysis of o il and gas extraction sector emissions data found in the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) and s ix state inventories (CO, LA, ND, PA , TX , and WY). ElP argued that its anal ysis showed that 199 facilities in those six states reported annual air releases of a TRI-listed chemical in excess of I 0,000 pounds for at least two consecutive years between 2008 and 2012. A significant p01tion of the facilities identified by EIP were either natural gas processing p lants , booster stations, or compressor stations. Additionally, EIP contended in this submission that th ese 199 facilities, as well as others, are likely to meet the TRI rep01ting thresholds. Finally, EIP argued that TRI reporting by the oil and gas extraction sector would provide information of greater quant ity , quality , and accessibi li ty than state emissions in ventories. 

### 2. May 1, 2014 S u bmission On May I , 2014 , EIP submitted a cover letter and a copy of a draft document titled "Task Force Report on FracFocus 2.0," authored by the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Task Force on FracFocus , dated February 24 , 2014. In the cover letter , ElP summari zed the "shottcom in gs and recommendations " offered by the Task Force with respect to FracFocus 2.0, 9 

### statin g that " [e]ach of these shortcomings and recommendations i s a way in w hich TRI repotting is supe ri or to FracFocus and a way i n which TRI reporting by the oil and gas extraction indu stry wi ll increase the information made available to the public
. " 1 0


### 3
. May 12, 2014 Submission On May 12 , 2014, EIP submitted a cover letter and copies of five wh ite papers prepared by EPA ' s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards , dated April 20 14. These wh ite papers includ ed:

• "Oil and Natural Gas Sector Compressors" • "O il and Natura l Gas Sector Hydraulically Fractured Oil Well Completions and Associated Gas during Ongoing Production " • "O il a nd Natural Gas Sector Leaks " • "Oil and Natural Gas Sec tor Liquids Unloading Processes " • "Oil and Natural Gas Sector Pneumatic Devices "

9 FracFocus is a national hydraulic fracturing chemical re g is try managed by the Ground Water Protection Council and In terstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. FracFocus 2.0 is th e second version of the regi stry. S ee http s:/ / www. fracfocus.org. 10 EIP subm iss ion dated May I , 2014 , Cover Letter at 2
. 4Notably, the cover page of each white paper contained the following statement: " This information is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination peer review under applicab le information quality gu idelines. It has not been fom1ally disseminated by EPA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency determination or policy." E IP contends in its cover le tte r that "these white papers further demonstrate that the oil and gas sector releases a great deal of toxic chemica ls to the air throughout its vari ous processes, making it an excellent candidate for addition to the TRl. " tt 

### II. E PA Re s pon se to Petition A. 

### Genera l In order to determine whether to gran t the Petition , in who le or in part, E PA looke d at each stage of th e oil and gas extraction process and considered not on ly the chem ical , act ivity , and information factors applied during EPA's 1997 TRI sector addition , but a lso the extent to which existing and ongoing federal regulations , rulemakings , research , and other activities apply to the oil and gas extraction sector. After consideri n g these factors , the Petition, and the Petition supp l ements , EPA has determined that the appropriate course of action at this time is to propose adding natural gas proce s sing facilitiest 2 to the s cope ofTRl , but to decline to propose adding the remainder of SIC 13. 

### B. 

### GRANT, in 

### part E PA has determined that natural gas processing facilities may be appropriate for addition to the scope of TRI. According to a triennial survey of natural gas processing plants by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA-757 s u r vey) , there were 517 natural gas processing plants in the lower 48 states a s of 2012. EPA estimates that over half of these facili ti e s would annually meet TRI reporting thresholds and , if covered by the reporting requirements of TR I, be required to submit TR I information to EPA. The information likely to be obta in ed from these faci liti es i s not re adily available elsewhere. App l ying the three factors that EPA considered in th e 1 997 TRI sector addit ion , the chemica l facto r and activity factor are met by most natural gas processing facilities: many TR Y-li sted c h em icals are regularly manufactured , processed , or otherwise used at these facilities. Using information from Canada ' s N ational Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRT ) , a program analogous to TRl and which covers natural gas pro ce s sing plants, EPA e s timates that natural gas proce s sing facilities in the U.S. manufacture , process , or otherwise use more than 25 different TRl-listed chemicals. These chemicals include hydrogen sulfide , b e n z ene , toluene, ethylben z ene , and xylene. With respect to the inf o rm at ion factor, th e addition of natura l gas process ing facilit ies to TRI would meaningfully increase the information available to the public a nd further the purposes ofEPCRA 

### § 313. E PA est im ates that more than ha l f of the 5 I 7 natural gas processing plants in the U.S. wou ld meet the TRI employee threshold (I 0 full-time employees or e quivalent) and manufacture , process, or otherwise u s c at least one TR l -listed chemical in excess of applicable threshold quantitie s . Unlike the remainder of

11 El P submission dated May 12, 2014 , Cover Lener at 2. 12 In the forthcoming rulernakin g process to add natural ga s processing plants to TR I, EPA anticipates providing additional de tail as to the precise S I CINA I CS codes, or portions thereof, that will be proposed for additio n . 

### 5

### this industrial sector (as discussed below), natural gas processing plants readily meet the statutory defi niti on of"fac ili ty" at EPCRA 

### § 329(4) , 42 U.S
. C. 

### § 11049(4)
. Furthermore , based upon information subm i tted to Canada ' s NPRI and the 2012 EIA-757 s urvey of n atural gas processors, EPA expects that TRI reporting by U.S. natural gas processing faci li t ies would provide s i gn ifican t release and waste management data. While EPA ' s National Em i ss ion s In ve ntory (NE I) program a lso co ll ects and pub li shes air emissions data pertaining to n atural gas processing plants , TRI reporting b y these facilities wou ld offer key benefits not provided by the NE I. First , th e NEI i s lim ited to air emissions , w hereas TRI requires disclosure of release to air , land , and water , as we ll as waste management an d pollution preventi on information. Second , the NE I i s published on a triennial basis , whereas the TR I is published an nu a ll y . Third , the different purposes of the two programs drive different uses of the data. T RI was develop e d to provide the public wi th information about the di sposi ti on of toxic chem i cals in the ir communities , whereas the NE I was developed to collect data to support air modeling and risk assessments at the n ati onal level. Given TRI ' s comm unity- ri ght-to- kn ow foundations , TRI data a r e designed to be especiall y acc e ssib le and manipulable , and the systems th at offer th e m to the public over the Web provide numerous ana lys is , download, and vi s u a liz at io n tools. As a result of these co n siderat io n s , th e Agency ag rees with the portion of the Petition ask in g that EPA commence the ru lemak in g process to p ropose add in g natu ral gas processing fac iliti es to the scope of TRI. 

### C . DENY , in part 

### EPA agrees with Petitioners that numerous processes w ithin the Oil a nd Gas Extra ct ion sec tor are associated wi th sign ifi cant quantities of TRI-listed c hemicals . However, seve r a l factors lead EPA to decline to add this sector , wi th the exception of natural gas processing plants , to the scope of TRI at this time. As exp l ained be l ow , Petitioners have failed to adeq u ately address the Agency ' s co nclu sion , stated in 1 996, t hat "taken at th e s m a ll est unit (indi v idu a l well) , nei th er the employee nor the che mic al thresholds a r e likely to be met." 61 F R 33588 , 33592 (Jun e 27 , 1996). Additionall y , as detailed mo r e fu ll y later in this response , E P A is currently engaging in a number of act ivities, includin g rul emaking , r esearch , g uid ance, and other outreac h , targeting th e oil and gas extraction sector. S IC 13 is unique in that many ac tiv ities withi n th e sector may manufacture , process, use , and/ or release significant quantities ofTRl-li sted chemicals , yet th e act iv iti es are often sp read over a vast geograph ical area and require few employees to operate
. Consequentl y, taking these activ i ti es at the sma ll est indi vidua l uni t (individual well, compressor s tation , booster stat io n , etc.) , neither the employee nor t he chem ica l thresholds are likely to be met on a regular basis. EPA estimates th at , as a result , TRI reportin g from s uch we ll-l evel acti vities wou ld present a l imited picture of the chemical releases associated with these activi ti es. In the P et it ion , Petitioners contend that the case of Sierra Club, i nc. v. Tyson Foods, I nc. 1 3 

### supports a broad interpretation of the definition of " facility, " as defined by E P CRA 

### § 329(4), for TRI purposes. That case in volved fou r ch i cken operations, each with numerous ch i cken houses. These houses , accord in g to the facts of the case , were "generally 40 to 43 fee t wide and 400 to 500 feet long and

1 3 Sie rra Club, In c. v. Tyson Foods, In c. , 299 F. Supp. 2d 693 (W.O. Ky. 2003).


### 6generally 50 to 60 feet apart
. " 14 The four "ope r atio n s" "s hare[d) commo n access roads and interconnecting roads. " 15 At issue in that case was , 

### inter alia, w hether each chicken 

### operation 1 6 constituted a single "facility," as defined under EPCRA, or, a lternatively, each chicken 

### house on the single farm/operation constit uted a single " facility. " In addres s ing this question , the court note d that EPCRA defines the term "fac ility" as follows : The term "facility " mean s all buildings , equipment, structures, a nd other stati ona r y item s which are located o n a s ingle site or on contiguous or adjacent si te s and which are owned o r operated by the same person (or by any person which contro ls, i s controlled by, or under common co ntrol w ith , such person). Fo r purposes of section ll 004 of thi s title, the term includes motor vehicles, rolling stock, and aircraft. 17 As Pet iti o ners note, th e court then concluded: Eac h of defendants' chicken production operations is a facility under this definition. The c hick e n production operations include multipl e chicken h o u ses that are located on single or adjace nt s ite s within a concentrated area. These c hi cke n h ouses are owned by the same person for purposes of producing chickens. Accordingly , each of defendants' chicken production operations is clearly a facility under E PCRA from whic h ammon ia relea ses must be reported on a site

- wide basis. For the reasons set forth above, the Court concludes that a whole chicke n farm s ite i s a facili ty under
... E P CRA for which releases must be reported. 1 8 That is. the Court co ncluded that each ch icken ·'house·· was not a sepa rate "fac ility ," but rath er the chicken farm/ operation cons tituted a s in gle "fac ility.•· As Petitioners note , the ·'plaintiff [in 

### Sierra Club, In c. v. Tyson Foods, inc.] [did not] make the a rgume nt that the four 

### operations s hould constitute a s in gle facil it y under EPCRA." Pet ition at 68, n . 388 (e mpha s is added) (c it at ion o mitted). Petitioners contend th at thi s decision in 

### Sierra Club, In c. v. Tyson Foods, in c. s upports the notion that certain co n ce ntr a ti o n s of oil and gas wells would also fit within th e sta tutory definition of "fac ility " in EP CRA 

### § 329(4). Specifically, Petitioners point to examples in Pe nn sy lvania and Wyoming. Peti tioners asse rt that , as of D ece mb e r 11 ,2 011 , Cabot Oil & Gas Co rp o rati o n owned and operated 137 wells in the municipality of Dimo ck, PA within a 3.59-mile radiu s, o r approx imatel y 40 sq uare miles; that Talisman Ene rgy ow n ed and operated 174 wells in th e muni c ipalit y of Co lumbi a, PA within a 4.64-mile radius, or approximate l y 67 sq u a r e mile s; and that EOG R eso urces owned and ope rated 1 22 wells in the municipality of Lawrence , PA w ithin a radius of3.1 miles , or app roximate ly 30 square miles. 19 Fin a ll y, Petitioners assert that in th e J onah Field Infill Drillin g Proj ect A rea in Wyoming ( J o nah Field), various companies owned and o p erated 2,323 wells within an area equivalent to approx imatel y 32 square**~** !d. at 700.
I S fd.
16 The court used the term "o peration " synonymously with the term ''farm." See, e. g., !d. at 71 I. 17 Sierra Club at 711, quoting EPCRA § 329(4), 42 U.S. C. § II 049(4). 18 Sierra C lub at 71 I
. 19 Petition at 68

- 69.


### 7miles.2 ° W i th I ,743 we ll s w it hin Jonah F i e ld , according to the Pe titi on, Encana Oil and Gas USA , Inc. , owned a nd ope rated the most we ll s within that area. 21 Notably, h owever, the ave rage distances between these oil and gas operations far exceed the 

### "50 to 

### 60 feet" separa tin g the chicken houses in 

### Sierra Club, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. Perhaps more importantly , in 

### Sierra Club, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, In c., the chicken houses were clearly " located on single or adjacent sites
... owned by the same person.' m Onshore petroleum and natura l gas production operations can be very diverse in arrange m en t , and a re simp ly not analo go u s to a number of"chicke n h ouses" located on a si n gle farm wi th a s in gle owner /o perator. 23 Consequently, the 

### Sierra Club, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. case does not support the broad interpretation ofthe term "fac ility, " as defined at EPCRA § 329(4), proposed by P et itioners. Petitioners also con tend that
. EPA could interpret th e EPCRA definition of "faci lity" similarly to the "hydrocarbon basin " approach taken by EPA in the context of greenhouse gas reporting. 24 In that con text, EP A promu lgated v ia rul emaki n g the follow i ng definition of facility for purposes of greenhouse gas reporting under the CAA: 

### Facility with respect t o onshore petroleum and natural gas production fo r purposes of reporting under this subpart and for the corresponding subpart A requirem ents means all petroleum or natural gas equipment on a single well-pad or assoc i ated with a single wellpad and C02 EOR operations that are under common ownership o r common control includin g leased , rented , or contracted activities by an onshore petrol eu m and natu r a l gas

20 ! d. at 69. 2 1 /d. at 70
. 22 /d. at 68, quoting Sierra Club at 71 I

. Aga in , as Petitioners note, the "plaintiff [in Sierra Club, In c. v. Tyson Foods, In c.] [did not] make the argument that the four operations should cons t itute a single faci li ty under EPCRA. " Petition at 68, n.388 (emphasis added) (citatio n om itted). 23 See, e.g. , U.S. Envt l. Protection Agency, Greenhouse Gas Emiss ions R eporting from the Petroleum and Natural Gas In du stry Backg round Tec hni cal Support Document (Docket J.D. No
. EPA

- HQ-OAR

- 2009-0923) at 19, available at http: // www2.epa.gov/ s ites/production/files/ 20 15-05 /documents / subpart-w

_ tsd.pdf ("Onshore p et rol eum and natural gas production operations can b e very div erse in anangement. Somet im es crude oil and natural gas producing wellheads are far apart with individual equipment at each we llh ead. Altematively, several wells in close proximity may be connected to common pieces of equipment. Wheth e r wells are connected to common equipment or individual equipment depends on factors such as distance between we ll s, production rate, and owne rship and roya lty payment. New well dril lin g techniques such as horizontal and directional drilling allow for multiple wellheads to be located at a single location (o r pad) from where they are drill ed to connec t to different zones in the same reservoir. Therefo re, the conventional faci lity definition of a 'contiguous area' under a common owner I ope rato r cannot be easi ly applied to the onshore petroleum and natural gas produc ti on indu st ry seg ment. "). See also, U.S. E nvtl. Protection Agency, Cons iderations for the Regulation of Onshore Oi l Exploration and Production Faci l ities Under the Spill Prevention , Control, and Countermeasure Regulation {40 CF R Part I 12) (Docket J.D. No. EPA- HQ-OPA-2007-0584-00 15) at 28 (May 30, 2007), available at http: // www.regulations.gov ("O il extraction and production facility owners do not necessarily own the l and on which they operate a well and a tank battery. Many only lease the right to extract oil and gas from a g iven parcel of land. T he relation s hip of the production facility to the land varies depending on who owns th e minerals ri ght s, i.e., whether a pri vate citizen or a govemment e ntity ( fed e ral or state). 6 5 I n ei th er situatio n , the owne r of the min eral resourc es ma y differ fro m the owne r of the land abov e it. I n exchange for extract in g mineral s, the lea se owner (' lessee') pays royalties, and potential ly also renta l s and bonuses, to the mineral rights owne r (' lessor ')
. " (Footnote 66 omitted). Footnote 65 states: "Eve n on private lands, a private entity ma y own the su rface while the governmen t hold the rights to the oil and gas underneath. In s uch 'sp lit-e states,' mineral ri g ht s are di st inct from land ownership
. " 24 Petition at 70

- 72
. 

### 8production owner or operator and that are located in a sing le hydrocarbon basin as defined in § 98.238. Where a person or entity owns or operates more than one we ll in a basin, then all onshore petroleum and natural gas production equipment associated with all we ll s that the person or entity owns or operates in the basin would be considered one faci li ty. 25 Importantly , th is tetm was not a statutorily-d efined term under the CAA. Rath e r , EPA developed this reg ulatory definition based on it s "broad authority to require emissions sources, persons subject to the CAA , manufacturers of process or contro l equipment, or persons whom the Administ rato r believes may have necessary information to monitor and report emissions and provide such other inf ormati on as the Administrator requests for the purposes of carrying out any provision of the CAA." 2 6 By contrast, entities subject to EPCRA 

### § 313 reporting are limited to those that meet the EPCRA s tatutory definition of " facility " at EPCRA 

### § 329(4) , 42 U
. S.C. 

### § 110 49(4)
. Petitioners ' argument that the broad "hydrocarbon basin" approach, which was developed in a wholly different statutory regime unconstrained by the EPCRA statutory definition of " facility, " shou ld a lso apply to the EPCRA d efi nition of"faci lity" fai l s to art iculate how this approach squares with that statutory definition. Petitioners ' "hydrocarbon basin " argument is thus unavailing. Finally, and of great sign ifi cance to E PA 's consideration of this petition , EPA is already engaged in a wide array of rulemaking , guidance, research and other outreach activities targeting the oil and gas extraction sector. For example: Research

A i r • On June 4 , 2015, EPA released the draft Assessment of the Potential Imp acts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources for public comment and scienti fic peer review through EPA's independent Science Advisory Board. 

### See www.epa.gov/ hfstudy. Congress urged EPA to conduct this study to better understand th e factors and drivers that may affect the frequency and severity of potential impacts.

• On August 16,2012 the EPA finalized the first federa l a ir regulations for natural gas wells that are hydraulically fractured (40 CFR pai1 60, subpart 0000 (2012 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)), along w ith requirements for several other air emission sources in the oil and gas industry th at were not regulated at the federal level. These other em ission sources included : 

### o Centrifugal and rec iprocating compressors in production and processing ; o Pneumatic contro ll ers in production and processing ; o Sto r age vessels; and o Equipment leaks at natural gas process in g plants
.

25 40 C.F. R. § 98.238. E PA further defined " ba s in " to m ea n "geo logic provinces as defined by the Am e rican Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) Geologic Note: AAPG-CSD Geologic Provinces Code Map: AAPG Bulletin , Prepared b y Richard F. Meyer, Laure G. Wallace , and Fred J. Wagner , Jr. , Volume 75, Number 1 0 (Oc tober 1991) (incorporated by reference , see§ 98.7) and the A laska Geological Province Boundary Map, Co mpiled b y the American Association of Petroleum Geologists Committee on Statistics of Drilling in Coo peration with the USGS, 1978 (i ncorporated by reference, see§ 98.7)." 40 C.F.R. § 98.238 26 75 Fed. Reg. 74458, 74460 (Nov. 30, 20 I0). 

### 9• On Jan. 14 ,2015 , EPA outli ned a series of regulatory and non-regulatory s teps the Agency plans to take to add r ess methane and smog-forming vo lat i le organ ic co mp ound (VOC) emissions from th e oil and gas indu s try . See www.epa.gov/ airq u a lit y / oilandgas/ pdfs/ 20 150 114fs.pdf.

• On Jul y 31, 20 1 5, E PA re lease d a propo se d f ra m ework fo r a new M e th a ne C hallenge Program w hich provides a pl atf o rm for individual co mp a ni es to set commitments to r e duc e methan e e mi ss ions that can be publicl y tracked and recognized. See www.epa.gov/g asstar / m et hanechallen ge/
. Th e Agency sought comme nt on the prop osed framework a nd plans to fina li ze the program in late 2015.

• O n Augus t 18 , 20 1 5 , th e EPA A dmini strator sig ned p roposed updates to the 2012 NS P S that build on the 20 12 NSPS for th e oil and gas indu s try to achieve add iti o n a l reductions in methane and VOCs. See www.e pa. gov/a irqu ality/o iland gas/ac tion s . html. That Proposed Rule was published for public comment in the Fede ral Reg ister at 80 Fed. Reg. 56,593 (Se pt. 18 , 20 1 5)
. T his action ex pand s th e 20 12 NSPS to cover g ree nhouse gases (GHG)

- m e thane

- from so urces a lready covered by VOC st andards
. These upd ates also add methan e a nd VOC s tandard s for some currently unregulated sou rce s, in cluding: 

### o H yd raulically fr actured oil wells; 

### o Fugitive em iss ions (leaks) f rom well s ites and comp ressor stations; 

### o Pneumatic pumps; 

### o Ce ntrifu ga l and reciprocating compre sso rs in transmission and sto rage; and 

### o Pneumatic co ntro ll e rs in tran s mi ss io n an d sto ra ge .
• On August 18 , 20 1 5, E P A i ss ued draft Cont r o l T echniques Guideline s th at are intended to help s tate s id e nti fy a nd promote reasonab ly available control teclmolo gy to achieve VOC reductions f ro m existing sources in ozo ne no n atta inme nt areas (cl a ss ifi e d as moderate and above) and in the Ozone Tr ansport Reg io n in the Northeast. 

### See www . epa . gov/ airqualit y / oi land gas/ pdfs/ og

_ ctg

_ draft

_ 081815.pdf. T h at document was published for public comment in the Fe d eral Register at 80 F ed. Reg. 56,577 (Se pt. 18 , 20 15).

• E P A has two complementary effo rt s und e rway to characterize and improve o ur under standin g of GI

- IG emissions from th e o il and gas secto r: EPA's Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse G as Emission s and Sinks (US GHG In ve nto ry) (see www.epa.gov/ climatechan ge/g h gem iss ion s/); and E P A's Greenhouse Gas Repo rtin g Pro g ram (G HGRP ) (see www .epa. gov/ g hgreport in g/)
. Water • O n Febmary 5 , 20 14 , E PA issued an interpretive memorandum specific to the use of diesel fuels in hydraulic fracturi n g. See http: //water.epa.gov/ type/ grou nd wate r / uic/ cla ss2/ hydraulicfracturin g/upl oad / s ig nedmemo h fac ti v iti es u s in gd ie se l fue l s.pdf. Th e m e morandum d e fin es di ese l fuels and explains ho w hyd rauli c frac turing wi th diesel fuels i s s ubject to C la ss II injection we ll reg ul a ti o n s .
• In February , 20 14, E PA released it s final permitting g uidance specific to oi l and gas h yd ra uli cfract urin g ac ti vit i es using diesel fuels under th e Safe Drinkin g Water Ac t 's Und erground Injection Cont rol program. 

### See http: //water.epa.gov/ t ype/ groundwater / uic /class2/ hy dr au li cfracturing/up load/epa816r 1400 !.pdf. The guidance is designed to assist regulators, w hi ch could inclu de EP A , States and tribes , responsible fo r i ssuing permits and/or updating regulations for hydraulic frac turin g in protecting und e rgro und sou rces of drinking water and public health wherever hydra ulic fracturing occ urs . 1 0• On Febru ary 6 , 2015 , EPA released the E P A

- S tate Unde r gro und Inj ec tion Control (UIC) Nati o n a l Technical Workgroup (NTW) report , 

### Minimizing and Managing Potential Impacts of Injection-Induced Seismic i ty from Class JJ 

### Disposal Wells: Practical Approaches. See www.epa.gov/r5wate r / uic/ ntw g/p df s/ induced-seismicity-201502.pdf. This report was developed coope rat ive ly with states to he lp protect und erg round so urce s of d r inki ng water b y redu c in g the potential for induced se is micity.
• On Ap ril 7, 2015, EPA published proposed revisions to technology-based effluent limitati o n s guide lin es (E LG s) for o n s h o r e oil and gas ex tr action facilities (40 CFR P art 435). The proposed regulations wo uld establi s h pretreatment standards for discharges of wastewate r pollutants from ons hore unconventional oil and gas (U OG ) extractio n fac ilitie s to publicly-owned treatme nt works ( POTW s)
. 

### See 80 Fed
. Reg. 18557 (Ap r . 7, 20 15)
. For ad diti onal inf o rm at ion , see the rulemaking website: http ://water.epa.gov/ sci tec h / wastetech / gu id e/ oilandgas/ unconv.cfm.

• E P A is cond uc tin g a stud y of privately owned centra li zed waste treatment (CWT) facilities that accept o il and gas ex tract ion wastewa t er . EPA is so li c itin g data and in fo rmati o n re l ated to the exten t to w hich CWT facilities accept such was te water , available treatment technologies (and their assoc iate d costs) , discharge c haracteristics , financial characteristics of CWT facilities , th e env iro nm e nt a l imp ac t s of discharges from CWT facil iti es , as well as an y o th e r information believed to be relevant to E PA ' s stud y of this i ss ue. For add iti o nal information , see : http: //water.epa.gov/ sci tech/waste tech! g uid e/ cwt / ind ex.cf m# s tud y . C he m icals • On May 1 9 , 20 14 , in an Advance Not ice of Proposed Rulemaking pursuant to the T ox ic Substances Co ntro l Act (TSCA) , EPA an no un ced that it was seekin g public com me nt s on the infonnation that co uld be disclosed , und er TSCA , on hyd ra uli c f racturin g chemicals a nd mixtures and th e possible r eg ul ato ry a nd non-regulatory approaches for obtai nin g thi s infonnation. 

### See 79 Fed
. R eg . 28664 (May 1 9 , 20 1 4)
. Th e Age n cy is c urre nt ly reviewing comments and considering nex t steps
. Waste Management • Unde r the cu n·ent regulatory s truc ture, states have the primary ro le of r eg ul atin g oil and gas Exp l o rati o n and Prod uc ti on (E&P) was t es und e r their n o n-h azardou s (or, in some in stances , state oil and gas) programs. E PA has p rovided guidance to states r ega rdin g the exempt or non-exempt stat u s of spec ifi c E&P wastes 

### (e.g. , EPA's 

### Exemp tion ofO il and Gas Explorat i on and Production Was tes from Federal Hazardous Waste Regulations , October 2002 , EPA530

- K -Ol004 , a lso kn own as the 

### Green Book (see h ttp: //www.epa.gov/ wastes/ nonhaz/industrial/ special/ o i l/o il- gas.pdf)
. Also , to provide a resource fo r policy mak e rs , operato rs an d the public , in 20 14 the EPA ' s Office of Solid Waste a nd Eme rgency Response (OSWE R) updated it s waste-specific webs ite to reflect updated information on was te man age ment fo r was te s ge ner ate d from E&P act ivities, includin g unconventional oil and gas (UOG) ac ti v it ies . 

### See www . epa . gov/ epawaste/ nonha z/indu st rial / spec ial / o i ll hy dr ofrac .htm
. Emerge n cy Manageme n t • In 20 11 , EPA updated it s g uid ance to the " up stream sec tor" on how the Sp ill Prevention, Contro l, and Co un te rm eas ure rul e (S PCC) can app l y to facilities ( incl udin g oil production) in order to prevent oil di sc harg es from reachi n g the waters of the U.S. or adjo inin g s ho re lin es. 

### See http: //www2.epa
. gov/ o il- sp ill s -preve nti o n- a nd-prepared ness- reg ul a tion s/ s pill-preven ti on control-and-counte rm eas ure-spc-0
. II• In January, 2014, E PA iss ued an 

### Int e rim Chem ical Acciden t Prevention Adviso1y: Design of [Liquified Pe troleum Gas (LPG)} In stalla ti ons at Na tur al Gas Processing Plants to raise industry awareness of codes and stand ards th at may be app li cab le at suc h faci liti es. 

### See http: //www2
. epa . gov/ rrnp / interim-chemical-accident-preve ntion-advisory-d esig n-lpgin sta l lations-natura l

- gas-process ing. 

### II I. Co n c lu s i o n For the reasons discussed above, E PA hereby GRANTS, in part , th e Petition in sofar as it r equests th at E PA commence the rulemakin g process to propose adding natural gas processing facilities to the scope o fTRI. 27 A lso for the reason s discussed above , E PA hereby DEN IES the remainder of the Petiti o n. 

# / Dated: 

# (}c)- l1-; UJ 

# IJ

# ~2 G ina McCarthy Adminis trator

27 See note 1 2, s u p ra. 1 2