THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. Eric Schaeffer, Executive Director 

Mr. Adam Kron, Attorney 

Environmental Integrity Project 

1000 Vermont Avenue, NW, 11 111 floor 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

Dear Messrs. Schaeffer and Kron: 

WASHINGTON. 0 C 20460 

OCT 2 2 2015 

The Environmental Integrity Project, together with 16 o ther organizations, submitted in an October 24, 

2012, letter a petition to the U.S. Environmental Protectio n Agency pursuant to the Administrative 

Procedure Act to add the Oil and Gas Extraction industrial sector to the scope of sectors covered by the 

reporting requirements of section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, 

commonly known as the Taxies Release Inventory. The Environmenta l Integrity Project supplemented 

the petition by submitting additional materials on three other occasions: communications dated January 

30, 2014; May I, 20 14; and May 12,2014. 

The EPA is granting in part and denying in part your petition, and I have enclosed our formal response. 

I appreciate your interest in these issues and in ensuring that we provide the public with information 

about toxic-chemical releases and pollution-prevention activiti es, consistent with the EPA's statutory 

authority. 

Gi na McCarthy 

Enclosure 

Th1s paper IS pnnted w1lh vegetable-Oil-based mks and 1s 100-percent postconsumer recycled matenal. chlonne-free-processed and recyclable. 
Formal Response to October, 24, 2012, Petition to Add the Oil and Gas Extraction Industry, 

Standard Industrial Classification Code 13, to the List of Facilities Required to Report under 

Section 313 ofthe Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act 

By a letter dated October 24, 2012, the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP), together with 16 other 

organizations (collectively, Petitioners), 1 submitted a petition to the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA or the Agency) pursuant to section 553(e) of the Administrati ve Procedure Act (APA) to 

add the Oil and Gas Extraction industrial sector (Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 13) to the 

scope of industrial sectors covered by the reporting requirements of section 313 of the Emergency 

Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), 42 U.S.C. § II 023, commonly known as the 

Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). EIP supplemented the Petition by submitting additional materials on 

three other occasions: communications dated January 30, 2014; May 1, 20 14; and May 12, 2014. 

This document constitutes the EPA's response to the Petition. As explained below, the Agency hereby 

GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Petition. 

I. Background 

A. General 

Facilities must annually file TRI reports with EPA for each year in which the facility meets three 

criteria: 

I. The facility manufactures, processes, or otherwise uses a TRI-Iisted chemical in excess of the 

applicable reporting threshold; 

2. The facility has I 0 or more full-time employees (or equivalent); and 

3. The facility is in a TRI-covered industry sector.2 

The Petition requests that EPA modify the scope ofthe third criterion: the industry sectors to which the 

TRl reporting requirements apply. Congress established the original scope ofTRI sectors subject to 

Section 313 reporting, requiring reporting by facilities in the manufacturing sectors covered by SIC 

codes 20 th rough 39. Congress also granted the EPA Administrator the discretionary authority to add or 

delete sectors to/from the scope ofTRT.3 The Petition requests that EPA exercise its discretionary TRT 

sector addition authority to add the Oil and Gas Extraction sector, as defined by SIC code 13. 

SIC 13 is broad in scope, comprising the followi ng subsectors: 

• Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas (SIC 13 11 ); 

• Natural Gas Liquids (SIC 1321 ); 

• Drilling Oil and Gas Wells (SIC 138 1 ); 

1 The signatories to the October 24, 20 12 Petition were Environmenta llntegrity Project, Chesapeake Climate Action 

Network, CitizenShale, Clean Air Council, Clean Water Action, Delaware 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 Center for Effective Government), PennEnvironment, Powder River Basin Resource 

Council, San Juan Citizens Council, Sierra Club, and Texas Campaign for the Environment. PennFuture and Responsible 

Drilling Alliance also joined as signatories 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 Exploration Services (SIC 1382); and 

• Oil and Gas Field Services, Not Elsewhere Classified (SIC 1389). 

While the scope ofTR1 is defined in EPCR.A using SIC codes, the SIC classification system has been 

largely superseded by the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS), which EPA 

adopted for TRI purposes in 2006.

4 Thus, it is important to note that the SIC-defined subsectors listed 

above correspond to the following NAICS sectors, in whole or in part: 

• Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction (NAICS 211111); 

• Natural Gas Liquid Extraction (NAICS 21 1112); 

• Drilling Oil and Gas Wel ls (NAICS 2131 11); 

• Support Activities for Oil and Gas Operations (NAICS 213112); 

• Oil and Gas Pipeline and Related Structures Construction (NAICS 237120); 

• Site Preparation Contractors (NAICS 23891 0); and 

• Geophysical Surveying and Mapping Services (NAICS 541360) 

By requesting that EPA extend the TRI reporting requirements to SIC 13, the Petition requested that 

EPA add to TRl the SIC codes 1311 , 1321, 1381 , 1382, and 1389, along with the relevant portion of 

each corresponding NAICS code. 

To determine whether any or all of SIC 13 is appropriate for addition to TRI, it is useful not only to 

understand the oil and gas industry's sector classification but a lso the processes involved. According to 

EPA's Profile of the Oil and Gas Extraction Jndustry, 5 the oi l and gas extraction industry can be viewed 

as consisting of four major process steps: 

• Exploration- Exploration involves the search for rock formations associated with oil or 

natural gas deposits, and involves geophysical prospecting and/or exploratory drilling. 

• Well development and completion- Well development occurs after exploration has located 

an economically recoverable field, and involves the construction of one or more wells from 

the beginning (called "spudding") to either abandonn1ent if no hydrocarbons are found, or to 

well completion if hydrocarbons are found in sufficient quantities. During well development, 

the well is drilled using a drill bit in conjunction with drilling fluids, which often contain 

chemical additives, then cased to prevent the hole from caving in. Next, well completion 

occurs, which may involve such steps as testing, well casing perforation, well stimulation 

(including stimulation via hydraulic fracturing and/or acidizing), and production equipment 

install ation. 

• Production - Production is the process of extracting the hydrocarbons and separating the 

mixtme of liquid hydrocarbons, gas, water, and solids, removing the 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 oil refineries, which are 

classified as manufacturing faci lities (SIC 2911, Petroleum Refining; NAICS 324110, 

Petroleum Refineries) and are thus required to report TR1 information 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/comp I iance/resources/pub I ications/assistance/sectors/notebooks/oi I gas. pdf>. 

2 
may 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 requirements. 

• Site abandonment- Site abandonment involves plugging the well(s) and restoring the site 

when a recently-drilled well lacks the potential to produce economic 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 consisting of well-level operations and nonwell-level operations, the latter including refineries, natural gas processing plants, compressor stations, 

and booster stations. 

B. Petition 

To support its request that EPA add SIC 13 to TRI, the Petition points to three factors that EPA 

considered when it added six sectors to TRl in 1997:7 

• Chemical Factor - Whether one or more toxic chemicals are reasonably anticipated to be 

present at facilities within the candidate industry group. 

• Activity Factor- Whether facilities within the candidate industry group "manufacture," 

"process," or "otherwise use" these toxic chemicals. 

• Information Factor - Whether faci lities within the candidate industry group can reasonably 

be anticipated to increase the information made available pursuant to EPCRA section 313, or 

otherwise further the purposes of EPCRA § 313. This factor may include consideration of: 

(I) whether the addition of the candidate industry groi.tp would lead to reporting by facilities 

within that candidate industry group (e.g., whether facilities within the candidate industry 

group would conduct activities which exceed the reporting thresholds in section 313(f)); (2) 

whether facilities within the candidate industry group were likely 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 significant 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 TRI-Iisted chemicals are manufactured, processed, 

and/or otherwise used, as well as released to various environmental media, at oil and gas extraction 

facilities during each stage of the oil and gas extraction 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 Inorganic Chemicals, Not Elsewhere Classified) includes facilities that 

manufacture "sulfur, recovered or refined, including from sour natural gas." Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Exec. Office of the 

President, Standard Industrial Classification Manual ( 1987) (SIC 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 See 61 Fed. Reg. 33588, 33594 (June 27, 1996). 

3 
regulatory requirements are inadequate and that a significant number of oil and gas extraction facilities 

will meet the TRl reporting requirements and therefore submit TRl information to EPA. 

C. Supplemental Materials 

In support of the Petition, EIP also submitted 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 oil and gas extraction sector emissions data found in 

the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) and six state inventories (CO, LA, ND, PA, TX, and WY). ElP 

argued that its analysis 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 plants, 

booster stations, or compressor stations. Additionally, EIP contended in this submission that these 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 quantity, quality, and 

accessibility than state emissions inventories. 

2. May 1, 2014 S ubmission 

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 summarized the "shottcomings and recommendations" 

offered by the Task Force with respect to FracFocus 2.0,9 stating that "[e]ach of these shortcomings and 

recommendations is a way in which TRI repotting is superior to FracFocus and a way in which TRI 

reporting by the oil and gas extraction industry will increase the information made available to the 

public." 10 

3. May 12, 2014 Submission 

On May 12, 2014, EIP submitted a cover letter and copies of five white papers prepared by EPA's 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, dated April 20 14. These white papers included: 

• "Oil and Natural Gas Sector Compressors" 

• "Oil and Natural Gas Sector Hydraulically Fractured Oil Well Completions and Associated 

Gas during Ongoing Production" 

• "Oil and Natural Gas Sector Leaks" 

• "Oil and Natural Gas Sector Liquids Unloading Processes" 

• "Oil and Natural Gas Sector Pneumatic Devices" 

9 FracFocus is a national hydraulic fracturing chemical registry managed by the Ground Water Protection Council and 

Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. FracFocus 2.0 is the second version of the registry. See 

https://www. fracfocus.org. 

10 EIP submission dated May I, 2014, Cover Letter at 2. 

4 
Notably, 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 applicable information quality 

guidelines. It has not been fom1ally disseminated by EPA. It does not represent and should not be 

construed to represent any Agency determination or policy." 

EIP contends in its cover letter that "these white papers further demonstrate that the oil and gas sector 

releases a great deal of toxic chemicals to the air throughout its various processes, making it an excellent 

candidate for addition to the TRl." tt 

II. EPA Response to Petition 

A. General 

In order to determine whether to grant the Petition, in whole or in part, EPA looked at each stage of the 

oil and gas extraction process and considered not only the chemical, activity, and information factors 

applied during EPA's 1997 TRI sector addition, but also the extent to which existing and ongoing 

federal regulations, rulemakings, research, and other activities apply to the oil and gas extraction sector. 

After considering these factors, the Petition, and the Petition supplements, EPA has determined that the 

appropriate course of action at this time is to propose adding natural gas processing facilitiest 2 to the 

scope ofTRl, but to decline to propose adding the remainder of SIC 13. 

B. GRANT, in part 

EPA 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 survey), there were 517 natural gas processing plants in the lower 48 states as 

of 2012. EPA estimates that over half of these facili ties would annually meet TRI reporting thresholds 

and, if covered by the reporting requirements of TRI, be required to submit TRI information to EPA. 

The information likely to be obtained from these faci lities is not readily available elsewhere. 

Applying the three factors that EPA considered in the 1997 TRI sector addition, the chemical factor and 

activity factor are met by most natural gas processing facilities: many TRY-listed chemicals are regularly 

manufactured, processed, or otherwise used at these facilities. Using information from Canada's 

National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRT), a program analogous to TRl and which covers natural gas 

processing plants, EPA estimates that natural gas processing facilities in the U.S. manufacture, process, 

or otherwise use more than 25 different TRl-listed chemicals. These chemicals include hydrogen sulfide, 

benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene. 

With respect to the information factor, the addition of natural gas processing facilities to TRI would 

meaningfully increase the information available to the public and further the purposes ofEPCRA § 313. 

EPA estimates that more than half of the 5 I 7 natural gas processing plants in the U.S. would meet the 

TRI employee threshold (I 0 full-time employees or equivalent) and manufacture, process, or otherwise 

usc at least one TRl-listed chemical in excess of applicable threshold quantities. Unlike the remainder of 

11 El P submission dated May 12, 2014, Cover Lener at 2. 

12 In the forthcoming rulernaking process to add natural gas processing plants to TRI, EPA anticipates providing additional 

detail as to the precise SICINAICS codes, or portions thereof, that will be proposed for addition. 

5 
this industrial sector (as discussed below), natural gas processing plants readily meet the statutory 

definition of"facility" at EPCRA § 329(4), 42 U.S.C. § 11049(4). Furthermore, based upon information 

submitted to Canada 's NPRI and the 2012 EIA-757 survey of natural gas processors, EPA expects that 

TRI reporting by U.S. natural gas processing facilities would provide significant release and waste 

management data. 

While EPA's National Emissions Inventory (NEI) program also collects and publishes air emissions 

data pertaining to natural gas processing plants, TRI reporting by these facilities would offer key 

benefits not provided by the NEI. First, the NEI is limited to air emissions, whereas TRI requires 

disclosure of release to air, land, and water, as well as waste management and pollution prevention 

information. Second, the NEI is published on a triennial basis, whereas the TRI is published annually. 

Third, the different purposes of the two programs drive different uses of the data. TRI was developed to 

provide the public with information about the disposition of toxic chemicals in their communities, 

whereas the NEI was developed to collect data to support air modeling and risk assessments at the 

national level. Given TRI's community-right-to-know foundations, TRI data are designed to be 

especially accessible and manipulable, and the systems that offer them to the public over the Web 

provide numerous analysis, download, and visualization tools. 

As a result of these considerations, the Agency agrees with the portion of the Petition asking that EPA 

commence the rulemaking process to propose adding natural gas processing facilities to the scope of 

TRI. 

C. DENY, in part 

EPA agrees with Petitioners that numerous processes within the Oil and Gas Extraction sector are 

associated with significant quantities of TRI-listed chemicals. However, several factors lead EPA to 

decline to add this sector, with the exception of natural gas processing plants, to the scope of TRI at this 

time. As explained below, Petitioners have failed to adequately address the Agency's conclusion, stated 

in 1996, that "taken at the smallest unit (individual well), neither the employee nor the chemical 

thresholds are likely to be met." 61 FR 33588, 33592 (June 27, 1996). Additionally, as detailed more 

fully later in this response, EPA is currently engaging in a number of activities, including rulemaking, 

research, guidance, and other outreach, targeting the oil and gas extraction sector. 

SIC 13 is unique in that many activities within the sector may manufacture, process, use, and/or release 

significant quantities ofTRl-listed chemicals, yet the activities are often spread over a vast geographical 

area and require few employees to operate. Consequently, taking these activities at the smallest 

individual unit (individual well, compressor station, booster station, etc.), neither the employee nor the 

chemical thresholds are likely to be met on a regular basis. EPA estimates that, as a result, TRI reporting 

from such well-level activities would present a limited picture of the chemical releases associated with 

these activities. 

In the Petition, Petitioners contend that the case of Sierra Club, inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. 13 supports a 

broad interpretation of the definition of " facility," as defined by EPCRA § 329(4), for TRI purposes. 

That case involved four chicken operations, each with numerous chicken houses. These houses, 

according to the facts of the case, were "generally 40 to 43 feet wide and 400 to 500 feet long and 

13 Sierra Club, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 299 F. Supp. 2d 693 (W.O. Ky. 2003). 

6 
generally 50 to 60 feet apart." 14 The four "operations" "share[ d) common access roads and 

interconnecting roads. " 15 At issue in that case was, inter alia, whether each chicken operation 16 

constituted a single "facility," as defined under EPCRA, or, a lternatively, each chicken house on the 

single farm/operation constituted a single " facility." In addressing this question, the court noted that 

EPCRA defines the term "facility" as follows: 

The term "facility" means all buildings, equipment, structures, and other stationary items 

which are located on a single site or on contiguous or adjacent sites and which are owned 

or operated by the same person (or by any person which controls, is controlled by, or under 

common control with, such person). For purposes of section ll 004 of this title, the term 

includes motor vehicles, rolling stock, and aircraft. 17 

As Petitioners note, the court then concluded: 

Each of defendants' chicken production operations is a facility under this definition. The 

chicken production operations include multiple chicken houses that are located on single 

or adjacent sites within a concentrated area. These chicken houses are owned by the same 

person for purposes of producing chickens. Accordingly, each of defendants' chicken 

production operations is clearly a facility under EPCRA from which ammonia releases 

must be reported on a site-wide basis. 

For the reasons set forth above, the Court concludes that a whole chicken farm site is a 

facili ty under ... EPCRA for which releases must be reported. 18 

That is. the Court concluded that each chicken ·'house·· was not a separate "facility," but rather the 

chicken farm/operation constituted a single "facility.•· As Petitioners note, the ·'plaintiff [in Sierra Club, 

Inc. v. Tyson Foods, inc.] [did not] make the argument that the four operations should constitute a single 

facil ity under EPCRA." Petition at 68, n.388 (emphasis added) (citation omitted). 

Petitioners contend that this decision in Sierra Club, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, inc. supports the notion that 

certain concentrations of oil and gas wells would also fit within the statutory definition of "facility" in 

EPCRA § 329(4). Specifically, Petitioners point to examples in Pennsylvania and Wyoming. Petitioners 

assert that, as of December 11 ,2011 , Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation owned and operated 137 wells in the 

municipality of Dimock, PA within a 3.59-mile radius, or approximately 40 square miles; that Talisman 

Energy owned and operated 174 wells in the municipality of Columbia, PA within a 4.64-mile radius, or 

approximately 67 square miles; and that EOG Resources owned and operated 122 wells in the 

municipality of Lawrence, PA within a radius of3.1 miles, or approximately 30 square miles. 19 Fina ll y, 

Petitioners assert that in the Jonah Field Infill Drilling Project Area in Wyoming (Jonah Field), various 

companies owned and operated 2,323 wells within an area equivalent to approximately 32 square 

~ !d. at 700. 

IS fd. 

16 The court used the term "operation" 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 Club at 71 I. 

19 Petition at 68- 69. 

7 
miles.2° With I ,743 wells within Jonah Field, according to the Petition, Encana Oil and Gas USA, Inc., 

owned and operated the most wells within that area.21 

Notably, however, the average distances between these oil and gas operations far exceed the "50 to 60 

feet" separating the chicken houses in Sierra Club, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. Perhaps more importantly, 

in Sierra Club, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., the chicken houses were clearly " located on single or adjacent 

sites ... owned by the same person.'m Onshore petroleum and natural gas production operations can be 

very diverse in arrangement, and are simply not analogous to a number of"chicken houses" located on a 

single farm with a single owner/operator.23 Consequently, the Sierra Club, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. case 

does not support the broad interpretation ofthe term "facility," as defined at EPCRA § 329(4), proposed 

by Petitioners. 

Petitioners also contend that. EPA could interpret the EPCRA definition of "facility" similarly to the 

"hydrocarbon basin" approach taken by EPA in the context of greenhouse gas reporting.24 In that 

context, EPA promulgated via rulemaking the following definition of facility for purposes of greenhouse 

gas reporting under the CAA: 

Facility with respect to onshore petroleum and natural gas production for purposes of 

reporting under this subpart and for the corresponding subpart A requirements means all 

petroleum or natural gas equipment on a single well-pad or associated with a single wellpad and C02 EOR operations that are under common ownership or common control 

including leased, rented, or contracted activities by an onshore petroleum and natural gas 

20 !d. at 69. 

2 1 /d. at 70. 

22 /d. at 68, quoting Sierra Club at 71 I . Again, as Petitioners note, the "plaintiff [in Sierra Club, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc.] 

[did not] make the argument that the four operations should constitute a single faci lity under EPCRA." Petition at 68, n.388 

(emphasis added) (citation omitted). 

23 See, e.g., U.S. Envtl. Protection Agency, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting from the Petroleum and Natural Gas 

Industry Background Technical Support Document (Docket J.D. No. EPA- HQ-OAR- 2009-0923) at 19, available at 

http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/20 15-05/documents/subpart-w_tsd.pdf ("Onshore petroleum and natural gas 

production operations can be very diverse in anangement. Sometimes crude oil and natural gas producing wellheads are far 

apart with individual equipment at each wellhead. Altematively, several wells in close proximity may be connected to 

common pieces of equipment. Whether wells are connected to common equipment or individual equipment depends on 

factors such as distance between wells, production rate, and ownership and royalty payment. New well drilling techniques 

such as horizontal and directional drilling allow for multiple wellheads to be located at a single location (or pad) from where 

they are drilled to connect to different zones in the same reservoir. Therefore, the conventional faci lity definition of a 

'contiguous area' under a common owner I operator cannot be easily applied to the onshore petroleum and natural gas 

production industry segment."). See also, U.S. Envtl. Protection Agency, Considerations for the Regulation of Onshore Oil 

Exploration and Production Facilities Under the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Regulation {40 CFR 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 ("Oil 

extraction and production facility owners do not necessarily own the land on which they operate a well and a tank battery. 

Many only lease the right to extract oil and gas from a given parcel of land. The relationship of the production facility to the 

land varies depending on who owns the minerals rights, i.e., whether a private citizen or a govemment entity (federal or 

state).65 In either situation, the owner of the mineral resources may differ from the owner of the land above it. In exchange for 

extracting minerals, the lease owner ('lessee') pays royalties, and potentially also rentals and bonuses, to the mineral rights 

owner ('lessor')." (Footnote 66 omitted). Footnote 65 states: "Even on private lands, a private entity may own the surface 

while the government hold the rights to the oil and gas underneath. In such 'split-estates,' mineral rights are distinct from 

land ownership." 

24 Petition at 70- 72. 

8 
production owner or operator and that are located in a single hydrocarbon basin as defined 

in § 98.238. Where a person or entity owns or operates more than one well in a basin, then 

all onshore petroleum and natural gas production equipment associated with all wells that 

the person or entity owns or operates in the basin would be considered one faci li ty.25 

Importantly, this tetm was not a statutorily-defined term under the CAA. Rather, EPA developed this 

regulatory definition based on its "broad authority to require emissions sources, persons subject to the 

CAA, manufacturers of process or control equipment, or persons whom the Administrator believes may 

have necessary information to monitor and report emissions and provide such other information as the 

Administrator requests for the purposes of carrying out any provision of the CAA."26 

By contrast, entities subject to EPCRA § 313 reporting are limited to those that meet the EPCRA 

statutory definition of " facility" at EPCRA § 329(4), 42 U.S.C. § 11049(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," should also apply to the EPCRA 

definition of"facility" fai ls to articulate how this approach squares with that statutory definition. 

Petitioners' "hydrocarbon basin" argument is thus unavailing. 

Finally, and of great significance to EPA'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 

Air 

• On June 4, 2015, EPA released the draft Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic 

Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources for public comment and scientific peer review through 

EPA's independent Science Advisory Board. See www.epa.gov/hfstudy. Congress urged EPA to 

conduct this study to better understand the factors and drivers that may affect the frequency and 

severity of potential impacts. 

• On August 16,2012 the EPA finalized the first federal air regulations for natural gas wells that 

are hydraulically fractured (40 CFR pai1 60, subpart 0000 (2012 New Source Performance 

Standards (NSPS)), along with requirements for several other air emission sources in the oil and 

gas industry that were not regulated at the federal level. These other emission sources included: 

o Centrifugal and reciprocating compressors in production and processing; 

o Pneumatic controllers in production and processing; 

o Storage vessels; and 

o Equipment leaks at natural gas processing plants. 

25 40 C.F.R. § 98.238. EPA further defined " basin" to mean "geologic provinces as defined by the American Association of 

Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) Geologic Note: AAPG-CSD Geologic Provinces Code Map: AAPG Bulletin, Prepared by 

Richard F. Meyer, Laure G. Wallace, and Fred J. Wagner, Jr. , Volume 75, Number 10 (October 1991) (incorporated by 

reference, see§ 98.7) and the Alaska Geological Province Boundary Map, Compiled by the American Association of 

Petroleum Geologists Committee on Statistics of Drilling in Cooperation with the USGS, 1978 (incorporated by reference, 

see§ 98.7)." 40 C.F.R. § 98.238 

26 75 Fed. Reg. 74458, 74460 (Nov. 30, 20 I 0). 

9 
• On Jan. 14,2015, EPA outlined a series of regulatory and non-regulatory steps the Agency plans 

to take to address methane and smog-forming volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from 

the oil and gas industry. See www.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/ pdfs/20 150 114fs.pdf. 

• On July 31, 2015, EPA released a proposed framework for a new Methane Challenge Program 

which provides a platform for individual companies to set commitments to reduce methane 

emissions that can be publicly tracked and recognized. See www.epa.gov/gasstar/ 

methanechallenge/. The Agency sought comment on the proposed framework and plans to 

finalize the program in late 2015. 

• On August 18, 20 15, the EPA Administrator signed proposed updates to the 2012 NSPS that 

build on the 2012 NSPS for the oil and gas industry to achieve additional reductions in methane 

and VOCs. See www.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/actions.html. That Proposed Rule was 

published for public comment in the Federal Register at 80 Fed. Reg. 56,593 (Sept. 18, 20 15). 

This action expands the 20 12 NSPS to cover greenhouse gases (GHG) - methane - from sources 

already covered by VOC standards. These updates also add methane and VOC standards for 

some currently unregulated sources, including: 

o Hydraulically fractured oil wells; 

o Fugitive emissions (leaks) from well sites and compressor stations; 

o Pneumatic pumps; 

o Centrifugal and reciprocating compressors in transmission and storage; and 

o Pneumatic controllers in transmission and storage. 

• On August 18, 20 15, EPA issued draft Control Techniques Guidelines that are intended to help 

states identify and promote reasonably available control teclmology to achieve VOC reductions 

from existing sources in ozone nonattainment areas (classified as moderate and above) and in the 

Ozone Transport Region in the Northeast. See www.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/pdfs/ 

og_ctg_draft_081815.pdf. That document was published for public comment in the Federal 

Register at 80 Fed. Reg. 56,577 (Sept. 18, 20 15). 

• EPA has two complementary efforts underway to characterize and improve our understanding of 

GI-IG emissions from the oil and gas sector: EPA's Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

and Sinks (US GHG Inventory) (see www.epa.gov/ climatechange/ghgemissions/); and EPA's 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) (see www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/). 

Water 

• On Febmary 5, 20 14, EPA issued an interpretive memorandum specific to the use of diesel fuels 

in hydraulic fracturi ng. See http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/ 

hydraulicfracturing/upload/signedmemohfactivitiesusingdieselfuels.pdf. The memorandum 

defines diesel fuels and explains how hydrauli c frac turing with diesel fuels is subject to Class II 

injection we ll regulations. 

• In February, 20 14, EPA released its final permitting guidance specific to oil and gas hydraulicfracturing activities using diesel fuels under the Safe Drinking Water Act's Underground 

Injection Control program. See http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/ 

hydraulicfracturing/upload/epa816r 1400 !.pdf. The guidance is designed to assist regulators, 

which could include EPA, States and tribes, responsible for issuing permits and/or updating 

regulations for hydraulic fracturing in protecting underground sources of drinking water and 

public health wherever hydraulic fracturing occurs. 

10 
• On February 6, 2015, EPA released the EPA-State Underground Injection Control (UIC) 

National Technical Workgroup (NTW) report, Minimizing and Managing Potential Impacts of 

Injection-Induced Seismicity from Class JJ Disposal Wells: Practical Approaches. See 

www.epa.gov/r5water/uic/ntwg/pdfs/induced-seismicity-201502.pdf. This report was developed 

cooperatively with states to help protect underground sources of drinking water by reducing the 

potential for induced seismicity. 

• On April 7, 2015, EPA published proposed revisions to technology-based effluent limitations 

guidelines (ELGs) for onshore oil and gas extraction facilities (40 CFR Part 435). The proposed 

regulations would establish pretreatment standards for discharges of wastewater pollutants from 

onshore unconventional oil and gas (UOG) extraction facilities to publicly-owned treatment 

works (POTWs). See 80 Fed. Reg. 18557 (Apr. 7, 20 15). For additional information, see the 

rulemaking website: http://water.epa.gov/ scitech/wastetech/guide/oilandgas/unconv.cfm. 

• EPA is conducting a study of privately owned centralized waste treatment (CWT) facilities that 

accept oil and gas extraction wastewater. EPA is soliciting data and information related to the 

extent to which CWT facilities accept such wastewater, available treatment technologies (and 

their associated costs), discharge characteristics, financial characteristics of CWT facilities, the 

environmental impacts of discharges from CWT facil ities, as well as any other information 

believed to be relevant to EPA's study of this issue. For additional information, see: 

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech!guide/ cwt/index.cfm#study. 

Chemicals 

• On May 19, 2014, in an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking pursuant to the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA announced that it was seeking public comments on the 

infonnation that could be disclosed, under TSCA, on hydraulic fracturing chemicals and 

mixtures and the possible regulatory and non-regulatory approaches for obtaining this 

infonnation. See 79 Fed. Reg. 28664 (May 19, 20 14). The Agency is currently reviewing 

comments and considering next steps. 

Waste Management 

• Under the cun·ent regulatory structure, states have the primary role of regulating oil and gas 

Exploration and Production (E&P) wastes under their non-hazardous (or, in some instances, state 

oil and gas) programs. EPA has provided guidance to states regarding the exempt or non-exempt 

status of specific E&P wastes (e.g. , EPA's Exemption ofOil and Gas Exploration and 

Production Wastes from Federal Hazardous Waste Regulations, October 2002, EPA530-K-Ol004, also known as the Green Book (see http://www.epa.gov/wastes/nonhaz/industrial/special/ 

oil/oil-gas.pdf). Also, to provide a resource for policy makers, operators and the public, in 2014 

the EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) updated its waste-specific 

website to reflect updated information on waste management for wastes generated from E&P 

activities, including unconventional oil and gas (UOG) activities. See www.epa.gov/epawaste/ 

nonhaz/industrial/special/oillhydrofrac.htm. 

Emergency Management 

• In 2011 , EPA updated its guidance to the "upstream sector" on how the Spill Prevention, 

Control, and Countermeasure rule (SPCC) can apply to facilities (including oil production) in 

order to prevent oil discharges from reaching the waters of the U.S. or adjoining shorelines. See 

http://www2.epa.gov/oil-spills-prevention-and-preparedness-regulations/spill-preventioncontrol-and-countermeasure-spc-0. 

II 
• In January, 2014, EPA issued an Interim Chemical Accident Prevention Adviso1y: Design of 

[Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG)} Installations at Natural Gas Processing Plants to raise 

industry awareness of codes and standards that may be applicable at such faci lities. See 

http://www2.epa.gov/rrnp/interim-chemical-accident-prevention-advisory-design-lpginstallations-natural-gas-processing. 

III. Conclusion 

For the reasons discussed above, EPA hereby GRANTS, in part, the Petition insofar as it requests that 

EPA commence the rulemaking process to propose adding natural gas processing facilities to the scope 

ofTRI. 27 Also for the reasons discussed above, EPA hereby DENIES the remainder of the Petition. 

/ 

Dated: (}c)- l1-; UJ IJ 

G

~2 ina McCarthy 

Administrator 

27 See note 12, supra. 

12