BEVERIDGE &

&DIAMOND~

Mark N. Duvall

1350 I street, N.W.

Suite 700

Washington, D.C. 20005-7202

Direct: (202) 789-6090

Fax: (202) 789-6190

mduvall@bdlaw.com

By E-Mail to cleland-hamnett.wendy@epa.gov

October 26, 2011

Wendy Cleland-Hamnett (7401M)

Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Re: TSCA § 21 Petition Regarding Oil and Gas Exploration and Production

Chemicals; Comments of Hallburton Energy Services, Inc.

Dear Ms. Cleland-Hamnett:

Attached is a copy of the comments of Hallburton Energy Services, Inc. on the petition

fied with your office under section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act related to oil and gas

exploration and production chemicals. The petition was posted on the EPA website at

http://ww.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/pubs/petitions.html#petition7 . EPA's response is due by

November 2, 2011.

Please contact me if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely, I'~N.b~

Mark N. Duvall

Counsel for Hallburton Energy Services, Inc.

Attachment

Washington, D.C. Maryland New York Massachusetts New Jersey Texas California
Comments of Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. on

Section 21 Petition Regarding Oil and Gas

Exploration and Production Chemicals

Of Counsel:

Mark N. Duvall

Beveridge & Diamond, P.C.

1350 I Street, N.W., Suite 700

Washington, DC 20005

(202) 789-6090

mduvall@bdlaw.com

Jason C. Moore

Counsel

Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.

2107 City West Boulevard (4-1335A)

Houston, TX 77042-3051

(713) 839-3283

j ason.moore3@halliburton.com

October 26,2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................1

DISCUSSION ...........................................................................................................................2

1. Halliburton's Interest in the Petition.............................................................................2

2. Background on Hydraulic Fracturing ...........................................................................3

a. Economic Impact of Hydraulic Fracturing. ............................ ..........................3

b. Preventing Adverse Health or Environmental Impacts ....................................5

c. Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing..................................................................8

3. Information on the Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing Is Available..................9

a. Chemical Identities ...........................................................................................9

b. Hazard and Exposure Information..................................................................11

4. Protecting Intellectual Property Is Important to Innovation.......................................13

5. The Petition Fails to Justify EPA Taking Action Under TSCA .................................14

a. The Petition Fails to Identify the Chemicals and Mixtures

for Which Action Under TSCA Is Requested ................................................14

b. The Petition Asks for Action on Unprecedented Numbers

of Chemicals and Mixtures............................................................................ .15

c. The Petition Fails to Meet the Section 4 Requirements for Testing.............. .15

d. The Petition Fails to Establish That a Section 8(a) Rule Is Reasonable

or Necessary....................................................................................................l 7

e. The Requested Section 8(c) Call-In Order Is Not Petitionable

Under Section 21 ............................................... .................. .......................... .18

f. The Petition Fails to Justify the Requested Section 8( d) Rule .......................18

CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................19
COMMENTS OF

HALLIBURTION ENERGY SERVICES, INC.

Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (Halliburton) offers the following comments on the

citizens' petition (the Petition) submitted to EPA on August 4, 2011 under section 21 of the

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) regarding oil and gas exploration and production

chemicals (E&P Chemicals). EPA posted information about the Petition on its website,

http://ww.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/pubs/petitions.html#petition 7. Halliburton appreciates the

opportunity to comment.

EPA should deny the Petition in its entirety. The requested actions are unnecessary, and

the Petition fails to justify why EPA should take any action under TSCA.

These comments first explain Halliburton's interest in the Petition. They then provide

background on hydraulic fracturing that should inform EPA's review of the Petition, including

the importance of hydraulic fra:euring to energy production in the United States; ongoing

activities to reduce the potential for environmental effects from hydraulic fracturing; and the

large amount of information already available on the identities and effects of chemicals used in

hydraulic fracturing. Because the Petition is primarily focused on public disclosure of chemical

identities, the comments also address the importance of protecting intellectual property related to

the exact composition of particular hydraulic fracturing formulations. The comments then

address why EPA should deny each of the actions requested in the Petition on the ground that the

Petition fails to meet the criteria under TSCA for taking any of those actions.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Petition asks EPA to take four actions under TSCA with respect to what it calls E&P

Chemicals. While the term used is broader than just chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, the

Petition appears to be concerned primarily with hydraulic fracturing, so most of Halliburton's

comments focus on hydraulic fracturing.

The Petition misrepresents the potential for harm to health or the environment from

hydraulic fracturing. Any oil and gas exploration or development has the potential for adverse

impact if performed incorrectly. Halliburton has helped lead the industry in development of

good engineering practices for hydraulic fracturing so as to minimize the potential for harm.

Halliburton has also introduced-innovative technology and products to reduce usage of

chemicals, biocides, and water in the hydraulic fracturing process. Hydraulic fracturing is

thoroughly regulated by state oil and gas commissions, and EPA is acting under the Clean Air

Act to address air emissions from wells driled using hydraulic fracturing.

The Petition mischaracterizes the information available on chemicals used in hydraulic

fracturing fluids. The information available today is far more extensive than was previously the

case. That information may not completely satisfy the petitioners, but the Petition has manifestly

failed to establish that there is a need for EPA to act under TSCA to obtain additional

information.

- 1 -
While the identities of most chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids are disclosed

publicly, Halliburton and other service companies protect trade secret chemical identities for

select components. Protecting trade secrets is crucial to continued innovation in hydraulic

fracturing. Such innovation leads to increased production of oil and gas (with the economic and

security benefits that entails) and reduced reliance on biocides and other chemicals, as well as

reduced use of fresh water. Congress and every state which regulates hydraulic fracturing have

enacted legal protections for this critical intellectual property.

The Petition fails to meet the TSCA requirements for taking the requested actions. First,

it should be noted that the Petition asks for action with respect to unprecedented numbers of

chemicals and mixtures, meaning that granting the requests could require EPA to devote huge

amounts of its limited resources under TSCA just to deal with this issue. With respect to the

request for a test rule under section 4, the petition has failed to show that hydraulic fracturing

fluids may pose an unreasonable risk of harm to health or the environment or that testing is

necessary to develop data. The section 8(a) request for information is already addressed by state

oil and gas commission data collections and by EPA's Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule.

The fact that in the CDR rule EPA has partial exemptions for many chemicals produced and used

in the oil and gas industry shows that EPA does not feel there is a need for the requested

information. Moreover, the request for a call-in of section 8( c) allegations is simply not relief

available under section 8( c), and EPA has denied a similar request in the past. There is also no

need shown for a rule on health and safety studies for hundreds or thousands of chemicals under

section 8( d).

Accordingly, EPA should deny the petition.

DISCUSSION

1. Hallburton's Interest in the Petition

Founded in 1919, Halliburton is one of the world's largest providers of products and

services to the energy industry. With more than 60,000 employees in approximately 80

countries, the company serves the upstream oil and gas industry throughout the lifecycle of the

reservoir - from locating hydrocarbons and managing geological data, to drilling and formation

evaluation, well construction and completion, and optimizing production through the life of the

field. More information is available on its website at ww.halliburton.com.

More particularly, Halliburton was the original commercial developer of hydraulic

fracturing, first using the process in 1947 to stimulate the flow of natural gas from the Hugoton

field in Kansas. During the more than 60 years since then, Halliburton has led the industry in

improving the technology.

As an industry leader in hydraulic fracturing, Halliburton provided information to EPA

for its 2004 hydraulic fracturing study as well as its ongoing study of the relationship between

hydraulic fracturing and drinking water, and provided information in connection with a recent

Congressional inquiry into hydraulic fracturing. Halliburton was one of three service companies

to commit voluntarily to EPA in 2003 that they would not use diesel fuel in hydraulic fracturing

- 2 -
of coal beds containing underground sources of drinking water. Thus, Halliburton is uniquely

qualified to comment on the Petition.

Moreover, Halliburton is directly interested in the Petition because it and its affliates are

named in the Petition fourteen times, more than any other company. It is specifically named in

the request for a section 8(c) call-in. Clearly, Halliburton is an intended target of the Petition.

2. Background on Hydraulic Fracturing

Before addressing the actions under TSCA requested by the Petition, Halliburton wishes

to respond to the misimpressions about hydraulic fracturing created by the Petition.

a. Economic Impact of Hydraulic Fracturing

The Petition acknowledges (p. 2) that "(t)he growth of the oil and gas industry is

attributable to the widespread use of hydraulic fracturing." This grudging admission understates

the critical importance of hydraulic fracturing to U.S. energy independence and jobs.

i

For example, the 90-day interim report of the Natural Gas Subcommittee of the Secretary

of Energy Advisory Board explains that hydraulic fracturing is the key to shale gas development,

which is having a huge impact on the economy:

The economic significance of (shale gas) is potentially very large. While estimates vary,

well over 200,000 jobs (direct, indirect, and induced) have been created over the last

several years by the domestic production of shale gas, and tens of thousands more wil be

created in the future. As late as 2007, before the impact of the shale gas revolution, it

was assumed that the United States would be importing large amounts of liquefied

natural gas from the Middle East and other areas. Today, the United States is essentially

self-sufficient in natural gas.... The price of natural gas has fallen by more than a factor

of two since 2008, benefiting consumers in the lower cost of home heating and

electricity.

The rapid expansion of production is rooted in change in applications of technology and

field practice. It had long been recognized that substantial supplies of natural gas were

embedded in shale rock. But it was only in 2002 and 2003 that the combination of two

technologies working together - hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling - made shale

gas commercia . . i i

Hydraulic fracturing leading to increased shale gas production has been a substantial

economic stimulus. According to a report for the American Petroleum Institute (API), for just

West Virginia and Pennsylvania in 2009:

i The SEAS Shale Gas Production Subcommittee Ninety-Day Report (2011), available at

http://www.shalegas.energy.gov/resources/08l8l i 90 day report final.pdf, at 7-8 (footnote omitted).

- 3 -
Total value added or contribution to gross regional product for these two states increased

by $4.8 billion as a result of Marcellus production activities. This increase in value

added is distributed across a broad swath of the economy, generating more than 57,357

jobs and $1.7 billion in local, state, and federal tax collections. The gains in value added

are broad based, which dispels the notion that natural gas production contributes benefits

to only a select few sectors or individuals?

As EPA is aware, there are technical reasons why hydraulic fracturing is so important to

the production of gas from shale and other low permeability formations. See the following

explanation from a report prepared for the Department of Energy:

The process involves pumping fluid into a formation under suffcient pressure to create

fractures in the rock matrix, allowing oil or gas to flow through the fractures more freely

to the wellbore. By creating new pathways, hydraulic fracturing can exponentially

increase oil and gas flow to the welL. For example a single fracture job can increase the

pathways available for fluid migration in a formation by as much as 270 times in a

vertical well, and much more in a horizontal welL. The process of hydraulic fracturing

can be a critical component of well development because, without it, there may be

insufficient flow pathways for oil or gas to get to the well bore.

The only alternative to fracturing the producing formations in reservoirs with low

permeability would be to dril more wells in an area. However, given the costs of

driling, the risks associated with creating multiple new vertical pathways for fluid

migration, and the fact that it could take very large numbers of wells located within a

very small area to equal the production of even a single hydraulically fractured well, this

alternative is neither physically nor economically desirable.3

One aspect of the importance of hydraulic fracturing to natural gas production is its

indirect impact on global warming. A recent study found:

Natural gas from the Marcellus shale has generally lower life cycle GHG (greenhouse

gas) emissions than coal for production of electricity in the absence of any effective

carbon capture and storage processes, by 20-50% depending upon plant effciencies and

natural gas emissions variability.4

2 Timothy 1. Considine, The Economic Impacts of the Marcellus Shale: Implications for New York, Pennsylvania,

and West Virginia (2010), available at

http://www .ap i .org/po i i cy/ exp i orati on/h ydrau I ic fracturin g/u p load/ AP 1%2 0 Econom ic%20 Impacts%2 0 Marcel i us%2 0

Shale. pdf, at iii (footnote omitted).

3 Ground Water Protection Council, State Oil and Natural Gas Regulations Designed to Protect Water Resources

(report prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory) (2009), available at

http://www . gwpc.org/elibrary/documents/generaI/State%200il%20and%20Gas%20 Regulations%20Designed%20to%20Protect%20Water

%20Resources.pdf, at 2 i -22 (footnote omitted).

4 M. Jiang, et aI., Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of Marcellus shale gas, Environ. Res. Lett. 6 (July-Sept.

20 i i), available at http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/3/0340 l4/pdf/1748-9326 6 3 0340 I 4.pdf.

- 4 -
Thus, the use of hydraulic fracturing allows the avoidance of emissions of large quantities of

greenhouse gases to the atmosphere on a lifecycle basis.

b. Preventing Adverse Health or Environmental Impacts

Numerous studies have confirmed that hydraulic fracturing does not pose a significant

threat to drinking water resources. For example, in its 2004 report on hydraulic fracturing, EPA

itself concluded that hydraulic fracturing does not threaten drinking water supplies under the

circumstances studied:

Based on the information collected and reviewed, EPA has determined that the injection

of hydraulic fracturing fluids into CBM (coalbed methane) wells poses little or no threat

to USDWs (underground sources of drinking water).5

Other studies have reached similar conclusions with respect to hydraulic fracturing operations in

other types of formations such as shales.6 This lack of risk is due to a variety of factors,

including standard industry well construction practices that are designed to prevent fluids in the

wellbore from coming into contact with drinking water aquifers, as well as the depths at which

most hydraulic fracturing operations occur and the presence of hundreds or - in most cases -

thousands of feet of relatively impermeable rock between the fractures created and any drinking

water aquifers.

The industry is continually working to minimize any potential impacts associated with

hydraulic fracturing and other aspects of oil and gas development even further. For example, the

American Petroleum Institute (API) has taken the lead in developing guidance documents on

best practices with respect to hydraulic fracturing so as to minimize potential impacts on health

or the environment, and to increase effciency. These API guidance documents include the

following, among others:

. HFI - Hydraulic Fracturing Operations - Well Construction and Integrity Guidelines,

1 st Edition, October 2009

. HF2 - Water Management Associated with Hydraulic Fracturing, 1 st Edition, June 2010

. HF3 - Practices for Mitgating Surface Impacts Associated with Hydraulic Fracturing,

1st Edition, February 2011

5 EPA, Evaluation of 

Impacts to Underground Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing of Coal bed

Methane Reservoirs, EPA 816-R-04-003 (2004), available at

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwaterluic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/wells coalbedmethanestudy.cfm, at ES- 16.

The report took nearly 5 years of work by EPA, included data from nearly 500 state and local government agencies,

an examination of some 200 peer-reviewed publications, and nearly 100 separate interviews with industry

representatives, state and local regulators, and environmental organizations. The EPA report itself was peerreviewed and was subject to extensive public comment. EPA is now conducting another study of hydraulic

fracturing. See http://water .epa. gov /type/ groundwater/uk/ cIass2/hydraul i cfracturing/index. cfm.

6 See, e.g., ICF International, LLC, Technical Assistance for the Draft Supplemental Generic EIS: Oil, Gas and

Solution Mining Regulatory Program (Task I) (Aug. 7, 2009), available at

http://www.nyserda.org/publications/ICF%20Task%201%20ReportFinal.pdf.at 34.

- 5 -
. Standard 65 Part 2 - Isolating Potential Flow Zones During Well Construction, 2nd

Edition, December 2010

. RP 51 R - Environmental Protection for Onshore Oil and Gas Production Operations

and Leases, 1st Edition, July 20097

Reliance on these guidance documents will minimize the incidence of surface spils or other

adverse events such as those alleged in the Petition.

Halliburton itself continues to make substantial investments in improving hydraulic

fracturing technology, including with its CleanSuiteTM Technologies,S which are designed to

address environmental concerns about hydraulic fracturing. Examples include the following:

. CleanStim@ Formulation - A hydraulic fracturing fluid made entirely of ingredients

sourced from the food industry. It includes include a gellng agent, crosslinker/buffer,

breakers, and a surfactant. Before use, the CleanStim formulation is mixed at the job site

with water.

. CleanStream@ Service - An alternative to the use of chemical biocides in hydraulic

fracturing to prevent the growth of microorganisms below ground that can impede the

flow of natural gas and oil, corrode pipes and equipment, and create hazardous hydrogen

sulfide gas. Halliburton's ultraviolet (UV) light process uses a mobile unit capable of

treating fracturing fluid at rates up to 100 barrels per minute. The service enables

significant reduction in the volume ofbiocides, down to zero where conditions allow.

· CleanWave@ Water Treatment System - This process uses electrocoagulation to treat

flowback and produced water on-site at a rate of up to 26,000 barrels per day, allowing

reuse and thus reducing the volume of water needed for hydraulic fracturing.

. 3-D Fracture Mapping - This technology provides accurate, real-time, three-dimensional

feedback on the direction, length, height, and distance of fractures as they are created in

the formation. This information helps confirm that energy-bearing strata, where the

fracture zone is located, do not communicate with strata thousands of feet higher, where

aquifers may be present.

. ADpTM Advanced Dry Polymer Blender - With the development of the ADP blender,

liquid gel concentrates used to blend fracturing fluids are no longer needed. This new

blender enables any of Halliburton's fracturing fluid systems to be mixed from a dry

powder. Since the ADP blender went into service, Halliburton has eliminated over 4

million gallons of hydrocarbon-based carrier fluids from fracturing treatments.

7 These and other guidance documents relevant to hydraulic fracturing are available at

http://www .api. org/po i i cy/ exp i oration/hydraul icfracturing/index. cfm.

8 For more information, see

http://www.hallibuiton.com/public/projects/pubsdata/HydraulicFracturing/CleanSuiteTechnologies.html# .

- 6 -
. RapidFracTM System - This innovative horizontal sliding sleeve completion system

facilitates continuous pumping during hydraulic fracturing, thus reducing stimulation

cycle time from days to hours and reducing the volume of water consumed.

Use of these technologies can help reduce the environmental footprint of hydraulic fracturing.

These types of industry efforts have been recognized. For example, the 2011 90-day

interim report to the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board observed that the potential impacts

associated with shale gas development have been progressively minimized over time:

Industry's pursuit of more effcient operations often has environmental as well as

economic benefits, including waste minimization, greater gas recovery, less water usage,

and a reduced operating footprint.9

Those assessments are due in part to continuous improvement in both practices and technology.

Any oil and gas activity can, if mismanaged, have adverse environmental consequences.

However, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NY DEC) recently made

draft conclusions after extensive study of hydraulic fracturing in New York suggesting that the

risks of hydraulic fracturing are very limited:

(I)t is highly unlikely that groundwater contamination would occur by fluids escaping

from the wellbore for hydraulic fracturing. 

10

(R)egulatory officials from 15 states recently testified that groundwater contamination as

a result of the hydraulic fracturing process in the tight formation itself has not occurred. 

i i

(H)ydraulic fracturing requires chemical additives, some of which may pose hazards

when highly concentrated.... The fluid used for high-volume hydraulic fracturing is

typically comprised of more than 98% fresh water and sand, with chemical additives

comprising 2% or less of the fluid. 

12

Well construction associated with high-volume hydraulic fracturing presents no new

significant adverse impacts with regard to potential gas migration. Gas migration is a

result of poor well construction (i.e., casing and cement problems). As with all gas

driling, well construction practices mandated in New York are designed to prevent gas

migration. Those practices would also minimize the risk of migration of other formation

fluids such as oil or brine. 

13

9 The SEAS Shale Gas Production Subcommittee Ninety-Day Report, available at

http://www.shalegas.energy.gov/resources/08181190dayreportfinal.pdf.at 9.

io NY DEC Revised Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the Oil, Gas, and Solution

Mining Regulatory Program (201 i), available at http://www.dec.ny.gov/energyI75370.html#Revised, Executive

Summary at 1 i.

1 i Id. at i i.

12 Id. at 1,8.

13 Id. at 1 i.

- 7 -
(N)o significant adverse impact to water resources is likely to occur due to underground

vertical migration of fracturing fluids through the shale formations. 

14

Accordingly, there is no likelihood of significant adverse impacts from the underground

migration of fracturing fluids. 

15

The NY DEC assessment did not conclude that hydraulic fracturing is risk-free, however. For

example, it found that:

The disposal of flowback water could cause a significant adverse impact if the

wastewater was not properly treated prior to disposaL. 16

The point is that considered evaluation of hydraulic fracturing indicates that it does not, unless

mismanaged, present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.

c. Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing

In calling on EPA to use TSCA to address what it calls E&P Chemicals, the Petition

ignores the substantial regulation of hydraulic fracturing and all other aspects of oil and gas

production by state regulators as well as by EPA.

In our federal system, regulation of oil and gas production has always been primarily a

matter for the states to handle, rather than the federal government. The environmental impacts of

oil and gas production are mainly local in nature, not nationaL. Moreover, the appropriate

controls may vary with local geologic and other conditions. The Ground Water Protection

Council has studied state regulation of oil and gas production and concluded:

State regulation of oil and natural gas exploration and production activities are approved

under state laws that typically include a prohibition against causing harm to the

environment. This premise is at the heart of the regulatory process. The regulation of oil

and gas field activities is managed best at the state level where regional and local

conditions are understood and where regulations can be tailored to fit the needs

of the local environment. Hence, the experience, knowledge and information necessary

to regulate effectively most commonly rests with state regulatory agencies....

State oil and gas regulations are adequately designed to directly protect water resources

through the application of specific programmatic elements such as permitting, well

construction, well plugging, and temporary abandonment requirements. 17

14Id.

15 Id. at 12.

16Id.

17 Ground Water Protection Council, State Oil and Natural Gas Regulations Designed to Protect Water Resources

(report prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory) (2009), available at

http://www .gwpc.org/e~

(Continued ...)

- 8 -
The states continue to review the adequacy of their requirements for oil and gas

development in general, and for hydraulic fracturing in particular. For example, Texas, 

1 8

Arkansas, 19 Wyoming,20 and Colorad021 recently revised their requirements to address disclosure

of the composition of hydraulic fracturing fluids. As noted above, New York has been

examining hydraulic fracturing closely in the form of an environmental impact statement.22

In addition, EPA exercises its authority under federal laws over oil and gas production in

general and hydraulic fracturing in particular.23 For example, under the Clean Air Act it recently

proposed standards of performance for crude oil and natural gas production, transmission, and

distribution operations, including hydraulic fracturing.24 The Safe Drinking Water Act regulates

the subsurface disposal of flowback and produced water and has a limited restriction on

underground injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids that contain diesel fueL. The Clean Water

Act applies to surface spills and other surface discharges of hydraulic fracturing fluids, flowback

and produced water.

In short, hydraulic fracturing is already extensively regulated. There is no need for EPA

to use TSCA to add to the regulation of this technology.

3. Information on the Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing Is Available

a. Chemical Identities

The Petition asserts (p. 3) that "EPA and the public lack adequate data about the identity

of E&P Chemicals." Information about the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing is

increasingly available to the public, however, so there is no need for EPA to take action under

TSCA.

Some companies involved in hydraulic fracturing voluntarily publicize the chemicals

used in their formulations. For example, Halliburton makes available on its website detailed

(Continued.. .)

library/ documents/general/State%200il%20and%20Gas%20Regulations%20Designed%20to%20 Protect%20 Water

%20Resources.pdf, at 6-7.

18 Tex. Nat. Resources Code § 91.851 (effective Sept. 1,2011), available at

http://www.capitoi.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/b iItext/pdf/HS 03 328 F . pdf#na vpanes=O.

19 Ark. Oil and Gas Comm'n Rule B- I 9 (effective Jan. 15, 20 I I), available at

http://www.aogc.state.ar.us/OnlineData/F orms/Rules%20and%20 Regu lati ons. pdf.

20 Wyo. Code R. Oil & Gas Cons. Comm'n, Gen. Ch. 3, § 45(d) (effective Sept. 15,2010), available at

http://soswy.state. wy. us/RulesIRULESI7928.pdf.

2 i Colo. Code Regs. § 404- i (Rule 205) (effective Apr. I, 2009), available at

http://cogcc.state.co. us/ Announcements/Rule205 .pdf.

22 Moreover, as EPA is aware, the State Review of Oil & Natural Gas Environmental Regulations ("STRONGER")

organization has been actively reviewing state programs for the regulation of hydraulic fracturing to assess their

adequacy. STRONGER has reviewed programs in Louisiana, Oklahoma, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The reviews have

consistently found these programs to be effective and well-managed.

23 See generally, Energy in Depth, Federal Statutes Regulate Every Step of the Hydraulic Fracturing Process,

a vai lab Ie at http://www . energyindepth. org/wp-conten t/up loads/2 009/03 /F ederal- H ydrau Ii c- Fracturing-Process. pdf. 2476 Fed. Reg. 52738 (Aug. 23, 201 i). .

- 9 -
information, including CAS numbers, for chemicals in the hydraulic fracturing fluids it uses in

different parts of the United States (generic names are indicated for the few trade secret chemical

identities).25

In addition, all manufacturers and employers in the oil and gas industry must disclose the

hazardous chemicals in the products they handle in material safety data sheets (MSDSs). Trade

secret identities may be withheld, but their hazards must be disclosed.26 Halliburton makes its

MSDSs available on its website for easier public access.27

In addition, both governmental and non-governmental sources provide the public with

extensive information on the identities of most chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing:

. The Petition itself cites (p. 11) a 2010 NGO study that identified 649 E&P chemicals, of

which 362 were identified by CAS number, in 980 products. (Many of the others listed

were clearly mixtures; some were evidently trade secret individual chemicals.)

. EPA's 2011 draft study plan identified some 391 individual chemicals.28

. A 2011 report by the minority staff of the House Energy and Commerce Committee

identified 750 chemicals, most with CAS numbers, in over 2,500 products.29

. The Petition mentions (pp. 4-5) FracFocus, a publicly available database maintained by

the Ground Water Protection Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact

Commission that provides information on the composition of hydraulic fracturing fluids

used in specific wells.3o This database contains information on the fluids that have been

used in hydraulic fracturing of thousands of wells in numerous states across the country.

Although the Petition complains that reporting for the database is voluntary, it is

mandatory for wells driled in Texas.3l This database has been endorsed by API, the

Independent Petroleum Association of America, America's Natural Gas Allance, and

other groups.

25 Please go to http://www.halIiburton.com/public/projects/pubsdata/HydraulicFracturing/fluidsdisclosure.htmi.

26 In states regulated directly by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the hazard

communication standard applies, 29 C.F.R. § 19 I O. 1200. All other states have comparable (usually virtually

identical) requirements.

27 Please go to http://www.halliburton.com/toolsresources/default.aspx?navid=1 06 l&pageid=2&SRC=MP.

28 EPA, Draft Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources,

EP A/600/D-lI/00 i (2011), available at

http://water.epa.gov/type/ groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/upload/HFStudyPlanDraft SAS 0207 i 1-

08.pdf, at 83-93. 29 Minority Staff, House Energy and Commerce Committee, Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing (201 1),

available at

http:// democrats. energycomm erce.house. gov /s ites/ default/til es/ documents/H ydraulic%20 F racturing%2 0 Report%20

4. i 8. i i .pdf.

30 FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry, available at http://fracfocus.org/hydraulic-fracturing-process.

31 Tex. Nat. Resources Code § 91.851, available at

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tl odocs/82R/ i IItext/pd f/HS03 3 2 8 F. pdf#navpanes=O.

- 10-
. The 2011 NY DEC revised draft supplemental generic environmental impact statement

on hydraulic fracturing identified 322 chemicals by CAS numbers from 235 products.

That document indicates that the NY DEC will provide publicly a listing of high-volume

hydraulic fracturing additive product names and links to the associated product MSDSs

on an individual well basis on its website.32

. Several states require public disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, subject

to trade secret protections.33 The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

has posted a list of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing in Pennsylvania.34

While none of these sources discloses trade secret chemical identities, the identities of

hundreds of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing are now currently available to the public by

CAS number. The FracFocus database identifies by CAS number the 42 chemicals used most

often, which presumably should be the principal interest of the petitioners.35

State regulators have access to trade secret identities of chemicals used in hydraulic

fracturing in appropriate circumstances.36 EPA itself has collected detailed information from

nine hydraulic fracturing service companies, including Halliburton, on the identity and quantity

of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids, including trade secret information.37 The

Agency itself hardly needs further information regarding the identity of chemicals used in

hydraulic fracturing fluids.

In short, information about the identity of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing is

widely available.

b. Hazard and Exposure Information

The Petition erroneously asserts (p. 6) that "the oil and gas industry is exempt from the

provision of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act ('EPCRA'), under

which EPA requires industrial and federal facilities with more than ten employees to report the

32 NY DEC, Revised Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the Oil, Gas, and Solution

Mining Regulatory Program (201 I), available at http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/75370.html#Revised.at 5-41, 5-54

to 5-63, S-3 i.

33 See, e.g., Tex. Nat. Resources Code § 91.S51, available at

http://www.capitoI.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R1biItext/pdf/HBO332SF.pdf#navpanes=O; Ark. Oil and Gas Comm'n Rule

B- I 9, available at http://www.aogc.state.ar.us/OnlineData/Forms/Rules%20and%2ORegulations.pdf; Louisiana

Admin. Code 43:XIX. I I S, available at http://www.doa.Iouisiana.gov/osr/regll I 1011 I 1O.pdf; Mont. Admin. R.

36.22.10 I 5, available at http://www.bogc.dnrc.mt.gov/Frac.asp;Wyo.CodeR.Oil&GasCons.Comm.n.Gen.Ch.

3, § 45(d), available at http://soswy.state.wy.us/Rules/RULES/792S.pdf;.

34 Pennsylvania DEP, Marcellus Shale, available at

http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/minres/oilgas/newforms/marceiius/marcellus.htm

35 FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry, What Chemicals Are Used, available at http://fracfocus.org/chemicaluse/what-chemicals-are-used. Two of the chemicals listed there lack CAS numbers.

36 See, e.g., the state statuter; cited above and W.V. Code R. § 35-S-3.3.e.

37 EPA, Draft Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources,

EPA/600/D-I 1/001 (201 I), available at

http://water.epa. gov/type/ groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/upload/HFStudyPlan Draft SAS 0207 I 1-

OS.pdf, at 25-26.

- 11 -
toxic chemicals they release, store, and transfer." Section 313 ofEPCRA does not include the

sic codes for the oil and gas industry (or those for most other industries), but that is not an

exemption from EPCRA. Congress decided that that particular EPCRA provision should apply

only to manufacturers.

The oil and gas industry is subject to reporting requirements under EPCRA sections 304,

311, and 312. Trade secret information must be reported to EPA, subject to the EPCRA section

322 protection from public disclosure of trade secret chemical identities. Reports under section

311 and 312 are publicly available, subject to section 322, although the Petition complains (p. 7)

that the public must request the reports. This is hardly a reason for EPA to take action under

TSCA.

Detailed hazard information is available on many or most of the hundreds of individual

chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing that have been identified publicly by CAS numbers. This

information is computer-searchable through databases such as TOXLINE38 and others listed by

EPA as hazard data sources for screening priority chemicals for assessment under TSCA.39 For

those chemicals for which only generic names are publicly available, searches on the generic

names can identify hazard information on structurally-related chemicals.

In addition, MSDSs present hazard information on hydraulic fracturing formulations and

other products used in the oil and gas industry, by product. The Petition complains (p. 7) that

"only 'hazardous chemicals' need to be disclosed on MSDSs, and a chemical must have been

subject to significant testing before it will be considered to be 'hazardous' under the

regulations." This complaint is ironic, since the "hazards" of non-hazardous chemicals are not of

public concern. The Petition is incorrect that "significant testing" is required for a chemical to

be hazardous. As noted by the Petition in a footnote, a single study is sufficient to qualify a

chemical as hazardous, so long as its results are statistically significant and it was conducted in

accordance with established scientific principles.4o The hazards of those chemicals present

above the relevant thresholds must be disclosed even if their identities are trade secret.41

The Petition complains (p. 8) that MSDSs are "an inadequate source of information

because the chemical manufacturers have wide discretion in preparing the sheets." While the

OSHA hazard communication standard (HCS), like the United Nations' Globally Harmonized

System (GHS),42 looks primarily to manufacturers to determine the hazards of chemicals, OSHA

38 A standard research tool, the TOXLINE database (http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/htmlgen?TOXLlNE) is the

National Library of Medicine's bibliographic database for toxicology. TOXLINE records provide bibliographic

information covering the biochemical, pharmacological, physiological, and toxicological effects of drugs and other

chemicals. It contains over 4 million bibliographic citations, most with abstracts and/or indexing terms and CAS

Registry Numbers.

39 EPA, Discussion Guide: Background and Discussion Questions for Identifying Priority Chemicals for Review and

Assessment (Aug. 20 i i), Table 3, available at

http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/existingchemicals/pubs/Chem.Priorizati on.A ugust2 0 i i .Discuss ionGuideOn Iy. pdf.

4029 C.F.R. § i 9 i O. 1200( c) (definition of "health hazard"), (d)(2) (basis for hazard determination).

4129 C.F.R. § i 9 i O. l200(i)(I)(ii) (trade secret protection is dependent on disclosure of effects).

42 United Nations, Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS), 4th rev. ed.

(20 i i), available at http://www.unece.org/trans/danger/publi/ghs/ghs _rev04/04fies _ e.html.

- 12 -
has proposed to adopt the GHS detailed classification principles.43 The amended HCS will

greatly reduce the discretion to which the Petition objects. It will also delete the thresholds to

which the Petition objects, replacing them with detailed criteria for deciding when trace

concentrations may be disregarded in determining the hazards of a mixture.

4. Protecting Intellectual Propert Is Important to Innovation

The Petition repeatedly laments that the identities of some E&P Chemicals are protected

from public disclosure. What it does not recognize is the important public policy of protecting

intellectual property so as to spur innovation. In the oil and gas industry, that innovation has led

directly to the opening up of shale gas and other unconventional resources to commercial

development. It has also resulted in improvements to hydraulic fracturing which reduce the

usage of chemicals, biocides, and water.

Each instance of trade secrets cited by the Petition reflects a Congressional or state

determination that public policy demands that trade secrets, such as the identities of some

chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, be protected from public disclosure (although that public

policy does not preclude disclosure to governments in confidence). For example:

. EPCRA § 322 protects trade secret chemical identities in section 311 and 312 reports

(and those in certain other reports) from public disclosure. Section 322 establishes

detailed requirements which those claiming that protection must satisfy. The provision is

adapted from, and cites, the HCS trade secret provision of which the Petition also

complains. Section 322 reflects Congressional endorsement of the compromise between

access and protection that is embodied in the HCS. It is noteworthy that Congress did not

extend trade secret protection to reports of emergency releases of extremely hazardous

substances, reflecting a judgment that the balancing of competing interests favors

disclosure in that situation.

. In every state requiring public disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing,

protection for trade secrets is included. For example:

o The recent Texas statute directs the Railroad Commission to "prescribe a process

by which an entity required to (disclose information about the chemicals it uses in

hydraulic fracturing) may withhold and declare certain information as a trade

secret for purposes of Section 552.110, Government Code, including the identity

and amount of the chemical ingredient used in a hydraulic fracturing treatment. ,,44

o The NY DEC reported recently that of the many hydraulic fracturing fluid

compositions it reviewed, "a significant number of product compositions have

been properly justified as trade secrets within the coverage of disclosure

43 74 Fed. Reg. 50280 (Sept. 30, 2009). .

44 Tex. Nat. Resources Code § 91.851(a)(3) (effective Sept. 1,201 I).

- 13 -
exceptions of the Freedom ofInformation Law (Public Offcers Law §87.2(d))

and the Department's implementing regulation, 6 NYCRR § 616.7.,,45

Trade secret protection is necessary because alternative protection, such as that from

patents, is generally unavailable for formulations. New formulations to better address the

complexities of hydraulic fracturing are critical to faster, safer, and more economical production

of shale gas. As the leader in the industry, Halliburton invests millions of dollars in developing

improved formulations. The commercial value of this investment would be greatly reduced if

every chemical used in those formulations had to be revealed publicly. As a result, the economic

incentive for making the investment would similarly be greatly reduced. Innovation in hydraulic

fracturing has been a key to unlocking the vast quantities of shale gas in this country, and the

availability of trade secret protection has been responsible for much of that innovation. The

continuing protection for trade secret chemical identities in hydraulic fracturing formulations

reflects governmental recognition of the role that that protection has played in opening up shale

gas to production.

Halliburton notes that the information the Petitioners seek to obtain regarding the identity

of the chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing process would be subject to public disclosure

under legislation that Congress is currently considering known as the FRAC Act.46 EPA should

allow the legislative process to resolve this policy decision about the degree of disclosure that is

appropriate rather than allowing the Petition to be used as a vehicle for short-circuiting the

legislative process.

5. The Petition Fails to Justify EPA Taking Action Under TSCA

a. The Petition Fails to Identify the Chemicals and Mixtures for Which

Action Under TSCA Is Requested

The Petition fails to identify a single chemical or mixture for which it requests that EPA

take action. That by itself should be suffcient reason for denial of the petition. EPA can

scarcely decide within 90 days that it should take action on unspecified chemicals and mixtures.

The Petition refers ambiguously to "E&P Chemicals," a term not in general parlance, but

which it defines to mean "chemical substances and mixtures used in oil and gas exploration or

production." In other words, the Petition asks EPA to take action not only with respect to

hundreds or thousands of individual chemicals, but also with respect to hundreds or thousands of

mixtures, none specified, and with no showing with respect to any of them that the requirements

for taking action under TSCA have been met.

The Petition itself demonstrates the unbounded nature of the Petitioners' request,

referring (p. 1 l) to "a list of980 products containing 649 chemical substances." The source of

45 NY DEC, Revised Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the Oil, Gas, and Solution

Mining Regulatory Program (201 i) at 5-63, available at http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/75370.html#Revised.

46 Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act, H.R. 1084 (201 i) and S. 587 (201 i).

- 14 -
that list cautions, "Note that this is not a complete list of products and chemicals used in natural

gas operations.,,47 Thus, there is no apparent limit to the Petition's scope.

b. The Petition Asks for Action on Unprecedented Numbers of

Chemicals and Mixtures

The Petition asks EPA to take actions under sections 4 and 8 with respect to hundreds or

thousands of individual chemicals, as well as hundreds or thousands of mixtures of those

chemicals. In over 35 years of implementing TSCA, EPA has only required testing for around

200 chemicals.48 The request for testing alone would require EPA to take far more actions than

it has been able to achieve in more than three decades. It is clearly beyond EPA's limited

resources, even if EPA were to devote 100% of its TSCA resources to taking the actions

requested by the Petition.

EPA itself is reviewing the many chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing so as to identify

those that are a high priority for further testing:

EP A expects to develop a prioritized list of chemicals and, where estimates of toxicity are not

otherwise available, to conduct additional testing or quantitative health assessments for certain

h. h .. h . i 49 ig -pnonty c emica s.

Accordingly, it is premature for EPA to require testing of all E&P Chemicals while this

prioritization process is underway.

Virtually all of the testing requirements, section 8(a) rules, and section 8(d) rules adopted

under TSCA have been for individual chemicals. The Petition adds a formidable layer of

complexity by requesting that all formulations of individual chemicals used in the oil and gas

industry be tested or be the subject of reporting.

c. The Petition Fails to Meet the Section 4 Requirements for Testing

The TSCA legislative history of section 21 indicates that "(i)n the case of a petition for

the issuance of a rule under section 4, the petitioner must show that the manufacture, distribution

in commerce, processing, use or disposal of the substance or mixture to be subject to the rule

may cause or significantly contribute to an unreasonable risk to health or the environment.,,5o In

other words, the burden of proof for establishing each of the requirements for taking action under

47 The Endocrine Disruption Exchange, Chemicals in Natural Gas Operations: Summary (20 I 0), available at

http://www.endocrinedisruption.com/fies/Multistatesummaryl-27-1 I Final.pdf, at I.

48 Testimony of Lisa Jackson, Administrator, EPA, before the Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics, and

Environmental Health, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (Oct. 26, 20 i 0), available at

http:// epw .senate. gov /pub i i c/ index. cfm ?FuseAction= Files. View &F i leStore id=f7 ca4 992 -4e b3 -46d9-96b2-

Ocff66ea7ca, at 2.

49 EPA, Draft Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources,

EP A/600/D- i 1/00 i (20 i I), available at

http://water.epa. gov/type/ groundwater/uic/c1ass2/hydrauIicfracturing/upload/HFStudyPlanDraft SAS 0207 i 1-

08.pdf, at 48.

50 H.R. Rep. 94- i 34 i (I 976) at 58, Legislative History of the Toxic Substances Control Act (1976) at 465.

- l5 -
section 4 (and the other sections ofTSCA that may be addressed in a section 21 petition) falls on

the petitioner.

That burden is particularly high in the case of requests for testing of mixtures, as with the

Petition. Under section 4(a)(2), in order to require testing of mixtures the Administrator must

show that:

in the case of a mixture, the effects which the mixture's manufacture, distribution in

commerce, processing, use, or disposal or any combination of such activities may have

on health or the environment may not be reasonably and more efficiently determined or

predicted by testing the chemical substances which comprise the mixture(.)

The Petitioners have made no effort whatsoever to address why mixtures should be tested instead

of their individual components, and thus the mixture testing request should be denied summarily.

The Petition fails to establish that any E&P Chemical may present an unreasonable risk

of injury to health or the environment. The petition makes reference to several state databases of

spils (mostly unrelated to hydraulic fracturing) that do not demonstrate that the spils and leaks

reported - none of which is addressed in any detail - actually resulted in an unreasonable risk to

health or the environment. 51 In addition, the Petition cites a number of isolated incidents of

alleged contamination - many completely unsubstantiated 

52 - which again do not add up to the

type of unreasonable risk that would be needed to justify the massive testing effort sought by the

Petitioners.

The Petition fails to establish that "there are insuffcient data and experience upon which

the effects" ofE&P Chemicals "can reasonably be determined or predicted." As noted above,

databases such as TOXLINE contain thousands of studies of the effects of individual chemicals,

some of which are presumably E&P Chemicals. The Petition does not identify particular gaps in

the information available or explain why those gaps cannot be addressed through extrapolation

from available data on structurally-related chemicals.

The Petition fails to establish that testing "is necessary to develop" any data which is

missing. For virtually no chemical is complete information on health and environmental effects

available. That does not establish that it is necessary to obtain that information. It is noteworthy

that the NY DEC was able to prepare a revised draft supplemental generic environmental impact

statement on hydraulic fracturing that is more than 1,000 pages long that makes judgments about

the effects of the use of chemicals in hydraulic fracturing without any additional testing of the

type sought by Petitioners. 

53

51 There is no demonstration that there was any human exposure as a result of any of these releases.

52 For example, as EPA is well aware, no determination has been made regarding the source of the 2-BE phosphate

(which the Agency has acknowledged is found in a wide variety of products) in the wells in Pavillion, Wyoming, but

it is highly unlikely to be related to recent oil and gas well development activity.

53 NY DEC, Revised Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the Oil, Gas, and Solution

Mining Regulatory Program (201 i), available at http://www.dec.ny.gov/energyI75370.html#Revised.

- 16 -
d. The Petition Fails to Establish That a Section 8ea) Rule Is Reasonable

or Necessary

Section 21 (b)( 4 )(B)(ii) provides that "the petitioner" seeking a rule under section 8( a)

must establish that "there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the issuance of (the requested

rule) is necessary to protect health or the environment against an unreasonable risk of injury to

health or the environment." Section 8(a) requires EPA to adopt such reporting rules "as the

Administrator shall reasonably require." Furthermore, "(t)o the extent feasible," rules under ,

section 8(a) "shall not" be "unnecessary or duplicative."

The section 8(a) rule requested by the Petition is not reasonable or necessary. The

Petition makes no effort to establish reasonableness or necessity. Its request for action simply

parrots the scope of information listed in section 8( a)(2), then recites that "( s )ubmission of this

information is necessary for the effective enforcement ofTSCA," without further explanation.

Clearly, the Petition has failed to carry its burden of proof with respect to the request for a

section 8(a) rule. However, the unreasonableness of the request is apparent simply from the vast

number of chemicals and mixtures encompassed by the term "E&P Chemicals." In the entire

history of the TSCA program, EPA has never issued chemical-specific section 8(a) rules for

anywhere near the number of chemicals (and never for mixtures) as would be needed to cover all

E&P Chemicals.

The requested section 8(a) rule would in many respects be duplicative of information that

is increasingly collected routinely by state oil and gas commissions. The Petition fails to explain

why it is necessary for EPA to duplicate that information collection.

The requested section 8(a) rule would also be largely duplicative of the current Chemical

Data Reporting (CDR) rule. The CDR rule applies to all chemicals on the TSCA Inventory,

subject to certain exceptions, which presumably includes almost all E&P Chemicals (excluding

biocides).54 The following aspects of the CDR rule should be noted with respect to the Petition's

request for a section 8(a) rule:

. All E&P Chemicals that are chemical substances under TSCA are presumably covered,

unless excluded by the rule. Thus, the CDR rule already requires most or all of the

information requested by the Petition for the covered E&P Chemicals.

. The CDR rule excludes polymers. 

55 EPA chose to exclude polymers because it did not

consider collection of information on them to be necessary. Many E&P Chemicals are

polymers (at least as suggested by the lists of chemicals noted earlier in these comments).

. The CDR rule partially exempts petroleum process streams and certain other chemicals, 

56

again because it considers the collection process and use information for the exempted

5476 Fed. Reg. 50S I 6 (Aug. 16,20 11), corrected, 76 Fed. Reg. 54932 (Sept. 6,201 I).

5540 C.F.R. § 71 1.6(a)(I).

5640 C.F.R. § 71 I.6(b).

- 17 -
chemicals to be "oflow current interest," i.e., unnecessary. These exempted chemicals

include many E&P Chemicals.

. The CDR rule applies only to manufacturers. 

57 The Petition requests EPA to apply the

requested section 8(a) rule to processors. EPA considered extending the CDR rule to

processors, 

58 but decided not to do so because it concluded that reporting by processors

would not be reasonable and necessary. 

59

e. The Requested Section 8(c) Call-In Order Is Not Petition able Under

Section 21

The Petition requests EPA to call in allegations of significant adverse reactions from nine

specific companies, including Halliburton. The explanation for nine is (p. 21) that "(b )ecause a

request involving nine entities would not be subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act notice

requirements, EPA could act quickly." (Footnote omitted.)

EPA should deny this request summarily. Section 21 authorizes a petition for a "rule"

under section 8, but not an order. The Petition requests an order under section 8( c). That is

relief which is unavailable under section 21.

EP A has previously denied a citizens' petition for an order for a call-in of section 8( c)

allegations on this basis,60 as the petitioners are no doubt aware. 

6 1 EPA should do so again.

f. The Petition Fails to Justify the Requested Section 8(d) Rule

Section 21 (b)( 4)(B)(ii) provides that "the petitioner" seeking a rule under section 8( d)

must establish that "there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the issuance of (the requested

rule) is necessary to protect health or the environment against an unreasonable risk of injury to

health or the environment." Section 8( d)(1) provides that EPA may exclude studies if it finds

that they are "unnecessary." The legislative history of section 8( d) indicates that "the

57 40 C.F.R. § 7 I i.8(a).

5875 Fed. Reg. 49656, 49682 (Aug. 13,2010) ("EPA is considering collection exposure-related information from

processors in addition to collecting the data from manufacturers (including importers).").

59 The Response to Comments document for the CDR rulemaking explains, "EPA estimated the cost to processors

would be $523 million in the first reporting cycle and $4 i 8 milion for future reporting cycles based on an estimated

i 4 i ,220 reports that could be submitted by processors. The Agency has considered all comments, etc., and has

decided not to add this requirement to the IUR rule at this time." EPA, Summary of EPA's Responses to Public

Comments Submitted in Response to the Proposed TSCA Inventory Update Reporting Modifications Rule (201 i),

available at www.regulations.govunderDocketNo.EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0187.atI34.

60 72 Fed. Reg. 72886, 7289 i (Dec. 2 i, 2007) ("The requested call-in is not a petitionable matter under TSCA

section 2 i .... EPA interprets TSCA section 2 i to apply only to the enumerated actions.").

61 The previous denial was in connection with a petition related to air fresheners. The petition in that case asked for

nine named companies to be subject to a section S(c) call-in order. It explained, "(b)ecause a request involving nine

entities would not be subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act notice requirements, EPA should act quickly." Since

that very sentence appears in the present Petition, it is obvious that the air freshener petition served as the template

for this Petition. The petitioners make no effort to rebut EPA's previous denial of the request for a section 8(c)

order as non-petitionable.

- 18 -
Administrator is to avoid imposing unnecessary or overly burdensome reporting requirements.,,62

The Petition's request for a section 8( d) rule on all E&P Chemicals would be unnecessary and

overly burdensome.

The Petition makes an unqualified request for all health and safety studies "related to

any" E&P Chemical, then simply asserts, without support, that the requested rule "is necessary to

ensure that substances and mixtures do not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the

environment." The Petition has failed to meet its burden of establishing that the request is

necessary and not overly burdensome.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Petition should be denied in its entirety.

62 H.R. Rep. 94-1679 (1976) at SL, Legislative History of the Toxic Substances Control Act (1976) at 694.

- 19 -