*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release *** 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Page 1 of 34 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Chapter I 

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0683; FRL-9339-4] 

Chemical Substances and Mixtures Used in Oil and Gas Exploration or Production; 

TSCA Section 21 Petition; Reasons for Agency Response 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Petition; reasons for Agency response. 

SUMMARY: On August 4, 2011, Earthjustice and 114 other organizations petitioned 

EPA under section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to use: TSCA section 

8(a) to require manufacturers and processors of oil and gas exploration and production 

(E&P) chemical substances and mixtures to maintain certain records and submit reports 

on those records; TSCA section 8(d) to require manufacturers, processors, and 

distributors to submit to EPA existing health and safety studies related to E&P chemical 

substances and mixtures; TSCA section 8(c) to request submission of copies of any 

information related to significant adverse reactions to human health or the environment 

alleged to have been caused by E&P chemical substances and mixtures; and TSCA 

section 4 to require manufacturers and processors of E&P chemical substances and 

mixtures to conduct toxicity testing of E&P chemical substances and mixtures. For the 

reasons set forth in this notice, EPA granted in part and deniedIn a letter dated November 

2, 2011, EPA informed petitioners that it denied the TSCA section 4 request and in a 

letter dated November 23, 2011, EPA informed petitioners that it granted in part the 

TSCA section 8(a) and 8(d) requests. This document sets forth EPA’s reasons for 

denying in part the petitioners’ requests. In addition, EPA has concluded that TSCA 

section 21 does not apply to requests for a TSCA section 8(c) data call-in. 
*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 2 of 34 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact: 

Mark Seltzer, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and 

Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-2901; fax number: (202) 564-4775; email 

address: seltzer.mark@epa.gov.

 For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South 

Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: 

TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

 This action is directed to the public in general. This action, however, may be of 

interest to you if you manufacture (including import), process, or distribute chemical 

substances or mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing to create fractures in geologic 

formations, such as shale rock, allowing enhanced natural gas or oil recovery. Since other 

entities also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific 

entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. How Can I Access Information About this Petition? 

 The docket for this TSCA section 21 petition, identified by docket identification 

(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0683, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at 
*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 3 of 34 

the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for 

the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

II. BackgroundTSCA Section 21

A. What is a TSCA Section 21 Petition? 

 Under TSCA section 21 (15 U.S.C. 2620), any person can petition EPA to initiate 

a rulemaking proceeding for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule under TSCA 

sections 4, 6, or 8 or an order under TSCA sections 5(e) or 6(b)(2). A TSCA section 21 

petition must set forth the facts that are claimed to establish the necessity for the action 

requested. EPA is required to grant or deny the petition within 90 days of its filing. If 

EPA grants the petition, the Agency must promptly commence an appropriate 

proceeding. If EPA denies the petition, the Agency must publish its reasons for the denial 

in the Federal Register. A petitioner may commence a civil action in a U.S. district court 

to compel initiation of the requested rulemaking proceeding within 60 days of the denial, 

if the denial occurs prior to the expiration of the 90-day period, or within 60 days after 

the expiration of the 90-day period. 

B. What Criteria Apply to a Decision on a TSCA Section 21 Petition? 

1. Legal standard regarding TSCA section 21 petitions. Section 21(b)(1) 

of TSCA requires that the petition “set forth the facts which it is claimed establish that it 
*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 4 of 34 

is necessary” to issue the rule or order requested. 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(1). Thus, TSCA 

section 21 implicitly incorporates the statutory standards that apply to the requested 

actions. In addition, TSCA section 21 establishes standards a court must use to decide 

whether to order EPA to initiate rulemaking in the event of a lawsuit filed by the 

petitioner. 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(4)(B). Accordingly, EPA has relied on the standards in 

TSCA section 21 and in the provisions under which actions have been requested to 

evaluate this petition. The standards that apply to actions under TSCA sections 4 and 8

(Ref. 1) are available in the docket established for this TCSA section 21 petition. 

2. Legal standard regarding TSCA section 8(a) rules. Section 8(a) of TSCA 

authorizes the EPA Administrator to promulgate rules under which manufacturers and 

processors of chemical substances must maintain such records and submit such 

information as the EPA Administrator may reasonably require. Regarding mixtures, 

section 8(a) of TSCA authorizes the EPA Administrator to promulgate rules under which 

manufacturers and processors of mixtures must maintain such records and submit such 

information to the extent the EPA Administrator determines the maintenance of records 

or submission or reports, or both, is necessary for the effective enforcement of TSCA. 

Section 8(a) of TSCA generally excludes small manufacturers and processors of chemical 

substances or mixtures from the reporting requirements established in TSCA section 8(a). 

However, EPA is authorized by TSCA section 8(a)(3)(A)(ii) to require TSCA section 

8(a) reporting from small manufacturers and processors with respect to any chemical 

substance or mixture that is the subject of a rule proposed or promulgated under TSCA 

section 4, 5(b)(4), or 6, or that is the subject of an order in effect under TSCA section 

5(e), or that is the subject of relief granted pursuant to a civil action under TSCA section 
*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 5 of 34 

5 or 7. The standard for determining whether an entity qualifies as a small manufacturer 

is found at 40 CFR 704.3. 

Section 21(b)(4)(B) of TSCA provides the standard for judicial review should 

EPA deny a request for rulemaking under TSCA section 8(a): ‘‘If the petitioner 

demonstrates to the satisfaction of the court by a preponderance of the evidence that 

...there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the issuance of such a rule ...is necessary to 

protect health or the environment against an unreasonable risk of injury,’’ the court shall 

order the Administrator to initiate the requested action. 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(4)(B).

3. Legal standard regarding TSCA section 8(d) rules. Section 8(d) of TSCA 

authorizes EPA to require the submission of unpublished health and safety studies 

initiated or conducted by, or known to or reasonably ascertainable by, manufacturers, 

processors, and distributors of chemical substances or mixtures. Studies may be excluded 

‘‘if the Administrator finds that submission of lists of such studies are unnecessary to 

carry out the purposes of [TSCA].’’ 15 U.S.C. 2607(d)(1). 

Section 21(b)(4)(B) of TSCA provides the standard for judicial review should 

EPA deny a request for rulemaking under TSCA section 8(d): ‘‘If the petitioner 

demonstrates to the satisfaction of the court by a preponderance of the evidence that 

...there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the issuance of such a rule ...is necessary to 

protect health or the environment against an unreasonable risk of injury,’’ the court shall 

order the Administrator to initiate the requested action. 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(4)(B).

4. Legal standard regarding TSCA section 8(c) call-in. TSCA section 8(c) 

requires manufacturers, processors, and distributors of chemical substances or mixtures 

1) to keep records of significant adverse reactions to health or the environment, as 
*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 6 of 34 

determined by the Administrator by rule, alleged to have been caused by the substance or 

mixture and 2) to permit inspection and submit copies of such records upon request of 

any duly designated representative of the Administrator. EPA’s implementing regulations 

are at 40 CFR part 717. 

TSCA section 21 does not list data call-ins under TSCA section 8(c), and EPA 

has therefore concluded that petitions for this activity are not covered by TSCA section 

21. 

5. Legal standard regarding TSCA section 4 rules. To issue a TSCA section 4 test 

rule, EPA must find that data and experience are insufficient to reasonably determine or 

predict the effects of a chemical substance or mixture on health or the environment and 

that testing of the chemical substance or mixture is necessary to develop the missing data. 

15 U.S.C. 2603(a)(1). In addition, EPA must find either that the chemical substance or 

mixture may present an unreasonable risk of injury or that the chemical substance or 

mixture is produced in substantial quantities and may either result in significant or 

substantial human exposure or result in substantial environmental release. 15 U.S.C. 

2603(a)(1).

In the case of a mixture, EPA must also find that ‘‘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.’’ 15 U.S.C. 2603(a)(2).

TSCA section 21 omits the finding that ‘‘testing is necessary to develop the data’’ 

from the findings that a petitioner must demonstrate in order for a court to require EPA to 
*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 7 of 34 

initiate TSCA section 4 rulemaking. 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(4)(B)(i). Nonetheless, EPA 

believes TSCA section 21(b)(4) is best interpreted as incorporating this finding. The 

alternative would be to read the statute as empowering a court to require EPA to initiate a 

rulemaking even where the Agency could not make proposed findings consistent with 

TSCA section 4 or take final action on the rule. EPA’s interpretation is supported by 

legislative history (Ref. 1).

TSCA section 21(b)(4)(B)(i) provides for judicial review of a petition to 

promulgate a TSCA section 4 rule for chemical substances. In contrast, TSCA section 21 

does not provide for judicial review of a petition to promulgate a test rule for mixtures. 

Section 3 of TSCA gives distinct definitions for “chemical substance” and “mixture”, and 

section 21(b)(4)(B)(i) of TSCA specifies that the court’s review pertains to application of 

the TSCA section 4 factors to chemical substances. Moreover, TSCA section 

21(b)(4)(B)(i) does not contain the additional finding that TSCA section 4 requires for 

issuing a test rule for mixtures (that the effect may not be reasonably and more efficiently 

determined or predicted by testing the chemical components). Congress left the complex 

issues associated with the testing of mixtures to the Administrator’s discretion.

C.III. Summary of the TSCA Section 21 Petition

A. What Action was Requested? 

On August 4, 2011, Earthjustice and several other organizations petitioned EPA 

to: 

 1. Adopt a rule pursuant to TSCA section 4 to require manufacturers and 

processors of E&P chemical substances and mixtures to develop test data sufficient to 

evaluate the toxicity and potential for health and environmental impacts of all E&P 
*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 8 of 34 

chemical substances and mixtures that they manufacture and process. The petitioners 

request the rule include a requirement for the manufacturer or processor to identify any 

E&P chemical substance and mixture for which testing is required (Ref. 2). 

2. Adopt a rule pursuant to TSCA section 8(a) requiring manufacturers and 

processors of E&P chemical substances and mixtures to maintain records and submit 

reports to EPA disclosing the identities, categories, and quantities of E&P chemical 

substances and mixtures, descriptions of byproducts of E&P chemical substances and 

mixtures, all existing data on potential or demonstrated environmental and health effects 

of E&P chemical substances and mixtures, and the number of individuals potentially 

exposed to E&P chemical substances and mixtures (Ref. 2). 

3. Request call-in of all allegations of significant adverse reactions received and 

maintained by manufacturers, processors, and distributors of E&P chemical substances 

and mixtures pursuant to TSCA section 8(c) and 40 CFR part 717 (Ref. 2). 

4. Adopt a rule pursuant to TSCA section 8(d) to require submittal of all existing, 

not previously reported health and safety studies related to the health and/or 

environmental effects of all E&P chemical substances and mixtures (Ref. 2). 

D.B. What Support Do the Petitioners Offer? 

The petitioners believe that there are potential risks to human health, terrestrial 

and aquatic life, and the environment from E&P chemical substances and mixtures, and 

that there is currently insufficient information about these potential risks. The petitioners 

believe rulemakings under TSCA section 4 and section 8 are necessary to fill information 

gaps so that Federal and State regulators can appropriately assess and regulate E&P 

chemical substances and mixtures and provide information to the public about E&P 
*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 9 of 34 

chemical substances and mixtures. To support their requests, the petitioners discussed the 

following information sources andwhich focus mostly on hydraulic fracturing chemical 

substances and mixtures, and assert the limitations of these sources: 

• EPA’s current study to examine the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and 

drinking water resources (Ref. 3). 

• FracFocus.org (http://fracfocus.org), a website (operated jointly by the Ground 

Water Protection Council (GWPC) and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact 

Commission (IOGCC)) that serves as a voluntary chemical substance registry for 

companies to report all chemical substances that would appear on Material Safety

Data Sheets (MSDSs) (Ref. 4);publically available information on chemicals used in 

hydraulic fracturing operations.

• Current Federal and State regulations requiring the disclosure of E&P chemical 

substances and mixtures. 

• Two reports published by The Endocrine Disruption Exchange (TEDX) (Ref. 54) 

and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) 

(Ref. 65) that analyze the health effects of chemical substances and mixtures for 

which TEDX and NYSDEC could locate a Chemical Abstracts Service Registry 

Number (CASRN). 

• Reports of potential harm to human and environmental health from exposure to 

E&P chemical substances and mixtures. 

1. EPA’s study. In Fiscal Year 2010, the U.S. Congress’ Appropriation 

Conference Committee directed EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) to 

conduct research to examine the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking 
*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 10 of 34 

water resources (Ref. 3). Hydraulic fracturing is a well stimulation treatment that can be 

used in reservoirs with low permeability to maximize natural gas or oil production. 

Specially engineered fluids containing chemical additives and proppant are pumped 

under high pressure into wells to induce and hold open fractures in geological formations. 

Those fractures increase the exposed surface area of the rock in the formation and, in 

turn, stimulate the flow of natural gas or oil to the well bore once the applied hydraulic 

pressure is removed. The composition of hydraulic fracturing fluids varies by geologic 

formation, ranging from a simple mixture of water and sand to more complex mixtures 

with a multitude of chemical additives. Companies may use these chemical additives to 

thicken or thin the fluids, clean the formation, prevent corrosion of the well casing,

improve the flow of the fluid, or kill bacteria that can reduce fracturing fluid performance 

(Ref. 7). As the use of hydraulic fracturing has increased, so have concerns about its 

potential impact on human health and the environment (Ref. 3).

The study is designed to assess the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on 

drinking water resources and identify the driving factors that affect the severity and 

frequency of impacts (Ref. 3). The scope of the research includes the hydraulic fracturing 

water use lifecycle, which is a subset of the greater hydrologic cycle. For purposes of the

study, the hydraulic fracturing water lifecycle begins with water acquisition from surface 

or ground water and ends with discharge into surface waters or injection into deep wells.

Specifically, the water lifecycle for hydraulic fracturing consists of water acquisition, 

chemical mixing, well injection, flowback and produced water (collectively referred to as 

“hydraulic fracturing wastewater”), and wastewater treatment and waste disposal. (Ref. 

3).
*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 11 of 34 

As part of its study, on September 9, 2010, the Agency issued a voluntary 

information request to nine hydraulic fracturing service providers (followed by a 

subpoena to one company) (Ref.8). The data requested include: 1) information on the 

constituents of hydraulic fracturing fluids, including all chemical substances, proppants, 

and water, used in the last 5 years; 2) all data relating to the human health and 

environmental impacts of all constituents listed in (1); 3) all standard operating 

procedures and information on how the composition of hydraulic fracturing fluids may be 

modified onsite, and 4) all sites where hydraulic fracturing has occurred within one year 

prior to the request date and one year from the request date. The Agency received 

information on approximately 900 chemical substances from the nine service providers. 

Additionally, on August 11, 2011, the Agency sent letters to nine oil and gas 

companies requesting their voluntary participation in the study (Ref. 9). For example, the 

Agency requested data on well construction, design, and well operation practices for 350 

oil and gas wells that were hydraulically fractured from 2009-2010. These wells were 

selected using a stratified random method and reflect the diversity in both geography and 

size of the well operator. This account of well performance, together with a literature 

review, assessment of data and information from states and communities, case studies, 

laboratory work, and computer modeling, will allow EPA to assess more thoroughly the 

potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources. 

As of December 1, 2011, EPA has received partial data from eight of the nine 

companies on 277 wells. All nine of the companies have committed to submitting all 

their responsive well data by December 31, 2011. By sharing information about specific 

well construction design and operations, these companies will help EPA and the 
*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 12 of 34 

public gain a better understanding of well performance and technologies and practices 

associated with hydraulic fracturing in order to help us understand the potential for health 

and environmental effects. The final report is expected to be published in 2014. The 

petitioners state that “EPA’s study falls short of TSCA rulemakings because it will not 

require manufacturers and processors of E&P [chemical substances and mixtures] to take 

proactive efforts to conduct testing or to develop health and safety data needed to 

evaluate the health and environmental risks of their substances and mixtures” (Ref. 2).

2. FracFocus website. FracFocus is a website that is operated jointly by the 

GWPC and the IOGCC to serve as a voluntary chemical registry for individual 

companies to report all chemical substances and mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing. 

The petitioners assert that “[b]ecause the registry is based upon voluntary disclosures, 

operators may choose to disclose only those chemicals posing the least risk to health and 

the environment, and the public could receive misleading or selective information” (Ref. 

2).

3. Federal and state regulations. The petitioners state that federal agencies have 

extremely limited authority to regulate E&P chemical substances and mixtures. They 

assert that were hydraulic fracturing not specifically excluded from the definition of 

“underground injection” under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the oil and gas 

industry would be required to disclose in mandatory permit applications the source and 

analysis of the physical and chemical characteristics of all the chemical substances and 

mixtures injected below ground to stimulate oil and gas production. According to the 

petitioners, for the most part the oil and gas industry is not regulated under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Emergency Planning and Community 
*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 13 of 34 

Right to Know Act. Additionally, the petitioners believe there is limited information 

about E&P chemical substances and mixtures on MSDSs. 

Regarding state regulations, the petitioners stress that states do not routinely 

disclose to the public information they receive about E&P chemical substances and 

mixtures, even when the information is not claimed to be proprietary, and no state 

requires toxicity testing or development of health and safety data. 

4. TEDX and NYSDEC reports. According to the petitioners, in an

attempt to determine the identity of E&P chemical substances and mixtures and to 

evaluate the health effects associated with them, TEDX gathered information from 

multiple sources and matched the chemical substances that could be identified by 

CASRN with available health data. TEDX concluded that health data were available for 

“only a small percentage of the chemicals in use in the gas industry” (Ref. 2). The 

petitioners also cited a report that describes NYSDEC’s limited analysis of the health 

effects of hydraulic fracturing chemical substances and mixtures likely to be used at well 

sites in New York State. The petitioners assert that “NYSDEC’s review of the 

identifiable chemical substances and mixtures demonstrated that compound‐specific 

toxicity data are very limited for many chemical additives to fracturing fluids” (Ref. 2). 

Based on these two reports, the petitioners conclude that “the information currently 

available is insufficient to identify the full spectrum of E&P [chemical substances and 

mixtures] or to permit a reasoned evaluation of their health and environmental effects” 

(Ref. 2).

5. Health risks and exposure. According to the petition, numerous incidents of 

exposure to E&P chemical substances and mixtures demonstrate that these chemical 
*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 14 of 34 

substances and mixtures may present an unreasonable risk of harm to health and the 

environment at every stage of oil and gas development, including storage, transportation, 

treatment, and disposal. The petitioners cited reports of leaks and spills of E&P chemical 

substances and mixtures in states such as Wyoming, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Texas. 

The petitioners assert that the incidences of harm linked to oil and gas exploration are 

likely to increase, especially if EPA fails to promulgate regulations requiring disclosure 

and testing of E&P chemical substances and mixtures and reporting of related health and 

environmental effects.

E. Background on Oil and Gas E&P Industry 

Oil and gas E&P encompasses all the steps involved in finding, producing, and

processing crude oil and natural gas prior to transportation, refining and marketing (Ref. 

10). Many E&P activities include the use of chemical substances and mixtures that vary 

to meet the specific needs of a geological formation. These chemical substances and 

mixtures are used for different purposes, and many are not used solely in the oil and gas 

industry (Ref. 11). E&P “activities may include exploration for crude petroleum and 

natural gas; drilling, completing, and equipping wells; operating separators, emulsion 

breakers, desilting equipment, and field gathering lines for crude petroleum and natural 

gas; and all other activities in the preparation of oil and gas up to the point of shipment 

from the producing property” (Ref. 12). Exploration activities include “excavating slush 

pits and cellars, well surveying; running, cutting, and pulling casings, tubes, and rods; 

cementing wells, shooting wells; perforating well casings; acidizing and chemically 

treating wells; and cleaning out, bailing, and swabbing wells” (Ref. 12). Steps in 

exploration also may include “spudding in, drilling in, redrilling, and directional drilling”
*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 15 of 34 

(Ref. 12). Production activities to extract liquid hydrocarbons from hydrocarbon bearing 

formations include the use of: separators, emulsion breakers, desilting equipment, 

dehydrators and other processing equipment, and field gathering lines for crude oil and 

natural gas; and all other activities in the preparation of oil and gas up to the point of 

shipment from the producing property. “This subsector includes the production of crude 

petroleum, the mining and extraction of oil from oil shale and oil sands, and the 

production of natural gas, sulfur recovery from natural gas, and recovery of hydrocarbon 

liquids” (Ref. 12) (e.g., NAICS codes 213112, 213111 and 21111). 

There are more than “10,000 U.S. companies providing equipment, services, 

supplies, and design and engineering support for exploration, drilling, refining and other 

operations. Many are local firms, while others are global manufacturers selling products 

for operations around the world” (Ref. 10). 

F. Background on TSCA and Federal Activities Regarding Hydraulic Fracturing

Under TSCA, EPA has authority to require reporting, record-keeping and testing 

requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures 

manufactured, processed, used, distributed in commerce, or disposed of (Ref. 13). In 

addition, EPA has a number of other authorities that can be used to address aspects of 

hydraulic fracturing. The following offices at EPA are working on hydraulic fracturing 

efforts under other authorities:

 EPA’s ORD is undertaking a study to better understand any potential impacts of 

hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources (Ref. 3). 

 EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) is evaluating 

industry practices, alleged damage cases, and state requirements, and considering 
*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 16 of 34 

whether technical guidance on the design, operation, maintenance, and closure of pits 

and impoundments is needed under RCRA in order to minimize potential impacts of 

hydraulic fracturing waste.

 EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation proposed a rule on August 23, 2011, to control air

emissions at oil and gas wells, including during completion of wells, that are 

hydraulically fractured (Ref. 14). 

 EPA has announced a schedule to develop standards for wastewater discharges 

produced by natural gas extraction from underground coalbed and shale formations as 

part of its effluent guidelines development process under sections 301 and 304 of the 

Clean Water Act (CWA). Currently, wastewater associated with shale gas extraction 

is prohibited from being directly discharged to waterways and other waters of the 

United States. While some of the wastewater from shale gas extraction is reused or 

re-injected, a significant amount still requires disposal. As a result, some shale gas 

wastewater is transported to treatment plants, many of which are not properly 

equipped to treat this type of wastewater. EPA will consider standards for shale gas 

wastewater that must be met before going to a treatment facility. Wastewater 

associated with coal bed methane extraction is not currently subject to national 

standards when directly discharged into waterways or to pretreatment standards and 

EPA will consider the development of standards for such discharges (Ref. 15). 

 Under SDWA’s Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program, EPA is working to 

provide EPA’s UIC Program Directors guidance to ensure the SDWA programmatic 

requirements related to hydraulic fracturing when using diesel fuels are implemented 

appropriately (Ref. 15).
*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 17 of 34 

Section 9(b) of TSCA provides that the Administrator of EPA “shall coordinate 

actions taken under [TSCA] with actions taken under other Federal laws administered in 

whole or in part by” EPA. 15 U.S.C. 2608(b). Therefore, in the development of actions

EPA proposes to initiate under TSCA described in this notice, EPA will consult and 

cooperate with multiple offices within the Agency to address hydraulic fracturing in oil 

and gas production to avoid unnecessary or duplicative reporting. 

Other federal agencies have authorities to investigate and address hydraulic 

fracturing. In fact, the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

and the Department of Energy are evaluating various aspects of hydraulic fracturing. 

BLM currently is developing proposed regulations to require disclosure of well-specific 

information on chemical substances used in hydraulic fracturing on public lands (Ref. 

16). The Shale Gas Subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) 

recently published a final report evaluating ways to reduce the environmental impacts 

from shale gas production (Ref. 17). 

TSCA section 8 provides EPA the authority to collect important information on 

chemical substances and mixtures, including the amount manufactured, health and safety 

information and exposure information, among other things. EPA’s planned use of TSCA 

section 8, as described in this notice, would enable EPA and other federal agencies to 

improve their risk screening capabilities, enabling them to better assess and manage risk, 

and improve public awareness of information about chemical substances and mixtures 

used in hydraulic fracturing. 

Although it is likely that some data submitted would be claimed confidential, 

limiting public disclosure, EPA urges submitters of data under TSCA to limit the number 
*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 18 of 34 

and scope of confidentiality claims to those necessary to protect proprietary data (Ref. 

18). EPA also notes that health and safety studies that are submitted pursuant to TSCA 

sections 8(a) and 8(d) rules, and data from such health and safety studies, are generally 

not considered confidential under TSCA and are therefore releasable. TSCA section 

14(b). 

IIIIV. Disposition of TSCA Section 21 Petition 

For the purpose of making its decision, EPA evaluated the information presented 

or referenced in the petition and the Agency’s authority and requirements under TSCA 

sections 4, 8, and 21. EPA has also evaluated the comments in response to the petition 

received from the American Petroleum Institute (Ref. 116), the American Chemistry 

Council (Ref. 197), and Halliburton Energy Services (Ref. 208). After careful 

consideration, EPA has granted in part and denied in part the petition. EPA has decided 

to partially grantIn a letter dated November 2, 2011 (Ref. 9), EPA informed petitioners 

that it denied the TSCA sectionssection 4 request. In a subsequent letter dated November 

23, 2011 (Ref. 10), EPA informed petitioners that it granted in part the TSCA section 8(a) 

and 8(d) requests and plans to initiate rulemaking to obtain data on chemical substances 

and mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing. .

By virtue of partially granting the TSCA section 8(a) and 8(d) requests, EPA 

plans to initiate rulemaking under TSCA sections 8(a) and 8(d) to obtain data on 

chemical substances and mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing. Although EPA has 

partially granted the TSCA section 8(a) and 8(d) requests, the Agency is not committing 

to a specific rulemaking outcome. EPA’s response to the petition describes a principle 

that will guide EPA’s efforts: “given efforts underway [in states, industry and other 
*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 19 of 34 

federal agencies], our expectation is that the TSCA proposal would focus on providing 

aggregate pictures of the chemical substances and mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing. 

This would not duplicate, but instead complement, the well-by-well disclosure programs 

of states” (Ref. 10). 

EPA plans first to develop an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(ANPRANPRM) and initiate a stakeholder process to provide input on the design and 

scope of the TSCA reporting requirements that would be included in a proposed rule. 

EPA anticipates that States, industry, public interest groups, and members of the public 

will be participants in the stakeholder process. The stakeholder process will bring 

stakeholders together to discuss the information needs and help EPA to ensure any 

reporting burdens and costs are minimized, ensuring information already available is 

considered in order to avoid duplication of efforts. Although EPA has partially granted

the TSCA section 8(a) and section 8(d) requests, the Agency is not committing to a 

specific rulemaking outcome. The dialogue will also assist EPA in determining how 

information that is claimed CBI canConfidential Business Information could be 

aggregated and disclosed to maximize transparency and public understanding. EPA 

intends to release all reported information that is not claimed CBI. 

EPA has concluded that the request for EPA to use its TSCA section 8(c) 

authority is not subject to TSCA section 21. The Agency anticipates that the public 

dialogue will include discussions of the need for section 8(c) reporting on allegations that 

chemical substances or mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing cause significant adverse 

reactions to health or the environment. 
*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 20 of 34 

Regarding the TSCA section 4 request, EPA has concluded that the petition does 

not set forth sufficient facts to support the petitioners’ assertion that it is necessary to 

initiate the requested rulemaking under TSCA section 4. The discussion that follows 

provides the reasons for EPA’s decisions to grant this petition in part and to deny it in 

part. 

A. Partial Grant With Respect to Hydraulic Fracturing Chemical Substances and 

Mixtures 

With regard to TSCA sections 8(a) and 8(d), EPA has decided to initiate 

rulemaking to obtain data on chemical substances and mixtures used in hydraulic 

fracturing. EPA is not granting the requests with respect to chemical substances and 

mixtures used in oil and gas E&P more broadly. At this time, EPA believes a more 

focused information collection regarding hydraulic fracturing would significantly 

advance the government’s understanding of potential risks associated with this practice 

and would help to determine if future actions are necessary. 

TSCA sections 8(a) and 8(d) actions would be an important part of the federal 

government’s efforts to better understand and characterize potential risks associated with 

hydraulic fracturing. Given the specific authorities under TSCA to collect and make 

public information on the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, and use of 

chemical substances and mixtures, and to collect and make public health and safety data 

for chemical substances and mixtures, the data that would be collected would provide a 

chemical-specific and mixture-specific national picture of the chemical substances and 

mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing. This picture is currently not available, and would 

complement well-by-well disclosure programs of states.
*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 21 of 34 

The existing information sources provide only limited data on the chemical 

substances and mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing. Individually, these sources often 

provide information on only a subset of the chemical substances and mixtures used in 

hydraulic fracturing and often require the user to go to multiple sources to synthesize the 

information that the information source purports to provide. Even when taken together 

the existing information is very limited. EPA is not aware of any other authority that can 

provide as effectively as TSCA a national picture of the chemical substances and 

mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing.

These data collections and the disclosure of these data that EPA intends to pursue 

would address some of the recommendations in both SEAB’s August 18, 2011 (Ref. 21) 

and November 18, 2011 (Ref. 17) Ninety-Day Reports. The August 18, 2011 report 

identifies measures that can be taken to reduce the environmental impact and improve the 

safety of shale gas production. The SEAB recommends that federal agencies have 

primary responsibility for ensuring disclosure of fracturing fluid composition and 

“immediately develop rules to require disclosure of all chemicals used in hydraulic 

fracturing fluids on both public and private lands.” (Ref. 21) In addition, SEAB 

recommends that this information be made publicly available “with an exception for 

genuinely proprietary information.” In addition, the SEAB stressed the importance of 

creating a national database to link as many sources of public information as possible 

with respect to shale gas development and production (Ref. 21). EPA believes the 

information reported under TSCA authority would help to support the public disclosure 

of chemical substances and mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing fluid and provide

information to enable EPA and other agencies to assess and manage potential risks. 
*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 22 of 34 

Section 9(d) of TSCA provides that the EPA Administrator shall consult and 

cooperate with other Federal agencies ‘‘for the purpose of achieving the maximum 

enforcement of [TSCA] while imposing the least burdens of duplicative requirements.’’ 

15 U.S.C. 2608(d). Consistent with TSCA section 9(d), in the development of these 

actions, EPA will consult and cooperate with other agencies (e.g., Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) and the U.S Department of Energy) to avoid unnecessary or

duplicative reporting. (DOE)). Consistent with TSCA section 9(b), EPA will consult and 

cooperate with multiple offices within the Agency.

Regarding the TSCA section 4 request, EPA has concluded that the petition does 

not set forth sufficient facts to support the petitioners’ assertion that it is necessary to 

initiate the requested rulemaking under TSCA section 4. The discussion in this unit

provides the reasons for EPA’s decisions to deny the petition in part. 

B. A. Partial GrantDenial of the TSCA Section 8(a) Request 

The petitioners requested that “EPA adopt a rule pursuant to TSCA section 8(a) to require 

manufacturers and processors of E&P [chemical substances and mixtures] to 

maintain certain records and submit to EPA reports on those records” (Ref. 2). 

After careful consideration, EPA has decided to partially grant the TSCA Section 

8(a) Request to obtain data on chemical substances and mixtures used in hydraulic 

fracturing. The petitioners did not show that the requested TSCA section 8(a) rule, 

requiring maintenance of records and reporting with respect to all of the TSCA 

section 8(a) data elements for all E&P chemical substances and mixtures, is 

necessary. 

EPA plans to initiate a stakeholder process to assist the Agency in identifying 

reporting requirements for chemical substances and mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing, 

in order to allow the Agency and others to evaluate potential risks and to allow for public 

disclosure of the information. EPA’s current thinking with respect to TSCA section 8(a) is 

to propose a rule that would request information, such as chemical identity, categories of use, 

and volume and number of individuals exposed. Other TSCA section 8(a) elements also may 
*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 23 of 34 

be incorporated. This type of information would provide the best basis for EPA and other 

federal agencies to assess risks associated with hydraulic fracturing chemicals substances and 

mixtures. Before developing the proposed rule and to facilitate the stakeholder process, 

EPA plans to first issue an ANPR to seek comment on the information that should be 

included in the proposed section 8(a) rule. Comments submitted on the ANPR and as part 

of the stakeholder process will inform EPA's proposal, but given efforts underway, our 

expectation is that the TSCA proposal would focus on providing an aggregate picture of the 

chemical substances and mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing.

 Although EPA is granting the TSCA section 8(a) request in part, the petitioners’ 

request is overly broad, and they have not demonstrated that the broad rule they requested 

is necessary. The petitioners request that for all chemical substances and mixtures used 

throughout all E&P operations, EPA require by rule submission of essentially all of the 

information identified in TSCA section 8(a) for rules under that section. (The petitioners 

request all information for the chemical substances and mixtures generally, even beyond 

their use in the E&P industry.) As explained in Unit II.E, The E&P industry is a large 

industry involving a range of varied operations and classes of chemical substances and 

mixtures. (Refs. 11 and 12). EPA, other Federal agencies, and States, have focused 

attention on hydraulic fracturing due to specific concerns raised about this practice, and 

most of the incidents and information sources referenced in the petition pertain to 

hydraulic fracturing. EPA believes information collection under TSCA wouldcould

significantly advance the Federal Government’s understanding of potential risks 

associated with this practice. EPA notes that it already has broad regulations under TSCA 

section 8(a) requiring periodic reporting of extensive information with respect to 

chemical substances (Ref. 221) including chemical substances used in the E&P industry. 
*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 24 of 34 

Before proposing a TSCA section 8(a) rule specific to the E&P industry as a whole, EPA 

would want a better understanding of the incremental value of individual information 

elements. 

EPA also does not believe that petitioners have demonstrated all of the chemical 

substances and mixtures used throughout the E&P industry (or any of them) present an 

unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. The petition provides an 

inadequate basis for EPA to evaluate the risk presented by individual chemical substances

or mixtures, or to evaluate the potential economic impact of the requested TSCA section 

8(a) rule, which is a necessary element of an unreasonable risk analysis. EPA’s 

assessment of information that may be submitted pursuant to TSCA section 8, along with 

EPA’s continued evaluation of the data submitted and results achieved under the 

Agency’s other actions and continued interaction with other federal agencies, may inform 

the need for future additional TSCA section 8(a) data collection.

B. Partial GrantDenial of TSCA Section 8(d) Request 

EPA is partially granting the TSCA section 8(d) request in this petition. EPA 

intends first to issue an ANPRM regarding the submission of unpublished health and 

safety studies in their possession and lists of ongoing and initiated studies from 

companies manufacturing (including importing), processing, and distributing certain 

chemical substances and mixtures, used in hydraulic fracturing. As part of the stakeholder 

process discussed in Unit IV., EPA plans to seek stakeholder input on the range of 

chemical substances and mixtures that shouldmay be subject to the TSCA section 8(d) 

rulemaking. For the reasons set out in the above discussion of the TSCA section 8(a) 

request,Unit IV.A., EPA does not believe a broader TSCA section 8(d) rule is needed or 
*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 25 of 34 

appropriate at this time. 

C. TSCA Section 8(c) Request

The petitioners requested that EPA ‘‘exercise its authority under 40 C.F.R. section 

717.17 and request submission of copies of any information related to significant adverse 

reactions to human health or the environment alleged to have been caused by E&P 

[chemical substances and mixtures] manufactured, processed, or distributed” by nine 

companies (Ref. 2). As explained below, EPA has concluded that TSCA section 21 does 

not apply to the petitioners’ request for a TSCA section 8(c) data call-in. EPA anticipates 

that the stakeholder process will involve discussion of the possible use of TSCA 8(c) to 

request copies of records and reports of allegations from manufacturers (including 

importers) and processors for chemical substances used in hydraulic fracturing. 

Among the actions potentially available under TSCA section 8, only rules are 

proper objects of a TSCA section 21 petition. Pursuant to TSCA section 8(c) and EPA’s 

implementing regulations at 40 CFR 717.17, allegations of adverse reactions are not 

called in by rule. In contrast, other provisions of TSCA—including part of TSCA section 

8(c)—require or authorize the Administrator to act by rule. Section 21 of TSCA allows 

any person to petition ‘‘to initiate a proceeding for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of 

a rule under section 2603, 2605, or 2607.” 15 U.S.C. 2620(a). EPA interprets TSCA 

section 21 to apply only to the enumerated actions. 

EC. Denial of TSCA Section 4 Request 

The petitioners requested a TSCA section 4 test rule covering all chemical 

substances and mixtures used in oil and gas E&P. Specifically, the petitioners requested 

that EPA promulgate a rule under TSCA section 4 requiring ‘‘manufacturers and 
*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 26 of 34 

processors of E&P [chemical substances and mixtures] to develop test data to evaluate 

the toxicity and potential for health and environmental impacts of all chemical substances 

and mixtures they manufacture and process” and that the TSCA section 4 rule require the 

manufacturers and processors to identify all chemical substances and mixtures tested 

(Ref. 2). EPA is denying this request as the petitioners have not set forth sufficient facts 

to support their assertion that it is necessary to issue a TSCA section 4 rule requiring 

testing of all chemical substances and mixtures used in all oil and gas E&P, as required 

by TSCA section 21(b)(1). Further, to the extent that the petition could be read to 

articulate a somewhat narrower request (that only some chemical substances and 

mixtures should be tested, as necessary to evaluate the potential impacts of those 

chemical substances and mixtures), this is not a request for an identifiable rule under 

TSCA section 4, as required by TSCA section 21 (e.g., the petition does not identify 

specific chemical substances or mixtures for which inadequate data exist, or the data gaps 

or endpoints for which testing is necessary). 

The petitioners have not set forth sufficient facts for EPA to find that information 

available to the EPA Administrator is insufficient to permit a reasoned evaluation of the 

health and environmental effects of all E&P chemical substances and mixtures, or that 

testing is necessary to develop such information. The petitioners identified two reports 

that discuss health effects from some chemical substances and mixtures used during oil 

and gas operations with some specific discussion on hydraulic fracturing. The reports are 

an information source that EPA might review in developing a TSCA section 4 

proposalrulemaking to determine whether data are lacking for specific health end points 

for specific chemical substances. However, EPA believes the analysis conducted for the 
*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 27 of 34 

reports are not comprehensive because not all E&P chemical substances and mixtures 

were reviewed in either report (Ref. 2). Therefore, the petitioners do not demonstrate that 

data are insufficient for all E&P chemical substances and mixtures. 

The petitioners also failed to show it is necessary to issue a TSCA section 4 rule 

by failing to support the other findings under TSCA section 4. 15 U.S.C. 2603(a)(1)(A)(i) 

and (B)(i). The petitioners made a minimal attempt to show that any individual E&P 

chemical substance is produced in “substantial quantities” and provided no production 

volume information for any individual chemical substance. While the petitioners do make 

general statements that E&P chemical substances and mixtures are used in large 

quantities (Ref. 2), this does not provide a basis for EPA to conclude that all E&P 

chemical substances and mixtures are produced in substantial quantities. The term 

“substantial quantities” has been interpreted by EPA to generally be one million pounds 

or more per year (Ref. 2313). Nor have the petitioners shown that any specific chemical 

substance or mixture enters or may reasonably be anticipated to enter the environment in 

substantial quantities or that there is or may be significant or substantial human exposure 

to any specific chemical substance or mixture. Individual chemical substances and 

mixtures used in E&P operations may well be produced and released in small volumes. 

Furthermore, the petitioners have not shown that all E&P chemical substances and 

mixtures may present an unreasonable risk (Refs. 54 and 6). As discussed in Unit II.E,5).

The oil and gas E&P industry is broad and engages in a wide variety of activities and 

uses many different chemical substances and mixtures depending on site characteristics. 

Although petitioners provided examples of spills and releases and cited existing 

databases collecting health effects data, they did not show that any individual chemical 
*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 28 of 34 

substance or mixture, or the entire class of chemical substances and mixtures used in all 

phases of the E&P industry, may present an unreasonable risk. While it is possible that 

such a finding could be made for some chemical substances and mixtures used in some 

operations, it is also likely that many are benign, and petitioners did not provide sufficient 

information for the broad finding they request. For these reasons, the petitioners have not 

demonstrated that it is necessary to issue the requested TSCA section 4 rule. 

With respect to E&P mixtures, petitioners have not made any attempt to show that 

evaluating the effects of mixtures would be reasonable and more efficient than testing 

chemical substances in the mixtures. 15 U.S.C. 2603(a)(2). EPA is not prepared to make 

this finding without more complete information regarding the chemical substances and 

mixtures currently in use and the existing available information regarding potential health 

effects. EPA understands that mixtures can change frequently in hydraulic fracturing 

operations, and in the E&P industry more broadly, and the petition does not provide 

sufficient information to enable EPA to effectively identify what mixtures, or classes of 

mixtures, if any, might most efficiently be tested. Any existing mixture tested might not 

still be in use once testing has been completed, and additional mixtures might be in use at 

that point. A requirement to test certain representative mixtures might be reasonable and 

more efficient than testing individual chemical substances, but petitioners did not provide 

sufficient information to support such a finding. 

EPA may consider a TSCA section 4 rule at a later date. EPA is in the process of 

evaluating information in its possession and plans to request additional information as 

described in this noticedocument. While EPA agrees with petitioners that the Office of 

Research and Development (ORD) study focuses on the potential impacts on drinking 
*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 29 of 34 

water resources and does not require companies to conduct testing or to develop health 

and safety data, EPA plans to use the data to identify potentially hazardous chemical 

substances and mixtures associated with hydraulic fracturing, which will aid in EPA’s 

understanding of potential effects beyond drinking water impacts. EPA also plans to 

summarize the available data (including data the Agency may already have collected) on 

the toxicity of chemical substances and mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing, and to 

identify and prioritize data gaps for further investigation. This information will aid in 

EPA’s understanding of potential effects beyond drinking water impacts. EPA also plans 

to review the results from the Agency’s other activities and those from other Federal

agencies (see Unit II.F).Ref. 3).

IVV. References 

 The following is a list of the documents that are specifically referenced in this 

document and placed in the docket that was established under docket ID number EPAHQ-OPPT-2011-0683. For information on accessing the docket, refer to Unit I.B. 

1. House Conference Report 94–1679. A Legislative History of the Toxic Substances 

Control Act, (Committee Print 1976) (Legislative History, pp. 97-99).

1. Legal Standards on TSCA Section 4, 8(a), 8(c), 8(d) and Applicability to a 

Section 21 Petition. May 24, 2012.

 2. Earthjustice and 114 other organizations. Letter from Deborah Goldberg, 

Earthjustice to Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and 

Toxics (OPPT), EPA. “Re: Citizen Petition Under Toxic Substances Control Act 

Regarding the Chemical Substances and Mixtures Used in Oil and Gas Exploration or 

Production..” August 4, 2011. 
*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 30 of 34 

3. EPA, ORD. EPA’s Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing and Its

Potential Impact on Drinking Water Resources. November, 2011. Available on-lineonline

at: 

http://waterwww.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/upload/FINA

L-STUDY-PLAN-HF_Web_2.pdf. hfstudy.

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

Commission. FracFocus. Chemical Disclosure Registry. October 2011. Available online at: . 

The Endocrine Disruption Exchange 4. TEDX. Health Effects Spreadsheet and 

Summary. Summary Statement. January 27, 2011. Available online at: 

http://www.endocrinedisruption.com/chemicals.multistate.php. 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 5. NYSDEC. Draft 

Supplemental SGEIS [Generic Environmental Impact Statement] on the Oil, Gas and 

Solution Mining Regulatory Program. September 30, 2009. Available online at: 

http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/58440.html. 

3. Waxman, Henry A., Markey, Edward, J., and DeGette, Diana. United States House of 

Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce Minority Staff Report. 

Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing. April 2011. Available on-line at: 

http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Hydraulic

%20Fracturing%20Report%204.18.11.pdf.

4. EPA, Office of Research and Development. 2010 Hydraulic Fracturing Information 

Request. September 9, 2010. Available on-line at: . 

5. EPA, Office of Research and Development. 2011 Hydraulic Fracturing Information 
*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 31 of 34 

Request. August 11, 2011. Available on-line at: 

http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/upload/LetterT

o9HFCompanies_August2011.pdf.

6. API Energy. About Oil and Natural Gas. Industry Sectors. September 14, 2011. 

Available on-line at: http://www.api.org/aboutoilgas/sectors/.

6. Letter from Erik Milito, Group Director Upstream and Industry Operations, 

American Petroleum Institute (API) to Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, Director OPPT, EPA: 

“Comments on August 4, 2011 Citizen Petition under Toxic Substances Control Act 

Regarding the Chemical Substances and Mixtures Used in Oil and Gas Exploration or 

Production.” October 13, 2011. 

7. North American Industry Classification System. 2007 NAICS Definition. August 

2011. http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/index.html.

8. EPA. Summary of the Toxic Substances Control Act. Available on-line at: .

9. EPA. Oil and Natural Gas Sector: New Source Performance Standards and National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Reviews. Proposed Rule. Federal 

Register (76 FR 52738, August 23, 2011). (FRL–9448–6).

10. EPA. EPA Press Release - EPA Announces Schedule to Develop Wastewater 

Standards/Announcement is part of administrator's priority to ensure natural gas 

development continues safely and responsibly Available on-line at: 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/91e7

fadb4b114c4a8525792f00542001!OpenDocument.

11. U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Land Management. BLM to Hold 

Regional Forums on Hydraulic Fracturing in Natural Gas Production. Available on-
*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 32 of 34 

line at: 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsroom/2011/april/NR_04_01_2011.html.

12. U.S. Department of Energy. The SEAB Shale Gas Production Subcommittee Second

Ninety-Day Report. November 18, 2011. Available on-line at: 

http://www.shalegas.energy.gov/resources/111811_final_report.pdf

13. EPA. Claims of Confidentiality of Certain Chemical Identities Contained in Health 

and Safety Studies and Data from Health and Safety Studies Submitted Under the 

Toxic Substances Control Act. Notice. Federal Register (75 FR 29754, May 27, 

2010). (FRL-8827-3).

7. Letter from Christina Franz, Senior Director, Regulatory & Technical Affairs, 

American Chemistry Council (ACC) to Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, Director OPPT, EPA: 

“Comments of the American Chemistry Council on the TSCA Section 21 Petition 

Concerning Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Chemicals.” October 20, 2011. 

8. Letter from Mark N. Duvall, Council for Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., to 

Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, Director OPPT, EPA: “TSCA Section 21 Petition Regarding 

Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Chemicals; Comments of Halliburton Energy 

Services, Inc.” October 26, 2011. 

U.S. Department of Energy. The SEAB Shale Gas Production Subcommittee Ninety-Day 

Report. August 18, 2011. Available on-line at: 

http://www.shalegas.energy.gov/resources/081811_90_day_report_final.pdf.

9. Letter from Stephen A. Owens, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 

Prevention (OCSPP), Assistant Administrator, EPA: “TSCA Section 21 Petition 

Concerning Chemical Substances and Mixtures Used in Oil and Gas Exploration or 
*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 33 of 34 

Production.” November 2, 2011. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/

oppt/chemtest/pubs/SO.Earthjustice.Response.11.2.pdf.

14. EPA. TSCA Inventory Update Reporting Modifications; Chemical Data Reporting. 

Final Rule. Federal Register (76 FR 50816, August 16, 2011). (FRL–8872–9).

 10. Letter from Stephen A. Owens, OCSPP Assistant Administrator, EPA: 

“TSCA Section 21 Petition Concerning Chemical Substances and Mixtures Used in Oil 

and Gas Exploration or Production.” November 23, 2011. Available online at: 

http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/pubs/EPA_Letter_to_Earthjustice_on_TSCA_Petition.

pdf.

 11. North American Industry Classification System. 2007 NAICS Definition. 

August 2011. Available online at: http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/index.html.

 12. API Energy. About Oil and Natural Gas. Industry Sectors. September 14, 

2011.

 13. EPA. TSCA Section 4(a)(1)(B) Final Statement of Policy; Criteria for 

Evaluating Substantial Production, Substantial Release, and Substantial or Significant 

Human Exposure.; Final Statement of Policy. Federal Register (58 FR 28736, May 14, 

1993).) (FRL-4059-9). 

 
*** OMB Review Draft– Deliberative– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release ***

Page 34 of 34 

List of Subjects Chapter I

Environmental protection, Exploration and production (E&P), Hydraulic 

fracturing, Oil and gas, Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). 

Dated: ____________________ 

_____________________________________________________ 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.