A plan by the US Environmental Protection Agency to begin adding natural gas processing plants to the facilities required to report releases of toxic chemicals is an example of environmental activists pursuing a "sue and do" strategy to compel the federal agency to do their bidding, an official with the Gas Processors Association said Wednesday.
In an email, GPA President and CEO Mark Sutton said a proposed rulemaking to force gas processing plants to comply with the EPA's Toxics Reporting Inventory is unnecessary because the plants already disclose the required data through other sources.
"Most, if not all, of the information that EPA is seeking is already publically available in one form or another," Sutton said.
In a letter Thursday EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy responded to a 2-year-old petition filed by the Environmental Integrity Project and 16 other environmental organizations, asking the agency to add the oil and gas extraction sector to the list of industry sectors required under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act to report releases of toxic material to the TRI.
"Although we do not agree with EPA's rationale to expand the TRI reporting requirements, we look forward to working with them through the rulemaking process," Sutton said.
"However, this is a classic example of activists using the 'sue and do' concept, where they petition the agency to do something they want and then sue the agency to ensure that it complies with their wishes. Essentially, the activists drive and control the agency's agenda in this particular situation," he said.
The environmental groups had petitioned the EPA in a letter dated October 24, 2012, which the petitioners followed up with one additional submission in January 2014 and another two submissions the following May.
On January 7, 2015, the petitioners filed a lawsuit against EPA alleging that EPA's delay in responding to the initial petition was unreasonable and therefore in violation of federal law.
In a joint motion to stay the proceedings EPA promised to respond to the environmental groups' petition by October 30.
In her letter, McCarthy granted the petition in part by saying the EPA would initiate a rulemaking to add gas processing facilities to the scope of the TRI. The letter denies the remainder of the petition, which had asked that the rulemaking cover gas extraction and transportation as well as processing.
"EPA estimates that more than half of the 517 natural gas processing plants in the US would meet the TRI employee threshold (10 full-time employees or equivalent) and manufacture, process or otherwise use at least one TRI-listed chemical in excess of applicable threshold quantities," EPA spokesman Robert Daguillard said in an email Wednesday.
"Using information from Canada's National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI), a program analogous to TRI and which covers natural gas processing plants, EPA estimates that natural gas processing facilities manufacture, process or otherwise use more than 25 different TRI-listed chemicals, including hydrogen sulfide, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene," he said.
Additionally, Daguillard said, the EPA estimates that about 42 million people, 48% of whom are minorities and 14% of whom live below the poverty line, live within 30 miles of at least one gas processing plant.
"EPA believes that TRI reporting by natural gas processing facilities would provide interested communities and other users of TRI data with significant release and waste management data regarding a range of toxic chemicals," he said.
The EPA did not agree with the petitioners' demand that EPA should extend the TRI reporting requirement upstream to the industry's exploration-and-production sector.
The rulemaking will not extend to well sites, compressor stations, pipelines and other smaller facilities that employ fewer than 10 people.
"TRI reporting from such well-level activities would present a limited picture of the chemical releases associated with these activities," Daguillard said.
In a statement, representatives of the environmental groups who had petitioned, and later sued the EPA, praised the agency's decision to conduct a rulemaking for processing plants.
"The oil and gas industry releases an enormous amount of toxic pollutants every year, second only to power plants in emissions," Environmental Integrity Project attorney Adam Kron said. "With this decision, EPA is taking an important step in the right direction."
Aaron Mintzes, policy advocate for Earthworks, said the EPA decision would hold the natural gas industry accountable for releases of toxic materials.
"While we prefer EPA require reporting industrywide, this step will provide the public a better understanding of the toxic contaminates in their communities," he said.
