 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
Print this page
Email to a friend
 |
||||||||
Fact Sheets | ||||||||
 | ||||||||
|
||||||||
|
Issues » Fact Sheets
Environment & Safety Fact Sheets
IPAA Opposes EPA's Possible Expansion of TRI
Why the expansion of the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) to the Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Industry is not needed
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering whether to impose a major new reporting burden on the oil and gas exploration and production (E&P) industry by expanding its Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Program to include E&P operations.
What is TRI?
The Toxic Release Inventory is EPA’s program for providing information to the public on releases of toxic chemicals into the environment. For oil and gas exploration and production facilities, most of these reported "releases" are state or federally approved safe, legal, permitted disposal, activities. Initially, only manufacturing facilities were required to report under TRI. However, in June 1996, EPA proposed expanding the TRI program to several non-manufacturing industries in order to, "provide the public with a more comprehensive picture of toxic release." EPA is considering whether to add the E&P industry to the program.
Industry Concerns
Industry has several concerns with the potential inclusion of the E&P industry in the TRI program. One of the most misleading and inappropriate requirements would be reporting underground injection as a "release" to the environment. Because produced water is injected thousands of feet below oil and gas reservoirs -- there is practically no potential for public exposure from these operations. In addition, because the vast majority of E&P operations are in remote, rural areas -- or far offshore -- they are miles from the nearest community. Finally, these activities are already strictly regulated under state and federal law. Reporting E&P releases, therefore, provides little, if any, environmental benefit.
What Would Expansion to E&P Operations Mean?
According to a study by the American Petroleum Institute, the potential costs of such an expansion would be over $200 million in the first year alone. Over 4,700 facilities, encompassing over 40% of the oil and gas wells in the U.S., would be subject to this unnecessary requirement. In addition, an independent study by the U.S. Department of Energy estimates that the costs could be even higher -- with impacts into the billions of dollars.
The Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC)Report
The IOGCC reported on the existing reporting requirements for the oil and gas E&P industry. IOGCC concluded that:
- The public already has access to important environmental regulatory information for E&P operations.
- Environmental regulatory information collected at the state and local level is more immediately available than from Federal sources.
- A cooperative effort should be developed between the states; industry, EPA and environmental organizations to provide easier access to existing data sources.
The IOGCC report makes it clear that the information currently being reported under existing state and federal regulatory programs provides adequate public information regarding E&P operations. The report recommends providing easier access to the data that is currently reported, rather than imposing a costly new reporting program on the E&P industry.
Industry has been actively involved in the IOGCC's efforts to strengthen state environmental regulatory programs, and supports IOGCC's proposal to make information currently reported by E&P operations more accessible.
Current Status
Since 1998 EPA has set aside efforts to expand the TRI program to cover E&P operations. However, the Clinton Administration has continued its agenda of expanding the public availability of information on industrial operations without accurately characterizing the context of the information. It has led to misinterpretations of normal operations that pose no environmental risk. Currently, EPA has proposed new guidance regarding reporting under the federal Superfund and Right-to-Know laws regarding "federally permitted releases". These releases are not required to be reported under these laws because they are permitted either explicitly under federal law or implicitly through state or federal regulations or standards. EPA is trying to expand the scope of the federal reporting program by reinterpreting the definition of federally permitted releases by excluding those that are implicitly permitted. In April 2000, IPAA filed comments opposing this improper reinterpretation of these laws.
IPAA will remain diligent in following any developments related to TRI expansion.
Conclusion
Communities have the right to know about potential threats to their health and the environment. But there is no reason to mislead the public with confusing information on releases that pose virtually no threat. Right-to-know laws should not be used as a right to mislead. The public has a right to expect that taxpayer money is going to protect human health and the environment against real threats. Held up to the lens of cost-effectiveness, environmental benefits, and appropriateness, expansion of the TRI program to the E&P industry is not sound public policy.
May 2000
Problems? Email: rcarter@ipaa.org | © 2005 by the Independent Petroleum Association of America. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy