BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  SB 4
                                                                  Page 1


          SENATE THIRD READING
          SB 4 (Pavley and Leno)
          As Amended  September 3, 2013
          Majority vote 

           SENATE VOTE  :28-11  
           
           NATURAL RESOURCES   6-3         APPROPRIATIONS      10-5        
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Chesbro, Garcia,          |Ayes:|Gatto, Bradford, Ian      |
          |     |Muratsuchi, Skinner,      |     |Calderon, Campos, Eggman, |
          |     |Stone, Williams           |     |Gomez, Hall, Holden, Pan, |
          |     |                          |     |Quirk                     |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
          |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
          |Nays:|Grove, Bigelow, Patterson |Nays:|Harkey, Bigelow,          |
          |     |                          |     |Donnelly, Linder, Wagner  |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           SUMMARY  :  Establishes a comprehensive regulatory program for oil  
          and gas well stimulation treatments (e.g., hydraulic  
          fracturing), which includes, among other things, a study, the  
          development of regulations, a permitting process, and public  
          notification and disclosure.  Specifically,  this bill  :  
           
           1)Well Stimulation Treatment  .  Defines "well stimulation  
            treatment" as a treatment of a well designed to enhance oil  
            and gas production or recovery, including hydraulic fracturing  
            and acid well stimulation treatments, but not including steam  
            flooding, water flooding, cyclic steaming, routine well  
            cleanout work, routine well maintenance, bottom hole pressure  
            surveys, or routine activities that do not affect the  
            integrity of the well or the formation. 

           2)Study  .  On or before January 1, 2015, requires the Secretary  
            of the Natural Resources Agency to have a comprehensive  
            independent scientific study conducted on well stimulation  
            treatments.  Requires the scientific study to evaluate the  
            hazards and risks that well stimulation treatments pose to  
            natural resources and public, occupational, and environmental  
            health and safety.  

           3)Regulations  .  On or before January 1, 2015, requires the  








                                                                  SB 4
                                                                  Page 2


            Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), in  
            consultation with the Department of Toxic Substances Control  
            (DTSC), the State Air Resources Board (ARB), the State Water  
            Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the Department of Resources  
            Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), and any local air  
            districts and regional water quality control boards in areas  
            where well stimulation treatments may occur, to adopt rules  
            and regulations specific to well stimulation treatments.   
            Requires these regulations to include:  1) revisions to the  
            rules and regulations governing construction of wells and well  
            casings to ensure the integrity of wells, well casings, and  
            the geologic and hydrologic isolation of the oil and gas  
            formation during and following well stimulation treatments, 2)  
            full disclosure of the composition and disposition of well  
            stimulation fluids, and 3) a provision for the well operator  
            to provide for baseline and followup water testing upon  
            request by a nearby property owner.

           4)Delineating Regulatory Authority  .  On or before January 1,  
            2015, requires DOGGR to enter into formal agreements with  
            DTSC, ARB, SWRCB, CalRecycle, and any local air districts and  
            regional water quality control boards in areas where well  
            stimulation treatments may occur, that clearly delineate  
            respective authority, responsibility, and notification and  
            reporting requirements associated with well stimulation  
            treatments and well stimulation treatment-related activities,  
            including air and water quality monitoring, in order to  
            promote regulatory transparency and accountability. 

           5)Well Stimulation Treatment Permit  .  Requires the operator of  
            an oil and gas well who wishes to perform well stimulation  
            treatments to first apply for a permit with DOGGR to conduct  
            such treatments.  Requires the permit to include the well  
            identification number and location; the time period during  
            which the treatment is planned to occur; a water management  
            plan regarding water quantity, source, and disposal; specific  
            information related to the chemicals used in the treatment;  
            the planned location of the treatment on the well bore; the  
            estimated length, height, and direction of the induced  
            fractures; the location of existing wells, including plugged  
            and abandoned wells, that may be impacted; a ground water  
            monitoring plan; and the estimated amount of  
            treatment-generated waste material and an identified disposal  
            method for the waste materials.  Requires the permit to expire  








                                                                  SB 4
                                                                  Page 3


            one year from the date of issuance.

           6)Pre-Well Stimulation Treatment Notification  .  

             a)   Within five business days of issuing a permit to perform  
               a well stimulation treatment, requires DOGGR to provide a  
               copy of the permit to the appropriate regional water  
               quality control board(s) and to the local planning entity  
               where the well, including the subsurface portion, is  
               located.   

             b)   Within five business days of issuing a permit to perform  
               a well stimulation treatment, requires DOGGR to post the  
               permit on a publicly accessible portion of its Internet Web  
               site.

             c)   Requires DOGGR to provide a copy of the approved well  
               stimulation permit and information on the available water  
               sampling and testing (described in 7) below) to every  
               tenant of the surface property and every surface property  
               owner whose property line location is within a 1,500 foot  
               radius of the wellhead or within 500 feet from the  
               horizontal projection of all subsurface portions of the  
               designated well to the surface.  Allows well stimulation  
               treatment to commence 30 days after the permit copies are  
               provided to the appropriate surface property tenants and  
               owners.

             d)   Requires the operator of the oil and gas well to provide  
               DOGGR at least 72 hours' notice prior to the actual start  
               of the well stimulation treatment in order for DOGGR to  
               witness the treatment.

           7)Water Quality Sampling  .  Allows a property owner who receives  
            a well stimulation treatment notice to request water quality  
            sampling and testing from a qualified contractor designated by  
            the regional water quality control board.  Requires the well  
            owner or operator to pay for this sampling and testing.

           8)Post-Well Stimulation Treatment Disclosure  .  Within 60 days  
            after the cessation of well stimulation treatment, requires  
            the operator of the oil and gas well to post to an Internet  
            Web site designated or maintained by DOGGR and accessible to  
            the public, all of the well stimulation fluid composition and  








                                                                  SB 4
                                                                  Page 4


            disposition information required to be collected, including  
            well identification number, well location, and collected water  
            quality data.  Requires DOGGR to have its Internet Web site  
            operational on or before January 1, 2016.  Requires DOGGR's  
            Internet Web site to organize the reported information in a  
            format, such as a spreadsheet, that allows the public to  
            easily search and aggregate each type of information required.  
             Authorizes DOGGR to direct reporting to fracfocus.org in the  
            interim.  Requires DOGGR to allow the public to search and  
            sort the well stimulation and related information by at least  
            the following criteria:  1) geographic area; 2) additive; 3)  
            chemical constituent;   4) Chemical Abstract Service number;  
            5) time period; and 6) operator.

           9)Trade Secrets  .  Allows a supplier of well stimulation  
            chemicals to claim trade secret protections for the chemical  
            composition of additives; however, the supplier must still  
            provide the trade secret information to DOGGR.  Requires a  
            supplier to substantiate a trade secret claim, which is  
            reviewed by DOGGR.  If the supplier legitimately claims a  
            trade secret, requires the supplier to publicly disclose where  
            trade secret information has been withheld and provide  
            substitute information as specified.

            If DOGGR receives a request for release of the trade secret  
            information to the public, requires DOGGR to notify the  
            supplier of the request and give the supplier at least 60 days  
            to commence a court action to prohibit the release of  
            information.  

            Allows disclosure of trade secret information to a government  
            officer or employee in connection with his or her official  
            duties or to a contractor with a government entity if, in the  
            opinion of DOGGR, disclosure is necessary and required for  
            satisfactory performance of a contract or to protect health  
            and safety.

            Authorizes disclosure of trade secret information to a health  
            professional in the event of an emergency or to diagnose or  
            treat a patient.

            To protect public health, requires a supplier to provide trade  
            secret information to a health professional, toxicologist, or  
            epidemiologist who is employed in the field of public health  








                                                                  SB 4
                                                                  Page 5


            and who provides a written statement of need.  Requires the  
            written statement of need to include the public health purpose  
            and reason the disclosure of the specific chemical and its  
            concentration is required.

            Prohibits the following information from be protected as trade  
            secret: the identities of the chemical constituents of  
            additives; the concentration of the additives in the well  
            stimulation treatment fluids; any air or other pollution  
            monitoring data; health and safety data associated with well  
            stimulation treatment fluids; and the chemical composition of  
            the flowback fluid.

           10)Annual Reports  . Requires annual public reports from DOGGR  
            containing data and information on well stimulation as  
            specified. 

           11)Penalties  .  Authorizes a civil penalty between $10,000 to  
            $25,000 per day against a person who violates the well  
            stimulation requirements in this bill.

           12)Fee Authority  .  Subject to appropriation by the Legislature,  
            authorizes DOGGR's fee authority to be used to fund a public  
            entity's costs associated with well stimulation treatments  
            including rulemaking and scientific studies required to  
            evaluate the treatment, inspections, and any air and water  
            quality sampling, monitoring, and testing performed by public  
            entities and the costs of SWRCB and the regional water quality  
            control boards for its ground water monitoring program (see  
            13) below).

           13)Groundwater Monitoring Program  .  Requires, on or before  
            January 1, 2015, SWRCB to develop model groundwater monitoring  
            criteria to be implemented either on a well-by-well basis for  
            a well subject to well stimulation treatment, or on a regional  
            scale.  Requires, on or before January 1, 2016, SWRCB or  
            appropriate regional water quality control board to begin  
            implementation of the regional groundwater monitoring  
            programs.  Where there is no regional groundwater monitoring  
            plan approved by SWRCB or regional water quality control  
            board, requires the use of the well-by-well groundwater  
            monitoring plan.

           EXISTING LAW  :








                                                                  SB 4
                                                                  Page 6



          1)Requires DOGGR to supervise the drilling, operation,  
            maintenance, and abandonment of wells and the operation,  
            maintenance, and removal or abandonment of tanks and  
            facilities attendant to oil and gas production, including  
            certain pipelines that are within an oil and gas field, so as  
            to prevent, as far as possible, damage to life, health,  
            property, and natural resources; damage to underground oil and  
            gas deposits from infiltrating water and other causes; loss of  
            oil, gas, or reservoir energy, and damage to underground and  
            surface waters suitable for irrigation or domestic purposes by  
            the infiltration of, or the addition of, detrimental  
            substances.

          2)Requires the operator of any well, before commencing the work  
            of drilling the well, to file with DOGGR a written notice of  
            intention to commence drilling.  Prohibits the commencement of  
            drilling until approval is given by DOGGR.  If DOGGR fails to  
            give the operator written response to the notice within 10  
            working days from the date of receipt, requires that failure  
            to be considered an approval of the notice.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  According to the Assembly Appropriations  
          Committee:

          1)One-time costs of $2 million for DOGGR's initial activities  
            including rulemaking.  Ongoing costs of approximately $2  
            million for DOGGR to provide regulatory oversight.

          2)Unknown Increased initial and ongoing costs to the State Water  
            Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and regional boards to provide  
            groundwater monitoring depending on well activity. 

          3)Unknown significant costs to the Natural Resources Agency,  
            potentially in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to conduct  
            an independent scientific study.

          4)Ongoing costs of approximately $2 million for the Air  
            Resources Board to update their regulations and provide  
            associated monitoring.

          5)Unknown one-time and ongoing costs for CalRecycle and the  
            Department of Toxic Substance Control likely in the hundreds  
            of thousands of dollars to consult with DOGGR in regulation  








                                                                  SB 4
                                                                  Page 7


            development and form multi-agency agreements.

          This bill expands DOGGR's existing fee and assessment authority  
          (special fund) to cover all costs of the bill.
           COMMENTS :

           First of Its Kind.   In a white paper developed last year by the  
          Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), NRDC stated that "no  
          state can boast a comprehensive disclosure rule [regarding  
          hydraulic fracturing]."  NRDC concluded that adequate hydraulic  
          fracturing rules should contain the following key elements:  1)  
          prior notice of hydraulic fracturing to landowners and  
          residents, and disclosure of the chemicals to be used, at least  
          30 days before fracking commences;             2) complete  
          disclosure concerning the geological and environmental context  
          of the well;
          3) chemical identification of all substances used in fracking,  
          including the Chemical Abstract Service numbers and actual  
          concentrations; 4) disclosure of other important information  
          about the hydraulic fracturing treatment, including the volume,  
          source, and type of the base fluid, the maximum pressure used, a  
          record of all annulus pressures, and the fracture length; 5)  
          information concerning the waste generated, its contents, and  
          the methods of waste storage and disposal; 
          6) requirement that confidential information is provided to  
          state regulators and a process for the public to challenge  
          confidentiality claims; and 7) immediate access for medical  
          professionals and first responders to confidential information  
          in order to diagnose and treat patients.

          This bill contains essentially all the key elements outlined by  
          NRDC as well as additional requirements, such as ground water  
          monitoring plans and water quality sampling.  Moreover, this  
          bill applies to all forms of well stimulation (e.g., acid well  
          stimulation treatment), not just hydraulic fracturing.  Industry  
          statements suggest that acidization may be more important to the  
          development of the unconventional reserves in California's  
          Monterey Shale than fracking.  For example, in a November 2010  
          interview with the Oil & Gas Financial Journal, former Venoco  
          Inc. Chief Executive Officer (now Executive Chairman) Tim  
          Marquez said, "[w]e think our primary completion method will be  
          big acid jobs" in the Monterey Shale.

          With all of this considered, and in the words of the California  








                                                                  SB 4
                                                                  Page 8


          League of Conservation Voter's support letter for this bill, "if  
          passed, SB 4 would be the first of its kind..."

           Background on Well Stimulation  .  According to the Western States  
          Petroleum Association (WSPA), hydraulic fracturing (also known  
          as fracking) is a form of well stimulation used to obtain oil  
          and natural gas in areas where those energy supplies are trapped  
          in rock (i.e., shale) or sand formations.  Once an oil or  
          natural gas well is drilled and properly lined with steel  
          casing, fluids are pumped down to an isolated portion of the  
          well at pressures high enough to cause cracks in shale  
          formations below the earth's surface. These cracks or fractures  
          allow oil and natural gas to flow more freely.  Often, a  
          propping agent such as sand is pumped into the well to keep  
          fractures open.

          In many instances, the fluids used in hydraulic fracturing are  
          water-based. There are some formations, however, that are not  
          fractured effectively by water-based fluids because clay or  
          other substances in the rock absorb water.  For these  
          formations, complex mixtures with a multitude of chemical  
          additives may be used to thicken or thin the fluids, improve the  
          flow of the fluid, or even kill bacteria that can reduce  
          fracturing performance.

          Another form of well stimulation is called acid matrix  
          stimulation, which involves the injection of acid-such as  
          hydrochloric or hydrofluoric-into an oil and gas well to create  
          or enhance channels for the oil and gas.  Unlike hydraulic  
          fracturing, acid matrix stimulation injection pressures are not  
          high enough to fracture the formation.

          In 2005, Congress enacted what is colloquially referred to as  
          the "Halliburton Loophole," which exempts hydraulic fracturing  
          (except when involving the injection of diesel fuels) from the  
          federal Safe Drinking Water Act.  As a result of this action,  
          the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) lacks the  
          authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing activities that do  
          not use diesel fuel as an additive.

          Around the same time that Congress exempted hydraulic fracturing  
          from the Safe Drinking Water Act, the country experienced a boom  
          in the production of shale oil and gas.  From 2007 to 2011,  
          shale oil production increased more than fivefold, from  








                                                                  SB 4
                                                                  Page 9


          approximately 39 million barrels to about 217 million barrels,  
          and shale gas production increased approximately fourfold, from  
          1.6 trillion cubic feet to 7.2 trillion cubic feet.  This  
          increase in production was driven primarily by technological  
          advances in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing that  
          made more shale oil and gas development economically viable.

          But with this boom comes various issues with regard to  
          environmental health and safety, which has caused enormous  
          public anxiety.  Cases of environmental contamination attributed  
          to hydraulic fracturing have been reported in Wyoming, Texas,  
          Colorado, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania.  Consequently,  
          governments at all levels across the country are looking to  
          regulate the practice and address these concerns.

           The risks associated with shale oil and gas development  .   
          According to a recent report from the U.S. Government  
          Accountability Office (GAO), which is an independent,  
          nonpartisan agency that works for Congress, "[d]eveloping oil  
          and gas resources?poses inherent environmental and public health  
          risks, but the extent of risks associated with shale oil and gas  
          development is unknown, in part, because the studies we reviewed  
          do not generally take into account potential long-term,  
          cumulative effects."  The GAO's report categorizes the  
          environmental risks into the four major categories: air quality,  
          water quantity, water quality, and land and wildlife.

          With regard to air quality, the risks are "generally the result  
          of engine exhaust from increased truck traffic, emissions from  
          diesel-powered pumps used to power equipment, intentional  
          flaring or venting of gas for operational reasons, and  
          unintentional emissions of pollutants from faulty equipment."   
          The GAO report also explains how silica sand, a proppant  
          commonly used in hydraulic fracturing, and storing fracturing  
          fluids and produced waters in impoundments can cause air quality  
          issues.  Silica sand, if not properly handled, can become  
          airborne, lodge into a person's lungs, and cause silicosis,  
          which is an incurable lung disease.  Impoundments (i.e., ponds)  
          containing fracturing fluids and produced waters (i.e., the  
          water produced when oil and gas are extracted from the ground)  
          pose a risk because the evaporation of the fluids has the  
          potential to release contaminants into the atmosphere.

          With regard to water quantity, water is used for well drilling  








                                                                  SB 4
                                                                  Page 10


          operations to make drilling mud as well as to cool and lubricate  
          the drill bits.  Water is also the primary component of  
          hydraulic fracturing fluids.  According to the GAO, "the amount  
          of water used for shale gas development is small in comparison  
          to other water uses, such as agriculture and other industrial  
          purposes.  However, the cumulative effects of using surface  
          water or ground water at multiple oil and gas development sites  
          can be significant at the local level, particularly in areas  
          experiencing drought conditions."  It should be noted that the  
          oil and gas industry and DOGGR both assert that the amount of  
          water used for hydraulic fracturing in California is a fraction  
          of what is used in other states.  This assertion is based on  
          information voluntarily provided by oil and gas operators.  It  
          is not clear whether this information is representative of all  
          hydraulic fracturing in the state.  Additionally, with the  
          potential for an oil boom in the Monterey Shale (which is  
                                                                               explained in more detail below), it would be too speculative to  
          determine the type and amount of well stimulation that will take  
          place in the future and how much water will be needed.

          With regard to water quality, the GAO explains that shale oil  
          and gas development pose risks from contamination of surface  
          water and ground water as a result of spills and releases of  
          hydraulic fracturing chemicals, produced water, and drill  
          cuttings.  Spills and releases of these materials can occur as a  
          result of tank ruptures, blowouts, equipment or impoundment  
          failures, overfills, vandalism, accidents, ground fires, or  
          operational errors.

          The potential for the spill and release of chemicals involved in  
          hydraulic fracturing has received a great amount of public  
          attention.  According to a recent congressional report, between  
          2005 and 2009, oil and gas companies throughout the United  
          States used hydraulic fracturing products containing 29  
          chemicals that are known or possible human carcinogens;  
          regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act for their risk to  
          human health; or listed as hazardous air pollutants under the  
          Clean Air Act.  As for produced water, it can carry a range of  
          contaminants, including hydraulic fracturing chemicals, salts,  
          metals, oil, grease, dissolved organics, and naturally occurring  
          radioactive materials.  Drill cuttings (i.e., the broken bits of  
          solid material removed from drilling) may contain naturally  
          occurring radioactive materials, as well.









                                                                  SB 4
                                                                  Page 11


          The potential for underground migration is also a potential risk  
          to water quality.  The GAO explains that "[u]nderground  
          migration can occur as a result of improper casing and cementing  
          of the wellbore as well as the intersection of induced fractures  
          with natural fractures, faults, or improperly plugged dry or  
          abandoned wells.  There are also concerns that induced fractures  
          can grow over time and intersect with drinking water aquifers."   
          It should be noted that the oil and gas industry has provided  
          information claiming that hydraulic fracturing typically occurs  
          thousands of feet below the earth's surface and that the well  
          casing for these wells extends below an impervious layer of rock  
          "that would prevent any migration of fluids up into the drinking  
          water supply."  Assuming that the industry is correct, there is  
          still the problem with well casing failures.  A 2000 Society of  
          Petroleum Engineers article regarding an oil field in Kern  
          County explained that "the well failure rate, although lower  
          than that experienced in the 1980s, is still economically  
          significant at 2 to 6% of active wells per year."  In  
          Pennsylvania, poor cementing around a well casing allowed  
          methane to contaminate the water wells of 19 families.   
          Moreover, little data exists on fracture growth in shale  
          formations following multistage hydraulic fracturing over an  
          extended time period; the frequency with which refracturing of  
          horizontal wells may occur; the effect of refracturing on  
          fracture growth over time; and the likelihood of adverse effects  
          on drinking water aquifers from a large number of hydraulically  
          fractured wells in close proximity to each other.

          With regard to land and wildlife, the GAO explains that  
          "clearing land of vegetation and leveling the site to allow  
          access to the resource, as well as construction of roads,  
          pipelines, storage tanks, and other infrastructure needed to  
          extract and transport the resource can fragment habitats?[which]  
          increases disturbances?, provides pathways for predators, and  
          helps spread nonnative plant species."  Noise, the presence of  
          new infrastructure, and spills of oil, gas, or other toxic  
          chemicals are other risks that can negatively affect wildlife  
          and habitat.  There is also the issue of earthquakes and  
          hydraulic fracturing.  According to the GAO report, well  
          injections, especially the injection of produced water, have  
          been connected to seismicity.

          Ideally, the environmental risks referenced above would be  
          analyzed by the lead agency under CEQA.  However, according to a  








                                                                  SB 4
                                                                  Page 12


          complaint in a recent lawsuit filed against DOGGR by a number of  
          environmental groups, the agency has been "approving permits for  
          oil and gas wells after exempting such projects from  
          environmental review or? issuing boilerplate negative  
          declarations finding no significant impacts from these  
          activities."

           Well Stimulation in California.   According to the oil and gas  
          industry, hydraulic fracturing has been used in California for  
          decades.  The industry claims that over 90% of hydraulic  
          fracturing occurs in Kern County, in areas with no potable  
          water, no surrounding population, and no other significant  
          business interests.  However, reports from various sources  
          suggest that hydraulic fracturing in California will likely  
          increase significantly in the upcoming years, spreading to areas  
          throughout the state.

          A recent report from the University of Southern California (USC)  
          explains that "California boasts perhaps the largest deep-shale  
          reserves in the world.  Those reserves exist within the Monterey  
          Shale Formation, a 1,750 square mile swath of mostly underground  
          shale rock that runs lengthwise through the center of the state,  
          with the major portion in the San Joaquin Basin."  The U.S.  
          Energy Department estimates that the Monterey Shale contains  
          more than 15 billion barrels of oil, accounting for  
          approximately two-thirds of the shale-oil reserve in the United  
          States.  Additionally, according to a 2008 paper published by  
          the Society of Petroleum Engineers, "it is believed that  
          hydraulic fracturing has a significant potential in many  
          Northern California gas reservoirs."

          DOGGR, although having statutory authority to regulate well  
          stimulation, has not yet developed regulations to address the  
          activity.  As explained below, the agency is currently focused  
          on developing regulations that require oil and gas operators to  
          take certain protective measures and provide information about  
          hydraulic fracturing operations.  Additionally, as referenced  
          above, DOGGR may not be conducting adequate environmental review  
          through the CEQA process to determine if there are significant  
          impacts from hydraulic fracturing.

           DOGGR's Draft Regulations.   On December 28, 2012, DOGGR released  
          a pre-rulemaking discussion draft of regulations on hydraulic  
          fracturing-this draft does not address other forms of well  








                                                                  SB 4
                                                                  Page 13


          stimulation, such as acid matrix stimulation.  The proposed  
          hydraulic fracturing regulations attempt to impose requirements  
          on operators aimed to improve transparency and safety.   
          Specifically, the proposed regulations would require an operator  
          to:  1) submit information to DOGGR at least 10 days prior to  
          beginning hydraulic fracturing operations and notify DOGGR at  
          least 24 hours prior to commencing hydraulic fracturing  
          operations (advance disclosure of hydraulic fracturing chemicals  
          is not required); 2) prior to operations, test the structural  
          integrity of wells and casings to prevent fluid migration; 3)  
          store and handle hydraulic fracturing fluids in a specified  
          manner; 4) monitor a specified set of parameters during  
          hydraulic fracturing operations and, in case a breach occurs,  
          terminate operations and immediately notify DOGGR about the  
          breach; 5) after the conclusion of operations, monitor wells for  
          up to 30 days and maintain data for a period of five years; and  
          6) disclose data to a Chemical Disclosure Registry (such as  
          fracfocus.org) that is not a trade secret, unless a health  
          professional submits a written statement of need stating that  
          the trade secret information will be used for diagnosis or  
          treatment of an individual exposed to hazardous hydraulic  
          fracturing chemicals and the health professional also executes a  
          confidentiality agreement.

          These proposed regulations will be vetted through a year-long  
          formal rulemaking process beginning the summer or fall of 2013.   
          In the meantime, DOGGR has conducted public workshops in Los  
          Angeles and Sacramento about the proposed regulations, with more  
          planned in California cities like Bakersfield and Santa Maria  
          through July 2013.

           
          Analysis Prepared by  :    Mario DeBernardo / NAT. RES. / (916)  
          319-2092 


                                                                FN: 0002264