BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 356
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 27, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Das Williams, Chair
AB 356
(Williams) - As Amended March 17, 2015
SUBJECT: Oil and gas: groundwater monitoring
SUMMARY: Requires, prior to submitting a proposal to exempt an
aquifer to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA),
that the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR)
hold a public hearing and gain concurrence from the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) on the proposal. Requires
groundwater monitoring plans for underground injection projects
(projects) as part of an application for approval of the project
or for the annual review of the project.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Pursuant to the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA):
a) Prohibits certain well activities that affect
underground sources of drinking water unless those sources
are located in an exempt aquifer.
b) Declares that the Underground Injection Control (UIC)
program for class II wells in the State of California,
except those on Indian lands, is administered by the DOGGR
approved by U.S. EPA pursuant to SDWA section 1425.
AB 356
Page 2
c) Allows DOGGR to propose and the regional administrator
of U.S. EPA to approve an exemption of an aquifer or its
portion that meets the criteria in the definition of
"underground source of drinking water" after considering
its current and potential future use as drinking water.
2)Requires the state's Oil and Gas Supervisor (Supervisor) 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.
3)Authorizes the Supervisor to implement a monitoring program,
designed to detect releases to the soil and water for
aboveground oil production tanks and facilities.
4)Requires groundwater monitoring in the vicinity of a well
subject to a well stimulation treatment.
THIS BILL:
1)Defines several terms related to the UIC program including
"class II well," "exempt aquifer," and "UIC program."
2)Authorizes the Supervisor of DOGGR to require a well operator
to implement a monitoring program for underground oil
production tanks and facilities and disposal and injection
wells.
3)Requires, prior to submitting a proposal to exempt an aquifer
AB 356
Page 3
to U.S. EPA, that DOGGR hold a public hearing and gain
concurrence from the SWRCB on the proposal.
4)Authorizes SWRCB to concur with the proposal if the following
conditions are met:
a) The proposed aquifer cannot now, or will not in the
future, serve as a source of drinking water or for other
beneficial uses.
b) Injection into the proposed aquifer will stay in the
proposed area and will not impact the ability of nearby
nonexempt aquifers to be a source of drinking water or for
other beneficial uses.
5)Requires DOGGR to review annually all projects for compliance
with applicable law.
6)Requires the operator of a project to submit to SWRCB or
appropriate regional water quality control board (RWQCB) for
review and concurrence a groundwater monitoring plan that
provides the following inforamtion:
a) Information demonstrating that the aquifer into which
the injection occurs or the proposed injection will occur
is an exempt aquifer.
b) Information regarding the current water quality of the
groundwater basin through which the well passes sufficient
to characterize the quality of the aquifer.
c) Information regarding the current water quality of the
injection zone sufficient to demonstrate that the injection
zone is not suitable to be used as a source of drinking or
irrigation water based on treatment technologies existing
at the time of submission of the plan.
AB 356
Page 4
d) The identification of both public supply and domestic
water wells located within one mile of the boundaries of
the injection zone or evidence showing that there are no
public supply or domestic water wells located within the
one mile zone.
e) A demonstration that the proposed injection well is
located in an area that is geologically suitable, including
an appropriate confining and injection zone.
f) Chemical and physical analyses of, and data regarding,
identities and concentrations of all constituents present
in the injected fluid or gas.
g) Sites for monitoring wells that will allow for the
detection of contamination or degradation associated with
projects during and after the period of its active use.
h) Sites for monitoring wells that demonstrate that the
injection fluid is confined to the intended injection zone
or zones of injection.
i) A schedule for monitoring and reporting data that
provides, at a minimum, groundwater quality data on a
quarterly basis during the active life of the well and at
least annually after the well has been closed and
abandoned.
j) An emergency plan that will be implemented in the case
of a well failure or other event that has the potential to
degrade groundwater.
AB 356
Page 5
7)Exempts wells from the monitoring for degradation requirement
if SWRCB or the appropriate RWQCB determines the well does not
inject into, or pass through, an aquifer with a beneficial use
and there are no public supply or domestic water wells located
within one mile of the injection zone.
8)Authorizes SRWCB or appropriate RWQCB to revise monitoring
plans to avoid duplication and assist with regional monitoring
plans associated with oil and gas activities.
9)Authorizes SRWCB or appropriate RWQCB to authorize a well
operator to rely on a regional monitoring plan instead of
their own monitoring sites.
10)Authorizes, subject to appropriation by the Legislature,
DOGGR's fee authority to be used to fund a public entity's
costs associated with implementing this article.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS:
1)UIC Program. In 1974, the Safe Drinking Water Act gave the
U.S. EPA the authority and responsibility to control
underground injection to protect underground drinking water
sources. In 1982, a primacy agreement was signed that allowed
DOGGR to implement the U.S. EPA's UIC program for oil and gas
wells in California. It has recently been discovered that
there were two versions of this agreement, one allowing
exemptions for 11 aquifers with high water quality and another
denying those exemptions and requiring all existing injection
wells into those aquifers be phased out over 18 months. The
aquifers were non-hydrocarbon-producing and all had a total
dissolved solids (TDS) concentration below 3,000 mg/l. The
AB 356
Page 6
SDWA is supposed to protect underground sources of water with
TDS concentrations below 10,000 mg/l. DOGGR's UIC permitting
decisions have been based on the assumption that these
exemptions were granted for the 11 aquifers in question.
A 2011 U.S. EPA audit of DOGGR's UIC program implementation
concluded that DOGGR was misclassifying underground sources of
drinking water and doing an insufficient job monitoring the
UIC program. In June 2014, it was discovered that DOGGR was
approving injection wells in nonexempt aquifers. This included
injections into the 11 aquifers that were not properly
exempted, but also included injections into aquifers that were
never exempt. California Environmental Protection Agency's
(CALEPA) review found that DOGGR's district offices were
approving projects without review from DOGGR and were making
errors identifying the injectable zone of exempt aquifers.
This included misidentifying the borders and depth of the
aquifer and allowing expansion of productive limits over time
beyond boundaries established in the Primacy Application.
Initially there were 2,553 injection wells operating in
non-exempt aquifers; after a review, 76 wells were removed
from that list. The wells represented both disposal wells and
enhanced oil recovery wells. To date, the state has shut down
23 injection wells, because they were injecting into aquifers
that could be suitable for drinking water. In addition, these
wells could potentially have had an impact on nearby water
supply wells. While no contamination of water supply wells has
been found yet, it is clear that aquifers that could have been
a source of underground drinking water have been contaminated
with injection fluid.
2)Aquifer exemptions. Any aquifer less than 10,000 mg/l TDS must
be exempted by U.S. EPA to be injected into. The state can
AB 356
Page 7
decide which aquifers to propose to U.S. EPA. In response to
U.S. EPA's audit and concerns over aquifers that were not
properly exempted, DOGGR will now require SWRCB concurrence on
any aquifer exemption proposal. In addition, the operator
will be required to demonstrate that the aquifer cannot now,
and will not in the future, serve as a source of drinking
water or for other beneficial uses. AB 356 codifies this new
procedure to ensure that aquifer exemptions will be thoroughly
vetted by DOGGR and SWRCB with public input. As California
deals with the fourth year of drought conditions, protecting
groundwater has become more important than ever. Past actions
by DOGGR harmed aquifers that could have been used for a
beneficial use. Thorough vetting of aquifers will help prevent
that from happening again.
3)Annual reviews. One of the U.S. EPA's audit's criticisms of
California's UIC program was the lack of annual reviews to
ensure compliance with laws and permit requirements. DOGGR had
not been conducting annual reviews, but in 2012 committed to
the U.S. EPA that it would conduct annual reviews for all
injection projects. In spite of this commitment, most
injection projects have not yet had an annual review. AB 356
would require annual reviews to address U.S. EPA concerns.
4)Groundwater monitoring. California's 515 alluvial (loose)
groundwater basins and sub-basins provide close to 40% of the
state's water supply in an average year. In dry or drought
years, groundwater accounts for as much as 60% of the state's
water supply. Many disadvantaged communities rely on
groundwater for 100% of their water supply. There are
approximately 42,000 oil and gas injection wells in
California; however, those wells are grouped together as
injection projects. According to DOGGR, there are 897 active
injection projects and 2,146 total projects in DOGGR's
database. DOGGR estimates that these projects inject into 350
aquifers, but does not definitively know the number of
aquifers being injected into. Injection projects can also be
AB 356
Page 8
into sand or rock that are not aquifers. When wastewater and
other fluids associated with the extraction of oil or gas are
injected into an aquifer, they can change the chemistry of and
contaminate that aquifer. In addition, there is concern that
injection fluids may not stay in the aquifer they are injected
into. Zonal isolation is important to protect other nearby
aquifers. SB 4 (Pavley), Chapter 313, Statutes of 2013,
requires groundwater monitoring for wells that have been
stimulated. SWRCB is currently working on Draft Model Criteria
to govern the groundwater monitoring plans required by SB 4.
In the meantime, DOGGR interim well stimulation regulations
require well operators to submit a groundwater monitoring plan
as part of their well stimulation treatment notices. A well
operator may alternatively request an exclusion from the
requirement to submit a groundwater monitoring plan if the
absence of protected water can be demonstrated. If protected
water is shown to be absent, SWRCB or a RWQCB will issue a
letter of written concurrence to the well operator. The
written concurrence letter is to be submitted by the well
operator in their well stimulation treatment notice. AB 356
will require injection projects to also have groundwater
monitoring plans. Operators whose injection projects will
inject into or pass through an aquifer with a beneficial use
will be required to monitor for contamination, degradation,
and confinement into the intended injection zone. Operators
whose injection projects do not, and could not, inject or pass
through an aquifer with a beneficial use will only be required
to monitor for confinement into the intended injection zone.
The author and the committee may wish to consider amending the
bill to clarify these provisions by focusing the groundwater
monitoring plans to provide the most relevant information that
is consistent with SB 4, create an end date for the monitoring
requirement, reduce the number of monitoring wells needed, and
allow operators to submit one plan with adjacent operators if
they are injecting into the same aquifer.
5)Suggested amendments. In addition to the amendments above, the
author and committee may wish to amend the bill to:
AB 356
Page 9
a) Replace the current definition of "exempt aquifer" with
the definition used in title 40 Section 144.3 of the code
of federal regulations.
b) Define "beneficial use" as having the same meaning as
subdivision f of Section 13050 of the Water Code.
c) Require DOGGR to provide the information necessary for
SWRCB to make the determinations required to concur with an
aquifer exemption proposal.
6)Previous and related legislation.
AB 982 (Williams, 2013) required RWQCBs to approve a proposed
groundwater monitoring plan prior to noticing the intent to
begin any oil or gas drilling. The bill requires the notice to
include the source of water used during any hydraulic fracturing
operations. The bill was held in Assembly Appropriations
committee.
SB 4 (Pavley), Chapter 313, Statutes of 2013, establishes a
comprehensive regulatory program for oil and gas well
stimulation treatments, which includes among other things, a
study, the development of regulations, a permitting process, and
public notification and disclosure.
SB 454 (Allen) prohibits DOGGR from submitting a proposal for an
aquifer exemption to the U.S. EPA unless DOGGR and SWRCB concur
in writing that the aquifer meets specified conditions. This
bill is awaiting a hearing in the Senate Natural Resources and
Water Committee on April 28.
AB 356
Page 10
SB 545 (Jackson, 2015) revises and updates DOGGR's authority and
permitting practices and reforms the handling of confidential
wells. This bill is awaiting a hearing in the Senate Natural
Resources and Water Committee on April 28.
SB 248 (Pavley) requires DOGGR to review and update its
regulations, data management practices, and enhance required
reporting. This bill is awaiting a hearing in the Senate
Appropriations Committee.
AB 1490 (Rendon) prohibits well stimulation, and in some cases,
wastewater disposal in areas that are seismically active or have
recently had an earthquake. This bill will also be heard by this
committee on April 27.
AB 1501 (Rendon) requires air districts to establish an emission
standard for methane from well stimulation treatment and other
petroleum extraction facilities. This bill requires emission
standards to include a permit requirement and consideration of
the effect production facilities have on adjacent vulnerable
populations. This bill requires the Air Resources Board or a
local air district to install monitoring stations near any
approved well stimulation site and other petroleum extraction
facilities to monitor for 12 different chemicals. This bill will
also be heard by this committee on April 27.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
AB 356
Page 11
Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments
Association of California Water Agencies
California Environmental Justice Alliance
California League of Conservation Voters
Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment
Citizens Coalition for a Safe Community
Citizens for Responsible Oil and Gas
Clean Water Action
Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation
Community Health Councils
Earthworks
East Bay Municipal Utility District
Environmental Defense Center
AB 356
Page 12
Environmental Justice Coalition for Water
Environmental Working Group
Foothill Conservancy
Goleta Water District
League of Women Voters of California
Los Angeles Waterkeeper
Los Padres Forest Watch
Natural Resource Defense Council
Physicians for Social Responsibility, San Francisco Bay Area
Chapter
SanDiego350
Save the Sespe
Sierra Club
AB 356
Page 13
Southern Monterey County Rural Coalition
Ventura County Board of Supervisors
Wholly H20
Opposition
CalChamber
California Independent Petroleum Association
Independent Oil Producers Agency
Western States Petroleum Association
Analysis Prepared by:Michael Jarred / NAT. RES. / (916) 319-2092
AB 356
Page 14