BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER
Senator Fran Pavley, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 1420 Hearing Date: June 23,
2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Salas | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Version: |April 21, 2015 Amended |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|Katharine Moore |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Oil and gas: pipelines.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
According to news reports:
Ï On March 11, 2014 the Southern California Gas Company was
looking for leaks in its own natural gas pipeline in Arvin
when it detected gas.
Ï On March 12, Southern California Gas determined that the gas
was not from its pipeline and notified the City of Arvin.
Ï It took 5 more days to determine that the gas was coming
from a leak in a 3-inch diameter pipeline owned by Petro
Capital Resources, LLC. The location of the pipeline was
misidentified in available resources, and the pipeline was
used to carry waste gas to a nearby flare a few blocks from
Arvin High School.
Ï On March 17, it was determined that the gas had saturated
the soil and contaminated eight homes. Mandatory evacuations
were ordered the next day and approximately three dozen people
were displaced. Explosive levels of flammable gases were
measured inside the homes.
Ï The evacuated families and neighbors are reported to have
expressed considerable concern about the lack of information
about the leak, the responsibilities of local and state
government to address it, potential health problems and delays
in notification.
Ï The mandatory evacuation was lifted in October 2014, and the
evacuees moved back in December 2014. Petro Capital
Resources, LLC paid for the residents to stay elsewhere during
spill remediation and paid for the remediation services.
AB 1420 (Salas) Page 2
of ?
Ï The leaky pipeline was reported to be on the order of 40
years old, and after the leak was removed from service.
According to the Assembly Natural Resources Committee
analysis, this pipeline was last inspected on August 8, 2011.
There are reported to be thousands of feet of similarly aging
pipelines in Kern County whose location may, in some
instances, be uncertain and that may also be inspected
infrequently.
California is the third largest oil producer in the nation and
among the top 20 for the production of natural gas. Kern County
produces approximately 70% of the state's oil and gas annually.
(Statements based on 2013 data.)
The Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (division) in
the Department of Conservation is the state's oil and gas
regulator. The Oil and Gas Supervisor (supervisor) leads the
division.
Existing law provides broad authority to the supervisor.
Existing law requires the supervisor to supervise the operation,
maintenance, and removal or abandonment of tanks and facilities
(including pipelines) related to oil and gas production within
an oil and gas field, so as to prevent damage to life, health,
property, and natural resources, as specified, among other
requirements (Public Resources Code (PRC) §3106).
Existing law requires the division to prescribe minimum facility
maintenance standards for oil and gas production facilities,
including pipelines that are not under the jurisdiction of the
State Fire Marshal (PRC §3270). These standards include
standards for leak detection. Pipelines that are located within
the lease areas of oil and gas fields, and are integrally
associated with oil and gas production, are generally "attendant
to" oil and gas production and therefore under the divisions
jurisdiction.
Implementing these and other provisions of law, existing
regulations:
Ï require a spill contingency plan for an oil/gas production
facility, as specified (Title 14 (14), California Code of
Regulations (CCR), §1722(b));
Ï require significant gas or water leaks, among other
emergencies, as specified, to be reported to the appropriate
AB 1420 (Salas) Page 3
of ?
division district office (14 CCR 1722(i));
Ï define an environmentally sensitive area to include:
- a production facility within 300 feet of any public
recreational area, or a building intended for human
occupancy that is not necessary to the operation of the
production operation, such as residences, schools,
hospitals, and businesses;
- a production facility within 200 feet of any officially
recognized wildlife preserve or environmentally sensitive
habitat (as defined), or waterways or other bodies of water
(as defined);
- a production facility within the coastal zone, as
specified; and
- any production facility which the supervisor determines
may present a significant potential threat, as specified,
or has a history of chronic leaks (14 CCR §1760(e)); and
Ï require pipeline inspection and testing as well as the
existence of pipeline management plans. Of relevant interest:
- the supervisor has the authority to order any tests or
inspections of pipelines necessary;
- a pipeline with a reportable leak must be tested prior
to re-entering service;
- a mechanical integrity test is required on all active
environmentally sensitive pipelines that are gathering
lines and all urban pipelines, as defined, over 4 inches in
diameter every two years, as specified;
- a mechanical integrity test is defined to include
various forms of testing to ensure the integrity of the
pipeline;
- pipelines that fail testing must be removed from service
and the supervisor promptly notified;
- copies of test results are required to be retained by
the operator, as specified; and
- the pipeline management plan shall include information
about each pipeline and a description of the testing method
and schedule for all pipelines, (14 CCR §1774.1, §1774.2).
Existing law establishes local health department, under the
purview of the local health officer. Existing law prescribes
various duties for those local health departments, including
supervising remediation when hazardous waste is released and
enforcing statues relating to public health.
AB 1420 (Salas) Page 4
of ?
PROPOSED LAW
This bill would respond to the recent pipeline leak in Arvin by
instituting several statutory changes. Specifically this bill
would:
Ï require the local health officer, in the event that the
officer determines that a pipeline leak poses a risk to public
health and safety and the response to the leak has been
inadequate to work collaboratively with the division and the
owner or operator of the pipeline, to (1) direct the
responsible party to perform environmental testing in the
contaminated area and disclose the results publicly, as
specified, and (2) use the test results to determine if a
serious threat to public health and safety of the residents
exists, and, if so, provide assistance to those residents;
Ï in the event the health officer determines that the pipeline
leak poses a serious threat to public health and safety,
notify all residents affected by the leak;
Ï require the division to prioritize the identification and
testing of all pipelines under its jurisdiction that are near
sensitive area, such as residential areas and schools; and
Ï require the operator of a pipeline under the divisions
jurisdiction to notify the division and local health officer
of a pipeline leak.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
According to the author, "[a]s the [oil] industry continues to
be a fixture in California, the safety of workers, communities
and the environment should remain a top priority. Despite
precautions taken, incidents occur in which immediate action is
needed to protect the health, safety, and environment of nearby
communities."
"In early 2014, a gas leak was detected beneath the community of
Arvin, California. A total of 8 families were evacuated from
their homes and unable to return for several months. Affected
residents claimed to have smelled gas, and complained of
nosebleeds, headaches, coughing and dizziness. Once the leak
was detected, affected residents were unclear where to get
resources and information. This incident demonstrated a lack of
clarity in the law regarding the role of all involved entities."
"Assembly Bill 1420 would require operators of a leak[ing]
AB 1420 (Salas) Page 5
of ?
pipeline to notify local health officials. If it is determined
that the leak poses a risk to public health and safety then the
local health official will be required to work collaboratively
with [the division] and the owner and/or operator the pipeline.
[?] The bill will also require [the division] to prioritize the
identification and testing of pipelines in their jurisdiction
that are near sensitive areas, such as residential neighborhoods
and schools."
The Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment wrote, "[t]hough
residents took their own air samples, the results of the
"official" air testing were never disclosed to residents. The
evacuated residents are now back home, but the leak and the
subsequent eight-month forced relocation has taken a heavy
financial, emotional, and health toll on the families."
The Center continues, "AB 1420 will provide local agencies with
the authority they need to quickly respond to leaks in order to
protect residents' health, ensures that residents are informed
about the risks they face if a leak occurs nearby, and provides
for reimbursements to residents for costs associated with a
pipeline leak, including relocation costs."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
None received
COMMENTS
This bill is double-referred with the Senate Environmental
Quality Committee . Should this bill pass this Committee today
it will subsequently be heard before the Senate Environmental
Quality Committee. This Committee's jurisdiction over this bill
is limited to the role of the division. The role of local
health officers, disclosure of environmental testing results,
processes and procedures in the event of a local health
emergency, and resident notification is under the Senate
Environmental Quality Committee's jurisdiction and will be
reviewed there. Information related to those issues is included
here for completeness. Stakeholder conversations regarding
these provisions continue, and include existing state law,
responsibilities and processes in the event of emergencies, and
the relevant jurisdiction of various entities.
Clarifying expectations of the division . The type of pipeline
responsible for the leak in Arvin is not required to be
AB 1420 (Salas) Page 6
of ?
inspected on any regular specific schedule under current law or
regulation. While this pipeline is located in an
environmentally sensitive area, as defined, it did not meet the
criteria specified in regulation for a specific inspection
interval. While the intent of the current language is clear, it
is not necessarily clear what the specific expectations are of
the division to help prevent incidents such as the one in Arvin
last year from re-occurring. In order to make pipeline
identification and inspection expectations explicit in statute
and definitively capture the pipeline responsible for the Arvin
leak in this bill, the Committee may wish to specify the type of
pipelines (active gas, of any size), deadline for pipeline
identification (2 years), inspection interval (2 years), type of
inspection (mechanical integrity testing), and invoke the
existing definition of environmentally sensitive areas
[Amendment 1].
Technical change . A technical change is required to provide
consistency with respect to those responsible for the pipeline
[Amendment 2].
The division's responsibility for pipeline leaks and spills . As
noted above, the supervisor has broad authority pursuant to PRC
§3106, other PRC sections and their regulatory implementation to
order the preparation of spill contingency plans, pipeline
testing, require proof of pipeline integrity, and to shutdown
pipelines. The division also has jurisdiction to specify, in
some instances, the amount of oil that may be spilled prior to
triggering reporting requirements (i.e. the San Joaquin Valley
Field Rules for oil spills.) The division is not responsible
for clean-up of spills and leaks.
Codifying specific notification to the division of a leak .
Existing regulations, as described above, already require in
some instances notification to the division of a pipeline leak
or loss of integrity. In the Arvin incident, the division
appears to have been notified and involved. This bill would
eliminate any ambiguity or potential ambiguity, however, that
reporting requirements to the division apply in the event of a
leak similar to the one that occurred in Arvin.
AB 1420 (Salas) Page 7
of ?
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS
AMENDMENT 1
on page 3, delete lines 22 - 25, inclusive, and replace
with:
"The division shall require a mechanical integrity test
every two years for all active gas pipelines of any
diameter that are environmentally sensitive. The division
shall identify all active gas pipelines of any diameter
subject to this section by January 1, 2018. For the
purposes of this section, "environmentally sensitive" is as
defined in subdivision (e) of Section 1760 of Title 14 of
the California Code of Regulations and "mechanical
integrity test" is as defined in subdivision (e) of Section
1774.1 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations."
AMENDMENT 2
on page 3, line 34: insert "owner or" before "operator"
SUPPORT
City of Arvin
Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment
Jose Gurrola, Mayor Pro Tem, City of Arvin
OPPOSITION
None Received
-- END --