BILL ANALYSIS Ó SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Senator Wieckowski, Chair 2015 - 2016 Regular Bill No: SB 454 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Author: |Allen | ----------------------------------------------------------------- |-----------+-----------------------+-------------+----------------| |Version: |4/21/2015 |Hearing | 4/29/15 | | | |Date: | | |-----------+-----------------------+-------------+----------------| |Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes | ------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Consultant:|Rachel Machi Wagoner | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUBJECT: Water quality: oil and gas: exempt aquifer ANALYSIS: Existing law: 1. Under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA): A. Authorizes and requires the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) to regulate underground injection in order to protect underground drinking water sources. B. Prohibits certain oil and gas well activities that affect underground sources of drinking water unless those sources are located in an exempt aquifer. C. Authorizes US EPA to delegate primacy to states to regulate and enforce as long as the state's regulation and enforcement is as stringent as federal law. In California the Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) in the Department of Conservation has been granted primacy by US EPA. D. Authorizes primacy agencies to apply to US EPA to propose that an aquifer or a portion of an aquifer be an exempt aquifer. E. Authorizes the US EPA to approve the proposal if the aquifer or a portion of the aquifer meets certain SB 454 (Allen) Page 2 of ? criteria. 2. Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne) the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the regional water quality control boards have regulatory authority to protect, preserve and enhance the quality of the waters of the state. This bill: prohibits DOGGR from submitting a proposal for an aquifer exemption to US EPA unless DOGGR and SWRCB concur in writing that the aquifer meets specified conditions. Background Underground Injection Wells. There are approximately 50,000 underground injection wells in California. The majority of which are used for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) operations to spur oil and gas production. Approximately 75% of California's oil and gas production is attributable to the use of EOR. The wastewaters produced by oil and gas extraction are disposed of in approximately 1,500 injection waste disposal wells. Since June 2014, when a set of oil and gas waste disposal wells were ordered "shut in" by DOGGR, there have been a series of news stories released, as well as acknowledgements made by DOGGR, that numerous oil and gas related injected wells are improperly sited and present a risk of contamination to good quality ground water used for drinking water and agricultural irrigation purposes. Why Does US EPA Regulate Injection Wells? In 1974, Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). SB 454 (Allen) Page 3 of ? The SDWA required US EPA to report back to Congress on underground waste disposal practices, and develop minimum federal requirements for injection practices that protect public health by preventing injection wells from contaminating USDWs. What is a USDW? An underground source of drinking water (USDW) is an aquifer or a part of an aquifer that is currently used as a drinking water source or may be needed as a drinking water source in the future. Specifically, a USDW: Supplies any public water system, or Contains a sufficient quantity of ground water to supply a public water system, and currently supplies drinking water for human consumption, or contains fewer than 10,000 mg/l total dissolved solids (TDS), and Is not an exempted aquifer. The UIC program implements this protective mandate through the UIC regulations. How do the UIC Regulations Protect Groundwater? The UIC program protects USDWs from endangerment by setting minimum requirements for injection wells. All injection must be authorized under either general rules or specific permits. Injection well owners and operators may not site, construct, operate, maintain, convert, plug, abandon, or conduct any other injection activity that endangers USDWs. SB 454 (Allen) Page 4 of ? The purpose of the UIC requirements is to: Ensure that injected fluids stay within the well and the intended injection zone, or Mandate that fluids that are directly or indirectly injected into a USDW do not cause a public water system to violate drinking water standards or otherwise adversely affect public health. Who Regulates Injection Wells? Injection wells are overseen by either a state or Tribal Agency or one of US EPA's regional offices. States and tribes may apply for primary enforcement responsibility, or primacy, to implement the UIC program within their borders. In general, state and tribal programs must meet minimum federal UIC requirements to gain primacy. If a state or tribe does not obtain primacy, US EPA implements the program directly through one of its regional offices. US EPA has delegated primacy for all well classes to 33 states and 3 territories; it shares responsibility in 7 states, and implements a program for all well classes in 10 states, 2 territories, the District of Columbia, and most Tribes. California has primacy for the UIC program for Class II wells. DOGGR implements this program. DOGGR has implemented the UIC program, specific to Class II wells, for California pursuant to a primacy agreement with US EPA reached in 1982 and incorporated into federal regulations in 1983. In California SWRCB has statutory authority and responsibility to protect ground water under both the federal Clean Water Act and Porter-Cologne. SWRCB Resolution 88-63 recognizes and SB 454 (Allen) Page 5 of ? incorporates aquifer exemptions with specific reference to the SDWA. In 1988, DOGGR and SWRCB signed an MOA governing oil and gas related discharges. SWRCB retains authority over water quality independent of the MOA. The MOA lacks clarity, however, according to SWRCB emails. The terms of the MOA, as well as state statute, give DOGGR lead responsibility over Class II wells. What is an Aquifer Exemption? An aquifer exemption is an action by US EPA to remove an aquifer or a portion of an aquifer from protection as an underground source of drinking water under the SDWA. What Criteria Does US EPA Use to Evaluate Aquifer Exemptions? US EPA is responsible for the final review and approval of all aquifer exemption requests. UIC permit applicants that seek an aquifer exemption in order to conduct injection activities typically delineate the proposed exempted area and submit a package, including supporting data, to the primacy agency. States with primacy, like California, review the application and, if the information submitted supports a determination that an aquifer exemption is warranted, propose to exempt the aquifer, provide for public participation, and submit a request for approval of the exemption to US EPA. US EPA must follow the regulatory criteria set forth in 40 CFR 146.4 in making aquifer exemption determinations. For US EPA to approve an aquifer exemption, US EPA must: A. Find that the state, or where US EPA directly implements the UIC program, the applicant, has demonstrated that the aquifer or the portion of an aquifer sought for exemption does not currently serve as a source of drinking water. B. Determine either that the aquifer cannot now, or will not in the future, serve as a source of SB 454 (Allen) Page 6 of ? drinking water, or that the total dissolved solids content of the ground water is more than 3,000 and less than 10,000 mg/l and is not reasonably expected to supply a public water system. The regulations describe four potential reasons for making the determination that the aquifer cannot now and will not in the future serve as a source of drinking water. The aquifer is mineral, hydrocarbon, or geothermal energy producing, or Can be demonstrated as part of a permit application to contain minerals or hydrocarbons that are expected to be commercially producible. The other reasons relate to the practicality and cost of accessing and treating the water for human consumption. What is the Importance of TDS Levels in Water? Salinity is a measure of the amount of dissolved particles and ions in water. A common measure of salinity is the level of total dissolved solids (TDS). TDS is generally expressed in units of mg/l (milligrams per liter) or ppm (parts per million). In expressions of TDS levels, milligrams per liter (mg/l) and parts per million (ppm) are equivalent units. Salinity levels can result from hundreds of different ions, but a few make up most of the dissolved material in water: chloride and sodium, followed by calcium, nitrate, magnesium, bicarbonate and sulfate. The higher the salinity level of water, the less likely it is to be used for purposes such as drinking and other beneficial uses. As a general rule, aquifer TDS levels increase with depth. SB 454 (Allen) Page 7 of ? Below is some information about water with different TDS levels: Precipitation: 10 ppm Freshwater lake: 10-200 ppm Agricultural impact to sensitive crops: 500 ppm California drinking water limit - secondary max contaminant level (taste/odor): 1,000 ppm (max) US EPA's regulatory definition of a USDW: 10,000 ppm Brackish: 23,000 ppm Seawater: 35,000 ppm What is the Risk to Ground water Associated with Class II Wells? As noted above, the UIC program is a part of the federal SDWA and is in place to ensure that injection wells are not located near ground water aquifers that may currently be used as or have the potential to be used in the future for drinking water. Additionally, if a well is drilled near a USDW the following pathways of contamination put the USDW at risk: lack of well casing integrity. faulty cementing of the well allowing fluid movement up the annulus. Movement from the formation itself into the confining formation (the cap, meant to separate it geologically from a USDW). Abandoned or poorly plugged wells acting as a conduit. Movement from one part of a formation to another (by changing the hydraulic gradient). SB 454 (Allen) Page 8 of ? Injection directly into a USDW. (NOTE: this is the current problem in which California is concerned). California is becoming ever more reliant on ground water as a source of drinking water as well as other beneficial uses, such as agriculture. When wastewater and other fluids associated with the extraction of oil or natural gas are injected into an aquifer they can change the chemistry of and contaminate that aquifer. For this reason the SDWA criteria for injection specify that these wells cannot be drilled into aquifers where the water quality is currently or may be considered in the future high enough to use as a source of drinking water. Class II wells should only be located in areas where there is not any potential use of the aquifer as a USDW. Injection into Non-Exempt Aquifers in California. In 2014, SWRCB began to conduct its review as to whether or not ground water monitoring would be required around wells with well stimulation treatments, (pursuant to the requirements of SB 4 (Pavley), Chapter 313, Statutes of 2013. As SWRCB conducted its review, staff questioned the apparent exemption of numerous aquifers. In communications between SWRCB and DOGGR, it was discovered that DOGGR is approving injection wells in numerous locations where there are not exempt aquifers. SWRCB started to order ground water quality data for injection wells injecting in the wrong place. From July 2 - September 26, 2014, DOGGR ordered a net 11 wells to be shut-in as these wells were injecting into non-exempt aquifers. On July 17, 2014, US EPA sent a letter to DOGGR inquiring into these wells and the UIC program. The letter stated that in 2012 US EPA started a review of aquifer status and it was provided to DOGGR. This letter demanded specified information be provided from DOGGR at 30, 60 and 90 days. By 30 days, US EPA needed a status report or action plan on all Class II wells injecting into non-hydrocarbon bearing aquifers where the TDS is less than 10,000 ppm. By 60 days, US EPA required a timeline. By 90 days US EPA wanted a status report or action plan on all Class II wells injecting in to hydrocarbon-bearing aquifers that have a SB 454 (Allen) Page 9 of ? TDS less than 10,000 ppm. On July 18, 2014, DOGGR issued a press release stating that DOGGR is working on complying with the letter. On July 21, 2014, US EPA released an "enhanced coordination and communication" memo to the states on aquifer exemption requests. On August 18, 2014, DOGGR responded to US EPA via email with draft work plan (work plan which is very similar to DOGGR's 2012 "Road Map"). On September 15, 2014, SWRCB sent a letter to US EPA, accompanying DOGGR's emailed transmission. The focus of the SWRCB's investigation outlined in the letter is where waste disposal wells are injecting into aquifers which have <3,000 ppm TDS and there is a risk to public health. SWRCB specifies a tiered priority investigation of the injection wells in question, as requested by US EPA. SWRCB identified their first priority for investigation as those waste disposal well injection zones within 500 foot vertically of the bottom of a water well within a radius of 1 mile of the injection well. (NOTE: SWRCB is not just looking into the waste disposal wells. This applies to all the other Class II injection wells too). o Category 1a wells are 11 waste disposal wells with 108 water wells in the vicinity. To date, thallium, arsenic and nitrate levels have been found at a level greater than the MCL in 4 samples and the TDS is higher than the secondary MCL in 3 samples. o Category 1b wells are waste disposal wells injecting into aquifers of "uncertain" exemption (these are the 11 aquifers of disputed exemption). There are 19 waste disposal wells and 37 water wells (no contamination was found at the time of the letter). Please note that the water wells are not necessarily in the place that a monitoring well would be. o Category 2, are 125 waste disposal wells SB 454 (Allen) Page 10 of ? injecting into aquifers that either have a TDS less than 3000 ppm or the TDS is not known. On December 22, 2014 - Because DOGGR did not meet the 90-day deadline prescribed in US EPA's July 17, 2014 letter and only partially met the other information requests, US EPA sent a follow up letter to DOGGR and SWRCB giving them a firm deadline of February 6, 2015 to show how California will get the State's UIC program into compliance with federal law by February, 2017. On February 6, 2015, DOGGR sent a letter to US EPA providing a detailed plan. In the letter, DOGGR does not unequivocally advocate for shutting down all wells injecting into high water quality aquifers but commits to reviewing all of them by the deadline of February, 2017. (NOTE: SDWA provides for a review process for aquifer exemptions). As of this letter, approximately 500 waste disposal wells and 2000 EOR wells were identified to be reviewed. The well list which was provided in September, 2014 was revised to indicate that approximately 140 waste disposal wells were identified as the highest priority for review. Many of the highest priority wells are located in the disputed 11 aquifers. Ultimately, approximately 30,000 injection wells have been identified for review. On March 3, 2015, The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) released a report, requested by Governor Brown, asking CalEPA to conduct an independent review of the state's Underground Injection Control program. The report: 1. Outlines the discrepancies in understanding about the exemption of the 11 aquifers. 2. States that DOGGR notified US EPA regarding the discrepancies three years ago (NOTE: As discussed above, the first primacy agreement WITHOUT the exemption was publicly stated as the governing document on DOGGR's website until recently it was represented to legislative staff that those aquifers were not exempt in discussions regarding SB 4 in 2013.) 3. Asserts that both DOGGR and US EPA agreed to exempt the 11 aquifers, but may not have followed regulatory SB 454 (Allen) Page 11 of ? procedures. 4. Specifies that about a half of the active wastewater disposal wells injecting in <3,000 ppm TDS aquifers are injecting into the 11 aquifers where the exemption is in question as part of the original primacy agreement with US EPA. The remaining half is the result of permitting errors. On March 3, 2015, in conjunction with the above-referenced report, DOGGR announced that an additional 12 injection wells were ordered to be shut in, which brings the total to 23 wells. SWRCB announced that it has issued 40 additional requests for water quality data from injection well operators. Comments Purpose of Bill. According to the author, "SB 454 establishes criteria to protect California's precious ground water aquifers from the waste pollution resulting from oil and gas extraction operations. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, before DOGGR can permit an oil company to drill a wastewater disposal or chemical injection well into an aquifer, California must obtain an exemption from the Act for that aquifer from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)." The author asserts, however, that "DOGGR has allowed more than 2,500 wastewater disposal and chemical injection wells to be drilled into aquifers that have not been exempted from the Safe Drinking Act and therefore should have been protected. The fluids being injected into these aquifers contain a toxic cocktail of chemicals, including benzene, arsenic and radioactive material. Many of these chemicals are known to cause cancer and other human health problems." The author states that "DOGGR has proposed a plan and process to examine these aquifers and seek exemptions from the Safe Drinking Water Act for those aquifers the agencies believes qualify for an exemption. According to this proposed plan, DOGGR will request exemptions for aquifers that cannot 'reasonably be expected to be used for beneficial uses.' However, the criteria DOGGR is using to make this determination SB 454 (Allen) Page 12 of ? does not consider California's current severe drought or the reality of future water shortages." The author asserts that "it is clear that going forward, given California's long-term water challenges, the state will need to access deeper aquifers and adopt technology necessary to clean aquifers currently considered polluted. Given the current water crisis, it is irresponsible and shortsighted to not protect these aquifers." Oversight Hearing on UIC. On March 10, 2015, the Senate Natural Resources & Water and Environmental Quality Committees' Oversight Hearing on UIC. During this hearing members heard testimony from both DOGGR and SWRCB. It was clearly stated that DOGGR did not adequately conduct appropriate oversight and enforcement activities to ensure that ground water aquifers were protected from contamination pursuant to the MOA between DOGGR and SWRCB. It was clear that it was only because of SWRCB activities pursuant to SB 4 that the state became aware of the illegal injection activities in violation of SDWA. SOURCE: Author SUPPORT: Ballona Network California League of Conservation Voters Center for Environmental Health Clean Water Action Environmental Working Group Lost Padres Forest Watch SanDiego350 OPPOSITION: None on file ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The support argues that "Ground water resources play a vital role in maintaining California's economic and environmental sustainability. California's 515 alluvial ground water basins and sub-basins SB 454 (Allen) Page 13 of ? provide close to 40% of the state's water supply in an average year. And in dry or drought year, ground water accounts for as much as 60% of the state's water supply. Many disadvantaged communities rely on ground water for 100% of their water supply." According to the support, "the recent revelation that over 2,500 oil and gas wells were permitted by DOGGR to inject wastewater and other fluids into federally protected aquifers shows that action must be taken to protect California's ground water. These injections violate the federal Safe Drinking Water Act and fail to protect ground water that potentially could be used for drinking water, irrigation or other beneficial uses. Considering we are currently in our fourth year of extreme drought, the time to act is now." Supporters believe "SB 454 enhances oversight and accountability in order to ensure that only aquifers that cannot and will not have beneficial uses be used for oil and gas wastewater disposal or take on fluids for enhanced oil recovery." -- END --