1. SB 83 Independent Panel Review of
California’s Underground Injection Control Program (UIC)
Department of Conservation
Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources
(DOGGR)
May 29, 2018
Ken Harris, State Oil & Gas Supervisor Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources

2. Topics Covered
Brief introduction to Underground Injection Control (UIC)
U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act
Aquifer exemptions
UIC wells and permitting
Summary of issues that have been identified in DOGGR’s administration of the UIC program
U.S. EPA oversight
Injection into non-exempt aquifers
Science-based regulatory and program reforms as DOGGR
The Department of Conservation’s Renewal Plan
New regulations

3. United States Safe Drinking Water Act
Regulation of UIC is part of the implementation of the U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
Fluid injection into the subsurface is part of the SDWA. DOGGR, under a primacy agreement with U.S. EPA, regulates wells that inject fluid associated with enhanced oil recovery or produced water disposal.
The SDWA protects underground sources of drinking water (USDW) unless they meet the criteria for exemption.
Probably want to acknowledge here that this will not be new to most of the group, but you wanted to briefly cover this for the members of the public in attendance and those members of the panel who may be less familiar with Oil and Gas Production technologies.

4. Aquifers Exempt from SDWA
SDWA requires that UIC program must prevent underground injection that "endangers drinking water sources.” DOGGR and the Water Boards must ensure that the intended zone of injection does not contain a USDW and that injection will not endanger a USDW.
An aquifer is determined not to be a USDW if it meets the following criteria:
It does not currently serve as a source of drinking water; and
It cannot now and will not in the future serve as a source of drinking water because:
It naturally contains hydrocarbons (oil or gas)
It is economically or technologically impractical to render that water fit for human consumption; or
The total dissolved solids content is greater than 10,000 mg/l and it is not reasonably expected to supply a public water system.
Notes on the SDWA: Federal Statutes provide that an effective UIC program must prevent underground injection that "endangers drinking water sources." (See 42 U.S.C. §§ 300h(b)(1) and 300h-4(a).) Under the SDWA, endangering drinking water sources means allowing injection that "may result in the presence in underground water which supplies or can reasonably be expected to supply any public water system of any contaminant, and if the presence of such contaminant may result in such system’s not complying with any national primary drinking water regulation or may otherwise adversely affect the health of persons." (42 U.S.C. § 300h(d)(2).) Although the SDWA statutes use the term "undergound source of drinking water," the term was only later defined by US EPA regulations--specifically 40 CFR § There, paraphased, a USDW is defined as an aquifer that either currently supplies a public water system, or that has enough water such that it could supply a public water system and has a water quality of less than 10,000 TDS. Thus, if an aquifer has 10,000+ TDS, it is by defintion not a USDW. Additionally, if a USDW is designated "exempt" by the US EPA, it also by definition ceases to be a USDW. To facilitate the goal of protecting drinking water sources from endangerment, the SDWA authorizes state UIC program directors to affirmatively identify USDW aquifers, but any aquifer that fits the regulatory definition (i.e., is currently used or is less than 10,000 TDS and could be used) is still considered a USDW entitled to SDWA protection regardless of whether or not it has been affirmatively "identified." Aquifers that do not fit the defintion of USDWs, perhaps because their TDS is too high, are not considered "exempt"--rather, they are simply not subject to to the special protection afforded to USDWs under the SDWA. (See 40 CFR § 144.1(g).)

5. Representation of an Aquifer
Non-Municipal
Groundwater
Impermeable
layer
Gas
Oil and Water
While showing this slide, Ken should point out that all of the areas with fluid in them are considered “aquifers” under the safe drinking water act, unless they are exempted.
Impermeable layer
Briny Water

6. UIC Wells Enhanced oil recovery wells in California Cyclic steam
Steam flood
Water flood
Disposal wells
Produced water disposal wells
Gas disposal wells
Injection wells have been an integral part of California’s oil and gas operations for nearly sixty years. There are approximately 55,000 oilfield injection wells operating in California. These include enhanced oil recovery (EOR) wells used to increase oil recovery through sustained injection or reinjection of large volumes of fluids, and wells devoted to the disposal of the “produced water” that emerges from hydrocarbon deposit areas simultaneously and commingled with the produced hydrocarbons. About seventy-five percent of the roughly 600,000 barrels of oil produced daily in California (thirty-five percent of California’s daily petroleum use) results from the use of EOR injection methods.
Injection wells also function as a disposal method for the large volumes of water that are drawn-up along with the hydrocarbons. Due to the maturity of California’s oil fields, every barrel of oil extracted from underground is comingled with over fifteen barrels of water (on average). After the oil is separated, operators must dispose of the immense volumes of water in order to continue the production process. Of the residual water, roughly two-thirds is returned to oil-bearing reservoirs for enhanced production and reservoir pressure balance. The remaining one third may be cleaned and blended with other water for use in agriculture, support of critical habitat, or miscellaneous oilfield use.

7. Belridge Oil Field AERA Energy

8. Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)
If you don’t inject, the resulting effect is subsidence.
While a TDS of 5,000 mg/L is the minimum threshold for a water to be considered brine, briny water is greater than 30,000 mg/L to 100,000 in total dissolved solids (TDS).
Produced water is steeped in oil. Even after separation, there are some hydrocarbon (HC) constituents left. It is not common that produced water can be used for other uses like drinking or agriculture.
Steam Injection
Heat Diffusion
Production
Cyclic Steam

9. Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR)
If you don’t inject, the resulting effect is subsidence.
While a TDS of 5,000 mg/L is the minimum threshold for a water to be considered brine, briny water is greater than 30,000 mg/L to 100,000 in total dissolved solids (TDS).
Produced water is steeped in oil. Even after separation, there are some hydrocarbon (HC) constituents left. It is not common that produced water can be used for other uses like drinking or agriculture.
Water Flood

10. How Water is Pumped Up with Oil and Injected Back into the Ground
If you don’t inject, the resulting effect is subsidence.
Produced water in California ranges from a TDS of 500 ppm to 30, In North Dakaota where oil and gas are produced from shale produced water the TDS of produced water can be as high as high as 250,000 ppm.
Water Flood

12. Topics Covered
Brief introduction to Underground Injection Control (UIC)
U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act
Aquifer exemptions
UIC wells and permitting
Summary of issues that have been identified in DOGGR’s administration of the UIC program
U.S. EPA oversight
Injection in to non-exempt aquifers
Science-based regulatory and program reforms as DOGGR
The Department of Conservation’s Renewal Plan
New regulations

13. DOGGR’s Role Regulating UIC
Regulated Pursuant to1974 Safe Drinking Water Act
US EPA granted primacy to DOGGR through a Memorandum of Agreement effective in Concurrent with the DOGGR’s legal mandates, the primacy delegation commits DOGGR to several regulatory objectives for underground injection wells including:
Two-part mechanical integrity testing for injection wells
Evaluation of other wells within a specified “area of review” around injection wells prior to approval of injection projects
Protection of underground sources of drinking water via zonal isolation

14. Need for Improved Implementation of UIC
2011 US EPA audit of DOGGR’s UIC program
Inconsistent protection of USDWs
Inconsistent area of review analyses
Inconsistent determination of fracture gradients for injection projects
Inadequate enforcement of appropriate maximum allowable surface injection pressures
Insufficient staffing and inadequate training
2014 DOGGR and Water Board discover injection wells permitted into non-exempt aquifers.
Aquifers historically treated as exempt
Permits issued into “step out” areas
Inappropriately permitted wells
From Horsely-Witten report: “The CDOGGR Program Description submitted with the Primacy Application refers to protection of fresh water, and historically that term has been used to describe groundwater that contains 3,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L) or less total dissolved solids (TDS) in California. That is inconsistent with the federal definition of a USDW at 40 CFR §144.3, which defines USDWs as containing less than 10,000 mg/L TDS. In addition, there are apparently no provisions in California statutes or UIC regulations for exemption of an aquifer as an USDW containing between 3,000 and 10,000 mg/L TDS. The term commonly applied to identify the depth to which groundwater is protected is the BFW not the base of USDWs, and fresh water in California is defined as containing 3,000 mg/L or less TDS. Consequently, it would appear that USDWs containing more than 3,000 mg/L TDS are not fully protected under the California UIC regulations.

15. Aquifers Historically Treated as Exempt

16. Poso Creek McVan Area
California Oil & Gas Fields Voume1- Central Califronia
1998

17. “Step-Out” Wells

18. UIC Well Compliance and Closures
Wells injecting into zones having TDS less than 3,000 mg/l were shut-in through voluntary compliance, orders, and emergency regulations ( ).
Wells injecting into non-hydrocarbon zones having TDS less than 10,000 mg/l and did not meet the criteria for exemption were shut-in ( ).
Wells injecting into zones where scientific evidence indicates aquifer exemption and are in a current application can remain operational – mainly enhanced oil recovery wells and disposal wells in hydrocarbon zones.

19. Topics Covered
Brief introduction to Underground Injection Control (UIC)
U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act
Aquifer exemptions
UIC wells and permitting
Summary of issues that have been identified in DOGGR’s administration of the UIC program
U.S. EPA oversight
Injection in to non-exempt aquifers
Science-based regulatory and program reforms as DOGGR
The Department of Conservation’s Renewal Plan
New regulations

20. Path Forward
In March of 2015, the U.S. EPA accepted the State’s plan for full compliance with the SDWA through:
Evaluation of permitted projects
Shut-in of inappropriately approved wells
Aquifer exemptions
Adoption of new UIC regulations
Creation of a new data management system

21. Renewal Plan: October 2015 Updated April 2017 Protecting the Public and the Environment
Modernize regulatory oversight
Modernize regulatory framework
Modernize data management
Modernize the workforce

22. Renewal Plan: Protecting the Public and the Environment
Modernize Regulatory Oversight
Modernize Regulatory Framework
Modernize Data Management
Modernize the Workforce
Modernize Regulatory Oversight
DOGGR currently conducting a comprehensive assessment of all previously approved UIC projects
Reviewing all Class II injection wells to ensure compliance with the federal Safe Drinking Water Act
For Project Review, the six risk criteria used to prioritize UIC project reviews are (agreed to in principal by WB’s):
1. TDS of the native aquifer water (lower is higher risk)
2. Depth of injection zone (shallower is higher risk)
3. Type of injection well (disposal ranked higher risk than EOR)
4. Age of well (older wells considered higher risk than newer wells)
5. Proximity to urban areas (closer is higher risk)
6. Proximity to municipal drinking water source wells (closer is higher risk)

23. Renewal Plan: Protecting the Public and the Environment
Modernize regulatory oversight
Modernize regulatory framework
Modernize data management
Modernize the workforce
Modernize regulatory framework
Improvements to UIC regulations will ensure groundwater protection, improve industry standards, and boost data collection.
Revisions to idle well requirements will further protect groundwater and limit potential environmental risks.

24. Modernize regulatory framework
Updated UIC Regulations are targeted for completion by December Updated and new requirements address:
Improved area of review
More robust mechanical integrity testing
Comprehensive project data requirements
Specific regulation for surface expressions
Greater transparency for maximum allowable surface pressure
Greater consistency and transparency on fluid analysis
Tubing and packer requirements
Water quality protection criteria

25. Renewal Plan: Protecting the Public and the Environment
Modernize regulatory oversight
Modernize regulatory framework
Modernize data management
Modernize the workforce
Modernize data management
DOGGR is currently in the process of implementing a well information management system that will increase transparency.

26. WellSTAR Release 1 in Production
23 DOGGR staff have read/write and all staff have read-only access
120 Operators in the system
Release 2 in Development & Test
Go Live at the end of April (4/27)
Release 3 in Design
Design completes at the end of March and build begins in April
Go Live at the end of October (10/26)
Release 3 in Requirements
Requirements completes at the end of March and Use Case development begins in April
Go Live at the end of April 2019
WellSTAR

27. Renewal Plan: Protecting the Public and the Environment
Modernize regulatory oversight
Modernize regulatory framework
Modernize data management
Modernize the workforce
Modernize the workforce
DOGGR has established a Technical Training Coordinator that will ensure personnel have the highest level of understanding of production practices regulated by DOGGR.
Partnered with the University of Texas – Austin, Penn State University, and the Colorado School of Mines to provide technical training to DOGGR personnel.

28. Looking Forward
Office of Compliance and Enforcement – FY budget includes a request for $1.2 million and 6.0 positions to establish a dedicated enforcement unit within DOGGR.
Regulatory Field Inspectors – FY budget included a request for $4.25 million and 21.0 positions to increase the number of inspections statewide.
This concludes my remarks . At this point I want to turn the meeting back to Jordon Preston, who with the assistant of staff at Lawrence Berkeley National Labs will facilitate and support this review panel. Even though DOGGR has no formal role in this in this process we stand ready to assist Jordan and this panel if need.