Briana Mordick, Staff Scientist, San Francisco
The California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) issued orders last Thursday requiring operators to shut down 33 of the more than 2,500 injection wells improperly permitted
to pump potentially toxic oil and gas wastewater and other fluids into
federally protected drinking water aquifers.
Earlier this year, DOGGR admitted
that poor communication, inadequate record-keeping, inconsistent
information, and general confusion among the agencies responsible for
overseeing the injection well program led to permits being issued that
allowed drinking water supplies to potentially be poisoned by dangerous
byproducts of oil and gas production. This latest round of well closings brings the total number of shutdown wells to 56. (See my colleague Lance Larson's blog for details on where these wells are located.)
Under
an agreement reached with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the 2,553 wells were grouped into three categories based on the
quality of the water into which injection is occurring. Operators of the
176 wells in category 1, injecting into what are thought to be the
highest-quality aquifers, had until October 15th to either
seek exemptions for those aquifers, or cease injection. Although no new
aquifer exemptions have been approved, according to DOGGR, orders only
had to be issued for 33 of these 176 wells because the rest had either
been re-categorized, operators had voluntarily stopped injecting, or
after further investigation the state determined that injection is not
occurring into protected aquifers. The more than 2,000 wells in
categories 2 and 3 can continue operating for more than a year before
they have to be shut down or have approved exemptions. The presence or
extent of any water contamination still remains unknown. To make
matters worse, it turns out that these improperly permitted wells are
just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to problems with California's
Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program, according to a report
released by DOGGR last week.
Report reveals systematic flaws in injection well program
A
law passed in 2010, SB 855, requires DOGGR to prepare an annual report
about the UIC program, including information about permitting
activities, violations and enforcement, staffing, new laws and
regulations, and an assessment of California's UIC program. DOGGR hasn't
submitted a report since 2011.
The 2015 report
found "systematic problems that have existed within the Division
[DOGGR] for many years," including "insufficient staffing to address
increasing regulatory workload in addition to significant remedial
programmatic work, poor recordkeeping on mostly paper forms and the lack
of modern data tools and systems, outdated regulations that in some
cases do not address the modern oil and gas extraction environment,
inconsistent and undersized program leadership, insufficient breadth and
depth of technical talent, insufficient coordination among fields
districts and Sacramento, and lack of consistent, regular, high-quality
technical training."
The current report also includes an in-depth assessment of the UIC program in DOGGR's District 1,
which covers the L.A. Basin and "found systemic problems in the
execution of the UIC program in District 1." Injection project files are
incomplete, often missing critical data as important records are
scattered between multiple locations. Regulatory documents approving an
injection project, referred to as Project Approval Letters (PALs), "were
confusing;" many projects had more than one PAL, PALs hadn't been
adequately updated over the years, and many were missing crucial
information.
Bypassing critical protections
The
report found that regulators in District 1 haven't been consistently
performing required tests and assessments to ensure that injection won't
endanger groundwater. Among these are an assessment known in the UIC
program as an Area of Review (AOR). The AOR is a cornerstone of the UIC
program and requires operators and regulators to look for pathways that
could allow injected fluid to get into protected groundwater. A sample
of 45 injection projects was reviewed and 78% did not have appropriate
and complete AOR evaluations.
A number of factors contributed to
this significant failure to execute a key part of the regulatory
program, but one in particular stands out. The report states that, "In
2012, to expedite the injection project evaluation and approval process,
a new Division policy was established that allowed operators to add
injection wells (new wells or well conversions) within existing
injection project boundaries, without comprehensive AOR reviews." In
other words, it became Division policy to bypass this critical
protection. Even more troubling, this policy was put in place after a 2011 report found serious problems with the way DOGGR was performing AOR evaluations.
And
that's not the only change that occurred to California's UIC program in
2012. The report also found that, "Following direction from upper
Division management in 2012, District 1 no longer required use of the
term 'remediation' in permit language regarding 'bad' wells (potential
injection fluid conduits) identified during AOR evaluations. The
approved PAL terminology was changed from 'remediate' to 'address.' It
is unclear whether this terminology change was intended to mean
remediation, or merely monitoring." In other words, even if a review to
look for pathways was performed, it's not clear whether operators were
required to do anything about pathways they did find. The number of
applications for injection projects also increased beginning in 2012,
while the number of permit violations identified and enforcement actions
taken declined steeply.
These changes to the program coincide with allegations
made by former top oil and gas regulator Derek Chernow that, beginning
in 2011, the Brown administration pushed DOGGR to bypass key safeguards
in the UIC program in order to speed up permitting. Chernow, who was
acting director of the Department of Conservation (which oversees DOGGR)
and Elena Miller, who was the state oil and gas supervisor, were fired
in late 2011. The Brown administration later attributed the increased
permitting beginning in 2012 to their firing.
This report adds to a
growing body of information, which taken together paint a stark picture
of a regulatory program dangerously out of control. The only silver
lining to this bleak situation is that the eyes of the public,
legislators, and the new leadership at DOGGR are now wide open to this
crisis. Along with the report, DOGGR released a Renewal Plan
for Oil and Gas Regulation, acknowledging past mistakes and laying out
crucial actions needed to reform the program, and a specific timeline
for doing so. This is a welcome first step, but let's be clear: whether
DOGGR is sincere about and committed to real, lasting change in the way
oil and gas activities are regulated in California will be judged by
actions, not words.
We don't yet know, and may never know, the
full extent of environmental and health damage that may have been caused
by this complete and utter failure of the regulatory system. The report
states that, "These shortcomings of the UIC Program have resulted in a
relatively small number of wells being permitted where they should not
have been in the context of over 55,000 injection wells permitted in the
State."
It's difficult to imagine that any of the water users
near the 2,553 improperly permitted wells will be comforted by the fact
that they're among the relatively few who may have had their water
contaminated because California chose to put oil and gas industry profit
above public health and safety.
http://www.theenergycollective.com/brianamordick/2284301/33-more-injection-wells-shut-down-california
No comments:
Post a Comment