O STqy

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
L PRO

75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 941 05-3901

December 22, 2014
Jonathan Bishop
Chief Deputy Director
California State Water Resources Control Board
P.O. Box 100
Sacramento, CA 95812-0100
Steven Bohlen
Oil and Gas Supervisor
Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources
California Department of Conservation
801 K Street, MS 18-05
Sacramento, CA 95814-3530
Dear Messrs. Bishop and Bohlen:
I am writing to follow up on EPA’s July 17, 2014 letter to CaIEPA and the Resources Agency regarding the
State’s administration of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act Class II Oil and Gas Underground Injection
Control program. In that letter, we described serious deficiencies in California’s Class II program and
inconsistencies with federal UIC regulations and State Program primacy requirements. The letter also set
forth comprehensive requirements and deadlines for the State to address the deficiencies and bring the
program into compliance. Enclosed is a summary of the status of the State’s responses to the July 17
letter.
Our frequent dialogue and your efforts in the last six months have illuminated the breadth and
complexity of the challenges and the substantial workload faced by the State agencies in overcoming the
program’s deficiencies. The State’s submittals and conceptual plans presented since July are a step in
the right direction. However, a more definitive overall plan of State actions and milestones is critically
needed by February 6, 2015, to bring the Class II program into compliance by February 15, 2017.
This letter highlights the main areas of recent discussion and provides direction for the State’s submittal
of a program revision plan by February 6, 2015. This plan should comprehensively address the results of
EPA’s 2011 audit and 2012 review, and any other related reviews available to the State; assure
completion of the outstanding items listed in the enclosure; provide a detailed list of planned actions
based on a two-year schedule of tiered priorities, specific deliverables, interim and final milestones; and
identify the resources to be deployed to accomplish this work.
Injection Well Evaluations: Priority must be given to completing and submitting the review of existing

Class II wells which may be injecting into non-exempt aquifers, particularly in non-hydrocarbon
producing zones, as this is the critical path for evaluating the highest potential impacts to drinking water
sources. The drinking water source evaluation for these wells should then proceed expeditiously,
followed by appropriate actions to address any threats to drinking water (e.g., emergency orders to
cease injection, permit rescission, information orders or exercise of other authorities).

Printed on Recycled Paper

 2

Where injection for enhanced oil recovery or waste disposal is contemplated to continue via existing
wells into aquifers without approved exemptions, or into portions of aquifers that are outside the
specific areas exempted, the State needs to establish a process, priorities, and a schedule to evaluate
and address any potential threats from these operations, and for timely development of aquifer
exemption proposals. The schedule should reflect environmental and public health priorities and
provide adequate time for public participation and for EPA to finalize any needed decisions on these
aquifers over the course of the next two years, and no later February 15, 2017. The State must take
actions to prohibit injections after February 15, 2017 in any aquifers for which EPA has not approved an
aquifer exemption.
Further, State approval of any new wells in aquifers without approved exemptions or into portions of
aquifers that are outside the specific area exempted should be limited to State-approved projects in
hydrocarbon producing zones, and should include considerations such as: information from drinking
water well surveys and recent water quality data in the vicinity of the injection wells; use of formations
with greater than 3000 ppm TDS (as we understand the State is analyzing the conditions, if any, under
which continued injection into hydrocarbon producing zones with water quality of less than 3000 ppm
TDS should be permitted); use of compliance orders or exercise of comparable State authorities to
compel operators’ submittal of complete applications for aquifer exemptions, and to prohibit injections
after February 15, 2017 in any aquifers for which EPA has not approved an aquifer exemption;
availability of alternate disposal options; public review processes undertaken; and concurrence by
DOC/DOGGR and State/Regional Boards. It is important to note that the State’s granting of an
authorization for an injection well prior to obtaining EPA’s approval of an aquifer exemption does not
guarantee EPA’s approval, which will be based on regulatory criteria.
Aquifer Exemption Process: Aquifer exemptions are an essential component of the State’s Class II well
permitting program. The State must determine which aquifers to exempt, provide for public
participation and submit proposed exemptions to EPA for approval. The State must support the
proposed exemptions with strong technical data and robust evaluations before presenting them to the
public and EPA. Given the multiple state agencies involved, explicit internal processes and procedures
are needed to guide the gathering and thorough evaluation of the necessary data, and seek EPA
approval regarding the specific aquifer exemptions. EPA’s Aquifer Exemption Checklist, provided
previously and again as an enclosure with this letter, outlines the requirements for aquifer exemptions.
We also provided several examples and met with State staff on November 3, 2014 to discuss required
documentation.
Historic Aquifer Exemptions: In addition to wells known to the State to be injecting into zones that do
not have aquifer exemptions, some existing wells inject into 11 aquifers which have been historically
treated as exempt, though data provided by the State to EPA with its 1981 primacy application indicate
that these 11 aquifers were non-hydrocarbon producing and contained water that was less than 3000
ppm TDS. Pursuant to Section 11(H) of the Underground Injection Control Program Memorandum of
Agreement Between California Division of Oil and Gas and the United States Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA believes the collection and consideration of current data on the water quality of these
aquifers will afford the State the opportunity to determine whether existing wells in these aquifers
should continue to operate. The State’s program revision plan should outline performance of specific
activities by the State and operators on a schedule that will allow EPA to finalize any needed decisions
on these aquifers by December 31, 2016. No new wells should be authorized in an aquifer prior to the
conclusion of this process for that aquifer.

 3

EPA is committed to working with the State under 40 CFR 145.33 to enable the State to maintain
primacy for the Class II Oil and Gas Underground Injection Control program. Given the need to resolve
the program’s serious deficiencies in a timely matter, EPA has strengthened oversight and support of the
program. As part of this investment, EPA is prepared to re-direct a portion of the State’s anticipated
FY15 federal UIC grant allocation of approximately $550,000 to specific efforts targeted to advance the
State’s Class II program toward compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act. We will consult with you
on work to be led by EPA with these funds.
We look forward to continuing our collective efforts towards achieving our shared commitment to
protect California’s underground sources of drinking water, and anticipate receiving your program
revision plan by February 6, 2015.
Sincerely,

Jane iamond
Dir tor, Water Division
V

Enclosures
(1) Status of State Response to EPA’s July 17, 2014 letter
(2) EPA Aquifer Exemption Checklist

 Status of State Response to EPA’s July 17, 2014 Letter
1.

Drinking Water Source Evaluation
State to provide initial assessment of whether any existing and potential sources of drinking water
th).
5
l
are at risk of contamination from improper Class II injection (due Sept

Location of private and public water system wells that may be at risk due to permitted Class II
injection SEPTEMBER 15 SWRCB SUBMI7TAL OF INITIAL REVIEW COMPLETED. DOGGR review of
records and list of all remaining injection wells that are discharging into non-exempt, nonhydrocarbon zones of aquifers planned for completion and submittal to the State Water Board by
January 5, 2015. Depending on the number of wells that are submitted, State Water Board
expects to be able to identify any injection wells that are potentially impacting water supply wells
by February 6, 2015.
A plan to ensure protection of human health from actual or potential exposure to DW affected by
any injection wells IN PROGRESS. State has issued some shut-in orders and information orders
and plans to expand use of these tools as needed as evaluations are completed.

A plan to communicate information to the public and to address subsequent questions/concerns
OVERDUE.
2.

Documentation of Aquifer Exemptions

Provide all documents that pertain to the State’s requests for aquifer exemptions, EPA’s approval or
denial of such requests, and any post-primacy appeals by the State regarding aquifer exemptions
(due August l8t). COMPLETED—State has indicated orally that all documents have been provided.
Some documents received via e-mail on August18, 2014; one CD of 175 documents received on
September 5, 2014; one CD of 40 documents received on November 4, 2014.
3.

Tiered Review of Class II Wells

a. Provide the number and location of all Class II wells permitted to inject in non-hydrocarbon
producing formations with water quality less than 10,000 ppm TDS (excluding the formations known
to be exempt). For each well, submit: operator’s name, well type, depth, field and formation names,
date injection commenced, water quality of both injection formation and injection fluid, and other
pertinent details. (Due August lgth). PARTIAL DATA SET RECEIVED; STATE ACKNOWLEDGED IT WAS
INCOMPLETE AND CONTAINED INACCURACIES.
b. Provide the number and location of all Class II wells permitted to inject in non-exempt
hydrocarbon-producing formations with water quality below 10,000 ppm TDS. For each well,
submit: operator’s name, well type, depth, field and formation names, date injection commenced,
water quality of both injection formation and injection fluid, and other pertinent details. (Due
th)
PARTIAL DATA SET RECEIVED; STATEACKNOWLEDGED IT WAS INCOMPLETE AND
October 15
CONTAINED INACCURACIES.
V

1

 c. Submit a plan and timeline for completion of a searchable database of all Class II injection well
information statewide (along with a GIS overlay of the injection wells, injection formations, and
th). OVERDUE. The Division of Oil Gas and Geothermal
5
aquifer exemptions). (Due September l
Resources’ web site contains a searchable database available to the public; however, we are
awaiting a plan and timeline for making the database more robust and including additional
information, such as aquifer exemptions.
Develop a plan and timeline for submission to EPA of any new or revised aquifer exemption
th).
15
IN PROGRESS.
requests, which the State determines are appropriate. (Due September
4.

State Program Consistency
Provide a status report on DOGGR’s progress on the November 2012 Action Plan, which addressed
Class II program deficiencies identified by EPA in our 2011 program audit. EPA also asked for a
schedule for any proposed revisions to the Plan and for completing implementation of the Action
Plan. (Due August 18th). IN PROGRESS.

2

 Aquifer Exemption Checklist
Reviewed by:

A- Regulatory Background and Purpose
An aquifer or a portion thereof which meets the criteria for an “underground source of drinking water” in § 146.3 may be
determined to be an “exempted aquifer”. The aquifer exemption criteria at 146.4 must be met as follows:
Class I-V wells must meet criteria 146.4(a) and 146.4(b)(1); or 146.4(a) and 146.4(b)(2); or 146.4(a) and 146.4(b)(3);
or 146.4(a) and 146.4(b)(4); or 146.4(a) and 146.4(c).
-

Class VI wells must meet the criteria 146.4(d)’.

Regardless of the AE request or the type of injection activity, in all cases, first and foremost a demonstration that the
aquifer or portion thereof does not currently serve as a source of drinking water is the required first step in the process.
EPA must evaluate each AE request to ensure the criteria are met prior to approval. EPA should also document its
rationale for approving or disapproving each AE request in its statement of basis and, in case of exemptions that are
substantial program revisions, EPA must provide public notice and an opportunity for the public to comment and
request a public hearing.
The purpose of this checklist is to ensure that appropriate and adequate information is collected to facilitate review of AE
requests, and documentation of AE decisions. Some information described here may not apply to all AE requests.

B- General Information
AE request received by EPA on
Is the aquifer exemption Substantial____________ Non-Substantial_________________
Describe basis for substantial/non-substantial determination___________________________________________________
Is the aquifer exemption Complex? (Existence of drinking water wells, populated area
Did the state or tribe provide public notice and opportunity for public hearing on the aquifer exemption request (144.7
(b))Y/N
Were there any public comments? V/N If yes, identify where they may be located_______________________________
Date(s) of notice(s) published_
Public meeting(s) held
Hearing held
any notable findings or pending litigation
Describe the notice and comment process and the final decision________________________________________________
Describe the basis for the decision to exempt the aquifer or the basis for the decision to withhold or deny approval of
the exemptions request
Any anticipated issues associated with EPA approval or disapproval of the AE request
V/N_______________________________
Any meetings between EPA/States/Tribes/Operator to discuss issues V/N
list_________________________________
__,

,

—,

Is the request submitted by a primacy state or tribe? V/N If yes name the State/Tribe/Agency
Contact:
AE identified by the Primacy State or tribe and submitted for EPA review and final determination on
Name of the Owner/operator_____________________________________
Well/Project Name:
Purpose of injection:

Well Class
mining/oil and gas/other)

Where is the proposed aquifer exemption located? Township, Section, Range, Quarter Section or other method used to
identify the area
Latitude and longitude information
City_____________
State___________ Add information about distance to nearest Town, County
Name of aquifer or portion of aquifer to be exempted

Additional Class VI only requirements in 40 CFR 144.7(d)(1) and(2) apply. This checklist does not address those
requirements.

 Areal extent of the area proposed for exemption
Depth and thickness of the aquifer
Discuss the total dissolved solid (TDS) content of the aquifer, including the TDS at the top and bottom of the exempted
zone, and the locations and depths of all fluids samples taken.

C- Regulatory Criteria
An aquifer or a portion thereof may be determined to be an exempted aquifer for Class I-V wells if it meets the
criteria in paragraphs (a) —(c) below. Other than EPA approved aquifer exemption expansions that meet trie
criteria set forth in 146.4(d), new aquifer exemptions for Class VI wells shall not be issued.
146.4:

( ) (a) Not currently used as a drinking water source and:
(b)(1) It is mineral, hydrocarbon, or geothermal energy producing, or can be demonstrated by a permit
applicant as part of a permit application for a Class II or Class II operation to contain minerals or hydrocarbons
that considering their quantity and location are expected to be commercially producible; or
(b)(2) It is situated at a depth or location which makes recovery of water for drinking water purposes
economically or technologically impractical; or
(b)(3) It is so contaminated that it would be economically or technologically impractical to render that water
fit for human consumption; or
(b)(4) it is located over a Class Ill well mining area subject to subsidence or catastrophic collapse; or
I (c) TDS is more than 3,000 and less than 10,000 mg/I and it is not reasonably expected to supply a public
water system.
(d) The area! extent of on aquifer exemption for a Class II enhanced oil recovery or enhanced gas recovery
well may be expanded for the exclusive purpose of Class VI injection tar geologic sequestration under § 144. 7(d) ii
it does not currently seive as a source of drinking water; and the TOS is more than 3,000 mg/I and less than
10.000 mg/i; and it is nor reasonably expected to supply a public water system.

1- Demonstration that the aquifer or portion thereof does not currently serve as a source
of drinking water per 146.4(a)
Describe the proposed exempted area and how it was determined:___________________________________________
Top:_______________________ Bottom:________________________
TDS:
Lithology:
Groundwater flow direction:
Porosity:
Permeability:
vertical confinement from USOWs:
of
Upper and Lower Confining Zone(s) and description
-

Oil or mineral production history:
Are there any public or private drinking water wells within and nearby the proposed exempted area for which the
proposed exempted portion of the aquifer might be a source of drinking water V/N If yes, list all those wells
Include pertinent map(s) visually showing the areal extent of exemption boundary, depth and thickness of the
of the
aouiter proposed for exemption, all L:nown subsurface structures such as faults affecting the aouifer, and eace

-

inventoried water well locations by elI # or owner name
ic), Contact information,
Include: Table of all inventoried watr wells showing: Well Name/fl, Owner, (Private/Publ
completion data.
Purpose of well (Domestic. Irrigation, Livestock, etc.), depth of source water, name of aquifer, well
age of well (if known), and the primary source of well data (Applicant/State/Tribe/EPA).
potentially down
Include: Map showing the areal extent of exemption boundary, all domestic water wells considered
and/or
gradient of the exemption and hydraulically connected to the exemption. If wells are deemed horizontally
the
indicate
to
arrow(s)
Use
well.
as
vertically isolated from the exemption, this should be foot noted on the Table
direction and speed of GW in the aquifer proposed for exemption.

 Describe the evidence presented in the application and/or methodology used to conclude GW direction and speed
when relevant.
Include: any source water assessment and/or protection areas and designated sole source aquifers located within the

delineated area.
What is the appropriate area to examine for drinking water wells? Although guidance 34 says it should be a minimum
of 1/4 mile, the determination of the aporopriote area is on a case by case basis. Describe area and give a rationale.
Are there any public or private drinking water wells or springs capturing (or that will be capturing) or producing
drinking water from the aquifer or portion thereof within the proposed exemption area? Y/N
Evaluate the capture zone of the wel (s) in the ar2a near the proposed project (i.e., the volume of the aquifer(s) or
portion(s) thereof from within whtch groundwater is expected to be captured by that well).
A drinking water well’s current source of water is the volume (or Dortion) of an aquifer which contains water that will
be Qroduced by a well in its lifetime. What parameters were considered to determine the lifetime of the well?

() If the answer to this question

is

Yes, therefore the aquifer currently serves as a source of drinking water.

2- Demonstration that the aquifer or portion thereof is mineral, hydrocarbon or
geothermal energy producing per 146.4(b)(1)
Did the permit applicant for a Class II or Ill operation demonstrate as part of the permit application that the aquifer or
portion thereof contains minerals or hydrocarbons that, considering their quantity and location are expected to be
commercially producible? Did the permit applicant furnish the data necessary to make the demonstration as required
by 40 C.F.R. 144. 7(c)(1) and (2)? Summarize this demonstration and data
nclude narrative statement, logs, maps, data and state issued permit
If the proposed exemption is to allow a Class II enhanced oil recovery well operation in a field or project containing
-_________________

aquifers from which hydrocarbon were previously produced, commercial producibility shall be presumed by the Director
upon a demonstration of historical production having occurred in the project area or field. Many times it may be
necessary to slightly expand an existing Class II operation to recover hydrocarbons and an aquifer exemption for the
expanded area may be needed it the expanded exemption for the Class II EOR welt is for a well field or orolect area
where hydrocarbons were previously produced, commercial producibility would be presumed.
For new or existing Class II wells not ‘ocated in a field or project containing aquifers from which hydrocarbons were
previously produced, information such as logs, core data, formation description, formation depth, formation thickness
and formation parameters such as permeability or porosity shall be considered by the Director, to the extent available
Many Class II injection well permit apolicants may consider much information concerning production potential to be
proprietary. As a matter of policy, some states/tribes do not allow any information submitted as part of a permit
application to be confidential In those cases where potential production information is not being submitted, EPA would
need some record basis for concluding that the permit application demonstrates that the aquifer contains commercially
producible minerals or hydrocarbons. For example, the permit application may include the results of any R & 0 pilot
project. in this case, the applicant should state the masons for believing that there are commercially producible
quantities of minerals within the expanded area. Also, exemptions relating to new or existing Class II wells not located
a field or project containinl; aauifers from which hydrocarbons were previously produced should include the following

in

types of information
ab
cd-

Production history of the well if it is a former production well which is being converted.
Description of any drill stem tests run on the horizon in question. This should include information on the amount of
oil and water produced during the test
Production history of other wells in the vicinity which produce from the horizon in question.
Description of the prolect, if it is an enhanced recovery operation including the number of wells and there location.

For Class Ill wells, the Director must require an applicant to furnish data necessary to demonstrate that the aquifer r.
exoected to be mineral or hydrocarbon producing and the Director must consider information contained in the mining
plan for the proposed project, such as a map and general description of the mining zone, general information on the
mineralogy and geochemistry of the mining zone, analysis of the amenability of the mining zone to the proposed mining

 method, and a timetable of planned development of the mining zone. Information to be provided may also include: a
summary of logging wnich indicates that commercially producible quantities of minerals or hydrocarbons are present

3- Demonstration that the aquifer or portion thereof is situated at a depth or location
which makes recovery of water for drinking water purposes economically or
technologically impractical per 146.4(b)(2)
Is the aquifer or portion thereof situated at a depth or location which makes recovery of water for drinking water
purposes economically or technologically impractical?
-

List evidence in the application showing how this demonstration was made.
EPA consideration of an aquifer exemption request under this provision would nclude intormation related to.
The availability of less costly and more readily available alternative supplies, the adequacy of alternatives to
meet present and future needs, and costs for t:’eatment Including cost of disposal ot treatment residuals) and
or development associated with the use of the aquifer.
The economic evaluation, submitted by the applicant, should consider the above factors, and these that follow:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Distance from the proposed exempted aquifer to public water supplies.
Current sources of water supply for potential users of the proposed exempted aquifer.
Availability, quantity and quality of alternative water supply sources.
Analysis of future water supply needs within the general area.
Depth of proposed exempted aquifer.
Quality of the water ir the proposed exempted aquifer.

4- Demonstration that the aquifer or portion thereof is too contaminated per 146.4(b)(3)
Is the aquifer or portion thereof proposed for exemption so contaminated that it would be economically or
technologically impractical to render that water fit for human consumption__________________________________
List evidence in the application showing that the area to be exempted is so contaminated that it would be
economically or technologically impractical to render that water fit for human consumption.
Economic considerations would also weigh heavily in EPA’s decision on aquifer exemption requests under this
section. Unlike the previous section, the economics involved are controlled by the cost of technology to render
water fit for human consumption

Treatment methods can usually be found to render water potable. -lowever,

costs of that treatment may often be prohibitive either in absolute terms or compared to the cost to develop
alternative water supplies.
EPA’s evaluation of aquifer exemption requests under this section will consider the following information
submitted by the applicant:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Ic)
(1)
(g)

(h)

Concentrations, types, and source of contaminants in the aquifer
If contamination is a result of a release, whether contamination source has been abated.
Extent of contaminated area.
Probability thatthecontaminant plumewill pass through the proposed exempted area.
Ability of treatment to remove contaminants from ground water.
Current and alternatne water supplies in the area.
Costs to develop current and future water supplies, cost to develop water supply from
proposed exempted aquifer. This should include well construction costs, transportation costs,
water treatment costs, etc.
Projections on future use of the proposed aquifer.

5- Demonstration that the aquifer or portion thereof is located over a Class Ill well mining
area subject to subsidence or catastrophic collapse per 146.4(b)(4)
to subsidence
Is the aquifer or portion thereof proposed for exemption located over a Class Ill well mining area subject
or catastrophic collapse?
List evidence in the application showing that the area to be exempted is located over a Class ll well mining area
subject to subsidence or catastrophic collapse
...

 Discuss the miningmethod and why that method necessarily causes subsidence or catastrophic collapse. The
oossib:lity that non-exempted underground sources of drinking would be contaminated due to the collapse should also
e addressed in the application

6- Demonstration that the aquifer or portion thereof has TDS more than 3,000 and less
than 10,000 mg/I and it is not reasonably expected to supply a public water system per
146.4(c)
Is the TDS of the aquifer or portion there of proposed for exemption more than 3,000 and less than 10,000 mg/I?_____
Is the aquifer proposed for exemption or portion thereof not reasonably expected to supply a public water system?
Identify and discuss the information on which the determination that the total dissolved solids content of the ground
water in the proposed exemption is more than 3.000 and less than 10,000 mg/I and the aquifer is not reasonably
.xpected to supPly i public water sytern.
:nclude information about the quality and availability of water from the aquifer proposed for exemption. Also, the
‘xemption request must analyze the potential for public water supply use of the aquifer This may include: a
description of current sources of public water supply in the area, a discussion of the adequacy of current water
supply sources to supply future needs, population projections, economy, future technology, and a discussion of other
available water supply sources within the area.

7- Demonstration that a Class U aquifer exemption may be expanded to Class VI per
146.4(d) (Refer to additional requirements in EPA’S regulations for Class VI aquifer exemptions for this
demonstration)
May the areal extent of air aquifer exemption for a Class II enhanced oil recovery or enhanced gas recovery well be
expanded for the exclusive purpose of Class VI injection for geologic sequestration under 144.7(d)?
List evidence in the application showing an existing Class II operation associated with AE that is being converted into

Class VI