California regulates hydraulic fracturing less than any other oil and gas-producing state in the nation -- which is to say, not at all. But after state officials released draft rules this week, that is set to change.

The state's Department of Conservation, which regulates the broader drilling process, released a discussion draft yesterday that proposes requirements for well construction, wastewater management and chemical disclosure, all hot topics as states have scrambled to regulate the controversial method of blasting chemical-laced water and sand deep underground to untrap oil and gas.

The department's Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) has acknowledged that it has no idea how often fracking happens in California because it does not require drillers to notify the state when they use the well completion process.

But the state could be sitting on a huge new resource in the Monterey Shale, which could hold as much as 15.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil (EnergyWire, Dec. 5). That prospect has contributed to more pressure from those who want stricter oversight.

DOGGR (pronounced "dogger") is now working to get a better handle on fracking activity throughout the state. The discussion draft is meant to be a negotiation starting point before a rulemaking process officially begins early next year.

California environmentalists, who have been pushing for fracking oversight since the process garnered national attention in recent years, have given the draft rules a lukewarm reception so far.

"[Regulators] admit they're slacking, and they want to have a good start regulating it," Bill Allayaud, of the Environmental Working Group's California office, told EnergyWire. But, he added in a statement, "it will need considerable improvement to be sufficiently protective of public health and the environment."

New suite of rules

First in the proposal, drillers would be required to provide a bevy of data to the state 10 days before fracking a well: location, oil field, coordinates of horizontal drilling, anticipated volume and pressure of fracturing fluids, and an analysis that reviews all other wells and faults in a specified frack zone.

Casing and cement would be pressure-tested before fracking, and operators would have to ensure that no chemicals or hydrocarbons could migrate into nearby protected water. They would also have to create spill contingency plans and monitor wells for 30 days after fracking and monthly after that. The source of water used for fracking is not addressed by the draft rules.

Chemical disclosure makes up the largest part of the draft rules; about a third of the nine-page document is devoted to disclosure issues. Drillers would have to report the ingredients of frack fluid on the industry-funded website FracFocus, commonly used throughout the industry but maligned by environmentalists for not allowing users to download and analyze the listed data.

Many drillers in California already voluntarily disclose fluids on the site, but the draft rules would call for more detail about the components, including chemical name, Chemical Abstracts Service number, maximum concentration, trade name, supplier and a description of purpose. Drillers also would have to disclose radiological components or tracers used in the fluid, and how, or if, they plan to recover those.

As with disclosure rules in other states, operators will be allowed to claim trade secrets for competitive purposes. Drillers may be required to disclose the chemical family or a description of the chemical, without reporting its actual identity. And drillers would have to designate an individual as the holder of the information; in an emergency, the individual would be required to provide the information to the state or health professionals.

Health professionals could obtain the information only for the treatment of a patient thought to be exposed to hazardous chemicals and would then have to sign a confidentiality agreement. That would prevent environmental groups from requesting trade secret information based on fears of health effects on a broader community.

A similar provision is in place in Pennsylvania, where opponents have dubbed it a "gag rule." Critics there say it hinders the free flow of medical information that must be shared among health professionals, environmental investigators, insurance professionals and the public.

FracFocus concerns

Allayaud, of the Environmental Working Group, said the disclosure provisions are a start but contain loopholes that result in "mass secrecy."

"FracFocus is still not up to snuff," he said. Earthjustice attorney Will Rostov recommended that the state use a government-run database system, so original filings from operators would be subject to public records laws. A more searchable version of the website recently launched, but data still cannot be easily downloaded.

Department of Conservation Deputy Director Jason Marshall said the agency was concerned about the original version of FracFocus but that the upgrades to the website made it suitable for California. The draft rules also contain a provision that would allow the agency to make its own database if FracFocus ends up not meeting its needs. Marshall noted that if the state had to make its own database from the start, it would take three to four years to build it.

Allayaud and Rostov also took issue with the fact that the draft rules do not require baseline groundwater testing. Water contamination has been the biggest public concern around hydraulic fracturing, as some worry that the chemicals used break up rock may eventually leach into groundwater or that the process may cause naturally occurring methane to migrate to water supplies.

Rostov said DOGGR should also monitor air quality around well sites. Earthjustice is representing the Center for Biological Diversity, Earthworks, the Environmental Working Group and the Sierra Club in a lawsuit against DOGGR for failing to follow the California Environmental Quality Act by considering fracking's risk to the environment (EnergyWire, Oct. 17).

The regulations also do not specifically address induced seismicity, either from fracking or from wastewater disposal wells. Division officials said in a conference call with reporters yesterday that disposal was addressed in a separate set of regulations (EnergyWire, Nov. 21).

The draft fracking rules come after a series of workshops throughout California, in which the division solicited public comment. The official rulemaking process is expected to begin in February and will include a 45-day comment period. Department of Conservation officials could not say whether the department would need to increase staff to implement the regulations but said they would approach the Legislature with that request if needed.

Tupper Hull, spokesman for the Western States Petroleum Association, said the industry group continues "to appreciate and support the work the Department of Conservation and DOGGR are doing and will participate in the process as new regulations are formulated." The group did not offer specific comment on the draft discussion.