27, 2016 2:57 · TO LAND, GENERAL ORDER THREE (2016) [hereinafter General Order Three MRP]. . 14...

Aghazeynali, Hossein@Waterboards

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Harvey, Dale@Waterboards Tuesday, May 31, 2016 2:20 PM Aghazeynali, Hossein@Waterboards FW: Regional Water Board General Orders

/

Attachments: 16 05 26 CBD Comments CVRWQCB.final.pdf; 16 05 26 CBD Comments CVRWQCB references.pdf

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag Status: Flagged

From: Hollin Kretzmann [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 2:57 PM To: Harvey, Dale@Waterboards Cc: Holcomb, Ronald@Waterboards Subject: Regional Water Board General Orders

Dear Mr. Harvey,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Central Valley Regional Water Board's admi.nistrative draft of General

Orders 1, 2, and 3 related to waste discharge requirements for oil industry wastewater in pits and sumps. I am attaching a letter and list of references on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity.·! have also sent a hard copy of the letter

together with a disk containing the references via overnight mail. We look forward to working with you on this

important matter.

Best regards,

Hollin Kretzmann Staff Attorney .

Center for Biological Diversity 1212 Broadway, Suite 800 Oakland, CA 94612 {510) 844-7133 http://www.biologicaldiversity.org

CENTER for BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

May 26, 2016

Via Overnight Mail and Email Ron Holcomb Oil Fields Program - Oilfield Pond Information Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board 1685 E Street Fresno, California 93706 [email protected]

Because I ife is good.

Re: Comments on the Administrative Draft Waste Discharge Requirements General Orders One, Two, and Three for Oil Field Discharges to Land

Dear Mr. Holcomb:

On behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity ("the Center") and its members, I am writing to submit the following comments regarding the Administrative Draft Waste Discharge Requirements General Orders One, Two, and Three for Oil Field Discharges to Land. The three General Orders divide discharges of produced wastewater to land into three categories based on the threat level that each category of discharge poses to groundwater resources. 1 However, the California Council on Science and Technology, an organization established by the state legislature to "provide objective advice from California's best scientists and research institutions on policy issues involving science," does not draw any such distinction.2 All discharges of produced wastewater to land pose a high threat to human health, water quality, wildlife, and the environment, and must be prohibited. For this reason, the following comments focus on the Administrative Draft Waste Discharge Requirements General Order Three for Oil Field Discharges to Land ("General Order Three" or "the Order"), but are equally applicable to General Orders One and Two.

General Order Three allows for pit disposal of produced wastewater, but it is not sufficiently strict to ensure compliance and deter illegal discharge. The Order fails to address the potential harms of pit disposal and relies heavily upon self-reported sampling and analysis requirements. ·

1 See Oil Field Regulation and Forthcoming General Orders, CENTRAL VALLEY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD (2016) ' http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board _decisions/tentative_ orders/1603 _ oilfields/1603 _oilfields_ buff.p df, See also Outline for Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) General Order for Oil Field Discharges to Pon°d(s) Low Threat to Water Quality, CENTRAL VALLEY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD (2016) http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board _decisions/tentative_ orders/1603 _ oilfields/low _threat_go _i.pdf, and Outline for Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) General Order for Oil Field Discharges to Pond(s) Moderate Threat to Water Quality, CENTRAL VALLEY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD (2016) http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board _ decisions/tentative_ orders/1603 _ oilfields/moderate _threat_go _i i.pdf. 2 About CCST, CALIFORNIA COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, https://ccst.us/about.php (last visited May 20, 2016); An Independent Scientific Assessment of Well Stimulation in California, California Council on Science and Technology, Executive Summary at 8 (2015), https://ccst.us/publications/2015/2015SB4-v2ES.pdf [hereinafter CCST Executive Summary].

1

CENTER for BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY Because life is good.

Furthermore, the order's prohibitions, discharge specifications, and limitations ignore the severity of the dangers posed by pit disposal of produced wastewater. This indicates that General Order Three ultimately amounts to a superficial showing of protection by the Regional Water Board, an improper and illegal safe-harbor for Oil and Gas Companies, and a false sense of security for the general public. The Center strongly recommends that the Regional Water Board prohibit the discharge of produced wastewater into percolation pits altogether, in order to protect human health, water quality, wildlife, and the. environment.

Produced wastewater is a combination of naturally occurring fluids found in geologic formations and chemical and additives injected into wells, which comes to the surface during the production

· of oil and gas.3 Over 100 billion gallons of wastewater are produced by oil and ga~ operations in California annually4 and it is estimated that up to 60% of this waste is disposed of using percolation pits.5 Percolation pits, also known as sumps, are essentially unlined, open-air ponds that are dug into the ground. There are roughly 1165 documented percolation pits in California, around 790 of which are active.6 Of these, 685 active pits are located within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board ("Regional Water Board").7

Percolation pits are designed to leach and disperse pollutants into the environment.8 Toxic plumes from percolation pits can migrate long distances over time. As such, percolation pit disposal "intentionally introduces wastewater and its constituents into near-surface groundwater aquifers,"9 providing "a direct pathway for the transport of produced water constituents ... into groundwater. "10

Cleanup of groundwater contamination is extremely difficult, costly, and protracted, and often impossible. 11 Because groundwater resources have little to no assimilative capacity,

3 In the Pits: Oil and Gas Wastewater Disposal into Open Unlined Pits and the Threat to California's Water and Air, CLEAN WATER ACTION/CLEAN WATER FUND at 6 (2014), . http://www.cleanwater.org/files/publications/In%20the%20Pits.pdf [hereinafter In the Pits]. 4 CCST Executive Summary, supra note 2, at 7 (noting that over 3 billion barrels of wastewater were produced by oil and gas operations in California in 2013); Standardization, Oil History by Samuel T. Pees, http://www.petroleumhistory.org/OilHistory/pages/Barrels/standardization.html (last visited May 23, 2016) (stating that 1 oil barrel is equivalent to 42 US liquid gallons). · 5 An Independent Scientific Assessment of Well Stimulation in California, California Council on Science and Technology, Volume II, Chapter Two: Impacts qfWell Stimulation on Water Resources at 51(2015); https://ccst.us/publications/2015/2015SB4-v2.pdf [hereinafter CCST Report Volume 2.2]. 6 Still in the.Pits: Update on Oil and Gas Wastewater Disposal in California, CLEAN WATER ACTION/CLEAN WATER FUND at 13-14 (2016), http://www.cleanwateraction.org/sites/default/fi1es/docs/publications/Still%20In%20the%20Pits%20-%20March%202016.pdf. 7 Central Valley Water Board Workshop: Oil Field Regulatory Activities, March 2016 Update, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board at 3 (2016), http://www. waterboards. ca. gov /centralvalley/water _issues/oil_ fields/information/ disposal_ponds/2016 _ 0309 _ of _reg _r5 _pres.pdf. 8 In the Pits, supra note 3, at 1. 9 CCST Report Volume 2.2, supra note 5, at 151. 1° CCST Report Volume 2.2, supra note 5, at 110. 11 Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin, Second Edition, CENTRAL VALLEY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD at 57 (2015) [hereinafter Basin Plan] http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/tlbp.pdf.

2

C

CENTER for BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY Because lite is good.

groundwater can be permanently contaminated once harmful substances reach the groundwater , source. The extent of the damage that percolation pit disposal of produced wastewater has

already done to California's groundwater resources is still unknown. Yet, General Order Three inexplicably proposes to allow this practice to continue.

General Order Three is an administrative draft detailing proposed waste discharge requirements ("WDRs") for oil field discharges to land. J'his includes the disposal of produced wastewater through discharge to percolation pits. Facilities that apply for and are granted coverage under General Order Three would legally be permitted to discharge produced wastewater into percolation pits, provided that they comply with the terms of the Order and pay the associated fees. General Order Three is comprised of two documents. The first details the scope of the Order's coverage, the application process, statutory and regulatory considerations, prohibitions, discharge specifications, groundwater limitations, and other provisions. 12 The second prescribes monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting requirements. 13

According to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare Lake Basin ("Basin Plan"), "[i]n nearly all cases, preventing pollution before it happens is much more cost-effective than cleaning up pollution after it has occ;:urred ... The prevention of degradation is, therefore, an important strategy .... "14 It is imperative that the Regional Water Board demonstrates this approach as it contemplates revising and finalizing General Order Three.

Pit Disposal of Produced Wastewater Is Hazardous to Human Health and Wildlife

The oil and gas industry uses approximately 1000 different chemicals to produce and refine oil, many of which 1re found in produced wastewater. 15 Produced wastewater contains elevated concentrations of countless harmful constituents of concern ("COCs") including volatile organic compounds ("VOCs") such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes ("BTEX"), polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons ("P AHs"), radionuclides, petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals such as arsenic, trace elements such as boron, strontium, thallium, and lithium, and general minerals such as chloride and total dissolved solids. 16 Several of these pollutants are carcinogenic,17 persist for long periods of time in the environment,18 and bioaccumulate. 19 The.

12 See, generally CENTRAL VALLEY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, WATER QUALITY ORDER No. R5-2016-XXXX, WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS GENERAL ORDER FOR OIL FIELD DISCHARGES TO LAND, GENERAL ORDER THREE (2016) [hereinafter General Order Three WDRs]. 13 See, generally CENTRAL VALLEY REGIONAL WATER QUALiTY CONTROL BOARD, MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM R5-2016-XXXX FOR WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS GENERAL ORDER FOR OIL FIELD DISCHARGES TO LAND, GENERAL ORDER THREE (2016) [hereinafter General Order Three MRP]. . 14 Basin Plan, supra note 11, at 54. 15 Christopher D. Kassotis et al., Endocrine Disrupting Activities of Surface Water Associated with a West Virginia Oil and Gas Industry Wastewater Disposal Site, 557-558 Ser. OF THE TOTAL ENV'T 901, 902 (2016). 16 General Order Three WDRs, supra note 12, at 9. 17 Substances Listed in the Thirteenth Report on Carcinogens, NATIONAL TOXICOLOGY PROGRAM, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, at 1 (2014), http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/content/listed_substances_508.pdf (arsenic and benzene are known to be human carcinogens). 18 S.R. Wild et al., The Long-term Persistence of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (P AHs) in an Agricultural Soil Amended with Metal-Contaminated Sewage Sludges, 101 Sci. of the Total Env't 235,251 (1991) (finding

3


chemicals contained in produced wastewater also have the potential for toxicologic interactions and additive toxicity.20 Additionally, gases emanating from percolation pits could exacerbate the effects of anthropogenic climate change. These characteristics make the introduction of produced wastewater into the environment extremely concerning for humans and wildlife alike.

Direct physical exposure to the contents of percolation pits and the inhalation of fumes emanating from percolation pits can be extremely harmful to humans.21 Percolation pit disposal of produced ·wastewater also threatens to contaminate groundwater resources that are necessary for drinking water and agricultural supply. Percolation pits have already contaminated several groundwater resources within the Regional Water Board's jurisdiction.22

The chemicals contained in produced wastewater are also harmful to wildlife. Wildlife is attracted to percolation pits and immersion in percolation pits or ingestion of the pollutants pits contain can prove fatal to animals. 23 General Order Three specifies that percolation pits must be ''free of oil or effectively netted to preclude the entry ofwildlife."24 However, the Order fails to lay out criteria for determining whether a percolation pit is "free of oil," and therefore exempt from the Order's netting requirement. The Order also fails to provide evidence that produced wastewater that is "free of oil" is safe for wildlife. Even if netting successfully prevents direct wildlife exposure to the harmful pollutants contained in percolation pits, the discharge of produced wastewater into percolation pits can still affect wildlife through habitat contamination and destruction.

Some produced wastewater has been found to be ten times saltier than the ocean.25 Exposure to such elevated salt concentrations endangers aquatic and terrestrial organisms.26 One study also

residual P AHs in soil more than 20 years after discharge, suggesting "significantly longer half-lives for PAHs in field soils than has previously been suggested"). 19 See Barry Muijs & Michiel T.O. Jonker, A Closer Look at Bioaccumulation of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Mixtures in Aquatic Worms, 29 n. 9 ENV'T TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY 1943, 1946 (2010) (finding that a fraction of a petrogenic hydrocarbon mixture present in sediment was bioaccumulated by aquatic worms), and David L. Ashley et al., National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Measurement of Volatile Organic Compounds in Human Blood, 104 S5 ENV'L HEALTH PERSP. 871, 874 (1996) (finding VOCs may bioaccumulate in humans).; See also Persistent Organic Pollutants: A Global Issue, a Global Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, https://www.epa.gov/intemational-cooperation/persistent-organic-pollutantsglobal-issue-global-response#pops (last visited May 23, 2016) (Pollutants that bioaccumulate can "accumulate and pass from one species to the next through the food chain."). 20 Basin Plan, supra note 11, at 56. 21 In the Pits, supra note 3, at 4; Interaction Profile for: Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylenes (BTEX),U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, at 2 (2004), http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/interactionprofiles/IP-btex/ip05.pdf ("All of the BTEX chemicals can produce neurological impairment, and exposure to benzene can additionally cause hematological effects .... "). 22 CCST Report Volume 2.2, supra note 5, at 112. 23 USDA FOREST SERVICE, DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, LEASING FOR OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT ON THE SHOSHONE NATIONAL FOREST (1992) at IV - 71. 24 General Order Three MRP, supra note 13, at 1. . 25 Worst Fracking Wastewater Spill in North Dakota Leaks 3 Million Gallons Into River, Eco WATCH, http://ecowatch.com/2015/01/23/fracking-wastewater-spill-north-dakota (last visited May 23, 2016) ( quoting Marketplace's Scott Tong's interview with Duke geochemist Avner Vengosh, available at www .marketplace.org/2015/01/22/ economy/pipeline-spill-exposes-fracking-cost). 26 Id. .

4


found elevated levels of endocrine disrupting chemicals ("EDCs") next to oil and gas wastewater containment pits.27 'EDCs can affect the development and reproduction of terrestrial and aquatic organisms even at very low concentrations.28 Wildlife can also be negatively affected by vehicular traffic and direct habitat destruction associated with the construction and maintenance of percolation pit facilities, as well as the transportation of produced wastewater.

General Order Three requires dischargers to prevent the. breeding of mosquitoes in percolation pits. 29 Chemicals applied to the surface of percolation pits could have negative effects on nonmosquito species and vegetation, and could exhibit toxicologic interactions and additive toxicity when mixed with produced wastewater. However, beyond stating that "all pesticide

· application[s] are to be done in compliance with labeling instructions and all applicable laws and regulations," the Order fails to specifically regulate the chemicals that dischargers may apply to prevent the breeding of mosquitoes in percolation pits. 30

In response to the dangers that percolation pit disposal poses to human health, wildlife, water quality, and the environment, Kentucky, Texas, and Ohio have banned the practice altogether.31

In a recent report, the California Council on Science and Technology recommended that California follow suit and prohibit the use of percolation pits for produced wastewater disposal. 32

The Toxic Pits Cleanup Act of 1984 prohibits pit disposal of all liquid hazardous wastes in recognition of the serious threat that percolation pit disposal poses to groundwater resources and human health. 33 Produced wastewater meets the narrative statutory criteria that the Department of Toxic Substances Control ("DTSC") must use to promulgate its regulations.34 DTSC is charged with promulgating regulations to identify hazardous wastes that may "pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health cir the environment, due to factors including, but not limited to, carcinogenicity, acute toxicity, chronic toxicity, bioaccumulative properties, or persistence in the environment, when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed. "35 As produced wastewater clearly exhibits the characteristics of hazardous wastes that are covered by the Toxic Pits Cleanup Act, percolation pit disposal of all produced wastewater should be prohibited.

Percolation pit disposal of produced wastewater from wells that have had a well stimulation treatment is specifically prohibited in California due to the hazardous nature of the chemicals

27Kassotis et al., supra note 15, at 907. 28 Id. at 902. 29 Id. at 18. 30 Id. 31 CCST Report Volume 2.2, supra note 5, at 110. 32 CCST Executive Summary, supra note 2, at 8. 33 CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE§ 25208 et seq. "Discharges of liquid hazardous wastes or hazardous wastes containing free liquids into lined or unlined ponds, pits, and lagoons pose a serious threat to the quality of the waters of the state .... " Recent reports indicate that hazardous waste contamination from surface impoundments is migrating to domestic drinking water supplies and threatening the continued beneficial uses of the state's ground and surface waters, air, and the environment," id. § 25208.1 34

CAL.HEALTH&SAFETYC0DE § 25141. 35 Id.§ 25141(b)(2).

5

CENTER for BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY Because fife is good.

involved.36 Produced wastewater from wells that have not undergone a well stimulation treatment can contain similar, and often identical, chemicals used in well stimulation treatments. It therefore defies logic that the prohibition of percolation pit disposal of produced wastewater should be limited to wastewater from wells that have undergone a well stimulation treatment. In order to adequately protect human health and the environment, the Regional Water Board should extend this prohibition to all discharges of produced wastewater.

General Order Three prohibits the discharge of "fluids used in 'well stimulation treatment' ... to land."37 However, it is unclear whether this prohibition applies to fluids that are of a type generally used in well stimulation treatment, or just to fluids which have already been used for this purpose. Ambiguity of this type is easily abused. Several fluids used in well stimulation treatment are used more broadly by oil and gas companies for other purposes. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to discern which of these chemicals had been used in well stimulation treatment and which had not. Without clarifying this distinction to categorically prohibit the disposal of all fluids that are of a type that may be used in well stimulation treatment, this provision has no teeth and ultimately amounts to a work-around for oil and gas companies to dispose of hazardous chemicals through percolation pits, in spite of California law.

Percolation pits often acc.ept waste from multiple sources and may contain pollutants from several different industries. Without enforceable disclosure requirements or third party oversight, there is no way for the Regional Water Board to ascertain the vast array of pollutants that may be contained in a particular discharged effluent or percolation pit, and the ways in which these pollutants may interact with each other. General Order Three fails to address this issue by specifically regulating the types of chemicals that may be disposed of collectively through discharge to a shared percolation pit. Additionally, General Order Three's· discussion of COCs is sor~ly lacking. General Order Three fails to address specific COCs and the known indicators that are associated with those COCs. Testing for these indicators should be included in the Order's sampling, analysis, and reporting requirements. Without this information, the Regional Water Board will be unaware of the various pollutants in each percolation pit, and the way those pollutants may interact with each other and the environment. The Regional Water Board also fails to explain how General Order Three will result in the detection of illegal discharges.

Pit Disposal of Produced Wastewater Presents an Environmental Justice Issue

Pit disposal disproportionately impacts nearby communities, some of which already face high pollution burdens. These areas have relatively high poverty rates and low education rates. They are also predominantly communities of color. Communities located in the Bakersfield area in Kem County are surrounded-by produced wastewater percolation pits. These communities are subject to extremely high pollution burdens and are characterized as disadvantaged

36 CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 14, §l 786(a). 37 General Order Three WDRs, supra note 12; at 16; See also CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 14, § 1761 (defining "Well stimulation treatment").

6


· communities. 38

The Lamont community, for example, is in the 100th percentile for drinking water contamination, the 99th percentile for fine particle pollution (PM2.5), and the 95th percentile for ozone pollution, giving it one of the highest pollution burdens in California. The community scored 94 for poverty39 ·and 94 for low education.40 Lamont's population is 95% Latino41 and scored 98 for linguistic isolation.42 When contemplating revising and finalizing General Order Three, the Regional Water Board must consider the fact that the communities that are most affected by percolation pit disposal of produced wastewater already face high pollution burdens and tend to be disadvantaged communities. The only way to adequately protect the health of these communities from the chemicals disposed of in pits is to prohibit percolation pit disposal of produced wastewater.

38 See Maps & Data, OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT, http://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/maps-data (last visited May 24, 2016) (The top 25% ofCalEnviroScreen census tracts are characterized as disadvantaged communities, pursuant,to CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE§ 39711); Compare fig. 1, with fig. 2. 39 See Download Data, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, http://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/maps-data/download-data (last visited May 24, 2016); See also Poverty, OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT, http://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/poverty (last visited May 24, 2015) (Indicating that 94% of Lamont's population has an income that is less than two times the federal poverty level). 40 See Download Data, OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT, http://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/maps-data/download-data (last visited May 24, 2016); See also Educational Attainment, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, http://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/educational~attainment (last visited May 24, 2015) (Indicating that 94% of Lamont's population over age 25 has less than a high school education). 41 See Download Data, OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT, http://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/maps-data/download-data (last visited May 24, 2016). 42 See Download Data, OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT, http://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/maps-data/download-data (last visited May 24, 2016); See also Linguistic Isolation, OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT, http://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/linguistic-isolation attainment (last visited May 24, 2015) (Indicating that in 98% of Lamont's households, no one age 14 or above speaks English "very well" or speaks only English).

7


Fig 1. CalEnviroScreen 2.0 Map for Communities Near Bakersfield, Califomia43

) ')I

ti ,,1,,,

I L. ..

l -

.:}'

T:111

I

Fig 2. Documented Produced Wastewater Percolation Pits Near Bakersfield, Califomia44

0 0

O·,

··J§.JiH· 'I

\1 I

I

I

• • @ I ... ~~G· • • 0

- - - -·- - -0 ..,

< .., ;

'/,

C.itrl:D Pl..i!n Nalbnal

Monument

I I 1-I•·

0

43 Maps & Data, OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT,

http://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/maps-data (last visited May 24, 2016). 44 More Oil Field Wastewater Pits Found in California!, FRACTRACKER ALLIANCE,

https://www.fractracker.org/2016/03/more-wastewater-pits-in-ca (last visited May 24, 2016).

0

8

', I

CENTER for BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY Because lite iB good.

Prohibiting percolation pit disposal properly forces oil and gas companies to internalize some of the costs of oil production. Oil and gas companies that employ percolation pit disposal use enormous amounts of water, contaminate that water, and then discharge it into the environment, potentially contaminating surface waters and groundwater resources. Permitting this practice to continue allows private oil and gas companies to profit at the expense of the public and the environment. The general public should not be forced to subsidize oil and gas operations, environmental degradation, and harms to our own health.

It is also important to note that while the State Water Resources Control Board's general order prescribing WDRs for discharges to land with a low threat to water specifically excludes "[ d]ischarges that could have a significant impact on Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Aesthetics, [and] Air Quality" from coverage, General Order Three includes no such provision.45

The discharges covered by General Order Three pose a heightened threat to water quality and as such, the Order's provisions should be more protective than those concerning less threatening pollutants. By failing to include these minimum protections; the Regional Water Board's General Order Three contravenes existing State Water Resources Control Board policy.

Protecting Groundwater Resources is of the Utmost Importance During California's Historic Drought

California relies on groundwater for roughly 40% of its total water supply.46 The state is currently facing an historic drought, prompting Governor Brown to declare a drought State of Emergency in January .of this year, and putting additional strain on California's groundwater resources.47 These resources must be afforded the utmost.protection. General Order Three allows oil and gas companies to continue a disposal practice that has been shown to contaminate groundwater resources when there are less harmful alternatives available. Regional Water Board decisions should not be made in a vacuum and the Regional Water Board is expected to take the state's needs into account when it considers finalizing new WDRs. By finalizing General Order Three, the Regional Water Board would run the risk of degrading groundwater resources, which Californians collectively rely upon for domestic, municipal, and agricultural supply, in order to bolster the profits of oil and gas companies. This is unacceptable, and contrary to the Regional Water Board's statutory duties.48

General Order Three Endangers Human Health, Water Quality, Wildlife, and the Environment

General Order Three's disclosure requirements are not enforceable. As written, there is no way

45 STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD, WATER QUALITY ORDER NO. 2003-0003-DWQ (2003). 46 Groundwater in California, CALIFORNIA GROUNDWATER, http://groundwater.ca.gov/aboutgroundwater.cfin (last visited May 24, 2016). 47 Water for the 21'1 Century, CALIFORNIA DROUGHT, http://drought.ca.gov/about.html (last visited May 24, 2016). 48 Cal. Water Code§ 13247 (the Regional Water Board must comply with basin plans approved by the state board in "carrying out activities which may affect water quality"); Basin plans (also known as water quality control plans) established water quality objectives to ensure the protection of beneficial uses of water sources, including domestic, municipal, and agricultural use, id. § 13241.

9

CENTER tor BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY Because lite is good.

to determine if produced wastewater discharges contain harmful chemicals, including those used in conventional oil and gas processes such as acidizing chemicals and drilling muds.49 One of the primary reasons the CCST recommended the prohibition of pit disposal of produced wastewater in California is that "the potential impacts to groundwater, human health, wildlife, and vegetation would be extremely difficult to predict, because there are so many possible chemicals [in produced water], and the environmental profiles of many of them are unmeasured."50 The Center strongly supports this recommendation.

General Order Three's annual fee structure creates perverse incentives for dischargers and the penalties assessed are not severe enough to compel compliance and deter illegal discharge. Annual fees for dischargers covered by General Order Three are assessed based on the discharge's threat to water quality rating (TTWQ) and complexity rating (CPLX).51 These ratings are determined by the Regional Water Board staff using information from the discharger's self-prepared Notice of Intent ("NOI").52 This works against General Order Three's disclosure requirements by creating a perverse incentive for a discharger ~o omit factors from its NOI that could increase its TTWQ or CPLX. Additionally, while General Order Three delineates maximum financial penalties that may be assessed to dischargers who fail to comply with its provisions, it does not set minimum penalties. 53 The Order also does not mandate the suspension or revocation of coverage under the Order for those who fail to comply with its · prov1s10ns. \

General Order Three lacks basic protections for human health and the environment. The Order does not limit the total nuniber of facilities that may be covered by the Order; the total acreage of percolation pits that may be allowed to operate in the region, or the total amount of produced wastewater that may be disposed ofin this manner. It fails to impose a minimum distance that percolation pits must be set back from residences, hospitals, schools, and long-term care facilities. In addition, although there are potentially over a thousand harmful constituents in produced wastewater, General Order Three's sampling and analysis requirements limit testing to less than 30 parameters and less than 25 specific COCs.54 Thus, General Order Three's monitoring and reporting program requirements fail to ensure proper disclosure of discharged chemicals and detection of illegal discharges. Furthermore, unlike similar proposed WDRs, the Order neglects to specify numeric discharge limitations for EC, Chloride, Boron, Arsenic and other COCs. 55 It also provides that the "discharge of produced wastewater shall not cause groundwater to contain constituents in concentrations that adversely affect the beneficial uses."56

However, the Order fails to indicate how much contamination is allowable before it 'adversely

49 See generally General Order Three MRP, supra note 13, at 2-3 (Chemical and Additive Monitoring and Disclosure requirements). 5° CCST Executive Summary, supra note 2, at 7. 51

CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 23, § 2200 . . 52 General Order Three WDRs, supra note 12, at 3. 53 Id. at 27. . 54

55 See CENTRAL VALLEY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, WATER QUALITY ORDER No. RS-2016-XXXX, WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS GENERAL ORDER FOR OIL FIELD DISCHARGES TO LAND, GENERAL

ORDER NUMBER ONE (2016). 56 Id. at 19.

10


affects' beneficial uses. The Order also specifies that percolation pits must be "operated and maintained to prevent wastes from concentrating to hazardous levels,"57 yet does not include any monitoring requirements for sediment within percolation pits, soil surrounding percolation pits or for concentrated waste throughout the pits. Therefore, while General Order Three seemingly recognizes that the concentration of pollutants over time may present an issue, it fails to provide any corresponding safe-guards. These blatant failures to a,ccount for cumulative impacts are unacceptable and could have devastating consequences for human health, water quality, and the environment.

General Order Three's provisions reveal the disconnect on the part of the Regional Water Board as to the riature of percolation pit disposal of produced wastewater. The Order prohibits "[t]he collection, treatment, storage, discharge or disposal of wastes at [an] oil and gas production wastewater discharge facility that results in the creation of a condition of pollution or nuisance .. • • "

58 Similarly, the Order specifies that "[o]bjectionable odors shall not be perceivable beyond the limits of the property where the waste is generated, treated, and/or discharged at an intensity that creates or threatens to create nuisance conditions."59 However, the disposal of produced wastewater in percolation pits will always result in the creation of a condition of pollution, and threaten to create nuisance conditions, by the very nature of the pollutants being discharged and the method of disposing of those pollutants. The Regional Water Board has been working since 2014 to inventory and inspect the percolation pits located within its jurisdiction. 60 The Regional Water Board should be- and in fact, it is the Regional Water Board's duty to be-fully aware that percolation pits that receive discharges of produced wastewater will be unable to comply with these provisions. The inclusion of these provisions in the Order and the Regional Water Board's decision to move forward with the revision and approval process in spite of the threats that percolation pit disposal practices pose indicate that General Order Three may have primarily been drafted to present an image of protectiveness to the public, rather than to actually provide the protection that it promises.

The Five Year De-designation Compliance Schedule Detailed by General Order Three Promotes Environmental Degradation and Rewards Illegal Discharge

The de-designation schedule outlined in the Order allows dischargers to de-designate groundwater resources as municipal and domestic water supply (MUN) or agricultural supply' (AGR) through ainendment of the regional Basin Plan.61 De-designating a particular . groundwater resource from these protected beneficial uses allows a discharger to employ percolation pit disposal of produced wastewater when it would not otherwise be permitted. Pursuant to General Order Three, to successfully de-designate a groundwater resource, a discharger must show that the resource meets the requirements for exemption under the Sources of Drinking Water Policy (SWRCB Resolution No. 88-63) exception criteria, and that

51 Id. at 17. 58 Id. at 16. 59 General Order Three MRP, supra note 13, at 1; See also CAL. WATER CqDE § 13050(n) (defining "Nuisance"). 60 Ronald E. Holcomb, Oil Field Produced Water, Pond Status Report #6 at 1-2 (2015), http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/ central valley/water_ issues/ oil_ fields/information/ disposal_ponds/pond _status_ rpt6 _ 2015 1116.pdf. 61 -

Id. at 9-10, 21-23.

11


"discharges will not migrate from the areas where the beneficial uses will be de-designated to areas of higher quality groundwater."62 If a discharger does not succeed in amending the regional Basin Plan, per the Order's five year de-designation compliance schedule, "the discharges at the Facility shall cease and the Discharger shall submit a Report of Waste Discharge for closure/post closure waste discharge requirements."63 This implies that discharges at the facility are allowed to occur, even if they may impact high quality groundwater resources, while the discharger undergoes the five year de-designation process. One of the criteria for dedesignating a groundwater resource is "contamination, either by natural processes or by human activity ... that cannot reasonably be treated for domestic use .... "64 Thus, General Order Three incentivizes a discharging facility to discharge throughout the five year de-designation process, causing as much contamination as possible to nearby groundwater resources, so as to sufficiently degrade the resources to meet the requirements for exemption under the Sources of Drinking Water Policy. If the discharger degrades the resource enough, the discharger is effectively rewarded and is allowed to continue discharging. General Order Three's five year de-designation compliance schedule gives dischargers license to contaminate groundwater resources designated for municipal and agricultural uses, in violation of the regional Basin Plan. The Regional Water board has no authority to extend a five-year safe harbor to oil and gas companies that are discharging produced wastewater illegally.

General Order Three Violates Applicable Law and Policy

General Order Three violates the California Constitution. Article 10, Section 2 of the California Constitution declares, "because of the conditions prevailing in this State the general welfare requires that the water resources of the State be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent of which they are capable, and that the waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use of water be prevented, and that the conservation of such waters is to be exercised ... in the interest of the people and for the public welfare."65 Groundwater is necessary for domestic and municipal water supply, agricultural use, and the sustenance of wildlife and the environment. Contaminating groundwater resources beyond repair, thereby destroying beneficial uses of those resources, amounts to the waste or unreasonable use of water. General Order Three provides oil · and gas companies with a vehicle to do just that, and is therefore in direct violation of the State Constitution.

General Order Three contravenes the Human Right to Water.66 It is the "established policy of the state that every human being has the rig4t to safe, clean, affordable, and accessible water adequate for human consumption, cooking, and sanitary purposes."67 The Regional Water Board must consider the Human Right to Water when establishing policies and regulations that are pertinent to water use.68 General Order Three clearly falls within the intended scope of this statutory duty, yet any General Order that permits the unnecessary degradation of groundwater

62 Id. at 9-10. 63 General Order Three WDRs, supra note 12, at 23. 64 · Id. at 7. 65

CAL. CONST. art. X, §2; CAL.WATER CODE § 100. 66

CAL. WATER CODE § 106.3. 67 Id. § 106.3(a). 68 'd § 1, • 106.3(b).

12

', I


resources cannot be consistent with this policy. As such, Regional Water Board improperly disregarded the Human Right to Water when drafting General Order Three.

General Order Three also violates Proposition 65 by permitting percolation pit disposal of produced wastewater. Proposition 65 prohibits the knowing discharge of a chemical known to "cause cancer or reproductive toxicity ... onto land where such chemical passes or probably will pass into any source of drinking water .... "69 Produced wastewater contains a variety of chemicals, including known carcinogens and EDCs. These Proposition 65 chemicals are not separated out from the other chemicals contained in produced wastewater and, while General Order Three includes some disclosure requirements, the nature of produced wastewater ensures that some chemicals discharged into percolation pits will go unnoticed. Percolation pit disposal intentionally introduces these chemicals into the environment, threatening to contaminate nearby groundwater resources. And, in fact, groundwater contamination has already occurred within the Regional Water Board's jurisdiction as a result of percolation pit disposal of produced wastewater. Pursuant to the Sources of Drinking Water Policy .(SWRCB Resolution No. 88-63), groundwater resources are considered suitable or potentially suitable for domestic and municipal water supply, and should be protected accordingly, except in very limited circumstances.70

General Order Three's five yearcompliance schedule allows oil and gas companies to discharge produced wastewater into percolation pits near groundwater resources that have not been dedesignated for domestic and municipal water supply, potentially contaminating them beyond recovery. In doing so, General Order Three blatantly violates the protections of Proposition 65.

By proposing General Order Three without preparing (or planning to prepare) a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Environmental Impact Report, the Regional· Water Board is attempting to avert its responsibilities under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA").71 The Regional Water Board acknowledges that it is the lead agency for purposes of CEQA in regards to General Order Three.72 Pursuant to CEQA requirements, all lead agencies must "prepare .' .. and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on any project which they propose to ... approve that may have a significant effect on the environment."73 Although the approval of General Order Three clearly "may have a significant effect on the environment," the Regional Water Board claims exemption from its responsibilities under CEQA, pursuant to four separate statutory exemption provisions. 74

First, an agency may claim exemption from the requirements of CEQA if it is merely permitting existing private structures, resulting in "negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination."75 Second, along similar lines, an agency may claim exemption from the requirements of CEQA for the "replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities" with the same location, purpose, and capacity as the replaced structure

69 CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE§ 25249.5.

70 STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD, ADOPTION OF POLICY ENTITLED "SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER,"

1988 WL 1016150, at *l. 71

CAL. PUB. RES. CODE§ 21000 et seq. 72 General Order Three WDRs, supra note 12, at 14. 73

CAL. PUB. RES. CODE§ 21100(a). 74 General Order Three WDRs, supra note 12, at 14. 75

CAL. CODE REGS. tit. 14, § 15301.

13


or facility. 76 The Regional Water Board claims exemption from the requirements of CEQA under these provisions, in regards to existing percolation pit disposal facilities. However, it is unclear which, if any, of the previously permitted facilities have undergone CEQA review and approval. At the very least, this information needs to be documented and made available to the public. Unless the Regional Water Board can show that all percolation pit facilities eligible for coverage under General Order Three have already undergone CEQA review, or must undergo CEQA review before attaining coverage, this CEQA work-around allows the Regional Water Board to permit illegal dischargers without identifying, assessing, disclosing, and addressing potential environmental impacts of their disposal operations. This runs contrary to the legislative purpose of these exemption provisions and CEQA as a whole.

General Order Three proposes to legalize percolation pit disposal of produced wastewater by hundreds of discharging facilities that have been discharging illegally for years. Therefore, for CEQA purposes, the baseline condition should only account for the relatively few percolation pit facilities that are permitted. With this baseline, the,Regional Water Board would be expanding percolation pit discharge operations within its jurisdiction with every new permit issued under General Order Three. General Order Three also provides for the permitting of new percolation pit disposal facilities, and places no limit on the total number or capacity of disposal facilities allowable under the Order. As such, the Regional Water Board must prepare an EIR that documenting the potential impacts of finalizing General Order Three and fully assesses the environmentally superior alternative of prohibiting wastewater discharge into percolation pits.

Third, an agency may claim exemption from the requirements of CEQA for minor, private alterations "in the condition ofland, water, and/or vegetation."77 General Order Three allows for· the discharge of harmful chemicals to land, potentially contaminating soil and groundwater resources throughout an indeterminate area. This is certainly not a minor alteration and therefore application of this exemption is not appropriate.

Fourth, an agency may claim exemption from the requirements of CEQA for actions taken "to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment."78 Instead of assuring the 'maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource,' General Order Three, if finalized, will give oil and gas companies license to degrade the environment and potentially contaminate groundwater resources throughout the Central Valley. Therefore, the Regional Water Board is not exempt from CEQA review under this provision.

Lastly, the Regional Water Board must evaluate the cumulative impact of allowing widespread wastewater discharges, which is required by CEQA. The cumulative impacts that the hundreds of percolation pits in the Central Valley - both active and inactive - will have on the region's air quality, groundwater resources, and wildlife will be significant. The Regional Water Board must conduct this analysis in light of the significant environmental harm that will result from its action.

76 Id. § 15302. 77 Id. § 15304. 78 Id. § 15307.

14


General Order Three is also inconsistent with the Basin Plan. Regional Water Board actions, including the issuance ofWDRs such as General Order Three, must be consistent with relevant basin plans. 79 While the Basin Plan assumes that oil and gas companies are moving away from the use of perc"olation pits to dispose of generated wastewater,80 finalizing General Order Three would have quite the opposite effect. Additionally, the Basin Plan requires the Regional Water Board to "make a finding as to all beneficial uses within the area of influence of the discharge," and to "set waste discharge requirements to protect these uses while not allowing the ~ischarge to violate receiving water quality objectives."81 Water quality objectives are the least stringent standards that can be applied to protect the beneficial uses of a particular water resource. 82

Although bound in its actions by the Basin Plan, the Regional Water Board claims "[t]he Basin Plan maximum salinity limits [do] not apply to this General Order because the groundwater is poor quality and exceeds the maximum salinity limits and exceeds or nearly meets the Basin Plan water quality objectives."83 If a groundwater resource meets the Basin Plan's water quality objectives, regardless of how narrowly, the Regional Water Board is not exempted from its obligation to protect those water quality objectives as it contemplates finalizing General Order Three.

Prohibiting Percolation Pit Disposal of Produced Wastewatei: Altogether Is the Only Way to Adequately Protect Human Health, Water Quality, Wildlife, and the Environment

When it comes to produced wastewater percolation pits, the Regional Water Board has a history of poor oversight. General Order Three lacks enforcement mechanisms and penalty provisions that are necessary to compel compliance and effectively deter illegal discharge.

Even full compliance with General Order Three would not protect human health, water quality, wildlife, and the environment from the harms of percolation pit disposal of produced wastewater. For the aforementioned reasons, General Orders One and Two, which allow for discharges of produced wastewater deemed to pose a "Low" or "Moderate" threat to water quality are also inadequate. Indeed, percolation pit disposal deliberately introduces poll1Jtants into the air we breathe, the soils from which our crops grow, and the water we drink. Thus, by its very nature, this practice poses serious threats to human health, water quality, wildlife, and the environment. These burdens fall disproportionately upon disadvantaged communities, and at an historic time when the conservation of our limited groundwater resources is most critical.

Rather than working to allow oil and gas companies to continue and potentially expand percolation pit disposal of produced wastewater, the Regional Water Board should prioritize

79 Cal. Water Code§ 13247 (the Regional Water Board must comply with basin plans approved by the state board in "carrying out activities which may affect water quality"). 80 Basin Plan, supra note 11, at IV-14 ("The petroleum industry has been eliminating oilfield wastewater disposal sumps." 81 Id. at 54. 82 CAL. WATER. CODE § 13050(h) (Water quality objectives are "the limits or levels of water quality constituents or characteristics which are established for the reasonable protection of beneficial uses of water or the prevention of nuisance within a specific area."). ·83 General Order Three WDRs, supra note 12, at 8.

15


public protection over private profit and prohibit this disposal method altogether.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important matter. We welcome the chance to. work with the Regional Water Board going forward.

Respectfully submitted,

Lani Maher Hollin K.retzmann Center for Biological Diversity 1212 Broadway, Suite 800 Oakland CA 94612 (510) 844-7100

16

---- --~

REFERENCES CITED AND ATTACHED

Ashley, David L. et al., National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Measurement of Volatile Organic Compounds in Human Blood, 104 S5 Env'l Health Persp. 871-877 (1996)

California Council on Science and Technology, About CCST, https://ccst.us/about.php (last visited May 26, 2016) ·

California Council on Science and Technology, An Independent Scientific Assessment of Well Stimulation in California, Executive Summary (2015)

California Council on Science and Technology, An Independent Scientific Assessment of Well Stimulation in California, Volume II: Potential Environmental Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing and Acid Stimulations (2015)

California Drought, Water for the 21st Century, http://drought.ca.gov/about.html (last visited May 26, 2016) .

California Groundwater, Groundwater in California, http://groundwater.ca.gov/aboutgroundwater.cfm (last visited May 26, 2016)

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Water Board Workshop: Oil Field Regulatory Activities, March 2016 Update (2016)

l

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, Monitoring and Reporting Program R5-2016-XXXX For Waste Discharge Requirements General Order for Oil Field Discharges to Land, General Order Three (2016)

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oil Field Regulation and Forthcoming General Orders (2016) ·

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, Outline for Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) General Order for Oil Field Discharges to Pond(s) Low Threat to Water Quality (2016)

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, Outline for Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) General Order for Oil Field Discharges to Pond(s) Moderate Threat to Water Quality (2016)

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, Water Quality Control Plan for the Tulare . Lake Basin, Second Edition (2015)

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, Water Quality Order No. R5-2016-XXXX, Waste Discharge Requirements General Order for Oil Field Discharges to Land, General Order Number One (2016)

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, Water Quality Order No. R5-2016-XXXX, Waste Discharge Requirements General Oi;der for Oil Field Discharges to Land, General Order Three (2016)

Clean Water Action/Clean Water Fund, In the Pits: Oil and Gas Wastewater Disposal into Open Unlined Pits and the Threat to California's Water and Air (2014)

Clean Water Action/Clean Water Fund, Still in the Pits: Update on Oil and Gas Wastewater Disposal in California (2016)

Eco Watch, Worst Fracking Wastewater Spill in North Dakota Leaks 3 Million Gallons Into River, http://ecowatch.com/2015/01 /23/fracking-wastewater-spill-north-dakota (last visited May 26, 2016)

FracTracker Alliance, More Oil Field Wastewater Pits Found in California!, https://www.fractracker.org/2016/03/more-wastewater-pits-in-ca (last accessed May 26, 2016)

Holcomb, Ronald E., Oil Field Produced Water, Pond Status Report #6 (2015) .

Kassotis, Christopher D. et al., Endocrine Disrupting Activities of Surface Water Associated with a West Virginia Oil and Gas Industry Wastewater Disposal Site, 557-558 SCI. OF THE TOTAL ENV'T 901-910 (2016)

Muijs, Barry and Michiel T.O. Jonker, A Closer Look at Bioaccumulation of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Mixtures in Aquatic Worms, 29 n. 9 Env't Toxicology and.Chemistry 1943, 1946 (2010)

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Download Data, http://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/maps-data/download-data (last accessed May 26, 2016)

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Educational Attainment, http://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/educational-attainment (last visited May 26, 2015)

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Linguistic Isolation, http://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/linguistic-isolation attainment (last visited May 26, 2015) .

· Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Maps & Data, http://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/maps-data (last accessed May 26, 2016)

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Poverty, http://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/poverty (last visited May 26, 2015)

Oil History by Samuel T. Pees, Standardization, http://www.petroleumhistory.org/Oi1History/pages/Barrels/standardization.html (last visited.May 26, 2016)

State Water Resources Control Board, Water Quality Order No. 2003-0003-DWQ (2003)

State Water Resources Control Board, Adoption of Policy Entitled "Sources of Drinking Water" (1988)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Persistent Organic Pollutants: A Global Issue, a Global Response, https://www.epa.gov/intemational-cooperation/persistent-:organic-pollutantsglobal-issue-global-response#pops (last visited May 26, 2016)

USDA Forest Service, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Leasing for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development on the Shoshone National Forest (1992)

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Toxicology Program, Substances Listed in the Thirteenth Report on Carcinogens (2014)

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Interaction Profile for: Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylenes (BTEX), Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (2004)

Wild, S.R. et al., The Long-term Persistence of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in an Agricultural Soil Amended with Metal-Contaminated Sewage Sludges, 101 Sci. of the Total Env't 235-253 (1991)

27, 2016 2:57 · TO LAND, GENERAL ORDER THREE (2016) [hereinafter General Order Three MRP]. . 14...

Documents

Transcript of 27, 2016 2:57 · TO LAND, GENERAL ORDER THREE (2016) [hereinafter General Order Three MRP]. . 14...