Published in Medium.com on January 29, 2021
Outside of Englander hearing. Photo courtesy of the West Valley People’s Alliance
IT DIDN’T STAY IN VEGAS
A bombshell hit the LA City Council District 12 on March 9, 2020, when the FBI arrested former council member Mitchell Englander. He had represented the northwest San Fernando Valley on the council at the time of the Aliso blowout and for three years after, until he abruptly announced his resignation in late 2018 to take a position with the Oak View Group.
Unknown to the public was that Englander had been under investigation by the FBI since 2017. A federal grand jury had issued indictments on January 16th, charging Englander with one count of participating in a scheme to falsify material facts, three counts of making false statements, and three counts of witness tampering. According to the indictment, he had allegedly accepted cash, and was treated to hotel rooms, a lavish dinner, a $24,000 bar tab, hookers, and other gifts during a trip to Las Vegas in 2017. Englander admitted to taking $15,000 in cash from a businessman, identified in court documents as Businessman A, during trips to both Las Vegas and Palm Springs.
Among those who went on this junket was “staffer B” described as working for Englander until June 2017, which coincided with the time that John Lee had left his position as Englander’s chief of staff.
Following his former boss’s arrest, Lee did admit via Twitter that he had been on the Las Vegas trip, but said he was “unaware of any illegal activities for which Councilmember Englander is being charged.” His tweet added that he “did everything in my power to pay for and reimburse expenses related to this trip.”
After the trip, “Staffer B” texted “Businessperson A” thanking him for the “enjoyable Las Vegas trip.” (The text did not state anything about Staffer B or Englander reimbursing trip expenses.) The next week, Englander’s office threw John Lee a farewell party. Then, on July 11 and 13, 2017, the FBI contacted Staffer B seeking a voluntary interview regarding the investigation. He and his counsel finally sat down with the investigators the next month.
On September 14, Businessperson A received two $442 checks from Englander and Staffer B as reimbursement for “Vegas expenses.” The checks were backdated to August 4, 2017.
In April 2018, Englander filed his form 700, the statement of personal economic interest that all elected officials are required to file in California, declaring $1,202 worth of gifts for 2017, but made no mention of cash payments or the other gifts detailed by investigators.
According to the LA City Ethics Commission data portal, John Lee filed form 803s, which are Behested Payment forms that are filed to disclose when one made payments of at least $5,000 to legislative, governmental, or charitable purposes at the behest of an officeholder. That included a $5,000 payment from SoCalGas to the North Valley Family YMCA on 11/13/19.
Lee told the press that in his 20 years of service with the City of Los Angeles, he has never had a single ethics violation. But while he served as chief of staff for Englander, there was a harassment charge toward him and his boss. The legal battle ended more than four years ago, when the city agreed to pay a $75,000 settlement to the accuser.
As Englander’s arrest came after the election for the new council term was held, several residents were understandably unhappy that voters weren’t informed about the investigation beforehand. Also, many knew that Englander had endorsed his former chief of staff during the 2019 special election to fill the vacancy caused by his 2018 departure, as well as the 2020 election for the full term.
Within a day or so of Englander’s arrest, a petition was started calling on Lee to resign. As of January 12, 2021, the petition garnered 1,924 signatures.
Residents were concerned about Lee’s assignment to the Planning and Land Use Management committee, which reviews and makes recommendations on various ordinances regarding zoning regulations, conditional use permits and sign regulations. This was because if he had gone on the Las Vegas trip, the optics of accepting gifts from a contractor who wanted to make deals with developers, didn’t seem kosher to many in CD-12.
According to the indictment, the unnamed businessman involved in the case wanted to increase his business opportunities in Los Angeles. The businessman cooperated with the FBI in the investigation.
Even though he knew his former mentor was under investigation in 2017, Lee ran for the special election to fill the seat just two years later.
On July 7th, Englander pleaded guilty to a single felony charge, one count of scheming to falsify material facts, after a plea deal had been made to dismiss the other six counts. On January 25, 2021, the former council member was sentenced to 14 months in a federal facility.
Called into question was that John Lee, besides going on a trip that would be considered a pay for play adventure, was the fact that he didn’t immediately report the “gifts’ received to the LA City Ethics Commission.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCILS TAKE ACTION, OR TRY TO
According to the introduction to the City Ethics Handbook, the laws are intended to protect the integrity of the City’s decision-making processes. Often, even the perception that a City official had acted with bias can erode public confidence as much as if bias actually existed.
On June 4th, the Granada Hills South Neighborhood Council considered a resolution calling on the City Ethics Commission to investigate Lee as to whether he “violated ethics rules promulgated by the city of Los Angeles” regarding his participation in the 2017 trip and his subsequent actions.
During the discussion, at least 17 public comments were made in favor of the investigation while only two were in opposition. There was a spirited discussion among the board members with some very opposed. Two board members who said they had supported Lee during his campaigns voted for the motion. At the end of the meeting one board member announced her resolution because of the resolution. The vote was 10–6 with one abstention.
The PRNC was going to consider a motion on June 24th regarding Lee. Among the asks were for his resignation, for all the NCs in CD12 to take a position, and for the city council to affirm a commitment to be ethical while conducting City business. But just before the meeting, it was announced that the meeting was cancelled. The agenda, with the proposed motion and supportive letter under consideration, had since been removed from the council’s website.
At the July 8 regular monthly meeting, the PRNC President gave an explanation before the public comment period about why the PRNC board will not consider the motion. He said one of the board members brought up his or her concern to the city attorney’s office. Then the city attorney contacted him for a discussion. Based on “that communication and the concerns they expressed, I pulled the agenda item.” He added that at this time, the conditions haven’t changed, so there was no current plan to put the resolution back on the agenda.
The Northridge East Neighborhood Council, in response to stakeholder requests at a previous meeting, decided to consider a similar motion that would send a letter of inquiry into whether Lee was “City Staffer B.” But this item was pulled from the agenda not too long before the meeting was held. The president announced during the meeting that the deputy city attorney who advises the Valley NCs contacted him, saying the motion was out of the scope of the authority of the group.
He said he was following the instructions of City Attorney Elise Ruden, but did not allow the entire board to see her complete email. Instead, he shared an excerpt and classified it as being “confidential”. In the segment he provided, the resolution before the board was treated as an investigation instead of a call for accountability.
The attorney had attached to her email a document entitled “Personal Liability for Neighborhood Council Board Members.” Was this an attempt to scare the elected members of the neighborhood council into complying with the attorney’s demand?
After several residents gave public comment in favor of a resolution looking into Lee, the board decided to discuss the item. A revised motion was introduced and passed requesting clarity from Council member Lee’s office as to whether Lee is “Staffer B” in the FBI Federal indictment against former Council member Mitchell Englander. The motion also requested that the Ethics Committee look into Lee’s involvement on the PLUM committee.
The amended motion was passed 9–0–4.
When the Northridge West Neighborhood Council (NWNC) was going to discuss a motion about Lee, the board had invited Lee or a representative, but neither was present. Again, the board was dissuaded from taking up the issue. Many residents gave public comment on both sides of the issue, but in the end, the NWNC voted to table the motion until a future meeting.
One board member of the West Hills Neighborhood Council unsuccessfully attempted to get the discussion before his board.
For the most part in these neighborhood council discussions, stakeholders and some board members said that any ethics investigation would be separate from the federal investigation and was just the question of whether he was the one mentioned. But the NCs wouldn’t be doing any investigation.
Many were concerned that there could be a coverup to protect the council member. If it’s a matter of not interfering with a current investigation (either by the FBI or by the City Ethics Commission), it still remained that Lee was on the PLUM committee which wields a lot of power when it comes to developments.
The deputy city attorney said that the NCs not have this discussion implying there could be personal liability that the city would not back up the board about. One thing that’s not known was the identity of the person who went to the attorney’s office in the first place. It has also been suggested there could be a conflict of interest with the attorney’s office inserting herself that way.
Those opposed to passing any resolutions said that this was an attempt to overturn the election results, even though many had to remind them that Englander’s arrest and the revealing of the indictment came after the election. Many others said this was a “witch hunt.” It was also suggested that the FBI concluded the investigation, even though there was at least another arrest in the works.
Others jumped on the question of whether members voting for this kind of resolution could be setting themselves up for a lawsuit. The most bizarre argument was by one NC board member who suggested that members of the West Valley People’s Alliance, a progressive group in favor of an ethics investigation, were “outsiders,” and had no business providing public comment.
At this time, there has not been any word if the LA Ethics Commission would take up the matter.
SOCALGAS CONTINUES TO MILK THE BIOMETHANE
The 2018 Aliso Canyon consent decree included $26.5 million to mitigate the 110,000 metric tonnes of methane released during the Aliso blowout. SoCalGas convinced the government lawyers to initiate a dairy digester project to supposedly mitigate methane produced by industry farms in the Central Valley. This was decided despite many objections sent in by residents, environmental activists and lawmakers who felt any money for mitigation should be utilized in Los Angeles County that will create truly green jobs in solar and similar industries.
In late 2019 and early 2020, four additional dairies, located more than 120 miles from Porter Ranch, were added by Calgren Dairy Fuels to the digesters project already in progress. SoCalGas issued a press release on January 13, 2020, heralding the additions, saying its intention to make “renewable natural gas” available to customers’’ homes.
Dairy Digester facility. From Mass Energy website
At Maas Energy Works in Pixley, 4K Dairy, Little Rock Centralized Diary Digester, Riverview Diary all went online between Oct 2019 to Jan 2020. In July 2019, SoCalGas gave Calgren a $5million incentive check that was authorized by the CPUC.
What the gas company’s press releases about this project didn’t state was that the biogases produced by this process included methane and carbon dioxide, with lesser amounts of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and other gases. Each of these gases has safety issues. Overall, biogas risks include explosion, asphyxiation, disease, and hydrogen sulfide poisoning.” The end product is highly corrosive.
Food and Water Watch produced an excellent fact sheet about the dangers of this form of fuel.
ONE MAJOR VICTORY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT IN LOS ANGELES
One victory for those fighting to close down oil and gas facilities happened on March 5, 2020, when California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) ordered the decommissioning of the Allenco oil drilling facility in South Los Angeles. These wells, according to residents, caused nosebleeds, headaches, cancer, and other ailments. Federal and local investigations were launched almost six years ago. The City of LA obtained a court order in 2016 that would require Allenco Energy to follow new requirements before resuming operations, which resulted in the company to suspending operations.
According to STAND-LA, many of the 21 oil wells were only 30 feet from homes.
The order referred to several Notices of Violations and specifically mentioned the safety hazard posed by numerous gas leaks in September and October 2019. It added that the hazards and risks at the facility pose not only a danger to the facility itself, but also the local community.
This action took place about a half year after the city charged the company with more than two dozen criminal counts after allegedly flouting a state order and failing to properly abandon its oil wells.
THE BOTTOM LINE FOR SEMPRA REGARDING ALISO DAMAGES
Sempra Energy, the parent company of SoCalGas, had revealed a one-time $72 million charge for litigation related to the 2015–16 Aliso Canyon “methane leak” in their first quarter conference call. The details were laid out in its Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10-Q. Longer-term liability,which didn’t include all the legal or regulatory costs nor costs to defend the pending lawsuits, was set at $1.4 billion.
According to the 2019 Sempra annual report,“SoCalGas has incurred and may continue to incur significant costs, expenses and other liabilities related to the natural gas leak at its Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility and mitigating local community environmental impacts from the Leak, some or a substantial portion of which may not be recoverable through insurance, and SoCalGas also may incur significant liabilities for damages, restitution, fines, penalties and other costs, and emissions mitigation activities as a result of this incident, some or a significant portion of which may not be recoverable through insurance or may exceed insurance coverage.” Up to $1.2 billion is covered by insurance, but cost estimates “may increase significantly as more information becomes available,” Sempra said.
At the end of April, there were 393 lawsuits involving 36,000 plaintiffs, including the one brought by the County District Attorney. The other cases plus the securities class actions have been consolidated in Los Angeles Superior Court. Five shareholder derivative actions, alleging breach of fiduciary duties had been filed against Sempra and/or SoCalGas. After the complainants were dismissed, the shareholders filed an amended complaint in February 2020.
A SMELLY SURPRISE
Many residents woke up on the morning of May 12th to strong odors, with immediate fears that another leak was occurring. As calls went out to the media, some outlets, possibly with help from SoCalGas, mentioned a red tide event in the ocean.
But those living near Aliso knew the smell was like mercaptans, not a fishy kind of smell. Plus, while the skunky odors were perceived down to Reseda or so, the odor from the ocean didn’t seem to be detected at all in the south SFV. Surely an odor wouldn’t skip some 18 miles or so.
One media outlet reported that SoCalGas said it started receiving calls from Valencia, Canoga Park, Chatsworth, Simi Valley, and nearby communities around 7 a.m. But the utility claimed there weren’t “indications of a natural gas leak in the area.”
Residents in Porter Ranch and much of the northern San Fernando Valley reported on social media experiencing a strong odor, even between May 9th and May 15th. Many of the complaints posted included dizziness, heart palpitations, headache, and difficulty breathing, as well as an increase in burning eyes, lung irritation, and nosebleeds. Residents checked the SoCalGas methane monitoring site, and all the monitors were off line in the morning. Food & Water Watch — California conducted a survey and found that out of 280 responses, one third of respondents, 94 people, said they smelled the odor.
In response to the more than 100 complaints it received, the AQMD said it had “conducted mobile methane measurements in and around the Porter Ranch Community and within the SoCalGas Aliso Canyon facility. The mobile monitoring showed methane measurements to be within typical background levels. One elevated methane reading was detected inside the SoCalGas facility near the main office area. Further investigation confirmed that this was a short-term peak and was not the result of an ongoing leak or the source of the odor complaints.”
MORE GAME PLAYING FROM THE GAS COMPANY
CalGEM denied a request by SoCalGas on June 29th to delay a required biennial safety testing of wells at the Aliso Canyon storage site for six months. The agency’s supervisor Uduak-Joe Ntuk said that the testing, instituted as a result of the 2015 blowout, is essential, despite any challenges that the pandemic would bring.
A SoCalGas executive’s letter described concerns regarding activities “not deemed critical or essential for safe, reliable delivery” of gas during the pandemic. Asking for a temporary stay of enforcement for the two-year well assessments at the company’s underground storage facilities, the temporary suspension will enable employees, contractors, and agency personnel can follow “stay home when possible” orders, she said.
The executive did ask that CalGEM instead approve a risk management plan that SoCalGas had submitted in 2019, in which the gas company might test some of the Aliso wells once every ten years, based on a risk assessment for each well.
After being shot down initially, SoCalGas tried again, this time requesting a six-month delay, which would extend the deadline for the next round of well integrity tests from October 1, 2020, to April 1, 2021.
CalGEM received 64 COVID-related requests from gas and oil facilities through October 20, 2020.
On the same day as the second denial, state Assemblywoman Christy Smith, state Senator Henry Stern and U.S. Representative Brad Sherman sent a letter to the governor, urging him to direct the CPUC “to immediately act to prevent future unnecessary withdrawals from Aliso Canyon.”
ACIDIZING
In July, SoCalGas conducted maintenance acidizing on Well Porter 6, which was located less than 1.5 miles from the closest homes and about 1.75 miles from Castlebay Elementary School.
This procedure has been done before at Aliso, but each time there is a concern on the part of residents due to safety, especially given the strong prevailing winds that blow toward the communities below the Aliso Canyon facility and the toxic chemicals that are used
For example, hydrofluoric acid is a common chemical that is part of what is called “a chemical intensive procedure used by oil and gas companies to clean out well formations by dissolving particles or buildup, making it easier for oil and gas to flow out of the well.”
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) described hydrogen fluoride as “a colorless, fuming liquid or gas with a strong, irritating odor. It is usually shipped in steel cylinders as a compressed gas. Hydrogen fluoride readily dissolves in water to form colorless hydrofluoric acid solutions; dilute solutions are visibly indistinguishable from water. It is present in a variety of over-the-counter products at concentrations of 6% to 12%. Although hydrofluoric acid is weak compared with most other mineral acids, it can produce serious health effects by any route of exposure. These effects are due to the fluoride ion’s aggressive, destructive penetration of tissues.”
Even fairly low airborne concentrations of hydrogen fluoride can produce rapid onset of eye, nose, and throat irritation. The ATSDR site adds, “Hydrofluoric acid is corrosive and also causes destruction of deep tissues when fluoride ions penetrate the skin. Absorption of substantial amounts of hydrogen fluoride by any route may be fatal.” The health effects listed for hydrogen fluoride include irritation to the skin, eyes, and mucous membranes,and also respiratory irritation or hemorrhage due to inhalation. Systemic effects can occur from all routes of exposure and may include nausea, vomiting, gastric pain, or cardiac arrhythmia. Symptoms may be delayed for several days, especially in the case of exposure to dilute solutions of hydrogen fluoride that are less than 20%.
It was noted that “Children are more vulnerable” to this chemical.
According to the US Center for Disease Control, hydrogen fluoride is among the most hazardous materials in industrial use. It is extremely volatile at relatively low temperatures. It’s liquid at cool temperatures, but becomes a thick vapor cloud at 67.1 degrees F. This cloud hovers close to the ground and can travel a long way.
A LOT OF WITHDRAWING FROM THOSE WELLS
Before the gas storage facility was allowed to resume partial operations in July 2017, withdrawals were only allowed under “emergency conditions.”
Since then, withdrawal protocols were revised twice, in November 2017 and then two years later in November 2019. The current one allows for withdrawals when certain conditions are meant. Since that time, the CPUC’s thresholds have allowed for several withdrawals. SoCalGas continued its pattern of withdrawing gas over the course of 2020.
From Envoy website
In 2020, during January 9th through 10th, 12th through 17th, and 21st, 3.331 Bcfs were withdrawn. For February 3rd through 6th, 9th, and 10th there was a total of 1.82 Bcfs. For March 12th through 20th for a total of 4.479 Bcfs. During April 6th through 10th there was a total of 1.808 Bcfs. On July 13th there was .04 Bcfs withdrawn. For August 13th through 20th, and August 26th there was a total of 2.418 Bcfs. In November, withdrawals occurred on November 9th through 11th for a total of 0.689 Bcf with .00732 Bcfs that came out during cleanup flow testing.
In December there were withdrawals on December 1st through 2nd, 7th, 14th through 18th, 21st, 28th through 31st, for a total of 3.105 Bcfs, with .00243 Bcfs withdrawn due to cleanup flow testing.
Aliso Canyon Withdrawals. Graph by Food & Water Action
Another problem was that often SoCalGas monitors were offline, especially late at night or early in the morning. When asked about this, a public relations manager pointed out that the monitors were affected by high humidity.
An example of one of the SCG monitors offline during low humidity
But often, the system was often offline even when humidity was low. But sometimes the monitors seem to be offline when a leak is suspected. An example of this was when an AQMD inspector, who was checking out a large number of complaints for a major leak on December 18, 2017, found that the monitors were set to“offline.”
A spike on the SCG monitor when the it was set to private
Then came the $119.5 million Aliso Canyon consent decree, announced on August 8, 2018. Specified in the agreement in the Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) section was the installation of an independent air monitoring system to measure BTEX chemicals for at least eight years, as well as a system to be installed in an “Environmental Justice Community. The allotment for each system would be $1.5 million.
The decree stated “It is anticipated that OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment), CARB, and/or SCAQMD will be selected to create this fund and implement the (projects).” The Aliso Fund Committee (AFC), consisting of the state Attorney General’s office, the County Counsel, and the City Attorney’s office,“will consult with residents of Porter Ranch and neighboring communities to identify locations and constituents to monitor for and to establish parameters of any analysis/study that will be conducted utilizing the monitoring results.”
This consent decree was signed off on February 25, 2019, by the judge handling the civil cases, with SoCalGas expected to turn over the funds within thirty days. But months continued on, and as other projects mentioned in the agreement were being implemented, residents wondered when the monitoring system would finally be installed. This writer emailed the agencies mentioned in the decree as well as Supervisor Barger’s office in October that year, but the only response was from CARB’s Public Information Officer, who suggested that the AQMD would probably handle the project.
The Supervisor’s SFV deputy, Jarrod DeGonia, responded in November 2019, to my follow up email, “Our office with County Counsel are in discussions with the Attorney General’s Office and the City Attorney’s office relating to the $3 million for air monitoring. There are some very specific stipulations associated with this funding and hope to have an update for you later in the month.”
He never sent an update.
He did give an update at the February 20, 2020, meeting for the Aliso Health Study Community Advisory Group (CAG), discussing a partnership with AQMD.
The CAG sent a letter to the AFC on June 2nd, asking about the status of installing the system, and if there wasn’t a plan yet, why not? The message included that delaying the installation of this system will lead to greater distrust and hostility toward both public agencies and SoCalGas.
The PRNC sent its own letter to County Supervisor Kathryn Barger and Attorney General Xavier Becerra on June 10th asking for an update on the monitors. It mentioned the long period of time since March 2019, the deadline for SoCalGas to send in the payment.
The response from the AFC to the PRNC and CAG came on July 7th, and word for word, was exactly the same.“The AFC has had multiple meetings with these agencies jointly and with SCAQMD separately to discuss and develop a proposed plan for implementing the air monitoring SEP. The AFC continues to work with these agencies on development of a proposal for the implementation of the air monitoring SEP in Porter Ranch.” It didn’t address the lapse of time since the consent agreement was approved.
DPH’s Katie Butler emailed the CAG on July 10th, suggesting that the CAG contact the County Counsel and Supervisor Barger’s office about the system, pointing out that DPH is not mentioned in the decree.
Finally, at the August 16th meeting of the PRNC, it was announced that the town hall regarding the monitoring system would be held on September 16th. At this meeting, in response to a public comment that it has been 735 days since the consent decree was announced, DeGonia mentioned that the delay was because originally it was thought the AQMD could not handle this decree.
On September 16th, the governmental entities forming the AFC were represented by Catherine Wieman and Arsenio Mataka from the state Attorney General’s Office, Jessica Brown from the City Attorney’s Office, and Scott Kuhn from the Los Angeles County Counsel’s Office. They were joined by Jason Low and Nicholas Sanchez from the AQMD.
Slide from air monitoring town hall
During the event, it was announced that the $1 million from the settlement between SoCalGas and the AQMD, intended to fund a health study, will instead be added to the 1.5 million for the Porter Ranch monitoring system. Wieman said that the three agencies named in the decree will play an advisory role, but the agency that will implement the project has not been decided yet.
After hearing a description of the different types for monitoring systems, residents gave public comments. Many wanted to know why it had taken more than two years to get to this meeting. Jessica Brown admitted that it was taking longer than desired. She brought up COVID as a factor, but said they feel they are now back on track. Some residents replied that the pandemic wasn’t a valid excuse as a year and a half elapsed between the consent decree announcement and the lockdown.
Scott Kuhn was asked why his office was not recommending the issuance of a subpoena to SoCalGas for the chemical list. He replied that he will not agree that the counsel has been blocking anything, referring to client-attorney privilege. But many residents persisted in saying the list was important for the health study.
The second town hall, held on October 21, concentrated on presentations from potential vendors.
AQMD’s Andrea Polodori discussed the purposes of monitoring. The variables to be considered are detection capability, initial cost, ongoing cost, duration of funds, collection of data for the health study, and providing notifications.
Slide from Air Monitoring Town Hall
Local resident Andrew Krowne gave a presentation about a health symptom app that he developed in 2017, which was used by approximately 1,900 users in the San Fernando Valley to keep track of their health symptoms. He explained that the Environmental Health Tracker app filled a need in crowdsourcing symptom and odor reports which previously was done via word of mouth or posting on Facebook. He said the app can provide real time alerting and symptom tracking.“The app utilizes GPS technology to help sift through the data and pinpoint where people are getting odors and symptoms so that agencies who are looking at this can get the most precise data they can.”
He explained further that the EHT can integrate with the AQMD so odor reports can automatically be sent to the agency. He added, it has “very nearly real time alerting that is push notifications is text messaged to your phone when various conditions are met.” He explained that the “EHT can show banners of current levels of the different chemicals of concern so users can go to one place on their mobile device.”
He gave a correction for the slide listing the costs, saying that the one-time cost would be for $55,000. The $30,000 annual cost covers major software updates for five years. He pointed out that when various devices get software updates, they can mess with apps.
He added that the app should work with any of the monitoring systems under consideration.
Next, Don Gamiles, CEO of Argos Scientific, said his company installed an air monitoring system in Porter Ranch on January 28, 2016. “We shoot a beam of light at the air and if a gas happens to cross that beam, we can figure out what that gas is and actually how much is there,” he explained.
He said for the amount of money, they can set up a few of these, using already available infrastructure, such as light poles, as a way to mount the equipment, and that they can install a system that checks for methane, benzene, BTEX, SO2, and ozone.
“The information from these systems is reported to a website updated every five minutes. So you get a very quick notification whenever there is any type of detection and the cost of these systems is actually fairly low,” he added.
The other presentation was by Davida Herzl, the CEO and co-founder of Aclima, a public benefit corporation. She explained her company’s monitoring system involves a large-scale measurement of hyperlocal or block-to-block measurement in real time. This system will show persistent levels of pollution and emission through a website-based interface and phone-based application that they’ve been using with communities and regulators across the state.
She said they’ve been listening in on community meetings and residents want to know how the pollutants are distributed across the community, as well as at the fence line. She pointed out that they can monitor for BTEX, in addition to the methane listed on the slide, and give real time data, with information available to regulators such as the AQMD. She added, “Alerting for threshold events is absolutely critical when community-defined thresholds are crossed.”
With the mobile mapping system, they can monitor methane, C2H4, NO2, NO, O3, CO2, Co, particulate material, TVOCs, BTEX, with some of those compounds through stationary monitors.
She pointed out that in addition to the mobile monitoring, using drivers hired from the local community, they can also provide fence line monitoring. She said they could provide monitoring for five years.
Those in attendance were asked to take a survey indicating their choices about what functions, priorities, and types of systems were important to them.
DISCLAIMER: I helped with the Loraine for LA campaign in the 2020 election.