Published in Medium.com on February 13, 2021
WHAT’S HAPPENING WITH THE HEALTH STUDY
As noted in part 4 of this series, the road to a study into the health conditions caused by or associated with the 2015 blowout has been a rocky road, indeed. In part 5, I detailed the creation of the Community Advisory Group (CAG), which was tasked with serving as the liaison between the community and the Dept. of Public Health (DPH), the agency that will administer the health study established by the 2018 Aliso Canyon consent decree.
From the time the original members of the CAG were first selected by the neighborhood councils nearest to Aliso Canyon, there had been some conflicts with DPH. That was evident when those representatives started the process of selecting the at large members, but were given only redacted information about the applicants. Then, DPH decided to take over the process, despite going against what NCs and potential applicants were told in the spring of 2019.
The process for creating a charter was also controlled by the health department. One element of the charter that the CAG insisted on was the addition of independent experts to the Scientific Oversight Committee (SOC), the group which would decide the scoping of the study. The idea was that these additional experts would more than offset representatives from public agencies, which were distrusted by many in the community. DPH finally agreed to this ask, after a few months of discussion, and took suggestions from the CAG for possible nominees, as well as throwing the nomination process open to the public.
The DPH presented their list of finalists to the CAG (right before a conference call intended for input by CAG members), but the community members pointed out the lack of medical clinicians. The only finalist with a medical degree on DPH’s list had a heavily academic and research-oriented background, which didn’t involve seeing patients.
When the CAG was informed at the January 2020 meeting about an opening on the SOC for the group to fill, the CAG voted to add Dr. Jeffrey Nordella, who had been treating patients in the affected area following the blowout.
The message some of the CAG members repeated from the beginning of the meetings was that the community mistrusted DPH. This was due to past actions, including issuing fact sheets which claimed residents were suffering symptoms due to odorants and that there would be no long-term health effects. Even more egregious in residents’ eyes was when Dr. Rangan, the department’s head toxicologist, sent a directive to local doctors telling them not to perform toxicology tests on patients.
Chart showing time delays in getting info from DPH
Since the first CAG meeting in August 2019, some patterns on the part of DPH had emerged. Many times, the CAG had to repeatedly bring up needed action items in meetings and email exchanges. One CAG member described this situation as “Groundhog Day.”
Other asks were supposedly agreed to, but didn’t happen. One example of that was a request from the CAG for viewing a rough draft of a video that was to represent the community’s views to the SOC.
There were other requests that were denied. The CAG informed DPH, based on what attorneys had told them, that the county could subpoena SoCalGas for a comprehensive list of chemicals. But the county counsel put the kibosh on such a subpoena.
The CAG said that they wanted to be able to review the solicitation before it is sent out to prospective research teams. The DPH response was that community input would be incorporated into the Request for Proposals (RFP), but the typical County contracts and grants process does not include sharing a draft version of the RFP with members of the public.
Also questionable was the tendency to keep the CAG out of the loop of information that was relevant to the residents’ health. One example was not informing the CAG immediately about the existence of bins of materials gathered from around well SS-25. At a SOC meeting in August, the DPH did tell the scientific experts about the presence of 150 bins. But it was a SOC member who informed the CAG.
Other events and actions couldn’t be helped by anyone. The unfolding COVID crisis led to the postponement of the official meeting between the CAG and the Scientific Oversight Committee and the DPH town hall. The CAG last met in-person in February 2020. After that, meetings were held virtually. First on Zoom, and then switched to Microsoft Teams due to an edict by the County. The town hall was rescheduled for June, but because of county bureaucracy when it came to approving a flyer, the CAG realized there wouldn’t be enough time to properly publicize it. Even then, there were problems with proper outreach for the third date.
Because of many of the issues it was facing, a majority of the CAG decided to abstain from attending the first SOC meeting on June 18th, which was planned to be a “meet and greet.” Instead, one member read a letter, signed by those members, which explained the community’s perception that DPH and the public agencies had mishandled the disaster and disregarded the harm that the blowout and continuing polytoxic emissions have caused to residents. Other points included that the CAG is working for a science-based community-centric study that’s free from a political agenda, but felt that was threatened because the county was not actively seeking a comprehensive list of chemicals. Communications problems and poor planning on the part of DPH, lack of transparency, and intentional exclusion of the community from the process were also mentioned. A few of the members did attend the meeting.
The CAG took part in the next SOC meeting on July 28th, giving a slide presentation about how community members were affected by the blowout and why residents distrusted the agencies.
Because of the many issues involved with trying to work with DPH, the CAG thought it necessary to produce“round table” discussion videos, with the first one featuring Nordella and another one a discussion among the members.
Outside of the meetings, the CAG was busy composing and sending correspondence to County Supervisor Kathryn Barger, City Councilmember John Lee, the SOC, the community, as well as developing a petition requesting the county issue a subpoena to SoCalGas. The group also set up a website with resources, videos, correspondence, and meeting information.
The CAG finally met via a zoom meeting with the supervisor, and discussed some topics of concern. She had promised to set more meetings, but as of late-January, the CAG had yet to hear from her scheduling assistant as promised.
Other administrative issues continued, including a lack of financial accounting of the money spent by the department, non-permanent recording of meetings (and it took several requests to get meeting summaries through July onto the DPH website), and the bureaucratic process at the county. Some examples of informational requests by the CAG going unanswered included a 16-month and counting ask for a chemical exposure list. Additionally, the CBC information has been in limbo for at least 14 months as of January 2021.
At the November 2020 CAG meeting, members took a poll of how many currently felt the health study is on a path that will support the community’s needs and interests. Eight members said no, one said yes, two gave a conditional answer, and two were absent.
Vote taken by CAG members at the November 2020 meeting
In December, a representative from the health study team finally attended a couple of the neighborhood council meetings, but basically gave a presentation that was a rehash of what most who experienced the blowout already knew. When some community members asked questions, the representative didn’t know what to say in response or wouldn’t answer them.
More importantly, DPH was responsible to deliver this health study and collectively the CAG was getting more and more frustrated in the agency’s inability to accomplish the easy stuff.
This frustration increased in early January 2021 when DPH released a proposed charter for the Scientific Oversight Committee, which would require the SOC members to give advance written notice when speaking about the study to“a public audience.” This would include town halls, neighborhood council meetings, and round-table discussions. As this new development came up shortly after Dr. Nordella was invited by the Porter Ranch Neighborhood Council (PRNC) to give the community a town hall, some CAG members felt that this directive would affect transparency and the flow of information needed to make the study community-centric. DPH gave the doctor an ultimatum to sign off on the charter by February 3rd by 5pm or be removed from the SOC.
The CAG meeting for January 25th was postponed to February 3rd “to accommodate various scheduling conflicts” according to an email sent by DPH’s Cristina Vega. CAG members collaborated on an agenda, listing many of the continuing unresolved issues we wanted to discuss, and sent it to DPH early two days before the meeting. But when Vega responded, she sent the agenda that DPH will be going by. Upon seeing the vague information that ignored our topics, I felt something was amiss. Some of the others in the group felt the same.
Around the 15-minute mark of the meeting, Dr. Muntu Davis, LA County’s health officer, said that from then on, CAG meetings would be held on a quarterly basis. He added that subcommittees and CAG participation on the health study steering committee will be “paused for the moment.” Those announcements were major bombshells dropped on the CAG and the community, as that meant limiting a major way for the CAG and the community to communicate with the department.
During the meeting, CAG members, along with the community, said that because the county hadn’t obtained a comprehensive list of materials used by SoCalGas, there was a gap of data necessary for a science-based study. Also mentioned were a lack of information about the polonium found on the Aliso site and whether the community itself showed a presence of this radioactive isotope. In addition, the appearances by DPH staffers at December neighborhood council meetings who failed to give any updates to the community, underscored the lack of transparency by the health department. These appearances were apparently not coordinated with the CAG representatives for these councils.
As for the issue surrounding Dr. Nordella, Dr. Davis explained that the charter that was presented would “ensure a sound research process without any potential of unfair advantage proposal submission.”
But according to Dr. Nordella, his problem wasn’t with the need to keep secret information that could compromise the RFP process, but there were sections of the charter that would interfere with his due diligence as a practicing physician. Community members followed his statement with public comments of support, as well as 12 residents who wrote in the meeting chat in support of his continuing on the SOC.
From the South Coast Air Quality Management District website
THE HUNT FOR FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
In part 5, it was mentioned that just a few days after the gas storage site was threatened by the Saddleridge fire in October 2019, flames were spotted on the facility. Several agencies, including the LA County Fire Health Hazardous Material Division, the DPH, South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD), the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), and the Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), investigated the fire. Air samples were collected from the location of the flames, down the hill from that location, at the Porter Ridge Park, and by some of the wells.
Right away, the CAG took an interest in the mysterious fires, concerned these emissions could be affecting residents’ health. The source of the emissions was not identified and the potential responsible party, SoCalGas, could be involved in the investigation. The members pushed for an independent investigation, possibly by Argos Scientific or Blade Energy Partners, so that data can be gathered that can be used for the health study.
When the data came in, the benzene level where the flames were found was measured at 58 ppb. The Cal state EPA considers the REL (Reference Exposure Level, which is the concentration level at or below which no adverse health effects are anticipated for a specific exposure) to be 27ppb for a one-hour exposure and 1ppb for an 8-hour exposure.
From the AQMD website
A major concern on the CAG members’ part was that prevailing winds could blow particulate matter and chemicals southward.
In response to communications from the CAG, DPH’s Katie Butler said that her department did not think an independent investigation was warranted. And that the samples didn’t indicate a health hazard, though admitting the source had not yet been identified. In addition, she said they didn’t have the authority to release the results to the community, but was urging SoCalGas and the regulatory agencies to be transparent and release the results.
The CAG expressed their dissatisfaction with the response, especially at the lack of acknowledgement as to the high level of benzene, and requested a meeting with the agencies involved with the investigation.
Link to the AQMD’s October sampling results.
In May, Butler sent to the CAG a summary of the AQMD’s samples collected in January and February, “There weren’t any significant levels of chemicals of concern,” she said. But there were some VOCs that were found at levels above the ambient average levels for the LA basin, including ethane, propone, isobutane, and n-butane for one location, downwind of the facility. n-Butane was also found higher by Castlebay Elementary School.
The CAG was told in a July 10th update by DPH that the weekly interagency calls were continuing. The DPH’s role during these calls was to “review environmental conditions to determine whether there is an impact to the community. Based on the agency reports shared on these calls, environmental conditions have not changed since the previous update that we provided in May.”
Matthewson Epuna of the California Public Agency Commission (CPUC) emailed the CAG on July 17th, “The working group continues to review the soil probe and vapor monitoring and laboratory analysis data provided by SoCalGas and its contractor. Unfortunately we are not able to release preliminary results of the investigation.”
Just before the interagency meeting on July 31st, the CAG sent in to the DPH many questions with the hope that we would find out about the composition of the emissions, its source, and the mitigation plan. In addition, what process would ensure accurate and complete information regarding the samples and testing done by SoCalGas? Will there be ongoing monitoring of these emissions? Of particular concern is the finding of 88ppb benzene (which is 88 times greater than the CAL EPA 8-hour REL) and whether the prevailing winds are blowing it into the community. What agency is assuming the health protection of workers and residents from these emissions and what actions are being taken?
After the meeting, some members of the CAG felt that the regulators were not holding SoCalGas accountable and instead were relying on the utility to provide reliable and correct data. The CAG thought that if this was indeed a naturally occurring methane leak, and not coming from the wells, the chemicals would be easy to be identified by its composition.
The CAG decided to keep firm in this messaging with DPH and the SOC: “Aliso Canyon field has ongoing fugitive emissions that are harming the community around it. As demonstrated by the chronic fugitive emission fire from Oct 2019 and identified in DPH’s 2016 wind study where both discoveries included benzene levels above CalEPA’s 8-hour REL. Therefore, Aliso is unsafe and incompatible with close proximity to an urban community.”
The fugitive emissions issue continued to be on the agenda for several CAG meetings, but with other topics heating up, this item merited only a cursory mention at some point.
About a year from the time the post-Saddleridge fire emissions were noticed, DPH said that SoCalGas’s third party consultant completed a report on the investigation of the spot fire. and had provided it to all the regulatory agencies involved in the investigation for review and the agencies were currently in the process of reviewing and providing feedback.
Here is the SoCal Gas website update on their investigation.
Yes, SoCalGas called it a “small fire,” and said, based on the results, the source of the spot fire was determined to be a natural sub-surface seep and not storage gas.
Perhaps, a case of the fox watching the hen house.
The last update of the year about the fugitive emissions was sent by DPH on October 30th, and mentioned the SoCalGas’s report again and that DPH’s Environmental Division will be providing its comments to be included in a letter to SoCal Gas on behalf of the agency workgroup.
From the OEHHA website
CHEMICALS, CHEMICALS, WHAT ARE THE CHEMICALS?
One absolute must for the health study as far as the CAG and community was concerned was that the SOC and the eventual research team should have access to a comprehensive list of all materials on the gas stored at the Aliso wells as well as used on the wells. This included chemicals used to frack the gas at its origin, the well kill materials used in 2015 to stop the flow from SS-25, and chemicals used to “clean” the gas.
This point was made long before the health study was funded by the Aliso Canyon consent decree. Residents demanded this list during town hall meetings with health officials in 2016, and at the Porter Ranch Community Advisory Committee meetings, which met between December 2015 and June 2016. Besides the possibility of any health study being limited without all the data, the residents wanted to be able to tell their family doctors and pets’ veterinarians what chemicals they have been exposed to in order to get proper treatment for any medical conditions that could have been caused by the gas facility.
On page 8 of the Long-Term Viability of Underground Natural Gas Storage in California: An Independent Review of Scientific and Technical Information report issued by the California Council on Science and Technology (CCST), referred to the lack of information “on the composition of stored gas in the facilities,” which underscored the unknowns as to the effect of this facility on “human health harm related to the 2015 Aliso Canyon incident” and other underground gas storage loss of containment events in the future. The CCST researchers were unsuccessful in their attempts to obtain this data from SoCalGas.
At a December 2019 meeting with top DPH officers, CAG members brought up the need for a subpoena that would demand SoCalGas provide this list of materials. One member mentioned that two attorneys informed him that the county and DPH did have subpoena authority.
When the Board of Supervisors heard public comment before passing a resolution regarding Aliso in January 2020, members of the public and environmental activists told the Supervisors this subpoena was necessary.
The Aliso Moms Alliance brought up the subpoena when they met with Supervisor Kathryn Barger in February 2020.
LA County Counsel letter to state Dept of Conservation re Aliso chemicals and health study
But at the May 2020 CAG meeting, Dr. Paul Simon made a bombshell announcement: The county counsel was going to recommend to the supervisors that a subpoena not be issued by the County.
This news made members of the CAG and the community wondering if there was a political agenda by the county to protect SoCalGas, or to otherwise not get into a pissing battle with the gas company’s lawyers.
And now that many residents found themselves in the high-risk group for COVID complications because of conditions, including immunity suppression, that could have been caused by these chemicals, having this list became even more critical.
The DPH’s alternative plan to rely on guesstimates and deductions from such limited tools as air monitoring and some on-site testing would not be considered acceptable to the community, given that such a shot in the dark approach may exclude chemicals essential to the study.
Because of the county’s decision, the CAG decided to take action to garner community support, including starting a petition directed toward Supervisor Barger, asking for neighborhood councils (NCs) to pass motions, and even enlisting members of the SOC to support the request.
State Heath & Safety Code regarding hazardous materials
Backing up a request for the information was a code concerning hazardous components, the Health & Safety Code section 25500(a). Other relevant codes concern trade secrets (as in the case of SoCalGas, claiming a proprietary formula), including H&S 25512(b)(1) and 27 CCR 15188(e).
The neighborhood council representatives on the CAG each worked to get a motion on their respective board’s agenda. Each of the NCs (Granada Hills South, Northridge West, Porter Ranch, Northridge East, Chatsworth, and Granada Hills North) passed their respective motions without a single vote against (in some cases, with only a few abstentions).
In addition, the North Hills West NC unanimously passed a motion. The Valley Alliance of Neighborhood Councils also passed a motion to support obtaining the chemicals.
The CAG sent members of the SOC a letter which explained getting this list will “maximize the insights of the pending health study.” Some of the SOC experts explained that their group may want to pursue other methods. One public agency representative said he wasn’t going to sign off on the letter as he wasn’t “a health expert and cannot speak to the need for the data to make this specific research successful.” Another said that she would need approval from her agency. The agency members in general expressed a reluctance to team with the CAG in the quest for the subpoena, even though some of them felt that the more data obtained for the health study, the better.
At the DPH town hall on September 30th, many of the questions submitted by community members concerned the chemical list, asking why SoCalGas wasn’t being required to provide this information.
In November, the outreach member from DPH sent CAG members a document entitled “Aliso Canyon Health Research Study: Chemicals.” It summarized what the DPH considered was relevant data, listing chemicals that may be associated with the blowout and the well-kill attempts.
Among the chemicals listed included sulfur compounds, such as sulfur dioxide, tert-butyl mercaptan, thiophene, and tetra-hydro thiophene, that were found in soil near SS-25, ambient air, and samples taken from some on the wells at Aliso. Some of the health effects can include inflammation and irritation of the eyes, nose, throat, and lungs, coughs, dizziness, headaches, nausea, drowsiness, and palpitations.
Metals were found in the soil near the well and in the air downwind of the well as well as found in the evidence bins in the samples. These include barium, zinc, copper, antimony, cadmium, mercury, molybdenum, arsenic, vanadium, nickel, cobalt, chromium, and lead.
Some of the health effects caused by metals include weakening the immune system, damage of liver and kidneys, vomiting, hypotension, coma, jaundice, gastrointestinal distress, irritation of the eyes, skin and lungs, cancer, damage to the cardiovascular, central and peripheral nervous, and respiratory systems, and anemia.
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons were found in the soil near the damaged well as well as downwind. Long-term health effects of exposure to PAHs may include cataracts, kidney and liver damage, and jaundice. Repeated skin contact to naphthalene can result in redness and inflammation of the skin. Breathing or swallowing large amounts of naphthalene can cause the breakdown of red blood cells.
Listed as solid well kill materials were minerals such as crystalline silica, mica, illite. Among the effects from these include cancer, silicosis, and lung irritation.
Aldehydes such as glutaraldehyde were listed as well-kill fluids. Chronic inhalation affects the nose and respiratory tract, and lesions can become severe with prolonged duration of exposure.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), which include benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, 1,2,4 trimethylbenzene, were found in the soil near SS-25, in the air downwind of SS-25, in ambient air, and in samples taken from natural gas wells onsite. Among the possible health effects are bone marrow damage, immunity system suppression, ataxia, tremors, cerebral atrophy, nystagmus, impaired speech, hearing, vision and memory, throat irritation, chest constriction, impaired lung function, anxiety, and problems with muscle control. Benzene and ethylbenzene are both considered carcinogens.
Ultrafine particulate matter was found in the well-kill materials and can affect the lungs and heart.
Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM), e.g. Polonium-210, was thought to come from the well kill materials according to the document. The National Center for Environmental Health said a significant level of exposure to this isotope over a period of time will put a person at risk for cancer.
One thing to note about the possible health effects listed above, was that there is a risk of more damaging effects when some chemicals are combined. In addition, this may not be a completely comprehensive list.
A major concern for some CAG members was that some SOC members, particularly the agency members, and the DPH may try to steer this study away from studying residents and instead use modeling of exposures instead to determine if the community was at risk. At the SOC’s initial briefing, Katie Butler told the members that the community air monitoring data showed there were no concerns of exposure. But without baseline data (remember that DPH never ordered blood work for residents in 2015 to establish baseline measurements, and that Dr. Rangan discouraged doctors from considering toxic exposures in patients) and current medical testing, how would any research team study the health risks to this community as a true health study, rather than a risk assessment?
Slide from Dept of Public Health Aliso Health Study Town Hall
ON AGAIN, OFF AGAIN, ON AGAIN DPH TOWN HALL
From the first few CAG meetings on, a consistent message from most of the members was that the community distrusted DPH. In response to that problem, it was suggested that a town hall be held at which top members of DPH (Dr. Muntu Davis and Dr. Paul Simon) can give a “mea culpa” about past actions by DPH staff to mislead the public about the health risks from the blowout.
A subcommittee was formed with some CAG members and the DPH team to start planning a town hall in earnest. Finally, a date of March 21th was selected.
Members of the SOC, who were to be in the area for their first meeting on March 23rd, were encouraged to attend the town hall.
There were some qualms on the part of CAG members who were concerned about the language on the flyer. They felt there was a need for the DPH to show the public this was a “new and improved DPH” or at least tacitly acknowledge things were different. If residents felt that nothing’s changed, they might not want to attend.
But as the coronavirus started to spread in the U.S. in early March, the DPH leadership realized that the town hall and initial SOC meeting would have to be postponed.
When CAG meetings resumed in April on Zoom, one discussion item centered on rescheduling the town hall. By the May CAG meeting, it was decided to hold the community event, albeit a virtual one, on June 27th. But when a flyer for the event became bogged down in the County bureaucracy, the CAG members said there wouldn’t be enough lead time to get the word out, including by the neighborhood councils, and recommended it be rescheduled.
Flyer for the County Dept. of Public Health town hall
Even after postponing the town hall from its second date, the hoops to jump through continued to cause a problem. CAG members on the Town Hall subcommittee recommended that a new flyer be designed and approved, with a blank area for the date and time and access information. Then the date for six weeks hence can be selected in order to properly give time for promotion.
Among the issues to be worked out included which virtual platform to use as the county had stopped using Zoom for any county meetings. Research was done into finding acceptable platforms that a few hundred attendees can access and provide comments. Web Ex was selected, but it had proved to be problematic for the joint SOC/CAG meetings. A test meeting was held, but some people reported having problems logging in.
Another problem was the outreach. Even though it was DPH’s event, and not CAG’s, members on that committee tried to give suggestions of methods to publicize it, including the use of NextDoor.
Even though the CAG members insisted the social media site was used by many governmental entities, including the local LAPD station, DPH decided not to post the event there. The DPH bought ads in some local papers, including two publications that weren’t focused on reaching the northern Valley. CAG members did post the event on NextDoor and Facebook.
We had advised DPH outreach to send emails to the elected officials, rather than expect CAG members to do so. Also, it was suggested that someone from DPH attend the upcoming neighborhood council meetings, but that didn’t happen.
As DPH had a list of school emails that were used for COVID updates, the DPH team was going to send out official invites to the schools. But the department seemed to rely on CAG member and former principal Mary Blair to send out those emails. The DPH did send an e-blast to its email list a couple of weeks before the town hall.
On September 30th, there were about 84 online attendees and 20 attendees via phone. It is estimated that 12 CAG members, 32 other residents, and 40 nonresidents, including those from DPH, Katz & Associates, and even a SoCalGas public affairs manager attended the event.
Weeks later, answers to some questions asked at or after the event were placed on the DPH health study website.
From the County Dept. of Public Health Aliso health study website
Two answers were concerning to those who want a true patient-based study. First: “Can any community member (including SoCalGas employees and people who have moved away from the neighborhoods surrounding the Aliso Canyon gas storage facility) be considered as subjects for the Health Study?” The answer: The Health Study researchers will decide the research design(s) of the Health Study. If the Health Study researchers choose to conduct human subject research…
Also: “Will information regarding Health Study participation be sent to interested community members?” The answer: If the Health Study researchers conduct human subject research… From these two answers, one has to wonder if it’s possible that residents of the affected community won’t be studied. This would go against one of the community’s and CAG’s goals for the health study.
Disclaimer: I am an at-large member of the Aliso Canyon Health Study Community Advisory Group and any views stated in this article are mine and not necessarily representative of the entire CAG.