Published in Medium.com on February 15, 2021
Photo by Hannah Benet
THE CAG VIDEO
The original plan to provide the SOC with an introduction to Aliso Canyon was to take them on a guided tour of the area. As many of the experts were from out of the area, the hope was that such a tour would give some geographical context to where the gas facility was and how close it was to homes, schools, businesses, and parks. That tour would be followed by the joint meeting between the group and the CAG.
When the pandemic cancelled that tour, an idea was introduced to make a video that would also feature community members talking about how the blowout affected them. DPH chose Katz and Associates to produce it.
But the project proved to be problematic.
The initial attempt at a video was vetoed by Dr. Simon as being too DPH-centric. “This needs to be about the community and reflect the community’s perspective and voice,” he said. He suggested that the videographer, DPH’s Kristina Vaculik and Cristina Vega, and Ann Newton of Katz meet with some of the CAG members to discuss the content. He added that it could be akin to the video shown at the November 2, 2019, townhall that featured Dr. Nordella’s presentation. The DPH can review and propose additions, but it’s CAG that needs to “feel comfortable with the final product as does DPH,” he said.
A subcommittee was formed to discuss a new video. It was decided that a drone would conduct a fly over to shoot video of local landmarks and community members could discuss how the disaster affected them.
Katz and Associates’ Ann Newton said, “We want to make sure this tells the story and strongly reflects the community’s perspective. Ultimately, all of the various pieces will get woven together in a way that shows what has happened over time and what type of impact that has had on the community.” She added the goal was to keep the video to around 25 minutes in length.
The CAG’s Craig Galanti gave her a link to a YouTube channel which contained news coverage and videos of residents giving public comment at hearings.
It was decided to solicit short videos from community members, but only a few residents were willing to participate. Either they felt their lawyers wouldn’t allow them to discuss the site or they didn’t trust DPH.
The response from the DPH outreach person Cristina Vega was that she’ll take over outreach to get more videos from residents, not getting the point that the residents would not feel any more compulsion to participate by a request by DPH.
Still Katz was given the go ahead for the drone video and to use whatever they were given (news coverage and other video about hearings).
Since then, however, the CAG had asked on several occasions to view a rough draft of the video, so they can reassure residents that the video would properly represent them. They also reiterated they wanted the final edit on the video.
In early September, a back and forth of emails underscored the frustration of the CAG membership. A follow up email was sent to Katz & Associates and DPH, reminding them that the CAG requested a preview to be able to address the community’s concerns.
A Katz representative said the video was still under development, adding that she wasn’t satisfied with the editing, but thought it may be “completed by the next SOC meeting for their viewing.” She didn’t mention whether the CAG would see it before then.
One CAG member said that this was another example of agreements that were being disregarded. He said that the reason the CAG wanted to see the current version “was for the purpose of assisting in the development as the video is meant to represent the community. We wanted the chance to view the video before being told there’s no time left to edit it.”
The response from the Katz staffer was that the intent of the video “is to familiarize the SOC and other viewers with the area, disaster, timeline of events, and health issues.” That DPH made her aware of some factual inaccuracies and that it was too long.
In an email to Dr. Simon, the CAG’s message was reiterated. “The concern was that the project was becoming DPH’s video and not the community’s. We asked for a link to the current draft, with notes of where the inaccuracies (as far as DPH feels) and we’ll give constructive input.”
On September 14th, Dr. Simon responded, saying he found the current version was improved over the first attempt, but still not ready to be shown. He promised there will not be any airing of the final product until the CAG and DPH approved. He did ask his staff to give some ideas of changes before showing it to the group.
Eight days later, another email was sent to Dr. Simon, reminding him that the next SOC meeting was coming up with little time to get the video completed and previewed. And the concern that if there’s any need for significant changes, there will not be time to implement them.
On November 9th, the CAG was sent a “storyboard” that gave a general idea of what was included with approximate timing. The members were asked to review it. This was a written description of elements for the video, which included “background information” about the facility, the drone footage,“pertinent dates’’ about the blowout, part of the Blade Energy video, footage of OEHHA and CARB’s reports. Also, reports of odors and symptoms reported to DPH, information about the various substances (the oily spots, the particulate matter, metals) that were detected in the community, and info about the health study. It seemed that many of the specifics mentioned in the “storyboard” just reiterated information given in the onboarding packet that was made available to SOC members in March.
All of these were not community-centric, other than about a minute which would include info about the affected communities and footage from news stories. And without seeing the video, there wasn’t a way to comment on the content.
The feeling of the CAG that it was being excluded from the video’s development was ironic given that the video was meant to represent the community’s message to inform the SOC about what the residents have been going through.
This is the drone footage that was taken of the Porter Ranch area for the video.
BINS OF EVIDENCE
As noted earlier, the DPH informed the SOC on August 6th that some 150 bins of evacuated material taken from near well SS-25 were sitting on the Aliso site. Within a few days, a member of the SOC let the CAG know about the bins.
Immediately, the CAG collaborated on a letter to the Board of Supervisors and DPH Director Dr. Barbara Ferrer, urging the board to “use all legal means available” to intercede and halt the removal of the material, a task that was scheduled to be completed on or before August 24th.
The letter went on to say, “Anything less than the preservation and the independent analysis of this evidence will be viewed by the CAG and the Public as a complete breach of public trust, suggests a cover up that disregards the public’s health and threatens the validity and credibility of the Health Study.”
A 90-day extension was granted, moving the disposal deadline to November 20th.
Supervisor Barger’s field deputy Jarrod DeGonia brought up the bins at the PRNC meeting on August 12th. He said the DPH requested the bins be kept in place for testing of the material, adding they’re exploring legal, legislative, and administration paths to keeping the bins on site. He was asked how long Barger was aware of the bins, and he seemed cagey. But he admitted he became aware of them in late July or early August. One CAG member at the zoom meeting wondered why the supervisor’s office didn’t inform the CAG about the bins.
DPH told the CAG that Katie Butler took samples from nine out of the 150 evidence bins for a total of 23 samples to send to Leighton Laboratories for analysis.
In response to the news about the bins, the CAG sent a list of questions that were answered by DPH in an August 25th email. The group asked if there were more bins that were removed. The answer given at that point was that DPH and LAFD HazMat are not aware of any bins being disposed of previously, but SoCal Gas or DTSC would have this information.
In response to the question as to when DPH was notified about the existence of the containers, the department was told in the Fall of 2019 by the CPUC. A team had been to the gas storage site to test soils around well SS-25 for chemicals of concern “shortly” after the well was sealed, but said it didn’t have knowledge about other materials, including the well kill fluids and drilling muds.Then in late July 2020, Supervisor Barger notified DPH that there were bins containing waste materials. SoCalGas gave DPH a list of the bins and their contents. In the crazy world of Aliso,this was just another example of conflicting information.
DPH requested help from the CPUC in gaining access to the facility for a team from the Dept. of Public Health Environmental Health Division and Leighton Consulting in order to sample the bins. It also asked to delay the disposal of the bins, and contacted the Dept. of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and LA County Fire HazMat. A team from SoCalGas also took part of the samples to use for its own testing.
The containers were described as roll-up bins with lids holding up to about 20 cubic yards of materials, collected from around well SS-25. Also, there was a 20,000-gallon tank containing drilling fluid. DPH said the containers were not air-tight so that any VOC compounds could have been off-gassed into the environment.
DPH told CAG this material was unrelated to the post-Saddleridge fugitive emissions being investigated.
As for the testing, Eurofins Calscience Analytical Laboratories, a subcontractor of Leighton Consulting, analyzed the material for Polychlorinated Biphenyls, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons and various carbon fractions. In addition, Metals, VOCs and Semi volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), Chloride salts, Sulfur compounds (including mercaptans), Aldehydes (formaldehyde and glutaraldehyde), Isotopes, Crystalline Silica, and Hexavalent Chromium were also looked at. I listed some of the potential health effects of these in the section about the chemical list in part 8 of the series.
Another question the CAG asked of the DPH officials: why wasn’t the CAG and the community informed immediately about these bins? The group was told that DPH’s first priority was to collect samples before waste bin removal. DPH was planning to update the CAG on the sampling activities during the Steering Committee meeting scheduled for the following week. DPH notified the SOC of the sampling in its August 6th meeting and asked the members to provide recommendations on additional tests that should be ordered for the collected samples.
The CAG also brought up the risk of transporting potentially toxic materials. The DPH answer: “Transport of hazardous waste material must be characterized prior to transport and disposal; SoCal Gas is required to follow State regulations to ensure safety of workers and nearby residents.” The LA County Fire Health Hazardous Materials Division would have an inspector check the bins to make sure they’re appropriately labeled and in safe condition to be transported.
Vega, in her September 18th weekly update, gave the CAG a link to the SoCalGas report, and mentioned that they were expecting an “isotope analysis.” (One thing to note about the report from Eurofins is that it had a release date on July 27th.)
She also brought up that LA County Fire Dept HazMat said there were 31 additional bins, in addition to the 150 bins, and they were asking Hazmat and AQMD about the contents and the regulatory context of their removal. She gave a link to some of the 2016 manifests in the update.
The CAG was stunned to hear this bombshell. According to the manifests, these bins were disposed of between July and December 2016, and the material contained VOCs. Yet, trucks towing these bins traveled through residential streets. Members wondered if these bins were the first to be moved because they contained the most hazardous chemicals.
A manifest of one of the bins removed in 2016
About ten days later, the DPH had requested corrections to a SFV Sun August article about the evidence bins. One correction concerned the 2016 Leighton report mentioned by Dr. Nordella. He had been a critic of that report especially because DPH hadn’t tested indoors for benzene. According to the correction, this testing wasn’t done because there wasn’t “a USEPA-approved method available to perform testing for benzene in household dust.”
The SOC was informed about the missing 31 bins at their SOC meeting on October 2nd and given the analysis from Leighton of the samples taken from the remaining bins and the test results that SoCalGas obtained.
The Leighton report was emailed to the CAG on October 5th. In that report, was an email from Margaret Church, associate geologist of Leighton Consulting, to Xuan Dang, project manager for Eurofins Calscience, their subcontractor, on August 12th asking if they can analyze for isotopes. Among the results were elevated levels of benzene, formaldehyde, chromium-hexavalent, manganese and sulfur, as well as radioactive polonium 210 and radon.
Polonium-210 found in evidence bins on the Aliso Canyon site
The CAG was sent a link to the Leighton Report on October 5th, but without specifics as to the results. It wasn’t until October 23rd that the CAG was given information by DPH about the radioactive material that was found. The fact sheet sent to the CAG on that day and again on November 9th, was used by the DPH to say the levels were “not considered to be a human health risk.”
One CAG member Lori Aivazian found an article mentioning a Harvard study about how radiation from oil and gas sites can expose nearby communities. While the study focuses on fracking sites, the source is the rock storing the oil (and gas).
Fracking did take place in Aliso Canyon, especially at the nearby Termo Oil field. According to the article, the radioactivity of airborne particles increases significantly downwind of fracking sites in the US, a study has found.
The Harvard scientists said this could damage the health of people living in nearby communities and that further research was needed to understand how to stop the release of the radioactive elements from under the ground.
The distance mentioned was 20km (about 12 miles) which would include much of the area affected by Aliso’s wells. Fracking shale could release uranium isotopes. According to the article,“The uranium isotope decays to the gas radon, which itself decays to ultrafine radioactive particles containing polonium and lead. These are thought to become attached to particles already in the air and are then carried by the wind.”
The Environmental Protection Agency provides this info on its website about how fracking can expose Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM) to the surface.
Abandoned Nike site in the Santa Susana Mountains
Also to be noted is that there had been a Nike missile test site in Brown’s Canyon which had operated between 1957 and 1974. It is approximately two and a half miles to the west of well SS-25.
Whether or not the polonium was released from shale rocks due to the fracking that had occurred in Aliso or came from another source such as the Nike test site, the fact remains this radioactive material is in the environment.
In Vega’s Oct 23 weekly update, she reported that “Feedback received from the SOC overall indicates that the first round of testing was adequate. During their last discussion, several SOC members felt it would be good to take additional samples which could be stored for future testing (if needed) by the Health Study researchers. We learned today from LAFD HazMat that storing samples for later testing will be possible, without violating hazardous waste regulations. The SOC will advise Public Health on the specific bins from which samples should be drawn with a focus on drilling muds, drilling fluids, and oil product.”
Also mentioned in this update was that “several SOC members agreed that hearing from a health physicist or radiation health professional would help to put the relatively low Po-210 levels detected in the samples into perspective in terms of the risk to health.”
In the analysis probe that Dr. Nordella released in October 2017, based on hair samples obtained from the affected community, 93% of the exposed population that underwent hair testing were in the 95% percentile for uranium as compared to the control group. 60% of the exposed population that underwent hair sampling were in the 95% percentile for lithium as compared to the control group. Dr. Nordella warned about how chemical exposure effects on residents living near Aliso, including the effect of many of the heavy metals, metalloids, and mixtures of toxins on more than one organ system. This would include radioactive ions which have the potential of damaging tissue.
He pointed out that symptoms relating to the nervous, cardiovascular, respiratory, integumentary, and musculoskeletal systems could be potentially consistent with heavy metal poisoning.
On October 28, Kristina Vaculik gave CAG an update regarding the next day’s sampling of the bins. “Per the guidance provided by the SOC, sampling will focus on bins containing drilling muds, drilling fluid and oil product. In response to the recommendation to use a Geiger counter to test the waste bins, we have reached out to County HazMat and Radiation Health Office for assistance.”
She also passed on the AQMD answer which explained that its Rule 1166 required a plan regarding material that has VOC contamination.
The CAG continued to ask regarding the 31 missing bins, as the members wanted to know which agency declared these bins as toxic and how it did make that designation? Most importantly, what was in those bins?
After several attempts, the CAG finally was able to get a Zoom meeting with Supervisor Barger on October 30th. One of the topics brought up were the evidence bins, including the polonium. The CAG expressed the concern on behalf of the community that the extent of the chemicals in the bins, especially the 31 previously moved, was not determined. She was asked for assistance to use any means necessary to secure significant samples from every bin prior to their removal and to obtain all information about the 31 plus bins removed in 2016.
DPH told the SOC they will not use legal means to hold the evidence bins beyond Nov 22nd. Nor can they store samples for future investigation.
Again, the CAG had to wonder why the DPH was reluctant to ensure the public’s health interest. As well as whether the AQMD or another agency had the data on the 30 plus bins that were disposed of four years before. Also, why hasn’t a radiation expert with a Geiger counter been immediately dispatched to the site?
In the November 9th update, the CAG was told that the DPH had collected additional samples and put them on hold for further research. The DPH had also ordered additional testing for Lead-210 and Polonium-210, as requested by the CAG. Also, an outside expert will talk to the SOC about radiation health risks.
A couple of weeks later, the CAG was told that DPH Radiation Management took radiation readings on the Aliso site.
The November 20 newsletter sent to the public gave updates on the “hazardous waste bins,” stating that additional samples were collected because they might be important for the health study. The discovery of polonium in samples was not mentioned.
On December 11th, the CAG was given the AQMD responses for their questions. About the determination of toxic contamination, the AQMD explained that it had reviewed the manifest and monitoring records for the 31 bins that were “determined to contain VOC-contaminated soil.” The AQMD said Rule 1166 does not require a record of the VOC concentration of soil after it is excavated and properly stored in bins.
In response to a request for information concerning any testing conducted on the soil, the agency said it didn’t have any records.
Another question asked was why were the bins collected in the first place. But a non-answer was given. Just that the 31 bins were taken to a disposal facility. That only those bins contained VOCs. And that the bins were stored on-site “under legal hold by the California Public Utilities Commission.”
Given the contradictory info regarding dates and the slowness to get info requested from DPH, some CAG members felt this was a continuance of a pattern of behavior from the health department. With the already shaky relationship between the county and residents, why wasn’t information about the existence of the bins told to the community at the beginning? Why did the CAG have to request testing for radioactivity? And why the rush to remove these bins before a full review.
From a CCST report
THE DPH COMMUNITY SURVEY DEBACLE
DPH sent an email blast in July explaining that “a survey research firm will be conducting focus groups and an opinion survey to gather feedback to inform the development of the health study. The research firm will ensure that a representative sample of community members take part in the focus groups and complete the survey.” It further explained they will have an online survey for those who weren’t directly contacted.
When the survey subcommittee reviewed the phone survey questions in September, CAG members on the call felt ignored.
On October 6th, a contentious exchange between members of the CAG and Cristina Vega of DPH began when it was revealed that one of the items at the October 13th CAG meeting would be a presentation from Adam Probolsky, the head of the research company that conducted the survey.
When one CAG member asked if Vega could send Probolsky’s summary to the group prior to the meeting “so we may be prepared to discuss during the meeting,” Vega said no, he will be presenting a verbal summary as he did for the SOC a few days before.
Her response did not go over well. “The CAG is as I understand it established as the conduit between the public and the health study. To hold information about the public regarding the health study for any period of time and reluctance to provide written documentation that could help the CAG understand the challenges or opportunities available to pursue our stated purpose and authority is unconscionable,” the CAG member said in his follow up email. He pointed out that some on the DPH team had insisted that the community representatives do more reaching out to the public. But by not working with the CAG when it comes to information, he wrote, if there’s any more criticism about the CAG’s efforts, he “will point back to this.”
Another member asked who was giving this direction to keep those in the CAG out of the loop, pointing out that “If we are to work together in good faith toward a collaborative effort to ensure this community gets a fair health study, this veil of secrecy and withholding of information has to stop.” He wondered about the delay in giving the group the results in advance so that we can formulate meaningful questions or suggest next steps. He further warned that this action gave a perception to the CAG and the community that there was potential manipulation occurring. He reminded her that the health study was a serious topic as it involved the community’s health.
Vega tried to assure the CAG that they were not trying to hide information from them. She brought up the Institutional Review Board (IRB), saying that when there’s an answer containing less than five people, revealing that information may not protect the confidentiality of that group.
Vega’s email went on to say,“we do value your feedback on the survey findings and we look forward to reviewing them together on Oct. 13. This will be an opportunity to ask questions and influence the final report so it can best serve the community.”
But she didn’t address why the general information about the survey couldn’t be told to us upfront, considering the SOC already was given the presentation. Nor did she explain why, if the survey was still in progress, preliminary results couldn’t still have been given during a special internal meeting with the CAG as we would have been able to see how flawed the study was.
CAG breakdown of areas covered by the DPH community survey
At the CAG meeting, the presentation showed results that under sampled Porter Ranch residents. Porter Ranch, considered “ground zero” for the blowout was vastly unrepresented at 8.8%. In fact, the total of respondents who reported they lived in Porter Ranch, Granada Hills, Chatsworth, and Northridge during the blowout represented only 42.9% of the survey. 6% said they didn’t live in the communities listed, which included much of the SFV Valley and a couple of areas in the Santa Clarita Valley. Some of the answers to questions such as if a respondent felt they were impacted would certainly be misleading to those scoping the health study, when a large number didn’t live near the most affected area. The reaction from members of the community who saw the presentation were just as aghast as were the members of the CAG.
According to the presentation slide regarding the methodology, a telephone and online survey was conducted with 400 residents. It said that for the online survey, the company “invited participation via email and text message.” And “Our sample was developed from consumer data and stratified randomly to ensure that the demographic proportions of survey respondents match the demographic composition of area residents.” But there weren’t any details about what “consumer data” meant.
Vega emailed the slide presentation, as well as a temporary recording, to the CAG, saying that the slides were not ready for distribution until they heard from the DPH IRB.
After the meeting, the CAG was told that the head of the research company and DPH thought the outrage expressed by the CAG and residents at the meeting was disrespectful.
The subcommittee was sent an email from a CAG member, “Based on last night’s response to the study we have issues. The community feedback was very strong that they felt it was flawed and not representative of the community’s perspectives and significantly under sampled Porter Ranch.
There is significant concern that this information is misleading and would do harm to the study’s scope and objectives if shared, as is, with the SOC as it’s not representative of the situation. Community and CAG members encouraged a redo with much more focus on the Porter Ranch community.” It was suggested that one community that wasn’t near the blowout received too much representation.
The period for conducting the online survey was extended and publicized by the Porter Ranch Neighborhood Council (PRNC) to encourage more responses from the community.
CANCER REGISTRY AND CBC STUDIES
Community members on the DPH email list were sent a July eblast informing them a subcommittee of CAG and SOC members had been meeting with researchers at the USC Cancer Surveillance Program (CSP) “to develop a plan for investigating cancer concerns in the community using data from the CSP. The subcommittee has played a crucial role in determining the scope and design of the investigation. USC CSP is currently drafting an analysis plan which will be reviewed by the CAG and SOC.”
CAG members were told that the control group for the cancer study would have to be from within Los Angeles County. The problem with that is the preponderance of oil and gas sites (drilling, storage, refineries, for example) scattered throughout LA County, and emissions from those facilities are just as toxic as the ones emanating from Aliso. Many of the CAG members agreed the control group needs to be in an area devoid of these types of sites. Otherwise, this type of study may be flawed.
(In 2017 when Dr. Nordella conducted a probe of exposure to residents which revealed a high level of lithium, he compared water sources in order to get a good control group. DWP-sourced water contained high levels of lithium, a fact confirmed by DWP. Non-DWP sources, such as in Ventura County, contained low levels or undetectable levels of lithium.)
As for the Complete Blood Count study, Dr. Simon said that the department was waiting for a response from Quest Diagnostics regarding a request for CBC data.
UPDATE
After the disastrous February 3, 2021, meeting with DPH, the CAG decided to hold weekly mini town halls to educate community members about issues that have developed since the first CAG meeting in August 2019. These meetings, which will be recorded and uploaded to the CAG website found under the “video” tab, will include an opportunity for community members to ask questions. The Zoom info is available on the website.
The hope is that the CAG can keep the community informed when it seemed that DPH wasn’t being transparent with residents.
The group will also have a town hall when the health study “Goals and Priorities” statement is released by DPH for public review.
Dr. Nordella has planned a town hall about the COVID crisis on February 25, 6:30 to 8:30 pm. It will cover up-to-date information on the basic science of the virus, treatment options, vaccines, and the “variant of concern.” For the zoom information, interested persons are invited to text “Yes” to 805–444–6098. This town hall will be independent of DPH or the CAG.
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.