Published in Knock-LA.com on June 25, 2019
photo by Kyoko Hibino
THE GOVERNMENT SETTLES WITH THE GAS COMPANY
On August 8th, California AG Xavier Becerra, County Supervisor Kathryn Barger, Mayor Eric Garcetti, Councilman Mitchell Englander, and City Attorney Mike Feuer announced the $119.5-million Aliso Settlement with SoCalGas. One portion of the consent decree included a health study to be conducted for $25 million and administered by the LA County Dept. of Public Health, the same agency that mislead the public, the LAUSD, and the media in the first place.
Assembly member Jesse Gabriel addresses the press regarding the Aliso consent decree
State Senator Stern issued a press release regarding the Aliso settlement on August 16th, and two days later joined Assembly member Jesse Gabriel, Congressman Brad Sherman, Assembly candidate Christy Smith, and PRNC president Issam Najm to express their dismay at portions of the agreement. One major bone of contention was the funding of a pet project for SoCalGas up in the Central Valley. This project to capture methane from cow excrement would divert money that could have been used in Los Angeles for mitigation projects here.
A couple of weeks later, the California Council on Science and Technology (CCST) Workshop on Natural Gas Storage Fields presented by the CPUC on August 28th discussed the types of toxicants that are often found in underground storage facilities including formaldehyde, acrolein, ethylene dibromide, butadiene, benzene, methyl naphthalene, acetaldehyde, phenanthrene, tetrachloroethane, and trichloroethylene.
Exposure to low levels of formaldehyde causes irritation of the eyes, nose, throat, skin, nausea, and difficulty in breathing. Short-term exposure to formaldehyde can be fatal. Long-term exposure to low levels of formaldehyde may cause respiratory difficulty, eczema, and sensitization (per the Chemical Book). Acrolein is a highly toxic and corrosive substance. Inhalation of acrolein can cause moderate to severe eye, nose, and respiratory system irritation after a few minutes of exposure to concentrations as low as 0.25 ppm. 1,2-Dibromoethane is considered a “Probable Human Carcinogen.” 1,3-Butadiene is a confirmed carcinogen and an irritant in high concentration. Benzene causes central nervous system damage acutely and bone marrow damage chronically and is carcinogenic. The only reported effects of methylated naphthalene in humans are skin irritation and skin photosensitization.
A slide from the CCST presentation in August 2018
Given that this was list was probably easily found through research, one has to wonder why someone who had been through a toxicology fellowship as Dr. Rangan had at the University of California, San Diego, didn’t look for this information. Considering that among the goals that should be attained during the two years of study for this program were “to develop expertise in the diagnosis and treatment of acutely and chronically poisoned patients” and “to become familiar with the medical effects of hazardous materials, and to become competent in managing the medical complications seen after hazardous material incidents,” the fact that for months the doctor kept insisting that symptoms were a result of the odors seemed astonishing.
CARB AND COW MANURE
During this time, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) was accepting public comments about the Aliso Settlement, specifically concerning the dairy digester program that was listed as a mitigation solution for all the methane released into the Los Angeles basin as a result of the 2015 blowout.
A petition containing more than 1,000 signatures opposing the project was submitted. In addition, many residents, environmentalists, and several members of the California State Senate and Assembly also provided comments in opposition. Among a major concern was that SoCalGas was the instigator and promoter of the idea of converting cow manure into bio-methane. The utility would then sell the product as cheap fuel. And would store this corrosive and explosive compound in its storage facilities including Aliso. Instead, those opposing the plan felt the at least $26.5 earmarked for mitigation should instead be directed to renewable projects in Los Angeles County.
As for the problem of massive amounts of methane emitted from dairy farms, many felt that other options such as restricting big dairy farms would better accomplish this as well as not rewarding the company that had violated regulations in the first place.
It was also pointed out that methane produced from Central Valley dairy farms had been a problem for years and the money from the consent decree shouldn’t be used for fixing this specific problem, when the true victims of the blowout live some 300 miles away.
After the comment period ended, CARB disputed the concern that most commenters mentioned that SoCalGas stood to gain financially. But back on December 18, 2015, the then-CEO of the gas company, Dennis Arriola wrote a letter to Governor Brown with the pledge to “mitigate the environmental impact of the actual natural gas released from the leak.” So given the lobbying by SoCalGas in late 2015 and early 2016, to get this project vetted by CARB, giving presentations to at least one neighborhood council about dairy digesters, and plugging the (misleading) message about “renewable” gas on social media, even before the judge had officially signed off on the agreement, one must think that SoCalGas knew the project would be funded and that they would get this bio-methane to sell.
Arriola’s letter, which was referred to in a SoCalGas press release, said the gas company “has committed to work with state officials to develop a framework that will help guide the company’s efforts to mitigate environmental impacts” from the methane released.
According to a March 2016 article by KPCC radio, SoCalGas claimed it shouldn’t be bound to any mitigation program and that it was not legally bound to follow what CARB decides on, and that any compliance would be voluntary. It added that it disagreed that the mitigation projects focus on California.
The article also mentioned that Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and other local politicians have asked that the mitigation plan — including any spending and jobs created — should be focused on Porter Ranch, or at least the L.A. area. This fits in with promises made to residents by elected officials, given that the greenhouse effects of the huge release of methane affected the Los Angeles basin.
Then-councilman Mitchell Englander gave examples of projects, such as solar panels, solar water heaters and EV chargers, which would benefit the harmed community and the environment.
Public Health’s Bellomo added his thoughts in a March 24, 2016 letter to CARB, asking that the local community and agencies, including Public Health, UCLA, US EPA, and AQMD be involved in prioritizing the mitigation projects. He added that the mitigation should be focused on the affected community, or at least “dedicated to projects in Southern California” as proposed by Supervisor Antonovich at an AQMD meeting.
Certainly many residents and environmental activists weren’t buying that this biomethane project will be anything but a mess for the community in the northern San Fernando Valley. Given the poor track record of leaking at Aliso, even after supposedly the wells were deemed “safe,” residents weren’t going to hold their collective breath that transporting and storing the product of “bull shit” will be without incident, and certainly at the expense of residents’ health. Was giving the public a chance to comment part of a mandatory process, despite the perception that this decision already was made by CARB (or directed by the governor’s office), a fait accompli?
The consent decree was expected to be approved by a judge in October or November 2018, but eventually was signed by the judge involved in the lawsuits against SoCalGas on February 25, 2019.
SoCalGas issued a press release on February 28, 2019, listing supporters of its proposal regarding “renewable natural gas.” Among those on the list were many organizations which have received donations from the gas company. According to the 2017-GO-77M report, the amount given to those listed in this release was $146,800. There were also other relationships that need to be noted. For example, one supporter was Arun Raju, Director of the Center for Renewable Natural Gas at the University of California Riverside. His department had received money from SoCalGas for research. In fact, the report entitled “Optimal Pathways to Achieve Climate Goals — Inclusion of a Renewable Gas Standard” which was dated September 24, 2018, had a disclaimer: “This work was supported by the Southern California Gas Company through a research contract.”
There were also companies listed that may stand to benefit financially by supporting this proposal, including Athens Service, Valley Vista Services, Newlight Technologies, and PTS Advance.
Still other organizations, such as Via Care Community Health Center, have a representative from SoCalGas on its board of directors.
This quid pro quo on part of SoCalGas is not a new thing. Many special interest groups, business groups, foundations, and even cities have been on the receiving end of a donation from the gas company. Every year by the end of March, private utilities in California are required to provide the GO-77M report that lists various expenditures including salaries, dues, and donations. Often representatives of these benefactors of these donations have spoken on behalf of SoCalGas as the various hearings held about Aliso since the blowout first occurred. Many even parrot a similar speech or send in a almost verbatim letter as other groups to state dockets. One representative for the San Gabriel Valley Economical Partnership even admitted to the Los Angeles Times in a January 19, 2016 letter that he was asked by the utility to express opposition to a bill concerning Aliso.
Activists protesting an award given to SoCalGas VP for biomass project
The height of support was from a group called Climate Resolve which honored George Minter as a “renewable gas champion” for the dairy digester projects in a March 2019 “gala” to honor innovation in the fight against climate change.
All along, SoCalGas was involved in the process of recruiting companies to be involved to the dairy projects and would be receiving this “biomethane” to send down to Southern California in its pipeline.
What’s not mentioned in the press releases that SoCalGas had put out to proclaim the wonders of biomethane is that the method of production is through the fermentation of cow manure. Besides the methane, other gases will form including hydrogen sulphides, a compound which is described as being very poisonous, corrosive and flammable. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration site, “Hydrogen sulfide gas causes a wide range of health effects. Workers are primarily exposed to hydrogen sulfide by breathing it. The effects depend on how much hydrogen sulfide you breathe and for how long. Exposure to very high concentrations can quickly lead to death.”
There are other ways that the utility and other gas-related companies have been trying to block moving to a green city and state. One way has been through building codes. Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) concerns the state regulations that govern the design and construction of buildings, associated facilities and equipment. One part of these regulations, the California Green Building Standards Code, also known as the CALGreen Code, spells out energy conservation and green standards. One would think that any “green” buildings would tend to reflect a move away from utilizing natural gas, but the point system going into effect in 2020 seems to discourage a switch by favoring the method using natural gas.
Related to this, the CPUC has an open docket on building decarbonization. In September 2018, Governor Brown signed two bills into law related to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from buildings. At a recent decarbonization workshop held in April 2019 for the California energy commission, one speaker mentioned a California’s Building Industry Association’s report that said electric appliances are the same cost or cheaper than natural gas appliances and that with in constructing an all-electric building, there could be a 55 to 60 percent elimination of greenhouse gas emissions from these homes, as compared to putting in gas.
At this hearing as well as in television ads and social media, union groups such as the Coalition of California Utility Employees and the Californians for Energy Independence try to promote the continuing use of gas, despite the many dangers from explosions and releases of toxic chemicals.
CITY FIREFIGHTERS SUE SOCALGAS
Former and current firefighters from LAFD stations 8 and 28 announced their lawsuit against SoCalGas on October 16, 2018. The complaint stated that Public Health officials and representatives from SoCalGas misled firefighters stationed in Porter Ranch about the health and safety risks of working near Aliso following the blowout. The firefighters started suffering many of the same symptoms as residents, and some were diagnosed with cancer.
According to the brief, Public Health’s Rangan and Butler came to station 28 along with a SoCalGas storage operations manager and a SoCalGas chemist, to respond to firefighters’ concerns. When firefighters told them about their symptoms, the health officials said the gas is “perfectly safe,” that “natural gas is not toxic,” and that there were “no hazards,” and “no long term health effects,” according to the lawsuit.
Because of these false assurances, the first responders didn’t don protective gear while taking calls in the community. Some of these calls included rescuing and helping SoCalGas employees and contractors, as well as the calls to help residents who became sick. And don’t forget that firefighters take 24-hour shifts, which entail staying at their station house when not on calls, thus, facing continuous exposure to the released chemicals. While at the station, there are activities such as sleeping, eating, exercising, and doing maintenance around the station. Unfortunately, much of the physical activity between exercising and the physical exertion while out on calls increases inhalation of the chemicals that have been emitted from the wells.
Another important aspect to Public Health not providing correct information to the firefighters, according to the brief, was that when they were attending to a patient who was reacting to chemicals that are unknown to the first responders, there was the possibility of incomplete or even incorrect care that can harm the patient.
One of the many lies listed in the lawsuit centered on the oily mist that resulted from some of the many attempts to kill well SS-25. SoCalGas told the community on November 14, 2015 that the mist will not travel beyond the facility and assured the public that they shouldn’t be concerned. The utility contended that the droplets weren’t toxic, according to their “retained toxicologist and medical expert.” But residents found the oily droplets were found on homes, vehicles, and even gardens. In essence, everyone, both residents and firefighters, breathed in this mist.
According to the U.S. National Library of Medicine, which is affiliated with the National Institutes of Health, long-term exposure to low levels of crude oil can cause lung, liver, and kidney damage, infertility, immune system suppression, disruption of hormone levels, blood disorders, and genetic mutations.
There are factors, such as geological, environmental, and man-made that can transform some chemicals into more dangerous forms. For example, atmospheric conditions can transform methane into formaldehyde, which has no safe level of exposure. One would hope that the toxicologists who work for Public Health would know this as well as that many of the symptoms suffered by those living or working near Aliso Canyon can be attributed to the likely chemicals that would be emitted.
The gas stored at Aliso would most likely contain radon, hydrogen sulfide, BTEX chemicals (benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene and xylene). Chemicals that were added to gas stored underground include biocides, anti-corrosion chemicals and emulsion breakers. Odorants are added to the gas while en route to Aliso. But a commonality to some of these chemicals is that the long term effects are unknown. And with some of the chemicals, the toxic effects are known. Why didn’t Public Health immediately test for these?
Note that Public Health realized that staff members did get sick while conducting a CASPER survey in March 2016. As with others coming to the area for a short time such as residents’ guests, those going from door to door asking about symptoms were quickly getting some of these same symptoms as those who live nearby. Why didn’t this raise a red flag for the agency’s toxicologists?
The evolution of the story given publicly started with “it’s just the mercaptans” to telling doctors not to consider toxic chemicals as a cause of symptoms to admitting there may be a problem due to chemicals. But then Public Health never informed doctors that the agency was initially wrong. Never a public statement directed at SoCalGas which continued to proclaim after leaks and spills that there was not a danger to the health and safety to the community. The closest to a rebuttal came during the May 2018 TV interview with Bellomo.
Among the revelations stated in the firefighters’ complaint concerning the depositions taken in the summer of 2018 for the residents’ lawsuits, SoCalGas admitted that not only there was formaldehyde in its gas, but also that the gas is subject to Proposition 65 regulations (the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986) because of the carcinogens and the chemicals that can cause birth defects. Not exactly backed up what SoCalGas stated in its notifications: “It does not present a health hazard and there is no risk to the community.”
Lisa Alexander, VP for Customer Solutions and Communications for SoCalGas had claimed in 2017 that the pressurization problems at Aliso posed no hazard to the nearby communities, but when deposed a year later, she said she wasn’t qualified to make determinations regarding safety.
And just as what happened in DC and Flint, a Public Health employee was replaced after expressing concern about a disaster. Michael Jordan had recommended monitoring in the adjacent communities because “gas leaking underground at the source can follow open pathways (storm drains, vaults, utility chase way, etc.) and/or fissures in the soil and end up exposing people down field” in late October 2015. Just days later, he was replaced by Katie Butler, who would start showing up at some community meetings and would earn the trust of some community members.
Part of deceptive FAQ by Dr. McDaniel
But what was not widely known was that Butler was mentored by Dr. Mary McDaniel, the gas company’s doctor for hire. McDaniel was a doctor and lawyer with a reputation for understating health risks for companies facing criminal and civil liabilities. They both had worked for Intrinsik,a company specializing in health risk assessment, ecological risk assessment, and environmental toxicology, according to its website. Butler had worked there from June 2008 to March 2014, according to LinkedIn. McDaniel’s company, McDaniel Lambert was acquired by Intrinsik in 2013.
According to the firefighters’ lawsuit, the two seemed to hide their close relation as it was thought that Butler used a personal email account to communicate with McDaniel. It mentioned that reporters were catching some misrepresentations in air monitoring data, specifically about hydrogen sulfide and benzene. Yet, Public Health and SoCalGas continued to state that there weren’t any short and long term risks to exposure to these chemicals. And note that the World Health Organization says there is not a safe level for benzene.
Here’s a physician who was supposedly knowledgeable about environmental medicine and touted by SoCalGas as an expert for residents to trust, but in reality, was hired to give out misleading and plain incorrect information.
One has to wonder if someone was directing Public Health to ignore the health risks and spread misleading messages.
On October 22, 2018, Public Health released a statement that claimed the agency had said all along that it was chemical exposures from Aliso that “were causing real physiological symptoms in members of the community.” The statement said the gas company“repeatedly ignored public health’s instructions to correct messaging and refrain from attributing false statements to public health. Public Health repeatedly called out SoCalGas for diminishing the established health impacts of the gas leak on the health of the public.”
But was this simply a response to the firefighters’ lawsuit? Residents would certainly disagree that Public Health had pointed to anything but mercaptans in the first several months of the blowout. The fact sheets issued in November 2015 document this. And according to the firefighters’ complaint, Public Health was complicit in the spreading of misleading messages. Moreover, when Public Health became aware of a true chemical crisis resulting from Aliso, why didn’t the agency inform residents, firefighters, places of employment, and medical providers? Where was the press release to media?
Dr. Nordella at October 23, 2018 press conference
On the third anniversary of the beginning of the Aliso blowout, the Aliso Canyon Community Action Committee (ACCAC) and Food and Water Watch held a press conference calling out Public Health for their collaboration to cover up health risks. After one of the lawyers representing the firefighters explained the lawsuit, other speakers focused in on a demand that Public Health not have anything to do with the $25-million health study allotted in the Aliso settlement due to its continual deception about health risks. Instead, the ACCAC called for a transparent, unbiased, and scientifically sound health study.
One of the speakers, Dr. Jeffrey Nordella, had been conducting testing of the residents and firefighters. He said there are three questions that usually come up for patients: What is the truth? Who can I believe? And is it safe? He felt what is going on with the firefighters is a major cover up. “I would go beyond the ‘don’t look, don’t tell,” he said.
A second press conference for the Third Anniversary for the Aliso Blowout
WIND STUDY
At the end of October 2018, the long-awaited wind study was released. Entitled “Aliso Canyon Natural Gas Disaster Air Quality Monitoring and Modeling Technical Report: Exposure Modeling, Ambient Monitoring and Identification of Fugitive Emissions,” it was dated “revised October 30, 2018.”
Among the 77 volatile organic compounds studied were formaldehyde and ammonia. As part of this study, UCLA, UC Berkeley, and Cambridge measured ultrafine particulate (UFPs) concentrations between March 2016 and February 2017.
According to the study, winds in the target area were mostly easterly or southerly. It noted that “Southerly winds tend to carry particle pollutants from urban, high-traffic areas into the San Fernando Valley. To the east of Porter Ranch is the low density residential neighborhood of Granada Hills that also does not have obvious sources of high particle pollution emissions such as heavy traffic.”
The Porter Ranch area had the highest concentration of UFPs observed in the afternoon. One reason opined by the researchers included unknown local sources and photochemical reactions of gaseous pollutants that caused the particles to form.
The initial review of the data suggested that Porter Ranch may have been impacted by fugitive emissions (post blowout) from the north during overnight and early morning hours. “In total, these findings along with continued symptom reports to DPH warrant further investigation and dedication of resources to long-term environmental and health monitoring in surrounding communities,” the report stated.
A major question that residents had was why it took several months (more than a year) between the end of the monitoring period and the release of this report in late October 2018. The research team had given its report directly to the County department of Public Health, which was asked on several occasions by Dr. Nordella for the report. He was told it wasn’t ready. Attorneys for the plaintiffs in the mass tort against SoCalGas filed a subpoena to obtain it. It was handed off to someone at the PRNC, who made it publicly available. But questions still remain what revisions were made to the report and by whom.
The wind study was brought up by Dr. Nordella the next year at an “information hearing” on May 27, 2019. The AQMD held this meeting to inform the public about the upcoming renewal of the Aliso Canyon Title V permit, which will be reviewed by the US EPA.
During the public comments period, the doctor asked the panel if anyone there had read the wind study. As the panelists seemed unsure, he brought up that the AQMD was one of the agencies involved with this project, along with CARB and Public Health. He then explained how summa canisters, planted all over the area from March 2016 to November 2016, will fill with fugitive emissions when triggered. But he questioned why the trigger level was set at 5, when the level for benzene should have been set at 2.2. With 41 measurements, benzene was detected in almost 50 per cent of the canisters. Dr. Nordella called the findings significant, but added that these fugitive emissions were taken while the facility was, for the most part, not being actively used, and the study needs to be repeated now that wells are in service again. That not revisiting this issue and just reissuing the permit would be irresponsible.
At this same hearing, many residents told the AQMD that given the negligence by SoCalGas in managing the storage site, as proven by the Blade root cause analysis report, and the idea that the gas company has known that benzene and other toxic chemicals have been emitted from the wells for several years, that the agency should hold back on renewing the Title V permit.
And one thing to note: the proposed permit renewal document was written in September 2018, prior to the release of the Blade Energy report. More on that report in a bit.
Food and Water Watch’s Walker Foley trying out sign for protest
THE MEDICAL SURVELLIANCE STUDY
The medical surveillance study, looking at residents’ complete blood counts was started on August 1 utilizing Primex Laboratories. As part of his study of residents possibly affected by Aliso, Dr. Nordella initiated a cancer survey on October 25. The Keck School of Medicine and UC Berkeley were involved with the analysis of the obtained data. But to increase the information for this study, the doctor has requested data from Quest Diagnostic Laboratories. After six months of negotiations, Quest rejected his request on the basis that “this is not our priority.” Dr. Nordella appealed this decision, but received another rejection on the basis that Quest does not have the capability to “marshall the resources.” But to send the requested information would have taken only a few clicks.
The California Civil Code 56.10, CHAPTER 2. “Disclosure of Medical Information by Providers, states: (a) A provider of health care, health care service plan, or contractor shall not disclose medical information regarding a patient of the provider of health care or an enrollee or subscriber of a health care service plan without first obtaining an authorization, except as provided in subdivision (b) or (c)” is relevant.
Section c states: “A provider of health care or a health care service plan may disclose medical information as follows: (7) The information may be disclosed to public agencies, clinical investigators, including investigators conducting epidemiologic studies, health care research organizations, and accredited public or private nonprofit educational or health care institutions for bona fide research purposes. However, no information so disclosed shall be further disclosed by the recipient in a way that would disclose the identity of a patient or violate this part.”
The mission statement of Quest Diagnostics is “We believe in teamwork and the limitless possibilities of collaborative energy. We achieve excellence by putting collective goals ahead of personal interests. We support and encourage open communication and meaningful cooperation among colleagues from varying backgrounds and disciplines.”
One would think denying a request for data for research goes against the mission statement. Note that neither of Quest’s reasons for not complying with the data request was not in opposition to the civil code.
Nordella filed a lawsuit requesting the data.
The AQMD health study became the subject of the City of Los Angeles Health Commission meeting in February 2019. Apparently this was the result of Councilman Englander’s motion a year before to ask the Public Health department for an update on the $1-million “health study.” A group of residents and Dr. Nordella went to the meeting, but no one connected to the study was present. There wasn’t even any information delivered to the commissioners. Whether this was a snafu on the part of Public Health or on the council office, wasn’t made clear. And this was just a month after Englander had vacated his position on the city council to accept a lobbying job. The Commission members themselves were clueless as to what the study was or if it had been completed or even begun. One member had asked the residents if they had gone to the city’s petroleum czar to discuss Aliso.
Outside courthouse in February 2019; photo by ABC7
Angelo Bellomo sent a letter to Bret Lane on March 11, 2019, concerning the “massive quantity of crude oil” released during the blowout,” pointing out that SoCalGas had repeatedly stated that “the contents were limited only to typical components of stored natural gas.”
Public Health was claiming that its testing was based on the gas containing traces of crude oil, but was severely limited and delayed due to SoCalGas withholding information from the agency. And now was asking for info about sampling data about the composition of the gas and data about the homes that were cleaned.
In mid-March, the Public Health Dept. held two orientation sessions for the public about the health study that was funded by the consent decree. It wasn’t well attended on either date with possibly under forty persons showing up. But then there wasn’t much specific information about what was being planned. In the minds of some community leaders, not much of an attempt was made to publicize the orientations. Attendees were asked for comments or suggestions, and could sign up for a list of those interested in becoming members of the Community Advisory Group (CAG). There will also be a Scientific Oversight Committee, which will select the research group to perform the actual research.
The Public Health officials were considering starting off with CAG meetings in May. But they didn’t realize that asking for representatives from five neighborhood councils would set back the deadline as each of councils require advance notice for a motion to determine their representative, or in the case of the Porter Ranch Neighborhood Council, two representatives. At first, there were different explanations given of how at large members would be selected. At some point, residents were told that those who want to be considered for the at-large seats can self-nominate themselves or others by filling out an information form. Then the representatives from the NCs will decide on the at-large representatives. To date, that last step hasn’t been undertaken.
WHAT CAUSED THE BLOWOUT?
Just a couple of months later, the news that the residents had been waiting for: the release of the root cause analysis.
Almost 43 months after well SS-25 caused the largest gas leak in US history, on May16, Blade Energy Partners submitted the root cause analysis to the CPUC, which released the report to the public the next afternoon. The 258-page Blade report concluded that the operator of the Aliso Canyon storage facility, Southern California Gas, caused the 111-day blowout through its negligence.
Among the findings was that over the years since the facility opened in 1973, that there has been more than 60 casing leaks, that SoCalGas failed to investigate any of these leaks, and that SoCalGas did not perform any risk assessment of wells’ integrity, including on SS-25. There were also 99 casing failures found among the 114 wells reviewed by Blade. There were two previous blowouts in 1984 and 1990.
The cause of the 2015 blowout was attributed to microbial corrosion from contact with groundwater. In fact, many of the wells have shown to have some shallow external corrosion.
In the report, twelve “mitigation solutions” were identified that “would have mitigated or prevented the uncontrolled release.”
Blade Energy produced this video to illustrate what happened with well SS-25:
(link to video) https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/aliso/
One item of interest was the lack of subsurface safety valves. It is widely known that SoCalGas had removed the SSSV from well SS-25 in 1979, but wasn’t replaced. The report mentioned that regulations didn’t require this device in this specific well at that time. But according to page 201, this has been somewhat changed.
Blade reviewed the November 2018 California Statutes and Regulations, which were revised and issued in November 2018 after the SS-25 casing leak, and the most recent version of the California Statutes and Regulations issued in January 2019: Section 1726.3: A risk management plan…shall include protocols for well construction and design standards, evaluating the need for surface and subsurface safety valves, scheduling and demonstration of the mechanical integrity of each well and corrosion and casing pressure monitoring.
Also mentioned was that during Phase 2 of the RCA, the walls of the crater from which the damaged parts of the well were removed were “caked with an unknown thickness of oily solids deposited throughout the blowout, and the bottom was filled with highly viscous oily liquids.”
One aspect that wasn’t addressed by this report was the presence of the Santa Susana fault which, even with stringent regulations, the residents of the northern San Fernando Valley felt was a valid reason to close down permanently the Aliso Canyon’s gas storage site. One well SS 4–0 was damaged during the 1994 earthquake and had to be sealed. The quake that’s predicted to hit Southern California at any time will be a much stronger one, that maybe at least registering 7.0 on the Richter scale.
For Jane Fowler, a member of the Aliso Canyon Community Action Committee, this report validated her feeling about SoCalGas’s dishonesty and lack of integrity. She asked, “Why wouldn’t they want to keep their equipment maintained? Why would they let their facility crumble beneath them, allowing toxins to spew into the water, land, and air?”
Right after the report was released, SoCalGas pointed a finger back at the CPUC. That it had followed whatever regulations were in place at the time of the blowout. And top of that, SoCalGas used much double talk in its official response. It said that “The Blade report confirms SoCalGas complied with gas storage regulations in existence,” but in the same paragraph, use the phrases “In Blade’s opinion” and “in their opinion.”
The utility stated that the facility was safe to operate. But given the many problems the company failed to investigate, residents do not feel the utility can be trusted.
A little over two weeks after this embarrassing chapter for SoCalGas in the Aliso saga, another blow landed. This was in the form of another lawsuit added to SCG’s legal woes on June 3, 2019.
The newest plaintiff was Kenneth Bruno, the manager of the Safety and Enforcement Division of the CPUC who had overseen the sealing of well SS-25. His suit alleged that the gas company knowingly exposed him to dangerously high levels of carcinogens while at the site, which led to a diagnosis of a rare-blood cancer, known as hairy cell leukemia. This form of cancer occurs when one’s bone marrow makes too many B cells (lymphocytes). As the number of these abnormal cells increase, fewer healthy white blood cells, Red blood cells and platelets are produced. One possible cause is from benzene exposure.
While Bruno was at the site, the utility did not make sure he wore protective clothing. He was simply told to “wear appropriate footwear and a hard hat.” The company also failed to tell him to remove his contaminated clothes before returning to his car at the end of each day. Just as residents and firefighters were exposed to the emissions, so was Bruno.
Another claim was that Sempra violated CPUC’s Rule 30, which prohibits natural gas from having any hazardous substances at concentrations that would present a health risk to employees or the general public. This rule entitled “TRANSPORTATION OF CUSTOMER-OWNED GAS” states under “Gas Delivery Specifications k. Hazardous Substances: The gas must not contain hazardous substances (including but not limited to toxic and/or carcinogenic substances and/or reproductive toxins) at concentrations which would prevent or restrict the normal marketing of gas, be injurious to pipeline facilities, or which would present a health and/or safety hazard to Utility employees and/or the general public.” If this is the case, residents have another reason to want the facility near them shut down. If this is the case, it may explain SoCalGas not wanting the various agencies to delve into the composition of the gas being transported and stored at Aliso.
In addition, the suit alleged that SoCalGas unsuccessfully tried to block Blade from obtaining key evidence about the cause of the blowout by pouring cement into the underground piping and tubing of the well. That would be in conflict with a letter sent by the CPUC to SoCalGas on January 22, 2016, that instructed the gas company to “preserve all physical evidence needed for the RCA, including the well casing — SoCalGas shall not seal the well with concrete until Blade extracts the casing for examination.”
The CPUC had sent a letter to SoCalGas on July 11, 2018, which can be found on the agency’s website, albeit heavily redacted, that expressed the lack of cooperation by the gas company concerning an investigation by the Safety and enforcement Division. According to the letter entitled “Memorialization of Southern California Gas Company’s (SoCalGas) Failure to Cooperate with Safety and Enforcement Division (SED) in SED’s Preliminary Investigation,” the utility produced only one contractor to talk with the investigators and attorneys.
SoCalGas’s response to the lawsuit was to claimed that the plaintiff attorneys have “intentionally and irresponsibly misstated the facts with respect to air quality and public health," before launching into the usual mantra that agencies have tested the air, soil, and dust, and that public health officials have shown that there wasn’t any long term health risk.
Map of North San Fernando Valley and the source of the Aliso blowout SS-25