top of page
Search
  • wearealiso

San Fernando Valley Residents Return to the Courtroom Seeking Restitution For The Blowout

Published in Medium.com on January 26, 2020


Restitution press conference. Photo by Heidi Tortorici


“Had I know that there was an unnatural gas leak up there, I wouldn’t let him run.” Talking about the loss of her husband just a few years after the onset of the largest gas blowout in US history, Patricia Islikaplan addressed the media at a press conference this week. She was among several other residents discussing how the Los Angeles County District Attorney shut them out of seeking restitution from SoCalGas. She described how her husband, “a pillar of health,” trained for his next marathon by running up and down Sesnon Blvd., the major street that fronts the utility’s front gate, several times the week Well SS-25’s casing failed in October 2015.


This press conference was held by resident affected by the 2015 blowout and their lawyers, following the latest hearing regarding restitution resulting from the criminal case brought before SoCalGas in February 2016. At that time, District Attorney Jackie Lacey said, “While we recognize that neither the criminal charges nor the civil lawsuits will offer the residents of Los Angeles County a complete solution, it is important that Southern California Gas Co. be held responsible for its criminal actions.


But in September that year, Los Angeles County settled with the gas company letting it off the hook for three of the criminal counts. As for the fourth, failure to timely report the massive problem at Aliso for three days, the gas company plead no contest. As a result, SoCalGas was given a $4 million fine and was ordered to install and maintain a methane monitoring system at the site.

But the DA’s office, not only let off SoCalGas with this slap on the wrist, it also cut off residents from being able to seek restitution allowed by state law.


At stake are the victims’ right to collect restitution as delineated in Article I, Section 28(c) of the California constitution. Currently, victims’ right to restitution is protected by Marsy’s Law, otherwise known as the California Victims’ Bill of Rights which was approved by voters in 2008.

The section of the constitution that is being violated is known as Marsy’s Law in honor of Marsalee Nicholas who was murdered by an ex-boyfriend on November 30, 1983. In late February 2008, California non-profit corporation Marsy’s Law: Justice for Crime Victims proposed Marsy’s Law as a way of giving crime victims, including businesses, constitutionally protected rights including priority when it comes to collecting restitution.

Restitution press conference, photo by Heidi Tortorici


As victims of the crime that SoCalGas had plead to, residents should have been able to file for restitution. Last July, a three-judge panel ruled that residents can seek restitution, but only on the gas company’s three-day delay in reporting the leak to agencies.


On October 4th in Santa Clarita, a new judge introduced herself and scheduled the next hearing, giving the attorneys for both sides time to prepare. Many residents wore red “victim” ribbons to show the judge and attorneys their interest in getting justice.


For the January hearing, 70 residents, sporting those same ribbons, packed the courtroom, with several more not able to get a seat inside.


Islikaplan was one of four residents who spoke at the post-hearing press conference. She talked about how her husband, who was certified in a pre-marathon physical examination as being healthy,was diagnosed less than six months later with myelofibrosis, a rare cancer of the bone marrow. He passed away on February 16, 2018.


According to the Mayo Clinic, myelofibrosis has been linked to exposure to industrial chemicals such as toluene and benzene.


Others who went to the mic included Kelly Browne, who talked about her parents, who lived less than three miles from the damaged well. She said she know something was wrong. “My mother was on sick, on the floor, my dogs’ ears were rotting, they were throwing up.” She added that the house was tested by the County health department, and received positive results for benzene, phenol, and forty other contaminants.


Her mother was diagnosed with multiple myeloma. According to www.myeloma.org, benzene is one of the many toxic chemicals that can cause this form of cancer.


She said that “If I had known in those three days that my mother and father were being gassed, maybe I could have gotten her oxygen or take her to the hospital.”


She brought up the many teachers at Castlebay Elementary who have been diagnosed with cancer that could be related to Aliso. She said, “This is not natural gas, benzene is not natural,” adding “There’s absolutely no plan in place by the Los Angeles Department of Public Health if this happens again.”


A third resident who spoke up was Teresa Moore who had bought her home seven miles away from the wells just a short time before the blowout. She was still recovering from the anemia from her bout with cancer. “Had I known on that day I was exposed to benzene in a home I just bought, I would have walked away immediately. I was never given the information that benzene was in there.”


She mentioned her two daughters who both got married on the property. Both had problems with their first pregnancies. One had been pregnant with twins, and lost one of them prior to birth. The other had problems when it came time to giving birth.


“I lost my business and was set back for three years trying to recovery from the leak,” Moore concluded.


Sandy Naiman, a long time resident of the Porter Ranch area, wasn’t able to attend the hearing, but said that had she known about the leak, they would have kept their windows closed and airtight. She also wouldn’t have taken her grandson to the Holleigh Bernson park on Sesnon Blvd. on October 23rd, or even allowed him outside. Once she learned about the blowout, they stopped having him come to the house. She said, “I got sick immediately with headaches, nausea, fatigue, severe asthma, and my sinuses closed off completely. We called when they announced we could relocate and were one of the first families to do so in November. Around the time of the blowout, before we knew about it, my grandson had an anaphylactic reaction to an unknown substance. He had to go to the ER. When we learned of the blowout, I wondered if it caused it.”


Another resident who couldn’t attend the hearing was Laura Gideon who said she and her neighbors had called the gas company about the smell. “We were assured that they were ‘just purging’ and we were ‘completely safe.’” They called the next day and were told the same thing. “It wasn’t until our call on Monday that we were told that yes, there is a leak, and it may be a long time until it is fixed.”


Among residents who the lawyers discussed during the proceeding, was Nancy Hernandez, whose family attended a football game on October 23rd. She said that if they had known about what had happened at Aliso, they could have worn protective gear such as masks or otherwise not attend the game.

Lawyers Robert Kennedy Jr and Rex Parris, residents Jane Fowler,

Kyoko Hibino, and Matt Pakucko, photo by Deirdre Bolona


The lawyers also played a recording made by Matt Pakucko of an early morning phone call on October 26th to SoCalGas when he asked about the strong odors, and he was told there was no problem. This was after several calls he made in from October 23rd on and getting the same lie.


According to the initial brief filed by lawyers representing the residents, SoCalGas failed to report the problem for three days and also failed to collect any samples at that time. According to a deposition by a SoCalGas executive Paul Smith, it was only after news reports began airing about how those living near the facility were getting sick, that the utility finally reported the leak to agencies.


The brief discussed the Health and Safety code reporting requirements as providing information needed “to prevent or mitigate the damage to the health and safety of persons and the environment from the release or threatened release of hazardous materials into the workplace and environment.”

Line of residents and others entering the Santa Clarita courthouse, photo by Jon Teboe


After SoCalGas made the report, the LA County Fire Department issued a notice of violation for the delay on November 12, 2015. Then County District Attorney filed the misdemeanor compliant in February.


The lawyers representing the residents insist that proper notice would have allowed residents to have taken actions to reduce their exposure. For example, they could have weatherized and sealed off their homes and cars, closed their windows, turned off HVAC systems, worn air masks, and even, if they could, leave the area. Many have had to replace contaminated clothing and furniture.


The brief also noted that chemicals have been found to contain high levels of known carcinogens, especially during the initial three day period when the flow from the well was uncontrollable and massive.


Among the chemicals that are now known to have been released from Well SS-25 (and from the other wells during subsequent leaks) are benzene, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), acrolein and other biocides, uranium, radon and toluene. Many of these are known to be carcinogens.


As noted in the brief, SoCalGas reported the release of just one material, natural gas. The plea bargain, eleven months after the blowout began, admitted that the gas company’s blowout had released “natural gas or its components, including but not limited to methane, methyl mercaptan, butyl mercaptan, benzene and butane. The composition of natural gas at Aliso also varies because SoCalGas adds chemicals to the pipelines to prevent the formation of bacteria, and SoCalGas disposes of toxic waste by injecting it back into the field after they clean the gas for distribution.” In addition to these materials, the stored gas is exposed to other hazardous materials such as oil and wastewater.


From the onset of the blowout, SoCalGas claimed the gas was nonhazardous, even stating in social media posts,“scientists agree natural gas is not toxic and that its odorant is harmless at the minute levels at which it is added to natural gas.” The brief contended that the SoCalGas management knew the gas was composed of toxic chemicals. In inserts mailed along with invoices, for years before the blowout, the gas company warned customers to immediately leave any area when they can smell gas.


SoCalGas argued that many air tests has shown that the local environment is safe, but it wasn’t until the eighth day of the blowout that SoCalGas conducted minimal testing of the air only. According to the residents’ brief, “without determining the actual hazards in the gas, this is like measuring rainfall after the major storm is over.”


After realizing there was methane emanating from well SS-25, SoCalGas was supposed to notify the Office of Emergency Services immediately. Instead, the gas company waited until three days later on October 26. Even that late notice lacked information required by law including the exact location of the release, the name of the person reporting it, the hazardous materials involved in the release, an estimate of the quantity of the hazardous materials, and the potential hazards presented by the material.


SoCalGas claimed it had a “reasonable belief that the release or threatened release poses no significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety.”


But as far as the claim that no one suffered long term health, impacts, SoCalGas ignored that the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (DPH) had concluded that 81.3% of the households suffered from health impacts during the blowout. It also ignored that DPH concluded the long term health problems required that SoCalGas disclose the chemical composition of all gas as expressed in a letter making this demand on March 11,2019.


After the county allowed the gas company to plea bargain to one charge and then denied restitution, the residents petitioned for a writ of mandate on the basis that the court had erred when it concluded that “the damage would have occurred with or without the timely notification.” Three years later, the appellate court expressed concern that the victims did not receive proper guidance from the district attorney as to the process by which the victims might seek to enforce their rights to restitution. The court then remanded the case back to this court “for a further hearing to determine what, if any, damages were caused only by the three-day delay in reporting the leak to the proper authorities, to which SoCalGas pleaded no contest as charged in count.”

Residents Lori Aivazian, Jon Teboe, Helen Attai, Patricia Lacara

at press conference, photo by Heidi Tortorici


In its reply to the first brief, SoCalGas claimed that the residents are not victims of the delay of notice to a government agency. It also stated that the claimants (the residents) made false and misleading allegations regarding “hazardous chemicals that allegedly were released and exposed to the public.” The brief also said that “key agencies” (DOGGR, the LA City Fire Dept. and the LA County Fire Dept.) were given notice of the release on October 24.


It also refuted that residents were exposed to the chemicals listed in the original brief, or otherwise to levels not considered harmful.


But despite the claims in this brief, the information wasn’t released as SoCalGas stated. The Dept. of Conservation (which includes DOGGR, which was recently renamed to Cal GEM, the Geological Energy Management Division), received an incident report from the gas company on October 25. The LA County Fire Dept. was notified on October 26.


The gas company also referred to a statement from the DPH toxicologist Cyrus Rangan that there was “no evidence or concerns about uranium radiation.” This was from an early 2016 article. But at that time, Rangan was still sticking with his initial assertion that residents weren’t being dosed with toxic chemicals, a view that he has since changed about a year later.


Incidentally, the County Dept of Public Health says on its website, “Public Health was notified on October 28, 2015, that there was a natural gas leak that began on October 23 at the Aliso Canyon Gas Storage Facility near Porter Ranch.” Some agencies, such as the AQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District), and elected officials including county Supervisor Michael Antonovich, who would have an interest in the leaking were informed by the organization Save Porter Ranch about the developing disaster.


The lawyers representing the residents released a response to the utility’s reply before the hearing. The response included the fact that the Court of Appeal remanded this case in order to allow the residents to prove damages. It also refuted the gas company’s claim that the air was safe,but reiterated that any air testing began after the three day period. It also stated that during the blowout (and during subsequent leaks) many residents found relief from their symptoms when away from their homes and the north San Fernando Valley.


Considering the idea that chemicals were at a higher percentage during the first few days, these same chemicals ended up contaminating their homes during that time. It also mentioned that some agencies such as the OEHHA (California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment) obtained their data from the SoCalGas website. It also discussed air testing at area schools, with elevated benzene levels found in December.


Also reiterated was that the health and safety code states that the statutory requirement of giving notice of a hazardous release was and is designed to warn people of the release before their health or property are damaged. Further, the code regarding hazardous chemicals is based on the federal Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). It further stated that had the local fire department was given the correct disclosures about the chemicals, there may have been an evacuation of the area (in November 2019, when a main transmission line of SoCalGas became ruptured, an evacuation of the homes in the order were ordered).

The response also countered the gas company’s claims that residents haven’t proved that the three day delay is “a substantial factor in causing the damages,” by stating that the purpose of the briefing is to show the Court what the residents would have done with proper notice.

Pakucko, who co-founded Save Porter Ranch in 2014, summarized the matter, “The root of the problem is still DA Jackie Lacey, who got us here in the first place. Her attorney offered nothing to help the ‘people’, whom she represents.” He added, that the problem is that the court failed to comprehend one sentence. “The sentence that is the appellate court ruling that SoCalGas kept referring to. Which is the “letter of the law” in that appellate decision. The word ‘report.’ Failure to ‘report.’ Our entire case revolves around that. There was no ‘report’ as required by regulation. There was only at best deficiencies, but as we know, a lot of lies. ‘Report ‘ is not defined. Seems like the judge thinks that whatever the hell they reported, qualifies and fulfills their obligation. And that is the/her/our problem.”

1 view0 comments
Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page