What is the future of air monitoring for the Northern San Fernando Valley?

Residents still await the consent decree-ordered monitoring system promised in 2018

Published in Medium.com on October 20, 2020

Community protest in 2017 following CPUC’s decision to resume operations at Aliso Canyon

It’s five years after the massive gas blowout at the Aliso Canyon gas storage facility in the north San Fernando Valley, and among the major issues is the lack of monitors measuring Volatile organic compounds (VOCs). This is significant because among the components of the 2018 consent decree with SoCalGas is such a system that, more than 760 days since the agreement was announced, is still in the early planning stage.

VOCs are organic chemicals that have a high vapor pressure at ordinary room temperature. Most importantly, many are carcinogens such as the BTEX chemicals benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene.

For months following the blowout, which was the largest such disaster in US history, public agencies such as the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) set up systems to measure the presence of chemicals in the area in and surrounding the site. This included nine fixed monitoring stations and the use of a mobile system.

In November 2015, the Department of Public Health chief toxicologist issued a fact sheet that said any health symptoms among residents were due to the mercaptans, which are odorants added to the naturally odorless gas. But many questioned this information, wondering if other, more harmful chemicals may be causing the headaches, nosebleeds, and other health complaints.

Then in December, the Interim Director of Public Health, Cynthia Harding, continued the message that it was the mercaptans causing residents’ symptoms in a report to the Board of Supervisors. She mentioned that the other chemical of concern was methane, but said it wasn’t a significant risk due to flammability.

On December 21th, the AQMD started conducting mobile survey measurements in and around Porter Ranch to better characterize methane concentration levels and concentration gradients within the community and to support the fixed site methane monitoring efforts by that agency and CARB.

In early 2016, Argos Scientific, a Washington state-based company that provides monitoring equipment, talked with then city council member Mitchell Englander about bringing a system to the Porter Ranch area. One couple agreed to have the system temporarily installed into their background. The company donated the equipment and its staff’s time for months, and then the Parris law firm sponsored the system and website for a while.

According to a story on NBC4, this system will continuously sample the air and report the results on a website that can be accessed by members of the community. In addition,residents would be able to sign up to be notified via emails when methane levels spike.

On its Facebook page on February 13, two days after SoCalGas announced the sealing of SS-25, Argos Scientific posted, “Monitoring data from the point in time when the leaking well was killed shows increased levels of methane gas being detected by the fence line monitoring system whenever the winds blow from the north. The highest level of 6 parts-per-million is about three times higher than normal concentrations of methane in the air.”

In July, CARB removed five of its methane monitors. The AQMD took over the operation of the remaining two monitors,in addition to its own.

Then in September, as part of resolving criminal charges against SoCalGas for failing to timely report the leak, the utility agreed to plea nolo contendre in return for the dismissal of other counts. Most of the approximately $4.3 million settlement for the remaining count would go to installing an infrared methane leak detection system, as well as hiring of a staff to operate and maintain the system for at least three years to operate and maintain the system.

On February 8, 2017, in a settlement to settle a lawsuit between SoCalGas and SCAQMD, part of the $8.5-million the utility would pay will include $1.6 million to reimburse the AQMD for the costs of agency’s monitoring.

On March 24, 2017, SoCalGas issued a press release bragging about “a new, interactive online tool that allows members of the public to view data from a network of methane monitors that have been installed at the company’s Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility. Eight pairs of monitors have been installed along the facility’s border with the Porter Ranch community to record methane levels around-the-clock.“ Of course, SoCalGas failed to mention this system was part of an agreement for the utility’s criminal case.

The technology behind the two systems run by Argos Scientific and SoCalGas have a similar basic technology: They bounce a laser beam between mirrors and measure how the laser is affected by the presence of methane particles.

According to SCPR radio, AQMD pulled out its monitors in June 2017. The next month, the Department of Conservation decided that SoCalGas can resume partial operations at Aliso Canyon, despite the fact that the root cause analysis was only beginning to be conducted.

Two major leaks came before the end of that year. On December 1st, residents were realizing something was once again wrong at Aliso as they were feeling the usual symptoms they get when the site is leaking. After finding that the SoCalGas monitor #8 showed a spike of 56.1ppm, some residents took to Twitter to notify local media and elected officers, using the SoCalGas handle to let the gas company know that word was getting around. Immediately the tweeters received a message from the utility that the reading was because of venting from planned maintenance and that a notification will be going out. The leak was spotted after 7pm, but the notification, sent four hours later, said the release was “related to planned venting associated with maintenance work being conducted at the facility.”

SoCalGas monitor that was set to private

Then on December 18th, there was a 66.6ppm leak, but the SCG monitors were discovered by AQMD to be set to “private.” The SCG notification said “an unplanned release” that started at approximately 4:55pm, lasted 50 minutes, and that the monitor portal was set to “offline.” The notification was received at 7:42pm. This incident led to the AQMD receiving many complaints, and the agency issued a public nuisance complaint that they referred to in a media advisory. A major take away for the community was validation that many times when SoCalGas feels there may be spikes, the monitors are turned off for public viewing.

The AQMD released its “final” report on methane monitoring in January 2018: https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/compliance/aliso-cyn/report/air-monitoring-results-final-report-jan-2018.pdf?sfvrsn=15

Then came the $119.5 million Aliso Canyon consent decree, announced on August 8, 2018. Among the projects listed for funding through fines levied against SoCalGas was an independent air monitoring system, to be operated for at least eight years. Specified in the agreement in the Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) section was an independent air monitoring system to measure BTEX chemicals for at least eight years. Besides the one to be installed by the Aliso facility, one or more systems will be installed in at least one community designated as an “Environmental Justice Community. The allotment for each system will be $1.5 million.

August 8, 2018 consent decree mention of air monitoring system

The administrator for “The Aliso Fund” would be responsible for the development of “a Community Air Monitoring fund” and the decree stated “It is anticipated that OEHHA, CARB, and/or SCAQMD will be selected to create this fund and implement the (projects).” This phrase, perhaps, set up this part of the decree for what was to come. Also inserted into the language was “will consult with residents of Porter Ranch and neighboring communities to identify locations and constituents to monitor for and to establish parameters of any analysis/study that will be conducted utilizing the monitoring results.”

Here is the proposed consent decree: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/notice-lodging-and-proposed-cd-full.pdf

At the end of October 2018, a long-awaited wind study, entitled “Aliso Canyon Natural Gas Disaster Air Quality Monitoring and Modeling Technical Report: Exposure Modeling, Ambient Monitoring and Identification of Fugitive Emissions,” was released. The data had been collected between March 2016 and February 2017, but somehow kept under wraps for more than a year, despite many requests for the report. 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.

This writer attended an open house at the SoCalGas Chatsworth office in December, and when staff members mentioned their monitoring system, I asked why are the monitors often offline. The station operations manager said that the manufacturer of the monitoring equipment has stated that too high a level of moisture in the air could affect the monitors and that at 70 percent or higher, the monitors often register blips. As for anomalies, he said,“We are letting the public know in our investigation. We’re open and honest at what we find.” I brought up the public notifications and said that at least on two recent occasions, notifications about extremely high readings weren’t sent to community members until after social media erupted.

When these events were brought up at the open house, the SoCalGas reps said they weren’t aware of them and would have to check them out. I pointed out that at the Los Angeles City Council meeting on December 5, 2017, just four days after one of those events, a SoCalGas representative was in attendance as a result of a mercaptan spill incident in West Los Angeles the week before.

Councilman Mitchell Englander, who represents the north west Valley, including Porter Ranch, the community adjacent to Aliso, brought up the December 1 spike, saying he was disappointed that once again, he had to find out about leaks at Aliso from the residents, and not from the gas company (the first time he had this same public discussion with SoCalGas officials was at the December 1, 2015 city council meeting).

I asked why there can’t be more timely notifications. “Why is it that we have to go on social media and ask what is going on. We’re talking about hours before we got notifications from your office. What is going on? Are you checking with legal? Why is it happening that way more than a couple of times, but that was two very extreme examples.”

About sending notifications, the public affairs rep said “I would say that we take responsibility and look into it. It would be irresponsible to the community for us to send notifications to the community without doing our due diligence. Otherwise, we’re just sounding an alarm. We have to be extremely careful and thorough in our inspection of the situation and I think that’s the logic. It’s a lot more complex than issuing an email.”

I pointed out that when these incidents happen, that residents want to know immediately what’s going on so they can take action if desired, including leaving the area for a few hours if possible. Especially if they have children, pets, or are elderly. I suggested that she mention this to her management to look into, even though I wasn’t about to hold my breath that the gas company folks would even care about the community.

One concern all along (besides earthquakes) was the possibility of a wildfire hitting the wells. This nightmare situation almost happened in 2019 when flames from the Saddleridge fire reached the SoCalGas facility early on the morning of October 11. At that time, among those residents who had evacuated and those who lived just outside the evacuation area, who were still had Internet access, checked the methane monitors that the utility operates and saw that three of the monitors registered above “normal” readings, with monitor 7 showing a maximum of 64.3ppm at 2:20 am, and monitor 6, a reading of 35.5ppm an hour later (the “normal” level is considered 2.0ppm). SoCalGas issued a notice that “At this time it appears the elevated readings were caused by heat and smoke from the Saddleridge fire and NOT a natural gas leak.” But many residents mentioned on Facebook that they do not believe that statement, with some pointing out that if heat was the cause, the high readings would be high during the whole time while the fire was nearby. It was known that the workers had been evacuated as the flames approached the area and many thought they left without turning off the monitors.

Around the time of the 4th anniversary, less than two weeks after the fire, I decided to try to get an update on the still pending monitoring system. Other portions of the consent decree were already in motion. The controversial dairy digester project was going strong, with SoCalGas already sending down the explosive biomethane down from the Central Valley to be stored at Aliso. One SEP, to fund clean up at the Exide plant in East LA had received funding through an April 2019 vote by the Board of Supervisors. And the health study was in the second stage, though not proceeding commencing until possibly the summer of 2021. And one would guess that the government lawyers quickly took their share of the agreement. But there was a nary an update available about the monitors, which many residents felt was the one aspect of the decree that would be useful to the community.

An email was sent by this writer on October 21, 2019, to the OEHHA, the CARB, and the AQMD. Jarrod DeGonia, the SFV deputy for supervisor Kathryn Barger, as well as state senator Henry Stern and Assembly member Christy Smith, were also included as addressees. The only responses initially received were from CARB. Jorn Herner replied that he forwarded the email to the agency’s Public Information Officer David Clegern, who responded with “Your questions are best addressed to SCAQMD, as they are the local air quality authorities and more of a presence in that area. CARB’s primary role involves environmental mitigation, and I’m checking with staff to see if there’s anything new to report there.”

On November 12th, DeGonia was sent another email, and he finally responded with “Our office with County Counsel are in discussions with the Attorney General’s Office and the City Attorney’s office relating to the $3 million for air monitoring. There are some very specific stipulations associated with this funding and hope to have an update for you later in the month.” He never responded to a follow up email that asked why this specific item was still up in the air while all the other sections of the consent decree seemed to be already funded. Considering that this item was negotiated to be included in the settlement back in August 2018, and the settlement signed off on in February 2019, it would seem that the County had sufficient time to iron out any possible wrinkles. So either it was a much more complicated issue than originally thought or the ball had been dropped with no one was overseeing the project.

On February 6, 2020, the City of Los Angeles’ Office of Petroleum and Natural Gas Administration and Safety released the Aliso Canyon Storage Facility Update that was ordered by Council member John Lee’s resolution of October 22, 2019, and approved by the council on December 11th. It was to be a compilation of various reports regarding Aliso Canyon, but much of the information was pretty lacking. Among the list was the DOGGR comprehensive safety review of the Aliso Wells, the consent decree, the DOGGR Seismic Report, the CPUC investigation into the SoCalGas operations at Aliso, the CPUC OII into minimizing or eliminating the use of Aliso, a feasibility look of a city-funded independent health study, and the current withdrawal protocol. It mentioned the SoCalGas monitoring system but didn’t include that this system was ordered through a court settlement and not as any altruism on the part of the utility.

The report: http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2015/15-1380-S12_misc_02-07-2020.pdf

The Dept. of Public Health and Jarrod DeGonia provided an update on the budget for community air monitoring and discussed partnering with AQMD at the February 20, 2020 Community Advisory Group meeting for the Aliso health study. A few CAG members expressed concern with partnering with this agency.

The CAG sent a letter to the “Aliso Fund Committee” on June 2, asking questions: Has this system been installed and if not, why? Has a plan been developed and, if so, what is the status of this plan, including the timeline? If no plan has been developed, why not? This committee, comprised of representatives from the state Attorney General’s office, the County Counsel, and the City Attorney’s office, were advised by the CAG that the information that can be gathered by a monitoring system is critical to any health study. Delaying the installation of this system will lead to greater distrust and hostility toward both public agencies and SoCalGas.

The Porter Ranch Neighborhood Council sent its own letter asking for an update on the monitors on June 10th to County Supervisor Kathryn Barger and Attorney General Xavier Becerra. It mentioned the long period of time since when SoCalGas should have sent in the payment (by March 25, 2019) and the current time.

The response from the AFC to the PRNC and CAG came on July 7 and word for word, exactly the same. An answer but non answer: “The AFC has had multiple meetings with these agencies jointly and with SCAQMD separately to discuss and develop a proposed plan for implementing the air monitoring SEP. The AFC continues to work with these agencies on development of a proposal for the implementation of the air monitoring SEP in Porter Ranch.”

Finally, at the August 16th meeting of the PRNC, it was announced that the town hall regarding the monitoring system would be held on September 16th. At this meeting, after it was mentioned it has been 735 days since the consent degree was announced, DeGonia mentioned that the delay was because originally it was though the the AQMD could not handle this decree.

On September 16, Catherine Wieman and Arsenio Mataka from the state Attorney General’s Office, Jessica Brown from the City Attorney’s Office, and Scott Kuhn from the Los Angeles County Counsel’s Office were joined by Jason Low and Nicholas Sanchez from the AQMD.

Wieman announced that the $1 million from the February 2017 SoCalGas settlement with the AQMD that was to fund a health study will be added to the 1.5 million for the Porter Ranch monitoring system. She said that the three agencies named in the decree AQMD, CARB,and OEHHA,will play an advisory role, but the agency that will implement the project has not been decided yet. She pointed out that they’re holding the meeting to “describe the different obstacles to the community, get some feedback, and select the agency or agencies…The goal today is to discuss the options.”

A comparison of the four suggested monitoring systems

Jason Low from the AQMD described four different options for systems. He mentioned that the display from the various systems can also include community notifications as well as provide real time notification by email and other methods. One variable is the cost that is dependent on the method and the type of operation. The cost affects the length of time available for the project.

The air monitoring station is basically a monitoring station at one location that sucks in air. It provides high data quality especially when you’re looking at methane and the BTEX compounds and provide that info in near real time. It can also be connected to a public notification system. This system was used during the blowout. Low mentioned that the equipment has a more proven technology five years later.

The fence line or open path system will provide continuous monitoring at a fixed location, and can provide more spatial coverage. But he noted that, with this gain in coverage, one disadvantage is that it doesn’t work as well at detecting low levels of BTEX chemicals. He mentioned these are the type used by SoCalGas and Argos Scientific, and has also been used elsewhere for refineries.

The third type is the mobile platform in which a vehicle is driven around so it can cover a wide area and identify hot spots. The limitations are that it’s not a great way to track BTEX chemicals, it can’t be connected to a public notification system, and it can’t be utilized 24/7.

The fourth type is an aerial platform, utilizing research instruments aboard an aircraft. The advantage can survey a very large area on a regional scale, can detect the plume and quantify a better wide array of gaseous pollutants VOCs, but it also has some limitations as the aircraft is tied to the specific time of the fly over, the timing may not be regular, and the data analysis time is longer so it’s not meant to give real time notification.

He mentioned an investigation conducted by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory involving measurements taken over Aliso. This is the final report: https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/2020publications/CEC-500-2020-047/CEC-500-2020-047.pdf

The rest of the town hall was devoted to public comment.

The Aliso Health Study Community Advisory Group had pre-submitted questions for discussion: 1. Why has this project been delayed? 2. At what stage is the planning for installing the system? 3. What is the timeline for implementation? 4. Which agency will be administering and overseeing the installation? 5. Will the community have a voice in the location monitors? Will public parks be monitored? 6. Will residents have the ability to submit emission reports, have them documented and investigated? And which agency will take the lead in this? 7. For the County Counsel, why is your office not recommending the issuance of a subpoena to Southern California Gas for a comprehensive list of all materials used on the gas storage site, in the wells, and in fracking “soups” used to obtain the gas from its place of origin?

Brown admitted that it’s taking longer than desired. She brought up the COVID pandemic as a factor, but said they feel they are now back on track. She said she wished she can give a timeline, but insisted it will be months, and not years, and that they are at the next stage.

They haven’t decided which agency will work on the project.

Low said that as far as the location, the committee is open for any plan. They feel, given the past data they have, that they have some good locations in mind.

Also, asked was about why methane was still being discussed when there’s substances that are more of a concern. The answer was that methane constitutes about 95 per cent of natural gas, but the committee does admit that BTEX chemicals are a concern.

Among other questions was whether SoCalGas will be notified ahead of time if the aerial platform is selected, how many monitors be utilized. It was also mentioned that there are various existing methods for residents to provide notifications for odors and other complaints, including the AQMD’s 1–800-cut-smog phone number.

Several residents giving public comment felt that the excuse of the pandemic wasn’t a valid reason to apply for the delay as that wasn’t applicable for the first year and a half from the announcement of the agreement. One resident, Helen Attar, said, “Each one of our bodies are monitors. I’m so disappointed you people are clueless.”

Another point that came up several times was directed toward Scott Kuhn, from the County Counsel’s office, asking him why his office recommended against the county issuing a subpoena to SoCalGas for the list of chemicals used at Aliso. It was brought up that there could be chemicals of concern that need to be monitored for as well as considered by the health study researchers.

Kuhn replied that he will not agree that the counsel has been blocking anything, referring to client-attorney privilege. He said that he knew the CPUC has been looking has been trying to get the information that was requested in a proceeding that is going on. Craig Galanti of the CAG pressed him on the chemical list subpoena,insisting that the list is so important for the health study and that the community deserves this information for their personal health concerns, guidance, and for oversight, adding how insulting his stance is for this community. Matt Pakucko, the president of Save Porter Ranch, agreed, adding that right from the top, it stinks that the county doesn’t want the community to know about the chemicals.

Brown of the city attorney’s office said regarding the delay that they’ve been working on this project every week.

Another member of the CAG, Andrew Krowne reiterated how important the monitors are to the health study, as well as mentioning there are other monitoring platforms not among the four mentioned. He also brought up that his app has collected data that would be of use. Pakucko suggested that Argos Scientific should be considered as this company is already trusted by the community.

Low did agree that there are more systems. They wanted to make sure a system will be accurate for any kind of analysis. He brought up that some methods will be more expensive and won’t give measurements in real time, and said they didn’t see elevated levels of formaldehyde.

Lori Aivazian of the CAG called out the AFC on their use of “leak,” when what happened five years ago was a “blowout,” and she also criticized the use of the SoCalGas monitoring system of an example when its system is rigged due to the low background levels they are set to. She mentioned that the AQMD did catch the utility when the monitors were turned off on December 18, 2017.

The second town hall will be held on October 21, from 4pm to 6pm. Per the AFC’s flyer, to register for the Virtual Meeting and obtain logon information and/or telephone call-in information, please go to: https://www.zoomgov.com/webinar/register/WN_SVzmM5E9RP2vI7VeOpIG-w

After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about how to join the Virtual Meeting, Please submit questions and comments in writing prior to the Virtual Meeting to AlisoSettlement@doj.ca.gov