The Phantom Menace of Porter Ranch - Part II
(Read Part I – The Phantom Menace of Porter Ranch)
In a makeshift, unofficial courtroom within a Woodland Hills Hilton conference center, a five person hearing board came to a decision. The decision came after four separate public hearings over the course of three weeks. The first and second hearings were held at the Granada Hills Charter High School, the third at the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) office in Diamond Bar, and the final was held and concluded at the Hilton Hotel in Woodland Hills.
There was never any intention to hold multiple hearings. The additional hearings were a result of the impassioned testimony of local residents, environmental groups, and individuals supporting the community of Porter Ranch. Local citizens who wished to speak at the hearings were given time to recount their personal stories of the gas leak. These personal experiences were given under oath, and taken as evidence in the case against Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). The individual testimony and the resulting deliberations extended each hearing to the point that a decision could not be reached.
Fearing that the hearings would not be concluded on the fourth attempt, the hearing board decided to limit public testimony to thirty minutes in the final hearing. Up to thirty individuals had an opportunity to speak for one minute. During this final round of public testimony, one could not help but feel the fear and anger of local residents. Stories were told of relocations and disruptions to the lives of families. Property values in the area have plummeted and are unlikely to recover with the threat of the facility in the hills behind the community. Nosebleeds, headaches, dizziness, nausea, vomiting and other symptoms of the gas leak were recounted in detail. Even pets have become ill. People are scared. All while SoCalGas continues to insist that there are no long term health risks associated with the gas leak, merely a short term “inconvenience”.
"The odorant that people are smelling, that's unfortunately causing a lot of this inconvenience, is a short-term issue for people," stated SoCalGas CEO Dennis Arriola in a recent interview with CBS News. "Once we finish closing or solving the leak and closing the well, the issues go away."
Residents believe they are being lied to, rightly so. They believe SoCalGas is prioritizing profits over people, and are trying to mitigate the financial costs of the leak as opposed to minimizing the risk to the health and well-being of the local citizens. There is a strong feeling among residents that SoCalGas was grossly negligent in their safety precautions, and that negligence exacerbated the severity of the gas leak impacts. From the removal of safety valves at Aliso Canyon, to the failure to repair multiple wells that were known to be leaking, the facts support this charge of negligence. All evidence points to SoCalGas profits being prioritized over public safety. Lawsuits are already underway against SoCalGas, and more are sure to be launched in the upcoming months and years.
The anger and frustration of local residents was felt throughout the hearings. Order for abatement hearings are like standard courtroom proceedings. Silence is expected from the public, and disruptions are not allowed. Signs were allowed in the hearings as a way of communicating a message, but could not be larger than 18 inches in height or width.
While the audience was quiet for much of the hearings, holding “Shut It All Down” signs, there were multiple occasions when the crowd grumbled or called out when the SoCalGas lawyer made a particularly callous statement, or refused to answer questions directly. Cheers erupted at least a dozen times as residents gave testimony, or when certain board members made statements in support of the residents. In particular, residents applauded multiple times for Julie Prussack, the attorney hearing board member and recent Senior Attorney and Director of the Southern California Clean Air Program of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). With her experience as a litigating attorney and background with a leading environmental group, Julie was the only board member who regularly argued against the lawyer from SoCalGas, and for the residents of Porter Ranch.
The most unexpected moment occurred in the middle of the hearings, when suddenly all of the lights in the courtroom turn off. As complete darkness fell across the audience, a single call rang out. “Shut it all down!” The call instantly turned into a chant as the dark room swelled with the voices of hundreds. “Shut it all down! Shut it all down!” The lights came back on within a few moments, but the energy from the crowd buzzed long after the darkness fled.
The hearing board then listened to statements from the petitioner, the SCAQMD, and the respondent, SoCalGas. Deliberations ensued to review the proposed stipulated order of abatement, and to determine the final decision of the hearing board. What steps would be required to stop the leak and minimize health impacts on the local communities? How would the facility be monitored henceforth to identify and resolve future leaks? How would SoCalGas ensure that future disasters be averted?
At the center of it all is a critical question: how much authority does the hearing board have, and where does that authority come into conflict with the authority of various agencies, including the state Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)?
Throughout the hearings it became clear that the hearing board has limited authority, and that a complex assemblage of agencies with various jurisdictions placed further constraints on the authority and power of the hearing board. Add in the financial and legal power of SoCalGas and their parent company Sempra Energy, a corporation valued over $20 billion dollars, and the challenge in front of the hearing board became apparent.
There was much talk of what the hearing board could not do. The hearing board cannot enact new laws or regulations. They do not have any authority to enact orders regarding property values, or relocation costs. The hearing board cannot even take the environmental impacts into account regarding climate change.
In general, the hearing board is able to require a company operating out of compliance to take specific actions to remedy the violation and come back into compliance. If unable to remedy the violation, the hearing board appears to have the authority to shut down the operations of the violator. As noted on the AQMD website, shutting down operations is a severe remedy normally reserved for serious violations. That begs the question: could a violation possibly be more serious than a massive environmental disaster that has displaced thousands of families and has negatively impacted the health of local residents? Does the board have a case to shut it all down?
SoCalGas is in violation of California H&S Code 41700 and District Rule 402, which prohibit the discharge of air contaminants or other material that cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or the public, or endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. The massive gas leak put SoCalGas in clear violation and gave the hearing board authority to issue an abatement order.
Heading into the final hearing, the abatement order was in the form of a stipulated order for abatement. What’s the difference between stipulated and non-stipulated? Basically, a stipulated order of abatement has two critical differences. First, the hearing board is not required to find that a facility is in violation of any rule or regulation. Second, the conditions of the order are agreed upon in advance by both parties. The second difference was critical to the final decision from the board.
The hearing board could have taken the path of a non-stipulated order of abatement. By going down this path, the board could have taken steps without the agreement from SoCalGas lawyers. That order could have included the shutdown of some or all wells at the Aliso Canyon facility until their safe use was clearly demonstrated. Stopping all new injections into the facility and emptying the facilities as quickly as safely possible may have been within the authority of the hearing board. However the extent of their authority was hotly contested by the lawyers from SoCalGas, who claimed that the hearing board did not have that authority. The SoCalGas lawyers also contested that any attempt to stop injections into the facility could go against the authority of other agencies, including the CPUC.
Stopping injections into the Aliso Canyon facility and drawing down the reserves was one of the central points of contention heading into the final decision. Julie Prussack took issue with a specific section in the stipulated order of abatement. In section 4a, the order states that SoCalGas shall minimize natural gas leaking from the facility “except as directed by the CPUC, stopping all gas injection into the Facility’s underground reservoir until the leak at the Well has ceased.” Prussack argued that this exception would undermine the order of abatement, as the CPUC could simply direct SoCalGas to resume injections at any time. That small statement, along with wording in section 5, essentially created a loophole in the order for abatement.
Prussack requested that the exception be struck from the order, but the legal counsel from SoCalGas rejected removal of the exception or any changes to the two sections. It was apparent throughout the hearings that SoCalGas was firmly holding to the stipulated order of abatement as written.
At this point, there were two distinct paths that the hearing board could have taken. The hearing board could have rejected the stipulated order of abatement and created a non-stipulated order. With a non-stipulated order, they would not need the agreement of SoCalGas or their legal counsel. They could stop all injections into the facility and draw down the gas reserves as quickly as safely possible. This would, in effect, temporarily shut down the facility once the drawdown was complete. However SoCalGas could contest the order, challenge the authority of the hearing board, and lean on the authority of other agencies to weaken or bypass the order. Prussack seemed willing to fight SoCalGas and move towards the creation of a non-stipulated order of abatement.
However after deliberation from the board, the other four hearing board members seemed unwilling to follow this path. There were comments made by board members implying that it was in the best interest of the public to accept the stipulated order of abatement. One of the central arguments for accepting the stipulated order was the inclusion from SoCalGas of a health study. This section of the order committed SoCalGas to fund a health study, to be conducted by a third party. The study would look into the potential impacts from the exposure to the constituents of the natural gas released from the facility. That would include the odorant mercaptan and any odor suppressants or neutralizers, or their byproducts, used by SoCalGas to mitigate odors in the nearby community. The health study would also include the formation of an advisory committee of subject matter experts to evaluate the field data, analysis methods and proposed study results.
The hearing board clearly had no authority to demand the health study, as this was not relevant to the board’s power to abate the nuisance from the gas leak. In other words, this health study was a carrot offered by SoCalGas in return for accepting the stipulated order of abatement.
Another argument for accepting the stipulated order was SoCalGas committing to permanently seal well SS-25 after the leak has been fixed. Permanently sealing the well would take it offline forever. This is a far cry from shutting down the entire Aliso Canyon facility, but it does take the well responsible for the leak offline permanently. This same action may have been possible through a non-stipulated order, but the legal counsel from SoCalGas contended that shutting down the well was contestable. Therefore, accepting the stipulated order was the only way to guarantee SS-25 be closed permanently. Or so the lawyers from SoCalGas seemed to imply.
After four separate hearings, the board finally made their decision. The order of abatement proposed at the hearing would be accepted as written. This decision was met with extreme disappointment from local residents.
"Total frustration and anger,” resident Alexandra Nagy - Southern California Organizer at the Los Angeles branch of Food & Water Watch - told ABC News. “The AQMD could have used their full authority to shut this facility down, at least temporarily, and they refused to do that...Our rally cry was very clear. We don't feel safe in our community. We don't feel safe going back to our homes as long as this facility stays open."
However there were positive developments throughout the process. There is no question that the public outrage and testimony had a huge impact on the final abatement order, making it far stronger than the originally proposed order. There is no question that demonstrations by local residents and environmental groups pressured SoCalGas to strengthen the order, and helped shine the national spotlight on the environmental disaster. There is also the possibility that the abatement order is only the beginning, and that pressure from citizens will lead to future actions against SoCalGas.
“SCAQMD’s failure to put Californians’ livelihoods first is shameful, and Gov. Brown should intervene swiftly,” said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club. “There should be no other choice but to shut down the dangerous Aliso Canyon facility and look to close every urban oil and gas facility throughout California and our country, to ensure the health of our communities and our climate is never again sacrificed for corporate polluter profits.”
One major development is the creation of three bills by State Senator Fran Pavley of Agoura Hills. Proposed bill SB886 seeks to impose a moratorium on new injections of natural gas, and the removal of gas from 48 vintage wells that were drilled prior to 1953, the year SS-25 was drilled. The vintage wells could only resume operations after state regulators and independent experts determined that they did not pose a threat to public health or safety. SB887 would seek to avoid future disasters by strengthening regulations, creating annual inspections, installing subsurface safety valves, continuous monitoring, and other steps to improve the safety of natural gas storage facilities. The third bill, SB888, would require that all costs of the leak are paid with utility profits, not with increases in rates to customers. The bill would also ensure that any costs for mitigating greenhouse gas emissions would come from the Sempra Energy profits and not pushed into rate increases.
While future actions continue to be considered, the current order of abatement is clear. As stated by the AQMD, SoCalGas must:
Permanently shut down and seal well SS-25 and not inject gas into or withdraw gas from it in the future once the leak has stopped
Fund an independent health study to assess any potential health effects to residents from the gas leak, including as a result of exposure to odorants added to natural gas
Fund continuous air monitoring to be conducted by SCAQMD and/or a contractor under the agency’s supervision
Develop and implement an enhanced leak detection and reporting program for all wells at the storage facility
Monitor the leaking well continuously with an infrared camera until 30 days after the leak has stopped
Minimize gas leaking from the facility
Provide SCAQMD with data on the amount of gas injected and withdrawn from the facility and information necessary to calculate the total amount of methane leaked, once the leak has stopped
Submit a plan to SCAQMD for notifying government agencies and the community of any reportable releases of air emissions
Report all odor complaints to SoCalGas since Oct. 23, 2015, and on an ongoing basis to SCAQMD
Not use any odor suppressants or neutralizers in an attempt to reduce odors from the leak, unless approved by SCAQMD
The order of abatement may have been approved, but the phantom menace beneath the hills of Aliso Canyon continues it inexorable escape into the environment. The pressurized prison lessens in intensity every day, and one day the ghostly escape from this specific prison will come to an end. However this is not the last escape attempt. There are 114 additional prisons in this facility alone. 48 of the 114 prisons shafts were drilled before SS-25, and future escapes of the phantom are all but assured unless aggressive actions are taken.
This story is not over. Nor is the fighting spirit from citizens and environmental groups. That spirit will never be contained or imprisoned.
