In Letter to County, Kutcher Seeks to Extend Oil Drilling Comment Period

[Editor’s Note: Kenneth Kutcher, one of two principal voices in Culver Crest inveighing against mechanical, lockstep approval by the County of an oil drilling rule book designed by the oil drilling company in question, dispatched the following letter to County offices yesterday. In light of Saturday’s crucial meeting of the County Regional Planning Commission at 12 noon at West Los Angeles College, Mr. Kutcher’s plea to extend the public comment period before drilling resumes, is timely.]

• I support the County's adoption of a CSD for the Oil Field; but the CSD that is adopted cannot have been authored by PXP or their legal representatives. It makes no sense for the oil company that will be regulated to write the regulations that will govern their operations.





• I support certification of a comprehensive and thorough environmental impact report ("EIR") after adequate time for public review and comment and after the public's comments have been fully considered and addressed, including performing areas of further study and analysis and developing additional mitigation measures.

THERE ARE MANY REASONS WHY THE EIR COMMENT PERIOD SHOULD BE EXTENDED

"The public review period for a draft EIR should not be less than 30 days nor longer than 60 days except in unusual circumstances. When a draft EIR is submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by state agencies [as was this EIR], the public review period shall not be less than 45 days, unless a shorter period, not less than 30 days, is approved by the State Clearinghouse." State CEQA Guidelines § 25205(a); emphasis added.

I submit that if ever there was a case of unusual circumstances, this is it:

• The EIR is studying proposed regulations written by the company to be regulated;





• those regulations were not made available to the public except in response to a Public Records Act request (Gov't Code §§ 6250, et seq.);





• the County has never before prepared an EIR for oil field regulations;





• the EIR is voluminous;





• there is wide public interest in this issue, and more than 5 million people live within a five mile radius of the site;
• there are significant public risks involved (including health, air quality, subsidence/uplift, fire and other potential disasters, noise, vibration, and aesthetics);





• the data and analysis contained within this EIR is extremely technical in nature; and





• the project site has been targeted by the State for establishment of one of the largest urban parks in history (see Baldwin Hills Park Master Plan, March 2002).

For these reasons, the comment period for the EIR should be extended to a date in September.

Below are comments to the Staff Report on this item. These comments are written in the order they appear in the Staff Report.

Summary (p. 1)

A. PXP Is Proposing To Dramatically Change The Intensity Of Its Operations.

Although this oil field has been in operation since 1924, the greatest volume of oil production occurred in 1927 and dropped precipitously thereafter. (DEIR Fig. 2-7 at p. 2-11.) Over its more than 80 year history, there have been approximately 1400 wells established in this Oil Field. (NOP at p. 2.) Currently there are 436 active producing wells. (DEIR at p. 2-15.)

PXP contemplates drilling as many as 1,065 new wells in the next 20 years. (DEIR Table 3.1 at p. 3-3.) Wells are drilled on a 24-hour basis. (DEIR at p. 3-3.)

In year 2009, PXP contemplates drilling 85 new wells in this Oil Field. (DEIR Table 3-1 at p. 3 3.) Except for the year 1925, no oil operator has ever drilled that many new wells in the Oil Field in any single year. (DEIR Figure 2-8 at p. 2-12.)

Over the following four years — 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 — PXP contemplates drilling 75 new wells in this Oil Field each year. (DEIR at Table 3.1 at p. 3-3.) Only once — in 1965 — were 75 new wells ever drilled in a single year in this Oil Field. (DEIR Figure 2-8 at p. 2-12.)

B. There Are Many Surrounding Uses That Will Now Be Impacted By The New Oil Wells.

In the years since the Oil Field was established, major changes have occurred around the Oil Field that should lead to less drilling, not more. A summary of the types of surrounding land uses is provided at Table 4.8.1 of the DEIR. (DEIR at p. 4.8-2.)

"As we approach the Board [of Supervisors] hearing date for renewing the Urgency Ordinance we are increasingly concerned that we do not have the necessary information to present to the Board that the Ordinance has been complied with by PXP." (Email sent at 9:02 am on May 2, 2007, from County Planner Maria Masis to Donna Black, an attorney with Cox Castle; emphasis added.)

For example, PXP was required to maintain a hotline for complaints and a log of the calls that came in. But at 9:00 am on May 7, 2007, Ms. Masis emailed Ms. Black because PXP's hotline number wasn't working:

"I tried calling the phone number below this morning — the guy who answered the telephone did not know anything about a complaint hotline . . . please check to make sure this is the right number." (Email sent at 9:00 am on May 7, 2007, from County Planner Masis to PXP attorney Black.)

At 9:17 am, County Planning Staff confirmed that she had dialed PXP's hotline and the confused response she received:

"Yes, that is the number I dialed. Many signals went through and then it sounded like the call was 'rolled over' — I thought an answering machine would kick in but then an employee answered instead. I asked him if this was the complaint hotline and he sounded quite confused." (Email sent at 9:17 am on May 7, 2007, from County Planner Masis to PXP attorney Black.)

C. The Commission Should Be Made Aware Of PXP’s Affirmative Obligations Under The Interim Ordinance.

"At all times during drilling operations, the operator shall maintain enhanced monitoring equipment that shall monitor and digitally record the emission of hydrogen sulfide and combustible gases at detection limits of no less than one part per million for sulfides and 10 percent of lower explosive limits for combustible gases. Such monitors shall provide an automatic alarm, triggered by the detection of hydrogen sulfide at five parts per million, or above, and 10 percent, or above, of lower explosive limits for combustible gases; audible or visible to the operator of any drilling equipment. As soon as possible after an alarm event is received, and no later than four hours thereafter, the operator must notify all appropriate agencies including the Culver City Fire Department, the Los Angeles County Fire Department — Hazardous Materials Unit, the State Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources ('DOGGR'), and the South Coast Air Quality Management District ('SCAQMD') (collectively, 'Investigating Agencies'). The operator shall maintain a 24-hour hotline for odor complaints and maintain records of such calls. Upon the receipt of two or more odor complaints within six (6) hours of an alarm event, the operator shall immediately cease operation of any well(s) at which the detection limits were exceeded, except:
(1) to perform such work as may be necessary to eliminate continuing emissions or to permanently secure the well, or as otherwise may be directed by the Investigating Agencies; or (2) unless the appropriate Investigating Agencies find that no hazard exists and mitigations are in place to minimize to the extent feasible recurrence of the source of the odor. The operator shall immediately make available all monitoring equipment records to any of the Investigating Agencies upon verbal or written request to any of the operator employees working at or near the location of the monitoring equipment. The operator shall reimburse the Investigating Agencies for the actual costs of responding to an alarm event and/or responding to a release of odor that has generated two or more complaints which are determined to be related to events caused by the operator."

Zoning and Environmental Review (p. 2)

The Staff Report indicates that the Board of Supervisors enacted the interim urgency ordinances "to provide staff with time to conduct a Zoning Study and an environmental assessment." (Staff Report at p. 2.) Cumulative, the three urgency ordinances provided staff with two years to complete the EIR and adopt the CSD. Unfortunately, those two years expired on June 29, 2008 before these tasks were completed, through no fault of the community.

CSD Application (p. 3)

A. The CEQA Process Was Slow From The Beginning.

The Staff Report indicates that "[d]ue to the nature of health and safety issues expressed by members of the community, it was necessary to commence the environmental study in a timely fashion." (Staff Report at p. 3.) But this did not occur.

The first Urgency Ordinance No. 2006-0050U was adopted on June 27, 2006. On August 8, 2006, the Board of Supervisors adopted the second Urgency Ordinance No. 2006-0064U. But it took eleven months for the County to issue its Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of the EIR on June 28, 2007 which means that the EIR preparation had only just begun. (See State CEQA Guidelines § 15082 ("Immediately after deciding that an environmental impact report is required for a project, the lead agency shall send to the Office of Planning and Research and each responsible and trustee agency a notice of preparation stating that an environmental impact report will be prepared"); emphasis added.)
Thus from the very beginning, because of this delay in releasing the NOP, the opportunity for public comment was crunched. The Staff Report indicates the NOP was released "in June 2007," which it was, but at the very end of the month on June 28, 2007. (Staff Report at p. 4.)

Thus, the public was given only "the standard 30 days to review and comment on the NOP." (Id.) Nonetheless, despite this short period of time to review and comment on a particularly lengthy and detailed NOP, many public comments were submitted. My neighborhood submitted a 15-page comment letter on the NOP.

B. Many Of The Public’s NOP Comments Were Not Satisfactorily Addressed In The Draft EIR.

The Staff Report asserts, "[E]ach comment was addressed in the Draft EIR." (Staff Report at p. 4.) But this did not occur.

For example, my neighborhood association requested that the contents of the CSD be provided during the NOP. This did not occur; the CSD that was studied in the CSD was not released until the County was served with a Public Records Act request.

2. The EIR does not address the scope of discretion available to the County.

a. Work in concert with other pertinent regulatory agencies, including the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD"), the cities of Los Angeles and Culver City, the Los Angeles Community College District, the Baldwin Hills Conservancy, the State Department of Parks and Recreation, and the State Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources ("DOGGR") to establish a new zoning overlay district and accompanying regulations addressing needed development standards, operating requirements, and procedures for oil and gas drilling and operations in the Baldwin Hills Oil Field.





b. Plan to review such zoning standards for refinement, adequacy and success after the first two years and periodically thereafter.





c. Address the unique compatibility concerns associated with operating an oil field in the midst of urban development, including substantial residential neighborhoods, a community college campus and multiple existing and contemplated parks/recreation facilities.





d. Minimize the environmental impacts of the oil field operations on the surrounding communities and uses.





e. Eliminate the risk of odors from oil and gas drilling and operations posing nuisance or health risks to surrounding communities and sensitive receptors.

These were not considered as project objectives in the Draft EIR.

"Very few other commercial activities are conducted 24 hours per day adjacent to residential neighbors. The EIR should evaluate the appropriateness and necessity of this round-the-clock activity adjacent to and impacting our neighborhood. No mention is made in the NOP of whether this will be evaluated; rather, it is stated as a given."
This incompatibility comment is not addressed in the EIR.

8. The EIR does not consider the impacts of “deep drilling” in urban areas.

"The EIR investigation of odor incidents must include SCAQMD Emergency Response Notification #121860 regarding methane gas and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) emissions from Vickers Well No. 1-935 commencing at approximately midnight on January 10-11, 2006."
However, the EIR is silent about this incident. This is shocking to me.

12. No community outreach concerning the odor patterns was performed as part of the EIR.

"Residents living in the areas closest to the oil fields should be contacted directly to determine the extent to which they have been bothered by oil field odors. Many residents at the top of Culver Crest have reported that they detect odors from the oil field on a weekly basis, but that they rarely contact the SCAQMD because the odors are not as strong as the major releases in 2006 and because they usually experience them in the middle of the night when they are trying to sleep."
This outreach did not occur.

13. No significant air sampling was performed as part of the EIR.

"The NOP never states that on-site air sampling and analysis will be conducted to establish the air quality baseline; however, this data collection and analysis is critical to CCNA. The current and on-going air quality impacts of PXP cannot be adequately evaluated without on-site testing. While it may be acceptable to rely on existing data when attempting to analyze the extent to which PXP is contributing to greenhouse gasses, ozone depletion or Southern California smog, this methodology would be completely inadequate for assessing the impact on adjoining neighborhoods of PXP's releases of odorous gasses, to say nothing of gasses that might be toxic or carcinogenic. As to these latter concerns, it is imperative that actual tests be conducted."

Again, this did not occur.

"When preparing the EIR, local residents should be interviewed to assist in identifying the presence of wildlife that exists in the study area. Special attention should be paid to the peregrine falcon. [Baldwin Hills Park] Master Plan at 27. Other species of concern include the coast horned lizard, a California Department of Fish and Game ('CDFG') Species of Concern found only in coastal scrub habitat. Master Plan at 26. The garden slender salamander is also a CDFG Species of Concern that historically occurred in the Baldwin Hills. Id. Several bird species that require this habitat may also have disappeared in recent years, including the greater roadrunner, cactus wren and California thrasher. Master Plan at 27. The rufous-crowned sparrow is another one. Id. Other CDFG Species of Concern include the burrowing owl, belted kingfisher, olive-sided flycatcher, Swainson’s thrush, yellow warbler, yellow-breasted chat, blue grosbeak and tri-colored blackbird. Two bat species of concern possibly still occurring in the Baldwin Hills are the pallid bat and the western mastiff bat. Master Plan at 28. Another California species of special concern that could potentially occur in the Baldwin Hills is the Los Angeles pocket mouse. Id."

Very few of these species are discussed in the EIR.

"[T]he NOP fails to mention the Baldwin Hills Park Master Plan. The inconsistency between PXP's proposed drilling and the policy of converting the study area to public parkland must be studied in the EIR. The feasibility of converting portions of the study area to parkland in consideration for granting new permits for drilling needs to be studied in the EIR."
And we also stated in the NOP comment letter: "The inherent conflict between new drilling and this public use is a potentially significant impact that needs to be studied in the EIR." But the DEIR states: "[T]his EIR does not directly address issues associated with a Baldwin Hills Park Master Plan." (DEIR at p. 4-1.)
Our NOP comment letter also suggested that the California Department of Parks and Recreation (now known as California State Parks) and the Baldwin Hills Conservancy should be listed as Trustee Agencies per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15386. This comment is not addressed in the EIR.

16. The Project Alternatives we suggested were not studied.

So the Staff Report is incorrect in its assertion that "each comment was addressed in the Draft EIR." (Staff Report at p. 4.)

C. Although PXP Received Copies Of The Screencheck Draft EIRs, Those Were Withheld From The Public.

D. The Staff Report Downplays The Potential For More Than 1,000 New Wells.

Although the Staff Report references at page 5 that "an estimate of maximum development that could occur at the Inglewood Oil Field of the next twenty years" was developed by PXP, it is not until page 13 that the Staff Report eventually gets around to informing the Commission that PXP projects drilling 1,065 new wells in this Oil Field. This disturbing fact should be revealed much sooner to the Commission.

E. The Staff Report Does Not Provide Any Assurance That Other Public Agencies Are Being Encouraged To Review The EIR.

At the bottom of page 5, the Staff Report discusses the ability of regional and state agencies to comment on the DEIR. But the Staff Report does not disclose whether the County is engaged in any pro-active outreach to those agencies, such as SCAQMD, Regional Water Quality Control Board, DOGGR, Los Angeles Community College District, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Cops of Engineers, California Department of Toxic Substances Control, State Water Resources Control Board, and California State Parks.