[Editor’s Note: An attorney, Mr. Kutcher represented some plaintiffs in the PXP/County/Inglewood Oil Field lawsuit that led to the Settlement Agreement 13 months ago. He sent this letter to the County yesterday.]
August 23, 2012
Richard Bruckner, Director
Department of Regional Planning
320 West Temple Street, 13th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90012
Re: One Year Anniversary Summary
Dear Mr. Bruckner:
This letter is submitted on behalf of Community Health Councils and Natural Resources Defense Council to comment on the one-year anniversary compliance report concerning the Settlement Agreement of the Baldwin Hills CSD litigation (Community Health Councils, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles, LASC Case No. BS118018, and consolidated cases).
I have reviewed the County’s first annual summary of compliance that was enclosed with a letter from you dated July 25, 2012, to PXP Vice-President Steve Rusch. It is my understanding that pursuant to Paragraph 29 of the Settlement Agreement dated July 15, 2011, the Baldwin Hills Community Advisory Panel (“CAP”) will be discussing this annual summary at its meeting later this evening.
We have a few comments and follow up suggestions, as set forth below. Similar to the County’s compliance summary, the numbers provided below correspond to the numbered paragraphs of the controlling Settlement Agreement.
1. Slant Drilling. As to deep zone well drilling, the County’s compliance summary indicates, “The 2012 [Annual Drilling Plan] contained four wells to be drilled in deep zones . . . The drilling of the deep zone wells is currently pending the release of the fraccing study.” As you know, Paragraph 1(a) of the Settlement Agreement requires a Deep Zone Supplement to be prepared for drilling into the Nodular Shale and Sentous zones and any other zones approximately 8,000 feet or deeper. And Paragraph 1(d) requires such Drilling Plan Supplements to be promptly forwarded to the CAP for its review and comment. The compliance summary should be revised to reflect this requirement.
5. Health Assessment and Environmental Justice Study. While the County Department of Public Health has released a community health survey, that “study” has failed on many levels to meet the expectations and recommendations of the Health Working Group, which was effectively disbanded and excluded from the final decisions regarding the community health assessment’s design and analysis. Many outstanding questions remain regarding the choice and consistency in the study area, as well as adjustment based on race and ethnicity. To no avail, Health Working Group members argued against the use and reliance upon the County’s general health survey. And having structured the survey in the way of its own choosing, the County DPH has now concluded “the study design is not appropriate” to attribute increases in morbidity and mortality rates and on that basis is recommending discontinuation of the survey in future studies.
Furthermore, the Settlement Agreement calls for the review other agencies’ reports regarding air quality, water quality and seismic data, where feasible, in future assessments. The County’s sole reference to the air quality monitoring data is insufficient to satisfy this requirement. We recommend that a more comprehensive study examining the correlation between the data from the monitoring of oil production in the field and morbidity and mortality rates for a more clearly defined geographic area should be developed and agreed upon by the CAP for the next health study.
In addition, the County has not yet provided a copy of the August 2012 PowerPoint presentation on the community health study, and should do so.
7. Electrical Distribution Study. This lack of funding is disappointing news. We would like copies of all communications with SCE and DWP on this topic. If necessary, please consider this as a Public Records Act request for those communications. We are also interested in knowing what other funding options are being considered.
10. Well Plugs. It would be helpful to know the anticipated timetable for the County to complete its review of the well plug documentation. It would also be helpful to know how many wells have been plugged since execution of the Settlement Agreement.
11. Landscaping. It would be helpful to know the anticipated timetable for submittal of the final phase (Phase 7) of the landscaping plans.
13. Fraccing Study. At the time the annual review was written, the County found that required fraccing study was “expected to be completed by July 15, 2012, as required by the settlement agreement.” That deadline has since passed. Was the study completed by PXP and has it since been forwarded to the County for peer review? Also, have the County and PXP selected the peer reviewer who will review the study? If so, who was selected and what is the expected completion date for the peer review? We would like to stay informed of the progress of this work.
15. CSD Provisions. Please provide us with a copy of the written guidance that was circulated to the County staff and Departments pertaining to oil field operations and the Settlement Agreement requirements. If necessary, please consider this as a Public Records Act request for those communications.
Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to review and comment upon the annual review.
cc: Rena Kambara
Pat Hachiya
Karly Katona
David McNeill
John Kuechle
Lark Galloway-Gilliam
Damon Nagami
Carol Schwab
Robert Garcia
9065/Cor/Brucker.2001.KLK
Mr. Kutcher may be contacted at kutcher@hlmlaw.com
