The Southern California Gas Co. has agreed to pay $8.5 million, including $1 million for an independent health study, to settle a lawsuit filed by air quality regulators last year over the disastrous natural gas leak at the company’s Aliso Canyon storage facility, officials said Wednesday.

The announcement drew sharp criticism from county health officials, local residents and politicians, who argued $1 million was hardly enough to examine the range of health problems area residents have experienced since one of 115 aged wells at the underground facility began spewing tons of methane into the atmosphere for more than three months in October 2015.

The settlement with the South Coast Air Quality Management District, which was signed late Tuesday night, allows the regulatory agency to launch a health study soon — but whether any potential cancer effects will be evaluated is not yet known, according to the agency.

“The basic idea is to look for any associations between exposures to chemicals released from the well-head and reported health effects,” said Kurt Wiese, general counsel for SCAQMD. “What specifically is studied, whether cancer effects (or) non-cancer effects are studied is going to be up to the researcher to determine as appropriate.” While data collected so far indicates known carcinogen levels were below thresholds of concern per state exposure guidelines, Los Angeles County Department of Public Health’s toxicology chief has said that a long-term health study is necessary to assess whether exposed residents could develop cancer.

The SCAQMD board will contract with an outside health expert, who has yet to be identified, to conduct the study in the coming months, Wiese said. The agency believes that Porter Ranch-area residents should begin receiving information about health effects of the gas leak “as quickly as possible,” he said.

SoCalGas confirmed that it will fund the health study related to the natural gas leak that spewed more than 100,000 metric tons of methane into the atmosphere, sickened many residents and prompted the relocation of more than 8,300 households and two schools in the northwest San Fernando Valley. The leak was plugged and sealed last February.

“Consistent with the commitment we made last year, SoCalGas has agreed to fund AQMD’s health study,” SoCalGas said in a statement. “We are pleased to have worked with AQMD to settle this and other matters.”

The agency filed the lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court in January 2016, in part requiring SoCalGas to fund the cost of a health study. In that same month, the agency’s hearing board issued an order requiring the utility to lessen health hazards and to provide a written commitment to fund the “reasonable costs” of the study.

But as state regulators consider whether to resume gas injections after a year-long moratorium, several people expressed disappointment and skepticism over how much could be accomplished in a $1 million health study.

“It’s a study, but not a health study,” said Angelo Bellomo, the Los Angeles County deputy director for health protection. “It is not responsive to addressing the health needs and concerns to this community. More importantly, it’s inconsistent with advice given to AQMD by health officials.”

Bellomo said health experts from across California offered a health design that was comprehensive and larger in scope as well as consistent with a state Senate bill introduced last year that estimated such a design would cost $13 million in the first three years, and up to $40 million to complete. That the AQMD would settle with SoCalGas on $1 million after all the work was surprising, Bellomo said, especially after AQMD’s own scientists helped design a bigger study.

He said the health department will be looking at other options, adding that a comprehensive health study was “vital.”

Issam Najm, board president of the Porter Ranch Neighborhood Council and an environmental engineer, echoed that sentiment, arguing it would take at least $10 million to truly examine the health effects and to provide enough useful information to the community.

“We are surprised and disappointed in the scale of the settlement,” he said.

The scope of the study includes examining how large of a population was exposed to the methane and chemicals released and the extent to which they may have been exposed with the help of available monitoring and emissions data, according to SCAQMD officials.

A community health survey will also be conducted, which could include questions regarding short-term health effects, long-term health effects and cancer effects, according to the settlement. Lastly, there will be an analysis of potential links between the community’s reported symptoms and estimated exposures.

Area residents have complained of nosebleeds, headaches, respiratory problems and other symptoms during the leak and in subsequent months.

Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Sherman Oaks, and Los Angeles County Supervisor Kathryn Barger also expressed their disapproval.

Sherman said the bulk of the $8.5 million settlement paid to air regulators should be set aside for health studies in light of the fact that “tens of thousands of people were exposed to the greatest methane leak in the history of the country” as well as volatile organic compounds.

“This plan shortchanges the victims of the leak,” Sherman said. “It spends only $1 million on the health study, and uses over $5 million for things unrelated to the victims.”

The agreement specifies that $5.65 million of the total will pay for emission fees related to the leak as result of volatile organic compounds and toxic compounds, of which $1 million will help fund a renewable natural gas production project. About $1.6 million of the total will reimburse SCAQMD for air monitoring costs and $250,000 for its legal fees, according to SCAQMD.

Staff Writer Greg Wilcox contributed to this report.

Our editors found this article on this site using Google and regenerated it for our readers.