Transcripts excerpts DTSC Hearing on 1-19-05 with Guest Debbie Otis, Senior Toxicologist, regarding dangers of methane and hydrogen sulfide chemicals

DR. OTIS: I’m Debbie Otis. I am a Senior Toxicologist from Sacramento, where my group is. We have about six or seven toxicologists that work for me. A number of them have worked on this project in the past. So I want to talk a little bit about what the chemicals are that we’ve found there that we’re really concerned with.

As Jennifer mentioned, during the remedial investigation we looked for hundreds and hundreds of different possible chemicals that could be on the site. From that, we identified 40 chemicals that we found sporadically and at relatively low concentrations. We had two chemicals, however, that we found at higher concentrations and that are of concern in terms of future students and faculty being at the buildings and at the site, and those, again, are methane and hydrogen sulfide. And those were identified as the chemicals that need some kind of mitigation, some additional work to be done in order to provide a protective environment.

As Jennifer mentioned, the problem with methane is that it can either ignite or explode at certain concentrations. Methane in and of itself doesn’t make people sick, so it doesn’t cause cancer, it doesn’t cause birth defects, it doesn’t in any way act like we normally see a toxic chemical to act. But it can explode, so obviously there’s a real health concern here, yes, and something we have to look at. And protect from. The lower explosive limit, which Jennifer mentioned, is 53,000 ppm. Again, the highest concentration we saw was 900,000 up in the baseball field, and that, again, was at 40 feet deep. As we took samples closer and closer to the surface, those concentrations dropped dramatically so that by the time we got to the surface, we were nowhere near this lower explosive limit. Yet this is the standard that we use when we’re looking at whether methane can explode. The regulatory way we approach that, then, is looking at protecting in percentage increments. So for the lower explosive limit, we want to regulate it a fraction of that, and we look at 5%, 10%. Those are generally what regulatory agencies are looking at. Later on, we’ll talk a little bit, because we go much lower than that. Okay? But 5% would be 2500, 10% would be around 5300 parts per million.

Now, hydrogen sulfide was also detected, primarily out in the baseball field. In the area of the buildings itself, we found a couple of trace amounts not actually under where the buildings are, but we did find a few right around there. And methane, too, we only found much smaller concentrations where we were going to actually have the buildings placed. So hydrogen sulfide was elevated out in the baseball field.

Now, hydrogen sulfide’s a different story from methane. Hydrogen sulfide can cause health effects. It is a toxic chemical. At low concentrations – and this is really what we’re looking at, students and faculty potentially being exposed to at the school – it can irritate the lungs, the nose, the eyes; it can cause headaches, nausea; you can smell it, even at these concentrations. And hydrogen sulfide has a very distinctive smell, and you’ve probably smelled it before. It’s a sulfur smell, kind of rotten egg kind of smell, so it’s very distinctive and people do notice it. At high concentrations – and these are concentrations that are usually seen in occupational settings, sewer workers who go down into enclosed spaces can be exposed to very high concentrations. And this can be very serious and the effects can occur in a very short period of time, but it can depress the central nervous system, and then it can interfere with breathing, it can cause convulsions, and ultimately it can actually cause death. And the higher the concentration, the shorter amount of time you can be exposed to it before any of these symptoms or deaths can occur.

So this is to kind of give you some framework for how some of the regulatory agencies have looked at hydrogen sulfide. The OSHA, which is the Occupational Safety and Health Administration – they’re the ones that regulate the workplace, they’ve set a permissible exposure level, that’s the PEL, at 10 ppm. So that’s what they say workers can be exposed to for eight hours a day. Now, California EPA has set values called RELs, and those are Reference Exposure Levels, and that’s the levels they think that the general population would be safe breathing. Generally, OSHA allows higher concentrations, workers to be exposed to higher concentrations that CAL EPA would, than we would a DTSC. So short-term exposure, the REL for short-term exposure is .03 ppm. And for long-term exposure, it’s .008 ppm. So you can see that’s about a thousand fold lower than what the occupational standard is. And we’re using, obviously, not occupational standards here for the proposed high school, but we’re looking at concentrations that CAL EPA has said that are protective for the general population.

So the action levels – and these are for inside the building – and the reason we say it this way is because that’s the space where we’re likely, if there’s a problem, to see the highest concentration. That’s inside of buildings that can accumulate, gasses can accumulate different contaminants like that, and so we’re setting our standards in the place that we’re likely to see the highest concentrations, and that’s within the buildings. And the action level for inside the building is .01 ppm, and that’s slightly rounded up from the long-term REL of .008. And then for methane, it’s 500 ppm, and that’s about 1%. Remember a few minutes ago I talked about the other agencies that look at 5 or 10% of the LEL? Well, what we’re looking at for inside the building here is 500, and that’s 1% of the lower explosive limit.

So with that, I’m going to turn this over to Mike Sorenson, who’s going to talk about the different strategies that are proposed for reaching these goals.

Transcripts from DTCS Hearing 1-19-05 with guest Anthony Patchett, Special Assistant District Attorney and Head of Belmont Task Force

ANTHONY PATCHETT: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I’ve been sitting here listening to what has gone on today, and I spent about six hours today preparing, just reviewing documents. My name is Anthony Patchett. I’m a retired Deputy District Attorney. I spent 11 years in the Environmental Crimes Division. I was brought back into the office in 2000 as Special Assistant District Attorney and Head of the Belmont Task Force. I spent $1.5 million of your taxpayer money to look at that site, and when you look at this site, I’m really disappointed in DTSC because when you look on the internet, DTSC tells you that they are there to protect California and Californians. Never in the history has a high school been built over an abandoned oil field. LAUSD knew from the get-go what the circumstances were at that site. They paid $30 million for that site “as is.” They knew they were purchasing a hazardous waste facility, because LAUSD has a history of buying contaminated sites for school. Look at Jefferson. Look at Southgate. The students down there might glow someday. You know, when you look at hydrogen sulfide and you look at it, how are you going to mitigate the particular damages that are at that site? You have to realize, DTSC was out of the loop since 1991 on this site. There was no communication between DTSC and LAUSD, and I beg to differ with Mr. Hamid Saebfar because he said LAUSD contacted them. That’s not true. Scott Wildman contacted DTSC and said, “Get your butt down there and do something for the people.” And that’s what you haven’t done before. You know, in the 11 years I spent in the Environmental Crimes Division, you brought me one good criminal case. Your business that I see on the internet is the closest thing to extortion, ‘cause what you do is, you take administrative fines from businesses, and that’s all you do. You know, it’s amazing how much money you have in your system. But I want to read one letter that was written by the attorney representing LAUSD (Mr. David Cartwright, Sr. Partner O'Melveny & Myers) This is dated May 9, 1990:

"They presented a bleak picture of the Temple/Beaudry site. The old Los Angeles oil field runs through this site. There are 13 known abandoned wells and one currently producing well. DOG suspects that there may be dozens more unmarked
abandoned wells dating back over 100 years. The shallowness of the oil field means there is substantial likelihood of one or more of the following conditions arising: A large pressurized build-up of natural gas and/or oil could occur if the site is covered by structures and concrete. Seepage of oil is likely. The threat of a natural gas-induced explosion is as likely here as in the Fairfax area. If the one producing well is shut down and abandoned, the likely result will be repressurization of the oil field, with consequences as in above. Many bootleg wells are uncharted, exist on this site and may never be discovered, even during grading. Thus, a dangerous condition will remain. There are natural gas problems which will require venting and perhaps even flaring. DOG suspects that petroleum operations involving hazardous materials may have been conducted on this site many decades ago. The likelihood of serious contamination is high. The proximity of hydrocarbons made this area a heavy industrial site 50 years ago. Mr. Baker of the DOG made the following observations, in which Manly Oil concurs: This is the most troublesome and problematic oil field in the entire county. The Temple/Beaudry site is not fit for any construction. DOG cannot imagine a worse site for a school. The City has to refuse to even address the issue in the Central City West Specific Plan. DOG insists that no structure shall be built over a well. The maintenance of the existing producing well requires full access by tanker truck."

The apparent conclusion of all parties, including the District technical people was that the school could not and should not be built at the Temple/Beaudry site. The foregoing is a paraphrased summary of our meeting. I have no doubt that I left out some details. However, the message probably comes through loud and clear. I think this matter needs to go to the Board in closed session right away, given the possible catastrophic effect on the Temple/Beaudry agreement.

So I’m asking you, DTSC, not to permit – you have three other schools that LAUSD is building in close proximity to this area, within one mile. Not one of those schools is being built over an abandoned oil field. This school should not go forward. You should make it a park. Thank you very much.

Transcript excerpts regarding Belmont Learning Center with guest Tom Watson

TOM WATSON: My name is Tom Watson, Los Angeles Unified School District, Office of Environmental Health and Safety. The question you’re asking, it is, as Hamid mentioned, it’s contained in the CEQUA document. That document is available on the website, as far as I know, and in the CEQUA document, it looks at impacts from the surrounding neighborhood onto the site, and one of those impacts would obviously be the emissions from the nearby highways. Within the CEQUA document, there’s an analysis done. It’s called a Hazard Risk Analysis, and it looks specifically at emissions from automobiles and engines and nearby businesses – even Burger King counts as an emission source, which is – Jack-in-the-Box nearby, those kinds of things. That’s all evaluated. It’s put into a model that was developed by the EPA, and then based on that model, certain mitigation measures have to be implemented. One of them at the school is the type of air conditioning filters we have. The other thing, if you look at the site, you’ll notice that all the buildings are set back from the side that’s closest to the freeway. That’s another mitigation measure. So there was several things that were done within the context of the CEQUA evaluation that mitigate the concerns that you raised. And more detail is provided in that document. If you wanted to look at it, give me a call. My phone number and stuff is in the packet.

Transcript from Dutton Interview 2/09/05 with Dr. Kaye H. Kilburn, M.D., Ralph Edington Chair, Keck School of Medicine, USC

DUTTON: Dr. Kilburn, you’re one of the foremost authorities on hydrogen sulfide. I wonder if you could just react for us to the District Attorney Steve Cooley was saying about the levels of toxicity were not there. How do we reconcile the fact that LAUSD demolished the buildings and that they’re now thinking about remediating, when there’s no toxicity? What’s that inconsistency?

DR. KILBURN: I think they’re not trusting their nose, is what it comes down to. The site smells. It smells of hydrogen sulfide. The human nose can detect 30 parts per billion. It’s now been recommended from the U.S. Government that one part per billion is the toxic level to avoid. Levels of 375 parts per million – that, I think, is 375,000 parts per billion – have been found at the Belmont site after rains, where there are puddles where gas can be collected by simply inverting a jar and letting the gas bubble in.

DUTTON: What is the danger of hydrogen sulfide? How does it manifest itself to humans?

DR. KILBURN: Well, besides being an awfully fowl odor, it insidiously robs the brain of capacity to think, to remember, to do the ordinary cognitive functions – concentrate, co-process – but even things like balance, reaction time, that we think of as very kind of primitive things that, you know, primates have had, and birds, for millions of years, are diminished or wiped out.

DUTTON: Does it take much exposure for this to happen?

DR. KILBURN: One or two, uh, breaths in the minimal exposure, if the concentration is right, the gas goes through the lung directly to the brain. It has no chance to be detoxified.

DUTTON: Now, you treat people that come from all over the world that have symptoms from this. Are people aware when it happens? Does it take long to find out?

DR. KILBURN: Often, it’s insidious because the levels are not the high level instantaneously for a breath or two, but they’re levels of five parts per million or ten, which under the old ?NIOSH? 1970 standards – which they’re referring to – are all right for, uh, employment. But those standards, as I say, are – they were first guesstimates. They’ve been substantially removed from consideration with new data, and the recommendation now out for review from the Federal Government is one part per billion which, you know, is not even in the same ballpark as we’re talking about, and the attorney is saying this is safe.

DUTTON: Welcome back to Full Disclosure. We’re talking with our two experts here on the demolition of Belmont.

Dr. Kilburn, you have written a letter to the Department of Toxic Substance Control saying that you’ve been watching the situation at Belmont for years, and it’s your recommendation that they not build there. Tell us: You don’t think it can be remediated?

DR. KILBURN: No, I don’t. Short of putting the whole institution up on stilts, maybe 20 feet tall, there’s no way, because we’re Los Angeles. We’re an oil field. We’re an oil field well before Los Angeles was ever thought of. Go to the tar pits at Brea and see. So there’s no way of getting rid of what we sit on. The earth is really the way it is, it’s full of hydrogen sulfide, it’s bubbling to the surface, the old boreholes through cracks in the earth from our numerous earthquake patterns and other breaks that have been made. There was a normal bubbling to the surface even before all this, I’m sure.

DUTTON: When you’ve treated patients that have been exposed to hydrogen sulfide, how do they, themselves, become aware that they have a problem? And is it likely that children will be able to recognize that they have been exposed and have a problem?

DR. KILBURN: We have already lived through that. Some of you will remember the 1992 earthquake at Long Beach and Wilmington. That turned out not to be an earthquake at all, but it was an explosion of the desulphurization plant at Texaco down north of Pacific Coast Highway. 20,000 people, at least, were exposed to hydrogen sulfide. What does it do to children Well, from two schools, special education teachers came to me for their own problems, and then said, “I have students who were passing and can’t pass anymore. I have had more referrals for special education since that explosion than I ever remember having, and I have seen many children drop out of school because they’re uneducable.” If this is what we want as a Belmont High School, we already have seen, at Wilmington School, how this plays out. I don’t really think it can be justified to do the experiment again. It was conclusive the first time,

DUTTON: Dr. Kilburn, I’d like to ask you: You’ve seen a lot of patients and a lot of people who were in the oil industry that have been exposed to this hydrogen sulfide occupationally. Is this a permanent damage that is incurred, or is it something that people can get over?

DR. KILBURN: There’s no way to reverse it that’s known. I wish it were possible, and we’re actually doing some experiments that may make it possible to ameliorate to some degree the severe loss of function. But no, there’s no cure.

DUTTON: Now, I’d like for you to just give us your perspective, from one of the very most foremost international authorities on this subject. Why is ?there? that people want to minimize the problem and don’t want to really acknowledge it?

DR. KILBURN: Globally, let’s say that all oil and gas in the Western Hemisphere is contaminated with hydrogen sulfide. Our big push to natural gas, we’re using – using for heating – natural gas, coming out of the ground, 85% hydrogen sulfide. Every bit of petroleum we’re burning has a percentage of hydrogen sulfide. So it’s here. It’s on earth. And we need to really think, for the future, of eliminating dependence on fuel that has to be desulfurized before it can be used. When it leaks out of the ground, whether it’s at Yellowstone Park or ?Rotorua? Park or Hilo Park in Hawaii – Rotorua is in New Zealand – Sonoma County, it leaks out as hydrogen sulfide. People are overcome, collapse, and they show neurologic impairment. It’s like early aging. They age 30, 40 years ahead of time. That’s all right if you’re 90. Not so good if you’re 30.

DUTTON: So in other words, this is maybe a lot more common that people realize?



DR. KILBURN: Yes, it is. We have three counties in the eastern part of New Mexico. It looks like Lee County and the counties surrounding Lee County, the whole 40,000 people in those three counties. Think of, you know, we’ve got 40,000 people in a square mile in Los Angeles.

DUTTON: Thank you. And
Dr. Kilborn, demolishing the buildings and reconstructing them right there on the same site: Is that going to help?

DR. KILBURN: No. I asked the school board, when I met with them, why didn’t they move the school board offices to the site, if they were guaranteed that they were fine, and put the school in the present downtown site of the school board offices. There were no takers for that simple plan, which would have given the children a safe place to go to school.

Transcript excerpts from the DTSC Hearing with guest Hamid Saebfar, DTSC Division Chief (School Property Evaluation/Clean Up)

Partial Transcript DTSC Hearing 1-19-05

MR. HAMID SAEBFAR: Thank you Eloy. Good evening. I just want to give you a brief history about this site. In 1998, LAUSD brought this project to us because during their construction activity of the school, they found contamination on the property, and LAUSD wanted to make sure the contamination had been properly addressed before they continued the construction of the school. Again, I want to emphasize that LAUSD actually took the steps to come to DTSC at that time to get our input on the environmental investigation and to find out if there was any necessary mitigation for this site. We started working with them and their consultant. An investigation was initiated. We found some contamination. However, that investigation was not completed and the project was put on hold for a number of years, and finally, till recently, LAUSD and their consultants completed the investigation and identified various mitigation systems to deal with the contamination at the site. And so as Eloy mentioned tonight, we want to summarize the investigation and discuss with you the proposed remedy that we believe that’s going to mitigate the problems at the L.A. Central High School No. 11. Thank you.

MR. HAMID SAEBFAR: A couple of things. First of all, LAUSD has conducted an environmental impact report on the concerns that you raised about the traffic and the automobiles, but I also should tell you that this site, as it existed, as we mentioned earlier, the levels of gasses that we’re finding are in the subsurface. We really don’t anticipate the construction of the school is going to add any additional gasses that are naturally venting into the surface, so it’s not enhancing any gas migration to the surface. As far as the traffic and automobile exhaust, those are issues that we don’t consider when we evaluate the school itself. It’s done as part of the California Environmental Quality Act, they look at all the issues and evaluate that.

MS. MESKIN: Has that been done?

MR. SAEBFAR: That has been done. (Inaudible question.) That information I’m sure is available from the repository.

MS. MESKIN: Why isn’t it available to us?

MR. SAEBFAR: It is available. That’s how we make it available to the public.

GENE KRISCHER: Is it correct or incorrect that whatever sampling was done for air quality, not on the site as she’s talking about, but the traffic, was not done at the site but actually somewhere else downtown? Not actually at the site.