EnviroReporter.com’s Runkle Canyon Comments Analysis

“Runkle and the Rule of Law” began the series with a look at the California Health & Safety Code’s rules for public participation in formulating a cleanup plan for places like Runkle Canyon where the developer and state have signed a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement. The intent of the law is for a “full and robust participation of a community affected” yet the Radiation Rangers expressed dismay that their 58 pages of comments were being given short shrift. They hope that will change with Rick Brausch now in charge.

“Radiation Rangers Runkle Canyon Comments” included criticisms of the lab KB Home has hired to do another radiological survey, Dade Moeller and Associates. The Rangers explained how barrels, once buried where they found the rocks high in chromium, could have gotten there. The group took “great exception” to intimations by Riley before the Simi Valley City Council that somehow the rocks given to the former Runkle Canyon project head were somehow tainted in the chain of custody. These are the rocks that tested extremely high in chromium where the results were actually missed by the department when they gave them to the Rangers and subsequently reported on in “White Blight.” The Rangers also pointed out to DTSC that KB Home plans to mass grade away two slag mountains full of a toxic tar called benzo(a)anthracene while the department seemed to perceive it as a relatively minor operation. The Rangers examined details and crunched numbers that the developer and department seem to have missed.

“Cleanup Rocketdyne Runkle Canyon Comments” questioned Dade Moeller’s “omissions and unsupported conclusions, which make trusting the conclusions of these reports, impossible.” Inaccurate maps of the property not showing it bordering the former Rocketdyne lab are criticized as well as developer contractor Geocon Consultants, Inc. for dismissing the possibility that pollution in the canyon could have come from the neighboring lab.

“Runkle Canyon should be monitored for the foreseeable future due to the high levels of perchlorate previously found, and the verified presence of TCE, NDMA and other potential contaminants of concern,” read the comments. “We hereby request that continued monitoring be done to determine the impacts to the groundwater, until proper and complete characterization of the groundwater at the SSFL is completed.”

“ACME Runkle Canyon Comments” focused on inaccurate mapping of the property as well. Boeing’s findings of the toxic rocket engine solvent trichloroethylene, or TCE, are noted, findings not included in any of the Runkle Canyon reports or noted by DTSC.

“This windmill is pumping every time the wind blows, sometimes non-stop, pulling in contaminated groundwater,” the comments said. “This windmill needs to be dismantled to allow the TCE concentrations to stay within the SSFL boundaries.”

“The Aerospace Runkle Canyon Comments” continued an in-depth look at Dade Moeller questioning the firm’s credentials for the strontium-90 retesting of Runkle Canyon.

“We are chasing our tails, holding meetings over something that should be CLEARLY decided – that Dade-Moeller & Associates fall far short of objectivity,” read the comments. “The findings are more than suspect – they border on delusion – and it is very clear as to WHY. The fact that we’re even wasting time discussing this is astonishing to me.”

“EnviroReporter.com Runkle Canyon Comments” consisted of our 28 pages of comments cover all the information missed by DTSC and the developer while creating the draft Runkle Canyon Response Plan.

We pointed out that the city of Simi Valley’s Tetra Tech report states that water running off the canyon is a drinking water source, something that DTSC’s Riley had repeatedly said it wasn’t.

The comments noted that KB Home’s consultant, Geocon Consultants, Inc., mischaracterizes the amount of heavy metals found in Runkle Canyon by using a set of standards not as protective of public health as the EPA’s “preliminary remediation goals” as well as incorrectly comparing background values from various reports instead of utilizing the benchmark Kearney report on California soils, which was partly written by DTSC itself.

Geocon’s misconstruing and discounting the findings of the heavy metal vanadium were analyzed. We noted that in one Geocon report that there is a notation under “Special Instructions/Comments” that says “LAB TO FILTER METALS SAMPLES” which is not explained.

« 1 2 3View All»