« 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9View All»

*1D. Could DTSC respond in detail to the above observations?*

1E. April 5, 2007: “Runkle Canyon_RWQCB_Approval to Abandon Wells_40507” available at http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/community_involvement/4041257560/Runkle%20Canyon_RWQCB_Approval%20to%20Abandon%20Wells_40507.PDF

According to this report:

In addition to perchlorate all samples were analyzed for n-nitrosodimethylamine (n-NDMA). Initial groundwater samples were also analyzed for volatile organic compounds VOCs. One groundwater sample collected from M\V-2 in March of 2006 contained 2.8 nanograms per liter ng/L n-NDMA.
The [NDMA] detected concentration is also below the DHS Notification Level 10 ng/L and the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessments Draft Public Health Goal 3 ng/L.

EnviroReporter.com considers the RWQCB decision to abandon these wells to be a mistake considering the perchlorate, trichloroethylene and now NDMA that has been detected in Runkle Canyon groundwater. The Radiation Rangers concur and recommend that the wells again be monitored for these and other contaminants.

*1E. Could DTSC respond in detail to the above observations?*

1F. November 29, 2006: “Runkle Canyon_RWQCB_Army Corp of Engineers Notification Letter_112906” available at http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/community_involvement/1902356803/Runkle%20Canyon_RWQCB_Army%20Corp%20of%20Engineers%20Notification%20Letter_112906.pdf

The RWQCB’s Executive Officer Jonathan Bishop states in this document:

The results of prior sampling and analysis were provided the Regional Board in earlier reports. The wells were installed in May 2004, at the request of the Regional Board, to permit groundwater sampling, with correct field techniques, to determine if perchlorate was present in groundwater beneath the site. No significant perchlorate has been detected in groundwater.

This statement is false. The July 22, 2004 Los Angeles CityBeat/ValleyBeat cover story “Two Mile Island” addresses this issue:

Despite the failure of the Ahmanson Ranch development and the fierce opposition to Rocketdyne ever being developed for housing without a stringent cleanup, three developments are springing up within two miles of SSFL. The drainage for the dioxin-polluted Old Conservation Yard at the lab heads down toward a newly approved housing project in Runkle Canyon. The project is slated for 461 homes within a mile of the radiological area of SSFL – much closer than Ahmanson Ranch. Samples collected January 8 during an environmental review of a 550-acre portion of the 1,595-acre site, indicated levels of perchlorate at 50 ppb and 60 ppb in two of four groundwater/silt specimens. This is approximately double the 28 ppb reading of perchlorate found in the groundwater under Ahmanson Ranch.

The above article snip is based upon the results of a January 8, 2003 groundwater sampling done by Miller Brooks, on page 15 of the 146-page PDF that is linked and analyzed in the September, 17, 2003: Runkle Canyon_Miller Brooks_Surface Water&Groundwater Sampling Rpt_91703 entry analyzed below.

*1F. Could DTSC respond in detail to the above observations?*

1G. June 6, 2005: “Runkle Canyon_Miller Brooks_March 2006 Groundwater Sampling Activities_60605” available at http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/community_involvement/7174009025/Runkle%20Canyon_Miller%20Brooks_March%202006%20Groundwater%20Sampling%20Activities_60605.pdf

Note: DTSC has this report listed as March 6, 2005 (instead of 2006)

P. 1/70: EnviroReporter.com does not agree with Miller Brooks recommendation, later agreed to by LARWQCB, that wells MW-1 and MW-2 be no longer tested and abandoned because there is ample evidence that the groundwater of 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.

*1G. Could DTSC respond in detail to the above observations?*

1H. September 6, 2005: “Runkle Canyon_Geocon_Phase I & Limited Sampling_90605” available at http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/community_involvement/1266523063/Runkle%20Canyon_Geocon_Phase%20I%20&%20Limited%20Sampling_90605.pdf

P. 5/150: “Analytical results of surface water samples collected from East and West Seeps in Fishtail Area that are not produced in a report. Samples were collected by Miller Brooks on April 5, 2005.”

P. 7/150: “Perchlorate was detected at a concentration of 0.33 micrograms per liter (μg/l) in a duplicate sample during the first sampling event. According to the laboratory this reported concentration should be considered suspect based on retention time drift and potential co-elution of an interfering constituent. None of the other samples or duplicate samples were reported to contain perchlorate.”

That equals 330 ppb in groundwater. Ahmanson was 28 ppb therefore Runkle is over 11 times more.

According to OEHHA at http://www.oehha.org/public_info/facts/perchloratefacts.html the Public Health Goal is 6 ppb in drinking water.

Runkle Canyon groundwater has tested as high as 55 times the Public Health Goal for perchlorate.

P. 7/150: “Historic pumping depressions at Rocketdyne have limited the movement of degraded groundwater beneath the property and have essentially confined the extent of known groundwater contamination to the area beneath the facility. Offsite migration of degraded groundwater has been identified in isolated areas along the northwest and eastern property boundaries. The perchlorate plume reportedly extends offsite of the facility to the east and southeast (southeast of the Runkle Site). The TCE in groundwater is reportedly present in several well-defined plumes that remain predominately beneath the Rocketdyne facility with a limited area offsite to the north of the western end of the property (west of the Runkle Site).

The preceding contradicts itself on one of the biggest points – offsite migration of degraded groundwater. Which is it? If the lab doesn’t know, or does and decides to mischaracterize the situation even while contracting itself, the lab’s veracity is questionable.

P. 7/150: “Miller Brooks collected soil samples along the western border of the Site, adjacent to the Rocketdyne facility. Low concentrations of toluene, xylene, mercury, and dioxin were reported in several of the samples collected. The reported concentrations on these constituents were all below their respective PRGs.”

PP. 7-8/150: “Surface water and groundwater on the Runkle Canyon Site have been tested to evaluate the presence of constituents of concern potentially originating from the Rocketdyne facility. Samples have been collected from the on site stream and from a number of springs present on site. Water samples have been analyzed for TPH, VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, perchlorate, NDMA, and metals. Perchlorate was reported in a duplicate groundwater sample as described above. NDMA was reported in one groundwater sample collected from an onsite monitoring well in July 2004, however the results should be considered suspect due to laboratory blank contamination. Subsequent groundwater samples collected from this well did not contain reportable concentrations of NDMA. No other reportable concentrations of other constituents were found in any of the water samples collected at the site with the exception of metals at concentrations typically found in groundwater.”

While quick to discount positive results for contaminants, Geocon isn’t as careful with its characterization of contaminants onsite. “Perchlorate was reported in a duplicate sample above” does not take into account several detections of it. The last sentence is false in two ways: TCE has been detected in the groundwater and the metals greatly exceed concentrations typically found in groundwater.

P. 8/150: “Based on the reported results Foster Wheeler concluded that the cesium-137 and strontium-90 concentrations reported in the samples were not a concern when compared to exposure limits considered by the EPA to be protective of human health.”

This sentence is literally true yet totally misleading as “Neighborhood Threat” shows. Yet another example of Geocon’s imaginative way of not analyzing results already ascertained by the developers’ lab but also mischaracterized. The numbers speak for themselves as our investigation has repeatedly shown.

« 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9View All»

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *