« 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9View All»

1W. February 5, 1999: “Runkle Canyon_QST_Results of Preliminary Soil Sampling_020599” available at http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/community_involvement/3088703751/Runkle%20Canyon_QST_Results%20of%20Preliminary%20Soil%20Sampling_020599.PDF

This report was commented on in the print, online, and online-annotated version of the Los Angeles CityBeat cover story “Neighborhood Threat” by Michael Collins, March 10, 2005. Here is the excerpt related to this report:

In December 1998, when GreenPark began its environmental investigation of the property, the developer hired Phoenix-based QST Environmental to do preliminary soil sampling of the canyon to see if the former Rocketdyne lab “had impacted on-site soils, based on surface run-off carrying radionuclides to the site.” The results “indicated the presence of Strontium in all samples collected… that exceeded the EPA average local background concentration.” Indeed, the four soil samples contained up to 17 times the amount of the radionuclide that the EPA says is naturally occurring in the area. “Based on the analytical results of the soil samples, it would appear that there may have been some impact of radionuclides to the site from the Rocketdyne facility,” the report said.
When GreenPark subcontractor QST Environmental concluded the developer’s preliminary soil sampling of Runkle Canyon in February 1999, it apparently had planned to do more work. “QST is currently preparing a scope of work to conduct the next phase of the investigation at Runkle Ranch,” QST wrote at the conclusion of its report. But it was not to be.

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

1Y. August 27, 1998: “Runkle Canyon_Ramco_Preliminary Site Assessment_82798” available at http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/community_involvement/3984540641/Runkle%20Canyon_Ramco_Preliminary%20Site%20Assessment_82798.PDF

dba RAMCO Environmental

P. 3/65: “The United States Geological Survey (USGS) delineated Blue-Line surface water courses traversing the property south to north.”

P. 5/65: Rasmussen is described as “prospective buyer.”

P. 5/65: “RAMCOs assessment did not include investigation for asbestos containing materials lead in ground or surface water or paint radon PCB polychlorinated biphenyls nor subsurface conditions of groundwater or soil specific to the Site.”

P. 6/65: “It should be noted that typical Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment during the time of this assessment did exclude subsurface exploration or chemical screening of soil and groundwater beneath subject site These data would accurately present evidence of contamination or impairment. Therefore in any study excluding sampling and analysis no statement of scientific certainty could be made or inferred regarding latent subsurface conditions that may have come from either on-Site or off-Site sources.”

P. 13/65: “The file review produced letter dated Sept 10 1984 from the County of Ventura stating that S.P Milling Co. was in violation of letting illegal dumping to occur on the property and that the dumping must be corrected within thirty days This suggests that possible regulated and/or hazardous materials were dumped on Site.”

P. 15/65: “The unsaturated and saturated soil of the area was highly permeable and porous however the upper most saturated zone was estimated to be greater than 30 feet below ground surface. These conditions would enhance chemical migration. Based upon the anticipated flow path of groundwater and no recorded up gradient site of concern nearby contaminant migration from off site sources was considered very low potential threat.”

P. 16/65: “The white fine grain material deposited by the leaching water of the aggregate stockpiles in the material processing area would suggest potential for regulated if not hazardous materials. The fact of equipment operations in the former material processing area has now been established this also presents the potential for hazardous materials releases. The presence of these materials presents potential for environmental risk to Site dwellers soil and possibly surface water.”

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

Finally, how will DTSC involve the public, and public comment, in its analysis of all other relevant material regarding Runkle Canyon’s environmental conditions as it expressed to the Simi Valley City Council and that is spelled out in the CLRRA?

Yours truly,

Michael Collins

Next “Railroading Runkle Canyon?” blog post: EnviroReporter.com Runkle Canyon Comments Analysis

24 Years of Award-Winning SSFL/Rocketdyne Reporting
June 1998June 2022

« 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9View All»

Leave a Comment

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