« 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9View All»

DTSC SSFL cleanup project director Ray Leclerc in 2016 at DTSC Independent Review Panel public meeting investigating department.

5. Page 2/7: “None of the recent data reviewed as part of this evaluation have indicated a need to initiate immediate response actions for the BBI areas or for the Northern Buffer Zone.”

[ER NOTE: TRUE – This is true because DTSC chose not to look at all of the data, even this crucial report it sent to EnviroReporter.com November 30, 2016: “DTSC-SSFL Document Upload Notification: SSFL NASA Area I LOX and Area II Groundwater Monitoring Report Third Quarter 2016” with a link to the report [1,180 PDF pages; 17.3 MB]. This report is the same one cited in ER NOTE 3 that shows fluoride repeatedly exceeding its MCL which, by law, requires an immediate response.]

6. Page 2/7: “Over the last 25 years, multiple sampling efforts have been conducted on both BBI and SSFL properties. After review and analysis of the data from those sampling efforts related to potential impacts to BBI campus, the results are all generally around or within natural background range and there is no indication of a grouping or pattern that would indicate a contaminant release on BBI’s current property.”

[ER NOTE: FALSE –

6A) This gives the impression that all the data and sampling efforts done in the last 25 years were looked at clearly when they were not as DTSC’s limited “Resources” reports shows.

6B) Results were available, and ignored, like the DOE toxic chemicals report given to AJU which sent it to the Jewish Journal which published it and was subsequently analyzed by EnviroReporter.com in 2016 DOE-AJU Summary Brandeis-Bardin Soils. That analysis of the toxins, based on DOE’s sampling results and EPA-derived Background Threshold Values (BTVs), showed:

ANTIMONY – 3.0 x BTV

NAPHTHALENE – 5.4 x BTV

FLUORENE – 5.7 x BTV

ENDOSULFAN I – 8.6 x BTV

FLUORANTHENE – 2.4 x BTV

PHENANTHRENE – 6.9 x BTV

PYRENE – 2.4 x BTV

DIELDRIN – 3.1 x BTV

GAMMA BHC (Lindane) – 4.7 x BTV

MOLYBDENUM – 5.8 x BTV

BETA-HEXACHLOROCYCLOHEXANE – 7.7 x BTV

HEPTACHLOR – 3.8 x BTV

2,4,5-TP – 2.1 x BTV

2,4,5-T – 2.4 x BTV

MCPP (Mecoprop) – 4.6 x BTV

DELTA BHC – 4.5 x BTV

FLUORENE – 3.1 times its BTV

6C) DTSC’s wholly false claim that “there is no indication of a grouping or pattern that would indicate a contaminant release on BBI’s current property” is disproven by maps and figures the department itself, as well as the DOE, has released such as this 2015 DTSC map showing contamination in Brandeis-Bardin drainages. For DTSC to make such a boldly false claim goes beyond incompetence and bad science as this analysis has already shown in just the executive summary alone. Regardless, to go through this “super-sized word salad” as it was described in the Simi Valley Acorn, is necessary to not only prove what we publish but for EnviroReporter.com to fully understand the depth of deception going on here, deception used to trumpet that the DTSC’s Brandeis-Bardin conclusions have sounded the all-clear.]

May 2, 2017 DTSC meeting in Simi Valley discussing Brandeis-Bardin ‘white paper’.

7. Page 2/7: “Typically, preliminary remediation goals (PRGs) are risk-based screening values used to identify areas and contaminants that may warrant further investigation or assessment. The US EPA has a tool called the PRG calculator that allows for development of site screening PRGs. The US EPA PRG website (https://epaprgs.ornl.gov/radionuclides/faq.html) includes several frequently asked questions (FAQs) that relate to the use of PRG values.”

[ER NOTE: BAIT & SWITCH – NASA and DOE agreed to clean up to background up at SSFL for both chemicals and radiation. This also means remediate to background anything they caused offsite that is obviously from SSFL, as EnviroReporter.com has shown to be the case in Brandeis-Bardin’s Toxic Denial. So to introduce, and mangle the science of, another system to assess contaminants at the camp is not only wrong – all detections should be measured against and cleaned up to its BTV value – it insures SSFL is cleaned up and Brandeis-Bardin isn’t.

Why are the Jewish camp’s accepted levels of SSFL radiological and chemical contamination suggested in this DTSC white paper many times those that the DTSC is required to have NASA and DOE clean up to at the lab? Has AJU signed off on this white paper concept that levels of SSFL toxins on its Brandeis-Bardin property are going to be markedly higher than those at SSFL after the cleanup to background there? Yes it has, as it has taken to using the document to dismiss all evidence of toxic impacts on its property along with its own reports, as EnviroReporter.com exposed in 1991-2017 Brandeis-Bardin Reports Analysis.

EnviroReporter.com’s doesn’t analyze this bait and switch in the white paper where use of PRGs in all sorts of confusing scenarios is designed to do just that, confuse the reader and the rare reporter that dares look at this material in the first place. Simply put, DTSC switches standards instead of sticking to BTVs which has already been agreed upon. SSFL gets cleaned up and BBI gets ziltsh.]

8. Page 3/7: “Over the past 25 years, sample results from multiple radiological and chemical investigations on what is now BBI property have found results that are similar to local background, and no groupings or patterns have been identified that indicate a release of contamination from SSFL. The levels found pose no unacceptable health risk to people who use the current BBI campus.”

[ER NOTE: FALSE – See 6A, 6B & 6C]

« 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9View All»