The Rev. John Southwick will be talking about and answering questions from readers in regards to The proposed development in Simi Valley called Runkle Canyon or Runkledyne by critics.
You can read the background to the current debate by going through the pages of press clippings at this link.
My questions for this group:
What local leaders have you been able to work with the best in your efforts to make sure the public safety and environment are protected?
Have you brought this to the attention of any local candidates from the state assembly to congress?
Do you hold public meetings to discuss this issue?
What is the URL for your youtube videos? Do you plan to release any more soon?
In other news next week there is an EIR meeting in Simi Valley about the proposed landfill expansion. Has anyone heard if it will be televised?
Thank you for inviting me to comment, Brian. Indeed, thank you for these excellent questions about an issue the Star seemed to have forgotten about which, considering the latest news, is odd but EnviroReporter.com and the Ventura County Reporter have stayed on the issue big time with an article called "Reassessing Runkle": http://enviroreporter.com/reassessingrunkle.html
The would-be Runkle Canyon developer, KB Homes, signed an agreement with the Department of Toxic Substances Control in late April. KB Homes agreed to supply DTSC with at least 41 extensive reports and documents for their inspection and pay for the $114,884 that this initial work will cost. DTSC's project leader, Norm Riley, has said that he would look at other documents and tests, like those two done for heavy metals last year by the city of Simi and the Radiation Rangers of which Rev. Southwick is a member.
The Rangers can speak for themselves but I can say that no local leader has stepped up to take the information very seriously about radioactive strontium-90 in the soil and heavy metals like arsenic, nickel and vanadium in the water and soil. Add to that the seeming lack of basic science understanding on the part of the city of Simi Valley, you can understand why the Rangers and other concerned residents are happy to see the DTSC now reviewing the situation.
I don't think any of the candidates for state assembly or Congress have addressed this development though Hannah-Beth Jackson is well-versed on the dangers of Rocketdyne, which has an 11-acre drainage into Runkle Canyon. Candidates would be well-advised to learn about this potential development which would make 112 tons of possibly polluted dust in the air during construction.
There are public meetings about Rocketdyne and related issues which includes Runkle Canyon. Just last week, DTSC held a public workshop and presentation on its cleanup activities of Rocketdyne at the Simi Valley Cultural Arts Center.
Even with this new KB Homes/DTSC agreement, one would think that the city of Simi Valley would want DTSC to analyze its own testing for heavy metals in Runkle, as well as the tests the Radiation Rangers did, and that analysis presently being done by EnviroReporter.com, be looked at carefully.
At the end of the day, the city of Simi Valley may realize that with all the new pollution revelations coming out of Runkle Canyon, it should demand KB Homes complete a brand new Environmental Impact Report before turning a shovel-full of dirt.
Michael Collins EnviroReporter.com
It's been said that the results of one test review revealed that the Runkle Canyon site had far LESS background contamination than the rest of the valley. Is that true and if so what does that mean?
To answer Brian’s question about the YouTube channel, you and your readers can check out http://www.youtube.com/user/StopRunkledyne.
“gs� is right about that test which we questioned and was covered by the Star on January 10, 2008. The article called “Simi group challenges radioactivity test results - Lower strontium 90 levels than rest of city questioned� is available at http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/jan/10/simi-group-challenges-radioactivity-test-results/ My full letter questioning these implausible results was sent to the City of Simi Valley on January 7 and is at http://www.stoprunkledyne.com/files/Southwick to Behjan.pdf.
The City then sent me their lab’s report on their 10 “split samples� which were taken randomly from the 63 soil samples that the developer’s lab took back in the fall of 2007. The City’s samples also reported incredibly low results.
But take a look at the City-supplied report on reporter Collins’ website at http://www.enviroreporter.com/files/EnvironIncLabTechinques1-17-08.pdf and then go to the end of it on page 7 where the only reference to how they did their analysis, their so-called “Determination of Sr-89 and Sr-90 in soil and bottom sediments.� It shows that the City’s lab used a lab technique over 40 years old from a now-nonexistent agency that predates the Nixon Administration!
I am not kidding. The lab technique used to determine that the strontium 90 in Runkle Canyon soil is supposedly just a quarter of the normal background radiation for Sr-90 in soil in Simi Valley was from “Radioassay Procedures for Environmental Samples. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Environmental Health Series, January 1967.�
So the City of Simi Valley pays our tax money for a lab analysis that uses inaccurate lab techniques that utilize decanting and filtering of the samples, which artificially lowers the radiation readings, that are 41 years old and created before Nixon started the Environmental Protection Agency which uses techniques to test for Sr-90 created in 1994!
This is the kind of ‘the best science money can buy’ that we have come to expect from the City of Simi Valley. I hope and pray that the DTSC, under the leadership of Norm Riley, realizes that we can’t trust tests by the developer and a clueless City to determine the safety of Runkle Canyon’s soil which is located within a mile of the site of several nuclear meltdowns at the former Rocketdyne lab.
DTSC must address this and the City must demand a completely new Enviromental Impact Report from KB Homes to address this and the fact that new information has come to light: Runkle Canyon is also polluted with heavy metals and the cancer-causing rocket engine solvent trichloroethylene (TCE). Our lives could depend on it.
To answer Brian’s question about the YouTube channel, you and your readers can check out http://www.youtube.com/user/StopRunkledyne.
“gs� is right about that test which we questioned and was covered by the Star on January 10, 2008. The article called “Simi group challenges radioactivity test results - Lower strontium 90 levels than rest of city questioned� is available at http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2008/jan/10/simi-group-challenges-radioactivity-test-results/ My full letter questioning these implausible results was sent to the City of Simi Valley on January 7 and is at http://www.stoprunkledyne.com/files/SouthwicktoBehjan.pdf.
The City then sent me their lab’s report on their 10 “split samples� which were taken randomly from the 63 soil samples that the developer’s lab took back in the fall of 2007. The City’s samples also reported incredibly low results.
But take a look at the City-supplied report on reporter Collins’ website at http://www.enviroreporter.com/files/EnvironIncLabTechinques1-17-08.pdf and then go to the end of it on page 7 where the only reference to how they did their analysis, their so-called “Determination of Sr-89 and Sr-90 in soil and bottom sediments.� It shows that the City’s lab used a lab technique over 40 years old from a now-nonexistent agency that predates the Nixon Administration!
I am not kidding. The lab technique used to determine that the strontium 90 in Runkle Canyon soil is supposedly just a quarter of the normal background radiation for Sr-90 in soil in Simi Valley was from “Radioassay Procedures for Environmental Samples. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Environmental Health Series, January 1967.�
So the City of Simi Valley pays our tax money for a lab analysis that uses inaccurate lab techniques that utilize decanting and filtering of the samples, which artificially lowers the radiation readings, that are 41 years old and created before Nixon started the Environmental Protection Agency which uses techniques to test for Sr-90 created in 1994!
This is the kind of ‘the best science money can buy’ that we have come to expect from the City of Simi Valley. I hope and pray that the DTSC, under the leadership of Norm Riley, realizes that we can’t trust tests by the developer and a clueless City to determine the safety of Runkle Canyon’s soil which is located within a mile of the site of several nuclear meltdowns at the former Rocketdyne lab.
DTSC must address this and the City must demand a completely new Enviromental Impact Report from KB Homes to address this and the fact that new information has come to light: Runkle Canyon is also polluted with heavy metals and the cancer-causing rocket engine solvent trichloroethylene (TCE). Our lives could depend on it.
Thank you, John. I've been following your team's work in the VC REPORTER and I am impressed with its insistence on thorough research.
In light of the City's failure to proceed with these tests under a reasonable and reliable set of protocols, ie, inre their use of obsolete & failed testing methods, do you feel the City is capable of fulfilling its responsibilities as land use managers in the areas affected by the SSFL? Does the City's one-size-fits-all approach to land use management work in affected areas like those surrounding the SSFL or should there be a different approach to administering these types of areas?
Who has been the most helpful among all of the local elected officials?
It think it's crucial that this site be looked at very carefully before putting potentially more people in harms' way. It isn't just TCE, its the VOCs, it's mercury, it's tritium, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, and the constituents draining from the Area IV burnpit area. The Building 56 landfill is missed by surface water monitoring all draining to the north from the lab. A new EIR would be appropriate.
thanks for keeping this issue in the news.
At the 2006 panel discussion, held at the SV Civic Arts Center, a woman who was involved in a group doing demographics for the area reported that there were several cancer clusters in the area east of the SSFL and that one cul de sac, along an arroyo that drains from the site had 16 cases of cancer, of types thought to be related to the compounds found at the field lab.
Does anyone know that woman or her group?
Are any of the local elected officials allies in your cause?
"gs": That woman was (and is) Bonnie Klea who lives in West Hills. I wrote an article about her and those cancers you note in a 2004 Los Angeles CityBeat cover story called "TWO MILE ISLAND" available at http://www.enviroreporter.com/twomileisland.html
Also, since you generally ask who "has been the most helpful among all of the local elected officials," let me try to answer that. If you mean 'helpful' to the developers -- all of them. If you mean helpful to the residents -- none.
Read an excerpt of the Simi Valley City Council from last August and you tell me who sounds even like they have a grasp of what's going on in Runkle Canyon, let alone being 'helpful.'
Link: http://www.enviroreporter.com/8-20-07SimiCouncilexcerpts.html
Mostly hype. Analyte concentrations are below threshold limits in all cases. Present the analyte and its soil or water concentration instead of beating around the bush!
Thanks for the info, Michael.
At the other end of the Valley the WMI landfill sits atop and old toxic waste dump that had been in operation from at least the 1970s through 1982. According to WMI's own EIR report 60,000,000 lbs of toxic waste were buried there, under a layer of clay. A portion of that waste are PCB's but WMI doesn't seem to know how big a portion. It could be 1% or 70% or anything inbetween or outside that range. Apparently there are no specifics. What if it were 2%? That's 1.2M lbs of PCBs.
1.1M lbs of PCBs were found buried in the silt below the Hudson River, causing an 80 miles stretch to be labeled a SuperFund site, costing taxpayers for decades. If the landfill expansion goes ahead as planned we may never know how much PCBs or other toxins are under the dump or where they might be migrating to. Simi Valley could well end up with TWO SuperFund sites.
There are two videos that Interview Bonnie Klea.
Just Type in the Word "Rocketdyne" in the YouTube Search and several videos will appear including the History Channel's Modern Marvels Engineering Disasters #19 that gives us an 8 minute history lesson on the SRE or Sodium Reactor Experiment that released an estimated 240 times more radiation than Three Mile Island, thus making it the worst Nuclear Disaster on U.S. Soil.
William Preston Bowling ACME
CAP-912 would do well to review the extensive reporting by the Star, VC Reporter and EnviroReporter.com about Runkle Canyon -- all the numbers are there for those who care more about the facts more than spouting non-sequiturs.
And speaking of numbers, William Preston Bowling not only has them but he has photos, documents, films, artifacts and so much more at his just opened Aerospace Cancer Museum of Education just over the hill in the west San Fernando Valley. The museum/community meeting space houses all things Rocketdyne and is quite remarkable. Indeed, it is the first such place in America which is still dealing with the detritus of our Cold War nuclear and chemical legacy.
Bowling runs the space with Christina Walsh of CleanUpRocketdyne.org and the handsome place, profiled by the Los Angeles Daily News, is at 23350 Lake Manor Drive, Chatsworth CA 91311
818-712-6903.
Virtually visit at http://www.acmela.org/ and find out all the 'hot' goo you're missing! Seriously, the space rocks and Bowling and Walsh are a uniquely qualified dynamic duo who can answer all your questions about Runkle Canyon, the Santa Susana Field Lab and so much more.
Not questioning the history on the hill. Questioning that allegations that the soils are contaminated on the K&B property. No data, no contamination!
CAP-912 obviously knows how to use a computer and type to continue this tiresome twaddle which can't even get the name of the developer right. It is really insulting to the readers of Brian's blog to continue this sanctimonious charade.
So in a final response to any drivel about the data not being there, there is data aplenty, along with analysis at http://www.enviroreporter.com/runkleinvestigation.html
I always wonder about a response I read from someone that does not use their own name.
Do they have something to hide?
Are they connected to some organization like K.B.home?
Responding to CAP-312 you have obviously not read any info on our web page Stoprunkledyne.com.
If you had you would not be making statements about no contamination.
Please Read Read Read.
I always wonder about a response I read from someone that does not use their own name.
Do they have something to hide?
Are they connected to some organization like K.B.home?
Responding to CAP-312 you have obviously not read any info on our web page Stoprunkledyne.com.
If you had you would not be making statements about no contamination.
Please Read Read Read.
Cute WEB site, but I sure didn't see any analytical data on it. How about being a bit more specific as to where the analytical data are available that show contamination above regulatory levels. Without data, the Rangers are Lone.
Now I understand the analytical data better after reading your lab report from Pat-Chem.
Arsenic: 34 mg/kg. Allowed: 500 mg/kg
Barium: 57 mg/kg. Allowed: 10,000 mg/kg
Beryllium: 5.0 mg/kg. Allowed: 75 mg/kg
Cobalt: 5.8 mg/kg. Allowed: 8,000 mg/kg
Chromium: 5.0 mg/kg. Allowed: 2,500 mg/kg
Lead: 5.0 mg/kg. Allowed: 1,000 mg/kg
Selenium: <25 mg/kg. Allowed: 100 mg/kg
Valadium: 22 mg/kg. Allowed: 5,000 mg/kg
Which is the contamination that I'm missing, John?
I can't imagine why it isn't listed on your WEB site, if it exists!
“CAP-912� has come up with a set of mystery numbers that don’t answer the most obvious question considering that they are so doggone high: According to whom? What we have here is a set of unattributed numbers that don’t jive with reality. Let’s take arsenic, for example, that CAP-912 says the test result of 34 mg/kg in Runkle’s soil is under the 500 mg/kg that he says is “allowed.� According to whom?
The result of 34 mg/kg is “over 548 times the EPA’s preliminary remediation goal for the contaminant in soil. That amount of the toxin is also 213 percent of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) arsenic “field action level,� where further investigation is warranted,� according the Los Angeles CityBeat cover story called the “Radiation Rangers,� the numbers of which are backed up on EnviroReporter.com. These are EPA and DTSC standards, not some so-called “allowed� numbers from unnamed sources and unspecified standards.
Plus, standards vary. For example, in the State of Iowa the statewide soil standard for arsenic is 1.4 mg/kg which Runkle’s arsenic reading exceeds by over 24 times. CAP-912 would have us believe that his “allowed� amount of arsenic, 500 mg/kg, is accurate and Iowa’s official state standard isn’t even though it’s hundreds of times higher.
How about we look at arsenic not related to any standards to give the readers an idea of how serious an arsenic situation there is in Runkle Canyon. Neighboring Rocketdyne’s average arsenic reading across that heavily-contaminated property is 5.246 mg/kg meaning this Runkle arsenic reading is almost 7 times higher!
Runkle Canyon arsenic higher than Rocketdyne’s? Now, that’s alarming, by any standard even by CAP-912’s bogus “allowed� numbers for the toxic heavy metals we found polluting a place where KB Homes wants to build without doing what is needed first: Make a whole new Environmental Impact Report.
Rev. John Southwick, Radiation Ranger
Ranger, sorry for not referencing the numbers. I assumed you were familiar with California Code of Regulations Title 22 "Regulatory Limits for Metals".
Good response, John. How about you, CAP-912? Where DID you get those figures and what do they mean?
Ranger, the average arsenic concentration in soils throughout California is 5.0 - 40.0 mg/kg, so your 34 is within the average range. Check out "Study of State Soil Arsenic Regulations" conducted by the Association for the Regulation of the Environmental Health of Soils. Your attempt to confuse clean-up of groundwater/drinking water and that of soil is not professional.
GS, my friend, the permitted concentrations come from Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations that establishes limits for heavy metals in soils. The concentrations I've presented are for Total Threshold Limit Concentrations. Soluble Threshold Limit Concentrations are significantly less.
And that's an even better response! So, John, what's the story on these figures? Have we been talking about apples & oranges?
CAP-912 is indeed correct that his TTLC numbers come from where he says they do. However, they are not applicable to this situation as they are more geared towards the actual "handling" of hazardous waste not its effect on human health, which is what the EPA's PRGs or "preliminary remediation goals" are for.
To wit, note my analysis of a report on a biomedical nuclear and chemical dump in Brentwood available at http://enviroreporter.com/waxman81.html which refers to TTLCs in relation to heavy metals found on a school's athletic fields there. Even though the report tries to compare the TTLC limits to the heavy metals found on the field, it admits "TTLC is the threshold concentration at which point the State of California considers a waste to be hazardous, and must be handled as such. TTLCs do not apply in this situation..."
Rev. Southwick is correct in pointing out CAP-912's misuse of incorrect standards for just one of the metals CAP-912 mischaracterizes, arsenic. Innappropriate application of standards skews the discussion. The (newly polite) CAP-912, and the readers of this thread, should be aware of this.
Allow me to use an actual standard to demonstrate how to mischaracterize arsenic: it is okay to handle and transport PURE 100% arsenic but if you have a pound or more of the stuff, you're required to inform the EPA. So using that standard, I could say that pure arsenic, albeit under a pound of it in a single instance, is "allowed" in Runkle Canyon.
Regarding the other heavy metals CAP-912 says are "allowed," they also are numbers derived from the TTLCs and, as the Brentwood dump report would say, "do not apply in this situation."
What should also apply in this situation is the standard of common sense. Rev. Southwick's noting that the Runkle soil reading of arsenic of 34 mg/kg being 7 times Rocketdyne's average arsenic reading should make anyone concerned about the heavy metal's contamination of the canyon's soil all the more wary of proceeding with KB Homes' proposed development without a new Environmental Impact Report that reflects these shocking findings, findings first unearthed by this reporter and the Radiation Rangers, and then the city of Simi Valley itself when finally forced to test last summer.
A while ago I said that I don't understand the science of the issue well enough to decide whether or not Runkle Canyon should be considered unsafe. After these last few informed exchanges I'm even MORE in the dark...but I'm also more confident that there are watchdogs and bloodhounds enough to find the true answers. Thanks guys!
Rocketdyne and KB arsenic are both within the background range for California soils. By the way, one sample doesn't make for a valid mean. Likewise, Rangers would have us believe that any radiation equals contamination. How about Radon? Chemical dumps can require clean-up to levels far below Title 22 levels, no question about it. I haven't seen any evidence that KB was a chemical dump, however.
The clock is ticking. DTSC will eat up some KB money, but in the end you will not see a new EIR or clean-up of the KB property. You can take that to the bank.
Cap 812,
Do you think people are using the threat of dangerous chemicals to stop development for safety reasons or because they plain don't want it developed for other reasons?
This issue is a classic "not in my backyard". We need to be very concerned about chemical pollution. It may turn out to be responsible for most of our cancers. Nevertheless, I've reviewed all available analytical reports on this property and I can't find any chemical pollution present at statistically significant levels.
CAPS-912 or CAPS-812, if it is the same person, has this proclivity to make grand pronouncements based on nothing and Brian invites them without any discerning analysis other than to invite suspicion of Simi Valley residents who don't want an ecological disaster visited on the city and neighboring region. This does not facilitate an informed conversation which is why I should have declined Brian's invite to comment here. However, I do appreciate the Star covering this issue where it's at now even if it's in blog format so I'm going to give it another shot.
To answer Brian's leading question: the Radiation Rangers, the majority of which are pro-growth Republicans, have always said that if Runkle Canyon were built out, it would increase the values of their homes so, obviously, they aren't fighting this development based on selfish NIMBY reasons. Construction of such a massive project in a safe area would be beneficial to Simi Valley's tax base and would sell lots of construction-related items like, say, garage doors, which would benefit all including Brian.
But to the other facts at hand: if our resident unidentified analyzer of "all analytical reports" had looked at the developer's EIR, he would see that there are high levels of strontium-90 in Runkle's soil. How high? Well, as I wrote in my first article on the place in March 2005 called "Neighborhood Threat," in several newspapers and websites including EnviroReporter.com:
"Foster Wheeler’s 58 soil samples averaged 1.39 pCi/g, or six times the EPA’s preliminary remediation goal and nearly 27 times above the typical EPA background level for Sr-90 in the area. The hottest sampling spot, and the one closest to Rocketdyne’s Santa Susana Field Laboratory, measured 12.34 pCi/g, which is over 54 times the EPA’s PRG and 237 times the normal background for the radionuclide. Regardless, the GreenPark subcontractor gave a hearty thumbs-up to the results. 'In perspective, the concentrations of strontium-90 … were found to be
insignificant,' concluded the Foster Wheeler report."
That's just the radiation. It's fruitless to continue to try to emphasize the facts in this meandering blog other than to say that the Runkle Canyon numbers bear out other statistically significant amounts of the chemicals arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, nickel, vanadium, trichloroethylene, and perchlorate in the property's soil, surface water and groundwater.
These numbers are all chopped, diced and analyzed on our website for anyone with the inclination to look to the facts instead of hyperbole for information.
But to heck with the facts, right? Simply call the activists NIMBY's and declare yourself an (unidentified) expert and, voila, the pollution readings disappear. Ah but if that were true... but it isn't.
There is a reason that KB Homes signed a voluntary cleanup agreement with the Department of Toxic Substances Control regarding Runkle Canyon and it wasn't because of a bunch of whining NIMBYs. It was because of the facts and facts include the unfortunate reality that this place has too many question marks to simply dismiss through arrogant blather and phony claims of expertise when, as this blog thread shows, the (unidentified) expertise has both ignored the data and applied inappropriate pollution standards.
Here it goes again. More dribble, but short on facts. Barium? Come on, it is not hazardous until 10,000 ppm in soil. Ditto to the other heavy metals as previously discussed. This ONLY leaves the radiation. Clean-up levels for residential use average 4.5 pCi/g across the Nation for Strontium-90. The Rangers' average of 1.39 is dramatically less that this national average, although slightly above the national background of 0.4. Once again, Rangers are blowing smoke, rather than presenting any data documenting significant contamination.
Okay, I'll bite. Cappy here continues to dismiss the two Radiation Ranger and city of Simi Valley tests that show extremely high levels of toxic heavy metals in Runkle Canyon. Perhaps those big numbers, so clearly explained in our articles, are still too hard for him to understand.
But understand this: his strontium-90 numbers are just as way off as he is. The national background is not 0.4 pCi/g but a quarter of that and Simi Valley's half that again and the Runkle area at 0.030 pCi/g, all according to the Environmental Protection Agency which presumably knows its stuff better than this anonymous blowhard.
Blowhard? Ever notice how many words Collins has to use? Obviously never attended journalism school, never learned about objectivity, nor balance, nor fairness. He just likes to listen to himself talk, and loves to play with himself and his calculator tweaking statistics to his liking. He's a calculator masturbator.
To: Michael Collins and John Southwick
I applaud your knowledge on the matter of Runkle Canyon. I am currently running for mayor of simi valley and would love to talk more about this subject with one or both of you. please contact me at bruceformayor@live.com or through this site. I will look forward to hearing from either or both of you.
To: Michael Collins and John Southwick
I applaud your knowledge on the matter of Runkle Canyon. I am currently running for mayor of simi valley and would love to talk more about this subject with one or both of you. please contact me at bruceformayor@live.com or through this site. I will look forward to hearing from either or both of you.
To: Michael Collins and John Southwick
I applaud your knowledge on the matter of Runkle Canyon. I am currently running for mayor of simi valley and would love to talk more about this subject with one or both of you. please contact me at bruceformayor@live.com or through this site. I will look forward to hearing from either or both of you.