Let's get some development up there. A lot of people need homes and the ranch is a beautiful place for them to live. To heck with a little contamination. It is a lot safer than driving to work on our freeways.

Go KB Homes!

The link to www.EnviroReporter.com, which has been investigating Runkle Canyon since early 2005, is inoperative. Same with www.StopRunkledyne.com. I include them here because no discussion of this issue is complete without the information on these sites. The video is from KCET's "Life & Times" program, aired November 2006, and features Barbra trashing residents concerned about radioactive and chemical pollution by calling them NIMBYs. Three timelines about the place are at http://enviroreporter.com/timelinemain.html

The program seems to feature an elected official debating BOTH sides of the issue and asking whether
the problem is a case of NIMBYism or a real concern. Barbra made it perfectly clear that if contamination is proven, she'll do what she can to stop the development. That's not trashing residents. Instead it sounds like she's asking you to secure her support by convincing her.

Barbra trashing residents? Nonsense! If an elected official doesn't agree with the Radiation Rangers, then she is trashing them. The Rangers shoot from the hip, exagerate claims of contamination, misquote government safety standards, fail to understand or accept risk assessments and profess expertise where none is present. Then they have the audacity to attack perhaps the only City Councilmember who gives them an ear and tries to maintain an open mind until all the testing and evaluation is complete. Shame shame on the Radiation Rangers.

You're awfully sensitive if you think Barbra was trashing residents. "Where were you three years prior?" was the question. It's a good point. Unfortunately, our town doesn't take notice until someone stands high and starts waving the red flag. I agree with the other comments.

Michael...I'm a big admirer of the work you've done to cover the area's problems with the SSFL and support you and the Rangers 100%. As one whose entry into local issues was often marked by heated confrontation with local officials, I've since tried to take a look at the issues from the other side before stepping into the fray. I'm not nearly as successful doing that as I'd like but I'll continue to try.

I have discovered that an honest appeal to work with those same officials without the initial confrontation always works best. So far I haven't changed my views on any of those issues but I have been able to have more positive discussions. I'm certain Barbra Williamson's one of those people who can work alongside an opposing viewpoint and get things done.

Thanks to the Radiation Rangers and Michael Collins of EnviroReporter for bringing this to light.

Nobody needs to live any closer to the Santa Susana Field Lab AKA SSFL than what we have already. I would love to know how KB Homes will disclose these concerns if they move forward. Let us not get that far, do all you can do to make your voice heard.

There needs to be more testing done and test in the right places.

It is not just Radiation from AREA IV that we need to look at, TCE was also found at the windmill well on the South property line. This was confirmed in an MWH 2007 report of offsite data.

Visit our Museum in Chatsworth dedicated to SSFL information.

Take care,

William Preston Bowling
Founder ACME
Aerospace Cancer Museum of Education

DO VISIT THE MUSEUM!! It should be a required field trip for every local elected official.

I attended a SRO book signing there recently and I was floored by the sheer volume of information and evidence presented in a most interesting manner. This is no rinky-dink effort but an impressive display of the combined efforts of our own neighbors to offer the SSFL story that others have been hiding since 1959.

I don't know how to respond to the comments of "gs" since this person assumes I know who he/she is. But good points, nonetheless. And right you are about the ACME-LA museum which has become an invaluable source to the communities on both side of The Hill (Rocketdyne).

Regarding Mike Chandler's "'Where were you three years prior?' was the question." Mike, there was no question in this thread but I'll answer it anyway. On April 26, 2004, Simi Valley resident and "Radiation Ranger" Patricia Coryell addressed the City Council before they approved Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and her website has those remarks: http://www.stoprunkledyne.com/coryellremarks

CAP-735, who is always good for a hoot, seems to confuse me with the Radiation Rangers. I'm the investigative journalist who exposed the issue, not one of the Rangers (who I admire and respect to be very clear). What has been asserted is backed up big time on both EnviroReporter.com and StopRunkledyne.com. Go look CAP-735 and learn something.

So let's review the bidding: since the EIR was approved, I exposed the high strontium-90 levels in Runkle Canyon's soil in 2005 which helped freeze the development at the height of the building boom; in 2007, the Rangers had to go find by themselves high arsenic, vanadium and nickel in Runkle's surface water (which makes its way to the Arroyo Simi and finally, after being blended, into Simi Valley taps which some of you drink); the City's own tests in reaction to the Rangers' found even higher amounts of these contaminants; in late 2007, KB Homes, to their immense credit, signed a voluntary cleanup agreement with the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and turned over to DTSC thousands of pages of data which show high perchlorate, NDMA, TCE and all sorts of other toxic contamination in the canyon that I analyzed and posted at http://enviroreporter.com/files/KB41docs.pdf along with analyzing other pertinent documents at http://enviroreporter.com/files/Critical_runkle_canyon_docs.pdf.

Now the City is waiting for DTSC to tell them what to do after DTSC orders KB Homes to complete more tests and, yes, remediation of some nasty black goo seeping from the canyon floor. But guess what? DTSC isn't going to order the City to demand a new EIR from KB Homes regardless of what is further found in Runkle. That's all on the City. And guess what, again? The City won't do that because... well, Barbra, why don't you explain that? Leadership in Simi Valley is sorely lacking when it comes to Runkle Canyon. That's why EnviroReporter.com and the Ventura County Reporter newspaper will stay on this story, and, thanks to Brian, so will the Star.

I've drank from the windmill trough many, many times ocwe the years. Once I saw a deer jump over the trough with a large gaping wound on its back. Right behind it jumped a mountain lion getting ready for dinner. TCE in the well? How silly. The level was so low you could drink the water for life and not have a problem. You don't have a clue what properties are developed for residential use with adequate disclosure and concerns to health & safety mitigated throughout Southern California. Both the Marr Ranch and Getty Ranch in Simi Valley, now home to thousands of residents, far more contamination that Runkle. This propert is clean. The Rangers have hyped it up to try to halt development in their "private park".

You've got one group over here saying Runkle Canyon is contaminated, and you've got one group over here saying it's not. My understanding based on the candidates forum this morning at the Chamber of Commerce is City leadership is waiting for a definitive answer before taking a position.

Lest we forget, negative news sells newspapers. What business is Michael Collins in? Yup,you guessed it... the selling of newspapers!
What Mr. Collins has FAILED to mention is at MY suggestion that ALL grading be halted (even though a grading permit had been issued to KB Homes)until such time the CC could review the actuation(S) made by Mr. Collins and the Radiation Rangers. The ENTIRE City Council Has said over and over that we will not go forward until we have assurances that is it safe to do so. What part of that statement do you not understand Mr. Collins? It seems pretty clear to me!

Collins, arsenic, vanadium and nickel are all naturally occurring in soils. None of the levels of these metals found on Runkle are outside of background levels. It's like finding methane in the air we breath or iron in our blood. It makes a good sound bite, but not much more.

CAP - your approach is far to cavalier to welcome any real discussion. If one of your family members was part of the cluster of cancer and disease that has planted itself in Chatsworth, the Knolls and surrounding ares, you would be standing on a different soapbox.

I just got word yesterday that yet another of my friends who lives in this area was diagnosed with terminal cancer with links to metals in the water supply. I'm sure you will see this as just another coincidence, but frankly, I am tired of seeing these coincidences up close and personal.

Ms. Williamson - having voted for you time and time again and I take issue with your approach to "newspapers." Newspapers gave you and a few of your allies here a forum to stand up to Waste Management (as they should have). Was that just to sell newspapers or did you and your task force really have something to say that deserved to be heard, but was being suppressed by others?

I support your stance on halting grading and ask all of the council to proceed with caution.

If a supposed independent review of the facts reveals reason to be more cautious - we have only helped ourselves and our neighbors who live nearby.

If it reveals only arguable reasons that are overlooked in order for KB and its local Texas track lobbyist to turn a profit, then buyer beware and proponents be damned if another wave of illnesses follows. But that should be decades after they have moved on - so let's do like the federal government... leave it to another generation to figure out.

Not so sure....
First, thank you for supporting me in my election bids. I can assure you that the City council is moving with caution regarding Runkle. I am sorry to hear about your friend.

Thank you for continuing to bring the needed attention to this important issue that has been hiding in our backyard all these years. We have to remember that the SSFL 1959 event was only one of many and it was one of the worst nuclear accidents in the history of nuclear work. We cannot forget and pretend because that will only put more people in harms way. We need to see an independent look at the data and we need more data to look for all the contaminants of concern related to this site that also had half a century of rocket testing that resulted in nearly a million gallons of TCE in the groundwater below. We don't know enough about the impacts of this highly complex site without all the facts. No further development should of this area should occur before full characterization and clean-up of the site just above - 2017 according to the consent order issued by the state of California. We don't need another Love Canal

Thank you for continuing to bring the needed attention to this important issue that has been hiding in our backyard all these years. We have to remember that the SSFL 1959 event was only one of many and it was one of the worst nuclear accidents in the history of nuclear work. We cannot forget and pretend because that will only put more people in harms way. We need to see an independent look at the data and we need more data to look for all the contaminants of concern related to this site that also had half a century of rocket testing that resulted in nearly a million gallons of TCE in the groundwater below. We don't know enough about the impacts of this highly complex site without all the facts. No further development should of this area should occur before full characterization and clean-up of the site just above - 2017 according to the consent order issued by the state of California. We don't need another Love Canal

I am one of the so-called Radiation Rangers, and I am not a NIMBY, or anti-development, or an environmental activist.

Contrary to what Barbara Williamson keeps saying, I was in attendance at the City Council meeting on April 26, 2004, when the Runkle Canyon project was approved.

The Council generously allotted 30 minutes of public comment time to the developer, so they could give their slide presentation on the proposed development. Then they permitted citizens to voice their comments or concerns, but imposed a strict time limit of 3 minutes per person, which may be the reason that Barbara doesn’t remember that I was there.

My concerns have not changed, nor have they been addressed during the ensuing four years. The fact of the matter is that there is radiological contamination in Runkle Canyon, but we do not know with certainty how much. There is chemical contamination in Runkle Canyon, but again, we do not know the extent. The EIR for the Runkle Canyon project inaccurately states that there is no contamination.

Preliminary sampling done by QST Environmental found Strontium-90 in every sample. This should have triggered an extensive, MARSIM compliant radiological characterization of Runkle Canyon to determine if a development was safe. It did not.

Instead, the developer got another lab to repeat the preliminary sampling. Foster Wheeler also found high levels of Strontium-90, but falsely stated that they were too low to be of concern (despite one sample that measured 12.54 pCi/g, which is more than 54 times the EPA’s preliminary remediation goal.)

Chemical testing has followed essentially the same pattern – minimal sampling, manipulation of results, distortion of findings, and bogus reassurance.

The Radiation Rangers want two things:

1. The existing EIR should be invalidated due to its distortions and inaccuracies.
2. A complete chemical and radiological characterization of Runkle Canyon – performed by an unbiased, independent lab – should be completed and published for public review.

This is all that we have asked for from the beginning, and considering the activities that took place at the SSFL for forty years, this is not an unreasonable request.

It is a perfectly reasonable and entirely responsible request. Thank you Patricia for keeping up the good fight.

Fool us once, shame on you.

Fool us twice, shame on us.

Yes, cancer is bad, we all agree with that and we have all lost family members to it. But to blame in on this project is nuts. These consultants aren't killers. They are scientists and engineers. If you are a conspiracy buff, then stay home and read a good novel. The land on this project is free of appreciable contamination significantly above background. You can talk all you want about gloves dissolving in the water. It is all bunkum as has been proven time and time again. As then say, if you can't reproduce the experiment, the results were false in the first place.

More bupkis from the CAPster which is not surprising on this blog. Unfortunately, Brian does not see fit to include live links at the top of this thread so people can judge the evidence themselves. So here's the skinny: check out www.EnviroReporter.com if you want to read about this place backed up with documented facts (supplied mostly by the developers reports and the city's themselves).

The uninformed and virulent rhetoric splashed across this blog regarding Runkle Canyon from self-appointed 'experts' and insincere and willfully ignorant pols does the citizens of Simi Valley little good.

This is the situation: the Department of Toxic Substances Control will not advise the City of Simi Valley on whether or not to proceed with this project. So, the City Council is not going to demand a new Environmental Impact Report, despite the mounds of new evidence of contamination and no KB Homes plans in the EIR to deal with it, unless, perhaps, even more evidence is presented regarding toxins in the canyon. And even more evidence is coming, that's for sure.

Ah..so are we to take it that YOU, Mr. Collins are the self-appointed expert? I think not. We, the City Council will listen to ALL the evidence presented by the REAL EXPERTS and then make our decision. End of story.

No, Barbra, I'm the journalist who unearthed the facts about this story and back them up on our website to such an extent that we win journalistic awards for it. But "expert," no. I know that the science is complicated but that's why we back it up and write about it in the Ventura County Reporter and other media in an understandable manner aimed at smart 8th graders on up.

My job is not to "sell newspapers" as you wrote earlier through "negative news." The information is just what it is, but it is of concern and has been ever since we broke this story in March 2005. That's why KB Home, at the suggestion of the Department of Toxic Substances, entered into a voluntary cleanup agreement and has now shared all their reports, again, to their credit. It is these reports that revealed much of the latest data as well as on-site observation, sample collection and testing since 2004.

The last time you and the City Council listened to "ALL" the evidence, you actually had in your hands the information that formed the base of our original expose - the Runkle Canyon Environmental Impact Report. And you missed it. At that time, you gave citizens three minutes each to present their information so the City Council had exactly six minutes of 'non-expert' testimony that presaged the contamination issues we now know about. Ever since, concerned residents and the Radiation Rangers have had three minutes each to voice more concerns about more revelations, revelations all backed up by hard data, data on our website and different newspapers' websites.

This rude back and forth should end here, Barbra, as I know we personally like each other. Or at least I thought we did. Perhaps having a transparent and respectful approach to the matter could lighten things up. Obviously, this is an unprecedented situation where you folks have approved the EIR and are waiting for the DTSC to tell you what to do, which they won't. They will present evidence, however, which will be very informative.

As an olive branch to the citizens of your city, who have questioned your judgment in this matter, can promise that the residents will have the opportunity to participate in a public forum with the City Council, perhaps along with DTSC when it presents its report, so that this issue gets the fair hearing the residents have been demanding for the last four years?

That would be good news to the citizens of Simi Valley. Might even sell newspapers.

That last sentence in my above post left out the most important word - "you" - so it should read "can you promise the residents..."

"You" means my friend Barbra here.

In all the years I have been on the City Council, I think the evidence proves that I always listen to the residents, and will continue to do so. However, it gets really really old to keep getting beat about the head when we are trying to be FAIR to everyone including the developer.
Three minutes is a long time when you have 20 people coming up and saying the say thing over and over and over...perhaps you should circle the wagon, and request one person speak for the entire group for lets say 10 minutes. I can't promise the Mayor will allow that to happen as he runs the meeting, I would would be happy to suggest it.

Barbara, that's exactly what we (the citizens) have tried to do in the past when we wanted to speak to the Council about this matter.

An individual who signed a card to speak during the public comments portion of the meeting would indicate that he or she was giving his or her three minutes to another speaker.

The last time we attended a Council meeting, the Mayor, Paul Miller, stated at the beginning of the public comments portion of the meeting that he would not allow anyone to give over their time to someone else - as I recall, he said, "I'm not putting up with any of these tricks."

Like we were trying to pull a fast one by speaking to our elected representatives! If two people speak for three minutes each, or one person speaks for six minutes, the same amount of time has elapsed, so how is that a "trick?"

We have made repeated requests to get the Runkle Canyon EIR on the Council meeting agenda, and despite assurances, it still hasn't happened.

And as for citizen comments "getting really old," I am sorry if our concerns bore you. I usually spend several hours preparing my remarks. I write out what I want to say ahead of time, and spend considerable effort revising and editing so that what I have to say is clear and concise.

But if I can't get through my remarks within three minutes, I am cut off in mid sentence.

I have sat through Council meetings listening to the members discuss left turns at one intersection for more than an hour.

I have listed to Council members debate the standards for newspaper vending machines for well over an hour.

The question of whether vendors should be allowed to sell flowers from the curb required almost an entire meeting.

I have been at City Council meetings where, when the Radiation Rangers showed up, public comments were moved to the end of the agenda, which meant that we had to wait until after 11:00 PM for our three minute opportunity to speak to our elected officials.
Our city government officials seem to be willing to discuss, endlessly, any topic – as long as it isn’t Rocketdyne, Boeing, or the Santa Susanna Filed Lab.

I just don’t get it.

How can the City of Simi Valley simply ignore Rocketdyne's nefarious activities, both past and present? Why are not all of you outraged on behalf of the citizens of Simi Valley?

Have any of you actually looked in to what was going on up at the Santa Susanna Field Lab?

Have you read the incident reports on the reactor meltdown in 1959 or 1964? Have you read any of the material concerning fires in the hot lab, and the radioactivity that resulted? Have you read the studies published on October 5, 2006 by the SSFL Advisory Panel?

Are you familiar with the burn pit, and are you aware of the tons of chemical and radiological contaminates that were burned there, in the open air, at night while residents living nearby were sleeping?

Are you aware of the illegal shipments of low level radioactive waste that came into Rocketdyne from other Department of Defense sites for years? How about the illegal shipments of low level radioactive waste from Rocketdyne to local landfills?

Why wasn't Simi Valley a party to the lawsuit brought by the city of Los Angeles against Boeing for violating Federal environmental laws and CERCLA standards?

Just twelve years ago, in 1996, two scientists were killed from an explosion that occurred while they were illegally burning hazardous wastes up on the hill. Rocketdyne claimed that the scientists were conducting legitimate research. The FBI raided the lab, and after the truth came out, Rocketdyne pled guilty to felony charges and paid what was then the largest environmental in California's history.

And lest you be tempted to dismiss Rocketdyne/Boeing as a problem in the past that doesn’t have anything to do with our city today, let me disabuse you of that notion.

Just last year, Boeing racked up almost half a million dollars in fines for contaminated water runoff. That contamination is going straight into the Arroyo Simi, of which 25% is blended with imported water for drinking by Simi Valley residents.

Runkle Canyon sits at the bottom of an eleven acre drainage coming directly from Area IV, where the reactors and the hot lab were located. So maybe, just maybe, my concerns are sincere, and not the product of self-interest or NIMBY-ism.

The City of Simi Valley’s absolute silence on all things Rocketdyne is inexplicable to me, and to many of the residents in Simi Valley. If our city government won’t make an effort to protect us, who will?

I have read with amazment the amount of material available on the web concerning SSFL. Altho they have not done any radiation connected programs there, I wonder what are the problems at East Miramar / Camp Elliot outside of S.D. to be unearthead as the land is being developed at this moment for housing.