Home › News › Local News
Soil from canyon not dangerous, study says
City's results differ from those of Runkle plan foes
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS 
More from Local NewsThe soil samples taken at Runkle Canyon are in, and while there is an option for further study, Simi Valley city officials have concluded there is no immediate health risk to residents.
The results show four times less arsenic than the level found during a May soil test, funded by a group of residents who live nearby. All other metals were found to be within acceptable limits.
The residents' test found levels of arsenic at 34 mg/kg, while arsenic in the soil measured only 8 mg/kg in the city's study, done by Tetra Tech Inc. and released Wednesday afternoon.
"Our main issue was whether the public is at any risk being on that property," said Laura Bejhan, assistant city manager.
"And it seems there isn't an immediate hazard to the public."
The Runkle Canyon property, near a former rocket engine test site south of Simi Valley, has been the subject of controversy over possible ground contamination.
The City Council has directed that no grading permit be issued until the question is resolved, and the developer, KB Homes, has not asked for a permit to start work. The developer plans to build 461 residences at the southern end of Sequoia Avenue and dedicate more than 1,400 acres in the canyon to open space.
The City Council approved the project in 2004 after reviewing an environmental impact report from a company hired by GreenPark, the developer that previously owned the land.
Although it found evidence of leftover contaminants, the study said the levels were not high enough to be a threat to the public.
In May, the residents' group funded a $3,000 soil and water test of certain parts of the property. The results found high levels of arsenic, nickel, copper and other metals, according to the group. The report was done by Pat-Chem Laboratories of Moorpark.
While the full results of the soil test were never released, after the news spread, Mayor Paul Miller prompted the city to conduct its own test.
The results are from one of three samples taken July 2 by labs hired by three interested groups — the city, KB Homes and the residential group dubbed the "Radiation Rangers."
Runkle Canyon is near the former Santa Susana Field Laboratory, where a 1959 nuclear reactor meltdown and subsequent contamination are being linked to hundreds of cancer cases in the area, a recent independent study said.
Residents in the area have long feared radioactive contamination from strontium 90, found in soil samples taken in the canyon from 1998 to 2003. The Rangers worry that grading the site will kick up clouds of polluted dust, sending it over their neighborhood and the city.
Calls placed to members of the citizens group were not immediately returned Wednesday.
Bejhan said KB Homes was given a copy of the soil tests Wednesday, with the option to look into further testing, for example, to check background levels of metals, particularly arsenic, in soils for the area.
"Out of an abundance of caution, we recommended additional advisory guidelines," Bejhan said.
Tetra Tech's report is available at the city's Web site, at www.simivalley.org.
Posted by rjeremy on August 16, 2007 at 3:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
f
Posted by ctmtwilliams on August 16, 2007 at 8:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sooooo....what do the Runkle Rangers say now????
Posted by tsetsaf on August 20, 2007 at 5:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It seems that the Runkle Rangers are at least partially correct. I recognize the levels "are safe" but what is the level normally found in non-contaminated soil?
Also, was the city's soil sample taken at the same location as the hyped sample?
I say let them build and when people start getting cancer allow them to sue KB homes.
Posted by vwhunter on August 21, 2007 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Makes the "Runkle Rangers" look pretty bad. Their un-scientific methods are now glaringly obvious.
Posted by curly on August 22, 2007 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's time the so-called Rangers got their comeuppance. Their ridiculous Don Quixote-antics are annoying and have zero credibility. They need to put away their Erin Brockovich DVDs and move on to better things.
Posted by neecanna on August 23, 2007 at 8:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The following post is for readers of the Ventura County Star who are capable of civil discourse. The operative word is "readers" as no one seems to have done much of it.
As noted in two different versions of an article entitled "Spin Cycle" today at VCReporter.com and LACityBeat.com, the Star and Simi Valley Acorn repeatedly get this story wrong even after errors are pointed out as we did with our Pat Chem report and Analysis at EnviroReporter.com.
First, the Star's reporter, Anna Bakalis, incorrectly writes that
high levels of copper were found by the Radiation Rangers. That is incorrect - the copper was insignificant. Bakalis left out vanadium and substituted copper for reasons unclear other than sloppy reporting. Bakalis also once again states that the Rangers funded a $3,000 test, but they did not - the test cost less than that as we also noted a month ago.
Bakalis writes that "the full results of the [Rangers'] soil test were never released," which indicates that she did not even read the city's report that she is reporting on, which states "A portion (two pages) of the Pat Chem analytical report for the sample collected on May 18, 2007 was also posted on the EnviroReporter website. The full report was subsequently posted on the EnviroReporter website, but the additional information is not relevant to this analysis."
But Bakalis outdoes herself with this: "The results show four times less arsenic than the level found during a May soil test, funded by a group of residents who live nearby. All other metals were found to be within acceptable limits."
The arsenic in soil was a quarter less, but that is more than 20 times the federal Environmental Protection Agency's "preliminary remediation goal" (PRG) for arsenic in residential soil. Bakalis also misses that there was 25 percent more arsenic in the water which is 26,478 times tap water's PRG and 47,000 times California's "public health goal" for the toxin in drinking water.
In the city's Tetra Tech report regarding their two water samples, there was 33% more nickel, 55% more vanadium and 233% more barium than what the Rangers tested! And Tetra Tech found toxic substances in the water that the Rangers didn't - cadmium, chromium, and lead - all at levels that certainly aren't "acceptable.'
Finally, the comments here about the Rangers' "unscientific methods" are ridiculous. The city used the same lab to pull the samples in the same way, and all of us have access to the regulations regarding these dangerous and toxic heavy metals. It is unfortunate that the Star's Bakalis and some of her readers can't understand the science, as it gives Simi Valley residents the mistaken impression that all is well in Runkle Canyon.
Denise Anne Duffield
EnviroReporter.com
Posted by vwhunter on August 24, 2007 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
DAD: Grasping at straws again are we? I guess we need extremists to add some fun to our lives. But the cost to society is extreme. The relative risk of the site is far less than anything we typically encounter in a normal day. Please find a new cause with real risk if your going to force taxpayers to spend more money.
Posted by sterlingk on September 19, 2007 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Do you guys work for KBHomes or what? People raising concerns about the site of the worst nuclear meltdown in US history isn't extremism - it's responsibility. This story has been shown to be errant by several other news sources than DAD - the Simi Valley City Council's report actually came back showing HIGHER levels of arsenic than the Rangers' report did.
Given how the city has flattened every possible hill to build unsuccessful malls and overpriced housing, doesn't it seem that they might be overly-friendly with developers and that they might be willing to overlook direct evidence in order to make more in taxes?
I'm not saying I know the truth here, but it's pretty easy to tell that the truth isn't being told by the city and so it's just common sense to pay attention to what the Rangers or any other concerned citizen group has to say.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.