Home › News › Local News
County group tests Runkle Canyon toxicity
Residents concerned over former Field Lab site
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS 
More from Local NewsNews of the toxic glove traveled fast to city and county leaders.
A group of residents took it upon themselves to sample surface water and soil in Runkle Canyon, located near a former rocket engine test site south of Simi Valley.
The residents said a rubber glove used in sampling the water bubbled up and melted away before their eyes, raising a fear that cancer-causing chemicals are in the water and the soil.
On Monday, another glove test was taken by Mayor Paul Miller, county Supervisor Peter Foy and others. A member of a residents' group was there.
"I wanted to go up there and see this firsthand," Foy said.
The glove didn't melt.
Samples have been taken by labs hired by three interested groups — the city, a residential group and a developer — at two water sites and one muddy site.
KB Homes and Lennar Homes have been approved to build 461 residences on 140 acres at the southern end of Sequoia Avenue and plan to dedicate more than 1,400 acres in the canyon to open space.
The samples were done at the same time and will go to different labs, with results expected in the next 10 days. City officials are keeping the gloves in a plastic bag and monitoring them for any changes.
Residents fear radioactive contamination from strontium 90, found in soil samples taken in the canyon between 1998 and 2003. They worry that grading the site will kick up clouds of polluted dust, sending it over their neighborhood and the city.
The City Council has given direction that no grading permit be issued until there is resolution, and the developer has not asked for a permit to start work.
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 contaminates, the study said the levels were not high enough to be a threat to the public.
The report included detailed soil samples from the property.
In April, the city received a letter from the state Department of Health Services after city officials asked for direction on how to proceed with the project, given the previous samples taken that contained strontium 90. The health department letter said that there were 32 samples taken from the planned development area in Runkle Canyon in the 2004 EIR, and that "the risks all fall within the EPA protective cancer risk range."
The residents' group funded the recent $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. However, the report was 17 pages long, but only two pages have been seen by the city and KB Homes.
The report was sent directly from the lab to a reporter at the City Beat Web site, based in Los Angeles, and residents said they never received a copy.
A request by The Star for the residents' full report was also unsuccessful because group members said they did not have a copy of the full document. Members include Frank Serafine, John Southwick, Terry Matheny and Patty Coryell.
Assistant City Manager Laura Behjan said the city asked for the report but also never received it. After the two-page document was released listing the metals found, the city decided to conduct its own test.
"It would just help us to better understand it in its full context," she said.
Southwick, who went to the Monday soil test, wants Simi Valley residents to know about Runkle Canyon. It 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.
The area tested Monday is about half a mile from where any homes would be built, Foy noted. Grading has not begun because of the residents' concerns.
"KB made a decision last fall not to pursue a grading permit," said Keith Jajko, spokesman for the developer.
Jajko said the developer has cooperated with the city and residents to move forward with the project.
"To date, no government agencies have not found any evidence it is not within the standards of a housing development," Jajko said.
Last year, after complaints from residents, the city asked that three government agencies conduct independent reviews of previously collected environmental data on strontium 90 at the site to determine if moving forward with the development would prove hazardous to the public's health.
"We are continuing efforts to get some clarity as to the safety to proceeding with development of the site," Behjan said.
Strontium 90 is one of 12 radioactive isotopes found in the nonradioactive, silvery metal strontium. Strontium 90 is found in waste from nuclear reactors and is considered one of the more hazardous contents of nuclear waste, according to the Environmental Protection Agency Web site.
Behjan said the city's intention in doing a separate test was to have "an added dimension to make sure we are addressing their concerns. We're trying to partner on this," Behjan said.
"We were satisfied with the samples taken today," Southwick said. "We tried to take them to the same places we went the first time. We'll find out the results in the next week or so."
Posted by neecanna on July 3, 2007 at 2:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Anna Bakalis and the VC Star should be ashamed of the incredibly shoddy reporting that went into this article. Factual errors and misrepresentations abound.
1. Residents never claimed that their gloves melted away before their eyes. They reported that the fouled waters in Runkle canyon bubbled upon contact with their gloves, shocking one of them so much that he removed his gloves before the liquid could harm him.
2. The report was not sent to “a reporter at the City Beat website,” it was sent to multi-award winning investigative journalist Michael Collins. Collins displayed the 2 pertinent pages on his website, EnviroReporter.com.
3. The rest of the report indicated no further contamination, but was not given to the City, KB Homes, nor the Ventura County Star because it is proprietary information. Ms. Bakalis should understand this, since she herself told Frank Serafine that she could not share information with other reporters as it was “company policy” - yet she wanted information from Collins.
Only ignorance and arrogance could explain this double standard – or perhaps laziness, as indicated in this horribly inaccurate report.
The citizens of Simi Valley deserve better. Please see EnviroReporter.com for accurate news on this subject and visit the residents’ website at StopRunkleDyne.com.
Denise Duffield
EnviroReporter.com
Posted by laforce2 on July 4, 2007 at 11:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's all about money. And Foy supports developers, as they do him.
Is there any honesty left in this town?
That really was terrible reporting!
Don't quit your day job, Anna!
Posted by jakaries on July 4, 2007 at 4:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I really hope that this isn't causing pediatric leukemia that has destroyed several families in Simi.
Posted by neecanna on July 7, 2007 at 1:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Enviroreporter.com has been updated to include the full PatChem report and an analysis of the actual pollution findings, erroneous media coverage, and statements by Simi Valley officials.
Posted by ctmtwilliams on July 10, 2007 at 6:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Before any of you get on your high horses and start banging drums or pointing fingers you should frist do a little research on what the background concentrations of arsenic and some of the other "toxins" touted in Runkle Canyon are through out Southern California.
Looking at the photos on the enviroeporter site shows sampling of water that has seeped to the surface surrounded with a large amount of evaporite deposits. Do any of you think that perhaps the elevated concentrations of arsenic could possibly be coming from naturally occurring arsenic in ground water?? Look at the analytical results of other abnormally high common evaporite minerals. Looks like high sodium, as well as calcium, potassium, and magnesium too doesn't it? Sure the arsenic concentrations are above MCL and actions limits, but so are most of the background concentrations in the state!!! Background arsenic in Los Angeles school soils is 6 mg/kg!
These are people who are trying to use environmental fears to stop development. I'm not for development of the canyon, but as an environmental professional, I can not stand to see this sort of garbage take place. Shame on the "Rangers" and the reporters who are helping to spread fear based on partial fact and poor science. Award winning indeed! WAJ
Posted by vwhunter on July 11, 2007 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Gut wrenching enviro-wacko stuff again! Always quick to point out reporting descrepancies, yet always in denial about the true meaning of any data that they present. Where is the "data" for background levels, soils concentrations, acknowledgement of evaporative concentration, etc. Plus the fact that what material there is would be highly unlikely to affect the population. Remember Love Canal? There has never been a single certified health incidence.
Posted by SimiGal on July 12, 2007 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ctmt Williams and WWHunter should read before claiming scientific superiority.
The data has been documented in a comprehensive way, specificially, I assume, for reactionary types like the above.
Take a look at www.stoprunkledyne.com/RunkledyneArsenic
The Citybeat article also says:
"Runkle Canyon’s surface water readings for arsenic are 15 times the MCL for drinking water, over 21,000 times the EPA’s “preliminary remediation goal” and 37,500 times the agency’s “public health goal” for potable water.
The mud sample was laced with arsenic as well, coming in at 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."
And arsenic issue is only ONE of Runkle Canyon's many problems - stontium-90 levels are still too high for development!!! That is also well documented on EnviroReporter.com and other websites.
"Environmental professional" indeed!!!
But why build anywhere near a place that will probably soon become an EPA superfund site? See the YouTube videos here www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGnNWeGUqhI&v2 and here www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRdC5I0Yn2k
But money talks, especially when developers and corrupt city officials are involved. (And pretend to be 'environmental professionals') Who cares who gets sick in the process, right?
Posted by vwhunter on July 12, 2007 at 4:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oops SimiGal.
I did review all of your references. My original post was in response to the data and representations made in them. I have not claimed scientific superiority. I have only stated obvious questions regarding limited data.
Posted by ctmtwilliams on July 12, 2007 at 6:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well simigal, I am a Registered Professional Geologist in California and I specialize in environmental investigations. Let me qualify my self by saying that I have not, nor do I intend to work professionally in the Santa Susana Mountains. My children are third generation Simi Valley born. I follow issues such as this with professional curiosity only, and I have no stake in which way the issue is (if ever) resolved.
I'm still waiting to hear where my interpretation of the high Arsenic concentrations is wrong or misleading. Mud collected at the point of extensive evaporation would be expected to have elevated concentrations.
Did you know that water suppliers in California commonly have to treat their groundwater due to naturally occurring elevated concentrations of arsenic?? Yes friends, water purveyors in our state commonly have to treat their water due to naturally occurring arsenic many times over the MCL.
My gawd, if a professional environmental consulting firm were to collect samples using the "Rangers" methodology, they would be laughed at. But instead, you applaud some vigilante group of admitted non-scientists, who trespasses onto another's property without any sort of proper pre-planed sampling and analysis protocol, grabs surface samples, and then without any idea how to interpret the data, try to use such data to further a specific self-serving cause. How transparent.
If there are other issues with stontium-90, so be it, but you and your friends really should re-evaluate your position on the arsenic issue, you stand to discredit the rest of your cause with both your ignorance and arrogance.
Posted by neecanna on July 12, 2007 at 11:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is gratifying to see people debating this subject, though the vitriol is unnecessary. I admit that there are some real environmental wackos out there who do indeed harm the causes for which they stand. But the “Radiation Rangers” are not wackos – they are good people who work hard each day in their respective professions and would rather be doing other things in their spare time than fighting City Hall and KB Home. Unfortunately they have learned, as have many others, that “science” can be bought and sold if the price is right.
SimiGal’s message was coherent and correct and she backed up her assertions so I won’t repeat them. As stated on www.stoprunkledyne.com/RunkledyneArsenic, the Runkle arsenic reading was nearly eight times Rocketdyne's own "arithmetic mean" of background arsenic on that heavily polluted site which has at least three major arsenic hot spots. Runkle’s testing result is nearly 10 times the State "mean." No amount of evaporation mechanism can explain away the actual results - they are what they are, unfortunately. And a fault line runs down from Rocketdyne right into Runkle, providing a clear route of possible contamination conveyance through the groundwater.
Ctmtwilliams remark about "vigilantes" doing testing with no pre-planned sampling/testing protocols doesn’t make sense: testing is done where pollution is suspected and then the lab takes it from there, which is what the Rangers did. But this misses the point entirely. KB Home's original lab didn't even test this soil - they tested some asphalt - and their lab tested everything else but for arsenic and other heavy metals in their sole sample of surface water, and the City bought it hook line and stinker. The citizens didn’t think that explained the suspicious looking muck and so had it tested. This forced the City to do the same, in the exact same way, using the same lab!
Posted by ctmtwilliams on July 13, 2007 at 8:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
No amount of evaporation can explain away the arsenic concentrations?? So you really think that evaporation can not concentrate groundwater constituents?? Your own writings state that there are abnormally high concentrations of other evaporates. This just proves that although you may not be wackos, you are woefully misguided. Or, maybe you are just so self serving in your work that you refuse to accept other points of view.
I like your ability to point the finger up the hill and simply think that because they have environmental concerns you can use them as a potential source to resolve all of your no growth issues.
Your statement amuses me when you say “they are good people who work hard each day in their respective professions and would rather be doing other things in their spare time than fighting ” If that doesn’t fit the profile of a vigilante I don’t know what does.
Posted by vwhunter on July 13, 2007 at 12:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We are fortunate to have "cmtwilliams" bring some logic to this issue. Nearly every environmental doomsday to date has been proven wrong. One example is the lead slag remediation in Aspen, Co. Even though the lead levels in the soils were high the population tested as one of the lowest in blood levels in the U.S. Even so the EPA went ahead with remediation and created many times the negative health effects than if they would have left it alone. Not to mention wasting millions of tax payer dollars that could have gone to saving lives.
Posted by SimiGal on July 13, 2007 at 1:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don’t understand why so much nastiness either. And it’s odd for that kind of venom to come from people who claim to have no stake in the development, unless they just have their panties in a wad about whoever they think is an environmentalist which doesn’t make sense. This isn’t about politics. The facts are the facts but if people can’t be civil there’s no point in discussing anything and that’s a shame so this is my last post. Let ctmtwilliams and vw hunter rage on to themselves. Like I said before there are so many well-documented contamination problems with SSFL, it will probably be a superfund site soon, and it just makes no sense to build near there for safety’s sake. My sincere best wishes and good luck to all.
Posted by ctmtwilliams on July 13, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No venom, just the plain simple facts (as you say). I like how when I (just another local citizen with technical knowledge) calls B.S. on what you are touting as fact, you accuse me of being on the opposite side or of being nasty. Accepting your NIMBY perversion of the data as fact is just wrong and it is wrong to let you try to suck others into your ill directed ploys.
The sampling by the "Rangers" did not follow any standard DTSC or EPA protocols. Sure the lab used EPA analytical methodology, but what about the sampling procedures?? How was the sampling equipment decontaminated between samples?? Was it washed in Alconox and triple rinsed in De-ionized water?? Was an equipment blank collected and analyzed? Any trip blanks analyzed? You friends shot a $3,000.00 wad collecting worthless samples because they don't know what they are doing. You couldn't defend those samples in court, let alone any interpretation of the data. For you guys to try to make something out of what has ended up being little more than a bunch of NIMBYs playing in the mud is laughable. I will also laugh when all of the regulatory agencies dismiss your "facts".
Posted by neecanna on August 23, 2007 at 8:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This post is to set the record straight.
As we note 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 the errors are pointed as we did with our Pat-Chem Report and Analysis at EnviroReporter.com.
The commenters here should note that the city used the exact same lab and the exact same technician and the exact same methods on July 2 as the Rangers did on May 18. But their results were even more shocking.
While the arsenic in soil was a quarter less in the city's test, that is more than 20 times the federal Environmental Protection Agency's "preliminary remediation goal" (PRG) for arsenic in residential soil. 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 the Rangers didn't - cadmium, chromium, and lead - all at levels that certainly aren't "acceptable."
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.
We will continue to report on this and get the facts straight regarding Runkle Canyon, which has an 11-acre drainage leading down into it from Rocketdyne, site of numerous chemical and radiological accidents and spills, including at least two partial nuclear reactor meltdowns.
Denise Anne Duffield
EnviroReporter.com
(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.