DTSC says it will have final say on Runkle next summer

The city of Simi Valley got another step closer Monday to getting an answer about whether or not it's safe to build in Runkle Canyon.

Two years and one month after developers voluntarily agreed to halt grading on a proposed 461-home development because of the concern of nearby residents, Norm Riley of the Department of Toxic Substances Control told City Council members that they will get a clear-cut determination most likely by "next summer."

"We will say, in our opinion, the site is safe or the site is not safe, or it can be rendered safe provided the following things are done," Riley said in front of a crowded room at Monday's council meeting.

Riley, the DTSC's Santa Susana Field Lab project director, and a group of concerned citizens known as the Radiation Rangers, each gave special reports to the council regarding Runkle Canyon's alleged contamination.

In 2004, the council approved the proposed Runkle Ranch development on a 1,595-acre site located along Simi's southern border and adjacent to the field lab, a former rocket engine and nuclear test site now found to be contaminated because of 50 years of what Riley called "careless and indiscriminate management of hazardous chemicals and radionuclides."

Riley told the council that after having reviewed 41 documents summarizing investigations that occurred at the site between 1999 and 2007, the DTSC had three requests for developer Runkle Canyon LLC, which is a joint-partnership between home builders KB Home and Lennar.

The first is to explain why a 1999 radiation test in Runkle Canyon showed levels of strontium 90 greater than normal background levels, while every subsequent test has showed much lower levels.

The DTSC has asked KB and Lennar to explain the reasons for the dimished radioactivity and to provide additional justifications for why they believe there is no health risk related to the strontium—a cancer-causing radioactive isotope—and therefore no need for further sampling in Runkle Canyon.

The developer must also explain why cesium 137 radioactivity was not present when strontium 90 was identified. The two isotopes, products of nuclear fission, are generally found together.

If the developer cannot provide reasonable explanations, it will have to include provisions for more testing.

The second request dealt with a suspicious white crystalline material that had been photographed and collected at the site. But that request was put to rest, Riley said, when the DTSC determined the white material to be naturally occurring salt.

According to Riley, the material is not related to field lab activities and has been seen in other locations outside the area, including Corriganville Park, Stoney Point Park and the Santa Susana Pass.

"We are 100 percent certain that this is not a contaminant from the Santa Susana Field Lab," Riley said.

The third part of the plan requires Runkle Canyon LLC to remove approximately 12 cubic yards of tar material associated with a former gravel mining operation in the canyon. According to the DTSC, the tar poses a potential threat to human health.

After hearing the status of the investigation, Councilmember Steve Sojka pushed Riley to see if an "all's clear" decision is in the future for the city.

Sojka asked if the DTSC is prepared to say it's safe to build homes in Runkle Canyon once all the necessary information is available from the developer.

Riley, choosing his words carefully, said it depends on the remaining data that's yet to be submitted.

"If the answers to the three questions are satisfactory, if they point to a 'no further action determination' and if no new information comes up indicating a problem, then yes, in all probability, we will say the property is safe for residential development," Riley said.

While members of the council said frequently that their first concern was the public's safety, Councilmembers Sojka and Glen Becerra reminded the audience that the land had long been zoned for houses.

"We don't need to build homes if it is not safe for our community, but if it is safe and good sound science proves that, I don't think it is appropriate for us to get in the way of that," Sojka said.

Though the meeting focused on the review of the 41 documents the developer submitted to DTSC earlier this year, Riley assured the public that the agency would be considering all available evidence from the city, residents, the developer and prior land owners to make its final ruling on Runkle.

Supplemental EIR

Another development came when the Radiation Rangers— residents Terry Matheney, Frank Serafine, Patty Coryell and John Southwick—struck an accord with the council.

For the past year, the Radiation Rangers have asked the city to do a new environmental impact report for the Runkle Ranch project. However, on Monday, the group simply asked that a supplemental EIR be conducted to include all new information since 2004, when the original report was made.

Though the two sides have long seemed at odds, the council agreed that a supplemental EIR would be prudent at a later date.

During the residents' presentation, environmental journalist Michael Collins, who spoke on behalf of the Rangers, asserted that the surface water in Runkle Canyon creek is contaminated and that it could pollute the city's water supply through the groundwater.

But Riley said the DTSC information does not indicate a surface water problem, though additional testing might be needed.

City Manager Mike Sedell added that about 60 percent of the city's drinking water is imported, and the other 40 percent, which is provided by Golden State Water Company, is blended with just 10 percent groundwater.

He said that each resident receives an annual statement about their water quality reassuring the customers that it's safe to drink.

Still, Southwick urged the City Council to act wisely.

"Make sure that not only the land that's built on, if it's ever built on, is safe, but remember that the vast majority of this land will be open to future and current residents and their pets," said Southwick, noting that 91 percent of the Runkle Ranch property is scheduled to be open space. "Please make sure that every square inch of that property is safe for every creature that dares tread upon it."

Becerra said the city's goal is singular, and that he could "care less" if homes are ever built in Runkle Canyon.

"We held up a development and have not issued any further progress on that because of the information (brought up by) the residents and our concern for safety," Becerra said.

"Ultimately, that is the only question we want answered: is it safe or is it not?" he said.

Mayor Paul Miller closed the discussion with words he's recited often since the issue of contamination in Runkle Canyon first came to the council.

"At some point, this council will have to make a decision, but as we have said many, many times before, we are not going to approve any kind of development until we are absolutely, 100 percent certain that that site is safe to do so," Miller said.