Runkle response plan comes under fire

A developer's plan addressing lingering issues at Runkle Canyon raised more questions than answers at a public hearing last week during which Simi residents and nuclear activists criticized the objectivity of the builder's consultant and called for an independent entity to carry out future testing at the site.

About 40 people attended the Jan. 28 meeting at city hall, which was held by the state Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC).

Dan Hirsch, president of the nuclear watchdog group, Committee to Bridge the Gap, spoke out strongly against the plan, which was prepared by environmental health consultant Dade Moeller & Associates, and called the report a piece of "propaganda" rather than science.

"The public has a right for a truthful and independent answer . . . and the very process of letting the developer do the investigation is rife with conflict," Hirsch told the Simi Valley Acorn this week.

The site of the proposed 461home Runkle Ranch development is at the end of Sequoia Avenue along Simi's southern border. The 1,595-acre property is adjacent to the Santa Susana Field Lab, a former rocket engine and nuclear test site known to be contaminated with hazardous chemicals and radionuclides.

The Simi Valley City Council approved the project in 2004 after it received a positive environmental impact report, but developers voluntarily halted grading in 2006 due to concerns from nearby residents.

Last April, Runkle Canyon LLC—a joint partnership between home builders KB Home and Lennar—signed an agreement with DTSC that required them to submit documentation summarizing previous investigations that occurred at the project site between 1999 and 2007.

After reviewing the submitted documents, the DTSC requested that the developer prepare a response plan for addressing the state's remaining requests. Dade Moeller, based in Richland, Wash., was hired to do the work.

At last Wednesday's meeting, Hirsch, a part-time lecturer on nuclear policy at UC Santa Cruz, made the argument that Dade Moeller has a conflict of interest because it is being paid by a developer who needs a certain answer to go forward and because one of the consultant's clients is the Department of Energy, the agency considered most responsible for the contamination at the nearby field lab.

"If contamination were found it would cost Moeller's client, DOE, a great deal, because it was contamination at the DOE nuclear lab that caused the pollution at Runkle," Hirsch said.

Norm Riley, the DTSC's Santa Susana Field Lab project director, said he doesn't share Hirsch's concern that data collected by Dade Moeller will be biased because it is being generated "under the watchful eye" of the state.

In addition, Riley said the DTSC does not have the legal power to remove Dade Moeller as the consultant.

"Dade Moeller is clearly qualified to do work in this area," he said. "We will not approve the response plan until we are satisfied that it calls for fair, objective and appropriate scientific procedure. And we will oversee the response plan to make sure the work is done correctly."

Riley said the state's radiological health experts would look into the claims that previous lab results showing Runkle Canyon as safe for residential development are skewed.

Keith Jajko, spokesman for Runkle Canyon LLC, said in a statement to the Acorn that the developer believes the site is safe.

"While Runkle Canyon, LLC appreciates the continuing interest of the public in the safety of the project, Mr. Hirsch's comments repeat claims that have already been made. Runkle Canyon, LLC continues to work with the DTSC and Mr. Riley on an acceptable response plan and actions, and Runkle Canyon, LLC is confident that the department will reaffirm the opinions of scientific experts that the property is safe for residential development."

More sampling needed

More than 100 soil samples have been taken in Runkle Canyon since 1998 and the DTSC has said it wants more before it's ready to determine if the property is safe for housing development.

Dade Moeller's draft response includes plans for additional soil sampling for strontium90 and cesium-137 to be completed in the eastern and southeastern areas of Runkle Canyon—closest to the field lab—and a plan for the removal of a small amount of tar material from drainage areas.

However, there is still disagreement about the validity of prior testing.

In 1999, Foster Wheeler Environmental collected soil samples at 58 locations as outlined in the Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual, the bible of radiological testing. Thirteen of the samples found elevated levels of strontium90, a radioactive isotope left behind after a nuclear fission reaction.

In 2005, five of the locations with the highest strontium90 results were re-sampled by Dade Moeller at the developer's request. Both the state laboratory and the contracted laboratory that analyzed the results found much lower concentrations of strontium than in the original tests.

The current response plan attributes this discrepancy to a mistake by the analytical laboratories.

The report states that "earlier surveys suffered from some type of bias in the analytical method or the counting technique."

In the current plan, Runkle Canyon LLC agreed, at the state's request, to perform additional soil sampling for the strontium and cesium in the proposed development's nonresidential areas that are closer to the field lab. Dade Moeller will take 14 samples, or one every 19 acres.

But residents at the Jan. 28 meeting say they want more.

"I think we should do more than one sample per 19 acres, that doesn't seem to be enough," said Santa Susana Knolls resident Marie Mason, a member of the Rocketdyne Cleanup Coalition.

"This is a huge property. There should be sampling all over the site and definitely closer to the field lab," Mason said.

Hirsch said Dade Moeller should have classified the site as class 1, or highly likely to be contaminated, based on its location and previous tests—thus requiring the developer to do more sampling than what they've proposed.

Although the developer and the consultant say the original tests were flawed, Hirsch believes all 58 locations need to be sampled again to resolve the issue.

"Five samples that are low and 58 that are high does not tell me to throw out the 58 high," he said.

Riley said DTSC would probably not consider taking one sample per acre, as some residents have requested, adding that it would be difficult to require the developer to do more than what is called for under protocol.

"Whether (the sampling) is sufficient or not is something we will decide as we complete our review," Riley said. "But the allegation that it is not adequate, I don't think that is taking into account all of the other sampling that has already been done."

After evaluating all the public comments, the DTSC will direct Runkle Canyon LLC to revise or finalize its response plan. Riley said the state will most likely ask the developer to amend the plan, but he did not have specific details because the report is still under review. "We want to make sure that if this site is developed that it is safe for the people who will ultimately live there," Riley said.