Norm Riley Courtesy William Bowling The man who once served as the lead overseer for the cleanup at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory and the investigation at Runkle Canyon is speaking out on the issues surrounding both projects.

Although he no longer works for the state Department of Toxic Substances Control—the lead agency guiding the cleanup— Norm Riley is still passionate about the projects and respected by the community who views him as a trustworthy advocate on their side of the fight.

During the March 28 closing event at the Aerospace Cancer Museum of Education (ACME) in Chatsworth, Riley tackled the issue of the ongoing cleanup at the field lab, a former rocket engine and nuclear test site in the hills south of Simi.

Riley served as DTSC project director for the field lab from early 2007 until August 2009, when he retired after being removed from his post. He hadn’t planned to retire until 2011, he said.

He said that during his time as director, the department made “remarkable” gains in the cleanup of the radiologically and chemically polluted property, but since then, progress has slowed.

The cleanup of the field lab has become “bogged down” for a number of reasons, he said, including the lawsuit filed by Boeing in November challenging the constitutionality of Senate Bill 990—the state law passed in October 2007 that requires the most stringent cleanup standards.

Because of detours like the lawsuit, he no longer believes the site can be cleaned up by the target deadline—2017.

“I don’t think that is possible anymore unless we go to a very radical solution,” he said.

A radical solution

Riley’s idea is to use what he says is known as the “presumptive remedy approach.”

Though there is no way around doing the investigative work, this approach would skip the risk assessment process, which examines the impacts of various cleanup technologies and processes.

Instead, the responsible parties—Boeing, NASA and the Department of Energy—would agree to use the technologies and processes that worked to clean up similarly contaminated sites, Riley said.

The other component to his approach would be to stop debating what the cleanup level would be— which is at the crux of Boeing’s lawsuit—and simply agree to clean up to background (original state) for naturally occurring substances and “non-detect” for contaminants that aren’t naturally present.

He said that would give the best cleanup since “that is as low as you can go.”

“Then it’s all settled,” Riley said. “And you shortcut years and millions and millions of dollars of research work and you jump right to cleanup and you have the trucks rolling down the hill in a matter of months instead of several years.”

Target date unlikely now

Representatives from the DTSC and Boeing Co. agreed with Riley that the 2017 target is unlikely to be met.

Rick Brausch, who took over Riley’s position as project director, said the 2017 goal was established under the 2007 consent order—the blueprint outlining cleanup activities—prior to the enactment of SB 990, so it needs to be revised.

“All work done under the terms and conditions of that Consent Agreement, because it predated SB 990, will ultimately need to be revised,” Brausch said.

Kamara Sams, spokesperson for Boeing, agreed, saying the 2017 deadline was established with the understanding that a suburban residential cleanup standard would be used, not an agricultural cleanup level, as required by state law.

Regarding Riley’s “radical solution,” Brausch said no approach can be seriously considered unless the final goal—cleaning up to the standards of SB 990—is accepted by the responsible parties.

He added that the idea of agreeing to clean up to background or non-detect was presented to the responsible parties in July of 2009 but that the DOE and NASA didn’t react favorably to it. And while Boeing was interested, the company wanted to include several conditions that “were not in the best interests of public health and environmental protection,” Brausch said.

Sams said Boeing would support cleaning up to background or non-detect, but the question is, “What is background for the site?” Studies to find an answer to that question are currently underway.

Without knowing the specifics about Riley’s proposed solution, Sams said, it’s hard to comment on its viability. But she did say the current schedule includes a dozen steps to take before soil can even be removed.

“Understanding how complex the process is and how long each one of these steps will take . . . we would be far beyond a 2017 date for final cleanup,” she said.

Feelings on Runkle

Work to evaluate the Runkle Ranch site in Runkle Canyon is also taking longer than expected. The proposed 461-home development at the end of Sequoia Avenue along Simi’s southern border is adjacent to the field lab.

The developer has agreed not to start construction until the DTSC makes a determination about possible contamination at the site.

In November 2008, Riley told the Simi Valley City Council his office would have a clear-cut determination by summer 2009. But that deadline came and went—as did Riley—and the response plan to collect new soil samples is still awaiting approval.

Riley spoke critically of the hold-up in approving the plan.

“It’s unconscionable. There’s absolutely no reason why the investigation of that site should be stalled,” he said.

When asked when the City Council could expect to hear an answer from his former employer, Riley replied, “when they get some backbone.”

While he said the DTSC would use the best available investigative methods to get the answers it needs, he believes the department is wary of any possible controversy.

But Brausch said work would move forward soon and the DTSC expects to have a decision on the response plan by June.

Mayor Paul Miller said at this week’s council meeting that he traveled to Sacramento April 5 to meet with the DTSC and Cal EPA to discuss Runkle Canyon.

Although the DTSC was directed to write a letter explaining the progress it’s made and when it will come to a resolution, Miller isn’t confident the city will get a final answer anytime soon.

“We’ve had this issue hanging over our head for some time . . . apparently they are working on it,” he said. “I think the bottom line is, it’s going to take awhile.”

Though Riley and Boeing often bumped heads, Sams said, the company was sad to see him go. And though he’s no longer employed by the DTSC, she understands why the community still looks to him for answers.

“What we’re hearing from a lot of community members is that the . . . open-door policy Norm had with the community members is something they’re missing,” she said.

The DTSC will be holding a public participation listening session in Simi to discuss the field lab. The meeting is scheduled for April 28 from 7 to 9:30 p.m. in the Community Room at City Hall.