 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
© Copyright 2006-2009 StopRunkledyne.com
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| Runkledyne Arsenic |
Rocketdyne faults leads to Runkle
Put on your science hats, everybody! "Perchlorate Patty" is going to show you where Runkle Canyon's arsenic could be coming from:
Rocketdyne!
We already know that there is an 11-acre drainage leading off of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory's "Area IV" where the meltdowns and
nuclear spills and accidents occurred. What we didn't know, until the Radiation Rangers went and tested for themselves, was that Runkle
Canyon's creek water was loaded with arsenic, nickel and vanadium.
But how did it get there? We know from a September 2005 Boeing report, on page 22 of this 271-page document, that Rocketdyne had 125
arsenic detections out of 645 samples in this summary of metals in SSFL groundwater. The readings ranged from 0.12 parts per billion (ppb)
to 320 ppb. The Runkle Canyon water we tested was 150 ppb.
Looking at the above hydro-geologic map, it seems that the arsenic in the Rocketdyne groundwater could have migrated along the Skyline
Fault, running horizontally across the bottom of the map, to the fault headed towards Runkle Canyon, running vertically along the left-hand
side of the map.
If Rocketdyne's migrating groundwater is the source of the arsenic in Runkle Canyon, then how did the groundwater get so toxic? We know
from the 2004 LA CityBeat article, "Blinded by the Light," that in at least three sites on Rocketdyne had major detections of arsenic in the soil.
At an SSFL landfill location, with construction debris and soil/rock fill disposal, arsenic was detected in 69/75 samples, 7 registering over the
"field action level" (FAL), a Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) standard where further investigation is warranted. At Building 359,
arsenic was detected in 93/103 samples, 21 over the FAL. Arsenic readings in the northern part of the ironically-named Happy Valley section of
Rocketdyne’s massive 2,850-acre mountaintop complex were detected in 79 out of 80 soil samples with 63 of them being over the field
action level.
It is worth noting that arsenic appears naturally in the environment which begs the question: is the arsenic in Runkle Canyon "natural"?
Another September 2005 Boeing report, "SOIL BACKGROUND REPORT -- SANTA SUSANA FIELD LABORATORY -- VENTURA COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA --FINAL" seems to suggest that the arsenic is not natural.
On page 54 of this 68-page report, in Table 4-3 (1 of 2), is the "Summary of Soil Background Data -- Santa Susana Field Laboratory." In that
table, it shows that arsenic was detected in 33 out of 38 samples, or 87% of the time, and the detections ranged from 1,700 ppb - 15,000
ppb with an "arithmetic mean" of 4,400 ppb, meaning that half the detections are above the mean, and half below it. Remember that the
Runkle Canyon soil arsenic was 34 mg/kg, or 34,000 ppb. That high number is 7.7 times the arithmetic mean reading of Rocketdyne's
polluted soil! By comparison, look at the "California Benchmark Soils -- Kearney Study March 1996" on page 50 of 68 at the bottom of Table 4-
1, which is 3,500 ppb for arsenic, meaning that the Runkle mud is 9.7 times the State's arithmetic mean!
That's a hell of a lot of arsenic! So what is the State supposed to do when confronted with such astronomical numbers? On page 5-1 of this
same report, or page 38/68 of the PDF, there is a section of this Rocketdyne report that is called "USES OF THE SOIL BACKGROUND DATA
SET" which makes perfectly clear what should happen:
"5.1 COMPARISON FOR INVESTIGATIONAL UNIT CHARACTERIZATION
The comprehensive background metals, dioxins, fluoride, and pH data sets will be used to guide investigational unit characterization decisions
(e.g., additional step-out sampling). Metals, fluoride and pH data collected from investigational units will be directly compared to background
data set concentrations to determine whether soil at a given location contains concentrations above ambient background. The concentration
of each metal in the investigational unit data will be evaluated against the soil background comparison value developed from the final
background data set (see Table 4-6).
If a metal concentration in the investigational unit data is below this soil background comparison value, no further characterization would be
required unless multiple lines of evidence suggest the site data set is incomplete and additional sampling warranted. Lines of evidence to be
considered include: site operations/history, soil and groundwater sampling data trends, and risk-based standards. If the metal concentration in
the investigational unit data exceed the soil background comparison value, further evaluation will be necessary to determine whether site
characterization is complete. As discussed with DTSC, this includes evaluating other site information (historical operations, sampling data
trends, and risk assessment findings) in a best professional judgement approach to making decisions regarding additional sampling needs
(DTSC 2005)."
That means that the Department of Substances Control is supposed to investigate the extraordinary high readings of arsenic in Runkle
Canyon. Even though the City has offered to test the gooey water and dirt themselves, it is the DTSC who must be notified and who must
come in and determine what we have determined already here: this gross amount of pollution coming from Rocketdyne must be dealt with as
it is a public health threat. It is incumbent upon the City to DEMAND that the DTSC become involved and to BREAK the phony Runkle
Canyon Environmental Report and start from scratch creating another one! Better yet, the City should halt this disasterous development!
Put on your science hats, everybody! "Perchlorate Patty" is going to show you where Runkle Canyon's arsenic could be coming from:
Rocketdyne!
We already know that there is an 11-acre drainage leading off of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory's "Area IV" where the meltdowns and
nuclear spills and accidents occurred. What we didn't know, until the Radiation Rangers went and tested for themselves, was that Runkle
Canyon's creek water was loaded with arsenic, nickel and vanadium.
But how did it get there? We know from a September 2005 Boeing report, on page 22 of this 271-page document, that Rocketdyne had 125
arsenic detections out of 645 samples in this summary of metals in SSFL groundwater. The readings ranged from 0.12 parts per billion (ppb)
to 320 ppb. The Runkle Canyon water we tested was 150 ppb.
Looking at the above hydro-geologic map, it seems that the arsenic in the Rocketdyne groundwater could have migrated along the Skyline
Fault, running horizontally across the bottom of the map, to the fault headed towards Runkle Canyon, running vertically along the left-hand
side of the map.
If Rocketdyne's migrating groundwater is the source of the arsenic in Runkle Canyon, then how did the groundwater get so toxic? We know
from the 2004 LA CityBeat article, "Blinded by the Light," that in at least three sites on Rocketdyne had major detections of arsenic in the soil.
At an SSFL landfill location, with construction debris and soil/rock fill disposal, arsenic was detected in 69/75 samples, 7 registering over the
"field action level" (FAL), a Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) standard where further investigation is warranted. At Building 359,
arsenic was detected in 93/103 samples, 21 over the FAL. Arsenic readings in the northern part of the ironically-named Happy Valley section of
Rocketdyne’s massive 2,850-acre mountaintop complex were detected in 79 out of 80 soil samples with 63 of them being over the field
action level.
It is worth noting that arsenic appears naturally in the environment which begs the question: is the arsenic in Runkle Canyon "natural"?
Another September 2005 Boeing report, "SOIL BACKGROUND REPORT -- SANTA SUSANA FIELD LABORATORY -- VENTURA COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA --FINAL" seems to suggest that the arsenic is not natural.
On page 54 of this 68-page report, in Table 4-3 (1 of 2), is the "Summary of Soil Background Data -- Santa Susana Field Laboratory." In that
table, it shows that arsenic was detected in 33 out of 38 samples, or 87% of the time, and the detections ranged from 1,700 ppb - 15,000
ppb with an "arithmetic mean" of 4,400 ppb, meaning that half the detections are above the mean, and half below it. Remember that the
Runkle Canyon soil arsenic was 34 mg/kg, or 34,000 ppb. That high number is 7.7 times the arithmetic mean reading of Rocketdyne's
polluted soil! By comparison, look at the "California Benchmark Soils -- Kearney Study March 1996" on page 50 of 68 at the bottom of Table 4-
1, which is 3,500 ppb for arsenic, meaning that the Runkle mud is 9.7 times the State's arithmetic mean!
That's a hell of a lot of arsenic! So what is the State supposed to do when confronted with such astronomical numbers? On page 5-1 of this
same report, or page 38/68 of the PDF, there is a section of this Rocketdyne report that is called "USES OF THE SOIL BACKGROUND DATA
SET" which makes perfectly clear what should happen:
"5.1 COMPARISON FOR INVESTIGATIONAL UNIT CHARACTERIZATION
The comprehensive background metals, dioxins, fluoride, and pH data sets will be used to guide investigational unit characterization decisions
(e.g., additional step-out sampling). Metals, fluoride and pH data collected from investigational units will be directly compared to background
data set concentrations to determine whether soil at a given location contains concentrations above ambient background. The concentration
of each metal in the investigational unit data will be evaluated against the soil background comparison value developed from the final
background data set (see Table 4-6).
If a metal concentration in the investigational unit data is below this soil background comparison value, no further characterization would be
required unless multiple lines of evidence suggest the site data set is incomplete and additional sampling warranted. Lines of evidence to be
considered include: site operations/history, soil and groundwater sampling data trends, and risk-based standards. If the metal concentration in
the investigational unit data exceed the soil background comparison value, further evaluation will be necessary to determine whether site
characterization is complete. As discussed with DTSC, this includes evaluating other site information (historical operations, sampling data
trends, and risk assessment findings) in a best professional judgement approach to making decisions regarding additional sampling needs
(DTSC 2005)."
That means that the Department of Substances Control is supposed to investigate the extraordinary high readings of arsenic in Runkle
Canyon. Even though the City has offered to test the gooey water and dirt themselves, it is the DTSC who must be notified and who must
come in and determine what we have determined already here: this gross amount of pollution coming from Rocketdyne must be dealt with as
it is a public health threat. It is incumbent upon the City to DEMAND that the DTSC become involved and to BREAK the phony Runkle
Canyon Environmental Report and start from scratch creating another one! Better yet, the City should halt this disasterous development!
Red fault lines cut through Rocketdyne's heavily polluted lab in this east to west view. Note fault running
vertically on the left side of the map leading directly into Runkle Canyon just beyond highlighted area in the
dark green. This crack in the earth may be the reason Runkle's surface water seeps are so high in
arsenic.
vertically on the left side of the map leading directly into Runkle Canyon just beyond highlighted area in the
dark green. This crack in the earth may be the reason Runkle's surface water seeps are so high in
arsenic.