| Text of Patricia Coryell Remarks to the Simi Valley City Council April 26, 2004 |
Mr. Mayor, members of the council, and fellow citizens:
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you tonight concerning the Runkle Canyon development plan.
The full text of my remarks, including source and reference information, runs to something like 100 pages. With the council’s
permission, I will summarize my main points and ask that this supporting documentation be included in the minutes of this meeting.
My name is Patricia Coryell, and I live almost at the top of the street, where Talbert currently ends.
Let me state up front that I am firmly against the proposal in front of you.
Not because I am against development. I think that the people involved in developing and shaping the plan did their best to strike a
balance between conserving open space and providing housing. They did a remarkable job.
And not because I’m selfish - I realize that there is a shortage of homes, affordable and otherwise, in Simi Valley.
I oppose this plan for one reason: The land they want to build on is unsafe.
It is unsafe for future residents of the development, it is unsafe for the citizens of this community, and it is unsafe for the city of Simi
Valley, which could find itself on the hook financially for cleanup efforts that could run to the hundreds of millions of dollars.
Why?
Because since 1947, Rocketdyne, AKA North American Aviation, now Boeing, has operated the Santa Susana Field Laboratory in the
hills above and to the West of Runkle Canyon without regard to the health or well being of the residents of this valley.
In July, 1959, Rocketdyne experienced a partial meltdown in an experimental nuclear reactor that no one even knew existed, least
of all the citizens living nearby. That accident, which Rocketdyne continued to deny until 1989, released at least 15 times the
amount of radiation that escaped during the 1979 three-mile island disaster.
According to an April 20, 2004 article in the Ventura County Reporter, a second incident occurred in 1959. This time, a fuel rod
exploded while being washed with water, flooding a reactor with radiation that was vented outside. In 1960, a reactor pipe being
moved outdoors for decontamination exploded and flew across a ravine.
In 1964, Rocketdyne experienced a second partial meltdown when 80% of the fuel in an experimental reactor melted – and we don’
t know how much radiation was released during that incident, because Rocketdyne isn’t telling.
In a Fact Sheet dated June of 2000, Rocketdyne states that “…a program to monitor the environmental levels of radioactivity
started at the same time the company began nuclear research.”
An April 19, 2004 article in the Ventura County Reporter contains a description by Department of Energy representative, Mike
Lopez, that gives quite a different impression.
Back then, according to Lopez, Rocketdyne maintained a sodium “burn pit”, where massive amounts of radioactive waste were
disposed. Disposal procedures were both fun and informal: The barrels of radioactive sodium were “chucked” into a sludgy pond,
and used as shooting targets. A direct hit would explode the canisters, releasing radioactive contaminants into the air.
I would be interested to read Rocketdyne’s “monitoring reports” on the environmental levels of radioactivity that resulted from
these “burn pit” activities.
Moving on to chemical contamination, an audit report from NASA’s Office of the Inspector General, dated August 18, 1998, discloses
that, for a period of 11 years, from 1950 through 1961, Rocketdyne used one of the most toxic chemicals on the planet –
trichloroethylene (try-chlor-o-eth-a-lene) – to flush engines after test firing.
Rocketdyne allowed this trichloroethylene or TCE, to drain into unlined channels that dumped into unlined retention ponds.
Rocketdyne did not treat the TCE before allowing it to percolate into the ground – officials later insisted that they believed that the
TCE would “evaporate”, leaving the environment unharmed.
In 1961, Rocketdyne officials decided – for economic reasons - to build a recovery system to allow them to re-use the TCE.
Unfortunately, however, by the time the recovery system was installed, Rocketdyne had already pumped more than 512,000
gallons of trichloroethylene into the ground.
Rocketdyne has repeatedly assured the public that no contamination has ever ever, ever escaped the facility site. Ever.
Really.
According to an article published on April 11, 2003, concentrations of TCE at 10,000 parts per billion and higher were found in the
soil and sandstone at Rocketdyne at depths ranging from 240 to 450 feet.
A plume of contamination is migrating off the Rocketdyne site into Sage Ranch and Black Canyon.
According to Rocketdyne, we need not be concerned. The company assures us that cleanup is in process, and the effort, (which
1997 estimates projected would take about 40 years), is now expected to finish by 2007.
Should we believe Rocketdyne? Not according to NASA’s 1998 Office of the Inspector General Audit Report.
That report states that both the Director of NASA and the Federal EPA Project Manager for the SSFL site believe that the nature of
the TCE contamination at Rocketdyne is such that it could take 100 years or longer before cleanup is finally accomplished.
Members of a citizen oversight committee concerned with the cleanup said the TCE findings are alarming, coupled with concerns
about radioactive materials and other chemical contamination, such as perchlorate (per-clor-ate).
Now, the State of California is currently trying to establish safety standards for the chemical perchlorate, and appears to be moving
toward a range of from 2 to 6 parts per billion as the maximum level allowable.
On December 18, 2003, the Ventura County Star reported that perchlorate was found in two of the water samples taken inside
Runkle Canyon -- within the boundaries of the development area as defined in the Specific Plan -- at levels of 50 and 60 parts per
billion.
The law holds that the current owner of a property is responsible for the cleanup of toxic wastes, even if that owner did not create
the pollution. The owner may, of course, attempt to recover the costs of cleanup from the actual polluter. If this proposal is
approved, Simi Valley will be that owner.
This means that the city of Simi Valley will be free to sue Rocketdyne to recover the costs of a 100+ year cleanup effort to
remediate contaminated soil and rocks at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory.
What a daunting prospect. What an incalculable risk.
In considering how you will vote on this proposal, I’m asking you to make your decision based on an assumption.
I’m not asking you to assume that one side is right, and the other is wrong. I’m not asking you to assume that under this proposal,
the City of Simi Valley could find itself footing the bill for toxic waste cleanup that could cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
I’m not even asking you to assume that Rocketdyne is a despicable, reprehensible worm of a company that has demonstrated
reckless disregard for both people and the environment, and has been manipulating, deceiving, and misleading the public for
decades.
Before you cast your vote for or against the Runkle Canyon Development Plan, I’m asking you to assume this one thing:
Assume that it will be your family, your children, and your grandchildren who will live in the homes inside of Runkle Canyon. Think
about the reactor meltdown, the perchlorate, the TCE contamination.
Then assume that it will be your loved ones who will hike on the trails, breathe in the air, roll on the lawns, play in the dirt, and climb
on the rocks.
If, under that assumption, you honestly feel that this project should proceed, then so be it.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Respectfully,
Patricia A. Coryell
April 26, 2004
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you tonight concerning the Runkle Canyon development plan.
The full text of my remarks, including source and reference information, runs to something like 100 pages. With the council’s
permission, I will summarize my main points and ask that this supporting documentation be included in the minutes of this meeting.
My name is Patricia Coryell, and I live almost at the top of the street, where Talbert currently ends.
Let me state up front that I am firmly against the proposal in front of you.
Not because I am against development. I think that the people involved in developing and shaping the plan did their best to strike a
balance between conserving open space and providing housing. They did a remarkable job.
And not because I’m selfish - I realize that there is a shortage of homes, affordable and otherwise, in Simi Valley.
I oppose this plan for one reason: The land they want to build on is unsafe.
It is unsafe for future residents of the development, it is unsafe for the citizens of this community, and it is unsafe for the city of Simi
Valley, which could find itself on the hook financially for cleanup efforts that could run to the hundreds of millions of dollars.
Why?
Because since 1947, Rocketdyne, AKA North American Aviation, now Boeing, has operated the Santa Susana Field Laboratory in the
hills above and to the West of Runkle Canyon without regard to the health or well being of the residents of this valley.
In July, 1959, Rocketdyne experienced a partial meltdown in an experimental nuclear reactor that no one even knew existed, least
of all the citizens living nearby. That accident, which Rocketdyne continued to deny until 1989, released at least 15 times the
amount of radiation that escaped during the 1979 three-mile island disaster.
According to an April 20, 2004 article in the Ventura County Reporter, a second incident occurred in 1959. This time, a fuel rod
exploded while being washed with water, flooding a reactor with radiation that was vented outside. In 1960, a reactor pipe being
moved outdoors for decontamination exploded and flew across a ravine.
In 1964, Rocketdyne experienced a second partial meltdown when 80% of the fuel in an experimental reactor melted – and we don’
t know how much radiation was released during that incident, because Rocketdyne isn’t telling.
In a Fact Sheet dated June of 2000, Rocketdyne states that “…a program to monitor the environmental levels of radioactivity
started at the same time the company began nuclear research.”
An April 19, 2004 article in the Ventura County Reporter contains a description by Department of Energy representative, Mike
Lopez, that gives quite a different impression.
Back then, according to Lopez, Rocketdyne maintained a sodium “burn pit”, where massive amounts of radioactive waste were
disposed. Disposal procedures were both fun and informal: The barrels of radioactive sodium were “chucked” into a sludgy pond,
and used as shooting targets. A direct hit would explode the canisters, releasing radioactive contaminants into the air.
I would be interested to read Rocketdyne’s “monitoring reports” on the environmental levels of radioactivity that resulted from
these “burn pit” activities.
Moving on to chemical contamination, an audit report from NASA’s Office of the Inspector General, dated August 18, 1998, discloses
that, for a period of 11 years, from 1950 through 1961, Rocketdyne used one of the most toxic chemicals on the planet –
trichloroethylene (try-chlor-o-eth-a-lene) – to flush engines after test firing.
Rocketdyne allowed this trichloroethylene or TCE, to drain into unlined channels that dumped into unlined retention ponds.
Rocketdyne did not treat the TCE before allowing it to percolate into the ground – officials later insisted that they believed that the
TCE would “evaporate”, leaving the environment unharmed.
In 1961, Rocketdyne officials decided – for economic reasons - to build a recovery system to allow them to re-use the TCE.
Unfortunately, however, by the time the recovery system was installed, Rocketdyne had already pumped more than 512,000
gallons of trichloroethylene into the ground.
Rocketdyne has repeatedly assured the public that no contamination has ever ever, ever escaped the facility site. Ever.
Really.
According to an article published on April 11, 2003, concentrations of TCE at 10,000 parts per billion and higher were found in the
soil and sandstone at Rocketdyne at depths ranging from 240 to 450 feet.
A plume of contamination is migrating off the Rocketdyne site into Sage Ranch and Black Canyon.
According to Rocketdyne, we need not be concerned. The company assures us that cleanup is in process, and the effort, (which
1997 estimates projected would take about 40 years), is now expected to finish by 2007.
Should we believe Rocketdyne? Not according to NASA’s 1998 Office of the Inspector General Audit Report.
That report states that both the Director of NASA and the Federal EPA Project Manager for the SSFL site believe that the nature of
the TCE contamination at Rocketdyne is such that it could take 100 years or longer before cleanup is finally accomplished.
Members of a citizen oversight committee concerned with the cleanup said the TCE findings are alarming, coupled with concerns
about radioactive materials and other chemical contamination, such as perchlorate (per-clor-ate).
Now, the State of California is currently trying to establish safety standards for the chemical perchlorate, and appears to be moving
toward a range of from 2 to 6 parts per billion as the maximum level allowable.
On December 18, 2003, the Ventura County Star reported that perchlorate was found in two of the water samples taken inside
Runkle Canyon -- within the boundaries of the development area as defined in the Specific Plan -- at levels of 50 and 60 parts per
billion.
The law holds that the current owner of a property is responsible for the cleanup of toxic wastes, even if that owner did not create
the pollution. The owner may, of course, attempt to recover the costs of cleanup from the actual polluter. If this proposal is
approved, Simi Valley will be that owner.
This means that the city of Simi Valley will be free to sue Rocketdyne to recover the costs of a 100+ year cleanup effort to
remediate contaminated soil and rocks at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory.
What a daunting prospect. What an incalculable risk.
In considering how you will vote on this proposal, I’m asking you to make your decision based on an assumption.
I’m not asking you to assume that one side is right, and the other is wrong. I’m not asking you to assume that under this proposal,
the City of Simi Valley could find itself footing the bill for toxic waste cleanup that could cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
I’m not even asking you to assume that Rocketdyne is a despicable, reprehensible worm of a company that has demonstrated
reckless disregard for both people and the environment, and has been manipulating, deceiving, and misleading the public for
decades.
Before you cast your vote for or against the Runkle Canyon Development Plan, I’m asking you to assume this one thing:
Assume that it will be your family, your children, and your grandchildren who will live in the homes inside of Runkle Canyon. Think
about the reactor meltdown, the perchlorate, the TCE contamination.
Then assume that it will be your loved ones who will hike on the trails, breathe in the air, roll on the lawns, play in the dirt, and climb
on the rocks.
If, under that assumption, you honestly feel that this project should proceed, then so be it.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Respectfully,
Patricia A. Coryell
April 26, 2004
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
© Copyright 2006-2009 StopRunkledyne.com
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |