 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
© Copyright 2006-2008 StopRunkledyne.com
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
Where Science and Morality Meet: Don’t build Runkle Canyon
By Rev. John Southwick
The media has reported extensively on the recent study of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, commonly known as Rocketdyne, where a
1959 partial meltdown at the lab was found to have caused between 260 and 1,800 cancers as well as releasing 459 times as much
radiation as the more infamous 1979 Three Mile Island meltdown did in Pennsylvania. The grim details of that study are especially alarming
to me because I live within half a mile of Runkle Canyon in Simi Valley where K.B. Homes plans to build hundreds of homes, grading three
million cubic yards of dirt in the process.
Runkle Canyon is located one mile from the lab facility, which is highly polluted due to many nuclear accidents and the dumping of
radioactive and chemical waste over many Cold War-era years. There is evidence that this pollution has contaminated the soil in Runkle
Canyon which lies within a mile of Rockedyne. Five laboratory tests conducted in Runkle Canyon from 1998 to 2005 found dangerously high
levels of the radionuclide strontium-90. The strontium-90 data from these lab reports was not included in the Runkle Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) that was approved by the Simi Valley City Council in 2004. The high levels of strontium-90 found in Runkle Canyon will pose a
serious health threat to local residents if Runkle Canyon is developed because it will launch over 100 tons of dust in the air and then fallout
over the Simi, Conejo and San Fernando valleys.
The developers that K.B. Homes bought out last year, Greenpark Runkle Canyon knew of these high readings. Recent comments by K.B.
Homes that the land is safe to build on, according to EPA standards, is not only factually wrong, as the extensive Runkle Canyon radiation
data on the website EnviroReporter.com exposes with backing material, it is immoral.
But first the facts informed by this: in 2005 the prestigious National Academy of Scientists released a groundbreaking report that no
amount of radiation can be considered safe. Therefore, high strontium-90 readings in Runkle Canyon mean serious trouble for the folks
who would build it, the people who live nearby like me, and for the unwary future homebuyers of this ‘hot property.’
The factual reality:
QST Environmental (hired by Greenpark Runkle Canyon in 1998) found strontium that exceeded the EPA average local background
concentration in all of its samples. Four samples had up to 17 times the Environmental Protection Agency’s background level typical of
strontium-90 in Runkle Canyon. QST speculated that the radiation was coming from Rocketdyne.
Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation (hired by Greenpark Runkle Canyon in 1999) collected 58 soil samples that averaged nearly 27
times above the typical EPA background level. The hottest sampling spot measured over 411 times the normal background for the
radionuclide.
Miller Brooks Environmental (hired by Greenpark Runkle Canyon in 2003) took 6 soil samples on the proposed Runkle development site
and sent them to Energy Laboratories in Casper, Wyoming. Even though Energy Laboratories testing techniques had weak detection
abilities, the samples still tested over 70 times normal background.
The California Department of Health Services (CDHS) retested 6 locations in Runkle Canyon in June 2005 and split the soil samples with
Greenpark’s newest lab, Dade Moeller. Dade Moeller’s samples all tested over the EPA background, with the hottest level 8 times over
background. Oddly, the CDHS’ readings were 2 to 19 lower for the exact same samples than Dade Moeller’s and the government agency
claims to have made no report which makes their results seem suspicious.
How do we know these strontium-90 levels in Runkle pose a health risk? The EPA calculates the presumably safe levels of radionuclides
by using “preliminary remediation goals,” or PRGs. PRGs for each substance are based on a fatal cancer risk so that the substance would
cause no more than one death per every 10,000 people exposed. The ultimate goal is no more than one death per million people exposed.
The PRG for strontium-90, and its accompanying decay product, yttrium-90, is 0.231 picocuries per gram (pCi/g).
Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation’s soil samples averaged 1.39 pCi/g, or six times the EPA’s preliminary remediation goal with the
hottest sampling spot measuring 12.34 pCi/g, which is over 54 times the EPA’s PRG. The Miller Brooks Environmental soil samples had
readings of 2.1 and 2.2 pCi/g, nearly ten times over the EPA goal. The samples collected by the California Department of Health Services,
as tested by the developer’s lab, had nearly twice the EPA’s preliminary remediation goal for Strontium-90. In 2005 the prestigious National
Academy of Scientists released a groundbreaking report that no amount of radiation can be considered safe.
We don’t know why the true results of the environmental tests done in Runkle Canyon were not included in the EIR. It appears that the
developer cherry-picked which reports’ data made it into the EIR, and mischaracterized the missing data, so that the strontium numbers
would not seem so high. That is the only logical conclusion as to why the high levels of strontium-90 previously found were not included.
Strontium-90 doesn’t just go away over night -- it has a half-life of around 29 years, meaning it takes that long for the poison to halve itself
by ionization which can cause cancer.
If the Runkle canyon development is constructed, about 112 tons of strontium-90 impacted dust will be launched into the air and will fall out
in every direction depending on the whims of the wind. Workers at the site would be the first exposed, and of course residents in close
proximity to the site. According to the EIR, “operational-related air quality impact would remain significant and unavoidable, even with the
implementation of all feasible mitigation.” What is feasible mitigation? Basically it means spraying lots of water on the ground in the hope of
avoiding any dust!
My Christian reality:
As a Christian Minister I agree with many clergy members across the country that this is a moral and spiritual issue. God made us stewards
of this world and I am sure that he intended to have us take care of it. I would like to ask people of all faiths to “do the right thing” and
contact your local and State officials let them know that as a Christian or Jew or whatever belief you have, that this project is wrong and is
against God’s teachings. We cannot expose our children to the hazards of strontium-90 and other pollutants. Once again I must stress that
this is not a political issue; some of the most conservative clergy are now including environmental concerns in their Sunday sermons. I think
this demonstrates that it is possible to be a conservative Christian and a true environmentalist. As Christians we need to admit that being
concerned about the environment does not make us knee jerk liberals.
And make no mistake, people of God have the power. In the last two elections, the evangelical Christian voting bloc has had its greatest
impact. So important was their vote to Republican success in 2000 that Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser, later told a
conservative audience that the roughly 4 million evangelicals who didn't vote, out of the 19 million targeted, nearly cost Bush the election. In
2004, the GOP made sure they wouldn't fall short again, and their get-out-the-vote efforts paid off: 26.5 million self-described evangelicals
and born-again Christians went to the polls-representing nearly one-fifth of all voters -- and a whopping 78 percent of white evangelicals
voted for Bush. In large measure, these voters supported Bush for his stance on issues that traditionally have been most important to the
Christian right, such as abortion, family values, homosexuality, and religion in public life.
So what does it mean that there is now a growing divide among conservative evangelicals over non-traditional issues like global warming
and environmental regulation? Recently, the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press noted a sizable decline in President Bush's
approval rating among white evangelicals -- from 72 percent to 55 percent- between January 2005 and March 2006. The study also noted,
however, that these evangelicals still identify strongly with the GOP.
The facts and morality play important roles in what will happen in Runkle Canyon. Will the City continue to ignore the fact that they got
hoodwinked by the developer’s EIR in 2004? Will the money the City has made, and stands to make, continue to hold sway? Consider this:
the City has received $494,500 on $4,289,250 that KB Homes owes for the 399 permits it will need to build out Runkle Canyon. That's
$10,750 per permit. $100,000 for renovating the Sequoia Avenue entrance to the development alone.
I want my City to make money, but only on worthy projects that don’t threaten the public’s health. This is not one of them. Aside from the
moral question of whether to value short-term monetary gain over the health of the City, this proud resting place of President Ronald
Reagan had better realize that if this project goes forward, other municipal entities will probably sue over the radioactive dust cloud K.B.
Homes will launch over, say, the City and County of Los Angeles. These two entities sued the County of Ventura when it approved the
Ahmanson Ranch project so it should be no surprise if they decide to sue over Runkle Canyon the second the first tractor takes to the hills.
My neighbors and I want the City to withhold any building permits until an independent body, like the Federal EPA, can determine the
validity of the reports of high strontium-90 readings. Prior to any construction, we want the City to do more studies, just like the director of
environmental services, Al Boughey, said: “The PRG is set to indicate whether additional study is required to determine if the site is
contaminated or a health hazard exists.”
We want the City Council to invalidate the Runkle EIR based on language in the Development Agreement, part of which reads “If a material
warranty, representation or statement was made or furnished by the Developer to the City with respect to this Agreement which was known
to be false in any material respect when it was made… (then the City can break the agreement and)…Developer holds the City harmless.”
If the Simi Valley City Council “just says no” to K.B. development it will make them the best council Simi Valley has ever had and the
counties of Ventura and Los Angeles will be able to breathe a little bit easier.
By Rev. John Southwick
The media has reported extensively on the recent study of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, commonly known as Rocketdyne, where a
1959 partial meltdown at the lab was found to have caused between 260 and 1,800 cancers as well as releasing 459 times as much
radiation as the more infamous 1979 Three Mile Island meltdown did in Pennsylvania. The grim details of that study are especially alarming
to me because I live within half a mile of Runkle Canyon in Simi Valley where K.B. Homes plans to build hundreds of homes, grading three
million cubic yards of dirt in the process.
Runkle Canyon is located one mile from the lab facility, which is highly polluted due to many nuclear accidents and the dumping of
radioactive and chemical waste over many Cold War-era years. There is evidence that this pollution has contaminated the soil in Runkle
Canyon which lies within a mile of Rockedyne. Five laboratory tests conducted in Runkle Canyon from 1998 to 2005 found dangerously high
levels of the radionuclide strontium-90. The strontium-90 data from these lab reports was not included in the Runkle Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) that was approved by the Simi Valley City Council in 2004. The high levels of strontium-90 found in Runkle Canyon will pose a
serious health threat to local residents if Runkle Canyon is developed because it will launch over 100 tons of dust in the air and then fallout
over the Simi, Conejo and San Fernando valleys.
The developers that K.B. Homes bought out last year, Greenpark Runkle Canyon knew of these high readings. Recent comments by K.B.
Homes that the land is safe to build on, according to EPA standards, is not only factually wrong, as the extensive Runkle Canyon radiation
data on the website EnviroReporter.com exposes with backing material, it is immoral.
But first the facts informed by this: in 2005 the prestigious National Academy of Scientists released a groundbreaking report that no
amount of radiation can be considered safe. Therefore, high strontium-90 readings in Runkle Canyon mean serious trouble for the folks
who would build it, the people who live nearby like me, and for the unwary future homebuyers of this ‘hot property.’
The factual reality:
QST Environmental (hired by Greenpark Runkle Canyon in 1998) found strontium that exceeded the EPA average local background
concentration in all of its samples. Four samples had up to 17 times the Environmental Protection Agency’s background level typical of
strontium-90 in Runkle Canyon. QST speculated that the radiation was coming from Rocketdyne.
Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation (hired by Greenpark Runkle Canyon in 1999) collected 58 soil samples that averaged nearly 27
times above the typical EPA background level. The hottest sampling spot measured over 411 times the normal background for the
radionuclide.
Miller Brooks Environmental (hired by Greenpark Runkle Canyon in 2003) took 6 soil samples on the proposed Runkle development site
and sent them to Energy Laboratories in Casper, Wyoming. Even though Energy Laboratories testing techniques had weak detection
abilities, the samples still tested over 70 times normal background.
The California Department of Health Services (CDHS) retested 6 locations in Runkle Canyon in June 2005 and split the soil samples with
Greenpark’s newest lab, Dade Moeller. Dade Moeller’s samples all tested over the EPA background, with the hottest level 8 times over
background. Oddly, the CDHS’ readings were 2 to 19 lower for the exact same samples than Dade Moeller’s and the government agency
claims to have made no report which makes their results seem suspicious.
How do we know these strontium-90 levels in Runkle pose a health risk? The EPA calculates the presumably safe levels of radionuclides
by using “preliminary remediation goals,” or PRGs. PRGs for each substance are based on a fatal cancer risk so that the substance would
cause no more than one death per every 10,000 people exposed. The ultimate goal is no more than one death per million people exposed.
The PRG for strontium-90, and its accompanying decay product, yttrium-90, is 0.231 picocuries per gram (pCi/g).
Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation’s soil samples averaged 1.39 pCi/g, or six times the EPA’s preliminary remediation goal with the
hottest sampling spot measuring 12.34 pCi/g, which is over 54 times the EPA’s PRG. The Miller Brooks Environmental soil samples had
readings of 2.1 and 2.2 pCi/g, nearly ten times over the EPA goal. The samples collected by the California Department of Health Services,
as tested by the developer’s lab, had nearly twice the EPA’s preliminary remediation goal for Strontium-90. In 2005 the prestigious National
Academy of Scientists released a groundbreaking report that no amount of radiation can be considered safe.
We don’t know why the true results of the environmental tests done in Runkle Canyon were not included in the EIR. It appears that the
developer cherry-picked which reports’ data made it into the EIR, and mischaracterized the missing data, so that the strontium numbers
would not seem so high. That is the only logical conclusion as to why the high levels of strontium-90 previously found were not included.
Strontium-90 doesn’t just go away over night -- it has a half-life of around 29 years, meaning it takes that long for the poison to halve itself
by ionization which can cause cancer.
If the Runkle canyon development is constructed, about 112 tons of strontium-90 impacted dust will be launched into the air and will fall out
in every direction depending on the whims of the wind. Workers at the site would be the first exposed, and of course residents in close
proximity to the site. According to the EIR, “operational-related air quality impact would remain significant and unavoidable, even with the
implementation of all feasible mitigation.” What is feasible mitigation? Basically it means spraying lots of water on the ground in the hope of
avoiding any dust!
My Christian reality:
As a Christian Minister I agree with many clergy members across the country that this is a moral and spiritual issue. God made us stewards
of this world and I am sure that he intended to have us take care of it. I would like to ask people of all faiths to “do the right thing” and
contact your local and State officials let them know that as a Christian or Jew or whatever belief you have, that this project is wrong and is
against God’s teachings. We cannot expose our children to the hazards of strontium-90 and other pollutants. Once again I must stress that
this is not a political issue; some of the most conservative clergy are now including environmental concerns in their Sunday sermons. I think
this demonstrates that it is possible to be a conservative Christian and a true environmentalist. As Christians we need to admit that being
concerned about the environment does not make us knee jerk liberals.
And make no mistake, people of God have the power. In the last two elections, the evangelical Christian voting bloc has had its greatest
impact. So important was their vote to Republican success in 2000 that Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser, later told a
conservative audience that the roughly 4 million evangelicals who didn't vote, out of the 19 million targeted, nearly cost Bush the election. In
2004, the GOP made sure they wouldn't fall short again, and their get-out-the-vote efforts paid off: 26.5 million self-described evangelicals
and born-again Christians went to the polls-representing nearly one-fifth of all voters -- and a whopping 78 percent of white evangelicals
voted for Bush. In large measure, these voters supported Bush for his stance on issues that traditionally have been most important to the
Christian right, such as abortion, family values, homosexuality, and religion in public life.
So what does it mean that there is now a growing divide among conservative evangelicals over non-traditional issues like global warming
and environmental regulation? Recently, the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press noted a sizable decline in President Bush's
approval rating among white evangelicals -- from 72 percent to 55 percent- between January 2005 and March 2006. The study also noted,
however, that these evangelicals still identify strongly with the GOP.
The facts and morality play important roles in what will happen in Runkle Canyon. Will the City continue to ignore the fact that they got
hoodwinked by the developer’s EIR in 2004? Will the money the City has made, and stands to make, continue to hold sway? Consider this:
the City has received $494,500 on $4,289,250 that KB Homes owes for the 399 permits it will need to build out Runkle Canyon. That's
$10,750 per permit. $100,000 for renovating the Sequoia Avenue entrance to the development alone.
I want my City to make money, but only on worthy projects that don’t threaten the public’s health. This is not one of them. Aside from the
moral question of whether to value short-term monetary gain over the health of the City, this proud resting place of President Ronald
Reagan had better realize that if this project goes forward, other municipal entities will probably sue over the radioactive dust cloud K.B.
Homes will launch over, say, the City and County of Los Angeles. These two entities sued the County of Ventura when it approved the
Ahmanson Ranch project so it should be no surprise if they decide to sue over Runkle Canyon the second the first tractor takes to the hills.
My neighbors and I want the City to withhold any building permits until an independent body, like the Federal EPA, can determine the
validity of the reports of high strontium-90 readings. Prior to any construction, we want the City to do more studies, just like the director of
environmental services, Al Boughey, said: “The PRG is set to indicate whether additional study is required to determine if the site is
contaminated or a health hazard exists.”
We want the City Council to invalidate the Runkle EIR based on language in the Development Agreement, part of which reads “If a material
warranty, representation or statement was made or furnished by the Developer to the City with respect to this Agreement which was known
to be false in any material respect when it was made… (then the City can break the agreement and)…Developer holds the City harmless.”
If the Simi Valley City Council “just says no” to K.B. development it will make them the best council Simi Valley has ever had and the
counties of Ventura and Los Angeles will be able to breathe a little bit easier.