I have posted previously about the California Department of Toxic Substances Control “Listening Sessions” in regard to the Santa Susana Field Lab, that are happening in communities in a radius around the rocket test site. There have been three sessions so far in April and the last meeting is scheduled for Wednesday (4-28), in Simi Valley at 2929 Tapa Canyon Road, at the Simi Valley Community Room, from 7-9:30 PM, and everyone is invited…not just Simi Valley residents.
Anyway, here is another take on the meetings that the Conejo Post just received as a comment, but I am also going to post it now as a separate post, because I wrote critically of these meetings due to the format being so controlled, and I want to give another viewpoint.
Here is what Margery Brown had to say about the meetings: “I attended the DTSC listening meeting in West Hills, but did not hear anything whatsoever about NOT talking about technical issues. I did hear participants talk about wanting to get a response from the DTSC, as a follow thru on our comments, and wanting more help with technical terms and issues.
While Mary Wiesbrock is right and will hopefully pursue the fact that wind patterns should be considered in finding suitable background locations, this particular meeting was apparently not set up for this kind of discussion.
My own struggle with reading this environmental and geological material has not only been with technical information that I often do not understand, but sometimes, even more, with all of the acronynms, often 5 of them in one sentence. This has necessitated a lot of memorizing, and it has taken much too long to find even a workable comfort level of instant and adequate understanding, to say nothing of the never ending patience, kindness and explanations of others.
While many of us can now pretty much cope with talking technical with each other, we still need to find some understandable way to explain our SSFL problems and concerns to others who are new to the issues, in as comprehensible manner as possible. If we don’t, they will leave.
Clearly, while the DTSC meeting could not possibly have hoped to be satisfying for everyone, it was apparently intended to be an initial outreach effort, albeit with some necessary limitations, both of time and subject matter. What was not limited, however, was the large presence of the DTSC staff, in spite of the fact that they are furloughed three Fridays a month. We owe them our grateful thanks for their helpful and beyond the call of duty outreach effort.”
Post by Janna Orkney, text by Margery Brown
Mary Wiesbrock // Apr 27, 2010 at 10:56 PM
According to DTSC’s GROUNDRULES for their listening sessions, they “will not be discussing the technical aspects of the siteâ€.
These listening sessions can not replace a Community Advisory Group (CAG). A CAG will be discussing the technical aspects of the site. Most importantly, the CAG can get unbiased consultants to weigh in on the real geology of the hill with its fractures and faults that facilitated the movements of SSFL contaminants to Runkle and Dayton Canyons. We all have the opportunity to become a part of a CAG whereas the existing Work Group has a very limited membership. (WorkGroup’s Charter)
I feel a CAG will help SOS accomplish its goals of preserving protective open space buffers to the west (Runkle) and east of SSFL (Dayton) by having an unbiased consultant weigh in on the real movement of SSFL contaminants off site. We also now desperately need to hire a consultant so that real science won’t be ignored on choosing the best (unaltered by SSFL fires and burns) chemical background location. A CAG would not allow DTSC to deny SOS’s technical arguments for the Rocky Peak site to be considered for background.
Christina Walsh // Apr 28, 2010 at 12:00 PM
It was also not very honest/transparent of DTSC to not put the issue of the CAG petition that this was supposed to be about on the list of questions DTSC would listen to.
The fact is that a CAG petition was submitted because there is not a venue where people can voice their concerns in a productive way where responses from the regulators and responsible parties could be attained. It also leaves me with the burning question: if the state is broke, and there is no proper funding mechanism to support these meetings, whereas a CAG would provide that mechanism, why the obtuse refusal to use proper means to fund a transparent and inclusive process that is supposed to be for this community, and not for the anti-nuke political efforts of others who are not personally impacted by the fact that the clean-up continues to be stalled. “Stakeholder” includes us, the people below the site who’s concerns have been ignored in favor of politics.
I have attended 3 of the 4 listening sessions where question three is, “do you see a theme around the room?” and there was no “stop the cag” message. The only common theme was inclusive transparent process. A CAG would provide the process driven by the community’s questions with follow-up from meeting to meeting. Currently, there is no record of the discussion at the meeting, and if there isn’t a reporter in the room ready to write about it, it essentially didn’t happen.
What about the communities this is supposed to be for?