Christina Walsh of http://cleanuprocketdyne.org emailed the following, Friday (8-3) afternoon, in response to the news that California DTSC, and DOE and NASA have agreed “in principle” on the cleanup of the Santa Susana Field Lab in Simi Valley:
“This is a landmark day and the most wonderful news I could possibly hear. Thank you NASA and DOE and DTSC for agreeing to moving forward in a smart and productive way. This really is the Norm (Riley, former head of the SSFL cleanup for DTSC, until a little over a year ago – editor) solution, of skipping risk-assessment and going straight to background (what is considered the norm in measurements of various potentially harmful contaminants, and what cleanup is measured against - editor), also skipping years and millions (of dollars), and arriving ontime at 2017. Thanks for allowing this to finally move forward!”
For a link to the LA Times story, go to the immediately previous post, which is on this SSFL agreement too. To read the VC Star story by Teresa Rochester, that appears in the 9-4 paper: http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/sep/03/agreement-reached-to-clean-up-portions-of-santa/ To read the Daily News story by Tony Castro that is in the 9-4 paper: http://www.dailynews.com/breakingnews/ci_15987915
Post by Christina Walsh, Editing by Janna Orkney
Janna // Sep 4, 2010 at 12:26 PM
Christina,
Thank you for the incredible work you have done to get the Santa Susana Field Lab cleaned up! Everyone living close by the SSFL owes you a debt of gratitude!
Christina Walsh // Sep 5, 2010 at 12:55 AM
Thank you Janna for keeping the community informed and your continued support. It’s so important that we stick with it now and see it through to the clean-up we all want. Thanks so much for your kind words.
Mary Wiesbrock // Sep 5, 2010 at 11:12 AM
Let’s let the truth be told! Give credit where credit’s due!
Norman Riley, former DTSC project manager of SSFL, first floated the idea of the concept of a cleanup to background way back in July of 2009. DOE and NASA have stated to me that they “were considering” Norman Riley’s concept. Next, he was abruptly fired from the SSFL project. Was Norman Riley’s cleanup concept a reason for his firing way back then?
Norman Riley deserves thanks for his brilliant cleanup concept which DTSC has now adopted. Thanks goes to Norman for first bringing this background cleanup concept to the table!!! It will facilitate a proper SSFL cleanup in a timely manner!
Mary Wiesbrock
Christina Walsh // Sep 28, 2010 at 11:42 AM
The deadline to get your comments in about these agreements is October 1, 2010
Friday to Ssfl@Dtsc.ca.gov. I am very disappointed to see this continued
political effort to generate general support letters/comments. The AIPs as
written do not solve the issues and frankly with such short-sighted decisions
like “no in place solutions shall be considered.”
When Norm suggested this approach more than a year ago, he said “presumptive
remedies”. That means using proven technologies, as opposed to testing new
technologies. Phytoremediation through the use of plant species, is not a new
or emerging science. These are proven technologies that have EPA guidance and
data supporting these methods which can be used to achieve remediation,
containment, and sequestering of contaminants. This can mean a significant soil
volume reduction while protecting the public and the environment while also
protecting the natural habitats and resources that exist.
The AIP says truck it away no matter what. Is that smart? Does that make sense
for the surrounding communities to mindlessly fill trucks? And send them all as
far away as possible?
The AIP has no business redefining how waste should be classified. The ISRA
issue with the cesium stalemate shows us that we cannot have an agreement that
automatically designates waste as LLRW when we know full well that any soils
found on NASA property cannot be classified this way because without a nuclear
license, you can’t classify waste as LLRW. Another built-in money-pit
idesigned for more stalemates in the agreement that will not result in anything
but delays and more litigation. We have to comment so that the final AOC
(administrative order on consent) is enforceable and also accomplishes our goal
of a safe protective cleanup that makes sense. Can we really afford for more
political hoops to take priority over the safe and appropriate cleanup solutions
that are best for all who live near the site?
This is it, and there will be no do-over on this one. Remember also that this
agreement only deals with a portion of the site and does not deal with the
Boeing portion or the million gallons of contaminated groundwater. The FSDF was
removed 10 years ago to bedrock and new soil brought in. Now, 10 years later
the new soil has been recontaminated by the groundwater, so this shows us that
soil removal alone as the AIP suggests, will not result in our problem as
neighbors of the site, being resolved, and isn’t that what we want? Please ask
for all reasonable proven technologies just as Dtsc claims to support on their
website. This cannot be about payback, it has to be about what makes the best
sense for the future of the surrounding communities as well as the site itself.
Let’s be smart about this and not destroy what we are trying to save.
These are really crucial issues. Please consider supporting a combined solution
that better protects the surrounding communities through erosion control and
responsible soil removal.
Let’s make sure this “historic” agreement results in the intended actual cleanup
that makes sense and is protective for all.
Join us tomorrow for a special phytotechnology talk with NASA. We can find the
answers that will work, together through discussion and debate.
Thanks
Christina
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ssflcag/