A tough, 4-page letter was emailed to Governor Schwarzenegger today by Rocketdyne cleanup activists Christina Walsh and William Bowling of the Aerospace Cancer Museum of Education (ACMELA) and cleanuprocketdyne.org, according to an email I received from Christina at www.cleanuprocketdyne.org. The email included a copy of the letter. Cosigning it were Mary Wiesbrock and Sue Boecker of Save Open Space/Monica Mountains, D’Lanie Blaze of The Aerospace.org and other concerned citizens.
In the letter, they asked that Norm Riley be reinstated as Project Manager of the cleanup for the California Department of Toxic Substances (DTSC), and that Boeing get onboard with the cleanup Consent Order, along with the state, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and NASA. They asked that the Rocketdyne SSFL be cleaned up to the standards of SB990, Senator Sheila Kuhl’s bill, and that there be “Site-wide soil management that considers rad screening for all areas…”
In regard to requesting Norm Riley’s reinstatement, the letter asks, “How will we ever be able to keep the top-quality people we need in order to accurately characterize and clean-up the site, when anyone who stands up for us is thrown out?”
To Acme page with link to letter to Governor: http://www.acmela.org/september2009.html  Other links: www.acmela.org, www.cleanuprocketdyne.org
Posted by Janna Orkney
Dylan Tucker // Sep 2, 2009 at 1:20 AM
How can activists write the Governor “that the Rocketdyne SSFL be cleaned up to the standards of SB990″ when they support Norm Riley who said in an interview, that SB990 was a “hindrance” and “unnecessarily restrictive”? He actually said that and a whole lot more arguing against SB990 and yet here this small group is demanding the Governor reinstate him?
Go read it for yourself: http://www.enviroreporter.com/investigations/rocketdyne/not-the-norm/
None of these activists have answered that question.
In this interview, Riley makes clear that if Boeing doesn’t get its way by jettisoning SB990, Boeing will sue the State which means you and me!
Go read Michael Collins’s article about what’s really going on at http://www.enviroreporter.com/2009/08/coup-de-goo/
My question to Mary, Sue and you, Janna: since when do you support someone who says in plain English that the law you supposedly stand for is a “hindrance” and “restrictive”? Didn’t you read that interview?
Christina Walsh // Sep 2, 2009 at 10:50 AM
I disagree with the characterization of the issues. Please read the article in it’s entirety and you will find that he was asked if it was a hindrance and he said, “yes” and explained why. Of course it has been a hindrance to the negotiations with the fact that the responsible parties have argued what SB990 means to them for nearly two years, especially being that they are federal entities who don’t like following state law, especially when it doesn’t suit their interests. That is not to say that it should not be followed. The State is required to enforce state law which is SB990, but there are realities when it comes to clean-up to a level that we cannot detect…we need to understand that the reality is that SB990 means clean-up to background or non-detect and for that, we need to make sure we are using the best detection technology. I encourage you all to read the actual SB990 language, as well as the current consent order that is out for comment. Please come to ACME 9/10/09 to discuss the Consent Order issues, open discussion, get your questions answered 7pm thursday the 10th
http://www.acmela.org/consentorder101.html
Mary Wiesbrock // Sep 2, 2009 at 11:33 AM
Dylan: You need to read the whole article. SB 990 has not helped speed up the clean up because Boeing considers it a hindrance and too restrictive. Instead of opposing the California cleanup law, Boeing should start doing the right thing and join in support of SB 990. It was not Boeing that contaminated Rocketdyne’s SSFL! As the present property owner, Boeing can make this a WIN-WIN situation! They can support SB 990, support the state and the community.
For immeasurably good PR, Boeing could buyout the landowners of Dayton Canyon (work with Supervisor Yaroslavsky), and Runkle Canyon (work with Rancho Simi) and get these to be buffer areas to the east and west of SSFL. Then, the aerospace company could take a huge tax write-off. We already have buffers for Bell Canyon (south) and Brandeis (north) around the contaminated the field lab. Both Runkle and Dayton serve as valuable wildlife corridor and habitat. Save Open Space has supported saving Runkle Canyon since 1990 as part of our Heritage Oak PreservE (HOPE) effort.
We do not know you, Dylan. Would love to meet you and enlist your support to help us get Boeing to do the right thing here!
William Preston Bowling // Sep 2, 2009 at 12:55 PM
Dear Dylan,
I invite you to ACME on the 10th to learn about SB990 and the recent Draft Consent Order.
http://acmela.org/consentorder101.html