Editor’s Note: West Hills activist Chris Rowe has worked for years to provide an independent analysis based on extensive research into the environmental problems at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory where nuclear and rocket fuel research was conducted for decades in the hills above the West San Fernando. In this article, she questions when the local residents most impacted by the problems were not given a say about what needs to be done to clean it up.
“Why
the Santa Susana Field Laboratory Needs a Complete Environmental Impact
Statement”
By Chris Rowe
Today at City Council, Agenda item 35, is a meeting in
Closed Session regarding a lawsuit called:”
“NRDC, Committee to Bridge the Gap, and the City of Los
Angeles v the Department of Energy”.
The City Council is being asked by the City Attorney to
weigh in on a decision that they were victorious in related to that suit in May
2007. In May 2007, Federal Judge Samuel Conti, in a Motion for Summary Judgment,
ruled in favor of the plaintiffs (NRDC, Committee to Bridge the Gap (CBG), and
the City of Los Angeles. Judge Conti not only sided with the plaintiffs, but he
awarded them “costs, disbursements, and attorney fees”. (1) (2)
Over the past 20 years, the Santa Susana Field Laboratory
(SSFL) has had demolition, decommissioning, remediation throughout the site. In
AREA IV, the area subject to Judge Conti’s orders, there are only 290 acres
(all owned by The Boeing Company) but all subject to the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). In AREA IV, there have been more than 200 structures over the
past 55 plus years (the nuclear research began there in 1955). Many of these
structures were used for nuclear research and other energy related
research. Today, only about 25
structures remain in AREA IV.
Judge Conti’s ruling for an Environmental Impact
Statement was based on the fact that he found that the Department of Energy had
violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). As a result of that
ruling, the Department of Energy has been working with the environmental
agencies and groups to meet the requirements necessary for the EIS. Many local
community members are very involved in many aspects related to the Santa Susana
Field Lab cleanup – whether it is by attending technical meetings with agency
leaders, site visits with the agencies to see what still remains, or in
planning for this site to eventually become parkland.
The Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) – the
lead agency at the time for the cleanup of the chemical contamination at the
SSFL site – wrote a Consent Order for Corrective Action in August 2007. All the
Santa Susana Field Laboratory “Responsible Parties” – the DOE, The Boeing
Company, and NASA are subject to that order, and are actively complying with that
order today. (3)
In October 2007, California’s Governor Schwarzenegger
signed into law – State law SB 990. This law mandated a cleanup to the highest
cleanup standard that is achievable – rural residential or agricultural – whichever
is the stricter cleanup standard. It also put DTSC as the lead agency for the
cleanup of the whole site – both the chemical and radiological cleanup. (4)
For two years following SB 990 becoming law, DTSC worked
with the DOE, Boeing, and NASA to try to incorporate SB 990 into the existing
2007 Consent Order. In November 2007, the statute of limitations ran out on SB
990, and The Boeing Company filed suit in federal court regarding the
constitutionality of the law. The Boeing Company had previously signed a Letter
of Intent of with the State of California offering to clean up the site to a
suburban residential standard and donate their portion of the SSFL property to
the State for parkland. (5) (6)
While Boeing and DTSC were in court, the Department of
Energy and NASA continued to negotiate with the State to clean up their
portions of the SSFL site in a manner that the State deemed met the SB 990
standards. In December 2010, DTSC signed separate “Administrative Orders on
Consent” (AOC) with the DOE and NASA. (7)
That DOE Administrative Order on Consent with DTSC is
qualified by the joint statement that both DTSC and the DOE recognize that the
DOE is subject to the judge’s ruling on the Environmental Impact Statement. The
AOC states that DTSC and the DOE will work with the “parties” in the lawsuit
against the DOE to get “relief” from the AOC.
This brings us to today – and why the City Council will
be discussing in Closed Session what recommendation to make to the City
Attorney regarding relief. Why would the City of Los Angeles ask a federal
judge to set aside an Environmental Impact Statement that he had determined was
necessary to be compliant with NEPA? The DOE is obligated to complete the NEPA
requirements, California Environmental Quality Act requirements (CEQA), and
other applicable environmental laws.
This is one time that the City should have sought the
input of the Neighborhood Councils that are impacted by the SSFL site. For more
than 60 years, the communities of Canoga Park, West Hills, Chatsworth, and
Woodland Hills have borne the impact of the noise from the engines tests, the
airborne and surface water contamination, and the truck traffic to and from the
SSFL site. Neighborhood Councils are supposed to be the eyes and ears of their
communities. Why, like other projects that require Environmental Impact
Statements, are these communities not asked to weigh in on the community impact
of this project?
SB 990 has now been overturned by a federal judge. The
State has stated that it will appeal that decision. That additional lawsuit
will lead to more delays in remediation. That is why it is so important to get
the structures removed, and get the best sampling done that is possible under
today’s cleanup standards. (6) (8)
It is my hope that the Council will see the wisdom of
upholding the Environmental Impact Statement ordered by Judge Conti. The only
relief that the City should seek from the EIS is the removal, under the
oversight of DTSC and the federal EPA, of the remaining structures in AREA IV to
allow for a thorough radiological and chemical characterization of AREA IV.
And while the Council is considering this recommendation
- the question should be asked – why did the City only request an EIS for AREA
IV and not for the whole SSFL site?
(1) http://www.etec.energy.gov/EIS/EIS.html
(2) http://www.etec.energy.gov/Regulation/RegDocs/MSJ_ORDER.pdf
(3) http://www.etec.energy.gov/cleanup/consent-order.html
(5) See
Boeing Letter of Intent attached to email
(6) http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/27/idUS31457+27-Apr-2011+PRN20110427
(7) http://www.etec.energy.gov/Regulation/RegDocs/SSFL_DOE_AOC_Final.pdf
(8) See
attachment from DTSC (LetterIntent.pdf) on the AOC (SSFL-orders.pdf) and the lawsuit
That is interesting. I have lived here since
August 25, 1966. My neighbor worked on the hill
and is now retired. No cancer. Why dig up what is not harming us? Where are they going to dump it? And what about the dirt being moved through highly populated areas – if it is dangerous why do you do this?.
Okay Ron-Where’d you go? We’re waiting for a debriefing on that campaign, I mean, budget meeting.
Also, John Edwards was indicted and Dr. Jack Kevorkian died. ‘Not that you’d be reporting on this; but, hey, the adrenaline is flowing and we need a Ron fix.