Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Cleanup Ssfl topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and advocacy groups urge Ventura County supervisors to press for full cleanup at Santa Susana Field Lab
Summary
Multiple public commenters told the Board of Supervisors the Department of Energy and DTSC are proposing alternatives that would weaken existing cleanup commitments and delay action; speakers asked the board to submit clear comments opposing the proposals and to pursue legal action if necessary.
Public comment at the Ventura County Board of Supervisors meeting on March 18 focused largely on the Santa Susana Field Laboratory cleanup, with residents and advocacy groups urging the board to oppose recent Department of Energy and Department of Toxic Substances Control proposals and to press for a cleanup to background levels.
The most direct public objection came from Hakan Williams of Committee to Bridge the Gap, who told the board: “The Department of Energy has announced its intent to abandon the AOC cleanup to background and instead pursue, quote unquote, alternatives, each of which would leave behind much more contamination.” Williams asked supervisors to reaffirm the county’s long-standing insistence on cleanup to background and to review any draft county comments before submission.
Larry Yee, a former member of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, described a pattern of delays on toxic cleanups and urged action at Santa Susana. “Please act now and remove the toxic blight from the East County,” Yee said. Melissa Bumstead, co-director of Parents Against Santa Susana Field Lab, likewise asked the board to “submit a brief comment to DOE and DTSC before the deadlines, clearly opposing the proposals to further delay and weaken the cleanup.”
Jenny Knack of Parents Against Santa Susana Field Lab said the county had previously approved motions to pursue litigation if the cleanup agreements were breached and asked supervisors to use allocated funds for legal action. “Next week, comments are due on DTSC and DOE’s new SSFL plans to further delay and weaken the cleanup,” she said. “We’re asking you to submit a brief comment to DOE and DTSC before the deadlines, clearly opposing the proposals.”
Speakers described the proposed actions by DOE and DTSC as both a weakening of prior commitments under the Administrative Orders on Consent (AOCs) and an additional source of delay — DOE has signaled a potential new environmental impact statement with an estimated 2027 timeline. Several commenters asked the board to ensure any county comment letters are circulated to supervisors for review before filing.
Not all comments addressed the cleanup directly. One caller offered a broader, unrelated political commentary. County staff did not announce a board action in response to the comments during the March 18 meeting.
The transcript shows public speakers repeatedly requested the board reaffirm its prior positions — including a 2010 cleanup standard and a 2022 motion to pursue litigation if responsible parties broke agreements — and to use the county’s authority and resources to oppose the DOE and DTSC proposals. The Board did not take a vote on the issue during this session; several speakers asked that any future county comments be shared with supervisors for approval prior to submission.
