Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment And Public Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Community pushes county to litigate or strongly oppose Boeing’s Santa Susana Field Lab cleanup plan
Summary
Residents and advocacy groups told the Board that Boeing’s corrective measures study for the Santa Susana Field Lab (SSFL) weakens cleanup standards, risks off‑site contamination and violates prior agreements; they urged the county to file litigation if state cleanup standards are not enforced.
Multiple residents and environmental advocates used the county board’s public‑comment period on March 24 to urge the Board of Supervisors to take aggressive action on the Santa Susana Field Lab (SSFL) cleanup plan, saying the Boeing corrective measures study (CMS) falls short of protective cleanup standards.
Jenny Knack of Parents Against the Santa Susana Field Lab said the CMS relies on weak waste‑classification methods and low sampling rates that could leave most contaminated soils onsite. “Boeing claims that 85% of excavated soils will be characterized as non‑hazardous,” Knack said. “But historic documentation shows many contaminants that should be presumed hazardous and more rigorous classification is required.”
Melissa Bumstead and Amy Marshall highlighted alleged shortfalls in the draft Memorandum of Understanding and urged the county to pursue litigation if the state oversight agency and Boeing do not uphold previously agreed cleanup standards. Bumstead noted that Boeing had indicated general soil cleanup would begin this summer and argued the county should use legal options to push for a more protective outcome.
The speakers cited a range of technical concerns including sample density (one sample per 150 cubic yards in some CMS descriptions), waste‑classification approaches, and the risk that contaminated soils could be transported to local landfills. Several called on the county to use counsel already budgeted for SSFL oversight to file suit if the cleanup deviates from prior agreements.
Board response: The board received the comments; while the hearing record did not include a motion to direct litigation immediately, multiple supervisors and staff have previously signaled interest in ensuring county legal options remain on the table if state review and the DTSC process fail to meet locally adopted cleanup commitments.
Why it matters: SSFL contamination involves radiological and chemical hazards that communities and advocacy groups say require stringent, science‑based cleanup; the question of whether the current federal/state/industry plan is protective has long been contested and carries health, environmental and legal implications.
Provenance: Extensive public comment on this topic took place during the meeting’s public‑comment period and included multiple speakers and submitted letters to the clerk of the board.
