“WHERE YOUR TREASURE IS, THERE YOUR HEART WILL BE.”

Money from Boeing doesn’t have to go directly into a lawmaker’s pocket for it to make a difference. Any money - be it donations to a pet project, campaign parties, or the blatant bribe - creates bias and skews the balance of equity away from impacted community members to rich and powerful polluters. This deeply affects public representatives ability to protect and represent the individuals of our communities (especially those who have the least amount of money) without bias.

In 2019, political scientist Stephen Walt argued that Boeing’s 737 MAX scandal was a prime example of the United States becoming increasingly corrupt. It’s no surprise then that we see Boeing acting in corrupt was to skew the balance of equity in the favor over the cleanup of the Santa Susana Field Lab. We’ve watched Boeing try to influence the cleanup time and again with money.

Public officials should be required to:

  • Release a statement to their constituents stating that they recuse themselves from taking any part in conversations, meetings, or decision making bodies, in which the actions of such organizations are being reviewed.

  • State the amount of all donations, gifts, or funding received from these organizations either in relation to their direct or non-direct work as a representative, or to a business, foundation, or nonprofit which they represent, or in any personal capacity. This information should be made readily available to the public for review.

Parents Against SSFL believes that public representatives, at all levels of government, should be kept from voting on, or presiding over, matters from which they have accepted private, political, or business related monies; donations, funding, or gifts. We call upon all public representatives to take such actions even when laws are not in place to ensure that these steps are taken. It is the only ethical and honest approach. Money changes the balance of equity and tips the scales of justice in favor of those with the most money.

Captured Agencies

The Consumer Watchdog’s Inside Job report shows how polluters work the system and influence regulators to save their clients potentially hundreds of millions of dollars. The report lists a few strategies Boeing used to capture and influence the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) over the Santa Susana Field Lab including:

  • Boeing captured DTSC, including its [former] Director Debbie Raphael, with help from former government officials—including some that worked for [former Governor] Brown in his prior administration—to pressure their own former subordinates and others to reverse cleanup.

  • Boeing benefited from the removal of four regulators who had championed full cleanup of the site

Boeing Lobbyist

Boeing hired people from regulating agencies with knowledge of the Santa Susana Field Lab to become lobbyists. Several men listed in the Inside Job report worked for the DTSC or CalEPA, or as environmental advisors to former governor Brown before being hired as lobbyists for Boeing. It was simple for those who had already worked inside DTSC to push for limits to the cleanup requirements on behalf their client, Boeing. The following is according to Inside Job, a report by Consumer Watchdog;

  • Winston Hickox is a Principal in the public affairs firm California Strategies LLC. Boeing is a client. He served as former Special Assistant for Environmental Affairs to Governor Jerry Brown during his first administration, and his later stint as Secretary of the California EPA. Hickox was hired to advocate for Boeing on the Santa Susana cleanup, according to documents obtained under the Public Records Act and Consumer Watchdog interviews.

  • Robert Hoffman was Chief Counsel at DTSC and then served as Chief of Staff for Hickox when he was Secretary of CalEPA before joining the lobbying and law firm of Paul Hastings. Hoffman pushed DTSC regulators with whom he previously worked or who were his subordinates to limit cleanup requirements on his client, Boeing.

  • Peter Weiner also works for the lobbying firm of Paul Hastings. He was Special Assistant to Jerry Brown for Toxic Substances Control in Brown’s first administration. Weiner cultivated a friendship with DTSC Director Debbie Raphael, casting himself as a mentor, while arranging, with his colleague Robert Hoffman, meetings with Raphael and top DTSC staff on Santa Susana, including to discuss the “vision” for the site, a personal tour of the site for Raphael, and how to manage “public participation” in the cleanup of the site.

  • Charles Stringer is Principal and General Counsel at the Los Angeles consulting firm Renewable Resources Group. Their firm was hired by Boeing to do advocacy work on the Santa Susana matter. In December 2012, Renewable Resources confirmed to the LA Daily News that Boeing hired it for work on the Santa Susana site to “see its land protected as open space parkland after it’s been safely remediated.

Woolsey Fire Fines

In November of 2018, one of Southern California Edison’s electrical substations sparked the Woolsey Fire, the most destructive fire in modern Los Angeles County history. The substation was located at the Santa Susana Field Lab (SSFL) and was originally built for the Sodium Reactor Experiment, to provide electricity to the local town of Moorpark. After the meltdown, the reactor was demolished but the substation remained. 

The Santa Susana Field Lab’s 2,850 acres are located in California’s wildfire country. At one point, the SSFL was equipped with a well-trained fire crew, a fire station, multiple fire engines and trucks, fire hydrants throughout the facility, and water tanks that held over two million gallons of water. Eventually, all of it was removed. Instead of a well-equipped fire response crew, four “fire/security personnel” were onsite the day of the fire, said Boeing spokeswoman Chamila Nothum. The single-engine that remained broke down on its way to the flames. 

If the site had been equipped with the proper firefighting resources, it's possible that the Woolsey Fire would have stayed a small brushfire, never leaving the substation area. Instead, it consumed 80% of the Santa Susana Field Lab, destroyed 1,600 structures, burned almost 100,000 acres of land, and killed four people. But even more frightening, an independent study found radioactive microparticles from ash and smoke ten miles away, chemically identified to have come from the Santa Susana Field Lab.

Heavy rains followed the Woolsey Fire. Contaminated dust, ash, and soil washed down the charred mountaintop. Rain runoff monitoring stations, called outfalls, had already been set around the perimeter of the SSFL. 

If contamination in the rain runoff surpasses the legal limits set by the NPDES permit, it’s known as an “exceedance.” Exceedances result in fines by the Water Board as a deterrent to keep companies from polluting water that is used for wildlife, recreation, and drinking water. 

After the Woolsey Fire Boeing was found to have an astonishing fifty-seven exceedances in the last quarter of 2018 and the first quarter of 2019 and was fined $154,250. The fines were a paltry amount for a company that made over $4.5 billion in profit that same year. But Boeing wasn’t concerned about the money, their real problem was that the fines might stir up talk of faulty filtration systems, broken promises, and negligence. The public might remember that despite Boeing’s claims, the SSFL contamination is dangerous and does migrate offsite. They might hold Boeing accountable for the cleanup.

Photo of one of Boeing’s Scientist-for-Hire in the documentary, In the Dark of the Valley

Boeing needed the fines to disappear and for that, they intended to work some greenwashing magic. In this particular case, their typical solution of lawyers, lobbyists, and PR teams wouldn’t work. Instead, Boeing provided the salaries for five scientists to consult as an “Expert Panel” for the Water Board. The Expert Panel members claim to be independent scientists, but Upton Sinclair’s quote is especially relevant in this situation: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” 

In his book, The Triumph of Doubt, author David Michaels writes about product defense firms.

“Much of [product defense firms] work involved the production of scientific materials that purport to show that a product a corporation makes, or uses, or even discharges as air or water pollution, is just not very dangerous…these operations have toxicologists, epidemiologists, biostatisticians… deflating the benefits of proposed regulation.”

Unsurprisingly, the Expert Panel declared the rainwater exceedances had nothing to do with the Santa Susana Field Lab’s contamination. They claimed the excessive heavy metals, radioactive, and toxic contamination was the result of burned pavement and telephone poles. But the public was still skeptical. 

Charles Stringer (right) was a Boeing Lobbyist and a Water Board member

Boeing needed an insider on the Water Board to make their fines disappear. Then their exceedances might not see seem as serious. Luckily for them, they already had Charles Stringer who had worked as a Boeing lobbyist with his firm, Renewable Resources. But Stringer recused himself from the May 19, 2019 hearing when Boeing’s exceedances were discussed. To be clear, decisions to reduce Boeing’s fees were not made during the May 19th hearing. Irma Muñoz did not recuse herself, nor did she publicly disclose that her non-profit had accepted $40,000 from Boeing that year.

Boeing: Legal but Unethical

Irma Muñoz was the Water Board chairwoman that year, Lawrence Yee was vice-chair. According to a NBC news article, they were the only two board members who knew in advance that Boeing had requested that their fines be revoked.  However, according a letter from a Water Board lawyer, “…the decision was made by the Board’s enforcement staff who determined that an appropriate affirmative defense under the Water Code for a subset of penalties existed and, based on the affirmative defense and the facts, declined to pursue the full penalty. That is consistent with prosecutorial discretion and the enforcement staff had that authority. After the decision was made by enforcement staff and immediately before the letter was sent, the Board’s Executive Officer informed then-Chair Muñoz and then-Vice Chair Larry Yee of the decision, which is customary for matters that may result in high public or media interest. Neither Board Member Muñoz nor Board Member Yee provided any input on the decision before or after it was made.” Still, Muñoz put herself in a imprudent situation by not alerting the Water Board staff that she should not be in any meetings or discussions regarding matters related to Boeing’s NPDES permit. Also, she had the authority as chair to veto the staff’s recommendation and instead insist the board vote on the matter. She did not.

On June 27, 2019, the Water Board reduced Boeing’s fines from $154,250 to just $28,000, saying that “the [exceedances from] the Woolsey fire could not have been prevented or avoided by the exercise of due care or foresight by Boeing..." This is despite the fact that if Boeing had finished the Santa Susana Field Lab’s cleanup by 2017 like they agreed there wouldn’t have been any contamination to cause the exceedances.

Boeing might have set it up to take her out if needed.

At the most basic level, Water Board members must recuse themselves from decisions that have a conflict of interest for them. Board members must disclose if they received income from any company that has an NPDES permit in the region where they are serving, even if the income is indirect. The intent is clear, to discourage Water Board members from accepting money that would result in special favors for companies with NPDES permits. If Boeing’s donations were above 10% of a Board member’s annual income they would be disqualified from serving on the Water Board. 

It would seem that Muñoz, as the president and sole paid employee of the nonprofit Mujeres de la Tierra (Women of the Earth), should have filled out an annual NPDES Income Statement (form 700) for each year that she served on the Board. Each year, when asked if she had received any direct or indirect income from an NPDES permit holder, she checked the “no” box. According to the Water Board letter, Muñoz was not required to list the income. Muñoz’s nonprofit’s tax forms showed donations to Mujeres de la Tierra from Boeing and other NPDES permit enrollees and holders: 

  • 2016 $30,000 Boeing (Enrollee - NPDES, Los Angeles)

  • 2017 $5,000 Union Pacific (Enrollee, Los Angeles)

  • 2017 $1,500 Boeing (Enrollee - NPDES, Los Angeles)

  • 2018 $40,000 Boeing (Enrollee - NPDES, Los Angeles)

  • 2018 $15,000 Union Pacific (Enrollee, Los Angeles)

  • 2019 $15,000 Los Angeles DWP  (Enrollee - NPDES, Los Angeles)

  • 2019 $7,500 Southern California Edison (Enrollee - NPDES, Los Angeles)

On February 7, 2022 Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) filed a Conflict of Interest criminal complaint asking California Attorney General investigate whether Muñoz violated state conflict of interest laws and if the 2019 donations from companies with NPDES permits disqualify her from serving on the board. The AG has yet to respond to PEER and there is concern they may choose to ignore the complaint. 

Recently, Irma Muñoz recused herself, “out of an abundance of caution” from the Water Board hearing on February 10, 2022 when it met to discuss the renewal of Boeing’s NPDES permit. The contamination limits in the new NPDES proposal were relaxed in some instances, in others limits were removed completely, all of them above the highest exceedances seen during the Woolsey Fire. Had the proposal passed, Boeing may have never had another exceedance or fine again. Not because they would be polluting less, but because the limits would be beyond worst case scenarios like the Woolsey Fire.

After extensive comments from the public, the Water Board decided to postpone its decision to renew or reject Boeing’s proposed NPDES permit. When the discussions resume the Board will decide if Boeing should be held to stricter contamination limits that would protect public health, the environment and local wildlife, or if they will allow the newly proposed permit to go forward as is. The next hearing is set for September 28, 2023.

Water Board Meeting, April 14, 2022

The Water Board issues statements on their website, one night before the April 14, 2022 meeting. Statements were given at the start of the meeting by Executive Officer Purdy, Chairman Yee, and Irma Muñoz in regards to her conflict of interest accusations. Water Board legal advisors were also present and speak after the public comments, saying that all accusations against Muñoz were false.