Cleanup Myths

SSFL > CLEANUP > CLEANUPMYTHS

Myth: The background cleanup will do “more harm than good.”

Because of Boeing’s well-crafted greenwashing and misinformation campaigns, some people in the community fear that the complete, “background” cleanup at the SSFL would do more harm than good. That’s a myth. And it’s been busted.

A “Background” cleanup:

  • Returns the site to its natural state — as close as possible.

  • 2012 EPA Radiological Background Study determined naturally existing radiation levels in surrounding communities.

  • Anything above naturally existing radiation levels is to be removed in a “background” cleanup.

  • Cultural and biological exemptions in the 2010 agreement were included for extra protection, and mitigation measures in the EIR ensure that sacred artifacts and endangered species at the site are protected.

The “Background” cleanup covers less land than many people assume. The majority of the contamination exists where industrial activities, and the burn pits, occured. That’s why the cleanup area, shown in green, covers less than half the site’s acreage.

Myth: The cleanup will destroy cultural artifacts

The Santa Susana Field Lab hosts the Burro Flats Painted Cave, a prehistoric archaeological site. The Burro Flats Cave and its surrounding 11.74 acres, as defined by the National Registry of Historic Places, are protected from any cleanup activities.

The AOC cultural exemptions are as follows: “Native American artifacts that are formally recognized as cultural resources [are exempt from any cleanup activities].”

The Cultural Exemptions in the AOC are in addition to the protections already given to the Burro Flats Area. 

Furthermore, indigenous cultural resources at the SSFL are legally protected by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990, and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act 1998.

Cultural Monitors are hired to be onsite at the SSFL during any soil-moving activities to ensure cultural artifacts are protected.

Myth: The Cleanup will harm wildlife

The Responsible Parties argue that a full cleanup would harm local plants and animals by temporarily disturbing their habitats. What they fail to mention is that much of the contamination at SSFL is already harming the very plants and animals they claim to protect—and leaving it in place could lead to lower birth rates, diseases, or even death.

Fortunately, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) includes detailed mitigation plans to protect the sensitive and endangered species that live at the Santa Susana Field Lab during the cleanup process.

According the the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the cleanup is likely to benefit many of the sensitive and endangered species at the SSFL in the long-run.

moonscaping myths

Based on the opinion of a Remediation Expert, PASSFL believes that the amount of clean soil to be removed in the PEIR has been artificially inflated to make the cleanup seem more harmful than necessary. PASSFL is dedicated to advocating for better technology and methods to be used during the SSFL cleanup so that only contaminated soil is removed and safe soil remains on site.

FACTS

  • Rock formations won’t be disturbed.

  • Old-growth trees will be protected.

  • Soil removal will primarily occur in areas already impacted by industrial work.

“DTSC disagrees with the assumption that to accomplish a cleanup of the site and the process of correcting the environmental contamination will result in a ‘moonscape.’ There is no doubt that the magnitude of environmental harm that Boeing, DOE, and NASA caused in the course of their operations is significant. Cleaning up the site will result in ancillary environmental impacts that DOE and NASA will need to mitigate, including plans to restore and rehabilitate the ecosystems. DTSC will consult and communicate with habitat and ecosystem experts to ensure that DOE and NASA’s restoration efforts are successful.”
— 2010 DTSC Response to Comments Agreements in Principle; Volume 1

Toxic trucks

The DTSC and the Responsible Parties often claim it would take “too many trucks” as a reason why the complete cleanup shouldn’t happen. This is a scare tactic and not based in truth, and shouldn’t limit the cleanup.

  1. The Committee to Bridge the Gap created an Alternative Transportation Study that would dramatically reduce the number of trucks used at the SSFL to nearly zero.

  2. A statement from the So. Cal Federation of Scientists at DOE Scoping Hearing challenged the Department of Energy’s amount of soil to be removed. It seems DOE’s numbers were inflated, meant to frighten residents.

  3. Smart cleanup methods to reduce the amount of soil to be moved, including “in-situ” soil treatment (cleaning the soil onsite rather than disposing of it) have been taken out of the consideration.

    1. NASA said in its 2013 Draft Environmental Impact Statement that “in-situ” soil remediation (cleaning the soil onsite, rather than taking it away to dispose of it) might be considered for treating up to 180,000 cubic yards of soil, out of the estimated total of 500,000 cubic yards of soil NASA estimated needed to be cleaned. That would require only 320,000 cubic yards to be disposed of offsite, dramatically reducing the trucks needed for the cleanup. However, in NASA’s 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Statement NASA now claims that there is significant “new information” that supposedly shows in-situ and bioremediation technologies won’t work. (See the NRDC and CBG letter to learn more, page 20).

RELATED

TRANSPORTATION STUDY