Frequents Asked Questions

Site Overview

Additionally, there were multiple radioactive fires, accidents in the plutonium fuel facility, leaks, hazardous waste burning, illegal waste practices, and an explosion that killed two scientists. The site also hosted over 30,000 rocket engine tests, resulting in over 500,000 gallons of TCE contaminating the soil and groundwater, in addition to leaks of highly toxic and endocrine-disrupting chemicals (many have since been federally banned) and toxic metals.

Over the years, the Santa Susana Field Lab has been utilized and owned by different government agencies and companies. Boeing is responsible for the soil and groundwater cleanup at 80% of the SSFL. NASA and the Department of Energy (DOE) are also “Responsible Parties” for the cleanup.

The original cleanup agreements between the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and Boeing, NASA, and the Department of Energy ordered the site to be completely cleaned up and to have a permanent groundwater treatment system installed by 2017. The Responsible Parties made promises that the cleanup would be to “background,” the most stringent cleanup possible. Today, the site remains dangerously contaminated, and promises have been broken.

In 2022, the DTSC, CalEPA and Boeing entered into an erroneously titled “Settlement Agreement” that would allow Boeing to leave nearly all their portion of the site contaminated. This was done behind closed doors, in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

In 2023, the DTSC allowed Boeing, NASA, and the Department of Energy to change their cleanup agreements without the consent of the public. The final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) will allow the Responsible Parties to leave the majority of the site contaminated in perpetuity.

Groups such as Parents Against Santa Susana Field Lab, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility are currently suing DTSC over the Settlement Agreement. Along with other NGOs, they are encouraging the County of Los Angeles, County of Ventura, the City of Los Angeles, and the City of Simi Valley to sue the DTSC over the PEIR.

The Santa Susana Field Lab (formerly known as Rocketdyne or Rockwell) was used for rocket engine tests for “America’s Race to Space,” beginning in 1949, and for experimental nuclear work beginning in 1953. The site was also used for liquid rocket fuel testing, liquid metal experimentation, and chemical laser research. The site stopped all operations in 2006. Although many of the buildings have been demolished, the soil and groundwater remain heavily contaminated today.

The 2,850-acre site is one of California’s most toxic sites and the site of one of America’s worst nuclear meltdowns. The SSFL facility experienced four nuclear accidents, including the infamous SRE meltdown that may have released more radiation than the Three Mile Island accident.

Common Questions

Will I get cancer if I live near the SSFL?

  • The mobile and long-lasting nature of the contamination from the SSFL puts all Southern Californians at some risk of exposure. In general, the further away from the site you are, the less chance you have of being exposed to the SSFL's contamination. We know from a federally-funded study that people living within 2 miles of the site have a 60% higher cancer risk than those who live 5 miles away, which shows a positive correlation between living near the site and cancer risks. We also know there isn't a giant wall at the 2-mile marker keeping contamination within that area.

    If you live near to the SSFL, we encourage you to help us fight for the complete cleanup. There are also ways you can lessen your risk of exposure.

  • Many of the 300 contaminants of concern (chemical and radioactive) at the SSFL are carcinogenic and are known to cause cancer while others are known to cause illnesses besides cancer.

    Dr. Robert Dodge from Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles wrote, "To understand the health effects to the surrounding communities, think: cancer, birth defects, developmental disorders, neurotoxic effects and learning disabilities, to name just a few. It is well documented that many of these contaminants have no safe level of exposure when it comes to affecting human health. The site is contaminated with dangerous radionuclides and some 300 toxic contaminants of concern. Radionuclides and other toxins can get into our tissues in various ways, some by inhalation or ingestion and others solely by skin contact. Once incorporated, they look to the body like life-giving elements, and they are incorporated into our cells where they can have their deadly effects for years to come."

  • The contamination at the SSFL isn't contained in barrels or vaults. It's loose in the soil and the groundwater. The SSFL is on a hill. The wind can carry the contamination from the SSFL property into the communities below.

    Contamination from the SSFL can pollute water through rain runoff from the SSFL and into the Los Angeles River and Ventura County's Calleguas Creek Watershed. Studies have shown that groundwater from the SSFL puts other local aquifers at risk of being contaminated. Wildfires at the SSFL, like the Woolsey Fire, can spread contamination through ash and smoke.

  • Some people who live near the SSFL will never get cancer (thankfully). Cancer isn't caused just by exposure. It's much more complicated. It also has to do with the strength of a person's immune system. It has to do with gender (women are much more sensitive to radiation). Children are more at risk because of their growth rates and because they interact more with dirt. Some people may be exposed to the site's contamination, causing damage to their DNA, and could make their children more susceptible to cancer, even if the parent is never impacted directly.

    The more science studies cancer, the more scientists realize that it's not just one factor that causes cancer. PASSFL is very grateful that not everyone will get cancer but we believe the site should be cleaned up completely so that no one gets a preventable cancer from the site's contamination.

  • Check out our page on how to lessen your exposure, but also join us in the fight to completely cleanup the SSFL to "background." Once we get the contamination cleaned up, we won't have to worry if it's causing cancer or illness in our community.

Will the cleanup cause more harm than good?

  • Leaving the contamination is exactly what has happened for the last 65 years of no cleanup. It has allowed contamination to migrate offsite into local communities, causing cancer and disease. Because much of the SSFL's contamination is long-lasting it will continue to cause harm for centuries until it is cleaned up.

    Concrete cap have been used in other toxic places to try to contain contamination and avoid cleanup costs. The concrete caps have not worked. They crack, they leak, they don't remove the source of the contamination.

  • What dust? You mean all the dust Boeing and NASA and the Department of Energy (DOE) keep talking about if they use the clumsiest operators and the most outdated cleanup methods?

    What if they used Gold Standard methods instead- which is what they're supposed to do by law? They’re completely capable of it and that’s what we want.

    If covered conveyor belts were used to load contaminated dirt directly into trucks or trains, there would be virtually no dust. (Even if they used trucks, they would be required to use dust mitigation methods to reduce dust).

    The Department of Toxic Substances Control keeps talking as if only the laziest and sloppiest workers will be hired. If NASA, the DOE, and Boeing are the world-class agencies/companies they claim to be, then it seems they should be able to hire competent and qualified workers.

    Federal, state and local ordinances will direct the cleanup to keep dust from harming the community.

  • The polluters have worked hard to scare the community about the cleanup so they don't have to clean up their mess. They've been lying to us.

    The Department of Energy (DOE) has cunningly proposed the most outdated cleanup methods imaginable in an effort to dissuade us from demanding enforcement of the cleanup commitments they agreed to in 2010.

    The DOE’s proposed outdated cleanup methods claim it will take thousands of trucks to move massive amounts of soil. But if they use more modern methods...there's not nearly as much soil to move, which is what we all want.

    The DOE also proposed that these thousands of trucks would have to drive nearly 60 miles, on densely populated streets, to the nearest train station. There are at least three service roads that can be used that have few, if any, homes nearby. These service roads are near a usable train track. 

    The only reason the DOE has proposed using residential streets was to scare residents into rejecting the cleanup all together.

    What's worse, is that the CA Department of Toxic Substances has held many public meetings that reiterated the dangers of the DOE's proposals, instead of demanding safer options. Residents deserve the safest and smartest cleanup, and we won't settle for less.

  • Boeing, NASA and the Department of Energy (DOE) are claiming that the cleanup would reach bedrock in order to follow the 2010-AOC cleanup agreements. They’ve nicknamed it “moonscaping” to express how the cleanup will destroy the environment and make it look like the surface of the moon.

    They're lying.

    The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has said this is false. The cleanup will remove only the contamination and will work hard to preserve the environment. There are protections interwoven into the original cleanup agreements to make sure that the cleanup heals the land from the toxic and radioactive waste there.

  • This is Boeing's current favorite reason to justify getting out of the complete "background" cleanup. In the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR), Boeing justified leaving nearly 90% of the soil contaminated because they claimed that a complete cleanup would harm the habitats of the wildlife living onsite.

    The Fish and Game

    Old-growth trees, rock formations, mountains, and habitats designated by the US Fish and Wildlife Agency are all exempt from the cleanup and will not be harmed. These clauses are extensive and will restore the SSFL to it's natural condition as much as possible.

    According to the US Fish and Wildlife, leaving the contamination onsite would harm the sensitive and endangered species there.

responses

Boieng Claims | PASSFL Responds

Boeing Claims: Boeing Santa Susana’s environmental cleanup is well underway… Boeing has made significant progress with cleanup and restoration.

PASSFL Responds: Boeing has greatly exaggerated how much the site’s occasional “emergency actions” cleanups have achieved. The complete cleanup was to be completed by 2017, but it has not begun. The site remains dangerously contaminated today.

  • According to the original 2007 cleanup agreement between the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Boeing, NASA, and the Department of Energy, the programmatic soil cleanup (the entire site’s general soil cleanup) was scheduled to be completed by 2017. Emergency actions have allowed to work on some areas and many buildings have been demolished, but the overall site soil cleanup has not begun. Nor has the groundwater remediation, which was to have a permanent system in place by 2017. The SSFL daily puts residents, water sources, and wildlife at risk of harm from the site’s dangerous contamination.

    Boeing originally promised the community it would implement a “background” cleanup scenario, which would remove all man-made contamination at the site. Soon after, Boeing determined they would instead examine three different cleanup scenarios:

    • The “Background” cleanup scenario would remove all man-made chemical and radioactive contamination, leaving only naturally occurring radioactive material. In short, it would return the site to its natural state.

    • The “Residential with a 100% garden” cleanup scenario would remediate the site so that a hypothetical person could live at the SSFL, eat the produce they grew there, and not incur additional cancer risks above the EPA’s 1 in 1,000,000 acceptable cancer risk rate. This would protect the people living near the site (for example, residents in Bell Canyon share a fenceline with the SSFL) to be safe from any contamination migrating offsite.

    • The “Recreational” cleanup scenario assumes that no one would ever live at the site and people would only be exposed to small amounts of contamination if they were to occasionally take brief hikes on Boeing’s property. This loophole would allow Boeing to legally leave almost all the contamination and still meet the EPA’s 1 in 1,000,000 acceptable cancer risk rate. However, it would not protect the people living nearby and would allow the site to remain heavily contaminated for perpetuity.

    Instead of making reasonable progress toward the background cleanup deadline, Boeing wasted time trying to manipulate the agreements to weaken the cleanup standards. Boeing repeatedly revised the “backbone” of the PEIR, the Standardized Risk Assessment Methodology (SRAM), which dictates how much contamination has to be removed to meet each cleanup scenario. The draft PEIR was released in 2015, just two years before the cleanup was to be completed.

    That same year, Boeing released a version of the SRAM that would allow some portions of the SSFL to remain so highly contaminated, that if hypothetical people lived onsite, and ate the produce they grew there, 96 out of 100 people would get cancer. In a different portion of the site, one in three people would get cancer if Boeing were allowed to implement their revised SRAM. Elected officials made a collective push for this version of the SRAM to be rejected.

    In 2017, Boeing submitted a proposed SRAM that removed the residential cleanup standards entirely. Boeing publicly declared that it did not intend to follow through with a background cleanup but would instead pursue a recreational cleanup scenario.

    Despite DTSC and CalEPA’s repeated promises they would not cave to Boeing, in 2020, the DTSC initiated closed-door negotiations that resulted in the erroneously titled “Settlement Agreement.” The new agreement was hailed as a “health protective cleanup,” yet allows Boeing to leave approximately 90% of their land un-remediated; it is the recreational cleanup scenario.

    The DTSC has incorporated the Settlement Agreement into the final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR). In addition to Boeing’s concessions, the PEIR states that NASA and the Department of Energy can leave up to 63% of their property contaminated.