nASA didn’t need an Seis
NASA wasn’t supposed to write a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that considered options on how much contamination it would clean up. It was the job of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to decide that, and it did in 2010 when the “Administrative Order on Consent” was signed. It stated that all the contamination at the Santa Susana Field Lab must be remediated to “background” levels, aka, that it should be as clean as it was before NASA polluted it.
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) wrote to NASA saying they did not require polluters to consider cleanup alternatives that violated the AOC cleanup standards. NASA then issued a public statement that they would restrict their consideration of alternatives in the EIS to only cleanup to background actions, in addition to the “no action” option that was required. (1) Obviously, they decided to go forward with “supplemental” cleanup options anyhow, regardless of the extra costs to taxpayers.
NASA was only supposed to propose how it would meet the AOC obligations. For example, they could have proposed Option A: using shovels and mules. Option B: Covered conveyor belts. Option C: Giant circus tents.
Instead NASA proposed four options with varying degrees of how much they would cleanup, three of which did not meet their legal obligations. The purple areas show the contamination that would be remediated under that option.
NASA didn’t have to write an SEIS for the levels of contamination to be remediated. NASA shouldn’t have. But they did because they are trying to strongarm their way out of the cleanup for the pollution they caused. They hoped by blatantly defying the DTSC they will be allowed to take an option that will leave the 500,000 people living within 10 miles of the site in danger to exposure to dangerous chemical and radioactive waste.
In January 2020 DTSC sent a letter to NASA on its Draft SEIS.
“In 2012 the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) noted that NASA was legally bound by a 2010 Administrative Order on Consent (AOC), which requires a background cleanup standard at the Santa Susana Field Lab. Therefore, CEQ stated that the cleanup alternatives in an EIS which did not comply with the AOC standards were infeasible. NASA’s March 2014 Final EIS complied with CEQ’s direction by analyzing actions that complied with the AOC. However, NASA’s 2019 Draft EIS includes three infeasible cleanup alternatives that would fail to comply with the AOC…therefore the Draft SEIS is legally deficient. DTSC also reminds NASA that we will continue to hold NASA accountable for complying with the AOC.”
Below are the NRDC-CBG-PSR-LA comments on NASA's DSEIS:
On July 6, 2011, NASA published in the Federal Register a Notice of Intent to conduct scoping for and prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) related to demolition and environmental cleanup activities at the portions of SSFL it administers. (76 Fed. Reg. 39,443). NASA also solicited scoping comments in that notice.
The Director of DTSC wrote to the NASA Project Director for SSFL on September 19, 2011, directing that the “scope of the alternatives that NASA is proposing to evaluate in its EIS must be modified because all but one of the current alternatives are inconsistent with the AOC.” This letter cited language in the AOC specifying that NEPA review be on “how to conduct the cleanup to background defined in this Agreement,” and thus that “[i]n order for NASA to continue in its commitment under the AOC, and to ensure that NASA’s NEPA documents are useful to the public, NASA must designate alternatives that exist, are plausible and are consistent with the AOC.”
Concerned by NASA’s disagreement with DTSC on this issue, Senator Barbara Boxer convened a meeting with NASA Director Charles Bolden, DTSC Director Deborah Raphael, Cal-EPA Secretary Matt Rodriquez, and the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Nancy Sutley. As NASA would not otherwise conform its actions to address California’s concerns, it was agreed that CEQ would review the matter and issue a determination. By letter dated June 19, 2012, CEQ Chair Sutley wrote with CEQ’s conclusion that NEPA does not require consideration of alternatives that are not feasible, and that alternatives that would violate the AOC thus need not be considered in the EIS, with the exception of the standard “no action” alternative.
Thereafter, on July 18, 2012, NASA issued a public statement from Project Director Allen Elliott, stating that in light of the input from Senator Boxer and CEQ, NASA would restrict its consideration of alternatives in the EIS to cleanup to background and the no action alternative.
Thus, in July 2013 NASA issued a Draft EIS and in March 2014 a Final EIS for Proposed Demolition and Environmental Cleanup Activities at SSFL. Both the Draft and Final EIS complied with the AOC, directives from DTSC, and the guidance from CEQ, and considered as formal alternatives only the AOC cleanup to background and the no action alternative.
REFERENCES
(1) See Letter from CEQ Chair Nancy Sutley to Senator Barbara Boxer, Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, June 19, 2012 . Also available as Appendix A to NASA’s March 2014 Final Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Demolition and Environmental Cleanup Activities at Santa Susana Field Laboratory.