NASA Insignia

Santa Susana Field Laboratory
Environmental Cleanup and Closure

  1. Home
  2. Contacts
[Skip main menu]
[Skip site path] Skip Navigation LinksHome > Frequently Asked Questions

Frequently Asked Questions

History and Background

Investigation and Cleanup

Health

Demolition

Community Involvement

Other

History and Background

What is the history and background of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL)?

The 2,850-acre SSFL is located in California’s Simi Valley in Ventura County, roughly 30 miles northwest of Los Angeles. The facility opened in 1948 and is divided into four "Administrative Areas" and two areas of undeveloped land. Area II and a 41.7-acre portion of Area I are owned by the U.S. Government and administered by NASA. The rest of Area I and all of Areas III, IV and the undeveloped lands, are owned and operated by the Boeing Company. NASA prepared an information sheet that describes historical operations at SSFL as well as the groundwater, surface water, and soil investigation and cleanup activities underway as part of NASA’s commitment to clean up chemicals in the environment that remain from past operations.

How long has NASA administered property at SSFL?

Santa Susana Field Laboratory has played a significant role in our country’s space program. NASA first acquired 451.2 acres from the United States Air Force in 1973. The 42 acre portion in Area I , acquired by NASA in 1976, had contained a Liquid Oxygen (LOX) Plant, which operated from the early 1950s until the late 1960s, when LOX was used in testing liquid-fueled engines. (The LOX plant’s buildings and tanks were removed in the 1970s.) NASA used Area II to conduct research, development and testing of rocket engines associated with the Apollo and Space Shuttle Programs through the 1980s. All test stands at SSFL had been taken out of service by 2006. Some of the operations resulted in the release of chemicals into the environment. NASA has been conducting rigorous investigations and some remediation where possible. NASA is committed to clean up the land it continues to administer at SSFL. The NASA prepared information sheet, Space History at SSFL, describes NASA’s space program history at SSFL. To learn more about the major rocket programs associated with SSFL, go to the About SSFL section of this website.

Why is NASA no longer using SSFL for testing?

In recent years as NASA’s mission has evolved, there has been a transition in the kinds of launch systems needed, and testing for those systems is being undertaken at other NASA facilities. Following a lengthy period of consideration and review of its current and future needs, NASA concluded it had no further need for this property located at SSFL. In September 2009, NASA submitted to the General Services Administration (GSA) a "report of excess" regarding the property administered by NASA at SSFL. GSA has conditionally accepted that report pending NASA’s completion of cleanup.

Investigation and Cleanup

What is NASA’s responsibility for cleanup at SSFL?

To date, NASA has made significant progress with respect to investigations and cleanup at SSFL. In August 2007, NASA, Boeing and DOE, and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) signed a Consent Order External site icon that addressed the cleanup of soils and groundwater at SSFL. Subsequently, on December 6, 2010, NASA and DTSC executed an Administrative Order on Consent External site icon for Remedial Action referred to as “2010 AOC” with specific requirements to complete the characterization and cleanup of soils on the NASA‐administered areas (Areas II and a portion of Area I ) of SSFL. The AOC requires NASA to clean up soils to Look up Table values by the end of 2017.

Is NASA committed to the 2010 AOC?

Yes. NASA signed an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) on Dec 6, 2010. The AOC defines the process for characterization and the cleanup of soils at SSFL. NASA has met all of its AOC obligations to date and will continue to as required.

Is a 2017 deadline for soil cleanup realistic?

NASA has been working with DTSC to develop a schedule for soils clean up that meets that very aggressive deadline. A first step NASA must take is to conduct demolition of structures on the site to enable soils cleanup to proceed. Demolition work began in 2013 with the pre-demolition surveys. The actual demolition will occur in a phased approach beginning in the northern part of Area II and Delta Area, followed by central areas including Coca Test Area. The last phase of demolition is planned to include the Alfa/Bravo areas and may include the preservation of one or more Test Stand structures. In addition to completing demolition, NASA must wait for DTSC to complete its California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process before soils cleanup can start. CEQA requires state and local agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible. NASA has provided its Final Environmental Impact Statement for DTSC’s use in completing CEQA. In the meantime, NASA will do everything it can to move forward with meeting the cleanup requirements and deadline.

Does the site have to be fully cleaned up before it is turned over to a new owner?

NASA is committed to completing a cleanup of SSFL that protects public health and the environment. NASA is also committed to meeting its cleanup obligations under the AOC. Once cleanup goals have been achieved, or if the Governor of California concurs that the property is suitable for transfer under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the property can be turned over by the General Services Administration (GSA), the federal agency that has the responsibility to transfer the property to a new owner.

What has NASA accomplished at SSFL to date?

NASA has made significant progress on both investigation and cleanup of the areas it administers at SSFL. When chemicals resulting from historic practices such as trichloroethylene (TCE) were discovered in water supply wells in 1984, NASA made the commitment to clean up the NASA-administered property at SSFL to a level that protects human health and the environment. That commitment remains, as does the commitment to meet the cleanup obligations specified in the Consent Order and the AOC.

Early on, NASA conducted cleanup activities where we could do so to reduce the site contamination:

  • Removed the former LOX Plant in Area I and cleaned up debris from the plant
  • Removed the Propellant Launch Facility (PLF) near the Expendable Launch Vehicle Facility and cleaned up 3,000 cubic yards of mercury contamination in surface soil and sediment around it
  • Removed 2,000 pounds of VOCs since the 1980s
  • Cleaned and closed four facilities and a number of ponds and related drainage systems
  • Removed five Underground Storage Tanks (UST)
  • Removed asbestos containing materials (ACMs) near LOX plant

Site investigations were conducted to understand the nature and extent of contamination:

  • Installed groundwater monitoring wells in mid-1980s that have been regularly sampled since then
  • Collected and analyzed more than 5,000 rock samples and 11,000 groundwater samples
  • In conjunction with Boeing and DOE, established a Groundwater Advisory Panel of scientific experts to assist NASA in understanding site-wide conditions that influence the movement of chemicals in the environment

As more was learned about the site, NASA was able to perform interim cleanup activities:

  • Installed treatment systems in Area II to clean up 1.7 billion gallons of groundwater since 1984
  • Implemented an interim measure of a centralized groundwater extraction treatment system (GETS) that has operated since 2009
  • Completed an Interim Source Removal Action (ISRA) in 2013. Beginning in 2009 and implemented in three phases, the ISRA removed a total of 11,759 cubic yards of contaminated soil (through ex-situ or aboveground treatment) from identified source areas in NASA-administered Area II and its portion of Area I at SSFL
  • Received Closure Certification from DTSC for three Hazardous Waste Management Units in Area II

NASA remains committed to protecting the environment:

  • Conducted archaeological resources surveys, historical resources surveys, biological and natural habitat surveys, and implemented an Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan.
  • NASA completed its Final Environmental Impact Statement in March 2014. This document contains survey results and summarizes results of various investigations conducted by NASA.

Additional investigation and cleanup information is briefly summarized in Year in Review fact sheets that NASA has published since 2009.

What is the status of your soil investigation?

NASA has made significant progress with soil investigations including sampling, laboratory analyses, treatability studies and pilot testing in preparation for conducting a comprehensive soil cleanup effort. NASA completed soil characterization – a process that was defined by the 2010 AOC in which NASA divided the site into five Field Sampling Plans (FSPs), and collected and analyzed soil and soil vapor chemical data from these areas. Field work performed early in 2013 closed the gaps that remained from the five previous soil sampling activities. The sixth and final FSP will become part of a Final Data Summary Report (expected in 2015) and with approval of the report, the soil investigation phase in the NASA-administered areas will be finished.

In addition, NASA has been conducting bench scale and field study work to evaluate soil remediation technologies on site-specific contaminants under environmental conditions present at SSFL. These evaluations include soil washing, thermal desorption and bioventing. More information is provided in the 2014 Year in Review and the DTSC website External site icon.

Earlier soil sampling data is summarized and evaluated in DTSC’s Draft RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) Reports for the following Groups:

What is the status of your groundwater investigation?

NASA installed groundwater monitoring wells in the 1980s and has been regularly sampling since then. Site wide groundwater investigations by NASA, Boeing and DOE resulted in a Draft Site-wide Groundwater Remedial Investigation (RI) Report being submitted to DTSC in late 2009 (see index below) and, subsequently, work plans being submitted to address DTSC comments on the RI report.

Draft Site-wide Groundwater Remedial Investigation Report

As an interim measure, NASA began treating groundwater at a centralized Groundwater Extraction Treatment System (GETS), which has operated since 2009. More recently, NASA has been conducting field work that focuses on Areas of Impacted Groundwater (AIG). This field work is filling in the data gaps related to the sources of four groundwater plumes beneath land administered by NASA. Field work includes the installation of 21 wells and boreholes, an array of surveys, and mapping projects. The purpose of the investigation is to characterize the nature and extent of the source area groundwater contamination, understand the groundwater flow direction and rate, and understand the behavior of groundwater flow with respect to bedrock faults and fractures within the plume. Field work will continue through September and at that time the groundwater investigation phase will be completed. Most recently, NASA conducted a treatability study using bedrock vapor extraction (BVE) technology. The November 2014 edition of theSSFL FieldNOTE newsletter and the 2014 Year In Review information sheet describe AIGs and the treatability study.

What is NASA doing about stormwater runoff?

NASA completed two initiatives to enhance Boeing’s efforts to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit limits at SSFL outfalls. Based on a recommendation by the SSFL Stormwater Expert Panel, NASA implemented a voluntary stormwater Best Management Practices (BMP) that included rehabilitating a drainage channel and installing sedimentation tanks – treating the water before returning it to the natural drainage that leads to the outfall from SSFL. NASA also completed an Interim Source Removal Action (ISRA) removing a total of 11,759 cubic yards of contaminated soil. Removing the surface soils reduced the potential for soil with chemicals of concern from being transported off site from Outfall 009.

NASA is conducting demolition and cleanup activities under requirements of the California Construction General Permit. NASA has completed a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that outlines the protective measures NASA is taking to prevent stormwater runoff, minimize soil erosion, and contain dust emissions from activities conducted on NASA-administered property at SSFL. Some of the controls NASA will use include silt fences, sand bags, straw waddles, and tire washes to reduce sediment discharges. To suppress dust, the site will be wetted down with a fine mist spray. Hydroseeding after work is completed will also help reduce dust and soil erosion. NASA will continue to conduct sampling to ensure stormwater quality remains within permitted levels.

How does the AOC cleanup standard compare to other risk-based standards?

The 2010 AOC requires that the site be cleaned up to Look up Table (LUT) External site icon values, regardless of whether or not site contaminants are predicted to pose a risk to human health or the environment at the locations and levels found. LUT values are estimated levels of chemicals that were in the soil before the SSFL field/industrial activities took place. While both the risk based standard and AOC cleanup requirement would be protective of human health and the environment, the AOC requires a much more restrictive cleanup goal. In contrast, for most cleanups, human health and ecological risk assessments are conducted to evaluate whether and to what extent hazardous chemicals in the environment (air, water, soil) have the potential to harm individuals (human receptors) or ecological receptors. The overall objective of a risk assessment is to provide information as to the need for and extent of cleanup. This so-called risk-based approach is one used by EPA and states nationwide and one followed by NASA for other remediation sites. Extensive guidance exists on how to conduct a human health and ecological risk assessment for such purposes. Generally agencies evaluate the risk from chemicals of concern (COCs) as the hazard identification step, and then use published and accepted toxicological values as the dose response. Various exposure scenarios are developed to estimate how long and how much exposure people may have to the chemicals. By combining exposure information with dose response information, the potential risk can be estimated. The results of the site-specific risk assessment can then be used to identify areas and chemicals that need to be remediated to be protective of human health and the environment.

During the NASA ’s development of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), NASA received many public questions about the benefits of a soil cleanup as prescribed by the 2010 Administrative Order on Consent (2010 AOC). A white paper analyzing background versus risk-based cleanup scenarios was written in an effort to address those concerns and questions and to assess the difference in cleanup requirements based on the background cleanup scenario versus a risk-based cleanup scenario. The analysis is intended to compare the level of protectiveness of cleaning up soil to background, as required by the 2010 AOC, versus cleaning up only those chemicals that pose unacceptable risk to human or ecological receptors (risk-based cleanup).

If NASA cleans up to the AOC standards and Boeing cleans up to a risk-based standard that is less stringent, won’t Boeing's "clean" soil "re-contaminate" NASA's areas once it rains?

While Boeing’s risk-based cleanup generally does not meet AOC cleanup standards, both Boeing’s risk-based cleanup and NASA’s cleanup to the AOC would be protective of public health and the environment.

How much is this cleanup costing and who is paying?

While site characterization activities are still ongoing and the selection of cleanup remedies have not yet been determined, NASA is currently estimating costs for completing characterization and cleanup of soil and groundwater to be between $250 million and $300 million.

Why is the investigation and cleanup taking so long?

Site investigation and cleanup of SSFL is an iterative process that can take many years, and it involves many parties and extensive oversight as well as community involvement. NASA is coordinating investigation and cleanup activities with the other parties (Boeing and U.S. Department of Energy) responsible for cleanup at SSFL. Each and every step of the way has involved oversight by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and in some instances, other regulatory agencies. It requires the preparation and approval of work plans before any activity can proceed, review and comment by DTSC and, often, by the public on each investigation and field study before the next step can be taken. NASA has been conducting investigations and some cleanup activities where possible at SSFL since the mid-1980s when chemicals resulting from past operations were found in soil and groundwater. Since that time, NASA’s investigation efforts have included installing an extensive groundwater monitoring network, taking thousands of samples of soil, soil vapor, surface water and groundwater. NASA has also conducted biological, habitat, and cultural resources surveys. These are but a few of the numerous activities that have helped NASA understand the nature and extent of contamination. In addition, NASA is conducting ongoing pilot testing, bench scale and field studies to evaluate technologies for possible use in cleanup activities. Completion of DTSC’s environmental review process and approval of NASA cleanup plans still must occur before final soil or groundwater cleanup can be implemented. NASA continues to cooperate with DTSC and take the steps necessary to meet the regulatory requirements outlined in the 2007 Consent Order and the 2010 AOC.

Health

Is there off-site contamination and what is the risk of health effects to nearby residents and visitors?

NASA recognizes public concern regarding health issues. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the agency overseeing cleanup at SSFL, conducted extensive reviews of environmental data relating to SSFL including data collected by other government agencies such as the United States Environmental Protection Agency. These data include environmental measurements of air, soil, groundwater, surface water, and drinking water. In addition, DTSC has reviewed several health studies and data assessments performed on communities surrounding SSFL. DTSC has not found any evidence of off-site contamination from SSFL that has posed or would pose a risk to residents of neighborhoods near SSFL. DTSC has summarized the findings of their findings in the Summary of Cancer Study and Exposure Assessment Activities and Document Release Dates related to the Santa Susana Field Lab (Rocketdyne) Site External site icon

In April 2014, DTSC held a public meeting to discuss community concerns regarding potential off-site risks and contamination associated with SSFL. Staff from DTSC and the University of Southern California (USC) provided an overview of and Epidemiologist and Professor of Preventative Medicine and Pathology at the Keck School of Medicine of USC, Dr. Thomas Mack, presented a Summary of Cancer Occurrence in Offsite Neighborhoods near SSFL External site icon.

The SSFL Community Advisory Group (CAG) has also conducted a review of health studies and summarized their findings in the Review of Studies of Health Effects Possibly Related to the Operation of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL) External site icon.

Demolition

What are your demolition plans and schedule?

NASA’s goal for demolition is to remove structures and foundations up to a depth of five feet in a manner that is safe to on-site workers and local community members. In addition to ensuring safe operation of heavy equipment, NASA is also paying close attention to fugitive dust and stormwater runoff. The structures for demolition or dismantling include test stands as well as ancillary structures including aboveground and subsurface structures, building foundations, utility poles, piping, administrative and operations buildings, water tanks, aboveground and belowground storage tanks, and observation lookouts, roadways, and drainage ways. Demolition work began in February in the Service area. Demolition is expected to last between 12 and 18 months. NASA published a description of the steps involved demolition in the November 2014 and May 2015 editions of FieldNOTE.

How many trucks will be going on and off the site during demolition activities?

NASA recognizes public concerns about waste being transported off site and the volume of truck traffic. During demolition and cleanup, work crews will be operating under a detailed work plan that includes dust control and other safety measures, including requiring that all trucks be covered and undergo inspection before leaving the site. The work plan states that during high-volume traffic hours between 7-9 a.m. and 4-5 p.m., truck departures will be staggered at a minimum of 15-minute intervals. Outside of those times the interval between truck departures could be as low as 5 minutes if necessary. Over all, based on previous experience with ISRA and other activities, NASA expects to send off no more than 35 trucks per day during demolition.

How will NASA control dust during demolition and soil cleanup?

The demolition contractor is required to follow an approved Dust Control Plan for the project to protect soils from wind erosion and prevent dust from moving off site to the extent feasible. Some of the dust control measures to be used include enclosing material in barriers, applying water at a sufficient quantity and frequency to prevent wind-driven dust, and not performing loading during unfavorable weather conditions (such as high winds or storms). Regular air monitoring will be performed via air monitors stationed throughout the work site. Monitors will sound an alarm to notify workers if dust reaches a certain level in that area, and work will be discontinued until levels are reduced.

Do test stands need to be demolished to clean up soil?

NASA's overarching goal is to protect human health and safety as well as the cultural legacy of the site. We understand there is significant public interest in the site’s rich history and especially the Coca Test Stand. Based on the data we have today, NASA believes it may be possible to clean in and around the test stand structures and still meet the AOC requirements; however, ultimately, the state of California DTSC must approve all cleanup decisions.

NASA, the State Historic Preservation Officer and consulting parties considered the effects of demolition on cultural resources and how the effects could be mitigated. The result was a Programmatic Agreement that specifies saving at least one test stand (in Alfa or Bravo Area) for historic preservation providing cleanup goals can still be met. A description of the steps NASA would need to take is provided in the Programmatic Agreement.

What is NASA doing to save historic test stands?

The test stand structures played a significant role in our nation’s history and the space flight program, and NASA is working on a number of documentation and preservation activities. With artifacts experts and interested community members, NASA is identifying, collecting and preserving special parts and representative pieces of the test stands for display in museums and schools. NASA is gathering historical photos and narratives to be archived in the Library of Congress. NASA is also working with the National Parks Service’s Heritage Documentation Program producing videos that feature virtual “fly-throughs” of the SSFL Test Areas.

What are NASA's requirements under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)?

Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies (in this case, NASA) to consult with federal, state, and local agencies, Native American Tribes, other organizations, and members of the public having a potential interest in the Undertaking. According to Code of Federal Regulations Title 36 Part 800 (36 CFR 800), NASA must initiate the Section 106 process, identify historic properties, assess adverse effects on historic properties, and resolve identified adverse effects on historic properties.

The Cultural Resources Technical Report External site icon that was an appendix to the Final Environmental Impact Statement contains more detailed information on the Section 106 consultation process and the topics discussed at the Consulting Party meetings.

What is the status of NASA's Section 106 consultation?

NASA has completed the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 consultation process. More than 35 individuals participated as consulting parties. NASA initiated the Section 106 process with California’s State Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and met with the consulting parties beginning in 2011. The consulting parties represented local, state, and national organizations. They offered NASA a variety of perspectives - from natural resource conservationists, cultural heritage specialists, archaeologists, environmental bloggers, park services officials, and interested neighbors. Consulting parties also included representatives from federally-recognized, state and local tribes. Meetings were held at various points in NASA’s planning process to review data, tour the Alfa, Bravo, and Coca Test Areas, and share views and opinions. While their views often differed, many of the consulting parties expressed their desire to protect as many as possible of the cultural, historic, archaeological and Native American resources on NASA-administered land. One result of Section 106 consultation was that at least one test stand would be retained, as long as NASA’s cleanup goals could still be met. The Section 106 process was completed in 2014 culminating in a Programmatic Agreement (PA) that formalized the agreement among the signatories of the document. Based on that agreement, NASA is taking steps to protect the rich legacy of the SSFL site while also meeting its cleanup obligations.

For additional information on the stipulations and how NASA must carry them out, the PA is an attachment to the Record of Decision External site icon.

How is NASA protecting archaeological resources and the sacred site?

NASA has conducted a number of investigations and surveys of the archaeological and cultural resources at SSFL with the intention of managing and protecting them. NASA intends to avoid cleanup within archaeological sites wherever feasible by applying the Native American Artifacts exception within the Agreement in Principle (AIP). If any excavation is required within an archaeological site, NASA will conduct data recovery with professional archaeologists and Native American monitors.

How is NASA protecting the oak trees?

NASA recognizes that careful consideration must be taken when working near oak trees. NASA’s experience with an Interim Source Removal Action (ISRA) on NASA-administered property at SSFL was successful in removing soil while being protective of oak trees. The soil was removed with pick axes, shovels, or a vacuum truck in areas where sensitive resources occur. Some of these same precautions and care will be used during demolition and cleanup. See FieldNOTE - April 2011.

How is NASA protecting wildlife?

NASA has collected and compiled field data giving us a comprehensive account of the varied landscape and biological resources at SSFL. This data is used in planning and carrying out demolition activities. For example, workers are trained to identify federal- and state-listed species, and before any construction activities begin, NASA will conduct protocol-level surveys in all suitable habitats for Braunton’s milk-vetch, California red-legged frog, Least Bell’s vireo, Riverside fairy shrimp, and vernal pool fairy shrimp. If a listed species is observed during operations, activity will halt and a qualified wildlife biologist will be called to the site. If the species is validated as a listed species, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) will be consulted and additional mitigation measures will be developed.

Why doesn’t NASA use on-site soil treatment options to reduce truck traffic?

Based on soil characterization efforts, NASA determined that there are chemicals of concern that can be treated and some that cannot. Unfortunately, most surface soils (the top 2 feet of the site) are not treatable (estimated volume approximately 320,000 cubic yards with a land surface area of approximately 105 acres) and will require excavation and offsite disposal. The AOC requires NASA to conduct a treatability study and pilot testing to determine whether remedial technologies could be used on some of the potentially treatable soil. If so, that technology would be considered for use if it were able to meet the AOC cleanup requirements. Using on-site remediation technology could reduce the volume of excavated soil for off-site disposal and decrease the truck traffic. Additional information about NASA soil treatment studies can be found at:

What happens to the hazardous chemicals and waste once it’s cleaned up?

NASA recognizes the concern that local residents have with regard to the safe handling and disposal of hazardous waste.

For demolition waste, the Record of Decision for demolition outlines the Best Management Practices (BMPs) and mitigation measures NASA will take to protect the public during demolition. Table 6.1-1 provides an overview including the development of a Hazardous Materials Business Plan as required by California Health and Safety Code. In addition, a Construction Transportation and Control Plan that includes traffic control, truck safety, and hazardous materials transport safety measures, will be developed and strictly enforced.

For soil cleanup, NASA has identified several possible landfills for offsite disposal of excavated soil. These are outlined in Table 2.2-5 of NASA’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Community Involvement

Can I have a tour of SSFL?

Boeing, DOE and NASA personnel have occasionally hosted community bus tours of the SSFL site. For example, DTSC hosted the public at technical roundtables associated with the soil Field Sampling Plans that were followed by tours of the specific sampling areas. In November 2014, NASA gave 50 interested community members the opportunity to tour and photograph areas before demolition began. Tours of NASA areas will be very limited during demolition and cleanup for the protection and safety of the public and for workers. Boeing hosts tours of their portions of the SSFL property on an ongoing basis. For more information, please see Boeing SSFL Site Tours External site icon

How does NASA keep the community informed about investigation and cleanup activity at SSFL?

NASA prioritizes communicating with the community about the ongoing environmental investigations and cleanup at SSFL. Some audiences are relying increasingly on the use of technology and social media for communicating and receiving information. NASA is adapting to the use of new communication tools and also using traditional forms as well. NASA uses a variety of methods to communicate and engage with the public:

  • Interacting with stakeholders in person and by phone and email
  • Publishing fact sheets for an in-depth explanation of topics of interest, an example: SSFL Past and Present
  • Publishing an online newsletter, FieldNOTE; an example: FieldNOTE - November 2014
  • Hosting small meetings, and making presentations
  • Updating SSFL Cleanup website (this site), http://ssfl.msfc.nasa.gov
  • Issuing news releases and Public Notices
  • Hosting Community Information Sessions, an example: Community Information Session Invitation, May 2010
  • Participating in public meetings and comment periods
  • Hosting occasional topic-specific site tours
  • Providing materials to the information repository maintained by DTSC, and participating in DTSC meetings and open house gatherings.
  • Initiating a Communications E-list to which people can subscribe and get real-time updates about NASA cleanup activities.

Other

What is going to happen to the site after cleanup?

NASA is committed to completing the long-term cleanup of the federally owned SSFL property and is legally required to complete the cleanup regardless of whether NASA continues to use the property to support NASA’s mission. NASA’s action of reporting the property as excess is not a property transfer but rather represents the point of engagement of GSA’s responsibilities, as required by applicable law, to effect the disposition of the property. Title to the NASA property at SSFL is held by the United States. NASA retains custody and control after the report of excess is delivered to the GSA and until such time as the property is transferred either to another Federal entity or outside the U.S. Government. The final use of the NASA portion is not known at this time. A flow chart of the GSA process can be found at Disposal process flow chart External site icon.

Whom may I contact for more information?

Lori Manes
Community Outreach Coordinator
NASA Santa Susana Field Laboratory | ssfl.msfc.nasa.gov
5800 Woolsey Canyon Road | Canoga Park, CA 91304-1148
Tel: (818) 806-8834 | lori.manes@nasa.gov

Unless otherwise indicated, all images are provided by NASA.

Adobe PDF icon Adobe PDF icon PDF documents on this website, designated with this Adobe PDF icon or "PDF", require software capable of rendering PDF files to be viewed. Adobe Acrobat Reader can be downloaded free from Adobe Systems, Inc. using the "Get Adobe Reader" link.