April 12, 2017 Ms. Stephanie Jennings NEPA Document Manager, SSFL Area IV EIS US. Department of Energy 4100 Guardian Street, Suite 160 Simi Valley, CA 93063 Dear Ms. Jennings: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the US. Department of Energy?s (DOE) Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Remediation of Area IV and the Northern Buffer Zone of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory which DOE issued in January 2017. As you know, we have been waiting since August of 2007 for the preparation of this environmental document. We are concerned and disappointed that after years of delay, DOE has chosen to prepare a Draft EIS in which every remediation option presented fails to comply with the previously agreed upon cleanup standards in the 2010 Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with the Department of Toxic Substances Control. In that AOC, DOE agreed to perform a full clean-up of the Santa Susana Field Lab site to stringent local background levels. The purpose of the EIS, consistent with own previous scoping document, is to evaluate the environmental effects of that cleanup and to evaluate alternatives for meeting the AOC cleanup standards. Instead, DOE has chosen to abandon the AOC and prepare a Draft EIS on remediation options that will leave much of the contamination in place. The most protective remediation option in the Draft EIS, Option 1, proposes to leave 34% or more of the contamination on site over half a million cubic yards? harming the environment and exposing future users of the site and those offsite in the vicinity to unacceptable risk of future cancers and other ailments. Option 1 is not, as the Draft EIS suggests, AOC-compliant. Under the AOC, no ?leave in place? alternatives will be considered. The even more untenable remediation Options 2 and 3 discussed in the Draft EIS propose to leave 86?90% or more of the contaminatiOn on site, respectively. The Draft EIS also makes no attempt to study alternate conveyance of contaminated soil and debris from the site, ignoring local community input regarding additional traf?c and street damage. This ?awed and incomplete consideration of transportation options relies on in?ated truck trip estimates, and provides the basis for the document?s assumption that a much less stringent clean-up standard must be accepted at the site one that puts the environment, the public, and ?iture generations at risk. We reject the proposed remediation options in the Draft EIS. To accept any of them would in our View violate the AOC cleanup standards and condemn this and future generations to an unacceptable risk of cancers and other ailments ?om contamination from the site. We encourage you to do the only right thing honor your previous commitment and study alternatives of how to clean this site to the 2010 local background levels. Sincerely, mix Ma Los Angeles City Attorney Council Presi ent Pro-Tempore Councilmember, Twelfth District City of Los Angeles KU EHL Los Angeles County Supervisor Third District STEVE BENNETT LINDA PARKS Ventura County Supervisor Ventura County Supervisor District 2nd District Los Angeles City Hall, 200 Spring St, Los Angeles, CA 90012