CA Department of Toxic Substances presumes soil in and around the Eaton Fire area is hazardous.

SOIL REMEDIATION

There are three options to deal with soil contaminated from the Eaton fire.

Capping: covering the soil with another material, e.g. soil, rocks, cement, etc.
PRO: Capping is a fast option
CON: Capping with soil erodes over time due to foot traffic and weather
CON: Capping with cement can appear sufficient, but on hot days emissions from contaminants can rise and over time further contaminate the structure of the home.
Excavation: removing and replacing the contaminated soil
PRO: Contaminated soil is physically removed in bulk.
CON: This method is very costly. In addition to the actual excavation and cost of clean fill there are steep disposal fees for toxic soil.
CON: Excavation resuspends toxic contaminants back into the air, recontaminating nearby homes and lots that have been remediated.
Bioremediation: employing microbiology and plants to process and extract contamination
PRO: A fraction of the cost of excavation.
PRO: Recovers the soil via natural processes.
PRO: Some methods are showing data with promising results in soil affected by the Eaton fire.
PRO: The process protects against recontamination.
CON: Takes longer to complete.
CON: More evidence is needed to confirm this is an effective approach for all.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

EFRU MAP: See the types of post-wildfire contamination found within homes in Altadena, Pasadena, and Sierra Madre.

(if it’s inside the home, there’s a decent chance it’s in the soil as well)

Heavy Metals: read about the CAM17 metals, found at dangerous levels in the EFRU map and learn about the health risks associated with each.