Santa Susana Field Laboratory

The Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL) is a once prolific rocket and nuclear reactor test facility located convert|30|mi|km|0 north of downtown Los Angeles, California. SSFL continues to operate today, serving as a research facility for The Boeing Company. The first commercial nuclear-power producing reactor (the Sodium Reactor Experiment) inside the United States was built at SSFL. The SRE came online in April 1957, and began feeding electricity to the grid on July 12, 1957. The reactor powered over 1,100 homes in the Moorpark area of California for a short period of time. SSFL, however, also became home to the first meltdown of a power-producing reactor in the United States on July 13, 1959. Today, all nuclear research and most rocket testing has been halted.

Various research initiatives, such as the development of the Saturn rockets that powered the Apollo missions, the rockets that powered the vast ballistic missile arsenal of the United States during the Cold War years, and even a program to develop nuclear reactors for use in outer space were undertaken at the facility.

History

Founded in the mid-1940s, SSFL was slated as a United States government facility dedicated to the development and testing of nuclear reactors, powerful rockets like the Delta II, and the systems that powered the Apollo missions. The location of SSFL was chosen for its remoteness in order to conduct work that was considered too dangerous to be performed in more densely populated areas. In subsequent years however, Southern California’s population mushroomed. Today, more than 150,000 people live within convert|5|mi|km|0 of the facility, and at least half a million people live within convert|10|mi|km|0.

At a size of 2,850 acres (11 km²), SSFL is situated on top of the Simi Hills, overlooking Simi Valley to the north, Chatsworth, Canoga Park, and the West Hills areas of the San Fernando Valley—a densely populated area on the northernmost border of Los Angeles' city limits—to the south.

The site is divided into four areas, (area I, II, III, IV). Areas I through III were used for rocket testing, missile testing, and munitions development. Area IV was used primarily for nuclear reactor experimentation and development. Laser research for the Strategic Defense Initiative (popularly known as "Star Wars"), was also conducted in Area IV.

Rocketry

North American Aviation (NAA) began its development of liquid propellant rocket engines after the end of WWII. The Rocketdyne division of NAA, which came into being under its own name in the mid-1950s, designed and tested several rocket engines at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory located in the mountains northwest of Chatsworth, California. They included engines for the Army's Redstone (an advanced short-range copy of the German V-2), and the Jupiter intermediate range ballistic missile (IRBM) as well as the Air Force's conterpart IRBM, the Thor. Also included were engines for the Atlas Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM), as well as the twin combustion chamber alcohol/liquid oxygen booster engine for the NAVAHO, a large, intercontinental cruise missile that never became operational. Later, Rocketdyne designed and tested the huge F-1 engine that was eventually used as one of a cluster of engines powering the Apollo booster, as well as the J-2 liquid oxygen/hydrogen upper stage engine also used on the Project Apollo spacecraft. [ The F-1 engine was so big that it could not be tested at the Rocketdyne Field Laboratory which was too close to populated San Fernando Valley areas, and tests on it were run out in the desert at the Edwards Air Force base.cite web | url = http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-350/ch-3-2.html | title = Apollo Expeditions to the Moon, Chapter 3.2 | publisher = NASA]

Nuclear facilities and accidents

Throughout the years, approximately ten low-power nuclear reactors operated at SSFL, in addition to several “critical facilities”: a sodium burn pit in which sodium-coated objects were burned in an open pit; a plutonium fuel fabrication facility; a uranium carbide fuel fabrication facility; and purportedly the largest “Hot Lab” facility in the United States at the time. (A Hot Lab is a facility used for remotely cutting up irradiated nuclear fuel.) Irradiated nuclear fuel from other Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and Department of Energy (DOE) facilities from around the country were shipped to SSFL to be decladded and examined.

).

At least four of the ten nuclear reactors suffered accidents. The AE6 reactor experienced a release of fission gases in March 1959, the SRE experienced a power excursion and partial meltdown in July 1959; the SNAP8ER in 1964 experienced damage to 80% of its fuel; and the SNAP8DR in 1969 experienced similar damage to one-third of its fuel. (see "Reactor accident sources" below).

Unfortunately, the reactors located on the grounds of SSFL were considered experimental, and therefore had no containment structures. Reactors and highly radioactive components were housed without the large concrete domes that surround modern power reactors.

odium Reactor Experiment

The Sodium Reactor Experiment (SRE) was a commercial power-producing nuclear reactor. In April 1957, the SRE came online. On July 12, 1957, the SRE began feeding electricity to the grid, powering 1,100 homes in the Moorpark Area of California, and narrowly beating out the Shippingport Reactor (December, 1957) in Pennsylvania for the title of first commercial reactor in the United States.

The most infamous nuclear accident at SSFL occurred on July 13, 1959, when the SRE — a sodium-cooled nuclear reactor — experienced a power excursion. Power production from the reactor rapidly rose out of control. With significant effort, the reactor was shut down. Inexplicably, a few hours later it was restarted without the cause of the initial incident having been determined. The reactor continued to operate until July 26, 1959 with high radiation readings and other signs of problems. It was finally shut down at the end of the month.

After a full shut down was complete, the reactor operators discovered that a significant fraction of the nuclear fuel had suffered melting. Tetralin, a coolant used for the pump seals, had leaked into the sodium coolant of the reactor. Carbonaceous material formed, blocking the coolant channels and preventing the coolant from reaching the reactor core. This, in turn, caused the nuclear fuel rods to overheat and melt. Approximately one-third of the fuel melted.

Radioactive gases were released from the reactor into holding tanks and then bled into the atmosphere over a period of weeks. The extent of the radioactive releases remains uncertain to this date, but estimates put the amount from 260 to 459 times the amount of radiation that was released at the Three Mile Island facility. Some monitors went off scale; but few measurements of the sodium coolant were taken. Later, the few measurements that were taken proved to be contradictory. However, the ratios of volatile radionuclides found in the coolant suggested significant releases of radioactivity into the environment may have occurred.

The 1959 SRE incident is the most well known accident to occur at the facility (In 2006, The History Channel did a piece on the SRE accident, see: "Modern Marvels, Engineering Disasters 19"). Although the plutonium fuel fabrication facility and the Hot Laboratory (which handled highly irradiated reactor fuel from much larger reactors shipped in from the AEC/DOE nuclear complex) possibly had more serious accidents, virtually nothing about their accident histories are publicly known.

Advanced Epithermal Thorium Reactor

The Advanced Epithermal Thorium Reactor was housed in Building 4100. It was used to study twenty different nuclear reactor core configurations by using an apparatus which supported a range of geometries. [ [http://www.etec.energy.gov/History/Major-Operations/AETR.html Advanced Epithermal Thorium Reactor ] ]

ite contamination

The sodium burn pit, an open-air pit for cleaning sodium-contaminated components, was also contaminated when radioactively and chemically-contaminated items were burned in it, in contravention of safety requirements. In an article in the "Ventura County Star," James Palmer, a former SSFL worker was interviewed. The article notes that "of the 27 men on Palmer's crew, 22 died of cancers." On some nights Palmer returned home from work and kissed "his [wife] hello, only to burn her lips with the chemicals he had breathed at work." The report also noted that "During their breaks, Palmer's crew would fish in one of three ponds... . The men would use a solution that was 90 percent hydrogen peroxide to neutralize the contamination. Sometimes, the water was so polluted it bubbled. The fish died off." Palmer's interview ended on a somber note: "They had seven wells up there, water wells, and every damn one of them was contaminated," Palmer said, "It was a horror story." (see: The Cancer Effect, October 30, 2006, The Ventura County Star.)

Other spills and releases occurred over the decades of operation as well. In 1989, a DOE investigation found widespread chemical and radioactive contamination on the property. Widely publicized in the local press, the revelations led to substantial concern among community members and elected officials, resulting in a challenge to and subsequent shutdown of continued nuclear activity at the site, and the filing of lawsuits. Cleanup commenced, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was brought in at the request of local legislators to provide oversight.

; also see [http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0951-1000/sb_990_bill_20070409_amended_sen_v98.html SB990, a bill] before the California legislature relating this almost unbelievable procedure.)

On July 26, 1994, two scientists, Otto K. Heiney, 52, of Chatsworth and Larry A. Pugh, 51, of Thousand Oaks, were killed when the chemicals they were illegally burning in open pits exploded. After a grand jury investigation and FBI raid on the facility, three Rocketdyne officials pleaded guilty in June 2004 to illegally storing explosive materials. The jury deadlocked on the more serious charges related to illegal burning of hazardous waste. (see: "Scientist Fined $100 in Lab Blast That Killed 2," Los Angeles Times, December 11, 2003 Thursday; also see "Executive Sentenced in '94 Blast; A former Rocketdyne official gets probation for violations linked to two scientists' deaths." Los Angeles Times, January 28, 2003 Tuesday.)

At trial, a retired Rocketdyne mechanic testified as to what he witnessed at the time of the explosion:"I assumed we were burning waste," Wells testified, comparing the process used on July 21 and 26, 1994, to that once used to legally dispose of leftover chemicals at the company's old burn pit. As Heiney poured the chemicals for what would have been the third burn of the day, the blast occurred, Wells said. "It was so loud I didn't hear anything ... I felt the blast and I looked down and my shirt was coming apart."

When he realized what had occurred, Wells said, "I felt to see if I was all there ... I knew I was burned but I didn't know how bad." (See: "Ex-Rocketdyne Worker Describes Fatal 1994 Blast," Los Angeles Times, January 5, 2002 Saturday)

In 2005, wildfires swept through northern Los Angeles County and parts of Ventura County. The fires consumed most of the dry brush throughout the Simi Hills where SSFL is located. The facility received substantial fire damage. Since the fire, allegations have emerged that vast quantities of on-site contamination was burned up, and released into the air. Most recently, Los Angeles County firefighters who were assigned to SSFL during the fire have been sent for medical testing to see if any harmful doses were ingested or inhaled while protecting the facility.

While community members and firefighters have expressed concern about the amount of exposure, Boeing officials stand by their position that no contamination of the air resulted from the fire, and that any contamination that may have been consumed by the fire was negligible.

California's Department of Toxic Substances Control also claims that no significant contamination occurred as a result of the fire. Although the Field Lab is under current criticism for violating almost 50 discharge permits, State agencies have been silent on the issue. Recently, lawyers disclosed to the California Water Resources Control Board that over 80 exceedances of Boeing's discharge permits were found in the past year alone. In January 2006, the State Water Resources Control Board finally stepped in, and refused some requests by Boeing for even lighter standards.

Also in October 2005, a Plaintiff in a suit against Boeing criticized her attorneys, who, as she claimed, accepted a $30 million dollar settlement with Boeing without her approval. The attorneys stand to collect $18 million, or 60% of the settlement amount after their costs and fees are subtracted. The Plaintiff who disclosed the allegedly tainted deal is splitting the rest of the settlement with other plaintiffs and will only receive around $30,000, a far cry from the amount she will need for extensive future medical treatments for diseases that were linked to contamination from the SSFL facility.

In October 2006, the Santa Susana Field Laboratory Advisory Panel, made up of independent scientists and researchers from around the United States, concluded that contamination at the facility resulted in between 0 and 1,800 cancer deaths (the average estimate was 300 deaths). The report also concluded that the SRE meltdown caused the release of more than 458 times the amount of radiation released at Three Mile Island. [http://ssflpanel.org]

On October 15, 2007, Boeing announced that "In a landmark agreement between Boeing and California officials, nearly convert|2400|acre|km2|0 of land that is currently Boeing's Santa Susana Field Laboratory will become state parkland. According to the plan jointly announced Friday by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Boeing and state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, the property will be donated and preserved as a vital undeveloped open-space link in the Santa Susana Mountains above Simi Valley and the San Fernando Valley. The agreement will permanently restrict the land for nonresidential, noncommercial use."

Conflict over cleanup

At least 4 nuclear accidents and over 30,000 rocket engine tests have occurred at SSFL over the years. Many critics and local residents believe that SSFL remains a highly polluted site to this day. Widespread use of highly toxic chemicals to power the rocket tests and to clean rocket test-stands after the testing as well as contamination that resulted from the considerable nuclear research is at the heart of such claims.

Cleanup Standards

Future use of the land SSFL is located on is also a source of much debate. The site's current owners, the Boeing Company have issued statements suggesting that the land may be sold for future unrestricted residential development without having cleaned the site up to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cleanup standards. On August 2, 2005, Pratt & Whitney purchased Rocketdyne from Boeing, but refused to acquire SSFL as part of the sale.

In 1989, DOE found widespread chemical and radioactive contamination at the site, and a cleanup program commenced. In 1995 EPA and DOE announced that they had entered into a Joint Policy Agreement to assure that all DOE sites would be cleaned up to standards consistent with EPA’s Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) standards, also known as Superfund.

However, in March 2003, DOE reversed its position and announced that SSFL would not be cleaned up to EPA Superfund standards. While DOE simultaneously claimed compliance with the 1995 Joint Policy Agreement, the new plan included a cleanup of only 1% of the contaminated soil, and the release of SSFL for unrestricted residential use in as little as ten years. EPA responded to this announcement by claiming that DOE was not subject to EPA regulation due to the fact that DOE existed as a separate entity under the Executive Branch of the Federal Government, and refused take steps to force DOE adherence to the 1995 agreement.

In August 2003, the Senate Appropriations Committee issued a report on Energy and Water Appropriations, urging DOE to live up to its commitments in the 1995 Joint Policy and clean up SSFL to EPA’s CERCLA standards. Shortly thereafter, DOE responded to the Senate, claiming it was in fact consistent with both the Joint Policy and EPA’s CERCLA standards.

In December 2003, soon after DOE's announcement that it was consistent with the 1995 agreement, EPA issued its own formal findings. EPA determined that the cleanup was not consistent with its CERCLA standards, and that sufficient contamination would remain at levels that would be dangerously inappropriate for unrestricted residential, and that the only safe use under DOE's revised cleanup standards would be restricted day hikes with limitations on picnicking.

Critics point out that if the DOE-Boeing cleanup plan was followed through and the site was released for unrestricted residential use, the property would likely become a Superfund site subject to EPA standards. After the sale, the site would no longer be a DOE facility, and thus, the exemption from CERCLA standards would no longer be in effect. The end result being that the site would only be brought into compliance with CERCLA cleanup standards after Boeing has sold the property, relieving the company of any burden of cleanup costs. The costs would likely be passed on to taxpayers, and not those responsible for the actual contamination. This is merely critical analysis, however, and it remains unclear as to what cleanup standards DOE and Boeing will end up setting for themselves.

In early May 2007, a Federal Court in San Francisco issued a major ruling which concluded that DOE has not been cleaning up the site to proper standards, and that the site would have to be cleaned up to higher standards if DOE ever wanted to release the site to Boeing, which in turn, would most likely release the land for unrestricted residential development. From the L.A. Times ("Judge assails Rocketdyne cleanup" print edition, California section, May 3, 2007): Judge "Conti's ruling requires DOE to prepare a more stringent review of the lab, which is on the border of Los Angeles County. Conti wrote that the department's decision to prepare a less-stringent environmental document prior to cleanup is in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act and noted that the lab 'is located only miles away from one of the largest population centers in the world.'"

On July 26, 2007, staff at the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board recommended a $471,190 fine against Boeing Co. for 79 violations of the California Water Code during an 18-month period. From October 2004 to January 2006, wastewater and storm water runoff coming from the lab had increased levels of chromium, dioxin, lead, mercury and other pollutants, the water board said. The contaminated water flowed into Bell Creek and the Los Angeles River in violation of a July 1, 2004, permit that allowed release of wastewater and storm water runoff as long as it didn't contain high levels of pollutants.

On October 15, 2007, Boeing announced that "In a landmark agreement between Boeing and California officials, nearly convert|2400|acre|km2|0 of land that is currently Boeing's Santa Susana Field Laboratory will become state parkland. According to the plan jointly announced Friday by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Boeing and state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, the property will be donated and preserved as a vital undeveloped open-space link in the Santa Susana Mountains above Simi Valley and the San Fernando Valley. The agreement will permanently restrict the land for nonresidential, noncommercial use."

Community Involvement

Every quarter, Simi Valley hosts workgroup meetings regarding the cleanup of SSFL that is open to the public attendance and comment.

The workgroup consists of representatives from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control and the U.S. EPA. Public policy organizations such as Committee to Bridge the Gap also send representatives as part of the work group. The Boeing Company, current owner of the SSFL site is also invited, but has boycotted the meetings for the past few years. The DOE has also been invited, but like Boeing, had boycotted the meetings for the past few years. In August 2007, however, the DOE for the first time in years sent representatives to the quarterly workgroup meeting. Other organizations and private companies also attend as part of the workgroup depending on the topic pending.

The meetings are typically held at The [http://www.simi-arts.org/ Simi Valley Cultural Arts Center] , located at 3050 Los Angeles Avenue, Simi Valley, CA 93065.

References

External links and Sources

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* - PDF of a presentation given on August 19, 2003.
*
*
* [http://www.ssflpanel.org The Santa Susana Advisory Panel]
*YouTube|id=eRdC5I0Yn2k|title=History Channel - Roccketdyne

Reactor Accident Sources

* , Release of Fission Gas from the AE-6 Reactor, hosted by RocketdyneWatch.org

* , Analysis of SRE Power Excursion, hosted by RocketdyneWatch.org

* , SRE Fuel Element Damage an Interim Report, hosted by RocketdyneWatch.org

* , SRE Fuel Element Damage Final Report, hosted by RocketdyneWatch.org

* , SNAP8 Experimental Reactor Fuel Element Behavior: Atomics International Task Force Review, hosted by RocketdyneWatch.org

* , Postoperation Evaluation of Fuel Elements from the SNAP8 Experimental Reactor hosted by RocketdyneWatch.org

* , Findings of the SNAP 8 Developmental Reactor (S8DR) Post-Test Examination, hosted by RocketdyneWatch.org