$54 million in stimulus funds for Santa Susana Lab site

By Teresa Rochester
Ventura County Star
Tuesday, April 28, 2009

The Santa Susana Field Laboratory will receive $54 million in federal stimulus money, the bulk of which will be used to conduct a long-awaited radiological survey of the former rocket engine and nuclear test site.

The U.S. Department of Energy will transfer $38.3 million to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to complete a radiological survey of the portion of the hilltop facility south of Simi Valley used for nuclear testing and a buffer zone, according to a statement released by the Energy Department.

The rest of the money will be set aside to decontaminate and demolish buildings at the defunct Energy Technology Engineering Center on the site, if the work receives the blessing of the state and other agencies, Energy Department spokesman William Taylor said.

The EPA gained the authority to conduct the survey after a joint effort between the agencies fell apart amid criticisms of the Energy Department�s handling of the issue.

The Department of Energy previously transferred $1.7 million to the EPA to begin planning the radiological characterization survey, which will include a historical site assessment, a surface gamma ray scan as well as analysis of about 10,000 soil and groundwater samples.

�This is a tremendous advance,� said Dan Hirsch, president of the nuclear watchdog group Committee to Bridge the Gap, adding that a dozen years ago the Energy Department backed off a previous promise to have the EPA conduct the survey.

The remaining $15.7 million is not committed to a particular task at the polluted site, Taylor said. It will be used for decontamination and demolition if the opportunity arises.

The Department of Energy, along with Boeing Co., which owns the bulk of the property, and NASA are under an consent order by the state of California to clean up chemical contamination at the site by June 30, 2017.

Negotiations are also continuing between the parties for a revised consent order compliant with a state law that requires the site be cleaned to the strictest federal standards.

�Let me say in the strongest language possible that additional funds were not committed and nothing will happen until we have agreement with the state of California,� Taylor said. �No decontamination and demolition work will be performed without all parties, including stakeholders, being in agreement.�

In 2007, the Energy Department faced a storm of protest from elected and state officials when it was discovered the agency was continuing cleanup work at the site, two weeks after a federal judge ordered the department to complete a full environmental impact statement for the field lab.

The radiological survey is a necessary component of the statement. Taylor said the court order did not prohibit the Energy Department from demolishing the remaining buildings.

He added that demolishing the buildings would likely not change the results of the impact statement.

�We know how dirty the buildings are,� Taylor said. �It�s below the buildings where the challenge is.�

**Nuclear Safety Lab Manager Suspension: Details Below**
***Groups Plan to Sue Department of Energy Over Lab Cleanup: Details Below 'Rocketdyne Sale' Expected***

Study Says Lab Meltdown Caused Cancer
Scientists say details about the 1959 accident near Simi Valley continue to be withheld.
Other contamination at the site is much clearer.
By Amanda Covarrubias
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
October 6, 2006

Radioactive emissions from a 1959 nuclear accident at a research lab near Simi Valley appear to have been much greater than previously suspected and could have resulted in hundreds of cancers in surrounding communities, according to a study released Thursday.

Chemical contamination from rocket engine testing at the site continues to threaten soil and groundwater in the area around Rocketdyne's Santa Susana Field Laboratory, the study also found.

The nuclear meltdown, which remained virtually unknown to the public until 1979, could have caused between 260 and 1,800 cases of cancer "over a period of many decades," the study concluded.

But the advisory panel that oversaw the five-year study, conducted by an independent team of scientists and health experts, said it could not offer more specifics about potential exposure to carcinogens because the Department of Energy and Rocketdyne's owner, Boeing Co., did not provide key information.

"This lack of candor � makes characterization of the potential health impacts of past accidents and releases extremely difficult," the panel concluded.

Boeing officials vigorously disputed the findings, saying the study was based on miscalculations and faulty information.

"We disagree entirely with the report's conclusion," said Phil Rutherford, a health, safety and radiation manager for the company. He cited a Boeing-commissioned study released last year that found overall cancer deaths among employees at the field lab and at Canoga Park facilities between 1949 and 1999 were lower than in the general population.

The Boeing report contradicted findings from an earlier UCLA study that found elevated cancer deaths among workers exposed to high levels of radiation.

Critics chided Boeing officials Thursday for failing to provide information for the new study.

"The pattern of secrecy and misrepresentation that began at the time of the accident continues to this day, where sloppy practices are done under a cover of darkness," said Dan Hirsch, a physicist and co-chairman of the advisory panel.

The lab was opened on a craggy plateau in easternmost Ventura County in 1948 as the nearby San Fernando and Simi valleys were on the cusp of a postwar population boom. Originally operated by North American Rockwell, it conducted nuclear research for the federal government for more than four decades before ceasing those operations in the late 1980s. It has also been the site of more than 30,000 rocket engine tests, the thunderous explosions serving as a Cold War-era hallmark for nearby residents.

The 2,850-acre site has been the source of much controversy since the nuclear accident was first widely publicized in 1979. A team of UCLA graduate students obtained documents through the Freedom of Information Act detailing the meltdown.

The disclosure resulted in a number of environmental studies that found widespread radioactive and chemical contamination at the lab. In turn, several investigations into the potential impact on the health of lab workers and area residents were triggered.

The advisory panel was created by local legislators in the early 1990s to oversee some of the studies. Its new report specifically focuses on how the lab's operations, which included decades of rocket engine testing, may have affected the health of people in nearby communities.

The study, paid with federal funding, asserted that the rocket engine tests had caused chemical contamination of water and soil in nearby areas in recent years and "may indicate pathways for other contaminants."

Among the scientists' other key findings:

� As much as 30% of the most worrisome compounds associated with nuclear testing at the lab, iodine-131 and cesium-137, may have been released into the air. But Boeing's Rutherford said data from the site's own airborne monitoring system refutes that claim.

� Unable to obtain weather data from Boeing, scientists made calculations based on varying assumptions about wind speed and direction and estimated the number of potential cancers at 260, with the rare possibility that the number could be as high as 1,800, within 62 square miles surrounding the field lab.

"These cancers, if they occurred, would have been amidst a population of several million people and over a period of many decades," the report said. "The ability of epidemiological studies to identify these cancers, if they exist, in a population that large, is limited, given the uncertainty of where the exposures occurred."

� For years, in violation of restrictions prohibiting such activity, radioactive and chemically contaminated components were disposed of at an open-air sodium burn pit at the field lab, polluting soil and groundwater.

� Perchlorate, a component of rocket fuel, migrated off the lab site, toward populated areas, in surface water runoff. Other contaminants may have spread off site in this manner as well, the report said.

The report also disclosed little-known information about lab operations: It was home to 10 nuclear reactors and numerous low-power reactors, plutonium and uranium carbide fabrication plants and a "hot lab" used for remotely cutting up irradiated nuclear fuel shipped in from other federal nuclear plants.

About 150 people attended a public meeting Thursday night to discuss the report's findings. Many of those in the audience are residents or former residents of the area surrounding the field lab.

They said they appreciated the findings and hoped the report would spur regulators to force a thorough cleanup of the site.

Marjorie Weems, who lives on property adjoining the site, said her daughter, Priscilla, 34, had to have part of her thyroid removed 13 years ago and worries about a possible connection to the lab's operations.

"It's been such a coverup for so many years," said Weems, 62, whose husband, now retired, worked at the lab. "They lied and lied and lied and said there was no contamination. But now we know that's not true."

At the time of the 1959 nuclear accident, little information appeared in the media. Lab officials released a statement saying "no release of radioactive materials to the plant or its environs occurred, and operating personnel were not exposed to harmful conditions."

The advisory panel overseeing the most recent study accused the lab's operators of maintaining a pattern of deception and secrecy ever since.

For instance, it said researchers discovered that a meteorological station was atop the nuclear reactor on July 13, 1959, when fuel rods ruptured and partially melted, emitting radioactive gases into the plant and the atmosphere.

When the researchers requested the station's weather data to try to determine how far radioactive gases may have traveled from the hilltop lab, Boeing officials refused, asserting that the information was "proprietary � a trade secret," the panelists said in the report.

"How can you possibly declare a trade secret which way the wind blew on a certain day?" Hirsch said.

Boeing officials said they do not recall any specific requests for weather data, adding that such information might not even exist.

(INFOBOX BELOW)

Santa Susana Field Laboratory Timeline

1959: Fuel rods in the first nuclear reactor in the country to produce electricity for a commercial power grid rupture and partially melt, releasing radioactive gases into the atmosphere. But the accident is not widely publicized until 1979.

1989: A Department of Energy study finds widespread radioactive and chemical contamination at the 2,850-acre Rocketdyne field lab.

1997: A UCLA health study, which reviewed the records of employees of Rocketdyne and predecessor North American Aviation from 1949 to 1994, finds elevated cancer deaths among workers exposed to high levels of radiation.

2005: A health study by lab owner Boeing Corp. concludes that overall cancer deaths among nearly 47,000 employees who worked at the Rocketdyne lab and its Canoga Park facilities between 1949 and 1999 were lower than in the general population.

2006: An independent panel of scientists releases a report that finds the 1959 nuclear accident appears to have been much worse than previously suspected and could have resulted in hundreds of cancers in surrounding communities. It also finds that chemical contamination from rocket engine testing at the site continues to threaten area soil and groundwater.

Source: Santa Susana Field Laboratory Advisory Panel

Los Angeles Times

Cancer in Our Own Backyard

Studies Show Rates Higher for Those Within 2 Miles of Santa Susana Lab

By Kerry Cavanaugh, Staff Writer
Los Angeles Daily News
03 February 2006

Residents living within two miles of the Santa Susana Field Lab may have been exposed to toxic chemicals through air, water and soil contamination - and they have higher cancer rates than people in communities farther from the lab, researchers revealed Thursday in two landmark studies.

People living close to the Simi Hills lab had slightly higher rates of all cancers, particularly those linked to radiation and chemical exposure, the studies found.

Authors of the two reports warned the results do not conclusively show that contamination from the former nuclear research and rocket engine testing lab caused cancer and other illnesses in the surrounding community. However, the studies are the strongest evidence to date that residents near the lab were exposed to hazardous chemicals that could have increased their chance of developing cancer.

"I was actually surprised by some of these results," said Hal Morgenstern, author of one of the studies and chairman of the epidemiology department at the University of Michigan School of Public Health. "This may be something that has nothing to do with Rocketdyne and Santa Susana, but it's provocative enough that we have to pursue it."

The Boeing Co., which has owned the lab since 1996, reviewed a PowerPoint presentation of the study but company officials said they could not comment on the specifics until they've studied the full reports.

Company spokeswoman Inger Hodgson said lab owners and environmental regulators have studied the site for more than 15 years and their analysis has shown that neighboring communities are not impacted by the lab's past nuclear-energy research or the more recent rocket-engine testing.

Earlier studies in 1991 and 1997 suggested higher rates of bladder cancer and lung cancer in the community nearest the Rocketdyne lab. But state and federal officials were slow to order a more thorough analysis. For some community members, the findings raised serious concern.

"We're a mile away. Had I known it was there, I would have made completely different decisions coming in," said Henry L.N. Anderson, who lives in a mobile-home park downhill from the lab. "We remodeled, and we're getting out."

The Santa Susana Field Lab is a 2,800-acre facility at the top of the Simi Hills in Ventura County, near the Los Angeles city limits. From the 1940s to 1988, the Department of Energy experimented with 10 nuclear reactors, one of which experienced a partial meltdown. There was also an open-air pit where workers burned radioactive and chemical waste.

The lab also conducted rocket-engine tests for the Department of Defense through last September - though there might be more testing in the future, Hodgson said. The facility also conducts a small laser testing program. Decades of nuclear research and chemical use left massive contamination at the lab. The soil is rife with heavy metals and chemical contaminants. The groundwater had high levels of radiation and extremely potent concentrations of the cancer-causing chemical TCE.

The Daily News revealed extensive contamination at the lab in 1989, and since then neighbors have pushed for a community health study. Their calls grew louder after two studies released by the University of California, Los Angeles, in 1997 and 1999 showed that workers who handled radiation and a rocket-fuel chemical had higher rates of cancer.

The two new studies presented Thursday night at a meeting of a citizens and regulatory oversight group were commissioned in 2000 by the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. NASA and the Department of Energy provided several hundred thousand dollars for the two studies.

One of the studies, led by UCLA chemical engineering professor Yoram Cohen, looked at how contamination at the Santa Susana Field Lab could have moved off the hilltop lab into surrounding neighborhoods.

"It is clear to us that there has been a migration of contaminants from the facility by surface water, air dispersion and ground water," Cohen said.

His team found that from the 1950s through 1970s residents within two miles could have been exposed to significant amounts of TCE and hydrazine, another highly potent chemical believed to cause cancer. Even today, residents within two miles of the site could be exposed to chemicals through private groundwater wells, by eating vegetables grown in tainted soil or by inhaling contaminants from future rocket engine tests.

The second study was performed by Morgenstern, who analyzed cancer incidences in Los Angeles and Ventura counties from 1988 through 2003.

Morgenstern found slightly higher rates of all cancers, particularly cancers linked to radiation and chemical exposure. *Hispanic residents appeared to be the most affected by the higher cancer rates.
*Felkins Note: Please Scroll in order to learn that all individuals with Spanish background and/or Hispanic surname were excluded from the original cancer census tract studies in violation of the Civil Rights Act Title VI of 1964, as amended, which states it's unlawful for recipients of funding from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, ( such as universities ), to discriminate against individuals based upon race, color, or perceived race, etcetera.

Bladder cancer and melanoma had the highest increase above normal, with lung and immune system cancers also slightly elevated. There was no sign of higher than normal rates of breast or colon cancers.

COMMUNITY HEALTH STUDY

Here are highlights of the UCLA health study conducted of residents living near Rocketdyne's Santa Susana Field Laboratory:

Elevated incidence of cancer within 2 miles of the lab, especially among *Latino residents.

Greatest elevation for melanoma and bladder cancer (1996-2003).

Modest elevation for lung cancer and lymphoma (1988-1995).

Little elevation for breast and colorectal cancers.

Results are preliminary, and establishing a direct link between exposure and illness would require additional research.

Panel Affirms Radiation Link to Cancer

By H. JOSEF HEBERT
Associated Press Writer
29 June 2005

Even very low doses of radiation pose a risk of cancer over a person's lifetime, a National Academy of Sciences panel concluded. It rejected some scientists' arguments that tiny doses are harmless or may in fact be beneficial.

The findings, disclosed in a report Wednesday, could influence the maximum radiation levels that are allowed at abandoned reactors and other nuclear sites and raises warnings about excessive exposure to radiation for medical purposes such as repeated whole-body CT scans.

"It is unlikely that there is a threshold (of radiation exposure) below which cancers are not induced," the scientists said.

While at low doses "the number of radiation-induced cancers will be small ... as the overall lifetime exposure increases, so does the risk," the experts said.

Even common X-rays pose some risk of adverse health effects, the scientists found, although the panel said there was not enough information available to accurately estimate the cancer risk from X-rays. Nevertheless, the report said, there is evidence that per unit of absorbed radiation, X-rays may be more dangerous than other radiation.

The panel also said that approximately one person out of 1,000 would develop cancer from exposure to the amount of radiation from a single, average whole body CT-scan.

But the report should not scare people away from nuclear medicine, said Dr. Henry Royal, a professor of radiology at Washington University in St. Louis. He said most often the benefits of such tests and treatments outweigh the risks.

But Royal also said that procedures such as CT scans should be used to deal with a specific medical problems and not part of annual medical screenings. "You should not be exposed to radiation for superficial reasons," Royal said in a telephone interview.

Scientists for years have debated how extremely low doses of radiation affect human health.

Pro-nuclear advocates, as well as some independent scientists, have maintained that the current risk models for low-level radiation has produced more stringent requirements than is necessary to protect public health.

It is an issue in determining decontamination requirements at abandoned reactors and at federal weapons sites.

The academy's panel stood by the "linear, no threshold" model that generally is the acceptable approach to radiation risk assessment. This approach assumes that the health risks from radiation exposure decline as the dose levels drop, but that each unit of radiation — no matter how small — is assumed to cause cancer.

"The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionized radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial," said Richard R. Monson, the panel's chairman. He is a professor of epidemiology at Harvard's School of Public Health.

The panel said new and more extensive data developed over the past 15 years only strengthen the conclusions of the panel's last report, in 1990, on low-level radiation risks.

The scientists estimated that one out of 100 people exposed to 100 millisievert of radiation over a lifetime probably would develop solid cancer or leukemia, and that half of those cases would be fatal.

It also said that 42 additional cancers can be expected in the same group from other than low-level radiation sources.

A millisievert is a measurement of radiation energy deposited in a living tissue. People absorb about 3 millisievert of radiation annually from natural sources and 0.1 millisievert every time they get a chest X-ray.

The report noted that exposure from a whole body CT scan is about 10 millisievert, much higher than a normal X-ray.

Some anti-nuclear advocates said the study reaffirms that stringent regulations are needed when cleaning up abandoned nuclear sites or considering health risks near nuclear power plants.

"The NAS panel puts to rest once and for all claims that low doses of radiation aren't dangerous ... nuclear advocates have been making this claim for years" said Daniel Hirsch, president of Committee to Bridge the Gap, a Los Angeles-based nuclear watchdog group.

Mitchell Singer, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's lobbying arm, said the report "is a positive finding. It shows there is very little risk of exposure from low levels of radiation."

The academy is a private organization chartered by Congress to advise the government of scientific matters.

Higher Tritium Levels Found at Santa Susana Facility

By Kerry Cavanaugh
[email protected]
Daily News Staff Writer

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - Radioactive contamination has again been detected -- at higher levels than last year -- in groundwater at the Santa Susana Field Lab, Department of Energy officials said Monday.

In the latest round of testing at the former nuclear research facility, officials found tritium at levels ranging from 12,000 to 117,000 picocuries per liter -- the peak being nearly six times the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's standard for drinking water.

Last year, the DOE and the Boeing Co., which owns the lab, discovered tritium at a high of 80,000 picocuries per liter -- four times the 20,000 ppl standard for drinking water.

DOE Project Manager Mike Lopez said the recent readings of 12,000 ppl near the property boundary suggest the contamination hasn't traveled far and does not threaten drinking water supplies.

"I don't think there's any risk to the public," Lopez said.

The DOE and Boeing will present more detailed information on the tritium tests at a community meeting Wednesday in Simi Valley.

Tritium is a radioactive form of hydrogen that is produced as a byproduct in nuclear reactors. Drinking tritiated water increases the risk of cancer.

Groundwater at the lab is not currently used for drinking water, and lab officials have said they provided workers alternate sources of drinking water since the 1960s.

Lab watchdogs said they're concerned about latest tritium findings.

"Very high doses must have existed before, as bad as it is now, it was much worse before," said Dan Hirsch with the Committee to Bridge the Gap.

Given the new test results, it's possible the tritium in the lab's groundwater was 50 times the EPA drinking water limit in the 1960s, when DOE officials suspect the contamination occurred.

*The historical site assessment is available online at http://apps.em.doe.gov/etec.

Filters Skew Tests at Field Lab, Critics Say

Methods for Handling Water Samples from the Rocketdyne Site are Called into Question.

By Gregory W. Griggs
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
March 21, 2005
Critics of the cleanup of Rocketdyne's Santa Susana Field Lab near Simi Valley say water samples being taken to determine radioactivity and other contamination are being filtered before testing � skewing the results.

U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) wrote last week to federal Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman criticizing his agency's cleanup methods.

"In the scientific community, there is also concern that the testing at Rocketdyne has been inadequate, and in some cases, incorrect," Boxer wrote. The field lab "sits in the middle of a suburban setting with homes, schools and businesses in close proximity. It must be cleaned up to safe levels."

For decades until the 1980s, the lab was used to test rocket engines and conduct nuclear testing on behalf of the federal government. Research continued despite a number of spills and accidents, including a partial fuel meltdown in 1959.

At issue is the lab's method for testing groundwater and runoff at the 2,800-acre hilltop site between Simi Valley and Chatsworth.

The water samples are first allowed to sit � to separate mud and rock � and then filters are used to strain out other impurities before testing. The results, critics say, show lower levels of radiation than unfiltered samples.

Daniel Hirsch, a nuclear policy specialist and member of an interagency work group monitoring the cleanup, said the danger of contamination could be 10 to 15 times greater than revealed by filtered water.

"The community is concerned that they're throwing away much of the radioactivity," Hirsch said.

Environmental activist Mary Wiesbrock, who attended the work group's quarterly meeting last week, said the water test results can't be trusted because of the method of measurement.

"They've done incomplete testing, so all the results are false," she said. "And this has gone on for 15 years. When you consider public health and safety, it's outrageous."

But officials at Boeing Co., parent company of Rocketdyne, said state regulation requires them to use filters when testing groundwater and that the company filtered rainwater runoff only from February 2001 to November 2003 to ensure that testing equipment could detect the lowest levels of radiation.

Steve Lafflam, Rocketdyne's director for safety, health and environmental affairs, said it's "sort of a red herring whether it's filtered or unfiltered, because it's all met government standards. We haven't exceeded any public health goals. People should be assured that the water meets all standards to protect public health and the environment."

To determine the significance of variation between the two test methods, Lafflam said the Regional Water Quality Control Board has instructed Rocketdyne to gather samples of runoff during the next six storms. The water will be sent to an EPA-certified test lab, which will measure radioactivity using filtered and unfiltered samples.

Gregg Dempsey, a senior radiation scientist with the Environmental Protection Agency in Las Vegas, said that although filtering may be necessary when water has too much mud or other impurities, an unfiltered sample is preferable.

"It's not a good way to run water samples," Dempsey said last week about filtered samples. "We would call it a biased sample. It's no longer representative of the environment."

To accurately determine the level of radioactivity, he said, the test should take readings of the water, of the filter itself and of captured sediment.

DOE to Sample Soils at 25 More Santa Susana Lab Sites
By Kerry Cavanaugh, Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writer
23 March 2005

The Department of Energy said Tuesday night that it intends to sample for radioactivity at 25 more former building sites at the Santa Susana Field Lab, which would complete the cleanup of the former nuclear research facility.

The federal agency and the lab owner, the Boeing Co., presented the results of their historical site assessment, which revisits the entire former nuclear research area and considers whether individual areas meet DOE's cleanup standard or whether more radiation surveys are needed.

The full site assessment is expected to be released in late April. It will include short reports on all buildings and facilities that were used in the former Energy Technology Engineering Center.

"The bottom line is, we're making a decision to do additional soil sampling," said Mike Lopez, DOE project manager.

But lab watchdogs are skeptical of the report.

"Why should anyone believe a single word of the polluter, who asks himself if he polluted and then answers he didn't?" said Dan Hirsch, with the Committee to Bridge the Gap.

ETEC is a 90-acre section of the field lab where the government conducted nuclear research from the 1950s to 1988. It was home to 10 nuclear reactors, one of which experienced a partial meltdown, and an open-air burn pit where workers burned radioactive and chemical waste.

The DOE and Boeing have been decontaminating the site, however neighbors and environmental groups have sued, saying the cleanup plan would leave too much radiation at the site. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said the DOE plan would leave the site unsafe for even casual picnicking.

As part of the site assessment, the DOE and Boeing looked at 272 former building sites. Some 175 were never used for radiological activity, and were released without further study.

Some 95 sites had radiological activity, of which 70 were studied and released, and 25 more sites require sampling.

*Rocketdyne Field Lab Radiation Tests Invalid, Critics Say

By Kerry Cavanaugh
Los Angeles Daily News Staff Writer

Monday, March 21, 2005 - Environmental watchdogs said Monday that 15 years of water-quality testing at the Santa Susana Field Lab should be thrown out because the samples were filtered before being tested for radioactivity.

Activists have long warned that the Boeing Company's use of filtered samples produced artificially low radiation readings because they were only catching contaminants that made it through a microscopic filter.

Their concerns were backed up last week by a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency senior radiation scientist who said examiners have to look at the water and the material left on the filter to get a true picture of the radioactivity.

"You have to filter the water to make sure you can run the test, but then you have to test the filter. You have to do both things," said Gregg Dempsey, who heads the EPA's Radiological Emergency Response Team.

Without testing both the water and the filter, he said, "It could skew it quite a bit."

Prompted by Dempsey's comments, environmental activists called for a whole new testing policy at Boeing's field lab, including independent sampling.

"There's 15 years worth of reports and data, and the results are false because they used the wrong methodology," said Mary Weisbrock, who has been following the field lab cleanup. "We know that filtering is lowering the results."

Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board officials said that, because of community concerns, they have begun a new study to compare filtered and unfiltered samples.

Under the new study ordered by the water board, Boeing must test filtered surface water and test the filtered sediment over the next 10 rains. The study should clarify whether more radiation is leaving the site than previously thought.

"If you're looking at the total environment, you want to look at the filter," said John Bishop, director of the water board.

Boeing officials said Monday that they followed state and federal testing protocols, but added they would comply with the water board's request to test the sediment.

"The procedure requires them to filter so they are just looking at the water," said Paul Costa, Boeing director of environmental protection. "The EPA guidance is to look just at the groundwater, not the sediment."

Company scientists filter some surface-water samples that have a lot of sediment, but they've never found radioactive contaminants above the drinking-water limits in filtered or unfiltered samples, Costa said.

In the past, water regulators looked at the surface water leaving the field lab, not the sediment or soil in the storm water. More information is available at the Department of Energy.

Maker of Rocket Engines Is Sold
*Contaminated Santa Susana Field Lab is not in Rocketdyne Sale: Boeing Remains Responsible for SSFL 90 Acre Cleanup

By Peter Pae
Times Staff Writer
February 23, 2005

Boeing Co. said Tuesday that it had agreed to sell its Rocketdyne rocket engine manufacturing business in San Fernando Valley to United Technologies Corp. for about $700 million in cash.

The sale of storied Rocketdyne, which helped pioneer space exploration in the 1960s, was expected, and came amid Boeing's struggle to turn a profit in the space launch business.

For Hartford, Conn.-based United Technologies, the acquisition will help broaden the product line at its Pratt & Whitney unit, which in recent years has lost market share in its core jet engine business.

Analysts said the sale was unlikely to lead to major job cuts or shuttering of plants or offices. Rocketdyne has its headquarters in Canoga Park and facilities in West Hills and the Simi Hills. It employs 3,200 people.

Because Pratt & Whitney makes smaller engines for upper stage rockets while Rocketdyne manufacturers larger engines for main booster rockets, there is likely to be little overlap that could prompt United Technologies to make major cuts, analysts said.

"I don't normally see Pratt & Whitney and Rocketdyne in competition with each other," said Marco Caceres, a space analyst for the aerospace research firm Teal Group Inc.

Pratt & Whitney spokesman Dan Coulom said the company "has no plans for the foreseeable future to move facilities or to reduce employment."

The sale marks the latest move by Boeing to shed unprofitable businesses and focus more on large scale weapons and aerospace systems.

"I think there is greater value with Rocketdyne belonging to someone else," said James Albaugh, president of Boeing's Integrated Defense Systems business.

Boeing expects to post a small gain from the sale, which analysts said seemed to be for a fair price.

Once at the forefront of space exploration, Rocketdyne has been hobbled by a downturn in commercial satellite launches amid the telecommunications bust that started in 2000. When it was building rocket engines for the Apollo program in the 1960s, Rocketdyne's payroll was 25,000.

In recent times, its main business has been upgrading engines for the Space Shuttle and developing an engine for a new generation of military rockets known as Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles, or EELVs. Boeing said Rocketdyne would continue to supply the engines for the Boeing-built EELV rockets.

Separately Tuesday, Boeing said it would sell its aircraft parts manufacturing plant in Wichita, Kan., to Canadian investment group Onex Corp. for about $900 million. The plant makes the fuselage for Boeing's 737 jetliner.

Boeing shares fell 63 cents to $52.15 while United Technologies lost $2.27 to $98.64, both on the New York Stock Exchange.

Rocketdyne Sale Expected in Coming Weeks

By Gregory J. Wilcox

Daily News Staff Writer

Friday, January 28, 2005 - Boeing Co. appears to be close to finalizing the sale of its Rocketdyne Propulsion & Power unit, a key component of the San Fernando Valley's aerospace industry that helped open manned exploration of space, sources said Friday.

Speculation has centered on the the front-runner being Hartford, Conn.- based United Technologies Corp., whose executives have visited Rocketdyne operations to inspect financial records and facilities, according to sources.

Other possible bidders could be Rancho Cordova-based GenCorp Inc. and Edina, Minn.-based ATK, both of which have rocket engine units.

Officials at those two companies, Boeing, and United Technologies declined comment.

"Even the president of that division (Rocketdyne's Byron Wood) has indicated that it is not a secret that we're on the market. The term imminent has been thrown about lately," one source said.

The source added that Rocketdyne's accounting department has been instructed to be "very ready" to close the year-end books by Monday and a "massive effort" has been under way to identify how much business Rocketdyne has pending with other Boeing units. That's significant because that business would be considered subcontracts by any new owner.

United Technologies is a $31 billion company. Its subsidiaries include Pratt & Whitney, which makes aircraft and rocket engines; Hamilton Sundstrand aerospace systems and industrial products; Otis elevators and escalators; Sikorsky helicopters; and UTC Power fuel cells.

"We don't comment on rumor and speculation," said United Technologies spokesman Pete Murphy.

Boeing spokesmen were likewise tight-lipped, though several noted the company has been looking for buyers of the unit, whose Valley operations are in Canoga Park, Chatsworth and Santa Susana.

A sale probably won't end the Boeing and Rocketdyne relationship.

"Under any scenario, Rocketdyne will continue to be a critical supplier to Boeing," said spokesman Fernando Vivanco.

This would be the second retreat Boeing is making from long-established local industries. The company earlier this month said it will phase out jetliner production in Long Beach.

A sale to United Technologies would not be surprising, nor would it necessarily be bad news, said Jack Kyser, chief economist at the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp.

"It would make sense for United Technologies. They own Pratt & Whitney, so there is a fit, and that's been a company that took their eye off the ball and then refocused. That would not be a bad home."

Boeing acquired Rocketdyne in 1996 when it purchased Rockwell International Corp.'s aerospace business for $3.2 billion.

About 1,500 people work at the Rocketdyne manufacturing facility in Canoga Park, with a similar number at the Chatsworth administrative headquarters and 300 to 400 at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory.

The company earlier said that the storied 47-acre manufacturing facility, where the space shuttle main engines, as well as those that put man on the moon, were designed and built, will be closed within five years and the property sold.

Those operations will be moved to Chatsworth.

A sale would fit in with Boeing's overall corporate strategy and get the company out of a business that is no longer considered a "core component."

Said Rocketdyne spokesman John Mitchell: "The launch market is not what it was projected to be several years ago. The commercial launch market has flattened out. So it's just a matter of what Boeing wants to do."

Boeing also makes the RS 27 engine, used to launch the Delta II rocket and the RS 68 that powers the Delta IV.

Analyst J.B. Groh at D.A. Davidson & Co. in Portland, Ore., said that Boeing has been increasing its emphasis on the defense side of the business.

"They have ... started to be a systems integrator and do more technical systems. It seems they are getting away from this rocket propulsion stuff and related businesses that are not doing that well," he said.

Kieran Hurson, an analyst at Cleveland-based Midwest Research, said that space-related operations only account for about 5 percent of Pratt & Whitney's business, but that United Technologies' management has said it would like to expand that base.

Groups Plan to Sue Department of Energy Over Lab Cleanup

Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmentalists Say the Energy Department Would Leave High Levels of Radioactive Material.

By Amanda Covarrubias
Times Staff Writer
July 20, 2004

Two environmental groups announced Monday that they intended to sue the Department of Energy for allegedly violating federal law in its cleanup of nuclear and chemical contamination at Boeing's Rocketdyne field laboratory near Chatsworth.

The Natural Resources Defense Council and the Committee to Bridge the Gap say the Energy Department's cleanup plan for the site � where U.S. agencies conducted nuclear research over four decades � would leave dangerous levels of radioactive material and other toxic chemicals in the soil at the field lab.

Energy Department officials have said that the site, where a nuclear reactor meltdown occurred in 1959, would pose no significant threat to human health or the environment after it is cleaned up to at least minimum standards for radioactive contamination set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. But critics and watchdog groups have demanded that a full environmental impact review be conducted.

The Energy Department has 60 days to comply with the law or the groups will file a lawsuit in federal court, said Howard Crystal, an attorney for the Washington, D.C.-based council and Bridge the Gap, an anti-nuclear group based in Los Angeles.

The outcome of a lawsuit could have implications far beyond the 2,700-acre hilltop lab because the Energy Department operates many other contaminated nuclear and chemical sites around the country.

"We're making good progress cleaning up the � site in an environmentally safe and sound manner," said John Belluardo, a spokesman for the Energy Department in Oakland. "We do not agree with those that wish to slow down cleanup by threatening to file lawsuits. DOE will review the letter and decide if any response is necessary."

Boeing Co. officials did not return phone calls seeking comment.

Although the Energy Department's operations at Rocketdyne comprised only a portion of the work conducted at the lab, its legacy of nuclear and chemical contamination could affect public health for generations, said Dan Hirsch, president of the Committee to Bridge the Gap.

"I think [DOE officials] are sacrificing public health for cost savings," he said. "The Bush administration has a tremendous hostility to living up to its environmental responsibilities. So it's partially to save money and partially an antipathy to environmental protections."

In a 12-page letter to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, the two groups demanded the agency prepare a more strict environmental review.

"Given that one of the only reactor meltdowns in the world occurred at this site � and the cleanup of the radioactive contamination � is budgeted at approximately a quarter of a billion dollars, it is apparent this cleanup is a 'major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment' and therefore requiring an EIS," the letter states.

Specifically, the groups say the Energy Department is in violation of the National Environmental Protection Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act; and the Endangered Species Act.

Through an environmental impact statement, the two groups are demanding that the department address recent findings of high levels of radioactive tritium, the solvents trichloroethylene and perchlorate, a chemical used in rocket fuel and found in deep, nonpotable groundwater wells on and near the lab site.

The groups say that the Environmental Protection Agency determined last year that the Energy Department's plan to leave 99% of the contaminated soil in place would leave far too much radioactivity behind to meet federal standards for unrestricted land use.

The groups say the Energy Department is in violation of a joint policy it adopted in 1995 with the EPA, agreeing to clean up all nuclear sites to the same high standards as those required by federal Superfund sites. Santa Susana Field Lab is not a Superfund site.

The environmental groups also say there are several endangered species on the site that have not been taken into account in the current cleanup plan, as required under federal law. The only species mentioned is Braunton's milkvetch, a small plant that grows in the California chaparral.

From the 1950s to 1989, the Energy Department, NASA and the Defense Department conducted nuclear experiments at the field lab. A test reactor suffered a partial meltdown at the site in 1959.

Although the accident was not widely publicized until 20 years later, company officials said later that there had been no danger to the public or workers.

Former employees and nearby residents have filed lawsuits against Boeing, alleging contamination at the plant led to illness and death of relatives. Those lawsuits are pending in federal court.

Assembly Kills Kuehl Rocketdyne Bill
Senator's Measure Would Have Barred Housing Without EPA-Approved Cleanup

By Roberta Freeman
June 25, 2004

The state Assembly rejected a bill Thursday to ban housing at the Boeing Rocketdyne Santa Susana Field Lab near Simi Valley unless the site is cleaned to meet the standards of the federal Environmental Protection Agency.

SB 1456, by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, would have required cleanup to meet the more stringent guidelines of the EPA, rather than the standards of the Department of Energy, which regulates radioactive materials and has authority at the Rocketdyne site.

The bill failed on the Assembly floor, 39-30. It needed 41 votes to pass.

The lab was the site of a nuclear accident in 1959, and cleanup work to remove radioactive materials and soil began in 1989. The EPA and DOE disagree over the level of testing for contamination and cleanup at the site.

"We are glad to have it behind us," Steve Lafflam, Rocketdyne's division director for safety, health and environmental affairs, said of the bill Thursday.

Boeing officials testified during the hearings that the radiation cleanup for Rocketdyne is 40 percent more stringent than it is at other former nuclear sites elsewhere in the country.

Kuehl's measure, although it would have prohibited housing on the site unless the EPA standard were met, would have allowed the land to be used for industrial or commercial uses.

Kuehl said she believed many of the legislators misunderstood the complex issues surrounding the site and were further confused by Boeing lobbyists, who "were out in the hall this morning furiously sending in business cards and handwritten notes with misleading and questionable information to the members."

Kuehl said the company also arranged for employees from a Long Beach facility to call legislators and say they feared they would lose their jobs if the company were burdened with the added expense of additional cleanup at the Rocketdyne site.

"I think Boeing's behavior has been deplorable," Kuehl said.

Assemblyman Keith Richman, R-Northridge, whose district includes parts of Simi Valley, said he voted against the bill because he had faith in the oversight of the state Department of Health and the DOE.

He cited the recent discovery of radioactive contamination in a trio of wells as evidence of adequate testing for contamination at the lab.

"It was a demonstration the process is working the way it's supposed to work," Richman said.

Longtime critics of cleanup efforts at Rocketdyne said the measure's failure is proof of Boeing's political power.

Kuehl said she was uncertain whether she would put forth another bill next year, but vowed to continue working for more stringent cleanup of the site.

"I'm not going to abandon all the people that live around there," she said. "I am going to stick with them."

Assembly Panel OKs Kuehl's Bill on Field Lab Cleanup

From The Star State Bureau
June 16, 2004

SACRAMENTO -- A bill that would make it more difficult for homes to ever be built on the site of the Rocketdyne facility in the Santa Susana hills was approved by an Assembly committee on Tuesday and sent to an uncertain future on the Assembly floor.

SB 1456, by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, would require that the 2,900-acre site of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory be cleaned to meet the standards of the federal Environmental Protection Agency before future residential development on the land could be contemplated.

The land was the site of a nuclear reactor accident in 1959, and cleanup work to remove radioactive materials and soil began in 1989. The work is 95 percent complete. When it is done, it will meet the standards of the Department of Energy, which regulates radioactive materials, not the more stringent standards of the EPA, which regulates chemical materials.

Under the bill, the Boeing Co., parent of Rocketdyne, would be able to continue its current rocket-testing operations and would be allowed to later sell the land for commercial or industrial uses.

Marie Mason, president of the Santa Susana Knolls Homeowners Association, testified in support of the bill. She said that eventually the land's natural beauty will inevitably lead to plans for home development there. "The thought of a child living there is absurd," she said. "It's important that future children don't live up there and play in the dirt."

Boeing executive Steve Lafflam testified the bill would impose more stringent conditions on the company than apply anywhere else in the nation.

"Boeing looks at this as absolutely abominable," he said. "Boeing has complied with all current rules and regulations. We're cleaning up the site, and it's safe."

A similar bill died on the Assembly floor last year.

Bill Would Restrict Building at Rocketdyne Lab Site
Measure Would Apply Only to Rocketdyne SSFL Site