Jump to content

Santa Susana Field Laboratory

Coordinates: 34°13′51″N 118°41′47″W / 34.230822°N 118.696375°W / 34.230822; -118.696375
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bender the Bot (talk | contribs) at 12:31, 26 November 2016 (clean up; http→https for YouTube using AWB). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Aerial view of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory in the Simi Hills, with the San Fernando Valley and San Gabriel Mountains beyond to the east. The Energy Technology Engineering Center site is in the flat Area IV at the lower left, with the Rocket Test Field Laboratory sites in the hills at the center. (Spring 2005).

The Santa Susana Field Laboratory is a complex of industrial research and development facilities located on a 2,668-acre (1,080 ha)[1] portion of the Southern California Simi Hills in Simi Valley, California. It was used mainly for the development and testing of liquid-propellant rocket engines for the United States space program from 1949 to 2006,[1] nuclear reactors from 1953 to 1980 and the operation of a U.S. government-sponsored liquid metals research center from 1966 to 1998.[2] The site is located approximately 7 miles (11 km) northwest from the community of Canoga Park and approximately 30 miles (48 km) northwest of Downtown Los Angeles. Sage Ranch Park is adjacent on part of the northern boundary and the community of Bell Canyon along the entire southern boundary.[3]

Throughout the years, about ten low-power nuclear reactors operated at SSFL, in addition to several "critical facilities" which helped develop nuclear science and applications. At least four of the ten nuclear reactors had accidents during their operation. The reactors located on the grounds of SSFL were considered experimental, and therefore had no containment structures.

Introduction

Santa Susana Field Laboratory administrative areas, and the surrounding communities.

Since 1947 the Santa Susana Field Laboratory location has been used by a number of companies and agencies. The first was Rocketdyne, originally a division of North American Aviation-NAA, which developed a variety of pioneering, successful and reliable liquid rocket engines.[4] Some were those used in the Navaho cruise missile, the Redstone rocket, the Thor and Jupiter ballistic missiles, early versions of the Delta and Atlas rockets, the Saturn rocket family and the Space Shuttle Main Engine.[5] The Atomics International division of North American Aviation utilized a separate and dedicated portion of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory to build and operate the first commercial nuclear power plant in the United States[6] and for the testing and development of compact nuclear reactors including the first and only known nuclear reactor launched into Low Earth Orbit by the United States, the SNAP-10A.[7] Atomics International also operated the Energy Technology Engineering Center for the U.S. Department of Energy at the site. The Santa Susana Field Laboratory includes sites identified as historic by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and by the American Nuclear Society. In 1996, The Boeing Company became the primary owner and operator of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory and later closed the site.

Three California state agencies and three federal agencies have been overseeing a detailed investigation of environmental impacts from historical site operations since at least 1990.[8] Concerns about the environmental impact of past disposal practices have inspired at least two lawsuits seeking payment from Boeing and several interest groups are actively involved with steering the ongoing environmental investigation.

The Santa Susana Field Laboratory is the focus of diverse interests. The National Register of Historic Places listed Burro Flats Painted Cave is located within the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, on a portion of the site owned by the U.S. government. The drawings within the cave have been termed "the best preserved Indian pictograph in Southern California." Several tributary streams to the Los Angeles River have headwater watersheds on the SSFL property, including Bell Creek (90% of SSFL drainage), Dayton Creek, Woolsey Canyon, and Runkle Creek.[9]

History

Aerial view looking north, of the Energy Technology Engineering Center in Area IV (1990).

SSFL was slated as a United States government facility dedicated to the development and testing of nuclear reactors, powerful rockets such as the Delta II, and the systems that powered the Apollo missions. The location of SSFL was chosen in 1947 for its remoteness in order to conduct work that was considered too dangerous and too noisy to be performed in more densely populated areas. In subsequent years however, the Southern California population grew, along with housing developments surrounding "The Hill." Today, more than 150,000 people live within 5 miles (8 km) of the facility, and at least half a million people live within 10 miles (16 km).

The site is divided into four production and two buffer areas, (Area I, II, III, and IV, and the northern and southern buffer zones). 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.[10]

Rocket engine development

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,[citation needed] designed and tested several rocket engines at the facility. They included engines for the Army's Redstone (an advanced short-range version of the German V-2), and the Army Jupiter intermediate range ballistic missile (IRBM) as well as the Air Force's counterpart IRBM, the Thor.[citation needed] 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.[11]

Nuclear and energy research and development

Main article: Atomics International
SSFL: the Atomics International Snap reactor.

The Atomics International Division of North American Aviation utilized SSFL Area IV as the site of United States first commercial nuclear power plant[12] and the testing and development of the SNAP-10A, the first nuclear reactor launched into outer space by the United States.[13] Atomics International also operated the Energy Technology Engineering Center for the U.S. government. As overall interest in nuclear power declined, Atomics International transitioned to non-nuclear energy-related projects, such as coal gasification, and gradually ceased designing and testing nuclear reactors. Atomics International was eventually merged with the Rocketdyne division in 1978.[14]

Sodium reactor experiment

Main article: Sodium Reactor Experiment

The Sodium Reactor Experiment-SRE was an experimental nuclear reactor which operated from 1957 to 1964 and was the first commercial power plant in the world to experience a core meltdown. There was a decades-long cover-up by the US Department of Energy.[15] The operation predated environmental regulation, so early disposal techniques are not recorded in detail.[15] Thousands of pounds of sodium coolant from the time of the meltdown are not yet accounted for.[16][17]

The reactor and support systems were removed in 1981 and the building torn down in 1999.

Energy Technology Engineering Center

Main article: Energy Technology Engineering Center

The Energy Technology Engineering Center-ETEC, was a government-owned, contractor-operated complex of industrial facilities located within Area IV of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory. The ETEC specialized in non-nuclear testing of components which were designed to transfer heat from a nuclear reactor using liquid metals instead of water or gas. The center operated from 1966 to 1998.[18] The ETEC site has been closed and is now undergoing building removal and environmental remediation by the U.S. Department of Energy.

Accidents and site contamination

Nuclear Reactors

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 the purportedly largest "Hot Lab" facility in the United States at the time.[citation needed] (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.

The Hot Lab suffered a number of fires involving radioactive materials. For example, in 1957, a fire in the Hot Cell "got out of control and ... massive contamination" resulted. (see: NAA-SR-1941, Sodium Graphite Reactor, Quarterly Progress Report, January–March 1957).

At least four of the ten nuclear reactors suffered accidents: 1) The AE6 reactor experienced a release of fission gases in March 1959.[19] 2) In July 1959, the site suffered a partial nuclear meltdown that has been named "the worst in U.S. history", releasing an undisclosed amount of radioactivity, but thought to be much more than the Three Mile Island disaster in 1979.[20] Another radioactive fire occurred in 1971, involving combustible primary reactor coolant (NaK) contaminated with mixed fission products.[21][22] 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.[23] 3) The SNAP8ER in 1964 experienced damage to 80% of its fuel.[24] 4) The SNAP8DR in 1969 experienced similar damage to one-third of its fuel.[25]

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.

Sodium burn pits

Toxic substances burn and are released into the air.

The sodium burn pit, an open-air pit for cleaning sodium-contaminated components, was also contaminated[when?] 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."[26]

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.

A worker disposes of toxic chemicals by blowing up full barrels with a rifle shot (the reaction to the shot caused an explosion).

On December 11, 2002, a top Department of Energy (DOE) official, Mike Lopez, described typical clean-up procedures executed by Field Lab employees in the past. Workers would dispose of barrels filled with highly toxic waste by shooting the barrels with rifles so that they would explode and release their contents into the air. It is unclear when this process ended, but for certain did end prior to the 1990s.[27]

On July 26, 1994, two scientists, Otto K. Heiney, 52, of Canoga Park in 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.[28]

At trial, a retired Rocketdyne mechanic testified as to what he witnessed at the time of the explosion: "I assumed we were burning waste," Lee 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. "[The background noise] 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." Wells suffered second- and third-degree burns to his face, arms and stomach.[29]

Wildfires and contamination

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 were 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 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 State Water Resources Control Board that over 80 exceedances of Boeing's discharge permits were found in the preceding year alone. In January 2006, the State Water Resources Control Board finally stepped in, and refused some requests by Boeing for even lighter standards.

Medical claims

Also in October 2005, plaintiff Margaret-Ann Galasso, in a suit against Boeing, criticized her attorneys, who, as she claimed, accepted a $30 million 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[citation needed]. 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[vague] 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 based on available data and computer models, contamination at the facility resulted in an estimated 260 cancer related deaths, with a 95% confidence interval of up to 1800 deaths. The report also concluded that the SRE meltdown caused the release of more than 458 times the amount of radioactivity released by the Three Mile Island accident. While the nuclear core of the SRE released 10 times less radiation than the TMI incident, the lack of proper containment such as concrete structures caused this radiation to be released into the surrounding environment. The radiation released by the core of the TMI was largely contained.[30]

Cleanup

During its years of operation widespread use occurred of highly toxic chemical additives to power over 30,000 rocket engine tests and to clean the rocket test-stands afterwards, as well as considerable nuclear research and at least four nuclear accidents, which has resulted in the SSFL becoming a seriously contaminated site and offsite pollution source requiring a sophisticated multi-agency and corporate Cleanup Project.[31] An ongoing process to determine the site contamination levels and locations, cleanup standards to meet, methods to use, costs, timelines and completion requirements - are still being debated, and litigated.

As of 2015 the site's owner is Boeing, with NASA and DOE liable for several parcels within that. On August 2, 2005, Pratt & Whitney purchased Boeing's Rocketdyne division, but declined to acquire SSFL as part of the sale.

Standards history

In 1989, the DOE found widespread chemical and radioactive contamination at their 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 the EPA's Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) standards.

However, in March 2003, the DOE reversed its position and announced that SSFL would not be cleaned up to EPA standards. While the 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. The EPA responded to this announcement by claiming that the DOE was not subject to EPA regulation due to the fact that the 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 the DOE to meet its commitments in the 1995 agreement and clean up SSFL to the EPA's CERCLA standards. The DOE responded to the Senate, claiming it was in fact consistent with both the agreement and EPA's CERCLA standards. In December 2003, soon after DOE's announcement that it was consistent with the 1995 agreement, 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.

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.[32] 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.'"

Runoff issues

On July 26, 2007, staff at the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board recommended a $471,190 fine against Boeing 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 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.[33]

Parkland

On October 15, 2007, Boeing announced that "In a landmark agreement between Boeing and California officials, nearly 2,400 acres (10 km2) of land that is currently Boeing's Santa Susana Field Laboratory will become state parkland. According to the plan jointly announced 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 Simi Hills, above the Simi Valley and the San Fernando Valley. The agreement will permanently restrict the land for nonresidential, noncommercial use."[34]

New cleanup developments

SB 990

The California state senate bill SB 990, passed into law in 2007, set the standards for the site's cleanup.[35] To achieve them, the R.P.s (responsible parties) consisting of Boeing, DOE, and NASA, need to sign agreements of acceptance and cleanup compliance.

Boeing

Boeing has contested the law, filing a lawsuit in September 2009 to release it from compliance, with a court date set for summer 2011. Boeing won the suit and claims it will clean up the site, although to levels far below those outlined in SB 990.[36]

DOE and NASA

In September 2010 DOE and NASA agreed to meet the stringent cleanup standards set for the site in the state's SB 990 legislation, and to cover all costs for their cleanup's implementation. This agreement is significant progress in the SSFL cleanup sequence.[37] In 2014, NASA issued a final environmental impact statement containing mitigation measures that would demolish all structures and remediate soil and groundwater contamination.[38] NASA issued a report highlighting cleanup technology feasibility studies, soil and groundwater fieldwork, and additional archaeology surveys that would be performed in preparation for the demolition of the structures.[39]

Demolition of the abandoned buildings, including a cafeteria, laboratory and offices for engineers and draftsmen built in the 1950s and 1960s, was scheduled to start in January or February 2015 after abatement of asbestos, lead paint and other regulated materials. The test stands will follow and are the most complex to tear down but all demolition should be completed in 2016. Because of their historical significance, one test stand and one control building will remain if the cleanup goals can still be met.[40] The cleanup is projected to be completed in 2017.[37]

Community involvement

PPG - Public Participation Group

The CA-DTSC: SSFL Project, the lead regulatory agency for the site cleanup, is forming a new [Sept. 2010] PPG - Public Participation Group, in response to their community 'Listening Sessions' held earlier in the year and the proposed Listening Session Response Plan.[41] Applications from all the 'stakeholder' I.P.s - interested parties: the public, community groups, neighbors, local environmental and cultural groups, and others are being accepted currently [Sept. 2010].[42]

SSFL Workgroup

Every quarter the SSFL Workgroup meetings regarding the cleanup are held that are open for public attendance. The SSFL Workgroup is the current version of the The Santa Susana Advisory Panel. The workgroup consists of representatives from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, the U.S. EPA., public policy organizations, and community representatives. The Boeing Company, current owner of the SSFL site, the DOE are also invited. Other organizations and private companies also attend as part of the workgroup depending on the topic pending. The meetings are usually held at The Simi Valley Cultural Arts Center, and are posted on the DTSC-SSFL Calendar page of their website.[43]

Community advisory group

A petition to form a "CAG" or community advisory group was denied in March 2010 by DTSC .[44][45] In 2012, the current CAG's petition was approved, and their website is at ssflcag.net. The SSFL CAG recommends that all responsible parties execute a risk-based cleanup to EPA’s suburban residential standard that will minimize excavation, soil removal and backfill and thus reduce danger to public health and functions of surrounding communities.

References

  1. ^ a b Archeological Consultants, Inc.; Weitz Research (March 2009). "Historical resources survey and assessment of the NASA facility at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Simi Valley, California" (PDF). NASA. pp. 1–1. Retrieved January 25, 2010.
  2. ^ Sapere and Boeing (May 2005). Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Area IV Historical Site Assessment. pp. 2–2. Retrieved January 25, 2010.
  3. ^ Sage.Park
  4. ^ http://www.boeing.com/aboutus/environment/santa_susana/history.html . accessed 8/30/2010
  5. ^ American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (2001). "Historic Aerospace Site: The Rocketdyne Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Canoga Park, California" (PDF). AIAA. Retrieved January 25, 2010.
  6. ^ DuTemple, Octave. "American Nuclear Society Sodium Reactor Experiment Nuclear Historic Landmark awarded, February 21, 1986" (PDF). Retrieved January 25, 2010.
  7. ^ Stokely, C.; Stansbury, E. (2008), "Identification of a debris cloud from the nuclear powered SNAPSHOT satellite with Haystack radar measurements", Advances in Space Research, vol. 41, no. 7, pp. 1004–1009, doi:10.1016/j.asr.2007.03.046 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
  8. ^ Charter.pdf "Santa Susana Field Laboratory Workgroup Charter" (PDF). September 20, 1990. Retrieved January 1, 2010. {{cite web}}: |first= missing |last= (help); Check |url= value (help)
  9. ^ http://www.enviroreporter.com/images/ESADA/2003-SSFL-surface%20water-map.jpg (accessed 4/10/2010) SSFL Watersheds Map
  10. ^ "SITE SAFETY AND HEALTH PLAN AREA IV RADIOLOGICAL STUDY SANTA SUSANA FIELD LABORATORY VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA" (PDF). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved 28 September 2016.
  11. ^ 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. "Apollo Expeditions to the Moon, Chapter 3.2". NASA.
  12. ^ U.S. Energy Information Agency. "California Nuclear Industry". Retrieved January 1, 2010.
  13. ^ Voss, Susan (August 1984). SNAP Reactor Overview. U.S. Air Force Weapons Laboratory, Kirtland AFB, New Mexico. p. 57. AFWL-TN-84-14.
  14. ^ Sapere and Boeing (May 2005). Santa Susana Field Laboratory Area IV, Historical Site Assessment. pp. 2–1. Retrieved January 1, 2010.
  15. ^ a b [1]
  16. ^ Rockwell International Corporation, Energy Systems Group. "Sodium Reactor Experiment Decommissioning Final Report" (PDF). ESG-DOE-13403. Retrieved 17 February 2011. (see sections 2.1.7.4, 2.2.3, 4.4.2 and 9.3 for discrepancies concerning sodium amounts)
  17. ^ Grover, Joel; Glasser, Matthew. "L.A.'s Nuclear Secret". NBC. National Broadcasting Company. Retrieved 31 October 2016.
  18. ^ Sapere and Boeing (May 2005). Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Area IV, Historical Site Assessment. pp. 2–1. Retrieved January 20, 2010.
  19. ^ "Report of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory Advisory Panel, October 2006" (PDF). Retrieved September 30, 2010.
  20. ^ http://www.laweekly.com/2010-09-23/news/rocketdyne-cleanup-won-t-help-runkle-canyon/
  21. ^ Rockwell International, Nuclear Operations at Rockwell's Santa Susana Field Laboratory — A Factual Perspective, September 6, 1991
  22. ^ "Oak Ridge Associated Universities TEAM Dose Reconstruction Project for NIOSH, Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0038-2, Rev. 0. page 24" (PDF). Retrieved September 30, 2010.
  23. ^ "Report of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory Advisory Panel, October 2006" (PDF). Retrieved September 30, 2010.
  24. ^ "Report of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory Advisory Panel, October 2006" (PDF). Retrieved September 30, 2010.
  25. ^ "Report of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory Advisory Panel, October 2006" (PDF). Retrieved September 30, 2010.
  26. ^ The Cancer Effect, October 30, 2006, The Ventura County Star
  27. ^ "Rocketdyne, it's the pits", Ventura County Reporter, December 12, 2002; also see SB990, a bill before the California legislature relating this almost unbelievable procedure
  28. ^ "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
  29. ^ "Ex-Rocketdyne Worker Describes Fatal 1994 Blast," Los Angeles Times, January 5, 2002
  30. ^ http://www.ssflpanel.org/files/SSFLPanelReport.pdf
  31. ^ http://www.boeing.com/aboutus/environment/santa_susana/index.html . accessed 8/30/2010
  32. ^ Griggs, Gregory W. (May 3, 2007). "Judge assails Rocketdyne cleanup". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 23 December 2015.
  33. ^ Griggs, Gregory W. (July 27, 2007). "Boeing faces fines over field lab runoff". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 23 December 2015.
  34. ^ http://www.boeing.com/aboutus/environment/santa_susana/future.html . accessed 8/3-/2010
  35. ^ http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0951-1000/sb_990_cfa_20070413_153535_sen_comm.html . accessed 8/30/2010
  36. ^ Healy, Patrick and Lloyd, Jonathan (April 29, 2011) "Judge Sides With Boeing in Rocket Site Cleanup" NBC Southern California
  37. ^ a b Sahagun, Louis (2010-09-04). "Nuclear cleanup at Santa Susana facility would finish by 2017 under settlement". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 7 September 2010.
  38. ^ Harris, Mike (2014-03-14). "NASA's Santa Susana cleanup could have significant impacts, report says". Ventura County Star. Retrieved 15 March 2014.
  39. ^ Sullivan, Bartholomew (2014-05-01). "NASA plans to raze structures at Santa Susana Field Laboratory". Ventura County Star. Retrieved 3 May 2014.
  40. ^ Harris, Mike (2014-12-06). "Historic NASA structures to be razed in Santa Susana cleanup". Ventura County Star.
  41. ^ http://www.dtscssfl. com/files/lib_pub_involve/other_docs/64651_LSRP.pdf . accessed 8/30/2010
  42. ^ http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Santa_Susana_Field_Lab/ . accessed 8/30/2010
  43. ^ http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Santa_Susana_Field_Lab/ssfl_calendar.cfm . accessed 8/30/2010
  44. ^ http://cleanuprocketdyne.org/cleanuprocketdyne.org/Community_Advisory_Group/Community_Advisory_Group.html . accessed 8/30/2010
  45. ^ http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Projects/upload/CAG-Petition-Final-Response.pdf
External videos
video icon Fly-through Animation of Test Stand 1, Santa Susana Field Laboratory Area II, California, HAER, March 27, 2013
video icon Fly-through Animation of Bravo Test Area at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Santa Susana, CA, HAER, September 25, 2013
video icon Fly-through of Coca Test Area at Santa Susana Field Laboratory, HAER June 6, 2013
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Santa Susana Field Laboratory.

Agencies

Groups and info

Media

Reactor accident sources

  • "-NAA-SR-MEMO-3757" (PDF). Retrieved March 5, 2007., Release of Fission Gas from the AE-6 Reactor, hosted by RocketdyneWatch.org
  • "-NAA-SR-5898" (PDF). Retrieved March 5, 2007., Analysis of SRE Power Excursion, hosted by RocketdyneWatch.org
  • "-NAA-SR-4488" (PDF). Retrieved March 14, 2007., SRE Fuel Element Damage an Interim Report, hosted by RocketdyneWatch.org
  • "-NAA-SR-4488-Suppl" (PDF). Retrieved March 14, 2007., SRE Fuel Element Damage Final Report, hosted by RocketdyneWatch.org
  • "-NAA-SR-MEMO-12210" (PDF). Retrieved March 14, 2007., SNAP8 Experimental Reactor Fuel Element Behavior: Atomics International Task Force Review, hosted by RocketdyneWatch.org
  • "-NAA-SR-12029" (PDF). Retrieved March 14, 2007., Postoperation Evaluation of Fuel Elements from the SNAP8 Experimental Reactor hosted by RocketdyneWatch.org
  • "-AI-AEC-13003" (PDF). Retrieved March 19, 2007., Findings of the SNAP 8 Developmental Reactor (S8DR) Post-Test Examination, hosted by RocketdyneWatch.org

34°13′51″N 118°41′47″W / 34.230822°N 118.696375°W / 34.230822; -118.696375

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Santa_Susana_Field_Laboratory&oldid=751555736"