Officials pressure Boeing to clean up Santa Susana Lab
Join the discussion below, or Read more at LA Daily News.
#1 Sep 8, 2010
Ever notice that the government at all levels are hypocrites? Its always the same: "do as I say, and not as I do."
Google "U.S. Military Hazardous Waste" and read all the various pollutions that the government is responsible for yet ignores the mess as long as it can.
Google "U.S. Navy Mothball Fleet Hazardous Waste" and realize that it took a Federal Lawsuit to force the U.S. Navy / Federal Government to agree to clean up leaking, toxic materials into the ocean.
Government pigs. They're so incompetent, yet the enslave us.
#3 Sep 9, 2010
It is disappointing that the Daily News has NASA owning AREA IV. NASA only owns AREA II and part of AREA I. And actually, that property is owned by the
There was no "meltdown" - an issue that was clarified at an Expert Panel meeting held by the DOE for 7 hours last August 2009. "Meltdown" is a non technical term that is used only to create fear. The site of the "Sodium Reactor Experiment" or SRE - the reactor that is referred to as the "meltdown" site - that structure and its related complex were removed more than 15 years ago. I was walking with the EPA on that site Wednesday. I did not have to wear a dosimeter while I was in AREA IV because being in the open air on that site is not considered a health risk (for short periods) enough to require wearing one.
The community near the site should know that at one time, there were about 275 structures in AREA IV alone. All of these structures have been removed but about 25. The cleanup of AREA IV has been done under the control of numerous agencies including the DOE, AEC, and the California Department of Health. Independent surveys by other contractors reviewed those sites before the holes were back filled.
The "Agreement in Principal" with NASA and the "Final Agreement in Principal" with the DOE agrees to cleanup to "Background" which is not the language of SB 990.
Furthermore, SB 990 requires a risk base cleanup that was not a part of these agreements.
The DOE does not own any of the property, and they are legally obligated by a Federal Court Order to complete an Environmental Impact Study prior to any cleanup. The DOE only leases 90 acres of AREA IV; ultimately that is Boeing's property.
The State DTSC must do a Chemical Background Study before Background for the site can be determined.
Rick Brausch of DTSC stated at a DTSC meeting with community members last week that he cannot sign a contract for the Chemical Background Study because there is no State Budget.
In the meantime, the federal EPA has completed their Background Study offsite for radionuclides. They are now sampling AREA IV of the Santa Susana Field Lab in cooperation with the DOE and the Boeing Company for radionuclide levels.
The SSFL community and residents nearby should be aware that The Boeing Company and NASA continue to clean up the SSFL site under orders by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and in cooperation with the 2007 DTSC Consent Order.
The DOE is not only working closely on the AREA IV site sampling plan with the EPA for radionuclides, but they are also working with DTSC for sampling the chemicals of concern in ARA IV.
The "Agreements in Principal" with DTSC, NASA, and the DOE called for public comment by October 1st. 2010.
Hopefully, DTSC will send out notice that a community meeting will be held with DTSC, the EPA, the DOE, NASA, and the Boeing Company in a timely manner to allow the community and agency professionals to ask just how these "Agreements In Principal" will work on a technical level.
Thanks to the DTSC, DOE, and NASA employees that continue to work in good faith to achieve a cleanup that is protective of the public health and will also protect the environment.
I am hopeful that The Boeing Company will continue to work in a cooperative manner with DTSC to reach some compromise that is protective of the public health and the environment.
#4 Sep 9, 2010
Commenter Chris Rowe is the infamous "Meltdown Denier" as fully fleshed out at http://www.enviroreporter.com/2009/07/meltdow...
Rowe has an obsession with the word "meltdown" but obviously is not obsessed with the facts. The Sodium Reactor Experiment, or SRE, partially melted down in July 1959 releasing hundreds of times more radiation than the more known meltdown of Three Mile Island in 1979. The Daily News has been brilliant in its coverage of this seminal event.
However, Rowe really ought to try to get her hooey straight when, once again, going to the press with her nonsense. The SRE was still standing when a Los Angeles Magazine reporter, Michael Collins, visited it 12 years ago in 1998. Collins' coverage of this issue is the place Daily News readers should go to learn more about this place in deeper detail. See http://www.enviroreporter.com/ and http://www.enviroreporter.com/category/rocket... and get informed and Use Your Voice to make sure that the Chris Rowe's of the world don't fool the unsuspecting about this astronomically polluted lab.
#5 Sep 9, 2010
I would like to respond to the post by Annabella Price - who I have never heard of.
The SRE complex information can be found on this link: http://www.etec.energy.gov/history/Major-Oper...
I apologize - I was off by about 4 years about when the complex was removed - I had posted what someone told me was the date rather than go to the ETEC site - the Sodium Reactor Experiment structure was removed in 1999. However, it was decommissioned in 1982 and released for unrestricted use in 1985. If a structure was so contaminated as many people imply, how could it be released for unrestricted use?
Furthermore, the accident in the SRE was serious - it would have been classified as about a 3 or 4 on a scale similar to a Richter scale. If the incident were as bad as Michael Collins or others made it out to be, the employees would not have been able to take out the first core and put in the second core, which was a scheduled event. Then the SRE went back online until 1964.
The timeline for nuclear operations at the Santa Susana site are on this link:
I do not recall seeing Michael Collins at the SRE Expert Panel event put on by the DOE in August 2009. Then again, there were about 150 people there
including about 100 former Atomics International employees that worked at the site more than 50 years ago. Several worked on the SRE at the time of the incident. So I could have missed Michael.
The videos of that event, the most recent technical reports on that event are on this link:
One of the biggest problems with the Santa Susana site today continues to be the ground water pollution - the TCE that was used for flushing the test stands after engine tests and TCE was used throughout the site as a solvent.
I do not see Mr. Collins or his partner at any of the DTSC technical meetings. I believe I heard him on the phone one time. I do not see him at the EPA Technical meetings.
What was at the SSFL site in 1998 when he toured it is not necessarily what is at the site today.
As far as being called a "Meltdown Denier", I am pleased by the title. I believe that Michael Collins and others in the community create alarm about this particular incident. If you notice, on the bottom of that "Meltdown Denier" story, Dr. Jan Beyea, a nuclear physicist who researched this event for the community said this:" I should have made it clear that my original report had a starting at zero health effects, but that lower number got lost in the original reporting and presentation by others. I have never referred to the SRE accident as a meltdown, which has a pejorative connotation."
So that now makes - just in the past year - four nuclear physicists who have researched the SRE and stated that the term "meltdown" does not apply.
Here is what Dr. Thomas Cochran of the NRDC said in his report: "Conclusion
Based on my limited review of the documents made available to me, my best estimate is that the amount of noble gas radioactivity released as a consequence of the SRE accident in July 1959 was too small to have posed by itself a significant risk to the health of the public."
#6 Sep 9, 2010
With Agreements in Principle reached within the United States Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) that read The end state of the site (SSFL Area II, LOX and AREA IV) after cleanup will be background yet we have not agreed on Background for the chemicals NASA or DOE left behind from their operations at the SSFL. Is The Boeing Co. responsible for the DOE Chemicals and not the Radiological Contamination that the Obama Stimulus monies are to detect? The Boeing Co., the majority landowner/operator are not part of the recent agreements by NASA and DOE. The majority of the NASA properties feed the Los Angeles River and with the recent decision from EPA regarding the true navigability of this waterway should concern the State Legislators and the Department of Toxic Substances Control who have regulatory oversight of the Field Lab.
What will YOU do to Ensure a Proper Cleanup of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory.
William Preston Bowling
ACME P.O. Box 1636,
Topanga Canyon, CA 90290
#7 Sep 12, 2010
Clearly Annabelle Price is Michael Collins under assumed name. It's sad and very unproductive. Instead of continually trying to criticize and silence the voices of the people involved, let's talk about the words themselves and discuss the actual agreement that could finally save the clean-up and provide a safer future for all the surrounding communities. Wouldn't that be more productive than name-calling?
We need to find a way to have Boeing come along on this agreement and we need the best detection limits and the completion of the background studies with a collaborative approach so that we can get through the differences between the chemical and radiological approach to the sampling.
Tomorrow's community advisory group meeting at 3pm
Date: Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Time: 3:00 pm, Pacific Daylight Time (San Francisco, GMT-07:00)
Meeting Number: 805 255 725
Meeting registration sign-in code: ssfl
To join the online meeting (Now from the Apple iPhone (R) too!)
1. Go to
2. If requested, enter your name and email address.
3. If a sign-in code is required, enter the meeting code: ssfl
4. Click "Join".
#8 Sep 12, 2010
Too bad Annabella Price aka Michael Collins, the KeenObserver cannot control his tongue and gives himself a way. Can't resist the self-serving promotion of a website that otherwise no one looks at so you have to create fake commenters? It's really sad, Michael.
Those nasty postings will only prove the truth of your own character or lack thereof. Please take a long serious look at what you accomplish with these seemingly senseless character attacks on people who are just trying to work for the good and safety of their own community.
The Daily News should seriously consider banning your form of "commenting" or should I say smearing of people who are just trying to protect their own communities.
cleanuprocketdyne.org and ssflcag
#10 Oct 5, 2010
As usual the media leaves out a few "details"...Like it was the Government who ordered the building and testing specifications, not Boeing...in fact Boeing had nothing to do with this mess other than the fact that they are now the third party to own "The Santa Sussana Field Laboratory". Atomics International was the first mess maker, then it went on to Rockwell, which was bought out by Boeing in 1996....many many years after the hazardous mess was made.
So before you go and villanize Boeing..who by the way has been cleaning up that hill for many years already...get your criticism in order. The Fed is responsible, and if it is not already, it should be a "Super Fund" site for clean up purposes.
#11 Oct 17, 2010
Right you are naarocked, that the mess has been in need of attention for many years and superfund with EPA in charge would have avoided some of the political sinkholes since the EPA people are not nearly so captured by the politics as Dtsc now is. With Collins' garb towing the political line and the CBG political "we win" antics at the front gate with electeds willing to do and say anything for a photo-op, a responsible and protective cleanup is not likely when those in charge would rather mindlessly send a 100000 trucks off the hill with no regard for the existing environment or surrounding people. They got to say "we win" and they got their picture taken, so what else matters?
#12 Sep 27, 2015
What were the effects of any/all meltdowns in 1960 to 1965 to woodland hills and canoga park areas and are there any records of residents who were living there during those dates who suffered medical conditions and or death related to this meltdoown during the time frame mentioned above.
Add your comments below
|justin bieber transgender (Feb '16)||Thu||Jake||5|
|'The Prophet' of cult-like church near Owen Sou...||Sep 25||Del||1|
|Kim Kardashian Facing Fur-ious Protest At Calab... (Apr '12)||Sep 22||Teri Copley Actress||9|
|Thousand Oaks County Mugshots and Criminal Arre...||Sep 22||Mickey||2|
|Simi Valley Mugshots and Criminal Arrest Records||Sep 22||Luke||2|
|Justin Bieber Struggling To Find New Home (Nov '15)||Sep 21||AKAi 5000||6|
|A girl waves a Mexican flag during rallies in L... (Mar '06)||Sep 21||El Jiringas||4,515|
Find what you want!
Search Simi Valley Forum Now
Copyright © 2016 Topix LLC