Santa Susana Field Laboratory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL) is a once prolific rocket and nuclear reactor test facility located 30 miles north of downtown Los Angeles, California. SSFL continues to operate today, serving as a research facility for The Boeing Company. The first commercial nuclear-power producing reactor inside the United States was built at SSFL. The reactor powered over 1,100 homes in the Moorpark area of California for a short period of time. SSFL, however, also became home to the first meltdown of a power-producing reactor in the United States on July 26, 1959. Today, all nuclear research and most rocket testing has been halted.

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


Contents

[edit] History

Founded in the mid-1940s, SSFL was slated as a United States government facility dedicated to the development and testing of nuclear reactors, powerful rockets like the Delta II, and the systems that powered the Apollo missions. The location of SSFL was chosen for its remoteness in order to conduct work that was considered too dangerous to be performed in more densely populated areas. In subsequent years however, Southern California’s population mushroomed. Today, more than 150,000 people live within 5 miles of the facility, and at least half a million people live within 10 miles. (see: Boeing, Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2005, September 2006, p. 5-22;)

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

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

[edit] Rocketry

North American Aviation (NAA) began its development of liquid fuel rocket engines after the end of WWII. The Rocketdyne division of NAA tested several rocket engines at Santa Susana, including the original J-2 engine used in Project Apollo spacecraft.[1]

[edit] Nuclear facilities and accidents

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

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). Another radioactive fire occurred in 1971, involving combustible primary reactor coolant (NaK) contaminated with mixed fission products. (see: Rockwell International, Nuclear Operations at Rockwell’s Santa Susana Field Laboratory – A Factual Perspective, September 6, 1991).

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

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

[edit] Sodium Reactor Experiment

The most famous incident occurred on July 26, 1959, when the Sodium Reactor Experiment (SRE) — a sodium-cooled nuclear reactor — experienced a power excursion, with power production from the reactor rapidly rising out of control. With significant effort, the reactor was shut down. However, a few hours later it was restarted without the cause of the incident having been determined. The reactor continued to operate for several more weeks with high radiation readings and other signs of problems, until it was shut down at the end of the month.

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

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

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

[edit] Site contamination

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Conflict over cleanup

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

[edit] Cleanup Standards

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Community involvement

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

The workgroup consists of representatives from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control and the U.S. EPA. Public policy organizations such as Committee to Bridge the Gap also send representatives as part of the work group. Other organizations and private companies also attend as part of the workgroup depending on the topic pending. The meeting is moderated by the EPA.

DOE and Boeing are also invited to the workgroup meetings but have not attended for the past several years.

The workgroup meetings are held at the following location:

Cultural Arts Center 3050 Los Angeles Avenue Simi Valley, CA 93065

Contact the Simi Valley Cultural Arts Center for information regarding the next workgroup meeting: (805) 583-7900

[edit] References

  1. ^ Apollo Expeditions to the Moon, Chapter 3.2. NASA.

[edit] External links and Sources

[edit] Reactor Accident Sources

  • -NAA-SR-MEMO-12210. Retrieved on March 14, 2007. , SNAP8 Experimental Reactor Fuel Element Behavior: Atomics International Task Force Review, hosted by RocketdyneWatch.org
  • -NAA-SR-12029. Retrieved on March 14, 2007. , Postoperation Evaluation of Fuel Elements from the SNAP8 Experimental Reactor hosted by RocketdyneWatch.org
  • -AI-AEC-13003. Retrieved on March 19, 2007. , Findings of the SNAP 8 Developmental Reactor (S8DR) Post-Test Examination, hosted by RocketdyneWatch.org


v • d • e
U.S. NRC Licensed Nuclear Power Plants (decommissioned or inactive plants are in parentheses and italic)

Arkansas · Arnold · Beaver Valley · (Bellefonte) · (Big Rock Point) · Braidwood · Browns Ferry · Brunswick · Byron · Callaway · Calvert Cliffs · (CVTR) · Catawba · Clinton · Columbia · Comanche · Cook · Cooper · (Connecticut Yankee) · Crystal River · Davis-Besse · Diablo Canyon · (Dresden) · (EBR I) · (EBR II) · (Elk River) · Fermi · Farley · Fitzpatrick · Fort Calhoun · (Fort St. Vrain) · Ginna · Grand Gulf · Harris · Hatch · Hope Creek · Indian Point · Kewaunee · La Crosse · LaSalle · Limerick · (Maine Yankee) · McGuire · Millstone · Monticello · Nine Mile Point · North Anna · Oconee · Oyster Creek · Palisades · Palo Verde · Pathfinder · Peach Bottom · Perry · Pilgrim · (Piqua) · Point Beach · Prairie Island · Quad Cities · (Rancho Seco) · River Bend · Robinson · Salem · San Onofre · (Santa Susana) · Seabrook · Sequoyah · (SL-1) · (Shippingport) · (Shoreham) · South Texas · St. Lucie · Surry · Summer · Susquehanna · Three Mile Island · (Trojan) · Turkey Point · (Vallecitos) · Vermont Yankee · Vogtle · Waterford · Watts Bar · Wolf Creek · (Yankee Rowe) · (Zion)
Proposed U.S. Nuclear Power Plants

Black Fox Nuclear Power Plant (failed) · Galena Nuclear Power Plant (future proposal)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/a/n/Santa_Susana_Field_Laboratory_263f.html"