SSFL STUDIES
RESEARCH > SSFL STUDIES
contamination studies
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, 2012: EPA Radiological Survey, EPA Radiological Background Study and accompanying statistical appendix found 291 soil samples with Cesium-137 contamination at levels up to 1,000 times background, 153 samples had strontium-90 at levels up to 284 times background.
DAVID A. LOCHBAUM 2006: An Assessment of Potential Pathways for Release of Gaseous Radioactivity Following Fuel Damage During Run 14 at the Sodium Reactor Experiment.
VENTURA COUNTY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT, 1993-1994: VCAPCD Permit Emissions Data shows the chemicals Rocketdyne was allowed to burn up at the lab and how much.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, 2007: Preliminary Assessment – Site Inspection Report is an excellent primer on the pollution problems of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory. “Multiple operations at the SSFL over the last six decades have resulted in the contamination of surface and subsurface environmental media by various hazardous substances,” the report notes.
SSFL ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY’S N. S. FUKIKAWA, 1981: SSFL Historical Volume – Area 1 Burn Pit, a 65-page report, among other things, shows exactly where this burn pit was: right next to a drainage channel that leads eventually to the Los Angeles River.
Disposal, Transportation, and Waste
Committee to Bridge the Gap’s report Demolition of Radioactive Structures and the Disposal of the Debris from the Santa Susana Field Lab shows how the state agency allowed toxic and radioactive waste from the SSFL to be stored at residential and non-licensed sites where the waste could harm local communities.
Consumer Watchdog’s report Inside Job shows how the Boeing Company and their “fixers” have worked to derail the cleanup of the Santa Susana Field Lab.
Committee to Bridge the Gap’s Alternate Transportation Study shows how trucks could all be eliminated from the cleanup.
Geological studies
WILLIAM BIANCHI, PH.D. 2006: An Analysis of the Design and Performance of the Clay Cap Used to Control Groundwater Recharge into the Fractured Bedrock Beneath the Former Sodium Burn Pit (FSDF) at the Boeing-Rocketdyne Santa Susana Field Laboratory
HOWARD WILSHIRE, PH.D. 2006: Geologic Features and their Potential Effects on Contaminant Migration, Santa Susana Field Laboratory
health studies
BOEING CORPORATION 2015: Draft RCRA Facility Investigation Data Summary found that 96 out of 100 people would get cancer if they lived on parts of Boeing’s property and ate the produce they grew at the SSFL.
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, 2007: An independent, federally funded study found a 60% Higher Cancer Incidence in the Community Surrounding the Rocketdyne Facility in Southern California. It was misconstrued by Boeing, as part of its lawsuit against California, forcing author Dr. Hal Morgenstern to write a letter to Senator Simitian.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TRACKING PROGRAM, 2012: California Breast Cancer Mapping Project determined East Ventura County/West San Fernando Valley had a 10-20% higher invasive breast cancer rate.
Working with a statistician, Parents Against Santa Susana Field Lab’s self-reported, imputed data shows a pediatric cancer rate above the national average for several rare pediatric cancers.
UCLA, 1999: Rocketdyne Chemical Study found that Rocketdyne workers who had high hydrazine exposures were about twice as likely as other Rocketdyne employees who worked at the site to die from lung and other cancers.
UCLA 2007: Rocketdyne Workers Radiation Study studied 4,563 Rocketdyne workers. “All available evidence from this study indicates that occupational exposure to ionizing radiation among nuclear workers at Rocketdyne/AI has increased the risk of dying from cancers,” wrote Dr. Hal Morganstern, director of the UCLA study. “We found the effect of radiation exposure was six to eight times greater in our study than extrapolated from the results of the A-bomb survivors study.”
Report of the Advisory Panel Co-chairs summarizing the worker chemical study
Report of the Advisory Panel summarizing the worker radiation study
Offsite studies
FAIREWINDS ENERGY EDUCATION, 2021: Radioactive Microparticles related to the Woolsey Fire in Simi Valley found radioactive contamination in soil and ash samples to the limits of the study; nine miles away.
ALI TABIDIAN, PH.D. 2006: Migration of SSFL Perchlorate Contamination Offsite
VENTURA COUNTY SUPERVISOR LINDA PARKS, 2004: Two Mile Testing Requirement proposed to require developments located within a 2-mile radius of a present or former rocket test site to perform soil and water tests for perchlorate and trichloroethylene (TCE), among other contaminants and substances.
LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY, 2014: Potential for Offsite Exposures Presentation Shows areas surrounding the lab that are at high-risk area from SSFL contamination.
UCLA, 2006: Potential for Offsite Exposures Associated with Santa Susana Field Laboratory studied the potential exposure pathways and investigated how contaminants might migrate from the Santa Susana Field Laboratory to nearby communities.
water Studies
COMMITTEE TO BRIDGE THE GAP, 2006: Radioactive Contamination of Water at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory zeroes in on radioactive tritium, or “heavy water,” which moves through water faster than any other radionuclide and can’t be filtered out.
2010 DTSC: Memo Regarding TCE
For SSFL Quarterly water quality reports, please see Data.
NOTE: SSFL INDependent Studies
These studies were conducted independently of Boeing, NASA, or the Department of Energy’s influence. The studies on this page were done by scientists with high ethical standards and reputations for excellence in their relative fields and were created with transparent practices and best-technology methodologies.
Despite this, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the SSFL’s regulating agency, has rejected these studies as they contradict the conclusions by Boeing, NASA, and the Dept. of Energy’s paid-for-science Studies. The DTSC rigidly maintains that “Contamination from the SSFL does not come offsite in amounts that could cause harm,” a conclusion that protects them from the consequences of the irrevocable damage they have caused to the environment, people, water, and the wildlife near the site.