SSFL Timeline
CURRENT | 2024 - 2020 | 2019 -2015 | 2014 - 2010 | 2009 - 2000 | 1999 - 1990 | 1989 - 1980 | 1979 - 1970 | 1969 - 1960 | 1959 - 1950 | 1949 - 1940
current
For the latest news on the Santa Susana Field Lab cleanup agreements, visit our Parents Against SSFL blog.
2024 - 2020
December 2024: The Department of Energy releases a Notice of Intent to create a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the cleanup of it’s portion of the SSFL. The NOI claims that the background cleanup in it’s original state is not feasible and DOE must change cleanup values or break out of the AOC cleanup.
January 2024: The Ventura County Board of Supervisors signed a Tolling Agreement with DTSC, Boeing, Los Angeles County, and the cities of Simi Valley and Los Angeles to extend their statute of limitations to sue over the PEIR.
May 2023: Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) sets the cleanup for the entire site. Changes in final PEIR will allow most contamination to stay onsite, permanently.
June 2022: Boeing proposes a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board that would allow Boeing to pollute local waterways with contamination from the SSFL, in unlimited amounts, indefinitely.
May 5, 2022: LA County Supervisors Kuehl and Barger introduce a County motion directing LA County Counsel to work with other affected jurisdictions and nonprofits to explore potential legal action to ensure that the 2007 and 2010 agreements are carried out and a full cleanup is completed as soon as possible. The Board also directed the County’s legislative team to support legislation at the state and federal levels to ensure a full “cleanup to background” of the contaminated areas as outlined in the 2007 and 2010 Consent Orders.
May 2022: A “Settlement Agreement” is announced between Boeing, CalEPA, and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) that will allow Boeing to leave up to 94% of its property contaminated with toxic chemicals.
Committee to Bridge the Gap’s Criticism of the Settlement Agreement: Appendix A, Appendix B, Appendix Ce.
August 2022: Ventura County Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a motion to partner with Simi Valley, Los Angeles County and the city of Los Angeles to consider litigation if the long-delayed cleanup of the Santa Susana Field Lab isn't as stringent as possible.
2020: NASA issued it’s “Record of Decision,” aka ROD. It is the final step for NASA’s supplemental Environmental Statement process. Read why NASA never needed an SEIS. NASA’s ROD selects “Option C” and will leave up to 84% of their portion of the SSFL contaminated.
2020: NASA nominates all of the SSFL’s 2,850 acres to be a “Cultural District” under the National Registry of Historic Places. The City of Los Angeles sends a letter, recommending the application to be rejected.
2019 - 2015
2019: The City of Los Angeles votes “yes” on Motion 19-0145 to retain an outside law firm, to sue if the DTSC should fail to enforce the SSFL cleanup.
2019: NASA held a public meeting to showcase their Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). NASA’s oversized posters claimed there would be no difference to human health if they removed all the contamination or if they left all of the contamination.
2019: NASA determined that substantially more soil needed to be removed from its part of the site than what it estimated in the 2014 report and created a supplemental environmental statement, or SEIS. NASA lauds option “C” which will leave almost all contamination on site.
2018: The Department of Energy (DOE)’s Environmental Impact Statement breaks both the NEPA and RICRA laws for not allowing residents to comment on the EIS. Introduces Open Space as its preferred cleanup option.
2018: the Woolsey Fire begins at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory site.
2018: DTSC rejects Boeing’s (Standardized Risk Assessment Methodology) SRAM Version 3 in early 2018. Boeing instituted a dispute resolution process, which resulted in DTSC saying it would do the residential risk assessment methodology in-house.
2017: Boeing recorded a conservation easement in favor of North American Land Trust that prevents any development of the land.
2022 Reuters Special investigation details how Boeing’s easement may be a coverup to get out of the cleanup.
Limitations in the easement prevent Indigenous people from many cultural practices.
2017: Boeing submitted a proposed SRAM (Standardized Risk Assessment Methodology) Version 3, which removed the residential cleanup standards entirely.
2017: Boeing alters its cleanup standard from “Residential” to “Recreational” and sends a Letter to DTSC.
2015: Boeing submits Draft RCRA Facility Investigation Data Summary report shows that 96 out of 100 people would get cancer if they lived on parts of Boeing’s Santa Susana Field Lab with the lessened cleanup.
Read Committee to Bridge the Gap’s Report criticizing Boeing.
2015: Los Angeles Supervisor Kuehl and elected officials send a letter to the former director of the DTSC, appalled by the discovery of extraordinarily high cancer risks if Boeing were to lessen the cleanup.
2015: Boeing promises residents it will clean up the site according to a “Suburban Residential” scenario.
2015: Seven moms of children fighting cancer attend a public meeting about the Santa Susana Field Lab and realize their children are part of a pediatric cancer cluster.
2014 - 2010
Press conference for the signing of the 2010 AOC cleanup agreement includes former Ventura County Supervisor Linda Parks, Representative Julia Brownly, Representative Brand Sherman, and City Councilman Greig Smith.
2013-2104: Boeing Sues and Overturns SB 990 saying, “the panel held that SB 990 violated the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity because it regulated DOE’s cleanup activities directly in violation of the Supremacy Clause. In addition, SB 990 discriminated against the federal government and Boeing as a federal contractor hired to perform the cleanup of the Santa Susana site.” Resolved in 2014.
“The court decision has little practical effect, since a year after Boeing filed this suit, the Department of Energy (DOE) and NASA entered into legally binding cleanup agreements with California that are unaffected by the ruling,” Appellate Decision in Old Boeing Lawsuit Has No Impact on Meltdown Site Cleanup
2014: The DTSC published the SRAM (Standardized Risk Assessment Methodology) Version 2 for Boeing’s portion of the SSFL cleanup, which included measurements for how much contamination needed to be remediated in order to meet Boeing’s 2007 cleanup agreements.
2014: Potential for Offsite Exposures Presentation shows areas surrounding the lab that are at high-risk area from SSFL contamination.
2012: EPA Radiological Survey, EPA Radiological Background Study and accompanying statistical appendix found 291 soil samples with Cesium-137 contamination, 153 samples had strontium-90, as well as dangerous radionuclides such as cesium-137, plutonium-239 and tritium.
2010: DTSC Memo to Boeing regarding TCE
2010: Agreement on Consent (AOC) Cleanup agreement between DTSC, NASA and Department of Energy. Boeing does not sign. This is the “background” cleanup agreement.
2009 - 2000
2006: Local moms realized there was a pediatric cancer cluster surrounding the Santa Susana Field Lab when 11 of their children were diagnosed with rare forms of cancer, retinoblastoma.
2008: Legislature is championed by former California EPA Secretary Linda Adams. SB990 passes (Boeing sued in 2014 and overturned it). The California State Senate bill SB 990 sets the standards for the site's cleanup. Boeing contested the law (in 2009) and won the suit. Boeing claims it will clean up the site, although to levels far below those outlined in SB 990.
2007: 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.
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.
2006: Migration of SSFL Perchlorate Contamination Offsite is published.
2006: Potential for Offsite Exposures Associated with Santa Susana Field Laboratory studied the potential exposure pathways investigated how contaminants might migrate from the Santa Susana Field laboratory to nearby communities. The study was headed by Dr. Yoram Cohen, Professor of Chemical Engineering and Director of the UCLA Center for Environmental Risk Reduction.
2005: SRAM 2 was issued by Boeing in September and approved by DTSC in November 2005.
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.
2004: Report of Results Phase 1 of Northeast Investigation Area Groundwater Characterization
2007: Work Plan Phase 2 Groundwater Site Conceptual Model for the Responsible Parties Boeing, NASA and the DOE presents an approach for obtaining field data to be used in evaluating the contamination plume attenuation aspects of the groundwater site conceptual model.
2007: 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.
2007: Consent Order Cleanup Agreement signed by DTSC, Boeing, NASA, and the Department of Energy.
2006: Radioactive Contamination of Water at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory study zeroes in on radioactive tritium, or “heavy water,” which moves through water faster than any other radionuclide and can’t be filtered out.
2006: Residents sue Boeing, reach $30 million settlement and accept gag-orders, preventing them from speaking out against Boeing’s contamination going forward.
2006: An Assessment of Potential Pathways for Release of Gaseous Radioactivity Following Fuel Damage During Run 14 at the Sodium Reactor Experiment study is published.
2006: Feasibility of Developing Exposure Markers for use in Epidemiologic Studies of Radioactive Emissions from the Santa Susana Field Laboratory is published.
2006: Geologic Features and their Potential Effects on Contaminant Migration, Santa Susana Field Laboratory is published.
1999 - 1990
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.
1997: Residents of Simi Valley and West Hills sue Rocketdyne
1997: Rocketdyne Radiation Study, costing taxpayers $1.6 million dollars, studied to determine the health effects on 4,563 Rocketdyne workers. “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.”
1997: Residents of Simi Valley and West Hills sue Boeing in a class action lawsuit for cancers they believe to be caused by Santa Susana Field Lab’s contaminated water.
1996: The Boeing Company purchased Aerojet Rocketdyne Company and, with it, the Santa Susana Field Lab. They were aware of the contamination at the time.
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.
1997: Residents of Simi Valley and West Hills sue Rocketdyne
1997: Rocketdyne Radiation Study, costing taxpayers $1.6 million dollars, studied to determine the health effects on 4,563 Rocketdyne workers. “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.”
1997: Residents of Simi Valley and West Hills sue Boeing in a class action lawsuit for cancers they believe to be caused by Santa Susana Field Lab’s contaminated water.
1996: The Boeing Company purchased Aerojet Rocketdyne Company, and with it, the Santa Susana Field Lab. They were aware of the contamination at the time.
1989 - 1980
Historical photo of the Area I Burn Pit
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 joins the Los Angeles River.
1979 - 1970
1971: A radioactive fire occurred involving combustible primary reactor coolant (NaK) contaminated with mixed fission products.
1969 - 1960
1969 the SNAP8DR experienced damage to one-third of its fuel.
1964: the Sodium Reactor Experiment (SRE) was permanently shut down.
1964: The SNAP8ER experienced damage to 80% of its fuel.
1960: A radioactive pipe from a reactor was taken outdoors to be decontaminated. There, it exploded and flew off a forklift and across a ravine at the field lab.
1959 - 1950
Photographic evidence of the SRE meltdown at the SSFL
1959: Thirteen of forty-three fuel rods in the Sodium Reactor Experiment (SRE) core failed due to overheating. The extent of radioactive release could not be determined because on-site monitors went off the scale and others malfunctioned. The meltdown is estimated to have released 20x more radioactive gases than the Three Mile Island Incident. Radioactive xenon and krypton gas were slowly released into the atmosphere over the period of a year.
1959: The AE6 reactor experienced a release of fission gases that contaminated a containment room and several employees working on Reactor AE-6, after the reactor reportedly “scrammed,” or shut down automatically, upon reaching double its maximum allowable power.
1957: the Sodium Reactor Experiment (SRE) became the first nuclear reactor in the United States to produce electrical power for a commercial power grid by powering the nearby city of Moorpark.
1957: a fire in the hot cell (a shielded area so people could manipulate radioactive material without being exposed) "got out of control and …"massive contamination" resulted.
1949 - 1940
The nearby city of Moorpark was set to be America’s first nuclear powered city from power generated by the SSFL’s SRE reactor.
1949: the Atomic Energy Commission needed a site for their lab that wasn’t close to the city, a “field” lab. They knew their dangerous experiments needed to be done in an area where people wouldn’t get hurt if there was any kind of nuclear accident. They conducted a General Reactor Site Survey to pick the safest spot.
Even though the SSFL was 5th out of 6th for meteorological characteristics (the winds could blow contamination toward populated areas) it was chosen because it was closest to the universities and the scientists didn’t want to drive as far to a safer location.
1946: Rocket engine testing begins at the site.