TIMELINE

Cleanup agreement timeline

Site timeline

CURRENT

  • 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: “Settlement Agreement” is announced between Boeing, CalEPA and Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) that will allow Boeing to leave up to 94% of it’s property contaminated with toxic chemicals.

  • 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: DTSC sent a letter to NASA on its Draft SEIS.

  • 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.

  • 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 creates a supplemental environmental statement, or SEIS. NASA lauds option “C” which will leave almost all contamination on site.

  • 2019: The Department of Energy (DOE)’s Environmental Impact Statement breaks both the NEPA and RICRA laws for not allowing residents to comment on the statement.

  • 2018: the Woolsey Fire begins at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory site.

  • 2018: DTSC rejects Boeing’s SRAM3 in early 2018. Boeing instituted a dispute resolution process, which resulted in DTSC saying it would do the residential risk assessment methodology in house. Boeing’s SRAM3, with no residential standards, has not yet been approved by the DTSC.

  • 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”

  • 2015: Los Angeles Supervisor Kuehl and elected officials send letter to former director of the DTSC, appalled by 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.

2010-2019

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.

  • 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.

  • 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 appeals court decision, in regards to the lawsuit Boeing filed in 2009 contending SB 990, does not affect the 2007 and 2010 cleanup agreements.

    • “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,” said Denise Duffield, Associate Director of Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles. “Additionally, California has authority under other, older laws unchallenged in this case to order Boeing to clean up its part of the property to the strictest standards.”

    • 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. A “background” cleanup agreement.

2000-2009

  • 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.

1990-1999

Area 1 Burn Pit was used to illegally burn hazardous waste.

  • 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.

  • 1994: Two scientists, Otto K. Heiney and Larry A. Pugh 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 to illegally storing explosive materials. The jury deadlocked on the more serious charges related to the illegal burning of hazardous waste.

  • 1993: VCAPCD Permit Emissions Data shows the chemicals Rocketdyne was allowed to burn up at the lab and how much.

  • 1990: Rocketdyne paid a $600,000 fine to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) for burning more scrap chemicals at its burn pit than its permit allowed.

Prior to 1980

One of over 30,000 rocket engine tests conducted at the SSFL

Photographic evidence of the SRE meltdown at the SSFL

  • 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.

  • 1971: A radioactive fire occurred involving combustible primary reactor coolant (NaK) contaminated with mixed fission products.

  • 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: 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: 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.