What Really Happened When Santa Susana's Nuclear Reactor Overheated
Written by Chris Rowe, OurLA.org Writer   
Wednesday, 29 July 2009 06:04

Editor's Note: The nation's first nuclear reactor to generate electricity went into operation in 1957 at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory in the Simi Hills above Chatsworth with great fanfare including a report by Edward R. Murrow on "See It Now." Two years later, in July 1959, something went wrong and the reactor overheated and was shut down -- giving birth to the belief that a major meltdown had occurred and exposed a wide area in Simi Valley and the San Fernando Valley to dangerous levels of radiation. Fifty years later, questions about what happened still haunt the cleanup of Santa Susana where rocket and nuclear research was conducted for decades, and still fuel controversy and fear. Nearly three years ago, West Hills resident Chris Rowe got concerned about what she was hearing and started asking questions and getting involved. In the last two two years, she tracked down more than 20 engineers, scientists and staff who worked for North American Aviation at the Santa Susana Field Lab, including about 10 who were on the Sodium Reactor team and had never discussed their experience publicly before. She reviewed thousands of pages of documents, which she shared with her sources, and wrote this story with their collaboration from their perspective as an open letter to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
 
As former employees of North American Aviation (NAA), we would like to set the record straight on an issue called the "Sodium Reactor Experiment" also known as the SRE. Atomics International was the division within NAA that was doing reactor research and development for domestic purposes.

We believe that the anniversary that should be celebrated is that in November 1957, the "Sodium Reactor Experiment" went online as the first domestic use of nuclear energy to generate power to supply the community of Moorpark, California.
 
This event was not a secret - in fact it was celebrated by the late Edward R. Murrow" who broadcasted this event to the world on his program: "See It Now".
 
The promotional brochure for the Sodium Reactor Experiment can be found here:
 
Each of us at some time was employed by North American Aviation in various positions -with various levels of education and training including PhDs in Nuclear Engineering, nuclear physicists, chemical engineers, reactor operators, metallurgical engineers, and electrical engineers.

We have recently read media accounts that the "Sodium Reactor Experiment" is being called a "meltdown". At most, the Department of Energy refers to it as a "partial meltdown". It was really the partial decladding of 13 of 43 fuel rods.

This document has become a collaboration based on the memories of numerous former  SRE and other Atomics International employees that have knowledge of the practices of the day at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory and other facilities within North American Aviation.

We believe that the documents speak for themselves. We would like to point out that this document - "SRE Fuel Damage Interim Report"  November 1959, states that an Ad Hoc committee was created on July 29, 1959.

American Aviation Vice President Dr. Sidney Siegel requested that Joe Lundholm (now PhD) Chair this Ad Hoc Committee on the SRE. Dr. Lundholm spent about 80% of his time over the course of the next year involved in meetings and writing reports on the SRE. He held these meetings in the conference room of the SRE building with the Ad Hoc Committee members and the Group Leader in charge of the SRE. This conference room was upstairs with the offices of the engineers and secretaries.

Some former employees including Dr. Lundholm and physicists and engineers, operators that were there at this time have reviewed the Interim Report and other documents.

We find that the report called the "Daniel Report" to be as close as we can remember to what occurred at that time at the SRE. There is only one error that was noted in that report- the offices were above the control room - not downstairs.

The media has said that this was an "uncontained facility" unlike a "traditional domed facility" of today. This is true - but there was no need for a "traditional domed facility" because this was not a "Water Cooled Reactor" - a reactor which could be damaged by a steam explosion.   Sodium was chosen as the coolant because of the higher operating temperature, low pressure and no chance of a coolant explosion.  The "Sodium Reactor Experiment" or SRE was a 20 MW (thermal) reactor. This was a small reactor in today's energy terms. If you would compare 20 MW today to something of your understanding, 20 MW is about the amount of energy produced by wind power in the current Assembly Bill 1106 (Fuentes / Ruskin):

This bill is of course related to "feed in tariffs" , but it shows the energy needs of California today just as the State was looking to its energy needs more than 50 years ago

Living today are many Atomic International et al employees who were involved in every aspect of the "Sodium Reactor Experiment". They include Dr. Joe Lundholm and Dr. Allen Jarrett from the Ad Hoc Committee.
 
Bud Conners was a construction engineer that was responsible for the construction of the reactor and installation of the assembly for the SRE. He would later go on to be the Program Manager in charge of the decommissioning of nuclear facilities, and he was the Program Manager for the SRE after it was decommissioned.
 
Bob Campbell PhD was the physicist in charge of making the reactor go "critical" - getting it up to an energy level so that it could produce the power necessary to connect with a steam generator owned by Edison. This generator in turn, would, produce the energy that would be sent to Moorpark.
 
The SRE as you would enter it would appear as a "large factory room - 50 - 60 feet" high known as the "high bay". This room needed to be this high to accommodate a large crane.  The control and instrumentation room was in the low bay section of the building, adjacent to the high bay. Engineering and administrative offices were on the 2nd floor of the low bay section.  This is significant because this structure was not considered contaminated enough to require evacuation by its employees. Dale Johnson, operation manager and Jim Owens, test and experiments manager and their secretaries, were located here.
 
Jim Owens was in and out of this office - he was also involved with the planning for  another sodium cooled reactor that would go online in the early 1960's - the Hallam Nuclear Power Facility, located in Hallam, Nebraska. Several employees of Atomics International located at the De Soto facility (the headquarters for North American Aviation - the parent company of Atomics International) and the Santa Susana Field Lab, worked on various sodium cooled reactors at the same time.
 
A series of "Runs" or outputs of energy had occurred during this time period. A power excursion occurred. On July 13, 1959, for some reason, the systems detected that there was radioactivity in the system after "Run 14". The reactor operator manually shut the reactor down for about two hours.  This manual shutdown is called a "scram". The operator on duty at the time could not determine that there were any problems within the reactor itself. Someone made the decision to go back online. And over the next two week period, the temperature of the reactor was inconsistent. The decision was made to shut down the reactor for further study.
 
It was not until the reactor was shut down and cooled down briefly (reactors do not become instantly cold - they take weeks to cool) that the reactor employees could view the reactor core itself.
 
At no time were any employees or any community members in any danger. Atomics International workers wore dosimeters to monitor their exposure to radiation. They also wore film badges that were checked on a monthly basis. There was always a health physicist present. In fact, some employees remember that areas that had already been checked for leaks and found to be clean were often rechecked by health physicists.
 
In looking into the core, it was determined that the cladding on 13 of 43 fuel rods had melted. This cladding was a steel material that combined with the uranium fuel. It was later learned that this combination - iron and uranium eutectic (an alloy) - would lower the melting point of this combination as opposed to the melting point of uranium alone. The normal melting point of uranium is 2070 degrees F.

The eutectic material melted at 1337 degrees F.

"Only very limited melting of an iron-uranium eutectic (alloy) occurred, causing failure of the steel cladding."

John Walters was an engineer that was in charge of running experiments at the SRE. He was there during the time frame of the incident. He recalls that there was no radiation detected in the building itself, and that he stayed there with his employees while the fuel rods were being retrieved. Some of the cladding material had melted on the bottom of the cans. Special tools were designed to retrieve the fuel rods. Some had become brittle and snapped. Others had to be twisted and pulled out.
 
At no time did the reactor building become contaminated with any significant level of radiation. If any radioactive particles had fallen off these broken materials during the time of retrieval, the floor was mopped up with absorbent pads.
 
At all times that these activities were occurring the appropriate safety methods were in place according to AEC guidelines. Again, health physicists were monitoring.
 
Jim Owens had a window in his office that was above the reactor control room. That window that looked out over the reactor core, and it had a view of the crane. He recalls that when the crane stopped, that meant that activity had stopped. He recalls going down those steps more than once to ask why the crane had stopped.
 
The reactor itself was beneath the floor of the high bay with openings in the top of the reactor vessel. The fuel handling machine would move over the ports in the reactor top shield. A grappling tool would grip the top of the fuel element shield plug and withdraw the fuel element into the lead shielded fuel handling machine.  A new fuel element would then be inserted into the reactor.  This was a closed system. The Fuel handling machine would then move to another position on the floor of the high bay. There it would insert the fuel element down to the hot lab below. There the fuel rod could be examined through a glass shield to determine its condition.
 
The radioactive material of concern was the fission products produced in the uranium fuel.  The sodium was slightly irradiated by interaction with the neutrons. The half life of irradiated Sodium 24 is 15 hours. This sodium was kept in holding tanks until the radiation decayed.
 
According to reactor specialist Dr. Jerry Christian who has reviewed the "Sodium Reactor Experiment" documents and the other reports produced by other physicists that have reviewed the SRE, he has concluded that:

"Approximately 1% of the iodine-131 (16 curies) was released from the fuel into the sodium coolant in the reactor core. It then formed sodium iodide, a solid, and stayed in the reactor coolant system.
  Approximately 1% of cesium-137 (28 curies) was released from the fuel into the sodium coolant in the reactor core, and all of this cesium-137 stayed in the reactor coolant system.
 Measurements of the reactor cover gas indicated only noble gases (xenon-133 and krypton-85) were present.  No iodine-131 or cesium-137 was detected in the cover gas, which is contrary to the alleged pathway for release through the stack, as theorized by the Lochbaum Report.

Only very limited quantities of noble gases (xenon-133 and krypton-85) were released to the environment from the stack."

All reactor experiments were reviewed by a safety analysis committee. The Ad Hoc Committee formed for the SRE included: At least two of the members of this team have been interviewed for this letter.

Why are we employees revealing ourselves today? We have heard the media reports recently that have taken what we have achieved for science - the safe domestic use of nuclear energy, and made it into a "worst case scenario" for the "Sodium Reactor Experiment".

The SRE had a "hand and foot" monitor that employees utilized on exiting the building. Only one time did this sensor alarm.  Investigation determined that the radiation was outside the building, fallout from a Russian nuclear test.

All Atomics International facilities had reverse ventilation systems in place to prevent the release of contaminants. There were HEPA filters in place. And all Atomic International facilities had air monitors spaced to at least 10 miles from the site.

The activists that discuss the SRE have no real understanding of how the SRE worked. They make statements that "radioactive furniture and documents" were put outside to "cool off'. Radionuclides do not "cool off" due to any exposure to weather. The only way for radionuclides to become less radioactive is by time - their half lives.

Atomics International and its affiliates had a good employee health system. There were annual physicals which included chest x-rays, urinalyses, and blood tests. In fact it has been stated that that Atomics International employees were healthier than other residents in the area due to this annual examination.

Of the more than 20 employees that have been a part of the recent discussion on the SRE to compile this document, none have any health problems that they attribute to working at the Santa Susana Field Lab or any other Atomics International facilities. The age of these employees ranges from the mid 70's to the late 80's. Three have had prostate cancer which they do not attribute to their work at any of these facilities.

The expected risk of prostate cancer is one in six in a normal life time. "About 80% of the men who reach 80 have prostate cancer". "About two thirds of all prostate cancers are diagnosed in men age of 65 and older."

We believe that the activists in the community are creating alarm. Our friends are being frightened by media reports on the SRE. We want you to know that we had the most exposures to the SRE, or we worked at the SSFL at some point before, during, or after the SRE incident. We are alive and healthy today, and we do not believe that anyone has any health problems that can be attributed to the "Sodium Reactor Experiment".

We are those Atomics International and North American Aviation employees that brought the Sodium Reactor Experiment online. This facility - while shut down for about a year - had a second core inserted. The reactor went back online until 1964. Some of us worked on the SNAP reactors, others worked on the Hallam Reactor, and others of us worked on other "reactor experiments". If the SRE was as contaminated as the activists claim, the SRE could not have been safely repaired and gone back online. The Ad Hoc Committee and other engineers and physicists would not have continued to work in this facility if they felt that there was any health risk in doing so.

The SRE was decommissioned beginning in 1974. It was independently reviewed by Argonne National Lab in 1984. It was released by the DOE for unrestricted use in September 1985.

"The SRE structure was torn down in 1999."

"In the summer and fall of 2000, the SRE septic tank, leachfield and associated drainage pipes were excavated. Radiological sampling was performed. All radiological measurements of the SRE septic tank, leachfield and surrounds displayed either background levels of radioactivity or levels that were well below the DOE and DHS approved soil cleanup standards."

"In 2001, soil sampling was conducted at SRE for areas that were being planned for excavation as part of the RCRA (chemical cleanup) corrective action effort. No elevated radioactivity levels were found in the area proposed for excavation, but elevated levels were found in two distinct locations in a drainage ditch north and west of the former location of Building 4143. The areas were remediated and resurveyed and shown to be below cleanup standards."

"In 2001, the DHS conducted soil sampling a t the location of elevated soil mercury levels east of the prior SRE location. All radionuclide concentrations met the site-wide release criteria"

We believe that it was very difficult to keep a secret "on the hill". The idea that this site was covered up is hard to imagine.

One employee, Bill Littleton recalls spending a day with reporters for "The Mirror", and the "Valley Green Sheet" - which was later to become the "Los Angeles Daily News.  A news clip reporting this incident is found here from August 1959:

Photos of the SRE facility are shown on that link as well.

But what can be more telling of the safety of the SRE than having Mayor Sam Yorty of Los Angeles at its controls in 1963. "Mayor Sam" was given the "Honorary Title" of Nuclear Reactor Operator".

If we can answer any further questions on this site, some of us will be glad to do so. Others find that our ages prevent further involvement. We request that our names and contact information be kept confidential with respect for our ages and for our families.

Thank you.

July 29, 2009

Comments (36)
  • Albert Saur  - Meltdown is in the eye of the beholder
    What happened at the SRE more than 50 years ago involved damage to some of the fuel elements. The cause was a flaw in the design of the cooling system which allowed lubricating oil to leak past rotating seals into the liquid sodium coolant. The oil reacted with the sodium to from solid chunks or clots that reduced or stopped the coolant flow to some of the fuel elements. The tubes containing the fuel elements and other "permanent" structures of the reactor were not harmed and were used for new fuel when the reactor was started up again. To my mind, that even did not constitute a "melt-down." Indeed, it was just the sort of event that one should expect when operating a prototype device to test it for operating performance. It was a useful learning experience and led to a change in the design of the reactor. The term "melt-down" is a pejorative term. It suggests that some terrible thing happened and that the persons and institutions responsible should be put on trial for recklessly causing harm to the public. What happened at the SRE is not comparable to what happened at Chernobyl or Three Mile Island.
  • Guest User  - Chris
    This is a red herring, perhaps the SRE partial meltdown wasn't the most horrible thing that happened at SSFL. The burning of radioactive and other toxic waste in the open air is inexcusable. Maybe the meltdown didn't cause serious contamination. The open air pit where they burned the sodium off of reactor parts to clean them sure as hell did. Not to mention the open air rocket tests at SSFL. The facility was built prior to the (sub)urbanization of the valley so that they could conduct experiments safely [i]away[/i]from populated areas. So sure maybe the SRE wasn't that bad but to try and excuse what happened at SSFL by saying so is absurd. It's like telling the police that your knife didn't kill someone after you shot them six times in the chest.
  • Citizen Reader
    This article willfully Ignores so much site, government, corporate, and scientific evidence of historical Meltdown events and contemporary conditions - its beyond a writer's opinion and into ethically questionable and misleading revisionism. The Meltdown is classified by qualified Scientists as the 3rd worst in our Earth's history. The author's blind spot fits beside Holocaust and Global Warming denials. Shameful.
  • Citizen Reader
    This article willfully Ignores so much site, government, corporate, and scientific evidence of historical Meltdown events and contemporary conditions - its beyond a writer's opinion and into ethically questionable and misleading revisionism. The Meltdown is classified by qualified Scientists as the 3rd worst in our Earth's history. The author's blind spot fits beside Holocaust and Global Warming denials[color=#808080][/color][color=#000000][/color]. Shameful.
  • Guest User
    I know - I read all about it in today's Daily News. The headline reads that the activists have won! I am not sure about winning in a situation like this. But if I am 88, then an awful lot of "victims" are still alive and many older than I. Fifty years ago is fifty years after all. I told what happened to me. I really don't have any thing to do with winning or losing. That ball is in someone else's court. Teddy Howell
  • John1030  - Cheap viagra
    Very nice site!
  • teddy howell
    Quote(26) Re: 2009-08-01 15:31:43 SHOCKED that you would share that story now, where were you when the incident happened? Why didn't you file it with the police? Get your head out of the sand or whereever.... I want you all to know that I did not just go about my life. I have been very involved with this issue. This is my neighborhood. I went home and wrote a letter to the state officials conducting the investigation and also to Centex and received acknowledgements from both entities. That is why they did investigate the alarmists concerns of Dayton Creek, Orcutt Park, Justice Street School and Pomelo School. They also found their records that a previous assay of Dayton Creek showed NO EVIDENCE OF PERCHLORATE until after the unconscionable "planting" of evidence. I accept your apology, sir or madam. Teddy Howell
  • christina Walsh  - Re:
    Indeed, the E in SRE stood for experiment, which is why it is so ridiculous to prefer to pretend nothing ever went wrong when they were testing different cladding material to make more of the nuclear fuel they were using. 33 Uranium fires....how were those contained? How can we learn from these accidents to prevent the risk of repetition if we keep pretending nothing happened? Erasing history doesn't make it go away, especially with the half life of so many of these constituents being much longer than the human lifetime. SHouldn't we be think about future generations? It would seem that many of the people at the time, for example these twenty referred to by Rowe, did not think about the people that would follow, and that is what brings us to the place we find ourselves in today. With all the evidence of dumping, burning, and burying practices of our past, can we really afford to shut our eyes in the name of Rowe's twenty invisible scientists who don't even have enough faith in their own words to speak for themselves? Hiding behind the curtain of denial doesn't get us anywhere when it comes to making the place safer, and less of a health hazard to the people below. [quote=Guest User]The antinuclear activists have put a lot of time and effort into spinning a tale about the Sodium Reactor Experiment(SRE) based on misunderstandings about science and scientific thinking. They have spent so much time and effort that they might be suffering from cognitive dissonance. New facts that do not fit the tale are automatically discarded even though they may be suspected to be valid. The people who bring forward these new ideas and facts are attached often with contrived conspiracy theories. The activists have come up with the "sound bite" that the SRE incident released 260 times more radioactive iodine-131 than was released as a result of the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. An article in the July 12,2009 Ventura County Star based on an interview with a physicist(Jan Beyea)who originally believed that major health problems arose as a result of the SSFL accident in question,now believes that this was most likely not the case. When he made his original conclusions he did not have certain important data. That data has now been supplied. An estimated 15 curies of radioactive iodine-131 was released at Three Mile Island and Beyea says it is possible that more than 15 curies was released from the SRE incident, but he concludes that in NEITHER case would these accidents have caused widespread health problems. Certainly,the SRE incident was not 260 times more of anything than the Three Mile Island accident. You can see the Ventura Star article at their website. It is called "Data fuzzy on severity of two U.S. accidents" by Theresa Rochester. Chris Rowe is to be congratulated for finding and interviewing the scientists who were actually there at the time of the SRE incident. Although many of the activists are perhaps sincere in their belief that the SRE accident caused health problems, one wonders what the motivations of some of the activists really are (at least one of them supposedly makes a very good living off the activism and has numerous followers). Certainly, the SSFL site is highly contaminated from decades of rocket testing and numerous other experiments and test. However, the 1959 SRE accident was not,based on known data, the worst nuclear accident in the U.S. or even a particular notable one except in what was learned from it. The E in SRE stands for experiment. [/quote]
  • Guest User
    let's not forget that Chris Rowe is also the person that made a claim that by sitting on a rock at the neighboring park, her rear-end became irradiated. The photograph she took of her own arse, was then shown to her doctor because the red mark was gone by the time she got there, yet she could not be convinced that it could possibly have been a pressure mark from sitting for three hours and still claimed that the red mark MUST HAVE COME FROM RADIATION and insisted on rad sampling of the park...and here she is now claiming the opposite. Which is it, Chris? What are you gonna say next, to get attention???
  • Guest User  - Re: Truth
    Arjun's report was sealed by the court because it cost them a $30million dollar settlement. Even for Boeing, that doesn't look good with shareholders. It was not debunked. If 13 fuel rods were melted to some degree, they were compromised. We do not know how much got out because the readings went off-scale. That doesn't mean you can assume it was only 1% when you have no idea how much got out from each rod. The one that was stuck for several days, probably emitted more than the ones that were more easily pulled out and into the transloader coffin. There were also several mis-haps during this process including contaminating the entire high-bay area. OPEN YOUR EYES!!! [quote=Guest User]Chris Rowe deserves the community's thanks for having the courage to tell the truth about the SRE accident, and subject herself to the hatemail from those who continue to believe the fantasy that the accident led to large airborne offsite doses. All of the credible analyses and data support the conclusion that there were no offsite health consequences from the accident. The fact that 20 former AI employees in their 70s and 80s do not want to expose themselves to the same hatred shown towards Chris should surprise no one. They have already been called liars, because the only former AI employee telling the truth is John Pace, an inexperienced trainee at the time of the accident. The meltdown propagandists want you to believe that Arjun Makhijani wrote the BEIR VII report. Actually he did write the committee a letter, but even you and I can do that. His report was thoroughly debunked and is worthless. As far as the amount of melting that occurred, any high school graduate can assure herself that the maximum amount of fuel that could have melted is on the order of 1%, not 30%. No one disagrees with the fact that the temperature never exceeded the melting point of the uranium fuel, and that a low-melting point uranium steel eutectic was formed in the hottest parts of the 13 fuel rods that were damaged. From calculating the maximum amount of uranium that would form in the eutectic composition with the existing steel you will find a number about 1% of the total uranium in the core. If the metal fuel did not melt, then no cesium or iodine got out of the 99% of the unmelted fuel.[/quote]
  • Guest User  - Re:
    SHOCKED that you would share that story now, where were you when the incident happened? Why didn't you file it with the police? Get your head out of the sand or whereever....[quote=teddy howell]It is getting obvious to me that the people who are completely convinced that stirring up all that soil on that mountain, filling up trucks, covering trucks after all the so-called deadly isotopes have been churned up and have settled all over the neighborhoods involved is the right thing to do. What???? Are you trying to blackmail someone? My husband worked for Hughes. Not Rocketdyne. Not Boeing. My children went to Justice Street School and are perfectly healthy. I live almost across the street from Orcutt Park. The year before perchlorate was "discovered" on the banks of Dayton Creek, my rain guage recorded more than 53 inches of rain! Enough rain to wash a gallon of perchlorate off that bank and into the spillway. Yes, I witnessed the dark-haired woman carrying a gallon of something onto the Centex property while her car was parked on the curb just north of Schoenborne Street on Valley Circle. Interestingly, I did my business in Chatsworth and got to that corner just as she was coming across the property and stood there knocking the dirt off her shoes, and the gallon white-colored bottle was hanging loosely in the other hand. The very next meeting at DeVry's auditorium I attended, there they were asking for further proof that Pomelo School, Justice Street School and Orcutt Park be searched for perchlorate!!! After many, many children, home-owners and employees and 50 years.[/quote]
  • christina walsh
    I am further offended by your insinuation that making a living at cleaning up toxic problems in communities is something to be ashamed of. Too bad more people don't take these issues more seriously. I make ZERO dollars at my efforts to get this clean-up right, and have spent more of my personal financial resources on educating the public and the regulators at this site, than I care to admit. The idea that environmental advocacy is seen as a negative in your eyes, tells us a lot about your priorities. Instead of attacking our intentions and our character which you know nothing about, how about actually talking point by point on the issues? Then again, you and Rowe only know how to attack and deny and blame...What ever happened to responsibility? Why can't we look at what needs to be done today, and consider that for once? After the John Pace interview with EPA, Rowe attacked him, said he was nothing more than a janitor, and claimed that we "led his words" How about actually considering the possibility of the many accidents that did occur, and how to best deal with them today. Rowe et al, it's time to take the blinders off and take responsibility for what happened, and continued to happen year after year when they burned toxic waste under the cover of nightfall and ventura county burn days. Saying that something went wrong is not to say that the workers should be blamed, and I just wish you all could see that. No one is blaming but YOU!!! Personally I don't care which was worst (between TMI and SSFL), it doesn't matter. What matters is this continued fantasy that we can sweep it under the rug again. Nothing will get accomplished by doing that. Grow up!
  • christina walsh
    I am further offended by your insinuation that making a living at cleaning up toxic problems in communities is something to be ashamed of. Too bad more people don't take these issues more seriously. I make ZERO dollars at my efforts to get this clean-up right, and have spent more of my personal financial resources on educating the public and the regulators at this site, than I care to admit. The idea that environmental advocacy is seen as a negative in your eyes, tells us a lot about your priorities. Instead of attacking our intentions and our character which you know nothing about, how about actually talking point by point on the issues? Then again, you and Rowe only know how to attack and deny and blame...What ever happened to responsibility? Why can't we look at what needs to be done today, and consider that for once? After the John Pace interview with EPA, Rowe attacked him, said he was nothing more than a janitor, and claimed that we "led his words" How about actually considering the possibility of the many accidents that did occur, and how to best deal with them today. Rowe et al, it's time to take the blinders off and take responsibility for what happened, and continued to happen year after year when they burned toxic waste under the cover of nightfall and ventura county burn days. Saying that something went wrong is not to say that the workers should be blamed, and I just wish you all could see that. No one is blaming but YOU!!! Personally I don't care which was worst (between TMI and SSFL), it doesn't matter. What matters is this continued fantasy that we can sweep it under the rug again. Nothing will get accomplished by doing that. Grow up!
  • christina walsh
    I am further offended by your insinuation that making a living at cleaning up toxic problems in communities is something to be ashamed of. Too bad more people don't take these issues more seriously. I make ZERO dollars at my efforts to get this clean-up right, and have spent more of my personal financial resources on educating the public and the regulators at this site, than I care to admit. The idea that environmental advocacy is seen as a negative in your eyes, tells us a lot about your priorities. Instead of attacking our intentions and our character which you know nothing about, how about actually talking point by point on the issues? Then again, you and Rowe only know how to attack and deny and blame...What ever happened to responsibility? Why can't we look at what needs to be done today, and consider that for once? After the John Pace interview with EPA, Rowe attacked him, said he was nothing more than a janitor, and claimed that we "led his words" How about actually considering the possibility of the many accidents that did occur, and how to best deal with them today. Rowe et al, it's time to take the blinders off and take responsibility for what happened, and continued to happen year after year when they burned toxic waste under the cover of nightfall and ventura county burn days. Saying that something went wrong is not to say that the workers should be blamed, and I just wish you all could see that. No one is blaming but YOU!!! Personally I don't care which was worst (between TMI and SSFL), it doesn't matter. What matters is this continued fantasy that we can sweep it under the rug again. Nothing will get accomplished by doing that. Grow up!
  • christina walsh
    for your information, Ms. Rowe has spent the last two years slandering us at every level of government. Now to deny the facts in the name of 20 people who won't come forward, is a huge dis-service to all worked and were impacted by the site. We also do not wish to focus on the single event in 1959, while catastrophic, it was only one of many. We are focused on the clean-up and finding the contaminants that threaten the health of the surrounding communities. Saying nothing happened is no way to accomplish that. Attacking workers who come forward with real and important recollections of events that include dumping, burying and burning contaminants are a crucial part of getting the clean-up right. Ms. Rowe has made an effort to dis-credit all who speak of those incidents. These events must be acknowledged and understood if we are to properly remove the contamination at the site. It makes more sense to be specific and not remove what doesn't need to be removed. But to deny these accidents, mis-haps and spills, is to stick our heads in the sand again after fifty years. Haven't we done enough of that? We need to be grown-ups and deal with these very real problems, and this effort to ease the guilty consciences of workers who would rather believe that pouring toxins down the streambeds resulted in no problems, than take responsibility and agree that we need to OPEN OUR EYES now, not close them and pretend.
  • teddy howell
    It is getting obvious to me that the people who are completely convinced that stirring up all that soil on that mountain, filling up trucks, covering trucks after all the so-called deadly isotopes have been churned up and have settled all over the neighborhoods involved is the right thing to do. What???? Are you trying to blackmail someone? My husband worked for Hughes. Not Rocketdyne. Not Boeing. My children went to Justice Street School and are perfectly healthy. I live almost across the street from Orcutt Park. The year before perchlorate was "discovered" on the banks of Dayton Creek, my rain guage recorded more than 53 inches of rain! Enough rain to wash a gallon of perchlorate off that bank and into the spillway. Yes, I witnessed the dark-haired woman carrying a gallon of something onto the Centex property while her car was parked on the curb just north of Schoenborne Street on Valley Circle. Interestingly, I did my business in Chatsworth and got to that corner just as she was coming across the property and stood there knocking the dirt off her shoes, and the gallon white-colored bottle was hanging loosely in the other hand. The very next meeting at DeVry's auditorium I attended, there they were asking for further proof that Pomelo School, Justice Street School and Orcutt Park be searched for perchlorate!!! After many, many children, home-owners and employees and 50 years.
  • Guest User
    The antinuclear activists have put a lot of time and effort into spinning a tale about the Sodium Reactor Experiment(SRE) based on misunderstandings about science and scientific thinking. They have spent so much time and effort that they might be suffering from cognitive dissonance. New facts that do not fit the tale are automatically discarded even though they may be suspected to be valid. The people who bring forward these new ideas and facts are attached often with contrived conspiracy theories. The activists have come up with the "sound bite" that the SRE incident released 260 times more radioactive iodine-131 than was released as a result of the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. An article in the July 12,2009 Ventura County Star based on an interview with a physicist(Jan Beyea)who originally believed that major health problems arose as a result of the SSFL accident in question,now believes that this was most likely not the case. When he made his original conclusions he did not have certain important data. That data has now been supplied. An estimated 15 curies of radioactive iodine-131 was released at Three Mile Island and Beyea says it is possible that more than 15 curies was released from the SRE incident, but he concludes that in NEITHER case would these accidents have caused widespread health problems. Certainly,the SRE incident was not 260 times more of anything than the Three Mile Island accident. You can see the Ventura Star article at their website. It is called "Data fuzzy on severity of two U.S. accidents" by Theresa Rochester. Chris Rowe is to be congratulated for finding and interviewing the scientists who were actually there at the time of the SRE incident. Although many of the activists are perhaps sincere in their belief that the SRE accident caused health problems, one wonders what the motivations of some of the activists really are (at least one of them supposedly makes a very good living off the activism and has numerous followers). Certainly, the SSFL site is highly contaminated from decades of rocket testing and numerous other experiments and test. However, the 1959 SRE accident was not,based on known data, the worst nuclear accident in the U.S. or even a particular notable one except in what was learned from it. The E in SRE stands for experiment.
  • Guest User  - another continuation
    Certainly, the SRE incident was not 260 times more of anything than the Three Mile Island accident. You can see the Ventura County Star article ("Data fuzzy on severity of two U.S. accidents") by Theresa Rochester on their website. Chris Rowe is to be congratulated for finding and interviewing the scientists who were actually there at the time of the SRE incident. Although many of the activists are perhaps sincere in their belief that the SRE accident caused health problems, one wonders what the motivations of some of the activists really are (at least one of them supposedly makes a very good living off the activism and has numerous followers). Certainly, the SSFL site is highly contaminated from decades of rocket testing and numerous other experiments and test. However, the 1959 SRE accident was not, based on known data, the worst nuclear accident in the U.S. or even a particular notable one except in what was learned from it. The E in SRE stands for experiment.
  • Guest User  - continuation of last comment
    An article in the July 12, 2009 Ventura Count Star based on an interview with a physicist (Jan Beyea) who originally believed that major health problems arose as a result of the SSFL accident in question, now believes that this was most likely not the case. When he made his original conclusions he did not have certain important data. That data has now been supplied. An estimated 15 curies of radioactive iodine-131 was released at Three Mile Island and Beyea says it is possible that more than 15 curies was released from the SRE incident, but he concludes that in NEITHER case would these accidents have caused widespread health problems.
  • Guest User  - Cognitive Dissonance
    The antinuclear activists have put a lot of time and effort into spinning a tale about the Sodium Reactor Experiment (SRE) based on misunderstandings about science and scientific thinking. They have spent so much time and effort that they might be suffering from cognitive dissonance. New facts that do not fit the tale are automatically discarded even though they may be suspected to be valid. The people who bring forward these new ideas and facts are attached often with contrived conspiracy theories. The activists have come up with the "sound bite" that the SRE incident released 260 times more radioactive idodine-131 than was released as a result of the Three Mile Island accident in 1979.
  • Guest User  - Truth
    Chris Rowe deserves the community's thanks for having the courage to tell the truth about the SRE accident, and subject herself to the hatemail from those who continue to believe the fantasy that the accident led to large airborne offsite doses. All of the credible analyses and data support the conclusion that there were no offsite health consequences from the accident. The fact that 20 former AI employees in their 70s and 80s do not want to expose themselves to the same hatred shown towards Chris should surprise no one. They have already been called liars, because the only former AI employee telling the truth is John Pace, an inexperienced trainee at the time of the accident. The meltdown propagandists want you to believe that Arjun Makhijani wrote the BEIR VII report. Actually he did write the committee a letter, but even you and I can do that. His report was thoroughly debunked and is worthless. As far as the amount of melting that occurred, any high school graduate can assure herself that the maximum amount of fuel that could have melted is on the order of 1%, not 30%. No one disagrees with the fact that the temperature never exceeded the melting point of the uranium fuel, and that a low-melting point uranium steel eutectic was formed in the hottest parts of the 13 fuel rods that were damaged. From calculating the maximum amount of uranium that would form in the eutectic composition with the existing steel you will find a number about 1% of the total uranium in the core. If the metal fuel did not melt, then no cesium or iodine got out of the 99% of the unmelted fuel.
  • Meltdown indeed
    C'mon, Ron. The Daily News, under your leadership, broke this story two decades ago. Since then, you've been banging on the meltdown drum to defend all the folks in that area who got cancer. Now you're gonna let some nobody Johnny Come Lately with no credentials write an error-filled article claiming there was no meltdown? Please.
  • Meltdown indeed
    C'mon, Ron. The Daily News, under your leadership, broke this story two decades ago. Since then, you've been banging on the meltdown drum to defend all the folks in that area who got cancer. Now you're gonna let some nobody Johnny Come Lately with no credentials write an error-filled article claiming there was no meltdown? Please.
  • Albert Saur
    A lot of attention has been paid to an incident at the SRE. There were other reactors operating at SSFL at the same time. One reactor was operated as part of a program to develop reactors for use in space vehicles and other applications, mostly military. One of these reactors was known to have had a faulty coolant system and released radioactive coolant water into the ground. This leak, rather than a supposed release from SRE could be a major contributor to the radioactivity in the ground water. As far as getting in touch with former employees, Chris has done that by consulting phone books and a few people she has met who remember the names of some of the employees. In addition she has read reports written at the time by writers whose names appear as authors. It was not necessary to get lists of names from Boeing.
  • Marge
    20 unamed former Atomics Energy Workers do not a no meltdown case make! How could those workers possibly been named and contacted except thru Boeing itself? Any questions about this, folks? This, plus the fact that they declare themselves "too Old" to be contacted again, makes this a not credible hit and run report. This report therefore needs to be declared to be interesting but useless in the total picture of characterizing and cleaning up the 2850 acre Field Laboratory where the partial meltdown occurred. I guess that the problem is that the author and contributor to the report are really denying that a meltdown, partial or otherwise even occurred. This is a nice face saving manuver, but patently untrue. But just don't ask these workers any more questions. For them, it is game over....but, unfortunately not for us. The article also neglects to mention anything about the NASA rocket test stands and the 500,000 or more gallons of TCE that were used and subsequently dumped into Bell Creek and from there into the LA river. Also not mentioned were the drainage acquifer contamination issues, with that water migrating down to surrounding communities. According to these workers, nothing else happened except in that nucler reactor, and for their part,no workers ever got sick, but they are "too old" to be questioned. Please, give us a break!
  • Worker Advocate  - theaerospace.org
    In September of 2008, TheAeroSpace contacted Mr. Kaye of OurLA seeking an opportunity to shed light on several important issues surrounding Santa Susana Field Laboratory's history, current environmental controversy, and the plight of former workers who are excluded from federal benefits programs despite having worked for Department of Energy (DOE) Contractors and being diagnosed with radiological cancers and other illnesses consequential to their exposures. The intent was to increase awareness of these issues in a consistent, accurate and responsible fashion, while (hopefully) bringing attention to State officials the dire need to become involved in resolving worker issues and demanding transparency from DOE, whose documented "unofficial" existence throughout SSFL placed workers (those barred from federal programs) in significant peril. TheAeroSpace received no response from Mr. Kaye. The inaccuracy of Ms. Rowe's "article" speaks volumes with respect to where Mr. Kaye and OurLA stands on these issues, and clearly demonstrates a willingness to publish opinion and propaganda as opposed to well researched, responsible information. TheAeroSpace(dot)org
  • christina walsh
    I did not say 30% but just like the other ridiculous assumptions, you're just way off base. The release was based on how much escaped and when. They measurements could not be done at the time because the equipment went off scale because of the high radiation release at the time. The Christian Report was written to dispute the Arjun Makhijani data which was sealed by the court in the $30mil. settlement. That doesn't make the CHristian Report correct, just the only thing out there because the polluter has made sure the other data is not available. They should not be allowed to post one without the other. Arjun wrote BEIR VII so I wouldn't so quickly discount what was said in favor of the polluter. IN some of the other depositions like that of Mr. Rutherford, they use a number of 5 curies and use a reference that is misquoted, which is really 5-10thousand curies. Very different story, but you and Rowe don't want the real numbers, just the more convenient ones to peddle more denial....sad. [quote=A reader] This article is only about the accident 50 years ago at the SRE, not about other contamination at the SSFL. The person who commented from ACME, says that 13/43 (referring to the fuel rods) is not 1%. The author of the article does not say that it is. She quotes a person named Dr. Jerry Christian as concluding that: "Approximately 1% of the iodine-131 (16 curies) was released from the fuel into the sodium coolant in the reactor core. It then formed sodium iodide, a solid, and stayed in the reactor coolant system. Approximately 1% of cesium-137 (28 curies) was released from the fuel into the sodium coolant in the reactor core, and all of this cesium-137 stayed in the reactor coolant system." It does not follow that because there was a problem with 13/43 fuel rods(approximately 30% of the rods) that 30% or any percent of any chemical product was released. The release would be determined by instruments and there would be no logical or empirical reason that any release would be proportional to the number of fuel rods damaged. If people from ACME don't understant that and make the type of analysis indicated by "13/43 is not 1%"( which seems to indicate the thinking that if 30 percent of the rods were damaged,there must be a 30 percent release of the named chemical products, or at least, that 1% must be wrong), then it does not make any difference how many documents they have read. This indicates a basic misunderstanding of mathematical and scientific analysis. [/quote]
  • Susana Hill
    "But what can be more telling of the safety of the SRE than having Mayor Sam Yorty of Los Angeles at its controls in 1963. "Mayor Sam" was given the "Honorary Title" of Nuclear Reactor Operator". But of course. The ultimate test of safety. "Healthy Worker Syndrome" has been debunked as false and misleading on numerous occasions, not just in the Rocketdyne Worker Health Study. Working at SSFL was not good for one's health. Exposure to radiation has been known to cause cancer for over a century, subsequent chest X-Rays did nothing to help workers who already had been exposed to radiation, the effects of which can be cumulative over many years or even decades. Although this article claims workers have come forward, none of them are known - who are they? The reality is that the Sodium Reactor Experiment was a failed experiment. While the workers' efforts were true, no one is doubting their dedication to their jobs. However, the atomic industry at the time was in its infancy. Incidents occurred that were unpredictable (hence the term, "experiment"), and these incidents routinely mystified workers and superiors alike. Ms. Rowe is attempting to paint an idealistic portrait reminiscent of 1950's trust in authority to actually "care" - of course it is safe, the Mayor does it! I have seen cigarette ads of the era that are not much different than what is attempting to be portrayed - poorly - by this article.
  • Guest User
    I really liked Teddy Howells article, she sounds like a sweet lady. Teddy when did you stop growing grass? I bet you were a fire cracker back in '66.
  • A reader
    This article is only about the accident 50 years ago at the SRE, not about other contamination at the SSFL. The person who commented from ACME, says that 13/43 (referring to the fuel rods) is not 1%. The author of the article does not say that it is. She quotes a person named Dr. Jerry Christian as concluding that: "Approximately 1% of the iodine-131 (16 curies) was released from the fuel into the sodium coolant in the reactor core. It then formed sodium iodide, a solid, and stayed in the reactor coolant system. Approximately 1% of cesium-137 (28 curies) was released from the fuel into the sodium coolant in the reactor core, and all of this cesium-137 stayed in the reactor coolant system." It does not follow that because there was a problem with 13/43 fuel rods(approximately 30% of the rods) that 30% or any percent of any chemical product was released. The release would be determined by instruments and there would be no logical or empirical reason that any release would be proportional to the number of fuel rods damaged. If people from ACME don't understant that and make the type of analysis indicated by "13/43 is not 1%"( which seems to indicate the thinking that if 30 percent of the rods were damaged,there must be a 30 percent release of the named chemical products, or at least, that 1% must be wrong), then it does not make any difference how many documents they have read. This indicates a basic misunderstanding of mathematical and scientific analysis.
  • Guest User
    Thank God for Mr. John Pace, he is the only one left that was actually there and can tell the truth. Anyone else that can tell the truth please step forward, unless of course there is something to hide. Being 70 or 80 has nothing to do with it. Yes it may be true that some of the Atomic International employees are healthier than some of the area residents. They knew where to hide when they released their radioactive gas in the name of progress on the rest of us.
  • Worker Advocate  - theaerospace.org
    Ms. Rowe has absolutely no credibility and serves as a shill for the very industries that seek to profit from her disinformation. She ignores volumes of evidence, established scientific fact, and historical records detailing the rampant violations of environmental law that occurred at SSFL for decades. She represents a small group of homeowners from the West Valley, likely more concerned with protecting their property values than the people of West Hills. She is the prime example of the ostrich who sticks her head in the sand at the approaching predator. Nothing she says should be taken seriously, and if one truly wishes to know the truth of SSFL, one merely has to do minimal research for themselves. Ms. Rowe's meanderings disrespect the thousands of workers who dedicated their lives to the Cold War and Race to Space, many diagnosed with long-latency radiological cancers and other illnesses consequential to radiation and chemical exposure sustained during the course of their employment at Santa Susana Field Laboratory. TheAeroSpace(dot)org
  • Guest User  - ACME
    This article is disturbing in several ways. ONE She claims to be a former employee at the start of this article. Am I reading this wrong? TWO those are my photos that were stolen from my sites. The government photos are public domain, yet there are a couple that I took personally and Ms. Rowe did not get my permission to use them THREE Our LA dot org has Community Partners as their fiscal sponsor. The same sponsor that turned down a sponsorship request from ACME even though the Annenberg Funding was guaranteed this is basically denying ACME not based on if we had a budget, but based on our content. Large donations for Community Partners comes from the Boeing Co. Employees fund. FOUR These scientists, all 20 of them, will not come forth to the EPA who is asking for their help in their History Investigations of AREA IV. FIVE That her article links to sites that I built. SIX None of her PEOPLE worked at the SRE.SEVEN The DOE call it a MELTDOWN in their own April of 2009 Newsletter, Come visit ACME for the Facts. Take care William Preston Bowling Founder/Director Aerospace Cancer Museum of Education ACME 23350 Lake Manor Drive Chatsworth, California 91311
  • teddy howell
    As some one who lives on Community Street, within a quarter mile of Dayton Creek (Roscoe and Valley Circle) and moved in August 25,1966, I have witnessed some strange things with the Centex property. I am now in my eighties, do not take any medications and am active in family, church and neighborhood life. The only thing wrong with me is I am bent over when I walk and am carrying something. It is not cancer. It is too much sitting at my computer. I attended several meetings given by officials of some sort at the former Hughes site, and these meetings have not found any reason to doubt Chris Rowe's appraisal of the situation. Believe me if there were my neighborhood would have been condemned. Also, I was homemaker for a family of four kids and one dear husband. I gardened (Hort chair for West Valley Garden Club for several years, in my own yard. Right now it needs some attention (mostly a gardener not maintenance)but I am slowly getting stronger just because of my garden and pulling spent plants after they seed. I love the California Poppies, Alyssum and many other plants I grow instead of grass. I will give my opinion on this subject to anyone who asks me, because it is a phony issue that needs to be ended for once and for all.
  • Christina Walsh  - ACMELA.ORG co-founder
    This article is the biggest load of "fantasy" peddled by the latest polluter-spokesperson, Chris Rowe, who's secret group of twenty have been toting the company line for fifty years from the safe distance of their offices and their desire to un-do the actions they took fifty years ago that resulted in these impacts. Shame has a funny way of coloring our actions. The idea that editor is still interested in pretending and cover-up after all these years is extremely disappointing. Now is the time to have our eyes open and look for the contaminants that still exist at and around the site today. WHY would you make an effort to try to minimize the first real characterization effort to do this right in fifty years? Don't we deserve better? We certainly deserve better than Chris Rowe. If you were really interested in truth, you would be willing to look for the data instead of looking for opportunities of denial. Who does that serve? Burying your heads in false reports used to cover the truth for so long, is why so little clean-up action has taken place so far. If you deny, there is nothing to do. At ACMELA.ORG, we have read and researched over 10,000 documents related to the site and more than 30,000 photographs taken from both the ground and the sky by ACME, and we can assure you, there is still plenty to be cleaned up, so that those impacts do not continue to be felt by surrounding communities every time the wind blows or the rain falls. Let's not forget the 30+ uranium fires that also took place at the site, or the several other nuclear accidents that happened both at SRE and at the SNAP8ER, SNAP8DR, KEWB and AE6. Oh, and 13/43 is not 1%. We have the documents, we can show you the documents that say they burned CONTAMINATED SODIUM up to a thousand lbs per week in open air burns. Where do you think that went? Wake up, Chris Rowe and OurLA.org, and smell the plutonium! That's not emotion, that is called radioactive half-life and clearly it is not understood by the writer or editor of this article.
  • Lancet
    This is a well researched and insightful letter. Writers need to expose irrational and none scientific conclusions based on emotion or motives other than discovering the truth.
Write comment
Your Contact Details:
Comment:
Security
Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.
Last Updated on Wednesday, 13 January 2010 06:27