EPA Memo Cites Flaws in Rockwell Radiation Tests

A federal Environmental Protection Agency memo says Rockwell International for years has used faulty test methods to monitor radioactive pollution at its Santa Susana Field Laboratory west of Chatsworth, casting doubt on the accuracy of company data showing that contamination there is relatively mild.

The internal memo by an EPA radiation expert attacked Rockwell’s methods for analyzing water, soil and vegetation samples at Santa Susana, adding that he questioned “the validity of some, if not all, of their environmental data.”

Because of flawed analytical techniques, it is impossible to “guarantee that past actions have not caused off-site impacts” or that future problems will be detected before they affect off-site areas, said the eight-page memo by Gregg Dempsey, a health physicist and branch chief of the EPA’s office of radiation programs in Las Vegas.

However, Dempsey added, he found nothing that should worry the site’s neighbors.

But Dr. Richard Saxon, who heads the Los Angeles chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility, said Dempsey’s findings confirm the group’s belief that Rockwell and its customer, the U.S. Department of Energy, have failed to adequately monitor the site. Saxon’s group is fighting renewal of the nuclear materials license Rockwell needs to recycle nuclear fuel at Santa Susana for use at DOE weapons sites.

“There obviously needs to be a more massive monitoring of Santa Susana, and Rockwell should not be given a new license to operate a nuclear fuel rod recycling facility,” Saxon said.

But Dempsey stressed in an interview that flaws in the monitoring program do not translate into an immediate health risk to people near the 2,668-acre research complex in eastern Ventura County.

“I’m not getting real excited about it,” Dempsey said. “I don’t think there is a reason for a person who lives . . . nearby to be concerned” about possible dangers.

He said he based his opinion on measurements made during a July 12-13 visit to the site, which is operated by Rockwell’s Rocketdyne division.

During the visit, dosimeters--devices to measure radiation exposure--worn by EPA inspectors registered negligible radiation, the memo said. Moreover, survey instruments used by the EPA team showed radiation at or near natural background levels at most areas of the site.

EPA officials also took some soil and water samples during the visit. Some of the analyses have been concluded and “I haven’t seen anything that’s a problem” so far, Dempsey said.

Still, the memo is certain to increase pressure on Rocketdyne and the DOE to allow independent monitoring of the Santa Susana site and a wider role for regulatory agencies that have been partly excluded under provisions of the Atomic Energy Act. The state Department of Health Services recently asked the DOE for a $250,000 grant to support state monitoring at Santa Susana and other DOE sites, including Lawrence Livermore Laboratory.

Dempsey’s memo was dated July 28 but was not released until this week to give Rockwell officials a chance to respond, an EPA spokesman said.

Letter to EPA

In a Wednesday letter to the EPA, Jon T. Nagamatsu, a Rocketdyne vice president, said the firm has agreed to follow some of Dempsey’s recommendations and wants to discuss others with EPA officials.

But he said radioactivity measurements by the EPA team provide further “assurance that the site and the surrounding environment are safe for our employees and our neighboring communities.”

Much of the Santa Susana site is devoted to rocket testing and research for NASA and the Air Force. But 290 acres have been reserved for nuclear projects for the U.S. Department of Energy, including operation of 16 small nuclear reactors from the 1950s to the early 1980s and recycling of nuclear fuel for use in energy and weapons manufacturing programs. Demand for fuel recycling fizzled out, at least temporarily, in 1986. Current activity mainly involves the cleanup of soil and buildings contaminated by 30 years of nuclear work.

Rockwell officials have consistently maintained that there is no evidence that toxic or radioactive contamination has migrated off the site and that there has never been a significant release of airborne radioactivity, despite some accidents in the past.

Dempsey’s memo did not specifically challenge these assertions. But it found numerous flaws in test methods utilized by Rockwell, which generated nearly all the data used by others to evaluate the site.

“I had mixed feelings about what I saw” at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Dempsey wrote. “The staff was most cooperative and were very willing to show us everything we needed to see. They believe they are doing a good job.”

But, he said, their monitoring procedures need “updating very badly” to ensure they keep track of environmental degradation.

Specifically, the memo said:

* Santa Susana’s radiological laboratory apparently has never undergone a thorough audit or review by Rocketdyne or the Department of Energy.

A periodic review “is a common practice among good laboratories,” Dempsey said. In his letter to the EPA, Nagamatsu said Rocketdyne is taking Dempsey’s advice and hiring outside experts to review the laboratory techniques.

* Methods used to test vegetation on the site for radioactivity are seriously flawed. The firm’s written procedure calls for washing vegetation before testing, assuring that any airborne contamination that settled on the plant instead of being absorbed through the roots “is washed off before counting,” Dempsey wrote.

“I couldn’t believe it when I read this,” Dempsey said in an interview, referring to the company’s testing protocol. In addition, Rocketdyne ceased testing vegetation in 1986, Dempsey found. “I don’t understand why they stopped collecting vegetation,” he said in an interview.

Nagamatsu said in his letter that the company will work with EPA to restore vegetation testing.

* The procedure used to test soil “is a screening method at best.” It does not provide “a true representation of conditions present in the environment.”

* Rocketdyne has failed to test soil and ground water for tritium, a form of radioactive hydrogen. Dempsey said while some radioactive materials bind tightly to soil and do not readily move into ground water, tritium is more mobile and so its presence is a better indicator of potential ground-water pollution. Dempsey said that a device called a liquid scintillation counter is required to test for tritium and that he was “rather surprised” to learn Santa Susana doesn’t have one.

* Rocketdyne does not have “a good ‘handle’ on where radiation has been inadvertently or intentionally dumped on-site,” the memo said. “Most of the evidence on site spills is incompletely documented or anecdotal.” The memo recommended that consultants be hired to do aerial searches for contaminated areas. Nagamatsu said aerial searches have been done in the past and will be done in the future.

* Rocketdyne should install a meteorological tower at Santa Susana, instead of relying on data from Burbank Airport on wind patterns and other weather conditions. “It’s good data for Burbank,” Dempsey said in an interview. “It may not be good data for Rocketdyne.”

* Rocketdyne has no program for testing wildlife for possible contamination. The memo recommended that the company get permits to kill squirrels and deer near the site or analyze road kills.

The EPA’s involvement at Santa Susana followed wide publicity in May about a DOE report on chemical and radioactive contamination at Santa Susana. The EPA’s role at the site had been minimal, but Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley) demanded that the agency assess the site and coordinate oversight by a group of health and environmental agencies.

The EPA agreed to chair an interagency task force on Santa Susana. Its July visit to Santa Susana was part of a reassessment of the site under the federal Superfund program, which targets the nation’s worst toxic waste sites for priority action.

Santa Susana previously scored far too low on a hazard scale to make the Superfund list, which includes about 900 sites nationwide. The main reason was lack of evidence that residents of the comparatively sparsely populated areas around the laboratory were exposed to air, water or soil contamination. Although the reassessment is incomplete, EPA officials have said it appears the site still will not qualify for Superfund status.

Times staff writer Tracey Kaplan contributed to this story.