When officials from the U.S. Department of Energy set out to produce an environmental impact statement for a portion of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory known as Area IV, they knew a different approach was necessary.

Aware that nuclear watchdog groups had already called into question previous testing done at the site as well as the involvement of the Department of Energy in the study, the federal government hired an independent technical contractor to evaluate all existing data connected to the 290-acre site in the hills directly south of Simi.

From the mid-1950s until 1988, Area IV was used by the DOE and its contractors for research on nuclear materials and rocket engines. Boeing Company has controlled the property since 1996.

The goal was to have an outside agency determine whether or not the information—much of it taken from Boeing's own database—was reliable and thorough enough to make decisions about the future cleanup of the site, and if not, what new tests would have to be conducted.

According to Stephanie Jennings, the DOE document manager in charge of putting together the final impact statement on the site, the extra step was taken with the field lab's controversial history in mind.

"It's very unusual for an (environmental impact statement) to do something of this magnitude to begin with," Jennings said. "But based on all of the public concern about previous sampling . . . the Department of Energy decided it was a very important first step to truly take an independent view at the (data), to look at it with a fresh pair of eyes so to speak."

Jennings and DOE federal project director Thomas Johnson, Jr. have come to the Simi Valley area to oversee the Energy Department's court-mandated role in the eventual decontamination of the field lab and to act as liaisons to the public. In accordance with a ruling by a federal court in San Francisco in May 2007, the DOE is analyzing the level of contamination in Area IV and will outline the options for cleaning it.

To complete the independent review—called a draft gap analysis— scientists from the company CDM sifted through more than 30,000 analytical records and 200 reports.

Researchers were particularly interested in what methods were used to determine the results of previous studies, Jennings said. "Over the years, there's been extensive sampling and analysis done at Santa Susana, but many of the sampling events occurred a really long time ago and consequently were not up to the technical standards of today," Jennings said.

The study, the results of which are available at the Simi Valley Public Library, revealed what activists have been saying for more than a decade: Previous tests done at Area IV were insufficient. Some were conducted with outdated equipment, not sensitive enough to test to today's standards.

But for the most part, CDM scientists simply determined that more locations in Area IV needed to be tested.

"Most of the samples in the past were taken in areas where we suspected there was contamination or where we knew contamination existed, like around certain facilities," Johnson said. "The gap analysis scientists suggested we go into those other areas of the site where we didn't have any samples or where we didn't believe there was any contamination."

The report found that additional tests were needed to evaluate potential chemical and radioactive contamination in soil, groundwater, surface water, sediment, bedrock, buildings and other mediums onsite.

The scientists even recommended a 100-percent gamma walkover survey, a test to look for the presence of the most dangerous form of radiation.

This responsibility will be handled by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, which just this week announced it would use $1.5 million provided by the Energy Department to perform a radiological background study of Area IV and its adjacent buffer zone.

The EPA has also said it would develop a scope of work, schedule and cost estimate for a radiological survey of the site.

"This action resulted from several months of negotiations between the agencies and represents a significant step forward with regard to characterizing the site for radiological contaminants," said Keith Takata, Superfund Division director in the EPA's Pacific Southwest region, in a press release.

Nuclear activists William Preston Bowling and Christina Walsh, who recently founded a museum in Chatsworth to inform the public about the sordid history of the Santa Susana Field Lab, said that although the gap analysis was a good step by the DOE, it still isn't enough.

"It's a great start, but we need to know a lot more," Walsh said. "The analysis still doesn't call for enough areas to be tested. We need even more sampling because we just don't know how far the contamination goes."

Bowling said it's vital that private citizens stay informed about the ongoing cleanup process, which will eventually encompass the entire field lab.

In August 2007, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control issued a consent order requiring the Energy Department, Boeing and NASA—which also controls a portion of the field lab—to clean up all chemically contaminated soils and groundwater at the lab.

"You have to understand, it's been 30 years of really reluctant action," Bowling said. "We have to stay on them, let them know that the public demands a complete cleanup of the site in accordance with the guidelines set forth in (Senate Bill 990.)"

The DOE has come a long way when it comes to listening to the concerns of the public, Walsh said, pointing to the work of Jennings and Johnson as progress.

"I think (the Department of Energy) is doing good things now, but remember they're doing it because they were forced to by a judge," she added.

Bowling reminded the public that the deadline to submit comments on the scope of the DOE's environmental impact statement and its five potential cleanup options is Aug. 15.

"Even though the meetings are over, the public can still use their voice for a lot of good," Bowling said.

Acorn Bits

Written comments on the scope of the environmental impact statement should be sent to Stephanie Jennings, NEPA Document Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, P.O. Box 10300, Canoga Park, CA 91309. Express mail should be sent to Jennings at 5800 Woolsey Canyon Road, Canoga Park, CA 91304 and e-mail to stephanie.jennings@emcbc .doe.gov