SANTA SUSANA FIELD LABORATORY

Phil Rutherford Consulting

Offsite Impact of SSFL

For thirty five years, activists, legislators and media have misled the public about SSFL. Finally, here is a compilation of evidence that SSFL has NOT impacted the health of its neighbors.

Offsite Impact of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory
Original: December 2, 2022
Revised: July 25, 2024

Nuclear Decommissioning at SSFL

A major activity at SSFL has been the decommissioning of DOE-owned and Boeing-owned nuclear and radiological faciities in Area IV.

Since 2000, politics, legislation, litigation and regulatory abuse and inaction has interfered with the established decommissioning process, and delayed radiological cleanup at SSFL.

Nuclear Decommissioning at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory: 20+ Years of Politics vs. Science
Original: June 9, 2022
Revised: July 21, 2024
Presentation to the Annual Meeting of the Health Physics Society, Spokane, WA. July 20, 2022

Santa Susana Field Laboratory - Inconvenient Truths

Misinformation and disinformation surrounding SSFL has has been perpetuated by activist organizations, legislators and the media. The following short, two-page summary is a quick read that gives the facts about SSFL.

Inconvenient Truths March 18, 2025

PSR-LA Petition & Complaint (2013-2023)

PSR-LA allege that demolition debris from decommissioned former nuclear facilities should be classified as low-level radioactive waste.

Petitioners: Physicians for Social Responsibility - Los Angeles, Southern California Federation of Scientists, Committee to Bridge the Gap and Consumer Watchdog.

Respondents: Department of Toxic Substances Control and California Department of Public Health.

Real Party In Interest: The Boeing Company
________________________________

Response to PSR-LA Petition and Complaint

Response to PSR-LA Petition & Complaint
Original issue: November 20, 2013
Revised: July 30, 2024
California Superior Court denies petition and complaint
November 19, 2018

Response to PSR-LA Appeal

Response to Appellants' Opening Brief in the PSR-LA Appeal

Response to PSR-LA Appeal
Original Issue: August 5, 2022
Revised: June 11, 2023
Annotated Comments on Appellants' Opening Brief
August 5, 2022
Plutonium
August 5, 2022
California Appeals Court affirms lower court's decision.
May 2, 2023

Response to PSR-LA Petition to the California Supreme Court

Response to PSR-LA Petition for Review to California Supreme Court
August 27, 2023
Annotated Comments on PSR-LA Petition for Review
August 26, 2023
California Supreme Court denies Petition for Review
July 26, 2023

Response to Petitioners' Claim of Victory in PSR-LA Litigation

Response to Petitioners' Claim of Victory in PSR-LA Litigation
February 20, 2024

DTSC-Boeing Settlement Agreement (2022)

On May 9, 2022 DTSC announced a Settlement Agreement "to hold Boeing accountable to its cleanup obligations at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory."

A primary objective is for Boeing to cleanup radionuclides (but not chemicals) in soil to background, in its areas of responsibility. The following paper provides an opposing view.

Opposition to DTSC-Boeing Settlement Agreement
May 23, 2022

Jared Blumenfeld's Conflict of Interest (2022)

Request to the California Attorney General to conduct a conflict of interest investigation on CalEPA Secretary Jared Blumenfeld.

Letter to Attorney General Bonta. July 8, 2022
Email transmitting above letter. July 8, 2022

One month later, Mr. Blumenfeld resigned as CalEPA Secretary. Attorney General Bonta did not have the common courtesy to reply to my letter.

Personal Communication with Federal and State Officials, and Media

The correspondence below with federal and State officials, and media, concerning legislative, regulatory and operational actions related to the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL) has been initiated by myself, acting as a private citizen and community resident.

The material has benefited from the knowledge acquired during my twenty five years as Senior Manager of Radiation Safety at SSFL before my retirement. However the views and opinions expressed are mine alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Boeing Company, the Department of Energy (DOE) or the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

Neither Boeing, nor DOE, nor NASA has approved this correspondence, neither has it been sought. I alone am responsible for its content.

Senate Bill 990 (2007) and Health and Safety Code § 25359.20 Request for Revocation of SB 990 Language after being Struck Down in Federal Court. Request for Removal of SB 990 from DTSC Website.
Date	Communication
November 16, 2020	Letter to Senator Henry Stern Email transmitting above letter
November 16, 2020	Letter to Grant Cope, DTSC Email transmitting above letter
November 16, 2020	Automated email from Senator Henry Stern's OffIce
November 17, 2020	Email from Grant Cope, DTSC
November 19, 2020	Letter from Attorney General's Office
December 4, 2020	Letter to Attorney General's Office Email transmitting above letter
June 17, 2021	Email to Grant Cope, DTSC
No substantive response has been received from Senator Stern or the California Attorney General or any others on distribution regarding H&S Code 25359.20. During 2023, DTSC finally removed all references to SB 990 from its web site.

2020 Amendment to Order on Consent Opposition to Management of Non-radiological Building Debris as Low-level Radioactive Waste
Date	Communication
November 15, 2020	Questions and Issues Related to the Amendment to Order on Consent Email transmitting above paper
November 29, 2020	Letter to Steven Becker, DTSC Email transmitting above letter
March 11, 2021	Email to DTSC Management Public Records Act Request for DTSC - CBG Communications
March 26, 2021	Letter from DTSC Senior Counsel, Arthur Pugsley Response to Public Records Act Request Email transmitting above letter
July 8, 2021	Email to DTSC Senior Counsel, Arthur Pugsley Public Records Act Request
July 16, 2021	Email from DTSC Senior Counsel, Arthur Pugsley Public Records Act Request
August 15, 2021	Letter to Meredith Williams, Director, DTSC Public Records Act Request Email transmitting above letter
August 27, 2021	Letter from DTSC Senior Counsel, Ross Colburn PRA Final Response - DTSC/Hirsch Communications Email transmitting above letter
August 28, 2021	Email to DTSC Management Reply to PRA Final Response
DTSC has failed to directly address my opposition to sending non-LLRW to a LLRW disposal site.

2022 DTSC-Boeing Settlement Agreement Opposition to the Settlement Agreement
Date	Communication
May 26, 2022	Email to Chinh Sheow, DTSC
May 31, 2022	Email to Grant Cope and Steven Becker, DTSC Attachment to above email Opposition to Settlement Agreement
June 11, 2022	Comments on Kimberly Gettmann's Memorandum Email to DTSC Staff transmitting above paper
June 11, 2022	Email to DTSC Staff Unanswered Questions
DTSC has failed to directly address any of my comments on the Settlement Agreement.

2024 DTSC STREAM Platform SSFL Tool for Response, Engagement, and Answer Management
Date	Communication
November 16, 2024	Preliminary Questions for Soil Smarts Workshops Email transmitttng above questions
SCF000004
November 21, 2024	Morgenstern Community Cancer Study
December 20, 2024	DTSC Response Thanks me for my feedback. Fails to repond to my comments on the Morgenstern Study.
SCF000005
November 21, 2024	General Comments on STREAM Platform
December 19, 2024	DTSC Response "DTSC takes all comments received into consideration. In addition, DTSC provides responses to all questions received. Comments received that are not questions are acknowledged and considered, but DTSC does not typically provide responses to these." "Currently the STREAM platform does not show DTSC's responses to the general public. However, we will take your suggestion into consideration."
SCF000006
December 3, 2024	Radionuclide Questions for Soil Smarts Workshops, Rev A
January 28, 2025	DTSC Response Superficial and fails to addresss issues raised.
February 1, 2025	My reply to DTSC response
SCF000008
December 7, 2024	Chemical Questions for Soil Smarts Workshops SCF000008
January 13, 2025	DTSC response to SCF000008 Valerie Hanley (DTSC) confirms that ... When a background dataset has a large percentage of non-detects, chemical LUTVs are based on unrealistically low MRLs that are significantly less than the majority of both detect data and MDLs in the background study, and in site characterization data. Because of these artificially low LUTVs, it is likely that an unknown fraction of site characterized data, identified as chemically contaminated, are actually false positives.
SCF000014
March 13, 2025	Comments & Questions following the #3 Soil Smarts Public Meeting Online submission of SCF000014 suggesting that MLEs would be unecessary if DTSC had followed EPA prrotocols in calculating chemical LUTVs
March 24, 2025	DTSC response to SCF000014. DTSC is still not able to admit that it calculated LUTVs in error, and failed to follow EPA protocols used for radionuclides. It should admit this to the public and recalculate LUTVs for majority non-detect background chemicals using the 2-sigma UCL of characterization MDLs.
March 24, 2025	My reply to DTSC response

DOE Supplemental EIS DOE Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Area IV
Date	Communication
December 29, 2024	Preliminary Comments on Area IV SEIS Email transmitttng above comments to DOE, DTSC and Boeing
February 22, 2025	Email to Secretary Wright Requesting support for replacing the 2010 AOC with DOE-STD-1241-2023
March 6, 2025	Statement at DOE's Public Scoping Meeting on the Area IV SEIS
March 20, 2025	Email resending SEIS comments and requesting receipt acknowledgement

California Public Records Act (PRA) Request for Communications Between Dan Hirsch and Rick Brausch During Drafting of the 2010 AOCs
Date	Communication
March 7, 2025	Email to the Secretary of CalEPA and the Director of DTSC. PRA request for communications between Dan Hirsch (CBG) and DTSC/CalEPA management during the drafting of the 2010 AOC.
March 17, 2025	Letter from DTSC Counsel acknowledging receipt of PRA request. Email transmitting above letter.
March 31, 2025	Letter from DTSC Counsel requesting extension. Email transmitting above letter.
March 31, 2025	Email to DTSC Counsel, providing basis for PRA request
April 3, 2025	Email from DTSC Counsel, promising reply by April 28
April 28, 2025	Letter from DTSC Counsel requesting another month extension to May 26. Email transmitting above letter.
May 26, 2025	Letter from DTSC Counsel. First document production. Email transmitting above letter. 2025-05-26 Document Production. 2007-04-03 1. 2. 2007-04-04 1. 2. 2007-10-16 1. 2. 2007-12-20 1. 2. 2008-02-15 1. 2. 2008-07-10 1. 2. 3. 4. 2008-12-15 1. 2.
May 29, 2025	Email reply to DTSC Counsel on first document production

Communication with Kit Stolz, Ojai Valley News
Date	Communication
March 20, 2025	Email to Kit Stolz, following discussion at DOE's March 18, 2025, SEIS Scoping Meeting

Falsification of DOE Waste Shipping Records at the Energy Technology Engineering Center (2020-2021)
SUMMARY Re-defining of Low-Level Radioactive Waste In the 2020 Amendment to the Order on Consent, DTSC required the DOE to classify, and manage demolition debris from decommissioned buildings and buildings with no history of radiological use, as low-level radioactive waste (LLRW). DTSC forced DOE to dispose of this material out-of-state to a licensed LLRW disposal site. This agreement effectively re-defined LLRW, implemented California Senate Bill, SB-1970 (2002) that had previously been vetoed by former Governor Gray Davis, and violated California Executive Order D-62-02. A FOIA request (EMCBC-2022-00149-F) was submitted to the DOE for shipping records of this demolition debris. This records included radioactive waste profiles and NRC Form 540/541 LLRW manifests. Complaint to the DOE Energy Technology Engineering Center Review of waste profiles and waste manifests for decommissioned material and debris from buildings with no history of radiological use, reveals that falsified data has been used, in a blatant attempt to mischaracterize non-LLRW as LLRW. Data on over 400 shipment manifests were systematically inconsistent and transparently illogical. Shipping manifest radionuclide concentrations did not match waste stream profiles. Multiple different containers with significantly different waste weights were assigned identical total and individual radionuclide activities, which is physically impossible. Multiple different containers were assigned identical waste weights and identical total and individual activities, which is physically impossible. Container weighted average concentrations were derived from container total and individual radionuclide activities rather than vice versa. The apparent falsification of data and total lack of any quality control of manifest data by all participants, North Wind, DOE and EnergySolutions is troubling. A complaint was submitted to all levels of DOE management including ETEC, EM-1, and Secretary Granholm, North Wind management, EnergySolutions management, and DTSC management. All recipients failed to respond to, or dispute, these allegations. Complaint to the DOE Office of Inspector General 23-0160-C A complaint was submitted to DOE's Office of Inspector General (OIG Complaint 23-0160-C). DOE closed the investigation at an indeterminate date stating that, "no further action was warranted." The OIG refused to say when the investigation was closed and why the complainant was not notified of the closure, citing unspecified "Privacy Act Restrictions." Submission of FOIA Request HQ-2024-01160-F A FOIA request (HQ-2024-01160-F) was submitted February 8, 2024 for the investigation records. Several responses to this FOIA request were received obfuscating on issues of privacy, but failing to address the specific allegations of the original 23-0160-C complaint or the specifics of the HQ-2024-01160-F FOIA request. The OIG stated that the office of Mr. William White, the previous senior advisor to EM (aka EM-1) had provided a response to the original complaint on July 14, 2023. OIG later asked EM for approval to release that response on or before March 26, 2024. Complaint to the Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control A complaint was submitted to the Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (WMRC) (Complaint DRC-2023-001509). WMRC closed its investigation, stating that EnergySolutions had complied with its license and WAC requirements, however it did not address any of the specific allegations of the complaint, and it was unable to provide any documented evidence that any investgation of the allegattions had been conducted. A Utah GRAMA public records request was submitted, and a response confirmed that no records of the investigation existed. On April 21, 2024, a final appeal to WMRC was made to re-open the investigation of the specific alegations in the complaint. No response has been received as of the revision date of this page. No further attempts to communicate with WMRC has beeen pursued. Appeal to the DOE Office of Hearings and Appeals An appeal (FIA-24-0050) was made to the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). After an exhaustive 2-day review, OHA washed its hands of the affair. Complaint to the US House Committee on Oversight and Accountability The House Committee on Oversight and Accountability failed to acknowledge receipt of the complaint. Letter to Energy Secretary Chris Wright Requesting Support for Complaint President Trump was included on distribution for this letter. Neither Secretary Wright nor the White House acknowledged receipt of this letter. X Message to Elon Musk and DOGE Soliciting Support for Complaint Neither Elon Musk nor DOGE acknowledged receipt of this X message. Final Response from DOE's FOIA Office On April 4, 2025, the DOE FOIA Office finally provided the July 2023 EM response to the February 2023 OIG complaint. Although DOE EM did its best to whitewash and side-step the specific allegations of the complaint, several statements in EM's investigation report clearly suggest culpability, and acknowledgement of the complaint's major allegations. See quotations below. Re-defining LLRW In response to the allegation of re-defining LLRW, by sending debris from non-contaminated, non-radiological buildings to a LLRW disposal site, EM acknowledged, "... the Amendment to the Order on Consent stated, "Debris from buildings 4038, 4057, 4462 and 4463 will be disposed of out of the State of California and out of an abundance of caution, at an authorized mixed low-level radioactive waste disposal facility ..."" "When signing these documents, Mr. White was aware of the abundance of caution that was applied in making this decision on disposal of building demolition debris. Given the options available to him, in reaching an agreement with the State of California, Mr. White determined that signing these orders was the best option for the government." Clearly Mr. White, Senior Advisor to EM, was uncomfortable agreeing to the demands of the California DTSC but felt that EM had no option but to sign the two Orders. Falsification of Data In response to the allegation of falsification of data by assigning maximum contamination data from one contaminated RMHF facility to all other decommissioned buildings and non-radiological buildings, EM acknowledged, "We conservatively used worst case radiological data from the facilities to create the waste profile and NRC 540/541 shipping documentation. This approach was utilized to comply with the 2020 Orders requiring that all demolition debris be disposed of at a licensed low level waste landfill outside of the state of California." In response to the allegation of falsification of manifest data, including multiple containers with identical waste weights and radionuclide activities, and other multiple containers with identical radionuclide activities but different weights, EM acknowledged, "During the live-load and go campaign of buildings 4462 and 4463, pre-set activities were established based on maximum allowable transport weight." Irresponsible Cost Expenditure In response to the allegation of wasted costs, DOE EM is silent. Disposal of the subject non-LLRW demolition debris as LLRW out-of-state, obviously costs more than disposing in-state to appropriate permitted Class 1 or 2 disposal facilities, in compliance with California Executive Order D-62-02. In addition, it violates DOE's waste minimization policies. Cover Up The original complaint to DOE was made in January 2023, twenty-seven months ago. The subsequent complaint to DOE OIG was made in February 2023. The EM investigation report was completed in July 2023. The "final response" from DOE was emailed to me in April 2025, twenty-one months after the date of EM's investigation report. The simple fact that it has taken this long and extensive communication with DOE to extract a "final response," is proof that DOE management has done its best to cover up this investigation.
Date	Communication with the DOE
November 17, 2021	FOIA Request for Records - EMCBC-2022-00149-F Letter from Michelle Farris, Office of Chief Counsel, DOE EMCBC
September 29, 2022	Response to FOIA Request - EMCBC-2022-00149-F Letter from Melody C. Bell, Deputy Director, DOE-EMCBC. Data Package for FOIA EMCBC-2022-00149-F
January 10, 2023	Letter to Josh Mengers, DOE ETEC Project Director Response to FOIA Data Package Email transmitting above letter
February 10, 2023	Letter to DOE Inspector General Shipments of Waste from the Former Energy Technology Engineering Center Email transmitting above letter
April 9, 2023	Email to the Utah Division of Waste Management and the DOE Inspector General Irregularities in DOE's Waste Shipments from ETEC to EnergySolutions
July 25, 2023	Waste Characterization by the Department of Energy at the Energy Technology Engineering Center Presentation to the Health Physics Society Annual Meeting in National Harbor, Maryland Abstract PowerPoint Presentation YouTube Video
August 1, 2023	DOE Waste Characterization at the Former Energy Technology Engineering Center Email to DOE, DTSC, North Wind, EnergySolutions, Utah DWMRC, and CalEPA. Challenge to respond to allegations.
February 7, 2024	Complaint 23-0160-C Email to DOE Inspector General requesting the status of the complaint
February 8, 2024	Complaint 23-0160-C Email response from the DOE Inspector General stating that the investigation had been closed at an earlier unstated date. The OIG stated that, "no further action was warranted." A FOIA request would need to be submitted to learn of the results of the investigation.
February 8, 2024	FOIA Request for File on OIG Complaint 23-0160-C Investigation Email to DOE FOIA Office
February 8, 2024	Complaint 23-0160-C Email to DOE OIG forwarding copy of the FOIA request
February 9, 2024	FOIA HQ-2024-01160-F Acknowledgement letter from DOE FOIA Office
February 12, 2024	Complaint 23-0160-F Email containing third and final refusal of DOE OIG to tell me what date the investigation into Complaint 23-0160-C was closed and why I was not informed. OIG cited unspecified "Privacy Act Restrictions. The OIG declined tto explain why a closure date and the lack of notification to the complainant could be considered "private."
February 22, 2024	Email to FOIA Office regarding HQ-2024-01160-F Email request to the DOE FOIA Office for and estimated completion date for the FOIA request. Email also requested clarification why the investigation closure date and reason why complainant was not notified of the closure, was subject to "Privacy Act Restrictions."
February 26, 2024	DOE FOIA Office Email Response Email response from the DOE FOIA Office stating that the DOE FOIA Office will request records of the complaint investigation from DOE OIG, records that DOE OIG had refused to provide to the complainant. The DOE FOIA Office will then forward potential records to the complainant. The DOE FOIA Office was unable to provide an estimated completion date, and chose to ignore the question related to alleged "Privacy Act Restrictions."
February 26, 2024	Email response to the DOE FOIA Office Complainant questions the efficiency and transparency, or lack thereof, of this process.
March 6, 2024	Interim Letter from DOE FOIA Office HQ-2024-01160-F Letter from DOE FOIA Office denies request for fee waiver and request for expedited response. Email transmitting above letter.
March 7, 2024	Letter to DOE FOIA Office HQ-2024-01160-F Reply to DOE FOIA Office questioning requester status, and denial of fee waiver and expedited processing. Email transmitting above letter.
March 7, 2024	Email from FOIAOIG Email from FOIAOIG verifying that the "FOIA request is in the search stage" and committing to "provide a response as quickly as possible."
March 27, 2024	Email from FOIAOIG Attachments include ... Final Response Letter HQ-2024-01160-F, letter dated March 26, 2024 Memo to Senior Advisor for Office of Environmental Management (aka EM-1), dated March 16, 2023 23-0160-C Complaint Form, dated August 3, 2023 FOIAOIG also offered to provide copy of email by which complainant was notified that investigation was closed.
March 30, 2024	Letter to Anthony Cruz, DOE OIG FOIA Response to March 26/27, 2024 email and letter from FOIAOIG. Email transmitting above letter.
May 11, 2024	Email to Anthony Cruz, DOE OIG FOIA Six week reminder of lack of resonse to March 30th letter.
May 11, 2024	Email to Secretary of Energy, Jennifer Granholm Expresses dissatisfaction over lack of meaningful response from her staff, and requests that she "rattles some cages." Secretary Granholm did not have the common courtesy to reply.
May 14, 2024	Email from Jennifer Bacon, FOIAOIG Need to coordinate FOIAOIG and Hotline and will respond shortly.
May 14, 2024	Email to Jennifer Bacon, FOIAOIG Suggests that FOIAOIG start with William White.
June 4, 2024	Email from Jennifer Bacon, FOIAOIG Attachments ... Letter from Anthony Cruz, OIG, Supplemental Response, May 31, 2024 Supplemental Response Documents, May 31, 2024
June 9, 2024	Letter to Anthony Cruz, DOE OIG FOIA Response to 6/4/2024 email and 5/31/2024 letter from FOIAOIG Email transmitting above letter.
August 13, 2024	Telecon with Aleaander (Chris) Morris, DOE FOIA liaison. He committed to "look into" why EM's response to complaint 23-0160-C (Document 4) had not been released by EM and provided to me in response to FOIA HQ-2024-01160-F.
August 14, 2024	Email from Jennifer Bacon, paralegal with DOE FOIAOIG, stated that no further communications would be forthcoming from OIG following Mr. Cruz's 5/31/2024 supplemental response, and that the whereabouts of Document 4 should be pursued with Alexander Morris.
August 15, 2024	Email to Jennifer Bacon (FOIAOIG), Anthony Cruz (OIG) and Alexander Morris (FOIA) referencing my letter of June 9, 2024, and stating that the job of DOE FOIAOIG was far from over.
August 15, 2024	Email from Alexander Morris (DOE FOIA Liaison) committing to chase down Document 4.
August 31, 2024	Letter to DOE Office of Hearings and Appeals Appeal to OHA for failure of OIG and FOIA Office to respond to 23-0160-C and HQ-2024-01160-F. Email transmitting above letter.
September 3, 2024	Receipt acknowledgement from DOE OHA Assignment of tracking no. FIA-24-0050
September 5, 2024	Letter denying Appeal FIA-24-0050 Cover letter for above denial Email transmitting above denail
September 8, 2024	Email to OHA replying to its denial of FIA-24-0050
September 10, 2024	Email from OHA, washing its hands of Appeal FIA-24-0050, and stating, "This is the final order of the Department of Energy from which any aggrieved party may seek judicial review pursuant of 5 U.S.C. Section 522(a)(4)(B)."
September 23, 2024	Letter to U.S. Congressional Committee on Oversight and Accountability. Submiited to the Committee's online Whistleblower portal. The Committee failed to acknowledge receipt of the complaint. Email transmitting above letter to distribution.
October 25, 2024	Email to Chairman Comer and Ranking Member Raskin of the US House Committee on Oversight and Accountability requesting a reply to the whistleblower complaint. As of the revision date of this page, the Committee has failed to respond to, or take action on the complaint.
November 10, 2024	Letter to Steve Milloy, JunkScience.com Online Email Portal transmitting above letter.
January 6, 2025	Email to Alexander Morris, DOE FOIA Office reminding him of his August 15, 2024 promise to expedite release of Document 4.
Janaury 6, 2025	Email from Richard Hayes, DOE FOIA Office, committing to "follow up" on the status of Document 4.
February 6, 2025	Letter to DOE Secretary Chris Wright. Letter also sent by USPS to Secretary Wright and POTUS. Email transmitting above letter to POTUS, DOE, DTSC and NRC personnel. Online email to POTUS at Whitehouse. Online email to the House Committee on Oversight & Accountability.
February 20, 2025	Message to Elon Musk and the DOGE Team via X. Review of DOE complaint
April 4, 2025	Final Response from DOE FOIA Office Responsive Document from DOE EM, dated July 13/14, 2023 Email transmitting above documents
April 6, 2025	Letter to Tavis Williams, DOE FOIA Office Email transmitting above letter
As of April 6, 2025, I consider this complaint against DOE, closed.

Date	Communication with the Utah DWMRC
February 9, 2023	Letter to Doug Hansen, Director, Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control Shipments of Waste from the Former Energy Technology Engineering Center Email transmitting above letter
April 9, 2023	Email to the Utah Division of Waste Management and the DOE Inspector General Irregularities in DOE's Waste Shipments from ETEC to EnergySolutions
May 16, 2023	Letter from Utah WMRC WMRC response finds that EnergySolutions complied with its license and WAC requirements, and did not accept greater than Class A LLRW from ETEC. This of course was not the allegation. None of the specific allegations in the complaint were adressed or disputed. WMRC closed its investigation.
May 20, 2023	First Utah GRAMA Records Request Request for complaint investigation records
June 6, 2023	Email response to GRAMA Records Request States that no records of the investigation exist other than those (e)mail communications between complainant and WMRC. Note that this email was not received on June 6, 2023, but was received February 9, 2024
July 20, 2023	Follow-up to Utah Complaint DRC-2023-001509 Email to Otis Willoughby, WMRC
February 9, 2024	Utah GRAMA Records Request Email to Utah Public Records Office Attachment 2023-07-20 Email
February 9, 2024	Email response from Alyssa Stringham, Utah GRAMA Records Officer Email denying that records of investigation of Complaint DRC-2023-001509 exist
February 9, 2024	Second Utah GRAMA Records Request relating to investigation of Complaint DRC-2023-001509 Email with GRAMA Records Request Form
February 16, 2024	DRC-2024-004475 Letter including denial of appeal regarding complaint and GRAMA request dated May 20, 2023. Statement that specific allegations in the complaint were outside WMRC's scope of regulatory interest. Email transmitting above letter.
February 16, 2024	Response to February 9, 2024 GRAMA Records Request Statement that no records exist of an investigation of the specific allegations of the complaint other than (e)mail communications between complainant and WMRC.
February 17, 2024	Email request to Utah WMRC to re-open investigation into complaint regarding ETEC waste shipments Requested WMRC re-open the investigation and address the specifics of the allegations of the complaint.
April 21, 2024	Email to Assistant Director Jalynn Knudsen, Utah WMRC, requesting response to February 17, 2024 request to re-open investigation.
As of the revision date of this page, no further communication from the Utah DWMRC has been received.

Senator Dianne Feinstein's Correspondence with Energy Secretary Bill Richardson (May 1999) FOIA HQ-2024-01615-F
Date	Communication
April 2, 2024	Email to DOE FOIA Office requesting correspondence between Senator Dianne Feinstein and Energy Secretary Bill Richardson
April 4, 2024	Letter from Alexander Morris discussing requirements for fees and fee waiver. Email transmitting above letter.
April 5, 2024	Email from me providing basis for fee waiver within 5-day period
May 11, 2024	Email from me asking for the ststus of HQ-2024-01615-F
May 13, 2024	Email from Lela Addison promising a final response "by the end of this week."
July 10, 2024	Email from me observing that two months have passed since the promise of "end of this week."
July 11. 2024	Email from Craig Greenberg apologizing for the delay and assuring that he "will personally monitor the processing of your request and provide you an update next week."
July 19, 2024	Email from me observing that a week has passed with no update.
July 22, 2024	Email from Craig Greenberg apologizing for the delay and stating "I firmly believe the final response will be ready to send to you either later this week or early next week."
August 29, 2024	Email from Timothy Farrell repeating for the third time that the "release package is in the final review stage." He also stated that "necessary modifications to redactions were identified and thus additional review was needed."
August 29, 2024	Email from me expressing my thanks for the FOIA Office's assistance.
August 29, 2024	Email from Craig Greenberg stating, "The redactions on the responsive records for your request have completed almost all of the necessary review and are being prepared for the final release approval [fourth time]. We hope to have that approval finalized within the next couple of weeks to be able to send you a final response letter with responsive records." Note that the subject line to this email incorrectly gave a FOIA number of HQ-2024-01160-F, not HQ-2024-01615-F. HQ-2024-2024-01160-F is the FOIA for the OIG complaint 23-0160-C.
August 29, 2024	Email from me stating that, "I fail to see why non-classified, open, written communication between two public, federal officials would need any redactions at all." The incorrect subject line is continued.
October 20, 2024	Email from me stating "Over six months and still waiting." The incorrect subject line is continued.
November 3, 2024	Email from me summarizing the unacceptable 7-months of apologies and empty promises that the DOE FOIA Office has provided instead of the Feinstein letters that were subject of FOIA HQ-2024-01615-F. I issued a challenge to Secretary Granholm to respond.
December 16, 2024	Email from me, status request
December 16, 2024	Email from Jennifer Canady, DOE FOIA Office. Feinstein-Richardson communication regarding community health study
December 16, 2024	Email from me requesting original request for cleanup standard communications
January 6, 2025	Second email from me requesting original request for cleanup standard communications
January 7, 2025	Email from Timothy Farrell, DOE FOIA Office, committing to follow up on the request.
As of the revision date of this page, the DOE has failed to provide the subject letters..

The Boeing Company

Santa Susana Field Laboratory
- Overview
- Gallery
- History
- Cleanup
- Future
- Wildlife
  - Animals
  - Birds
  - Plants
- Site Tours
- Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
  - General
  - Conservation Easement
  - Boeing's Santa Susana Environmental Remediation and Cleanup Plan
  - Radiation Levels at Santa Susana
  - Health Studies and Santa Susana
  - Groundwater Investigation and Treatability Studies
  - Santa Susana Stormwater Treatment and Permit Compliance
- Technical Library
Restore Santa Susana

Department of Energy (DOE)

On April 6, 2024, ETEC made a major reorganization to its website. Further changes were made on December 19, 2024. These changes have made navigation and location of information more difficult. The links provided below is a site-map that should facilitate locating material. Those preferring to navigate the original ETEC website can use Internet Archive WaybackMachine pages at ...
https://web.archive.org/web/20210318000136/https://www.etec.energy.gov/.
The top WayBackMachine banner provides archive dates for the individual page.

Energy Technology Engiinering Center
- About ETEC
  - General Description
  - Landowners and Tenants
  - Who Regulates ETEC
  - Historical Operations at ETEC
  - Library
    - Histtorical Videos
    - Current Videos
      - Demolition
      - Groundwater U
      - Sodium Reactor Experiment Workshop
    - ETEC Video Gallery
    - Historical Documents
      - Historical Site Assessment
      - Canoga Avenue Facility
      - De Soto Avenue Facility
      - Downey Facility on Lakewood Blvd
      - 17th St. Drainage Area
      - Annual Reviews of Radiological Controls (1975 - 1988)
      - SRE Meteorological Data
    - DOE Documents
      - RMHF EE/CA Document Record
      - RMHF Closure Plan
      - 2005 Topanga Wildfire
      - SNAP Environmental Test Facility EE/CA Document Record
      - DOE Tiger Team (1991)
      - Area IV Environmental Assessment (2003)
      - Standardized Risk Assessment Methodology (SRAM)
      - 1988 Area IV Radiological Survey
      - Reviews of Radiological Environmental Programs (1988 - 1991)
      - 1995 Area IV Radiological Survey
      - Environmental Monitoring Program Plan
    - EPA Documents
      - EPA Building Surveys
      - 2007 Superfund Evaluation of SSFL
      - 2003 Superfund Evaluation of SSFL
- Characterization & Cleanup
- Community
  - Public Meetings
- Environment & Health
  - Worker Health and Safety
  - Environmental Monitoring
    - Air Monitoring
    - Noise and Traffic
    - Offsite Data Evaluation Report
    - Annual Site Environmental Reports
    - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (Radionuclides) - NESHAPs
  - Community Health Studies
    - SSFL Advisory Panel Reports
    - University of Michigan School of Public Health Study
  - Cultural & Biological
Santa Susana Field Laboratory Area IV Environmental Impact Statement - DOE/EIS-0402
- Draft Environmental Impact Statement - January 2017
  - Volume I - Summary plus Chapters 1 through 14
  - Volume II - Appendices A through K

Record of Decision for Demolition and Disposal/Recycle of DOE Buildings
- Federal Register Notice - September 27, 2019
Order on Consent for Interim Response Action at the RMHF Complex. May 19, 2020
- Press Release. May 20, 2020
Amendment to Order on Consent for Interim Response Action at the RMHF Complex. October 30, 2020
- Press Release. November 4, 2020
Notice of Intent for Public Scoping Period for a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. December 19, 2024

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

SSFL Environmental Cleanup and Closure
- About SSFL
- News
- History
- Cleanup
- Community
SSFL History Video (7:33 min)
Santa Susana Field Laboratory Area II Environmental Impact Statement
- NASA Office of Inspector General's Audit of Remediation at SSFL - February 14, 2013
- Final EIS - March 2014
  - Appendix A - CEQ Letter
  - Appendix B - Applicable Laws & Regulations
  - Appendix C - Cultural Resources Study
  - Appendix D - Fall 2010 Habitat Listed Species Surveys
  - Appendix E - 2011 Supplemental Biological Surveys
  - Appendix F - Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Habitat Survey
  - Appendix G - Wetlands
  - Appendix H - Supplemental Air Quality GHG Information and Approach
  - Appendix I - Air Quality General Conformity Analysis
  - Appendix J - Paleontological Resources Assessment
  - Appendix K - Public Comments
  - Appendix L - Agency Correspondence
  - Appendix M - Biological Assessmment
- Record of Decision for FEIS - April 2014
- NASA Office of Inspector General's Audit of Remediation at SSFL - March 19, 2019
- Draft Supplemental EIS for Soil Cleanup - October 25, 2019
- Final Supplemental EIS for Soil Cleanup Activities at SSFL - July 24, 2020
  - Appendix 2A - AOC Look-Up Table Values
  - Appendix 2B - Revised Look-Up Table Values
  - Appendix 2C - Suburban Residential Risk-Based Cleanup Values
  - Appendix 2D - Recreational Risk-Based Cleanup Values
  - Appendix 2E - Evaluation of Soil Excavation Volumes and Footprints
  - Appendix 2F - Environmental Justice Screening Report
  - Appendix 2G - Environmentally Preferred Alternative Calculation
  - Appendix 3.1A - 2014 Programmatic Agreement, as amended in 2020
  - Appendix 3.2A - 2011 Supplemental Biological Surveys of NASA- Administered Property at SSFL
  - Appendix 3.2B - Endangered Species Act Section 7 Biological Assessment
  - Appendix 3.2C - Jurisdictional Determination
  - Appendix 4A - Draft SEIS Comment Response
  - Appendix 4B - Public Comment Matrix
  - Public Comments on the Draft SEIS for Soil Cleanup Activities at SSFL
  - NOA for Final SEIS
- Record of Decision - Supplemental EIS for Soil Cleanup Activities at SSFL. September 2020
  - Notice of Availability October 2, 2020

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)

Santa Susana Field Laboratory

Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
- Draft PEIR Main Report - September 2017
- Appendix A - Program Management Plan
- Appendix B - Preliminary Screening Levels
- Appendix C - Public Pre-Comments (Part 1)
- Appendix C - Public Pre-Comments (Part 2)
- Appendix C - Public Pre-Comments (Part 3)
- Appendix C - Public Pre-Comments (Part 4)
- Appendix D - Air Quality Worksheets
- Appendix E - Greenhouse Gas Worksheets
- Appendix F - Health Risk Modeling
- Appendix G - Risk of Upset Worksheets
- Appendix H - Traffic Study
- Appendix I - Noise Calculations
- Appendix J - Transportation Feasibility Study
  - Reference Documents - Part 1
  - Reference Documents - Part 2
- Appendix K - Draft Excavation and Offsite Disposal Volume Estimate for Boeing Areas I, III and Southern Buffer
Final Program Environmental Impact Report. June 2023
- SSFL Final PEIR
- SSFL Draft PEIR (Revised)

California Department of Public Health - Radiologic Health Branch

Although SSFL has had a California Radioactive Materials License since 1962, the Radiologic Health Branch maintains no online material documenting its oversight of SSFL

Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)

Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL) Draft Preliminary Site Evaluation. December 3, 1999

National Park Service (NPS)

Santa Susana Field Laboratory. A documentation project by the National Park Service and NASA

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Superfund Site Information - SSFL. Confirms that SSFL is not a Superfund Site
Superfund Site Information - ETEC. Confirms that ETEC is not a Superfund Site.
Preliminary Assessment / Site Investigation Report. November 30, 2007
EPA has retained no online information documenting its 2008-2012 Radiation Survey of Area IV

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) Radiation Dose Reconstruction for Area IV of SSFL

American Jewish University - Brandeis-Bardin Campus

Wikipedia

As with all sources of information on the internet, one should use caution in using information on Wikipedia. Check the citations to ensure that they are original sources. Be suspicious of citations that are media articles that express opinions or quote third party opinions about controversial issues.

Other Sources

In the interest of openness and impartiality, several other organizations host websites expressing a variety of misguided opinions on SSFL. The reader is cautioned to fact check this material against official, more credible sources above.