U. S. to Fund Look at Toxic Releases at Rockwell Site : Health: Anti-nuclear activists voice concern over the study. Elevated cancer rates have been reported near the facility.

Federal officials said Tuesday that they will pay for a state health study of toxic releases from Rockwell’s Santa Susana laboratory following disclosure Monday of preliminary data showing elevated rates of bladder cancer in nearby Canoga Park and Chatsworth neighborhoods.

Approval of the study “is a done deal,” Department of Energy official Roger Liddle said, although he added that he was not sure if state health authorities will get the entire $341,361 they have requested.

However, the health study plan came under strong attack Tuesday from anti-nuclear activists at a meeting of the task force of federal, state and local government agencies overseeing environmental cleanup of Rockwell International’s Santa Susana Field Laboratory in the Simi Hills of eastern Ventura County, just west of Chatsworth. Rockwell tests rocket engines at the laboratory and once did extensive nuclear work there for the energy department.

About 55 people and Rockwell and government agency officials attended the daylong meeting at Simi Valley City Hall.

The activists, including some who serve as citizen members of the task force, challenged the state Department of Health Services’ plan to use the federal grant to review operating records at Santa Susana for evidence of releases of chemicals or radioactivity that could affect community health.

Rockwell officials say there has never been a significant release of contaminants from the 2,668-acre test site in more than 35 years of operation.

But task force member Dan Hirsch, questioning the thoroughness of files dating back to the 1950s, said he did not believe that “those records are going to prove or disprove anything, . . . no matter how hard you look.” He said it made more sense to check for unusual patterns of disease in the area, then look for causes.

Dr. Robert Holtzer, a state public health officer, defended the study plan, saying it was necessary first to establish a credible link between Santa Susana and any health problems nearby.

Critics also called on the Department of Energy and state health officials to focus on the health of Santa Susana workers before studying neighbors, arguing that workers would be more likely to show effects of chemical or radiological exposures. Without admitting liability, Rockwell has acknowledged paying compensation to at least six employees who alleged they developed cancer from radiation exposure, and has also settled claims involving asbestos exposure.

However, Department of Energy officials said they would not fund a state study of worker health, citing a recent agreement with the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services to carry out health studies of workers at energy department weapons and energy sites.

Jim Hartman, a DOE official in the San Francisco operations office, said federal health researchers are likely to select only the sites with the most workers and worst contamination, such as Rocky Flats in Colorado and Hanford in Washington state.

Those wanting Santa Susana included should “let HHS know that, including through your . . . elected representatives,” Hartman said.

The debate over how to conduct the studies came a day after state officials disclosed preliminary data showing that bladder cancer rates in three census tracts within five miles of the laboratory were about 50% higher than for Los Angeles County as a whole.

In two of the census tracts--bounded roughly by Vanowen Street, Canoga Avenue, the Los Angeles-Ventura county line and Roscoe Boulevard--the findings were not statistically significant, meaning that they could be due to statistical variations common in such studies rather than to an actual rise in bladder cancer.

In the third tract, extending from Roscoe north to the Simi Valley Freeway, the finding was statistically significant, meaning that the increase is probably real.

The report did not include an analysis of the ethnic background or smoking, work or residence history of bladder cancer victims--all crucial in determining whether environmental factors are a likely cause.

State health officials said they will update the report with cancer rates for Ventura County census tracts near Santa Susana when available later this year.

Despite its release Monday, the preliminary report was completed last fall, prompting Assemblyman Richard Katz (D-Sylmar) to accuse health officials Tuesday of “either bureaucratic foot-dragging . . . or a conscious cover-up.”

Katz demanded an explanation and hastily scheduled a Friday public hearing to look into the matter. The hearing is scheduled for 9 a.m. in the community room of the Los Angeles Times, 20000 Prairie St., Chatsworth.

Holtzer said he asked his superiors last fall for permission to release the report and did not know the reasons for the delay. His supervisor, David Siegel, chief of the health department’s hazardous waste toxicology section, declined comment late Tuesday, saying he was preparing an answer for Katz.

Several times at Tuesday’s meeting, Holtzer stated that the higher bladder cancer rate translated to only one additional case of bladder cancer per year in the affected area--a remark that no one at the meeting questioned.

However, an official in the department’s cancer surveillance section later confirmed that the data actually suggested about two to four more cases per year in the area of about 50,000 people.

In the tract with the statistically significant increase--where the 1980 population was about 25,000--the report showed two more bladder cancer cases per year than would have been expected.

Two extra cases per year also appeared in the two other census tracts, which together had about 25,000 residents in 1980. However, those findings were not classed as statistically significant.