Although state law requires the strictest standards for the cleanup of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, environmental advocates are concerned that the bill they fought for will not be upheld.

Since January, the Department of Toxic Substances Control has been in the process of amending an agreement between the parties responsible for the contamination of the field lab, a former rocket engine testing and nuclear research facility in the hills two miles south of Simi.

First issued in August 2007, the consent order between Boeing Co., the Department of Energy and NASA serves as a blueprint for the investigation and cleanup of the site. The document calls for the property to be decontaminated by June 2017.

According to Norm Riley, field lab project director for the DTSC, the responsible parties have met all their obligations under that initial order. Still, the department decided to draft a new agreement to reflect the changes in state law after the passage of Senate Bill 990.

Signed into law in October 2007, SB 990 requires that the field lab be cleaned to acceptable residential standards before its owners release rights to the 2,850-acre property to the state for parkland. NASA and Boeing Co. own portions of the site.

Riley added that the DTSC, which serves as the lead agency responsible for overseeing activities at the site, was not completely satisfied with the progress made in 2008.

"We thought it was time to get onto paper for all to see and understand exactly what our expectations are of the responsible parties,' he said during a field lab work-group meeting Feb. 26.

During the meeting, community members expressed worry over the fact that the public is seemingly being shut out of the amendment process.

Longtime cleanup advocate Dan Hirsch, president of the nuclear watchdog group Committee to Bridge the Gap, said that he and representatives from the Natural Resources Defense Council have been able to sit in on similar discussions with the responsible parties for the past year. In the last few weeks, however, he's been "frozen out" of these negotiations, he said.

"Without seeing (the order), you have no way of knowing if it guts 990 or supports it," he said. "If there is a single phrase in this order that contradicts 990, we'll have to sue."

Hirsch said not opening up the process to public input is "shortsighted" because it's in the responsible parties' best interest to have the community on board early on. Public oversight, he said, would help avoid a mistake that would only further drag out the process.

Riley responded by saying that while the discussions don't lend themselves to having the public sit at the table, the public will have an opportunity to review and comment on the contents of the order before it's finalized.

He added that the three agencies are "bargaining in good faith" and that it's important to everyone involved that the agreement is acceptable to the community.

"The last thing I think any of us wants to see is an agreement that fails to get the job done, an agreement that ends up getting contested by an angry public," Riley said.

But Hirsch and others say being "informed" is not enough.

"We have to be in the loop," Hirsch said. "Because at the end of the day, the only party that really matters is the people who can get those cancers."

Barbara Johnson of the Rocketdyne Cleanup Coalition said it's not just about allowing input from locals but actually considering it before finalizing the agreement.

"I don't want it to be just a courtesy but that they will listen to the community and incorporate the comments and suggestions from the community into the report," Johnson said.

Shel Plotkin of the Southern California Federation of Scientists agreed.

"Without the community representatives having oversight and direct participation in the things that were decided upon, the end result lacks credibility," he said. "Even though it might be good."

Though he understands the concerns, Riley said, it's unfortunate there's such a high level of distrust in the government, adding that the DTSC has been firm in holding the responsible parties accountable.

"We are here to represent your interests. I implore you to consider the possibility that this may in fact be a true statement," he told the work group. "We are not in some smoke-filled back room drinking brandy, playing checkers and cutting deals. . . . I think you will be pleased with the agreement in the end."