When California Senate Bill 990 was passed in 2007, community activists and nuclear watchdog groups cheered the bill as the mandate that would finally clean up the Santa Susana Field Laboratory.

But two years later, is the state law requiring that the contaminated site in the hills above Simi be cleaned to the highest standards doing more harm than good? It’s a question that many are asking.

Since January, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)—the state agency overseeing the cleanup—has been in the process of amending an agreement between the parties responsible for the contamination at the field lab.

The new agreement is supposed to serve as the blueprint for the investigation and cleanup of the site, a former rocket engine testing and nuclear research facility in the hills two miles south of Simi.

But while SB 990 is designed to facilitate the cleanup, it is also the major sticking point for why an agreement cannot be reached.

The responsible parties— Boeing, the Department of Energy (DOE) and NASA—say the law is asking too much.

SB 990 requires that the 2,850-acre field lab be cleaned to the most stringent rural-residential standards. The high standard would allow people to live on the land and grow food there once the soil is scrubbed.

But according to Kamara Sams, spokesperson for Boeing, the site will eventually become park open space, not residential property.

“We think that the level that we are cleaning up the site to under SB 990 is above and beyond any future use for the site,” Sams said.

According to Steve Shestag, director of remediation for Boeing, what makes SB 990 unfair is that the bill is not basing the cleanup standards on what the land will eventually become, which is open space.

Another issue is that the soil remediation goals set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency require chemical and radiological levels that are below normal recurring levels.

Sams used the radionuclide cesium-137 as an example. Prior to the passage of SB 990, the cleanup standard for cesium-137 in soil was 9.2 picocuries per gram. SB 990 sets the goal for cesium-137 at 0.0012 picocuries per gram, a much smaller amount.

Boeing believes it will be able to meet those strict cleanup standards. But to attempt such a cleanup would result in the removal of such a massive amount of soil that it would impact the biological and cultural resources of the site and its surrounding communities, Shestag said.

“Conceivably, there could be a million cubic yards removed from the site, which would be over 70,000 truck loads of soil and take over 20 years,” he said.

The amount of soil removed could fill three Rose Bowls, Shestag said.

The other agencies are worried about SB 990’s high standards, too.

“It’s not that we don’t want to comply with SB 990, it’s just that we know that scientifically and technically it is not always possible,” said Allen Elliott, NASA’s program director for the field lab during last month’s meeting of the Santa Susana Field Lab Work Group.

Thomas Johnson, who until recently was the federal project director for DOE, agrees.

While the DOE is committed to complying with the law, Johnson said not every provision of SB 990 is practical.

“Cleaning up to background is achievable. Cleaning up to an agricultural level isn’t achievable,” Johnson said. “And why would you want to clean up below background?”

Dan Hirsch, a longtime cleanup advocate and president of the nuclear watchdog group, Committee to Bridge the Gap, said the demands of SB 990 are being overblown.

“SB 990 does not require cleanup below background or detection limits,” Hirsch said.

Community advocates and elected officials fear the “polluters” might find a way to shirk their responsibilities.

Assemblymember Julia Brownley (D-Woodland Hills) co-authored the controversial bill with former State Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica).

Brownley does not believe the criticisms of SB 990 are valid and said the field lab can and should be cleaned to the highest standards.

“Will it be easy? No. Is it a standard that is necessary for the health of the community? Yes. And can we do it? I think the answer is absolutely yes,” Brownley said. “It will take more work and more persistence and it will probably be more costly for the responsible parties, but that’s the law of the land.”

The Assembly member said SB 990 was crafted in the knowledge that there was a possible future interest in developing the property for residential use.

While Boeing has said it will donate the land as open space once it is cleaned up, Brownley doesn’t put much stock in the company’s word, noting that there is no written or legal commitment.

And Brownley doesn’t agree with charges that SB 990 has slowed the cleanup.

“It is true, it has been a long and arduous process from the time that SB 990 got signed to getting underway in regards to cleaning up the site to SB 990 standards,” Brownley said.

But she also pointed to Boeing, NASA and DOE as the reason “giant steps” have not been made.

“If the responsible parties had accepted California’s law from the get-go we’d be further along in the process,” Brownley said.