The future cleanup of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory—a former rocket engine and nuclear energy test site in the hills south of Simi Valley— now rests in the hands of the courts.

Saying it was left with no choice, Boeing Co., the field lab’s largest stakeholder, filed a lawsuit against the state last Friday, challenging the constitutionality of Senate Bill 990.

The decision comes after nearly a year of unsuccessful negotiations among the state and the three agencies responsible for the contamination— Boeing, NASA and the Department of Energy. The parties have been trying to incorporate the provisions of SB 990, the state law passed in 2008 that requires the field lab to be scrubbed to the most stringent standards.

“It was pretty clear from our negotiations over the past couple weeks that we had reached an impasse with the state,” said Steve Shestag, director of remediation for Boeing.

Since January, the Department of Toxic Substances Control —the state agency overseeing the cleanup—has been in the process of amending an agreement among the parties responsible for the chemical and radiological contamination at the 2,850-acre property.

The order is supposed to serve as the blueprint for the investigation and decontamination of the site.

As the Acorn reported last week, Boeing has questioned the reasonableness and attainability of SB 990, saying its high standards ask too much—especially since the land is to be donated as open space parkland after the cleanup, not used for homes.

“It’s uncertainty that drives us, really,” said Tom Gallacher, Boeing’s director of environment, health and safety for the field lab. “If we knew what the cleanup plan was, we could make a determination of whether we could live with it or not.”

Boeing cited several reasons for requesting that a federal court review SB 990. The company believes that, depending on how the law is interpreted by the DTSC, its strict standards could harm natural and cultural resources at the site, disrupt the community due to the large number of trucks that would be needed to remove the contaminated dirt, and ultimately prolong the cleanup.

But the key issue, which had been the sticking point in the negotiations, is that Boeing wanted specific legal language in the order that would afford the company the same legal protections as NASA and the Department of Energy. This “reservation of rights” would preserve the company’s ability to challenge SB 990 if Boeing were unable to meet the law’s standards.

“The state made it clear that they wanted us to waive our legal rights, and we told them a number of times we weren’t willing to waive our legal rights to sign a consent order,” Gallacher said. “We decided the best path for us was to file the lawsuit now and get this issue settled in the courts while we finish the cleanup.”

Gallacher said he believes the responsible parties were closer to signing an agreement this past summer, under the leadership of DTSC’s former field lab project director, Norm Riley.

“I believe we were very close to a consensual agreement with all three parties and DTSC, and why we haven’t been able to return to that with the current negotiating party is a mystery to me,” Gallacher said. “It should not have come to this, and we did not want to file this lawsuit.”

Boeing is committed to moving forward with the cleanup and won’t let the lawsuit slow things down. Gallacher said the company would continue to operate under the 2007 consent order and complete the ongoing investigations at the site with the hope that the case can be resolved quickly—within a year or, at the most, a year and a half.

But local cleanup advocates are not as optimistic. Dan Hirsch, president of the nuclear watchdog group Committee to Bridge the Gap, called Boeing a “despicable company” and the lawsuit an “unbelievably irresponsible action.”

Even though he believes Boeing has a weak case—especially if NASA and DOE sign a consent order—Hirsch said filing the suit represents just one more broken promise by Boeing and added that the aerospace company has no credibility left.

“I don’t think there’s anyone who ever believed a word Boeing said. They said they would fully comply with SB 990, and we knew they were lying from day one,” he said. “Even if they lose, as they will, they will delay the cleanup by a decade. People will have been exposed to a decade’s more carcinogens and other toxic material.”

Rick Brausch, field lab project director for DTSC, said he was disappointed that Boeing chose to sue since the agency was negotiating with the impression that the company was willing to comply with SB 990. However, he was not completely surprised.

“In this instance they were asking us to reserve their right to challenge SB 990, which in our mind was nonsensical to allow them to challenge the very basic reason for the agreement in the first place,” Brausch said. “What are you agreeing to if you are reserving the right to challenge it later?”