Government officials and environmental advocates have expressed concern over NASA's plans to sell or transfer its Santa Susana Field Laboratory property, saying the move would threaten cleanup efforts at the site.

Representatives from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration have maintained, however, that the agency would still fulfill its cleanup responsibilities, despite any kind of disposition of the land.

In April, NASA sent a notice to Congress stating its intent to declare its land at the field lab excess property. According to Allen Elliott, NASA's program director for the field lab, the property is no longer needed to support NASA's mission.

NASA owns and administers 452 acres of the 2,850-acre field lab, a former rocket engine testing and nuclear research facility in the hills two miles south of Simi Valley. It's controlled the property since the early 1970s.

The primary objection that critics have to NASA's plan is that it violates Senate Bill 990, which was signed into law in October 2007 and requires that the field lab be cleaned to the highest standards.

The state law also forbids the sale, lease or transfer of any land at the field lab until the site has been cleaned completely and the Department of Toxic Substances Control—the agency overseeing the cleanup—gives the all clear. The cleanup is scheduled to be finished in 2017.

"Our concerns are we do not want to see this land transferred without a proper cleanup," said William Bowling, founder of the Aerospace Cancer Museum of Education in Chatsworth. "We've worked 30 years to get Senate Bill 990 and it seems like the responsible parties are doing everything they can to find loopholes in this law."

Longtime cleanup advocate Dan Hirsch agreed.

"This plan by NASA is a blatant attempt to break the law," said Hirsch, president of the nuclear watchdog group Committee to Bridge the Gap. "It makes no sense to transfer the land before it's cleaned up."

Elected officials are also worried. U.S. Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, state Sen. Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills) and U.S. Rep. Elton Gallegly (RThousand Oaks), among others, have all stated their opposition to NASA's plan.

Louise Rishoff, district director for Assemblywoman Julia Brownley (D-Santa Monica), said NASA would have an "easy out" of its cleanup duties once the agency no longer controls the property.

"NASA is continuing to say that they are going to be responsible for the cleanup, but if they don't own the land anymore we think that promise is very shaky," Rishoff said. "And once the property has been declared excess, it triggers a process of offering it to other agencies . . . in its notcleaned-up, contaminated state."

Still, Elliott maintained that NASA has the "ultimate liability" for contamination at the site caused by its past operations and that the agency would remain legally responsible for the cleanup even if the land were transferred.

"NASA has stated in many communications with elected officials and at public meetings it is committed to and retains responsibility for the cleanup at the site," he said. "We are currently sitting at the table with DTSC to negotiate a consent order that takes in the requirements of SB 990. I don't think this changes anything."

NASA must submit a report of excess to the U.S. General Services Administration, which acts as a realtor for federal agencies wishing to dispose of surplus property. Once the report is filed, the GSA would first offer the land to other federal agencies, then to homeless organizations and other public agencies, including schools and the state. If there is no interest, the property would then go out to bid in the private sector.

In response to a request by Rep. Henry Waxman (DLos Angeles), NASA has decided to hold off on filing the report with the GSA until questions posed by the congressman's office have been answered.

Merrilee Fellows, NASA's manager for community involvement for environmental cleanup, said once these concerns are addressed the agency would move forward with its efforts.

"We will be proceeding along with our report of excess sometime shortly. I'm not sure what date," she said.