Re: General comments on the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory’s
Draft Corrective Measures Study (CMS), California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Initial Study, Negative Declaration, Statement of Basis and
Environmental Assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA).
Dear Mr. Ahmad and Mr. Patel,
The following comments represent years of community effort, frustration
and disappointment with regulators in our commitment to analyze, inform,
and insist on seriously cleaning up Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
site’s radioactive and hazardous chemical contamination from the
air, soil, soil water, groundwater, creeks, trees, vegetation, and aquatic
species on the University of California lands in the headwater areas
of the Strawberry Creek watershed in Berkeley and Oakland.
DANGEROUS TOXIC CONTAMINANTS WILL REMAIN IN SOIL AND GROUNDWATER!
The proposed CMS report is a good start but certainly it does not qualify
to be called site cleanup, but rather it is a token cleanup plan that
will leave in place at least 80% of the existing, known contamination
for future generations to deal with. The CMS process is being used to
facilitate LBNL‘s application to renew its Hazardous Waste Handling
Facility’s operating permit. LBNL is a contaminated site that
needs immediate, comprehensive cleanup and a Groundwater/Surface Water
Monitoring and Management Plan.
We ask that DTSC require LBNL to include an analysis of the Environment
Impacts from the proposed and continued operations of the Lab’s
Hazardous Waste Handling Facility (HWHF) in LBNL’s Long Range
Development Plan Environmental Impact Review (LRDP EIR), currently under
preparation. In addition, we request that DTSC postpone its decision
regarding the LBNL HWHF permit renewal until after the LRDP process
has been completed. (Attachment A.)
15 YEARS OF INVESTIGATIONS WITHOUT MEANINGFUL COMMUNITY INPUT!
The lack of any meaningful citizen participation caused the Berkeley
City Council on November 2, 1999, to formally request that members of
the Berkeley community be included at the RCRA Quarterly Review Meetings
(Attachment 1.). DTSC, Department of Energy (DOE) and LBNL all refused
to allow any community participation at those meetings.
Instead, the Lab’s response was to provide only an hour-long presentation,
just four times per year, by a LBNL representative at 6PM before the
officially scheduled Community Environmental Advisory Commission’s
(CEAC) meeting at 7PM. This untimely arrangement was poorly noticed
and attended, providing no chance for the public to gain comprehensive
understanding of the RCRA activities at LBNL. Nor was there any time
for meaningful discussion or input.
DTSC has failed to engage the public and for this reason we request
that DTSC sponsor a representative Community Advisory Group that would
be involved in the development of the Groundwater/Surface Water Monitoring
and Management Plan. (Attachment 2.)
HISTORY/BACKGROUND OF CONTAMINATION AT LBNL
The Lab originated on the UC Berkeley Campus in 1932 as the UC Radiation
Laboratory (the Rad Lab). In 1940 it was relocated to its present site
in the Strawberry Creek Watershed in the steep Berkeley Hills, east
of the Central Campus next to the Hayward Earthquake Fault. The first
major facility, the 184” Synchrocyclotron was built with funds
from both private and university sources. After 1948, the US Atomic
Energy Commission and its successor agencies funded the Lab. In 1972
the name was changed to from the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory to Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory.
For the past 65 years radioactive and chemical releases, and accidents
have contaminated the once beautiful, pristine watershed of the Strawberry
Canyon and nearby wild lands, affecting neighboring residents, and school
children attending the Lawrence Hall of Science, as well as people recreating
on the canyon trails, swimming etc. (Attachment 3.)
The first Environment, Health and Safety related assessment of LBNL
made by DOE was published in 1988. This first assessment was followed
by the Tiger Team Report of 1991 which found 678 violations of DOE regulations
concerning management practices at LBNL, finding Berkeley-Oakland air,
soil, and water contaminated with tritium, other radioactive substances
and toxic chemicals. It is indisputable that the Lab was not in compliance
with federal standards for radioactivity in air. Because of these findings,
DOE funded the California Agreement in Principle (AIP) Program to be
conducted by the California Department of Health Services (DHS), which
has jurisdiction over radioactivity in California.
In September of 1995, the DHS Environmental Management Branch released
the AIP Annual Report. (Attachment 4.) One of the AIP Report’s
criticisms was over the “efficiency and validity of the methods
employed at LBNL to measure and monitor airborne tritium” (p.14).
We believe this criticism caused DOE to cut the funding for the entire
AIP Program a few months later. DOE then took control over the handling
of the 8 radioactively contaminated sites at LBNL for which the DHS
Report had expressed serious concern. To date, no report has been released
for public review and comment regarding corrective action for clean
up of these radioactive sites!
In July of 1998 the US Environmental Protection Agency determined, based
upon a preliminary Hazard Ranking System (HRS) score, that LBNL was
eligible for the National Superfund Priorities List, (NPL) under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
of 1980 (CERCLA or “Superfund”). (Attachment 5.)
At that same time, the State of California had listed six locations
at LBNL in the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List, aka the Cortese
List. (Attachment 6.) And more recently in 2001, LBNL was included in
the government list of cold war nuclear sites as a “California
Hot Spot”, because the facility handled Beryllium or radioactive
materials. (Attachment 7.) These facts reflect both the complexity and
extent of the environmental impacts that LBNL operations have had on
the Strawberry Creek Watershed lands in the Berkeley hills.
CMS REPORT LACKS A COMPREHENSIVE, COHESIVE, VERIFIABLE GEOLOGIC
MAPPING OF THE STRAWBERRY CREEK WATERSHED AREA AT LBNL, AS WELL AS THE
SYNTHESIS OF SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE GEOLOGIC INFORMATION
LBNL is located in an area that is seismically very active, i.e. next
to the Hayward Fault. (Attachment 8.) It is for this reason that the
Final CMS Report should include comprehensive, verifiable geologic mapping
of Strawberry Canyon, which depicts bedrock outcrops and geomorphic
features including stream courses and landslides. It should also include
the synthesis of surface and subsurface geologic information previously
developed independently for the University of California at Berkeley
(UCB) and LBNL.
The LBNL Environmental Restoration Program has produced small scale,
mostly building specific maps of areas where known activities had resulted
in contamination of soil and groundwater. This piecemeal approach to
understanding site geology has seriously narrowed the site investigations
and discussions about overall impact of the contamination on the Strawberry
Creek Watershed.
We therefore ask that DTSC:
• Resolve confusion about the location of geological units and
associated faults by locating verifiable bedrock outcrops as the basis
for geologic interpretation;
• Provide a common base of geologic information, identify sites
of slope instability, especially those associated with groundwater,
faults and bedrock contacts;
• Synthesize preexisting surface geologic and geotechnical information
for the entire Strawberry Creek Watershed.
A unified site-wide approach would provide the necessary information
to better assess surface and groundwater pathways of contaminants such
that an effective groundwater monitoring and management plan can be
developed. This would include stream networks, geology, faults, landslides,
all areas of contamination evaluated in the RCRA process, all sewer
lines and hydraugers, storm drains and springs, etc.
EARTHQUAKE DISASTER: POTENTIAL HAZARD LANDSLIDE ZONES
On February 14, 2003 the California State Department of Conservation
Geological Survey released the final seismic hazard maps that illustrate
the seismic hazard zones of the University of California lands, of Berkeley
and Oakland (including LBNL), that encompass areas prone to soil liquefaction
(failure of water saturated soil) and earthquake induced landslides.
In spite of the contention of the CMS report, areas of contamination
cannot be considered “contained” in earthquake potential
hazard landslide zones that appear on the Seismic Hazard Maps. Landslides
break roads, buildings and even borders of contaminant plumes, cause
underground soil erosion, subsidence, lateral spreading and collapse.
Disturbed lands allow contaminants to migrate in the soil, soil water,
groundwater, storm drains and creeks into residential neighborhoods
putting at risk human and ecological health. It appears that the RCRA/CMS
reports do not address such a disaster potential predicted in the event
of a strong earthquake on the Hayward Fault within the next 30 years
by the US Geological Survey. Nor does the CMS report acknowledge the
geologic impact on the site contamination as seen in the changes in
plume sizes, shapes and movement since 1992. (Attachment 9.)
STRAWBERRY CREEK WATERSHED
The text of the Human Health Risk Assessment (May 2003) fails to acknowledge
the historical creek restoration work and laboratory studies that have
been carried out on the Upper Canyon reaches of Strawberry Creek, as
well as the Campus Strawberry Creek Watershed Management Plan and the
entire daylighted portions of Strawberry creek flowing into the San
Francisco Bay.
The Urban Creeks Council, Friends of Strawberry Creek, and countless
students work in the waters and along banks to clean up trash and debris,
weed infestations of non-native plants, restore banks with native plants,
test and GIS the streams on a year round basis. The Incremental Lifetime
Cancer Risk (ILCR) theoretical modeling only calculates surface water
exposure to a “recreational receptor” of the “residential
scenario”, without acknowledging those workers involved in creek
restoration as receptors too.
RCRA/CMS reports fail to consider the historical Map of Strawberry Valley
and Vicinity Showing the Natural Sources of Water Supply of the University
of California by Frank Soule, Jr., Professor of Engineering, 1875 (Attachment
10). Today, 130 years later, several dozen creeks and their tributaries,
as reflected on the Soule Map, are well known Mediterranean streams
and appear on LBNL’s Annual Site Environmental Reports. These
include Berkeley Creek, Blackberry Creek, aka North Fork of Strawberry
Creek, Cafeteria Creek, Ravine Creek, Ten-Inch Creek, Chicken Creek,
No-Name Creek, South Fork of Strawberry Creek, Botanical Garden Creek,
Banana Creek, Pineapple Creek, etc., and close to 30 springs.
The significance of the creeks as conduits for migrating contaminants
from soil runoff, seepage from underground plumes etc., such as is the
case with Chicken Creek and the tritium groundwater plume, has not been
addressed. (Attachment 11.) There has been no evaluation of the potential
health hazards following a seismic event or of the soil liquefaction
potential/soil failure within the creek basins that lace the Strawberry
Creek Watershed.
WATER QUALITY, GEOLOGY AND SOILS, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, HAZARDS
AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, AND HYDROLOGY ISSUES WITHIN THE WESTERN HALF
OF LBNL.
The Bevatron, a decommissioned particle accelerator, is located on a
four-acre site in the western portion of LBNL within the Blackberry
Creek (a.k.a. the North Fork of Strawberry Creek) Watershed. The site
is in the Hayward/East Canyon/Wildcat Canyon Earthquake Fault Zone,
surrounded by at least two cross faults: the Cyclotron Fault to the
south and the New Fault to the north. Currently the Bevatron and Building
51 are under review for potential demolition. This site is central to
the CMS cleanup evaluation but many questions have not been answered
or information provided about the site.
The Final CMS Report must include:
1. a comprehensive earthquake fault map that would include all the faults
in the entire Strawberry Creek Watershed, whether active or not, and
an interpretation of the significance of the presences of these faults
regarding the transport of surface, soil and groundwater within the
LBNL site.
2. a watershed map for the LBNL hill site showing the various watershed
and sub-watershed divides with a detail of the Blackberry Creek watershed
and the four-acre Bevatron site as well as the Strawberry Creek watershed
including the Chicken Creek sub-basin and the East Canyon area above
the UC Botanical Garden.
3. a Seismic Hazard Zone Map which would show areas in the Strawberry
and Blackberry Creek Watersheds where previous landslides had occurred,
as well as all topographic, geological, geotechnical, and subsurface
water conditions which indicate a potential for permanent ground displacement.
It should be noted that in a 1949 geologist (C. Marliave) report on
the bedrock conditions at the Bevatron site “...the area at the
Bevatron is to be excavated and leveled off to elevation 710. The bedrock
beneath this beveled surface will be comprised of poorly consolidated
Orinda sediments... The Orinda formation absorbs water freely and the
lava flows and breccia that are associated with it are also quite pervious
so that the whole mass becomes readily saturated... There appears to
have been considerable land sliding in the amphitheater in which the
Bevatron is to be located - and during periods of heavy rainfall, the
underlying Orinda sediments become quite soft from absorbed water...
seeps come out of the ground in many place, there are two known permanent
springs in the area where tunnels have been driven into the hillside
and pipes leading out from the caved entrances have been flowing water
for many years”. (Attachment 12.)
Further, though landslide deposits may have been modified or have fill
placed over them, their subsurface characteristics/failure planes may
exert controls on groundwater flow patterns and thus on the movement
contaminant plumes at the hill site. Mapping of the historic landslide
distribution in the Final CMS Report is extremely important for understanding/interpreting
how the contaminant plumes may be distributed on the hill.
4. the current configuration and condition of the engineered drainage
around the Bevatron site. How is groundwater from the seeps and springs
intercepted and captured? Where are water sources diverted? Do creek
beds of the historic creeks function as conduits for these waters? According
to the 1875 F. Soule Map titled: Strawberry Valley and Vicinity Showing
the Natural Sources of the Water Supply of the University of California,
at least two of the branches of the North Fork of Strawberry Creek were
located directly under the Bevatron Complex. The Final CMS Report should
provide a historic map of the site showing these watercourses and their
current state.
5. a geologic cross section of each plume to show the depth and concentration
of groundwater contamination in the four-acre Bevatron site and vicinity.
According to the Environmental Checklist’s Project Description
for the proposed demolition of the Bevatron: “Soil and groundwater
contamination are known to be present in some areas beneath Building
51 /Bevatron.” The primary known chemicals of concern are chlorinated
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in soil and groundwater.
In addition, PCBs have been detected in some groundwater samples. Contamination
in soil, outside the plume source areas, has included primarily chlorinated
VOCs, petroleum, aromatic hydrocarbons, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons,
PCBs and Mercury. Three groundwater plumes converge at the Bevatron
site: Building 51/64 VOC plume, Building 7 Freon/VOC plume and the old
town VOC/Building 7 Diesel plume.It appears that the location of the
groundwater monitoring wells in the general Bevatron site is insufficient
to characterize the full extent of these plumes.
Are the contamination plumes interrelated? It appears that there are
no groundwater sampling wells located in the basement of the Bevatron
core area. A sampling strategy must be developed and implemented prior
to the publication of the Final CMS Report to characterize and provide
comprehensive data on the extent of the potential groundwater contamination
plume under the Building 51/Bevatron. Soil boring(s) and testing should
be part of this investigation.
6. the potential effects of the increased rainfall on the now pervious
site, if the Bevatron structure is removed. What protections will be
put in place in the future site design to protect further impact of
rainwater on existing groundwater plumes? How will the increased groundwater
influence slope stability? In addition to the Bevatron core area, more
monitoring wells should be located laterally along the Cyclotron Fault
and New Fault because they could act as conduits for the contaminated
groundwater.
7. additional groundwater monitoring wells are needed (a) west of the
northern lobe of the Building 51/64 plume as well as (b) west of the
western lobe of Building 71 solvent plume to show whether the two plumes
converge into a topographic swale and (c) west of the old town plume,
specifically in the area between Buildings 46 and 51. All of these plumes
are in the Blackberry Creek Watershed and drain west toward the city
of Berkeley and San Francisco Bay. (Attachment 13.)
8. how the removal of the Bevatron (a concrete plug) and its subterranean
structures impact the movement and current hydraulic controls of these
groundwater contamination plumes. This factor alone is reason for additional
groundwater evaluation and monitoring wells. How is LBNL preparing to
prevent any contamination from entering the creeks and ending up in
downtown Berkeley where Strawberry Creek flows day lighted through many
public and private properties? For this reason, all site clean-up must
be done to residential standards.
9. a description of the air monitoring systems LBNL has in place to
determine any changes in air quality during the corrective measures
process.
10. the effects on the potential beneficial uses of Berkeley’s
large aquifer, e.g. availability in times of drought. Of special concern
is the Lennert Aquifer, currently pumped by the Shively well #1. The
Final CMS Report should provide an update on the pumping rates, water
quality, where the water is currently being dumped and why. (Attachment
14.)
11. the potential effects upon the endangered Alameda Whipsnake for
which the LBNL site is critical habitat. The Final CMS Report should
evaluate the cumulative and significant effects, on the human (and endangered
Alameda Whipsnake) environment, with the implementation of the corrective
measures that proposes to leave some 80% of the existing contamination
in place, concurrent with the Bevatron demolition, decommissioning and
decontamination of the National Tritium Labeling Facility and the construction
and operation of the Molecular Foundry.
12. a comprehensive description of the various beam targets (including
the magnet gap) and the beam dump areas during the Bevatron’s
forty-year history, and a sampling strategy to determine where the highest
concentrations and types of radioactivity and toxic chemicals/solvents
are located.
13. all the stable isotope studies performed at LBNL, in the early 1990s
(Attachment 4, page 9.) and in 1998-2000 when LBNL conducted stable
isotope studies to characterize the hydrogeology of the site. Further,
we ask that stable isotope studies be used as part of the development
of the new Groundwater Monitoring and Management Plan.
14. in the Statement of Bases regarding compliance that compliance be
determined only after each monitoring well demonstrates measurements
lower than the MCLs for at least eight (8) consecutive quarters. This
would be a change to the current proposal to certify LBNL to be in compliance
when multiple well data is averaged over four quarters and the average
for these wells is below the MCL.
15. carefully considered alternatives to demolition and removal that
would allow the Bevatron and its contamination to remain on site in
relative containment. On site containment will allow the radioactivity
to decay in place and not be hauled away to impact other communities.
This option would save taxpayers millions of dollars and save many communities
from the serious potential pollution which the demolition, transportation,
and waste dumping would bring about.
The projected cost of 85 million dollars for the Bevatron demolition
and removal is truly appalling taking into consideration the enormous
initial cost of the construction of the facility in the early 1950s,
which was approximately 10 million dollars. Since the 4 acre Bevatron
site is part of the current cleanup effort outlined in the Draft CMS
Report, we propose that some of those funds be used for DTSC to sponsor
a Citizen Watershed Advisory Group. Furthermore, in a June 2, 1993 Bay
Guardian article “DOE considers the pollution serious enough to
spend 82.6 million dollars to cleanup LBNL.” We would like to
have a full public accounting as to how this money has been spent over
the last dozen years. (Attachment 15.)
16. an evaluation of the Chicken Creek tritium and collocated radioactive
solvent plumes, as well as the diesel plume in the east canyon above
the Botanical Garden. Special cleanup strategies must be considered
for these areas in addition to a very carefully developed monitoring
plan, using stable isotope studies. (Attachment 16)
COMMUNITY WATERSHED ADVISORY GROUP (CAG) TO OVERSEE ENVIRONMENTAL
CLEANUP AT THE LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY
In addition to the four hundred (400) signatures already submitted at
the May 26, 2005 Public Hearing showing considerable community interest
in environmental issues related to the LBNL site, we now are submitting
over eighty (80) additional signatures on petitions requesting that
the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
sponsor a representative citizen’s watershed advisory group to
participate in the implementation of the environmental cleanup at the
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. This DTSC sponsored community
advisory group, (CAG) would be involved in the development of the Groundwater
Monitoring and Management Plan for the Laboratory site, located in the
Strawberry Creek Watershed.
DTSC has failed to adequately engage the Berkeley public in the RCRA
process and for this reason we request that DTSC support our community’s
desire for more involvement and grant our request now for a DTSC sponsored
CAG.
IN SUMMARY WE CALL FOR A SOURCE WATER PROTECTION PLAN
For the intent of the Resource Conservation and Recover Act, we call
for a Source Water Protection Plan to conserve and recover the Upper
Strawberry Creek Watershed that is still impacted by spreading toxic
groundwater plumes. In this regard, we request a comprehensive watershed
analysis be conducted, including the drinking water bank, Lennert Aquifer,
and its groundwater movements feeding Strawberry Creek tributaries for
a healthy environmental recovery.
We call for an Ecological Protection Zone in the Strawberry Creek Canyon
and the Berkeley-Oakland Hills to conserve and protect human and ecological
life from further harm in the 21st Century.As part of the Corrective
Measures Study we call for a state-of-the-art assessment of 1). LBNL
contamination using GIS mapping data of all the water sources, 2) the
earthquake faults from the Hayward Fault Zone to the East Canyon/Wildcat
Fault Zone, including, but not limited to the following cross faults
the New Fault, the University Fault, the Cyclotron Fault, the Strawberry
Canyon Fault.
We further request that the cumulative environmental impacts of the
174 radioactive and hazardous units be considered as well as the synergistic
effects of radionuclides, chemicals and bio-agents (combined) on human
and ecological receptors.
Sincerely
L A Wood, City of Berkeley Community Environmental Advisory Commission
Pamela Sihvola, Co-chair Committee to Minimize Toxic Waste