Re: Appeal and request for a high level administrative review
of DTSC’s Decision For the Approval of Corrective Measures Study
Report and Remedy Selection for Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
(LBNL)
To: Watson Gin, Deputy Director, Hazardous Waste Management Program. DTSC. P. O. Box 806, Sacramento, CA
September 30, 2005
Dear Deputy Director Gin,
We, the undersigned, residents and environmental leaders in the Berkeley
community, respectfully submit this request for the highest level administrative
review of the above referenced decision, its administrative record and
DTSC’s 8/31/05 Response to Comments document.
The three reasons for our petition asking DTSC, to review the conditions
of its decision are (1.) an important policy consideration requiring
review and (2.) the fact that all public comments were not addressed
and petitions and other materials submitted were excluded from the attachments
and (3) the array of wells to sample, monitor, and assess the distribution
of the contaminant plumes is insufficient to disprove that contamination
is not more widespread.
I. Important Policy Consideration Requires Careful Review
DTSC states, in its Response to Comments, that one of the three general
areas of concern expressed by the public was “Public Outreach”.
Public outreach is only one component of an important equation. What
is and has been missing is the most important component, i.e. the inclusion
of public input into the decision making process during the past decade
and a half, during which time DTSC has been the lead agency.
A glaring example of the exclusion of public input was DTSC’s
own statement in the “Final Decision” document, which states:
“Please note that DTSC did not make any changes from draft to
final decision.” Public Hearings and Public Comment Periods are
a total waste of taxpayers’ monies, considering that DTSC has
excluded public input in the decision making process and virtually ignored
that public comment finally allowed. Because community input was not
allowed in the past decade, and is now ignored, it is mandatory that
our request for a community advisory group (CAG) be implemented.
In response to general comment #3, DTSC states that..."there is
a provision for establishing a Community Advisory Group (CAG) for response
actions for state superfund cleanups." Please note that the ZENECA
site is not a state superfund site, and yet a CAG was formed including
25 stakeholders from the Richmond community, plus additional members
added later to represent University of California's Richmond Field Station.
“DTSC's mission is the protection of public health and the environment.
A vital component of accomplishing this mission is providing meaningful
opportunities for community members to have input into the decision
of which the CAG will be an important part.” (DTSC's February
2005 Public Involvement information sheet titled: Members Needed for
Community Advisory Group for the ZENECA/former Stauffer Chemical Company
site in Richmond, CA, which also includes the University of California's
Richmond Field Station site next door.) LBNL may not be on the state's
list for superfund cleanup (US EPA made an administrative decision to
not require DOE to clean up its superfund qualified site: LBNL) but
LBNL qualifies as a Superfund site, with a Hazard Ranking Score (HRS)
of 50.35, higher than Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s
ammunitions' dump, Site-300.
II. Fact: All Public Comments Were not Addressed and Petitions
and Other Materials Submitted Were Excluded.
In the August 31, 2005 "Notice of Final Decision for the Approval
of Corrective Measures Study..." on p. 2 it is stated "DTSC
has prepared a Response to Comments document addressing all public comments
received during the public comment period." This is erroneous:
1.) The 6/7/05 letter from the Friends of Strawberry
Creek Watershed, attachment 2 (see p. 53) erroneously listed as a
petition, was not responded to. We hope that this time it will not
be dismissed.
2.) An 11 page petition, with more than 80 signatures,
requesting that DTSC sponsor a representative Citizens' Watershed
Advisory Group to participate in the implementation of the environmental
cleanup at LBNL, was excluded from the Response to Comments. (This
petition is an integral part of public comment #16, Sihvola Wood letter
dated 6/7/05)
3.) A 400 + signature petition titled Save Strawberry
Creek Watershed was excluded from Response to Comments Attachments.
(See comment #8. Tuula Gordon)
4.) A transcript and Community Questions from a 1996
DTSC Public Hearing submitted by commenter #3, Joan Levinson, was
excluded from the Response to Comments attachments and was not responded
to.
|
DTSC must include these omitted documents, which review the history
and show the depth of community concern over LBNL's environmental contamination.
This strong community concern warrants the formation of a 25 member
CAG, as was established in Richmond, a site not on the state's superfund
list.
We also ask that DTSC answer Councilmember Kriss Worthington’s
question, asked at the May 26, 2005 Public Hearing: Is there anything
in the law that forbids DTSC from sponsoring a CAG for the Berkeley
community?
DTSC's second classification of general comment, Radionuclides Contamination,
discusses collocated contaminants, i.e. radionuclides mixed with solvents,
which is the case with regard to the large underground tritium plume,
and the radioactive solvents associated with it. In view of the most
recent information on radiation risks, published by the National Academy
of Sciences panel: Committee on Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation
(BEIR VII), there is No Exposure Level Below Which Dosage of Ionizing
Radiation is Harmless! (San Francisco Chronicle, June 30, 2005)
We ask that DTSC express more serious concern over the cleanup of collocated
contaminants at LBNL, which once pumped up from underground become mixed
waste under DTSC's jurisdiction. (Attachment A)
Ultimately nothing we brought to the attention of DTSC in the interest
of protecting public health and the environment was considered in the
decision making process. For this reason, it is imperative that a Community
Advisory Group be formed for the Berkeley community, to include a wide
representation (25) of stakeholders from the creek and environmental
communities, neighborhood organizations, various city commissions, including
the Community Environmental Advisory Commission at City Council’s
recommendation, to participate in the implementation phase of corrective
measures process, and in the development of the Groundwater Monitoring
and Management Plan.
In fact the Groundwater Monitoring and Management Plan is such a central
component of the CMS process, that the CMS report should not be approved
until the Groundwater Monitoring and Management Plan is developed and
approved by community members participating on the CAG, as their first
order of business.
III. Monitoring Wells Should be More Widely Distributed Near
Previously Interpreted/Mapped Faults and Landslides
Based upon previous and recent geologic interpretations of Strawberry
Canyon there still seems to be uncertainties and differences in interpretation
over the interpretation of fault and landslide features. Given this
and that the entire area is within a complex sheer zone that is intensively
fractured and faulted, it seems wiser to place a larger array of monitoring
wells downslope of landslides and along suspected faults intersecting
the contaminant plumes in order to disprove that pollutants are not
moving along these zones.
It is certainly easy to visualize that one or two wells could easily
miss a fracture zone that could funnel contaminated groundwater in some
unanticipated directions. The current placement of monitoring wells
does not convince us that the plumes are fully contained along the zones
shown by LBNL. Independent and technical review of the sampling strategy
should be conducted by an outside highly qualified scientific review
panel.
We, therefore, respectfully ask again that you conduct the highest
level of review of DTSC's lower level decision and its administrative
record.
Sincerely,
James Cunningham, Sec/Treas, CMTW (Committee to Minimize Toxic Waste)
Pamela Sihvola, Co-chair CMTW
Joan Levinson, CMTW
Jennifer Pearson, Ph.D., Co-facilitator for Friends of the Strawberry
Creek
Carole Schemmerling, Co-facilitator for Friends of the Strawberry Creek
Daniella Thompson, (Daley’s Scenic Park Association of Neighbors)
L A Wood, Berkeley Community Environmental Advisory Commission (CEAC)*
RCRA MAPS (2004) Corrective Measures Study LBNL
- Areas of Groundwater Contamination
and Policies Applied to Cleanup at Berkeley Lab
- Geologic Map of Corrective Measures
Study Areas, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
- Water Table Geologic Map of Corrective
Study Areas, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
- Groundwater Plumes Showing Designated
as Potential Dring Water Sources Corrective Measures Study Areas
- Hydrologeoloic Cross Section (A-A), CMS Areas, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
- Hydrologeoloic Cross Section (B-B), CM Study Areas, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
- Hydrologeoloic Cross Section (C-C), CMS Areas, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
- Hydrologeoloic Cross Section (D-D), CMS Areas, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
- Hydrologeoloic Cross Section (E-E), CMS Areas, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
- Hydrologeoloic Cross Section (F-F), CMS Areas, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
- Areas where ground water contamination has been observed (January 1992)
|