Page One

The California Regional Water Quality Control Board was not asked for its input in the formulation of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory study to evaluate tritium levels emitted by the lab’s Tritium Labeling Facility. 

And that didn’t sit well with the water board. 

In a May 1 letter, Water Resources Control Engineer Michael Rochette told the lab that the water control board wants groundwater studied as part of the process. And it wants to be among those consulted on the study. 

“The RWQCB has concerns regarding radiological impacts to water quality at LBNL. Tritium concentrations in groundwater in the area near the National Tritium Labeling Facility are elevated above background concentrations and, in one groundwater monitoring well, exceed United States Environmental Protection Agency’s tritium Maximum Contaminant Level for drinking water.” 

Rochette did not returns calls on Friday to comment further on the water board concerns. 

Spokesperson Ron Kolb said LBNL has no problem incorporating ground water into the Tritium Sampling and Analysis Plan. It would be “easy to build in,” he said. 

The lab is conducting the study on the request of the Environmental Protection Agency. The agency found that tritium levels were high enough to mandate a more thorough evaluation, to determine whether the labs should be designated as a Superfund site, requiring cleanup. 

The EPA does not require groundwater studies, Kolb said. “Our groundwater is not connected to our drinking water.” 

He said the addition of the groundwater to the study would be redundant. LBNL already does routine groundwater analysis, both at the facility and outside of it, he said. The water board “approves our monitoring plan every year,” he said. 

Rochette’s letter says “tritium concentrations in groundwater samples collected near the National tritium Labeling Facility exceed background concentrations....” 

Kolb explained, however, that these concentrations were found at wells drilled at LBNL proper for monitoring purposes and not off site. Wells outside the laboratory are within the requisite concentrations of 20,000 pico-Curries per liter, he said. 

Rochette says, however, that the water under LBNL is identified as having industrial or agricultural purposes, so the level of contamination there should be taken into consideration. 

Committee to Minimize Toxic Waste Co-Chair Gene Bernardi said it is inappropriate for the EPA to use a “drinking water standard” in its groundwater evaluation. 

People could be using well water to fill a child’s plastic swimming pool or to water the vegetable garden, Bernardi said. 

“They forget about the ecological chain,” she said. 

Tritium can enter a person through the skin, dogs can drink it in creeks and people eat vegetables watered with well water. 

The three community members sitting on the Environmental Sampling Project Task force, which is discussing what should be sampled in the Tritium Sampling and Analysis Plan, have sent a letter to LBNL calling on it add the water board to the task force. The signatories are Bernardi, Laurie Bright, representing Citizens Opposing a Polluted Environment, and Carroll B Williams, a former school board member who represents the Panoramic Hill Association. 

Kolb said he thought the task force would approve the inclusion of the water board on the task force at its next meeting, which will be August 10. 

Rochette asked LBNL for a response within 60 days of writing the letter to the seven specific concerns he noted. 

“An investigation of tritium contained in soil, surface water, sediment, ambient air, but not groundwater will leave a significant exposure pathway unaddressed for any future risk assessments,” Rochette said.