Page One

A consultant told a mostly skeptical audience Monday that current tritium emissions, from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, are not substantial enough to pose a health risk. 

Dr. Bernd Franke, a research biologist with the institute of Energy and Environmental Research in Heidelberg, Germany, was hired by the city in December 1999, to determine if there are substantial health risks posed by atmospheric tritium releases by the National Tritium Labeling Facility located within the LBNL.  

Franke told about 150 people at a special meeting of the Community Environmental Advisory Commission that he could not find evidence of dangerous amounts of the radioactive material being released into the air.  

“I would let my own kids go to Lawrence Hall of Science,” Franke said.  

LHS, located about 500 feet from the tritium emissions stack, sponsors a variety of youth workshops and exhibits and is attended by nearly 150,000 children each year.  

According to Franke’s report the 1998-1999 exposure rates to humans living and working near the lab was well within the limit set by the Clean Air Act. Franke said there is not reliable data for previous years.  

The Clean Air Act sets an exposure standard of 10 milirems of tritium in a one-year period. Franke’s report estimated the exposure rate to be less that 1 milirem. 

Tritium is a radioactive isotope that is used primarily for drug research. It is also used as luminescent material for watches, exit signs and other forms of lighting. 

The labeling facility has special  

clearance from the Department of Energy to warehouse large quantities of tritium. The facility releases small amounts of tritium into the atmosphere as a matter of procedure each time it performs tritium-related experiments. 

Gene Bernardi, of the Committee to Minimize Toxic Waste, which opposes the facility, said Franke’s $30,000 report was flawed and did not accurately measure tritium emissions.  

“What does it mean that there’s tritium in the groundwater and vegetation?” Bernardi said during the public comment period.  

Franke said that tritium levels in groundwater and vegetation near the lab were less than 1 curie. He said the amount was insignificant and if the tritium in the water and vegetation were to suddenly become airborne, which is where it’s most hazardous, it would amount to less than 2-3 days allowable emissions from the facility. “It’s really a very insignificant amount,” Franke said. 

Bernardi remained unconvinced. On Tuesday she said 20,000 picocuries is the EPA limit for drinking water and the groundwater near the release stack has been measured to contain as much as 850,000 picocuries (1 curie equals 1 million picocuries). 

Bernardi said she is convinced tritium releases are directly connected to high levels of breast cancer and infertility in the neighborhoods surrounding the lab. Several people who live near the facility described incidences of cancer in their families and neighbors.  

Mike Bandrowski, EPA radiation program manager, said the Agency of Toxic Substance Disease Registry conducted a cancer cluster study that showed cancer rates around the lab were normal. 

However Bernardi said she received a letter from the Department of Public Health dated April 1, 1999 that claims the rates of breast cancer were higher than normal during 1998-1999 in census tract 4001, a residential tract near Strawberry Canyon, southeast of the lab.  

The Committee to Minimize Toxic Waste has aggressively campaigned for the closure of the facility for five years and the City Council has twice adopted resolutions calling for its relocation. 

Owen Hoffman, a consultant hired by the laboratory, said he concurred with Franke’s findings. Hoffman said he also discovered safe levels of tritium were being released into the atmosphere. 

“The rates are the lowest I’ve ever seen but I have to say it’s the largest gap between low rates and high outrage I’ve ever seen,” Hoffman said referring to the vocal opponents of the tritium facility. 

Roger Byrne a biologist who is working with the Committee to Minimize Toxic Waste disagreed with Franke’s findings. Byrne said Franke should have paid more attention to high levels of tritium discovered in rainwater in 1994.  

Franke said the 1994 studies did not provide reliable data and any conclusions he might arrive at based on the study would be unreliable. 

“You can’t squeeze the truth form poor data,” Franke said. 

Byrne also criticized the monitoring methods used by the lab saying the monitors were poorly placed. 

Most public comments indicated skepticism of Franke’s findings.  

Berkeley resident Patricia Sun referred to an “unplanned release,” which occurred on March 7. According to a LBNL memo, 4.7 curies of tritium were released into the atmosphere in 4.5 hours. Many neighbors of the lab were upset that the incident was not publicly reported. It has also raised concerns that “unplanned releases” might be a common occurrence that the lab neglects to report. 

“It’s things like this, that make people insecure because the government has lied to us many, many times before,” Sun said. 

Seth Katzman, a resident who raised two children in Berkeley, said he was one of the few residents who supported Franke’s report during public comments. “Smoking, gun shot wounds and car accidents worry me more than the risk of tritium exposure, he said. “Decisions should not be made of fear but reason.” 

The Environmental Sampling Project Task Force will be monitoring tritium in the area around the lab for the next 12 months. Based on the results, Franke will complete his final report, which will include an estimate of heath risks from the tritium labeling facility.