Page One

Critics of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) gave lab officials an earful Monday, arguing that planned expansion at the lab threatens to pollute their lungs, clog their streets and devour their tax dollars. 

“The lab should never have been built there, but it doesn’t have to keep growing,” said Susan Cerny, a local preservationist. 

The occasion of the complaints was a legally mandated Scoping Session that allowed the roughly 40 residents in attendance to weigh in on the Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) that will guide development at the 200-acre Berkeley Hills campus through 2025. 

The plan projects increasing the daily population at the lab by 1,200 to 5,500 and boosting building space by 800,000 square feet to 2.56 million square feet.  

Residents offered a litany of criticisms and suggestions that, by law, the lab must address in the Environmental Impact Report that will accompany the LRDP. Lab officials declined to address the speaker’s concerns, but said in private interviews that it would be difficult to satisfy them. 

The lab’s most promising new field of research—nanotechnology—also proved its most controversial. 

Nanoparticles are 100 times smaller than the width of a human hair, but when effectively manipulated exhibit dynamic properties that proponents say can revolutionize nearly every scientific field from medicine to weaponry. 

Neighbors, though, fear the particles and fibers are so small that they’ll float through standard lab filters and land in their lungs, causing unknown health risks. 

“Not even the Environmental Protection Agency knows the impact of these things, but we’re ready to let them loose in Berkeley,” said Tom Kelly of the Commission on Health. 

Lab officials said most nanotechnology research has been performed in liquid solutions or with the particles bound to other materials—which sharply reduce the risk of emissions. 

Residents called for a review of the future home for nanotechnology research—the Molecular Foundry— which they claimed lab officials snuck through environmental review before unveiling the long range plan. 

Jeffrey Philliber, a lab facilities manager, said that since the foundry had already met all state environmental standards, it won’t be incorporated into the Environmental Impact Report—which, however, will address health concerns about nanotechnology. 

On Tuesday, City Council tabled a recommendation from the city’s Community Environmental Advisory Commission to ask the lab to submit to annual studies on potential nanotechnology health risks from an independent board of scientists. 

Other residents feared that the military would ultimately reap the benefits of the lab’s nanotechnology research, but lab spokesperson Terry Powell said only two percent of the lab’s budget is sponsored by the Department of Defense, none of it classified. 

Many residents were just as concerned about the traffic heading to and from the lab. 

Claiming that Centennial Drive and other commuter roadways were already carrying maximum traffic loads, neighbors urged the lab to work with AC Transit to establish bus service and establish an Eco Pass program to give incentives for workers to ditch their cars. 

Powell said the lab planned to add just 600 new parking spaces for the projected 1200 new workers. But, he said, lab officials had previously rejected Eco Passes because many employees commute from Contra Costa County and therefore wouldn’t benefit from the program. The lab does run a shuttle service every ten minutes from downtown Berkeley. 

“We can’t mitigate the traffic problem by ourselves,” Philliber said, citing a 1998 study that showed the lab accounted for a small portion of rush hour traffic heading through the South Berkeley Hills. 

Lab officials were also quick to reject the city’s plan to seek compensation for city services, including maintaining sewers and access roads. 

Powell said the lab already provides roughly $1 million annually to the city by fielding a fire department that provides first call service to neighborhoods around the lab. Last year, Powell said, the firefighters responded to 650 calls, 70 percent of them from off-campus neighbors. 

Jeff Sherwood, spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Energy, said Department policy precluded it from paying Berkeley for services because the lab rents its property from the University of California. 

Berkeley Assistant City Manager Arrieta Chakos said the city remained undeterred and would seek compensation either from the Department of Energy or the UC Board of Regents after staffers complete a report on the extent of the city’s expenditures towards maintaining the lab. 

Meanwhile, the city is funding a study of expenses related to UC Berkeley, which is also in the process of finalizing its own Long Range Development Plan. 

“It’s our responsibility to develop every type of avenue we can to work with the lab and campus,” Chakos said. “We really feel obliged to push this very early in the process.”