U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street (AIR-6)
San Francisco, CA 94105-3901

LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY

TRITIUM ISSUES

EPA STATEMENT TO THE BERKELEY CITY COUNCIL

October 20, 1998

Betsy Curnow

Chief, States, Planning and Assessment Office

Superfund Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(415) 744-2344

Good evening, Mayor Dean and Council Members. My name is Betsy Curnow. I manage the Superfund site assessment program for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. I would to like to thank you for providing EPA the opportunity to brief you this evening on our evaluation of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory as a potential Superfund site.

In 1997, the Committee to Minimize Toxic Waste and former Congressman Ron Dellums asked EPA to evaluate sampling data from the Lab’s Tritium Labeling Facility to determine whether this facility qualifies for listing on the federal Superfund list. EPA reviewed existing soil, water and air sampling data provided by CMTW and the Department of Energy.

After reviewing these data, EPA issued its draft report in July of this year with our preliminary finding that the Lab is "eligible" for placement on the federal Superfund list. However, because tritium emissions at this facility are well below national public health standards set by the Clean Air Act, EPA has no immediate plans to list the Lab as a federal Superfund site.

I know many people have been confused by EPA’s use of the term "eligible" for the federal Superfund list, while at the same time we are saying there is no apparent need to list the Lab. The bottom line for EPA is that actual site conditions at the tritium facility do not pose a significant risk to human health or the environment --- even though the site is eligible for listing.

Hopefully, I can clarify EPA’s decision by explaining the Superfund listing process. EPA uses a screening model to evaluate and prioritize potential Superfund sites nationally. Using this model, EPA evaluates the potential risks to human health and the environment posed by different sites. The model also helps us determine which sites may need additional comprehensive study. The screening model does not determine if cleanup is possible or even necessary. Rather, it provides EPA an inventory of sites which may require cleanup. We often refer to this inventory of potential sites as "eligible sites."

The current Superfund list is less than 1300 sites. In addition, there are about 3000 sites "eligible" for listing. For a variety of reasons EPA has not listed these facilities. For many of these Superfund-eligible sites, actual site conditions do not pose a significant risk to public health or the environment. In some cases, other regulatory programs or agencies are enforcing equivalent cleanup requirements, and there is no need for a Superfund listing. In the case of the Lab, EPA regulates tritium air emissions under the Clean Air Act, and State and local agencies are overseeing hazardous and radioactive waste cleanup.

What happens when a facility is added to the federal Superfund list? The answer depends on whether the site is privately owned, or is a federal facility --- such as Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. For privately owned sites, Congress appropriates an annual Superfund budget to EPA to manage cleanup activities.

EPA does not, however, have the authority to clean up federal facilities. Instead, Congress appropriates funding to other federal agencies such as DOE to clean up their own facilities. Last year, Congress appropriated $ 6 billion to DOE for waste management and environmental cleanup. DOE uses some of this funding to clean up federal Superfund sites. A significant portion of DOE’s environmental cleanup budget is allocated to a few high priority sites such as Hanford, Washington, Savannah River, South Carolina, Rocky Flats, Colorado and Fernald, Ohio. Like EPA, DOE must prioritize its cleanup activities annually to address the worst sites first. A federal Superfund listing does not guarantee cleanup funding in any given year.

One of the benefits of listing a site on the federal Superfund is that it provides EPA a funding source to oversee DOE environmental cleanup projects. Also, in our experience, the Superfund process itself encourages and facilitates community involvement in cleanup activities and decision-making. In the case of Lawrence Berkeley, EPA already has an oversight role to ensure compliance with air emission standards, and we believe the Tritium Issues Work Group provides an effective forum for community involvement that is similar to many of our Superfund projects.

As you might expect, there are some drawbacks to placing a site on federal Superfund lists. The major complaint we hear from communities is that listing a site often causes local real estate values to drop because people do not want to own property near a Superfund site. While we don’t agree with this characterization, we have to acknowledge this perception.

In the early days of the Superfund Program, EPA listed all eligible sites --- regardless of actual site risks. At some of these sites, we eventually concluded that no cleanup was necessary. We now know that our screening model cannot be used in a vacuum. That is why we now include a second step in the site assessment process to consider other factors, such as ongoing regulatory or cleanup activities, before making our final listing decision.

What are the next steps for our Superfund evaluation of the Lab? As you know, EPA is working with the community and government agencies through the Tritium Issues Work Group to perform an independent evaluation of the current monitoring system and collect additional samples. EPA has provided DOE a list of sampling requirements that we need to complete our Superfund evaluation. We are encouraging DOE and the Tritium Issues Work Group to incorporate this sampling into their scope of work.

In conclusion, EPA has no immediate plans to list the Lab because air emissions from the Tritium Labeling Facility are in compliance with federal Clean Air Act health standards. Other impacts of the tritium facility, such as contaminated ground water, surface water, soil, tree leaves and other media do not appear to pose a significant risk to public health or the environment. We will, however, reconsider the listing issue after the Tritium Issues Work Group completes the next phase of sampling and we determine the need for any long-term Superfund involvement at this site.

Thank you.