Davis South Campus Superfund Oversight Committee
Rt. 2 Box 2879
Davis, CA 95616
530 753-9449
fax 530 753-8220
e-mail- [email protected]
Web site: http://members.aol.com/dscsoc/dscsoc.htm

July 28, 1998

Remedial Project Managers
DOE-UCD LEHR Superfund Site
University of California, Davis
Davis, CA 95616

Dear RPMs,

DSCSOC's technical advisor, Dr. G. Fred Lee, recently prepared comments for DSCSOC on the following issues; "Long Term Liability for LEHR Site Waste Management," "Comments on UCD Groundwater Source Investigation Work Plan," and a discussion of a number of issues raised at recent RPM meetings. I have attached Dr. Lee's three sets of comments to this e-mail. I recently acquired AOL 4 which allows me to attach multiple documents. If you have any problems receiving, downloading or reading these attachments, please let me know and I will provide you with copies.

I take responsibility for not informing Dr. Lee about the recent conference call regarding UCD's Groundwater Source Investigation Work Plan. I was unclear at the previous RPM meeting if DSCSOC would to be included in this call and I did not notify Dr. Lee of this call in my RPM meeting report. This conference call caught him by surprise and at a time when he had a conflict. I apologize for my misunderstanding. DSCSOC has participated in some RPM conference calls in the past and has not been included in others. I do not have a clear understanding of the policy regarding DSCSOC's participation in RPM conference calls. I would appreciate if the RPMs would inform me as to their policy regarding DSCSOC's participation.

DSCSOC's Town Meeting Program has now been finalized. Brian Oatman will present a review of UCD's Groundwater IRA, Susan Fields will present a review of DOE's Removal Action, Bill Taylor, ATSDR, will present a report on the ATSDR/EPA's Follow-up Fish Study and Dr. Lee will present his review of the LEHR site from the public's perspective. Please plan to attend and invite anyone you think may have an interest. The Town Meeting will be held September 29th at 7PM at the Davis City Council Chambers on Russell Blvd.

DSCSOC appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on LEHR site issues. If you have any questions regarding Dr. Lee's comments, please contact me. If you have any questions regarding DSCSOC, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Julie Roth, Ex. Dir.

cc: G. Fred Lee
Bill Taylor
Jane Riggan
David Belk
Richard Serrano
Donna Charlevoix

G. Fred Lee & Associates
________________________________________
27298 E. El Macero Dr.
El Macero, California 95618-1005
Tel. (530) 753-9630 � Fax (530) 753-9956
e-mail [email protected]
web site: http://members.aol.com/gfredlee/gfl.htm

July 27, 1998

Via Email:

Julie Roth, Exec. Director
DSCSOC
Route 2, Box 2879
Davis, CA 95616

Dear Julie:

Last February, at an RPM meeting, there was a discussion about the adequacy of off-site management of LEHR site wastes with respect to long-term liability that the people of California could inherit from inadequate off-site waste management. You may recall that I discussed these issues with you and indicated that at some time in the future I would send you a discussion on them. Since these issues have now surfaced again, based on the July 14, 1998 letter from Kathy Setian to Susan Fields, I wish to provide DSCSOC with a report on this issue relative to discussions that were held at the February 11, 1998 RPM meeting that needs the attention of DSCSOC on behalf of the public's interests for the LEHR site remediation.

The specific issue of concern that I raised at the RPM meeting is the long-term liability associated with off-site disposal of LEHR site wastes by UCD in connection with clean up/remediation of various waste holes. While DOE is proposing to take LEHR site wastes to a federal facility/Hanford for disposal, UCD is proposing to take LEHR site wastes to a private facility (EnviroCare) in Utah. As I indicated at the RPM meeting, I have been concerned and served as a consultant to a number of governmental agencies and industries, such as IBM corporate headquarters, various municipalities, etc., on the long-term liability of hazardous waste management. A critical, in-depth review of current US EPA RCRA regulations governing the management of hazardous wastes by landfilling shows that these regulations are inadequate/unreliable for protecting the public's interests. The basic problem is that RCRA land disposal regulations, as interpreted by some US EPA region staff, allow the disposal of hazardous wastes in landfills that obviously will only delay when the waste residues will cause a disposal site to become a Superfund site.

I have provided an extensive discussion of these issues in a report that is available from my website, http://members.aol.com/gfredlee/gfl.htm, in the Hazardous Waste Landfill section. This report is based on my critically reviewing several hazardous waste landfills that had been approved by federal and state agencies where it was obvious that these landfills would not protect groundwaters from pollution by waste residues being deposited in the landfill for as long as these residues would be a threat.

At the RPM meeting on February 11, 1998 I specifically raised the issue of the long-term liability of disposal of LEHR site wastes at the EnviroCare facility in Utah. When I asked about whether the long-term, i.e. for as long as the waste residues represent a threat, ability of this disposal firm and facility to protect public health, groundwater resources and the environment from waste residues for as long as they represent a threat, I was told by J. McNeal that UCD has sent a "team" of experts to review the appropriateness of this facility for receiving UCD's wastes. When I asked about receiving the results of this team's evaluation, J. McNeal claimed that this was privileged information that could not be made public.

As you know, the L. Vanderhoef administration has no credibility--in fact, there is a negative credibility--with providing reliable information to the public, the regulatory agencies and others on the adequacy of UCD's evaluation of near-term, much less long-term impacts of its waste management practices. From public meetings organized by UCD, under questioning by members of the public on the adequacy of the current L. Vanderhoef administration's approach for developing Landfill #5 on the UCD campus to accept campus wastes, it was acknowledged by UCD staff that this landfill, like the other four landfills that UCD has constructed on campus for campus waste management, would also pollute groundwaters.

J. McNeal, on behalf of the L. Vanderhoef administration, has repeatedly claimed at public meetings that UCD's waste management disposal practices have met regulatory requirements and therefore should be justified as acceptable, even though they are now costing the public tens of millions of dollars because of mis-management of the wastes in on-campus landfills. It was obvious at the time these landfills were developed that they would lead to groundwater pollution.

DSCSOC on behalf of the public in California has an obligation to critically examine the appropriateness of UCD's meeting minimum US EPA regulatory requirements for off-site disposal of hazardous waste to ensure to the maximum extent possible that such disposal practices do not lead to UCD, i.e. the California public, ultimately becoming Responsible Parties in yet another UCD-caused Superfund site clean-up. Detailed information on the characteristics of the EnviroCare facilities and this firm should be critically reviewed to ensure that UCD's wastes are managed in such a way by this firm so that they do not become part of a future Superfund clean-up activity at this firm's waste management facilities. As mentioned above, I have been involved in reviewing these types of facilities for governmental agencies and industry, and can provide guidance on how to evaluate whether there is a potential long-term waste management problem at the EnviroCare facility that needs to be considered in selecting this facility for LEHR site wastes.

I suggest that DSCSOC formally request to examine the information obtained by UCD that caused the L. Vanderhoef administration, through J. McNeal, to conclude that the EnviroCare facility was a facility that provided true long-term, i.e. for as long as the wastes represent a threat, protection to public health and the environment. It is my position that if any firm will not make this type of information available for public review, then there is substantial likelihood that there are significant long-term problems that could cause the facility to ultimately become a Superfund site, where those who deposited waste at the facility would be named as Responsible Parties and help to pay for clean-up.

Please contact me if you have questions about this matter.

Sincerely yours,

G. Fred Lee & Associates
________________________________________
27298 E. El Macero Dr.
El Macero, California 95618-1005
Tel. (530) 753-9630 � Fax (530) 753-9956
e-mail [email protected]
web site: http://members.aol.com/gfredlee/gfl.htm

July 27, 1998

Julie Roth, Executive Director
DSCSOC
Route 2, Box 2879
Davis, CA 95616

Dear Julie:

Presented below are discussions of a number of issues that have been covered at recent RPM meetings.

At an RPM meeting I passed around an e-mail message that I had received from the Putah Creek Council regarding the siting of a black bear crossing Putah Creek near Pedrick Road. About two years ago, a mountain lion was sited near Putah Creek just down from the LEHR site. This past winter, salmon were found to be reproducing in Putah Creek upstream of the LEHR site. These situations point to the importance of Putah Creek as a wildlife habitat and a unique resource in the greater Davis area. The salmon reproduction is particularly significant in that the larval salmon just after hatch-out would be the most vulnerable form to toxicity in the Creek. The critical situation will be low-flow - drought conditions that will occur in future years.

I note that the opportunities for the public to gain access to Putah Creek after the reconstruction of the bridge crossing the Creek at Old Davis Road have not been restored. It would seem appropriate that DSCSOC and the Putah Creek Council join efforts to restore the public's access to Putah Creek at the Old Davis Road bridge area.

The finding of cesium 137 in the drainage ditch near Old Davis Road is of concern from several perspectives. While thus far the concentrations found do not represent significant health hazards to individuals who might come in contact with the soils containing the elevated concentrations of 137, there could be areas where elevated concentrations of cesium 137 are found which would be hazardous. As you may recall, when you and I first became involved in the LEHR site issues in the summer of 1995 and were provided with a guided tour of the site, following the tour I recommended that sampling of the soils along Old Davis Road be conducted to be sure that the overflow from the wastewater facilities had not carried hazardous chemicals from the LEHR site to Putah Creek through the drainage ditch along the road. Finally, two and a half years later, this sampling was done.

There was discussion of possibly the cesium being derived from former weapons testing fallout. I was active in radiological research during the 1950s and 1960s when weapons testing was being extensively conducted by the US. Further, as I mentioned, I had a student do his PhD dissertation on the behavior of cesium 137 in soils, especially clays and lake sediments. Cesium is a highly electropositive element that tends to attach to surfaces to a much greater degree than other alkali metals, sodium and potassium. In addition to sorption, there is also ion exchange uptake. Further, for certain types of clays with expandable lattice structure, cesium can enter the spacing between the lattice layers and cause the collapse of the spacing. This tends to lock the cesium into the clays where they are no longer available for ion exchange or desorption reactions. Much of the cesium that was associated with fallout from weapons testing has become associated with clays.

It was suggested that the cesium found in the surface soils of the ditch along Old Davis Road may have been derived from atmospheric fallout. Additional testing of soils in areas where surface runoff tends to pond would be important. I agree with K. Setian's July 14^th letter to S. Fields that the June 19 and 30, 1998 draft and final plan are inadequate. There is need for a more appropriate sampling and analysis plan covering the additional sampling for cesium along Old Davis Road.

This situation is of concern primarily because of the fact that it potentially indicates that cesium 137 was used at the LEHR site. Further, finding Tritium in the soils which have been impacted by the LEHR site septic tank discharges is another indication that a wide variety of experimental programs was conducted at the LEHR site that involved the use of a variety of radioactive and hazardous chemicals. This could mean that there are other constituents present at the LEHR site which represent hazards to public health and/or the environment that have not been identified.

I commented during the RPM meeting about this issue, inquiring as to how well the site and especially off-site soils had been investigated with respect to the presence of unknown constituents. The comment was made that through the use of gross alpha and gross beta measurements, it would be possible to detect the presence of unknown radiological constituents. That statement may not be correct. There could readily be a highly hazardous constituent in the soils at the LEHR site which would not cause gross alpha or gross beta measurements to be changed to any significant extent. While the analogy was made that TOC is a screen for other hazardous chemicals, much like gross alpha and gross beta are a screen for other radionuclides of that type, neither of these screens are definitive with respect to being able to interpret their measurements to mean that there is no unknown hazardous constituent in the LEHR site wastes and/or soils. There could readily be organics present that are highly hazardous to public health and the environment that do not cause a perceptible change in TOC measurements. Similarly, there could readily be alpha and beta-emitting isotopes which would not be detected by relying on gross alpha and gross beta measurements. This is an ongoing area that will need attention to ensure that adequate searches are conducted to determine whether there are hazardous constituents present at the LEHR site in soils, surface water runoff and groundwater that have not yet been detected.

The findings of bottles of mixed waste in the DOE trenches which contain organic solvents and tritium is of major concern since this greatly increases the complexity of the LEHR site investigation. A far more detailed investigation than has been conducted thus far will have to be conducted to conclude that wastes at the LEHR site, including the UCD landfills, can be left in place and not be a significant threat to future public health and the environment.

We have another example of an inappropriate approach that is being followed by DOE in the LEHR site investigation where DOE is attempting to propose no action or no removal action approaches to certain septic tanks based on the failure to find significant pollution of the soils in the vicinity of the septic tanks. However, the limited field investigation (LFI) was, as originally pointed out by Duncan Austin and DSCSOC as well as repeatedly over the past couple of years and again at the recent RPM meeting, an inadequate basis for anything other than concluding that a removal action is warranted. It cannot be used as was attempted by DOE to determine the lack of a problem. Every time DOE and its contractors attempt this approach, they loose further credibility with the public in terms of properly investigating the site. DOE and its contractors should terminate any discussion of a lack of a need for action based on the LFI investigations. A proper, detailed field investigation of each of the septic tank systems must be conducted to justify any action other than removal of the tanks, all drainage systems and contaminated soils.

While the statement was made that the LFI focused on determining worst-case conditions, those familiar with septic tank systems know that it is difficult to select worst-case conditions with respect to surrounding soil contamination. Septic tank drainage systems can readily plug so that the infiltration into the soils near the tank is limited, with the result that the waste associated with a particular period of operation may have been carried to a different location than would be anticipated based on the lack of plugging of parts of the system. From the potential nature of the wastes that were disposed of in the LEHR site septic tanks it could readily be that there are areas of the drainage system which contain waste components which happen to be in the area where infiltration was occurring when these waste components were used at LEHR. DOE must present a comprehensive, detailed plan of the approach it plans to follow in investigating pollution of the soils in the vicinity of the septic tank and the associated drainage infiltration systems. Once this program has been carried out, then it will likely reveal the need to do some additional studies to answer questions that arise from the original result. Ultimately, it may be possible to conclude that septic tank systems will not need to be excavated, however, this will be difficult to prove.

I have done a number of projects on septic tank pollution of groundwaters and am familiar with the complexity of trying to determine the extent of pollution by such systems. The bottom-line issue is the actual measure of the pollution in the groundwater system by appropriate monitoring wells. Other approaches are subject to considerable error. It is my recommendation that what should be done to determine whether the septic tank systems have and continue to pollute groundwaters is to sample the surface layers of the groundwaters just downgradient of the location of where infiltration of moisture through the septic tank drainage system would be expected to carry constituents derived from the septic tank-managed wastes.

I understand from the information provided that the MEK problem associated with its use as a cement for plastic pipe has finally been alleviated through flushing of the pipe. These kinds of problems should have been anticipated; they are very well known in the field.

I am concerned about the failure of UCD to recarbonate the water after air stripping before injection. Previously in commenting on the proposed IRA, I indicated that UCD should acquire the technical assistance necessary to investigate the calcium carbonate equilibria situation (aquatic chemistry). The groundwaters that are being pumped are likely at saturation with respect to calcium carbonate. Air stripping, which results in removal of CO2 and the associated increase in pH will cause the calcium carbonate to be supersaturated and lead to significant scaling problems within the equipment, plumbing and near the point of injection of the VOC stripped groundwater. Failure to recarbonate the injection water now could cause considerable problems in the future which could lead to significant additional cost compared to installing the recarbonation system at this time to bring the pH back down to its original value before air stripping.

Please contact me if you or others have questions on these comments. As it stands now, I will be able to attend the August 18^th RPM meeting.

Sincerely yours,