Overview: A Legacy of Contamination in a Community’s Backyard
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s main site in Livermore, CA has a decades-long legacy of toxic and radioactive pollution. Past operations, from a Naval air station in the 1940s, plus decades of nuclear weapons research in the Cold War and post Cold war periods, released volatile organic compounds (VOCs) like industrial solvents, fuel hydrocarbons, metals, and radioactive tritium into the soil and groundwater.
By 1987, a VOC plume had migrated ~2,200 feet offsite and towards city water wells, prompting the EPA to list the site as a Superfund National Priorities List site. This heavily contaminated 800-acre site immediately borders a residential neighborhood, with parks, schools and a community pool all within a short walking distance from the Lab boundary. This proximity means any remaining pollution is not in some remote desert, it’s adjacent to where families live, work, and learn, which is why Tri-Valley CAREs insists that no amount of radiation is safe and full cleanup is imperative.
Ongoing Pollution and Incomplete Remediation
Despite over 30 years of cleanup efforts the toxic plumes of groundwater contamination persist beneath the Lab and beyond. More than 2,000 boreholes have been drilled and over 700 monitoring and cleanup wells installed to characterize and contain the spread. Pump-and-treat systems have processed about 6.9 billion gallons of groundwater since 1989, stripping out roughly 3.8 tons (3,458 kg) of VOCs. Yet large portions of the groundwater still contain VOCs above cleanup standards, and progress has slowed.
In the most recent five-year period, the project removed only ~144 kg of VOCs via groundwater pumping (down from 192 kg in the previous period). This decline is partly because concentrations have diminished in some areas, but also due to treatment inefficiencies and physical limits (e.g. wells running dry as the aquifer is drawn down during drought). Notably, the Lab’s own analysis admits the extent and magnitude of the contaminant plumes have remained “largely unchanged” or only slowly shrinking over the last five years where extraction is active.
In plain terms, decades into the cleanup, significant pollution remains stuck in the ground. It is understandable that activist groups like Tri-Valley CAREs find this unacceptable, since the contamination is being contained, not eliminated, leaving a toxic legacy to fester.
The site has multiple VOC groundwater plumes (e.g. TCE and PCE solvents) radiating from different source areas. Aggressive pumping has largely halted further spread off-site, but contaminants still lurk near the site boundaries. Along the western edge, all but one off-site monitoring well now meet drinking water standards, except one well where perchloroethylene (PCE) was measured up to 6.7 µg/L, slightly above the 5 µg/L EPA limit. Another well hit 5.7 µg/L PCE during the review period. These exceedances indicate residual plumes persisting right up to the Livermore community.
A detached PCE plume that had migrated off-site was only reined in after a pipeline extraction system was added in 2012, accelerating cleanup of that hotspot. On-site, several groundwater plumes remain high in VOCs, for example, a trichloroethylene (TCE) plume in the TFB area had concentrations ~8 µg/L at the leading edge as of 2021 (above the cleanup goal of 5 µg/L). In multiple source zones, contaminant levels have shown only “slow, steady progress” at best. Though billions of gallons have been treated, large areas of groundwater are still not cleaned up, exposing the community to protracted risk.
Radioactive Tritium & “Monitored Natural Attenuation” Stalling Cleanup
One of the most troubling aspects is the handling of tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen that was released into the site’s groundwater. Rather than pump and treat tritium-contaminated water, DOE’s chosen remedy is “in situ decay”, i.e. leaving the tritium underground to let its radioactivity naturally decrease over time. (Tritium has a half-life of ~12 years, so this strategy essentially kicks the can decades down the road.) Because of this, several groundwater treatment facilities in areas where VOC solvents commingle with tritium have been shut off for over a decade to avoid bringing tritium to the surface. For example, treatment wells and units in the Trailer 5475 area and “TF518 North” were taken offline in 2007–2008 and remained offline through the latest review period.
The reason? Pumping that water produced filters and carbon that were laced with low-level radioactive residues, making the waste “mixed” (radioactive + hazardous) and complicating disposal. To avoid dealing with mixed waste, LLNL simply halted active cleanup in those zones. The VOC plumes there are just being contained by a few peripheral wells, while the tritium is allowed to “decay naturally” underground. This approach may be convenient for the polluter, but it leaves radioactive pollution in place for future generations.
The linear no-threshold model, a core principle in radiation protection, assumes that any amount of ionizing radiation exposure, no matter how small, increases the risk of cancer and other health effects, and this risk is directly proportional to the radiation dose. It implies there is no safe level of radiation exposure. The Lab’s stance that tritium left in groundwater poses no harm is at best misleading, and at worst potentially dangerous. Every year that these areas go untreated is another year of preventable risk (e.g. if tritium were to migrate or if someone in the future were to drill a well unknowingly).
Worse, relying on radioactive decay has stalled VOC cleanup in the co-contaminated areas. The Lab admits that VOC treatment in those sectors “will resume once tritium decays below low-level waste levels and/or an alternate VOC treatment technology is identified.” In other words, the chemical toxins are effectively being left in limbo along with the tritium. This overreliance on natural attenuation and avoidance of dealing with mixed waste exemplifies a “protect the Lab first, clean up later” mentality.
More proactive solutions, for instance, exploring advanced methods to strip out tritium or treat VOCs without spreading tritium, could be pursued. The five-year review notes that DOE/LLNL has tested some innovative treatments (like electrical resistance heating, bioremediation, and zero-valent iron injection in hotspots), and has a strategy to phase in costlier technologies if needed. However, these efforts have been painfully slow and limited. LLNL’s own analysis cautioned that even promising source-removal technologies can suffer contaminant “rebound” over time, implying a reluctance to fully deploy aggressive cleanup measures. Tri-Valley CAREs counters that caution has morphed into paralysis: the Lab appears content to manage the contamination at the margins (largely via pump-and-treat and containment) instead of truly remediating the source areas with all available tools.
Vapor Intrusion
One of the most significant human health concerns is vapor intrusion: the seepage of chemical vapors from the contaminated soil or groundwater into buildings, where people could inhale them. The primary chemicals of concern are VOCs like TCE and PCE, which can cause cancer and other illnesses. For years, LLNL maintained that vapor intrusion was not a significant risk, partly because much of the site is industrial with active ventilation. However, updated EPA guidance in 2015 prompted a re-evaluation of the vapor intrusion pathway. During the Sixth Five-Year Review period, DOE finally undertook a comprehensive indoor air sampling campaign in on-site buildings. The results were reported as showing “no short-term risk” to occupants from subsurface vapors, but that statement comes with critical caveats. In fact, some initial indoor air tests detected TCE and PCE above the target safety levels, triggering concern. The Five-Year Review admits that exceedances of target concentrations did occur, and only “after re-sampling” were indoor air levels confirmed below targets. In plainer terms: it seems like the first round of tests in certain buildings found unacceptably high levels of toxic vapors, and it took follow-up action to get readings that met standards. This is hardly a clean bill of health. Tri-Valley CAREs points out that these episodes demonstrate how vapor intrusion remains a real, ongoing risk, one that could endanger workers on-site and potentially residents off-site if contamination were to migrate under nearby homes.
To its credit, under regulatory prodding, LLNL has now implemented additional safeguards: for example, developing a long-term indoor air monitoring program and agreeing to deploy passive vapor samplers in any building if a soil vapor extraction system near it goes offline for more than 30 days. These measures, completed in 2020–2021, came after an EPA addendum required more vigilance on the vapor intrusion issue. They indicate that vapor intrusion is an acknowledged concern requiring continuous oversight, not a closed issue. Tri-Valley CAREs remains concerned that LLNL’s public messaging (“no short-term risk”) glosses over the complexity, and the belief is that the protectiveness of the remedy with respect to indoor air is conditional and still under evaluation. Indeed, the Five-Year Review’s official Protectiveness Statement had to be qualified: it deems the remedy “short-term protective” only because ongoing vapor intrusion analysis and other steps are in progress to ensure long-term safety. This deferment is concerning. We see a disconnect where DOE declares human exposure is under control, yet at the same time acknowledges unresolved uncertainties (hence short-term protectiveness). Tri-Valley CAREs insists that full transparency and precaution are needed, all vapor intrusion data (on-site and off-site) should be shared with the public, and mitigation systems (like sub-slab depressurization) should be installed wherever even trace vapor risks exist. No family in the surrounding community should have to worry about toxic fumes seeping into their home’s air.
Reliance on Land Use Controls vs. Real Cleanup
A major issue with the cleanup at the Livermore Lab site seems to be that the government isn’t removing all the pollution, it’s just putting up rules to keep people away from it. Instead of cleaning the land enough so it could be safely used for homes or schools, the Department of Energy (DOE) uses restrictions to keep people from being exposed to harmful chemicals still in the ground and water. For example, in 2007, the DOE said that any parts of the Lab with leftover contamination can’t be sold or used for housing because they’re not safe. In 2014, they made these restrictions part of the official cleanup plan. These include things like no well drilling, fences, warning signs, and legal agreements that limit what the land can be used for. The DOE also has to check every year to make sure these safety rules are still in place.
This is a problem. These controls can fail: signs can wear out, people can forget, and future owners or workers may not know about the dangers. Plus, these rules only protect people, they don’t help the environment or the groundwater itself.
Tri-Valley CAREs believes the real goal should be permanent cleanup, not just relying on fences and paperwork forever. The surrounding community shouldn’t have to trust that the Lab will manage this risk for generations to come. Every year the pollution stays, there’s a chance something could go wrong. The focus needs to return to actually cleaning up the contamination so that someday, we don’t need these restrictions at all.
Climate Change and Regulatory Rollbacks
The cleanup at Livermore Lab might be becoming even harder because of climate change. For example, California’s long droughts have lowered the groundwater levels in the East Bay. At one polluted spot called TFA East, the water table dropped so much that the well meant to clean it up couldn’t reach the water anymore. In 2021, the Lab had to stop pumping groundwater there and instead switched to a different method called soil vapor extraction.
While adjusting the cleanup approach makes sense, this shows how climate change is messing with plans that were made years ago. Old systems may not work well under today’s extreme weather. On top of that, because there’s less rain, the underground water doesn’t get refilled as fast. That makes it harder to remove pollution without drying out the aquifer too much. Even the Lab’s own review admits this has slowed down the cleanup.
At the same time, government oversight of environmental safety has gotten weaker in recent years. Under the last presidential administration, the EPA rolled back many protections and faced budget cuts. Rules that kept our air, water, and communities safe were weakened. Tri-Valley CAREs and other Bay Area environmental justice groups spoke out strongly, warning that these changes could cost lives.
Some of those rollbacks have since been reversed, but the moment showed how fragile environmental protections can be. If agencies like the EPA stop pushing for strong cleanups, the Department of Energy (DOE) might slow down or take shortcuts at the Livermore Lab. We could also see looser safety standards—like allowing more radiation or chemicals—just to make things easier for polluters.
Conclusion
The Department of Energy says the site is “currently protective” for workers and nearby residents, but that safety depends on constant monitoring, working equipment, and strict rules staying in place. If any of those break down, even briefly, people could be put at risk. As a community group, Tri-Valley CAREs sees a gap between the government’s hopeful claims and the on-the-ground truth: toxic and radioactive pollution is still in the soil and groundwater. It hasn’t been removed, it’s just being contained.
If a well fails, a fix is delayed, or dangerous vapors are missed, that pollution could reach people. Calling this “safe for now” isn’t enough, especially when the full cleanup could take decades. We reject the idea that it’s okay to leave even low levels of contamination behind or push the burden onto future generations. Any amount of radiation poses a risk, and no toxic chemicals should be in our water or soil.
The Sixth Five-Year Review shows that while there’s been some progress, there’s still a long way to go to truly protect the people and the environment. We believe that health and safety should come before what’s easiest for the Lab. After more than 35 years on the Superfund list, it’s time for Lawrence Livermore Lab to take full responsibility and finish the cleanup, not keep kicking the can down the road.
Link: https://erd.llnl.gov/media/documents/6th_FYR_20221003.pdf