Whistleblower: Los Alamos groundwater monitoring methods are hiding detection of contamination

Published: July 18th, 2011 at 2:36 pm ET


“Another Kind of Fukushima?” Asks Whistleblower Robert Gilkeson, Truth-out, July 18, 2011:

Geologist Robert H. Gilkeson: After graduating with a BS and MS from the University of Illinois Geology Department, Bob worked as a research scientist at the Illinois Geological Survey from 1973 to 1987. He then joined the environmental company Weston as Technical Director for Earth Sciences, first in their corporate office in Westchester, Pennsylvania and then to their Albuquerque, New Mexico office. In 1988 he joined LANL as a senior consultant. His work focused on characterizing contamination from the lab’s large waste disposal sites.

[...] In 1997 Bob was asked to lead the big project of putting in a network of monitoring wells across the then 47 square mile facility to look at groundwater contamination from laboratory operations. After reviewing the work plan that was written by external contractors and some lab employees, he realized it was incorrect—most well locations needed to be changed and the mud rotary drilling method had to be replaced.

LANL agreed with Bob’s plan to not use the mud rotary method, but then James Bearzi came in as the chief of the New Mexico Environment Department hazardous waste bureau in 1999. Bearzi changed the work plan back to mud rotary. “So I left,” said Bob. “I couldn’t be part of the process that was going to put in more than 30 monitoring wells, each costing over a million dollars, that were going to hide knowledge of contamination from LANL operations.”

I asked, in what way hiding—the wells did not provide the proper kind of data to detect LANL contamination?, to which he responded “that’s right,” and I said that the LANL reports that claim “no contamination is present” would be wrong because the data to begin with is flawed, and he responded “that’s right.” This is what I’d call a contaminated monitoring operation.

Challenging LANL’s groundwater monitoring methodology and operation became a passion for Bob. After all these years of efforts, “Three months ago the New Mexico Environment Department sent LANL a letter stating that the methodology the lab is using (for monitoring of groundwater contamination) cannot ensure that these wells produce reliable data,” Bob proudly told us.

I learned why honest groundwater monitoring is crucial at LANL. Joni told us about the shocking amount of subsurface waste, “At LANL there are at least 21 million cubic feet of toxic, chemical and radioactive waste buried in unlined pits, trenches, and shafts, on mesa tops, and in the canyons, inside the lab property. During the 2011 Las Conchas Fire, the LANL Director informed the media that large amounts of LANL wastes are buried in unknown locations outside LANL property. Those pits inside and outside LANL are not lined. All that waste is moving towards our groundwater, and that’s why groundwater monitoring is so very important, but their monitoring methods are hiding the detection of contamination.” [...]

Published: July 18th, 2011 at 2:36 pm ET


Related Posts

  1. Los Alamos lab begins removing radioactive soil from canyons to prevent contamination from spreading after fire July 12, 2011
  2. Los Alamos lab trying to prevent ‘Cold War-era contamination’ from coming closer as 2 major canyons above lab suffered fire damage July 9, 2011
  3. Groundwater with 23,000 pCi/liter of radioactive material found around Tennessee nuke plant — Exceeds limit for drinking water December 20, 2011
  4. Kyodo: Tepco ‘reverses’ position — Admits Fukushima plant’s groundwater is contaminated with radioactive cesium — Wanted to dump it into Pacific Ocean June 3, 2013
  5. AP: 33 underground canals of radioactive waste were beneath barrels of plutonium contamination threatened by Los Alamos fire October 2, 2011

8 comments to Whistleblower: Los Alamos groundwater monitoring methods are hiding detection of contamination