Affidavit

I, Robert Howard Gilkeson, Registered Geologist, State of Florida, #PG621, hereby sub it this !ffida"it in su##ort of the !##eal of the $ong %er &onitoring and &aintenan'e

Plan for Sandia (ational $aboratories) &i*ed +aste $andfill brought by !##ellant ,iti-en !'tion (ew &e*i'o. u#on to testify in this to the following fa'ts of If 'alled

atter, I 'ould 'o #etently testify y own knowledge/

1. %his affida"it is to su##ort the !##eal of ,iti-en !'tion (ew &e*i'o for the #erfor an'e of a fi"e0year re#ort for the feasibility for e*'a"ation of the Sandia (ational $aboratories 1Sandia2 &i*ed +aste $andfill 13&+$42 as set forth in the 2556 Final 7rder of the (ew &e*i'o

8n"iron ent 9e#art ent 13(&8942 in #aragra#h 6 of #age 6 13,ondition #642. 2. %here are urgent reasons to 'onsider the feasibility for e*'a"ation of the &+$ at the #resent ti e as re:uired by the Final 7rder ,onta inants ha"e been released fro and tren'hes at the &+$ and the unlined #its ha"e rea'hed the

groundwater beneath the &+$;

%he groundwater

onitoring wells ha"e been defe'ti"e

u# to the #resent ti e so as to hide knowledge of 'onta ination to the groundwater. %he Fate and %rans#ort fro a &odel 13F%&42 is based on

unreliable

data

defe'ti"e

well

onitoring

network for groundwater at the &+$. %he "adose -one beneath the &+$ is not ade:uately

onitored; %he dirt 'o"er #la'ed abo"e the &+$ is not suitable for #rote'tion of the wastes fro rea'hing the

groundwater. %he dirt 'o"er is not #ro#erly

onitored;

%here is no liner beneath the &+$ #its and tren'hes. fa'tors of de and the fi"e0year as well re"iew as for the of

Su'h

feasibility

e*'a"ation,

#erfor an'e

e*'a"ation of the &+$ in the near ter , i.e., within fi"e years. %he (&89 non0enfor'e ent of the fi"e0year re"iew

has already been delayed for four years. 3. %he a##ro"al of the $ong %er &onitoring and &aintenan'e

Plan 13$%&&P42 by the (&89 before #ro"iding the fi"e year feasibility addition, defe'ti"e re#ort (&89 was a "ery of serious the $%&&P istake. 'on'ealed In a

the

a##ro"al

onitoring of the "adose -one and groundwater.

%he :uestions regarding the feasibility of e*'a"ation are 2

distin't fro e*'a"ation of

'onsiderations #osed by the $%&&P. the &+$ is feasible and were

If the to be

a''o #lished at the #resent ti e or in the near ter , then the re:uire ents for the $%&&P 'ould be different fro arkedly

what is 'urrently #ro#osed and would be

#referably de'ided after e*'a"ation. 4. I a an e*#ert in the a##li'ation of the Resour'e

,onser"ation and Re'o"ery !'t 1R,R!2 and 9e#art ent of 8nergy 19782 7rders for en"iron ental fa'ilities. I ha"e <6 years onitoring on 978 in geology,

e*#erien'e

hydrologeology, geo#hysi's, and geo'he istry both as a resear'h s'ientist and an e*#ert 'onsultant for #ri"ate 'or#orations and go"ern ent agen'ies. 5. &y 'or#orate work has in'luded Honeywell ,or#oration,

+it'o ,or#oration, ,H2& Hill, +eston ,or#oration and 8R&, In'. 6. I was a resear'h s'ientist for the Illinois Geologi'al Sur"ey 9i"ision of the =ni"ersity of Illinois, in the 'ross dis'i#lines of hydrogeology, geo#hysi's and

geo'he istry.

I was an instru'tor in the =ni"ersity of I was #eer re"iew editor the >ournal of Groundwater

Illinois Geology 9e#art ent. for arti'les sub itted to

&onitoring Re"iew for 16 years.

7. I was a 'onsultant on 'onta ination issues at $os !la os (ational $aboratory 1$!($2, and at other 978 nu'lear

wea#ons fa'ilities and uraniu 1?@A to 1???.

ill tailing sites fro

In 1??A, I be'a e the lead 'onsultant for onitoring wells at the

the installation of a network of

$os !la os (ational $aboratory 1$!($2. 8. In 255B, I brought #roble s with the $!($ to the attention of the onitor wells at of 8nergy

9e#art ent

Ins#e'tor General.

%he 978 IG released a re#ort in Fall y allegations about the $!($

of 2556 that agreed with onitoring wells.

htt#/CCwww.ig.energy.go"Cdo'u entsC,alendarDear2556Cig0 5A5<.#df 9. In >anuary 2556, the 8n"iron ental Prote'tion !gen'y

18P!2 #ublished two re#orts that su##orted 'on'erning the $!($ groundwater

y allegations

onitoring #rogra .

10. In >une 255A, the (ational !'ade y of S'ien'es released a re#ort that su##orts y allegations about the failed

groundwater

onitoring #rogra

at $!($ to e*tent that onitoring wells are flawed

3 ost, if not all of the $!($ for the #ur#oses of

onitoring.4

11. I e*tensi"ely analy-ed the data and #erfor an'e of the groundwater onitoring wells at the Sandia (ational

$aboratoriesE

&i*ed

+aste

$andfill.

%his

in'luded

reading thousands of #ages of the !d inistrati"e Re'ord for the &+$, as well as do'u ents obtained by ,iti-en !'tion under the Freedo of Infor ation !'t and (ew

&e*i'o Publi' Re'ords !'t.

I ha"e additionally #erfor ed !n e*tensi"e

inde#endent resear'h regarding the &+$.

te'hni'al re#ort, in whi'h I was an author, details why the &+$ groundwater onitoring well network was and

re ains htt#/CCradfreen .orgC#agesCGround+ater.ht 12.

defe'ti"e.

%he Sandia &+$ du # was originally na ed the 3%!0< low0le"el radioa'ti"e waste du #4 during the <5 years of nu'lear wea#ons waste dis#osal o#erations fro &ar'h 1?6?

through 9e'e ber 1?@@. %he re:uired engineered features of a Resour'e ,onser"ation and Re'o"ery !'t 1R,R!2

3landfill4 in'luding liners, lea'hate 'olle'tion were not lo'ated between the &+$ i*ed radioa'ti"e and ha-ardous

'he i'al wastes and the !lbu:uer:ue a:uifer. 13. %he waste landfill fro a''e#ted radioa'ti"e waste and and i*ed

Sandia

resear'h

fa'ilities

off0site

generators in'luding 155,555 'ubi' feet of radioa'ti"e waste. %he landfill 'ontinued in use by Sandia until at least 1??< for the storage of 'ontaineri-ed low0le"el radioa'ti"e wastes. ,he i'al wastes were de#osited in the 5

landfill. +ater was de#osited in o#en #its and tren'hes fro stor runoff, 2A5,555 gallons of wastewater fro and 6,555 gallons used to a

nu'lear uraniu

rea'tor

e*tinguish

'hi# fires. =nknown a ounts and ty#es of waste

are in the 'lassified area of the &+$. 14. %he landfill sits on the eastern argin of the

!lbu:uer:ue Fasin, within the boundaries of Girtland !ir For'e Fase. !lbu:uer:ue Fasin as its uses groundwater sour'e fro of the water.

!lbu:uer:ue

#rin'i#al

Groundwater below the landfill is about BA5 feet below ground surfa'e. Sandia therefore established se"eral so0 'alled waste 3 onitoring fro the wells4 to is ensure not that 'onta inated 'loser to or

landfill

see#ing

a'tually into groundwater. Howe"er, as dis'ussed below, a reliable network of groundwater installed #resent. 15. In its &ay 26, 2556, Final 7rder, (&89 lea"e the &+$ 'o ingled ha-ardous, ade a de'ision to at the Sandia &+$ onitoring wells was not du # fro 1?6? to the

i*ed and radioa'ti"e %hat de'ision was

wastes in #la'e below a dirt 'o"er. based on unreliable data fro onitoring wells that were

a network of groundwater earlier des'ribed by

go"ern ent s'ientists, beginning in the 1??5s, as being in the wrong lo'ations, insuffi'ient 6 in nu ber, with

'orroded

well

s'reens, R,R!

i #ro#erly

drilled for

and

not

in

'o #lian'e onitoring. fro $os

with

re:uire ents

groundwater

%he re#orts were issued during the #eriod the 978 %iger %ea , (&89 and the =.S.

1??1 to 1??@ by s'ientists fro !la os (ational $aboratory,

8n"iron ental Prote'tion !gen'y 18P!2. 16. %he !d inistrati"e Hearing 7ffi'er for the 9e'e ber 255B #ubli' hearing for the &+$ that #re'eded the issuan'e of the 2556 Final 7rder was not infor ed of the defe'ti"e nature of the groundwater onitoring network at the &+$

and the la'k of reliable and re#resentati"e sa #ling data for aking the de'ision to lea"e the wastes buried in

unlined #its and tren'hes at the &+$ under a dirt 'o"er. 17. %he failure of the groundwater onitoring #rogra at the

Sandia (ational $aboratories !lbu:uer:ue Fa'ility 'aused e to sub it a 'o #laint to the 978 IG in >une 2556. 1#I76RS5662. 18. In &ar'h 255A, along with ,iti-en !'tion, I sub itted a re:uest to the =S 8n"iron ental Prote'tion !gen'y Region 6 to #erfor onitoring a te'hni'al re"iew of the &+$ groundwater well network and sa #ling ethodology.

Senator >eff Finga an also re:uested that 8P! Region 6 #erfor the re:uested te'hni'al re"iew.

19. I

'onsulted

with

8P!

Region

and

8P!

(ational s'ientists in the

Risk for &+$

&anage ent se"eral

Resear'h onths

$aboratory

staff

regarding

defi'ien'ies

groundwater

onitoring network.

20. I was infor ed by an 8P! Region 6 staff s'ientist that the Region 6 tea of two hydrologists and a geologist had

written the te'hni'al re#ort for the &+$. 21. I was #resent during a tele#hone 'on"ersation on s#eaker between ,iti-en !'tion 9ire'tor 9a"id F. &',oy and an 8P! Region 6 attorney, who infor ed &r. &',oy that no su'h te'hni'al re#ort e*isted. Region 6 anage ent +e re'ei"ed a letter fro that the &+$ did 8P! not

'on'luding

#resent a ha-ard to the #ubli'. Region 6

%his 'on'lusion of 8P!

anage ent was reHe'ted by the 8P! 7ffi'e of

Ins#e'tor General Hotline Re#ort that was issued on !#ril 1B, 2515. 22. In or about 9e'e ber 255@, ,iti-en !'tion and I filed a 'o #laint 137IG42 with be'ause the 8P! 8P! 7ffi'e 6 of did Ins#e'tor not General the

Region

#ro"ide

te'hni'al re#ort of its staff s'ientists and had wa"ed aside 'on'erns for the &+$ onitoring wells. %he

'o #laint identified a failed well

onitoring network at

the &+$ that histori'ally did not and #resently 'ould not #ro"ide re#resentati"e and reliable sa #ling data u#on 8

whi'h to base a de'ision to lea"e A25,555 'u ft of

i*ed

waste under a dirt 'o"er abo"e !lbu:uer:ueEs drinking water a:uifer. 23. %he 8P! 7IG issued a I2A<,555 Hotline Re#ort 13HR42

titled Region 6 Needs to Improve Oversight Practices, Re#ort (o. 150P05155 1!#ril 1B, 25152.

htt#/CCwww.e#a.go"CoigCre#ortsC2515C25155B1B0150P0 5155.#df %he HR 'onfir ed that 8P! Region 6 in fa't did

write a te'hni'al re#ort entitled, Sandia Mixed Waste Landfill ro!nd"ater Monitoring Well S#stem and Program %he HR did not 8P! to Region 6

Oversight Revie"$ 137"ersight Re"iew42. #ro"ide the 7"ersight it Re"iew be'ause

unlawfully

sta #ed

3,onfidential4

deliberately

withhold it fro

a''ess, a''ording to the 7IG. %he 7IG

stated 1!t a Glan'e2/ 3S#e'ifi'ally, Region 6 staff 112 took ina##ro#riate ste#s to kee# the details of the &+$ assess ent fro do'u entation onitoring wells

the #ubli', 122 de'ided not to #ro"ide or so eti es not to do'u ent their

'on'erns about the &+$ a letter to ,!(& that

onitoring wells, 1<2 #ro"ided did not note the s#e'ifi'

details of the assess ent, or 1B2 i #ro#erly #la'ed a national se'urity arking 1,onfidential2 on the

assess ent. %he RegionEs a'tions are a "iolation of 9

8P!Es

Publi'

In"ol"e ent

Poli'y

and

8P!Es

Re'ords

&anage ent Poli'y.4 24. %he 7IG further stated 1#.B2/ 3S#e'ifi'ally, the Region did not #ro"ide the 7IG with do'u entation to su##ort the Region 6 res#onse to

J,iti-en !'tionK that the Region found (&89Es o"erall a'tions and de'isions with to be te'hni'ally +e found sound that and so e

'onsistent

re:uire ents.

Region 6 staff

e bers intentionally did not do'u ent

onitoring wells. %he Se'tion and ProHe't

their o"ersight of the Sandia &+$

,hief of the Federal Fa'ilities

8ngineer for Sandia also li ited #ubli' in"ol"e ent by withholding infor ation regarding the &+$ onitoring

wells and dis issing the RegionEs 'on'erns about the site without do'u enting their de'isions.4

25. %he 7IG HR found that 3one 7"ersight Re"iew tea felt the tea regarding #ro'ess the

e ber

was #ushed to agree with (&89Es #osition &+$ onitoring in an wells.4 8P! 7IG %his bad faith a

is

des'ribed

inter"iew

with

e ber of the 8P! Region 6 tea res#onse to the ,iti-en !'tion

that was furnished in lawsuit as Pro'edures

Inter"iews 1F.B.PS at #.152/ 31b2162 Jna e deletedK stated that he did not ha"e any #rior 'onne'tion with the site. 10 In fa't he does not

re#ort to 1b2162. He also stated that Region 6 had its results #re'on'ei"ed. Region 6 anage ent did not

want to Jsi'K (&89 doing anything wrong. anage ent 'reated a stru'ture to

%herefore, ensure the

a##ro#riate out'o e would result. Furhter ore Jsi'K, as the writing and draft 'o ents #rogressed ore and to a

final letter, the tea

was #ushed

ore to

agree with (&89Es #osition. tea Es initial e"aluation

He also stated that the would ha"e 'hanged the

solution at Sandia &+$.

(&89 #ushed e*tre ely hard

for 8P! Region 6 not to e"en :uestion the #ast results or the "iability of #ast test results. Finally he

stated that ,!(& J,iti-en !'tionK got short 'hanged by Region 6.4 26. !s a result of a Freedo of Infor ation !'t lawsuit filed

by ,iti-en !'tion, in 9e'e ber 2512, I re'ei"ed a 'o#y of a 255A 8P! Region 6 37"ersight Re#ort4 that was sta #ed 39raft4 and 3,onfidential.4 &any of the te'hni'al

findings in the o"ersight re#ort 'oin'ided with te'hni'al defi'ien'ies groundwater onitoring and sa #ling that

were identified in the &ar'h 255A re:uest for te'hni'al re"iew. 27. %he 255A 8P! of Region the 6 7"ersight that Re#ort were 'onfir ed identified the by

#ersisten'e

#roble s 11

regulatory agen'ies in the 1??5s, in'luding by 8P! Region 6, and by yself beginning in 2556. Su'h #roble s

in'luded/ &onitoring wells #la'ed in the wrong lo'ations; I #ro#er drilling I #ro#er sa #ling ,orrosion of well ethods; ethods; s'reens that hides knowledge of

groundwater 'onta ination; $ong well s'reens hide knowledge of groundwater

'onta ination. ,ross0'onta ination of different strata by i #ro#er

#la'e ent of well s'reens; %he need for reliable onitoring wells to be #la'ed to

the west, south and north of the &+$; %he need for ore sensiti"e dete'tion of %ritiu

'onta ination in groundwater; Ina##ro#riate analysis of the groundwater flow rate based on flawed #u #ing tests; %here is insuffi'ient onitoring of the "adose -one

for early dete'tion of releases; 28. %he 255A 8P! 7"ersight Re#ort substantiates the any

e*#ert re#orts in the (&89 !d inistrati"e Re'ord that (&89, 8P! Region 6, and 978CSandia were aware fro 12 the

early

1??5s

to

the

#resent

that

the

onitoring

wells

installed at the &+$ had

any features that 'on'ealed

knowledge of radioa'ti"e andCor ha-ardous waste leaking into the groundwater a:uifer fro large body of knowledge that the the &+$. %here is a

onitoring wells were

defe'ti"e for reliable and re#resentati"e dete'tion of 'onta ination for the wastes buried in the du #. 29. 8P! Region 6 has groundwater onitoring 'on'erns in its any that are not

255A 'onfidential 7"ersight Re#ort,

addressed by the S($ $%&&P. %hese in'lude 'on'erns for/ (eed for a onitoring well to be #la'ed at the

northern boundary of the &+$. +ell &+$0&+1 should be re#la'ed by a well nearby to onitor for ni'kel. Soil "a#or onitoring only went to a de#th of 65 ft

des#ite e"iden'e of in'reasing le"els of 'onta ination for tritiu 30. !t and sol"ents 1L7,s2. the ti e of the 255B #ubli' hearings Sandia before and an

!d inistrati"e

Hearing

7ffi'er,

(&89

re#resented that there was 3no e"iden'e of 'onta ination to the groundwater.4 %his was not true. It was known that the #athway to the groundwater fro &+$ 'onta inants is

'o #lete and groundwater is 'onta inated.

13

31. ,onta ination

to

the

!lbu:uer:ue

groundwater

ay

be

substantially greater at the #resent ti e than when the Final 7rder was signed on &ay 26, 2556. 32. %he Se'ond 8dition of the 978CSandia Fate and %rans#ort &odeling 13F%&42 Re#ort was issued in 255A 1Ho et al., 255A2. %he 255A F%& #ro"ides no assuran'e the groundwater is safe be'ause its 'on'lusions were not based on

reliable groundwater

onitoring data. %he F%& Re#ort does the the onitoring wells &+$ du # ha"e

not in'lude the analyti'al data fro that show the the wastes buried in with

'onta inated

groundwater

'ad iu ,

'hro iu ,

ni'kel and nitrate.

In addition, the 255A F%& re#ort odeling results that

arbitrarily e*'luded the 'o #uter

identified that the groundwater is #robably 'onta inated with the highly to*i' sol"ent tetra'hloroethene 1P,82. Ho, et al. o itted the 'on'lusions fro the 'o #uter

odeling that the &+$ was 'onta inating the groundwater with the highly to*i' sol"ent tetra'hloroethene 1P,82. %he 'on'lusions fro the 'o #uter odeling were ignored the

in fa"or of the unreliable water :uality data fro si* defe'ti"e was not

onitoring wells that show the groundwater with P,8. %he 978CSandia that re#ort the

'onta inated the

disregarded

well0known

fa'tors

#re"ented

14

wells

fro

being

able

to

dete't

the

P,8

groundwater

'onta ination. 33. %he onitoring network 'o #rised of the 'urrent si* wells &+$ $%&&P are installed and ha"e onitoring data for at least the %here is an o"erall re'ord of

1&+B to &+?2 for the #ro"ided groundwater last fi"e years.

groundwater

onitoring sin'e 1?@?.

34. Re#orts in the (&89 ad inistrati"e re'ord do'u ent that 'urrent wells &+B, &+6 and &+6 are useless to dete't groundwater 'onta ination fro the du #. Further,

re#orts in the ad inistrati"e re'ord for the &+$ do'u ent that 978CSandia and (&89 re'ogni-e that the three new onitoring wells installed in 255@ 1&+A, &+@, and &+?2 are useless to dete't 'onta ination fro the du #

be'ause/ !. %he well s'reens are too long at <5 ft; F. %he water le"els easured in wells are 25 ft too dee#

to dete't groundwater 'onta ination at the water table, and; ,. %he wells &+@ and &+? are at water le"els too low for 'olle'ting reliable and re#resentati"e water sa #les. !n

additional feature that #re"ents the three new wells fro dete'ting 'onta ination is that the wells are #u #ed to dryness with water sa #les 'olle'ted later fro 15 aerated

water

that

destroys

dete'tion

of

"olatile

organi'

'o #ounds and other 'onta inants. 35. I ha"e re"iewed a 2556 %e'h$aw, In'., te'hni'al re#ort, released to ,iti-en !'tion in late 255?. (&89 filed a

255A #ubli' re'ords lawsuit against ,iti-en !'tion and the %e'h$aw, In'., re#ort was obtained in 255? as a

result of ,iti-en !'tionEs 'ountersuit. 36. %he 2556 %e'h$aw, In'., re#ort re"ealed/ an inade:uate dirt 'o"er design; inade:uate #ro"isions for onitoring

oisture beneath the dirt 'o"er with neutron tubes; the need for an i #er eable liner beneath the dirt 'o"er, and an inade:uate 978CSandia 'o #uter odel for fate and

trans#ort of 'onta inant 37. %e'h$aw, In'. 125562

o"e ent beneath the &+$. (&89 re'ogni-ed the neutron

and

#robes were worthless for

onitoring the #erfor an'e of

the soil 'o"er be'ause the #robes were #la'ed beneath the du # rather than under the 'o"er and abo"e the wastes. (e"ertheless, neutron the as 2512 the $%&&P still only to #resents onitor the the

#robes

ethod

used

#erfor an'e of the soil 'o"er. Fro $%&&P/ <.B.2 ! soil0 oisture Soil0&oisture onitoring syste

#age <01B in the 2512

&onitoring has been installed oisture

beneath the &+$ and 'onsists of three soil 16

a''ess

tubes

drilled

at

<50degree

angle

1fro

"erti'al2 dire'tly below waste dis#osal 'ells. =sing this syste , infiltration through the 'o"er shall be onitored onitoring in the "adose -one beneath as an the &+$. %he

syste

fun'tions

early

dete'tion

syste , #ro"iding infiltration and 'o"er #erfor an'e infor ation. 38. (&89 re:uired the onitoring defi'ien'y to be resol"ed in ade in the $%&&P.

the $%&&P, but that 'orre'tion is not %he (&89 re:uire ent follows/

P!R% 2 ,7&&8(% < 7( P!G8 < in the 1501505@ (&89 (79 for the &+$ ,&IP states/ <. In (79 ,o ent ?, the (&89 'on'luded that the neutron oisture at

#robes will only be able to e"aluate soil

de#ths in the "adose0-one that are 'onsiderably dee#er than the base of the soil 'o"er. Fe'ause it would take substantial ti e for oisture to o"e through the

"adose -one to the de#ths of the neutron #robe a''ess tubes, and be'ause the 'urrent design does not for breakthrough of waste, (&89 does oisture fro not the agree best %hus, onitor

the 'o"er to the su'h design oisture for an ore

that

onitoring early

offers

#ossible (&89

warning

syste .

will

#la'e

e #hasis on other ty#es of 17

onitoring in the $%&&P. (o

res#onse 'o ent.

is

re:uired

by

the

Per ittees

for

this

%he Sandia &+$ was originally na ed the 3%!0< low0le"el radioa'ti"e waste du #4 during the <5 years of nu'lear

wea#ons waste dis#osal o#erations fro 9e'e ber 1?@@.

!#ril 1?6? through

Fy todayEs standards for landfills, the &+$

'annot :ualify for a #er it under the re:uire ents of the Resour'e liners, ,onser"ation lea'hate and Re'o"ery or !'t. %here are no or

dete'tion

lea'hate

'olle'tion

engineered 'o"er. 39. Stor

1B5 ,FR 26B.<512.

water has entered into the #its and tren'hes of the Rainfall e"ents that took #la'e at the late >une 2556 through >uly

&+$ for de'ades.

&+$ during the #eriod fro

255A brea'hed #rote'ti"e ber s installed around the &+$ and 'aused the #ooling of stor su##osed to #re"ent stor water. %he ber s were

water fro

flowing a'ross the %he

du # site during 'onstru'tion of the dirt 'o"er.

brea'hing of the ber s is e"iden'e that the rain e"ents were 'arrying stor water a'ross the du # for at least

fi"e de'ades and #ossibly to the groundwater below. 40. 2A5,555 gallons of nu'lear rea'tor waste water was du #ed at %ren'h 9. a 6,555 uraniu gallons 'hi# fire of in water the was &+$ used tren'h to F.

e*tinguish Stor water

ay still enter hori-ontally between the dirt 18

'o"er and the wastes. &+$ through the

+ater will 'ontinue to enter the 'o"er be'ause there is no

dirt

i #er eable

e brane under the dirt 'o"er to 'arry water

away to the sides of the &+$. 41. ! landfill that re'ei"ed ha-ardous waste after >uly 26, 1?@2 is a R,R! 3regulated unit4 and groundwater ust 'o #ly with the

onitoring re:uire ents of B5 ,FR M 26B.?10

155 in lie! of M 26B.151. 1B5 ,FR M 26B.?5 1a21222. B5 ,FR M 26B.155 #ro"ides the a##ro#riate standard for

'orre'ti"e a'tion #rogra is a regulated unit

for a regulated unit. did not 'o #ly

%he &+$ R,R!

that

with

groundwater #resent. three

onitoring re:uire ents at any ti e u# to the !t least one u#gradient ba'kground well and onitoring wells at the #oint of

downgradient

'o #lian'e were re:uired. 42. ! re"iew onitoring wastes of the water &+$0&+1 the &+$ :uality and data fro shows the that two the the

wells in

&+$0&+< ha"e

buried

du #

'onta inated

groundwater with 'ad iu , 'hro iu , ni'kel and nitrate beginning in the early 1??5s. %he deter ination that the &+$ du # has 'onta inated the groundwater is fro 'o #arison of the water :uality data fro the

onitoring the

wells &+$0&+1 and 0&+< to the water :uality data fro original ba'kground

onitoring well &+$0F+1 and the new 19

ba'kground

onitoring

well

&+$0F+2.

%he

'onta inants

'ad iu , 'hro iu , ni'kel and nitrate are dete'ted in the two using onitoring wells &+$0&+1 and 0&+< beginning in 1??5 R,R! 'riteria. %he e*a't a ount of the four

'onta inants in the groundwater and the #resen'e of other groundwater 'onta ination is not known be'ause a reliable onitoring well network was not installed fro four the first

onitoring wells installed in 1?@@ and 1?@? to the onitoring wells installed in 255@.

ost re'ent four new

43. ,areful and 'o #rehensi"e re"iew of the water :uality data fro &+$ onitoring wells deter ined that the wastes

buried in the &+$ du # ha"e 'onta inated the groundwater with the R,R! ha-ardous waste 'onstituents of 'ad iu , 'hro iu , ni'kel and nitrate. %he 'onta ination was

#resent in the first groundwater sa #les 'olle'ted in 1??5 and o"er ti e there was a large in'rease in the ni'kel groundwater 'onta ination. 44. %he nature and e*tent of the groundwater 'onta ination at the &+$ du # is not known be'ause of the defe'ti"e

groundwater a large

onitoring. of

%he wastes buried at the &+$ are 'o ingled ha-ardous, i*ed and

in"entory

radioa'ti"e wastes. %here is

u'h un'ertainty in the ty#e

and total in"entory of the buried wastes, es#e'ially in the 5.6 a're #ortion of the 'lassified area of the &+$. 20

45. ,onta inants in the &+$ in'lude 'o #ounds 1L7,s2,

etals, "olatile organi' organi' 'o #ounds

se i0"olatile

1SL7,s2, and radionu'lides su'h as tritiu ; radiu 0226; uraniu isoto#es 2<B, 2<6 and 2<@; #lutoniu isoto#es

2<@, 2<?C2B5; 'obalt065; strontiu 0?5; thoriu 02<2; and, 'esiu 01<A. 46. %here is e"iden'e of a new, large release of %ritiu 'onta ination fro in 255@. be found. %ritiu the &+$ in boreholes drilled by Sandia

%he release is ten ti es what was e*#e'ted to 9es#ite the Final 7rder re:uire ent to onitor

and the e"iden'e of a new large release, (&89 onitoring for %ritiu in the "adose -one in

'an'elled

the $ong0%er

&onitoring and &aintenan'e Plan 1$%&&P2.

47. 8P! allowed a strea lined a##roa'h to risk assess ent if there was no risk to groundwater. Sandia falsely 'lai ed

there was no #athway to the groundwater. %here was no risk assess ent #erfor ed by Sandia for risk to the

groundwater. 48. %he 1??1 978 %iger %ea a'ti"ities !lbu:uer:ue at the !ssess ent Re#ort of Sandia %he (ational in onitoring

$aboratories the &ay 1??1

Fa'ility.

'on'lusion

re#ort by the 978 %iger %ea network at the &+$ stated/

for the

onitoring well

21

%he nu ber and #la'e ent of wells at the

i*ed waste

landfill is not suffi'ient to 'hara'teri-e the effe't of the i*ed waste landfill on groundwater 1#. <06?2.

49. %he 1??1 $!($ re#ort was written after the first four onitoring wells &+$0&+1, 0&+2, 0&+< and 0F+1 were

installed at the &+$ du #. %he #ertinent e*'er#ts fro the $!($ re#ort stated/ It is stated that 3three additional wells were installed, two down gradient and one u#gradientN4 It would be a##ro#riate to data fro ention here that the

these JfourK wells indi'ated that the

network has in fa't only one downgradient well Ji.e., well &+$0&+<K and no wells that are

definitely u#gradient 1#.<2. %he data fro the #resent onitoring well network

indi'ates that there is only one downgradient and no u#gradient wells. %his in itself esta&lishes the

inade:ua'y 1under R,R!2 of the #resent well network J8 #hasis su##liedK. %he #resen'e of this additional well Ji.e., angle well &+$0&+B at a lo'ation inside the &+$ du #K 1neither downgradient nor u#gradient2 will still not eet R,R! onitoring 'riteria 1#. <2. onitoring

%he 1??1 $!($ re#ort re'ogni-ed that the well network at the Sandia &+$ du # did not 22

eet the R,R!

ini u

re:uire ent

for

three

downgradient

'onta inant onitoring

dete'tion

onitoring wells and one u#gradient

well for ba'kground water :uality. 50. %he 1??< (&89 re#ort by &oats and +inn 1(&89 !R 556B212 addressed the inade:uate onitoring well network. &r.

&oats and &s. +inn re'ogni-ed that the lo'al dire'tion of groundwater flow at the water table below the &+$ du # was to the south or the southwest and the e*isting

network of inade:uate/

onitoring wells was i #ro#erly lo'ated and

12. to dete't groundwater 'onta ination fro du # and 22. to deter ine the dire'tion and

the &+$

gradient

of

groundwater flow at the water table. %he 1??< re#ort des'ribed 12. the #oor knowledge of the groundwater flow dire'tion below and down

gradient of the Sandia &+$ du # and 22. the i #ro#er use of the ud0rotary drilling ethod to install

onitoring wells &+$0&+2, 0&+< and 0F+1 at the &+$ du #. %he #ertinent e*'er#ts fro state/ %he hydrogeologi' 'onditions at the &+$ ha"e not been ade:uately 'hara'teri-ed. . . +ater le"el data fro >uly 1??2 indi'ate south0 23 the 1??< (&89 re#ort

dire'ted J8 #hasis

or

southwest

dire'ted the

flow

su##liedK.

Howe"er,

gradient

and dire'tion of ground0water flow are not known with reasonable 'ertainty 1#. <2. %he dete'tion onitoring syste that 'urrently

e*ists at the &+$ is inade:uate be'ause the dire'tion and gradient of ground0water flow 'an not be deter ined with reasonable 'ertainty 1#. A2. !dditional wells installed at the &+$ at

greater distan'es fro e*isting wells would

the fa'ility than the better define the

hori-ontal gradient and dire'tion of ground0 water flow 1#. B2.4 htt#/CCradfreen .orgC#agesCGround+aterProte'tionC!## endi*OFO(&89O1??<O&oatsOandO+innORe#ort.#df 51. %he 1??B (&89 978 7"ersight Fureau Re"iew of the Sandia &+$ 1??< Phase 2 R,R! RFI +ork Plan addressed the fa't that the &+$ onitoring wells were not #ro#erly lo'ated.

%he 978 7"ersight Fureau re"iewed the &ar'h 15, 1??< R,R! RFI Phase 2 +ork Plan for the &+$. 1(&89 !R 556B622. !n a''urate hydrauli' definition gradient was and not obtained of for the lo'al flow

dire'tion

groundwater

below and away fro

the Sandia &+$ du #. %he 978CSandia 24

re#orts

re#eatedly

isused

the

water

table

a#s

that

dis#layed the regional groundwater flow dire'tion to the northwest and not the lo'al flow dire'tion and hydrauli' gradient in the i ediate "i'inity of the &+$ du # that the

was to the southwest. %he #ertinent e*'er#ts fro (&89 978 7"ersight Fureau &e orandu 1??B are #asted below/ General Comment #7. Page 20<1. Se'tion 2.2.6.2. Paragra#h </ N.. ,urrent water le"el data for the four &+$ onitor is wells suggest the that the

dated 7'tober 1<,

hydrauli'

gradient

toward

southwest,

a##ro*i ately B5 degrees 'ounter'lo'kwise to the regional deter ined done to gradient. to be Regional gradient +hat will was be

west0northwest. define the

better

lo'al

hydrauli'

gradientP J8 #hasis su##liedK. 1#. <2. General Comment #8. Page 20BB. Se'tion 2.<.2,

Groundwater

onitoring at the &+$, Paragra#h </ Fased si* rounds of sa #ling at the &+$,

on the results fro

there is no indi'ation that groundwater beneath the &+$ is 'onta inated. or (o ele"ated waste le"els of ha"e &+$

radionu'lides

ha-ardous

'onstituents

been dete'ted to date in groundwater sa #les fro

onitor wells. It should be noted that if the lo'al 25

hydrauli' gradient is not known the wells

ay not be

able to ade:uately dete't groundwater 'onta ination, and additional groundwater #ro#osed and installed. and design of onitoring wells should be

J8 #hasis su##liedK. $o'ation wells should be based on

additional

e"aluation of all reliable data and 'oordinated with regulatory and o"ersight #ersonnel 1#. <2. 52. %he 1??B (&89 978 7"ersight Fureau re#ort de onstrates that the (&89 and 978 knew that the onitoring well

network at the &+$ was defe'ti"e and its data should not be used for the testi ony at the (&89 9e'e ber 255B

Publi' Hearing that 12. there was a reliable network of onitoring wells at the &+$ du # and 22. the groundwater below the du # was not 'onta inated. %he 1??B (&89 978 7"ersight Fureau Re#ort re'ogni-ed that additional onitoring wells were needed at the &+$ onitoring wells used at the Hearing was inade:uate to

du # and that the network of (&89 9e'e ber 255B Publi'

dete't groundwater 'onta ination fro in the &+$ du #. Howe"er, the

the wastes buried network of

re:uired

onitoring wells to in"estigate groundwater 'onta ination fro the &+$ du # was not installed to the #resent ti e

in 251<.

26

53. %he 8n"iron ental Prote'tion !gen'y 18P!2 Region 6 issued a (oti'e of 9efi'ien'y 1(792 Re#ort <5 on Se#te ber 22, 1??B for the 978CSandia R,R! Fa'ility In"estigation 1RFI2 +ork Plan for the Sandia &+$ du #, dated &ar'h 1??<. 1(&89 !R 556B<<2. %he 1??B 8P! (79 Re#ort re'ogni-ed that the dire'tion of groundwater flow below the Sandia &+$ du # was to the southwest and the network of four

onitoring wells &+$0&+1, 0&+2, 0&+< and 0F+1 was not ade:uate to dete't 'onta inants released fro du #. Pertinent e*'er#ts fro Re#ort follow/ Comment no. 11. 7n #age 20<1 Jin the RFI +ork PlanK, the third #aragra#h states that regional #otentio etri' gradient at a#s indi'ate that the hydrauli' &+$ is in toward Figure the 2021, west the and &+$ the &+$

the 1??B 8P! Region 6 (79

the !s

northwest.

shown

onitoring well network 1i.e., &+$0F+1, &+$0&+1, &+$0&+2, and &+$0&+<2 has been installed based on the assu ed regional hydrauli' gradient. Howe"er, the third #aragra#h further 'ontinues to state water le"el data 'olle'ted fro the &+$

onitoring wells suggests the hydrauli' gradient is to the southwest 1#,62.

27

Fased on the southwest gradient flow of groundwater, the &+$ instead onitoring wells are lo'ated 'ross gradient of downgradient e anating fro fro the the &+$; &+$ therefore, ay not be

'onta inants

dete'ted in the 1#. 62.

onitoring wells J8 #hasis su##liedK

Comment no. 18. Paragra#h 2, on #age 20BB, states that the between onitoring wells were sa #led si* ti es Se#te ber 1??5 and >anuary 1??2 and

se iannually thereafter. Paragraph ', on page () **, concl!des that &ased on the anal#tical res!lts of these sampling events, there is no evidence of contamination in the gro!nd"ater &eneath the MWL+ %he Wor, Plan does not provide s!fficient

information to s!pport this concl!sion+ In fact, as descri&ed &elo", the location of the monitoring "ells and the depth of the screened intervals ma# not &e ade-!ate to detect releases of ha.ardo!s constit!ents from the !nit to gro!nd"ater 1#. @0?2. 54. !s dis'ussed in 'o e*isting onitoring ent #11 abo"e 1#aragra#h 6<2, the well network was designed in

anti'i#ation of a lo'al hydrauli' gradient toward the northwest; howe"er, based on water le"el data, the

28

obser"ed

hydrauli'

gradient

and

groundwater

flow

is

toward the southwest 1See also #aragra#h 61 su#ra2. 55. %he re'ord fro states/ %he #resen'e of e*'eed dis#osed 155 of ft in etal 'onta inants at de#ths whi'h 'an indi'ate the that li:uid %hus, wastes were the 1??@ (&89 (oti'e of 9efi'ien'y 1(792

landfill.

ground0water

onitoring for

etals is re:uired.

In addition, the 1??@ (79 #resents the 'on'lusion that the ni'kel and 'hro iu wastes released fro the du #

ha"e 'onta inated the groundwater. 56. %he 1??@ (&89 (79 addresses the failure of Sandia to #ro"ide an a''urate assess ent of the risk to the #ubli' fro the 'onta inants in the du #. 18*hibitOO

htt#/CCradfreen .orgC#agesCGround+aterProte'tionC!##endi* !O(&89O1??@O(79ORe#ort.#df , #.B2/ F. Fe'ause land lo'ated a##ro*i ately 1 ile west

of the &+$ 'ould be de"elo#ed for residential use, 978CS($ ust e"aluate the #otential for off0site igration should fro the landfill. and %he hu an of

'onta inant e"aluation health ,7,Es.

'onsider any

e'ologi'al

i #a'ts

fro

#otential

igration

29

,.

%he

nature

and

e*tent

of

subsurfa'e

'onta ination indi'ate that so e 'onta inants are a #otential and threat to ground0water of the :uality &+$. ! beneath si #le

downgradient

1west2

s'reening 'o #arison of 'onta inant 'on'entrations in subsurfa'e soils against a"ailable de"elo#ed resour'es ni'kel 8P! for soil the

s'reening #rote'tion e*'eedan'es 1??6.

le"els of for

1SS$Es2

groundwater 'ad iu

de onstrates 1=. S. 8P!,

and

Soil

Screening

!idance/

%echnical 7ffi'e of 9,,

0ac,gro!nd 8 ergen'y

1oc!ment. and

8P!C6B5CR0?6C12@, Res#onse,

Re edial

+ashington,

PF?60?6<6522. the &+$ ni'kel,

%herefore, the risk assess ent for

ust e"aluate #otential i #a'ts of 'ad iu , and other 'onta inants 1 etals su'h as

'obalt and 'o##er, and radioa'ti"e uraniu a"ailable and at tritiu , this for whi'h on

aterial su'h as SS$Es and are not

ti e2

lo'al

regional

ground0water :uality. 57. %he staff of the (&89 Ha-ardous +aste Fureau and

978CSandia #ro"ided in'orre't testi ony at the 9e'e ber 255B Publi' Hearing on the Sandia &+$ 'ontrary to the fa'ts in the (&89 !d inistrati"e Re'ord.

30

58. %he

9e'e ber

255B

#ubli'

hearing

for

the

&+$

was

to

#resent the (&89 re edy re'o 'o"er o"er the large

endation to install a dirt of ha-ardous and

in"entory

radioa'ti"e wastes buried in unlined tren'hes and #its at the Sandia &+$ du #. %he staff of (&89 and 978CSandia #ro"ided in'orre't testi ony at the #ubli' hearing that there was a reliable network of onitoring wells at the

&+$ du # and that there was no e"iden'e of 'onta ination to the groundwater. that 'ontradi'ted %he substantial s'ientifi' e"iden'e (&89 and 978CSandia witnessesE

state ents was o itted. 59. %he #ubli' was re#eatedly assured by (&89 that the

feasibility of e*'a"ation would be re"iewed 3e"ery fi"e years.4 3(&89 Se'retary to ree"aluate the #erfor an'e of the $andfill 'o"erCbio0intrusion barrier and the

feasibility of e*'a"ation e"ery fi"e years.4 htt#/CCwww.n en".state.n .usCH+FCS($C&+$CFinalO9e'isio nCRes#onseOtoO,o entsO15@052025562.#df , ,o ent !

res#onse, #.1?, 2< and B1 3%he final order signed by the Se'retary re:uires that the effe'ti"eness of the 'o"er and the feasibility of e*'a"ation be ree"aluated e"ery fi"e years; the F%& is also to be u#dated.4 31

1htt#/CCwww.n en".state.n .usCH+FCS($C&+$CInterestedO, iti-enO$etterO0ORes#onseO,o ,o ent F, #.<0B2 entsO111021025562.#df ,

3%he (&89 Se'retaryEs Final 7rder issued on &ay 26, 2556, re:uires that S($ u#date the Fate and %rans#ort &odel e"ery fi"e years.4 htt#/CCwww.n en".state.n .usCH+FCdo'u entsCInde*OandOR es#onseOtoO,o R1@. entsOS($O&+$OSLOS!P.#df , #.6, Res#onse

3%he fi"e0year re"iews ordered by the Se'retary on &ay 26, 2556, #ro"ides for #eriodi' analysis of the future #rote'ti"eness of the 'o"er.4 htt#/CCwww.n en".state.n .usCH+FCdo'u entsCRes#onseOto O,o entsOS($O&+$O,&IORe#ortO60251102.#df ,o ent 1

res#onse 60. %i ely fulfill ent of ,ondition #6 of the 2556 Final

7rder00for fi"e0year re0e"aluation of the feasibility of e*'a"ation, the suitability of the dirt 'o"er and

#otential for the 'onta ination of !lbu:uer:ueEs a:uifer Q0is ne'essary to #rote't the #re'ious drinking water resour'e of !lbu:uer:ue, (ew &e*i'o.

32

I hereby swear under #enalty of #erHury under the laws of the =nited States of ! eri'a and the State of (ew &e*i'o that the abo"e state ent is true and 'orre't to the best of y knowledge.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Robert Gilkeson Registered Geologist A225 ,entral !"e. S8; #15B< !lbu:uer:ue, (& @A15@ rhgilkeson@aol.com

33