Embedded Files
The above video depicts a map that we created that shows sampling of plutonium at sampling locations near or beyond the LANL boundary that had a sampling period that has extended to the present year, 2020. From this map a trend in contamination is difficult to observe. This is due to inconsistent long term sampling. There appears to potentially be a warming trend from about 2010 on, but this conclusion cannot be made with certainty. It is evident that there are samples being observed offsite and the fact that plutonium exists at location outside of LANL property boundaries suggests some sort of migration because plutonium was not disposed of offsite at these locations. But, due to inconsistent data sampling, it is not possible to form solid conclusions on a migration trend.
The graph to the left shows an increasing trend in plutonium samples in sediment at Cochiti Lake south via the Rio Grande with respect to LANL. This was one of the few instances where a definitive trend was observed in the plutonium data that we analyzed. The lengthy and consistent sampling period of over 26 years allowed for more clear analysis to be conducted. This trend is particularly concerning due to Cochiti Lake being well beyond LANL property and lying in the direction of Albuquerque, NM.
The plutonium contamination at LANL originated in TA-50, so this technical area is important to analyze by itself. The figure above depicts the number of samples taken in TA-50 every year. Taking all of the available data from Intellus, we found that there were no samples taken in TA-5a before 1993. The Manhattan Project took place in the 1940s, and that leaves a 50 year gap before this particular technical area was sampled after initial contamination. In order to analyze how the plutonium has migrated, samples taken over the entire lifetime of the contamination is required. Another problem is inconsistent testing. There were over 250 samples taken in 1993, but never again were even half that many samples taken in a year. And there was no testing done in the area between 1996 and 2000. This is a large gap in which many different migratory practices may have taken place, but the picture is missing because of the lack of sampling. Recent sampling has also been a cause for concern. In the last 4 years, there have only been 2-3 samples taken annually. This does not help show the migration of the technical area as a whole, and is very troubling considering this is the area that most of the plutonium contamination on LANL property is coming from.
This graph depicts depth of positive value plutonium samples overtime in TA-50. The map shows samples of plutonium detected at depths of up to 653 feet. Initially there also appeared to be rapid vertical migration as samples never surpassed even 200 feet before the early 2000s. As a result we decided to do further analysis, which resulted in the graph to the right.
This graph was the result of unrestricting plutonium samples to all values (negative, null, zero, or positive) with the goal of determining if there was truly a migration pattern as depicted in the graph to the left. The result of the graph reinforced the findings as stated above. There is an abundance of sampling gaps in the data for TA-50, which makes it difficult to draw strong conclusions on the data. Furthermore, the same trend as seen in this graph is depicted in the graph to the left, so subsequently, no conclusion on a migration trend can be definitively made.
Another problem with the TA-50 data is that particular locations were not sampled consistently. There has been at least 1 sample taken each year in TA-50 since 2001, but very few of these samples were taken from the same location. The best way to decipher if plutonium is migrating out of TA-50 would be to look at a series of specific bore wells over many years, and see if the contamination level is decreasing in one area and increasing in the wells in a particular direction. For example, samples taken from location ID 297 have been taken consistently from 2004-2019. A new sample has been taken nearly every year for over 10 years. This shows how the plutonium in that specific area has changed. Contamination has migrated into and out of the area and can be seen if those levels are graphed over time. If all of the bore wells in TA-50 were sampled as diligently as this, over a longer period of time, definite conclusions about migration trends could be made. But, the lack of consistency results in sporadic time-graphed maps that can be used to prove very little.
Our hopes and expectations in analyzing plutonium data along the theorized migration pathway was that, over time, we would be able to show the contamination levels increasing south-east of TA-50. However, in working with the data, we were unable to create a map that clearly showed this. The main problem was that there is very little consistent data. When the mapped data is played over time, new wells pop up every year with differing concentrations. Because the technical areas along the pathway were not all tested each year, it can not be seen how the concentrations of plutonium changed from year to year. Any kind of trends that may be seen in the video played of the data can be attributed to new wells being tested that were never tested before. When a circular data point pops up on the screen, it is not new plutonium data for that year that was never there before. This ends up being very misleading.
It can be seen that there are areas with higher concentrations of plutonium that should be cause for concern for LANL and the surrounding communities. These areas of plutonium are outside of TA-50, and therefore have obviously migrated from its original contamination area. However, analyzing the data over time does not yield any concrete results in terms of migration or times for newly contaminated areas.
Google Sites
Report abuse