Development of a three-dimensional ground-water model of the Hanford Site unconfined aquifer system: FY 1995 status report

Wurstner, S.K.; Thorne, Paul D.; Chamness,; Freshley,; Williams, Stefan B.

doi:10.2172/195772

Cited by 33 publications

(120 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

115

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The predicted water table for post-Hanford conditions for these assumed steady-state conditions &xom the site and in the area between the LAW New Disposal Facility and the Columbia River am8 &Umted in Figure 3.8 and 3.9. The overall flow attributes of this water table surfice are consfstent with the previoudy rimdated flow patterns described in Wurstner et al(1995), Cole et al(1997) and Law et al (1996). From the LAW new disposal facility, groundwater moves in a southeasterly direction near the site and then in an easterly and northeasterly direction before discharging into the Columbia River north of the W o r d town site.…”

supporting

confidence: 75%

“…In addition, to simulate movement of contaminant plumes, transport properties were needed, including contaminant-specific distribution coefficients, bulk density, effective porosity, and longitudinal and transverse dispersivities. After BHI-00184 R(388120214.14 In the original model calibration procedure described in Wurstner et al (1995), measured values of aquifer transmissivity wcre used in a two-dimensional model with an inverse modelcalibration procedure to determine the transmissivity distribution. Hydraulic head conditions for 1979 were used in the inverse calibration because measured hydraulic heads were relatively stable at that time.…”

Section: Plow and Transport Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Information on transport properties used in past modeling studies at the Hanford Site is provided in Wurstner et al (1995). Estimates of model parameters were developed to account for contaminant tranaporl and dispersion in all transport simulations.…”

Section: Plow and Transport Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

White paper updating conclusions of 1998 ILAW performance assessment

Mann¹

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

supporting

confidence: 75%

Section: Plow and Transport Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

White paper updating conclusions of 1998 ILAW performance assessment

Mann¹

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, the SGM implementation (i.e., a no-flow boundary) assumes no flow communication under the rivers between the unconfined systems on opposite sides because the role of the river as a regional sink (i.e., a specified head boundary implementation) is assumed to act to prevent all but minor flow communication between these parts of the same unconfined system. Additional information on the unconfined aquifer system is provided in DOE (1988) and Wurstner et al (1995).…”

Section: Local Groundwater Flow Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Uncertainty Analysis Framework - Hanford Site-Wide Groundwater Flow and Transport Model

Cole¹,

Bergeron²,

Murray³

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryAt the request of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) embarked on a new initiative to strengthen the technical defensibility of the Hanford site-wide groundwater model (SGM) used to make groundwater flow and transport predictions at the U.S. Department of Energy's Hanford Site in southeastern Washington State (Figure 1.1). The initial focus of the initiative is the characterization of major uncertainties in the current conceptual model that would affect model predictions. The long-term goals of the initiative are the development and implementation of a stochastic uncertainty estimation methodology in future assessments and analyses using the site-wide groundwater model. This report focuses on the development and implementation of the uncertainty analysis framework. The overall technical approach for this framework will closely follow the recommendations of the SGM external peer review panel made in 1999 (Gorelick et al. 1999). As suggested by the panel, the framework being developed acknowledges the inherent uncertainty in conceptual model representations and associated model inputs and thus in any predictions. This new framework acknowledges that prescribed processes, physical features, initial and boundary conditions, system stresses, field data, and model parameter values are not known and cannot be known with certainty and, as a result, predictions of heads and concentrations in three dimensions over time will be uncertain as well. The approach will specifically address those areas of special interest that were identified by the expert panel. These include uncertainty related to• alternative model structures and constructs of processes (e.g., different zonation, different boundary conditions, large-scale features, stresses, and chemical reactions)• model parameters• model scale and resolution issues.This report represents one of the first steps in development of this new SGM uncertainty framework by• identifying the types of assessments for which the SGM will likely be applied (Section 2)• discussing the various sources of uncertainty and the issues associated with the assessment of uncertainty as they relate to the development of this new framework for assessment of uncertainty in the Hanford SGM predictions. The sources of uncertainty include the most common high-level categories: uncertainty resulting from natural variability, model structure, and model parameters (Section 3).• providing a detailed description of the current conceptual model of the Hanford Site unconfined aquifer system that includes an assessment of the uncertainties and issues associated with that model (Section 4), the well picks used in the current interpretation of the hydrostratigraphic structure (Appendix A), and the results of a literature search that developed an initial bibliography and iii assessment regarding the various potential intercommunication mechanisms between the unconfined aquifer system and the uppermost confined aquifer system in the underlying basalts (Appendix ...

show abstract

“…For groundwater flow and saturated-zone transport of contaminants, an existing three-dimensional numerical model that has been developed for the Hanford Site unconfined Aquifer (Wurstner et al 1995;Barnett et al 1997;Cole et al 1997) was used. Predictions of groundwater flow in the unconfined aquifer focused on the response of the aquifer to the cessation of wastewater discharges from Hanford Site operations.…”

Section: Groundwater Transportmentioning

confidence: 99%