Geology, hydrology, chemistry, and microbiology of the in situ bioremediation demonstration site

Newcomer, Darrell R.; Doremus, L.A.; Hall, S.; Truex, M. J.; Vermeul, Vincent R.; Engelman, Robert

doi:10.2172/41273

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Recently, 15 samples were collected from 6 wells at the 100 H Area (Vermeul et al 1995). Porosity ranged from 0.19 to 0.41 and averaged 0.33 for the Ringold Formation and 0.31 for the Hanford formation.…”

Section: Effective Porositymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An effective porosity of 0.25 was assumed to calculate average groundwater velocity from the measurements. Borehole dilution tests and a two-well tracer test were conducted in the 200 West Area (Newcomer et al 1995) under natural gradient conditions. However, porosity could not be determined from the two-well tracer test because the gradient was not well defined.…”

Section: Effective Porositymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Section: Effective Porositymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Effective Porositymentioning

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

show abstract

“…Also, these first electrodes were of crude and cumbersome construction, and attempts to use them in 10-cm ID monitoring wells at the Hanford Site showed that moving the electrodes up and down the well bore induced vertical mixing [5] of the bromide tracer, thus invalidating point-dilution testing.…”

Section: Wroved Apparatusmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Both the reference and sensing electrodes have been combined into a single streamlined probe body 1.6 cm in diameter and 20 cm long. Recent field experiments have shown that this probe configuration does not induce significant vertical mixing in a 10 cm ID well bore [5]. Also, the probe body now includes an onboard unity gain signal amplifier to reduce signal impedance, thus eliminating depth limitations.…”

Section: Wroved Apparatusmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Single-well tracer methods for hydrogeologic evaluation of target aquifers

Hall¹

1994

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two‐Well Test Method for Determining Hydraulic Properties of Aquifers

Clement¹,

Truex²,

Hooker³

1997

Groundwater

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A steady‐state test to determine the hydraulic properties of an aquifer is presented. The test uses an injection‐extraction well‐pair to establish a two‐dimensional, steady‐state flow field in the tested region. At least one observation well is needed to measure the hydraulic head within the flow field. Depending on the number of observation wells, a single‐observation‐well method or a distance‐head method is used to analyze the head data. Two field examples demonstrate the potential application of the test. The field experiments were done at the U.S. Department of Energy Hanford site near Richland, Washington. The two‐well test procedure described in this work provides a useful alternative for characterizing aquifers while deploying in situ ground‐water remediation systems. One of the most attractive features of this test, especially at contaminated aquifers, is that there is no water to dispose. The test is simple and economical, and it also avoids several other limitations associated with typical pumping or slug tests.

show abstract

Geology, hydrology, chemistry, and microbiology of the in situ bioremediation demonstration site

Cited by 8 publications

References 14 publications

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

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

Single-well tracer methods for hydrogeologic evaluation of target aquifers

Two‐Well Test Method for Determining Hydraulic Properties of Aquifers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About