Ground-water surveillance at the Hanford Site for CY 1983

Prater, L.S.; Rieger, J.T.; Cline, C.S.; Jensen, E.J.; Liikala, T.L.; Oster, K.R.

doi:10.2172/6983467

Cited by 8 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Their estimate was based on a 6.74 ratio of the ground-water discharge (3 cfs) to the flow rate of the river (130,000 cfs) and an average tritium concentration measured in the ground water of 173,000 pCi/L. By comparison, the average tritium concentration actually measured in the unconfined aquifer at the Hanford townsite during 1983 was slightly lower and the average flow rate of the Columbia River was higher (Prater et al 1984). However, these differences averaged out to provide nearly the same estimated contribution of tritium to the river.…”

Section: Ground-water and Contaminant Discharge To The Columbia Rivermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Based on the model of Kipp et al (1976), Raymond et al (1976) and Cline, Rieger, and Raymond (1985) report 100 cfs as the average discharge of the unconfined aquifer to the Columbia River over the entire Hanford Reach of the river. Prater et al (1984) estimate tritium concentrations of approximately 4 pCi/L in the Columbia River resulting from ground-water discharge to the river at the Hanford townsite during 1983. Their estimate was based on a 6.74 ratio of the ground-water discharge (3 cfs) to the flow rate of the river (130,000 cfs) and an average tritium concentration measured in the ground water of 173,000 pCi/L.…”

Section: Ground-water and Contaminant Discharge To The Columbia Rivermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because most of the data were from existing monitoring reports, accuracy was ensured by checking the data in this report against the original sources for transcription errors. for ·the simple calculations of ground-water discharge, the estimates of tritium discharge to the Columbia River were compared with calculations made by other researchers (Prater et al 1984) and with the results of monitoring tritium concentrations in the river (Jaquish and Bryce 1990) . An independent, qualified peer reviewer also checked the hand calculation .…”

Section: 0 Technical Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The interpretations of the tritium plume during 1980 to 1984 (Eddy and Wilbur 1981;Eddy, Prater and Rieger 1983;Prater et al 1984;Cline et al 1985) are different from year to year. These changes in the interpretation of the tritium monitoring data arose from slight differences in reported concentrations and from different investigators providing the interpretation.…”

Section: 45mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Eddy and Wilbur (1980) reported that during 1979 more wells were sampled for iodine-129 than in previous years. The distribution of wells for Eddy and Wilbur (1980); Eddy, Cline and Prater (1982); Eddy, Prater and Rieger (1983); Prater et al (1984); Cline, Rieger and Raymond (1985); Price (1986); PNL (1987); Jaquish and Mitchell (1988);andBryce (1989, 1990).…”

Section: Iodine-129mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Ground-water contribution to dose from past Hanford Operations

Freshley¹,

Thorne²

1992

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Ground-water and Contaminant Discharge To The Columbia Rivermentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Ground-water and Contaminant Discharge To The Columbia Rivermentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: 0 Technical Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: 45mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Iodine-129mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Ground-water contribution to dose from past Hanford Operations

Freshley¹,

Thorne²

1992

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ground-water contribution to dose from past Hanford Operations. Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project

Freshley¹,

Thorne²

1992

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ground-water contribution to dose from past Hanford operations

Freshley¹,

Thorne²

1992

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction (HEOR) Project is being conducted to estimate radiation doses that populations and individuals could have received from Hanford Site operations from 1944 to the present. Four possible pathways by which radionuclides originating in ground water on the Hanford Site could have reached the public have been identified: 1) through contaminated ground water migrating to the Columbia River; 2) through wells on or adjacent to the Hanford Site; 3) through wells that draw some or all of their water from the Columbia River (riparian wells); and 4) through atmospheric deposition resulting in the contamination of a small watershed that, in turn, results in contamination of a shallow well or spring. These four pathways make up the "ground-water pathway , " which is the subject of this study. The objective of the study was to assess the extent to which the groundwater pathway contributed to radiation doses that populations or individuals may have received from past operations at Hanford. The assessment presented in this report was performed by 1) reviewing the extensive •literature on ground water and groundwater monitoring at Hanford and 2) performing simple calculations to estimate radionuclide concentrations in ground water and the Columbia River resulting from groundwater discharge. Radiation doses that would result from exposure to this ground water and surface water were calculated. The study conclusion is that the groundwater pathways did not contribute significantly to dose. Compared with background radiation in the Tri-Cities {300 mrem/yr), estimated doses are small: 0.02 mrem/yr effective dose equivalent from discharge of contaminated ground water to the Columbia River; 1 mremjyr effective dose equivalent from Hanford Site wells; 11 mremjyr effective dose equivalent from riparian wells; and 1 mrem/yr effective dose equivalent from the watershed. Because the estimated doses are so small, the recommendation is that further work on the groundwater pathway be limited to tracking ongoing groundwater studies at the Hanford Site. ix # xiv The maximum dose estimated with a simple calculation for the watershed pathway was 1 mrem/ yr effective dose equivalent (during 1945) for a range of possible parameters used. Ruthenium-106 was the only radionuclide predicted to reach the hypothetical well or spring through the shallow groundwater system in significant concentrations. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION Analyses of the groundwater pathways led to the conclusion that gro~nd water did not make a significant contribution to dose during the study period, 1944 to the present. The dose estimates are small compared with doses from average natural background radiation (300 mrem/yr) in the Tri-Cities (Jaquish and Bryce 1990). People in Richland, Pasco and Kennewick who get their drinking water from the Columbia River would be the primary group potentially exposed to groundwater discharges to the river. Both the dose estimates from published literature and calculations performed to address the o...

show abstract

Ground-water surveillance at the Hanford Site for CY 1983

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

Ground-water contribution to dose from past Hanford Operations

Ground-water contribution to dose from past Hanford Operations

Ground-water contribution to dose from past Hanford Operations. Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project

Ground-water contribution to dose from past Hanford operations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About