Groundwater screening evaluation/monitoring plan: 200 Area Treated Effluent Disposal Facility (Project W-049H). Revision 1

Barnett, D. Brent; Davis, Jarrett; Collard, L.B.; Freeman, P.B.; Chou, Charissa J.

doi:10.2172/89540

Cited by 2 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Regulated capacity .of the TEDF for each of the two basins was initially approximately 2820 Llmin (750 gallons per minute [gpm]) (Barnett et al 1995). In April 1997, a revised SWDP was issued that requires discharges not exceed 12,870 L/min (3,400 gpm) on a monthly basis, averaged daily, or 4,540 L/min (1,200 gpm) on an average annual basis.…”

Section: Wastewater Discharge Volumes and Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Immediately following construction of the TEDF monitoring wells in 1992, groundwater monitoring at the site began under the Hanford Site RCRA program in conjunction with the 216-B-3 Pond facility (DOE-RL 1994). When operation of TEDF began in 1995, groundwater monitoring was governed by the SWDP and described in Groundwater Screening/Evaluation Monitoring Plan-200 Area Treated EfJruent Disposal Facility (Project W-049w (Barnett et al 1995). Conditions of the SWDP also require that groundwater monitoring is conducted according to WAC 173-200, Water Quality Stmdmds for Ground Waters of the State of Washington (Ecology 1997).…”

Section: Historical and Current Groundwater Monitoring At Tedfmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In May 1995, the Groundwater Screening EvaluatiodMonitoring Plan-200 Area Treated EfJruent Disposal Facility (Project W-049@ (Barnett et al 1995) was submitted to, and subsequently approved by Ecology to guide future groundwater sampling and analysis at the TEDF. The constituent list required by this document, as guided by the SWDP, is listed in Appendix B (Table B.2).…”

Section: L)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Groundwater modeling efforts (conceptual and/or numerical) that generally apply to the TEDF and vicinity are described by Connelly et al (1992), and more recently by Kincaid et al (1998). Application of flow and transport modeling for the evaluation of the effects of TEDF operation is provided by Collard in Barnett et al ( 1995).…”

Section: Summary Of Hydrogeology and Groundwater Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By this method, average linear flow velocity was estimated to be from 0.03 to 0.6 m -day-' in the Ringold Formation Unit A (Barnett et al 1995). Estimates based on the tracking of contaminant plume movement suggest average linear flow velocities of 0.2 to 2.7 m * day-' in the general vicinity of the TEDF and 200 East Area (Freshley and Graham 1988;Freshley and Thorne 1992).…”

Section: Groundwater Hydrologymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of groundwater monitoring results at the Hanford Site 200 Area Treated Effluent Disposal Facility

Barnett¹

1998

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryThe Hanford Site 200 Area Treated Effluent Disposal Facility (TEDF) has operated since June 1995.Groundwater monitoring has been conducted quarterly in the three wells surrounding the facility since 1992, with contributing data from nearby B Pond System wells.Cumulative hydrologic and geochemical information from the TEDF well network and other surrounding wells indicate no discernable effects of TEDF operations on the uppermost aquifer in the vicinity of the TEDF. The lateral consistency and impermeable nature of the Ringold Formation lower mud unit, and the contrasts in hydraulic conductivity between this unit and the vadose zone sediments of the Hanford formation suggest that TEDF effluent is spreading laterally with negligible mounding or downward movement into the uppermost aquifer.Hydrographs of TEDF wells show that TEDF operations have had no detectable effects on hydraulic heads in the uppermost aquifer, but show a continuing decay of the hydraulic mound generated by past operations at the B Pond System. Comparison of heads in the uppermost aquifer immediately northwest of the TEDF with the head in a well in the same area which is screened in the Rattlesnake Ridge Interbed (upper basalt confined aquifer), indicate that hydraulic heads in the two aquifers are converging as the hydraulic mound at the B Pond System subsides. Further southeast, near TEDF, an upward hydraulic gradient may already exist, making potential of incursion of groundwater fiom the upper basalt confined aquifer to the unconfined aquifer (uppermost aquifer beneath TEDF) more likely. This condition would further hamper downward movement of effluent of TEDF into the uppermost aquifer, particularly if no substantial groundwater mound is created beneath the TEDF.Comparison of groundwater geochemistry fiom TEDF wells and other, nearby RCR4 wells suggests that groundwater beneath TEDF is unique; different from both effluent entering TEDF and groundwater in the B Pond area. Tritium concentrations, major ionic proportions, and lower-than-background concentrations of other species suggest that groundwater in the uppermost aquifer beneath the TEDF bears characteristics of water in the upper basalt confined aquifer system. This report recommends retaining the current groundwater well network at the TEDF, but with a reduction of samplinghnalysis frequency and some modifications to the list of constituents sought.iii

show abstract

Section: Wastewater Discharge Volumes and Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Historical and Current Groundwater Monitoring At Tedfmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: L)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Summary Of Hydrogeology and Groundwater Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%