Tritium monitoring in groundwater and evaluation of model predictions for the Hanford Site 200 Area Effluent Treatment Facility

Barnett, D. Brent; Bergeron, Marcel P.; Cole, C.R.; Freshley,; Wurstner, S.K.

doi:10.2172/554804

Cited by 14 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 9 publications

(17 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Well 699-48-77A was f~st affected by discharges in August of 1996. Although this well is fi,u-thestaway fi-omthe facility of the three "proximal" SALDS wells, subsurface geologic factors allowed the effluent to reach this well before any others (see Barnett et al 1997). This well produced a maximum tritium activity during FY 2000 of 150,000 pCi/L (October 1999), which is 10,000 pCi/L higher than the FY 1999 maximum.…”

Section: Results Of Groundwater Analyses For Ilitiummentioning

confidence: 95%

“…The current numerical groundwater/tritiurn model (Cole and Wurstner in Barnett et al 1997) indicated that tritium would first arrive at the 200 West Area northern boundary in 2000, and would then be detectable in as many as three wells along this boundary. In this model, well 299-W7-3 is less than 100 m outside the area of the predicted plume, with wells 299-W7-5, 299-W7-6, and 299-W7-7 lying inside the 500 pCi/L portion (lowest practically detectable) portion of the plume.…”

Section: Discussion and Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These occurrences were interpreted to be a result of the dilute (clean water) effluent from SALDS dissolving soluble mineral species (mostly gypsum) in the vadose zone during itilltration (Thornton 1997, Barnett et al 1997. Figures 10 through 12 show the trends for some of the parameters that best reflect this phenomenon, e.g., sulfate, conductivity, and TDS.…”

Section: Other Constituents In Groundwatermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Results of Tritium Tracking and Groundwater Monitoring at the Hanford Site 200 Area State-Approved Land Disposal Site Fiscal Year 2000

Barnett¹,

Rieger²

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Results Of Groundwater Analyses For Ilitiummentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Discussion and Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Other Constituents In Groundwatermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Results of Tritium Tracking and Groundwater Monitoring at the Hanford Site 200 Area State-Approved Land Disposal Site Fiscal Year 2000

Barnett¹,

Rieger²

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Some examples of local-scale modeling studies and investigations supported by a site-wide model include modeling studies described in Wood et al (1995Wood et al ( , 1996, Barnett et al (1997), and Bergeron and Wurstner (2000). A brief summary of each of these efforts and how a site-wide model was used in supporting the analysis is provided in the following sections.…”

Section: Appropriate Uses and Selected Examplesmentioning

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%

Addendum to Composite Analysis for Low-Level Waste Disposal in the 200 Area Plateau of the Hanford Site

Bergeron¹,

Freeman²,

Wurstner³

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tritium monitoring in groundwater and evaluation of model predictions for the Hanford Site 200 Area Effluent Treatment Facility

Cited by 14 publications

References 9 publications

Results of Tritium Tracking and Groundwater Monitoring at the Hanford Site 200 Area State-Approved Land Disposal Site Fiscal Year 2000

Results of Tritium Tracking and Groundwater Monitoring at the Hanford Site 200 Area State-Approved Land Disposal Site Fiscal Year 2000

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

Addendum to Composite Analysis for Low-Level Waste Disposal in the 200 Area Plateau of the Hanford Site

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About