Geologic setting of the low-level burial grounds

Lindsey, K.A.; Jaeger, Guenter; Slate, Janet L.; Swett, Keene; Mercer, Robert

doi:10.2172/10192359

Cited by 34 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Lindsey (1995) reevaluated the stratigraphy of the Ringold Formation across the Hanford Site and described it on the basis of five major sediment facies associations. This was a summary and extension of earlier, more localized geologic studies presented in Lindsey and Gaylord (1990), Lindsey et al (1991Lindsey et al ( , 4.5 1992Lindsey et al ( , 1994, and Lindsey and Jaeger (1993). Sediment facies types (based on Miall 1977Miall , 1978Miall , 1985, their characteristics, and depositional environments as defined by Lindsey (1995) for the Ringold Formation are summarized in Table 4.1.…”

Section: Ringold Formationsupporting

confidence: 56%

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: Ringold Formationsupporting

confidence: 56%

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

“…Although locally quite variable, the general geology beneath each Hanford Site SST farm is generally well known and documented (Price and Fecht, 1976a through 19761;Tallman et al, 1979Tallman et al, , 1981Caggiano and Goodwin, 1991 ;Lindsey and Law, 1993;Reidel et al, 1994;Lindsey et al, 1991Lindsey et al, , 1992Lindsey et al, , 1994aLindsey et al, , 1994b …”

Section: Site Geologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Geologic units beneath the Hanford Site are composed of sediment that ranges from well consolidated and cemented to completely unconsolidated and uncemented (Myers et al, 1979;Tallman et al, 1979Tallman et al, , 1981DOE, 1988;Reidel et al, 1992;Lindsey et ai., 1994aLindsey et ai., , 1994b , 1981DOE, 1988;Reidel et al, 1992;Lindsey et al, 1994aLindsey et al, , 1994b. The Hanford formation lithologies generally are uncemented, only partially consolidated, and variably cohesive.…”

Section: Geologic Unitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Grouting guidelines for Hanford Tanks Initiative cone penetrometer borings

Iwatate¹

1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The most recent interpretation of the geology and hydrology of the LLBGs is discussed in Lindsey et al (1994) Table 4.10-1 lists the wells in the LLWMA-1 monitoring network. The sampling and analysis program at LLWMA-1 was initiated in 1988.…”

Section: Sampling and Analysis Programmentioning

confidence: 99%

Annual report for RCRA groundwater monitoring projects at Hanford Site facilities for 1993

1994

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Geologic setting of the low-level burial grounds

Cited by 34 publications

References 5 publications

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

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

Grouting guidelines for Hanford Tanks Initiative cone penetrometer borings

Annual report for RCRA groundwater monitoring projects at Hanford Site facilities for 1993

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About