Hanford Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2002

Poston, Ted M.; Hanf, Robert W.; Dirkes, Roger L.; Morasch, Launa F.

doi:10.2172/15010295

Cited by 9 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…All detected concentrations of metals in river water were below Washington State ambient water quality criteria (WAC 173-201A). The levels of metals in river water collected for this study were similar to concentrations reported for Columbia River water samples analyzed in 2001 and 2002 (Poston et al 2002;Poston et al 2003). Beryllium was below the detection limit (0.028 µg/L) for all water samples.…”

Section: A4 Spike Recovery For Fish Samplessupporting

confidence: 81%

“…Monitoring of groundwater and riverbank spring water has detected concentrations of chromium above the 100 µg/L drinking water standard at the 100-D, 100-H, 100-K, and 100-N Areas (Poston et al 2002). The maximum concentration of chromium detected in Hanford groundwater in 2002 was 5,300 µg/L at the 100-D Area (Poston et al 2003); however, the area where this plume intersects the Columbia River has a low potential for salmon spawning (Mueller and Geist 1998). Hexavalent chromium above the Washington State ambient surface-water quality criteria of 10 µg/L has been documented in Hanford groundwater upwelling into the Columbia River (Hope and Peterson 1996).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Monitoring Tissue Concentrations of Chromium and Fish Condition in Juvenile Fall Chinook Salmon from the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River

Tiller¹,

Patton²,

Dauble³

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study involved the collection of juvenile fall Chinook salmon and Columbia River water samples to assess whether fall Chinook salmon were exposed to chromium that upwells into the river from contaminated groundwater originating at the Hanford Site. Juvenile fall Chinook salmon were seined and water samples were collected from three locations in the Hanford Reach during the period of juvenile salmon freshwater residency in early May, mid-May, and mid-June 2002. The concentrations of chromium in fish and river water were measured and the overall conditions of the fish were evaluated. Sample collection focused on the 100-D and 100-H Areas, which were the locations most likely to have elevated chromium concentrations in the environment based on groundwater monitoring data. The Vernita Bridge area served as an upstream reference site for all samples. All Columbia River water concentrations for chromium determined during this study were less than or equal to 0.1 µg/L, which were below the Washington State ambient surface-water quality criteria of 10 µg/L. Body burdens of chromium were not statistically different for fish collected at the 100-D and 100-H Areas compared to the Vernita Bridge location; thus, there was no indication of elevated exposure or uptake of Hanford sources of chromium. No gross morphological anomalies were noted in any fish collected during this effort. Histological assessments for fish examined during this study exhibited normal and healthy tissues and comparison of fish body lengths and weights from these locations revealed no evidence of physiological stress for organisms collected near the 100-D or 100-H Areas. Taken collectively, these results indicated that there was no impact to juvenile fall Chinook salmon from chromium released into the Columbia River from Hanford during 2002. v

show abstract

Section: A4 Spike Recovery For Fish Samplessupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monitoring Tissue Concentrations of Chromium and Fish Condition in Juvenile Fall Chinook Salmon from the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River

Tiller¹,

Patton²,

Dauble³

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The most likely cause of erosional loss was wind erosion. On the Hanford Site, it has been shown that windblown dust begins to occur when wind speed exceeds 6 m s Ϫ1 (Poston et al 2003). Wind speeds at the study site exceeded 6 m s Ϫ1 frequently during the test period (Fig.…”

Section: Sample Resultsmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…Weather data during the test period were obtained from several nearby weather towers that are part of the Hanford Site Meteorological Monitoring Network (Poston et al 2003). The weather data provided wind velocity, precipitation, air temperature, barometric pressure and relative humidity at 10 m above ground level.…”

Section: Environmental Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Sprayable Fixatives on a Sandy Soil for Potential Use in a Dirty Bomb Response

Fritz

Whitaker²

2008

Health Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After the events of 11 September 2001, the possibility of a dirty bomb being detonated within the United States seems more realistic. Development of tools for use in response to a dirty bomb detonation has become a topic of both discussion and research. While it has been reported that the health risk to the public from such an event would likely be small, it is thought that the psychological impact could be considerable. One response option that has been considered is adapting sprayable solutions for the purpose of fixing contamination in place, thereby limiting the spread of contamination by wind and rain and facilitating subsequent cleanup. This work evaluated two commercially available particle fixatives (IsoFIX-HT and IsoFIX-RC) for their effectiveness in preventing dispersal of simulated contamination. Nonradioactive cesium chloride and cobalt oxide particles were selected as the simulated contamination and applied to the surface of three outdoor test plots. Two test plots were treated with fixatives; the third plot provided a control. Samples were collected over 95 days to observe changes in tracer concentration on the surface of the test plots. One fixative (IsoFIX-RC) effectively held the tracer in place with no net loss of tracer, while the other fixative (IsoFIX-HT) had no impact on the loss of tracer relative to the control. Under the conditions tested, IsoFIX-RC appears capable of fixing surface contamination in place for at least several months.

show abstract

“…Fifteen steel casings, referred to as "seep wells," were installed with the rip rap to provide sampling access to the seepage (Figures 5.2 and 5.3). The seep wells have been routinely sampled in the past on an annual basis to satisfy near-field environmental monitoring requirements (Poston et al 2003).…”

Section: Seep Wells In Rip Rap At N-springs Shorelinementioning

confidence: 99%

Water Quality Sampling Locations Along the Shoreline of the Columbia River, Hanford Site, Washington

Peterson¹,

Patton²

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryAs environmental monitoring evolved on the Hanford Site, several different conventions were used to name or describe location information for various sampling sites along the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River. These conventions range from handwritten descriptions in field notebooks to the use of modern electronic surveying equipment, such as global positioning system receivers. Because of the diverse methods, inconsistent archiving of analytical results in various electronic databases and published reports occurred, including use of multiple names for the same site and inaccurate location information.This document provides listings of sampling sites that are associated with groundwater and river water sampling. The report identifies names and locations for sites associated with sampling: (a) nearriver groundwater using aquifer sampling tubes; (b) riverbank springs and seepage areas; (c) pore water collected from riverbed sediment; and (d) Columbia River water. Included in the listings are historical names used for a particular site and the best available geographic coordinates for the site, as of 2009.In an effort to create more consistency in the descriptive names used for water quality sampling sites, a naming convention is proposed in this document. The convention assumes that a unique identifier is assigned to each site that is monitored and that this identifier serves electronic database management requirements. The descriptive name is assigned for the convenience of the particular project and subsequent data user. As the historical database is used more intensively, this document may be revised as a consequence of discovering potential errors and the need to gain consensus on a proposed naming convention for some water quality monitoring sites.v AcknowledgmentsThis report has drawn on the efforts of numerous individuals who have worked along the Columbia River shoreline at the Hanford Site, to whom the authors extend their sincere appreciation. Of particular help in sorting out the locations and names associated with riverbank springs were Roger Dirkes, 1 who provided detailed recollections of his early work on the river, and Richard Mahood, 2 who spent countless days in the field documenting locations and collecting samples. Rich was also the principal developer of methods to install aquifer sampling tubes along the shoreline and provided leadership to several campaigns that resulted in the comprehensive monitoring network available today.William Webber 2 and JoAnne Rieger 2 engaged the senior author in extensive discussions regarding site location information from the perspective of database developers, which certainly helped guide the level of detail provided in this report. JoAnne patiently responded to numerous requests for assistance in querying existing databases, for which the authors are grateful. Lynn Bisping 1 graciously provided peer review of the report and offered numerous suggestions that improved clarity and accuracy. Kyle Parker 1 developed the location maps found in the appendix,...

show abstract

Hanford Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2002

Cited by 9 publications

References 55 publications

Monitoring Tissue Concentrations of Chromium and Fish Condition in Juvenile Fall Chinook Salmon from the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River

Monitoring Tissue Concentrations of Chromium and Fish Condition in Juvenile Fall Chinook Salmon from the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River

Evaluation of Sprayable Fixatives on a Sandy Soil for Potential Use in a Dirty Bomb Response

Water Quality Sampling Locations Along the Shoreline of the Columbia River, Hanford Site, Washington

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About