English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The U.S. DOE and its predecessors released nearly 2 trillion liters (450 billion gallons) of contaminated liquid into the vadose zone at the Hanford Site. Some of the contaminants currently reside in the deeper parts of the vadose zone where they are much less accessible to characterization, monitoring, and typical remediation activities. The DOE Richland Operations Office (DOE-RL) prepared a treatability test plan in 2008 to examine remediation options for addressing contaminants in the deep vadose zone; one of the technologies identified was surface barriers (also known as engineered barriers, covers, and caps). In the typical configuration, the contaminants are located relatively close to the surface, generally within 15 m, and thus they are close to the base of the surface barrier. The proximity of the surface barrier under these conditions yielded few concerns about the effectiveness of the barrier at depth, particularly for cases in which the contaminants were in a lined facility. At Hanford, however, some unlined sites have contaminants located well below depths of 15 m. The issue raised about these sites is the degree of effectiveness of a surface barrier in isolating contaminants in the deep vadose zone. Previous studies by Hanford Site and PNNL researchersmore » suggest that surface barriers have the potential to provide a significant degree of isolation of deep vadose zone contaminants. The studies show that the actual degree of isolation is site-specific and depends on many factors, including recharge rates, barrier size, depth of contaminants, geohydrologic properties ofthe sediments, and the geochemical interactions between the contaminants and the sediments. After the DOE-RL treatability test plan was published, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory was contracted to review the information available to support surface barrier evaluation for the deep vadose zone, identify gaps in the information and outcomes necessary to fill the data gaps, and outline tasks to achieve those outcomes. Full understanding of contaminant behavior in the deep vadose zone is constrained by four key data gaps: limited access; limited data; limited time; and the lack of an accepted predictive capability for determining whether surface barriers can effectively isolate deep vadose zone contaminants. Activities designed to fill these data gaps need to have these outcomes: (1) common evaluation methodology that provides a clear, consistent, and defensible basis for evaluating groundwater impacts caused by placement of a surface barrier above deep vadose zone contamination; (2) deep vadose zone data that characterize the lithology, the spatial distribution of moisture and contaminants, the physical, chemical, and biological process that affect the mobility of each contaminant, and the impacts to the contaminants following placement of a surface barrier; (3) subsurface monitoring to provide subsurface characterization of initial conditions and changes that occur during and following remediation activities; and (4) field observations that span years to decades to validate the evaluation methodology. A set of six proposed tasks was identified to provide information needed to address the above outcomes. The proposed tasks are: (1) Evaluation Methodology - Develop common evaluation methodology that will provide a clear, consistent, and defensible basis for evaluating groundwater impacts caused by placement of a surface barrier above deep vadose zone contamination. (2) Case Studies - Conduct case studies to demonstrate the applicability ofthe common evaluation methodology and provide templates for subsequent use elsewhere. Three sites expected to have conditions that would yield valuable information and experience pertinent to deep vadose zone contamination were chosen to cover a range of conditions. The sites are BC Cribs and Trenches, U Plant Cribs, and the T Farm Interim Cover. (3) Subsurface Monitoring Technologies - Evaluate minimally invasive geophysical approaches for delineating subsurface plumes and monitoring their migration in the deep vadose zone. (4) Controlled Field Test at Sisson and Lu Site - Evaluate the ability ofthe model to predict long-term liquid, vapor, and chemical transport processes at a well-characterized site containing a plume of subsurface water and tracer remaining from injections in the early 1980s and 2000s. (5) Deep Vadose Zone Monitoring at T Farm - Demonstrate the ability of the geophysical sensors and the model to detect and predict long-term migration of liquid and vapor between the vadose zone beneath the infiltration area and the vadose zone protected by the interim cover. (6) Deep Vadose Zone Monitoring at the Prototype Hanford Barrier - Demonstrate the ability of geophysical sensors and the model to detect and predict the hydrologic conditions in the vadose zone beneath the Prototype Hanford Barrier 15 years after construction.« less

TECHNICAL BASIS FOR EVALUATING SURFACE BARRIERS TO PROTECT GROUNDWATER FROM DEEP VADOSE ZONE CONTAMINATION