NUREG/CR-6881

 PNNL-15244

Soil and Groundwater Sample

Characterization and Agricultural

Practices for Assessing Food

Chain Pathways in Biosphere

Models 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

Washington, DC 20555-0001
 

 NUREG/CR-6881 

 PNNL-15244

Soil and Groundwater Sample 

Characterization and Agricultural 

Practices for Assessing Food 

Chain Pathways in Biosphere 

Models

Manuscript Completed: July 2005

Date Published: August 2005

Prepared by

B.A. Napier, K.M. Krupka, M.M. Valenta,

T.J. Gilmore

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Richland, WA 99352

P.R. Reed, NRC Project Manager

Prepared for

Division of Systems Analysis and Regulatory Effectiveness

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

NRC Job Code Y6469
iii

Abstract

This report describes work performed and summarizes observations to date on the U.S.

NuclearRegulatoryCommission’sprojectAssessment of Food Chain Pathway

Parameters in Biosphere Models, which was established to assess and evaluate a number

of key parameters used in the food-chain models used in performance assessments of

radioactive waste disposal facilities. Section 2 of this report describes activities

undertaken to collect samples of soils and groundwater from three geographical regions

of the United States, the Southeast, Northwest, and Southwest, and perform analyses to

characterize their physical and chemical properties. Because the uptake and behavior of

radionuclides in plant roots, plant leaves, and animal products depends on the chemistry

of the water and soil coming in contact with plants and animals, water and soil samples

collected from these regions on the United States are being used in ongoing experiments

at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to determine radionuclide soil-to-plant

concentration ratios, leaf interception and translocation factors. Crops and forage used in

the experiments are grown in the soils, and long-lived radionuclides introduced into the

groundwater provide the contaminated water used to water the grown plants. The

radionuclide uptake results from this research study are expected to show how regional

variations in water quality and soil chemistry affect radionuclide uptake. Section 3

summarizes information gathered regarding agricultural practices and common and

unusual crops grown in each of these three areas. This type of information is directly

useful in formulating inputs to radioecological and food-chain models used in

performance assessments and other kinds of environmental assessment. This food-chain

pathway data may be used by the NRC staff to assess dose to persons in the reference

biosphere (e.g., persons who live and work in an area potentially affected by radionuclide

releases) of waste disposal facilities and decommissioning sites.
iv

vi
vii

Contents

Abstract.............................................................................................................................. iii

Foreword............................................................................................................................. v

List of Figures..................................................................................................................viii

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... ix

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... xi

Acronyms ......................................................................................................................... xii

Units of Measure .............................................................................................................xiii

1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................... 1-1

2.0 Sampling and Analysis of Groundwater and Soil Samples...................................... 2-1

2.1 Sampling Sites for Groundwater and Soil Samples.............................................. 2-1

2.1.1 Hanford Site, Washington.............................................................................. 2-2

2.1.2 Nye County, Nevada...................................................................................... 2-3

2.1.3 Savannah River Site, South Carolina............................................................. 2-4

2.1.4 Clemson University Site, South Carolina ...................................................... 2-6

2.2 Methods for Analysis and Characterization of Groundwater and Soil Samples .. 2-7

2.2.1 Analysis of Groundwater Samples................................................................. 2-7

2.2.2 Characterization and Analysis of Bulk Soil Samples.................................... 2-9

2.3 Results of Analyses and Characterization of Groundwater and Soil Samples ... 2-11

2.4 References for Section 2 ..................................................................................... 2-30

3.0 Agricultural Practices at the Three Locations........................................................... 3-1

3.1 Washington ........................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Nevada .................................................................................................................. 3-5

3.3 South Carolina .................................................................................................... 3-10

3.4 References for Section 3 ..................................................................................... 3-16

4.0 Discussion/Conclusions............................................................................................ 4-1
viii

List of Figures

2.1. Locations of Groundwater and Soil Samples from the Hanford Site ...................... 2-2

2.2. Location in Nye County, Nevada Where Groundwater and Soil Samples were

Collected .................................................................................................................. 2-3

2.3. Well Used for Groundwater Sample from Savannah River Site ............................. 2-4

2.4. Location Where Soil Sample was Collected from Savannah River Site ................. 2-5

2.5. Research Field at the Edisto Research and Education Center Used for Soil from

Clemson University Site .......................................................................................... 2-7

2.6. Background-Subtracted XRD Pattern for Hanford Site Soil Sample .................... 2-17

2.7. Background-Subtracted XRD Pattern for Nye County Soil Sample ..................... 2-18

2.8. Background-Subtracted XRD Pattern for Savannah River Site Soil Sample ........ 2-19

2.9. Background-Subtracted XRD Pattern for Clemson University Site Soil Sample . 2-20

3.1. Crop availability in South Carolina by Month....................................................... 3-12
ix

List of Tables

Table 2.1. Tables and Figures Containing the Results of the Analyses and

Characterization Studies of the Groundwater, Soil, and 1:1 Soil:Water Extract

Samples from the Hanford Site, Nye County, Savannah River Site, and

Clemson University locations..................................................................... 2-13

Table 2.2. pH and Conductivity Values for the Groundwater Samples ...................... 2-14

Table 2.3. Alkalinity Values for the Groundwater Samples........................................ 2-14

Table 2.4. Concentrations of Dissolved Anions in the Groundwater Samples............ 2-14

Table 2.5. Concentrations of Total Dissolved Carbon in the Groundwater Samples.. 2-15

Table 2.6. Concentrations of Dissolved Macro and Trace Metals in the Groundwater

Samples as Determined by ICP-OES ......................................................... 2-15

Table 2.7. Concentrations of Dissolved Trace Metals in the Groundwater Samples as

Determined by ICP-MS .............................................................................. 2-16

Table 2.8. Concentrations of Dissolved Trace Metals in the Groundwater Samples as

Determined by ICP-MS (Continued).......................................................... 2-16

Table 2.9. Concentrations of Major Elements in Bulk Soil Samples as Determined by

XRF............................................................................................................. 2-21

Table 2.10. Concentrations of Trace Elements in Bulk Soil Samples as Determined by

XRF............................................................................................................. 2-21

Table 2.11. Particle Size Analysis of the Bulk Soil Samples........................................ 2-22

Table 2.12. Moisture Contents of the Bulk Soil Samples.............................................. 2-22

Table 2.13. Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) Values for the Soil Samples................. 2-22

Table 2.14. Carbon Contents of the Soil Samples......................................................... 2-23

Table 2.15. pH and Conductivity Values for the 1:1 Soil:Water Extracts..................... 2-23

Table 2.16. Alkalinity Values for the 1:1 Soil:Water Extracts...................................... 2-24

Table 2.17. Concentrations of Dissolved Anions in 1:1 Soil:Water Extract ................. 2-25

Table 2.18. Concentrations (μg/g soil) of Dissolved Macro and Trace Metals in the 1:1

Water Extracts as Determined by ICP-OES ............................................... 2-26

Table 2.19. Concentrations (μg/L pore water) of Dissolved Macro and Trace Metals in

the 1:1 Water Extracts as Determined by ICP-OES ................................... 2-27

Table 2.20. Concentrations of Dissolved Macro and Trace Metals in 1:1 Water Extracts

as Determined by ICP-MS.......................................................................... 2-28

Table 2.21. Concentrations of Dissolved Trace Elements in 1:1 Water Extracts as

Determined by ICP-MS (Continued).......................................................... 2-29

Table 3.1. Agricultural Activities in Washington Counties of Benton, Franklin, Grant,

and Yakima within 80 km of the Columbia Generating Station, Hanford,

Washington................................................................................................... 3-2

Table 3.2. Growing and Irrigation Seasons for Eastern Washington Crops.................. 3-4

Table 3.3. Annual Irrigation Requirements for Selected Crops in Eastern Washington3-5

Table 3.4. Estimated Average Harvested Yield of Crops for Eastern Washington....... 3-6

Table 3.5. Agricultural Activities within a 22,000 km2 Region of Southern Nevada and

Southeastern California ................................................................................ 3-7

Table 3.6. Types of Irrigation in Southern Nevada ....................................................... 3-7

Table 3.7. Growing and Irrigation Seasons for Southern Nevada Crops ...................... 3-8

Table 3.8. Annual Irrigation Requirements for Selected Crops in Southern Nevada.... 3-9
x

Table 3.9. Estimated Average Harvested Yield of Crops for Southern Nevada. .......... 3-9

Table 3.10. Monthly Rainfall in Selected South Carolina Cities (mm)......................... 3-11

Table 3.11. Surface Water and Groundwater Use for Irrigation in South Carolina ...... 3-13

Table 3.12. Total Irrigated Crop Acreage in South Carolina in Year 2000................... 3-14

Table 3.13. Irrigation Requirements for Selected Crops in South Carolina .................. 3-14

Table 3.14. Total Production of Various Crops in South Carolina................................ 3-15

Table 3.15. Estimated Average Harvested Yield of Crops for South Carolina............. 3-16
xi

Acknowledgements

The authors are particularly grateful for the technical guidance, review, and

encouragement provided by Phillip R. Reed of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The authors thank S.R. Baum, K.M. Geiszler, I.V. Kutnyakov, V.L. LeGore,

M.J. Lindberg, H.T. Schaef, and T.S Vickerman (all of PNNL) for assisting with various

aspects of the analyses and characterization of the groundwater and soil samples. We

also thank R.J. Serne, W.J. Deutsch, and their PNNL coworkers for providing written

descriptions of the methods used for analysis and characterization of the groundwater and

soil samples. We particularly thank D. Rau (Amargosa Valley, Nevada), J. Rossabi

(Savannah River Technology Center), and J. Mueller (Edisto Research and Education

Center) for their assistance in sample collection.
xii

Acronyms

ASA American Society of Agronomy

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

CBP Columbia Basin Project

CEC cation exchange capacity

cps counts per second

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma-mass spectroscopy (spectrometer)

ICP-OES inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectroscopy (same as

ICP-AES)

ICDD International Center for Diffraction Data, Newtown Square, Pennsylvania

JCPDS Joint Committee on Powder Diffraction Standards

LOI loss on ignition

ND not detected

PDFTM powder diffraction file

PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

QA quality assurance

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

XRD X-ray powder diffractometry analysis (commonly called X-ray diffraction)

XRF X-ray fluorescence analysis
xiii

Units of Measure

Å angstrom

g gram

kV kilovolt

L liter

M molarity, mol/L

mA milliampere

mg milligram

mL milliliter

mS millisiemens

N Normality (of a solution), in number of gram equivalent weights of solute

per liter of solution

I/Io relative intensity of an XRD peak to the most intense peak

wt% weight percent

oC temperature in degrees Celsius [T(oC) = T(K) –273.15)]

λ wavelength

 micro (prefix, 10-6)

eq microequivalent

g microgram

m micrometer

θ angle of incidence (Bragg angle)
xiv
1-1

1.0 Introduction

TheU.S.NuclearRegulatoryCommission’sprojectAssessment of Food Chain Pathway

Parameters in Biosphere Models has been established to assess and evaluate a number of

key parameters used in the food-chain models used in performance assessments of

radioactive waste disposal facilities. The objectives of the research program include:

 Provide data and information for the important features, events, and processes of

the pathway models for use in biosphere computer codes. These codes calculate

the total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) to the average member of the critical

group and maximally exposed individual, for example, from radionuclides in the

contaminated ground water release scenarios in NRC's performance assessments of

waste disposal facilities and decommissioning sites,

 Reduce uncertainties in food-chain pathway analysis from the agriculture scenarios

of biosphere models in performance assessment calculations,

 Provide better data and information for food-chain pathway analyses by:

o Performing laboratory and field experiments, including integral and

separate effect experiments, to evaluate the potential pathways and uptake

mechanisms of plants and animals contaminated by long-lived

radionuclides,

o Presenting food-chain pathway data and information by regional and local

geographical locations,

o Quantifying uncertainties in the radioactive contamination of food crops

and long-term build up of radionuclides in soils with contaminated ground

water from water irrigation systems,

o Determining data on factors affecting radionuclide uptake of food crops

including irrigation water processes, soil physical and chemical properties,

soil leaching and retention properties near crop roots, soil resuspension

factors and other soil and plant characteristics.

The results of this research program will provide needed food-chain and animal

product pathway data and information for important radionuclides that may be used by

the NRC staff to assess dose to persons who live and work in areas potentially affected by

radionuclide releases from waste disposal facilities and decommissioning sites.

Section 2 of this report describes activities undertaken to collect samples of soils and

groundwater from three regions of the United States, the Southeast, Northwest, and

Southwest, and perform analyses to characterize their physical and chemical properties.

Because the uptake and behavior of radionuclides in plant roots, plant leaves, and animal

products depends on the chemistry of the water and soil coming in contact with plants

and animals, water and soil samples collected from these regions on the United States are

being used in ongoing experiments at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to

determine radionuclide soil-to-plant concentration ratios, leaf interception and

translocation factors. Crops and forage used in the experiments are grown in the soils,

and long-lived radionuclides introduced into the groundwater provide the contaminated
1-2

water used to water the grown plants. Radionuclides under consideration include 99Tc,

129I, 238Pu, 237Np, and 241Am. Plant types include alfalfa, corn, onion, and potato. The

radionuclide uptake results from this research study are expected to show how regional

variations in water quality and soil chemistry affect radionuclide uptake.

Section 3 summarizes information gathered regarding agricultural practices and

common and unusual crops grown in each of these three areas. Data from this research

program are expected to be used in biosphere models to calculate the dose from

groundwater release scenarios in performance assessment computer codes.
2-1

2.0 Sampling and Analysis of Groundwater and Soil Samples

Uncontaminated soil and groundwater samples were collected from four and three sites,

respectively, that are in the vicinity of waste disposal facilities and unaffected by disposal

activities at those sites. The soil and groundwater samples were collected for use in plant

radionuclide uptake studies. The areas for sampling included agricultural sites and

currently operating and proposed waste disposal facilities and decommissioning sites,

including the commercial low-level radioactive waste (LLW) sites in the states of

Washington and South Carolina.

2.1 Sampling Sites for Groundwater and Soil Samples

Three areas for soil and water samples were identified that met the objectives identified

intheworkplanforthe“AssessmentofFoodChainPathwayParametersinBiosphere

Models”project.ThesesitesincludetheHanfordSite,Washington;SavannahRiver,

South Carolina; and Nye County, Nevada. Together they provide a range of soil

characteristics for radionuclide bio-uptake studies. After the plant uptake experiments

were started, it was discovered that soil from the Savannah River Site in South Carolina

would not support plant growth because the soil was allelopathic –that is, it contained

natural toxins to plant growth as a result of its association with pine trees. A different

nearby location was then identified to obtain a new soil sample for the plant studies. This

soil sample (Section 2.1.3) was obtained from a research field operated by Clemson

University in Blackville, South Carolina, in Barnwell County, located 15 mi. eastnortheast of the Savannah River Plant. The Hanford location is about 15 km (9 miles)

west of the U.S. Ecology low-level waste disposal site; the South Carolina location is

about 22 km (14 miles) northeast of the Barnwell low-level waste disposal site (the

original Savannah River Site location was about 5 miles west), and the Nevada location is

about 80 km (50 miles) southeast of the Beatty low-level waste site and about 37 km (23

miles) downgradient from the proposed Yucca Mountain high-level waste repository.

The experimental design of the uptake experiments requires approximately 300 liters

of water and 0.2 cubic meters of soil from each site. The latitude and longitude position

of each sampling location was recorded by using a global positioning system (GPS) unit

to provide traceability and the opportunity to provide duplicate samples if required. In

addition, at the one privately owned site in Nye County, Nevada, it was arranged through

an agreement with the landowner that the site would be available for re-sampling should

any additional material be needed. No measurements were made at the well of

parameters such as Eh, temperature, dissolved oxygen, etc., because in the anticipated use

of spray irrigation, these parameters would rapidly change to match the terrestrial

conditions.
2-2

2.1.1 Hanford Site, Washington

The sampling site for the Hanford soil and groundwater samples is located off

Washingtonhighway240neartheareareferredtoasthe“YakimaBarricade”atthe

western entrance to the U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site in southeastern

Washington State. Logistically, the sample site is easily accessible by road, and a pump

is installed in the well used for groundwater sampling (Figure 2.1). The Hanford Site

designation for the well is 699-49-100C, and the coordinates are North 46.577°, West

119.726°. The well has been used in the past for providing water to the guard shack at

the Yakima Barricade (see structure in background at top of right photograph in Figure

2.1),andisstillusedtoprovide“up-gradientbackground”groundwatersamples(i.e.,

water not affected by Hanford disposal activities) to the Hanford Site environmental

programs. The water chemistry of the well has been well characterized, and the analyses

are available through the Hanford Environmental Information System (HEIS 1994) data

base.

The Hanford soil1sample was collected within 100 m of the well used for the

groundwater sample, and the coordinates for the location of the soil sample are North

46.5757°, West 119.7259°. The soil sample is a silty, very fine sand that is referred to as

the McGee Ranch soil. The soil in this area has been extensively characterized, because

there are plans to use this sediment as a soil covering for surface barriers on wastedisposal areas at the Hanford Site (DOE 1999) (Figure 2.1).

Groundwater Sampling Soil Sampling

Figure 2.1. Locations of Groundwater and Soil Samples from the Hanford Site

1 Because of its depositional history, the unconsolidated surface and near-surface geologic material at

theHanfordSiteisreferredtoas“sediment”inHanfordSiteliterature.
2-3

2.1.2 Nye County, Nevada

The sampling site (Figure 2.2) in Nye County is located in a desert valley approximately

110 miles west of Las Vegas in the Amargosa Valley, Nevada. The soil and groundwater

samples were collected by agreement with the owner from private land. The site is

located west of Las Vegas approximately 175 km (110) miles on Nevada highway 95.

From the junction of highways 95 and 373, the site is 16 km (10 miles) south to Mecca

Road, and then west 9 km (5.5 miles) to Van Patton Drive.

The groundwater was collected from an irrigation well that is used to flood irrigate

pastureland. The coordinates for the well used for the groundwater sample are

North 36 29' 24.4", West 116 30' 51.5". The pasture was used to grow alfalfa for about

14 years up until about 1996, when it was allowed to turn to pasture. According to the

land owner, the soil was originally conditioned using approximately 0.225 kg/m2(10

tons/acre) of gypsum. No commercial fertilizer was used on the pasture.

The soil was approximately 75 cm (2.5 feet) thick at the sample site, and consists of a

light brown silty sand. The coordinates for the site of the soil sample are

North 36° 29' 23.7", West 116° 30' 52.0". Near the base, the occurrence of white streaks

in the soil increased until the soil transitioned into broken-up calcrete.

Figure 2.2. Location in Nye County, Nevada Where Groundwater and Soil Samples

were Collected
2-4

2.1.3 Savannah River Site, South Carolina

This site was selected because this soil provides a good representation of forest soil from

the southeastern United States. PNNL staff also had contacts at the U.S. Department of

Energy Savannah River Site who could cost-effectively provide uncontaminated

groundwater and soil samples from this location. This site receives considerably more

infiltration from rainfall and snowmelt, and has a soil that was expected to have a higher

organic carbon content than the soil samples from Hanford and Nye County. The water

samples are from well HSB-85A (Figure 2.3) at coordinates North 33° 17' 6.548",

West 81° 39' 17.7448". The soil samples were collected near well MSB 21 TA (Figure

2.4) at coordinates North 33° 19' 58.31", West 81° 44' 39.2". The groundwater and soil

samples were provided by the Savannah River Technology Center in Aiken, South

Carolina. The locations selected forthegroundwaterandsoilsamplesrepresent“clean”

groundwater and soil, which do not contain any radionuclide contamination at

concentrations above natural background levels. Also, each sampling location has

background data associated with it that was collected as part of the environmental

monitoring program at the Savannah River Site. The soil from this site falls under the

Restricted Shipping Regulations of the United States Department of Agriculture Animal

Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS). The reason given for this restriction is

the potential for fire-ant contamination. Prior to be being distributed for characterization

and use in the plant uptake experiments, the soil sample was therefore processed as

follows:

Figure 2.3 Well Used for Groundwater Sample from Savannah River Site
2-5

Figure 2.4. Location Where Soil Sample was Collected from Savannah River Site [Soil

was sampled from surface (bottom photograph) near the feet of the person standing in the

trees in the top photograph.]
2-6

 The soil was considered contaminated until heat-treated and therefore handled

using sterile technique. This meant that it was opened and handled only in an

appropriate biosafety cabinet. These are within locked, negative air-pressure

laboratories, with controlled access to authorized personnel only. At the

minimum, safety apparel included a lab coat and two (2) pairs of disposable

gloves that could be subsequently autoclaved.

 All soil residues were treated by either heating in a forced air oven at 110°-125°C

for 16 h or autoclaving at temperatures ≥110°Cand15poundspressurefora

minimum of 30 min.

2.1.4 Clemson University Site, South Carolina

This site was selected because this soil provides a good representation of an agricultural

soil from the southeastern United States, and because it has been under cultivation for

over 25 years, it is unlikely to suffer from the allelopathic nature of the forested Savannah

River Site soil. Like the soil from the Savannah River Site, this site receives

considerably more infiltration from rainfall and snowmelt than the soil samples from

Hanford and Nye County. The soil sample was provided by a Professor of plant

pathology and physiology at the Edisto Research and Education Center (664 Research

Road, Blackville, South Carolina) at Clemson University. Blackville is 16 km (10 mi.)

northeast of Barnwell on the junction of US 78 and US 321, and is approximately 50 km

(30 mi.) east of Augusta, 15 mi. east-northeast of the Savannah River Plant, and 70 km

(45 mi.) south-southwest of Columbia, South Carolina. Based on GPS, the soil sample

was taken at coordinates North 33.2124°, West 81.18446°. Published soils maps indicate

the soil is described as a Dothan Loamy Sand slope 0 to 2% or less. The soil sample is

from a research field at The Edisto Research and Education Center. The field has been in

agricultural production, primarily cotton and soybean, continuously for the last 25 years.

The field was planted in soybeans in CY 2004, in cotton for one or two years before that,

and then primarily in soybeans for the previous 10 or 12 years. Except for cleaning off

plant debris, the location of the soil sample was undisturbed before digging of the soil

sample. The soil was collected by scraping off the top 2 to 8 cm (1 to 3 inches) and

collecting the sample at the 5 to 20 cm (2 to 8 inch) depth. The soil from the Clemson

University Site also falls under USDA-APHIS because of the potential for fire-ant

contamination. Therefore, prior to distribution for characterization and use in the plant

uptake experiments, this soil sample was considered contaminated until heat-treated and

handled using sterile technique as described in Section 2.1.3.

A separate groundwater sample was not taken at this site. Because of the similarities

of the surface soils and general vicinity, the groundwater sample from the Savannah

River location was considered to be representative of this location as well.
2-7

Figure 2.5. Research Field at the Edisto Research and Education Center Used for Soil

from Clemson University Site

2.2 Methods for Analysis and Characterization of Groundwater and

Soil Samples

The following method descriptions were taken, with the permission of the lead authors,

from reports published by the PNNL Applied Geology and Geochemistry Group, such as

Deutsch et al. (2004) and Serne et al. (2004).

2.2.1 Analysis of Groundwater Samples

2.2.1.1 pH and Conductivity

The pH values of the groundwater samples from the Hanford Site, Nye County, and

Savannah River Site were measured using a solid-state pH electrode and a pH meter

calibrated with buffers bracketing the expected range. This measurement is similar to

Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes: Physical/Chemical Methods SW-846 9040B

(EPA 1995). Electrical conductivity was measured and compared to potassium chloride

standards with a range of 0.001 M to 1.0 M. The pH and conductivity subsamples were
2-8

filtered prior to analysis. The basic unit of conductivity is the siemens (S), formerly

called the mho.

2.2.1.2 Alkalinity

The alkalinity of the groundwater samples from the Hanford Site, Nye County, and

Savannah River Site were measured using standard titration. A volume of standardized

sulfuric acid (H2SO4) was added to the sample to an endpoint of pH 8.3 and then an

endpoint of pH 4.5. The volume of H2SO4 needed to achieve each endpoint is used to

calculate the phenolphthalein (OH-+ CO3

2-

) and total (OH-+ HCO3

-

+ CO3

2-

) alkalinity

as calcium carbonate (CaCO3). The alkalinity procedure is similar to Standard Method

2320 B (Clesceri et al. 1998).

2.2.1.3 Anions

Analyses of dissolved anions in groundwater samples from the Hanford Site, Nye

County, and Savannah River Site were measured using an ion chromatograph. Bromide,

carbonate, chloride, fluoride, nitrate, phosphate, and sulfate were separated on a Dionex

AS17 column with a gradient elution technique from 1 mM to 35 mM KOH and

measured using a conductivity detector. This methodology is similar to Method 9056 in

Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes: Physical/Chemical Methods EPA SW-846

(1994b) with the exception of using gradient elution with NaOH.

2.2.1.4 Total Carbon

Total carbon contents of the groundwater samples from the Hanford Site, Nye County,

and Savannah River Site were measured using a Shimadzu Carbon analyzer Model TOCV csn that is equipped with an autosampler. The method used of measuring the carbon

content of the groundwater samples is described in PNNL Technical Procedure

AGG-TOC-001 (PNNL 2004),2and is similar to EPA Method 9060 (Total Organic

Carbon) in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes: Physical/Chemical Methods EPA

SW-846 (EPA 1986). The adequacy of the system performance was confirmed by

analyzing for known quantities of a liquid carbon standard.

2.2.1.5 Cations and Trace Metals

Analyses of major cations, such as Al, Ca, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, Na, and Si, dissolved in the

groundwater samples from the Hanford Site, Nye County, and Savannah River Site were

completed by inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES)

(EPA Method 6010B, EPA 1996). Trace metals analyses, including Ag, As, Cd, Cr, Mo,

Pb, Ru, Se, and U, were completed by inductively coupled plasma-mass spectroscopy

(ICP-MS) using a method that is similar to EPA Method 6020 (EPA 1994a). For both

2

PNL. 2004. “PNNLTechnicalProcedureAGG-TOC-001 [Operating of Carbon

Analyzer (TOC-V + SSM-5000A + ASI (Shimadzu))].”Procedureinreview,

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
2-9

ICP-OES and ICP-MS, high-purity calibration standards were used to generate

calibration curves and to verify continuing calibration during the analysis. Multiple

dilutions of selected samples were made and analyzed to investigate and correct for

matrix interferences. The ICP-MS results are reported as total element concentration in

terms of the specific isotope measured. The instrument software converts the

concentration of an isotope of an element to the total concentration of the element based

on the distribution of isotopes in the natural environment. For example, the total Cr

concentration is reported from the raw count rates for both 52Cr and 53Cr isotopes based

on taking the raw counts and dividing by the fraction of 52Cr and 53Cr found in nature to

yield estimates of total Cr in the sample. (Note that these are stable isotopes of the

elements).

2.2.2 Characterization and Analysis of Bulk Soil Samples

2.2.2.1 X-ray Diffraction

The primary crystalline minerals present in each bulk soil sample were identified using a

Scintag X-ray powder diffraction (XRD) unit equipped with a Pelter thermoelectrically

cooled detector and a copper X‐ray tube. The diffractometer was operated at 45 kV and

40 mA.Individualscanswereobtainedfrom2to65°2θwithadwelltimeof2seconds.

Scans were collected electronically and processed using the JADE® XRD patternprocessing software. Identification of the mineral phases in the background-subtracted

patterns was based on a comparison of the XRD patterns measured for the sludge samples

withthemineralpowderdiffractionfiles(PDFTM)publishedbytheJointCommitteeon

Powder Diffraction Standards (JCPDS) International Center for Diffraction Data (ICDD).

2.2.2.2 Elemental Analysis by X-ray Fluorescence

Elemental analysis of the bulk soil samples was determined by X-ray fluorescence

(XRF). The XRF analyses were completed for PNNL by staff at the GeoAnalytical

Laboratory in the Department of Geology at Washington State University (1228 Webster

Physical Sciences Building, Pullman, Washington 99164-2812) using a Thermo-ARL

Advant'XP+ automated spectrometer. The sequential, wavelength dispersive

spectrometer contains a Rh-target X-ray tube operated at 60 kV, 60 mA. Samples were

prepared for XRF analysis using a lithium tetraborate flux fusion method which includes

double fusing (for homogeneity) in carbon crucibles at 1000°C. Preparation time and

analytical time were both approximately one hour per sample. Except for now using

diamond-impregnated metal disks to improve the lapping of specimen surfaces to

flatness, the details of sample preparation are essentially those described in Johnson et al.

(1999).

2.2.2.3 Particle Size Distribution

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) procedures ASTM D1140-00

(ASTM 2000) (Standard Test Methods for Amount of Material in Soils Finer Than the

No. 200 [75 μm] Sieve) and D422-63 (ASTM 2003) (Standard Test Method for Particle-
2-10

Size Analysis of Soils) were used for particle size analysis of the soil samples from the

Hanford Site, Nye County, Savannah River Site, and Clemson University locations. In

ASTM D422-63, a sedimentation process using a hydrometer is used to determine the

distribution of particle sizes smaller than 75 μm, while sieving was used to measure the

distribution of particle sizes larger than 53 μm (retained on a No. 270 sieve). A No. 10

sieve, which has sieve size openings of 2.00 mm, was first used to remove the fraction

largerthan“verycoarse”priortoparticlesizeanalysis.

2.2.2.4 Moisture Content

Gravimetric water contents of the soil samples from the Hanford Site, Nye County,

Savannah River Site, and Clemson University locations were determined using PNNL

procedure PNL-MA-567-DO-1 (PNL 1990).3This procedure is based on the ASTM

Method D2216-98 (Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture)

Content of Soil and Rock by Mass) (ASTM 1998). One representative subsample of each

soil sample was placed in tared containers, weighed, and dried in an oven at 105°C

(221°C) until constant weight was achieved, which took at least 24 hours. The containers

then were removed from the oven, sealed, cooled, and weighed. At least two weighings,

each after a 24-hour heating, were performed to ensure that all moisture was removed.

The gravimetric water content was computed as the percentage change in soil weight

before and after oven drying.

2.2.2.5 Cation Exchange Capacity

The cation exchange capacity (CEC) of the soil samples from the Hanford Site, Nye

County, Savannah River Site, and Clemson University locations were determined using

the method described in ASA (1982). This method is particularly suited to arid land

soils, including those containing carbonate, gypsum, and zeolites. This procedure

involves two steps. The first step consists of saturation of the cation exchange sites with

Na by reaction of the soil with pH 8.2, 60% ethanol solution of 0.4-N NaOAc–0.1 N

NaCl. This is then followed by extraction of 0.5 N MgNO3. The concentrations of

dissolved Na and Cl are then measured in the extracted solution so that the dissolved Na

from the excess saturation solution, carried over from the saturation step to the extraction

step, is deducted from the total Na. This provides amount of exchangeable Na, which is

equivalent to the CEC.

2.2.2.6 Carbon Content

The total carbon and the inorganic carbon contents of the soil samples from the Hanford

Site, Nye County, Savannah River Site, and Clemson University locations were measured

using a Shimadzu Carbon Analyzer Model TOC-V csn. The method used to measure the

carbon contents of the soil samples is similar to ASTM Method E1915-01 (Test Methods

3 PNL.2000.“PNNLTechnicalProcedureSA-7.WaterContent.”Procedure

approved in May 2000, in Procedures for Ground-Water Investigations,

PNL-MA-567, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
2-11

for Analysis of Metal Bearing Ores and Related Materials by Combustion Infrared

Absorption Spectrometry) (ASTM 2001). Known quantities of calcium carbonate

standards were analyzed to verify that the instrumentation was operating properly.

Inorganic carbon content was determined through calculations performed using the

microgram per-sample output data and sample weights. The organic carbon content of

the soil samples was calculated by subtracting the inorganic carbon contents from the

respective total carbon contents for each sample.

2.2.2.7 1:1 Soil:Water Extracts

The water-soluble inorganic constituents in the soil samples from the Hanford Site, Nye

County, Savannah River Site, and Clemson University locations were determined using a

1:1 soil:deionized-water extract method. The extracts were prepared by adding an exact

weight of deionized water to approximately 60 to 80 g of soil subsample. The weight of

deionized water needed was calculated based on the weight of the field-moist samples

and their previously determined moisture contents. The sum of the existing moisture

(porewater) and the deionized water was fixed at the mass of the dry soil. The

appropriate amount of deionized water was added to screw cap jars containing the soil

samples. The jars were sealed and briefly shaken by hand, then placed on a mechanical

orbital shaker for one hour. The samples were allowed to settle until the supernatant

liquid was fairly clear.

The supernatant was carefully decanted and filtered (passed through 0.45 μm

membranes) for conductivity, pH, anion, carbon, and cation analyses. More details can

be found in Rhoades (1996) and within Methods of Soils Analysis - Part 3 (ASA 1996).

The methods used for the pH, conductivity, anion, carbon, and cation analyses are the

same as those described above for the analysis of the groundwater samples. The results

for the analyses of the 1:1 soil:water extracts for the three soil samples are reported in

terms of both units per gram of soil and units per milliliter of pore water. This

conversion is based on a soil-to-water ratio of 1.0.

2.3 Results of Analyses and Characterization of Groundwater and Soil

Samples

Table 2.1 lists the tables and figures that contain the results of the analyses and

characterization studies of the groundwater, soil, and 1:1 soil:water extract samples from

the Hanford Site, Nye County, Savannah River Site, and Clemson University locations.

In the following tables, analyses are listed for primary and duplicate samples of one

of the three groundwater, soil, and 1:1 soil:water extract samples. A duplicate sample is

selected at random when a set of samples is submitted for analyses as part of the standard

laboratory quality-assurance operating procedures used by the analytical laboratories in

the PNNL Applied Geology and Geochemistry Group.
2-12

The background-subtracted XRD patterns for the soil samples from the Hanford Site,

Nye County, Savannah River Site, and Clemson University Site are shown in Figure 2.6,

Figure 2.7, Figure 2.8, and Figure 2.9, respectively. Each XRD pattern is shown as a

functionofdegrees2θbasedonCuKαradiation(λ=1.5406Å). The vertical axis in each

pattern represents the intensity in counts per second (cps) of the XRD peaks. In order to

conveniently scale the XRD patterns on the vertical axes and visualize the minor XRD

peaks, it was necessary to cutoff the intensity of the most intense XRD peak in each

pattern. These intensity cutoffs are labeled on each XRD pattern, and correspond to the

largest XRD peak for feldspar for the Hanford Site soil sample, and for quartz for the

Nye County, Savannah River Site, and Clemson University Site soil samples.

At the bottom of each XRD pattern, one or more schematic database (PDF) patterns

considered for phase identification are also shown for comparison purposes. The height

of each line in the schematic PDF patterns represents the relative intensity of an XRD

peak (i.e., the most intense [the highest] peak has a relative intensity [I/Io] of 100%). As

noted previously, a crystalline phase typically must be present at greater than 5 wt% of

the total sample mass (greater than 1 wt% under optimum conditions) to be readily

detected by XRD.

The following minerals were identified in the soil samples (see Figure 2.6, Figure 2.7,

Figure 2.8, and Figure 2.9):

 Hanford Site soil –quartz, plagioclase feldspar, microcline feldspar, amphibole,

chlorite, and mica

 Nye County soil –quartz, plagioclase feldspar, microcline feldspar, amphibole,

zeolite, and mica

 Savannah River Site soil –quartz

 Clemson University Site soil –quartz

More detailed analyses would be required to refine the identities of the general mineral

identifications (e.g., plagioclase, amphibole, zeolite, mica, etc.) to specific compositions.

The soil sample from Nye County appears to contain a zeolite mineral. Although the

pattern for this soil sample (Figure 2.7) was a good match to the database pattern for

clinoptilolite (PDF 47-1870), other compositions of zeolites may also match this pattern.

Several reflections in the XRD patterns for soil samples from the Savannah River Site

(i.e.,16.62,25.50,and33.44°2θ)andClemsonUniversitySite(i.e.,19.96,23.99,25.48,

25.67,34.95,37.74,38.54°2θ)couldnotbeidentified. Additional XRD patterns

measured at slower scanning rates would be needed to identify the minerals associated

with these reflections. Some of the unassigned reflections in the XRD pattern for the

Clemson University soil appear to match anthropogenic organic compounds, but this

identification is problematic. To test this possibility, a sample of the Clemson University

soil was heated for approximately 5 hours at 500°C in an attempt to decompose any

organic solids present in the sample, and then re-analyzed by X-ray diffraction. The

results however were inconclusive because there were no differences in the XRD patterns

for the Clemson University soil before and after heating at 500°C.
2-13

Table 2.1. Tables and Figures Containing the Results of the Analyses and

Characterization Studies of the Groundwater, Soil, and 1:1 Soil:Water Extract

Samples from the Hanford Site, Nye County, Savannah River Site, and

Clemson University locations.

Type of Sample Table or

Figure Numbers Results Reported

Table 2.2 pH and Conductivity

Table 2.3 Alkalinity at pH 8.3 and 4.5 Endpoints

Table 2.4 Dissolved Anions by IC

Table 2.5 Total Dissolved Carbon

Table 2.6

Dissolved Macro and Trace Elements by

ICP-OES

Groundwater Samples

Table 2.7 and Table

2.8

Dissolved Trace Metals by ICP-MS

Figure 2.6, Figure 2.7,

Figure 2.8, and

Figure 2.9

XRD patterns for soil samples from

Hanford, Nye County, Savannah River,

and Clemson University Sites, respectively

Table 2.9 and Table

2.10

Elemental analyses of bulk soil samples by

XRF

Table 2.11 Particle Size of Bulk Solid

Table 2.12 Moisture Content

Table 2.13 Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC)

Soil Samples

Table 2.14 Contents of Total, Inorganic, and Organic

Carbon

Table 2.15 pH and Conductivity

Table 2.16 Alkalinity at pH 8.3 and 4.5 Endpoints

Table 2.17 Dissolved Anions by IC

Table 2.18 and Table

2.19

Dissolved Macro and Trace Elements by

ICP-OES

1:1 Soil:Water Extracts

Table 2.20 and Table

2.21 Dissolved Trace Metals by ICP-MS
2-14

Table 2.2. pH and Conductivity Values for the Groundwater Samples

Groundwater Samples pH Conductivity*

(mS/cm)

Hanford Site 8.43 0.544

Hanford Site (duplicate) 8.35 0.543

Nye County 8.42 0.197

Savannah River Site 8.75 1.052

*

The basic unit of conductivity is the siemens (S),

formerly called the mho.

Table 2.3. Alkalinity Values for the Groundwater Samples

Alkalinity at

pH 8.3 Endpoint

Total Alkalinity at

Groundwater Samples pH 4.5 Endpoint

(mg CaCO3/L)

Hanford Site 0.0* 168.36

Hanford Site (duplicate) 0.0 167.63

Nye County 15.372 290.60

Savannah River Site 0.0 81.984

* Alkalinity values of 0.0 mg CaCO3/L at the pH 8.3 endpoint indicate that

the starting pH values of the respective groundwater samples were near or

less than pH 8.3.

Table 2.4. Concentrations of Dissolved Anions in the Groundwater Samples

Br- CO3

2- ClF- NO3-

PO4

3-

SO4

2-

Groundwater

Samples

(μg/mL)

Hanford Site <0.48 222.7 20.07 0.42 13.76 <0.51 79.75

Hanford Site

(duplicate)

<0.48 220.9 20.00 0.42 13.66 <0.51 79.49

Nye County <0.48 389.1 44.96 5.91 2.47 <0.51 187.0

Savannah River Site <0.48 59.38 2.60 0.09 <0.43 <0.51 5.29
2-15

Table 2.5. Concentrations of Total Dissolved Carbon in the Groundwater Samples

Total Dissolved Carbon

Groundwater Samples

#1 #2 Average

(mg/L)

Hanford Site 39.85 40.14 40.00

Nye County 68.40 68.33 68.37

Savannah River Site 17.83 17.74 17.79

Table 2.6. Concentrations of Dissolved Macro and Trace Metals in the Groundwater

Samples as Determined by ICP-OES

Groundwater Al As B Ba Be Bi Ca Cd Co Cr

Samples

(μg/L)

Hanford Site ND <1.3E+02 <1.3E+02 1.8E+02 <6.3E+01 ND 5.8E+04 ND <2.5E+01 <6.3E+01

Hanford Site

(duplicate) ND <1.3E+02 <1.3E+02 1.5E+02 <6.3E+01 ND 5.9E+04 ND <2.5E+01 <6.3E+01

Nye County ND <1.3E+02 8.8E+02 8.1E+01 <6.3E+01 ND 1.9E+04 ND <2.5E+01 <6.3E+01

Savannah River

Site ND <1.3E+02 <1.3E+02 6.3E+01 <6.3E+01 ND 3.3E+04 ND ND <6.3E+01

Cu Fe K Li Mg Mn Mo Na Ni P

(μg/L)

Hanford Site <2.5E+02 <2.5E+01 7.6E+03 <2.5E+03 2.2E+04 ND <2.5E+01 2.4E+04 <2.5E+01 <3.1E+02

Hanford Site

(duplicate) <2.5E+02 <2.5E+01 7.7E+03 <2.5E+03 2.2E+04 ND ND 2.4E+04 <2.5E+01 <3.1E+02

Nye County <2.5E+02 <2.5E+01 1.4E+04 <2.5E+03 1.7E+04 ND <2.5E+01 2.1E+05 <2.5E+01 <3.1E+02

Savannah River

Site <2.5E+02 <2.5E+01 <1.3E+03 <2.5E+03 8.2E+02 ND <2.5E+01 1.7E+03 <2.5E+01 <3.1E+02

Pb S Se Si Sr Ti Tl V Zn Zr

(μg/L)

Hanford Site ND ND <5.0E+02 2.9E+04 2.3E+02 ND ND <2.5E+02 3.7E+02 <2.5E+01

Hanford Site

(duplicate) ND ND <5.0E+02 2.9E+04 2.3E+02 ND ND <2.5E+02 3.5E+02 ND

Nye County ND ND <5.0E+02 2.2E+04 5.3E+02 ND ND ND <6.3E+01 ND

Savannah River

Site ND ND <5.0E+02 1.3E+04 8.5E+01 ND ND <2.5E+02 <6.3E+01 <2.5E+01
2-16

Table 2.7. Concentrations of Dissolved Trace Metals in the Groundwater Samples as

Determined by ICP-MS

Ag –total based on As –total

based on Cd –total based on Cr –total based on

107Ag* 109Ag 75As 111Cd 114Cd 52Cr 53Cr

Groundwater

Samples

(μg/L)

Hanford Site <1.25E-01 <1.25E-01 2.51E+00 <5.00E-01 <5.00E-02 2.05E+00 2.24E+00

Hanford Site

(duplicate) <1.25E-01 <1.25E-01 2.85E+00 <5.00E-01 <5.00E-02 1.99E+00 2.55E+00

Nye County <1.25E-01 <1.25E-01 4.02E+01 <5.00E-01 <5.00E-02 <1.25E+00 1.53E+00

Savannah River Site <1.25E-01 <1.25E-01 <2.50E+00 <5.00E-01 <5.00E-02 <1.25E+00 1.28E+00

* Note that all isotopes indicated are non-radioactive.

Table 2.8. Concentrations of Dissolved Trace Metals in the Groundwater Samples as

Determined by ICP-MS (Continued)

Mo –total based on Pb –total based on Ru –total based on Se –total

based on

U –total

based on

95Mo** 98Mo 206Pb 208Pb 101Ru 102Ru 82Se 238U

Groundwater

Samples

(μg/L)

Hanford Site <2.50E+00 1.26E+00 <1.25E+00 <1.25E+00 <1.25E+00 <1.25E+00 <2.50E+01 2.32E+00

Hanford Site

(duplicate) <2.50E+00 <1.25E+00 <1.25E+00 <1.25E+00 <1.25E+00 <1.25E+00 <2.50E+01 2.30E+00

Nye County 1.34E+01 1.24E+01 <1.25E+00 <1.25E+00 <1.25E+00 <1.25E+00 <2.50E+01 3.78E+00

Savannah River Site <2.50E+00 <1.25E+00 <1.25E+00 1.32E+00 <1.25E+00 <1.25E+00 <2.50E+01 <5.00E-02

* Note that all isotopes indicated are non-radioactive.
2-17

Figure 2.6. Background-Subtracted XRD Pattern for Hanford Site Soil Sample



5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

R

elativ

e Inte

n

sity (c

p

s)

Hanford Site

Soil Sample

Quartz

Plagioclase

Microcline

Amphibole

Mica

Chlorite

Intensity Cutoff
2-18

Figure 2.7. Background-Subtracted XRD Pattern for Nye County Soil Sample



5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

R

elativ

e Inte

n

sity (c

p

s)

Nye County

Soil Sample

Quartz

Plagioclase

Microcline

Amphibole

Mica

Zeolite

Intensity Cutoff
2-19

Figure 2.8. Background-Subtracted XRD Pattern for Savannah River Site Soil Sample



5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

R

elativ

e Inte

n

sity (c

p

s)

Savannah River Site

Soil Sample

Quartz

Intensity Cutoff
2-20

Figure 2.9. Background-Subtracted XRD Pattern for Clemson University Site Soil

Sample

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

R

elativ

e Inte

n

sity (c

p

s)

Clemson University Site

Soil Sample

Quartz

Intensity Cutoff


2-21

Table 2.9. Concentrations of Major Elements in Bulk Soil Samples as Determined by XRF

Al2O3 CaO FeO* K2O MgO MnO** Na2O P2O5 SiO2 TiO2 Total

(wt% –dry basis, normalized to 100%)

Hanford Site 13.91 3.78 6.40 2.13 2.24 0.108 2.40 0.182 67.70 1.147 100.00

Nye County 13.44 6.23 2.04 4.31 1.55 0.064 3.00 0.071 68.95 0.347 100.00

Savannah River Site 1.79 0.03 0.43 0.07 0.06 0.026 0.02 0.037 97.05 0.495 100.00

Clemson University

Site 0.90 0.02 0.28 0.04 0.03 0.007 0.00 0.047 98.27 0.328 99.93

LOI*** Al2O3 CaO FeO* K2O MgO MnO** Na2O P2O5 SiO2 TiO2 Total

(%) (wt% –normalized to 100% minus LOI)

Hanford

Site 4.82 13.21 3.59 6.08 2.03 2.12 0.103 2.28 0.173 64.32 1.090 95.00

Nye County 7.91 12.35 5.73 1.88 3.97 1.42 0.059 2.75 0.065 63.37 0.319 91.91

Savannah

River Site 1.79 1.76 0.03 0.42 0.07 0.06 0.026 0.02 0.036 95.22 0.486 98.12

Clemson

University 1.04 0.89 0.02 0.27 0.04 0.03 0.007 0.00 0.047 97.19 0.325 98.90

* Concentrations of total iron are normalized to FeO. XRF determines the concentrations of total iron and manganese,

but does not provide any data regarding the oxidation states of such redox sensitive elements present in the sample.

** Concentrations of total manganese are normalized to MnO.

*** LOI = Loss on ignition

Table 2.10. Concentrations of Trace Elements in Bulk Soil Samples as Determined by XRF

Ba Ce Cr Cu Ga La Nb Nd Ni

(ppm)

Hanford Site 648 70 44 20 17 35 13 31 23

Nye County 694 95 13 9 17 53 19 36 10

Savannah River Site 45 86 17 7 1 25 10 28 11

Clemson University

Site 24 46 17 4 2 18 6 15 3

Pb Rb Sc Sr Th V Y Zn Zr

(ppm)

Hanford Site 16 69 15 311 10 138 30 70 254

Nye County 24 136 6 413 19 24 27 53 256

Savannah River Site 8 10 2 6 8 16 24 13 675

Clemson University

Site 7 4 0 3 7 10 13 21 445
2-22

Table 2.11. Particle Size Analysis of the Bulk Soil Samples

Gravel

(x > 2 mm)

Sand

(2 > x > 0.050 mm)

Silt/Clay

Soil Samples (x < 0.050 mm)

(wt%)

Hanford Site 0.0 82.92 17.08

Nye County 0.0 98.99 1.01

Savannah River Site 0.0 97.01 2.99

Clemson University Site 0.0 97.50 2.50

Table 2.12. Moisture Contents of the Bulk Soil Samples

Moisture (wt%)

Soils First

Weighing

Second

Weighing

Hanford Site 2.49 2.39

Nye County 2.51 2.30

Nye County (duplicate) 2.57 2.38

Savannah River Site 0.25*0.21*

Clemson University Site 0.16*0.13*

*

Soils from these two sites fall under USDA-APHIS because of the

potential for fire-ant contamination. Prior to distribution for

characterization, these soils had therefore been heat treated by either

heating in a forced air oven at 110°-125°C for 16 to 48 h, or

autoclaving at temperatures 110°C and 15 pounds pressure for a

minimum of 30 min.

Table 2.13. Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) Values for the Soil Samples

CEC (meq/100 g) Soils

#1 #2 #3 Average

Hanford Site 38.2 35.1 ND* 36.7

Nye County 27.3 28.5 29.3 28.4

Savannah River Site 26.8 22.4 ND* 24.6

Clemson University Site 27.8 23.6 ND* 25.7

* ND –Third analysis of CEC not determined for these soil samples.
2-23

Table 2.14. Carbon Contents of the Soil Samples

Total Carbon Total Inorganic

Carbon

Total

Inorganic

Carbon As

CaCO3

Total Organic

Carbon

(by difference)

#1 #2 Ave #1 #2 Ave Ave Ave

Soil

(wt%)

Hanford Site 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.72 0.27

Nye County 1.10 1.08 1.09 0.97 0.98 0.97 8.11 0.12

Nye County

(duplicate) 1.38 1.38 1.38 1.26 1.22 1.24 10.31 0.14

Savannah River Site 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.63

Clemson University

Site 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.38

Table 2.15. pH and Conductivity Values for the 1:1 Soil:Water Extracts

1:1 Soil:Water Extracts pH Conductivity

(mS/cm)

Conductivity (mS/cm)

Dilution Corrected (in

Pore Water)

Hanford Site 7.48 0.184 7.38

Nye County 8.07 0.400 15.94

Nye County (duplicate) 8.14 0.407 15.85

Savannah River Site 4.46 0.303 120.90

Clemson University Site 4.92 0.158 96.51

Clemson University Site (duplicate) 4.87 0.149 91.06
2-24

Table 2.16. Alkalinity Values for the 1:1 Soil:Water Extracts

Akalinity at

pH 8.3 Endpoint

Total Alkalinity at

pH 4.5 Endpoint

Porewater Total Alkalinity

at pH 4.5 Endpoint

Dilution Corrected

(in Pore Water)

1:1 Soil:Water

Extracts

(mg CaCO3/L)

Hanford Site 0.0* 85.644 3,436.0

Nye County 6.588 137.61 5,485.7

Nye County (duplicate) 5.124 142.74 5,557.3

Savannah River Site 0.0* 10.248 4,088.9**

Clemson University Site 0.0* 19.764 12,070**

Clemson University Site (duplicate) 0.0* 19.032 11,630**

* Alkalinity values of 0.0 mg CaCO3/L at the pH 8.3 endpoint indicate that the starting pH values of the

respective extract samples were near or less than pH 8.3.

** Indicated dilution-corrected, porewater alkalinity values are likely in error by a considerable, but unknown,

amount. Because these soil samples fell under USDA-APHIS and had been heat treated before submission

characterization and analysis, calculations based on their low (essentially zero) moisture contents resulted

in error in the calculated, dilution-corrected, porewater alkalinity values.
2-25

Table 2.17. Concentrations of Dissolved Anions in 1:1 Soil:Water Extract

Br- CO3

2- ClF- NO3-

PO4

3-

SO4

2-

1:1 Soil:Water

Extracts*

(μg/g soil)

Hanford Site <0.48 70.36 <0.236 0.16 2.50 NR** 1.36

Nye County <0.48 161.8 6.86 7.03 5.57 NR** 30.81

Nye County (duplicate) <0.48 162.0 6.92 7.07 5.20 NR** 30.69

Savannah River Site <0.48 <50.00 2.85 5.53 2.22 NR** 29.22

Clemson University Site <0.46 <48.19 0.39 1.05 1.68 7.37 18.11

Clemson University Site (duplicate) <0.46 <48.21 0.40 2.65 1.76 7.90 19.04

(μg/mL pore water)

Hanford Site <19.30 2,823 <9.452 6.62 100.3 NR** 54.63

Nye County <19.17 6,446 273.5 280.4 222.0 NR** 1,228

Nye County (duplicate) <18.73 6,307 269.5 275.2 202.3 NR** 1,195

Savannah River Site <191.9 <19,950 1,136 2,205 886.8 NR** 11,660

Clemson University Site <293.8 <30,540 246.5 665.0 1,066 4,671 11,480

Clemson University Site (duplicate) <294.0 <30,560 254.5 1678 1,115 5,006 12,070

*

Pore water dilution factors were 40.12, 39.86, 38.93, 399.00, 610.81, and 611.12, respectively.

Dilution factor corrected - μg in water extract per mL pore water.

** NR = Values not reported because analyses of PO43-

standard were outside the control limits.

*** NA = Not applicable. Values could be calculated based on the measured values of 0.0 μg/g soil.
2-26

Table 2.18. Concentrations (μg/g soil) of Dissolved Macro and Trace Metals in the 1:1

Water Extracts as Determined by ICP-OES

Al As B Ba Be Bi Ca Cd Co Cr 1:1

Soil:Water

Extracts (μg/g soil)

Hanford Site ND ND <2.5E+02 <1.2E-01 <2.5E-01 <1.2E+00 2.10E+01 ND <6.2E-01 <1.2E-01

Nye County <5.0E-01 ND <2.5E+02 <1.3E-01 <2.5E-01 <1.3E+00 5.40E+00 ND <6.3E-01 <1.3E-01

Nye County

(duplicate) <5.0E-01 <5.0E+00 <2.5E+02 <1.3E-01 <2.5E-01 <1.3E+00 5.64E+00 ND <6.3E-01 <1.3E-01

Savannah

River Site 1.23E+01 ND <2.5E+02 4.20E-01 <2.5E-01 <1.2E+00 1.98E+01 ND <6.2E-01 <1.2E-01

Clemson

University Site 2.95E+00 ND <9.6E-02 9.51E-02 <9.6E-03 <1.9E-01 1.29E+01 <9.6E-03 <1.9E-02 <9.6E-03

Clemson Univ

Site (duplicate) 3.20E+00 ND <9.6E-02 7.40E-02 <9.6E-03 ND 1.38E+01 <9.6E-03 <1.9E-02 <9.6E-03

Cu Fe K Li Mg Mn Mo Na Ni P

(μg/g soil)

Hanford Site <2.5E+00 <5.0E-01 <6.2E+01 <1.2E+00 5.19E+00 ND <2.5E-01 <2.5E+00 <1.2E+00 <6.2E+00

Nye County <2.5E+00 <5.0E-01 <6.3E+01 <1.3E+00 2.44E+00 ND ND 8.20E+01 <1.3E+00 <6.3E+00

Nye County

(duplicate) <2.5E+00 <5.0E-01 <6.3E+01 <1.3E+00 2.38E+00 ND <2.5E-01 8.36E+01 <1.3E+00 <6.3E+00

Savannah

River Site <2.5E+00 1.70E+00 <6.2E+01 <1.2E+00 3.31E+00 2.71E+01 ND <2.5E+00 <1.2E+00 <6.2E+00

Clemson

University Site <9.6E-02 6.85E-01 9.24E+00 <9.6E-02 4.74E+00 2.76E+00 <3.8E-02 5.09E-01 <1.9E-02 3.69E+00

Clemson Univ

Site (duplicate) <9.6E-02 7.26E-01 9.78E+00 <9.6E-02 5.04E+00 2.92E+00 ND 5.53E-01 <1.9E-02 3.91E+00

Pb S Se Si Sr Ti Tl V Zn Zr

(μg/g soil)

Hanford Site ND <1.0E+01 ND <2.5E+01 7.89E-02 <2.5E-01 ND ND <1.2E-01 ND

Nye County <1.3E+00 1.15E+01 ND <2.5E+01 5.79E-02 <2.5E-01 ND <2.5E+00 1.65E-01 <2.5E-01

Nye County

(duplicate) ND 1.11E+01 ND <2.5E+01 5.99E-02 ND ND <2.5E+00 <1.3E-01 ND

Savannah

River Site <1.2E+00 1.26E+01 <5.0E+00 <2.5E+01 1.23E-01 <2.5E-01 ND <2.5E+00 2.68E-01 <2.5E-01

Clemson

University Site <9.6E-02 8.36E+00 <3.9E-01 <1.9E+00 <1.9E-02 <4.8E-02 <1.9E-01 <9.6E-02 9.57E-02 <1.9E-02

Clemson Univ

Site (duplicate) <9.6E-02 8.89E+00 <3.9E-01 <1.9E+00 <1.9E-02 <4.8E-02 <1.9E-01 <9.6E-02 7.87E-02 <1.9E-02
2-27

Table 2.19. Concentrations (μg/L pore water) of Dissolved Macro and Trace Metals in

the 1:1 Water Extracts as Determined by ICP-OES

Al As B Ba Be Bi Ca Cd Co Cr 1:1

Soil:Water

Extracts (μg/L pore water)

Hanford Site ND ND <1.0E+07 <5.0E+03 <1.0E+04 <5.0E+04 8.44E+05 ND <2.5E+04 <5.0E+03

Nye County <2.0E+04 ND <1.0E+07 <5.0E+03 <1.0E+04 <5.0E+04 2.15E+05 ND <2.5E+04 <5.0E+03

Nye County

(duplicate) <1.9E+04 <1.9E+05 <9.7E+06 <4.9E+03 <9.7E+03 <4.9E+04 2.20E+05 ND <2.4E+04 <4.9E+03

Savannah

River Site 4.92E+06 ND <1.0E+08 1.68E+05 <1.0E+05 <5.0E+05 7.91E+06 ND <2.5E+05 <5.0E+04

Clemson

University Site 1.87E+06 ND <6.1E+04 6.03E+04 <6.1E+03 <1.2E+05 8.17E+06 <6.1E+03 <1.2E+04 <6.1E+03

Clemson Univ

Site (duplicate) 2.03E+06 ND <6.1E+04 4.69E+04 <6.1E+03 ND 8.74E+06 <6.1E+03 <1.2E+04 <6.1E+03

Cu Fe K Li Mg Mn Mo Na Ni P

(μg/L pore water)

Hanford Site <1.0E+05 <2.0E+04 <2.5E+06 <5.0E+04 2.08E+05 ND <1.0E+04 <1.0E+05 <5.0E+04 <2.5E+05

Nye County <1.0E+05 <2.0E+04 <2.5E+06 <5.0E+04 9.74E+04 ND ND 3.27E+06 <5.0E+04 <2.5E+05

Nye County

(duplicate) <9.7E+04 <1.9E+04 <2.4E+06 <4.9E+04 9.25E+04 ND <9.7E+03 3.26E+06 <4.9E+04 <2.4E+05

Savannah

River Site <1.0E+06 6.78E+05 <2.5E+07 <5.0E+05 1.32E+06 1.08E+07 ND <1.0E+06 <5.0E+05 <2.5E+06

Clemson

University Site <6.1E+04 4.34E+05 5.85E+06 <6.1E+04 3.00E+06 1.75E+06 <2.4E+04 3.22E+05 <1.2E+04 2.34E+06

Clemson Univ

Site (duplicate) <6.1E+04 4.60E+05 6.20E+06 <6.1E+04 3.19E+06 1.85E+06 ND 3.51E+05 <1.2E+04 2.48E+06

Pb S Se Si Sr Ti Tl V Zn Zr

(μg/L pore water)

Hanford Site ND <4.0E+05 ND <1.0E+06 3.17E+03 <1.0E+04 ND ND <5.0E+03 ND

Nye County <5.0E+04 4.56E+05 ND <1.0E+06 2.31E+03 <1.0E+04 ND <1.0E+05 6.57E+03 <1.0E+04

Nye County

(duplicate) ND 4.34E+05 ND <9.7E+05 2.33E+03 ND ND <9.7E+04 <4.9E+03 ND

Savannah

River Site <5.0E+05 5.03E+06 <2.0E+06 <1.0E+07 4.90E+04 <1.0E+05 ND <1.0E+06 1.07E+05 <1.0E+05

Clemson

University Site <6.1E+04 5.30E+06 <2.4E+05 <1.2E+06 <1.2E+04 <3.1E+04 <1.2E+05 <6.1E+04 6.06E+04 <1.2E+04

Clemson Univ

Site (duplicate) <6.1E+04 5.63E+06 <2.4E+05 <1.2E+06 <1.2E+04 <3.1E+04 <1.2E+05 <6.1E+04 4.99E+04 <1.2E+04
2-28

Table 2.20. Concentrations of Dissolved Macro and Trace Metals in 1:1 Water Extracts

as Determined by ICP-MS

Ag –total

based on

As –total

based on Cd –total based on Cr –total based on Mo –total based on

109Ag** 75As 111Cd 114Cd 52Cr 53Cr 97Mo 98Mo

1:1 Soil:Water

Extracts

(μg/g soil)

Hanford Site 2.09E-04 7.02E-03 <1.25E-04 <1.25E-04 <2.50E-03 <5.00E-03 2.35E-03 2.35E-03

Nye County 8.07E-05 3.94E-02 1.63E-04* 1.41E-04* <2.50E-03 <5.00E-03 1.31E-02 1.33E-02

Nye County

(duplicate) 6.12E-05 3.89E-02 <1.25E-04* <1.25E-04* <2.50E-03 <5.00E-03 1.37E-02 1.39E-02

Savannah River Site <5.00E-05 1.21E-03 5.98E-04 5.41E-04 <2.50E-03 <5.00E-03 <5.00E-04 <5.00E-04

Clemson University

Site <1.20E-04 5.88E-03 3.14E-04 3.16E-04 7.43E-03 6.80E-03 <1.20E-03 <1.20E-03

Clemson University

Site (duplicate) <1.21E-04 6.30E-03 3.33E-04 3.57E-04 8.32E-03 7.48E-03 <1.21E-03 <1.21E-03

(μg/L pore water)

Hanford Site 8.40E+00 2.82E+02 <5.01E+00 <5.01E+00 <1.00E+02 <2.01E+02 9.42E+01 9.42E+01

Nye County 3.22E+00 1.57E+03 6.50E+00* 5.62E+00* <9.97E+01 <1.99E+02 5.24E+02 5.31E+02

Nye County

(duplicate) 2.38E+00 1.51E+03 <4.87E+00* <4.87E+00* <9.73E+01 <1.95E+02 5.34E+02 5.43E+02

Savannah River Site <1.99E+01 4.84E+02 2.39E+02 2.16E+02 <9.97E+02 <1.99E+03 <1.99E+02 <1.99E+02

Clemson University

Site <7.64E+01 3.72E+03 1.99E+02 2.00E+02 4.71E+03 4.31E+03 <7.64E+02 <7.64E+02

Clemson University

Site (duplicate) <7.64E+01 4.00E+03 2.11E+02 2.26E+02 5.27E+03 4.74E+03 <7.64E+02 <7.64E+02

* Indicated values for each respective cadmium isotope are suspect because the values for the primary and duplicate extract

samples are too dissimilar.

** Note that all isotopes indicated are non-radioactive.
2-29

Table 2.21. Concentrations of Dissolved Trace Elements in 1:1 Water Extracts as

Determined by ICP-MS (Continued)

Pb –total based on Ru –total based on Se –total

based on

U –total

based on

206Pb** 208Pb 101Ru 102Ru 82Se 238U

1:1 Soil:Water

Extracts

(μg/g soil)

Hanford Site <1.25E-03 <2.50E-03 <5.00E-05 <5.00E-05 <5.00E-03 1.93E-04

Nye County <1.25E-03 <2.50E-03 <5.00E-05 <5.00E-05 <5.00E-03 1.92E-03

Nye County

(duplicate) <1.25E-03 <2.50E-03 <5.00E-05 <5.00E-05 <5.00E-03 2.07E-03

Savannah River Site 5.66E-03 6.07E-03 <5.00E-05 <5.00E-05 <5.00E-03 4.27E-03

Clemson University

Site 5.43E-03 5.32E-03 <2.41E-04 <2.41E-04 1.29E-03 2.97E-03

Clemson University

Site (duplicate) 6.16E-03 6.06E-03 <2.41E-04 <2.41E-04 1.41E-03 3.10E-03

(μg/L pore water)

Hanford Site <5.01E+01 <1.00E+02 <2.01E+00 <2.01E+00 <2.01E+02 7.73E+00

Nye County <4.98E+01 <9.97E+01 <1.99E+00 <1.99E+00 <1.99E+02 7.65E+01

Nye County

(duplicate) <4.87E+01 <9.73E+01 <1.95E+00 <1.95E+00 <1.95E+02 8.05E+01

Savannah River Site 2.26E+03 2.42E+03 <1.99E+01 <1.99E+01 <1.99E+03 1.70E+03

Clemson University

Site 3.44E+03 3.37E+03 <1.53E+02 <1.53E+02 8.20E+02 1.88E+03

Clemson University

Site (duplicate) 3.90E+03 3.84E+03 <1.53E+02 <1.53E+02 8.96E+02 1.96E+03

* Note that all isotopes indicated are non-radioactive.
2-30

2.4 References for Section 2

ASA (American Society of Agronomy). 1982. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2,

Chemical and Microbiological Properties. SSSA Book Series 9 (Part 2), AL Page (eds.),

Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin.

ASA (American Society of Agronomy). 1996. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 3,

Chemical Methods. SSSA Book Series 5, DL Sparks (eds.), Soil Science Society of

America, Madison, Wisconsin.

ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). 1998. Method D2216-98.

Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil

and Rock by Mass. American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken,

Pennsylvania.

ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). 2000. Method D1140-00.

Standard Test Methods for Amount of Material in Soils Finer Than the No. 200 (75 μm)

Sieve. American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.

ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). 2001. Method E1915-01. Test

Methods for Analysis of Metal Bearing Ores and Related Materials by Combustion

Infrared Absorption Spectrometry. American Society for Testing and Materials, West

Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.

ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). 2003. Method D422-63.

Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils (Revised 1998). American

Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania.

Clesceri LS, AE Greenberg, and AD Eaton. 1998. Standard Methods for the

Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th Edition. American Public Health

Association, American Water Works Association, and Water Environment Federation,

Washington, DC.

DOE. 1999. Final Hanford Comprehensive Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact

Statement. DOE/EIS-0222-F, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. Online at:

http://www.hanford.gov/eis/hraeis/maintoc.htm

Deutsch WJ, KM Krupka, MJ Lindberg, KJ Cantrell, CF Brown, and HT Schaef. 2004.

Hanford Tanks 241-C-203 and 241-C-204: Residual Waste Contaminant Release Model

and Supporting Data. PNNL-14903, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland,

Washington.
2-31

EPA(U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency).1986.“Method9060.TotalOrganic

Carbon.”Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes: Physical/Chemical Methods, EPA

SW-846, Third Ed., Vol. I, Section C, Chapter 5 (Miscellaneous Test Methods),

pp. 9060-1 to 9060-5, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and

Emergency Response, Washington, DC. Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/test/pdfs/9060.pdf

EPA(U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency).1994a.“Method6020.Inductively

Coupled Plasma-MassSpectrometry.”Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes:

Physical/Chemical Methods, EPA SW-846, Third Ed., Vol. I, Section A, Chapter 3

(Inorganic Analytes), pp. 6020-1 to 6020-18, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/test/pdfs/6020.pdf

EPA (U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency).1994b.“Method9056.Determinationof

InorganicAnionsbyIonChromatography.”Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes:

Physical/Chemical Methods, EPA SW-846, Third Ed., Vol. I, Section C, Chapter 5

(Miscellaneous Test Methods), pp. 9056-1 to 9056-16, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. Available

at: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/test/pdfs/9056.pdf

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1995.“Method9040B.pH

ElectrometricMeasurement.”Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes:

Physical/Chemical Methods, EPA SW-846, Third Ed., Vol. I, Section C, Chapter 8

(Methods for Determining Characteristics), pp. 9040B-1 to 9040B-5, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC.

Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/test/pdfs/9040b.pdf

EPA(U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency).1996.“Method6010B.Inductively

Coupled Plasma-AtomicEmissionSpectrometry.”Test Methods for Evaluating Solid

Wastes: Physical/Chemical Methods, EPA SW-846, Third Ed., Vol. I, Section A,

Chapter 3 (Inorganic Analytes), pp. 6010B-1 to 6010B-25, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC.

Available at: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/test/pdfs/6010b.pdf

HEIS. 1994. Hanford Environmental Information System. Environmental Information

Systems Department, Fluor Hanford, Inc., Richland, Washington.

Johnson, DM, PR Hooper,andRMConrey.1999.“XRFAnalysis of Rocks and

Minerals for Major and Trace Elements on a Single Low Dilution Li-tetraborate Fused

Bead. Advances in X-ray Analysis, Vol. 41, JV Gilfrich TC Huang, CR Hubbard,

IC Noyan, PK Predecki, DK Smith, and RL Snyder (eds.), p. 843-867. International

Centre for Diffraction Data (ICDD), Newtown Square, Pennsylvania.
2-32

RhoadesJD.1996.“Salinity:ElectricalConductivityandTotalDissolvedSolids.”

Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 3, JM Bigham (ed.), pp. 417-435. American Society of

Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin.

Serne RJ, BN Bjornstad, DG Horton, DC Lanigan, CW Lindenmeier, MJ Lindberg,

RE Clayton, VL LeGore, RD Orr, IV Kutnyakov, SR Baum, KN Geiszler, MM Valenta,

and TS Vickerman. 2004. Characterization of Vadose Zone Sediments Below the TX

Tank Farm: Boreholes C3830, C3831, C3832 and RCRA Borehole 299 W10-27. PNNL14594, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
3-1

3.0 Agricultural Practices at the Three Locations

A review has been conducted of site-specific characteristics and information on

agricultural and gardening practices in the area of each of the soil and groundwater

sampling sites. This information has been summarized from information gleaned from

literature surveys, environmental impact statements, recent census data, area agricultural

extension agencies, and site visits.

3.1 Washington

Agricultural practice information is based on current conditions in the south central part

of eastern Washington, encompassing the Columbia Basin and Yakima Valley. Most of

the following information is derived from the 2002 Census of Agriculture data for

Benton, Franklin, Grant, and Yakima Counties (NASS 2002b; 2002c; 2002d; 2002e),

monitoring and analysis information fromtheDepartmentofEnergy’sHanfordSite

(Schreckhise et al. 1993; Rittmann 2004), and a Land Use Census prepared for the

Washington Public Power Supply System (now called Energy Northwest) (McDonald

1989). The information was compiled by Department of Energy (DOE) contractors by

combining historical information with available government statistics. No surveys of

farming practices or individual consumption patterns have been performed by DOE

contractors for this region in several decades.

This area is one of the most productive farming regions in the United States. The

area ranks first in the nation in production of apples and hops, and is in the top 10 for

production of potatoes, grapes, hay, fruits and berries, sweet corn, and pigeons. The

climate is semi-arid; the overall population density is moderate. Non-dryland agriculture,

commercial and private gardens, relies on irrigation from surface water (the Columbia

River via the Columbia Basin Irrigation District, with withdrawals at Grand Coulee Dam)

or various smaller irrigation districts formed from the Yakima River. Some areas not

served by the irrigation districts use available groundwater. Large areas far from rivers

also rely on rainfall; these areas tend to lay fallow on alternate years to collect moisture.

This dryland farming is primarily cattle grazing or winter wheat.

The climate of eastern Washington is semi-arid, with approximately 15 cm of

precipitation per year, primarily in the winter months of November through January.

Summers are hot (July monthly temperatures can average up to 30° C, a typical July

averages about 25° C); winters can be cold (the coldest January average is -11° C, a

typical January average is -1° C) (Stone et al. 1983).

The wide variety of agricultural products produced in eastern Washington is

illustrated in Table 3.1. This information is summarized from NASS (2002b; c; d; and e)

and McDonald (1989). The agricultural balance in the region is quite dynamic, and the

acreage of all crops changes from year to year, but the productive nature of the region is

apparent in this Table. Although the largest area is occupied by unirrigated cattle grazing

and a rotating cycle of fallow land and winter wheat, the irrigated portions of the area

produce a highly profitable range of products. Alfalfa hay is exported from the area to
3-2

dairies in the more populated regions of Washington and Oregon. Apples and other soft

tree fruits such as cherries, plums, apricots, and peaches are grown. While apples are the

primary cash crop, their influence is decreasing in recent years as Red Delicious apple

orchards are replaced with other crops. The region is host to the second-largest

production of wine grapes in the United States; nearly 300 wineries now produce many

varieties of vitis vinifera wines (and Concord grape production for juices and jellies is

also large). A number of unusual crops are also produced. The production of the spice

hops, used in beer making, is the largest in the United States, and over one-quarter of the

world’soutputisgrowninthearea(hopsproductionisalsodecreasingslightly,asthe

participants in the hops marketing association voluntarily reduce production to raise

prices). Another specialty crop is mint oil (spearmint and peppermint). A wide range of

vegetables is commercially grown, including sweet corn, onions, peppers, squash, beans,

asparagus, and lettuce. Until recently, the region was one of the largest producers of

asparagus in the United States; however, competition from South American countries is

resulting in elimination of many local asparagus fields (they are largely being replaced

with potatoes). Some crops are grown also for seed, such as carrot, onion, turnip, corn,

radish, clover, and peas, as well as grass seed. Sugar beets have been an important crop

historically; however in recent years production has been greatly curtailed because of low

sugar prices. The only major commercial poultry operation is in Yakima County. Beef

cattle are grazed in dryland areas throughout the region, and a number of major feed lots

are also present. The dairy industry is growing through development of large commercial

feeding and milking companies. Because of the productive fruit tree farming, bee

keeping is also a surprisingly large activity. Franklin County is the 7th largest producer of

pigeons in the United States.

The predominant method of irrigation is use of overhead sprinklers. Furrow or rill

irrigation was the most common method of irrigating many Columbia Basin crops until

about 1985 when sprinkler irrigation began to increase dramatically. Center-pivot

Table 3.1 Agricultural Activities in Washington Counties of Benton, Franklin, Grant,

and Yakima within 80 km of the Columbia Generating Station, Hanford, Washington.

Crop Hectares (Acres) Livestock Head

Dryland grazing 104054 257122 Poultry 687500

Winter Wheat 86618 214037 Cattle 459532

Annual Fallow 76183 188253 Dairy Cows 49971

Alfalfa 52737 130317 Bee Colonies 28113

Corn 27628 68271 Sheep 17748

Vegetables 25305 62531 Pigeons 10400

Potatoes 23974 59242

Apples 16307 40296

Irrigated Grazing 16238 40124

Grapes 13926 34413

Seed Production 11481 28370

Sweet Corn 10762 26593

Hops 8470 20929

Mint 7971 19696

Tree Fruit (Cherry/Apple) 5212 12880

Melons 303 749
3-3

sprinkler systems allowed higher planting density, reduced the amount of irrigation labor

needed, and allowed more economical production. It is estimated that about 60% of the

onions grown in the Columbia Basin are now irrigated by center-pivot systems. More

recently,dripirrigationhasgainedpopularity,withabout20percentoftoday’scrops

irrigated by this method. Irrigation water is available from most canal-supplied systems

roughly from mid-April through October. In order to conserve pumping energy, most

overhead systems are now designed to use minimal pressure on movable booms.

However, for fixed systems, such as those in orchards, higher pressures are needed. In

many areas, the irrigation systems are also used in early spring as a form of frost

protection. In these systems, water is sprayed directly onto the flowers and buds of the

fruit trees, to keep the temperature of the booms and fruits above a critical damage

temperature (which may be slightly below freezing). As a result, the tree fruit irrigation

systems are intentionally designed to wet the fruits when operating. According to the

1998 Washington Census of Agriculture, 6290 km2(1,554,813 acres) were irrigated, of

which 81% was sprinkler, 16% was gravity feed (furrow or rill), and 3% was drip.

Although the winters are relatively cold, spring planting and orchard growth begins

often in March or Aril, so the growing season is relatively long. Historically grown in the

region commercially, lettuce or spinach give two crops per year. Up to four harvests per

year may be obtained from alfalfa. Most crops require irrigation for essentially the entire

growing season, the exception being dryland wheat, which as noted uses a two-year water

cycle. Growing and irrigation seasons for the crops currently commercially grown, and a

few that may be prevalent in private gardens, are presented in Table 3.2. The lengths of

the growing season are derived from information of (Schreckhise et al. 1993) and

McDonald (1989).

The irrigation requirements for essentially all crops are determined by the total

evapotranspiration of the growing crop plus an overwatering term. Overwatering is

required to avoid accumulation of salts in the surface soil. In arid regions, the

overwatering rate usually is determined by calculating the amount of water required to

flush accumulated salts out of the surface soil to maintain productivity. The value of this

parameter is a function of the total water requirement of the crop, and is usually on the

order of 100 mm/yr (BSC 2003). The average on-farm delivery is about 1130 mm to all

crops in the Columbia Basin Project. Average annual crop irrigation requirements are

estimated at 830 mm. This is a difference of about 300 mm in losses, but the percentage

of this approximate value that is runoff compared to deep percolation (recharge) is not

known since much of the surface runoff is captured and reused

(http://www.sidney.ars.usda.gov/personnel/pdfs/Irrigation%20Technologies%20Compari

sons.pdf). The acreage irrigated in the Columbia Basin Project (CBP) has steadily

increased since the first water deliveries in the early 1950's. In the period of 1969 to

1996, the irrigated acreage increased from 1945 km2to 2517 km2(480,600 acres to

622,053 acres). In 1993, the issuance of additional water service contracts and

groundwater licenses was suspended by the Bureau of Reclamation. That action was

taken in response to the Northwest Power Planning Council and National Marine

Fisheries Service requests to halt new irrigation diversions.
3-4

Table 3.2. Growing and Irrigation Seasons for Eastern Washington Crops

Crop (Planting –Harvest Dates) Days

Lawn Grass (March-October) 240

Leafy Vegetables (April - September)

Mint ( April -July/August) 90

Spinach (2 crops) 90

Asparagus ( March - June) 60

Hops (May-September) 150

Other Vegetables (March –October)

Potatoes (March/April-August/October) 120-140

Corn (April/May –August/September) 120-180

Onion ( March -July/September) 150-200

Carrot ( April -September) 200

Fruits (April –October)

Apples ( April -September) 200

Pears ( April -September) 180

Soft tree fruit (Apricot/Peach) (April -June/August) 90-150

Grapes (April –September/October) 180

Grains (October –July)

Winter Wheat (October-July) 270

Forage (March –October)

Alfalfa (4 harvests) 240

While this Bureau of Reclamation moratorium is in place, CBP's irrigated acreage

will remain at present levels. The volume of water delivered on a project-wide basis to

farms has decreased from about 1250 L/m2to 1180 L/m2(4.1 to 3.7 acre-feet/acre) in the

period of 1969-1996. (For only the Columbia Basin Project, this is an annual total of

2.8x109 m

3

[2.3 million acre-feet or about 750 billion gallons]. The Washington

statewide total is around 4.2x109 m

3

[1.1 trillion gallons].) The decrease in farm

deliveries over time is primarily due to a change in irrigation practices by farmers.

Farmers have converted from less efficient gravity or surface methods of applying water

to more efficient pressurized methods such as center-pivot sprinklers. The conversion

from gravity application of water to the use of center-pivot sprinklers and other

pressurized irrigation systems has increased substantially since the early 1970's.

Irrigation requirements for the crops commercially raised in eastern Washington, plus

some additional crops likely to be grown in private gardens, are presented in Table 3.3.

The generic annual irrigation requirements in Table 3.3 are from Schreckhise et al.

(1993), and the specific ones are developed from Washington State data taken from the

1998 Census of Agriculture (http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/fris/fris.htm).

The productive yield of crops is a function of weather, water supply, soil type, and

amounts of fertilizer added. The average yield of several commercial and garden crops

for the eastern Washington region has been estimated based on production levels

presented in McDonald (1989) or on values reported by Rittmann (2004). These values

are presented in Table 3.4. Generic values are also presented; these are taken from

Schreckhise et al. (1993).
3-5

Table 3.3. Annual Irrigation Requirements for Selected Crops in Eastern Washington

Crop Irrigation mm/year

Lawn Grass 1000

Leafy Vegetables 900

Mint 760-860

Spinach (2 crops) 640

Asparagus 880

Hops 760

Other Vegetables 1000

Potatoes 640

Sweet Corn 640

Onion 510-610

Carrot 560

Fruits 900

Apples 1070

Pears 820

Soft tree fruit (Apricot, Peach) 820

Grapes 380

Grains 0

Winter Wheat 0-490

Corn 730

Forage 1200

Alfalfa (4 harvests) 700

3.2 Nevada

Agricultural practice information is based on current conditions in the southern portions

of Nye County, Nevada, (primarily the general areas of Beatty, Amargosa Valley, and

Pahrump), with additional general information from adjacent portions of California

(YMP 1997; BSC 2003). Most of the following information is derived from the 1997

“Biosphere”surveyconductedfortheDepartmentofEnergy’sYuccaMountainProject

(DOE 1997) or ongoing DOE monitoring programs in the area (e.g., YMP 1997; 1999).

The information is consistent with, but somewhat more specific than, the 2002 Census of

Agriculture data for all of Nye County (NASS 2002a). The information was compiled by

DOE contractors by combining historical information, color aerial photographs of the

region, and the results of field trips to the area with verification with landowners and

other people knowledgeable with conditions in the region (YMP 1997).

This area is mountainous and arid; the overall population density is low and

commercial agricultural activities are limited. Essentially all agriculture, commercial and

private gardens, relies on irrigation from groundwater. Because of the relatively small

scale of agricultural activities, the distribution of crop types varies from year to year.

Overall agricultural production has been increasing over the past several years; however,

the total productivity of the area is limited by the availability of groundwater.
3-6

Table 3.4. Estimated Average Harvested Yield of Crops for Eastern Washington

Crop Yield kg/m2

Leafy Vegetables 1.5

Mint oil 0.01*

Asparagus 0.4

Hops 0.2

Lettuce 2.4

Other Vegetables 4

Potatoes 4.8

Sweet Corn 1.8

Onion 4.0

Carrot 4.3

Fruits 2

Apples 2.7

Pears 2.8

Soft tree fruit (Apricot, Peach) 1.4

Grapes 2.4

Grains 0.8

Winter Wheat 0.7

Corn 1.1

Forage 2

Alfalfa (4 harvests) 1.4

*Mint oil is pressed from the mint leaves, and is a small fraction of the harvested mass.

The climate of southern Nevada is dry, with approximately 10 cm of precipitation per

year, primarily in the winter months of December through March. Summers are very hot

(July monthly temperatures can average up to 40° C); winters are mild (the coolest

averages are still above 0° C) (BSC 2003).

Agriculture mainly involves growing feed (e.g., alfalfa) for farm animals; however,

small-scale gardening and animal husbandry are common (YMP 1997). Commercial

agriculture in the Amargosa Valley farming triangle includes a dairy (approximately

5,000 cows). A fish farm operated briefly in the area (approximately 15,000 catfish and

bass; YMP 1999), but it has since ceased operations. There are approximately 900

hectares (2,200 acres) planted in alfalfa, 120 hectares (300 acres) in other hay, 30

hectares (80 acres) in pistachios, 3.5 hectares (9 acres) in fruit trees, 4 hectares (10 acres)

in grapes, and 2 hectares (5 acres) each in onions and garlic. The dairy is the primary

livestock operation, but numerous individuals keep other small animals, including recent

additions such as ostriches. These and other characteristics of commercial production

within an 84-km radius of Yucca Mountain are summarized in Table 3.5 (adapted from

data presented in BSC 2003). Agriculture depends entirely on irrigation, and local wells

provide water for household, agriculture, horticulture, and animal husbandry. There are

no naturally occurring surface waters (i.e., perennial lakes and streams) in the area.

The proportions of various types of irrigation are presented in Table 3.6. In this

region, alfalfa and other hays are the most common crops (YMP 1997, NASS 2002a),

and dry hay used for livestock feed is produced locally and imported from outside the

area (Horak and Carns 1997). Water is added to locally grown alfalfa hay and

commercial feed before feeding it to animals (Horak and Carns 1997).
3-7

Table 3.5. Agricultural Activities within a 22,000 km2 Region of Southern Nevada and

Southeastern California (adapted from BSC 2003)

Crop Hectares Acreage Livestock Head

Alfalfa hay 910 2248 Cattle 275

Other hay 93 229 Milk cows 6731

Barley 51 127 Pigs 52

Oats 13 32 Sheep 3

Pistachios 32 80 Goats 38

Other tree fruit 4 9 Ostriches 157

Grapes 4 10 Poultry 74

Onions 2 5 Catfish 15,000

Garlic 2 5

Table 3.6. Types of Irrigation in Southern Nevada

Crop Type Sprinkler Drip Surface No Data Total

Grains and Forage 56% 7% 1% 64%

Fruits and Nuts 1% 0.07% 3% 4%

Leafy and Other Vegetables 0.01% 0.01%

To be planted 2% 3% 5%

Fallow (Land not planted) 14% 7% 21%

Sod 4% 2% 6%

Total 76% 1% 10% 13% 100%

Irrigation methods differ among crop types. Drip irrigation often is used on orchard

and gardens, and overhead sprinklers and surface irrigation often are used on fields,

especially the larger commercial operations (BSC 2003). In the Amargosa Valley in

1997, about 85 percent of field crops were irrigated with overhead sprinklers and all of

the fruit and nut crops were irrigated with drip systems that cause little foliar deposition

(BSC 2003). This ratio differs from the Nevada statewide averages, for which about 26%

is sprinklers, and 73% is rill or furrow. There is little information about the preferred

methods of irrigating gardens in the Amargosa Valley, but it may be assumed that

sprinkler irrigation is common.

There is no evidence to suggest the widespread use of water treatment in this region

and there is only a small quasi-municipal system where a water standard could be

enforced (State of Nevada 1997).

Because of the hot summers and mild winters, the growing season is relatively long.

Although not grown commercially, it would be possible to obtain 2 crops per year of

vegetables such as lettuce or spinach. Up to six harvests per year may be obtained from

alfalfa. All crops require irrigation for essentially the entire growing season. Growing

and irrigation seasons for the crops currently commercially grown, and a few that may be

prevalent in private gardens, are presented in Table 3.7. The lengths of the growing
3-8

Table 3.7. Growing and Irrigation Seasons for Southern Nevada Crops

Crop (Planting –Harvest Dates) Days

Lawn Grass (All year) 365

Leafy Vegetables (February –November)

Lettuce (2 crops) 40-80

Spinach (2 crops) 40-80

Other Vegetables (March –December)

Potatoes 100-120

Carrots (2 crops) 70-80

Onions (2 crops) 100-120

Fruits and Nuts (March –October)

Pistachios 220 (April-October)

Other tree fruits (apples) 240

Grapes 183

Grains (November –July)

Oats 160

Barley 210-270

Winter Wheat 210-270

Forage (January –December)

Alfalfa (6 harvests) 335

Oat hay 75

season are derived from data of (BSC 2003), with the addition of information about

pistachio trees from the University of California extension service

(http://cekern.ucdavis.edu/Custom_Program143/Adequate_Irrigation_in_August_Importa

nt_for_Shell_Splitting.htm).

The irrigation requirements for essentially all crops are determined by the total

evapotranspiration of the growing crop plus an overwatering term. Overwatering is

required to avoid accumulation of salts in the surface soil. In arid regions, the

overwatering rate usually is determined by calculating the amount of water required to

flush accumulated salts out of the surface soil to maintain productivity. The value of

this parameter is a function of the total water requirement of the crop, and is usually on

the order of 10 cm/yr (BSC 2003). Irrigation requirements for the crops commercially

raised, plus some additional crops likely to be grown in private gardens, are presented in

Table 3.8. The annual irrigation requirements in Table 3.8 are derived from data of (BSC

2003), with the addition of information about pistachio trees from the University of

California extension service (http://cekern.ucdavis.edu/Custom_Program143/Adequate

_Irrigation_in_August_Important_for_Shell_Splitting.htm). The total pistachio irrigation

is approximated as the total evapotranspiration for pistachios plus the overwatering

amount applied to apples by (BSC 2003).

The productive yield of crops is a function of weather, water supply, soil type, and

amounts of fertilizer added. The average yield of several commercial and garden crops

for the southern Nevada/southeastern California region has been estimated by BSC

(2003). These values are presented in Table 3.9. The range for pistachio yield is based

on generic pistachio harvests as reported at http://www.uga.edu/fruit/pistacio.htm.
3-9

Table 3.8. Annual Irrigation Requirements for Selected Crops in Southern Nevada

Crop Irrigation mm/year

Lawn Grass 1610

Leafy Vegetables

Lettuce (per crop for 2 crops) 320-340

Spinach (per crop for 2 crops) 240-270

Other Vegetables

Potatoes 840

Carrots (per crop for 2 crops) 470-530

Onions (per crop for 2 crops) 410-920

Fruits and Nuts

Pistachios 1100

Other tree fruits (apples) 1820

Grapes 980

Grains

Oats 570

Barley 840

Winter Wheat 940

Forage

Alfalfa (6 harvests) 1950

Oat hay 460

Table 3.9. Estimated Average Harvested Yield of Crops for Southern Nevada (adapted

from BSC 2003).

Crop Yield kg/m2

Leafy Vegetables

Lettuce (per crop for 2 crops) 3.25

Spinach (per crop for 2 crops) 1.78

Other Vegetables

Potatoes 5.15

Carrots (per crop for 2 crops) 3.64

Onions (per crop for 2 crops) 4.92

Fruits and Nuts

Pistachios 0.17-0.28

Other tree fruits (apples) 2.67

Grapes 1.51

Grains

Oats 0.28

Barley 0.44

Winter Wheat 0.54

Forage

Alfalfa (per harvest for 6 harvests) 1.02

Oat hay 1.87
3-10

3.3 South Carolina

Agricultural practice information is based on current conditions in the coastal plain (Low

Country) areas of South Carolina as reported by the South Carolina Department of

Agriculture and the Clemson University Extension Service. The information is consistent

with, but somewhat more specific than, the 2002 Census of Agriculture data for Aiken

and Barnwell Counties (NASS 2002f; 2002g). Local Department of Energy analyses

(e.g., DOE 2000) generally use information from a land and water use survey by Hamby

(1991); this information is summarized in Simpkins and Hamby (2002). Much of this

information used by DOE is actually default values from NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109.

This area is relatively flat, with abundant forests. The number of farms in South

Carolina is estimated at 24,000, and the average farm size in the state is 80 hectares (196

acres). Total cash receipts for crops and livestock in South Carolina average $1.5 billion a

year. The top ten commodities in the state for cash receipts are broilers; greenhouse,

nursery, and floriculture; turkeys; tobacco; cattle and calves; cotton lint and seed; eggs;

milk; soybeans; and hogs. In the year 2003, the national ranks of some South Carolina

crops were:

2

nd in flue-cured tobacco production

3

rd in peach production

6

th in turkeys raised

7

th in sweet potato production

7

th in cantaloupes

8

th in watermelon production

Production of peanuts is greatly increasing. South Carolina acreage increased nearly

4900 hectares (12,000 acres) in 2004. Most of the increase is coming in the newer areas

of peanut production, specifically, Calhoun and Orangeburg counties. Peanut production

is shifting from Virginia and North Carolina to South Carolina. South Carolina farmers

planted about 7500 hectares (18,500 acres) of peanuts in 2003, increasing to 12,100

hectares (30,000 acres) in 2004 (Southeast Farm Press 2004).

The growing season in all of South Carolina ranges from more than 290 days in the

south to less than 190 days in the northwestern mountains. The climate of South Carolina

is classified as humid subtropical except in the Blue Ridge Mountains, where it is humid

continental. The state's annual average temperature varies from the mid-50's in the

mountains to the low-60's along the coast. During the winter, average temperatures range

from the mid-30's in the mountains to low-50's in the Lowcountry. During summer,

average temperatures range from the upper 60's in the mountains to the mid-70's in the

Lowcountry. South Carolina has four distinct seasons. The mountains tend to block

many of the cold air masses arriving from the northwest, thus making the winters

somewhat milder. Measurable snowfall may occur from 1 to 3 times in a winter in all

areas except the Lowcountry, where snowfall occurs on average once every three years.

Accumulations seldom remain very long on the ground except in the mountains. Tropical

cyclones affect the South Carolina coast on an infrequent basis, but do provide significant
3-11

influence annually through enhanced rainfall inland during the summer and fall months.

Hurricanes are the most intense warm season coastal storms and are characterized by

storm surge, winds, precipitation, and tornadoes. The average annual precipitation is

approximately 48 inches, with an annual total in the mountains of 1800 to 2000 mm (70

to 80 inches), an annual total in the Midlands of 1060 to 1200 mm (42 to 47 inches) and

an annual total along the coast of 1270 to 1320 mm (50 to 52 inches).

The climate is such that most agriculture does not require irrigation, except as a

supplement to natural precipitation. Annual rainfall at various South Carolina cities is

shown in Table 3.10.

As a result of the moister climate, irrigation is not as significant a use of water

resources as it is in the western states. Irrigated land, and overall surface water and

groundwater usage for irrigation in selected South Carolina counties, is shown in Table

3.11. Water withdrawal for irrigation use from 203 reporting entities totaled 102,687,000

m

3

(27,121,140,000 gallons), with 116 surface water systems accounting for 40,540,000

m

3

(10,707,640,000 gallons) and 128 groundwater systems accounting for 62,150,000 m3

(16,413,500,000 gallons) (http://www.scdhec.net/eqc/water/pubs/wtruse2001.pdf).

Compare this statewide total of 1x108 m

3

(27 billion gallons) with the Columbia Basin

Project in Washington State, which annually uses about 2.8x109 m

3

(750 billion gallons).

Many crops can be grown in the South Carolina environment. South Carolina has a

“certifiedroadsidemarketprogram”fortruckfarms.Cropscommonlyavailableinclude

apples, beets, berries, cabbage, cantaloupe, cucumbers, eggplant, greens (including

collard, turnip, and mustard), nectarines, okra, peaches, peanuts, pecans, peppers, plums,

sweet potatoes, tomatoes, and watermelons

(www.scda.state.sc.us/consumerinformation/scroadsidemarket/scroadsidemarket.htm).

Table 3.10. Monthly Rainfall in Selected South Carolina Cities (mm) (adapted from

http://www.clemson.edu/irrig/Managmnt/Precip.htm)

Month Augusta Columbus Macon Savannah Charleston Columbia Greenville/

Spartanburg

Jan 103 117 116 91 88 112 104

Feb 108 123 120 82 84 105 112

Mar 118 147 122 96 110 122 137

Apr 84 109 88 77 68 83 98

May 96 106 91 104 102 93 112

Jun 105 103 91 144 163 122 121

Jul 108 141 109 162 174 140 118

Aug 114 95 92 189 183 155 100

Sep 77 82 71 114 120 93 101

Oct 72 56 55 61 74 77 101

Nov 63 90 69 56 63 74 93

Dec 86 126 109 75 80 91 105

Annual 1134 1295 1134 1250 1309 1268 1302
3-12

Broiler chickens are the top animal product cash commodity in South Carolina.

Poultry is raised in large commercial operations. Beef cattle and dairy cows are also

common. South Carolina is the 8th largest producer of turkeys in the United States.

In South Carolina, cotton has the largest percentage of irrigated acreage followed by

corn, land in vegetables, land in orchards, and soybeans. (Note that while 186,000

hectares [460,000 acres] of soybeans are grown in the state, only 3500 hectares [8650

acres] of those are irrigated –less than 2%). Total land area of various irrigated crops in

South Carolina are listed in Table 3.12. Of the total irrigated acreage in South Carolina,

85% is sprinkler systems, 11% is drip or trickle systems, and 4% is flood or gravity

systems. (South Carolina 2000 irrigation survey, http://www.clemson.edu/irrig/Survey/

SURVEY00.PDF).

Most crops are only irrigated during periods of drought or during the hotter summer

months. The average water application on irrigated areas is 200 mm/year. Average rates

of irrigation for selected crops are given in Table 3.13. Specific values are derived from

information from the 1998 Census of Agriculture (www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/

fris/fris.htm), and generic information is from Simpkins and Hamby (2002).

Because South Carolina is subtropical, the growing season for most crops is quite

long. The South Carolina crop availability calendar is illustrated in Figure 3.1. As is

evident, some crops are grown year around. Others have distinct harvest seasons, but the

plants themselves have much longer growth periods, many approaching year round.

Productivity of various crops is presented in Table 3.14 (South Carolina Agricultural

Statistics Service1997). The normalized yield is presented in Table 3.15.

Figure 3.1. Crop availability in South Carolina by Month (from

http://www.scda.state.sc.us/consumerinformation/agfacts/agfacts.htm)

Commodity Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Apples

Butter Beans

Cabbage

Cantaloupes

Cucumbers

Green Onions

Mixed Greens

Peaches

Peanuts

Peppers

Tomatoes

Squash (Yellow)

Sweet Corn

Sweet Potatoes

Watermelons
3-13

Table 3.11. Surface Water and Groundwater Use for Irrigation in South Carolina

(adapted from DHEC 2002). Water Use in Thousands of m3.

County Surface

Water

Groundwater Total Irrigated

Area

Thousands of m3 Hectares

Aiken 0 784 784 542

Allendale 2726 14041 16767 3784

Bamberg 2059 1995 4053 4688

Barnwell 330 204 534 2054

Beaufort 128 2779 2907 789

Berkeley 4922 83 5005 0

Calhoun 3175 5904 9078 4927

Charleston 217 0 217 384

Chester 7 0 7 136

Chesterfield 0 854 854 364

Clarendon 583 1763 2346 3045

Colleton 3186 7311 10497 307

Darlington 894 110 1003 1022

Dillon 0 132 132 123

Edgefield 1605 164 1769 2726

Florence 79 297 376 2064

Georgetown 2456 0 2456 399

Greenville 334 0 334 41

Greenwood 0 5 5 11

Hampton 339 5335 5674 1908

Horry 208 286 494 2040

Jasper 0 1413 1413 726

Lee 34 136 170 1422

Lexington 806 2623 3428 4789

Marion 0 94 94 4289

Marlboro 798 972 1770 611

Newberry 510 144 654 198

Oconee 1203 0 1203 1

Orangeburg 5667 10255 15922 11934

Pickens 41 0 41 101

Richland 89 0 89 409

Saluda 3577 0 3577 1801

Spartanburg 1207 0 1207 1226

Sumter 3289 4405 7694 4101

Williamsburg 11 0 11 81

York 61 59 119 115

Total 40542 62145 102687 65182
3-14

Table 3.12. Total Irrigated Crop Acreage in South Carolina in Year 2000.

Crop Irrigated

(Hectares)

Irrigated

(Acres)

Percentage

Alfalfa 32 80 0.1%

Apples 26 64 0.0%

Beans&peas 338 836 0.6%

Berries 102 252.5 0.2%

Corn 15882 39245 27.0%

Cotton 17968 44400 30.6%

Grass seeds 405 1000 0.7%

Grains 324 800 0.6%

Grapes 44 109.2 0.1%

Lettuce 6 16 0.0%

Melons 3358 8298 5.7%

Nursery 1083 2676 1.8%

Nuts 117 290 0.2%

Pasture/Hay 1857 4589 3.2%

Potatoes 20 50 0.0%

Rice 36 90 0.1%

Small fruits 134 331 0.2%

Sorghum 40 100 0.1%

Soybeans 3501 8650 6.0%

Tobacco 2102 5195 3.6%

Tree fruits 4946 12222 8.4%

Vegetables 4509 11141 7.7%

Wheat 1740 4300 3.0%

Other 240 594 0.4%

Table 3.13. Irrigation Requirements for Selected Crops in South Carolina

Crop Irrigation mm/year

Leafy Vegetables

Land in vegetables 275

Other Vegetables

Potatoes 180

Sweet Corn 60

Tomatoes 240

Fruits and Nuts

Tree fruits 460

Peanuts 550

Grains

Corn 210

Wheat 90

Forage

Alfalfa 0

Pasture Grass 305
3-15

Table 3.14. Total Production of Various Crops in South Carolina

Cotton Soybeans Oat hay Oats Tobacco Corn Wheat

(Bales) (Bushels) (Tons) (Bushels) (Lbx1000) (Bushels) (Bushels)

Abbeville (1) 7,500 17,400 (1) - (1) 22,300

Aiken 9,400 198,000 25,900 12,000 - 337,600 103,900

Allendale 6,400 379,700 2,000 27,900 - 1,178,300 550,200

Anderson 1,100 62,200 44,300 81,000 - 88,900 173,000

Bamberg 11,700 240,300 7,100 116,000 - 1,111,850 220,000

Barnwell 11,100 198,000 5,000 13,800 - 598,600 158,800

Beaufort - 9,100 1,000 (1) - 96,200 (1)

Berkeley 1,000 51,000 3,900 (1) 598 380,100 29,000

Calhoun 40,500 199,200 4,400 66,700 - 990,600 311,700

Charleston - 15,600 2,100 (1) - 122,900 (1)

Cherokee (1) 19,500 13,100 (1) - (1) 20,000

Chester 3,000 (1) 13,000 19,800 - 58,100 31,300

Chesterfield 800 226,600 16,800 (1) 834 302,600 147,800

Clarendon 17,500 1,006,700 5,100 24,000 6,439 3,108,500 1,142,100

Colleton 2,400 215,600 11,100 69,600 698 1,330,000 129,500

Darlington 38,400 1,330,000 10,100 58,500 9,513 1,033,500 1,345,500

Dillon 25,100 1,018,800 1,800 26,000 10,362 582,600 1,101,600

Dorchester 9,000 230,100 5,300 77,600 1,260 993,300 94,500

Edgefield 4,500 42,000 8,000 (1) - 26,300 18,800

Fairfield - (1) 7,100 (1) - 24,600 12,000

Florence 17,700 1,352,700 3,100 41,800 21,346 1,582,400 774,000

Georgetown 1,400 72,800 3,500 (1) 3,126 263,100 27,600

Greenville (1) 9,900 18,800 (1) - 63,300 28,900

Greenwood (1) (1) 16,400 (1) - 21,100 (1)

Hampton 22,500 244,100 4,000 24,700 - 1,097,900 369,700

Horry 1,900 1,044,500 4,800 130,000 31,195 1,800,300 632,700

Jasper (1) 12,500 3,000 (1) - 176,000 15,400

Kershaw 1,500 96,600 10,800 (1) - 118,800 57,600

Lancaster (1) 29,700 16,000 (1) - 46,900 9,500

Laurens (1) 13,000 24,400 21,600 - 49,200 38,400

Lee 40,700 893,100 4,200 (1) 1,833 951,350 705,600

Lexington 4,100 227,700 24,700 59,400 - 523,600 112,500

McCormick - - 2,800 (1) - (1) (1)

Marion 5,600 577,100 3,300 38,000 10,244 480,400 388,000

Marlboro 48,400 687,700 5,900 42,300 1,634 248,300 493,500

Newberry 500 109,500 28,400 56,300 - 199,900 175,500

Oconee - 35,000 26,600 (1) - 63,900 43,800

Orangeburg 54,800 732,600 19,900 257,000 - 4,293,000 988,700

Pickens - (1) 19,500 (1) - 40,400 (1)

Richland 600 276,000 7,900 (1) - 432,300 211,000

Saluda 2,100 63,600 27,400 25,600 - 74,200 114,600

Spartanburg - 39,000 33,300 51,300 - 115,700 45,000

Sumter 14,100 1,098,700 6,300 47,600 2,795 3,063,900 973,400

Union - (1) 9,000 (1) - (1) (1)

Williamsburg 50,600 374,800 4,400 52,300 15,487 1,873,700 244,300

York 4,700 36,400 27,100 32,600 - 33,500 41,600

Other 1,900 23,100 - 146,600 446 42,300 46,700

State Total 455,000 13,500,000 560,000 1,620,000 117,810 30,020,000 12,150,000

(1) Included in other counties.
3-16

Table 3.15. Estimated Average Harvested Yield of Crops for South Carolina

Crop Yield kg/m2

Corn 0.59

Sorghum 0.27

Wheat 0.32

Barley 0.31

Oats 0.20

Soybeans 0.15

Peas 0.14

Hay 0.46

Alfalfa 0.58

Potatoes 2.52

Sweet Potatoes 1.18

Peanuts 0.31

Cotton 0.07

Tobacco 0.26

3.4 References for Section 3

BSC (Bechtel SAIC Company) 2003. Agricultural and Environmental Input Parameters

for the Biosphere Model. ANL-MGR-MD-000006 REV 01. Las Vegas, Nevada:

Bechtel SAIC Company.

DHEC. 2002. South Carolina Water Use Report, 2001 Summary, South Carolina

Department of Health and Environmental Control, Columbia, SC.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 1997. The1997“Biosphere”FoodConsumption

Survey Summary Findings and Technical Documentation. Las Vegas, Nevada: U.S.

Department of Energy, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (available

only by request).

DOE. 2000. High-Level Waste Tank Closure Draft Environmental Impact Statement,

DOE/EIS-0303D, Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations Office, Aiken,

South Carolina.

Hamby DM. 1991. Land and Water Use Characteristics in the Vicinity of the Savannah

River Site, WSCR-RP-91-17, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South

Carolina.

Horak C, and D Carns. 1997. Amargosa Focus Group Report. Biosphere Study. Las

Vegas, Nevada: University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
3-17

McDonald JE. 1989. 1988 50-Mile Land Use Census, Washington Public Power Supply

System, Richland, Washington.

NASS (National Agricultural Statistics Service) 2002a. 2002 Census of Agriculture

County Profile, Nye, Nevada.

http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/profiles/nv/cp32023.PDF

NASS (National Agricultural Statistics Service) 2002b. 2002 Census of Agriculture

County Profile, Benton, Washington.

http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/profiles/wa/cp53005.PDF

NASS (National Agricultural Statistics Service) 2002c. 2002 Census of Agriculture

County Profile, Franklin, Washington.

http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/profiles/wa/cp53021.PDF

NASS (National Agricultural Statistics Service) 2002d. 2002 Census of Agriculture

County Profile, Grant, Washington.

http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/profiles/wa/cp53025.PDF

NASS (National Agricultural Statistics Service) 2002e. 2002 Census of Agriculture

County Profile, Yakima Washington.

http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/profiles/wa/cp53077.PDF

NASS (National Agricultural Statistics Service) 2002f. 2002 Census of Agriculture

County Profile, Aiken, South Carolina.

http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/profiles/sc/cp45003.PDF

NASS (National Agricultural Statistics Service) 2002g. 2002 Census of Agriculture

County Profile, Barnwell, South Carolina.

http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/profiles/sc/cp45011.PDF

Rittmann PD. 2004. Exposure Scenarios and Unit Factors for the Hanford Tank Waste

Performance Assessment, HNF-SD-WM-TI-707 Rev. 4. Fluor Government Group,

Richland, Washington.

Schreckhise RG, K Rhoads, JS Davis, BA Napier, and JV Ramsdell. 1993. Recommended

Environmental Dose Calculation Methods and Hanford-Specific Parameters, PNL-3777

Rev 2, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington

Simpkins AA, and DM Hamby.2002.“UncertaintyinTransportFactorsUsedto

Calculate Historical Dose from 131I ReleasesattheSavannahRiverSite,”Health Physics,

85 (2); 194-203.

South Carolina Agriculture Statistics Service, "South Carolina Agricultural Statistics,"

September 1997 (http://www.sciway.net/statistics/scsa98/ag/ag5.html)
3-18

Southeast Farm Press, South Carolina peanut acres to expand, April 14, 2004.

State of Nevada 1997. Ground Water Pumpage Inventory Amargosa Valley, No. 230

1997. Carson City, Nevada: State of Nevada, Department of Conservation and Natural

Resources.

Stone WA, JM Thorp, OP Gifford, and DJ Hoitink. 1983. Climatological Summary for

the Hanford Area. PNL-4622, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

YMP (Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project) 1997. Yucca Mountain Site

Characterization Project: Summary of Socioeconomic Data Analyses Conducted in

Support of the Radiological Monitoring Program, First Quarter 1996 to First Quarter

1997. TRW Environmental Safety Systems, Inc. Las Vegas, Nevada.

YMP (Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project) 1999. Yucca Mountain Site

Characterization Project: Summary of Socioeconomic Data Analyses Conducted in

Support of the Radiological Monitoring Program, April 1998 to April 1999. North

Las Vegas, Nevada: Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Office
4-1

4.0 Discussion

Physical and chemical characteristics are presented for four samples of soil and three

associated groundwaters (the two South Carolina soils significantly differ only in

allelopathy, and the one South Carolina groundwater sample is assumed to be applicable

to either sampling location). These soil/groundwater combinations are being used in

radionuclide uptake studies within the U.S.NuclearRegulatoryCommission’sproject

Assessment of Food Chain Pathway Parameters in Biosphere Model. The differences in

composition of the soils and waters from the three locations are expected to result in

measurable differences in soil-to-plant transfer of the investigated radionuclides.

Because the uptake and behavior of radionuclides in plant roots, plant leaves, and

animal products depends on the chemistry of the water and soil coming in contact with

plants and animals, water and soil samples collected from these regions on the United

States are being used in ongoing experiments at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to

determine radionuclide soil-to-plant concentration ratios, leaf interception and

translocation factors. Crops and forage used in the experiments are grown in the soils,

and long-lived radionuclides introduced into the groundwater provide the contaminated

water used to water the grown plants. Radionuclides under consideration include 99Tc,

129I, 238Pu, 237Np, and 241Am. Plant types include alfalfa, corn, onion, and potato. The

radionuclide uptake results from this research study are expected to show how regional

variations in water quality and soil chemistry affect radionuclide uptake.

The groundwater samples showed some differences. The groundwater from Nevada

was the most alkaline. The waters from both western sites, Nevada and Washington, had

more carbonates than the eastern sample. The Nevada groundwater sample had

somewhat lower nitrate concentrations than might be expected from the literature, but the

sample location is at the edge of an agricultural area.

Differences are apparent in the soils from the three geographic locations. The major

difference is prevalence of silica (quartz) sand in both of the South Carolina samples.

Soils from this region were originally anticipated to be rich in organic materials, but both

were lower in organic carbon and most other minerals than either of the western soil

samples. All sites were low in organic carbon. The Hanford location soil has the highest

concentrations of silt and clay, possibly because of the history of glacial flooding in the

Hanford region. The Nevada soil was lowest in clay, although the South Carolina

samples were only slightly higher. Differences were also noted in the soil pore water

concentrations of dissolved minerals; these differences may be the most predictive in

determining plant uptake.

The presentation of agricultural practices in the three locations also highlights

differences. Agriculture in the two Western locations is dependent upon irrigation,

although the sources of irrigation water in Nevada are essentially entirely derived from

groundwater while the sources of irrigation water in Southeastern Washington State are

primarily derived surface water, with groundwater only used in areas where surface water
4-2

canals are not economically available. Irrigation is used to a much lesser extent in South

Carolina, and only for supplementing rainfall for brief periods. The types of crops, their

growing periods, and overall yields also differ among the three locations.

This type of information is directly useful in formulating inputs to radioecological

and food-chain models used in performance assessments and other kinds of

environmental assessment. This food-chain pathway data may be used by the NRC staff

to assess dose to persons who live and work in areas potentially affected by radionuclide

releases from waste disposal facilities and decommissioning sites. These data are

expected to be used in biosphere models to calculate the dose from ground water release

scenarios in performance assessment computer codes.
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET

(See instructions on the reverse)

NRC FORM 335

(2-89)

NRCM 1102,

3201, 3202

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER

 (Assigned by NRC, Add Vol., Supp., Rev.,

 and Addendum Numbers, if any.)

DATE REPORT PUBLISHED

MONTH YEAR

4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

5. AUTHOR(S) 6. TYPE OF REPORT

7. PERIOD COVERED (Inclusive Dates)

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, provide Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and mailing address; if contractor,

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, type "Same as above"; if contractor, provide NRC Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

provide name and mailing address.)

and mailing address.)

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

11. ABSTRACT (200 words or less)

12. KEY WORDS/DESCRIPTORS (List words or phrases that will assist researchers in locating the report.)

14. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

13. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

unlimited

(This Page)

unclassified

(This Report)

unclassified

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

16. PRICE

NRC FORM 335 (2-89)

3.