Ecotoxicity of River and Spring Sediment along the Hanford Reach

  • D. A. Delistraty
  • J. Yokel
Part of the NATO Science Series book series (NAIV, volume 4)


The Hanford Site was established in 1943 in order to produce plutonium for some of the nuclear weapons tested and used in World War II (Dirkes and Hanf 1997). These historic operations resulted in the production of both radiological and nonradiological wastes. In 1988, the Hanford Site was placed on the National Priorities List for environmental cleanup by the US Environmental Protection Agency. In recent years, efforts at the site have focused on characterizing and remediating contaminants in these wastes.


Overlie Water Acid Volatile Sulfide Sediment Toxicity Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Sediment Toxicity Test 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    ASTM (American Society of Testing and Materials) (1994a) Standard guide for conducting sediment toxicity tests with freshwater invertebrates (E 1383–94). In: Annual Book of ASTM Standards, vol 11.04. ASTM, Philadelphia, p 1196Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ASTM (American Society of Testing and Materials) (1994b) Standard guide for collection, storage, characterization, and manipulation of sediments for toxicological testing (E 1391–90). In: Annual Book of ASTM Standards, vol 11.04. ASTM, Philadelphia, p 1226Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Becker DS, Ginn TC (1995) Effects of storage time on toxicity of sediments from Puget Sound, Washington. Environ Toxicol Chem 14:829–835CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Becker DS, Rose CD, Bigham GN (1995) Comparison of the 10-day freshwater sediment toxicity tests usingHyalella aztecaandChironomus tetans.Environ Toxicol Chem 14:2089–2094Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blanton ML, Gardiner WW, Dirkes RL (1995) Environmental monitoring of Columbia River sediments: Grain-size distribution and contaminant association, PNL-10535, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WAGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA (1997) The dose determines the stimulation (and poison): Development of a chemical hormesis database. Int J Toxicol 16:545–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Delistraty DA (1986) Growth and photosynthetic response of a freshwater algaSelenastrum capricornutumto an oil shale by-product water. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 36:114–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dirkes RL, Hanf RW (eds) (1997) Hanford site environmental report for calendar year 1996, PNNL11472. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WAGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Friant SL, Brandt CA (1994) Ecological risk assessment of radionuclides in the Columbia River system-A historical assessment. In: A Review of Ecological Assessment Case Studies from a Risk Assessment Perspective, vol II, EPA/630/R-94/003. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, p 3–1Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hamelink JL, Landrum PF, Bergman HL, Benson WH (eds) (1994) Bioavailability: Physical, chemical, and biological interactions, Lewis Pub, Boca Raton, FLGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Higley KA, Kuperman R (1996) Ecotoxicological benchmarks for radionuclide contaminants at RFETS, Appendix C. In: Ecological Risk Assessment Methodology, Technical Memorandum for Ecological Chemicals of Concern (ECOCs) Screening Methodology, RF/ER-96–0039. Kaiser-Hill/Rocky Flats Environmental Technology SiteGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) (1992) Effects of ionizing radiation on plants and animals at levels implied by current radiation protection standards, Tech Rep Ser No 332. IAEA, Vienna, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ingersoll CG (1995) Sediment tests. In: Rand GM (ed) Fundamentals of Aquatic Toxicology, 2“ ed. Taylor &Francis,Washington,DC, p 231Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jones DS, Suter GW, Hull RN (1997) Toxicological benchmarks for screening contaminants of potential concern for effects on sediment-associated biota: 1997 revision, ES/ER/TM-95/R4. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, US Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, TNGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Luckey TD (1982) Physiological benefits from low levels of ionizing radiation. Health Phys 43:771–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Persaud D, Jaagumagi R, Hayton A (1992) Guidelines for the protection and management of aquatic sediment quality in Ontario, ISBN 0–7729–9248–7. Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy, Toronto, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Phipps GL, Mattson VR, Ankley GT (1995) Relative sensitivity of three freshwater benthic macroinvertebrates to ten contaminants. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 28:281–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    PNNL (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory) (1998) Screening assessment and requirements for a comprehensive assessment: Columbia River Comprehensive Impact Assessment, DOE/RL-96–16. US Department of Energy, Richland, WAGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Power EA, Chapman PM (1992) Assessing sediment quality. In: Burtbn GA (ed) Sediment Toxicity Assessment. Lewis Pub, Boca Raton, FL, p 1Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Saldi KA, Dirkes RL (1996) Surface water and sediment surveillance. In: Dirkes RL, Hanf RW (eds) Hanford site environmental report for calendar year 1995, PNNL-11139. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, p 109Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Saldi KA, Dirkes RL, Blanton ML (1995) Surface water surveillance. In: Dirkes RL, Hanf RW (eds) Hanford site environmental report for calendar year 1994, PNL-10574. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, p 125Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stebbing ARD (1997) A theory for growth hormesis. BELLE Newsletter 6(2):1–11Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tatem HE (1988) Use ofDaphnia magnaandMysidopsis almyrato assess sediment toxicity. Water Quality ‘88, Seminar Proceedings, Charleston, SC. US Army Corps of Engineers Committee on Water Quality, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) (1994) Methods for measuring the toxicity and bioaccumulation of sediment-associated contaminants with freshwater invertebrates, EPA/600/R94/024. USEPA, Duluth, MN, p 51Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) (1996) Calculation and evaluation of sediment effect concentrations for the amphipodHyallela aztecaand the midgeChironomus riparius, EPA 905-R96008. USEPA, Great Lakes National Program Office, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    USEPA-USCOE (US Environmental Protection Agency and US Army Corps of Engineers) (1998). Evaluation of dredged material proposed for discharge in waters of the U.S.-Testing manual, EPA-823B-94–004. USEPA, Washington, DC, p 8–13Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zar JH (1984) Biostatistical analysis, 2nded. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. A. Delistraty
    • 1
  • J. Yokel
    • 1
  1. 1.Washington State Department of EcologySpokaneUSA

Personalised recommendations