Book Description

The Faultless underground nuclear test, conducted in central Nevada, is the site of an ongoing environmental remediation effort that has successfully progressed through numerous technical challenges due to close cooperation between the U.S. Department of Energy, (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration and the State of Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP). The challenges faced at this site are similar to those of many other sites of groundwater contamination: substantial uncertainties due to the relative lack of data from a highly heterogeneous subsurface environment. Knowing when, where, and how to devote the often enormous resources needed to collect new data is a common problem, and one that can cause remediators and regulators to disagree and stall progress toward closing sites. For Faultless, a variety of numerical modeling techniques and statistical tools are used to provide the information needed for DOE and NDEP to confidently move forward along the remediation path to site closure. A general framework for remediation was established in an agreement and consent order between DOE and the State of Nevada that recognized that no cost-effective technology currently exists to remove the source of contaminants in nuclear cavities. Rather, the emphasis of the corrective action is on identifying the impacted groundwater resource and ensuring protection of human health and the environment from the contamination through monitoring. As a result, groundwater flow and transport modeling is the linchpin in the remediation effort. An early issue was whether or not new site data should be collected via drilling and testing prior to modeling. After several iterations of the Corrective Action Investigation Plan, all parties agreed that sufficient data existed to support a flow and transport model for the site. Though several aspects of uncertainty were included in the subsequent modeling work, concerns remained regarding uncertainty in individual parameter values and the additive effects of multiple sources of uncertainty. Ultimately, the question was whether new data collection would substantially reduce uncertainty in the model. A Data Decision Analysis (DDA) was performed to quantify uncertainty in the existing model and determine the most cost-beneficial activities for reducing uncertainty, if reduction was needed. The DDA indicated that though there is large uncertainty present in some model parameters, the overall uncertainty in the calculated contaminant boundary during the 1,000-year regulatory timeframe is relatively small. As a result, limited uncertainty reduction can be expected from expensive characterization activities. With these results, DOE and NDEP have determined that the site model is suitable for moving forward in the corrective action process. Key to this acceptance is acknowledgment that the model requires independent validation data and the site requires long-term monitoring. Developing the validation and monitoring plans, and calculating contaminant boundaries are the tasks now being pursued for the site. The significant progress made for the site is due to the close cooperation and communication of the parties involved and an acceptance and understanding of the role of uncertainty.