[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 209 (Monday, October 31, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-26923]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: October 31, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management

 

Proposed Scope of Task for the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) 
Board on Radioactive Waste Management (BRWM) for Peer Review of the 
Technical Bases for the Suitability Evaluation Process

AGENCY: Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM), 
Energy.

ACTION: Notice of inquiry.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Through this Notice of Inquiry (Notice) and as part of the on-
going process of public participation in the development of the Site 
Suitability Evaluation Process begun in an April 1994 Federal Register 
Notice (59 FR 19680), the Department of Energy (DOE) desires to elicit 
the views of members of the general public on the proposed methodology 
for utilizing the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Board on 
Radioactive Waste Management (BRWM) for implementation and management 
of peer reviews of the technical bases for the suitability evaluation 
process. The DOE is committed to ensuring the quality of its technical 
work. One approach to ensuring technical quality is the use of an 
independent, impartial peer review for the technical work. To ensure a 
peer review that is independent, impartial, and of the highest 
technical quality, the DOE intends to request that the (BRWM): (1) 
Oversee the required peer reviews, including setting up the review 
committees and (2) establish a standing committee to review OCRWM's 
analysis of long term repository performance.

DATES: Written comments on the draft methodology for peer review are 
due on or before November 30, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted to: Dr. Jane R. 
Summerson, U.S. Department of Energy, Yucca Mountain Site 
Characterization Office, 101 Convention Center Drive, Las Vegas, NV 
89109. (Phone) (702) 295-9610 (Fax) (702) 794-7907.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Jane R. Summerson, U.S. Department of Energy, Yucca Mountain Site 
Characterization Office, 101 Convention Center Drive, Las Vegas, NV 
89109, (702) 295-9610 (Phone), (702) 794-7907 (Fax).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    OCRWM has proposed a restructured repository program consistent 
with the recent Fiscal Year 1995 Administrative Funding Proposal. Under 
the program site characterization and engineering activities would 
focus initially on the evaluation of the suitability of Yucca Mountain. 
Because the broad credibility of the suitability determination is so 
critical to the success of the program, DOE proposes to make a 
technical determination of suitability as an independent program 
milestone as the result of an incremental and open process that 
features rigorous, independent external peer review of the technical 
work and focused, effective public involvement.
    The proposed suitability evaluation process calls for the separate 
and sequential evaluation of individual technical issues or groups of 
related technical issues. Evaluations of technical issues would be 
conducted as site characterization data and analyses become available. 
For each issue or group of issues, DOE would first develop the 
technical basis that will be used for the assessment of regulatory 
compliance. DOE desires to have peer reviews of the manner in which 
scientific information has been collected, analyzed and interpreted in 
the development of the technical bases. Toward this end, DOE proposes 
to contract with the NAS to manage a process of external expert peer 
review of this aspect of the technical bases. This approach would 
address only the technical or scientific analyses and not address 
regulatory compliance.

II. Proposed Methodology

A. Oversee the Required Peer Review Process

    OCRWM considers the peer review process to have three important 
steps: (1) Select the peer review committees (2) manage the peer 
reviews, and (3) oversee development of the peer review reports.
    (1) Select the peer review committee: For a peer review of a given 
technical basis report, the BRWM would determine the expertise needed 
and the size of the committee, establish and make available to the 
public minimum qualifications for peer reviewers, solicit nominations 
for qualified peer reviewers from the public, and recommend a slate of 
nominees for selection through the established National Research 
Council process, including the following: Minimize the potential for 
bias on the review committee; ensure that diverse scientific views on 
the technical issues central to the material are encompassed; consider 
minority representation and geographic sensitivities including the 
unique interest the citizens of Nevada have in the process; and ensure 
the availability of committee members to meet a predetermined schedule. 
The BRWM would be prepared to discuss with the public how the process 
addresses these concerns.
    The size and technical composition of the committee would be 
determined by the BRWM according to the nature and complexity of the 
information to be reviewed. To the extent possible, peer review 
committees would be established well in advance of the availability of 
the documents for review.
    DOE would provide recommendations regarding the size of the peer 
review committees and length of time required for each review, but the 
BRWM shall make the final decisions of these parameters within the 
following limits: Maximum committee size--ten members, maximum time to 
deliver peer review report--six months.
    (2) Manage the review: Reviewers would evaluate the validity of the 
data and interpretations and the adequacy of the treatment of 
uncertainties in describing the current state of understanding. 
Reviewers would address, at a minimum the following questions: (a) Has 
the data been collected and analyzed in a technically acceptable 
manner? (b) Does the data, given the associated error and analytical 
and conceptual uncertainties, support the technical interpretations and 
conclusions made within the report? (c) Are there credible alternative 
interpretations that would significantly alter the conclusions reached? 
(d) What testing, if any, would discriminate between alternative 
technical interpretations? (e) If such testing is recommended, how 
effective would it be at reducing significant uncertainties?
    In accordance with BRWM policy, all interactions between the peer 
review committees, report authors and OCRWM would occur in open session 
and all documents submitted to the committees would be publicly 
available. The review committee would request that the public provide 
information on relevant technical issues that they determine should be 
brought to the attention of the committee. As is standard practice for 
National Research Council committees, however, Executive Sessions of 
the committee, when only committee members and NAS staff are present, 
may precede and/or follow all public meetings. In these sessions the 
committee would attend to internal administrative and ``housekeeping'' 
details, deliberations and discussions about the issues and 
information, plans for future meetings, development of report outlines, 
and writing of the reports. On occasion, full-day executive session 
meetings would take place. No private meetings with federal, state, or 
other parties external to the NAS would ever be held. This is standard 
practice for the BRWM.
    The length of time required for peer review would depend on the 
nature and complexity of the information being reviewed. Because OCRWM 
is accountable for measurable progress, all reviews would be completed 
in four to six months.
    (3) Oversee development of the report: The report would include 
responses to the five questions listed in (2) above, and relevant 
technical issues raised by the public. The BRWM would advise the 
committee to avoid or at least to differentiate between recommendations 
for additional technical work that is not justified by a reduction of 
uncertainty, and recommendations that are not purely technical such as 
recommendations that relate to DOE policy, management or decisions. 
Reports would be reviewed through the usual NAS independent blind-
review process.

B. Establish a Standing Review Committee for OCRWM's Assessments of 
Postclosure Performance of the Repository

    The relevant analyses of repository performance produced in the 
next several years are expected to be complex and lengthy and to cross-
cut many technical disciplines. For this reason, a standing peer review 
committee would be formed to (1) review all analysis work as it 
progresses, (2) review the analysis that would be the primary basis for 
DOE assessment of conformance with the postclosure system guidelines 
and (3) review conclusions on qualifying conditions of the postclosure 
technical guidelines that are inextricably linked to the conclusion on 
system performance.

C. Proposed Schedule for Initiating Peer Review of the Technical Basis 
Reports

    The schedule for initiating peer reviews is as follows:
    (1) Surface Processes--TBD/95
    (2) Interim analysis of long-term system performance I\1\--9/95
    (3) Preclosure Rock Characteristics--4/96
    (4) Tectonics--10/96 or
    (4a) Volcanic Hazard--3/96
    (4b) Seismic Hazard--10/96
    (5) Geochemistry/Postclosure Rock Characteristics--5/96
    (6) Interim analysis of long-term system performance II\1\--10/96
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\This includes the TSPA for the postclosure total system 
guideline and postclosure qualifying conditions guidelines 
evaluations. The standing peer review must be initiated ahead of 
this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (7) Geohydrology/Transport--2/97
    (8) Preclosure Radiological Safety\2\--8/97
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\Includes meteorology, population density and distribution, 
offsite installations, and site ownership and control.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (9) Final analysis of long-term system performance\1\--11/97

    Issued in Washington, D.C., October 26, 1994.
Daniel A. Dreyfus,
Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management.
[FR Doc. 94-26923 Filed 10-28-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-M