Peer Review Lessons Learned - DOE and Regulator Perspectives - 17140
- Navarro Research and Engineering P.O. Box 98952, Las Vegas, NV 89193 (United States)
- Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 2030 E. Flaming Rd. Suite 230, Las Vegas, NV 89119 (United States)
- Desert Research Institute 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89119-7363 (United States)
- U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8518 (United States)
The DOE NNSA Nevada Field Office (NFO) Underground Test Area (UGTA) Activity requires an external peer review to complete an extensive stage of site characterization and groundwater flow and contaminant transport model(s) development. The external peer review evaluates whether assumptions, methods, and conclusions derived from model(s) outputs are based on sound scientific principles and examines the scientific appropriateness of the model(s) outputs for informing the regulatory decision. The regulatory decision which is made by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) is whether the model is acceptable to advance to the next UGTA strategy stage. Depending on the specific corrective action unit, the next stage is a Corrective Action Decision Document/Corrective Action Plan or Closure Stage. Three external peer reviews have taken place to date for the UGTA Activity. The first one resulted in a second phase of characterization and model development. The second external peer review resulted in advancement to the next UGTA strategy stage. While advancement to the next strategy stage was recommended by the third external peer review, a series of supplemental data collection and analyses and model simulation activities to address external peer review comments, including drilling three new wells and sampling multiple wells, occurred before moving into the next UGTA strategy stage. Twelve participants representing different aspects of the peer reviews (NDEP, NNSA/NFO, science advisors, presenters, and external peer reviewers) were interviewed to generate a combined lessons learned. Questions were asked regarding their experience with the process including panel selection, focused questions, presentations, interactions between UGTA Activity participants and reviewers, and results. The interview results were combined with the outcome of a published lessons learned report developed following the first external peer review. In general, those interviewed believed that all three external peer reviews were satisfactory and met the goals of the FFACO process. The following seven lessons learned were identified: (1) Ensure the panel is not biased and has a balance of technical and regulatory background; (2) Clearly state the review objective(s) at the start of the review; (3) Ask focused questions that support the peer review objective(s) but that do not ask the specific regulatory question; (4) Establish a peer review panel earlier in the strategy process; (5) Establish one point of contact for the entire review and conduct periodic meetings with the peer review panel to ensure focus remains on the review objective(s) and to ensure that pertinent information is provided; (6) Ensure that presentations are well coordinated, anomalous data or analysis results are addressed, and are focused on supporting the peer review objective(s); and (7) Carefully consider the panel's recommendations prior to embarking on a particular path forward. (authors)
- Research Organization:
- WM Symposia, Inc., PO Box 27646, 85285-7646 Tempe, AZ (United States)
- OSTI ID:
- 22794542
- Report Number(s):
- INIS-US-19-WM-17140; TRN: US19V0220038761
- Resource Relation:
- Conference: WM2017 Conference: 43. Annual Waste Management Symposium, Phoenix, AZ (United States), 5-9 Mar 2017; Other Information: Country of input: France; 6 refs.; available online at: http://archive.wmsym.org/2017/index.html
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
Response to External Peer Review Team Report for Corrective Action Unit 97: Yucca Flat/Climax Mine, Nevada National Security Site, Nye County, Nevada, Revision 1
External Peer Review Team Report Underground Testing Area Subproject for Frenchman Flat, Revision 1