Radioactive waste isolation in salt: rationale and methodology for Argonne-conducted reviews of site characterization programs

Abstract

Documents are being submitted to the Salt Repository Project Office (SRPO) of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) by Battelle Memorial Institute's Office of Nuclear Waste Isolation (ONWI) to satisfy milestones of the Salt Repository Project of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program. Some of these documents are being reviewed by multidisciplinary groups of peers to ensure DOE of their adequacy and credibility. Adequacy of documents refers to their ability to meet the requirements of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as enunciated in 40 CFR Part 191 and 10 CFR Part 60, respectively, as well as those of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Credibility of documents refers to the validity of the assumptions, methods, and conclusions, as well as to the completeness of coverage. Since late 1982, Argonne National Laboratory has been under contract to DOE to conduct multidisciplinary peer reviews of program plans and reports covering research and development activities related to siting and constructing a high-level nuclear waste repository in salt. Site characterization plans (SCPs) being prepared by ONWI are to be reviewed by the Argonne peer review panel. Particular emphasis is to be placed on Sec. 8 of the SCP, which will cover the site characterization program. Because Sec. 8 is the essence of an SCP, it will require a comprehensive, carefully structured review. This report provides background and guidance to panelists to help ensure the success of the peer review process. A draft of this report was sent to SRPO for comment on December 14, 1984, and to 28 peer review panelists on March 19, 1985. This revised version of the report has considered the critiques of the aforementioned parties.

Radioactive Waste Isolation in Salt: Peer review of documents dealing with geophysical investigations

“…After reviewing Harrison et al (1985) and this report, peer review panelists should be generally familiar with the formal guidelines and regulations of the Salt Repository Project and should be prepared to judge whether geophysical data-acquisition and data-processing needs have been properly identified. Reviewers will also be responsible for examining the performance objectives, performance issues, and conceptual models for the repository's systems and subsystems and for critiquing study plans as to their appropriateness for evaluating future repository performance.…”