Utilization of a Technical Peer Review to Support the Mission of the Nevada Test Site Community Advisory Board

The U. S. Department of Energy's (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Operations Office (NNSA/NV) Environmental Management (EM) Underground Test Area (UGTA) project addresses the characterization and needs for long-term monitoring of the subsurface contamination resulting from 828 underground nuclear weapon tests at the Nevada Test Site (NTS). EM promotes, and is required, to include stakeholders in its program. However, UGTA is a very complex program not easily understood by members of the public. The NTS Community Advisory Board (CAB), a federally chartered Site Specific Advisory Board (SSAB), has studied the UGTA project since 1996, and has found it a challenge to completely comprehend and provide NNSA/NV meaningful citizen input. The CAB realized the benefit of a technical peer review and in 2000 recommended to NNSA/NV that a peer review of the UGTA strategy would provide valuable feedback to the program to address underground contamination at the NTS. N NSA agreed to the CAB's recommendation, and moved forward with a scope of work to have the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) perform the peer review of the UGTA strategy. The ASME began the peer review in June 2001, and their final report was published in November 2001. In January 2002, the CAB devoted their monthly meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada to reporting the results of the peer review of the UGTA strategy to the public. Two public workshops were later held in the community of Amargosa, Nevada during the month of January to help educate and build interest in the CAB February 2002 monthly meeting which was also held in Amargosa. The CAB recommendation to NNSA to utilize a technical peer review has provided valuable information to NNSA, the State of Nevada, and the CAB. At other DOE sites SSABs are challenged by a number of complex, technical programs requiring considerable time and resources for the board to comprehend. It is worth considering the utilization of an independent, technical peer review to help provide credible and invaluable feedback for both DOE sites and stakeholders