Issuing Weapon Response

DOE-NA-STD-3016-2006

appropriate DAs. Weapon response consequences shall be categorized into consequence categories of

IND, HEVR, Material Dispersal, and Worker Safety as a minimum.

6.2.3 Issuing Weapon Response

When requested by the PPC, the DAs provide conditional weapon response probabilities for each scenario

for which weapon response could not be screened. Weapon response information is provided as a

weapon response summary and bases documentation or equivalents. The DA shall formally transmit the

weapon response summary document to the PPC utilizing the Engineering Authorization System or

equivalent. The DAs shall specify any assumptions made and initial conditions imposed that may need to

be preserved as controls at the production plant.

The DAs' weapon response documentation must be coordinated between the applicable DAs in order to

preclude internal inconsistencies and to gain efficiencies. When weapon response from more than one

DA is required, the DAs must provide a coordinated and consolidated weapon response summary.

The bases information (e.g., experimental data, modeling results, test results, calculations) that the DAs

use to provide reference and support for developing weapon response for the PPC is kept at the DA, and

is maintained in accordance with requirements of the DA's DOE/NNSA-approved Quality Assurance

Program (QAP) as required in 10 CFR 830.120, Subpart A, and DOE O 414.1C, "Quality Assurance," or

superseding directives. Source data and methods used in developing weapon response must be traceable.

All information used within, or to support, the weapon response bases documentation (including all

references) shall be accurate and available to support the DOE/NNSA HAR review.

6.2.4 Expert Judgment/Elicitation and Peer Reviews

Expert, professional, or engineering judgment refers to assessments provided by a subject matter expert.

The subject matter expert's opinion or belief is based on reasoning. Expert judgments can be evaluations

of theories, models, experiments, or recommendations for further research. Expert judgments can be

either qualitative or quantitative. Subject matter experts are individuals recognized by their peers as

authorities in a specific subject matter or topic. The weapons response process relies heavily on subject

matter expert judgments and expert elicitation.

Scientists, engineers, and technical program managers exercise expert judgment routinely and usually

informally. When expert judgment is used within the bases documentation, a person qualified in the

expert elicitation process using a structured procedure may be used to gather necessary judgments from

recognized DA subject matter experts.

Expert elicitation is a formal, highly structured, and well-documented process for obtaining the judgments

of multiple experts (NUREG-1563, "Branch Technical Position on the Use of Expert Elicitation in the

High-Level Radioactive Waste Program," November 1996). Expert elicitation may be of the greatest

value and should be considered in the following situations :

Empirical data is not reasonably obtainable or the analysis is not practical to perform.

Multiple diverse sources of applicable data must be assessed.

Uncertainties are large and significant.

More than one conceptual model can explain and be consistent with the available data.

Technical judgments are required to assess whether calculations are appropriately conservative.

Source data includes the use of unpublished, un-reviewed, or draft information.

Each organization utilizing expert judgment within the bases information supporting weapon response

shall do so through a process that is defined in the DA's local procedure(s). The local procedure shall be

included as part of the DA's QAP submitted to DOE/NNSA for approval per 10 CFR 830.120, Subpart A