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