Review of U.S. Department of Energy Technical Basis Report for Surface Characteristics, Preclosure Hydrology, and Erosion (1995) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
1 INTRODUCTION
1 INTRODUCTION
Pages 9-26
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 9... ...
~ The Department of Energy is in the process of reorganizing its site characterization program in response to cuts in its FY1996 budget. The committee understands that the DOE may not issue the remaining technical basis reports, but may instead focus on total system performance assessmentwhich was to be the topic of the sixth and final technical basis report.
|
From page 10... ...
It describes ground water conditions in the unsaturated zone related to the occurrence of perched water. It also assesses the potential for subsurface flooding and the availability of an adequate water supply for repository construction.
|
From page 11... ...
As part of this effort, the National Research Council was asked to provide an analysis of the scientific bases for these standards. An expert committee was formed3 to provide this assessment; the committee recommended that the health and safety standards should apply to periods of peak risk to the public, which might extend beyond 10,000 years (National Research Council, 19951.
|
From page 12... ...
Short discussions of qualifying and disqualifying conditions are given at the beginning of Chapters 2, 3, and 4 in the TBR, but as specified in the task statement, they were not considered by the committee in its review. The committee relied on its collective expert judgment as informed by conventional scientific usage in applying the "validity" and "adequacy" criteria in the statement of task.
|
From page 13... ...
· All available relevant and technically acceptable data, including data collected by workers not associated with the site characterization program, should be considered explicitly in the analyses. · All assumptions in the analyses should be stated clearly.
|
From page 14... ...
· The science in the TBR should be peer reviewed by the scientists whose data and conclusions are used in the report. REVIEW BASIS The committee wishes to emphasize to the reader, and particularly to DOE managers, that its evaluation of the statement of task questions related to alternative interpretations, testing, and uncertainty reduction (i.e., questions c-e in Appendix C)
|
From page 15... ...
The committee recognizes, however, that the reduction of scientific uncertainty to very low levels is difficult and could require lengthy study. The committee believes that DOE scientist-managers and oversight bodies must ultimately judge how much scientific data is needed to make sound and effective policy decisions regarding the Yucca Mountain site.
|
From page 16... ...
At the request of the committee, the YMSCO distributed advance copies of meeting notices to the organizations and individuals it had identified as "stakeholders" in the site characterization process. Prior to its first meeting, the committee asked federal, state, and local government agencies and organizations with an interest in Yucca Mountain to designate formal liaisons to the committee.
|
From page 17... ...
At the committee's request, YMSCO and the Nevada Nuclear Waste Project Office designated scientists to make brief presentations or respond to the committee's questions at each stop. An agenda for the field excursion also appears in Appendix E, and the locations of the field trip stops are shown in Figures ~ .
|
From page 18... ...
drafting of the report. Following established practices of the Board on Radioactive Waste Management, the parent board to this committee, these executive sessions were closed to all but National Research Council committee and staff members.
|
From page 19... ...
The committee chose this alternative organization scheme to reduce redundancy in its review, to provide better flow to the text, and to allow for a more logical development of ideas. Each major section in Chapters 2 and 3 of this review (indicated in the left-hand column in Table Id)
|
From page 20... ...
Do the data, given the associated error and analytical and technical uncertainties, support the technical interpretations and conclusions made within the technical basis report?
|
From page 21... ...
Figure I.2, which is modified from Figure 2.3-l of the TBR, shows topography of Yucca Mountain and the location of the North Portal Site, South Portal Site, Shaft Site No. 2, and a few field trip stops.
|
From page 22... ...
The committee has avoided the use of unnecessary jargon and has used footnotes throughout this report to define specialized terms and explain complicated principles. It has also provided a list of acronyms and symbols in Appendix A
|
From page 23... ...
23 I.= — EN ~ to Cal .= I,,, m ~ O Ct ~ cd Lid Cal -0 :> a 41)
|
From page 24... ...
. The For~mile Wash Drainage Basin, which is partially shown in the figure, includes Yucca Wash, Sever Wash, Drillhole Wash, and Coyote Wash.
|
From page 25... ...
25 (IBAB1 BOS UBOLU aAoq~ SlO\a0U)
|
From page 26... ...
26 ol o (le~el ees uee~u e~oqe s~e~ew)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.