make the data and reasoning more transparent. QMU shares similar goals and, once implemented thoroughly, will much more readily support peer review. The laboratories have long practoied lab-vs.-lab review of designs. The committee suggests a stronger and more independent review process than that used for previous nuclear weapons, by engaging experts not directly involved in the project—that is, it remains lab vs. lab but now includes outsiders such as retirees and, perhaps, British experts—who can knowledgeably assess the design process and who can use their own simulation codes and analysis methods. For this peer review to affect the design, it must be timely.

Recommendation 4-4. The NNSA and the design laboratories should ensure that the certification plan for any RRW is supported by strong, timely peer review and by ongoing, transparent, QMU-based documentation and analysis in order to acheive a confidence level necessary for eventual certification.

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement