CRESP II was a grant with the Department of Energy that was managed by the Institute for Responsible Management 2000 - 2006. CRESP III was established in September 2006 as a cooperative agreement with Vanderbilt University. |
Information about: CRESP II Grant CRESP II Scholarly Products View CRESP II Scholarly Products List 2000-2006 View CRESP II Year 1 Scholarly Products: September 2000 - September 2001. View CRESP II Year 2 Scholarly Products: October 2001 - January 2003. View CRESP II Year 3 Scholarly Products: February 2003 - November 2003. View CRESP II Year 4 Scholarly Products: December 2003- November 2004. View CRESP II Year 5 Scholarly Products: December 2004- September 2005 .
CRESP I Cooperative Agreement
CRESP I Scholarly Products List
A true consortium of universities organized for interdisciplinary work designed to establish a basis for credibly resolving complex cleanup challenges that frustrate long term environmental protection at DOE sites. CRESP II has gathered together a distinguished team of national research and review leaders and has successfully focused their attention on solving the nation's most difficult environmental challenge - the risk-protective management of nuclear waste. CRESP
II has worked at many sites across the DOE Complex
|
Selected CRESP II Reports, Reviews and Presentations 2000 - 2006
The purpose
of the biomonitoring report is to provide CRESP's recommendations for
a biomonitoring plan at Amchitka, particularly with respect to what radionuclides
to examine, what species should serve as
bioindicators, where to monitor, and when to monitor. The CRESP conclusions
are based on the data presented in the full
CRESP report (Powers et al. 2005) and addendum (Powers et al. 2006). This report was reviewed by the CRESP Peer Review
Committee.
CRESP was
asked by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) to
present the results of its work on Amchitka to the Amchitka Nuclear Test
Sites Update session of the 2006 Alaska Forum on the Environment held
in Anchorage on February 8, 2006. This presentation provides the single
best graphic summary of CRESP's total Amchitka work product and its implications.
View Presentation
On August
1 2005 CRESP, an independent consortium of university-based environmental
scientists, announced the results from three 2004 expeditions to Amchitka
Island in the western Aleutians to assess radionuclides in that marine
environment. Three nuclear test shots were set off under Amchitka by the
U.S. Government during a six-year period beginning in 1965. Addendum
to Final Amchitka Report: In this
addendum we report on the following additional analyses performed by CRESP
after preparation of the Report (July 2005): 1) Additional actinide analyses
of Ulva and kelp (including Laminaria), 2) Actinide analyses for additional
Rock Jingles, Blue Mussels and Horse Mussels, and 3) Cesium-137, Co-60
and I-129 analyses of additional fish (Atka Mackerel, Rock Sole, Ocean
Perch, Rock Greenling). These analyses were performed to aid in discrimination
for bioindicator selection and provide additional clarification of differences
in radionuclide content measured at Amchitka in comparison to Kiska. The
overall conclusion of the Amchitka Independent Science Assessment: Biological
and Geophysical Aspects of Potential Radionuclide Exposure in the Amchitka
Marine Environment remains the same: 1) the foods tested are safe to eat,
with radionuclide levels below published human health guidance levels,
2) our data do not suggest that radionuclides in biota collected from
Amchitka are attributable to the Amchitka test shots, and 3) a combination
of sedentary and mobile organisms at different trophic levels is ideal
for a continued biomonitoring program at Amchitka. The addendum was reviewed
by the CRESP Peer Review Committee. (View
Committee report) View
Addendum to Final Amchitka Report AMCHITKA RADIONUCLIDE DATA SET
CRESP held public meetings in Anchorage, Alaska to present the results of its Amchitka independent assessment study on the evening of August 1 and the morning of August 2, 2005. The CRESP presentation was followed that evening by an hour and a half of questions from participants; and, as planned, a second and more informal open session for additional questions was held for about four hours the next morning. About
70 persons including members of the press attended one or the other of
these meetings. For those who could not attend the meetings, we provide
some of the key
questions CRESP was asked and the answers provided in these meetings.
Briefing
on CRESP Amchitka Report August 1, 2005 View
Presentation; Meeting
Photos Peer Review of the Amchitka Report Before releasing the report, CRESP did, as it typically does with important studies, ask its distinguished peer review committee to review its draft report so it could improve the final version. Arthur Upton, former director of the National Cancer Institute and chair of the CRESP Review Committee on behalf of its sub-committee (John F. Ahearne, Melvin W. Carter, Charles Fairhurst, Ph.D., Morton Lippmann) on Amchitka said of that draft: "The methods were well conceived, expertly applied and have produced results that are definitive and thereby enable conclusions that should be meaningful to all concerned…. In view of the high quality of the studies reported, and their failure to find evidence of the release of radioactivity from the shot cavities into the surrounding environment, the results that are presented should be reassuring to concerned stakeholders." View Peer Review Committee Report
A day and a half workshop, for federal agencies with regulatory, stewardship and similar responsibilities for sites where radiological and other contamination requires sustained management when active remedial activities have been completed. The purpose was to promote active informal discussion and review among these federal entities of the policies and guidance currently in place and being developed for this complex of issues. The discussion was convened by, and informed by work produced by the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP) and participating agencies.The workshop included a packet of background readings from EPA, NRC, DOE and CRESP. Agenda, Presentations and Background Readings
CRESP
Symposium: New
Challenges and Approaches for Assessing Risk at Radioactive Sites Risk
in Complex Environments: Whence & Whither in a Continuing Struggle
Better to Relate CRESP II: Helping to Rethink the Path Forward to Long-Term Environmental Protection
by Charles W. Powers, Ph.D and PI CRESP II A Presentation
to the Committee on Risk-Based Approaches for Disposition of TRU and HL
Radioactive Wastes, NRC’s Board on Radioactive Waste Management in
Augusta, Georgia, January 28, 2004
A presentation
given by Charles
W. Powers, Ph.D. and PI CRESP IIin Richland, Washington March 10, 2004. Reports and Presentations A
Literature Guide Supporting the Planning and Implementation This guide is intended to present the reader with a set of quality peer reviewed literature that will aid the readers' understanding of human and ecological risk involved in DOE's cleanup efforts in "achieving clearly defined, risk-based end states" as stated in the EM's Cleanup Driven by Risk Based End States Policy. As an aid in understanding the material in the report CRESP has developed a course where a series of discussions will be held that will explore key concepts in RBES. Learn more about the Report and Course
The Roles for Risk in DOE Cleanup A
Presentation given at the National Govenors Assciation and National Association
of Attorneys General Meeting November
10, 2002
CRESP was asked to design a core set of geospatial maps that can be developed and used by all of the Department of Energy's former nuclear weapons sites. Their purpose would be to effectively communicate the end-state vision for each site that is being developed through the Risk-Based End State (RBES) project, to regulators, DOE-HQ, and other important stakeholders. These core maps would also permit a comparison between that end-state vision and the site's current environmental and physical condition, with a focus on the existing on and off-site risks to human and ecological receptors.
THE
ROLE OF RISK AND FUTURE LAND USE IN CLEANUP AT THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY As a result of the Legacy of the Cold War, several governmental agencies are involved in massive cleanup and remediation projects. In this paper we examine the role of risk and future land use designations in cleanup at the Department of Energy, using a self-assessment of 36 sites. We then discuss the tools that might be required to address the cleanup challenge. Much of the current cleanup program is driven by compliance with federal and state statutes and regulations, presumably to protect human health and the environment. Compliance, however, is not synonymous with cleanup. Although some of these laws and regulations take risk into account, the lack of site-specific data on exposures and risk scenarios, and the lack of attention to future land use or endstates has potentially resulted in a disconnect between risk and cleanup, risk and final endstates, and the cleanup levels and endstate or subsequent land use. Partly this disconnect results from the need for a range of technical, economic, sociological and public policy tools to address the issues. A better transfer of information among and within Department of Energy facilities and operations offices is required. Further, making decisions with the final endstate in mind involves a number of risk tradeoffs, including:
Such risk balancing is required within sites and among Department of Energy sites, and perhaps, among other remediation sites (such as those of Department of Defense or Superfund sites).
CRESP Responds to DOE Request for Review In 2000 at the request of the manager of the Savannah River Site (SRS) CRESP reviewed the risk prioritization process as it shapes the SRS integrated priority list. CRESP experience over the last 5 years in the areas of public health and safety, environmental protection, worker health and safety, cost effectiveness, and public and community relations contributed to the report. The Risk Prioritization Process as it Shapes the SRS Integrated Priority List: An Initial Review of the Savannah River Site Model (2000) View Full Report CRESP Peer Review Committee Report
View the report Social
Economic and Impact Center Report: Drawing from studies on US DOE facilities, this CRESP Researcher Report focuses on key policy-related issues and options that would help the most economically distressed regions facing cutbacks in DOE employment to achieve smart decline with less pain and ultimately a more stable economy. Two questions of concern to many stakeholders in communities near major DOE sites are: 1. How
has DOE presence affected the areas surrounding the sites? What do theory,
history and likely future trends tell us about the economic health of
these DOE-site-centered regions?
Defining
background groundwater quality The Savannah River Site (SRS) was established in the 1950s as a U.S. Department of Energy installation for the production of strategically important nuclear materials. During the course of operations, hazardous and radioactive wastes in solid and liquid forms have been generated and disposed of on-site. As a result of these activities, constituents of potential concern (COPCS) have migrated into groundwater underlying the site. However, elevated concentrations of COPCs also may be a consequence of natural occurrence in geologic materials in the vadose zone or aquifer sediments, or land use practices prior to the formation of SRS. Furthermore, practical implementation of site remediation and environmental monitoring activities requires distinction of contamination that is attributable to defined localized sources in contrast to diffuse contamination that cannot be attributed to distinct natural or anthropogenic sources. The objective of the work presented in this report was to formulate approaches for defining background or baseline levels of seventeen COPCs in groundwater. View report from the Exposure Assessment Center of Expertise Defining
Background Groundwater Quality at the Savannah River Site More information on the Exposure Assessment Center of Expertise Modeling Forest Fires at or Near Nuclear and Hazardous Waste Sites of DOE CRESP research is relevant to many timely issues such as the recent fires at Los Alamos. CRESP Exposure Assessment Center reports include:
A new CRESP research report "A Coupled Forest
Fire Emission and Atmospheric Dispersion Model: Application to the Savannah
River Site (SRS)" is available in full
text. Can Science
Really Foster The Lessons of the CRESP Experience How and why science from CRESP is being used directly to impact decisions that improve regulatory response and the very structure of regulation governing DOE environmental management activity. This CRESP Program, including presentations and posters, was held at the EMSP National Workshop, Atlanta, Georgia, April 26, 2000. CRESP EFFORTS TO INFORM BETTER POLICY
This page updated 8/14/07 --- |
||||
|
Consortium
for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation II
An Organization of the Institute for Responsible Management 2000- 2006 Stakeholder
input, comments, and questions about CRESP can be sent to info@cresp.org
|
|||||
(Large file size 7.93MB)
CRESP
Answers to Questions from Stakeholders
