CRESP III Strategic Analysis

The CRESP III Strategic Analysis activity provides multi-disciplinary assessment of strategic nuclear waste management issues and initiatives carried out by CRESP senior researchers, typically working together and in concert with established national and international leaders to identify information gaps and evaluate alternative pathways to progress.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CRESP III Review Activities

The CRESP III review activities provide several types of independent multi-disciplinary peer-review of key CRESP, DOE and other projects and reports related to nuclear waste that are to serve as prototypes or the foundation for major nuclear waste decisions such as specific restoration options, performance assessments, environmental impact statements, etc.

CRESP will provide three different types of review capabilities or functions:

A. Informal Review

The Informal review function is conducted by CRESP researchers (possibly augmented by additional experts and informed stakeholders to fill in gaps) in the early stages of a research or waste management project to help define or determine the status of the technical situation, science or problem.

B. Senior Multi-disciplinary Review Teams

CRESP reviews during project formulation and at key milestones or reports is central to effective management of highly complex projects. CRESP senior research teams will carry out multi-disciplinary reviews by assembling necessary experts independently or provide personnel to augment DOE/regulatory personnel for project evaluation at critical stages (e.g., reviewing DOE CD 0 and CD 1 project definitions) and site reviews (e.g., baseline reviews, performance assessments).

C. Peer Review Committee

The primary purpose of the CRESP Independent Peer Review Board is to ensure the scientific soundness of studies, procedures, and/or reports that are of major importance to CRESP or its stakeholders, in order that their reliability and credibility can be maximized.

Scope and Issues Addressed:
The Board is responsible for reviewing selected studies, work plans, or issues that are judged by CRESP scientists or others to be pivotal to the resolution of key questions. Such items may include, but are not limited to, research plans, study protocols, investigative procedures, project reports, risk assessments, risk management strategies, and programmatic research needs, accomplishments, and/or opportunities. Individual CRESP research products are generally published in the peer reviewed literature and are not, therefore, routinely reviewed by the Committee. But there are frequent exceptions. CRESP work is often completed first in reports that are developed to respond to concerns that are controversial and/or are great significance to the Department and or its stakeholders – and can be expected to shape decisions before the work is reviewed and published in the peer reviewed literature. This has occurred one or several times per year – as with the CRESP epidemiology work at SRS, the Amchitka Independent Science Plan and then the report of the Amchitka results, its Addendum and the Amchitka biomonitoring report, the CRESP review of the SRS Integrated Priority List (all discussed earlier in this proposal). In these cases, the review committee chairman creates a review panel of appropriate experts and their review typically precedes distribution of the CRESP report or publication of it on the CRESP website and the authors of the CRESP Report typically revise their report to address the peer review criticisms and comments.

Items for review by the Independent Peer Review Board may be referred to it by the CRESP Management Board based on either the Management Board’s initiative or based on requests from CRESP investigators, the Department of Energy, or other concerned individuals or organizations. The funds to support the Independent Peer Review Board’s efforts are derived entirely from CRESP’s operating budget.

Issues to be considered by the Board in evaluating a given body of work, study plan, or process include: 1) the appropriateness of its methodology; 2) the effectiveness with which the methods are applied; 3) the completeness with which any observed results are documented; 4) the extent to which the results support conclusions that are presented; 5) the clarity and completeness with which the work or process is described; 6) the adequacy of measures for quality assurance; 7) the extent to which the work advances existing knowledge; 8) any health, environmental, and/or policy implications the item may have; 9) any research needs or research opportunities it may identify; and 10) its significance to DOE’s mission and to stakeholders.

Form and Distribution of Peer Review Reports:
Each report produced by the Board is written in language intended to be intelligible to a broad readership, so as to be credible and meaningful to stakeholders of varying backgrounds, as well as to scientists and decision-makers. Copies of reports are distributed by the Chair to the CRESP Management Board, the Department of Energy, those whose work has been evaluated, and to others who may be interested. The reports are also listed and accessible through the internet via the CRESP web site.

CRESP III Education Activities

The educational function of CRESP will (i) provide a multi-disciplinary foundation for the next generation of professionals in nuclear waste management through graduate and post-graduate training, (ii) develop materials and carry out workshops to facilitate improved dialogue with stakeholders and communications with the media, and (iii) introduce nuclear waste management and professional challenges and opportunities to undergraduates through summer internships. Specific components of CRESP education activities are to:

• Educate and train graduate and post-graduate students in the multi-disciplinary skills necessary to prepare the next generation of professionals to meet the challenges of nuclear waste management, including health physics, environmental systems (science and engineering), risk analysis, risk communication, and law and public policy.

• Develop educational materials, workshops and communication tools for targeted stakeholder audiences.

• Support international exchange of technical and policy researchers for the United States to benefit from the experience of other countries in nuclear waste management. This exchange is envisioned to be carried out in conjunction with specific research projects and workshops.