skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Report of the external expert peer review panel: DOE benefits forecasts

Abstract

A report for the FY 2007 GPRA methodology review, highlighting the views of an external expert peer review panel on DOE benefits forecasts.

Authors:
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
EERE Publication and Product Library, Washington, D.C. (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE)
OSTI Identifier:
1216676
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
FY; GPRA; methodology

Citation Formats

None, None. Report of the external expert peer review panel: DOE benefits forecasts. United States: N. p., 2006. Web. doi:10.2172/1216676.
None, None. Report of the external expert peer review panel: DOE benefits forecasts. United States. doi:10.2172/1216676.
None, None. Wed . "Report of the external expert peer review panel: DOE benefits forecasts". United States. doi:10.2172/1216676. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1216676.
@article{osti_1216676,
title = {Report of the external expert peer review panel: DOE benefits forecasts},
author = {None, None},
abstractNote = {A report for the FY 2007 GPRA methodology review, highlighting the views of an external expert peer review panel on DOE benefits forecasts.},
doi = {10.2172/1216676},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {Wed Dec 20 00:00:00 EST 2006},
month = {Wed Dec 20 00:00:00 EST 2006}
}

Technical Report:

Save / Share:
  • Background information for the FY 2007 GPRA methodology review on guidelines for expert reviewers.
  • A presentation for the FY 2007 GPRA methodology review from the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.
  • The need for better assessments of the ``external`` benefits and costs of environmental effects of various fuel cycles was identified during the development of the National Energy Strategy. The growing importance of this issue was emphasized by US Department of Energy (DOE) management because over half of the states were already pursuing some form of social costing in electricity regulation and a well-established technical basis for such decisions was lacking. This issue was identified as a major area of controversy--both scientifically and politically--in developing energy policies at the state and national level. In 1989, the DOE`s Office of Domestic andmore » International Energy Policy commissioned a study of the external environmental damages and benefits of the major fuel cycles involved in electric power generation. Over the next 3-year period, Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Resources for the Future conducted the study and produced a series of documents (fuel cycle documents) evaluating the costs of environmental damages of the coal, oil, natural gas, biomass, hydroelectric, and nuclear fuel cycles, as well as the Background Document on methodological issues. These documents described work that took almost 3 years and $2.5 million to complete and whose implications could be far reaching. In 1992, the Secretary of Energy sought advice on the overall concepts underlying the studies and the means employed to estimate environmental externalities. He asked the Secretary of Energy`s Advisory Board to undertake a peer review of the fuel cycle studies and encouraged the Board to turn to outside expertise, as needed.« less
  • This document represents the comprehensive review by experts of the documents describing the models, computer programs, and data bases making up the Computerized Radiological Risk Investigation System (CRRIS). The CRRIS methodology has been produced for the US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Radiation Programs (ORP) by the Health and Safety Research Division of Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to assess the significance of releases of radioactive material from facilities handling such materials. The comments covered a wide range of aspects of the CRRIS models. Special review topics covered were uncertainty, validation, verification, and health effects. The reports making upmore » the CRRIS documentation were reviewed in detail. The following are some of the more frequent comments about the methodology. This is a very comprehensive work, but too complex and hard to use. Too little explanation of some of the assumptions taken such as variance from standard ICRP organ weighting factors. Overly complex model for soil to root transfer and interception fraction. Gaussian plume model was used, when more state-of-art models are available. 35 refs.« less
  • A Peer Review Panel was convened on September 15-17, 1992 in Boulder, Co. The members of this panel included representatives from DOE, EPA, and DOE contractors along with invited experts in the fields of air pollution control and waste incineration. The primary purpose of this review panel was to make a technical determination of a hold, test and release off gas capture system should be implemented in the proposed RF Pland mixed waste incineration system; or if a state of the art continuous air pollution control and monitoring system should be utilized as the sole off-gas control system. All ofmore » the evaluations by the panel were based upon the use of the fluidized bed unit proposed by Rocky Flats and cannot be generalized to other systems.« less