Technical Review Panel

FISTRP Fuze and Initiation Systems Technical Review Panel... 

Technical Review Panel Report, Evaluation and Identification of Future R D on eight Advanced Reactor Concepts, December 2012 Advanced Reactor Concepts, 2012. U.S. DOE Office of Nuclear Energy. 

U.S. DOE, United States Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy, 2014. Advanced Reactor Concepts Technical Review Panel Public Report, http //www.energy.gov/ne/ downloads/advance-reactor-concepts-technical-re view-panel-public-report. 

You should consider obtaining internal and external quality assurance reviews of the study (to ferret out errors in modeling, data, etc.). Independent peer reviews of the QRA results can be helpful by presenting alternate viewpoints, and you should include outside experts (either consultants or personnel from another plant) on the QRA review panel. You should also set up a mechanism wherein disputes between QRA team members (e.g., technical arguments about safety issues) can be voiced and reconciled. All of these factors play an essential role in producing a defendable, high-quality QRA. Once the QRA is complete, you must formally document your response to the project team s final report and any recommendations it contains. 

He was elected to the National Academy of Public Administration in 1985, and he was a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Smithsonian Institution, and a research fellow at the Wissenschaftszentrum (Sciences Center) Berlin and the Max Planck Institute for Social Research, Cologne. He has been a member of the Board on Radioactive Waste Management and panels of the Committee on Human Factors and the Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences. He served on the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, Department of Energy, and chaired its Task Eorce on Radioactive Waste Management, examining questions of institutional trustworthiness. He was a member of the National Research Council s panel on Human Eactors in Air Traffic Control Automation and the Technical Review Committee for the Nuclear Materials Technology Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory. 

This huge data file covers over 4500 potentially hazardous chemical substances. It contains information on human exposure, industrial hygiene, emergency-handling procedures, environmental fate, regulatory requirements, and related areas. All data are referenced and derived from a core set of books, government documents, technical reports and selected primary journal literature. HSDB is peer-reviewed by the Scientific Review Panel (SRP), a committee of experts in the major subject areas within the data bank s scope. (Data-Star, DIMDI, STN Easy, TOXNET available as part of TOMES PLUS by Micromedex). Household Products Database ... 

This report was prepared by members of the EPA technical panel listed below, with assistance from the staff of EPA s Risk Assessment Forum. Technical review was provided by numerous individuals, including EPA scientists and participants in the May 1991 peer review workshop. Editorial assistance was provided by R.O.W. Sciences, Inc. 

Perchlorate was first discovered as an impurity in nitrates mined from the Atacama Desert in Chile (Dafert, 1908). Chilean nitrates have been utifized commercially since 1840 (National Organic Standards Board Technical Advisory Panel Review, 2002). It has been postulated that perchlorate has accumulated in desert soils because of atmospheric deposition, where insufficient rainfall negates the transport of this salt (Ericksen, 1983). More recent reports have supported this notion, based on isotopic patterns capable of discerning naturally occurring perchlorate from industrially utilized and synthesized perchlorate (Bao and Gu, 2004). Recently, additional studies have reported the natural occurrence of perchlorate in soils, and subsequently in water (Crump et al., 2000 Orris et al, 2003 Urbansky... 

Data are derived from standard texts and monographs, government documents, technical reports, and primary journal literature. References are identified for all data sources. HSDB is fully referenced and peer reviewed by the Scientific Review Panel (SRP) - a committee of expert toxicologists and other scientists. 

The SRS PRA undergoes extensive reviews as part of its Quality Assurance process. WSRC reviews are conducted by members of its own technical staff and by the Senior Review Panel, whose members are recognized experts in PRA. These WSRC-sponsored review groups provide feedback to the PRA staff on all aspects of the PRA. 

Section 1.2 gives a brief review of conjugated polymers in semiconducting and metallic phases. Section 1.3 discusses device architectures and their corresponding processes. Section 1.4 introduces some novel devices and their functions in thin-film polymer devices. Section 1.5 is devoted to technical merits of SMOLEDs and PLEDs used as emitter elements in flat-panel displays. 

Tier 3 review An intensitve scientific and labeling review of submissions for products associated with high risk or for products with technical features requiring detailed analysis to determine safety and effectiveness. Frequently advisory panel review and recommendations would be sought as a component of this type or review. 

Each session was initiated by state-of-the-art reviews, summarizing both the theoretical and applied aspects of the subject these were followed by invited technical papers. A panel discussion among speakers/coauthors, including audience participation, concluded each session. This volume contains only the technical papers of the conference the questions and answers for the papers will be printed as a separate publication. 

US-EPA has formed the Risk Assessment Forum, a standing committee of senior US-EPA scientists, to promote US-EPA consensus on difficult and controversial risk assessment issues and to ensure that this consensus is incorporated into appropriate US-EPA risk assessment guidance. To fulhil this purpose, the Forum assembles US-EPA risk assessment experts in a formal process to study and report on issues from a US-EPA scientific perspective. Major Fomm guidance documents are developed in accordance with the US-EPA s regulatory and policy development process and become US-EPA pohcy upon approval by the Administrator or the Deputy Administrator. The Risk Assessment Forum products include risk assessment guidelines, technical panel reports on special risk assessment issues, and peer consultation and peer review workshops addressing controversial risk assessment topics. 

After assessing the technical literature, a summary document (Figure 5) of the biological effects data is prepared for review by CACPH Advisory Panel and TMAC. This review results in a recommendation to draft a Toxic Material Advisory report which contains an interim exposure limit in additional pertinent health and safety requirements. The draft Toxic Material Advisory report is then reviewed by independent consultants. These consultants attend a 1-2 day meeting to evaluate the document and the appropriateness of the interim exposure limit. The independency of the review meeting is assured by having one of CACPH Advisory Panel member chair the committee to ensure that the review process proceeds in an orderly manner. CACPH s staff participation at this meeting is only to provide overview on the information that is available for review. 

Consideration of an initial draft is carried out in a technical committee, sub-committee or panel as appropriate. This initial draft may have come from one of a number of sources, for example, being based on work carried out by one of the bodies represented on the committee. When agreement is reached the document is made available as a draft British standard (DC) for public comment. Nowadays these drafts are almost all draft international standards (DIS) rather than purely British developed documents. The comments are considered by the technical committee and the amended document passed for publication or the collated comments sent to ISO. Consensus is reached through discussion and there is no formal voting. Revision of standards is by 5 year review as for ISO. 

The Institute also established an informal criminalistics advisory board which offered considerable assistance in the review and evaluation of concept papers and proposals submitted for funding. This panel composed of six leading criminalists, researchers and educators, served as an independent source of technical expertise and practical experience in the field of criminalistics. In addition to this group, a panel of forensic scientists from several federal law enforcement agencies was formed and has met periodically to discuss important issues in the administration of research projects. 

Phase 4. This phase is concerned with the establishment of specifications for the technical product and the formulations evaluated. Draft specifications proposed by industry are reviewed by members of the WHO Expert Advisory Panel on Vector Biology and Control and WHO collaborating centres and are then issued as interim specifications. These are reviewed every five to six years by the WHO Expert Committee on Vector Biology and Control, which may... 

The expert panel discussed and debated many technical issues presented in Chapter 2 ( Health Effects ) of the toxicological profile. The following subsections review these discussions, organized by endpoint. The subsections are presented in the order that topics were considered during the expert panel... 

---