Science Advisory Board

Durham, R.W. Oliver, B.G. J. Great Lakes Res. 1983, P, 160-168. Thomas, R.L. Veik. Intemat. Verein. Limnol. 1981, 21, 1666-1680. Literature Review of the Effects of Persistent Toxic Substances on Great Lakes Biota Fitchko, J., Ed. Report to the Great Lakes Science Advisory Board, International Joint Commission, Windsor, Ontario, 1986, 256p. Allan, R.J. Symp. Biol. Hung. 1989, 38, 217-243. 

Concerns have been expressed about incineration on land and in the water. EPA s Science Advisory Board, in a 1984 report entitled Incineration of Hazardous Liquid Waste, stated, "The concept of destmction efficiency used by the EPA was found to be incomplete and not useful for subsequent exposure assessments." It was recommended that the emissions and... 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board. Incineration of Hazardous Liquid Waste. Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1984. 

The emphasis that the FQPA placed on the assessment of pesticide residues in drinking water, for example, led to the collection and analysis of data on the effects of drinking water treatment processes on pesticide residues. These data were presented to the FIFRA Science Advisory Board to highlight the variability in the effects of treatment on different kinds of pesticides and the products formed and the variability of treatment processes employed at different locations and at different collection time intervals at an individual location. These complexities led to the current proposal... 

Schreiber was active in educational matters during much of his life. Thus at various times he was on the School Board of his Wilmington district, the Board ot Directors of both Kalamazoo College and Wabash College, and the Michigan Commission for Educational Policies. Among other important posts, he served on the National Advisory Cancer Council and the Michigan Science Advisory Board. 

Toxicity and exposure studies indicate PFOA is immunosuppressive and can cause developmental problems and other adverse effects in laboratory animals, such as rodents [Lau et al (2004), Lau et al (2006)]. In 2005 the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a draft risk assessment of its potential human health effects [U S. EPA (2005)]. A subsequent review by the EPA science advisory board concluded that there is sufficient evidence to classify PFOA as likely human carcinogenic. 

US EPA (2005) Draft Risk Assessment of the Potential Human Health Effects Associated With Exposure to Perfluorooctanoic Acid and Its Salts. EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB)... 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board,... 

Product Safety Science Advisory Board Diseases Radiation Protection Drugs HPB Transition Policy, Planning and Coordination... 

William Randall Seeker received his Ph.D. in engineering (nuclear and chemical) from Kansas State University. He is the senior vice president and a member of the board of directors of Energy and Environmental Research Corporation. Dr. Seeker has extensive experience in the use of thermal treatment technologies and environmental control systems for managing hazardous waste. He is a member of the Executive Committee of the Environmental Protection Agency s Science Advisory Board. Dr. Seeker has authored over 100 technical papers on various aspects of technology and environment subjects. 

In the early 1980 s, Gough directed OTA s congressionally mandated oversight of Executive Branch studies of cancer in veterans of atom bomb tests and of the health of Vietnam veterans. He chaired a Department of Veterans Affairs advisory committee (1987-90) about the possible health effects of herbicides used in Vietnam and the Department of Health and Human Services committee (1990-95) that advises the United States Air Force study of the health of Air Force personnel who sprayed Agent Orange in Vietnam. In September 2000, he accepted reappointment to the DHHS committee. In 1995, he served on the Environmental Protection Agency s Science Advisory Board committee that evaluated EPA s dioxin reassessment. 

Some 3 billion have been spent on researching possible health effects from dioxin, and the results show that the risks were overstated. Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency s Science Advisory Board concluded that the evidence that dioxin is a cause of human cancer and other diseases is unconvincing.3 Furthermore, studies of workers exposed to the highest levels of dioxin ever experienced—levels that will never be seen again— have failed to produce any conclusive evidence of connections between dioxin and cancer4 and the other health effects.5... 

Such an approach to solving environmental pollution problems is also one of the recommendations of a recent report by the EPA s Science Advisory Board,... 

The SDWA states that the USEPA must decide whether or not to regulate at least five different contaminants every 5 years, and that every 5 years they must publish a list of chemicals from which these contaminants are to be selected. This list is known as the Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List and is subject to public review and comment (Pontius, 1998). To validate the analysis of the USEPA, the SDWA requires that they consult with the Science Advisory Board. Even though the USEPA must first select chemicals to review that pose the greatest threat to health, the SDWA allows the regulation of a chemical without scientific proof of danger should there be a valid health threat. However, every analysis must consider a benefit/cost study before regulation of a contaminant occurs. 

The Issues discussed above were referred to the Science Advisory Board of the EPA Environmental Health Advisory Committee. The Agency has received a draft response from the Science Advisory Board In which changes In the procedures used to set tolerances are recommended. The Agency Is In the process of Implementing appropriate changes. 

EPA SAB (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board). 1999. An SAB Advisory The National Human Exposure Assessment Survey (NHEXAS) Pilot Studies. EPA-SAB-IHEC-ADV-99-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board, Washington, DC. February 1999 [online]. Available http //www.epa.gov/sab/ pdf/ihea9904.pdf [accessed Nov. 23, 2005]. 

EPA (1992a). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Commentary on harmonizing chemical and radiation risk-reduction strategies, Letter report prepared by Science Advisory Board s Radiation Advisory Committee, EPA-SAB-RAC-COM-92-007 (May 18) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington). 

EPA. 1988a. Review of the barium health criteria document. Metals Subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board s Environmental Health Committee. Washington, DC US Environmental Protection Agency. 

NCTR s Science Advisory Board. As a result, four EMS members served on a committee that produced the first NCTR task force report on mutagenesis protocols.27... 

Voldner, E. C., Smith, L., et al (1986) Production, usage and atmospheric emissions of 15 priority toxic chemicals. W.Q.B. Great Lakes Science Advisory Board, International Air Quality Advisory Board, International Joint Commission. 

Panel Member of President s Science Advisory Board on Atmospheric Sciences. 

There are three principal ways for a chemical to be added to the Proposition 65 list. A chemical can be listed if either of two independent committees of scientists and health professionals finds that the chemical has been clearly shown to cause cancer or birth defects or other reproductive harm. These two committees are the Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC) and the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant (DART) Identification Committee, and both are part of OEHHA s Science Advisory Board. The committee members are appointed by the Governor and are designated as the State s Qualified Experts for evaluating chemicals under Proposition 65. When determining whether a chemical should be placed on the list, the committees base their decisions on the most current scientific information available. OEH-HA staff scientists compile all relevant scientific evidence on various chemicals for the committees to review. The committees also consider comments from the public before making their decisions. 

USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (1990) Reducing Risk Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection, Science Advisory Board SAB-EC-90-021. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 

Paquin, P.R., DiToro, D.M., Santore, R.C., Trivedi, D. and Wu, K.B. (1999) A Biotic Ligand Model of the acute toxicity of metals. III. Application to fish and Daphnia exposure to sediments. In Integrated Approach to Assessing the Bioavailability and Toxicity of Metals in Surface Waters and Sediments, Section 3 pp. 3-59-3-102. USEPA Science Advisory Board, Office of Water, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. 

Advisory Committee in 1978-1982, and was a member of the EPA Science Advisory Board Executive Committee during this period. He was chair of the National Research Council (NRC) Panel on Abatement of Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources, and chair of the NRC Subcommittee on Photochemical Oxidants and Ozone. In addition, he spent time at other Universities for example, he was a Fulbright Scholar in 1960 and a Guggenheim Fellow in 1969, both at the University of Paris. 

National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity Center for Biosecurity Australia Group (AG)... 

The new guidelines were reviewed by the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) in 1997. The guidelines were made available for public comment in 2001 and then were reviewed again by the SAB in 2003. 

A few court decisions, however, have been more skeptical of the linear model. Eor example, the U.S. EPA s use of the linear, no-threshold model in its risk assessment for drinking water chlorinated byproducts was rejected by the court because it was contrary to evidence suggesting a nonlinear model that had been accepted by both the U.S. EPA and its Science Advisory Board (CCC 2000). On the other hand, the U.S. OSHA s departure from the linear, no-threshold model in its formaldehyde risk assessment was likewise rejected by the court (lU 1989). The court held that the U.S. OSHAhad improperly used the maximum likelihood estimate (MLE) rather than the upper confidence limit (UCL) to calculate risk, and the UCL but not the MLE model was consistent with a linear dose-response assumption. The court held that the U.S. OSHA had failed to justify its departure from its traditional linear, no-threshold dose-response assumption. 

EPA (2007). Advisory on EPA s assessments of carcinogenic effects of organic and inorganic arsenic A report of the US EPA Science Advisory Board, EPA-SAB-07-008, 1-88. 

---