Linkedin Facebook X-twitter Youtube Pinterest Envelope Viber
PEER Review
Engaging outside experts to review risk assessments and methods can help insure high quality and scientifically-defensible work products and results. Government agencies, NGOs and industry recognize the value added by expert peer review and TERA is a world leader in providing independent expert review for all types of risk assessment documents and activities. TERA provides a variety of opportunities and services to engage expert peers, including in-person panel meetings, webcasts and webinars; letter reviews; workshops to develop risk values or methods; and in-house technical reviews.
Button Text

Checkout These Two PEER Review Samples

Independent Workshop on Ozone NAAQS
Science and Policy (Cliick Here)

Independent Workshop on Ozone NAAQS Science and Policy

What:    Independent Workshop on Ozone NAAQS Science and Policy
When:   April 7-9, 2015
Where: The University of Texas at Austin

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) held an Independent Workshop on Ozone NAAQS Science and Policy April 7-9, 2015. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to lower the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone from the current level of 75 ppb to a level within a range from 65 to 70 ppb. This public workshop was designed to provide an independent evaluation and synthesis of key considerations for approaching the difficult ozone NAAQS decision. A diverse group of well known and respected science and policy experts engaged in robust discussions on key issues, so that TCEQ and others could gain a better understanding of the issues and implications.

Workshop Quicklinks

Pre-Workshop Materials – please review these materials prior to the workshop

For more information, contact:

Policy Panel
Dr. Donald R. Arbuckle, Clinical Professor of Public Administration, University of Texas at Dallas
Charles H. Knauss, Partner and Co-Head, Environment and Workplace Safety Practice, KattenMuchinRosenman LLP
Thomas A. Lorenzen, Partner, Dorsey & Whitney LLP
Dr. Paul R. Portney, President Emeritus, Resources for the Future; Dean Emeritus, Eller College of Management, University of Arizona
Dr. Chris G. Whipple, (Panel Facilitator), Principal, ENVIRON International Corporation

Science Panel
Dr. Michael L. Dourson (Panel Facilitator), President, Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment
Dr. Julie E. Goodman, Principal, Gradient
Dr. Sabine Lange, Toxicologist, Toxicology Division, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Dr. George Maldonado, Associate Professor, University of Minnesota, School of Public Health
Dr. Robert Phalen, Director of the Air Pollution Health Effects Laboratory, University of
California, Irvine
Dr. P. Barry Ryan, Professor, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University
Dr. Sonja Sax, Senior Environmental Scientist, Gradient
Dr. Mark J. Utell, Professor of Medicine and Environmental Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, School of Medicine and Dentistry

Speakers
Scott J. Bloomberg, Vice President, National Economic Research Associates (NERA)
Dr. Roger O. McClellan, Advisor, Toxicology and Human Health Risk Analysis
Dr. Daniel L. Millimet, Professor, Department of Economics, Southern Methodist University
Dr. John F. Morrall III, Affiliated Senior Scholar, The Mercatus Center at George Mason University
Henry V. Nickel, Special Counsel, Hunton & Williams LLP
Seyed Sadredin, Executive Director, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
Dr. Anne E. Smith, Senior Vice President, NERA
Dr. Tim Verslycke, Principal, Gradient

West Virginia Spill Peer Review - WV TAP Peer Review
of the MCHM Screening Level (Click Here)

WV TAP Expert Panel Review of the
West Virginia Screening Level

TERA selected and convened a panel of five experts to review and discuss the available toxicology data and the scientific support for the West Virginia Screening Level established at 10 parts per billion (ppb).  The panel discussed the initial starting value of 1 part per million (1,000 ppb) established by the US CDC and then considered if the additional safety factor applied by the State of West Virginia was protective of public health, based on available data.  The panel identified data gaps and made recommendations for additional studies or analyses that could strengthen the screening level and reduce uncertainty.


The panel utilized the scientific review document authored by Utah State University Professor Craig Adams. The document can be found on the WV TAP website and is entitled Health Effects for Chemicals in 2014 West Virginia Chemical Release: Crude MCHM Compounds, PPH and DiPPH. Version 1.5. The document provides a literature review summarizing toxicity information on the chemicals that were spilled into the Elk River in West Virginia in January 2014 from the Freedom Industries facility.

Meeting Report

Peer Review & Consultation General Information

Involvement of expert peers in the development and review of risk assessment documents and methodologies has expanded in recent years with government agencies and others seeking the benefits of having experts review work products before finalization. TERA has spent the last 10 years developing and refining procedures for involving experts in the development and review of risk assessment documents and methods. Through a variety of peer involvement tools, including peer input, peer consultation and peer review, TERA assists sponsors and authors in developing high quality results that are based on the best science. By engaging a broad range of experts from various backgrounds and perspectives, the assessment, method, protocol or document is strengthened through the identification of additional data and approaches, testing of assumptions, discussion of uncertainties, and shortcomings in logic or scientific rationales. Risk assessment is a multi-disciplined and complex process; no single person or organization has all the definitive answers for every situation. In many cases, involving others can strengthen the end result.

As a non-profit organization, TERA provides a variety of opportunities and services to engage expert peers in the development and improvement of risk assessment methods and documents. TERA’s work organizing peer input, peer consultation, and peer review is intended to meet the needs of public and private sponsors who have developed risk assessment documentation. Work products have included chemical assessments, hazard evaluations, site assessments, risk methodologies and guidance documents, protocols for studies, and research plans.

TERA works with each sponsor to design a peer involvement strategy that is most effective for the type of work product and stage of development. Options include peer input, peer consultation and peer review. We can plan open public meetings, letter reviews by mail, workshops, or other means of involving experts. We can engage external experts or utilize TERA scientists’ extensive experience in risk assessment, to provide the sponsor with the type of input that would be most helpful. Because the ultimate purpose of peer involvement is to help the authors and sponsors make sure their documents reflect the best science and analysis, we do not conduct the reviews in a vacuum. For most panel meetings, authors present their work and answer panel experts’ questions so that the experts may understand what the authors did and the authors may understand the experts comments and recommendations.

Our peer involvement efforts follow the principles that are the cornerstone of our program – scientific robustness, selection of appropriate expertise, and transparency. A fourth principle, independence, is key for all peer reviews and important for many peer input and consultation efforts. TERA conducts its scientific peer reviews in accordance with U.S. EPA peer review procedures (as described in EPA 2006). In addition, TERA has developed its peer review and consultation program following principles highlighted by the American Industrial Health Council’s 1995 report Fundamental Scientific Peer Review Principals and utilizing approaches used by the National Academy of Sciences and EPA’s Science Advisory Board. Peer input and peer consultations utilize the peer review guidance as appropriate.

rmation on the Independent Peer Review and Consultation Program, click on the links on the side bar or contact Dr. Bernard Gadagbui

Corporate Info

Resources

Our Brands

  • ITER ITER

Contacts

  • 1250 Ohio Pike, Suite 197, Cincinnati Ohio 45102
  • 513.488.1990
  • TERA@TERA.ORG

You will be redirected to a secure payment portal

Linkedin Facebook X-twitter Youtube Pinterest

WEEL OEL

Occupational Exposure Limits (OELs) are designed to safeguard the health of healthy workers during their careers. These limits are based on the assumption of repeated daily exposure throughout a working lifetime, typically averaged over an 8-hour workday. Their purpose is to prevent both immediate (acute) and long-term (chronic) health issues arising from workplace exposures. It’s important to note that OELs are not intended for the general public, which includes vulnerable groups like infants, the elderly, and those with pre-existing health conditions.

Workplace Environmental Exposure Levels (WEELs) are health-based guidelines for chemical hazards in the workplace. These values represent air concentrations believed to protect the majority of workers from negative health effects resulting from occupational chemical exposure.

The WEEL Process
Click Here

The development of new or revision of existing WEELs is typically assigned to voluntarily designated subcommittees. A subcommittee usually comprises 3 – 4 members from the WEEL Committee. New WEELs are developed using the OARS-WEEL administrative standard operating procedure (SOP), while existing WEELs are usually revised every 10 years, unless the availability of significant new data which may impact the existing WEEL value compels the committee to make a revision sooner. The OARS-WEEL SOP contains procedures and guidelines governing conflicts of interest, draft document preparation, literature searches, draft document review, balloting process, post-ballot WEEL documentation quality assurance scientific review, and publication.

Once a subcommittee has prepared a draft WEEL document, a review of the draft is scheduled for the next available Committee meeting. The WEEL Committee members are expected to have reviewed all such drafts prior to the meeting. If no major changes are necessary to a draft, the attending Committee membership may, by a simple majority, approve the WEEL for balloting. Alternatively, the Committee may direct the subcommittee to revise the WEEL and present it for further discussion at a future meeting. If a ballot is not approved by a two-thirds majority of non-abstaining Committee members, it is discussed at the next Committee meeting to determine the appropriate course of action. Once the WEEL is approved by a two-thirds majority of non-abstaining Committee members, copies of ballot comments are forwarded to the designated subcommittee and all substantive comments must be addressed in the final draft. If resolution of a substantive comment results in a change to the WEEL value or a change in the basis for the value, the draft must be re-balloted.

Once all comments have been addressed on a successfully balloted draft, document formatting and editorial review are performed by TERA, before the draft WEEL document is made available for public comment (usually for a period of 30 days but may be extended if the need arises). After the public comment period has elapsed, comments are addressed by the subcommittee responsible for that specific draft, after which the WEEL documentation is submitted to Toxicology and Industrial Health (TIH), a peer-reviewed medical journal that covers research in the fields of occupational health and toxicology, for publication. A thorough review of the galley proof by the scientific content quality coordinator at TERA, and proofreaders and editors at TIH is the penultimate step before eventual publication of the WEEL documentation.

The WEEL Committee

The OARS-WEEL Committee is composed of volunteer experts specializing in the scientific determination of occupational exposure levels. This committee actively seeks a balanced representation of professionals from toxicology and industrial hygiene, drawing upon a diverse range of experience from industry, government, academia, and consulting. Importantly, each member contributes to the Committee based on their individual expertise and not as an official representative of their respective employer, organization, or agency.