Record Display for the EPA National Library Catalog
RECORD NUMBER: 29 OF 82Main Title | Arsenic Rule Benefits Analysis : an SAB Review. | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CORP Author | Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Science Advisory Board. | ||||||||||||||||
Publisher | [United States Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board], | ||||||||||||||||
Year Published | 2001 | ||||||||||||||||
Report Number | EPA-SAB-EC-01-008 | ||||||||||||||||
Stock Number | PB2005-100225 | ||||||||||||||||
OCLC Number | 1291704492 | ||||||||||||||||
Subjects | Arsenic--Carcinogenicity--Research ; Arsenic--Standards--United States ; Arsenic--Toxicology ; Environmental risk assessment--Government policy--United States | ||||||||||||||||
Additional Subjects | United States--Environmental Protection Agency ; Drinking water ; Arsenic ; Rule benefits analysis ; Science Advisory Board ; Arsenic Rule Benefits ; Review Panel (ARBRP) ; Charge questions | ||||||||||||||||
Internet Access |
|
||||||||||||||||
Holdings |
|
||||||||||||||||
Collation | 1 volume (various pagings) ; 28 cm | ||||||||||||||||
Abstract | On July 19 and 20, 2001 the Arsenic Rule Benefits Review Panel (ARBRP) of the US EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) met to review the EPA report Arsenic in Drinking Water Rule Economic Analysis (EPA 815-R-00-026). As part of the review process, the Panel responded to five charge questions: Charge Question 1: How should latency be addressed in the benefits estimates when existing literature does not provide specific quantitative estimates of latency periods associated with exposure to arsenic in drinking water. Charge Question 2: How should health endpoints (other than bladder and lung cancer) be addressed in the analysis, when (existing) literature does not provide specific quantification, to ensure appropriate consideration by decision makers and the public. Charge Question 3: Should reduction/elimination of exposure be evaluated as a separate benefits category, in addition to or in conjunction with mortality and morbidity reduction. Charge Question 4: How should total benefits and costs and incremental benefits and costs be addressed in analyzing regulatory alternatives to ensure appropriate consideration by decision makers and the public. Charge Question 5: How should uncertainties be addressed in the analysis to ensure appropriate consideration by decision makers and the public. Detailed answers to these questions are found in the body of the report. |
||||||||||||||||
Notes | Includes bibliographical references. Cover title. "EPA-SAB-EC-01-008." "August 2001." "A review by the Arsenic Rule Benefits Review Panel (ARBRP) of the US EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB)." |
||||||||||||||||
Contents Notes | On July 19 and 20, 2001 the Arsenic Rule Benefits Review Panel (ARBRP) of the US EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) met to review the EPA report Arsenic in Drinking Water Rule Economic Analysis (EPA 815-R-00-026). As part of the review process, the Panel responded to five charge questions: Charge Question 1: How should latency be addressed in the benefits estimates when existing literature does not provide specific quantitative estimates of latency periods associated with exposure to Arsenic in drinking water. Charge Question 2: How should health endpoints (other than bladder and lung cancer) be addressed in the analysis, when (existing) literature does not provide specific quantification, to ensure appropriate consideration by decision makers and the public. Charge Question 3: Should reduction/elimination of exposure be evaluated as a separate benefits category, in addition to or in conjunction with mortality and morbidity reduction. Charge Question 4: How should total benefits and costs and incremental benefits and costs be addressed in analyzing regulatory alternatives to ensure appropriate consideration by decision makers and the public. Charge Question 5: How should uncertainties be addressed in the analysis to ensure appropriate consideration by decision makers and the public. Detailed answers to these questions are found in the body of the report. |