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.

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)."

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.