Record Display for the EPA National Library Catalog

RECORD NUMBER: 329 OF 4336

OLS Field Name OLS Field Data
Main Title Arsenic rule benefits analysis an SAB review. [electronic resource]:
CORP Author Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Science Advisory Board.
Publisher United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of the Administrator, Science Advisory Board,
Year Published 2001
Report Number EPA-SAB-EC-01-008
Stock Number PB2005-100225
OCLC Number 759572891
Subjects Research. ; Arsenic. ; Carcinogens. ; Cost effectiveness.
Additional Subjects Drinking water ; Arsenic ; Rule benefits analysis ; Science Advisory Board ; Arsenic Rule Benefits ; Review Panel (ARBRP) ; Environmental Protection Agency ; Charge questions
Internet Access
Description Access URL
http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/989B816EBE16500A8525718D00610379/$File/ec01008.pdf
http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1004JZG.PDF
Holdings
Library Call Number Additional Info Location Last
Modified
Checkout
Status
NTIS  PB2005-100225 Most EPA libraries have a fiche copy filed under the call number shown. Check with individual libraries about paper copy. NTIS 05/03/2005
Collation 1 online resource (68 p.) : ill., charts ; digital, PDF file.
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
Title from title screen (viewed on 11/4/11)