Setting Priorities for Drinking Water Contaminants (1999) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Pages 1-8
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 1... ...
Further, waterborne disease has not been entirely eliminated in the United States, as was evident in the major cryptosporidiosis outbreak that affected some 400,000 Milwaukee residents in 1993. The continuing presence of contaminants in water supplies and occurrences of waterborne disease serve as reminders that the system for regulating drinking water in the United States needs to be reassessed periodically.
|
From page 2... ...
The committee consists of 14 volunteer experts in water treatment engineering, water chemistry, analytical chemistry, microbiology, toxicology, public health, epidemiology, risk assessment, and risk communication. This report's findings are based on a review of relevant technical literature, information gathered at two committee meetings, and the expertise of committee members.
|
From page 3... ...
Drinking water contaminants Drinking water contaminants Drinking water contaminants All potential environmental contaminants All potential environmental contaminants All potential environmental contaminants Hazardous waste sites Hazardous materials Sediment contaminants EPA Office of Pesticide Programs Pesticides aAgency, industry, or act responsible for the development of the ranking scheme.
|
From page 4... ...
that they are of limited use in making more than preliminary risk management decisions about drinking water contaminants. While the ranking schemes the committee evaluated presumably are useful for their intended purposes and may provide a quantitative means for screening and sorting large numbers of contaminants, their accuracy is not sufficient for prioritizing a relatively small number of contaminants, many of which may pose similar degrees of risk for drinking water.
|
From page 5... ...
· After completion of the three-part assessment, EPA should conduct a preliminary risk assessment based on available data identified in the three-part assessment. The risk assessment, which integrates hazard and exposure analyses to estimate the public health implications of the contaminant, should be carried out even if there are data gaps; this will provide a basis for an initial decision about the disposition of the contaminant and guide research efforts, where needed.
|
From page 6... ...
6 :: : ;~ ~ ~ ~\ ~ ;: :< ~ Act: : ~ ~ : ~::~:~ : ~ ~ ~ ;~ : : ~ ::': f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~y~W 4~ ~ ~( ::: i:: :~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I: ~ ~ ~ Hi: i: : i~: ~ i~ ~ :: i: :: ~ ~: :~::~ ~ ~ ~ T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~!
|
From page 7... ...
. When the three-part assessment or preliminary risk assessment identifies important information gaps, EPA should develop a research and monitoring plan to fill such gaps in time to serve as the basis for a revised assessment and decision document before the end of the three-and-a-half-year cycle required by Congress for evaluating contaminants on the CCL.
|
From page 8... ...
In making these decisions, EPA should use common sense as a guide and should err on the side of public health protection.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.