Revising the National Ambient Air Quality Standards: The integration of science and policy

Under the Clean Air Act, Congress granted discretionary decision making authority to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This discretionary authority involves setting standards to protect the public's health with an "adequate margin of safety" based on current scientific knowledge. The Administrator of the EPA is usually not a scientist, and for the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM), the Administrator faced the task of revising a standard when several scientific factors were ambiguous. These factors included: (1) no identifiable threshold below which health effects are not manifested, (2) no biological basis to explain the reported associations between particulate matter and adverse health effects, and (3) no consensus among the members of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) as to what an appropriate PM indicator, averaging period, or value would be for the revised standard. ^ This project recommends and demonstrates a tool, integrated assessment (IA), to aid the Administrator in making a public health policy decision in the face of ambiguous scientific factors. IA is an interdisciplinary approach to decision making that has been used to deal with complex issues involving many uncertainties, particularly climate change analyses. Two IA approaches are presented; a rough set analysis by which the expertise of CASAC members can be better utilized, and a flag model for incorporating the views of stakeholders into the standard setting process. ^ The rough set analysis can describe minimal and maximal conditions about the current science pertaining to PM and health effects. Similarly, a flag model can evaluate agreement or lack of agreement by various stakeholder groups to the proposed standard in the PM review process. ^ The use of these IA tools will enable the Administrator to (1) complete the NAAQS review in a manner that is in closer compliance with the Clean Air Act, (2) expand the input from CASAC, (3) take into consideration the views of the stakeholders, and (4) retain discretionary decision making authority. ^

Environmental sustainability and the human element: Decision making in National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers and Practice Greenhealth subscribing institutions

Background. Various aspects of sustainability have taken root in the hospital environment; however, decisions to pursue sustainable practices within the framework of a master plan are not fully developed in National Cancer Institute (NCI) -designated cancer centers and subscribing institutions to the Practice Greenhealth (PGH) listserv.^ Methods. This cross sectional study was designed to identify the organizational characteristics each study group pursed to implement sustainability practices, describe the barriers they encountered and reasons behind their choices for undertaking certain sustainability practices. A web-based questionnaire was pilot tested, and then sent out to 64 NCI-designated cancer centers and 1638 subscribing institutions to the PGH listserv.^ Results. Complete responses were received from 39 NCI-designated cancer centers and 58 subscribing institutions to the PGH listserv. NCI-designated cancer centers reported greater progress in integrating sustainability criteria into design and construction projects than hospitals of institutions subscribing to the PHG listserv (p-value = <0.05). Statistically significant differences were also identified between these two study groups in undertaking work life options, conducting energy usage assessments, developing energy conservation and optimization plans, implementing solid waste and hazardous waste minimization programs, using energy efficient vehicles and reporting sustainability progress to external stakeholders. NCI-designated cancer centers were further along in implementing these programs (p-value = <0.05). In comparing the self-identified NCI-designated cancer centers to centers that indicated they were both and NCI and PGH, the later had made greater progress in using their collective buying power to pursue sustainable purchasing practices within the medical community (p-value = <0.05). In both study groups, recycling programs were well developed.^ Conclusions. Employee involvement was viewed as the most important reason for both study groups to pursue recycling initiatives and incorporated environmental criteria into purchasing decisions. A written sustainability commitment did not readily translate into a high percentage that had developed a sustainability master plan. Coordination of sustainability programs through a designated sustainability professional was not being undertaken by a large number of institutions within each study group. This may be due to the current economic downturn or management's attention to the emerging health care legislation being debated in congress. ^ Lifecycle assessments, an element of a carbon footprint, are seen as emerging areas of opportunity for health care institutions that can be used to evaluate the total lifecycle costs of products and services.^