• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Air quality, atmosphere & health >Role of science and judgment in setting national ambient air quality standards: how low is low enough?
【24h】

Role of science and judgment in setting national ambient air quality standards: how low is low enough?

机译：科学和判断在制定国家环境空气质量标准中的作用：足够低足够低？

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires listing as criteria air pollutants those pollutants that arise from multiple sources and are found across the United States. The original list included carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, particulate matter, photochemical oxidants (later regulated as ozone), and hydrocarbons. Later, the listing of hydrocarbons was revoked and lead was listed. The CAA requires the EPA Administrator to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for these pollutants using the “latest scientific knowledge” at levels that, in the judgment of the Administrator, are “requisite to protect public health” while “allowing an adequate margin of safety” without considering the cost of implementing the NAAQS. The NAAQS are set using scientific knowledge to inform the Administrator’s policy judgments on each NAAQS. Recently, there has been increasing tension and debate over the role of scientific knowledge versus policy judgment in the setting of NAAQS. This paper reviews key elements of this debate drawing on the opinion of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, in Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, to resolve the conundrum posed by the CAA language. I conclude that scientists should carefully distinguish between their interpretations of scientific knowledge on specific pollutants and their personal preferences as to a given policy outcome (i.e., specific level and form of the NAAQS), recognizing that these are policy judgments as to acceptable levels of risk if the science does not identify a threshold level below which there are no identifiable health risks. These policy judgments are exclusively delegated by the CAA to the EPA Administrator who needs to articulate the basis for their policy judgments on the level and form of the NAAQS and associated level of acceptable risk.
机译：清洁空气法案（CAA）要求将在美国范围内发现的多种来源的污染物列为标准的空气污染物。原始清单包括一氧化碳，氮氧化物，硫氧化物，颗粒物，光化学氧化剂（后称为臭氧）和碳氢化合物。后来，碳氢化合物的清单被撤销，铅被列出。 CAA要求EPA管理者使用“最新科学知识”为这些污染物制定国家环境空气质量标准（NAAQS），其水平由管理者认为是“保护公众健康的必要条件”，同时“允许适当的使用量”。安全裕度”，而无需考虑实施NAAQS的成本。使用科学知识来设置NAAQS，以告知管理者对每个NAAQS的政策判断。近来，在NAAQS设置中，关于科学知识与政策判断的作用的紧张和争论不断加剧。本文根据最高法院大法官斯蒂芬·布雷耶（Stephen Breyer）在Whitman诉美国卡车运输协会的意见中回顾了这场辩论的主要内容，以解决CAA语言所带来的难题。我得出的结论是，科学家应该仔细区分他们对特定污染物的科学知识的解释和他们对给定政策结果的偏好（即，NAAQS的特定水平和形式），并认识到这些是对可接受风险水平的政策判断如果科学没有确定阈值水平，低于该阈值水平则没有可识别的健康风险。 CAA仅将这些政策判断委派给EPA管理员，而EPA管理员需要就NAAQS的级别和形式以及可接受风险的相关级别阐明其政策判断的依据。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号