Lessons from NAPAP

Abstract

NAPAP was an institutional innovation of great benefit in bringing the United States to a decision on acid precipitation control. The nation's return from the $600 000 000 investment in NAPAP will be greater still if the lessons learned in the course of its existence are put to proper use in the future. This essay concentrates on the lessons learned about the interface between science and public policy as experienced in NAPAP.

Orchestrating Environmental Research and Assessment for Remediation

“…1 we present our perspective of the ro le science should play in a risk management problem. We find this perspective generally consistent with comments ofLevin (1992), Russell ( 1992), Cowling ( 1992), and Loucks ( 1992), based on their experience with NA-PAP. There are three major factors to be considered in evaluating a cleanup scenario: ( 1) scientific and technical input, (2) regulatory constraints, and (3) politica!, economic, and social in put.…”

“…The interfaces between science, assessment, and policy have come to the forefront of national attention recently as the result of problems related to pollution and environmental remediation, habitat modification and fragmentation, and endangered and invading species. Issues at these interfaces were recently summarized for the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP) by Levin (1992) and reviewed as a case study (Cowling 1992, Loucks 1992, Russell 1992, Schindler 1992). More than halfa billion (>0.5 x 10 9 ) dollars were invested in NAPAP over more than a decade and thousands of researchers were involved.…”

“…Due to the magnitude of the program and its role at the science/policy interface, Levin ( 1992) posed the question "Is NAPAP a model for future studies?" Although opinions on the success of the program varied greatly (Cowling 1992, Loucks 1992, Russell 1992, Schindler 1992, several common lessons emerged from the papers. We thought it appropriate to ask if these lessons are being applied to another ongoing large-scale environmental program: the remediation of contaminated sites in the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear weapons complex.…”

“…One of the most fundamental lessons from NAPAP is that objectives must be clearly spelled out early in the assessment (Cowling 1992, Levin 1992, Loucks 1992, Russell 1992. Based on recent reviews of the DOE Environmental Restoration program (National Research Council 1989, ACNFS 1991, Congress of the U.S. 1991) it is our opinion that DOE could address this issue in a more effective manner.…”

The Performance and Legacy of NAPAP

“…THE LEGACY OF NAPAP In addition to contributions to science and to public decision-making, NAPAP leaves a legacy of lessons learned about the interface between science and public policy and the roles that scientists, policy analysts, decision-makers, and communicators should play in developing such policies. Some of these lessons are summarized in a report by the NAPAP Oversight ReviewBoard(ORB 1991) and in MiltonRussell's (1992) companion article (this issue). I emphasize below some additional aspects of these lessons from the standpoint of science in general and ecology in particular.…”