Multicriteria Decision Analysis Characterization of Chemical Hazard Assessment Data Sources

Chemical hazard assessment (CHA), which aims to investigate the inherent hazard potential of chemicals, has been developed with the purpose of promoting safer consumer products. Despite the increasing use of CHA in recent years, finding adequate and reliable toxicity data required for CHA is still challenging due to issues regarding data completeness and data quality. Also, collecting data from primary toxicity reports or literature can be time consuming, which promotes the use of secondary data sources instead. In this study, we evaluate and characterize numerous secondary data sources on the basis of 5 performance attributes: reliability, adequacy, transparency, volume, and ease of use. We use GreenScreen for Safer Chemicals v1.4 as the CHA framework, which defines the endpoints of interest used in this analysis. We focused upon 34 data sources that reflect 3 types of secondary data: chemical-oriented data sources, hazard-trait-oriented data sources, and predictive data sources. To integrate and analyze the evaluation results, we applied 2 multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) methodologies: multiattribute utility theory (MAUT) and stochastic multiobjective acceptability analysis (SMAA). Overall, the findings in this research program allow us to explore the relative importance of performance criteria and the data source quality for effectively conducting CHA. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2019;00:1-14. © 2019 SETAC.

Advancing Alternative Analysis: Integration of Decision Science

BACKGROUND

Decision analysis-a systematic approach to solving complex problems-offers tools and frameworks to support decision making that are increasingly being applied to environmental challenges. Alternatives analysis is a method used in regulation and product design to identify, compare, and evaluate the safety and viability of potential substitutes for hazardous chemicals.

OBJECTIVES

We assessed whether decision science may assist the alternatives analysis decision maker in comparing alternatives across a range of metrics.

METHODS

A workshop was convened that included representatives from government, academia, business, and civil society and included experts in toxicology, decision science, alternatives assessment, engineering, and law and policy. Participants were divided into two groups and were prompted with targeted questions. Throughout the workshop, the groups periodically came together in plenary sessions to reflect on other groups' findings.

RESULTS

We concluded that the further incorporation of decision science into alternatives analysis would advance the ability of companies and regulators to select alternatives to harmful ingredients and would also advance the science of decision analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

We advance four recommendations: a) engaging the systematic development and evaluation of decision approaches and tools; b) using case studies to advance the integration of decision analysis into alternatives analysis; c) supporting transdisciplinary research; and d) supporting education and outreach efforts. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP483.

Alternatives Assessment Frameworks: Research Needs for the Informed Substitution of Hazardous Chemicals

BACKGROUND

Given increasing pressures for hazardous chemical replacement, there is growing interest in alternatives assessment to avoid substituting a toxic chemical with another of equal or greater concern. Alternatives assessment is a process for identifying, comparing, and selecting safer alternatives to chemicals of concern (including those used in materials, processes, or technologies) on the basis of their hazards, performance, and economic viability.

OBJECTIVES

The purposes of this substantive review of alternatives assessment frameworks are to identify consistencies and differences in methods and to outline needs for research and collaboration to advance science policy practice.

METHODS

This review compares methods used in six core components of these frameworks: hazard assessment, exposure characterization, life-cycle impacts, technical feasibility evaluation, economic feasibility assessment, and decision making. Alternatives assessment frameworks published from 1990 to 2014 were included.

RESULTS

Twenty frameworks were reviewed. The frameworks were consistent in terms of general process steps, but some differences were identified in the end points addressed. Methodological gaps were identified in the exposure characterization, life-cycle assessment, and decision-analysis components. Methods for addressing data gaps remain an issue.

DISCUSSION

Greater consistency in methods and evaluation metrics is needed but with sufficient flexibility to allow the process to be adapted to different decision contexts.

CONCLUSION

Although alternatives assessment is becoming an important science policy field, there is a need for increased cross-disciplinary collaboration to refine methodologies in support of the informed substitution and design of safer chemicals, materials, and products. Case studies can provide concrete lessons to improve alternatives assessment.

Use of multi-criteria decision analysis in regulatory alternatives analysis: a case study of lead free solder

Regulators are implementing new programs that require manufacturers of products containing certain chemicals of concern to identify, evaluate, and adopt viable, safer alternatives. Such programs raise the difficult question for policymakers and regulated businesses of which alternatives are "viable" and "safer." To address that question, these programs use "alternatives analysis," an emerging methodology that integrates issues of human health and environmental effects with technical feasibility and economic impact. Despite the central role that alternatives analysis plays in these programs, the methodology itself is neither well-developed nor tailored to application in regulatory settings. This study uses the case of Pb-based bar solder and its non-Pb-based alternatives to examine the application of 2 multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods to alternatives analysis: multi-attribute utility analysis and outranking. The article develops and evaluates an alternatives analysis methodology and supporting decision-analysis software for use in a regulatory context, using weighting of the relevant decision criteria generated from a stakeholder elicitation process. The analysis produced complete rankings of the alternatives, including identification of the relative contribution to the ranking of each of the highest level decision criteria such as human health impacts, technical feasibility, and economic feasibility. It also examined the effect of variation in data conventions, weighting, and decision frameworks on the outcome. The results indicate that MCDA can play a critical role in emerging prevention-based regulatory programs. Multi-criteria decision analysis methods offer a means for transparent, objective, and rigorous analysis of products and processes, providing regulators and stakeholders with a common baseline understanding of the relative performance of alternatives and the trade-offs they present.

Environmental public health law: three pillars

Most people dread being the subject of interest for doctors, scientists, regulators, and lawyers. While we may joke about the arrogance of the medical profession and the aggressiveness of the legal field, both lie at the core of environmental public health (EPH). They are inseparable, sometimes complementary and other times in tension. The role of medicine and science in EPH is clear, but their relationship with law is often opaque. Yet in no other area of public health, from infectious and chronic disease prevention to providing health care in underserved communities, is law so central as an instrument and partner. In this article we explore the relationship of law and science in the broader context of EPH, beginning with an overview of potential goals and challenges. We then offer three organizing principles that inform and guide the integration of law, science and policy in EPH.

Nanotechnology regulation: a study in claims making

There appears to be consensus on the notion that the hazards of nanotechnology are a social problem in need of resolution, but much dispute remains over what that resolution should be. There are a variety of potential policy tools for tackling this challenge, including conventional direct regulation, self-regulation, tort liability, financial guarantees, and more. The literature in this area is replete with proposals embracing one or more of these tools, typically using conventional regulation as a foil in which its inadequacy is presented as justification for a new proposed approach. At its core, the existing literature raises a critical question: What is the most effective role of government as regulator in these circumstances? This article explores that question by focusing upon two policy approaches in particular: conventional regulation and self-regulation, often described as hard law and soft law, respectively. Drawing from the sociology of social problems, the article examines the soft law construction of the nanotechnology problem and the associated solutions, with emphasis on the claims-making strategies used. In particular, it critically examines the rhetoric and underlying grounds for the soft law approach. It also sets out the grounds and framework for an alternative construction and solution-the concept of iterative regulation.

Risk governance for mobile phones, power lines, and other EMF technologies

Power-frequency electric and magnetic fields (EMFs) have been present in industrialized countries since the late 19th century and a considerable amount of knowledge has been accumulated as to potential health effects. The mainstream scientific view is that even if there is a risk, it is unlikely to be of major public-health significance. EMFs from cellular communications and other radio-frequency technologies have increased rapidly in the last decade. This technology is constantly changing, which makes continued research both more urgent and more challenging. While there are no persuasive data suggesting a health risk, research and particularly exposure assessment is still immature. The principal risk-governance issue with power frequencies is how to respond to weak and uncertain scientific evidence that nonetheless causes public concern. For radio-frequency electromagnetic fields, the issue is how to respond to large potential consequences and large public concern where only limited scientific evidence exists. We survey these issues and identify deficits in risk governance. Deficits in problem framing include both overstatement and understatement of the scientific evidence and of the consequences of taking protective measures, limited ability to detect early warnings of risk, and attempted reassurance that has sometimes been counterproductive. Other deficits relate to the limited public involvement mechanisms, and flaws in the identification and evaluation of tradeoffs in the selection of appropriate management strategies. We conclude that risk management of EMFs has certainly not been perfect, but for power frequencies it has evolved and now displays many successful features. Lessons from the power-frequency experience can benefit risk governance of the radio-frequency EMFs and other emerging technologies.