DOCSLIB.ORG

Substitution Principle in the Chemical Field

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Substitution Principle in the Chemical Field Study for the strategy for a non-toxic environment of the 7th EAP Sub-study a: Substitution, including grouping of chemicals & measures to support substitution Written by Marco Camboni (Risk & Policy Analysts) August 2017 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Environment Directorate B — Circular Economy & Green Growth Unit B.2 — Sustainable Chemicals European Commission B-1049 Brussels EUROPEAN COMMISSION Study for the strategy for a non-toxic environment of the 7th EAP Sub-study a: Substitution, including grouping of chemicals & measures to support substitution Directorate-General for Environment Sustainable Chemicals August 2017 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Environment Sustainable Chemicals August 2017 This sub-study report has been prepared by Marco Camboni of Risk & Policy Analysts (RPA). The views expressed herein are those of the consultants alone and do not necessarily represent the official views of the European Commission. Milieu Ltd (Belgium), Chaussée de Charleroi 112, B-1060 Brussels, tel.: +32 2 506 1000; e-mail: [email protected]; web address: www.milieu.be Sub-study a: Substitution, including grouping of chemicals & measures to support substitution TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................... 7 LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................... 7 LIST OF BOXES ...................................................................................................................... 7 ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 9 ABBREVIATIONS USED ........................................................................................................ 12 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 14 2 OVERVIEW OF THE STATE OF PLAY OF THE SUBSTITUTION PRINCIPLE IN THE CHEMICAL FIELD ......................................................................................................... 16 2.1 The application and implementation of the substitution principle ............. 16 2.1.1 The Substitution Principle and its interpretations .............................. 16 2.1.2 Policy means requiring and promoting substitution ........................ 17 2.2 Drivers of and barriers to substitution ............................................................... 26 2.3 Regrettable substitutions .................................................................................... 32 2.4 Grouping of chemicals ...................................................................................... 35 3 AVAILABLE TOOLS TO ADDRESS GAPS AND DEFICITS ............................................... 44 3.1 Gaps and deficits................................................................................................ 44 3.2 Reasons for gaps and deficits ........................................................................... 44 3.2.1 Information gaps and insufficient methodologies ........................... 44 3.2.2 Regulatory issues ................................................................................... 45 3.2.3 Lack of resources .................................................................................. 46 3.3 Available tools to address gaps and deficits .................................................. 46 3.4 Intervention instruments ..................................................................................... 48 4 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................ 49 5 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 59 APPENDIX 1: LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................... 62 A1.1. General Literature review on the sub-study area ............................................ 62 A1.1.1. Defining the substitution principle ........................................................ 62 A1.2. Historical use of the substitution principle .......................................................... 64 A1.3. Stakeholders affected by substitution of hazardous substances ................... 67 A1.4. Pros and cons of regulatory requirements on substitution .............................. 68 A1.5. Guidance for assessing substitutes ..................................................................... 70 A1.5.1. Overview ................................................................................................. 70 A1.5.2. Examples of Guidance and Information Sources ............................. 71 A1.6. Substitution in practice ......................................................................................... 76 A1.6.1. Barriers to substitution ............................................................................ 76 A1.7. Green chemistry .................................................................................................... 78 A1.8. Grouping of chemicals ........................................................................................ 79 APPENDIX 2: SURVEY RESULTS ............................................................................................ 84 A2.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 84 A2.2. Drivers and Obstacles to the Substitution of Hazardous Chemicals .............. 86 A2.3. Experience with Substitution ................................................................................ 88 A2.4. Experience with substitution assessments & use of analyses of alternatives 90 A2.5. Analysis of alternatives ......................................................................................... 93 A2.6. Enhancing substitution efforts ............................................................................. 95 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Overview of existing tools for chemical alternative assessment ...................... 23 Table 2: Drivers and barriers to substitution ........................................................................ 26 Table 3: Groups of chemicals in REACH Authorisation list ................................................ 37 Table 4: Ideas for improvement ........................................................................................... 51 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Drivers of substitution (industry stakeholders’ survey)....................................... 28 Figure 2: Benefits of substitution (industry stakeholders’ survey) ..................................... 29 Figure 3: Obstacles to substitution (industry stakeholders’ survey) ................................ 29 Figure 4: Challenges of substitution (industry stakeholders’ survey) ............................... 30 Figure 5: Resources dedicated to supporting substitution initiatives .............................. 31 Figure 6: Areas of expertise of staff supporting substitution initiatives ............................ 31 Figure 7: Expertise diversity within respondents ................................................................. 32 Figure 8: Archetypal cases of incremental substitution for selected phase-out chemicals used in large applications in conmumer products (Fankte et al, 2015) ..... 33 Figure 9: Obstacles to substitution (industry stakeholders’ survey) ................................. 35 LIST OF BOXES Box 1: Bisphenol A .................................................................................................................. 33 Box 2: Halogenated flame retardants ................................................................................ 34 ABSTRACT The present paper examines the implementation of the substitution principle in European chemical legislation, along with the practices and challenges faced by the companies when substituting hazardous chemicals in processes and products. In particular, it investigates how regulatory incentives results in the occurrence of regrettable substitutions, i.e. the substitution of hazardous substances with substances with similar chemical structure and similar hazard properties or with substances with other effects of similar concern. It explores the extent to which grouping strategies could be used to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the regulatory process. Finally, it presents and discusses the measures recommended by the literature and by relevant stakeholders to facilitate and improve the substitution of hazardous substances. Milieu Ltd Study for the strategy for a non-toxic environment of the 7th EAP, Sub-study a: Substitution, including Brussels grouping of chemicals & measures to support substitution, August 2017 / 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The principle of substituting hazardous substances has been used in international agreements and in European and national legislation as a tool of risk management for many years. The Seventh Environment Action Programme recognises innovation and the development of sustainable substitutes, including non-chemical solutions, as basic aspects of a strategy for a non-toxic environment. Key findings on substitution The problem The prevailing use of hazardous substances
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alternatives Assessment for Toxics Use Reduction: a Survey of Methods and Tools
    THE MASSACHUSETTS TOXICS USE REDUCTION INSTITUTE Alternatives Assessment for Toxics Use Reduction: A Survey of Methods and Tools Methods and Policy Report No. 23 2005 University of Massachusetts Lowell Alternatives Assessment for Toxics Use Reduction: A Survey of Methods and Tools Prepared by: Sally Edwards Department of Work Environment University of Massachusetts Lowell Mark Rossi Clean Water Action and Pamela Civie Project Manager Toxics Use Reduction Institute Prepared for: The Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute University of Massachusetts Lowell The authors would like to acknowledge the significant contributions of the following: Gregory Morose, Maria Leet Socolof, and Joel Tickner All rights to this report belong to the Toxics Use Reduction Institute. The material may be duplicated with permission by contacting the Institute. The Toxics Use Reduction Institute is a multi-disciplinary research, education, and policy center established by the Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Act of 1989. The Institute sponsors and conducts research, organizes education and training programs, and provides technical support to promote the reduction in the use of toxic chemicals or the generation of toxic chemical byproducts in industry and commerce. Further information can be obtained by going to our website: www.turi.org, or by writing to the Toxics Use Reduction Institute, University of Massachusetts Lowell, One University Avenue, Lowell, Massachusetts 01854-2866. ©Toxics Use Reduction Institute, University of Massachusetts Lowell Table
    [Show full text]
  • The Precautionary Principle: Protecting Public Health, the Environment and the Future of Our Children
    The precautionary principle: protecting public health, the environment and the future of our children Edited by: Marco Martuzzi and Joel A. Tickner Keywords RISK ASSESSMENT RISK MANAGEMENT UNIVERSAL PRECAUTIONS CHILD WELFARE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PUBLIC HEALTH SUSTAINABILITY ISBN 92 890 1098 3 Address requests about publications of the WHO Regional Office to: x by e-mail [email protected] (for copies of publications) [email protected] (for permission to reproduce them) [email protected] (for permission to translate them) x by post Publications WHO Regional Office for Europe Scherfigsvej 8 DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark © World Health Organization 2004 All rights reserved. The Regional Office for Europe of the World Health Organization welcomes requests for permission to reproduce or translate its publications, in part or in full. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the World Health Organization concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Where the designation “country or area” appears in the headings of tables, it covers countries, territories, cities, or areas. Dotted lines on maps represent approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement. The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers’ products does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by the World Health Organization in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Chemical and Non-Chemical Alternatives: Focusing on Solutions
    Assessment of Chemical and Non-Chemical Alternatives: Focusing on Solutions Foundation Paper for GCO II Chapter December 2018 Joel Tickner Molly Jacobs Nyree Bekarian Mack University of Massachusetts Lowell Lowell Center for Sustainable Production Disclaimer The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily represent the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme, nor does citing of trade names or commercial processes constitute endorsement. Table of Contents Report Highlights .......................................................................................................................................... 1 1. Introduction and Objectives ................................................................................................................. 3 2. Methods ................................................................................................................................................ 4 3. Understanding Informed Substitution and Alternatives Assessment .................................................. 5 4. Frameworks, Methods and Tools for Alternatives Assessment ......................................................... 10 5. Landscape of Requirements
    [Show full text]
  • Guidance on Key Considerations for the Identification and Selection of Safer Chemical Alternatives
    Guidance on Key Considerations for the Identifi cation and Selection of Safer Chemical Alternatives Series on Risk Management No. 60 FOREWORD 1 Series on Risk Management No. 60 Guidance on Key Considerations for the Identification and Selection of Safer Chemical Alternatives GUIDANCE ON KEY CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION OF SAFER CHEMICAL ALTERNATIVES © OECD 2021 PUBE Please cite this publication as: OECD (2021), Guidance on Key Considerations for the Identification and Selection of Safer Chemical Alternative, OECD Series on Risk Management, No. 60, Environment, Health and Safety, Environment Directorate, OECD. © Photo credit: Cover: Olivier Le Queinec/Shutterstock.com © OECD 2021 Applications for permission to reproduce or translate all or part of this material should be made to: Head of Publications Service, [email protected], OECD, 2 rue André-Pascal, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France About the OECD The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is an intergovernmental organisation in which representatives of 37 industrialised countries in North and South America, Europe and the Asia and Pacific region, as well as the European Commission, meet to co-ordinate and harmonise policies, discuss issues of mutual concern, and work together to respond to international problems. Most of the OECD’s work is carried out by more than 200 specialised committees and working groups composed of member country delegates. Observers from several countries with special status at the OECD, and from interested international organisations, attend many of the OECD’s workshops and other meetings. Committees and working groups are served by the OECD Secretariat, located in Paris, France, which is organised into directorates and divisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Comments on the Design for the Environment (Dfe) Program Alternatives Assessment Criteria for Hazard Evaluation
    Comments on the Design for the Environment (DfE) Program Alternatives Assessment Criteria for Hazard Evaluation Table of Contents Alaska Community Action on Toxics; The Autism Society; Capital Region Action Against Breast Cancer; Center for Health, Environment and Justice - Citizens' Environmental Coalition; and other contributing organizations .............................................................................................. 3 Albemarle Corporation; Center for Environmental and Occupational Risk Analysis and Management, College of Public Health, University of South Florida; and, Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection (Instytut Zdrowia Publicznego i Ochrony Środwiska) ..... 11 Alkylphenols & Ethoxylates Research Council (APERC) ........................................................... 17 American Chemistry Council (ACC) ............................................................................................ 36 American Cleaning Institute® (ACI) ............................................................................................ 44 Boeing ........................................................................................................................................... 51 Chemical Producers & Distributors Association (CPDA) ............................................................ 52 Clean Production Action ............................................................................................................... 54 The Dow Chemical Company ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Alternatives Assessment Framework of the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production
    Version 1.0 | July 2006 Alternatives Assessment Framework of the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production Mark Rossi, PhD Joel Tickner, ScD Ken Geiser, PhD Acknowledgements Mark Rossi, PhD, is a Research The Lowell Center Alternatives Assessment Framework grew from Fellow at the Lowell Center for conversations with leading thinkers in cleaner production, risk assess- Sustainable Production and is ment, green chemistry, sustainable materials, and product design. We the Research Director at Clean are particularly indebted to the many individuals who have shared with Production Action. He has a us their insights, criticisms, and ideas on how to perform alternatives PhD in Environmental Policy from assessments. Liz Harriman, Pamela Civie, Janet Clark, Michael Ellenbecker, the Massachusetts Institute of and Carole LeBlanc of the Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute Technology. along with Cathy Crumbley, David Kriebel, Margaret Quinn, and Catherine Galligan of the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production have been a Joel Tickner, ScD, is Assistant consistent source of guidance and support over the past three years. Professor in the Department of Community Health and Sus- Sally Edwards of the Lowell Center has been an invaluable collaborator tainability at the University of over the course of the alternatives assessment project, especially in Massachusetts Lowell where the writing of the papers for the Lowell Workshop. The input from the he is Director of the Chemicals 40 participants in the three-day Lowell Center Workshop on Designing Science and Policy Project. and Selecting Safer Alternatives workshop—held in December 20041— led to a significant re-framing of the framework. Finally we are grateful Ken Geiser, PhD is Professor in to Vibeke Bernson, Clive Davies, Kathy Hart, Tom Lent, Lothar Lissner, the Department of Work Environ- Lara Sutherland, and Kathleen Vokes for their detailed and thoughtful ment, University of Massachusetts review of this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (Edcs) 9
    An Assessment Report on Issues of Concern: Chemicals and Waste Issues Posing Risks to Human Health and the Environment Annexes Table of Contents A. Supporting Information on Existing Instruments and Actions to Address the Issues of Concern under SAICM ����������������������������������������5 1. Chemicals in Products (CiP) 6 2. Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs) 9 3. Environmentally Persistent Pharmaceutical Pollutants (EPPPs) 14 4. Hazardous Substances in the Life Cycle of Electrical and Electronic Products (HSLEEP) 17 5. Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs) 24 6. Lead in Paint 29 7. Nanotechnology and Manufactured Nanomaterials 31 8. Per- and Polyfluoralkyl Substances (PFASs) 34 B. Supporting Information on Assessment of Issues Where Emerging Evidence Indicates Risks Identified by GCO-II ���������������������������39 1. Arsenic 40 2. Bisphenol A (BPA) 45 3. Cadmium 57 4. Glyphosate 63 5. Lead 71 6. Microplastics 79 7. Neonicotinoids 87 8. Organotins 97 9. Phthalates 102 10. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) 110 11. Triclosan 114 C. Annex References �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������129 A.1. CiP 131 A.2. EDCs 132 A.3. EPPPs 135 A.4. HSLEEP 136 A.5. HHPs 138 A.6. Lead in Paint 140 A.7. Nanotechnology and Manufactured Nanomaterials 140 A.8. PFASs 142 B.1. Arsenic 143 B.2. BPA 145 B.3. Cadmium 164 B.4. Glyphosate 167 B.5. Lead 168 B.6. Microplastics 172 B.7. Neonicotinoids 174 B.8. Organotins 177 B.9. Phthalates 179 B.10. PAHs 182 B.11. Triclosan 184 Image credits All images by © Thomas Kast A. Supporting Information on Existing Instruments and Actions to Address the Issues of Concern under SAICM 1.
    [Show full text]
  • 20 Case Studies on How to Prevent the Use of Toxic Chemicals Frequently Found in the Mediterranean Region
    Downloaded from orbit.dtu.dk on: Sep 23, 2021 20 case studies on how to prevent the use of toxic chemicals frequently found in the Mediterranean Region Weber, Roland ; Fantke, Peter; Hamouda, Amel Ben; Mahjoub, Borhane Publication date: 2018 Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link back to DTU Orbit Citation (APA): Weber, R., Fantke, P., Hamouda, A. B., & Mahjoub, B. (2018). 20 case studies on how to prevent the use of toxic chemicals frequently found in the Mediterranean Region. https://www.switchmed.eu/en/e-library/20-case- studies-to-prevent-the-use-of-toxic-chemicals-frequently-found-in-the-mediterranean-region General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. 20 Case Studies on HOW TO PREVENT THE USE OF TOXIC CHEMICALS frequently found in the Mediterranean Region Accepted Final Report SwitchMed Programme is funded by the European Union This publication was developed by the Regional Activity Centre for Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP/RAC) as part of the EU-funded SwitchMed Programme.
    [Show full text]
  • Benefits of Chemicals Control
    BENEFITS OF CHEMICALS CONTROL BENEFITS OF CHEMICALS CONTROL 1 BENEFITS OF CHEMICALS CONTROL PREFACE This information document developed by UN Environment presents the case for the adoption and implementation of chemicals control legislation, as proposed in the publication, Guidance on Developing Legal and Institutional Infrastructures and Measures for Recovering Costs of National Administration (LIRA-Guidance). It is primarily intended to support decision makers in their efforts to establish legal frameworks for preventive chemicals control, and government officials actively working to develop, adapt and implement chemicals control and the related institutional capacity. It aims to inform and advise those seeking to understand the multiple benefits and cost-efficiencies of proactive chemicals management. The key questions addressed by this document are: What is chemicals control legislation, and what are the benefits? This document is part of a series of documents that complements the approaches for chemicals control suggested in the LIRA Guidance. The focus is on industrial and consumer chemicals; it does not take into consideration the specific regulatory needs of pesticides, pharmaceuticals or cosmetic products, which are normally regulated under separate legislation. 2 UN Environment - Benefits of Chemicals Control The series is composed of this information document and three guidance documents: • National Authority for Chemicals Control: Guidance on Structure and Funding • Risk Reduction Tools for Chemicals Control • Enforcement of Chemicals Control Legislation The development of these documents benefited from input from an expert group consisting of representatives from government, intergovernmental organizations, industry, academia and civil society. To facilitate access to references and other relevant documents when addressing chemicals safety, both hyperlinks and footnotes have been included.
    [Show full text]
  • A Framework to Guide Selection of Chemical Alternatives
    This PDF is available from The National Academies Press at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18872 A Framework to Guide Selection of Chemical Alternatives ISBN Committee on the Design and Evaluation of Safer Chemical Substitutions: 978-0-309-31013-0 A Framework to Inform Government and Industry Decision; Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology; Board on Environmental Studies and 334 pages Toxicology; Division on Earth and Life Studies; National Research Council 8.5 x 11 PAPERBACK (2014) Visit the National Academies Press online and register for... Instant access to free PDF downloads of titles from the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL 10% off print titles Custom notification of new releases in your field of interest Special offers and discounts Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. Request reprint permission for this book Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. A Framework to Guide Selection of Chemical Alternatives A FRAMEWORK TO GUIDE SELECTION OF CHEMICAL ALTERNATIVES Committee on the Design and Evaluation of Safer Chemical Substitutions: A Framework to Inform Government and Industry Decision Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology Division on Earth and Life Studies National Research Council -PREPUBLICATION COPY- Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. A Framework to Guide Selection of Chemical Alternatives THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
    [Show full text]
  • Chemical Alternatives Assessment: the Case of Flame Retardants
    Dickinson College Dickinson Scholar Faculty Publications By Year Faculty Publications 2014 Chemical Alternatives Assessment: The aC se of Flame Retardants Gregory J. Howard Dickinson College Follow this and additional works at: http://scholar.dickinson.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Pharmacology, Toxicology and Environmental Health Commons Recommended Citation Howard, Gregory J., "Chemical Alternatives Assessment: The asC e of Flame Retardants" (2014). Dickinson College Faculty Publications. Paper 37. http://scholar.dickinson.edu/faculty_publications/37 This article is brought to you for free and open access by Dickinson Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Chemical Alternatives Assessment: The Case of Flame Retardants HOWARD, Gregory J a a Department of Environmental Studies Dickinson College PO Box 1773 Carlisle, PA 17013 USA [email protected] +1 (717) 245 1527 1 Abstract Decisions on chemical substitution are made rapidly and by many stakeholders; these decisions may have a direct impact on consumer exposures, and, when a hazard exists, to consumer risks. Flame retardants (FRs) represent particular challenges with very high volumes, designed-in persistence, and often direct consumer exposure. Newer FR products, as with other industrial chemicals, typically lack data on hazard and exposure, and in many cases even basic information on structure and use in products is unknown. Chemical Alternatives Assessment (CAA) provides a hazard-focused approach to distinguishing between possible substitutions; variations on this process are used by several government and numerous corporate entities. By grouping chemicals according to functional use, some information on exposure potential can be inferred, allowing for decisions based on those hazard properties that are most distinguishing.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternatives Assessment Framework of the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production
    Version 1.0 | July 2006 Alternatives Assessment Framework of the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production Mark Rossi, PhD Joel Tickner, ScD Ken Geiser, PhD Acknowledgements Mark Rossi, PhD, is a Research The Lowell Center Alternatives Assessment Framework grew from Fellow at the Lowell Center for conversations with leading thinkers in cleaner production, risk assess- Sustainable Production and is ment, green chemistry, sustainable materials, and product design. We the Research Director at Clean are particularly indebted to the many individuals who have shared with Production Action. He has a us their insights, criticisms, and ideas on how to perform alternatives PhD in Environmental Policy from assessments. Liz Harriman, Pamela Civie, Janet Clark, Michael Ellenbecker, the Massachusetts Institute of and Carole LeBlanc of the Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute Technology. along with Cathy Crumbley, David Kriebel, Margaret Quinn, and Catherine Galligan of the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production have been a Joel Tickner, ScD, is Assistant consistent source of guidance and support over the past three years. Professor in the Department of Community Health and Sus- Sally Edwards of the Lowell Center has been an invaluable collaborator tainability at the University of over the course of the alternatives assessment project, especially in Massachusetts Lowell where the writing of the papers for the Lowell Workshop. The input from the he is Director of the Chemicals 40 participants in the three-day Lowell Center Workshop on Designing Science and Policy Project. and Selecting Safer Alternatives workshop—held in December 20041— led to a significant re-framing of the framework. Finally we are grateful Ken Geiser, PhD is Professor in to Vibeke Bernson, Clive Davies, Kathy Hart, Tom Lent, Lothar Lissner, the Department of Work Environ- Lara Sutherland, and Kathleen Vokes for their detailed and thoughtful ment, University of Massachusetts review of this paper.
    [Show full text]