DOCSLIB.ORG

Alternatives Assessment for Toxics Use Reduction: a Survey of Methods and Tools

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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 of Contents Executive Summary ..............................................................................................................................i Introduction..........................................................................................................................................1 Toxics Use Reduction Planning and Alternatives Assessment .....................................................1 Options Assessment in Toxics Use Reduction Planning ..........................................................1 Assessing Chemicals, Materials or Products ....................................................................................2 Why Do Alternatives Assessment of Chemicals? ...........................................................................4 Issues in Alternatives Assessment .....................................................................................................5 Methods for Alternatives Assessment of Chemicals ......................................................................6 Hazard Data Display Methods ......................................................................................................7 Pollution Prevention Options Analysis System (P2OASys)..................................................7 Column Model.............................................................................................................................8 Five Step Evaluation Matrix....................................................................................................10 Chemical Assessment and Ranking System (CARS)............................................................10 Assessing Data in Hazard Array Methods ............................................................................11 Screening Methods........................................................................................................................12 Quick Scan .................................................................................................................................12 PRIO...........................................................................................................................................14 Norwegian Pollution Control Authority ...............................................................................14 Cradle-To-Cradle Design Protocol ........................................................................................15 PBT Profiler...............................................................................................................................15 Comparison of Screening Methods........................................................................................16 What Method Should You Use? ......................................................................................................16 Limitations and Considerations in Conducting Alternatives Assessments ...............................21 Conclusions.........................................................................................................................................22 Tables: Table 1 – P2OASys Summary Table...............................................................................................................8 Table 2 – Column Model..................................................................................................................................9 Table 3 - Five Step Evaluation Matrix (developed by Ökopol and Fraunhofer for the German Federal Environmental Agency) ................................................................................................... 10 Table 4 – Quick Scan Model ......................................................................................................................... 13 Table 5. Comparison of Methods for Evaluating Chemical Hazards and Safer Alternatives ............ 17 Table 6: Summary of Methods and Tools for Alternatives Assessment of Chemical Hazards ……19 Figures: Figure 1. Nested Relationship Of Possible Alternatives ............................................................................4 Appendices: Appendix A: Toxics Use Reduction Planner’s Course, Module 7 – Tur Options Evaluation Appendix B: Comprehensive Matrix Of Alternatives Assessment Methods And Tools Appendix C: Compendium Of Nine Assessment Methods Appendix D: P2OASys Matrix Executive Summary One of the key challenges in toxics use reduction planning is alternatives assessment. This is the process whereby a chemical, material or product that has been identified as toxic is compared with alternatives to find a substitute that is safer for workers, communities and ecosystems. This report reviews nine methods for alternatives assessment of chemicals that have been developed by government and private organizations in the United States and Europe and is designed to assist Massachusetts companies in the process of alternatives assessment for chemical hazards. In its broadest sense, alternatives assessment is about evaluating a wide range of options, determining the risks and benefits of each choice, and comparing alternatives. The first step in conducting an assessment of alternatives is to look at the function provided by the chemical, material or product that you are looking to replace. Approaching alternatives assessment from the overall function of the system can sometimes lead to insights into ways of avoiding the need for the product altogether. However, in most cases, companies conduct alternatives assessments to compare different chemicals, materials or products that perform a necessary function to determine which are safest for humans and ecosystems. A comprehensive alternatives assessment process can help businesses find a safer substitute to a current use of a toxic chemical and thereby protect worker, community and ecosystem health. The public has become much more sophisticated and knowledgeable about toxic chemicals. Alternatives assessment provides a tool to assist businesses as they work towards creating a healthier workplace, using safer materials in their processes and meeting increased public expectations for safe and healthy products. In addition, alternatives assessment can help businesses plan strategically and anticipate regulations to avoid future costs and liability. The process of alternatives assessment of chemicals includes several steps. First, the chemical in use and possible alternatives are evaluated to identify known and suspected hazards. The tools reviewed in this document are particularly helpful in screening out chemicals that are associated with these hazards. Then, in order to find safer alternatives, ideally a list of positive attributes is identified for the needed chemical, such as biodegradability and minimal toxicity. Some companies have developed “positive” lists of chemicals possessing these attributes from which they choose for various uses. In some cases, industry may need to develop new chemicals that have these positive qualities using the principals of green chemistry. The tools reviewed for this document can be divided into two categories: hazard data display methods and screening/decision methods. In hazard data display methods, data on a range of chemical hazards are arrayed and users are expected to develop their own rules for decision making among alternatives. In screening/decision methods, chemicals are evaluated for a range of hazards. Within each method, hazards are prioritized, and recommendations are made to eliminate use if chemicals are deemed to be high risk. In this way, decision rules are built into the screening tool for the user. Hazard data array methods tend to require more effort as the user may need to research and input data and will also need to determine how to prioritize hazards, once they are identified for each chemical that is being evaluated. This may require an in depth consideration of toxic chemical use, management and potential for exposure. Although the effort may be Toxics Use Reduction Institute
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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 .....................................................................................................................
    [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]