SPA/744/S-93/002
Evaluating Cleaner Technologies
ISLM-R-*ฎ" workshop on Identifying a Framework for the Future
EPA
of Human Health and Environmental Risk Ranking
Washington, DC . .
June 30-July 1,1993
Proceeding Summary
-------
-------
Identification of Framework Components
As Presented by Break-out Groups
(1) Generic Elements of a Framework :
(2) Objectives of a Framework . .' '
(3) Potential Criteria in a Framework
(4) Important Issues in Developing a Risk Ranking Framework
(5) Two Proposed Frameworks ,
(1) Generic Elements of a Framework
-Flexible
-Transparent
-Dynamic
-Iterative
' -Practical
- -Multiple-User Orientated
.
Generic Tires.: Develop products, evaluate, processes, disseminate
oTnT to consumers, support monitoring and regulation
u ses :
Evaluation Tool for Smaller Companies
Broader Basis for Regulatory Development
Prioritize Information and Allocate Scarce Resources for
Regulatory Implementation
Labeling -
Communication .of Information about Certain Industry
Segments/Processes
(2) Objectives of a Framework
JKST ev*;uation of Portia! human health and environmental risks.as
posed byproduct systems, materials and human activities
Framework should be decision-oriented; a streamlined framework can be
. used tor pnonnzation
that can be modified for a specific purpose
; appHcati'on to both Prod^ts (chemicals,,materials) and
' '
Should include ranldng of chemical substitutes in the context of theii
with muMple uses Dd ^ - ciuster
-------
Should be able to allow for improved design,of new products
Should allow for reduction of toxic chemical use
Focus attention on areas where more detailed analysis is
required/warranted
Incorporate potential for evaluation of alternatives
Enable empowerment of industry to make environmental protection
decisions and increase involvement in environmental protection efforts
, Promote sustainable development , -
(3) Potential Criteria in a Framework
(A) Criteria must be identified in context of the process being evaluated to assess
effects in risk categories of: > .
Human health Environmental fate
Aesthetic values Energy usage
Resource depletion Sustainability
Ozone Depletion Global Wanning
Ecological Health (Toxicity)
Other indirect releases -
Recommend generic criteria matrices that are adapted for each purpose.
(B) Criteria for the actual risk ranking and use of the framework:
Consideration of data quality
Separation of the objective and subjective components of framework so
results are reproducible
Sensitivity of system (robustness)
Uncertainty of system; error analysis
Validation of the system
Definition of success; measurement of success
(4) Important Issues in Developing a Risk Ranking Framework
(a) Risk Ranking with Limited Data
-Is a chemical/process guilty until proven innocent or innocent until proven
guilty? . ' . -
(b) Use of Life-Cycle Analysis (LCA)
-Expand comparative risk assessment of chemicals/processes to incorporate
new information from LCA or expand LCA to include comparative risk
assessment?
-------
is the role of a nsk king framework; vs; ,, of'
(c) Evaluation of Criteria ' -
ฃ^^ on to
methodology : eson i tools-rather than;a specific ranking
(5) Two Proposed Frameworks (attached)
ong
NOT
_ . Data is the key in this ranking exercise
of obje.tive^d objective aspects'of fr^wo* is
(B)
Fmnewnrlf fnrEnvironp,..,., ^n,^_
-------
, ,
priorities. U2ฐn 1S ซP''atly about preferences and
K
undertaimg the an " ""^ off " a rKU" of
--
-------
Framework for AssessrhentVn'd R
anking
XJ
CO
Ifl
cn
CD'
CO
CO
3
03
3
Purpose/-
Scope
1
Ranking
Systems
Human .
Impacts
Ecological
Impacts'
Resource-arid
.. - . other
Environmental
Impacts
Social/.
Economic
impacts
scriptor
Descriptor
impact Des-crip.tor-
3
cn
(O
03
3
a'gat ion :- weighing'
invoivemf ~~*
"N ^ ^'~ -^'^ ^'rt - *
Oi D^dKc0. Cr'S
en.: Opporfuni:'-!-
-Options ..
'Selection - .-
-------
>pcsed Framework for Environmental Valuation
economic
Consequences
Performance
'Consequences
Environmental
Consequences
Overall
Valuation
r*/*!.
nCW
NO
01.
n
(r
c
c:.e.nent Action . .
uate Consequences
-------
r ' " ' ' ' ' Next
(1) Needs Identified by Consensus
was
r^r^Tir -"-*
8
groups working in related area such ^Sft, *> * **. toon between the different
"'
environment, etc. It wsuesd te E^T"' ^ an^ls' de^n for *
should be chosen? swaed toat the EPA.. be named. If not the EPA, then who
(2) Potential Approaches Recommended by the Breakout Groups
ซ*-"*. or proces, risk
Approach I:
'
Approach II:
o.
work on them TOrtos "S^, -1 hpamcular ^"^ ป.*ป areas ซo
-------
Approach HI:
Bring people together, the users 'and developers, and actually use one of the developed
svstemsin a hypothetical situation. In other words "get your hands dirty. By using an
existing system people would more easily see where work needs to be done and how a
system should look when finished. Then participants could begin developing those
weaker areas. The steering committee would need to define the scope of this practical
application. This would lead to quick, practical development of a system. Similarly,
cases studies could be done using an existing system or a strawman to determine these
things.
Different parts of these approaches could be combined to determine exactly what we will
do next. Also the unification of language and definitions could occur as part of the
framework development effort.
-------
^^^^m^^nerjechnoio,
[ies
Washington; DC
June 30-July i, 1993
Mission statement
products. We seek to deveTon a SS?** ?rOCeSSes Md
evaluating technologies ฐ pTocIs^h^r^ methodo1^ for
translated to multiple usS^TrH? V 7 UCtS that ^ ^
methodology, we will. Mฐ In ฐrder to develop our
:
-------
------- |