Search

Decarbonization plans depend on the rapid, large-scale deployment of batteries to sufficiently decarbonize the electricity system and on-road transport. This can take many forms, shaped by technology, materials, and supply chain selection, which will have local and global environmental and social impacts. Current knowledge gaps limit the ability of decision-makers to make choices in facilitating battery deployment that minimizes or avoids unintended environmental and social consequences. These gaps include a lack of harmonized, accessible, and up-to-date data on manufacturing and supply chains and shortcomings within sustainability and social impact assessment methods, resulting in uncertainty that limits incorporation of research into policy making. These gaps can lead to unintended detrimental effects of large-scale battery deployment. To support decarbonization goals while minimizing negative environmental and social impacts, we elucidate current barriers to tracking how decision-making for large-scale battery deployment translates to environmental and social impacts and recommend steps to overcome them.

Alternatives analysis (AA) is a method used in regulation and product design to identify, assess, and evaluate the safety and viability of potential substitutes for hazardous chemicals. It requires toxicological data for the existing chemical and potential alternatives. Predictive toxicology uses in silico and in vitro approaches, computational models, and other tools to expedite toxicological data generation in a more cost-effective manner than traditional approaches. The present article briefly reviews the challenges associated with using predictive toxicology in regulatory AA, then presents 4 recommendations for its advancement. It recommends using case studies to advance the integration of predictive toxicology into AA, adopting a stepwise process to employing predictive toxicology in AA beginning with prioritization of chemicals of concern, leveraging existing resources to advance the integration of predictive toxicology into the practice of AA, and supporting transdisciplinary efforts. The further incorporation of predictive toxicology into AA would advance the ability of companies and regulators to select alternatives to harmful ingredients, and potentially increase the use of predictive toxicology in regulation more broadly. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2017;13:915-925. © 2017 SETAC.

BackgroundTen years ago, leaders in the field of toxicology called for a transformation of the discipline and a shift from primarily relying on traditional animal testing to incorporating advances in biotechnology and predictive methodologies into alternative testing strategies (ATS). Governmental agencies and academic and industry partners initiated programs to support such a transformation, but a decade later, the outcomes of these efforts are not well understood.ObjectivesWe aimed to assess the use of ATS and the perceived barriers and drivers to their adoption by toxicologists and by others working in, or closely linked with, the field of toxicology.MethodsWe surveyed 1,381 toxicologists and experts in associated fields regarding the viability and use of ATS and the perceived barriers and drivers of ATS for a range of applications. We performed ranking, hierarchical clustering, and correlation analyses of the survey data.ResultsMany respondents indicated that they were already using ATS, or believed that ATS were already viable approaches, for toxicological assessment of one or more end points in their primary area of interest or concern (26-86%, depending on the specific ATS/application pair). However, the proportions of respondents reporting use of ATS in the previous 12 mo were smaller (4.5-41%). Concern about regulatory acceptance was the most commonly cited factor inhibiting the adoption of ATS, and a variety of technical concerns were also cited as significant barriers to ATS viability. The factors most often cited as playing a significant role (currently or in the future) in driving the adoption of ATS were the need for expedited toxicology information, the need for reduced toxicity testing costs, demand by regulatory agencies, and ethical or moral concerns.ConclusionsOur findings indicate that the transformation of the field of toxicology is partly implemented, but significant barriers to acceptance and adoption remain. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP1435.

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.Assess whether decision science may assist the alternatives analysis decision maker in comparing alternatives across a range of metrics.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 prompted with targeted questions. Throughout the workshop, the groups periodically came together in plenary sessions to reflect on other groups' findings.We conclude 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.We advance four recommendations: (1) engaging the systematic development and evaluation of decision approaches and tools; (2) using case studies to advance the integration of decision analysis into alternatives analysis; (3) supporting transdisciplinary research; and (4) supporting education and outreach efforts.

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.Assess whether decision science may assist the alternatives analysis decision maker in comparing alternatives across a range of metrics.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 prompted with targeted questions. Throughout the workshop, the groups periodically came together in plenary sessions to reflect on other groups' findings.We conclude 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.We advance four recommendations: (1) engaging the systematic development and evaluation of decision approaches and tools; (2) using case studies to advance the integration of decision analysis into alternatives analysis; (3) supporting transdisciplinary research; and (4) supporting education and outreach efforts.

BackgroundGiven 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.ObjectivesThe 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsTwenty 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.DiscussionGreater consistency in methods and evaluation metrics is needed but with sufficient flexibility to allow the process to be adapted to different decision contexts.ConclusionAlthough 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.

For nanotechnology to meet its potential as a game-changing and sustainable technology, it is important to ensure that the engineered nanomaterials and nanoenabled products that gain entry to the marketplace are safe and effective. Tools and methods are needed for regulatory purposes to allow rapid material categorization according to human health and environmental risk potential, so that materials of high concern can be targeted for additional scrutiny, while material categories that pose the least risk can receive expedited review. Using carbon nanotubes as an example, we discuss how data from alternative testing strategies can be used to facilitate engineered nanomaterial categorization according to risk potential and how such an approach could facilitate regulatory decision-making in the future.

There has been a conceptual shift in toxicological studies from describing what happens to explaining how the adverse outcome occurs, thereby enabling a deeper and improved understanding of how biomolecular and mechanistic profiling can inform hazard identification and improve risk assessment. Compared to traditional toxicology methods, which have a heavy reliance on animals, new approaches to generate toxicological data are becoming available for the safety assessment of chemicals, including high-throughput and high-content screening (HTS, HCS). With the emergence of nanotechnology, the exponential increase in the total number of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) in research, development, and commercialization requires a robust scientific approach to screen ENM safety in humans and the environment rapidly and efficiently. Spurred by the developments in chemical testing, a promising new toxicological paradigm for ENMs is to use alternative test strategies (ATS), which reduce reliance on animal testing through the use of in vitro and in silico methods such as HTS, HCS, and computational modeling. Furthermore, this allows for the comparative analysis of large numbers of ENMs simultaneously and for hazard assessment at various stages of the product development process and overall life cycle. Using carbon nanotubes as a case study, a workshop bringing together national and international leaders from government, industry, and academia was convened at the University of California, Los Angeles, to discuss the utility of ATS for decision-making analyses of ENMs. After lively discussions, a short list of generally shared viewpoints on this topic was generated, including a general view that ATS approaches for ENMs can significantly benefit chemical safety analysis.

There has been a conceptual shift in toxicological studies from describing what happens to explaining how the adverse outcome occurs, thereby enabling a deeper and improved understanding of how biomolecular and mechanistic profiling can inform hazard identification and improve risk assessment. Compared to traditional toxicology methods, which have a heavy reliance on animals, new approaches to generate toxicological data are becoming available for the safety assessment of chemicals, including high-throughput and high-content screening (HTS, HCS). With the emergence of nanotechnology, the exponential increase in the total number of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) in research, development, and commercialization requires a robust scientific approach to screen ENM safety in humans and the environment rapidly and efficiently. Spurred by the developments in chemical testing, a promising new toxicological paradigm for ENMs is to use alternative test strategies (ATS), which reduce reliance on animal testing through the use of in vitro and in silico methods such as HTS, HCS, and computational modeling. Furthermore, this allows for the comparative analysis of large numbers of ENMs simultaneously and for hazard assessment at various stages of the product development process and overall life cycle. Using carbon nanotubes as a case study, a workshop bringing together national and international leaders from government, industry, and academia was convened at the University of California, Los Angeles, to discuss the utility of ATS for decision-making analyses of ENMs. After lively discussions, a short list of generally shared viewpoints on this topic was generated, including a general view that ATS approaches for ENMs can significantly benefit chemical safety analysis.

Approximately 27 trillion pounds of chemicals are produced or imported into the United States every year, more than one trillion of them in California alone. In the face of relative inaction at the federal level, state governments have moved to address hazardous chemical use. Our third Pritzker Brief evaluates California's green chemistry legislation (AB 1879).California’s green chemistry program would shift the focus in chemical regulation to alternatives analysis. This means the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) would be tasked with identifying and prioritizing products containing chemicals of concern. Then product and chemical manufacturers would be required to determine the relative safety and viability of potential substitutes for those priority chemicals of concern. DTSC reviews these alternatives analyses and develops regulatory responses to limit use of the priority chemical accordingly. Unlike TSCA, California’s program would shift much of the analysis burden to producers and manufacturers, encouraging them to design safer products and taking advantage of their existing chemical expertise. Professor Malloy’s four key recommendations seek to improve the implementation and effectiveness of California’s green chemistry program:1. DTSC should require review of new chemicals and new uses of existing chemicals before they are put into the marketplace. This pre-market review is a common-sense preventative measure. Currently, scientific studies of chemical toxicity and exposure can be years or decades behind the introduction of a chemical into the marketplace, meaning that we have no information on the toxicity of many chemicals in use today.2. n order to regulate these chemicals, product manufacturers need to disclose to DTSC the use of these chemicals in their products. In this regard, TSCA’s requirements on information gathering and submission are currently superior to that of California’s Green Chemistry Initiative.3. California should prioritize prevention over management of toxic chemicals by expressly preferring the adoption of safer alternative products. Instead of managing exposure by, for example, creating buffer zones around schools for spraying of certain chemicals, a prevention-based approach would focus on alternatives to the chemical first, with exposure controls as a secondary level of protection.4. Establish adequate, stable funding. California’s green chemistry program places a significant resource burden on DTSC but lacks a funding mechanism. The response should be either authority for a regulatory fee or shifting market oversight to qualified, independent third-party consultants who certify manufacturers’ alternatives analyses.

No Abstract

[No abstract]

[No abstract]

I. INTRODUCTION II. THE PERFECT STORM A. Natural Accidents B. Climate Change C. Industrial Terrorism III. DUELING PARADIGMS: MANAGEMENT VS. PREVENTION A. Implementing the Dominant Paradigm B. Inherently Safer Design [...]

Defendants accused of willful patent infringement are currently put to a Hobson's choice: waive attorney-client privilege, or risk a jury verdict of willfulness and potentially trebled damages. In nearly every [...]

I. OUR CURRENT QUANDARY Many have suggested that claim construction in the brief period after Phillips v. AWH Corp, 145 F.3d (Fed. Cir, 2005), remains as unpredictable as ever, that [...]

When Claim Construction: A Plea for Deference was originally submitted for the 2005 Sedona Conference on Patent Litagation, the Federal Circuit's en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 [...]

We compare how several forms of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) can enhance the practice of alternatives assessment (AA). We report on a workshop in which 12 practitioners from US corporations, government agencies, NGOs, and consulting organizations applied different MCDA techniques to 3 AA case studies to understand how they improved the decision process. Participants were asked to select a preferred alternative in each case using a different decision analysis approach: their unaided decision‐making method, individual or lightly facilitated group multiattribute value theory (MAVT), and more extensively facilitated group structured decision making (SDM). Surveys conducted after each exercise revealed that participants were positive toward the use of formal decision‐making methods for AA, reporting meaningful increases in their understanding of the trade‐offs involved and their own values. Participants also reported challenges with each approach. While the MCDA techniques were reported to enhance transparency and communication, they did not consistently lead to higher satisfaction with a decision and/or outcome, and they were not more likely to be adopted within their organizations than unaided approaches. More formal decision‐making methods have promise in the context of AA, but practitioners will need more guidance to use such tools successfully. Practitioners will also need to define what "success" constitutes; different approaches may be called for depending on whether the objective is increased understanding, satisfaction with the outcome, satisfaction with the process, or something else. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2021;17:27–41. © 2020 SETAC KEY POINTS: The research evaluates the use of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) in simulated alternatives assessment scenarios.The results reveal a range of unaided decision approaches used by experts in chemical assessment and product design.Participants found MCDA approaches enhanced their understanding of key trade‐offs and critical information presented by the scenarios.Participants concluded, however, that their institutions would likely be reluctant to use MCDA approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]