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

Abstract

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.

A decision‐analytic approach to screening in chemical alternatives assessment

“…As a form of "whole product assessment" to inform chemical selection decisions, AA evaluates options for multiple attributes (e.g., cost, performance, hazard, and exposure) and can also consider life cycle metrics (Heine & Whittaker, 2018). Largely driven by markets or regulation, AAs have been performed for materials such as solder in consumer electronics (Malloy, Sinsheimer, Blake, & Linkov, 2013), formulated cleaning products (McFadden, 2011), and antifouling boat paint (Heine & Whittaker, 2018). Although practices have evolved for this relatively new method, much work remains to refine the AA process.…”

“…Relationship of attributes to overall utility of paint stripper alternatives Attribute weights are informed by the weights elicited byMalloy et al (2013). As shown inTable 1, this corresponds to risk receiving 0.55 of the weighting, whereas performance, cost, and environmental impact are weighted by 0.15, 0.15, and 0.15, respectively.…”

Multicriteria Decision Analysis Characterization of Chemical Hazard Assessment Data Sources

“…To do so we use multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) (Greco et al 2016), which is now widely used to provide robust aggregation of environmental impact assessment values such as in life cycle assessment (LCA) and alternative assessment (AA) (Linkov and Ramadan 2004;Kiker et al 2005;Marcomini et al 2009;Linkov and Seager 2011;Malloy et al 2013;Cinelli et al 2014;Malloy, Zaunbercher, Batteate et al 2017;Khan et al 2018) but has not previously been applied to data source evaluation. Can exceptional performance in 1 attribute compensate for poor performance in another attribute?…”

Social life cycle assessment and participatory approaches: A methodological proposal applied to citrus farming in Southern Italy

“…Recently, MCDA and participatory approaches have been applied to LCA studies (Recchia et al 2011;Bachmann 2012;Castellini et al 2012;De Felice et al 2013;Malloy et al 2013;Mathé 2014;Yue et al 2014). However, the use of these methodologies for the purpose of integrating different LCT results remains a little-explored field.…”