SYSTEMS FRAMEWORK DECISION-MAKING

EU risk assessment and the application of the systems framework decision-making matrix both indicate otherwise. The prioritisation method could also isolate several substances that should be given particularly low priorities at the EU level (e.g., BA, butadiene, TCE) which demonstrates some of the inefficiencies of the current regulatory system that could continue under REACH. 

K. M. Ng, MOPSD A Framework Linking Business Decision-Making to Product and process Design, in Process Systems Engineering 2003, Ed. B. Chen and A. W. Westerberg, p. 63, Elsevier, 2003. 

Due to the inherent spatial and temporal variability in soils and the resulting uncertainty of generically used standards, it is recommended that there should be few situations for which SQSs are mandatory (i.e., SQSs should not have pass-or-fail criteria in isolation from other considerations). In most cases, SQSs are a first step in a tiered approach or framework for decision making (e.g., Figure 5.1). In each step of the process, the degree of uncertainty decreases, while site specificity, and hence reliability, increases. There are few situations in which SQSs are used as compliance measures, so there is no direct need for strict pass-or-fail criteria. It should be acknowledged that a tiered system nonetheless requires 1) clear criteria associated with each specific tier, which is an issue clearly associated with initial problem formulation, and 2) clear criteria on when to pass to another tier. 

In the interim, using systems and approaches that are direction-ally oriented to reduce risk can serve as a base for establishing the logical framework that facilitates practical decision making. 

The soft-systems analytical framework facilitated the comparing and contrasting of national approaches, as well as interviewee perspectives of EU decision-making and REACH. In total, the results of these processes formed the basis for proposing a framework for decision-making under REACH. 

The next Chapter exposes how without careful attention to particular issues during implementation the REACH legislative text is unlikely to deliver the recommendations identified in Table 4.6. Several examples are presented in Chapter 5 that illustrate how the strengths and weakness of the national approaches tend to hinder rather than facilitate EU decision-making. The proposed systems framework for decision-making under REACH then seeks to rectify these potential shortcomings of the legislation. 

The systems framework proposes to sort chemical uses according to restriction, authorisation (including national permitting schemes) or target-setting (i.e., restricted, authorised, or tolerable uses). To manage this process, a decision-making matrix has been developed that would serve as a ... 

Figure 5.10 Risk reduction decision-making under the systems framework...

While the systems framework contains structural elements of the chemical strategies that have been proposed by the Dutch VROM and the UK RCEP, it focusses on decision-making under REACH. In comparison, the RCEP specifies action relating only to phase-out of... 

Recent discussions on the REACH legislative proposal have highlighted the need to prioritise regulatory activities [168]. Following the systems framework, regulatory decision-making and... 

Safe use exceptions could apply to any use that does not result in significant contributions to environmental risks resulting from specific (i.e., point) sources. Equally, safe use exceptions to risk reduction decision-making would limit the number of consumer or professional uses subject to any given risk reduction strategy. This would apply to most industrial uses of the substances reviewed under the official EU risk assessment reports. The systems framework would therefore have avoided the need first for industry to report and then for regulators to review this information. The concept of permissible uses appears particularly relevant for the use of NP and NPE in spermicides and the use of penta-BDE in aircraft emergency evacuation systems [515]. 

The proposed systems framework for EU decision-making under REACH seeks to counterbalance the weaknesses and to draw on the strengths of the national approaches while addressing the points shown in Table 7.1. Specifically, the framework would fuse hazard, technical and risk-benefit approaches to risk management (Table 7.2). Compared with the current process of chemical legislation and the recent REACH proposal, the systems framework would avoid a linear substance-by-substance approach by applying a set of decision-making rules based on hazard and use to all chemicals (Section 5.3.1). 

Harmonised EU decision-making does not imply setting uniform chemical regulation across Member States but refers to countries reaching an accord on when action should be taken at the EU level and how national actions can be co-ordinated. The systems framework therefore proposes a structured process for stakeholder... 

---