UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
April 4, 2002
EPA-SAB-EEC-COM-02-002
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
Honorable Christine Todd Whitman
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Subject: Industrial Ecology: a Commentary by the EPA Science Advisory Board
Dear Governor Whitman:
At its November 1997 retreat, the EPA Science Advisory Board's Executive Committee
encouraged its standing committees to undertake more self-initiated efforts. This commentary is
one of several Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC) initiatives undertaken in response
to that guidance.
This commentary addresses Industrial Ecology, a systems approach to environmental
analysis. Industrial ecology seeks to address not just industrial emissions, and not just specific
products, but the complex networks of services, products, and activities that make up our
economy. It emphasizes opportunities for new technologies, new processes, and economically
beneficial efficiencies.
The purpose of this Commentary is two-fold: first, to bring industrial ecology to the
attention of a wider audience within EPA and other agencies as an approach to meeting their
missions, and second, to articulate key research needs. The SAB believes that industrial ecology
could help EPA to address some of the core challenges of environmental policy, from climate
change to waste management to land use policy. Achieving this potential will require rigorous
research and a firm grounding in science and engineering.
This identifies the need for better understanding of the potential and limitations of a
range of promising approaches including:
a) technological innovation
b) voluntary and cooperative approaches to environmental management
c) substitution of services for products
d) recycling and reuse
e) reduction in the amounts of materials used in products
-------
f) substitution of scarce resources with those that are plentiful
We look forward to your written response to the ideas set forth in the commentary. Please
contact us if we may be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
/Signed/
Dr. William Glaze, Chair
EPA Science Advisory Board
/Signed/
Dr. Domenico Grasso, Chair
Environmental Engineering Committee
EPA Science Advisory Board
/Signed/
Dr. Thomas Theis, Co-Chair
Subcommittee on Industrial Ecology and Environmental
Systems Management
Environmental Engineering Committee
EPA Science Advisory Board
/Signed/
Dr. Valerie Thomas, Co-Chair
Subcommittee on Industrial Ecology and Environmental
Systems Management
Environmental Engineering Committee
EPA Science Advisory Board
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Science Advisory Board
Environmental Engineering Committee*
Fiscal Year 2002
CHAIR
Dr. Domenico Grasso, Smith College, Northampton, MA
Also Member: Executive Committee
SAB MEMBERS
Dr. H. Barry Dellinger, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA
Dr. Hilary Inyang, University of North Carolina, Charlotte, NC
Dr. Michael Kavanaugh, Malcolm Pirnie Inc, Oakland, CA
Dr. Byung Kim, Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, MI
Dr. John P. Maney, Environmental Measurements Assessment, Gloucester, MA
Dr. Michael J. McFarland, Utah State University, River Heights, UT
Dr. Bruce Rittmann, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL
Dr. Thomas Theis, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL
Dr. Valerie Thomas, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD STAFF
Ms. Kathleen Conway, USEPA Science Advisory Board (1400A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW, Washington, DC
Ms. Mary Winston, USEPA Science Advisory Board (1400A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW, Washington, DC
* Members of this SAB Panel consist of SAB Members: Experts appointed by the Administrator to serve on one of
the SAB Standing Committees.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Science Advisory Board
Environmental Engineering Committee
Subcommittee on Industrial Ecology and Environmental Systems
Management*
CO-CHAIRS
Dr. Thomas Theis, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL
Dr. Valerie Thomas, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ
EEC MEMBERS
Dr. Domenico Grasso, Smith College, Northampton, MA
Dr. Byung Kim, Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, MI
CONSULTANTS
Dr. James N. Galloway, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA
Dr. Catherine Koshland, University of California-Berkeley, Berkeley, CA
Dr. Reid Lifset, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, New Haven, CT
Dr. Robert Pfahl, Motorola Advanced Technology Center, Schaumburg, IL
Dr. Clifford S. Russell, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD STAFF
Ms. Kathleen Conway, USEPA Science Advisory Board (1400A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW, Washington, DC
Ms. Mary Winston, USEPA Science Advisory Board (1400A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW, Washington, DC
* Members of this SAB Panel consist of
a. SAB Members: Experts appointed by the Administrator to serve on one of the SAB Standing Committees.
b. SAB Consultants: Experts appointed by the SAB Staff Director to a one-year term to serve on ad hoc Panels
formed to address a particular issue.
11
-------
NOTICE
This report has been written as part of the activities of the EPA Science Advisory Board, a public
advisory group providing extramural scientific information and advice to the Administrator and
other officials of the Environmental Protection Agency. The Board is structured to provide
balanced, expert assessment of scientific matters related to problems facing the Agency. This
report has not been reviewed for approval by the Agency and, hence, the contents of this report
do not necessarily represent the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor
of other agencies in the Executive Branch of the Federal government, nor does mention of trade
names or commercial products constitute a recommendation for use.
Distribution and Availability: This EPA Science Advisory Board report is provided to the EPA
Administrator, senior Agency management, appropriate program staff, interested members of the
public, and is posted on the SAB website (www.epa.gov/sab). Information on its availability is
also provided in the SAB's monthly newsletter (Happenings at the Science Advisory Board).
Additional copies and further information are available from the SAB Staff [US EPA Science
Advisory Board (1400A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; 202-
564-4533].
in
-------
Commentary on Industrial Ecology
EPA SAB Environmental Engineering Committee
1. Introduction
Over the past decade, a new approach to environmental analysis has developed.
Although the scope and definition are not yet completely fixed, the new field of "industrial
ecology" focuses on reducing the environmental impacts of goods and services, and on
innovations that can significantly improve environmental performance. The scope of industrial
ecology includes the entire lifecycle of products and services, drawing on and extending a
variety of related approaches including systems analysis, materials flow analysis, pollution
prevention, design for environment, product stewardship, energy technology assessment, and
eco-industrial parks (Ausubel and Sladovich, 1989; Proc. Natl. Acad. Sciences, 1992; Allenby
and Richards, 1994; Socolow et al. 1994; Graedel and Allenby, 1995; Wernick and Ausubel,
1997; Kates etal. 2001).
A report from the National Academy of Sciences identifies this area as one of the eight
Grand Challenges of Environmental Science (NAS, 2001). Recent reports from the Science
Advisory Board (SAB), including "Integrated Environmental Decision-making" and the EEC
Commentary, "Overcoming Barriers to Waste Utilization," indicate increasing interest within
SAB in this type of approach (SAB 2000a, 2000b).
The purpose of this Commentary is two-fold: first, to bring industrial ecology to the
attention of a wider audience within EPA and other agencies as an approach to meeting their
missions, and second, to articulate key research needs. We believe that industrial ecology offers
great potential for US environmental policy. Achieving this potential will require rigorous
research and firm grounding in the physical and social sciences and engineering.
Industrial ecology emphasizes innovation. It emphasizes the opportunities for new
technologies and new processes, and the opportunities for economically beneficial efficiencies.
It provides a long-term perspective, encouraging consideration of the overall development of
both technologies and policies for sustainable resource utilization and environmental protection
into the future.
Industrial ecology can complement and enhance the single-pollutant risk-based
framework of traditional environmental policy. It could help EPA address some of the core
challenges of environmental policy, from climate change to waste management to land use
policy.
a) Climate Change: Technological innovation will be key to any number of
approaches to climate change, from renewable energy technologies to energy
efficiency to carbon sequestration.
b) Waste Management: Innovations in industrial systems and processes have the
potential not only to reduce wastes, but also to make the remaining wastes more
-------
economically useful and environmentally benign. With insights gained from
Industrial Ecology, the nation's waste management program (RCRA, the
Resources Conservation and Recovery Act) could be redesigned as an innovative
program that actually fits its name: to conserve and recover resources through
closing loops in the lifecycle of materials and minimizing material use (Fagan et
al., 2000).
c) Land Use: The interconnected issues of land use policy, transportation systems,
urban air quality, and economic and technological infrastructure require a long-
term strategic approach to environmental policy. Industrial ecology seeks to
address not just industrial emissions, and not just specific products, but the
complex networks of services, products, and activities that make up our economy
(Powers and Chertow 1997; Stern et al. 1997).
In the following sections we discuss related policy developments (section 2), research
needs for the foundations of industrial ecology (section 3), and research needs for applications of
industrial ecology (section 4).
2. Policy Applications of Industrial Ecology
Historically, US environmental regulation of industry has emphasized point source
controls, especially of gaseous, liquid, and solid emissions from manufacturing plants. In the
past few years, the US EPA has initiated a number of innovative policies of the industrial
ecology type (US EPA, 2001). Elsewhere in the developed world, however, these new
approaches have been adopted more quickly and more fully. In Europe, environmental policies
increasingly address the overall environmental impacts of a product over its entire life cycle (raw
materials extraction, product manufacturing, product use, and disposal or recycling). One
example is the European Union's proposed Integrated Product Policy (IPP), which seeks to
stimulate demand for greener products and to promote greener design and production
(Commission of the European Communities, 2001). In Japan, the emerging emphasis is on the
environmental design of products, driven both by concern over scarce resources and by business
strategy. The emphasis is on extensive recycling of products and environmental attributes such
as energy efficiency and use of non-toxic materials (National Academy of Engineering, 1994;
Life Cycle Assessment Society of Japan, 1998; Gutowski, 2001).
These developments signal an international shift in emphasis from managing individual
manufacturing waste streams to managing the overall environmental impacts of a product over
its life cycle. In response, global industrial firms, participating in commerce in the US, Europe,
and Japan, are beginning to apply these concepts to their products, manufacturing processes, and
environmental programs.
These developments pose opportunities for and challenges to US policy. They challenge
US policy both because there is the possibility of inconsistent regulatory obligations across
national borders, and because the analytical and policy framework is different from the
traditional US approach. The growing diversity of environmental policies for products could
-------
raise trade issues; on-going activities in the European Union and other countries could place the
US in a reactive mode.
US policy adaptations of industrial ecology might be somewhat different from the
approaches that have been taken in Europe and Japan. With its often litigious and adversarial
approach to environmental policy, the US has developed an emphasis on quantification of
environmental risks in particular and on the scientific evaluation of environmental policy in
general. This emphasis is likely to be reflected in US policy adaptations of industrial ecology as
well. Moreover, as the importance of both information technology and the technological
infrastructure are increasingly recognized, application of industrial ecology may progress from
its initial emphasis on specific products and materials to a broader emphasis on infrastructure
and technological systems. Thus the early policy adoptions of industrial ecology ideas in Europe
and Japan provide an opportunity for US policy. They present a portfolio of strategies and
experiences from which the EPA can draw in its efforts to protect environmental quality in a
cost-effective manner.
3. Fundamental Research Needs
If industrial ecology is to provide a basis for environmental policy, it needs a well-
developed scientific foundation. In the same way that fundamental scientific research supports
technological development, and fundamental economic research supports the development of
both economic policy and the economic system, fundamental research in industrial ecology is
needed to provide a robust framework for understanding the interaction of technological systems
and environmental protection.
Fundamental research in industrial ecology focuses on the long-term relationships
between materials and energy use, the environment and human health, and economic well being.
The examples below focus on materials and energy efficiency and substitution, the role of
innovation, and the role of the private sector. The emphasis is on economy-wide consumption of
materials and energy, and on how this will change in the future. Concern over resource use
includes consideration of environmental impacts and ecosystem services as well as the narrower
issue of resource availability and longevity (Ayres 1993; Daily 1997).
Materials and Energy Efficiency and Substitution
Since the 1970s a growing body of research has suggested that greater material
efficiency, use of better materials, and the growth of the service economy are contributing to the
"dematerialization" of the economy. Yet the extent of this phenomenon remains unclear.
Simon's (1980) analysis of worldwide trends in natural resource use and the environment has
been widely criticized as overly optimistic (Holdren et al. 1980). Undertaking a more limited
analysis, Larson, Ross and Williams (1986; Williams et al. 1987) argued that economic growth
in developed countries is no longer accompanied by increased consumption of basic materials.
This dematerialization has been investigated for a range of materials, including steel, plastics,
paper, cement and a number of metals.
-------
Despite these promising results, neither the extent of dematerialization nor its
implications are yet understood. Wernick et al. (1996) pointed out that some products, such as
personal computers and beverage cans, have become lighter over the years, but use of other
materials, such as paper, have increased. Although primary materials use is not rising as fast as
economic productivity, there are no signs of net dematerialization among consumers or of
saturation of individual material wants. In a review of the dematerialization literature,
Cleveland and Ruth (1998) argued that knowledge of the extent and mechanisms behind the
patterns of material use are limited largely to individual materials or specific industries.
A related body of research suggests that expensive, scarce, or environmentally harmful
resources can be substituted by resources that are cheap, abundant, and environmentally benign.
For example, Goeller and Weinberg (1976) used a geologic and chemical analysis to argue that,
with the important exception of fossil fuels, the use of scarce minerals can be substituted with
other minerals that are essentially inexhaustible. Their analysis refuted the "Limits to Growth"
report, which had argued that growing consumption would inevitably deplete basic materials
(Meadows et al. 1972). "Substitution" can be seen in the changes in energy sources that have
occurred over the past century. As the sources of energy have shifted from wood and coal to
petroleum and natural gas, the average amount of carbon per unit energy produced has fallen,
resulting in a "decarbonization" of world energy use (Nakicenovic, 1996). Overall, however, the
potential for and limitations of substitutability remain unresolved (Tilton, 2001).
It is often suggested that "loop closing" - the recycling and reuse of products, materials,
and wastes - has significant environmental potential. Graedel and Allenby (1995) have
suggested that the goal of industrial ecology is to accomplish the evolution of manufacturing to a
system in which all wastes are recycled. Understanding of the potential to reach this goal, and
the environmental risks and benefits, is needed.
One strategy for reducing environmental impacts is the substitution of services for
products. The notion is that people seek not physical products, but rather the services provided
by those products. For example, an integrated pest management service might provide crop
protection rather than selling pesticides per se. By emphasizing the service instead of the
physical product, firms have an incentive to be more efficient with materials and energy.
Product-to-service strategies hold potential for innovative environmental strategies and
considerable environmental gain, but they need further conceptual analysis and systematic
empirical testing (Stahel, 1994).
Role of Innovation
Other researchers have used biological analogies to suggest that "industrial ecosystems"
have vast potential for improved efficiency through innovation and integration (Ayres, 1989).
Frosch and Gallopoulos (1989) argued that
"the traditional model of industrial activity - in which individual manufacturing
processes take in raw materials and generate products to be sold plus waste to be
disposed of- should be transformed into a more integrated model: an industrial
ecosystem. In such a system, the consumption of energy and materials is optimized,
-------
waste generation is minimized, and the effluents of one process - whether they are spent
catalysts from petroleum refining, fly and bottom ash from electric-power generation or
discarded plastic containers from consumer products - serve as the raw material for
another process."
The biological, evolutionary analogy of industrial ecology suggests that the focus of
environmental policy should increasingly emphasize innovation, and the diffusion of innovations
into industry and society (SAB 2000c). This also suggests an increasing research emphasis on
the development of environmentally beneficial technologies. In addition, there is a need for
research on the innovation process itself and on the role of government in that process.
The Role of the Private Sector
A number of researchers look to industrial firms to take a leading role in environmental
management and policy. There are two dimensions to this premise:
a) optimism that voluntary approaches can be effective in bringing about
environmental improvement, and
b) reliance on industrial firms as the locus of technological expertise which in turn is
seen as crucial to strategies emphasizing design for environment (DfE).
Industrial firms are clearly a locus of technological expertise. But use of ecodesign by
businesses is both partial and uneven (Tukker, 2002). A more thorough understanding of the
factors that influence the adoption of ecodesign is needed. In addition, clarity about what
constitutes a green product is needed so that companies that are inclined to use their
technological expertise to this end can have confidence that their efforts are well targeted.
It is often argued that cooperative approaches are more cost effective, more conducive to
innovation, and better able to promote fundamental attitudinal change than traditional "command
and control" regulation. On the other hand, skepticism about the effectiveness of voluntary
approaches remains. The claim that there are extensive unexploited win-win opportunities in
environmental policy is similarly the subject of active research and debate (Esty and Porter,
1998).
Incentive-based approaches to improved environmental management are also
controversial because of debate over which approaches are best for different applications and
because of disputes about their policy implications (WRI 2000; Tietenberg, 1997).
Better understanding is needed of the potential and limitations of industry's role and of
the specific circumstances which can encourage industry to be environmentally proactive. There
is a need to understand what motivates change. There is a need for greater attention to program
evaluation, and examination of the effectiveness of the new policy instruments in comparison
with traditional regulatory and market-based incentives (O'Rourke et al., 1996; Harrison, 1998;
Andrews et al. 2001).
-------
4. Applied Research Needs
Whereas the fundamental research needs address questions of how the industrial system
can evolve to reduce environmental impacts, the applied research needs focus on the methods
and data needed to assess specific products, facilities or industries. The examples below
emphasize the need for critical evaluation and peer review of an ensemble of software,
databases, and metrics.
Software and Databases for Life-cycle Assessment
A life-cycle assessment (LCA) evaluates the entire environmental impact of a product
through its life-cycle, including manufacturing, use and disposal. A great deal of work has been
done to develop the technical foundations for LCA of products and processes, and to develop the
databases necessary to support these assessments. The International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) is working to formalize LCA methods. Efforts within the United States to
develop LCA methods are being led by the Society for Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry (SETAC) and the US EPA (US EPA, 2000).
There are now a large number of competing software packages for LCA and related
applications (de Caluwe, 1997). Because of the wide range of tools, it is difficult for users even
to determine which tool is best suited to a particular situation (Wilgenbusch, 2000). These
software tools are often complex, opaque in their technical assumptions, and use data that are
difficult to verify.
Methods to validate LCA results have yet to be established (Hendrickson et al. 1998).
Both conventional peer review of the LCA methods and software, and development of
standardized "test-beds" (data sets or protocols) could provide users with increased confidence
that actions based on the tools would indeed lead to overall environmental improvements. One
of the main issues of LCA has been the validity of available life cycle inventory (LCI) databases,
which are the basis for any LCA studies but are neither standardized nor peer-reviewed. There is
a need for a comprehensive, national-level LCI database that is open and peer-reviewed, and that
contains reliable industrial data. Some efforts to address this need are currently underway;
continued support of work in this area is needed (NREL, 2001).
Weighted Metrics
Applied industrial ecology aims simultaneously to reduce a range of environmental
impacts, including not only the mass of emissions and wastes, but also impacts on human health
and ecosystems. In order to integrate across diverse dimensions of environmental performance,
a number of weighted environmental metrics have been developed. For example, a scoring
system called eco-indicator is a measure of overall environmental impact; human toxicity
potential has been developed as a measure of the toxicity of chemical compounds over a range of
human health endpoints; and the "triple bottom line" is a measure being used by some industrial
companies to combine business, environmental, and social accounts (National Academy of
Engineering, 1999; Huisman et al., 2001; Luo et al., 2001; Hertwich et al. 1997). Some
weighted metrics are being considered in the European Union and elsewhere for use in
environmental legislation.
-------
The validity and limitations of such weighted metrics need to be clarified. The key
questions are the commensurability of the attributes that are being combined, and the validity of
the weighting scheme. For example, the toxicity of a chemical is a function of dose, the medium
of exposure, the duration of exposure, the state of the receptor (condition, characteristics and
activity level), the route of exposure and the chemical and physical state of the pollutant. A
weighted measure of the toxicity of different compounds must make assumptions about all of
these factors, and indiscriminate application of such a metric may lead to non-representative
outcomes. Hence there is a need for deeper understanding of how weighted metrics are
developed, of the impacts of uncertainty and variability, and of the limitations and benefits of
their application.
Simplifying Assumptions
Industrial ecology has generated an ensemble of simplifying assumptions used in
calculations and analysis. For example, lifecycle analyses (LCAs) are often simplified by
assuming that mass is a reasonable proxy for environmental impact, or by only assessing
materials that comprise at least 5% of the product mass, or by not including some of the
upstream pre-manufacturing steps such as materials extraction and processing (Hertwich et al.
1997; Curran, 1996; ISO 14041, 1998). The effects of these simplifications are not known, but it
is often assumed that streamlined LCA captures 70 to 80% of the opportunities for
environmental improvement (Graedel and Allenby, 1995). However, one recent evaluation
concluded that streamlined LCAs can have truncation errors as high as 50% (Lenzen 2001).
Further quantitative evaluation of claims that underlie these assumptions could define both when
such assumptions provide reliable guidance and the type and extent of uncertainty that arises
when they are used (Sousa et al., 2001).
Recommendations for Research
A rigorous scientific foundation will be essential for the development of an
environmental policy that may be increasingly linked to technology and economic policy. The
US EPA and the National Science Foundation have already begun to support research related to
industrial ecology.1 Significant advances in industrial ecology will require new theoretical
developments, quantitative models, empirical research, and field-scale experiments. Neither a
quantitative theoretical foundation nor a substantial body of experiment - in science or in policy
- have yet been developed for this new field. The potential for scientific experiments has hardly
yet been conceived, with most efforts currently at very small scales. The potential for policy
experiments is somewhat more developed, with state-level policy innovations increasingly
viewed as a venue for policy experimentation and adaptive learning.
1 These include the joint NSF/EPA programs on Technology for a Sustainable Environment, Decision
Making and Valuation for Environmental Policy, Green Chemistry, Design For the Environment and Green
Engineering, and Interagency Opportunities in Metabolic Engineering. In addition, the National Science
Foundation's programs in Environmentally Benign Chemical Synthesis and Processing, Environmentally
Conscious Manufacturing, and New Technologies for the Environment also address industrial ecology
themes.
-------
Specific research needs are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Research Needs in Industrial Ecology
Materials Efficiency and Substitution
Better understanding is needed of the potential for and limitations of
• Dematerialization (reduction in the amount of material per product or activity),
• Substitution of scarce or harmful resources with those that are plentiful and benign,
• Recycling and reuse, and
• Substitution of services for products.
Innovation
• Research on a wide range of environmentally beneficial technologies should be
encouraged and supported.
Better understanding is needed of
• The innovation process and how government can encourage innovation and adoption.
Role of the Private Sector
• Private sector design-for-environment activities should be encouraged.
A better understanding is needed of the potential for and limitations of
• Voluntary approaches to environmental management.
Life-Cycle Analysis and Related Environmental Evaluation Approaches
There is a need for
• Peer review of methods and software,
• Standardized tests for methods and software, and
• Development of a comprehensive life-cycle inventory database.
Better understanding is needed of the validity and limitations of
• Metrics used to compare different environmental effects, and
• Common simplifying assumptions.
To develop the scientific foundation for industrial ecology, the Agency should emphasize
quantitative and theoretical developments, empirical research, and experimental approaches
including pilot projects. Key topics include the impact and potential for all forms of resource
efficiency and substitution, and the potential for innovation, new technologies, and proactive
measures to achieve environmental goals. To strengthen the ongoing applications of industrial
-------
ecology, the Agency should support evaluation and technical review of the working assumptions,
metrics, and lifecycle assessment tools that are currently in use.
Acknowledgments
The Subcommittee gratefully acknowledges Kathleen White of the EPA Science
Advisory Board staff for her work and support throughout the development of this Commentary.
This Commentary benefitted from comments from members of the public, including Brad
Allenby of AT&T, Clint Andrews of Rutgers University, Vince Anigbogu of Clark-Atlanta
University, Jesse Ausubel of Rockefeller University, Tim Considine of Penn State University,
Suren Erkman of the Institute for Communication and Analysis of Science and Technology, John
Harte of the University of California, Victor Ibeanusi of Spelman College, Greg Norris of
Sylvatica, Matt Polsky of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Delcie
Durham of the National Science Foundation, and from US EPA personnel including Deny Allen,
Diana Bauer, Maryann Curran, Barbara Karn, Angie Leith, April Richards, Steve Lingle and
Walter Schoepf. The subcommittee thanks Roger Kasperson and Rhodes Trussell of the SAB
Executive Committee for helpful reviews of this Commentary.
-------
Appendix A - Biosketches
Thomas L. Theis is the founding director of the Institute for Environmental Science and Policy
at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Formerly, Theis was the Bayard D. Clarkson
Distinguished Professor and Director of the Center for Environmental Management at Clarkson
University. Professor Theis' areas of expertise include the mathematical modeling and systems
analysis of environmental processes, the environmental chemistry of trace organic and inorganic
substances, interfacial reactions, subsurface contaminant transport, and hazardous waste
management. He has been principal or co-principal investigator on over forty funded research
projects totaling in excess of six million dollars, and has authored or co-authored over eighty
papers in peer review research journals, books, and reports. He is a member of the USEPA
Science Advisory Board (Environmental Engineering Committee), is past editor of the Journal
of Environmental Engineering, and serves on the editorial boards of The Journal of Contaminant
Transport, and Issues in Environmental Science and Technology. He has served on numerous
professional committees including the Scientific Committee on Problems in the Environment
(SCOPE), and the World Bank funded team of scholars for advising the Universidad Nacional
Del Literal (Argentina) on environmental engineering education. From 1980-1985 he was the
co-director of the Industrial Waste Elimination Research Center (a collaboration of Illinois
Institute of Technology and University of Notre Dame), one of the first Centers of Excellence
established by the USEPA, and is currently Principal Investigator on the NSF-Sponsored
Environmental Manufacturing Management Program at Clarkson.
Valerie Thomas received her Ph.D. in theoretical physics from Cornell University. She is now
a Research Scientist at Princeton University at the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies
and the Princeton Environmental Institute. She is also a Lecturer in Princeton's Woodrow
Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, where she teaches the graduate course of
Methods in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy. Her research is in the areas of
Industrial Ecology and Environmental Policy. Recent research topics include mercury exposure,
dioxin sources, the economic demand impacts of second-hand markets, electronics for product
recycling, environmental policy in the former Soviet Union, and ethanol as a gasoline lead
replacement in Africa. She is co-author of the book "Industrial Ecology and Global Change,"
(Cambridge University Press, 1994). She is a Member of the Environmental Engineering
Committee of the EPA Science Advisory Board, and she participated in the SAB reviews of the
dioxin reassessment, the mercury report to congress, and the integrated risk project. She is a
Fellow of the American Physical Society.
Domenico Grasso is the Rosemary Bradford Hewlett Professor and Founding Chair of the
Picker Engineering Program a Smith College and holds adjunct faculty appointments at the
Universities of Connecticut and Massachusetts and Yale University. Prior to joining Smith, Dr.
Grasso was offered and declined the position of Professor (with tenure) and Chair in the
Department of Earth and Environmental Engineering at Columbia University. An environmental
engineer who studies the ultimate fate of contaminants in the environment and develops new
techniques to destroy or otherwise reduce the risks associated with these contaminants to human
health or natural resources, he focuses on molecular scale processes that underlie nature and
behavior of contaminants in environmental systems.
A-l
-------
He holds a B.Sc. from Worcester Polytechnic Institute, an M.S. from Purdue University and a
Ph.D. from The University of Michigan. He is a registered Professional Engineer in the states of
Connecticut and Texas, and was Professor and Head of Department in Civil & Environmental
Engineering at the University of Connecticut prior to joining Smith. He has been a Visiting
Scholar at UC-Berkeley, a NATO Fellow, and an Invited Technical Expert to the United Nations
Industrial Development Organization in Vienna Austria. He is currently a member of the United
States Environmental Protection Agency Science Advisory Board, President of the Association
of Environmental Engineering & Science Professors, and Editor-in-Chief of Environmental
Engineering Science. He has authored more than 100 technical papers & reports, including four
chapters and two books. Federal, state and industrial organizations have supported his research
work.
Reid J. Lifset is the Associate Director of the Industrial Environmental Management Program
and a member of the faculty at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. He did
his graduate work in political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and in
management at Yale University. His research focuses on the application of industrial ecology to
solid waste problems and the evolution of extended producer responsibility. He is the editor-in-
chief of the Journal of Industrial Ecology, an international quarterly on industry and the
environment, headquartered at and owned by Yale University and published by MIT Press. He
is member of the steering committee of the International Society for Industrial Ecology (ISIE),
the Science Advisory Board of Material Flow Analysis for Sustainable Resource Management
(MFAStorM) of the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) and the
editorial advisory board for the Kluwer book series on Eco-efficiency. He has been a Javitts
Fellow and a Graduate Fellow at the Program in Science, Technology and Society at MIT and a
J.D. Rockefeller III Fellow at Yale.
Byung R. Kim received his Ph.D. in Environmental Engineering from the University of Illinois,
Urbana, IL. He is now Staff Technical Specialist in the Chemistry and Environmental Science
Department of Ford Research Laboratory, Dearborn, MI and is a professional engineer. His
current research interest is in understanding various manufacturing emission issues
(physical/chemical/biological waste treatment processes and the overall environmental impact of
manufacturing processes). He also has worked on the adsorption of organics on activated carbon
and water quality modeling. He has served on the EPA SAB Environmental Engineering
Committee and was Editor of the Journal of Environmental Engineering, American Society of
Civil Engineers (ASCE). He served on the advisory board for the National Institute of
Environmental Health Superfund Basic Research Program at the University of Cincinnati. He
received a Richard R. Torrens Award for editorial leadership from ASCE and two Willem
Rudolfs Medals from Water Environment Federation on his publications.
Catherine P. Koshland is the Wood-Calvert Professor in Engineering at the University of
California, Berkeley, and Professor in Energy and Resources and in Public Health
(Environmental Health Sciences). Professor Koshland graduated with a B. A. in Fine Arts from
Haverford College, studied painting at the New York School of Drawing, Painting and
Sculpture, and received her M. S. in Mechanical Engineering in 1978 and her Ph.D. in 1985
from Stanford University. She joined the U. C. Berkeley faculty in 1984. Professor Koshland's
A-2
-------
research is at the intersection of energy, air pollution and environmental (human) health. It is
conducted at multiple scales, from mechanistic analyses of combustion products in flow reactors
to control strategies in urban airsheds to improved management of the global industrial
production system, addressing the conception and assessment of environmental and health
dimensions to improve energy and manufacturing technologies. Prof. Koshland is Associate
Director of the UC Berkeley Superfund Basic Research Program, and Director of Health Effects
of Modern Technologies, the Berkeley component of the UC Toxic Substances Research and
Teaching Program. At Berkeley, she is Vice-Chair of the Academic Senate, and served on the
Commission on Undergraduate Education. She is a director and Secretary of the Combustion
Institute and serves on the editorial board of Combustion Science and Technology. She is Vice
Chair of the Board of Managers of Haverford College.
Robert C. Pfahl, Jr., received his B.M.E., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees from Cornell University
where he majored in heat transfer and fluid mechanics. Dr. Pfahl is Director of International and
Environmental Research and Development at Motorola's Corporate Manufacturing Research
Center where he is responsible for globalizing Motorola's Corporate Manufacturing Research
Center and in leading Motorola's Environmental Technology R&D. He holds eight U.S. patents
in electronics manufacturing technology and invented the Vapor Phase reflow soldering process
while at Lucent Technologies' Engineering Research Center. Dr. Pfahl is Co-Chair of the
National Electronics Manufacturing Initiative (NEMI) Technical Committee and led the U.S.
Electronics Industry in the preparation of the 1994 and 1996 NEMI Roadmaps. The NEMI
Roadmaps are recognized as the definitive documents in the electronics industry for future
technology requirements. He has published extensively in the areas of heat transfer, materials,
and environmental technology. In recognition of his efforts to eliminate the use of CFCs in the
electronics industry, Dr. Pfahl received the 1991 United States EPA Stratospheric Ozone
Protection Award for "Executive Leadership and Industry Organizing." He chaired the American
Electronics Association's CFC Task Force.
A-3
-------
REFERENCES
Allenby, BR and Richards, DJ, eds. 1994. The Greening of Industrial Ecosystems. National
Academy of Engineering, National Academy Press, Washington DC.
Andrews, R. N. L. et al. 2001 (forthcoming). Environmental Management Systems: History,
Theory, and Implementation Research. Chapter 2 in Regulating from the Inside: Can
Environmental Management Systems Achieve Policy Goals? C. Coglianese and J. Nash, eds.
Washington, DC: Resources for the Future Press.
Ausubel JH and Sladovich, HE, eds. 1989. Technology and Environment. National Academy of
Engineering. National Academy Press, Washington DC.
Ayres, RU. 1993. "Cowboys, Cornucopians and Long-run Sustainability," Ecological Economics
8:189-207.
Ayres, RU. 1989. "Industrial Metabolism," pp. 23-49 in Technology and Environment. National
Academy of Engineering. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Cleveland, C. J. and Ruth, M. 1998. Indicators of Dematerialization and the Materials Intensity
of Use. Journal of Industrial Ecology 2(3): 15-50.
Commission of the European Communities. 2001. "Green Paper on Integrated Product Policy,"
Brussels, February 7, COM(2001) 68 final
(http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/ipp/home.htm).
Curran MA. 1996. Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment. McGraw Hill, New York.
Daily, G (ed). 1997. Nature 's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island
Press, Washington DC.
de Caluwe, Nils. 1997. Ecotools Manual - A Comprehensive Review of Design for Environment
Tools. Design for Environment Research Group, Dept of Mechanical Engineering, Design and
Manufacture, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK.
http ://sun 1 .mpce. stu.mmu. ac.uk/pages/proj ects/dfe/pubs/dfe3 3/frame.htm
Esty, D. and M. Porter. 1998. "Industrial ecology and competitiveness: strategic implications for
the firm." Journal of Industrial Ecology. 2(l):35-43.
Fagan, D, Harris, P., Kaduck, J., McCarroll, J., Scott, J., Ueno, K. 2000. Beyond RCRA:
Prospects for Waste and Materials Management in the Year 2020. Draft White Paper.
Frosch, R. A., andN. Gallopoulos. 1989. "Strategies for Manufacturing", Scientific American,
261(3), 144-152 (September).
R-l
-------
Goeller, HE, and Weinberg, AM. 1976. "The Age of Substitutability." Science 191:683-689.
Graedel, TE and Allenby, BR 1995. Industrial Ecology. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey.
Gutowski, T. 2001. "Environmentally Benign Manufacturing: Executive Summary,"
International Technology Research Institute, Loyola College, Baltimore, MD.
http://itri.loyola.edu/ebm/ebm.pdf
Harrison, K. 1998. Talking with the Donkey: Cooperative Approaches to Environmental
Protection. J. Industrial Ecology 2(3):51-72.
Hendrickson, C, AHorvath, S. Joshi, L. Lave. 1998. "Economic Input-Output Models for
Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment." Environmental Science and Technology 32(7): 184A-
184A-191A.
Hertwich EG, WS Pease, CP Koshland, 1997. "Evaluating the Environmental Impact of Products
and Production Processes - A Comparison of Six Methods. " Science of the Total Environment
196:13-29.
Holdren, JP, Ehrlich PR, Ehrlich AH, and Harte, J. 1980. Science 210: 1296-1301.
Huisman, J., A. Stevels, A. Middendorf 2001. "Calculating Environmentally Weighted
Recyclability of Consumer Electronic Products Using Different Environmental Assessment
Models." Proc. International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment (ISEE), Inst. of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), Denver, May.
ISO 14041, 1998. Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Goal and Scope
Definition and Inventory Analysis. 1st edition, section 5.3.5. International Organization for
Standardization.
Kates, RW, WC Clark, R Corell, JM Hall, CC Jaeger, I Lowe, JJ. McCarthy, HJ Schellnhuber, B
Bolin, NM Dickson, S Faucheux, GC Gallopin, A Griibler, B Huntley, J Jager, NS Jodha, RE
Kasperson, A Mabogunje, P Matson, H Mooney, B Moore III, T O'Riordan, and U Svedin. 2001
(27 April). "Sustainability Science," Science 292(5517): 641-642.
Larson ED, MH Ross, and RH Williams. 1986. "Beyond the Era of Materials, " Scientific
American 254(6): 3 4-41.
Life Cycle Assessment Society of Japan, 1998. Proceedings of the Third International
Conference on EcoBalance, Nov. 25-27, 1998, Tsukuba. Tokyo: Ecomaterials Forum.
Luo, Y, P Wirojanagud, RJ Caudill. 2001. "Comparison of Major Environmental Performance
Metrics and their Application to Typical Electronic Products." Proc. International Symposium on
R-2
-------
Electronics and the Environment (ISEE), Inst. Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE),
Denver, May.
Meadows, DH, DL Meadows, J. Randers, WW Behrens. 1972. The Limits to Growth. Universe
Books, New York.
Nakicenovic, N. 1996. "Freeing Energy from Carbon," pp. 95-112 in The Liberation of the
Environment. Daedelus. Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences., Summer 1996.
National Academy of Engineering, 1994. Industrial Ecology: US-Japan Perspectives. National
Academy Press, Washington, DC. http://www.nap.edu/books/NX002983/html
National Academy of Engineering, 1999. Industrial Environmental Performance Metrics:
Challenges and Opportunities. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
National Academy of Science, 2001. The Grand Challenges of Environmental Science. National
Academy Press, Washington, DC.
NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory), 2001. US LCI Database Project.
http ://www.nrel .gov/buildings/highperformance/lci .htm
O'Rourke, D., Connelly L., Koshland C. P. 1996. "Industrial Ecology: A Critical Review". Int. J.
Environment and Pollution 6(2/3):89-l 12.
Powers, C. and M. Chertow. 1997. "Industrial Ecology: Overcoming Policy Fragmentation" In
Chertow and Esty, ed. Thinking Ecologically: The Next Generation of Environmental Policy.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1992. 89:793-884.
SAB, 2000a, "Overcoming Barriers to Waste Utilization."
SAB, 2000b, "Toward Integrated Environmental Decision Making,"
EPA-SAB-EC-00-011, Science Advisory Board, Washington DC.
SAB, 2000c. Commentary Resulting from a Workshop on the Diffusion and
Adoption of Innovations in Environmental Protection. EPA-SAB-EEC-COM-01-001.
November.
Simon, JL. 1980. "Resources, Population, Environment: An Oversupply of False Bad News."
Science 208:1431-1437.
Socolow, R, C Andrews, F. Berkhout, and V. Thomas, eds. 1994. Industrial Ecology and Global
Change. Cambridge University Press.
R-3
-------
Sousa I, JL Eisenhard and D Wallace. 2001. "Approximate
Life-Cycle Assessment of Product Concepts using Learning Systems."
Journal of Industrial Ecology. 4(4): 61-81.
Stahel, W. 1994. "The Utilization-Focused Service Economy," in The Greening of Industrial
Ecosystems. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Stern, PC, T Dietz, VW. Ruttan, RH. Socolow, and JL. Sweeney, eds. Environmentally
Significant Consumption: Research Directions . Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global
Change, National Research Council 1997.
Tietenberg, T. 1997. "Relevant Experience with Tradable Entitlements," in Tietenberg, T., ed.,
The Economics of Global Warming. Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
Tilton, JE. 2001. Depletion and the Long-run Availability of Mineral Commodities. Workshop
on the Long-run Availability of Mineral Commodities, sponsored by the Mining, Minerals and
Sustainable Development Project and Resources for the Future. Washington, DC, April 22-23.
Tukker, A. 2002. "Ecodesign: The State of Implementation in Europe." Accepted for publication
in J. Sustainable Product Design.
US EPA, 2000. LCAccess. National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Life-Cycle
Assessment web site. http://www.epa.gov/ORD/NRMRL/lcaccess/
US EPA, 2001. Briefing Paper on Industrial Ecology and EPA. 2001. EPA
Industrial Ecology Workgroup. March.
Wernick IK, R Herman, S Gorind, JH Ausubel. 1996. Materialization and Dematerialization:
Measures and Trends, pp. 171-198, in The Liberation of the Environment. Daedalus. J.
American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Summer 1996.
Wernick, IK and Ausubel, JH. 1997. Industrial Ecology: Some Directions for Research. Office
of Energy and Environmental Systems, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
ISBN 0-9646419-0-7.
Wilgenbusch, 2000. Lifecycle Assessment Software.
http://members.nbci.com/wilgenbusch/lca.html
Williams, RH, ED Larson, and MH Ross. 1987. Materials, Affluence, and Industrial Energy
Use. Annual Review of Energy and Environment 12:99-144.
World Resources Institute (WRI). 2000. "Environmental Policies in the New Millennium." WRI,
Washington, DC.
R-4
------- |