Defining the Environmentally Responsible Facility*

Braden R. Allenby and Thomas E. Graedel

Traditionally, environmental concerns and subsequent regulation have focused on perturbations that were local in both time and space (e.g., individual waste disposal sites, specific airsheds or watersheds). The desire was to clean up the air over Los Angeles or to make the Hudson River clean enough to support fisheries again or to clean up industrial dump sites such as Love Canal. This approach is based on the implicit assumption that control of emissions and cleanup of natural areas can alleviate the adverse environmental impacts of human economic activity.

As implemented in environmental regulatory practice, this mindset has resulted in a focus on manufacturing activities. All existing major environmental laws in the United States (e.g., the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act) deal almost entirely with industrial emissions or the sites of previous industrial emissions or waste disposal. Regulations have identified and, in many cases, mandated specific emission control technologies for such point sources. They have less frequently attempted to deal with geographically dispersed nonpoint sources, such as agricultural runoff. This approach has led to instances of significant short-term reductions in pollution—the Hudson is indeed cleaner than it was 15 years ago. It has also begged the inevitable questions associated with the more fundamental restructuring of technology and economic activity that will undoubtedly be required if a stable long-term global carrying capacity for the human species is to be achieved.

*  

A version of this paper was published previously in Industrial Ecology. ©1995 Prentice-Hall. Reprinted by permission.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 42
--> Defining the Environmentally Responsible Facility* Braden R. Allenby and Thomas E. Graedel Traditionally, environmental concerns and subsequent regulation have focused on perturbations that were local in both time and space (e.g., individual waste disposal sites, specific airsheds or watersheds). The desire was to clean up the air over Los Angeles or to make the Hudson River clean enough to support fisheries again or to clean up industrial dump sites such as Love Canal. This approach is based on the implicit assumption that control of emissions and cleanup of natural areas can alleviate the adverse environmental impacts of human economic activity. As implemented in environmental regulatory practice, this mindset has resulted in a focus on manufacturing activities. All existing major environmental laws in the United States (e.g., the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act) deal almost entirely with industrial emissions or the sites of previous industrial emissions or waste disposal. Regulations have identified and, in many cases, mandated specific emission control technologies for such point sources. They have less frequently attempted to deal with geographically dispersed nonpoint sources, such as agricultural runoff. This approach has led to instances of significant short-term reductions in pollution—the Hudson is indeed cleaner than it was 15 years ago. It has also begged the inevitable questions associated with the more fundamental restructuring of technology and economic activity that will undoubtedly be required if a stable long-term global carrying capacity for the human species is to be achieved. *   A version of this paper was published previously in Industrial Ecology. ©1995 Prentice-Hall. Reprinted by permission.

OCR for page 42
--> It is now apparent that this first, naive view of the interaction of the global economy with natural environmental systems is simplistic and inadequate. It must be replaced with a more systems-based approach that goes beyond localized phenomena and integrates environment and technology throughout all human economic activity. This nascent, multidisciplinary field is known as industrial ecology and is being implemented in private firms in the manufacturing sector through methodologies and tools developed using design-for-environment (DFE) approaches (Allenby, 1992, 1994a; American Electronics Association, 1993). DFE programs may, in turn, be divided into two categories: generic DFE, which includes things such as ''green" accounting systems (Todd, 1994) to improve the environmental performance of the firm as a whole, and specific DFE, which focuses on tools applied to the design of individual manufacturing processes and products (Allenby, 1994b; Glantschnig, 1992). The relationship between past approaches for evaluating the environmental impacts of human activities and industrial ecology is captured in Table 1. Note the shift in emphasis from specific wastes and materials to products as they are actually used in commerce, and from a geographically and temporally localized view of environmental insults to a regional and global view. This shift recognizes that local insults must be remedied but that the environmental perturbations of real concern relate to the broader issues of human population growth, loss of biodiversity, global climate change, ozone depletion, and depletion of water and arable soil. It is worth emphasizing that the past (remediation) and present (compliance) approaches are closely linked and generally require similar competencies. Industrial ecology is far broader in its economic and environmental implications and requires very different competencies (e.g., strategic planning). It is different in kind, not just degree, from the mindset behind both the remediation and the compliance approaches to environmental perturbations. What is the implication of this new philosophy for facilities? For one, industrial ecology requires that facilities of all types be subject to the same scope of evaluation as product or process design. Facilities must be evaluated in terms of the materials with which they are constructed, how they are used (analogous to process technology issues), and how they are refurbished and reused (analogous to product-life extension). As with other DFE efforts, the goal is to design, purchase, or adapt facilities in an environmentally responsible manner that contributes to their competitive advantage. This matrix tool, therefore, should be regarded as only one component of the full DFE set that must be developed as firms begin implementing the principles of industrial ecology. The Environmentally Responsible Facility Two aspects of industrial ecology/DFE are critical for the environmentally responsible facility (ERF). The first is the emphasis in any DFE analysis on a

OCR for page 42
--> TABLE 1 Evolution of Environmental Regulation Time Focus Principal Activity Focus of Activity Geographic/ Temporal Scale Endpoints Key Competencies Regulatory Approach Government/ Institutional Leaders Past Remediation Waste substances/ Sites Local/ Immediate Reduction of immediate human risk Toxicology, environmental science Command and control U.S. environmentalists Present/ Emphasis on past Compliance Emitted substances; emphasis on end-of-pipe control Point source/ Immediate Reduction of immediate human risk Toxicology, environmental science, environmental engineering Command and control; mandated end-of-pipe technologies Developed countries/ Environmentalists Present/ Looking toward future Industrial ecology/ Design for environment Products and services over life-cycle/ Industrial and consumer behavior in actual economy and resulting environmental impacts Regional and global systems at all time scales Sustainability, including global climate change; loss of biodiversity; degradation of water, soil, and atmospheric resources; ozone depletion Physical and biological sciences; engineering (especially chemical engineering) and technology; environmental science; business; law; and economics Product life-cycle regulation (e.g., product take-back); market incentives for environmentally appropriate behavior (e.g., ecolabels; "energy star," international standards; "green procurement") European Union, especially Netherlands and Germany; industry, especially electronics

OCR for page 42
--> systems-based, life-cycle approach. As applied to facilities, this means that both the initial siting decision and the decision to refurbish, sell, or close the facility should take into account the environmental implications of those actions. The second is to realize that this field is in a nascent stage of development. What we present here, therefore, represents an initial effort to define a DFE tool to evaluate ERFs, which we anticipate will be considerably elaborated in the future. Any methodology that is to be broadly applicable to facilities must be process rather than technology oriented. A fast-food restaurant and a silicon chip manufacturing plant are vastly different in function and technology, yet it is appropriate and necessary to make the same basic evaluations of both. The tool we are proposing here is designed to establish and support a generally applicable assessment process. In practice, however, characteristics specific to the location, purpose, local ecology and demographics, and embedded technology of each facility will come into play in performing the evaluation. Experience appears to demonstrate that a life-cycle assessment (LCA) of a complex facility is most effective when it is done in modest depth and in a qualitative manner by an industrial ecology specialist. To facilitate such assessments, we have devised a standardized environmentally responsible facility matrix, supported by a checklist to guide assessors in valuing the matrix elements. The matrix scoring system provides a straightforward means of comparing options, and dot charts are recommended as a convenient and visually useful way of calling attention to those design and implementation aspects of the facility whose modification could most dramatically improve the ERF rating. ERF assessment need not and should not be applied only to manufacturing facilities. Any facility providing products or services—oil refineries, auto body shops, fast-food restaurants, office buildings, and so forth—can benefit from the approach. It would not be unreasonable, in fact, for developers of private housing to use this methodology, if incentives could be created for them to do so. The ERF Matrix A suitable ERF assessment system should: allow direct comparisons among facilities, be usable and reasonably consistent across different assessment teams, encompass all stages of facility operations and all relevant environmental concerns, and be simple enough to permit relatively quick and inexpensive assessments. The central feature of the system we recommend is a five-by-five matrix, one dimension of which is environmental concern, the other of which is facility activities (Table 2). The assessor studies the different activities within the facility and their impacts and assigns to each element of the matrix a rating from 0 (high-

OCR for page 42
--> TABLE 2 Environmentally Responsible Facility Assessment Matrix   Environmental Concerna   Ecological Impacts Energy Use Solid Residues Liquid Residues Gaseous Residues Site selection, development, and infrastructure 1,1 1,2 1,3 1,4 1,5 Principal business activity—products 2,1 2,2 2,3 2,4 2,5 Principal business activity—processes 3,1 3,2 3,3 3,4 3,5 Facility operations 4,1 4,2 4,3 4,4 4,5 Facility refurbishment, closure, or transfer 5,1 5,2 5,3 5,4 5,5 a The number in each cell corresponds to the relevant question set for that cell, as outlined in the Appendix. est impact, a very negative evaluation) to 4 (lowest impact, an exemplary evaluation). The ERF rating is the sum of the matrix element values. Because there are 25 matrix elements, the best facility rating is 100. In arriving at an individual matrix element assessment, or in offering advice to managers seeking to improve the rating of a particular matrix, the assessor uses detailed checklists and special evaluation techniques. Many checklist items will be common to all facilities, whereas others will be specific to the activity of the particular facility. An illustrative ERF checklist system for a generic manufacturing facility appears as an appendix to this paper. The assignment of discrete values from zero to 4 for each matrix element assumes that the DFE implications of each element are equally important. The utility of the assessment might be increased by applying weighting factors to the matrix elements, although this may also increase the complexity of the task. For example, if global warming impacts of a facility's operations were judged to outweigh the localized impacts of liquid residues, weighting of the "energy use" column could be increased and that of the "liquid residue" column correspondingly decreased. When comparing facilities or assessments with one another, of course, identical weighting factors must be used. This system is deliberately semiquantitative to respond to the conundrum that has often bedeviled attempts to develop workable DFE/LCA tools. On the one hand, it is extremely difficult—many professionals would say impossible—to quantify the impacts of even those environmental releases and effects that can be inventoried. For example, how should one quantitatively evaluate the tradeoffs between using a substance with a highly uncertain potential for human carcinogenicity and one tied to possible loss of biodiversity? (What is the value of a

OCR for page 42
--> species, and is it ethical even to pose such a question?) On the other hand, quantitative systems are a prerequisite for diffusion of DFE methodologies and concepts throughout industry, especially if modifications to business planning and design processes are desired. The ERF matrix system thus explicitly relies on the professional judgment of industrial ecologists, while allowing for standardization of dimensions through common checklists as the state of the art advances and experience is gained. The system provides an easily used management and operational tool, but it does not pretend to greater certainty than the underlying data justify. Matrix Structure The columns of the matrix correspond to the five major classes of environmental concern: ecological impacts, energy use, solid residues, liquid residues, and gaseous residues. Although other categories could no doubt be suggested, these are readily understood and reasonably comprehensive, in keeping with the practical intent of the system. Both local ecological impacts and (if applicable) loss of biodiversity could be included in the first column, for example. The rows correspond to the life-cycle of a generic facility (modified slightly to fit the manufacturing example we are using). As these are less intuitive (even environmental professionals are not yet familiar with the concept of the life-cycle of a facility), a more detailed description of each life-cycle stage is appropriate. Site Selection, Development, and Infrastructure A significant factor in evaluating the degree of a facility's environmental responsibility is the site selected and the way in which the site is developed. If the facility is an extraction or materials-processing operation (e.g., oil refining or ore smelting), the location will generally be constrained by the need to be proximate to the resource. A manufacturing facility usually requires access to good transportation and a suitable workforce but otherwise may be unconstrained. Service facilities usually must be located near customers. Office buildings may be located virtually anywhere, so long as it is reasonably possible for employees to commute. Housing developments must be located where people want to live. In all cases, it might be possible to refurbish or add new operations to existing facilities, avoiding many of the regulatory difficulties and environmental impacts of establishing a "greenfield" facility site. Manufacturing plants have traditionally been located in or near urban areas. Such siting has the advantages of drawing on a geographically concentrated workforce and of using existing transportation and utility infrastructures. One problem with urban sites in some countries is that there may be laws that force purchasers of property formerly used for commercial or industrial purposes to assume liability for any environmental damage caused by the previous owner or

OCR for page 42
--> owners. The result has been that urban industrial areas, which from an industrial ecology standpoint are in many ways ideal locations for industrial facilities, have been virtually impossible to use. The governmental and legal systems need to devise a means around this difficulty. (Environmental liability difficulties in urban areas are sometimes secondary to such factors as crime, congestion, and high taxes [Boyd and Macauley, 1994]). For facilities of any kind built on land not previously used for industrial or commercial purposes, one can anticipate that there will be ecological impacts on regional biodiversity as well as added air emissions (from construction and use of new transportation and utility infrastructures) and water emissions (from sanitary facilities and manufacturing activities). These effects can be minimized by using as much as possible existing infrastructures and developing the site by leaving the maximum area in its natural form. Nonetheless, given the current overstock of commercial buildings and facilities in many countries, such "greenfield" choices are hard to justify from an industrial ecology perspective. Evaluation of existing infrastructure also requires consideration, and possibly redesign, of other local operations. Within each facility, for example, it is sometimes possible to use a residue stream from one process as a feed stream for another, to use excess heat from one process to provide heat for another, and so on. Such actions constitute steps toward a facility ecosystem. Chemical manufacturing plants, in particular, have made good progress along these lines. Opportunities also exist to establish portions of industrial ecosystems when facilities owned by different parent companies agree to share residual products or residual energy. Such an approach is encouraged by geographical proximity. For example, the AT&T manufacturing plant in Columbus, Ohio, is about 1 km from a solid-waste landfill that emits methane gas, a by-product of the biodegradation of landfilled material. AT&T purchases the gas from the landfill and pipes it to its plant boiler, where the gas furnishes up to 25 percent of the necessary energy for manufacturing. At the same time, emissions of methane into the air, a greenhouse gas, are reduced. More complex arrangements are possible, especially if planning is done before facilities are built. These involve establishing close relationships with suppliers, customers, and neighboring industries, and working with those partners to close materials cycles. In the same way that close relationships promote just-in-time delivery of supplies and components, so, too, can those relationships help corporations implement environmentally responsible manufacturing. An outstanding and still unique example of the partnership approach exists in Kalundborg, Denmark, where 10 years of effort have culminated in the interactive network shown in Figure 1 (Graedel and Allenby, 1995; Terp, 1991). Four main participants are involved: the Asnaesverket Power Company, a Novo Nordisk pharmaceutical plant, a Gyproc facility for producing wallboard, and a Statoil refinery. Steam, gas, cooling water, and gypsum are exchanged among the participants, and some heat also is used for fish farming and residential green-

OCR for page 42
--> Figure 1 Industrial ecosystem at Kalundborg, Denmark. house heating. Residual products not usable in the immediate vicinity, such as fly ash and sludge, are sold for use elsewhere. None of the arrangements were required by law; rather, all were negotiated independently for reasons of better materials prices or avoidance of materials disposal costs. It is probably accurate to refer to this cooperative project as an early model of an industrial ecosystem. The Kalundborg experience provides a model for industrial ecology at the ecopark level, especially where industrial activities occur in close proximity to one another. Principal Business Activity—Products Clearly, any facility that generates products or activities that are environmentally inappropriate should not be considered an ERF. Thus, for example, an otherwise environmentally appropriate manufacturing facility that makes widgets whose design does not permit them to be recycled cannot under most circumstances be considered an ERF, regardless of how well designed it is in other aspects. Evaluating this aspect of the ERF will require analysis of the output of the facility, whatever that may be. If the output is a product, the environmentally responsible product matrix system can be used (Graedel and Allenby, 1995). Principal Business Activity—Processes As with products, it is apparent that, for a facility to be environmentally responsible, its internal processes must also be environmentally responsible. For manu-

OCR for page 42
--> facturing facilities, for example, this means that emissions of residues from all processes should be evaluated and the amount of residue converted to waste minimized, the use of toxic materials in processes should be minimized, and the appropriate emission controls should be installed. Similarly, for an office building from which services are provided, the amount of paper used in the processes underlying the service should be minimized, and the use of recycled paper in all operating processes should be maximized. The use of recycled paper in customer billing, for example, would help make the facility within which the billing operation is housed an ERF, all other things being equal. Evaluation of this aspect of a facility's processes can be accomplished using the environmentally responsible process matrix system (Graedel and Allenby, 1995). Facility Operations Facility operations can involve a host of disparate activities. For example, the impact of any facility on the environment is heavily weighted by transportation. As with many other aspects of industrial ecology, trade-offs are involved. For example, just-in-time delivery of components and modules has been hailed as cost effective and efficient. Nonetheless, it has been estimated that the largest contributor to the Tokyo smog problem is trucks making just-in-time deliveries. The corporations delivering and those receiving the components and modules bear some degree of responsibility for these emissions. It is sometimes possible to reduce transport demands by improved scheduling and coordination, perhaps in concert with nearby industrial partners. And there may be options that encourage ride sharing, telecommuting, and other activities that reduce overall emissions from employee vehicles. Material entering or leaving a facility also offers opportunities for useful action. To the extent that the material is related to products, it is captured by the product DFE assessments. Facilities receive and disperse much nonproduct material, however, including food for employee cafeterias, office supplies, restroom supplies, maintenance items such as lubricants, fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, and road salt. Frequently, materials and other inputs to a facility are "overpackaged," resulting in substantial unnecessary waste generation. Packaging recycling programs and pressure on suppliers to use environmentally conscious packaging can cut such material consumption significantly. An ERF should have a structured program to evaluate each incoming and outgoing materials stream and to tailor it and its packaging in environmentally responsible directions. The use of energy by a facility requires careful scrutiny as well, because opportunities for improvement are always present. An example is industrial lighting systems, whose energy needs account for between 5 and 10 percent of air pollution from power plant emissions (in the form of CO2, SO2, heavy metals, and particulates). As with many environmentally related business expenditures, lighting costs are often lumped in with overhead and therefore are not known

OCR for page 42
--> precisely. The use of modern technology has the potential to decrease electrical expenditures for lighting by 50 percent or more. To promote these changes, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has initiated the Green Lights program, which encourages the use of high-efficiency fluorescent ballasts and lamps, automatic shut-off of lights when not in use by means of occupancy sensors, and mirrorlike reflectors in existing fluorescent systems (Hoffman, 1992). Corporations agreeing to participate in this voluntary program commit to surveying their lighting and upgrading their systems in ways that reduce pollution, improve the quality of lighting, and still allow for profit goals to be met. Several states and several hundred corporations have agreed to participate. A routine part of facility operation is the care of the land surrounding buildings or other structures. It is increasingly common to allow that land to serve as a habitat for local flora and fauna. (See, for example, Skinner, 1994.) Such use is good for the environment, public relations, and employee morale, and the elimination of the need for regular maintenance often results in cost savings as well. Facility Refurbishment, Closure, or Transfer Just as environmentally responsible products are being designed increasingly for "product-life extension," so too should ERFs be designed for easy upgrading. Buildings contain substantial amounts of material with significant embedded energy, and the environmental disruption (particularly in the local area) involved in constructing buildings and related infrastructure is significant. In the United States, construction accounts for the largest use of material by far. In 1990, for example, some 2.53 billion metric tons of materials were consumed, of which about 70 percent, or 1.75 billion metric tons, was construction materials (Bureau of Mines, 1993). Clearly, an ERF must be designed to be easily refurbished for new uses, to be transferred to new owners and operators with a minimum of alteration, and, if it must be closed, to permit recovery for reuse and recycling of materials, fixtures, and other components. To some extent, the first two requirements are taken into consideration today, but, in general, the latter is almost never recognized as an important design feature of new facilities. Construction of Dot Charts After the overall rating for a facility is determined, the use of a dot chart will provide a succinct display of the results and facilitate the identification of issues that should be given special attention. Such a plot is shown in Figure 2, constructed using illustrative data. Outliers can be readily identified. In the example, the greatest opportunity for improvement lies at points 2, 5; 4, 2; and 5, 3. Alternative facility locations or different designs for environmental preferability can be easily compared using dot charts.

OCR for page 42
--> Figure 2 Dot chart representation of hypothetical ERF matrix results. Conclusion Despite rhetoric to the contrary and years of practice, a true systems-based, life-cycle approach to assessing facilities' environmental impacts virtually does not exist. Emissions have been targeted for regulation for years, but the concept that the facility itself should be designed to be environmentally "friendly" over its lifetime has never been explored, in spite of the enormous environmental impacts of construction and development. This in itself is a significant indictment of the current fragmented, ad hoc system of environmental management and regulation, and a clear demonstration of the need to move toward policies and practices based on industrial ecology principles. The ERF matrix system begins the process of thinking about facilities from the life-cycle perspective, developing analytical tools and, as experience is gained, metrics to support the LCA of environmental impacts. Nonetheless, it must also be remembered that facilities are only part of the economic stream from which environmental impacts flow and that the matrix system is only one of many analytical tools that will be required. Unlike some LCA activities, overall LCA as presented here is less quantifiable and less thorough. It is also more practical. A survey of the modest depth that we advocate, performed by an objective professional, will succeed—for a relatively small investment of time and money—in identifying perhaps 80 or 90 percent of useful facility-related DFE actions that could be taken. It is far better to conduct a number of modest LCAs than to conduct one or two in great depth.

OCR for page 42
--> Furthermore, it is critical to recognize that using these practical tools, even if they are open to criticism by purists, represents a substantial advance over any practices currently in place. The key ingredient in a successful LCA is the expert who performs it. This person, whether from inside or outside the corporation, must be experienced and knowledgeable about the types of products, processes, and facilities being reviewed. This is a lot to ask, but no more than if the same person were to perform a classical LCA with the same goals. Improvement analysis—and the actual implementation of the identified improvements—is the ultimate goal of all industrial ecology activities. As with most ecological situations, however, the actions taken will reflect a variety of trade-offs. One should not enter into a life-cycle analysis of a facility with the idea that all possible actions can be accomplished. Rather, the process helps identify elements of facility design or operations that might be modified; facility managers must decide which are practical to implement. The result will in each case be a facility that is much more environmentally sustainable than if nothing had been done. Note 1.   As part of AT&T's ongoing effort to implement industrial ecology through development of DFE methodologies, the company is creating a family of matrices, including ones dealing with environmentally responsible products and processes as well as facilities. The aim is to provide straightforward and easily used capability to perform life-cycle DFE assessments across major activities and operations of private firms.

OCR for page 42
--> Appendix The Environmentally Responsible Facility Matrix In this appendix, a sample of possible items appropriate to each of the matrix elements for the environmentally responsible facility matrix tool is presented. It is anticipated that different types of facilities will require different checklists and evaluations, so this appendix is presented as an example rather than as a universal formula. Facility Matrix Element 1,1 Facility Activity: Site Selection, Development, and Infrastructure Environmental Concern: Ecological Impacts Has the proposed site previously been used for similar activities? If not, have any such sites been surveyed for availability? Is necessary development activity, if any, being planned to avoid disruption of existing biological communities? Are the biota of the site compatible with all planned process emissions, including possible emissions that exceed allowable levels? Has the site been chosen to minimize the need for new on-site infrastructure (buildings, roads, etc.)? If new infrastructure must be created, are plans in place to minimize any resulting impacts on biota? Have provisions been made for orderly growth of infrastructure as facility operations expand, in order to avoid unnecessary health or environmental impacts? Facility Matrix Element 1,2 Facility Activity: Site Selection, Development, and Infrastructure Environmental Concern: Energy Use Is the site such that the facility can be made operational with only minimal energy expenditures? Has the site been selected to avoid any energy emission impacts on existing biota? Does the site allow delivery and installation of construction or renovation materials with minimal use of energy? Does existing energy infrastructure (gas pipelines, electric power cable) reduce or eliminate the need to build new systems?

OCR for page 42
--> Is it possible to use heat residues from within the plant or from nearby facilities owned by others to provide heat or power, or to cogenerate for them? Is it possible to use gaseous residues from within the plant or from nearby facilities owned by others to provide heat or power, or to cogenerate for them? Facility Matrix Element 1,3 Facility Activity: Site Selection, Development, and Infrastructure Environmental Concern: Solid Residues Is the site such that the facility can be made operational with only minimal production of solid residues? Have plans been made to ensure that any solid residues generated in the process of developing the site are managed to minimize their impacts on biota and human health? If any solid residues generated in the process of developing the site are hazardous or toxic to the biota or humans, have plans been made to minimize releases and exposures? Is it possible to use as feedstocks solid residues from nearby facilities owned by others? Is it possible to use solid residues from the proposed facility as feedstocks for nearby facilities owned by others? Can the transport and disposal of solid residues be shared with nearby facilities owned by others? Facility Matrix Element 1,4 Facility Activity: Site Selection, Development, and Infrastructure Environmental Concern: Liquid Residues Is the site such that the facility can be made operational with only minimal production of liquid residues? Have plans been made to ensure that any liquid residues generated in the process of developing the site are managed to minimize their impacts on biota and human health? If any liquid residues generated in the process of developing the site are hazardous or toxic to biota or humans, have plans been made to minimize releases and exposures? Is it possible to use as feedstocks liquid residues from nearby facilities owned by others? Is it possible to use liquid residues from the proposed facility as feedstocks for nearby facilities owned by others? Can the transport and disposal of liquid residues be shared with nearby facilities owned by others?

OCR for page 42
--> Facility Matrix Element 1,5 Facility Activity: Site Selection, Development, and Infrastructure Environmental Concern: Gaseous Residues Is the site such that the facility can be made operational with only minimal production of gaseous residues? Have plans been made to ensure that any gaseous residues generated in the process of developing the site are managed to minimize their impacts on biota and human health? If any gaseous residues generated in the process of developing the site are hazardous or toxic to biota or humans, have plans been made to minimize releases and exposures? Is it possible to use gaseous residues from the proposed facility to provide heat or power for nearby facilities owned by others? Is it possible to use gaseous residues from the proposed facility to provide process or product feedstocks for nearby facilities owned by others? Is it possible to share employee transportation infrastructure with nearby facilities owned by others to minimize air pollution by private vehicles? Facility Matrix Element 2,1 Facility Activity: Principal Business Activity—Products Environmental Concern: Ecological Impacts If the activity of this facility involves extraction of virgin materials, is the extraction planned so as to minimize ecological impacts, and have restoration plans been made and funding assured, as appropriate? Do all outputs from the site, including residue streams, have high ratings as environmentally responsible products? Are products designed to use recycled materials? Have all outputs from the site been dematerialized to the fullest extent possible? Facility Matrix Element 2,2 Facility Activity: Principal Business Activity—Products Environmental Concern: Energy Use Are products designed to require minimal consumption of energy in manufacture? Are products designed to require minimal consumption of energy in use? Are products designed to require minimal consumption of energy in recycling or disposal?

OCR for page 42
--> Facility Matrix Element 2,3 Facility Activity: Principal Business Activity—Products Environmental Concern: Solid Residues Are products designed to generate minimal and nontoxic solid residues during manufacture? Are products designed to generate minimal and nontoxic solid residues during use? Are products designed to generate minimal and nontoxic solid residues when recycled or disposed of? Facility Matrix Element 2,4 Facility Activity: Principal Business Activity—Products Environmental Concern: Liquid Residues Are products designed to generate minimal and nontoxic liquid residues during manufacture? Are products designed to generate minimal and nontoxic liquid residues during use? Are products designed to generate minimal and nontoxic liquid residues when recycled or disposed of? Facility Matrix Element 2,5 Facility Activity: Principal Business Activity—Products Environmental Concern: Gaseous Residues Are products designed to generate minimal and nontoxic gaseous residues during manufacture? Are products designed to generate minimal and nontoxic gaseous residues during use? Are products designed to generate minimal and nontoxic gaseous residues when recycled or disposed of? Facility Matrix Element 3,1 Facility Activity: Principal Business Activity—Processes Environmental Concern: Ecological Impacts Have all process materials been optimized from a design-for-environment standpoint? Have processes been dematerialized (evaluated to ensure that they have minimum resource requirements and that no unnecessary steps are required)? Do processes generate waste heat or emit residues that have the potential

OCR for page 42
--> to harm local or regional biological communities, and, if so, have capture and reuse of these resources been explored? Facility Matrix Element 3,2 Facility Activity: Principal Business Activity—Processes Environmental Concern: Energy Use Have all process materials been evaluated to ensure that they use as little energy as possible? Are processes monitored and maintained on a regular basis to ensure that they retain their energy efficiency as designed? Do process equipment specifications and standards require the use of energy-efficient components and subassemblies? Facility Matrix Element 3,3 Facility Activity: Principal Business Activity—Processes Environmental Concern: Solid Residues Are processes designed to generate minimal and nontoxic solid residues? Where solid materials are used as process inputs, have attempts been made to use recycled materials? Are processes designed to produce usable by-products, rather than byproducts suitable only for disposal? Facility Matrix Element 3,4 Facility Activity: Principal Business Activity—Processes Environmental Concern: Liquid Residues Are processes designed to generate minimal and nontoxic liquid residues? Where liquid materials are used as process inputs, have attempts been made to use recycled materials? Are pumps, valves, and pipes inspected regularly to minimize leaks? Facility Matrix Element 3,5 Facility Activity: Principal Business Activity—Processes Environmental Concern: Gaseous Residues Are processes designed to generate minimal and nontoxic gaseous residues? Are processes designed to avoid the production and release of odorants? If volatile organic compounds are utilized in any processes, are they selected so that any releases will have minimal photochemical smog impact? If greenhouse gases, particulates, or nitrogen or sulfur oxides are generated, are they captured and have less environmentally harmful options been evaluated?

OCR for page 42
--> Facility Matrix Element 4,1 Facility Activity: Facility Operations Environmental Concern: Ecological Impacts Has the maximum possible portion of the facility been returned to, or allowed to remain in, its natural state? Is the use of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, or any other chemical treatments on the property minimized? Is noise pollution from the site minimized? Facility Matrix Element 4,2 Facility Activity: Facility Operations Environmental Concern: Energy Use Is the energy needed for heating, ventilating, and cooling the facility minimized? Is the energy needed for lighting the facility minimized? Is energy efficiency a consideration when buying or leasing facility equipment such as copiers, computers, and fan motors? Have maintenance programs been designed and implemented to maintain peak energy efficiency of all systems? Has the possibility of on-site generation of energy in environmentally preferable ways been explored? Facility Matrix Element 4,3 Facility Activity: Facility Operations Environmental Concern: Solid Residues Is the facility designed to minimize the comingling of solid-waste streams? Are solid residues from facility operations reused or recycled to the maximum extent possible? Are unusable solid residues from facility operations (including food service) disposed of in an environmentally responsible manner and as close to the facility as possible? Facility Matrix Element 4,4 Facility Activity: Facility Operations Environmental Concern: Liquid Residues Is the facility designed to minimize the comingling of liquid-waste streams? Are liquid treatment plants monitored to ensure that they operate at peak efficiency?

OCR for page 42
--> Have liquid residue waste streams been reviewed to determine if they can be redesigned to be commercially valuable? Are unusable liquid residues from facility operations disposed of in an environmentally responsible manner? Facility Matrix Element 4,5 Facility Activity: Facility Operations Environmental Concern: Gaseous Residues Is operations-related transportation to and from the facility minimized? Are furnaces, incinerators, and other combustion processes and their related air pollution control devices monitored to ensure they are operating at peak efficiency? Is employee commuting minimized by job sharing, telecommuting, and similar programs? Facility Matrix Element 5,1 Facility Activity: Facility Refurbishment, Closure, or Transfer Environmental Concern: Ecological Impacts Will activities necessary to refurbish, close, or transfer the facility to alternate uses cause any ecological impacts and, if so, has planning been done to minimize such impacts? When refurbishment, closure, or transfer activities are undertaken, can the materials used and any surplus materials be recycled with a minimum of ecological impact? Has a ''facility-life extension" review been undertaken to optimize the life and service of the existing facility, therefore minimizing the need to construct new facilities with their attendant environmental impacts? Facility Matrix Element 5,2 Facility Activity: Facility Refurbishment, Closure, or Transfer Environmental Concern: Energy Use Can the facility be closed or transferred with a minimum expenditure of energy (including any necessary site cleanup and decontamination)? Can the facility be modernized and converted to other uses easily? When the facility is refurbished, closed, or transferred, has it been designed and are plans in place to recapture as much of the embedded energy as possible?

OCR for page 42
--> Facility Matrix Element 5,3 Facility Activity: Facility Refurbishment, Closure, or Transfer Environmental Concern: Solid Residues Can the facility be refurbished, closed, or transferred with minimal generation of solid residues, including those generated by site cleanup and decontamination? At closure, can the materials in the facility, including all structural material and remaining capital stock, be reused or recycled with minimal generation of solid residues? Have plans been made to minimize the toxicity of and exposures to any solid residues resulting from cleanup and decontamination of the facility and its environs upon refurbishment, transfer, or closure? Facility Matrix Element 5,4 Facility Activity: Facility Refurbishment, Closure, or Transfer Environmental Concern: Liquid Residues Can the facility be refurbished, closed, or transferred with minimal generation of liquid residues, including those generated by site cleanup and decontamination? At closure, can the materials in the facility, including all structural material and remaining capital stock, be reused or recycled with a minimal generation of liquid residues? Have plans been made to minimize the toxicity of and exposures to any liquid residues resulting from cleanup and decontamination of the facility and its environs upon refurbishment, transfer, or closure? Facility Matrix Element 5,5 Facility Activity: Facility Refurbishment, Closure, or Transfer Environmental Concern: Gaseous Residues Can the facility be refurbished, closed, or transferred with minimal generation of gaseous residues, including those generated by site cleanup and decontamination? At closure, can the materials in the facility, including all structural material and remaining capital stock, be reused or recycled with minimal generation of gaseous residues? Have plans been made to minimize the toxicity of and exposures to any gaseous residues resulting from cleanup and decontamination of the facility and its environs upon refurbishment, transfer, or closure?

OCR for page 42
--> References Allenby, B. R. 1992. Design for Environment: Implementing Industrial Ecology. Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J. Allenby, B. R. 1994a. Industrial ecology gets down to earth. IEEE Circuits and Devices 10(1):24-28. Allenby, B. R. 1994b. Integrating environment and technology: Design for environment. Pp. 137-148 in The Greening of Industrial Ecosystems, B. R. Allenby and D. J. Richards, eds. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. American Electronics Association. 1993. The Hows and Whys of Design for the Environment—A Primer for Members of the American Electronics Association. Washington, D.C.: American Electronics Association. Boyd, J., and M. K. Macauley. 1994. The impact of environmental liability on industrial real estate development. Resources (Winter): 19-23. Bureau of Mines. 1993. Materials and environment: Where do we stand? Minerals Today (April):6-13. Glantschnig, W. 1992. Design for environment (DFE): A systematic approach to green design in a concurrent engineering environment. In Proceedings of the First International Congress on Environmentally Conscious Design and Manufacturing, May 4-5, 1992, Boston, Mass. Graedel, T. E., and B. R. Allenby. 1995. Industrial Ecology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Hoffman, J. S. 1992. Pollution prevention as a market-enhancing strategy: A storehouse of economical and environmental opportunities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 89:832-834. Skinner, J. P. 1994. Chemical companies go for greener pastures. Today's Chemist at Work (March):40-48. Terp, E. 1991. Industrial symboise i Kalundborg. In the corporate report of the Asnaesverket Electric Power Co., Kalundborg, Denmark. Todd, R. 1994. Zero-loss environmental accounting systems. Pp. 191-200 in The Greening of Industrial Ecosystems, B. R. Allenby and D. J. Richards, eds. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.