A P P L I C AT I O N S A N D I M P L E M E N TAT I O N
Collaborative Problem
Solving Using an Industrial
Ecology Approach
The New York/New Jersey Harbor
Economy-Wide Substance Flow Case
Studies
Susan E. Boehme, Marta A. Panero, Gabriela R. Muñoz,
Charles W. Powers, and Sandra N. Valle
Keywords:
cooperative approaches
economy-wide material flow
analysis (EW-MFA)
emission reduction
industrial ecology
mass balance
pollution prevention (P2)
Address correspondence to:
Susan E. Boehme
c/o U.S. EPA GLNPO
77 W. Jackson Blvd. (G-17J)
Chicago, IL 60604
sboehme@illinois.edu
www.iisgcp.org
Summary
Over the course of ten years, a consortium of stakeholders (the Harbor Consortium) used a collaborative approach
to identify viable pollution prevention (P2) strategies for
specific contaminants, namely mercury, cadmium, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) as well as suspended solids entering the
New York/New Jersey Harbor. The project, titled “The New
York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed Pollution Prevention and
Industrial Ecology Project,” in a very conscious and overt way
engaged stakeholders in the process of developing P2 recommendations for the Harbor. The industrial ecology (IE) tools
applied by the Harbor Consortium include substance flow
analysis (SFA), material flow analysis (MFA), and, to a limited
extent, life cycle analysis (LCA) and fate and transport analysis (F&T), to quantify and characterize how the contaminants
flow through the regional economy and the Harbor Watershed once released to the environment. The application of
these scientific tools to five contaminants at such a large geographical scale, within the context of a broad and inclusive
stakeholder process, and with the goal of identifying and implementing pollution prevention strategies, led to a wide range
of surprising outcomes and lessons learned. Undertaking this
IE research with the key institutions and stakeholders at the
table resulted in the identification and the implementation of
many P2 opportunities.
c 2009 by Yale University
DOI: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2009.00166_2.x
Volume 13, Number 5
www.blackwellpublishing.com/jie
Journal of Industrial Ecology
811
A P P L I C AT I O N S A N D I M P L E M E N TAT I O N
Introduction and Background
The New York/New Jersey (NY/NJ) Harbor
watershed is a highly complex environment encompassing urban, suburban, rural, and agricultural regions, a population of nearly 14 million
people, several large rivers, and a major port
(figure 1). And a decade ago, a group of public
and private organizations from this region were
concerned with achieving twin goals: to continue
improvements in the environmental health of
the NY/NJ Harbor, without impairing the Harbor’s major contributions to the regional economy (Lifset 2000). To be sure, contamination
levels in the Harbor waters and even the sediments had for several decades been dropping. But
they remained too high. At the same time, dredging, a major mechanism for clearing the Harbor
(for both environmental and shipping purposes),
had become far more difficult since ocean disposal of the sediments had been banned. Hence,
it was widely believed that additional improvement would now require reductions in the flow
of new contaminants to the Harbor from diverse
but largely undocumented sources from throughout the watershed—sources whose size and significance were simply not understood. Missing then
were three major ingredients of reform: (1) an understandable articulation of the actual problem
for Harbor health posed by the major contaminants, (2) a credible way of tracking down and
assessing the sources of the new contaminants
entering the Harbor, and (3) some effective way
of converting the technical data into understandable steps that could be taken to slow or stop the
contaminant flow—steps that would have broad
public support.
At just the same time, the tools to carry out industrial ecology (IE) were, in the 1990s, becoming much more broadly understood. Could this
evolving science somehow be harnessed to address the three-part task just described? A workshop was held by the New York Academy of Sciences (NYAS) to evaluate its application to the
NY/NJ Harbor (NYAS 1998). IE was believed
to be a promising approach to understand the
Figure 1 Map of the New York/New Jersey watershed (indicated by shading).
812
Journal of Industrial Ecology
A P P L I C AT I O N S A N D I M P L E M E N TAT I O N
ongoing Harbor watershed contamination more
holistically, using the research and data previously collected and the ongoing studies of
contaminants in the NY/NJ Harbor (e.g., the
Contaminant Assessment and Reduction Project
[CARP] for the NY/NJ Harbor; the NY/NJ
Harbor Estuary Program; U.S. EPA EMAP and
REMAP; and others). Early work by Ayers (Ayers
and Rod 1986; Ayers 1989) laid the groundwork
by applying industrial ecology tools to the NY/NJ
Harbor.
Industrial ecology would be able to provide the
scientific and technical basis to devise mitigating
steps but would not be sufficient to bring about
the social acceptance of these measures. Previous
environmental improvements had come from the
top down through a process of regulation and enforcement. In contrast to this historical approach,
the NYAS chose a more inclusive approach and
convened a consortium of stakeholders composed
of individuals and organizations who were likely
going to be asked or required to change their
practices. Stakeholders were involved throughout the process, from the first steps of choosing
the contaminants through the finalization of recommendations for their abatement.1 From this
vision, the NYAS Harbor Project was born, and
the Harbor Consortium was established (NYAS
1998).
The NY/NJ Harbor Consortium worked to
achieve two goals:
• Apply the analytical tools of industrial
ecology such as material flow analysis (MFA)/substance flow analysis (SFA),
starting with all available science to understand, quantify, and address this ongoing
pollution, emphasizing a systems view.
• Identify and implement strategies and policies to prevent the continuing loadings
of five contaminants of concern to the
Harbor—mercury, cadmium, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxins, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)—
and suspended solids to the NY/NJ Harbor
watershed.
During this ten-year period, there were significant changes occurring in the political, economic, and environmental arenas both locally
and in the nation as a whole. Two major Superfund sites in the watershed,2 one contaminated
mainly with dioxins (Diamond Alkali Superfund
Site) and the other with PCBs (Hudson River
PCBs Superfund Site) reached major milestones
amid significant public interest and debate. Some
of the key players in these milestones were members of the Consortium. The U.S. EPA recognized
that fish consumption advisories should be based
on methylmercury not total mercury concentrations in fish, and therefore the project’s SFA of
methylmercury for the watershed was intensely
scrutinized (C. de Cerreño et al. 2002). The Consortium also was acutely aware that any recommendations put forth would likely require funding to implement. When possible, the economic
impacts of the recommendations were estimated
(Panero 2005). Thus, the SFA was just the first
step in getting to the ultimate goal of identifying recommendations for stemming the flow of
contaminants to the Harbor. Those recommendations were placed into the context of available
P2 and management strategies and within the
social and economic context of the Harbor watershed.
SFA was the main analytical tool used during
these studies. Production, usage, disposal, and recycling patterns, as well as exports and imports,
of the five contaminants were quantified to understand their flow through the watershed and
into the Harbor. The specifics of the SFA have
been previously described in the NYAS publications (C. de Cerreño et al. 2002; Boehme and
Panero 2003; Panero et al. 2005; Muñoz and
Panero 2006; Valle et al. 2007; Muñoz and Panero
2008). Pollution prevention was defined as all approaches that potentially decrease the amount
of a contaminant entering the Harbor watershed, including activities such as recycling and
reclamation.
Traditional application of SFA/MFA has focused on identifying quantities and pathways of
substances through either an economic, commercial, or industrial process, or geographical framework (e.g., Ayers and Rod 1986; Ayers 1989;
Stigliani et al. 1993; Hansen and Lassen 2003;
Cain et al. 2007). The NY/NJ Harbor project
combined several approaches of IE and utilized
them in the larger context of pollution prevention and decision making through a stakeholder
Boehme et al., Collaborative Problem Solving Using an Industrial Ecology Approach
813
A P P L I C AT I O N S A N D I M P L E M E N TAT I O N
process. Some of the key components were as
follows:
1. Scale and framework: Although SFA is often applied at the product, facility, or industry level, in this case it was applied to
an entire watershed to quantify the flows of
contaminants to the NY/NJ Harbor. The
same analytical framework (in particular,
input/output) also was used to develop a
Harbor-wide mass balance (MB) for each
contaminant, providing a second estimate
of the contaminant flows.
2. Substances: MFA/SFA is typically applied
to products or chemicals that have economic value. This was not necessarily the
case with the substances evaluated in this
study. Two groups of contaminants evaluated in this study (dioxins and most PAHs)
are by-products of other processes and were
never intentionally produced. The first
three contaminants also had unique histories: PCBs have been banned from production for more than 20 years, mercury
is being phased out of products, and cadmium is still a commodity, but its uses
have changed dramatically over the last
20 years. Conducting this type of analysis for chemicals that are not produced or
traded in the regional economy limited the
available data (NYAS 2008); however, the
analyses did provide useful information in
developing P2 strategies.
3. Context: The results of the MFA/SFA
were used to evaluate and prioritize recommendations based on loads to the
Harbor and likelihood of action based on
the current political/social/economic condition. Using the MFA/SFA tools in decision making is exactly what Brunner asked
researchers in the field of industrial ecology
to do in 2002 (Brunner 2002).
4. Stakeholder process: The Harbor project
was an inclusive program where a wide
range of potential solutions emerged from a
collaborative consultation process involving public, private, and academic institutions as well as citizen representation
within the New York metropolitan area.
The Consortium’s involvement—as deci814
Journal of Industrial Ecology
sion makers, data providers, evaluators, reviewers, supporters, and implementers—is
the main reason why this project has led
to implementation of P2 and why this approach was identified as a new way of doing
science (NYAS 2008).
Key Factors in the Harbor
Project Process
Focus on Pollution Prevention
at the Source
Assessing the inflow of contaminants to the
Harbor via mass balance rendered a broad view of
the type and magnitude of contaminant pathways
(e.g., air deposition, stormwater runoff) entering
the NY/NJ Harbor, but was inadequate to determine their primary sources. SFA was applied
to identify specific contaminant pathways and
also to paint a more holistic picture of the pollution problem—tracing each contaminant back to
where it was generated and/or released, and using
that knowledge to prevent or diminish further
environmental releases.
An Engaged and Curious Harbor
Consortium
The Consortium was born out of the original
invitees to the 1997 Workshop (NYAS 1998)
and grew into a broad consultative forum for
Harbor pollution-related issues, in which more
than 70 institutions participated (see NYAS
2008 for a list of individuals and organizations).
The consortium included representatives from
academia; consulting firms; industry and labor;
professional, business, and trade organizations;
environmental, advocacy, and community organizations; and regulatory and other public agencies at the municipal, state, and federal levels.
Consortium members learned from the experts
(e.g., the industries who used or generated the
chemicals, the biologists and chemists who studied their impacts, and the regulators authorized to
control them) about a wide range of topics—from
contaminants in automobile switches to those
found in rechargeable batteries, transformers,
driveway sealants, and to the processes used at the
region’s wastewater treatment plants (WWTP),
A P P L I C AT I O N S A N D I M P L E M E N TAT I O N
to name just a few. This opportunity to learn from
recognized authorities on a wide variety of issues
drew many individuals to the process.
Data Sources
The first step taken by the consortium was to
evaluate data richness for approximately 12 contaminants that were identified in fish consumption advisories or found in high concentrations
in Harbor sediments. This allowed the consortium to evaluate if there were sufficient data for
a full study of its priority contaminants (mercury, PCBs, dioxins), and it was hoped that by
starting with data-rich contaminants such as mercury, the methodologies would be worked out to
address contaminants with fewer data available
(Asaf-Anid 2003). The consortium selected the
contaminants in a stepwise fashion, as the previous contaminant work was nearing completion.
Thus, the results reflect the data available in the
years prior to the publication of each of the six
reports.
In a few cases, the Harbor Project took on the
collection of new data when deemed imperative
to the MFA. For example, there were no available
data on how many mercury blood pressure devices
(sphygmomanometers) were in a typical hospital.
A local New York City hospital was surveyed to
estimate the number of devices per hospital bed.
Using the data from this hospital to develop appropriate questions, a written survey was submitted to 16 local hospitals, and those data were used
to scale to the entire watershed. This survey, as
well as other related research (DelConte 1997),
clarified the practices by hospitals of buying
products such as mercury sphygmomanometers
(typically less expensive than their nonmercury
counterparts) as part of multihospital purchasing
arrangements. At that time, hospital purchasing
did not factor in the significant costs associated
with the hazardous waste cleaning requirements
when a device is broken or the loss of use of the
room for a significant amount of time after the
break. These results were presented to a meeting of New York hospital equipment purchasers.
In 1998, the U.S. EPA signed a P2 memorandum of understanding with the American Hospital Association, including minimizing the use of
mercury-containing products (U.S. EPA 1998).
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) undertook field studies
(Aucott et al. 2003) to estimate the release of
mercury from the breakage of fluorescent lamps
and from smelting of automobiles containing
mercury switches. The New York Department
of Environmental Conservation, as part of the
Contaminant Assessment and Reduction Project
(Litten 2003), was able to respond rapidly to some
data gaps identified during the Harbor Project and
added samplings of contaminant data of runoff
from roads for PCBs and of methylmercury releases from wastewater treatment plants.
Analytical Methodology
and Products
The main analytical tools used for the fivecontaminant industrial ecology analyses were material flow analysis (MFA) and substance flow
analysis (SFA), and mass balance (MB) (figure 2).
In a few cases, fate and transport (F&T) and life
cycle assessment (LCA) also were used (Schechtman 2007). The watershed (and in some cases
the larger airshed) provided the boundary conditions to evaluate the flows of the contaminants
of concern, but the goal was to focus on the contaminants that were reaching the NY/NJ Harbor
itself.
A MB assessment and SFA were developed
for each of the five contaminants—mercury,
cadmium, PCBs, dioxins, and PAHs. The five
contaminant-specific reports describe how the
assessments were developed and provide an estimate of the size and sources of those flows to
the Harbor (C. de Cerreño et al. 2002; Boehme
and Panero 2003; Panero et al. 2005; Muñoz and
Panero 2006; Valle et al. 2007). For PAHs, an
F&T model also was developed to evaluate how
the contaminants released throughout the watershed region mobilize toward the Harbor and
whether they are stored in permanent or temporary reservoirs.
The first step was to develop an inventory
of all generic sources of the contaminant. The
second step was to estimate the amount mobilized/released through various economic processes and/or sectors and during product use and
disposal. The scope of this inventory was the
regional watershed economy, and the temporal
Boehme et al., Collaborative Problem Solving Using an Industrial Ecology Approach
815
A P P L I C AT I O N S A N D I M P L E M E N TAT I O N
Figure 2 Flows estimated to establish the New York/New Jersey Harbor mass balance. CSO = combined
sewer overflow.
frame was one year. This provided a picture of
the total mass of the contaminant that enters the
regional environment.
Following the recommendation of Wernick
and Ausubel (1997), weight (mass) was used as
the common denominator to account for physical quantities of materials. Concentration coefficients were applied to processes and products
to estimate the quantities used either as raw material or embedded in products, describing how
each contaminant is mobilized through various
stages of interaction between economic and environmental systems (figure 3), from extraction
to production, consumption, reuse or recycling,
and disposal. A budget for contaminants released
to the environment also was developed, using coefficients to account for different transport rates
to receptors (the NY/NJ Harbor) according to the
media of primary release.
Flows of pollutants that also are commodities
(mercury, cadmium, PCBs, and, in a few cases,
PAHs) were estimated based on economic census and survey data. For pollutants that are inadvertently produced (dioxins, most PAHs, and
some PCBs), estimates were developed by, for
example, multiplying the activity level (AL; e.g.,
816
Journal of Industrial Ecology
metric tons [t] of solid waste burned in barrels) by
an appropriate emission factor (EF; e.g., grams of
dioxins released per t of waste burned). These ALs
and EFs ranged widely in their confidence levels,
depending on the emission source. Although the
best available EF and AL information was used,
some data were incomplete and/or outdated (e.g.,
vehicle emissions may not reflect the current fleet
characteristics), and/or there were uncertainties
with the data ultimately impacting the uncertainty of the emission estimate. These estimates
were used only to assess the range of loadings to
the Harbor.
In the case of dioxins, emission estimates
were assigned a high, medium, or low confidence rating. For many industrial sources, EFs
are fairly well characterized (usually available for
types of technologies—e.g., for specific incinerator models and air pollution controls—and even
for individual facilities), and the activity level is
available from facility reports to environmental
agencies. These estimates were assigned a high
confidence rating. Sectors for which EFs were
based on numerous tests, but where no facilityor technology-specific data were available, were
rated medium. Poorly characterized sources with
A P P L I C AT I O N S A N D I M P L E M E N TAT I O N
Figure 3 Relationship between the material/substance flow accounting and the mass balance analysis.
Ind./Comm. Services = Industrial or commercial services.
uncertain activity levels and/or EFs were assigned
a low confidence rating. This was the case, for
example, for structure fires, where the types and
amounts of materials burned in any given incident can only be roughly estimated, and the EFs
are greatly uncertain because the conditions in
any given fire can vary widely.
A similar system was applied to PAH emissions. Many of the emission factors used were obtained from the U.S. EPA AP-42 database (U.S.
EPA 1995), which gives a rating to emission factors ranging from A to E, with A being the best.
The rating is a general indication of the reliability
or robustness of the factor.
Relying on a simple metric of physical
quantities released to support environmental decision making may not result in the best riskmanagement strategies, as was the case for mercury, which has the potential to become more
toxic if it is exposed to conditions that promote
methylation. Thus, pathways of mercury release
were weighted based on probability of methylation (e.g., wastewater treatment facilities provide ideal conditions for methylation). Therefore, a kilogram of mercury discarded to solid
waste may not have an effect equal to that of
a kilogram released to wastewater. Panero (2005)
describes how factors such as the pollutant’s fate
and transport or its toxicity characteristics can
be used to develop a multicriteria framework
to prioritize benefits associated with emissions
reduction.
As an example of the process used to develop emission inventories, the case of mercury is
described:
1. Compile a generic list of potential sources
following the blueprint of sources through
a literature review.
2. Determine coefficients for use and release
by reviewing various data sources such
as engineering reports (e.g., Barr Engineering 2001), material flows assessments
(Sznopek and Goonan 2000), and national
data on anthropogenic mercury emissions
(U.S. EPA 1997), and contacting experts
on specific products (dental sector release
estimates from several organizations, fluorescent light industry, automobile recyclers, and metal scrappers). This stage continued until all leads on data sources were
tracked down.
3. Develop a regional inventory of usage
based on economic data. Depending on
Boehme et al., Collaborative Problem Solving Using an Industrial Ecology Approach
817
A P P L I C AT I O N S A N D I M P L E M E N TAT I O N
availability of data, different approaches
were used to estimate regional flows:
a. Where available, regional census and
local survey data were used to estimate
specific flows of mercury in the NY/NJ
Harbor watershed region. Data sources
included regional statistics on production processes (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis), data on consumption
of various products containing mercury
(market research), and survey information (e.g., the number of mercurybearing products used by hospitals). For
example, once dental facilities were
identified as a generic source, U.S.
Census data were used to quantify the
number of dental facilities and business volume, and state agencies (NY
State Education Department, NJ Division of Consumer Affairs) provided the
number of licensed dental practitioners.
National survey information provided
estimates for the number of dental operatory chairs and rates of mercury
amalgam placement and removal per
establishment (Water Environment
Federation 1999; Berglund and Diercks
2001). Market research data were also
used to validate rates of mercury usage.
b. Where local data were not available,
regional flows were estimated from national estimates adjusted by the level
of regional economic activity (e.g., the
Harbor watershed region represented
approximately 5.8% of the national
economy but only 5.2% of the population [U.S. Census 2000]).
4. Determine the discharge and release rates
for different products and processes.
Contaminant release rates (e.g., for mercury) were determined from several sewerage districts (Lochan 1999; Water Environment Federation 1999; Association of
Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies 2000),
and the U.S. EPA has published estimates of solid waste composition (U.S.
EPA 1992). Engineering reports (Barr Engineering Co. 2001) were used to estimate
discharge rates of mercury to wastewater,
to air, and as solid waste.
818
Journal of Industrial Ecology
The IE analysis described above (and
shown in figure 3) provided a picture of
the contaminant flows by quantifying the
amounts of pollutants in products and
processes that are mobilized through different pathways and sinks. The fate of
the contaminants at the end of product
life was estimated from data on waste
handling in the region, via air deposition (when waste is incinerated), from
land (runoff, groundwater, or leachate
from landfills/contaminated sites), or via
wastewater or direct water discharges. In
the case of mercury, the inventory estimated that approximately 10,800 kg of
mercury from products and processes were
likely to be released per year within the
Harbor watershed, and a significant proportion of it makes its way into the Harbor
(C. de Cerreño et al. 2002).
5. Assess independently how much of each
contaminant flowed into and out of the
Harbor from different media of release—
water, air, and land—with the MB assessment (figure 2). Wastewater treatment facilities are typically required to measure
and publish data on releases to waterways
and the U.S. EPA, and both New York and
New Jersey have rigorous sampling programs for inputs of several contaminants to
the Harbor. For example, the MB for mercury estimated contributions to the Harbor via air deposition, tributary inputs,
stormwater runoff, combined sewer overflows (combined sewer overflows [CSOs],
overflow pipes), as well as effluents from
landfills and wastewater treatment facilities (Fitzgerald and O’Connor 2001; and
summarized in C. de Cerreño et al. 2002).
The data were also used to estimate removal rates of mercury from the Harbor
via volatilization, advection, resuspension,
and sediment dredging. For all five contaminants, consultants hired by NYAS
(research scientists from local universities
whose research was related to the specific
contaminant of interest) undertook the
mass balance assessments. This resulted in
an independent estimate of the mass balance from the IE analysis for comparison.
A P P L I C AT I O N S A N D I M P L E M E N TAT I O N
6. Compare the IE and MB assessments. This
integration of research findings from two
different perspectives was quite useful to
evaluate the uncertainty in the IE analysis and led to deeper understanding of
the fate of several contaminants. For example, in the case of cadmium, the two
approaches resulted in different estimates
of how much cadmium was actually getting
to the Harbor. Looking closer at the chemistry of cadmium showed that it was much
less likely to be particle-bound as it moved
from freshwater to estuarine/marine conditions. Thus it is likely that the cadmium
entering the Harbor may be flushed out
to the New York Bight and eventually the
Atlantic Ocean. This is in contrast to mercury, where the Harbor is acting more like
a bathtub because much of the mercury
coming in to the Harbor is particle-bound
and is deposited with the sediments (C. de
Cerreño et al. 2002; Boehme and Panero
2003).
7. Identify P2 strategies. The results of the IE
and MB were used to prioritize P2 recommendation on the major sources of contaminants reaching the Harbor. Typically
P2 strategies were identified for as many
releases as could be identified; the key recommendations focused on those sources
reaching the Harbor.
P2 strategies were identified in several
ways: Many local and regional organizations, state, and federal agencies exist that
have active P2 programs, including the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection.
These strategies were researched, evaluated, and modified as needed to fit the specific sources and conditions in the NY/NJ
Harbor Watershed. The Consortium also
developed sector-specific P2 recommendations through consultation with industry representatives. For example, mercury
switches prevalent in older-model automobiles were identified as a source of atmospheric mercury when the cars were
shredded and smelted at the end of life
for new steel production. A subgroup of
mercury experts, automobile scrap metal
dealers, state regulators. and metal recyclers from the region worked to establish implementable recommendations that
would most efficiently achieve removal of
switches before scrapping the vehicles at
the end of life while more fairly spreading the burden of associated costs (C. de
Cerreño et al. 2002). Finally, when no
precedent was available on how best to prevent releases from a specific sector, process,
product, or activity, the consortium involved various parties and experts in a consultative process to develop recommendations. In general the three-tiered approach
of education, implementable alternatives,
and regulation were part of many of the P2
recommendations.
8. Recommend actions, and identify who
should implement them. The recommendations were debated within the consortium and carefully worded to ensure that
they honestly reflected the level of certainty around the research and that each
recommended action was prioritized with
respect to the likelihood of the pollutant
to enter the Harbor (NYAS 2008). The
ranking of recommendations was based on
as many “valuation lenses” as could be
defined in the process. Factors such as
environmental benefit, costs (including
potential avoided costs), likelihood of success, and long-term impacts were considered. For example, in the case of mercury, the recommendations were coupled
with a cost analysis that demonstrated very
clearly that it was much less expensive to
stem the flow of mercury as close to its
source as possible rather than end of pipe
(e.g., at the waste water treatment plant).
In other cases, the Consortium considered
the specific regional conditions to rank
its recommendations. For example, recommendations on dioxins minimization
from a highly contaminated Superfund site
within the watershed are likely unique to
this region, and other watersheds might
prioritize their recommendations very differently. This suggests that it is the process
used rather than our specific conclusions
Boehme et al., Collaborative Problem Solving Using an Industrial Ecology Approach
819
A P P L I C AT I O N S A N D I M P L E M E N TAT I O N
that will be most useful to other regions
and contexts.
Results and Discussion
Utilizing industrial ecological methods to
quantify and identify pathways of contaminants
to the NY/NJ Harbor resulted in many new findings. The major findings, recommendations, and
actions for the five contaminants are highlighted
below.
Mercury (Hg)
The mass balance analysis considered mercury released to the air, land, and water within
the watershed. Pathways to the Harbor’s waters
include tributaries, wastewater treatment plants
(WWTPs), combined sewer overflows (CSOs),
and stormwater runoff. Because bacteria in aqueous environments can convert mercury (Hg) into
a potent neurotoxin—methylmercury (MeHg)—
a MeHg MB was also developed. To better understand the key sources of methylmercury, NYAS
commissioned research and held meetings to
evaluate which specific environmental conditions favored the methylation process. Based on
research findings, coefficients were developed to
estimate MeHg flows from MB vectors (WWTPs,
atmospheric inputs, and so on). The coefficient
used for inputs and outputs from wastewater treatment plants was shown to be in relatively good
agreement with actual measurements from these
facilities (C. de Cerreño et al. 2002) and revealed
WWTPs as a significant source of MeHg to the
Harbor.
These results pointed to inputs to wastewater
as a priority for P2 and emphasized the importance of understanding releases of mercury at the
source (e.g., dental facilities, hospitals, laboratories), each of which was individually discharging
small amounts of mercury to wastewater treatment facilities. Furthermore, by focusing on the
flows of a substance throughout the region (rather
than on individual sources), the analysis showed
that cumulatively these “small amounts” were not
trivial. Sectors typically characterized to be small
quantity generators (SQGs) at the individual facility level turned out to be major contributors
of mercury releases when evaluated at the level
of the entire industry or at the sector-wide level.
820
Journal of Industrial Ecology
This was also the case for other contaminants.
The importance of SQGs was a key finding because these generators typically are unregulated,
and their releases are not quantified.
The three major sectors—dental facilities,
hospitals, and laboratories—were given the highest priority to reduce loadings of mercury to the
Harbor. The Consortium devoted significant efforts to careful examination of how best to intercept mercury flows from these three sectors.
This focus was supported by the economic analyses that demonstrated significant cost savings
for controls at the source versus controls at the
wastewater treatment plant (C. de Cerreño et al.
2002; Panero 2005).
The second priority focused on atmospheric
inputs to the Harbor. Mercury deposition onto
the Harbor watershed is linked to emissions from
incineration of mercury-bearing products and
combustion of fuels that contain trace amounts of
mercury as well as through volatilization. About
one third of the mercury released locally to the
airshed is deposited on the watershed and is available to be washed into the rivers and streams,
thereby making its way to the Harbor. This region
has significantly reduced local power generation
from coal and oil combustion and releases from
local utilities were estimated to be lower than
in other regions. There are extra-regional inputs
mainly from coal combustion in the Midwest as
well as mercury deposition from global emissions.
Thus, the solutions to atmospheric inputs extend
beyond the watershed.
Finally, the disposal of products and solid
waste in landfills constitutes the largest mercury
pathway. However, because tentative estimates
suggest that this mercury is sequestered (Aucott
2006) and therefore poses a lower direct risk to
the Harbor (at least for some length of time), this
pool was accorded the lowest priority despite its
large size. Implementing P2 for wastewater mercury inputs, however, has the added benefit of decreasing landfill inputs by more than 60% because
the three critical sectors (dental, hospital, and
laboratory) are major contributors to this pool as
well.
Cadmium (Cd)
The mass balance indicated that there appears to be a rapid and ongoing “cleansing of the
A P P L I C AT I O N S A N D I M P L E M E N TAT I O N
Harbor” with respect to cadmium because of—
its propensity to become dissolved rather than
particle-bound when in contact with increasing salinities; improvements in wastewater treatment, which reduced cadmium concentrations in
WWTP effluents; regulations controlling the releases of cadmium from industry; and the migration of cadmium-utilizing industries away from
the watershed region (specifically, metal plating
and metal finishing factories; Boehme and Panero
2003). Nevertheless, cadmium continues to enter
the Harbor via wastewater and nonpoint sources,
but, based on our current understanding, sediment concentrations in much of the Harbor are
below the level where negative impacts are seen
in organisms.
By contrast, the SFA/MFA paints a picture of
continuing flows of cadmium to the region, but
there was a paucity of data to understand its fate
and/or disposal. The lack of information about
the fate of products containing cadmium at end
of life (e.g., nickel-cadmium batteries) and as a
trace contaminant in biosolids and fossil fuels led
to a larger discussion on data collection at the national and state level. This research was underway
at the same time as the U.S. EPA was considering collecting even fewer data as part of its Toxics
Release Inventory (US EPA 2007) requirements.
Undertaking MFA would only become more difficult if data collected by TRI, the U.S. Census,
and the U.S. Geological Survey are limited.
Not only was there scant data to understand
the major cadmium pathways, major shifts were
taking place in the usage of cadmium in the
previous 15–20 years, from pigments and metal
plating to nickel-cadmium batteries (90% in batteries during the early 1990s and then gradually
decreasing to about 75%–80% currently). Data
collection efforts did not keep pace with this
trend. Data collection at the federal level has
changed in the last 20 years, resulting in less
information to understand battery imports, especially when the batteries are already in products. Despite an industry-supported voluntary
battery-recycling program in the United States
(Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation),
there are no published recycling rates and no
regional disposal rates. Therefore, two regional
surveys were conducted by the project. These
surveys showed that more than half of the non-
commercial batteries were not being recycled in
the watershed.
The implications of changing usage and disposal patterns mean that it is difficult to estimate
impacts on the Harbor. This was further complicated because New York City exported a good
proportion of its solid waste to other regions;
therefore, the potential impacts were likely being exported as well. In New Jersey, where the
solid waste is being managed locally, the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
(NJDEP) has seen moderate increases in cadmium levels in the last 10 years in bottom ash
from waste-to-energy and electric arc furnace facilities (M. Aucott, personal communication).
This may reflect the fact that increasing amounts
of products containing nickel-cadmium batteries
are reaching the end of life and are being discarded, most likely in the trash.
Similarly, research was lacking to fully evaluate the potential environmental impact of
biosolids, which are most often land-applied as
fertilizer but can also be incinerated in wasteto-energy facilities or landfilled. The land application of biosolids as fertilizer continues to be
debated due to concerns about trace contaminants such as cadmium that are always present
in biosolids and may be transferred to the food
chain.
Because there were no longer significant
impacts from the inputs of cadmium to the
Harbor, the Consortium did not provide recommendations in the same manner as with the mercury report. Pollution prevention strategies were
identified for the largest inputs, with the caveat
that based on the current state of knowledge,
there were not immediate concerns about cadmium flows to the Harbor. Improving batteryrecycling rates in the watershed, however, serves
both precautionary goals and the goals of resource
conservation.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Despite the 1970s ban on manufacturing and
commercial distribution of PCBs, significant regulation, and research, PCBs continue to be redistributed and dispersed through processes such
as improper disposal, inadvertent production,
mobilization, and volatilization. The molecular
weight differences among the 209 different PCB
Boehme et al., Collaborative Problem Solving Using an Industrial Ecology Approach
821
A P P L I C AT I O N S A N D I M P L E M E N TAT I O N
compounds (congeners) add an additional layer
of complexity because those differences affect not
only their toxicity but also how they behave and
move in the environment.
PCBs are a group of manmade chemicals that
are identified as persistent bioaccumulative and
toxic (PBT), which are found in products, soils,
water, and the atmosphere across the globe. PCB
mixtures of varying degrees of chlorination were
produced for different commercial purposes. Thus
data on the PCB congeners found in the environment can be useful in differentiating sources. For
example, inputs of PCBs from the Upper Hudson
River (and the upstream superfund site) had a different fingerprint than those entering the Harbor
from local inputs. It was estimated that the upper
Hudson loadings represent greater than 50% of
the total inputs to the NY/NJ Harbor and include
the Hudson River Superfund site (30%–40% of
the ≥50%), other Superfund sites (e.g., Hastings, Fort Edward, and Hudson Falls), other contaminated sites and brownfields, and inputs from
floodplains, dredge spoils, and remnant deposits.
The MFA was used to describe the other half
of the picture, namely that there was significant
PCB remobilization and secondary dispersal that
enters the Harbor through air deposition, runoff,
or from wastewater. Such remobilization may be
the result of some or all of these factors that were
identified through the MB–MFA process (Panero
et al. 2005):
1. Leaking from transformers and capacitors
still in use.
2. Improper disposal at end of life of PCBcontaining products.
3. Leaking from mineral oil transformers
and/or capacitors contaminated with PCBs
during oil replacement because clean oils
were transported in the same trucks as PCB
oils.
4. No regulation for products containing
small amounts of PCBs (e.g., small capacitors used in appliances or fluorescent lamp
ballasts) despite significant cumulative
volume when all small PCB-containing
products are considered. Thirty years ago it
was estimated that the U.S. stock of small
capacitors was about 870 million units
containing approximately 21,000 metric
822
Journal of Industrial Ecology
tons of PCBs. Other unregulated products that contained PCBs include caulking, paint, and carbonless paper, and practices such as spraying PCB oils for dust
control.
5. Regulatory gaps that prevent adequate
monitoring of PCB-contaminated transformers’ proper disposal.
6. Inadvertent generation and release of
PCBs during production processes (e.g.,
manufacturing of certain pigments and
dyes and flocculants).
The PCBs MFA/SFA/MB demonstrated that
the lack of reporting requirements for use and
disposal of PCB-containing products has led to
huge uncertainties in the amount and location of
PCBs still in use, and the fate of PCBs that were
already disposed, especially those PCBs in smaller
products such as small capacitors. Although it was
understood that it was likely too late to require
this type of data collection for PCBs (recommendations for ongoing reporting were made for some
sources) because dispersal over the last 20 years
has been significant, there was an important lesson to learn for other substances that are being
considered for regulation. The Consortium recommended that when a ban includes exclusions
for certain uses and inadvertent production, as is
the case for PCBs, then mandatory and comprehensive inventories, especially of disposal practices, should also be required.
Dioxins and Furans (Dioxins)
Chlorinated dioxins and furans are a group
of 210 compounds, always found as mixtures,
which have been classified as persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and PBTs. Of these,
17 congeners are the most studied because of
their higher toxicities and were thus the focus
of our research. In addition, many other substances possess “dioxin-like” toxicity and are often grouped with dioxins, in particular co-planar
PCBs. Dioxins are inadvertently generated in
a variety of chemical manufacturing processes
involving chlorine and during incomplete combustion. These substances were never intentionally produced and therefore are not a commodity that can be tracked with trade and industrial
statistics. Emission inventories and/or releases
A P P L I C AT I O N S A N D I M P L E M E N TAT I O N
were based on emission factors and level of activity. Dioxins were selected by the Consortium
because of their impacts on fish and shellfish as
well as fish consumption advisories (NJDEP and
NJDHSS 2004; U.S. EPA 2004; NYDOH 2005)
in the NY/NJ Harbor watershed, their relatively
high toxicity even at low concentrations, their
ubiquity in sediments in the Harbor (e.g., the
lower Passaic River and Newark Bay), and thus
their potential impact on the economy of the
region, especially in causing dredging restrictions associated with the Port of New York and
New Jersey.
The major ongoing sources of dioxins to
the Harbor are associated with combustion processes (mainly uncontrolled combustion of waste
and other materials), including backyard burning (also referred to as burn barrels), fires at waste
management facilities, landfill gas management,
structural fires, wood burning by industrial, commercial and electric facilities, steel recycling, and
medical waste incineration. The MFA for the
NY/NJ Harbor showed (with high uncertainty)
that fires at trash management facilities could
account for substantial releases of dioxins. This
source had been largely neglected in other emissions inventories (Muñoz and Panero 2006).
Greater than 90% of the dioxin toxicity in
the Harbor is accounted for by three dioxin/
furan compounds (2,3,7,8 tetrachloro dibenzo
dioxin [TCDD], 2,3,7,8 tetrachloro dibenzo furan [TCDF], and 2,3,4,7,8-pentachloro dibenzo
furan [PeCDF], NJDEP 2006) and these compounds were given highest priority for action. In
many cases, because of the relationship between
PCBs and dioxins, the same recommendations
were highlighted. Three key recommendations
were as follows:
1. Proper management of PCB fluids (which
always contain furans).
2. Waste minimization and reduction of
waste combustion because dioxins are produced during combustion processes.
3. Cleanup of contaminated sites. Much of
the dioxin inputs to the Harbor are likely
the result of remobilization of former dioxins releases (e.g., a Superfund site affecting
sediments within the Harbor and myriad
contaminated land sites).
As was the case for PCBs, there is a major dioxin-contaminated Superfund site within
the NY/NJ Harbor. The Diamond Alkali Superfund site is a significant source of dioxins
to the rest of the Harbor. During the Consortium’s recommendation deliberations, there were
several legal steps occurring in the Superfund
process. The Consortium urged all parties to
focus their efforts on achieving early and effective action and implement the Harbor Project’s
P2 recommendations to reduce inputs to the
Harbor.
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)
PAHs are a group of more than 100 compounds with differing physical-chemical properties. PAHs have been identified as carcinogenic
and have been shown to have harmful effects
on human and ecological health. The rate at
which individual PAHs are generated/released
and break down in the environment varies, making tracking and evaluating them even more difficult. PAHs are ubiquitous and have both natural and anthropogenic sources, and are primarily
formed during incomplete combustion of fossil
fuels and organic substances.
The major releases of PAHs to the Harbor watershed identified in the IE analysis were due to
combustion processes (wood combustion in wood
stoves) volatilization from materials containing
PAHs (creosote treated wood), and releases from
the use of products containing PAHs (e.g., parking lot sealants) (Valle et al. 2007). In the case
of PAHs, sources were categorized according to
their intersection with the regional economy.
This organization of sources highlighted where
P2 strategies could impact more than an individual source. For example, by reducing vehicle
use, releases of PAHs from engine combustion,
tire wear, and leaking motor oil would be decreased. This perspective also pointed out where
technological innovation versus land-use planning/infrastructure could impact PAH releases
(Valle et al. 2007).
When the mass balance was compared with
the primary emissions inventory, the discrepancies highlighted the complexity of what happens to PAHs during their migration to the
Harbor. This was not surprising because some
Boehme et al., Collaborative Problem Solving Using an Industrial Ecology Approach
823
A P P L I C AT I O N S A N D I M P L E M E N TAT I O N
PAH compounds have very short half-lives in the
environment and can degrade quickly into other
compounds. The previous four chemicals were
either elements (Hg, Cd) or highly persistent
(PAHs, dioxins). Therefore an F&T was developed (as summarized in Valle et al. 2007) to
account for degradation of PAHs in the environment and transport (e.g., deposition, runoff,
fluvial transport) and was used to estimate the
quantity of PAHs reaching the Harbor.
The IE and F&T assessments rendered a different order of P2 priorities based on those having the greatest estimated impact on the Harbor.
For example, the IE assessment identified combustion processes as the major primary emission
sources of PAHs, while the F&T analysis identified releases to impervious land, such as motor
oil leaks, coal tar sealed surfaces, and tire wear,
as the major sources to Harbor loadings. In this
case, the MB assessment compared well with the
F&T model. Barring a coincidence, this comparison helps constrain the uncertainty surrounding
the SFA and F&T analysis.
Based on the grouping of PAH sources by
economic impact noted above, the Consortium
called for reducing or removing PAHs from products such as driveway and parking lot sealants,
and creosote used to preserve marine pilings,
railroad ties, and utility poles. On the demand
side, reducing fossil fuel consumption and reducing miles driven were recommended. Product efficiency improvements for combustion devices, implementing best management practices
(BMPs) to prevent leakage of used motor oil,
and stormwater management measures were also
recommended.
Advantages to Applying an
MFA/SFA Approach to These
Five Contaminants
Inventories based on MFA/SFA of specific
contaminants can help to characterize both largeand small-quantity generators. This is significant, given that cumulative releases from smallquantity generators may be a significant source
to a system of concern such as the NY/NJ Harbor (e.g., mercury releases from dental facilities
or PAHs releases from coal tar parking lot sealant
applications).
824
Journal of Industrial Ecology
In general, the majority of large-quantity generators of these five contaminants have been
identified, and their releases have been addressed
through regulation. The focus of contaminant
reduction efforts is now on the smaller and nonpoint diffuse sources. MFA/SFA approaches were
shown here to be excellent tools for identifying
pollution from nonpoint or dispersed sources. In
addition, with the improved analytical methods
for detecting contaminants and a growing body of
research showing impacts at smaller and smaller
exposure levels, there is a greater need to identify
all sources, small and large. Coupling IE models with a better understanding of the ecological
conditions under which these contaminants are
released has also been key to understanding localized impacts to the environment.
The approach used here can also aid watersheds that are required to establish total maximum daily loads (a total maximum daily load, or
TMDL, is a calculation of the maximum amount
of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and
still meet water quality standards). The TMDL
process involves first determining the maximum
amount of a pollutant that can be discharged
from all sources into a waterbody without causing impairment to its designated uses. This load
is then allocated among the main vectors contributing to a waterbody (WWTPs, other utilities, CSOs, tributaries, and so on), and any necessary load reductions are then established. Most
of these vectors simply convey primary emissions
originated elsewhere (e.g., WWTPs may receive
mercury discharged by dental facilities) or move
historic releases to a new vector (e.g., stormwater may erode and carry dioxins attached to soil
from contaminated land sites). This IE approach
can be used to identify the primary sources of a
contaminant, especially when coupled with F&T
models that can predict how and how much primary emissions will reach the Harbor.
The states of New York and New Jersey
are in the process of developing TMDLs for
several toxic pollutants for waterbodies within
the NY/NJ Harbor watershed. When data on
actual pollution sources are lacking, TMDLs may
require communities to resort to less effective
and costly end-of-pipe solutions. Trackdown approaches like the one used for this project can
be applied to identify the primary contaminant
A P P L I C AT I O N S A N D I M P L E M E N TAT I O N
sources and quantify input rates much more cost
effectively. This approach was used successfully
in Camden, New Jersey, where soils from industrial sites were identified as the main contributor
of PCBs to the sewer system (Belton et al. 2008).
The mercury analysis in this study quantified that
the costs of trapping mercury at dental offices was
orders of magnitude less expensive than collection at the WWTP (C. de Cerreño et al. 2002;
Panero 2005).
Challenges to Applying an
MFA/SFA Approach to These
Five Contaminants
The greatest challenge to applying this approach was lack of regional and national data,
and, in some cases, data quality. Some examples
of data issues were as follows:
• For chemicals whose production has been
banned (even though many of the products in which they were used continue to
be allowed), it is not possible to develop
release inventories without specific reporting requirements on use and disposal. For
PCBs, very little information was available to construct an inventory of PCBcontaining products that are still in use or
are being phased out.
• A contaminant may change its chemical
characteristics once released to the environment and so all forms must be included
in the inventory. For example, mercury is
most toxic in the methylmercury form, and
all the conditions for that transformation
occur in WWTPs. In the cases of PCBs,
dioxins, and PAHs—each a group of distinct chemicals—it is necessary to understand how each individual compound reacts
in the environment as well as any chemical
transformations that might occur. This is a
very data-intensive approach.
• Regional assessments need to account for
transboundary sources (e.g., atmospheric
transport of mercury from the Great Lakes
region) as well as contaminants that are
“exported” to other regions (e.g., transport
and disposal of solid waste and dredged sediments outside the watershed).
• The religious use of mercury was getting a
lot of attention from several agencies interested in mercury release at the time the
Harbor Consortium was estimating releases
to the Harbor. However, the decision was
made not to include any of these estimates
of releases to the Harbor because it was discovered that usage estimates were based on
a biased data set (C. de Cerreño et al. 2002).
This discovery led to a very vigilant review
of the literature and an effort to provide
error bars on all release estimates, even if
the only way to do this was to assign a low,
medium, or high confidence estimates.
The Role and Importance of the
Harbor Consortium
In a more traditional regulatory framework,
environmental science and risk-assessment models are developed independently of policy decision making. The models are then used to develop threshold emission or exposure levels that
can be used for regulatory purposes. In this traditional approach there is scientific discovery in
terms of chemical fate and transport, chemical
exposure, and health risk from that exposure, but
communication between researchers and users of
the research is minimal until after the research is
completed. The Consortium approach was significantly strengthened by ongoing communication
between scientists and the users of the research.
As a group, the Consortium was able to develop
a flexible, evolving, analytical representation for
the watershed system and its boundaries. In this
framework, the science is able to inform decision making in a distributed sense. As the process
evolves, the group is able to identify key strategic
opportunities for intervention and also to identify additional scientific questions to pursue. This
type of process has led to a rich array of recommendations from the Consortium, many of which
have been adopted because key players were involved from the start. This educational process
also highlighted the need for P2 to achieve the
goals of a healthy, viable NY/NJ Harbor.
Another key role of the Consortium (at any
given meeting 50 to 60 attendees were present)
was as a source of data and objective evaluators of
data quality. The Consortium had knowledge of
Boehme et al., Collaborative Problem Solving Using an Industrial Ecology Approach
825
A P P L I C AT I O N S A N D I M P L E M E N TAT I O N
and access to local and national data; many were
authors of regional reports and provided their
own firsthand knowledge that was often not documented (e.g., disposed refrigerators that could
contain PCB capacitors are crushed at the curb
in parts of NY; Panero et al. 2005). Consortium
members helped find experts and new stakeholders when the research was stalled by lack of data
or a new line of research needed to be pursued.
For example, Consortium members from the local power utility companies provided information on the status of their PCB oil transformers
(Panero et al. 2005). The implicit support of this
large body of experts helped to move regulatory
action forward (New York State used the mercury report to require dentists to install chairside
mercury traps). The Consortium developed into a
unique forum for evaluating the merits of the data
and findings, and at times the refutation of that
information (NYAS 2008). The products of the
Harbor project were reports containing a wealth
of information about specific contaminants and
a set of P2 strategies, but the next step to implementation requires human will and action. Consortium participants became the implementers by
changing the practices in their own companies,
institutions, workplaces, and personal lives (see
NYAS 2008 for specific examples).
Conclusions
Many Consortium members came to believe
that the evolved combination of methodologies
utilized in developing the analyses described here
constitute not just a distinctive approach but
perhaps an especially effective way of doing science to gather and interpret the data needed for
ecosystem-level evaluations of broad geographical areas (such as watersheds). This can be described as a process that put two kinds of scientific approaches in dialogue with each other.
This project utilized both the science of industrial
ecology and traditional environmental science
to link and quantify how pollution is created,
by what sources, and what pathways it follows
within the Harbor watershed once released to
the environment. The key components were as
follows:
1. The comparison of the independent industrial ecology (developed using material
826
Journal of Industrial Ecology
flow accounting) and mass balance assessments was key to reducing the uncertainty
on the estimates of sources of contaminants to the Harbor.
2. Following material flows throughout the
entire cycle from cradle to grave can lead to
a very different set of recommendations—
which are likely to emphasize actions at
the source of contamination, rather than
waste flows (end of pipe).
3. An objective approach that allowed for deviation/exploration when outcomes of the
process led the research in new directions.
For example, when it became clear that a
significant percent of the contamination
entering the Harbor was being transported
from upstream sources attached to sediment particles and that these same particles were part of what was driving the need
to dredge the Harbor and spend significant
amounts of money to dispose of those contaminated sediments properly, the Consortium chose to look at the source of those
sediments. This led to the development
of a sixth report, “Sources of Suspended
Solids to the NY/NJ Harbor Watershed,”
(Muñoz and Panero 2008) to better understand how contaminants were being transported from on-land sources toward waterbodies within the watershed and what land
uses and processes were responsible for the
movement of particles from the land to the
water.
This work has led to several open questions.
Relating present material flows to historical material flows and the state of the ecosystem could lead
to the ability to estimate future inputs and forecast future ecosystem viability. This is the type
of effort that the CARP was undertaken to accomplish, and coupling it with the IE assessment
allows one to track the contaminants farther up
the pipe to initial release.
IE methods can complement the hard policy
decisions that represent our values toward the
environment, society, and economy because it
informs and lends support and credibility to the
policy process. The Consortium IE approach extends the traditional regulatory capability, which
serves as a critical baseline for environmental
A P P L I C AT I O N S A N D I M P L E M E N TAT I O N
protection. But addressing environmental problems by simply controlling pollution is not
enough either today or for future generations.
The material flows of mercury, cadmium, PCBs,
dioxins, PAHs, and many other contaminants
are associated with both historical and current
“everyday” choices made by a variety of actors
both within and outside of our watershed. The
application of systems thinking—IE tools within
a Consortium—has been a means to recommend
solutions to address these complex environmental problems.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the longterm financial support of several of the Harbor Project funding organizations, including the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Abby
R. Mauzé Trust, and the Port Authority of
NY/NJ, as well as grants from J.P. Morgan,
NYC Environmental Fund, NYS Energy Research and Development Authority, Harbor
Estuary Program, Rockefeller Philanthropy Associates, AT&T Foundation, and the Commonwealth Fund. The authors also would like
to acknowledge the support of the Harbor
Consortium.
Notes
1. During the course of the project, several documents were published by the New York Academy
of Sciences. These documents as well as background papers, maps, and outreach materials that
were developed for the project can be accessed
on the New York Academy of Sciences Web site:
www.nyas.org/harbor.
2. Superfund is the federal government’s program to
clean up the nation’s abandoned hazardous waste
sites. It is also the name of the fund established
by the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of
1980.
References
Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies
(AMSA). 2000. Mercury source control and pollution prevention program evaluation. Davis, CA,
USA: Larry Walker & Associates. March 2002.
Asaf-Anid, N. 2003. PAHs, suspended solids, PBDEs,
endocrine active substances, and lead: Contaminants of concern to the New York/New Jersey
harbor. Presented to the New York Academy of
Sciences. November 2003. New York: New York
Academy of Sciences. www.nyas.org/harbor (select “List of publications and related materials”).
Aucott, M. 2006. The fate of heavy metals in landfills:
A review. Presented to the New York Academy
of Sciences. February 2006. New York: New York
Academy of Sciences. www.nyas.org/harbor (select “List of publications and related materials”).
Aucott, M., M. McLinden and M. Winka. 2004. Release of Mercury From Broken Fluorescent Bulbs.
Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/
research/mercury-bulbs.pdf. Accessed October 8,
2009.
Ayers, R. U. 1989. Industrial metabolism. In Technology
and Environment, edited by J. H. Ausubel and H. E.
Sladovich. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Ayers, R. U. and S. R. Rod. 1986. Patterns of pollution
in the Hudson-Raritan basin. Environment 28(4):
14–43.
Barr Engineering Co. (Minneapolis, MN). 2001.
Substance flow analysis of mercury in products. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
<www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/hgsubstance.pdf>. Accessed June 11, 2009.
Belton, T., L. Lippincott, E. Stevenson, and J. Botts.
2008. Pollution minimization plans and PCB source
trackdown in Camden City. August 2008. Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
Berglund, P. B. and R. W. Diercks. 2001. Evaluation
of amalgam removal equipment and dental clinic
loadings to the sanitary sewer. MCES and Minnesota Dental Association Report (MCES Report
No. 01-509).
Boehme, S. and M. Panero. 2003. Pollution prevention and management strategies for cadmium in the
New York/New Jersey harbor. New York: New York
Academy of Sciences. www.nyas.org/harbor.
Brunner, P. H. 2002. Beyond materials flow analysis.
Journal of Industrial Ecology 6(3/4): 8–10.
Cain, A., S. Disch, C. Twaroski, J. Reindl, and C.
R. Case. 2007. Substance flow analysis of mercury intentionally used in products in the United
States. Journal of Industrial Ecology 6(3/4): 201–
219.
de Cerreño, A. L. C., M. Panero and S. Boehme.
2002. Pollution prevention and management strategies for mercury in the New York/New Jersey Harbor.
Boehme et al., Collaborative Problem Solving Using an Industrial Ecology Approach
827
A P P L I C AT I O N S A N D I M P L E M E N TAT I O N
New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
www.nyas.org/harbor.
DelConte, M. J. 1997. A Mercury Pollution Prevention Study for Medical and Dental Centers: Findings Report and Bibliography. Monroe County
Mercury Pollution Prevention Team (May 9,
1997).
Fitzgerald, W. F. and J. O’Connor. 2001. Mercury cycling in the Hudson-Raritan River basin. Presented to the Harbor Consortium of the New
York Academy of Sciences. New York: New York
Academy of Sciences. www.nyas.org/harbor (select “List of publications and related materials”).
Hansen, E. and C. Lassen. 2003. Experience with the
use of substance flow analysis in Denmark. Journal
of Industrial Ecology 6(3/4): 201–219.
Lifset R. J. 2000. Full accounting. The Sciences. [New
York], May/June 2000.
Litten, S. 2003. Contaminant Assessment and
Reduction Project. Bureau of Water Assessment and Management Division of Water,
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. August 2003. www.dec.ny.gov/
chemical/23839.html. Accessed October 2009.
Lochan, R. 1999. Headworks Analysis Report. New York
City Department of Environmental Protection.
Muñoz, G. and M. Panero. 2006. Pollution prevention
and management strategies for dioxins in the New
York/New Jersey harbor. New York: New York
Academy of Sciences. www.nyas.org/harbor.
Muñoz, G. and M. Panero. 2008. Sources of suspended
solids to the New York/New Jersey harbor watershed. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
www.nyas.org/harbor.
NJDEP and NJDHSS (New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection and New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services). 2004.
A Guide to Health Advisories for Eating Fish
and Crabs Caught in New Jersey Waters. Updated versions of this document are available at
<http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/njmainfish.htm>.
Accessed October 2009.
NJDEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection). 2006. Routine Monitoring Program
for Toxics in Fish: Year 2 – Estuarine and Marine
Waters. Task II Data. (DRAFT). <www.state.
nj.us/dep/dsr/2004data.htm>. Accessed March
23, 2006.
NYAS (New York Academy of Sciences). 1998. Industrial ecology and the environment: Applications
to the New York harbor. Report on a workshop
of the New York Academy of Sciences and subsequent observations on action. February 1998.
www.nyas.org/harbor (select “List of publications
and related materials”).
828
Journal of Industrial Ecology
NYAS. 2008. Safe harbor: Bringing people and science
together to improve the New York/New Jersey harbor. Collaborative problem solving using an industrial
ecology approach. New York Academy of Sciences.
www.nyas.org/harbor.
NYDOH New York State Department of Health.
2005. Chemicals in Sportfish and Game: 2005–06
Health Advisories. <www.health.state.ny.us/
nysdoh/fish/fish.pdf>. Accessed May 20,
2005.
Panero, M. A. 2005. The economics of mercury pollution abatement in the New York – New Jersey
harbor watershed. Ph.D. thesis, New School for
Social Research, New York, NY.
Panero, M., S. Boehme and G. Muñoz. 2005. Pollution
prevention and management strategies for polychlorinated biphenyls in the New York/New Jersey harbor.
New York Academy of Sciences. www.nyas.org/
harbor.
Schechtman, D. 2007. An economic input output and
process based LCA Comparison between unsealed
concrete and sealed asphalt parking lots’ upstream
environmental impacts. New York Academy of
Sciences. (February 2007). www.nyas.org/harbor
(select “List of publications and related materials”).
Stigliani, W. M., P. R. Jaffe, and S. Anderberg. 1993.
Heavy metal pollution in the Rhine River basin.
Environtal Science and Technology 27(5): 786–793.
Sznopek, J. L. and T. G. Goonan. 2000. The materials
flow of mercury in the economies of the United
States and the world. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1197.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. United States Census
2000. www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html.
Accessed October 8, 2009.
U.S. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1992. Characterization of Products Containing Mercury in Municipal Solid
Waste in the United States, 1970 to 2000. U.S.
EPA, Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OS305) EPA530-R-92-013, or NTIS# PB92-162569.
U.S. EPA. 1995. AP 42, Fifth Edition Compilation of
Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. January 1995. <www.
h2e-online.org/docs/h2emou101501.pdf>. Accessed June 10, 2009.
U.S. EPA. 1997. Mercury Study Report to Congress, Vol.
II. An Inventory of Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions in the United States. Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards and Office of Research
and Development. EPA-452/R-97-004. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA.
A P P L I C AT I O N S A N D I M P L E M E N TAT I O N
U.S. EPA. 1998. Memorandum of Understanding Between the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the American Hospital Association. www.epa.gov/glnpo/toxteam/ahamou.htm.
Accessed October 8, 2009.
U.S. EPA. 2004. National Listing of Fish Advisories. Fact Sheet. EPA-823-F-04-016. Office
of Water. August 2004. <www.epa.gov/ost/fish/
advisories/factsheet.pdf>. Accessed May 20,
2005.
US EPA. 2007. Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).
<www.epa.gov/tri/>. Accessed June 11, 2009.
Valle S., M.A. Panero, and L. Shor. 2007. Pollution
Prevention and Management Strategies for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in the New York/New
Jersey Harbor. New York Academy of Sciences.
www.nyas.org/harbor (select “List of publications
and related materials”).
WEF (Water Environment Federation). 1999. Controlling dental facility discharges in wastewater: How
to develop and administer a source control program.
Alexandria, VA: WEF.
Wernick, I. K. and J. H. Ausubel. 1997. Industrial
ecology: Some directions for research. With the
Vishnu Group, The Rockefeller University, and
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, May
1997.
About the Authors
Susan E. Boehme is coastal sediment specialist with the Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant College
Program in Chicago IL, USA. Marta A. Panero
is a Research Scientist and Program Coordinator
at the New York University Wagner Rudin Center for Transportation Policy & Management in
New York City, NY, USA. Gabriela R. Muñoz
is a Program Associate with the New England
Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission
in New York, NY, USA. Charles W. Powers
is a Professor of Environmental Engineering at
Vanderbilt University and Co-Principal Investigator of the Consortium for Risk Evaluation
and Stakeholder Participation, Nashville TN.
Sandra N. Valle currently is an environmental scientist/analyst with Jonas and Associates at
Science Applications International Corporation.
Susan E. Boehme, Marta A. Panero, Gabriela
R. Muñoz, and Sandra N. Valle all worked for
the New York Academy during the ten-year
Harbor Project. Charles W. Powers was the
Harbor Consortium Chair for the length of the
project.
Boehme et al., Collaborative Problem Solving Using an Industrial Ecology Approach
829