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 7
1
Introduction
The growing identification of sustainability as both a process and a goal to
ensure long-term human well-being that does not threaten the continued avail -
ability of critical natural resources is based on four converging drivers. The first
is the recognition that current approaches aimed at decreasing existing risks, how-
ever successful, are not capable of avoiding the complex problems in the United
States and globally that threaten the planet’s critical natural resources and that put
current and future human generations at risk, including population growth, the
widening gaps between the rich and the poor, depletion of finite natural resources,
biodiversity loss, climate change, and disruption of nutrient cycles. Second,
sophisticated tools are increasingly available to address the complex and chal -
lenging issues that go beyond current risk management of major threats. Third,
sustainability is being used as a common approach to address broader social,
environmental, and economic issues by international bodies in which the United
States is an active participant. Finally, the potential economic value of sustainabil-
ity to the United States is recognized to not merely decrease environmental risks
but also to optimize the social and economic benefits of environmental protection.
Recognizing the importance of sustainability in meeting the agency’s mis -
sion, the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Lisa Jackson, formally requested that the National Research Council (NRC)
undertake a study to strengthen the scientific basis for incorporating sustainabil -
ity concepts into EPA’s decision making. Ms. Jackson stated that incorporating
sustainability into EPA’s decision making is “a step toward the more effective
pursuit of all of our work, including our statutory requirements, by incorpo -
rating sustainability into our foundations” (Jackson 2010). Sustainability is a
fast-moving subject, for example, the White House’s Council on Environmental
7
OCR for page 8
8 SUSTAINABILILTY AND THE U.S. EPA
Quality (CEQ) recently issued guidance to the federal agencies and requested
plans on incorporating sustainability into their operations. Given the time line
of this NRC report, the CEQ submissions could not be factored in.
The 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) declared that the “con-
tinuing policy of the Federal Government” is to “create and maintain conditions,
under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit
fulfilling the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future gen -
erations” (42 U.S.C. 4331(a)). That policy expresses what is now described as
sustainable development. Meeting the goal of sustainable development requires
an integration of social, environmental, and economic policies, necessitating inter-
disciplinary coordination among federal agencies with varying missions to address
this goal. International acceptance of sustainable development was spurred by the
1987 report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, Our
Common Future, of which former EPA administrator, William D. Ruckelshaus,
was a member (WCED 1987). Lead author of this report, Jim MacNeill, has rec-
ognized progress in institutionalizing sustainable development; however, he notes
that “the need for a global transition to more sustainable forms of development,
especially in the energy field, is far more urgent today than it was in 1987” when
the report first issued a call for such a transition (OECD 2007). In 1992, at the
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro,
the United States and other countries endorsed a global plan of action for sustain-
able development and a set of principles to guide that effort (UNCED 1992a,b).
EPA’S MISSION AND ROLE
As explained more fully in Chapter 2, EPA was created in 1970 to consoli-
date many activities that were previously administered by several agencies. Many
of the statutes administered by the new agency were intended to protect both
human health and the environment from the adverse effects of pollution.1 In spite
of its name, EPA has never focused only on environmental protection.
Today, the agency’s primary goals set forth in its 2011–2015 strategic plan
(EPA 2010) are the following:
• Take action on climate change and improving air quality.
• Protect U.S. waters.
• Clean up communities and advance sustainable development.
• Ensure the safety of chemicals and prevent pollution.
• Enforce environmental laws.
1 See www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws for summaries of laws and Executive Orders that the EPA is
charged with administering.
OCR for page 9
9
INTRODUCTION
EPA’s authorizing statutes provide numerous approaches for achieving its
mission and objectives. Those approaches include the following:
• Set and enforce environmental quality standards as well as standards of
performance for industrial, agricultural, and governmental sources of pol-
lution and for producers of chemicals and pesticide products.
• Issue permits and approvals and take enforcement actions for non-
compliance or do so through state environmental agencies.
• Provide grants to states and municipalities for program support and
infrastructure financing.
• Provide technical guidance and assistance in both regulatory and non-
regulatory programs.
• Conduct and sponsor scientific research on environmental risks and
assessment, control, and measurement tools.
• Convene and collaborate with other government agencies, private cor-
porations, academic institutions, and nongovernmental organizations on
problem solving.
EPA’s statutes give primary weight to protection of the environment and
human health. These statutes do so for historical reasons, the most prominent
being the insufficient consideration of environmental and human health protec -
tion in the past. The reasons also reflect the reality that other statutes and policies
have encouraged economic development and social well-being (Friedman 2005).
Nothing in this report is intended to disturb or undermine EPA’s historical mis -
sion. Indeed, the committee understands part of its task as providing guidance
to EPA on how it might implement its existing statutory authority to contribute
more fully to a more sustainable-development trajectory for the United States.
Each agency or department of the federal government has distinct responsi -
bilities for various social, environmental, and economic aspects of sustainability.
Each agency or department can thus make a contribution to sustainability within
the parameters of its existing statutory authority. The committee’s purpose is to
examine the benefits, where EPA has statutory authority and discretion in regula -
tory and nonregulatory programs, of building sustainability considerations into
its administration of the statutes. The committee has not examined whether or to
what extent all EPA statutes are compatible with various aspects of sustainability.
EPA’s mission is based on the understanding that human health and the
environment are related; what is good for the environment also tends to be good
for human health, and what is good for human health tends to be good for the
environment. Because EPA attempts to foster human and environmental well-
being at the same time for the benefit of present and future generations, EPA’s
mission is consistent with sustainability. The same general drivers for sustain -
ability described above all support an intensified effort for sustainability at EPA
that would try to maximize the social, environmental, and economic benefits of
OCR for page 10
10 SUSTAINABILILTY AND THE U.S. EPA
EPA’s activities, and not simply reduce risk to human health and the environ-
ment. Sustainability is fully consistent with EPA’s historical mission and does
not undermine EPA’s role of applying government regulations and policies in
response to congressional mandates to protect human health and the environment
and of furthering advances in environmental science and technology.
In addition, several other federal agencies have begun to integrate sustain -
ability into their work, including the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS 2007), U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE 2010), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (Lubchenco and Sutley 2010), among others. The USGS, for
example, is implementing a series of six science directions chosen to build on
existing strengths: “understanding ecosystems and predicting ecosystem change;
climate variability and change; energy and minerals for America’s future; a na-
tional hazards, risk, and resilience assessment program; the role of environment
and wildlife in human health; and a water census of the United States” (USGS
2007). USGS determined that central to their “deliberations on the content of
each of the six directions was a structured framework that addressed the need
to (1) identify and measure key variables, (2) map the resulting data spatially,
(3) understand the fundamental natural science processes involved, (4) monitor
essential variables over time, (5) predict or forecast the future course of natural
science events, and (6) engage stakeholders in the use of this information for
problem solving” (USGS 2007).
Additionally, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s
(NOAA) 2010 Strategic Plan states the mission for the agency as “to understand
and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans, and coasts, to share that knowl -
edge and information with others, and to conserve and manage coastal and marine
ecosystems and resources” and their vision is stated as “healthy ecosystems, com-
munities, and economies that are resilient in the face of change” (NOAA 2010).
In order to meet their stated mission and vision, NOAA focused on four long-term
outcomes: climate adaption and mitigation; being prepared for and responding to
weather-related events; healthy oceans and sustained, productive ecosystems; and
resilient coastal communities and economies (NOAA 2010).
EPA has undertaken several sustainability initiatives and can claim success
in developing processes leading to sustainability. It has established various sus -
tainability programs at the program office and regional level and has adopted a
sustainability research plan and highlighted sustainability in its strategic plan for
2011–2015 (EPA 2010). The agency has also examined applications in a variety
of areas to better incorporate sustainability in its decision making, programs, and
operations. However, as is evident in its request for the formation of this com-
mittee, EPA recognizes that to obtain the full benefits of using sustainability as
a process and as a goal, the agency needs to institutionalize sustainability more
broadly into its activities. Paul Anastas, assistant administrator for research and
development at EPA when discussing the scientific challenge of sustainability
stated, that “addressing the unsustainable trajectory of the planet has often been
OCR for page 11
11
INTRODUCTION
thought to be one that is best dealt with through government action, behavioral
change, and public policy. . . . In the absence of new materials for alternative
energy, food production, water purification and medicines, there are no policies
that can be put into place to avoid catastrophic consequence. The magnitude and
urgency of the scientific challenge cannot be understated [sic]” (Anastas 2010).
COMMITTEE’S TASK
To further strengthen the analytic and scientific basis for sustainability as it
applies to human health and environmental protection, the agency requested that
the NRC convene a committee under the Science and Technology for Sustain -
ability Program to address the following questions:
• What should be the operational framework for sustainability for EPA?
• How can the EPA decision-making process rooted in the risk ssessment/
a
risk management (RA/RM) paradigm be integrated into this new sustain-
ability framework?
• What scientific and analytical tools are needed to support the framework?
• What expertise is needed to support the framework?
COMMITTEE’S APPROACH TO THE TASK
In response to EPA’s request, the NRC appointed the Committee on Incorpo-
rating Sustainability in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which prepared
this report. To accomplish its task, the committee held meetings in December 2010
and February 2011. The latter meeting was a week long intensive session, which
included extensive reviews of relevant literature, deliberation, and drafting of the
report. In addition, data-gathering sessions that were open to the public were held
during both meetings. During these public sessions, the committee heard from
several EPA officials on topics ranging from the history of sustainability efforts at
EPA, the principles and decision criteria for incorporating sustainability in EPA
programs, and the ongoing sustainability efforts at the regional level. In addition,
various state-level environmental agencies provided their perspectives on how they
would use a similar sustainability framework in their programs.
Finally, the committee heard from several speakers from industry, non-
governmental organizations (NGOs), and former EPA officials who provided a
business perspective on sustainable development and environmental stewardship
and the perspectives of various environmental groups. The committee reviewed a
large body of written material on sustainability, including literature that informed
the committee on how EPA could further strengthen its sustainability efforts as
applicable to human health and environmental protection within the agency’s
decision-making process. The available data included other NRC reports, pub -
lished research articles, and both U.S. and international governmental reports.
OCR for page 12
12 SUSTAINABILILTY AND THE U.S. EPA
The committee also reviewed many other documents related to EPA’s structure
and function. The documents had the common theme of the need to balance
EPA’s media-specific approaches to environmental laws with its responsibilities
to integrate across programs efficiently to achieve maximal environmental ben -
efits (EPA 1992).
The committee recognized that many state and local agencies already were
actively involved in advancing sustainability, and that there is also a broad range
of sustainability activities in other federal agencies. The committee envisions
EPA working closely with these other agencies as they implement the frame-
work. Although addressing how EPA should engage other agencies is beyond the
scope of this current report, this effort will complement other programs that are
addressing national and global needs for integrating science and technology for
sustainability, such as the National Science and Technology Council’s Committee
on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability. In addition to engaging
other agencies as EPA implements the framework, other stakeholders will also be
important to engage, such as state regulators, local officials, industry, academia,
community and advocacy groups, and the international community. This will
better inform agency decision makers as the framework is refined to promote
innovative solutions that are enriched by the growing knowledge of the inter-
connections of societal, environmental, and economic systems.
The committee’s charge also did not deal with EPA’s legal mandates, organi-
zational structure, or institutional framework. There may be significant opportuni -
ties for promoting sustainability by examining these subjects but the committee
was precluded from addressing these issues as they were not part of the Statement
of Task. The committee also did not devote significant time to defining sustain -
ability but used the definition from Executive Order 13514, where it is defined as
Sustainability: “to create and maintain conditions, under which humans and
nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit fulfilling the social, eco -
nomic, and other requirements of present and future generations” (NEPA [1969];
EO 13514[2009]2).
The phrase, “create and maintain,” captures the two senses in which the
term sustainability is used by the committee in this report—as a process and as
a goal. Sustainability is a process because the United States and other countries
are a long way from being sustainable, and it is thus necessary to create the con -
ditions for sustainability (NRC 1999). Sustainability is also a goal. As sustain -
ability is achieved in particular places and contexts, it is necessary to maintain
the conditions supporting it in the face of social, technological, environmental,
and other changes. Although the exact nature of a sustainable society is difficult
to know in advance, the basic conditions for that society (e.g., absence of large
2 Executive Order 13514; Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance;
was signed on October 5, 2009.
OCR for page 13
13
INTRODUCTION
scale poverty and environmental degradation and intergenerational responsibil -
ity) can be stated (WCED 1987).
The committee emphasizes in the report that the adoption of the Sustainability
Framework and the application of the Sustainability Assessment and Management
approach to particular EPA programs, activities, and decisions are discretionary.
The committee expects that EPA will choose where to focus its attention and re-
sources in operationalizing sustainability and in implementing its agenda and will
adapt the scale and depth of the assessment according to the type of decision and
its potential impact. Although it will take time and experience to incorporate sus -
tainability broadly into EPA’s culture and process, the committee anticipates that
over time there will be an increasing use of the framework.
As with all decision making at EPA, uncertainty needs to be acknowledged
and addressed, the approach needs to be transparent, and key stakeholders need
to be engaged. The Sustainability Assessment and Management process is in-
tended to be equally applicable to all types of issues, including human health
and ecological risks.
The committee addressed its task by providing guidance to EPA on the pro-
cesses necessary to incorporate sustainability into the agency’s work but not on
the specific direction EPA should take to accomplish this task. In a presentation
to the committee at the first meeting, the Office of Research and Development’s
assistant administrator, Paul Anastas, suggested that the committee draft its rec -
ommendations in a manner following the 1983 NRC report Risk Assessment in
the Federal Government, otherwise known as the “Red Book.” The Red Book
provided the agency with a framework for risk assessment and risk management
(NRC 1983) that served as a driver for EPA’s activities and for environmental
regulations. Dr. Anastas emphasized that the sustainability equivalents of the
four-box risk paradigm are needed now to serve as the critical elements of
whether an action will advance or impair sustainability.
STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT
The remainder of this report is organized into seven chapters. Chapter 2
includes a history of sustainable-development activities in the United States and
internationally, including documentation of the early development of sustainabil -
ity concepts in U.S. environmental law. Chapter 3 describes the proposed Sustain-
ability Framework. Chapter 4 discusses the processes and tools to support the
proposed framework for sustainability at EPA. Chapter 5 provides guidance on
integrating the new Sustainability Framework and the EPA decision-making pro -
cess, which is rooted in the RA/RM paradigm. A discussion of cultural “change
management” is provided in Chapter 6. Chapter 7 examines the relevance and
utility of sustainability considerations in EPA’s accomplishment of its mission.
Chapters 6 and 7 also provide examples of successful sustainability initiatives.
The committee’s report, although providing background information about
OCR for page 14
14 SUSTAINABILILTY AND THE U.S. EPA
the history and rationale for sustainability goals and processes, has not focused
on precisely defining or justifying sustainability. On the basis of the Statement
of Task, our focus has been on providing an operational framework that helps
facilitate the further incorporation of goals for sustainability and processes in
sustainability into the daily work routine of EPA.
REFERENCES
Anastas, P. 2010. Perspective on green chemistry: The most challenging synthetic transformation.
Tetrahedron 66(5):1026-1027.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2010. Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan: Discovering
Sustainable Solutions to Power and Secure America’s Future. U.S. Department of Energy,
Washington, DC [online]. Available: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/sustainability/pdfs/doe_sspp.
pdf [accessed Apr. 18, 2011].
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1992. Safeguarding the Future: Credible Science,
Credible Decisions. EPA/600/9-91/050. Expert Panel on the Role of Science at EPA, U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. March 1992.
EPA. 2010. Fiscal Year 2011-2015 EPA Strategic Vision: Achieving Our Vision. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC [online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/
strategicplan.html [accessed Apr. 18, 2011].
Friedman, L.M. 2005. A History of American Law, 3rd Ed. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Jackson, L.P. 2010. Remarks to the National Academy of Sciences, November 30, 2010, Washington,
DC [online]. Available: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/8d49f7ad4bbcf4ef8525735
90040b7f6/1c893e457b3cbb25852577ec0054048c!OpenDocument [accessed Apr. 15, 2011].
Lubchenco, J., and N. Sutley. 2010. Proposed U.S. policy for ocean coast, and Great Lakes steward -
ship. Science 328(5985):1485-1486.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2010. NOAA’s Next Generation Stra -
tegic Plan. Office of Program Planning and Integration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Silver Spring, MD. December 2010 [online]. Available: http://www.ppi.noaa.
gov/wp-content/uploads/NOAA_NGSP.pdf [accessed July 11, 2011].
NRC (National Research Council). 1983. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the
Process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
NRC. 1999. Our Common Journey: A Transition toward Sustainability. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). 2007. Institutionalising Sustain -
able Development. Paris: OECD.
UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development). 1992a. Agenda 21. United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3-14 June 1992
[online]. Available: http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/articles/Agenda21.pdf [accessed
Apr. 18, 2011].
UNCED. 1992b. Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio
de Janeiro, 3-14 June 1992, Annex I. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.
A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I). United Nations General Assembly [online]. Available: http://www.
un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm [accessed Apr. 15, 2011].
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2007. Facing Tomorrow’s Challenges: U.S. Geological Survey Sci -
ence in the Decade 2007-2017. Circular 1309. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geologi -
cal Survey, Reston, VA [online]. Available: http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2007/1309/pdf/C1309.pdf
[accessed Apr. 18, 2011].
WCED (United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development). 1987. Our Common
Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
