93 



through its Technical Committee 207. Materials issues are an important consider- 

 ation in all three of these thrusts. The German Blue Angel quasi-governmental envi- 

 ronmental label for personal computers also focuses on materials issues. For exam- 

 ple, certain materials such as polybrominated biphenyl fire retardants are banned, 

 requiring that designers develop materials which still provide a safe product with- 

 out using such-traditional fire retardants. Also, product takeback requirements are 

 imposed, which in turn mean materials must be evaluated for their technical and 

 economic recyclability characteristics. The government of The Netherlands has just 

 released its Policy Document on Products and the Environment, which contemplates 

 a comprehensive approach to managing the environmental impact of products, in- 

 cluding the materials from which they are made: "Information on the environmental 

 impact of substances, materials and production processes is absolutely essential to 

 all business activities. Such information enables producers to make responsible deci- 

 sions regarding their purchasing and their production processes. ..." (Draft trans- 

 lation, 1994, p. 37) UNEP, the EU, the OECD, and nations such as Germany, Aus- 

 tria, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, and Japan are undertaking similar efforts; in 

 all cases, the environmental characteristics of materials are a focal point of concern. 



Private Industry Initiatives: Design for Environment 



How are manufacturing firms responding to these initiatives? At AT&T, for exam- 

 ple, we are beginning to develop Design for Environment, or DFE, methodologies 

 which will integrate environmental considerations into the design of manufacturing 

 processes, products, and even, over time, services and facilities. It is not enough, for 

 example, to make a telephone in a factory which complies with emission require- 

 ments. Rather, that telephone should be designed so that it is an environmentally 

 preferable product. It should use as little material as possible. It should be designed 

 so that it can be refurbished easily, so that it can be reintroduced into commerce 

 after its "first life." The plastics in it should be marked so that they can be easily 

 recycled when the telephone is finally recycled for its materials. Toxics use should 

 be minimized in light of environmental, market and technological constraints. And 

 it should use the most environmentally preferable materials for each application, to 

 the extent that can be established. 



In following this path, we are guided by the principles being developed in the nas- 

 cent field of industrial ecology, which is being actively developed by companies such 

 as AT&T, entities such as the National Academy of Engineering, and academic in- 

 stitutions such as MIT, UCLA, Georgia Tech, the University of Michigan, Yale and 

 Harvard. Indeed, two AT&T experts have recently written the first engineering text- 

 book on industrial ecology and Design for Environment, which will be released to 

 schools this fall. (Further details about industrial ecology and DFE are provided in 

 the paper attached to this testimony.) 



This activity, and our work developing the theory behind it, has given us a new 

 perspective on materials. From an AT&T point of view, we need to know what mate- 

 rials are environmentally preferable, so we can choose appropriately within the con- 

 straints of product design and technology. We cannot determine this ourselves; we 

 are not experts on the environmental impacts of mining, nor of secondary smelting 

 and recycling, nor of plastics or solvent production, for example. Nor, for that mat- 

 ter, are we comfortable with the shifting of risks among different environmental sys- 

 tems, or geographical areas. 



Is it more important, for example, to reduce energy use or the use of toxics? 

 Superconductors, commercial versions of which now contain and will probably con- 

 tinue to contain at least one toxic substance (e.g., thallium, mercury, or copper, an 

 aquatic toxicant), are a prime example. They offer the potential for enormous bene- 

 fits in terms of significant energy savings, but require using toxics. Should they con- 

 tinue to be developed and deployed? How do the possible environmental impacts of 

 significantly reduced energy use, such as lower emissions of heavy metals and CO2, 

 compare with the impacts of introducing new toxics into commerce? 



Of course, we and all responsible companies remain concerned with the toxicity 

 of the materials we use, but if we are to be responsible, we must ask other questions 

 as well. Is it an ozone depleter? Does it contribute to global climate change forcing? 

 Does mining and processing it contribute to environmental impacts in developing 



Qo cwra o _ QA — A 



