MANUFACTURER RESPONSIBILITY:

Policies and Practices for a Safer Environment

Alicia Culver, Senior Research AssociateINFORM, Inc.culver@INFORMInc.org510-525-0669/212-361-2400

WRP2N Annual ConferenceOctober 16, 2003

About INFORM

Non-profit research organization founded in 1974Key program areas:

Chemical hazards prevention

Solid waste reduction

Sustainable transportation

Website: www.informinc.org

INFORM’s Solid Waste Prevention Program

Extended Producer Responsibility: A Materials Policy for the 21st Century

Waste in the Wireless World

Leasing: A Step Toward Producer Responsibility

INFORM’s Chemical Hazards Prevention Program

Purchasing for Pollution Prevention

Purchasing for Asthma Prevention

Cleaning for Health Expanding the

Public’s Right-to-Know

www.informinc.org/chemprev.php

Why Do We Need EPR? Toxic Chemicals Going into Products

Source: 2000-2001 NJ Materials Accounting Data

Products97%

Waste3%

Toxic Chemicals are Released When Products are Made

A GE fluorescent lamp manufacturing plant in Bucyrus, Ohio sent over 23 tons of lead to landfills and 20 pounds of mercury to a sewage treatment plant (POTW) in 2000.

Example:

Toxic Chemicals are Released When Products are Used

“Phthalate” plasticizers (reproductive toxins) can

volatilize from vinyl flooring, triggering asthma in children.

Example:

Toxic Chemicals are Released When Products are Discarded

Mercury is released when cars, appliances, and thermostats with mercury go into smelters or trash incinerators.

Example:

Persistent Toxins in Rivers and Streams

Recent study found contaminants from common household products in US rivers and streams: Flame retardants (PBDEs) Lice shampoo (lindane) Plasticizers (phthalates) Restroom deodorizers (“para”) Mercury (fillings and other sources)

PBT Contamination in California

Fish in San Francisco Bay have unsafe levels of mercury, PCBs, chlordane, DDT, dieldrin and other unspecified pesticides.

17.8% of California's lake-acres are under fish consumption advisories due to mercury, dioxins and other PBTs.

Fish in supermarket has high enough levels of mercury to require labeling under “Prop 65”.

Toxic Chemicals are Concentrating in our Bodies

One in 12 people in US exceed “safe” levels for mercury. (US Centers for Disease Control, 1/03)

Brominated flame retardants (PBDEs) have been found in US breast milk at highest levels in the world: 10-20 times higher than in Europe, where the chemicals are being phased out.

Policies for Improving Manufacturer Responsibility

Product Bans/Disposal Bans Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Expanded Right-to-Know Precautionary Principle

Chemical/Product Bans

Effectively prevent toxic emissionsOzone Depleters (Montreal Protocol

Treaty)PCBsPOPS Treaty/California Lindane Ban Lead paint

Spur development of safer alternatives Protect workers and the environment

Product Disposal Bans

Support companies that have developed safer alternatives (and spurs product redesign)

Often result in establishment of recycling infrastructure

Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP)

Market-based driver for products with environmental attributes

Companies must also meet price and performance specs

Growing number of EPP programs across US and internationally

Vehicles Case StudyMN 2002 Vehicle Bid

Required immediate disclosure of mercury & vinyl components.

Notified of intent to procure mercury-free vehicles within 3 years.

General Motors agreed to cease its use of mercury switches as of 1/15/02.

New focus on lead and other mercury applications.

Bid solicitation: http://www.informinc.org/carbidworks.pdf

Case Study: http://www.informinc.org/fsminn.pdf

What is Extended Producer Responsibility?

Extended producer responsibility (EPR) is defined as the extension of the responsibility of producers for the entire product life-cycle, and especially for their take-back, recycling, and disposal.

Manufacturers are held physically or financially responsible for products when consumers are done with them.

Rational for EPR

Currently, end-of-life management costs fall on local governments and consumers

Few incentives exist for companies to re-design or recycle their products

Little infrastructure exists to handle products at end of life (i.e., industry is not designing recycling programs on their own)

Benefits of EPR

1. Creates and optimizes recycling/recovery infrastructure

2. Levels the playing field among manufacturers

3. Shifts costs of recycling, HHW collection away from taxpayers to manufacturers

An Important Goal of EPR

EPR rewards companies that design their products:To last longerThat are recyclableThat contain fewer toxic chemicals

Key Components of an Effective EPR Program

1. Fee structure that rewards product redesign/reformulation

2. Ground rules to ensure “fair play”/level playing field

3. Transparency (e.g., labeling, right-to-know)

4. Enforceable goals

EPR Began in Europe

EU Packaging Directive (1994) – established fees on packaging based on weight and recyclability

EU Vehicles End-of-Life Directive (2000) – requires manufacturers to design vehicles and components without hazardous materials and to take responsibility for vehicles (and components) at end-of-life

EPR Increases Recycling Rates

Reported Recycling Rates in the US and Germany, 1997

United States (Total Packaging)

Germany (Sales Packaging)

Glass 28% 89%

Steel 61% 84%

Aluminum 48% 86%

Plastics 9% 69%

Paper 54% 93%

Total 39% 86%

Bette Fishbein, INFORM, Extended Producers Responsibility: A Materials Policy for the 21st Century, 2000

EPR is Expanding in Europe

Waste Electronics and Electric Equipment (WEEE) (2003): Requires “take-back” and recovery of electronics at end-

of-life for products manufactured after 8/13/05 Requires industry to pickup electronics from community

collection points Establishes fees based on actual cost of recycling Bans “smart chips”, which thwart recycling

Reduction of Hazardous Substances (ROHS) (2003) Ensure electronics are designed without lead, mercury,

cadmium, hexavalent chromium or brominated flame retardants (PBBs or PBDEs)

EPR is Growing in Canada(Provincial Regulations)

BCBC ABAB SKSK MBMB ONON QUQU NBNB NSNS PEIPEI NFNF

PackagingPackaging

HSWHSW

ElectronicsElectronics

Beverage Beverage ContainersContainers

Legend: Regulations in place Regulations expected by 2004/05Regulations expected to follow after Ontario/QuebecSource: Canadian Society of Recyclers

Ontario’s Waste Diversion Act Program Plan Features

Industry and municipalities each pay 50% share of municipal Blue Box (BB) Program net costs

Funded research & development program to improve BB program effectiveness & efficiency

Funded program for market development

Funded program for education and public awarenessSource: CSR 2003

Most Manufacture-based Recycling Programs in US

Have Failed

RBRC – Charge Up to Recycle! Rechargeable Battery Recycling Program has captured less than 10%

Thermostat Recycling Corporation’s program has very low recovery rate (about 60,000 thermostats nationally in 2002)

New EPR Laws in the US

Maine and Rhode Island have introduced bills requiring manufacturers to fund a system to remove, collect and recycle mercury auto switches

California passed legislation requiring fee system established to pay for computer recycling (first step)

“Return to Vendor”Agreements

Require vendors to take back products at end-of-life

Require certification of recycling Ensure companies are not “Exporting Harm” In lieu of contract with recycling company Barrier: may take more effort to certify each

company’s recycling program

“Return to Vendor”Agreements in Place

Massachusetts’ building supplies contract requires vendor (Grainger) to offer no-cost battery recycling and promote state’s mercury-product recycling program.

King County, Washington carpet bid required vendors to reclaim old carpet removed during installation (http://www.metrokc.gov/procure/green/bul74.htm#2)

Expanded Right-to-Know

Need better labeling of products

Need more info on toxic chemicals used by suppliers

Need to add emerging chemicals of concern to TRI

Need to track chemicals “shipped in products”

Disclosure of Toxics in Products

New Jersey requires vendors of fluorescent lamps and other products to disclose mercury content so purchasers can make “informed” choices about brands labeled “low-mercury”. www.state.nj.us/treasury/purchase/noa/contracts/t0192.shtml

Massachusetts requires vendors to report all mercury containing devices sold on state contract.

Resources on EPR

2 New INFORM Fact Sheets European Union Electrical and Electronic Pro

ducts Directives

The WEEE and RoHS Directives: Highlights and Analysis

www.informinc.org/summaries_waste.php

Information on EPR in Canadawww.ec.gc.ca/epr/en/index.cfm

Grassroots Recycling Network Links on EPRwww.grrn.org/resources/

producer_responsibility.html