Transcript Document 7115622

MANUFACTURER
RESPONSIBILITY:
Policies and Practices
for a Safer Environment
Alicia Culver, Senior Research Associate
INFORM, Inc.
[email protected]
510-525-0669/212-361-2400
WRP2N Annual Conference
October 16, 2003
About INFORM
Non-profit research organization founded in 1974
Key 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-toKnow

www.informinc.org/chemprev.php
Why Do We Need EPR?
Toxic Chemicals Going into Products
Waste
3%
Products
97%
Source: 2000-2001 NJ Materials Accounting Data
Toxic Chemicals are Released
When Products are Made
Example:
A GE fluorescent lamp
manufacturing plant in
Bucyrus, Ohio sent over 23
tons of lead to landfills and
533 pounds of mercury to a
sewage treatment plant
(POTW) in 2000.
Toxic Chemicals are Released
When Products are Used
Example:
“Phthalate” plasticizers
(reproductive toxins) can
volatilize from vinyl
flooring, triggering
asthma in children.
Toxic Chemicals are Released
When Products are Discarded
Example:
Mercury is released when cars, appliances, and
thermostats with mercury go into smelters or
trash incinerators.
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 emissions
 Ozone Depleters (Montreal Protocol
Treaty)
 PCBs
 POPS Treaty/California Lindane Ban
 Lead paint
 Spur development of safer alternatives
 Protect workers and the environment

Product Disposal Bans
Supports companies
that have developed
safer alternatives
(and spurs product
redesign)
 Often results 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 Study
MN 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 redesign 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 longer
 That are recyclable
 That 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-toknow)
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 Germany (Sales
Packaging)
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)
BC
AB
SK
MB
ON
QU
NB
NS
PEI
NF
Packaging










HSW






Electronics





Beverage
Containers









Legend:
 Regulations in place
 Regulations expected by 2004/05
Regulations expected to follow after Ontario/Quebec
Source: 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 awareness
Source: 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
The State of New Jersey now requires vendors of
fluorescent lamps and other products to disclose
mercury content so purchasers can make
“informed” choices about brands labeled “lowmercury”. 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
Products Directives

The WEEE and RoHS Directives:
Highlights and Analysis
www.informinc.org/summaries_waste.php
Information on EPR in Canada
www.ec.gc.ca/epr/en/index.cfm
Grassroots Recycling Network Links on EPR
www.grrn.org/resources/
producer_responsibility.html