Post on 03-Jan-2016
description
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