1. MANUFACTURER RESPONSIBILITY: Policies and Practices for a Safer Environment Alicia Culver, Senior Research Associate INFORM, Inc. culver@INFORMInc.org 510-525-0669/212-361-2400 culver@INFORMInc.org WRP2N Annual Conference October 16, 2003

2. About INFORM Non-profit research organization founded in 1974 Key program areas: Chemical hazards prevention Solid waste reduction Sustainable transportation Website: www.informinc.org

3. INFORM’s Solid Waste Prevention Program Extended Producer Responsibility: A Materials Policy for the 21 st Century Waste in the Wireless World Leasing: A Step Toward Producer Responsibility

4. 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

5. Why Do We Need EPR? Toxic Chemicals Going into Products Source: 2000-2001 NJ Materials Accounting Data

6. 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:

7. Toxic Chemicals are Released When Products are Used “Phthalate” plasticizers (reproductive toxins) can volatilize from vinyl flooring, triggering asthma in children. Example:

8. 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:

9. 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)

10. 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”.

11. 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.

12. Policies for Improving Manufacturer Responsibility Product Bans/Disposal Bans Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Expanded Right-to-Know Precautionary Principle

13. 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

14. Product Disposal Bans Support companies that have developed safer alternatives (and spurs product redesign) Often result in establishment of recycling infrastructure

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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.

18. 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)

19. 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

20. An Important Goal of EPR EPR rewards companies that design their products:   To last longer   That are recyclable   That contain fewer toxic chemicals

21. 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

22. 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

23. EPR Increases Recycling Rates Reported Recycling Rates in the US and Germany, 1997 United States (Total Packaging) Germany (Sales Packaging) Glass28%89% Steel61%84% Aluminum48%86% Plastics9%69% Paper54%93% Total39%86% Bette Fishbein, INFORM, Extended Producers Responsibility: A Materials Policy for the 21st Century, 2000

24. 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)

25. EPR is Growing in Canada (Provincial Regulations)BCABSKMBONQUNBNSPEINFPackaging 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

26. 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

27. 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)

28. 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)

29. “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

30. “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)

31. 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”

32. 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.

33. Resources on EPR 2 New INFORM Fact Sheets European Union Electrical and Electronic Products Directives European Union Electrical and Electronic Products Directives The WEEE and RoHS Directives: Highlights and Analysis www.informinc.org/summaries_waste.php 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