Closing the product loop

1
Closing the product loop

• How Europe is grappling with waste
• Beverley Thorpe
• www.cleanproduction.org

2
Moving from waste to product focus some general
themes

• From Waste management to Product life cycle
• From Community-funded recycling to producer
  responsibility for end of life products

3
We are better at making waste than products

• For every 100 pounds of product manufactured in
  the USA, we create at least 3,200 pounds of
  waste.
• Only 6 of the materials we extract each year
  from the Earth becomes durable goods, the other
  94 is converted into waste within a few months
• Ref P Hawken

4
Previous waste prevention does not define WHO is
responsible
5
Products need to be considered in their life
cycle current production is linear and
generates hazardous wastes with fast consumption
6
Clean Production cycle is different to current
linear production systems
7
What Is Clean Production?

• It promotes renewable energy, non toxic materials
  in a closed loop and sustainable product design
• It is rooted within circular concepts of the
  product life cycle
• It is based on the Precautionary Principle

8
UNEP Cleaner Production (CP) Definition (1990)

• For PRODUCTION PROCESSES Cleaner Production
  includes
• conserving raw materials and energy
• eliminating toxic raw materials
• reducing the quantity and toxicity of all
  emissions and wastes before they leave a process

9
UNEP CP Definition

• For PRODUCTS .
• the strategy focuses on reducing impacts along
  the entire life cycle of the product.from raw
  material extraction to the ultimate disposal of
  the product
• Visit www.unepie.org/ for information on their
  case studies and reports.

10
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is one
strategy to push CP

• It is a product policy not a waste policy
• It enacts the polluter pays principle and
  attempts to internalize true cost into the
  product price
• It makes the producer financially and/or
  physically responsible for all stages of a
  products life cycle, including end of life

11
(No Transcript)
12
EPR promotes better design

• EPR can lead to innovation in the design of
  products and product systems by making
• the business opportunities connected to
  re-manufacturing and product/service approaches
  more visual and comprehensible to the industrial
  entrepreneurs.
• Thomas Lindhqvist, who coined the phrase EPR,
  1991
• More recycling and reuse can mean less hazardous
  material use

13
(No Transcript)
14
Why make the producer responsible?

• Only the product designer can choose material and
  form/function of the product
• EPR puts the feedback loop back on the producer
  to design for disassembly, reuse, and safer
  recycling
• Hazardous materials increase the producers
  liability and costs

15
EPR can make products more recyclable and less
wasteful if

• Focus is specifically on waste from end of life
  products
• Financial responsibility is clear to producers
  for collection, transport and recycling
• Meangful targets are established for collection
  and recycling.

16
EPR programs are effective if

• Recycling is clearly differentiated from waste to
  energy conversion/incineration
• Reporting requirements and enforcement mechanisms
  established
• Producers have incentive to design for
  reuse/recycling
• Consumers have incentives to return their old
  products (eg free and easy)

17
EPR is embodied in

• Bottle return/refund programs
• Product leasing where manufacturer maintains
  control of product ownership/reuse/repair eg
  Xerox
• Providing a Service instead of a product, eg
  Interface supplying floor covering service and
  carpet tile replacement versus new carpet

18
First EPR program Germanys Green
Dot for packaging

• Packaging Ordinance 1991 establishes EPR
• Packaging accounted for 1/3 by weight and ½ by
  volume of total waste stream and was growing!
• Would stimulate new recycling technologies
• Berlin Wall collapse meant new consumerism and
  waste and decreasing landfill space

19
Established individual or third party system

• Fillers are responsible for packaging waste can
  deal with it themselves or set up third party
  system
• Industry responded by designing the Dual, or
  Green Dot, system

20
DSD

• Non profit company, Duales System Deutschland
  (DSD) licenses logo for a fee
• Fees based on the material and weight of the
  package and paid by filler usually the owner of
  the product brand name
• Households have 2 bins one for regular trash
  (municipality responsibility) and one for
  packaging (DSD picks up for free)
• DSD also operates drop-off igloos for glass and
  paper

21
License fee for Green Dot, Oct 1994Weight-based
Fee DM/kg
22
(No Transcript)
23
DSD sets clear targets

• Recycling targets ranging from 64 to 72 percent
  for various materials
• Refill rate for beverage containers at 72 percent
  or higher

24
Effects of DSD less packaging

• Between 1991 and 1995 packaging consumption
  decreased by one million tons
• Green Dot packaging decreased 14 from 1991-1995,
  while total packaging in Germany decreased 7
• Comparison in USA (same time) packaging increased
  13

25
Effects of DSD product redesign

• Packaging redesign
• lightweighting
• elimination of unessential packaging (blister
  packs)
• increased use of concentrates and refill packs

26
What about plastics?

• In 1996 plastic packaging recycling increased to
  68
• Move away from PVC (difficult to recycle) to
  better recyclable material (eg paper)
• Incineration not considered recycling
• BUT One third recycling via feedstock
  recycling eg pyrolysis, hydrogenation and
  substitution of waste plastic for oil in steel
  production

27
(No Transcript)
28
(No Transcript)
29
(No Transcript)
30
(No Transcript)
31
New recycling targets from 1999

• Glass 75 (previously 70)
• Tinplate 70 (same)
• Aluminum 60 (prev 50)
• Paper/crdbd) 70 (prev 60)
• Composites 60 (prev 50)

32
Hazardous contents must decrease

• concentrations of lead, cadmium, mercury and
  hexavalent chromium in packaging reduced
• 600 ppm (parts per million) by weight from 30
  June 1998
• 250 ppm by weight from 30 June 1999
• 100 ppm by weight from 30 June 2001

33
Prognos Assessment of DSD, 2002

• The recycling of two million tonnes of
  lightweight packaging avoids carbon dioxide
  pollution by the same quantity which arises in
  the incineration of 28 million tonnes of residual
  waste
• Costs of the Green Dot are between 520 and 605
  euros per tonne, could drop to 250-370 euros

34
Greenhouse gas reductions

• By recycling used sales packaging, a total of
  67.5 billion megajoules of primary energy was
  saved
• In addition, this saved 1.5 million tonnes of
  climate-damaging greenhouse gases.
• (Source Environmental Success Balance 2002 of
  Duales System Deutschland AG, www.gruener-punkt.de
  )

35
Future predictions for packaging in Germany

• Predictions of 15 decrease in waste 2000-2005
  (Prognos Institute)
• No untreated waste to landfill in 2005 will lead
  to more reductions (more reuse and recycling)
• Mechanical biological treatment will be used more
  in future (versus incineration)

36
Re-use in Europe

• On average in the European Union, about one third
  of the packaging for soft drinks, mineral water
  and wine is reused
• The highest reuse rates are achieved in Denmark,
  Finland, Germany and Sweden in some cases more
  than 90 percent of the volume bottled (glass and
  PET) is reused in these countries.

37
Beverage bottle reuse -Europe

• WINE REUSE Austria (83 percent) Finland (71
  percent) Sweden reuses 55 percent, Portugal
  around 50 percent Spain 32 percent and Germany
  29 percent.
• SOFT DRINK REUSE Austria, Germany, Sweden,
  Finland and Portugal reuse between one third and
  two thirds of the glass packaging. Denmark
  achieves 80 percent, followed by Germany with 61
  percent.
• BEER and MINERAL WATER higher

38
Germanys Closed Material and Waste Management
Act 1996

• Aim to eliminate the dumping of untreated waste
  entirely within 20 years, as a result of the
  progress made in recovery technology.
• EPR in Germany extended to
• Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equpment
  (WEEE)
• End of Life Vehicles (EoLV)
• Carpets and textiles
• Biowaste
• Construction waste
• Batteries

39
EU focus on Product Policy finds PVC a difficult
waste problem

• Green Opposition in Europe to PVC plastic leads
  to demands for phase out in cars and waste from
  electrical and electronic equipment

40
PVC is not and can not be safely recycled

• 0.1 total pvc use currently recycled
• Incompatible with potential recycling of other
  plastics contaminates others
• High collection and separation costs
• Downcycling shifts disposal problems to other
  products/countries
• Increases toxic emissions in steel smelting if
  used as fuel

41
PVC - 2nd most common plastic
42
PVC common in households
43
PVC IS INCREASING GLOBALLY-former long life pvc
products to enter current waste stream
44
PVC legacy about to hit

• 300 million tons PVC produced globally since
  1960s
• Half already disposed to landfills and
  incinerators
• Half still in current use (construction materials
  average life 34 years)
• 1960s construction waste about to hit!
• So what do we do with it?

45
What does this waste legacy mean?A BIG TOXIC
PROBLEM

• If all pvc production were to cease today we
  would still face 150 mT waste mountain globally
• Along which comes tens of millions of tons of
  additives
• (estimate does not include short life products eg
  packaging, household products)

46
EU Studies on PVC (2000) - Conclusions

• Amount of pvc waste to double in next 20 years
• Mechanical recycling will not contribute
  significantly to management of PVC post-consumer
  wastes reaching at best 18 of the total in 2020
• Incineration of 1 kg PVC leads in most cases to
  formation of 1 kg hazardous wastes
• Landfilling releases hazardous phthalate
  softeners and will contribute to formation of
  dioxins in accidental landfill fires

47
What does this waste legacy mean?A BIG TOXIC
PROBLEM

• If all pvc production were to cease today we
  would still face 150 mT waste mountain globally
• Along which comes tens of millions of tons of
  additives
• (estimate does not include short life products eg
  packaging, household products)

48
PVC waste crisis will demand more incineration-
BIG DIOXIN THREAT

• the future will see a major increase in the
  recycling of PVC through energy recovery by
  incineration. This is because mechanical
  recycling levels appear to have peaked with no
  obvious hope of an increase to come.
• -Occidental Chemical spokesman, 1997

49
Chlorine
Production
EDC
PVC
VCM
Stabilisers e.g. Pb, Cd (0,1-2,5 )
Additives (content 7-75 )
Use - Disposal
Cl-polymer (Cl-content 14-53)
Plasticiserse.g. DEHP (10-60)
HCL
Dioxin (production, accidental fires, landfill
fires, incineration, metal recycling)
50
Chlorine in dioxin out

• Danish govt now trying to limit PVC in
  incineration waste streams
• review of data clearly shows correlation with
  chlorine input and synthesis of dioxins and
  furans USEPA

Bags of incineration ash from pvc combusion
51
1 kg PVC produces 1kg or more of hazardous waste
residues (see photo of bags of incineration
ash)European Commission 2001

• PVC in incinerators
• creates acidic
• emissions along with
• dioxins neutralizing these
• emissions generates as
• much waste as original
• waste streamwhich then
• needs to be landfilled creating
• future toxic leaks and emissions.
• Incineration is NOT the solution

52
PVC-free political initiatives in EU

• EU emergency ban of six phthalates in soft PVC
  teething toys

• Restrictive policies at national level in place
  or recommended (DK, S, NL, D)

• PVC-free policies at regional or local level
  (DK, S, NL, D, UK, A,
  Spain, Lux)

53
Government initiatives

• Sweden (1999) phases out several PVC additives
  and places ban on phthalates in toys for children
  under 3 other phaseouts
• Achieved a 39 reduction in PVC beween 1994 and
  1999
• Denmark (1999) limit incineration of PVC ban on
  lead stabilizers, substitution of PVC products
  difficult to segregate PVC tax(2/kg on all pvc
  foils) 50 reduction of phthalates by 2010

54
Government initiatives

• Germany gradual phase out of soft PVC, no
  landfilling of PVC, no spreading of hazardous
  substances via recycling, phase out of Cd and Pb,
  use of chlorine-free materials in certain
  inflammable areas
• -German EPA recommendations (1999)
• 274 communitites and 6 Federal States have PVC
  restrictions

55
Local authorities restricting PVC

• Spain 62 Spanish cities have been declared PVC
  free and award tax relief to builders who avoid
  PVC
• Anti PVC procurement guidelines in Austria,
  Netherlands, Nordic countries, UK, Japan and even
  USA
• Japan cities using non pvc pipes increasing
  public concern and action against dioxin

56
Unions

• German Wood and Plastic Processors Labour Union
• problems associated with this material must be
  addressedour organisation in Germany is
  committed to a medium term transition to chlorine
  free materials such as polyolefins and PET.
• -Gisbert Schlemmer, GHK, 1994

57
PVC-free business initiatives
Wavin No. 1 PVC pipe producer in Europe
Why polypropylene is the better material
a standard plastic has been questioned
increasingly in recent years due to its chlorine
content PVC
Rightly, polypropylene is called the material
of the future. Because in addition to its
excellent characteristics, it has all the
advantages for ecologically clean reprocessing
58
Firefighters

• International Association of Firefighters
• Due to intrinsic hazards, we support efforts to
  identify and use alternative building materials
  that do not pose as much a risk as PVC to
  firefighters, building occupants or communities
• Richard Duffy, OHS, 1998
• PVC-Free Future A Review of Restrictions and
  PVC free Policies Worldwide visit
  www.greenpeace.org/toxics

59
Nurses/Doctors

• We support initiatives to reduce the harmful
  impact of medical waste, includinguse of the
  marketplace to develop alternative low-toxicity
  products, eg replacing pvc plastics, latex and
  mercury
• International Council of Nurses, 1998
• See Health Care Without Harm (www.hcwh.org)

60
We need to rapidly phase out PVC via

• Green procurement and ecotaxes
• Producer responsibility for product life cycle as
  general policy
• Producer responsibility for PVC waste segregation
  prior to waste management
• Government responsibility to urgently implement
  MATERIAL POLICY as basis of environmental and
  industrial development

61
EPR in Europe now applied to

• End of Life Vehicles
• Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment
  (WEEE)

62
WHY EPR for autos?

• There are 8 to 9 million vehicles discarded
  annually within the European Union alone.
• This results in around 9 million tonnes of waste
  created per year
• End of life systems were often unregulated

63
Auto shredder residue (ASR) is hazardous

• Mixture of plastics, fluids, rubber, glass, dirt,
  and metallic fines which makes it hazardous waste
  in many countries
• ASR is approx 25 of the car, almost all disposed
  to landfill

64
Design objective of EoLV Directive

• Member states shall encourage vehicle
  manufacturers in liaison with material and
  equipment manufactures to limit the use of
  hazardous substances in vehicles
• to improve design and production of new vehicles
  to facilitate their dismantling, reuse,
  recycling, and recovery and
• to integrate an increasing quantity of recycled
  materials in vehicles and other products, in
  order to develop the markets for recycled
  materials (Article 4.1)

65
Recycling objectives

• Directive passed October 2000
• Members states must implement into national laws
  by April 2002
• Sets recovering and recycling rates (by 2006
  reuse and recovery 85 reuse and recycling 80)
  and by 2015 reuse and recovery 95 reuse and
  recycling 85)
• Recycling does not allow incineration (but
  recovery can be energy recovery aka incineration)

66
Hazardous material phase outs

• Mandates hazardous material phase outs (Pb, Hg,
  Cd and Hexavalent Cr) in new cars by July 2003
• PVC was originally included but Vinyl industry
  lobbied strenuously against
• European Union decided to study PVC in all
  industry sectors
• Results White Paper 2001 confirmed PVC a waste
  problem with no sustainable solution
• Major auto manufacturers avoiding PVC

67
End of life catalyzes design change in Japan auto
industry

• Use of homogenous plastics for wider recycling
  options
• Design for repair
• One manufacturer discovered plastic which could
  be recycled for same use (cf Renault uses up to
  25 recycled plastic in new cars)
• One manufacturer recycles fabrics from shredded
  waste for noise buffering
• Bumpers now commonly recycled

68
Brominated flame retardants

• Used in textiles, construction, upholstery
  (polyurethane foam), electronics (BFRs in plastic
  housing of computers)
• Now found widely in household dust
• Computer recyclers in Sweden had elevated blood
  levels (Sjodin, 2000)

69
Brominated flame retardant chemicals the PCBs
of the 21st century

• Developmental toxin, persistent, neurological
  toxin, reduced intelligence
• North American body burdens 10 to 100 times
  higher than Europeans
• No regulations on BFRs in North America! Only
  monitoring .

70
BFR levels rising in American women
71
BFRs rising in Canadian women
72
BFRs the focus of industry in Europe and Japan

• EU Directive on Waste from Electrical and
  Electronic Equipment mandates phase out of two
  classes of BFRs
• High priority on OsPar haz list
• Still no regulation in the USA
• EPA Region 9 conferences on the use of BFRs in IT
  sector, upholstery (PU foam)
• SEE www.greenstart.org

73
WEEE and RoHS Directives (2003)

• Directive on Waste from Electrical and Electronic
  Equipment and Directive on Restriction of
  Hazardous Substances

74
WEEE and RoHS Directives

• Sets individual producer responsibility
• Mandates Reuse and recycling targets with
  timelines
• Last owner takes back end of life product for
  free

75
Why WEEE directive?

• 6 million tonnes of waste from EEE generated
  every year
• Equals 4 percent of municipal waste stream and
  growing 3 times faster
• WEEE is hazardous in landfills and generates
  dioxins if incinerated
• Recycling workers contaminated by brominated
  flame retardant chemicals
• Needed to harmonize national initiatives

76
Directives on WEEE and RoHS

• Applicable to all white and brown goods not just
  IT equipment
• Objective a means to encourage the design and
  production of EEE which takes into full account
  and facilitates their repair, possible upgrading,
  reuse, disassembly and recycling also
  substitution by safe or safer materials

77
WEEE and RoHS mandates

• Pb, Hg, Cd, hexavalent Cr and the brominated
  flame retardants PBDEs and PBBs must not be used
  in products by July 2006
• Producers have individual responsibility for own
  products as of Aug 2005 and collective
  responsibility for historic waste before then
• Makers allowed to show cost of historical waste
  in price tag of new products for transitional
  period of 8 years (10 for fridges)

78
WEEE and RoHS mandates

• By Aug 2005 consumers will have free take back of
  WEEE
• Producers provide guarantee of recycling when
  placing a product on the market
• By Dec 31, 2006 member states must have reached
  average waste collection rate of 4 kg/person/year
• Recovery targets range from 70-80 by average
  weight per appliance reuse and recycling targets
  50-75 depending on product type

79
Both directives leading to design change

• Sony Japan set up own recycling centre
• All IT companies complying with RoHS phase outs
  lead-free solder now common
• Apples new laptop to be 100 metal casing as
  substitute for flame retardants in plastic

80
Basel Action Network (www.ban.org)

• Current focus e-waste exports from USA
• PVC in cables and computers being burned in open
  firesdioxins

81
Producer responsibility for chemicals new EU
Chemical Policy

• Would force chemical industry to supply
  information on health and environmental effects
  for all existing chemicals on the market
• No data no market
• 90 of all existing chemicals have no data
• If shown to be a carcinogen, mutagen,
  reproductive toxin then would need authorization
  to continue marketing
• Anticipated 1300 chemicals will be restricted
• If no data, no market! www.chemicalspolicy.org

82
Some voluntary initiatives in USA

• Some IT companies promoting (weak) voluntary
  programs
• Over 20 states now advocating EPR type
  legislation for IT waste
• See computertakeback campaign www.computertakebac
  k.org
• See INFORM at www.informinc.org

83
Minnesota taking lead

• Product Stewardship Initiative in 1999
• 3 priority waste streams paint, carpet, IT
  equipment with cathode ray tubes
• Conducted demonstation project (1999-2000) for
  recycling used electronics to aquire data on
  collection systems, recycling markets, costs and
  barriers
• Involved Sony, Panasonic, Computer World, Circuit
  City
• Over 3 months collected 575 Tons

84
Sony (Oct 2000)

• We Make It, We Take It initiative as a five
  year program that would begin in Minnesota and
  expand to five other states during 2001 and go
  national by 2004
• Expected initiative to become profitable by 2005
• Budget constraints put program on hold in 2001
• For more information see INFORM Waste in the
  Wireless World May 2002 (www.informinc.org)

85
IBM take back (Nov 2000)

• For fee of 29.99 per unit IBM will take back
  computers made by any manufacturer
• Owners bring it to UPS location
• Computers shipped to Envirocycle in Penn
• Only 1000 computers returned in first six months

86
HP volunary take back program (May 2001)

• Will take back any manufacturers product for fee
  -34
• Consumers must box equipment and Fed Ex picks up
  from door
• Equipment shipped to HP facilities in CA and
  Tennessee
• No data on amounts/success

87
Compaq

• Fee 27.99 consumers receive a shipping label and
  pack up and drop off at UPS location
• UPS delivers to United Recycling
• Operates in seven midwestern states

88
Proposed EPR plans in USA provide no feedback for
better design/price internalization

• All voluntary programs
• None include targets for collection and recycling
• No definition of what counts as recyling
• No reporting requirements or enforcement
  mechanisms
• Most will not pay for collection of used products
  and their transport to recyclers

89
EPR established in EU and Japan

• Why not in North America?
• Same companies!
• Best opportunities at local and state level for
  haz phase outs and closed loop legislation
• Integrated Product Policy a better focus than
  waste policy puts onus on producer

90
California leading the way

• SB 20 in CA mirrored after WEEE
• Computer Take Back campaign inititiated EPR type
  legislation in over 20 states
• National Electronic Product Stewardship
  Initiative just disbanded with no concensus
  enviros would not compromise on industry
  voluntary proposals
• Contact Ted Smith www.svtc.org

91
For more information

• Beverley Thorpe
• Clean Production Action
• Bev_at_cleanproduction.org
• Tel [phone]
• www.cleanproduction.org