Title: Closing the product loop
1Closing the product loop
- How Europe is grappling with waste
- Beverley Thorpe
- www.cleanproduction.org
2Moving 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
3We 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
4Previous waste prevention does not define WHO is
responsible
5Products need to be considered in their life
cycle current production is linear and
generates hazardous wastes with fast consumption
6Clean Production cycle is different to current
linear production systems
7What 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
8UNEP 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
9UNEP 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.
10Extended 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)
12EPR 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)
14Why 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
15EPR 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.
16EPR 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)
17EPR 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
19Established 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
20DSD
- 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
21License fee for Green Dot, Oct 1994Weight-based
Fee DM/kg
22(No Transcript)
23DSD sets clear targets
- Recycling targets ranging from 64 to 72 percent
for various materials - Refill rate for beverage containers at 72 percent
or higher
24Effects 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
25Effects of DSD product redesign
- Packaging redesign
- lightweighting
- elimination of unessential packaging (blister
packs) - increased use of concentrates and refill packs
26What 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)
31New recycling targets from 1999
- Glass 75 (previously 70)
- Tinplate 70 (same)
- Aluminum 60 (prev 50)
- Paper/crdbd) 70 (prev 60)
- Composites 60 (prev 50)
32Hazardous 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
33Prognos 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
34Greenhouse 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
)
35Future 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)
36Re-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
38Germanys 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
39EU 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
40PVC 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
41PVC - 2nd most common plastic
42PVC common in households
43PVC IS INCREASING GLOBALLY-former long life pvc
products to enter current waste stream
44PVC 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?
45What 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)
46EU 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
47What 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)
48PVC 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
49Chlorine
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)
50Chlorine 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
511 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
52PVC-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)
53Government 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
54Government 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
55Local 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
56Unions
- 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
57PVC-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
58Firefighters
- 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
59Nurses/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)
60We 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
61EPR in Europe now applied to
- End of Life Vehicles
- Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment
(WEEE)
62WHY 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
63Auto 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
64Design 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)
65Recycling 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)
66Hazardous 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
67End 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
68Brominated 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)
69Brominated 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 .
70BFR levels rising in American women
71BFRs rising in Canadian women
72BFRs 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
-
73WEEE and RoHS Directives (2003)
- Directive on Waste from Electrical and Electronic
Equipment and Directive on Restriction of
Hazardous Substances
74WEEE and RoHS Directives
- Sets individual producer responsibility
- Mandates Reuse and recycling targets with
timelines - Last owner takes back end of life product for
free
75Why 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
76Directives 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
77WEEE 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)
78WEEE 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
79Both 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
80Basel Action Network (www.ban.org)
- Current focus e-waste exports from USA
- PVC in cables and computers being burned in open
firesgtgtgtdioxins
81Producer 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
82Some 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
83Minnesota 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
84Sony (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)
85IBM 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
86HP 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
87Compaq
- 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
88Proposed 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
89EPR 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
90California 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
91For more information
- Beverley Thorpe
- Clean Production Action
- Bev_at_cleanproduction.org
- Tel 514 484 8647
- www.cleanproduction.org