Table Of Content

Ossi-T Pe 42 6:Sus/P 74 PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL On SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Proceedings of the Workshop on Extended Product Responsibility October 21-22, 1996 The White House Conference Center PROCEEDINGS OF THE WORKSHOP ON EXTENDED PRODUCT RESPONSIBILITY October 21-22, 1996 The White House Conference Center Washington, DC Eastern Research Group, Inc. 110 Hartwell Avenue Lexington, MA 02173-3198 February 1997 NOTICE The presentation of case studies in this document does not reflect endorsement of the featured companies or their policies or products by the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The recommendations contained in the Executive Summary reflect the views of the PCSD working group on Extended Product Responsibility based on discuast sthie woornksshop . They do not necessarily represent consensus among every participant at the workshop, members of the New National Opportunities Task Force, or the PCSD. CONTENTS Page re eee eee eek 405649 e bees 6086000048000000000084 vi es sn 6 ahh oes-e5.e0s 106004 00000000000006006008005 1 EE, <cccccceeeccncesccecenacsdeceteseeesecaseseses 7 he tee eee whee beheehebnbenees6e0bee00neeneenenhen6eeseb0 8 7 Opening Remarks Keith Laughlin, Executive Director, The President’s Council on Sustainable Development ... 8 Kathleen McGinty, Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality .................. 8 eerrr rrr Te rreer ee eerrr Tee r Te Terr eT er 9 ExtPerodunct dRespeonsidbili ty: Origins of the Concept and Evolution of the PCSD’s Approach to Shared Responsibility ......... 0... cece eee eee ee eee eeee 9 SergioF . Galeano, Manager Product Environmental Policy, Georgia-Pacific Corpoi ation Drivers and Obstacles to Implementatoif oEnP R ......ce.ce .ee.e ee.e e.ee .eee .ee ns 11 Gary Davis, Director of the Center for Clean Products and Clean Technolugies, Univerofs Tientnesyse e PRESENTOFA CTASEI SOTUNDIE S .... 1... ceee ee eens 14 Xerox CorpoAsrseta Retcycile oMannag:eme nt ...... 20... 0. ceeeee ees 14 PresenJtacekr A:za r GeorgiCorapor-atioPn: aReccyclied fUrbian cWo od .... 1... 0... ccc cee ee eee eens 15 Presenter: David Kurtz SC Johnson & Son, Inc. (SC Johnson Wax): America Recycles Aerosols ................005- 16 Presemers: Tom Benson (SC JohnsWoanx) , William Heenan (Steel Recycling Institute), and Edmond Skernolis (WMX Technologies) Rochester Midland Corporation: Office Building Cleaning ........c.ec.e .c.ece. e.eee e 18 Presenters: Stephen Ashkin (Rochester Midland Corporation), James Foley (Environmental Protection Agency), Norma Edwards (WECO), and Nelson Palma (GeSenrvicees rAdmianistlrati on) Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation: Charge Up to Recycle..................-205- 22 Presenter: Jefferson Bagby Interface Flooring Systems, Inc.: Evergreen Program ........c.ec.e .ee.e c.ec.e e.eee s 24 Presenters: Joan Reynanod Glrahdam sSco tt Nortel (Northern Telecom): Product Life Cycle Management ...............e.ee. e0ee0e s 25 Presenter: Virginia Snyder U.S. Council for Automotive Research-Vehicle Recycling Partnership: Vehicle Recycling Partnership . 27 Presenter: Terry Cullum (General Motors) Ford Motor Company: Bumper Take-Back and Recycling .........cc. ce.ce. ee.e .ce.nc e 28 Presenters: Anthony Brooks and Michael Patalan DuPont Films: PET RegeneraTetchinoolnog y .......c.ece. e.ee .e e.ee. ee.e .eee es 29 PresenLetn Jeanrna:ma n THE NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION PERSPECTIVE ..................05. 30 Bette Fishbein, Senior Fellow, INFORM I, «ste e0eds 6505 00600640006660600006000000588 33 Group1 : Models and Strategies for EPR—Ist Discussion ........ccc. c.ece. e.ne. c.ee es 33 FacilitGaatryo Dra:vi s Group 2: Models and Strategies of EPR—2nd Discussion ...... (4onebedes ca@ebban caneas 34 FacilitBeattet Foisrhb:ei n Group3 : The BusiCnasee fsors E PR 0... ccc ccc cee c cece eee seenenesens 35 FacilitRaitcko Brun:c h Group4 : Barriers to implementatoifo EnP R ...0.. cc.c c.ece .ee.e ee.e ee.e ee ees 37 Facilitator: Catherine Wilt Group5 : Outreach Strategies for EPR 2. 0... ee tee ee eee eee eens 39 FacilitGwaynt Roorwl:an d COMFROMM DIEANNEN DILTLON-SRIDGE LY .... 1... ccc eee eee 40 BREAKOUT SESSIONSIl—: NPEXAT RSTTEP S ...... 0... .. ccc cece eee eens 40 EE 66.5 606s 0606606600656 0560606600600000000000808888 44 Thomas Lindqvist, International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics, CE ©6556 60664 06666666600-600 6000060600000 00000000868 44 Martin Spitzer, New National Opportunities Task Force Coordinator ................. 45 iv EXTENDED PRODUCT RESPONSIBILITY: ORIGINS OF THE CONCEPT AND EVOLUTION OF THE PCSD’s APPROACH TO SHARED RESPONSIBILITY ..............-.--.eeeees C-1 DRIVERS AND OBSTACLES TO IMPLEMENTATION OF EPR (Overheads Used for Workshop Presentation) .......... D-1 Gary Davis, Univerofs Tientnesyse e A. 265 5455560605000600000000000008606 E-1 APPENDIX F. PCSD, NEW NATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES TASK FORCE: LIST PCSD, WORKING GROUP ON EXTENDED PRODUCT RESPONSIBILITY: MEMBERSHILPIS T ... 1... 1. ccc cee ee eee eens F-1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A great deal of preparation and professional and personal commitment go into any successful workshop. This workshop was no exception. The PCSD deeply appreciates the support and co-sponsorship of EPA’s Office of Solid Waste (OSW). Without this support, the gathering would never have reached its potential. Thanks go to PCSD members A.D. (Pete) Correll (Georgia-Paandc iFrfedi Kcr)up p (Environmental Defense Fund) and their respective liaisons, Susan Vogt and Marcia Aronoff, for their leadership of the New National Opportunities Task Force. Special recognition is reserved for Chip Brewer (S.C. Johnson Wax) and Clare Lindsay (OSW). They managed the day-to-day aspects of the Extended Product Responsibility working group and worked in immeasurable ways to ensure that everything ran smoothly. Clare and Chip went well beyond the call of duty and deserve the PCSD’s sincerest thanks. The members of the EPR working group deserve the PCSD’s gratitude for their diligent efforts to develop the goals, agenda, and case studies presented at the workshop: Matthew Arnold, Terry Cullum (General Motors), Gary Davis (University of Tennessee), Bette Fishbein (INFORM), Sergio F. Galeano (Georgia- Pacific), and Kevin Mill and Jackie Prince-Roberts (EDF). Additional gratitude is reserved for all the presenters and attendees at the workshop. The excellent preparation by presenters and the in-depth participation of the attendees made the workshop worthwhile. Finally, thanks to Eastern ResearGrcohup , Inc. (ERG), and its staff for their professiomeneatiln g support. (ERG provided support under contract to EPA.) Martin A. Spitzer, J.D., Ph.D. Executive Director President’s Council on Sustainable Development EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impetus for Convethne iWonrksgho p In its report, Sustainable America, the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) endorsed the principle of Extended Product Responsibility (EPR) as a means for industry, government and the environmeiia! community to “identify strategic opportunities for pollution prevention and resource conservation” throughout the life cycle of a product (p. 38). The recommenwdasa batseid oonn tw o premises: that significant change is required for the United States to becorne more sustainable in terms of resource conservation; and that change will only be incremental as long as all stages of product-related economic activity are viewed separately. Under an innovative system of EPR, all participants in the product life cycle—designers, suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, users and/or disposers—share responsibility for the environmental effects of proadndu wascte tstrseam s. “The greatest responsibility for EPR rests with those throughout the chain of commerce...that are in the best position to practice resource conservation and pollution prevention at lower cos(pt. ”40) . EPR is a principle that can be applied by industry voluntarily or by government as a regulatory requiremem. A variety of tools can be used to implement EPR. As the PCSD report stated, “the tools used for a particular product category should be designed to achieve the desired change at the most appropriate links in the [product] chain, and where possible, by voluntary action” (p.42). Some businesses in the United States are already implementing EPR for a variety of reasons. Some are respoto nmanddaties nabgroa d. Some wish to forestall similar mandates in the United States. Some are striving to meet corporate goals to “green” their products. Some recognize that products can be valuable assets even at the end of their useful life. To showcase some of the many creative and strategic business initiatives already under way in the United States, the PCSD’s New National Opportunities Task Force decided to hold a workshop on EPR. Descrofi thpe EtPRi Woorknsho p The workshop took place on October 21 and 22, 1996, inW ashiD.Cn., gat tthe oWhinte ,Hou se Conference Center. It was co-spboy nthes PCoSDr aend dEP A. Although originally envisioned as a small event (approximately 40 participants), the workshop generated so much interest that more than 85 people attended, including representatives from numerous businesses, trade associations, environmental groups, states, universities, and the federal government. The major goals of the workshop were to: (1) enhance understanding of the principle of EPR; (2) demonstrate the various models, actors, and industry sectors implementing EPR through presentation of case studies; (3) determine how best to educate the about the benefits and challenges of EPR; and (4) encourage greater implementation of EPR. The workshop program included introductory presentations on the concept of EPR and the drivers and obstacles facing businesses and other organizations interested in EPR. Eleven companies presented case studies on how they are implementing EPR to reduce the life-cycle environmental impacts of their products. Some of the presentations included partners (e.g., suppliers, product users, trade associations) in the product life cycle who are helping to make EPR successful. Industry sectors represeinn tthee cdas e studies included the automobile, forest products, consumer products, building cleaning and maintenance, plastics, telecommunications, office equipment, battery, and carpeting industries. In totmoare lth,an 30 companies and industry associations participated in the workshop. Special sessions addressed specific issues on: (1) models and strategies for EPR; (2) the business case for EPR; (3) barriers to implementation of EPR; (4) outreach strategies for EPR (i.e., how to spread the word on the new EPR paradigm); and, finally, (5) next steps that the PCSD and others should take to promote wider implementaotfi oEPnR . Findings EPR is actively being implementiendt h e United States, andi s bringing about significant changes in some products and their associated environmental impacts. In many cases, changes are occurring at multiple stages in product life cycles: upstream; during manufdauricng ptroduuct rusei; annd gat t;he e nd 2 of the produ“ucseftul’ lsife .” Though EPR is not yet a standard way of doing business in the United States, the participants agreed that the idea must spread to more products and players in this country. that it is necessary to set environmentgoaalls or mandates affecting a particular industry or product, government should, when possible, set perfstoandrardsm, eansurne acpproepri ate public accountfoar tbhei plerfiortmaync e standards, and leave implementatoifo tnh e Objective to the creative forces of the market system. This essentially takes the “ccatrol” out of the phrase “command ard control.” EPR is : a process that can be used to meet such Detailed summaries of case stadies can bt found im Appendix E of this government objectives or address a problem before goverbencommese innvotlve d. The case studies presented in the workshop prompted discussion of the PCSD definition of EPR, comtrasting it with the terminology and approaches taken abroad. Whether PCSeD daefinistion of “extended product responsibility” stresses sharing among many players the responsibility for environmental impacts over a product’s entire life cycle, the approach taken abroad—known often as “extended producer responsibility"—typically places responsibility solely on producers or manufacturers, and only for the end- of-life disposofi thte iprooduncts . During the workshop, some participants suggested that the PCSD definition of EPR should be narrower and that not all of the projects presented at the workshop would qualify as EPR under a narrower definition. Others suggested that, in principle, it may be best to keep a broad definition. Nevertheless, there was general agreement among the participants that EPR is about sharing responsibility and reducing environmental impacts in all stages of a product’s life cycle, not just reducing and recovering waste. In addition, participants agreed that a “one size fits all” approach to EPR will not work; by necessity, EPR approaches vary by product, market conditions, and the efforts of participants. Ultimately, many participants decided that rather than redebating the definition of EPR, it would be more constructive to 3