Contents
 
 
Section 1—The concept
 
Section 2—EPR government actions (EPR)
 
Section 3—The financial incentives
 
Section 4—Examples in the vehicle industry
 
Section 5—Examples in the electronic product and electric appliance industry
 
Section 6—Examples in the packaging industry
 
Section 7—New developments

plus interesting Web sites and information sources
 
 
Contact your state to make consumer products mercury free!
 
Section 1
 
The concept
 
 
“Extended Producer Responsibility” (EPR) is a clean production strategy investing manufacturers in some degree of responsibility for the environmental impacts of their products throughout the product’s life cycle. This responsibility may include upstream impacts inherent in the product design, selection of raw materials, production process impacts, and impacts from the use and final disposal of the product itself.
 
The goal of EPR programs is to shift the economic burden of managing wastes from local government and taxpayers to manufacturers and consumers.
 
The European Union (EU) Directives on End of Life vehicles and Electronic and Electric Products are recent examples of EPR policies. The directives are a combination of measures that address problems in the product itself (e.g., toxic substances in the product) and problems related to the disposal and the recycling of the product (e.g., recycling targets, cost of waste management).
 
In the United States, businesses prefer the term  “product stewardship” over “extended producer responsibility.”  The reason for this is that EPR focuses attention on the responsibility of the producer of goods or packaging, whereas product stewardship deals with the life cycle of a product and how to minimize its environmental impacts without specifying who should be held responsible.  In fact, on its website dedicated to product stewardship, the US Environmental Protection Agency seems to concur that consumers, producers, distributors, and waste managers should all share responsibility for the environmental impacts of products.
 
In Canada, both EPR approaches are being discussed.  Environment Canada’s website (?) defines EPR as “extending the traditional environmental responsibilities that producers and distributors have previously been assigned (i.e. employee health and safety, prevention and treatment of environmental releases from production, financial and legal responsibilities for sound management of production waste) to include management of their product at the post-consumer stage.” Environment Canada’s product stewardship website  On that web site EPR is defined as “a concept by which industry, government and consumers assume greater responsibility for ensuring that the manufacture, use, reuse, recycling and final disposal of a product has minimal impact on the environment”
 
Whatever the EPR approach, product design is a key phase of the product’s life cycle in terms of future environmental impacts in the post-consumer phase of the product. Therefore, it makes a lot of sense to look at product design as the first step to avoiding negative environmental impacts. To do this there are many different types of incentives that can be used. But basically, for governments to take meaningful actions influencing a product’s design, they must evaluate its potential public costs both in terms of in-use issues like safety, and in terms of end-of-life issues including recycling and disposal. By doing this they will promote the shift of the cost of waste management from the tax base to the product manufacturer.
 
According to the Citizen’s Guide to Clean Production (Clean Production Network, 1999) there are four ranges of EPR responsibilities:

• Physical responsibility, in which the producer is involved in the physical management of the products, used products, or the impacts of the products through development of technology or provision of services;
• Economic responsibility, in which a producer covers all parts of the cost for managing wastes at the end of a product’s life (collection, processing, treatment, or disposal);
• Liability, in which responsibility for environmental damages caused by a product in production, use or disposal is borne by a producer; and
• Informative liability, in which the producer is required to provide information on the product and its effects during various stages of its life cycle.

Section 2
 
Government actions related to EPR
 
 
The following are some EPR actions that have been taken by local, regional or national governments:

• Voluntary agreements between industry and government where EPR is promoted by implementing take back systems, reducing or eliminating toxic components in products, or better recycling measures. An example of this is Ottawa-Carleton’s “Take it Back” which encourages citizens to take wastes back to participating businesses.  In 2000-2001 more than 300 participating retailers signed a one-year contract with local government to take back goods, which they supply ranging from electronics, to automotive parts to certain hazardous materials. This public-private partnership program is a win-win situation for everyone involved. Residents receive cost-effective disposal options, retailers benefit by selling new products at the drop-off location, and governments gain lower disposal costs.
• Deposit legislation. Deposit systems are used in many jurisdictions across North America for bottles and beverage containers. Alberta’s Beverage Container Recycling Regulation establishes and empowers  the Beverage Container Management Board to oversee the collection, reuse and recycling of all beverage containers (except milk). 214 depots across the province reimburse the consumer the full deposit and prepare the containers for processing. All containers must be either refilled or recycled.
• Material bans. Certain types of products or toxic contents in products can be banned by use of regulation. For example, the city of Duluth, Minnesota has issued a ban on the sale of mercury thermometers in the city.
• Disposal bans.  Many municipalities have enacted bylaws that ban recyclables from landfills. Other levels of government can impose taxes on non-reusable packaging or products that contain toxic components.  The city of Toronto prohibits the disposal of the following materials from their facilities: white goods, recyclable corrugated cardboard, tires, drywall, recyclable wood waste, recyclable steel scrap, clean fill, concrete and rubble, petroleum contaminated fill, fine paper and useable off-specification and surplus goods.  Alternate markets for these materials can be obtained by contacting the city’s Industrial Waste Reduction Hot Line.
• Procurement policies that foster green purchasing programs. As part of their procurement policy, the Town of Newmarket ON conducts two reviews: a needs review prior to sourcing goods and materials, and an environmental impact review prior to purchase. The later looks into the following areas in a more detailed way: product or material characteristics, packaging, operational characteristics of product or material and disposal after use.
• Establishment of recycling rates for products or packaging, with the manufacturer responsible for the cost of handling, transport, reuse, recycling and/or disposal of the product.  Germany has established a Green Dot program that’s sets recycling targets by material: glass-75%, tinplate-70%, aluminium-60%, paper and cardboard- 60%, composite material-60% and plastic-60%.  The program requires domestic and foreign manufacturers and distributors to take back all types of consumer packaging used to contain and transport goods from the point of sale to consumption. This program contains an exemption where manufacturers, retailers and distributors may be exempt from taking back packaging if they participate in an established national waste management program. These exempt products are labelled with a green dot indicating that they do not have to be taken back to the manufacturer or distributor. The dot indicates that thepackaging can be collected, sorted and recycled through the national waste management program.
• Labelling systems that identify less harmful products, environmental impacts of the use and disposal of a product, the toxic contents of products, or information pertaining to proper disposal (i.e. plastics numbering system).  An example of this is the Eco-Logo certification program operating in Canada. A product or service may be certified because it is made or offered in a way that improves energy efficiency, reduces hazardous by-products, uses recycled materials, or because the product itself can be reused. Agreements granting use of the Eco-Logo are renewed annually and continued compliance with the guideline is monitored.

All of these measures can be considered EPR measures that can help influence the manufacturer to review the design of a product and create better and safer products from an environmental standpoint.  (Institute for Local Self Reliance Facts to act on release 40, Nov 2000 see the web site address http://www.ilsr.org/recycling/ftao.html)
 
Section 3
 
Financial incentives to implement EPR systems
 
There are some very promising examples of adopted EPR measures that have experienced successful results.  In many of them, the financial incentive is to reduce the cost of production by recycling or reusing the old material contained in the product, or by simply reusing the product itself.  The environmental benefits of re-manufacturing are:

• A reduction in manufacturing energy,
• Resource conservation, and
• A reduction in the use of processing chemicals and casting sands and resins. 

For example, Xerox Corporation in the US is using a leasing system for its business machines called the “Closed Loop Management Program.” This is an EPR program where complete business systems are either remanufactured, or some parts are reused and/or material is recovered from remaining parts. This program saved Xerox $50 million in the first 12 months of operation. Xerox now estimates that they save $200 million a year by operating this program.
 
In Canada, the Brewers Association through national and  provincial programs has established a take back system for beer containers.  In this program they charge a deposit rate to consumers that is used to pay for the collection and reuse of containers. This system is implemented across Canada and varies from province to province.  According to the Association, last year in Ontario alone, 100,000 tonnes of empty containers were recovered, representing approximately 98% and 85 % capture rates for bottles and cans respectively. This system allows the industry to avoid buying single use containers, thereby reducing production costs substantially.
 
Another example is the Saturn bumper take back program in the US. Saturn Corporation has established a system in which repair shops send damaged or old bumpers to a plastic recycler via trucks that deliver new parts to them. The plastic bumpers are then recycled into non-appearance parts. Saturn saves money by buying plastic parts that contain post consumer plastics.
 
These are examples of EPR programs with direct financial incentives. Other financial incentives to promote EPR could be developed by government, or consumers themselves. Some of these incentives may not act directly on the design of the product but could be similar to measures adopted by some European countries. For example, there could be financial incentives to promote cleaner production processes or cleaner products by creating a market for those products and processes. There could also be tax deductions   for companies that are, for example:

• Making progress in reducing environmental releases;
• Using non-toxic and recyclable materials in their products;
• Otherwise demonstrating good environmental practices; or
• Using the ISO 14000 standard.

Finally, governments could also shift the tax burden from labour (income) and investment to a tax system where companies are taxed for the amount of pollution they create through products and/or practices and depletion of natural resources.
 
Section 4
 
EPR in the vehicle industry
 
 
The car industry has long been a champion of recycling. In fact, vehicle recycling rates are still among the highest of any consumer commodity found on the market. The reason is very simple: cars are made out of steel and other metals.  In 1997, the average composition of a family car was 55% steel, 11.6 % iron, 7.5% plastics, 6.3% aluminium and 0.4 to 4.3 % miscellaneous materials (AAMA, Motor vehicles, facts and figures 1997).  The University of Tennessee Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies estimates that almost 94 % of end of life vehicles are recycled in the US every year. 
 
However, this does not mean that each vehicle is totally recycled. In fact, about 75% of the weight of the car is recycled, the other 25% remaining waste material is called auto shredders residue (ASR).  This waste is created when the cars go through the shredding process to recover metals. The waste from that process is composed of different materials such as plastics, metals, rubber, foam, wood, textile, paper, cardboard, miscellaneous liquids and lubricants. In the United States, 2.7 million tonnes of Auto Shredder Residue is landfilled each year. This ASR waste contains toxic compounds such as mercury, chromium, lead, cadmium, arsenic, and PCBs. (Toxics in Vehicles: Mercury, 2001) .

Therefore, ASR constitutes a major environmental concern not only because of its quantity but also because of its potential to release toxic substances into the environment.
 
This concern needs to be addressed at the front end of the vehicle’s life cycle. Design and choice of materials to be used in the manufacturing stage of the vehicle are key decisions that will have environmental impacts when the vehicle is retired and is destined for the scrap yard. The capacity for the recycling industry to be able to dismantle the vehicle and reuse and recycle the constituent parts and materials is directly dependent on the design of the vehicle.  Contamination of the environment by car recycling operations is directly dependent on whether or not toxic substances were incorporated into the design and manufacture of the vehicle components.  Taking this into consideration, vehicle manufacturers hold a very important responsibility with respect to the impact that vehicles have on the environment.
 
How do EPR policies play a role in trying to address this environmental problem? According to Dr Gary Davis (UT Center for Clean Products an Clean Technologies), there are three principal end-of-life vehicle (ELV) policies in Europe: (1) Sweden adopted legislation to make vehicles at least 85% recyclable; (2) the Netherlands set up Auto Recycling Netherlands to ensure that 86% of materials in ELV’s are recycled; and (3) the European Union adopted an ELV directive in September 2000, to be implemented in 2002, that requires the following:

• Producer responsibility for ELV management costs: Producers are responsible for the costs of recycling cars entering the market after July 2002. After 2007, manufacturers will be responsible for the costs of recycling all cars regardless of production dates.
• Phase-out of toxic substances: lead, mercury, cadmium and chromium. There are exemptions for certain uses of substances (e.g. mercury in headlamps).  This section includes a process for revisiting exemptions.
• Enhanced reuse and recycling: By 2006, increase reuse and recovery to 85% by weight and reuse and recycling (for any other purpose except energy) to 80%.  By 2015, increase the reuse and recovery rate to 95% by weight and reuse and recycling rate to 85%.
• Improved environmental standards for ELV management: New standards are being developed, such as: the requirement of permits and inspections for dismantling and recycling facilities, the removal of hazardous materials before shredding, and the mandatory use of impermeable surfaces for storage.
• Other: Parts must be coded for reuse or recycling.

Autoworkers could also benefit from EPR because it would require additional employee skills, and could result in job creation or preservation at assembly plants. It could preserve North America’s competitive position with respect to European and Japanese manufacturers.
 
The EU ELV directives are good models of how EPR can be implemented for a well-dispersed product in the market such as cars. The EU system could also provide opportunity and specific direction on how dismantlers, recycling and disposal facilities should operate. These facilities would eventually have to do their work under more stringent environmental standards/regulations and controls. But because manufacturers would be paying for the recycling of the vehicle, it is probably realistic to say that this will benefit the auto recycling industry and improve the conditions under which they operate.
 
Another idea that has emerged from Sweden is a recycling fee that is paid when vehicles are purchased to cover future recycling costs. This fee would be dependent on the recyclability of the vehicle, favoring the production of vehicles that are easily recycled. The fee would go into a vehicle recycling fund and each vehicle manufacturer would fund the share that would be used to pay for the recycling of the cars they manufacture. The recycling cost would vary for each model, and the fund would pay the recycler accordingly. If the funds run out for a particular model, the manufacturer would have to pay any additional costs. The Swedish government is also considering having a deposit fee for consumers as an incentive to bring back the end-of- life vehicle to authorized dismantling facilities.
 
These proposed economic and policy tools are some of the most progressive EPR policies and actions taken by governments so far in the automotive sector. Many questions remain unanswered but these tools are a very important step towards reducing the environmental impacts of end-of-life vehicles in Europe.
 
Section 5
 
The electronics and household appliance sector
 
 
Every year tons of wastes are produced in Canada and the United States from the disposal of electronic equipment and appliances.  For example, computers quickly become obsolete and large numbers of them are discarded every year. The same is true for equipment such as television sets, electric household appliances, electric tools, office electronic communication and information machines, cash processing equipment, lighting, toys, clocks and watches, lab and medical equipment, visual recording and receiving equipment. With each technology change, the “old” equipment is sent to a landfill, incinerator, recycling facility or smelter.
 
Consider the coming digital technology and its impact on the market and broadcasting world. Obsolete TV sets and VCRs will be replaced in record numbers. This in itself will have significant environmental impacts due to the toxic materials such as lead, mercury and cadmium contained in these items.  A typical TV monitor contains more than a half pound of lead.  Millions of TV sets are disposed of every year in North America representing a significant potential environmental contamination. German statistics show the following distribution of the different types of waste from electronics and electrical products per year.
 
Waste from electric and electronic product produce each year in Germany
 

Central Association of the Electrical Engineering and Electronics industry (ZVEI), in BVSE, Wie geth das. Germany
 
There are no statistics or data for North America on how much electronic waste is disposed each year.  On the other hand, the quantity of white goods that are recycled each year in North America is well characterized. According to the Steel Recycling Institute, in the year 2000 the appliance recycling rate was 84% in the United States. The high value of steel and the ban on landfilling of electric appliances in 18 of the 50 states might explain this high recycling rate for that product.
 
However, the disposal and recycling of electronic waste constitutes a major environmental problem.  First, it represents a considerable loss of material and energy. The production and extraction of the materials used in manufacturing, and the energy and water use to manufacture, transport and distribute these products are considerable.  Valuable resources are wasted if these items are landfilled or incinerated. 
 
Second, there is a major concern with potential toxic contamination. The list of toxic compounds in these products is long and includes substances such as brominated flame retardants, lead, mercury, cadmium, HCFCs, PCBs, and arsenic to name a few.
 
Third, the recycling capacity for electronics in North America is very limited.  Large household appliances have a high recycling rate because of the metals they contain, but the same is not necessarily true for small appliances and electronics. The capacity of the recycling industry to be able to take the product apart and reuse and recycle it is directly dependent on its design.
 
These environmental concerns need to be addressed at the front end of the product’s life cycle. Thus the manufacturers of electric and electronic products have a very important responsibility with respect to the impact that their products may have on the environment. The design and choices of materials used in manufacture are key decisions that will have environmental impacts “from cradle to grave.”
 
The European Union once again has taken leadership on this environmental problem by introducing a directive on Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE). This directive is still under negotiation but the original version was aimed at making the manufacturer pay for disposal and recycling of its products, setting recycling targets by weight, removing some of the toxic compounds in the product itself, and banning electronic waste from landfills. 
 
The outcome of these negotiations is uncertain since the electronics industries are lobbying the EU to dilute the directive by creating exemptions for small independent manufacturers (less then 2 million euro and less then 10 employees), removing the ban on disposal of electronic wastes in landfills, and lowering the recycling targets.
The industries also want to place a waste-handling fee on the product at the purchasing stage to make the consumer pay for the pollution and waste problem.
 
Take action to support a strong directive on WEEE and ROHS visit the EEB website: http://www.eeb.org
 
These proposed economic and policy tools are some of the most progressive EPR policies and actions taken by governments so far to deal with the electric and electronic equipment industry sector. Many questions are still unanswered, but it remains an impressive step towards reducing the environmental impact of these products.
 
Section 6
 
Waste from packaging
 
 
At first, it might appear that packaging is not necessarily harmful to the environment, but waste from packaging constitutes an important environmental problem. It is a two-fold problem. First, packaging waste constitutes a waste of material and energy. Packaging can be as much as one third of the solid waste stream in industrializedcountries. It reduces the life expectancy of landfills and depletes precious raw materials.
 
Very often packaging serves almost solely an aesthetic purpose. Products are often wrapped in 2 or 3 layers of packaging with only one layer serving as real protection. Multiple materials are used in some packaging types making them difficult to recycle. The recycling of aseptic packaging with its layers of plastic, aluminium and cardboard has been a significant technical and economical challenge.
 
Finally packaging itself can contain toxic compounds. Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic containers, for example, may contain additives or plasticizers such as lead or phthalates* (phthalates are toxic to the liver and kidneys and have known effects on the reproductive system). PVC plastics are also responsible for the creation of dioxins and furans in incineration operations. Studies have shown a clear correlation between how much chlorine (PVC plastics) goes into an incinerator and the quantity of dioxins and furans discharged in air releases, and the residual ash. (See table).
 
  “Several studies have identified a strong correlation between chlorine content and CDD/CDE (dioxin) emissions during combustion test. At the same time, the Agency confirmed that PVC is a dioxin precursor”. (USEPA, “Locating and Estimating Air Emissions from Sources of Dioxins and Furans, EPA-454/R-97-003, 1997)  Dioxins and furans are a class of chemicals considered to be one of the most toxic ever created by mankind. In fact dioxins and furans are considered to be not only carcinogenic, but also to impact the reproduction, immune and lymphatic systems. They are considered to be neurotoxins, toxic to the skin, toxic to the cardiovascular system, and endocrine disrupters. (William H. Farland, Ph.D Acting Deputy Administrator, Office of Research and Development, USEPA).
 
There are many different types of government initiatives to deal with waste from packaging. The European Union has adopted a Packaging Directive that aims at reducing the environmental impact of packaging waste. It sets up recycling targets for each different type of packaging, requiring countries to recycle at least 25% of the waste and recover 50% (recycling or energy recovery). Toxic compounds such as lead, hexavalent chromium, cadmium and mercury must be phased out as well.  (EU directive 94/62/EC article 11)
 
In Brazil, the government has adopted a stringent plastic take back regulation where the manufacturer has to guarantee the packaging take back and devote a part of its advertising to anti-litter or recycling education programs. In Canada, the province of Quebec adopted a stringent recycling and take back law in 1999 that will force manufacturers and suppliers to pay a fee for recycling programs.
 
In Denmark, the government is looking at setting a tax on packaging that would be related to its environmental impacts. This tax system would be based on a life cycle assessment of the material used in packaging. According to this system, paper, cardboard and glass would be taxed at a lower rate, while aluminium, polystyrene and PVC would be taxed at a higher rate.
 
One of the best known EPR initiatives on packaging is the German Packaging Ordinance which was set up in 1991. The German ordinance sets up recycling targets by material: glass-75%, tinplate-70%, aluminium-60%, paper and cardboard- 60%, composite material-60% and plastic 60%. (Citizen’s Guide to Clean Production, 1999) The ordinance also requires manufacturers and suppliers to pay for the recovery, recycling and disposal of the packaging they put on the market.  All of these initiatives are very promising and they show that governments have a key role to play in improving the environment by imposing new rules and new societal frameworks.
 
In Germany since the implementation of the ordinance there has been a total drop in consumption of packaging from 94.7 kg per capita in 1992 to 82.3 kg per capita in 1997. This 13 percent drop in consumption compares to the 15 percent increase in consumption per capita in the US.
 
Section 7
 
New developments
 
EU directive on environmental liability
 
(Reprinted with permission of the author, Dianne Saxe, D. Jur., from her
February 2002 FaxLetter (www.envirolaw.com)
 
The European Commission has issued a major paper proposing a dramatic new European system of liability for environmental damages. Everyone carrying on environmentally risky activities (including the release of genetically-modified organisms) will be required to restore any environmental damage that they cause. Financial assurance (or insurance) will often be necessary in order to operate: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/liability/index.htm .
 
The object of this proposal is to ensure remediation of pure ecological damage, (e.g. soil or water pollution) rather than to provide compensation for personal injury or damage to private property. Biodiversity damage (a new concept) must be restored for protected areas and species. States will be required to establish safety nets to ensure that “orphan damages” are actually restored, even if the polluter is insolvent or unidentified.
 
European initiatives are often important signals of Canada’s future direction. They also set benchmarks against which Canadian laws are found wanting. For example, Canada has no effective system to ensure cleanup of orphan sites.
 
 
Interesting web sites
 
Institute for local self reliance  http://www.ilsr.org/recycling/ftao.html
Environment Canada  http://www.ec.gc.ca/epr/en/index.cfm
USEPA  http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/reduce/epr/
Northern Alliance for sustainability http://www.anped.org/index.php?a=4&b=4120
OECD http://www1.oecd.org/env/efficiency/epr.htm
State of Minnesota http://www.moea.state.mn.us/res/productstewardship.cfm
Lowel Center for sustainable development http://www.uml.edu/centers/lcsp/