Packaging and Product

Stewardship

Western Sustainability and

Pollution Prevention Network

October 29, 2009

Presentation Overview

• How much is there?

• Climate Change connection and impact

• Toxics in Packaging

• Product Stewardship Programs

– European Union

– Canada

• What You Can Do Now

Why is packaging coming up now?

• Climate Change Connection

• Material Management-Life Cycle focus

– Recent EPA report

• There’s a lot of it

• It is becoming more complex and in some

cases, less recyclable

• Some of it is Toxic!

Climate Change Pies

• Sector Based Emissions

– Traditional Output from GHG Inventory Tools

– Misses some upstream impacts

• Systems Based Approach

– Looks at impacts throughout the life cycle.

– Easier connection to program development

– Focused on production and consumption

Conventional Accounting: Sector BasedU.S. GHG Emissions (2006)

End-of-pipe focus

Doesn’t show role

materials management

plays in reducing GHG

emissions

Source: U.S. Inventory of GHG Emissions and Sinks : 1990-2006 (US EPA, 2008)

Product Life Cycle

* Use of Appliances

and Devices

8%

Provision

of Food

13%

Non-local Passenger

Transport

9%

Building HVAC

and Lighting

25%

Local Passenger

Transport

15%

US Greenhouse Gas EmissionsConsumption View – U.S. Only

Source: US EPA 2009 – Joshuah Stolaroff

Use *

Provision of Goods

29%

Infra-

structure

1%

© 2009 Product Policy Institute

Products & Packaging

37%

* Use of Appliances

and Devices

7%

Provision

of Food

12%

Non-local Passenger

Transport

9%

Building HVAC

and Lighting

21%

Local Passenger

Transport

13%

US Greenhouse Gas EmissionsConsumption View – Global

Source: PPI 2009 – Joshuah Stolaroff

Products & Packaging

44%

Use *

Provision of Goods

37%

Infra-

structure

1%

© 2009 Product Policy Institute

US Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Reports

© 2009 Product Policy Institute

Estimated GHG Reduction Benefits of

Packaging

• Reduce packaging use by:

– 50% 40—105 MMTCO2E/yr

– 25% 20—50 MMTCO2E/yr

• Reduce use of non-packaging paper

products by:

– 50% 20—70 MMTCO2E/yr

– 25% 10—35 MMTCO2E/yr

State Toxics in Packaging

Laws• Prohibit the intentional use

of 4 heavy metals -- lead, cadmium, mercury & hexavalent chromium -- in packaging sold or distributed in states with legislation

• Also limits incidental presence to less than 100 ppm for the 4 metals combined

State Toxics in

Packaging Laws

• 19 U.S. states, based on Model Legislation

• Most states adopted

before 1995

• Often called CONEG

packaging requirements

• Basis for EU Packaging

Directive

TPCH Compliance Screening

Projects

Since late 2005, TPCH screened

over 750 packages using XRF

technology to assess compliance

with state laws

Released 2 reports: 2007 & 2009

Available at www.toxicsinpackaging.org

Samples Failing Screening

(>100ppm)

• ~14% of packages tested

• Cadmium & lead

most frequently detected

• Median concentration over 250 ppm

Up to 14,000 ppm of lead detected

• Prevalent packaging materials/types

Imported, clear flexible PVC bags/pouches

Inks & colorants on shopping, mailing, & produce bags

Flexible PVC Bags

Mostly imports

Suspect additives - plasticizers & UV stabilizers

All blister/clamshell packaging passed screening tests

Toys Home Furnishings Cosmetic Pet Supply

Improvements for Flexible

PVC?

2007 2009

All Flexible

PVC Samples

61% 52%

Home

Furnishings

81% 48%

Pet Supplies 80% 63%

Inks & Colorants

• Shopping, mailing, & produce bags

Mostly detected on/in plastics

Lead concentrations up to almost 10,000 ppm

• Most likely imports

• Suspect solvent-based inks & colorants

For More Information

Toxics in Packaging Clearinghouse

(TPCH) at www.toxicsinpackaging.org

Patty Dillon, TPCH Program Manager

(802) 254-8911

Info@toxicsinpackaging.org

Product Stewardship Approaches

• Product Stewardship programs for

packaging exist in:

– Europe

– Asia

– Australia

– Canada

– US

• Various e-waste laws in multiple states

• Bottle bills

Product Stewardship Focus

• NWPSC Research Paper on Packaging

Stewardship systems

– Review programs in Europe and Canada

• Overview of programs in existence and proposed

– Details on specific programs that have proven

to be the most effective

• Recovery rates

• Compliance

• Design Driver

EU Packaging Directive

• Adopted 1994, amended 2004

• Sets recycling and recovery quotas for

packaging

– Recycling maximums to avoid negative

environmental impact & disturbance of

internal market

– Recovery targets are the total of recycling and

energy recovery (incineration)

• Must use energy to count as recovery

5 Essential Requirements by 2005

• Source Reduction

• Recovery Standards

• Reuse

– Optional but must comply with reuse standard to make the claim

• Heavy Metals Content

– Similar to Toxics Packaging Reduction Law

• Reduction of Hazardous Substances in Packaging

Multiple Approaches to Compliance

• ―Dual model‖ (Germany, Austria)

– industry responsible for collection, sorting & recycling;

separate collection besides local authorities;

no/limited local authority influence

• ―Shared model‖ (France, Czech Rep.)

– shared responsibility: industry & local authorities;

common agreements on required collection

• Tradable Credits Model (UK)

–no local industry/collection link

Paper Plastic Composites

Austria $ 0.14 $ 0.82 $ 0.75

Belgium $ 0.02 $ 0.29 $ 0.48

Ontario (CA) $ 0.06 $ 0.09 N/A

France $ 0.10 $ 0.15 $ 0.10

Germany $ 0.19 $ 1.37 $ 0.98

Hungary $ 0.03 $ 0.07 $ 0.08

Japan $ 0.18 $ 0.69* N/A

Luxembourg $ 0.04 $ 0.28 $ 0.39

Norway $ 0.14 $ 0.20 N/A

Portugal $ 0.02 $ 0.12 $ 0.13

Spain $ 0.06 $ 0.22 $ 0.18

Sweden $ 0.06 $ 0.30 N/A

UK $ 0.02 $ 0.06 N/A

*Plastic containers excluding PET

2004 Packaging Fee Comparison

2007 Packaging Recovery Rate

64.6

39

54.1

28.1

62.4

11.7

15.5

Steel

Aluminum

Metals

Glass

Paper and paperboard

Plastics

Wood

2007 US Packaging Recovery

2007 EPA

44.4

75.8

63.6

13.6

35.1

12.4

23.5

45.2

27.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

PET Aluminum Glass

% R

ecycle

d

Deposit States Non-Deposit States US Average

Recycling Rate Comparison

see inset

Canada: Beverage Container Deposit &

Blue Box Recycling Provinces

white-washed

symbols mean

program proposed or

under consideration

full-colour symbols

mean program in-

place or pending

© CSR 2008

Ontario’s Blue Box

Program Plan (BBPP)• Stewards funds 50% approved net cost of

municipal residential Blue Box programs

• Brandowners & first importers are

―stewards‖

• Small business exemptions:

– less than $2M sales

– more than 15,000 kg of designated materials

• Stewards report on/pay for amount & type

of printed paper & packaging they

generate

What are Blue Box Wastes?

• Regulation 273/02 defines as: glass,

metal, paper, plastic & textiles or any

combination of above

• BBPP narrowed definition to only

consumer packaging material & printed

papers commonly found in residential

waste stream

– includes all household packaging & printed

paper managed as municipal waste

More Than Just the ―Blue Box‖

• ―Blue Box Waste‖ managed through

municipal waste management systems

• Printed paper

– newspapers, flyers, magazines, catalogues,

directories, direct mailings, bills, junk mail,

etc.

• Packaging

– paper packaging, aluminum, plastic, steel,

glass & composites

MaterialQuantity Generated

(tonnes)

Quantity

Recovered

(tonnes)

Recovery

Rate

Printed Material

Newspaper & Magazines 473,632 428,508 90.5%

Other Printed Paper 131,631 70,337 53.4%

Printed Material Total 605,263 498,845 82.4%

Packaging

Paper Packaging 341,559 201,194 58.9%

Plastics 231,289 51,085 22.1%

Steel 57,564 34,591 60.1%

Aluminum 25,642 11,516 44.9%

Glass 77,939 53,743 69.0%

Packaging Total 733,993 352,130 48.0%

GRAND TOTAL 1,339,256 850,975 63.5%

Ontario Recycling Performance

Summary of Key Performance

Results• 5 years successful program

implementation

• Compliance by all large stewards

• Total contributions paid to municipalities:

$178M

• Total approved investments through E&E

Fund: 75 projects for $20M (fully

subscribed)

• Increasing recovery rates

– 53% in 2005

HHW and Special Waste

Program• Effective July 2010, If your company is a

brand owner or a first importer of any of

the materials designated under the

Consolidated MHSW program you are

obligated to register, file reports on the

materials you supply for sale or use in the

Ontario market and remit fees to

Stewardship Ontario.

What is Covered

• Into the residential and all industrial-

commercial-institutional (IC&I) sectors:

– all batteries (excluding lead acid batteries

from vehicles)

• Into the residential sector only:

– pharmaceuticals (including prescription drugs,

natural health products and over-the-counter

medications)

– sharps including syringes

What is Covered

• Into the residential and IC&I small quantity

generator sectors*

– aerosol containers

– portable fire extinguishers

– fluorescents light bulbs and tubes (limited to

generators of no more than 5kg/month)

– switches that contain mercury

– mercury containing measuring devices (e.g.,

thermostats, thermometers, barometers and

other measuring devices)

What is Covered

– Paints, coatings, solvents and their containers

– lubricating oil containers with a capacity of 30

litres or less

– used oil filters

– antifreeze and its containers

– pressurized containers

– fertilizers, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides

and pesticides and their containers

– flammable materials (e.g., fuel, kerosene,

cleaners, strippers, propane, etc.)

What Is Covered

– corrosive materials (e.g., muriatic, sulphuric

acids; cleaning products, drain openers, paint

remover, etc.)

– toxic materials (e.g., adhesives such as

contact cement, glues, epoxies, wood

preservatives, etc.)

– reactive materials (e.g., materials that explode

such as Isocyanate foams and metal

powders)

– leachate toxics (e.g., materials that upon

extraction produce an extract containing a

toxic substance

Challenge

• How can we bring these types of programs

to the US?

• Which program components translate to

the legal and legislative structure and

practices in the US

• Which would require significant shifts in

attitudes and perceptions

Ongoing Research

• CIWMB developing tool to quantify

impacts of EPR programs

• PSI working with RBRC (Call to Recycle)

to evaluate their battery recycling program

• R3 report for California Department of

Conservation evaluating several programs

in EU and Canada

What Can You Do?• Participate in the upcoming webinar on

sustainable packaging– December 15, 2009

– Video conferencing facilities at San Francisco EPA

– Webinar available everywhere

– http://www.epa.gov/osw/partnerships/stewardship/products/packaging.htm

• Green/Blue, consultants to the Sustainable Packaging Institute will be presenting

• Join your local product stewardship council, – Start one if you don’t have one or

– Join Product Stewardship Institute

What Can You Do?

• Educate residents, employees about the

connection between packaging and

climate change.

• Bid specifications include:

– Recycled Content

– Take back provisions

• Obtain resolutions of support for product

stewardship from your local governments

Contact Information

• Bill Smith

• City of Tacoma Solid Waste Management

• 253-593-7719

• bsmith@ci.tacoma.wa.us

• Northwest Product Stewardship Council

• www.productstewardship.net