Proceedings of the
Workshop on  Extended
Product Responsibility
October 21-22,1996
The White House Conference Center
                Sponsored jointly with the
                U.S. Environmental Protection
                Agency's Office of Solid Waste
                February 1997
                         ) Printed on recycled paper.


              October 21-22,1996
       The White House Conference Center
               Washington, DC
             Jointly sponsored by:

 The President's Council on Sustainable Development
    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                Prepared by:

         Eastern Research Group, Inc.
             110 Hartwell Avenue
          Lexington, MA 02173-3198
                February 1997

       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
discussions at the workshop. They do not necessarily represent consensus among every participant at the
workshop, members of the New National Opportunities Task Force, or the PCSD.

Acknowledgments	vi



Introduction  	  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

Framework for Discussion	  9

Extended Product Responsibility: Origins of the Concept and Evolution
of the PCSD's Approach to Shared Responsibility	  9
       Sergio F.  Galeano, Manager Product Environmental Policy, Georgia-Pacific Corporation

Drivers and Obstacles to Implementation of EPR	 11
       Gary Davis, Director of the Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies,
       University of Tennessee


Xerox Corporation: Asset Recycle Management	14
       Presenter: Jack Azar

Georgia-Pacific Corporation: Recycled Urban Wood	15
       Presenter: David Kurtz

SC Johnson & Son, Inc. (SC Johnson Wax): America Recycles Aerosols	16
       Presenters: Tom Benson (SC Johnson Wax), William Heenan (Steel Recycling Institute),
       and Edmond Skernolis (WMX Technologies)

Rochester Midland Corporation: Office Building Cleaning  	18
       Presenters: Stephen Ashkin (Rochester Midland Corporation), James Foley
       (Environmental Protection Agency), Norma Edwards (WECO), and Nelson Palma
       (General Services Administration)

Safety-Kleen Corporation: Solvent Take-Back	20
       Presenter: Bill Constantelos

Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation: Charge Up to Recycle	22
       Presenter: Jefferson Bagby

Interface Flooring Systems, Inc.: Evergreen Program	24
       Presenters: Joan Reynolds and Graham Scott

Nortel (Northern Telecom): Product Life Cycle Management	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	28
       Presenters: Anthony Brooks and Michael Patalan

DuPont Films: PET Regeneration Technology	29
       Presenter: Len Jannaman

       Bette Fishbein, Senior Fellow, INFORM


Group 1: Models and Strategies for EPR—1st Discussion	33
       Facilitator: Gary Davis

Group 2: Models and Strategies of EPR—2nd Discussion	34
       Facilitator: Bette Fishbein

Group 3: The Business Case for EPR	35
       Facilitator: Rick Bunch

Group 4: Barriers to Implementation of EPR	37
       Facilitator: Catherine Wilt

Group 5: Outreach Strategies for EPR	39
       Facilitator: Gwyn Rowland



       Thomas Lindqvist, International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics,
       Lund University, Sweden	44
       Martin Spitzer, New National Opportunities Task Force Coordinator	45







Sergio F. Galeano, Georgia-Pacific Corporation

OF EPR (Overheads Used for Workshop Presentation)	  D-l
Gary Davis, University of Tennessee




        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-Pacific) and Fred Krupp
(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 Research Group, Inc. (ERG), and its staff for their professional meeting
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 Convening the Workshop

       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 environmental community to "identify strategic opportunities for pollution prevention and resource
conservation" throughout the life cycle of a product (p. 38).  The recommendation was based on two
premises: that significant change is required for the United States to become 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
products and waste streams.  "The greatest responsibility for EPR rests with those throughout the chain of
commerce...that are hi the best position to practice resource conservation and pollution prevention at lower
cost" (p. 40).

       EPR is a principle that can be applied by industry voluntarily or by government as a regulatory
requirement. 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 responding to mandates abroad. 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.

 Description of the EPR Workshop

        The workshop took place on October 21 and 22, 1996, in Washington, D.C., at the White House
 Conference Center. It was co-sponsored by the PCSD and EPA.  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
 business community, government, environmental organizations, and other nongovernmental organizations
 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 represented in the case
 studies included the automobile, forest products, consumer products, building cleaning and maintenance,
 plastics, telecommunications, office equipment, battery, and carpeting industries.  In total, more  than 30
 companies and industry associations participated hi 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 implementation of EPR.
       EPR is actively being implemented in the United States, and is 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 manufacturing; during product use; and at the end

of the product's "useful life." 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.
           EPR Workshop Case Studies
             ' •*  ?'' ••-»   -is-^j.^:	„ .-
 Ford Motor €o,
 Georgia-Pacific Corp
 Interface Flooring Systems,
 SJC. Johnson Wax Co.
  Recycling Corp,
 Rochester Midland Corp,
 Safety-Kieen Corp,
 Xerox Corp,
PIT Regeneration Technology
Bumper Take-Back and Recycling
Recycled Urban Wood
Evergreen Program
America Recycles Aerosols
Product life Cycle Management
Charge Op to Recycle
'Office Building Cleaning
Solvent Take-Back
Vehicle Recycling Partnership
Asset Recycle Management
Detailed summaries of case studies can be found in Appendix E of this
       When government institutions decide
that it is necessary to set environmental goals
or mandates affecting a particular industry or
product, government should, when possible,
set performance standards, ensure appropriate
public accountability for the performance
standards, and leave implementation of the
objective to the creative forces of the market
system. This essentially takes the "control" out
of the phrase "command and control." EPR is
a process that can be used to meet such
government objectives or address a problem
before government becomes involved.
       The case studies presented in the workshop prompted discussion of the PCSD definition of EPR,
contrasting it with the terminology and approaches taken abroad.  Whereas the PCSD definition 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 disposition of the products.
       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

focus on the key features of EPR as it is being practiced domestically and abroad so that others can build
upon or adapt these approaches.
       Some of the key features of EPR identified at the workshop included:

       •       Companies taking on responsibility and addressing the environmental impacts of
               their products where they have not done so before.  For example, the nickel-cadmium
               battery industry has launched and is paying for a nationwide program to collect and
               recycle spent nickel-cadmium batteries. Also, DuPont has partnered with its customers to
               develop reverse distribution systems to recover postindustrial (and eventually
               postconsumer) plastic film waste, which it reprocesses into feedstock used to
               remanufacture new plastic.

       •       New ways of thinking about product delivery, such as recasting products as services
               or functions. For example, as an alternative to the conventional sale of carpet for
               commercial use, Interface Flooring Systems sells a long-term carpet maintenance and
               replacement service.  The company uses replaceable carpet tiles designed to prolong the
               useful life of the flooring and partners with its suppliers to ensure postconsumer
               reclamation of its products in a closed-loop system.

       •       Rearranging institutional relationships throughout the chain of commerce to
               minimize wastes and the unnecessary consumption of raw materials. For example,
               the Vehicle Recycling Partnership (VRP)—a consortium established by Chrysler, Ford,
               and General Motors—is investing in research to develop the infrastructure and
               technologies required for recycling and proper disposal of scrap automobiles.  Design
               changes to increase recyclability (e.g., elimination of mercury switches) are being
               implemented by the three auto companies as a result of the VRP's work.

       •       Creating a feed-back loop with customers to drive environmentally sound redesign of
               products. For example, Rochester-Midland, a manufacturer of institutional cleaning
               products, is involving cleaning service providers (e.g., WECO Cleaning Specialists),
              building owners (e.g., the General Services Administration), and tenants in the design and
               implementation of mitigation strategies to improve  the indoor environment of office
               buildings.  Customer feedback is the foundation for both product reformulation and the
               development of new customer services such as education and joint problem  solving.

       •       Closing the product loop and conserving resources by handling waste products as
              assets. In many case studies, there was a discernable trend to make waste products an
               asset.  For example, Georgia-Pacific is working with waste  managers and processors of
              waste to collect, sort, and process wood product discards  into new products. S.C.
              Johnson Wax and other aerosol manufacturers, in partnership with suppliers and waste
              processors, are educating waste management officials and consumers on the benefits of
              recycling aerosol cans in order to recover the steel.

       •      Evaluating and reducing the life-cycle impacts of products.  Both Xerox Corporation
              and Northern Telecom have "design for the environment" programs, which in combination

                with product life extension and product take-back approaches, are reducing some of the
                life-cycle environmental impacts of their products.
       In discussions, participants identified key drivers and barriers to implementation of EPR.  Many of
the most common ones are listed below:
 Common Drivers
 * Increasing customer satisfaction and loyally
 * Maintaining Of taprOvsi
 * Increasing efrjcfeiicy of resource ti$«r
 * Saving money and/or increasing profits
 * Jtesponding to actual <» ffijssateneef regulatory
  wqttirejtoeitis in. the UJS, or a&wad
 * Advancing &
               Step 2: Continue PCSD involvement.  Many participants felt that the PCSD should
               continue its involvement, regardless of how the focal point is established. White House-
               level commitment to this issue will help to ensure that it spreads farther and faster to
               participants and sectors that are not yet engaged in EPR.

               Step 3: Promote further evaluation of case studies and demonstration projects.  There
               seemed to be agreement that the PCSD's recommendation to develop "models of shared
               responsibility" was accomplished, in many ways, by showcasing case studies at the
               workshop.  EPR could be promoted further by evaluating the potential for expanding
               individual cases to entire industries, and/or soliciting additional demonstration project
               proposals. Demonstration projects could attract the attention of private companies and
               other parties who are interested in obtaining recognition for adopting environmentally
               sound practices and for creating partnerships.  Such projects create opportunities to
               "troubleshoot" barriers, including regulatory barriers, and to demonstrate solutions.  Some
               involvement on the part of the PCSD in such a demonstration program would be critical to
               "draw in" proposals.

               Step 4: Maintain a role for government in EPR. There was general agreement that
               government has a role in providing incentives for and removing obstacles to broader
               implementation of EPR. There are several specific possible roles for government:

               Facilitate, educate, and disseminate. Disseminate information and provide education on
               EPR; bring parties together to explore opportunities for EPR; provide recognition for
               companies and others implementing EPR; and collect further examples of EPR. Though
               not agreed on, several participants pointed to the power of government procurement as
               one way to highlight products that reflect EPR in action and to overcome barriers  to
               customer acceptance of these products.

               Encourage the use of EPR as an efficient framework to solve environmental problems.
               When governments legislate, regulate, or agree by consensus to establish or mandate an
               environmental objective, they should try to: (1) set performance standards whenever
               possible; and (2) leave implementation to the creative forces of the market system (which
               could be a voluntary EPR framework).
       Overall, the workshop provided valuable insights into current EPR practices and provided a forum

for discussing key features of EPR, obstacles to its implementation, and ideas for next steps.  The

enthusiasm of the participants illustrates that EPR has an important role to play in moving the United States

toward sustainability.

                             WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS
       In its report, Sustainable America, the President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD)
endorsed the principle of Extended Product Responsibility (EPR). The EPR concept envisioned by the
PCSD is one in which all participants in the product life cycle share responsibility for the environmental
effects of products and waste streams. EPR can be applied by industry voluntarily or by government as a
regulatory requirement. Some businesses in the United States are already implementing EPR for a variety
of reasons.
       To showcase some of die many creative and strategic business initiatives already under way in the
United States, the PCSD's New National Opportunities Task Force held a workshop on October 21 and
22, 1996, in Washington, D.C., at the White House Conference Center. It was co-sponsored by the
PCSD and EPA. The 85 people that attended the workshop included representatives from businesses, trade
associations, environmental groups, universities, and state and federal government.

       The major goals of the workshop were as follows:
       »       Enhance understanding of the principle of EPR.
       •       Demonstrate the various models, actors, and industry sectors implementing EPR through
               presentation of case studies.
       •       Determine how best to educate the business community, government, environmental
               organizations, and other nongovernmental organizations about the benefits and challenges
               of EPR.
       •       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 me life-cycle environmental impacts of their
products. 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 implementation of EPR.

Keith Laughlin, Executive Director, The President's Council on Sustainable Development

       At the 1992 Rio de Janeiro conference on the environment, began Keith Laughlin, the United States
joined countries from across the globe in committing to building a sustainable development strategy. The
PCSD is the product of that commitment. President Clinton created the Council in 1993 and charged it
with (1) identifying long-term national goals for integrating the economy, equity, and the environment—in
essence, creating a vision for sustainability, and (2) providing leadership in achieveing those goals. The
Council is a diverse group, with members drawn from the President's cabinet, leaders of national
environmental groups, corporations, and labor and civil rights organizations.

       In February 1996, the PCSD presented its vision and recommendations in a report to the President
entitled Sustainable America: A New Consensus. One of the issues the PCSD spoke to directly in the report
was the need for EPR: suppliers, manufacturers, users, consumers, and disposers of products together
taking responsibility for promoting pollution prevention and resource conservation.  The work of the
Council did not end with the report, Mr. Laughlin emphasized. After the release of Sustainable America,
the President asked the Council to identify a series of projects that would start the process of implementing
its many recommendations.  Among the proposed projects were two workshops, one on eco-industrial parks
and one on EPR. This workshop begins the critical process of turning the ideas of the Council into reality.
Kathleen McGinty, Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality
       Raising awareness of EPR is one of the challenges we face, said Kathleen McGinty. These days,
sustainable development gets the press—the principle of EPR is not as familiar. But knowledge about it and
interest in it are growing.  Through efforts such as this workshop, EPR will become more widely


recognized. More important, this workshop will take EPR beyond the conceptual phase to something that is

workable, even commonplace. Today's workshop includes participants with a range of real-world

experience that will be invaluable in determining how to implement EPR.

       This workshop is important, Ms. McGinty emphasized, for three reasons:

       •       Initiating a dialogue. This workshop brings together the key EPR stakeholders and
               launches a critical dialogue about the best way to bring together environmental and
               economic aspirations.

       •       Collaborating on EPR. Participants at the workshop have an opportunity to demonstrate
               collaboration instead of confrontation between environmental and economic interests.
               Waste of any kind is an economic and environmental negative. A collaborative spirit is
               critical to the ultimate success of EPR.

       •       Harnessing our creativity. This workshop will stress the importance of technology for
               meeting environmental challenges. Key to the development of new or improved
               technologies is tapping our reservoir of ingenuity and creativity.
Extended Product Responsibility: Origins of the Concept and Evolution of the PCSD's Approach to
Shared Responsibility
Sergio F. Galeano, Manager of Product Environmental Policy, Georgia-Pacific Corporation
       The best way to set a framework for the workshop's discussions, began Sergio F. Galeano, is to
review the PCSD's definition of EPR. EPR is a principle that uses the life-cycle approach to identify
strategic opportunities for pollution prevention and resource conservation throughout a product system. A
key aspect of this approach is that all sectors in a product's life cycle share responsibility in seeking

solutions for the environmental problems that arise during the life cycle.
       There is an interesting history to the concept of EPR, Mr. Galeano explained. EPR evolved from

the concept of extended producer responsibility—a term that first appeared in research conducted by the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Initially, extended producer

responsibility was implemented as a single-point approach to resolving specific waste problems such as

packaging waste. The single-point approach meant that responsibility was placed on one sector or a link in
the packaging chain. Germany's famous packaging law is an example. End-of-life primary packaging
under this law became the responsibility of the retailer, while the manufacturer became responsible for
end-of-life secondary packaging.

       This approach has been shifting recently toward a multiple-point approach in which the
responsibility is shared by more product sectors. In the United Kingdom, responsibility under the recent
Packaging Act is shared between four sectors: raw materials, converting, packaging, and selling. Out of
necessity, the allocation of this shared responsibility varies according to specific circumstances (including
the nature of the product system and the location in question). According to Mr. Galeano, the producer
need not always be allocated the largest share of responsibility. In fact, under the Packaging Act, the
parties—on their own initiative—decided to allocate implementation costs in the following way:
       Primary (Raw Materials) Manufacturing
47 percent
36 percent
11 percent
6 percent
       Sustainable development, continued Mr. Galeano, must be socially acceptable, economically
viable, and lead to a sustainable envkonment. EPR fits in perfectly with this paradigm. The products that
we use through our system of commerce connect the ecosystem and the social system—and EPR, as a
product-related principle, is a means of ensuring that the connection operates within the principle of
sustainability. Product stewardship, consumer information, and policy options are all elements of EPR,
which in turn can be an element of eco-efficiency.

       Implementing EPR involves drawing from various policy options and tools, both voluntary and   .
mandatory. While voluntary policies are ideal, mandates are often necessary. According to Mr. Galeano,
an EPR program has four key features:
               Shared responsibility
               A basis in the product system

       •       A variety of policy options

       If programs are designed around these features, they will be successful. It comes down to a simple
proposition, Mr. Galeano insisted: Take the "control" out of "command and control." Laws and regulations
represent the "command" part of this approach to environmental protection, and are properly a function of
government. Details of implementation, however—the "control"—could be established more effectively if
stakeholders share responsibility and draw from a variety of policy options. This perspective can help the
United States move closer to achieving Extended Product Responsibility.
Drivers and Obstacles to Implementation of EPR
Gary Davis, Director of the Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies, University of Tennessee

       EPR, simply put, is a new principle geared for a new generation of environmental protection and
pollution prevention, began Gary Davis. Actors along the product chain share responsibility for the life-
cycle environmental impacts of the whole product system, including upstream and downstream effects,
product use, and disposal. This is the critical factor distinguishing it from other environmental strategies:
Whereas past approaches have focused on facilities, EPR focuses on product systems.

       The PCSD chose EPR, Mr. Davis continued, as one of its recommended strategies for achieving a
"sustainable America" because it meets the themes developed in the PCSD's new consensus. This
consensus states that the nation must move from conflict to collaboration and adopt stewardship and
individual responsibility. In endorsing EPR, the Council recommended that the United States adopt a
voluntary system that ensures responsibility for the environmental effects associated with a product
throughout its life cycle.  That responsibility is shared by all of those involved in the product at some stage
of its life cycle. There are several key features of EPR programs. EPR:
               Extends up and down the product chain.  This is its most important feature: EPR is not
               just about take-back programs.
               Focuses on the product system rather than keying in on a single point in the product chain.
               As a result, the product designer has a key role in minimizing the environmental impacts
               of the product system.

               Involves shared and overlapping responsibility among all the actors along the product
       Extended product responsibility is not the same as extended producer responsibility. They tend to
be similar, however: European "extended producer responsibility" policies do not place the entire
responsibility on producers; rather, the policies embody shared responsibility. The German packaging
ordinance, for example, involves shared responsibility between retailers, packaging manufacturers,
consumers, and waste managers. One of the goals of EPR is to identify the actors and actions with the
greatest ability to reduce the environmental impacts of the product chain and to provide the necessary
incentives to encourage them to accept responsibility and take appropriate action.

       Fully understanding EPR, continued Mr. Davis, requires clearly establishing its context. EPR is a
principle, meaning it represents the highest level of consensus on a topic. A process is a way of
implementing a principle. Life-cycle management and industrial ecology are both processes. (Policies are
another way to implement a principle.) To initiate a process, relationships and tools are needed. Life-cycle
partnerships or arrangements among different stages of the product life cycle and multistakeholder
partnerships are  examples of relationships. Tools include life-cycle assessments, Design for the
Environment, and environmental management systems. Tools are often confused with processes and the
goal for using tools.

       Any type of EPR program—whether product take-back,  materials selection and management,
leasing systems,  or some other program—offers critical benefits for the individual participating actors, and
furthers the drive to establish sustainable development in the United States.  Specific benefits include:
               Cost savings, particularly through the process of taking back products, allow
               manufacturers to recover valuable materials, reuse them, and save money.
               A demonstration of environmental stewardship.
               Product innovation born of end-of-life management of products—companies are looking at
               designing for recycling and disassembly, which hi many cases helps them realize how to
               assemble products more efficiently.
               Increased consumer satisfaction and loyalty.
               Green marketing.

               Take-back mandates and product restrictions (EPR measures are not always voluntary).

               More efficient environmental protections, since product-based environmental strategies
               often are a more cost-effective method of complying with environmental regulations and
               avoiding environmental liabilities than existing facility-based programs.
       Despite these benefits, however, obstacles to EPR exist. These include:

       •       Costs of EPR.

       »       Lack of information and tools to access overall product system impacts.

       •       Difficulty in building relationships among actors in different life-cycle stages.

       •       Rigid product specifications that preclude cleaner designs.

       •       Product liability concerns associated with extension of responsibility.

       •       Hazardous waste regulations that require hazardous waste permits for collection and take-
               back of certain products.

       •       Antitrust laws that make it difficult for companies to cooperate.

       •       Facility-based environmental regulations that focus company resources on compliance

       In the time since the PCSD endorsed EPR,  Mr. Davis concluded, increasing attention has been

focused on this strategy. Some interesting questions we might consider in this workshop include:

       •       Which models of EPR work best for priority product systems? How do we decide which
               models work best? How do we spread the word on which EPR models work?

       •       How do we develop the relationships among actors in the chain that are crucial to EPR?

       •       How do we deal with product systems in which voluntary EPR is not occurring because
               the  short-term economics are negative for those stages of the product life cycle that can
               make the most difference?

       •       What are the next steps for implementing EPR in the United States?
       These are the kinds of questions that further explorations of EPR—and, most important, real-world
experience with EPR programs—can help to address. Ultimately, EPR is an opportunity to explore new
models of environmental policy that are less costly and more flexible.



Xerox Corporation: Asset Recycle Management
Presenter: Jack Azar

       Xerox's goal is "waste-free products manufactured in waste-free factories," said Jack Azar.
Achieving this goal will result in environmental benefits, satisfied customers, improved productivity, and
increased global competitiveness. Xerox has developed a number of projects under its Environmental
Leadership program, including an asset management program for equipment and parts, a toner cartridge
program, and a packaging program. Each represents a different way that the EPR concept can be

       The business factors driving Xerox's Environmental Leadership program, which began in 1993,
include the solid waste problem and high landfill costs, the need to utilize natural resources, the proposed
European take-back regulations, customer requirements, and Xerox's competitive advantage. In the past, a
recycling strategy was not part of Xerox's business process—when products were built, they were always
new. No process was in place to handle remanufactured products, nor was there any design continuity that
anticipated the need to deal with them. Now, the eventual recycling of products is incorporated into the
design phase. When equipment comes back, Xerox tries to find a new market for the product or strips it
down in a manufacturing facility, then repairs parts and rebuilds the product. If a product cannot be
rebuilt, parts are salvaged and materials recycled. When possible, product modules or components  are
converted into other products. The company's goal is to send nothing to the landfill.

       For example, Xerox examined possibilities for recycling its toner cartridges, which can last for 6
months or more. In early versions of cartridges, frames were welded together with no plans for
remanufacture or reuse. Then Xerox found a way to make cartridge recycling economically feasible. The
company offered customers incentives to return the cartridges and now has up to 60 percent recovery. In
fact, the company loses money if the  equipment is not returned for remanufacture. Xerox also developed
an EPR program for its empty toner bottles, which were formerly thrown away.  Xerox reduces the raw
material in the bottles and manufactures them with postconsumer polyethylene (PET). Xerox also began
reusing the bottles.

       Factors enabling EPR within the corporation include senior management support, market research,
the elevation of environmental considerations among the corporation's goals, and the establishment of a
new business process by working with designers, engineers, and suppliers. Infrastructure development is a
particularly important issue. Xerox needs to locate cost-effective regional recyclers and establish an
effective return system.

       Mr. Azar then responded to a question about whether Xerox's competitors have implemented
similar programs. These EPR programs have given Xerox a competitive advantage over foreign
manufacturers exporting to the United States, Mr. Azar said, many of which are starting to set up similar
systems locally to be competitive.

       When asked how Xerox overcame customer resistance to remanufactured products, Mr. Azar
stressed that Xerox views consumer education as key. The company communicates the message that its
remanufactured products are made with the same workmanship and quality as new products. Customers
are more comfortable with recycled products, however, than with rebuilt or remanufactured products.
Georgia-Pacific Corporation: Recycled Urban Wood
Presenter: David Kurtz

       Georgia-Pacific manufactures particleboard from multispecies wood recovered from commercial
disposal or general urban solid waste, began David Kurtz. The company has agreements with five
recycling and processing companies that accept or collect wood at various sites. The wood is cleaned of
contaminants and sent to a Georgia-Pacific particleboard manufacturing plant in Martell, California, or to
other end users.

       The project involves five stakeholder groups: (1) wood waste producers (e.g., operations involved
with construction and demolition [C&D] debris, cut-to-size lumber, commercial wood waste from
furniture), (2) collection agents, (3) processors of wood waste, which make the waste into a product that
can be reused,  (4) transportation contractors, shippers, and haulers, and (5) end users (e.g., Georgia-
Pacific's Martell plant). The project has a variety of goals, including increasing the availability of the

 wood supply for particleboard production, contributing to Georgia-Pacific's goals of product stewardship,
 and contributing to California's mandated reduction in solid waste (e.g., 50 percent reduction by 2000).

       Business factors driving the project include the shortage of fiber for the particleboard plant, rising
 costs of landfilling, and mandated solid waste reductions. Benefits include an expanded fiber supply in the
 Northwest. Contamination is one of the most significant barriers to the wood recovery program. Often the
 collected wood is mixed in with metal, plastic, and paper and must be cleared of these contaminants to be
 usable. The captured paper, plastic, and nonferrous metals are sent to a landfill. Wood byproducts that
 cannot be used in particleboard processing are sold for use as animal bedding, playground cover, soil
 amendment, and lawn or garden mulch.

       Mr. Kurtz responded to a question about the economics of processing postconsumer fiber. Virgin
 fiber used in particleboard is often a byproduct from sawmills and is often less expensive than recovered
 fiber. As wood becomes more scarce, however, the economics will even out. The wood waste processing,
 explained Mr. Kurtz, is performed by local contractors for which Georgia-Pacific provides training and
SC Johnson & Son, Inc. (SC Johnson Wax): America Recycles Aerosols
Presenters: Tom Benson (SC Johnson Wax), William Heenan (Steel Recycling Institute), and Edmond
Skernolis (WMX Technologies)

       SC Johnson Wax, makers of consumer products such as Pledge®, Shout®, and Windex®, has been
one of the key players in the aerosol industry's aerosol can recycling program, Tom Benson said. He noted
that the company is recognized as a formulator of environmentally responsible aerosol products and that it
strives to achieve continuous improvement in products to provide quality performance and value with
minimal environmental impacts. Upstream, the company has worked with its suppliers to produce
lightweight aerosol cans and to use a minimum of 25 percent recycled steel. Downstream, the company
has worked to ensure that the empty aerosol container is responsibly handled in the recycling stream.
       There are consumer misconceptions surrounding aerosol containers. For example, aerosol cans
were regarded as environmental scapegoats in the late 1980s. Many consumers are not aware that aerosols


have not contained chlorofluorocarbons since 1978. Because of such misconceptions, many municipal
recycling programs originally forbade aerosol can recycling. SC Johnson conducted studies on the safety of
processing empty aerosol cans and found there was a tremendous opportunity to recycle them—an
opportunity to keep some steel out of landfills and involve consumers in an environmental activity.
According to Mr. Benson, results bear this out.  In 1991, only one community recycled aerosols; now over
3,800 community programs recycle them.

       The steel industry has been involved with the aerosol can recycling program just described, pointed
out William Heenan. The Steel Recycling Institute realized it needed to educate municipal recycling
managers about aerosol can recycling and provide them with the information they needed to educate their
constituency.  Recyclers had numerous questions about recycling aerosol cans. They wanted to know
whether aerosol cans are traditionally empty when thrown away, whether they are flammable, and what
risks are involved in recycling them.  Research conducted by SC Johnson Wax, the Steel Recycling
Institute, the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association, and the Factory Mutual Research
Corporation found that the risks associated with recycling aerosols are no different than the other risks in a
materials recovery facility (MRF). The Steel Recycling Institute also conducted a study to confirm that
aerosol cans are empty when handled in the recycling stream.

       WMX Technologies, added Edmond Skernolis, has also been involved in aerosol can recycling.
WMX was initially concerned about the safety of processing aerosol cans. WMX identified the concerns,
worked with the aerosol industry to obtain accurate information about the associated risks, and
subsequently learned that aerosol cans could be recycled safely by observing basic good management and
engineering practices. The company will now include aerosol cans in its recycling contracts.

       Aerosol can recycling was made possible, concluded Mr. Benson, through partnerships,
communication, information, and education. The key to the success of the program was leadership and
perseverance. This program shows that industry can work in upstream and downstream partnerships to
effectively catalyze eco-efficiency at all junctures in the product's life-cycle.

 Rochester Midland Corporation: Office Building Cleaning
 Presenters: Stephen Ashkin (Rochester Midland Corporation), James Foley (Environmental Protection
 Agency), Norma Edwards (WECO), and Nelson Palma (General Services Administration)

       Rochester Midland supplies cleaning products to the commercial and industrial marketplaces,
 explained Stephen Ashkin. The company has 5 manufacturing plants, 30 warehouses, and a total of 1,200
 employees.  When Rochester Midland realized it was not able to compete on price to achieve an advantage
 in the marketplace, the company recognized a growing need for cleaner, safer products. The company
 commissioned Arthur Andersen and Company to perform a gap analysis, which found that the greatest
 opportunities for meeting untapped customer needs were in two areas: safety and environmental impacts.
 Rochester Midland also realized that making  its products safer would increase employee productivity due
 to reduced absenteeism and increased morale.
       Rochester Midland examined both the human health and environmental effects of its products. The
company wanted to reduce risk for product users, building occupants, and die general environment.
Company officials realized that the availability of safer products would be of little value without training
cleaning personnel on how to use the products properly and safely.

       Communication is a key aspect of Rochester Midland's approach to promoting cleaner and safer
products. The company needed to obtain the commitment of product users and building owners as well as
"buy-in" from occupants because programs are ineffective unless those with a stake in the outcome of these
programs are involved. Rochester Midland goes beyond educating its commercial clients by educating the
public through speeches and articles in the trade press.

       For example, consider a pilot project in a building owned by the General Services Administration
(GSA), which is home to EPA's Region 2 Headquarters in New York City.  Rochester Midland assembled
a team of representatives from the various groups involved (e.g., tenants, building owners, cleaning
contractors). The team conducted surveys and identified problem areas, men set about training the cleaning
staff. Training cleaning personnel can be difficult because of the high level of turnover in the industry.

       EPA's perspective as the tenant in the GSA-owned building adds to this example, noted James
Foley. EPA participated in the building's design to incorporate environmental principles. EPA


representatives visited INFORM's headquarters in New York, toured the Audubon Society building, and
talked to internal Agency experts including members of the Environmental Response Team from EPA's
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. GSA provided samples of various building components,
many of which EPA asked to substitute with environmentally safer materials. EPA performed indoor air
quality monitoring when the building was empty and full, reduced the lighting load, and installed water-
saving fixtures and better air conditioning systems. After EPA moved into the building, the Agency found
that some people were reacting to indoor pollutants. The problem appeared to be related to cleaning agents
that were used to clean the furniture and carpeted surfaces.  GSA worked with the cleaning contractor,
who suggested contacting Rochester Midland Company, which had a product line with low VOC

       WECO was the cleaning contractor at the building. Norma  Edwards of WECO explained that,
traditionally, considerable emphasis is placed on protecting the outdoor environment; however, people
spend an estimated 90 percent of their time indoors. As a cleaning  contractor, WECO is committed to
giving quality service. The company's commitment to continuous improvement, customer satisfaction, and
pollution prevention led to the search for an alternative cleaning product. When EPA complained about the
cleaning products being used in the building, WECO contacted Rochester Midland and several other
manufacturers looking for products that would solve the problem.  They learned that Rochester Midland
could supply an alternative formulation that would potentially solve the problem.

       Nelson Palma of GSA pointed out that GSA, as the building owner, wants  to interact with its
tenants regarding every aspect of their office environment. One reason for this is that GSA must compete
with the private sector and take its customer concerns seriously. Investigating options for an alternative
cleaning program provided an opportunity to develop partnerships. At the  outset, WECO approached GSA
to introduce the notion of identifying an alternative program; WECO then brought in Rochester Midland.
GSA performed a cost-benefit analysis and determined that switching to the alternative program would be
cost effective.

       GSA is now involving other tenants (e.g., the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Internal  Revenue
Service) and other buildings in the effort to use safer cleaning products. The project could not have
succeeded without a strong team approach that included the  involvement of suppliers, the contractor,

 tenants, and building owners and managers. The project is an example of stewardship, collaboration, and
 environmental ethics.

       The key message of this case study, Mr. Ashkin concluded—and the primary  reason that EPA,
 GSA, and WECO were asked to share the podium with Rochester Midland—is the importance of shared
 responsibility and the benefits of forming successful partnerships up and down the chain of commerce.
Safety-Kleen Corporation: Solvent Take-Back
Presenter: Bill Constantelos

       In describing his company's parts cleaning service and used oil recycling operations, Bill
Constantelos emphasized dial rather than providing a product, Safety-Kleen provides a service to its
customers to help them manage spent solvent and used oil in an environmentally appropriate manner.

       In 1968, Safety-Kleen started leasing and servicing parts cleaning equipment and supplying the
associated solvent. The company periodically took back the spent solvent for recycling and, in 1970, began
supplying recycled solvent back to its customers, thereby "closing the loop." In 1993, Safety-Kleen
introduced its "cyclonic green machine," which generates 50 to 80 percent less waste solvent, reducing die
amount of clean solvent needed. The cyclonic green machine can precipitate solids and heavy grease,
allowing solvent to be used two to diree times longer. By 1995, Safety-Kleen's customers had reduced
their solvent use by 11 million gallons per year, he said.

       The company's solvent recycling program involves more than 300,000 customers hi operations
such as gas stations and bike shops as well as hi die steel industry. Business factors dial serve as driving
forces behind the program are providing safety, convenience, reliability, and cost effectiveness; Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) "cradle to grave" regulations; and die Pollution Prevention Act of
1990. The benefits of die program include improved safety, resource conservation,  reduced costs, waste
volume reduction, and environmental improvements. Barriers included die lack of a  nationwide
distribution system in  1970 when the closed-loop recycling system was established, RCRA inflexibility
(e.g., paperwork, permitting, and odier administrative compliance costs), inconsistencies between die  •

Pollution Prevention Act and the new Combustion Strategy rule, and the costs and limits of new

       Safety-Kleen also collects and recycles more than 170 million gallons of used oil per year. The
company estimates that out of 1.4 billion gallons generated each year, 900 million gallons are collected (10
percent of which is rerefined and 90 percent is burned as fuel), and 500 million gallons escape proper
handling.  Safety-Kleen collects used oils after they are dirty and no longer useful as lubricants, rerefines
them at the company's two North American rerefineries, then supplies rerefined oil products to its
customers. Project participants in Safety-Kleen's oil recycling program include used oil generators,
rerefined  oil approvers, and rerefined oil users (e.g., the federal government, blenders, individual

       Project goals, stressed Mr. Constantelos, include economical collection and recycling of used oil
and market development. Project drivers included Executive Order 12873 (which addresses federal
government purchasing of recycled-content products), the demand for green products and services, and
product liability reduction (i.e., ensuring that used oil does not cause environmental damage). The benefits
of the project include cost savings for Safety-Kleen; producing a gallon of rerefined lube oil is 40 to 50
percent less expensive than producing a gallon of virgin crude oil. Other benefits include increased
customer  acceptance of "green" motor oils, reduced environmental impact, conservation of natural
resources, and less waste handling.

       The barriers to the used oil recycling project included perceived quality issues, acceptance by
specification writers, uncontrolled burning, and the fact that used oil regulations do not favor recycling
over burning.  The project has resulted in improved convenience for users, encouraged conservation and
reuse, and satisfaction of consumers' green product demand.

       Safety-Kleen's product take-back programs (i.e., solvent and used oil recycling) are, according to
Mr. Constantelos, (1) an economical means to recycle, reduce, and reuse, (2) convenient to customers,
and  (3) profitable to the company.
       Mr. Constantelos was asked whether Safety-Kleen's programs are really examples of extended
service responsibility. Extended service responsibility, according to him, is a form of EPR. Safety-Kleen


provides a service to its customers but also takes back products. He added that the solvent take-back and
used oil recycling programs encourage the conservation and reuse of nonrenewable natural resources,
provide generators with convenient options to improve the environment by managing wastes appropriately,
and meet a growing demand for green products and services.
Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation: Charge Up to Recycle
Presenter: Jefferson Bagby

       The Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation's (RBRC's) "Charge Up to Recycle!" program is
designed to make the public aware that used nickel-cadmium (Ni-Cd) batteries should be recycled, began
Jefferson Bagby. RBRC funds and facilitates Ni-Cd collection and recycling programs across the United
States. More than 200 companies worldwide that manufacture rechargeable products (e.g., cellular phones
and laptop computers) for sale in North America fund the program.
       Manufacturers pay 5 cents to place an RBRC seal on their batteries. The seal indicates that the
batteries can be recycled through the RBRC program. When Ni-Cd batteries no longer work, consumers
can bring them to one of numerous retailers who collect the batteries in a cardboard box. When the box is
full, the retailer seals the box and sends it via the United Parcel Service (UPS) with a prepaid,
preaddressed label to a recycling facility in Ellwood City, Pennsylvania. There,  the entire battery is
recycled—the cadmium is used to make new batteries, and the other components are recycled into stainless

       EPR calls for shared responsibility based on the  product system, and it involves partnerships
between government, industry, retailers, and consumers. EPR also presents many policy options. The
RBRC program is, according to Mr. Bagby, an asset recovery program, not really a take-back initiative.

       RCRA cradle-to-grave regulations were the greatest obstacle to recycling Ni-Cd batteries, Mr.
Bagby explained, because batteries are considered hazardous waste. The Universal Waste Rule, which had
to be adopted by individual states, could have eliminated this barrier. Battery manufacturers lobbied state
officials asking them to adopt the rule so that batteries could be collected for recycling, but, this was a
large, time-consuming effort. The battery Act that was passed in 1996 implemented the Universal Waste


Rule nationwide for batteries only. As a result, batteries can be dropped off in retail stores, and county
recycling programs can include them because they no longer must be handled under hazardous waste

       The RBRC has established an 800 number that soon will appear on batteries and product literature
and in television commercials and public service announcements.  When consumers call the number (1-800-
8-BATTERY), they can obtain the location of the nearest retail store and county dropoff site. By January
1, 1997, 28,000 retail locations were expected to be participating  in the battery recycling program.

       A question was posed about program financing.  Recycling Ni-Cd batteries, conceded Mr. Bagby, is
a money-losing proposition. The license fee paid for the RBRC seal funds the UPS shipping  and
advertising. RBRC intends the 5-cent charge to last through 1997. RBRC estimates that 25 percent of
participants are free-riders (i.e., their batteries are collected and recycled but they do not pay the 5-cent
charge). When asked about recycling nickel metal hydride batteries, Mr. Bagby stated that the RBRC
hopes to collect them in the near future because they can be recovered profitably.

       In response to a question about program drivers, Mr. Bagby explained that Minnesota and New
Jersey have passed laws requiring collection and recycling of Ni-Cd batteries. Some European countries
mandate collection as well and have proposed a ban on Ni-Cd batteries. The industry believes that unless
manufacturers voluntarily collect and recycle the batteries,  they will be banned or become hard to sell.
Another participant asked whether any design changes in appliances have resulted from the program. State
laws have enabled Ni-Cd batteries to be more easily removed from products, answered Mr.  Bagby. Power
tool manufacturers had to redesign their products to use uniform-sized batteries that can be easily removed
for recycling.

Interface Flooring Systems, Inc.: Evergreen Program
Presenters: Joan Reynolds and Graham Scott

       Interface's Evergreen program, explained Joan Reynolds and Graham Scott, helps to illustrate
some of the principles being discussed at this workshop. Interface manufactures carpet tiles used in
commercial and institutional buildings. The company offers customers the Evergreen program, which is a
bundled service package that includes design, layout, carpet tile installation, ongoing maintenance, and
ultimate removal of carpet tiles for recycling. The program has three 7-year lease cycles, In the first cycle,
the product design is established with long-term objectives. Designers conduct traffic surveys to help
recommend designs and choose materials. After being selected, materials are subjected to wear simulations
to determine how much wear and tear the carpet can withstand. Final design and materials selection are
based on these surveys and tests. The chosen design allows for periodic replacement of tiles in areas that
get heavy use. The second lease cycle involves the renovation of the 20 percent of the carpet that
experiences high traffic. In the third cycle, a combination of new and existing carpet is used to rejuvenate
the facility.

       Carpet recovered from customers under this program is ground into powder and used in molded
products or recycled into carpet backings. This is an important advance because raw material suppliers can
provide yam products with partial postindustrial content but rarely with postconsumer content.

       The goals of the Evergreen program are to save nonrenewable natural resources by extending
product life, to create a closed-loop recycling standard for the industry, and to implement Interface's
cradle-to-cradle philosophy.  The driving force behind the program is Interface's Chief Executive Officer,
Ray Anderson, who believes that industry has the strongest voice in the creation of a sustainable America.
The benefits of the program  include the environmental advantages of diverting carpet from landfills and
producing performance carpet with less nylon face fiber. Another benefit is reducing the need for
petroleum-based products. The program's ultimate goal  is to recycle old carpet tiles into new ones and
eliminate all its waste. A monthly expense can be more practical for some customers than a large periodic
capital outlay for flooring. In addition, the source lease ensures constant interaction on a regular basis with

       Program barriers include the economic justification of the program in the current market structure
(i.e., shifting from short-term disposal to long-term use of products). Consumers need to be educated
about environmental responsibility and the liability of product ownership. Over a 21-year period, Interface
believes it can realize both the environmental and economic benefits of the Evergreen program. Another
barrier is the lack of available technology for breaking down carpet tile components and purifying the
fibers for reuse as raw material for making new carpet fiber. The backing system can be reused, but
finding a commercially viable way to reuse the nylon fiber in new carpet has yet to be devised. Interface is
researching the possibility of reusing the materials in other product areas. The low cost of energy is
another hurdle; the Evergreen system will become more attractive if oil prices increase. Finding
progressive financial partners also has been difficult (i.e., getting them to embrace the leasing service
Nortel (Northern Telecom): Product Life Cycle Management
Presenter: Virginia Snyder

       Nortel is a supplier of digital telecommunications networks, began Virginia Snyder, offering
products for designing and building digital networks for education, communication, and the business
world.  Nortel provides products and services to businesses, universities, and governments, with
approximately 40 percent of its markets outside North America. Nortel is a leader in environmental
management. The company's philosophy holds that the product life cycle corresponds to the value chain,
which measures the value of products and services from product design through product end-of-life. Nortel
believes that efficiency improvements can be achieved by extending the producer's responsibility.

       Nortel is currently pursuing several different projects under its product life-cycle management
(PLCM) program. The goal of the PLCM program is to maximize environmental and economic
efficiency. The challenge faced in implementing the program is to reorient the company's business and
environmental functions away from being concerned solely with regulatory compliance.

       There are four current Nortel initiatives:
               The materials recycling program. Nortel recycles 50 million pounds of equipment
               annually. This includes cables and components from excess or obsolete inventories. Nortel
               also accepts trade-ins from equipment sites. The equipment recycling program is
               profitable: 85 to 90 percent of the revenues are returned to businesses or custpmers.
               Approximately 90 percent of the equipment processed at the facilities (by weight) is
               recovered for reuse or recycling. The company's goal for 1998 is to have only 2 percent
               of its equipment (by weight) directed to landfills.

               The materials technology program. Nortel has a pilot project to develop a lead-free
               technology for its electronic component assembly. Lead from  electronics is a growing part
               of the lead found in landfills. Nortel has successfully manufactured two telephone sets with
               a lead-free printed wiring board.

               The product design program. Nortel is attempting to optimize the efficiency of new
               product designs by using a modular approach.  The company's modular telephone designs
               allow customers to upgrade their phones by replacing components, avoiding the necessity
               to buy an entire new unit. In addition to reducing the number of telephones discarded, this
               system leverages the customer's overall investment.

               The supply management project. The company has initiated a pilot project to develop a
               new chemical supply model to reduce the use and cost of chemicals. Nortel will be
               purchasing the services of chemical suppliers for a fixed fee rather than purchasing
               according to the amount of chemicals used. Nortel worked with its supplier to examine
               chemical processes, storage, and disposal operations. Nortel also developed
               recommendations for improving efficiencies of chemical use and for delivering only the
               amount of product needed. The cost savings are shared between Nortel and its supplier.
       One of the largest barriers to the PLCM program is changing the way people in the environmental

department perceive their role and changing the way other people in the company perceive the

environment. When asked how Nortel achieved individual business buy-in to its corporate goal, Ms.

Snyder stated that Nortel worked very closely with its four major network businesses to sell them on the

idea. Nortel developed its lead-free phone because of the European market and to be prepared for the

advent of possible legislation in the future. The result has been an improved bottom line due to the

elimination of costs associated with handling lead.

U.S. Council for Automotive Research-Vehicle Recycling Partnership: Vehicle Recycling Partnership
Presenter: Terry Cullum (General Motors)

       Ninety-five percent of scrap vehicles in the United States are processed by a successful, market-
driven recycling infrastructure, according to Terry Cullum. This infrastructure consists of the consumer,
automotive dismantler, automotive shredder, materials reprocessors, and the municipal solid waste landfill.
Usually 75 percent of a vehicle by weight is recycled and 25 percent is landfilled, a fraction referred to as
automotive shredder residue (ASR). ASR consists of plastics, rubber, fluids, and glass.

       One of the Vehicle Recycling Partnership's (VRP's) goals is to reduce the amount of ASR sent to
landfills. Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors formed the VRP in 1991. In 1993, the VRP opened the
Vehicle Recycling Development Research Center hi Highland Park, Michigan. The research center's goals
were to improve upon the existing vehicle recycling infrastructure. Its mission is to develop, implement,
and communicate research that promotes an integrated approach to the handling of end-of-life vehicles with
technical and economic efficiency.

       Formal collaborative agreements are hi place with the American Plastics Council, Automobile
Recyclers Association, Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, and the Aluminum Association. Other
partners include the American Automobile Manufacturers Association, Argonne National Laboratories,
and several other research institutes. The VRP collaborators meet twice a year and have developed a 5-
year strategic plan.

       The VRP has several projects, added Mr. Cullum,  including developing design guidelines, which
are common-sense things that businesses should do.  Each company  hi the partnership tailored the
guidelines and published its own version. The VRP also has a pilot project for pyrolysis, which is the
thermal decomposition of organic materials hi the absence  of oxygen. The VRP knows that pyrolysis
works technically but is trying to make it work economically. The VRP also has a mercury switch removal
project, as well as a project to develop methods of removing fluids from vehicles.

       The benefits of the VRP's projects include creating a sustainable market-driven recycling
infrastructure, reducing solid waste, removing contaminants from automotive recycling, and creating jobs.

Obstacles include a recycling infrastructure focused on metals recovery, which makes recovery of
nonmetals difficult.
Ford Motor Company: Bumper Take-Back and Recycling
Presenters: Anthony Brooks and Michael Patalan

       Anthony Brooks and Michael Patalan introduced Ford Motor Company's bumper take-back and
recycling program. Before implementing its program, Ford identified partners and secured cooperation
from agents upstream and downstream, including GE Plastics and American Commodities, an automotive
plastics recycler. Ford also worked with the engineering community to educate this group about the quality
of postconsumer plastic and to assure them that it is not detrimental to product performance.

       The driving factors for the program are profitability and leadership in the automobile industry.
Ford issued a vehicle recycling directive stating its intention to be a leader in vehicle recycling in terms of
design, materials choice, recycling strategies and technologies, and materials management. This directive
also calls for internal training in recycling. Ford was the first automotive company to develop
postconsumer content guidelines.  Ford also has guidelines requiring the use of returnable packaging for its
engine manufacturing operations.

       Ford uses postconsumer plastic (25 percent minimum) in eight applications, including air
conditioning and duct work. This translates into 47 million pounds of postconsumer content used. The
company's goal is to manufacture 20 percent of its products with a minimum of 25 percent postconsumer
content. Ford has made a commitment to American Commodities to use the plastic that this company is
able to recover. According to Mr. Brooks and Mr. Patalan, Ford would redesign products if necessary to
incorporate postconsumer plastic.

DuPont Films: PET Regeneration Technology
Presenter: Len Jannaman
       DuPont Films makes film for specialty packaging, computer tapes, X-ray film, and labels, as well
as film for the printing industry. Mr. Jannaman indicated that these films are difficult to recycle via
traditional routes because DuPont's customers use them in many different applications.  DuPont Films has
developed a new technology called "Petretec" (PET regeneration technology), which allows these types of
postconsumer PET film to be recycled back into new film. This technology represents a step forward in
PET recycling.

       The PET industry is enormous, Mr. Jannaman continued. Some 24 billion pounds of PET were
manufactured in 1994.  While only about 1 percent of this PET was recycled, PET is one of the most
recycled plastics. PET film accounts for 2.2 billion pounds of the total amount of PET manufactured.

       For PET film recycling to be successful, DuPont realized it needed to have a new technology and a
customer-driven approach. The company has focused on involving its customers in developing a successful
recycling program. The customer base of DuPont Films is so varied that the company realized it would
need to work with various trade associations. DuPont Films worked with the associations to survey their
memberships about the importance to them of recycling, their demand for green products, critical industry
issues, and their willingness to work with DuPont to recycle the films. DuPont realized the recycling
program would be profitable only if it integrated business and environmental considerations.

       DuPont's vision for the plastic films industry is to put the regeneration technology to work and
create a competitive advantage for PET film. Benefits of the program include eliminating the landfilling of
PET film worldwide, gaining global recognition for meeting consumers' demand for green products, and
reducing dependence on oil-derived feedstocks.

       A question was asked about the sourcing of DuPont's materials, given the plummeting prices of
virgin PET. DuPont is looking at the long term, replied Mr. Jannaman, and the project is still in its start-
up phase. DuPont is currently working with used X-ray film as well as film used to make window shades.
There had previously been no use for these plastics because they had too many coatings and thus DuPont's
customers had to pay to landfill them.



Bctte Fishbein, Senior Fellow, INFORM

       INFORM's mission is to inform the public debate on environmental policy options.  As a nonprofit
environmental research organization based in New York, Bette Fishbein explained, INFORM has recently
been focusing on a case study approach that highlights business innovation in achieving environmental
goals. The organization's particular area of interest is the development of public policies that create
economic incentives encouraging businesses to innovate. This work brought EPR to the attention of
INFORM. Since then, INFORM has been closely following its development.

       There are many different ideas about what EPR is and how it should be implemented.  In fact, Ms.
Fishbein continued, the case studies presented in the morning session are a good illustration of this.  She
commented that it would be interesting to have a discussion about whether all of these case studies truly
represent examples of EPR.

       Understanding the international context of EPR can help us all make good decisions about this
principle here at home. INFORM has documented the development of EPR not only in Germany and other
parts of the European Union but in countries across the globe. An OECD report documenting the
implementation of EPR in member countries found that 18 countries had a national EPR policy. That
number has probably increased since the issuance of the report. Japan, in particular, has taken an interest
in EPR and is providing funding to OECD to support research on EPR.

       The programs abroad are generally shared responsibility programs, just like programs in the  United
States. But programs abroad differ in one important respect: they tend to include cost internalization.
OECD's definition of EPR involves shifting responsibility for waste management from the public to the
private sector. In this way, businesses internalize the costs of waste management and recycling,
incorporating them into product prices. The result of this internalization is that companies, in order to
maintain competitive pricing, are making less wasteful products.
       This shift in the responsibility for waste and the internalization of waste costs are consistent with the
life-cycle approach. Waste is an issue not only because of disposal impacts, but because it represents an


inefficient use of resources, a squandering. The postconsumer stage is the weakest link in the product
responsibility chain. It is also the part of the life cycle where industry traditionally had no responsibility.
Shifting the responsibility for waste to businesses does more than reduce the amount of trash going to
landfills—it moves beyond the consumer to target upstream impacts. EPR programs that follow this model
of cost internalization facilitate a wholesale rethinking within these companies concerning the design of
their products and the selection of materials.

       There  is no one-size-fits-all model of EPR abroad. There is, however, much to learn from the
different models that are available. Most systems abroad, Ms. Fishbein noted, are designed by industry.
Government policy shifted responsibility for waste, and industry designed the programs.

       The PCSD report emphasized that change is both necessary and inevitable. Managing this
change—in fact, steering it firmly in the direction of sustainability—is the challenge that the United States
now faces. Ms. Fishbein insisted that a departure from the status quo is needed. Profitable recycling has
existed in the  United States for many years; the challenge is to address materials that have not been
profitably  recycled. One of the benefits of EPR might be that it is actually driving new recycling markets,
instead of just responding to current market conditions.

        In  its report, the PCSD laid out a fairly broad definition of EPR. This definition might be both an
opportunity and a danger. If the United States builds on the approaches developed abroad, if taking
responsibility for waste is seen as a subset of a life-cycle approach, and if upstream initiatives are included
(e.g., if materials are selected based on upstream environmental impacts), then the potential of EPR in this
country can be fulfilled. But if the EPR definition is allowed to be so broad that it becomes fuzzy—allowing
every environmental initiative by a company to be labeled an EPR program—the initiative will become
diluted. Whether EPR improves the situation will be determined by the changes that actually occur. To
 ensure that we as a nation are satisfied with the ultimate result, Ms. Fishbein emphasized, the definition of
 EPR needs to be further developed.

        To illustrate these points, Ms. Fishbein posed a number of questions for the group to consider:

        •       If companies use postconsumer materials in their products because they are cheaper, is
                that EPR?

        •       Is simply providing information EPR?
        •       Is there a litmus test for EPR, such as internalizing costs?

        To help answer these kinds of questions, individuals and corporations might try thinking about the
 real significance behind the letters "E," "P," and "R." First, "E" addresses the question of to what point in
 the life cycle is responsibility extended? "P" speaks to the issue of who is taking responsibility. Finally, "R"
 addresses  the issue of what responsibility is being taken and what specific means (e.g., product take-back
 or leasing rather than selling) are being employed. These are some of the questions that need to be
 considered when debating the definition of EPR.

       Ms. Fishbein suggested the following additional questions for consideration:

       •       Is EPR about sharing responsibility or defining the responsibility that is to be shared?
       •       What needs to be mandated, and what can be voluntary?
       •       What does voluntary mean?
       •       How will we deal with the free-rider problem?

       In addition, much of the emphasis in discussions concerning EPR is on responsibility sharing. This
remains an important part of the EPR principle. It is also important, however, to differentiate between
process and results. The point of EPR is to change the current situation—in that light, it is clear that
sharing in itself is  a process that may or may not result in significant change.

       INFORM sees EPR as a tool for creative capitalism, Ms. Fishbein concluded, and as an
opportunity to encourage business innovation. We are working to promote initiatives that will result in true
innovation  and lead the United States to sustainability. Questions like "What is a product's function?" and
"Can the product be delivered differently?" can help us begin thinking about production in new ways.  No
matter how we gauge results in the future, there is one clear sign of progress today. Every company that
presented a case study in this workshop is thinking about its product as it becomes waste. This would not
have been true a few years ago, and it is a clear indication that we have moved forward. Of course,

thinking about it is not enough. We need to continue to move ahead and take action. To quote Vice
President Al Gore's challenge to the PCSD: "look long, be creative, and think long."

       For the breakout sessions, the workshop participants separated into five groups to discuss four
topics: (1) models and strategies for EPR (two separate discussion groups); (2) the business case for EPR;
(3) barriers to implementation of EPR; and (4) outreach strategies for EPR. After the group discussions,
participants reconvened to hear summaries of each group's discussions.
 Group 1: Models and Strategies for EPR—1st Discussion
 Facilitator: Gary Davis

        The purpose of this session was to begin to identify the key features and approaches that exemplify
 the principle of EPR.

        Critical to developing effective EPR strategies is the definition of EPR. One participant stated that a
 definition needs to be broad enough to encompass many activities but still have boundaries. Another
 participant suggested that a definition could be arrived at by working backwards from an example or case
 study of EPR or by identifying the progression of steps taken in a case. When considering the appropriate
 objective of EPR, several participants agreed, the goal should be broader than end-of-life results. It should
 encompass the entire life cycle. One aspect of EPR's objective should be to provide guidance for
 companies and policy makers.

        There are three key attributes of EPR: extension of responsibility, the product system approach,
 and sharing of responsibility.

        •       Extension of responsibility. EPR implies shifting responsibility, rearranging institutional
                relationships, and extending responsibility to where it has not existed before. For example,
                responsibility should be extended to customers to provide feedback along the product


        •       Product system approach. EPR creates feedback for product designers (e.g., on the use
                of their products in an entire system). New relationships need to be formed in the product
                chain. The customer-supplier relationship needs to be redefined, and continuous loops of
                feedback (i.e., from customers back to manufacturers) should be established, rather than a
                linear chain from manufacturers to customers.

        «       Sharing of responsibility. If something is everyone's responsibility, it is no one's. A
                locus of responsibility is needed. "Producer" is not necessarily the right word for this
                locus. In addition, there are three types of responsibility: physical responsibility to take a
                product back; economic responsibility to pay for a recycling system; and the responsibility
                to provide information (as in the case of the aerosol can recycling example).

       Several participants mentioned that economic incentives are important. In addition, it was pointed

 out that several of the case studies illustrated how legislative incentives can be effective as well. The group

 explored the differences between extended product responsibility and extended producer responsibility and
 discussed whether product sustainability and EPR are the same concept. The meaning of "sustainable
 products" is not entirely clear, participants noted. In any sort of EPR program, a method for measuring
 success is needed (i.e., to determine what net environmental benefits were achieved).
Group 2: Models and Strategies of EPR—2nd Discussion
Facilitator: Bette Fishbein

       Because there was so much interest among workshop participants in discussing models and
strategies of EPR, Group 2 was convened to discuss precisely the same topic as Group 1.

       The group generally agreed that a good EPR policy should accomplish the following:

       •       Establish appropriate pricing. A good EPR policy should include the proper price and cost
               signals for products.

       •       Encourage innovation.  EPR can drive the development of both technological and design

       •       Emphasize preventing environmental impacts.

       •       Provide a mechanism for assigning responsibility.

        Provide for information and education, which are essential to EPR (e.g., to educate users
        and suppliers).

        Address the particular product. The policy should not try to be a "one size fits all" model.
The group raised the following issues and questions:

•       The term "waste" has too much baggage. It is better to think of EPR as a way to deal with

•       Doing the right thing costs more.

•       EPR should encompass postindustrial as well as postconsumer wastes.

•       At present, only large companies have implemented EPR. How should an EPR policy
        encourage small companies to participate?

•       To be sustainable in the long term, EPR must be market driven. In the short term,
        however, should EPR be market driven or should EPR policies drive markets?

•       Responsibility should be assigned throughout the life cycle of the product and shared by all
        the players.

•       What is the consumer's responsibility in regard to owning products?

•       Can public policy be a driver?

•       Can EPR harmonize economic, environmental, and social factors?

•       EPR can encompass programs that sell products as services. This holistic view will cover
        the life cycle from material selection and design to recycling or disposal (e.g., the leasing
        of cleaning services).

•       EPR is not just about take-back programs, but such programs often are a part of EPR.

•       End-of-life products should be thought of as assets. Companies can develop asset recovery

Group 3: The Business Case for EPR

Facilitator: Rick Bunch

       This group sought to articulate the drivers and benefits of EPR, to discuss how to make the case for

EPR to a business audience, and to determine where within the corporate hierarchy the EPR message

should be targeted.

       The group identified the following drivers and benefits for EPR:
 * Bottom line enliancements
 * Building partnerships
 * Quality/value
 * Resource efffcieticy          "  ,
 * Ri$lc reduction
 * Incentives (e.g., recognition)
 * Brand loyalty
 * Customer Demands
 * Preempt legislation/avoid regulation
* BottojB Itot Hgbftocentefttt; towet costs
* Increased collaboration:
* Innovation
* Decreased resource nisfc
* Risk reduction
* Doing the "right tiling*
* Marketing advantage
* Customer satisfaction
* Improved relationships with regulators
       After developing these categories, the group focused on the following topics in more detail:
               Brand loyalty and marketing. Companies' actions are customer driven. That is, the use
               of recycled content in a product might encourage certain consumers to purchase the
               product if all else is equal (e.g., price and performance). Price and performance,
               however, tend to be the most important factors for customers. One strategy might be to
               decrease the cost of green products or make the cost of a product proportional to the waste
               generated.  It is not clear how substantial the green market niche is in the larger

               Partnerships. Forming partnerships with regulatory agencies and other entities in the
               product chain, as well as internal partnerships with other company divisions, is crucial to
               implementing EPR. Companies are willing to set goals together with the government—but
               they do not want to be told what to do.

               Risk reduction. Demonstrating that a certain product reduces risks can be a powerful tool
               for convincing a company's senior management to support a new product.

               Product innovation. Waste reduction goals can provide a stimulus for innovation.
               Innovation can also be a way to reduce risk and preempt regulations.
               Clearly stated goal and objective. A company's senior management usually will accept a
               clearly stated objective with a manageable goal.
               Resource efficiency. Because companies view waste in terms of lost profits, reducing
               waste is good for business and the environment.
       There are several strategies for promoting the EPR concept within a company. Efforts can be
directed to three different levels within companies: (1) senior management (e.g., CEO's who tend to set a
company's vision), (2) the marketing and/or production manager, and (3) research and development
management. The government should lead by example and should look to pollution prevention programs
and voluntary initiatives for ideas about how to implement EPR.
Group 4: Barriers to Implementation of EPR
Facilitator: Catherine Wit
       This group explored the many preceived barriers to businesses embracing the principle of EPR.
The group also discussed ways to overcome some of these barriers.

       Among the barriers to implementing EPR are the following:

       •       EPR is too big and might involve "biting off more than we can chew."
       •       Regulatory barriers—antitrust laws, taxes, policies, hazardous waste regulations.
       •       Harmonization with international treaties and trade.
       •       Technological barriers.
       •       Management—mindset change, costs, difficulty changing product cycles.
       •       Economic—markets, cost allocation, education.
       •       Competition, including confidentiality concerns.
       •       Customer acceptance of a product, product component, or new behavior.


•      Infrastructure development (e.g., for products with nationwide distribution).

•      Balance of (or lack of) stakeholder involvement. (Note:  Only one nongovernmental
        organization was involved in this discussion group, and no environmental groups were
        represented in this breakout group.)

"      Definition of EPR—producer vs. product, broader than end-of-life product.

«      Relationship between International Standards Organization 14000 and EPR.

•      Education—both a barrier and solution.

•      Research on understanding the true/net environmental benefits of EPR.

There are potential solutions to these barriers. Some solutions include:
        Regulatory barriers. A potential solution to antitrust laws could be for the PCSD to
        develop a demonstration project (similar to the Common Sense Initiative) to create an
        exemption or waiver that would allow companies within an industry sector to work
        together to  craft approaches for reducing environmental impacts. Choosing a concentrated
        industry sector for a project might be more effective than a diluted group (e.g., cellular
        phone companies). The PCSD could also examine elimination of virgin material tax
        subsidies or establishment of tax incentives for using recycled materials. In addition, the
        PCSD could analyze how hazardous waste laws affect specific items in the solid waste
        stream. A major change suggested was shifting EPA's regulatory focus from being
        prescriptive to being more outcome based.

        Technological barriers. The PCSD could (1) support research and development (R&D)
        projects, including cooperative R&D, incentive grant programs, and improved industrial
        processes; (2) provide assistance in determining which industries or materials need
        prioritized support (e.g., R&D, grants); and (3) foster greater communication between
        stakeholders involved in technological R&D.

        Education. A public forum could be developed (via a World Wide Web site or list server)
        for the general public, government, and industry representatives providing opportunities to
        state concerns and discuss possible solutions.

Group 5: Outreach Strategies for EPR
Facilitator: Gwyn Rowland

       This breakout group discussed the question of how to promote greater familiarity with the principle
of EPR and, thereby, help encourage more implementation of EPR.

       More fully characterizing EPR will help encourage the development of strategies for expanding this
principle in the United States. One participant stated that EPR entails shifting responsibility from the public
to private sectors. Another stated that perhaps "partnering" or "collaborating" is more accurate than
"shifting." Government, industry,  and nongovernmental organizations all need to be involved in defining
EPR. A consensus on the definition is necessary before an outreach strategy can be developed. Also,
responsibility should not be limited to any one type of player to allow for the most creative and efficient
solutions to emerge.

       An important question remains, however: Whom should an outreach strategy target? Local
government, trade associations, academia, and nonprofit organizations are the most likely targets. One
participant suggested approaching local governments with a list of problems or barriers highlighted in the
case studies and asking for help in overcoming these difficulties. Another strategy involves developing a
needs assessment to identify who will bear the brunt of costs when responsibility is shifted. The focus of
the outreach should be prioritized according to the criteria in the PCSD's eco-efficiency report.
       Multistakeholder meetings on specific issues should be held. The government should play i
integral role in these meetings, not only as a participant but as an instigator, organizer, and catalyst. Also,
an incentive should be provided to encourage stakeholders to participate in the meetings. Businesses will
need to be convinced that EPR offers a long-term investment opportunity that can improve their
international competitiveness. Consumers—product end users—should also be included in these meetings
because they play an important role in the success of many EPR programs. To be successful, the  meetings
must have a primary focus, whether it is to educate attendees about the problem, educate them about r—~
studies and success stories, or initiate a dialogue on the barriers to EPR and the government's role '
overcoming them.

       The government's outreach messages should be:

       «      EPR presents a challenge and an opportunity
       •      Success stories exist
       »      The government will work collaboratively with all stakeholders


       Dianne Dillon-Ridgely, Co-Chair of Citizens' Network for Sustainable Development and a member
 of the PCSD, commended to the attention of the workshop participants eight PCSD task forces working on
 sustainability issues. Three of these task forces' reports, she said, should be mandatory reading for anyone
 interested in furthering EPR.  The three reports are the eco-efficiency report, the population and
 consumption report, and the public linkages and education report. The reports' overarching EPR themes
 include making greater use of market forces, encouraging tax subsidy reform, and making use of nontax
 market incentives.


       Participants again separated into the  same five groups to discuss next steps for EPR
 implementation. Discussions were based on  the next steps identified in the PCSD main report and
 associated documents.  After each group convened, meeting participants gathered to hear summaries of
 each group's discussion.
Group 1
Facilitator: Gary Davis

      This group's discussions are based on the three recommendations hi the PCSD's February 1996
report to the President, Sustainable America. The recommendations include (1) developing EPR models

and demonstration projects, (2) establishing a product responsibility panel, and (3) applying "lessons

learned" from the first two recommendations, adopting practices to implement EPR on a regional and

national scale, and removing legislative barriers.

       Discussions about these recommendations yielded the following ideas:
               Models and demonstration projects. This action should take a bottom-up approach by
               improving upon existing successful models of EPR. Incentives for businesses to
               participate in EPR demonstration projects should be the establishment of voluntary, visible
               programs. Successful models could then be identified from these projects, and case studies
               describing the projects could be incorporated in outreach materials.

               Product responsibility panel. Multistakeholder panels by product sector should be
               established; a panel could be developed for each product category described in the Eco-
               Efficiency Task Force Report. EPA and the U.S. Department of Commerce could take
               responsibility for setting up a panel.  Other resources that could be leveraged include the
               National Institute for Standards and Technology's Advanced Technology Program and the
               Manufacturers Extension Partnerships. In addition, the President could establish an Office
               of Sustainable Development with a budget to develop demonstration projects and provide
               for education.

               Promoting implementation of EPR. Following the evaluation of the demonstration
               projects, companies could voluntarily adopt EPR principles.  The product responsibility
               panel could analyze the results of the demonstration projects and then recommend any
               legislative actions or  policy changes that would be needed to facilitate implementation of
Group 2
Facilitator: Bette Fishbein

       Agreement was reached on two points: (1) the PCSD should recommend a multistakeholder panel,

and (2) the PCSD should evaluate the case studies using the criteria in the PCSD final report. After

analyzing the results of the case studies, the PCSD should identify the actors in the product chain that have

the greatest ability to affect the environmental impacts in the product's life cycle (e.g., product designers).

       EPA also should conduct an assessment of what EPR is in the United States and how it relates to

the PCSD's criteria for EPR. If EPR is defined too broadly, it will not result in measurable progress. The

findings of the assessment should be presented to the EPR panel selected by the PCSD, and EPR
demonstration studies should be implemented with interested companies.
Group 3
Facilitator: Rick Bunch

       Conducting a public relations campaign would increase the visibility of the EPR concept, raise
awareness, and communicate concrete case study examples of EPR. There are many possible ways of
marketing EPR by communicating the short-term goals of bottom line enhancement, innovation, and
competitive advantage as well as the long-term goal of sustainability. One possibility is holding a national
town meeting on the Internet involving numerous stakeholders.

       Demonstration projects should compare non-EPR and full-EPR scenarios for specific products or
companies. The projects should identify the costs, common barriers, environmental benefits, and steps to
implementation of EPR, and bring other kinds of products and sectors into the EPR realm. Companies
seeking national exposure would likely be willing to participate in such projects, and competition with
other companies would also encourage them to participate. The government can help promote the EPR
concept and give companies the tools they need to implement it. While companies move toward EPR,
however, the government should allow them to continue with "business as normal."

       The PCSD should not select products to focus on in demonstration projects but rather should
publish a broad solicitation to companies for EPR demonstration projects the government would be willing
to help implement. Projects would be chosen on the basis of their potential for quantifiable progress within
a defined period of time. The multistakeholder panel could assist the demonstration projects by analyzing
life-cycle costing mechanisms and brainstorming about how to overcome barriers.

Group 4
Facilitator: Catherine Wilt

       In this group's discussion, one participant expressed skepticism about whether the PCSD is at the
appropriate point to be considering next steps. Another was troubled that the PCSD might be "firing before
it aims," saying that a better understanding of the life-cycle approach is needed before attempting to
implement EPR.

       Concerns were also expressed that the goals and priorities listed by the PCSD do not strongly
articulate the life-cycle aspect of EPR and are too focused on waste and end-of-life management. Tools are
needed for assessing, measuring, prioritizing, and making decisions about which portion of the production
process has the greatest potential for yielding environmental benefits.  Rather than a panel deciding which
products should be prioritized, willing partners could take the lead in developing demonstration projects
that would test barriers to EPR implementation. Incentives for these partners include preempting
regulations as well as realizing economic benefits. The panel's first concern should be identifying issues to
be tested in demonstration projects, not identifying product categories.  In addition, the PCSD needs to
establish a framework so that a dialogue between stakeholders can be continued.
Facilitator: Gwyn Roland

       This group used as its starting point for discussion about the next steps for EPR, the three phases of
EPR implementation described in the Eco-Efficiency Task Force Report. Phase 1 entails creating a
multistakeholder advisory panel that would prioritize product categories for initial application of EPR
policy options. Phase 2 involves undertaking demonstration projects in the product categories. Finally,
Phase 3 calls for applying lessons learned from the demonstration projects to develop regional models and
national EPR policies. The group discussed how the ideas contained in the first two phases could be further
               Phase 1. Because the PCSD is understaffed, EPA or perhaps the Council on
               Environmental Quality should be responsible for creating the panel; EPA has both the staff

               and the expertise to take on this responsibility. A panel under EPA auspices might be
               detrimental, however, because EPA is typically seen as a regulator. A suggested first step
               might be determining a budget and timeline for the panel.
               Phase 2. Protecting proprietary information during demonstration projects is important.
               Demonstration projects should focus on alternative technologies that lead to regulatory
               innovation. Many case studies exist that should be inventoried and studied. Allowing
               companies participating in demonstration projects to be exempt from legal and regulatory
               barriers, it was suggested, might help to ensure that regulatory reform receives a full and
               open debate.

Thomas Lindqvist, International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics, Lund
University, Sweden

       Considering the proceedings of this workshop over the past 2 days, Thomas Lindqvist emphasized
that the European experience with EPR can help individuals and organizations that are working to bring
this principle to the United States. The International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics first
developed the concept of EPR in 1990. At its core, as envisioned by the Institute, EPR is about creative
capitalism. Europe is more market oriented regarding environmental policies than many in the audience
might think. EPR is needed because companies need assistance in making sound business decisions about
how they can reduce the environmental impact of their products. If we could agree on a principle, the
principle could help companies enormously.  This definition must be specific: if it is imprecise, decisions
cannot be made based on it.

       Companies want to be rewarded for being responsible, Mr. Lindqvist continued. The reward is
greater profits and an improved business image. If the reward is spread too thin, however (i.e., everyone
shares responsibility), then the incentive is lost. Competition, ultimately, is needed to achieve results.

       EPR programs should target someone in the product system chain in order to get a reaction—and,
in most cases, the target should be the producer. The producer is not necessarily the manufacturer. It is the
person who will make something happen. Often it may not be appropriate to include all players in the
decision because different players have different goals.

       As has been mentioned, command-and-control approaches should be modified. EPA should

command results, but not control how businesses implement EPR. EPA should provide goals and allow

companies to decide how to reach those goals. In fact, voluntary initiatives work in Europe just as well as

mandates. Any problems with mandates often can be eliminated by arranging the mandates in the right way

(e.g., by keeping legislation simple).
Martin Spitzer, New National Opportunities Task Force Coordinator

       Martin Spitzer summarized a number of critical ideas and themes about EPR that were discussed

over the course of the workshop. He invited participants to consider carefully the work done at the

workshop to determine what had been gained and where we should go next. The key ideas raised at this

workshop include:

       •       EPR in the United States is not a theory—it's a fact. Many companies are implementing
               EPR for a variety of reasons. Just communicating this information is an important step.

       "       Even if we do not agree on what EPR is, all of the companies participating in the
               workshop submitted case studies that were accepted as EPR. Imagine what the case studies
               could look like if we could agree on a definition.

       •       The case studies that have been presented at the workshop need to be distilled to illustrate
               how they exemplify EPR. This distillation would help clarify the EPR definition.

       •       A connection exists between EPR and regulatory reform. Perhaps EPR can be sold as a
               means to advance regulatory reform.

       •       The next steps hi our work on EPR should be identified, and responsibility for this work
               should be established.

       •       The PCSD could focus on creating a panel to give EPR some momentum. If such a panel
               were created, it should have a budget and should be responsible  for researching and
               prioritizing information, soliciting and coordinating demonstration projects, and leading
               regulatory reform.

       •       An entity is needed to collect and analyze information on demonstration projects.

       •       Organizations like the National Academy of Sciences, the National Research Council, and
               the National Academy of Engineering could be involved.

       •       Some messages have emerged from this workshop about what needs to be done.
               Terminology, for example, needs to be clarified. The costing of products throughout their
               life cycle also needs to be examined to ensure that product competitiveness is maintained.
               A better explanation of the tradeoffs and benefits of EPR is also needed.
       Perhaps the best way to conclude this workshop,  Mr. Spitzer suggested, is to summarize the
PCSD's goals in convening it: namely, to present diverse case studies and focus on available models for
implementing EPR (e.g., take-back, leasing, education, training, economic incentives). Workshop
participants have presented and discussed a variety of such models and how they relate to the underlying
principles of EPR. Key issues discussed include:

       »       Focusing on products and services.
       »       Redesigning products.
       •       Moving beyond waste in our understanding of EPR.
       »       Recovering and reusing materials.
       »       Involving people in the full chain of commerce.
       »       Identifying the key features of EPR.
       "       Generating ideas for building the business case for EPR.
       •       Brainstorming about how outreach can help implement EPR.
       "       Making the PCSD's recommendations real.

       Mr. Spitzer then adjourned the meeting, thanking all the participants of the first PCSD workshop
on EPR for their attention and dedication to achieving sustainable development in this country.

Davis, J.B. 1996. Product Stewardship and the Coming Age ofTakeback. Cutter Information Corp.,
      Arlington, MA. ISBN 1-57484-030-4.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 1996. Pollution Prevention and Control-
      Extended Producer Responsibility in the OECD Area (Phase 1 Report). Paris. OECD Environment
      Monograph No. 114, General Distribution No. OCDE/GD(96)48. January.

President's Council on Sustainable Development.  1996. Sustainable America: A New Consensus. The
      White House, Washington, DC.

President's Council on Sustainable Development.  1996. Eco-Efficiency Task Force Report. The White
      House, Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Extended Product Responsibility: A New Principle for
      Product-Oriented Pollution Prevention. (Prepared by Davis, G.A., Wilt, C.A., Thornburg, R.,
      Droitsch, D., and Dummer,  C., of The University of Tennessee's Center for Clean Products and
      Clean Technologies, in collaboration with  Dillon, P.S., of Tufts University's Gordon Center, and
      Fishbein, B.K., of INFORM, Inc.). Forthcoming (expected in 1997).





                      PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL. ONT
                         Workshop on Extended

                          Product Responsibility
                                jointly sponsored by the
          President's Council on Sustainable Development and EPA's Office of Solid Waste

                       White House Conference Center

                                Washington, DC

                              October 21-22, 1996



     12:OOPM  Registration/Check-in

      1:OOPM  Welcome	Clare Lindsay
                                   Officeqf Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

      1:05PM  Opening Remarks	 Kathleen McGinty
                .                                      Chair, Council on Environmental Quality
                                                                         Keith Laughlin
                                   Director, President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD)

      1:15PM  Framework for Discussion

              •  Extended Product Responsibility:
                 Origins of Concept and Evolution of PCSD's Approach to
                 Shared Responsibility	I	 Sergio Galeano
                                                               Georgia-Pacific Corporation

              •  Drivers and Obstacles to Implementation of EPR	Gary Davis
                                                                   University of Tennessee

      2:OOPM  Presentation of Case Studies (20 minutes each)

              •  Xerox Corporation
              •  Georgia-Pacific Corporation
              •  S.C. Johnson Wax Company

      3 :OOPM  Break (Refreshments available in the Jackson Room)
      Printed on Recycled Paper

MONDAY, OCTOBER 21,1996 (continued)

       3:15PM   Presentation of Case Studies (continued)

                 •   Rochester Midland Corporation
                 •   Safety-KIeen Corporation
                 •   Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation
                 •   Interface Flooring Systems, Inc.
                 •   Nortel

       5:OOPM   Closing Remarks/Adjourn


       8-.OOAM   Welcome	Chip Brewer
                                                                    S.C. Johnson Wax (PCSD Member)

       8:05AM   Presentation of Case Studies (continued)

                 •   U.S. CAR Vehicle Recycling Partnership
                 •   Ford Motor Company
                 •   DuPont Films
NGO Perspective and Charge to Breakout Groups	 Bette Fishbein
                                                                     INFORM, Inc.
      9:ISAM   Breakout Sessions (75 minutes for discussion; 15 minutes for facilitators to
                 prepare oral reports)

                 •  Models and Strategies for EPR (Group 1)
                 •  Models and Strategies for EPR (Group 2)
                 •  The Business Case for EPR
                 •  Barriers to Implementation of EPR
                 •  Outreach Strategies for EPR

      10.-30AM   Break

      10:45AM   AH Participants Reconvene in the Truman Room
                 Reports of Breakout Groups	Facilitator: Marty Spitzer, PCSD
                 (12 minutes to report; 5 minutes for questions and answers)

      12:15PM   Lunch  will be served in the Eisenhower Room for those participants who have
                 ordered and paid for this service.

       1:15PM   Breakout Sessions Reconvene
                 Each breakout group will discuss next steps and how to promote more implementation of EPR.

      2-.OOPM   All Participants Reconvene in the Truman Room
                 Report of Breakout Groups	Facilitator: Marty Spitzer
                 (5 minutes each)

Closing Perspectives	  PCSD and Others





                          PRESIPBISTT'S COUNCIL OlsT
                        SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
                             Workshop on Extended
                              Product Responsibility
                                      jointly sponsored by the
           President's Council on Sustainable Development and EPA's Office of Solid Waste

                           White House Conference Center
                                     Washington, DC
                                   October 21-22, 1996

                            Final Participant List
Michele Anders
Generator and Recycling Branch
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (5304W)
Washington, DC 20460
Fax: 703-308-0514
E-mail: anders.michele@epamail.epa.gov

Arlene Anderson
Environmental Manager
Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy
U.S. Department of Energy (EE-70)
1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20585
Fax: 202-586-2176
E-mail: arlene.anderson@hq.doe.gov

•& Stephen Ashkin
Vice President
Rochester Midland Corporation
P.O. Box 1515
Rochester, NY  14603-1515
Fax: 716-336-2357
E-mail: 103326.1404@compuserve.com
*& Jack Azar
Associate Director
Environmental Products
and Technology
Xerox Corporation
800 Phillips Road Building 317
Webster, NY 14580
Fax: 716-422-8217
E-mail: jazar@wb.xerox.com

•& Jefferson Bagby
Vice President/General Counsel
Rechargeable Battery
Recycling Corporation
2046A Jefferson Davis Highway
Stafford, VA 22554
Fax: 540-720-9324
E-mail: jcb4rbrc@aol.com

Lisa Barrera
Senior Vice President
Barrera Associates, Inc.
733 15th Street, NW - Suite 1120
Washington, DC 20005
Fax: 202-638-4063
E-mail: barrerairic@aol.com
David Bassett
Senior Staff, Immediate Office
Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy
U.S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Forrestal Building - Room 6A-045
Washington, DC 20585
Fax: 202-586-2176
E-mail: david.bassett@hq.doe.gov

Michael Bender
Executive Director
North American Hazardous Materials
Management Association
Rural Route 5 - Box 230
Montpelier, VT 05602
Fax: 802-223-7914

•fr Tom Benson
Environmental Actions Manager, U.S.
S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.
1525 Howe Street (MS-029)
Racine, WI 53403-2236
414-260-2960 Ext: 6243
Fax: 414-260-0145
E-mail: tbenson@scj.com
       Printed on Recycled Paper
    •&= speaker «= notetaker *>=workgroup member n= facilitator

 •o Joanna Boettinger
 Eastern Research Group, Inc.
 2200 Wilson Boulevard - Suite 400
 Arlington, VA 22201
 Fax: 703-841-1440
 E-mail: jboetting@erg.com

 •fr ^ Chip Brewer
 S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.
 1525 Howe Street
 Racine, WI 53403-2236

 "fr Anthony Broolcs
 Recycled Materials Engineer
 Automotive Components Division
 Ford Motor Company
 Regent Court Building
 16800  Executive Plaza Drive
 Suite 285
 Dearborn, MI 48126-6201
 E-mail; abrooks@email.com

 John  Bullard
 Director, Office of Sustainable
 Development and
 Intergovernmental Affairs
National Oceanic
 and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
 14th Street and Constitution Avenue,
NW-Room 5222
Washington, DC 20230
E-mail: John.K.Bullard@noaa.gov

D Rick Bunch
Director, U.S. Business Education
Management for Environment
and Business
World Resources Institute
 1709 New York Avenue
Washington, DC 20006
Fax: 202-737-1510
E-mail: rickb@wri.org
 Gina Bushong
 Staff Lead
 Computers and Electronics
 Sector- CSZ
 Office of Pollution Prevention
 and Toxic Substances
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 401M Street, SW (7405)
 Washington, DC  20460
 Fax: 202-260-1096
 E-mail: bushong.gina@epamail.epa.gov

 Jean-Lou Chameau
 Vice-Provost for Research/
 Dean of Graduate Studies
 Office of the President
 Georgia Institute of Technology
 223 North Avenue
 Atlanta, GA  30332-0325
 Fax: 404-894-7035
 E-mail: jeanlou.chameau@carnegie,gatech.edu

 •fr Basil (Bill) Constantelos
 Vice President, Environmental Policy
 and Government Relations
 Safety-Kleen Corporation
 1000 North Randall Road
 Elgin, IL  60123
 E-mail: gking@interaccess.com

 Gregory Crawford
 Vice President, Operations
 Steel Recycling Institute
 680 Andersen Drive
Pittsburgh, PA 15220
Fax: 412-922-3213

& * Terry CuIIum
Vehicle Recycling Partnership
General Motors Corporation
3044 West Grand Boulevard
Detroit, MI 48202
E-mail: Inusgmb.mz3b8p@gmeds.com
 •fr n * Gary Davis
 Center for Clean Products
 and Clean Technologies
 University of Tennessee
 600 Hanley Street - Suite 311
 Knoxville, TN 37996
 E-mail: gadavis@utk.edu

 & Dianne Dillon-Ridgley
 President Council on Sustainable
 Development - Council Member
 Zero Population Growth - President
 1400 16th Street, NW - Suite 320
 Washington, DC 20036
 Fax: 202-332-2302
 E-mail: ddr@igc.apc.org

 Patricia Dillon
 Research Associate
 The Gordon Institute
 Tufts University
 4 Colby Street
 Medford, MA 02155
 Fax:  508-346-9462
 E-mail: dillon@seacoast.com

 •fr Norma Edwards
 WECO Cleaning Specialists, Inc.
 184-10 Jamaica Avenue
 West Building
Hollis,NY 11423

<^ Shawn Firestine
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
2200 Wilson Boulevard - Suite 400
Arlington, VA 22201
Fax: 703-841-1440
E-mail: sfirestin@erg.com
    *= speaker «= notetaker *=workgroup member n= facilitator

•& a * Bette Fishbein
Senior Fellow
120 Wall Street
New York, NY 10005
212-361-2400 Ext: 230
Fax: 212-361-2412
E-mail: infonn@igc.apc.org
(include addresse's name in message)

•fr James Foley
Chief, Facilities & Administrative
Management Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway - 27th Floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
Fax: 212-637-3526

Barbara Freese
Assistant Attorney General
Minnesota Attorney General's Office
900 NCL Tower
445 Minnesota Street
St. Paul, MN 55101-2127
Fax: 612-297-4139

•& * Sergio Galeano
Manager, Environmental Programs
Georgia-Pacific Corporation
133 Peachtree Street, NE - Suite 900
Atlanta, GA  30303
Fax: 404-230-5675
E-mail: sfgalean@gapac.com

Jennifer Gamble
Managing Editor
Green Business Letter
1519 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Fax: 202-332-3028
E-mail: jgamble@enn.com

Ken Geiser
Toxics Use Reduction Institute
University of Massachusetts at Lowell
One University Avenue
Lowell, MA  01854
Fax: 508-934-3050
E-mail: kgeiser@tori.org
Ron Giuntini
CATTAN Services Group, Inc.
P.O. Box 47
Lewisburg, PA 17837
717-523-9522   ,

Ronald Goerne  ,
Environmental Solutions and Service
Illinois Technology Center
101 Tomaras Avenue
Savoy, IL 61874
Fax: 217-356-6921
E-mail: envsnsirg@aol.com

Steve Goodman
Staff Assistant
White House Office of Science
and Technology Policy
Washington, DC 20502
Fax: 202-456-6025
E-mail: envi@ostp.ecp.gov

Jonathan Greenberg
Director, Environmental Policy
Browning-Ferris Industries
1350 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 1101
Washington, DC 20036
Fax: 202-223-0685
E-mail: jonathan.greenberg@bfi.com

Murray Hamilton
Director, Business Development
for Environmental Affairs
Nortel North America
21 Richardson Side Road, Kanata
P.O. Box 3511 - Stadium C
Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada K1Y4H7
Fax: 613-765-4962
E-mail: murray.hamilton-ott@nt.com
James Hartzfeld
Vice President
Interface Resources Corp.
100 Chastain Center Boulevard #165
Kennesaw, GA 30144
Fax: 770-424-1888
E-mail: ecojim@iisia.com

Randolph Haviland
Manager, Community
Environmental Division
Johnson & Johnson
One Johnson & Johnson Plaza
New Brunswick, NJ 08933-7067
Fax: 908-524-2039
E-mail: 731123576@compuserve.com

•fr William Heenan, Jr.
Steel Recycling Institute
680 Andersen Drive
Pittsburgh, PA  15220
Fax: 412-922-3213

Simon Hodson
Chief Executive Officer
EarthShell Container Corporation
800 Miramonte Drive
Santa Barbara, C A 93109
Fax: 805-897-2298

Janice Holland
Associate Producer
2775 South Quincy Street, Suite 110
Arlington, VA 22206

Thomas Hoogheem
Environmental Operation Director
Monsanto Company
800 North Lindbergh Boulevard
St. Louis, MO 63167
E-mail: tjhoog@ccmail.monsanto.com
    •&= speaker «=notetaker «$>=workgroup member n= facilitator

Jeffrey Hunker
Deputy Assistant to the
Secretary of Commerce
U.S. Department of Commerce
14th Street and Constitution Avenue,
NW, Room 5838
Washington, DC 20230
Fax: 202-482-3284
E-mtH: jhunker@doc.gov

David Isaacs
EIA Deputy General Counsel
Electronic Industries Association
2500 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, VA  22201
Fax: 703-907-7501
E-mail: disaacs@cia.org

•fr Len Jannaman, Jr.
PET Films Recycle Business
Manager/Product Steward
DuPont Films
1002 Industrial Road
Old Hickory, TN 37138-3693
Fax: 615-847-6573
E-mail: jannimlvv@ohpvax.dnct.dupont.com

David Kelley
Environmental Manager
Florida Department of
Environmental Protection
2600 Blair Stone Road (4555)
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Fax: 904-414-0414
E-mail: kcllcy_d@dep.state.fl.us

Robert Kiefer
Assistant Director of Scientific Affairs
Chemical Specialties
Manufacturers Association
1913 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006

«=> Lynn Knight
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
110 Hartwell Avenue
Lexington, MA 02173-3134
Fax: 617-674-2851
E-mail: lknlght@erg.com
•fr David Kurtz
Group Manager, Fiber Procurement
Georgia-Pacific West, Inc.
900 South West Fifth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204

-& Keith Laughlin
President's Council on
Sustainable Development
730 Jackson Place, NW
Washington, DC 20503
Fax: 202-408-1655

Eugene Lee
Environmental Protection Specialist
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (5306W)
Washington, DC 20460
Fax: 703-308-8686
E-mail: lee.eugene@epamail.epa.gov

Cynthia Lewis
Beveridge & Diamond, P.C.
13501 Street, NW - Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
Fax: 202-789-6190
E-mail: clewis@bdlaw.com

Reid Lifset
Editor, Journal of Industrial Ecology
Yale School of Forestry
and Environmental Studies
205 Prospect Street
New Haven, CT 06511-2106
Fax: 203-432-5912
E-mail: reid.lifset@yale.edu

•fr Thomas Lindhqvist
International Institute for Industrial
Environmental Economics
Lund University
P.O. Box 196
Lund  S-221-00
Fax: 464-222-0230
E-mail: thomas.Iindhqvist@iiiee.lu.se
•fr * Clare Lindsay
Municipal and Industrial
Solid Waste Division
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW (5306W)
Washington, DC 20460
Fax: 703-308-8686
E-mail: lindsay.clare@epamail.epa.gov

Jim McCarthy
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Congressional Research Service
Library of Congress
101 Independence Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20540-7450
Fax: 202-707-3342
E-mail: jmccarthy@crs.loc.gov

•fr Kathleen McGinty
Council on Environmental Quality
White House
722 Jackson Place, NW
.Washington, DC 20501
Fax: 202-456-2710

Jane McLemore
Global Director
Health, Environmental,
and Regulatory Affairs
Dow Chemical
1320 Waldo Avenue
Midland, MI 48624
Fax: 517-638-2446

o Anne Merrill
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
2200 Wilson Boulevard - Suite 400
Arlington, VA 22201
Fax: 703-841-1440
E-mail: amerrill@erg.com

Edgar Miller
Director of Policy and Programs
National Recycling Coalition
1727 King Street - Suite 105
Alexandria, VA 22314-2720
Fax: 703-683-9026
    if* speaker <*= notetaker  <>=workgroup member n= facilitator

Kevin Mills
Director, Pollution Prevention Alliance
Environmental Defense Fund
1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 1016
Washington, DC 20009
Fax: 202-234-6049
E-mail: kevin@edf.org

Greg Norris
Decision Dynamics
504 Nelson Drive
Vienna, VA 22180
E-mail: gregnorris@aol.cora

Rick Otis
Federal Government Affairs
American Plastics Council
1275 K Street, NW - Suite 400
Washington, DC 20005
Fax: 202-371-5619
E-mail: rotis@ameriplas.org

•fr Nelson E. Palma
Assistant Buildings Manager
U.S. General Services Administration
290 Broadway (Suite 206)
New York, NY 10007-1823
Fax: 212-637-2995

•fr Michael Patalan
Senior Materials Engineer - Recycling
Automotive Components Division
Ford Motor Company
600 County Street
Milan, MI 48160

Harnet Pearson
Program Manager, Public Affairs
1301 K Street, NW - Suite 1100
Washington, DC  20005
E-mail: hpearson@vnet.ibm.com
<» Jackie Prince-Roberts
Senior Scientist
Alliance for Environmental Innovation
Environmental Defense Fund
6 North Market Building - Faneuil Hall
Boston, MA  02109
Fax: 617-723-2999
E-mail: jackie@edf.org

Jim Quick
Director, Government Relations
Canadian Manufacturers
of Chemical Specialties
56 Spars Street Suite 702
Ottawa, Ontario,
Canada  KIP 5A9
Fax: 613-233-6350

David Rejeski
Environmental Division
White House Office of Science
and Technology Policy
Executive Office of the  President
OEOB - Room 443
Washington, DC 20502
Fax: 202-456-6025
E-mail: drejeski@ccmail.ostp.eop.gov

•fr Joan Reynolds
Operations Manager/
Maintenance Service
Interface Flooring Systems, Inc.
1503 Orchard Hill Road
LaGrange, GA 30240
Fax: 800-264-4802

n Gwyn Rowland
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
220 Wilson Boulevard - Suite 400
Arlington, VA 22201
Fax: 703-841-1440
E-mail: growland@erg.com

Jim Salzman
Washington College of Law
American University
4801 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20016-8084
Fax: 202-274-4130
E-mail: salzman@american.edu
Alan Schroeder
NICE3 Program Manager
U.S. Department of Energy (EE-24)
1000 Independence Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20585
Fax: 202-586-3237
E-mail: alan.schroeder@hq.doe.gov

# Graham Scott
Vice President
Technical Services
Interface Flooring Systems, Inc.
1503 Orchard Hill Road
LaGrange, GA 30240
Fax: 800-264-4802

Elizabeth Seiler
Director, Environmental Affairs
Grocery Manufacturers of America
1010 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
Suite 900
Washington, DC 20007
Fax: 202-337-4508
E-mail: ehs@gmabrands.com

*& Edmond Skernolis
Director, Government Affairs
WMX Technologies, Inc.
601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Fax: 202-628-0400

i? Virginia Snyder
Assistant Vice President
Environment, Safety, and Ergonomics
2221 Lakeside Boulevard (E-101)
Richardson, TX 75082
Fax: 972-684-3723
E-mail: ginny_snyder@nt.com

-fr * Marty Spitzer
Task Force Coordinator
President's Council
on Sustainable Development
730 Jackson Place, NW
Washington, DC 20503
Fax: 202-408-1655
E-mail: spitzer.marty@epamail.epa.gov
    •&= speaker «a= notetaker *»»=workgroup member  n= facilitator

Roger Stone
Project Consultant
2775 South Quincy Street, Suite 110
Arlington, VA 22206

David Thompson
Assistant General Manager
Corporate Environmental Department
Matsushita Electric
Corporation of America
One Panasonic Way (3G-4)
Secaucus,NJ  07094

o Scott Vitters
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
2200 Wilson Boulevard - Suite 400
Arlington, VA 22201
Fax: 703-841-1440
E-m*il: svitters@crg.com

Susan Vogt
Director, Environmental Policy,
Training, and Regulatory Affairs
Georgia-Pacific Corporation
1875 Eye Street, NW - Suite 775
Washington, DC 20006
Fax: 202-223-1398

Joseph Walker
External Liaison Representative
American Petroleum Institute
1220 L Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005-4070
Fax: 202-682-8096
Audrey Webber
Regulatory Affairs Specialist
Molten Metal Technology
1615 L Street, NW
Suite 1260
Washington, DC  20036
Fax: 202-835-8938
E-mail: awebber@mmt.com

Allen White
Vice President
Tellus Institute
11 Arlington Street
Boston, MA 02116-3411
Fax: 617-266-8303
E-mail: awhite@tellus.com

D Catherine Wilt
Senior Research Associate
Energy, Environment, and
Research Center
University of Tennessee
600 Henley Street - Suite 311
Knoxville.TN 37996
Fax: 423-974-1838
E-mail: catwilt@utk.edu

Michael Winka
Executive Assistant - Special Projects
Office of Innovative
Environmental Technology
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
401 East State Street (CN414)
Trenton, NJ 08625-0441
Fax: 609-292-7340
E-mail: mwinka@dep.state.nj.us

Donna  Wise
Vice President, Policy Affairs
World Resources Institute
 1709 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC  20006
Fax:202-347-2796  '
Harold Yaffe
Vice President
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
1 Weston Way (G-I-S)
West Chester, PA 19380
Fax: 610-701-3651

Keith Zook
Group Manager
Environmental Quality
The Procter & Gamble Company
2 Procter & Gamble Plaza (TN-2)
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Fax: 513-983-6334
E-mail: zook.km@pg.com
    •&** speaker «= notetaker *=workgroup member n= facilitator

                 APPENDIX C


            Sergio F. Galeano, Manager
             Environmental Programs
            Georgia-Pacific Corporation



                 Sergio F. Galeano, Ph.D., P.E., D.E.E.
                 Georgia-Pacific Corporation
                 Atlanta, Georgia 30303
                 A PRESENTATION AT THE

      Co-sponsored by the President's Council on Sustainable Development and the
            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid Waste
                       WASHINGTON D.C.
                       OCTOBER 21,1996


  The recent report of the PCSD describes "Extended Product Responsibility" as an
  emerging environmental principle that uses a life cycle approach to identify strategic
  opportunities for pollution prevention and resource conservation. All sectors in the
  product system share responsibility in the solution of .environmental problems. It
  developed from an older concept, Extended Producer Responsibility.

  Extended Producer Responsibility, EPR, is a term that originated in documentation and
  research papers of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD,
  years ago. It was an extension of the polluter-pays principle. In the early 1990s, and
  principally in Europe, manifestations of Producer Responsibility emerged with'the
  purpose of resolving the pressing municipal waste problem in certain countries like
  Germany, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom. The notion was that more of the real
  environmental costs of waste generation and discard should be borne by the producer of
  the waste upstream in the product cycle.

  In many earlier attempts to implement the concept, a "single-point" approach was taken.
  Li this manner, all the legal and economic obligations were placed in one single sector or
  "link" in the packaging chain. An example of the single point approach was the original
  German Packaging Decree as issued by then Environment Minister Klaus Topfer in early
  1991. The decree placed responsibility for primary packaging in the retailers and for
 transport packaging in the producers. The "single-point" approach evolved, in some
 instances, into an approach involving more sectors.

 Sharing responsibility among all sectors involved in the chain of commerce became more
 apparent to many. For example, the European Union directive on packaging and
 packaging waste of 1994 recognized, hi its Introduction, the need for a spirit of shared
 responsibility. Likewise, in the United Kingdom, the Producer Responsibility Obligations
 for packaging waste, under the Environment Act of 1995, were finally resolved in July
 1996 on the basis of shared responsibility among four different actors in the packaging
 chain. Different single-point alternatives were rejected.

 The Eco-Efficiency Task Force of the President's Council on Sustainable Development
 recommended to the Council a novel approach of Extended Product Responsibility which
 features shared responsibility as a central element. Under the PCSD's novel concept, all
 the business sectors in the product system as well as consumer and governmental
 agencies will share different obligations in an environment of partnership.

 The PCSD's EPR also recognizes the key role of the product system. It is absolutely
necessary to consider the product system hi the efforts to understand the implications of
sustainable development and the achieving of eco-efficiency.

The share or allocation of these responsibilities will always be considered in conjunction
with specific circumstances of the particular program such as; the characteristics of the
product system, its region or location as well as the point in time at which it is
implemented. Experience indicates that the "one-size-fits-all" approach is not necessarily
the most conducive to lasting eco-efficiency results. For example, there is the common
perception that in a shared responsibility scenario the manufacturer bears the brunt of the
burdens. The example of the U.K. Packaging waste regulation, mentioned earlier, dispels
this unfounded assumption. On their own volition, in order to attain the mandated goals
of the Act, the affected business sectors allocated themselves implementation costs as

                     Raw Material Manufacturing..	 6 %
                     Converting	11%
                     Packing/filling	36%
                     Selling/Retailing	47 %

The Reasons for a New Paradigm

While different environmental programs have resulted in pollution prevention and
resource conservation, their fragmented approach is not conducive to eco-efficiency.
There is need for a more comprehensive approach based on shared responsibility and
enhanced partnership among all sectors, including government. Such approach would
help overcome some of the short comings of the present paradigm.

Current environmental protection regulations separate, statutorily, air, water and land in
isolated media. The transfer of pollution from one medium to the other is the typical
problem associated with the old paradigm. Mostly all experts in the field recognized now
this major drawback.

In terms of eco-efficiency and sustainable development, the old, and still existing, system
needs substantial modification because its usefulness is long overdue. The weaknesses of
the traditional approach are many but principally,

      a) the inability to properly reflect the relationships among media, of the complete
       impact of a product, along its system life cycle, on  air, water and land.

      b) the regulatory apparatus operates very much in isolation of economic and
       product marketing and functionality considerations. Internalization of costs is thus
       incomplete and less efficient.

      c) by emphasizing pollution control, the present command-control approach is
       confrontational and leading to adversarial relationships, costly litigation and
       wasteful of the creativity and efficiency of the market forces.

  A New Paradigm Would Consider the Product System

  Harmonizing economic activities with ecological processes is the approach implicit in the
  classical definition of sustainable development; "meeting the needs of the present without
  compromising the ability of future generations to satisfy their needs."

  The theoretical model that would resolve the sustainable development equation is far
  from available. For the present, many policy makers are concentrating their efforts in the
  product system as the best available vehicle to begin understanding the complexities in
  reaching eco-efficiency.

  Conceptually, the product system is the most basic linkage between the ecological and
  the social systems. It allows for a more comprehensive analysis and evaluation of the
  resources and environmental consequences involved in manufacturing of products. The
  patterns of demand and consumption of the social system are intimately linked to the
  product system. In rum, both the product and the social systems are linked to the
  ecological system. The ecological system is the donor and acceptor of the resources and
  wastes, respectively, of the other two systems. Figure  1 depicts such trilogy of
  interrelated systems. EPR is based on the product system as the means to extend
 responsibilities and partnerships beyond the manufacturing phase.

 EPR is a product of the Eco-efficiency Task Force of the PCSD. It is logical in my
 presentation to suggest the relative position of EPR in  accomplishing "the production,
 delivery and use of competitively good and services, coupled with the achievement of
 environmental and social goals."

 My attempt to position EPR hi the scheme of things is  depicted in Figure 2.

 As part of the deliberations of the President's Council on Sustainable Development, one
 of the working groups proposed to the PCSD's Eco-efficiency Task Force, Regulatory
 Policy, a novel approach entitled " Extended Product Responsibility" (2). The Task Force
 accepted this concept that was later adopted by the Council in its final recommendations
 to President Clinton.

 The Two Major Features of Extended Product Stewardship

 The Council recommends Extended Product Responsibility in order "to encourage the
practice of shared responsibility for the environmental impact of products among the
designers, suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, users and disposers of those products.
This new practice would extend the current approach to waste reduction, resource

conservation, and pollution prevention by treating products holistically, from cradle to

Shared responsibility and partnerships. EPR is a proposed principle of resource
conservation and pollution prevention that advocates a life-cycle approach to identifying
opportunities to prevent pollution and conserve resources throughout the product life-
cycle. Thus, a "chain of shared responsibility" is borne by designers, manufacturers,
distributors, users and disposers of products. The greater opportunity for stewardship
rests in the links of the chain with the greater ability to influence the life cycle impact of
the specific product system and to do so in a manner that is economically feasible and
unleash the creativity of business and other sectors-

Extended product responsibility, EPR, would be a new paradigm in which the actors
along the product chain accept and share an appropriate degree of responsibility for the
life-cycle environmental impacts of the whole product system. Because effective
measures to achieve eco-efficiency involve changes in more than one link in the product
chain, EPR creates a need and an opportunity for partnerships throughout the product

The new paradigm is also a challenge and an opportunity for government policy makers.
Policies and incentives to encourage greater product responsibility will be, in many cases,
much different from those in use up to now. The present paradigm addresses pollution
control  or resource conservation, separately  from each individual actor in each stage of
the product life cycle, they also tend to be generic, with the thinking that "one size fits

The policies for the new paradigm would generally emphasize partnerships among
governments, producers, distributors, and consumers. They will replace in a large scale,
the present adversarial process of end-of-the pipe, command-and-control regulations with
one that would leave to government the process of creating the needed mandates and to
the.affected sectors, the nuances of their implementation and achievement. It would lead
to more cost effective solutions for pollution prevention, fostering economic growth with
environmental quality.

A menu of policy options. One other feature of EPR is the concept of a menu of policy
options that will facilitate the selection of the appropriate ones according to the point hi
time and the regional or local conditions. There is not one sole policy that is equally and
effectively applicable to all places, under all conditions and for too long. As proposed,
EPR includes a menu of different policy options, from voluntary to mandatory and with
isolated or shared responsibility. When most effectively implemented, EPR should
encourage each link in the product chain to assume the appropriate degree of
responsibility for increasing the eco-efficiency of a product system. Even when
mandatory steps are taken by government institutions, EPR is an effective approach to
implement such mandates. The example given above in the U.K.'s packaging act,
demonstrates the wisdom in leaving to the affected sectors themselves the assignment of
individual sector responsibilities.


  EPR can use a variety of tools, ranging from voluntary to mandatory and involving either
  one or many links in the product chain. By themselves they do not constitute EPR but can
  help in implementing the concept. Examples of policy options that incorporate Extended
  Product Responsibility in various ways and with varying degrees of shared responsibility
  include (listed roughly from voluntary to mandatory):

  Corporate or Industry-Wide Product Stewardship Programs- Voluntary measures
  that generally deal with both the upstream and downstream environmental and safety
  aspects of product manufacture and use. Examples are the chemical industry's
  Responsible Care initiative and different product stewardship programs in many
  corporations; P&G, S. C. Johnson, G-P, etc.).These measures encourage pollution
 prevention and source reduction.

 Voluntary Take-Back or Buy-Back Systems: The producer voluntarily takes back or
 buys back products or waste materials for recycling or proper management. This measure
 should mitigate downstream environmental impacts from product use and to recover
 valuable materials and fosters design of eco-efficient products. An example is the
 collection and recycling of aluminum beverage cans by aluminum producers.

 Leasing systems: Voluntary systems in which the ownership of durable materials and
 products is never transferred down the product chain. Instead,, the function of the
 materials or products is leased to the user. Leasing  theoretically encourages the
 manufacturer to close material flow loops and to extend product life thus reducing
 consumption. Extension of product life can reduce significantly, resource and energy use
 and life-cycle pollution.

 Partnering Agreements: These are mostly Pollution Prevention measures agreed to
 among stakeholders in the product chain. An example is the Environmental Defense
 Fund/McDonalds packaging agreement.

 Voluntary Product Environmental Information Approaches: Voluntary approaches in
 which producers provide information, and training, on the significant environmental
 attributes of products so that purchasers can reflect environmental preference in their
 purchase decisions and subsequent product uses and disposal. Voluntary environmental
 labeling programs, such as the European Union eco-label, which gives a seal of approval
 based upon pre-set criteria, have been the most widely implemented form of this
 informational approach. Their effectiveness is still subject of evaluation.

 Education, Information or Training: Purchasers and users can be given information to
facilitate informed eco-efficient decisions. Information is available through labeling,
targeted product literature and certification programs. These options need to ensure a

continuous flow of information from designers to manufacturers, to users and back to the

Government Subsidies and Tax Credits: Direct subsidies or tax credits can encourage
production and use of cleaner products. The federal government provides direct subsidies
to firms for the development and demonstration of such products. Some states, such as
California, provides tax credits for the purchase of energy efficient products. Such
programs are not revenue neutral, in that they spend unrecoverable taxpayer money. A
national priority is usually the justification for a subsidy or tax credit, and they apply to
selected links in the chain of responsibility.

Government Procurement of Environmentally Preferable Products and Materials:
The difficulties in accurately determining overall environmental preferability are many.
EPA and the GSA are currently collaborating on guidelines for federal purchases in order
to implement a presidential Executive Order (3).

Mandatory Disclosure of Environmental Information: Requirements that producers or
distributors provide information about the environmental attributes of a product. One
example includes labeling electric appliances for energy  efficiency. It has been
successful in encouraging manufacturers to increase energy efficiency of large
appliances. The Dutch government has recently begun a program of mandatory life-cycle
environmental information labeling that complements a voluntary seal-of-approval
environmental program.

Mandatory Labeling of Product Contents: Labeling that provides the user with
information about the product contents. It can take two forms: (1) simply a listing of
products ingredients or (2) statements concerning the environmental or health impacts of
those ingredients. An example of the second type is the labeling required by the
conflicting California Proposition 65 for products that contain carcinogens or
reproductive toxicants.

Deposit-Refund System: Mandatory systems in which the purchaser pays a fee or charge
at the tune of purchase. It is redeemable upon return of the product. It encourages the
return of the product (or its packaging) at the end of its useful life. Beverage containers
are an example of the application of this option. Such systems are general revenue
neutral, in that deposit and refunds balance each other out so there is no net gain or loss
for the public treasury.

Taxes to Fund Waste Management Systems: They shift the economic responsibility
for waste management to the producer or the user of the product that generates the waste.
Examples include taxes on new automobile tires or batteries used to set up recycling and
disposal systems, or variable pricing for municipal trash collection. Another example is
the charging for disposal based on volume of trash rather than a flat fee. These
instruments are typically revenue neutral.

 Materials or Product Taxes: Mandatory taxes on polluting materials or products to
 discourage their use, with the revenue not necessarily ear-marked. Examples include
 virgin material taxes, gasoline taxes or carbon taxes. These are typically revenue-
 generating taxes for the public treasury and the most potentially troublesome to trade.

 Mandatory Return Requirements for Consumers: This option requires consumers to
 return products at the end of their useful life, without a deposit-refund system as

 Mandatory Take-Back Requirements: Producers or distributors can be required to
 accept products or packaging back from consumers at the end of their useful life, in order
 to meet mandated recycling targets.

 Materials Regulations/Prohibitions: It consists of regulations on material use, such as
 the ban of toxic chemicals or restrictions on use of certain materials in packaging, etc.


 Later today in the Workshop, you will be introduced to a variety of excellent projects
 selected as representative of the EPR concept. You will recognize in them many features
 of product stewardship. It is natural this to be case. Figure 3 depicts my understanding of
 the components of Product Stewardship as a distinct corporate activity. In other words,
 PS is a process carried on by individual companies, alone or with some level of
 partnership, but not with the requirement of shared responsibility among other sectors in
 the chain of commerce. Product Stewardship uses the analytical tools of life cycle
 analysis coupled with risk assessment. Effective product stewardship extends, upstream
 and downstream, from the manufacturing site and the operations involved in product

 It is understandable thus, that in the earliest stages in the development of EPR some
 confusion may exist in the demarcation of its limits. A helpful suggestion of mine, is to
 look, as a "mantra", for the sharing of responsibility among sectors. If only one sector is
 responsible (or subsidizes) the whole process, regardless the number of sectors, then it is
 more like product stewardship than EPR. In the discussions of today and tomorrow, we
 will have the opportunity to explore and learn more about other differentiation of the
 PCSD's EPR principle with other concepts and programs.


Industry is vitally interested in helping shape the new paradigm for eco-efficiency and
sustainable development policies. The durability of the product system concept is one of
the major reasons for such interest. Once a new paradigm is established, its presence and

practice will last for decades thus it is important to make it as good as possible fix>m the

EPR is a proposal worthy of experimentation because it is based on the product system,
on partnership, and on the sharing of responsibilities for decision and action. We will
examine different projects which, whatever their motivation, are being carried on a
private basis. The implied possibility of separating "command" from 'control", taking the
control out of command,  could be appealing to most of industry for it recognizes, a) the
leading role of government in creating adequate mandates, "command", and b) the private
sector's using the creative and expert forces of the market system to implement,
"control", and achieve the mandates.

I trust this Workshop, with the tremendous "brain power" available, will shed light on the
features of importance that will make the EPR concept grow beyond the cases presented
today and become an important part of a new paradigm. Thank you.


1.     Keoleian, G.A., et ai."Life Cycle Design Guidance Manual". National Pollution
Prevention Center, EPA/600/R-92/226. (1993).

2.     Galeano, S.F., Davis, G. and Brewer, F.H. "Extended Product Responsibility ".
Proposal to the PCSD's Eco-efficiency Task Force. (1995).

3.     Executive Order 12873, October 20,1993.


Figure 1- Model to Explain Sustainable Development

Figure 2- The Position of EPR in the Sustainable Development Framework

Figure 3- Product Stewardship

10.16.96 PM

                      Figure 1

                 Figure 2



                      APPENDIX D

         (Overheads Used for Workshop Presentation)

                   Gary Davis, Director
       Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies
                  University of Tennessee


               GARY A. DAVIS
             CENTER FOR CLEAN
       The mission of the Center is to develop,
     evaluate, and promote cleaner products and
     cleaner technologies that minimize pollution
     at the source and contribute to long-term
     sustainable development.
 Extended Product Responsibility is the principle that
 actors along the product chain (manufacturers,
 suppliers, users, and disposers) share responsibility for
 the life-cycle environmental impacts of the whole
 product system, including upstream impacts associated
 with raw material extraction and use, effects from
 production and distribution, and the downstream
 effects associated with product use and disposal.
                                                    PCSD; "A NEW CONSENSUS"





 European EPR policies, although referred to as
 Extended Producer Responsibility, are actually shared
 responsibility and do not put the onus entirely on
Shared RcsponsibilityFor German Packaging
          Take-Back System













              Comsrcm, Oisr
Workshop on Extended

 Product Responsibility

       jointly sponsored by the
President's Council on Sustainable Development and
      EPA's Office of Solid Waste
     Case Studies
 White House Conference Center
       Washington, DC
      October 21-22, 1996

       Mention of trade  names or  commercial  products  does not  constitute  endorsement  or
recommendation for use by the President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) or the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  The information presented in the case studies represents the
views of the organizations or companies that have prepared the individual case studies.  Statements made
in the case study presentations do not represent analyses or policy positions of the PCSD or EPA.

Table of Contents

Xerox Corporation	E-7

Georgia-Pacific Corporation	E-13

S.C. Johnson Wax Company	E-21

Rochester Midland Corporation	E-27

Safety-Kleen Corporation	E-33

Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation	E-47

Interface Flooring Systems, Inc	E-53

Nortel	E-59

U.S. CAR Vehicle Recycling Partnership	E-67

Ford Motor Company	E-73

DuPont Films	E-79

Monsanto Company	E-87


   Xerox Corporation
       Presented by:
Jack Azar, Xerox Corporation


                             Asset Recycle Management
                                 Xerox Corporation

 Asset management is the process  of managing  products  and inventory  to  minimize their
 environmental impacts at all stages of the product life cycle, particularly end-of-life. It entails
 reusing an asset either by remanufacturing to its original state, converting to  a different state, or
 dismantling to retrieve  the  original  components.   Implemented in  1991,  Asset Recycle
 Management (ARM) is the critical corporate-wide program at Xerox that  manages the  ever-
 increasing range of products returned  to the company for reprocessing.  Xerox has created a
 recycling and remanufacturing infrastructure that extends product life, meets the same  high-
 quality standards as new-build products, and will help Xerox meet its goal of providing "waste-
 free" products.

 The goal of the  Asset Recycle Management program is  to achieve zero percent material
 disposition to landfill by designing waste-free products with minimal impact on the environment.
 To achieve this goal the following strategies have been implemented:
 •  Asset management  has become  a  new product design  criterion to ensure  recycling and
   remanufacture are included at the first stage of product development  Design-for-environment
   (DEB), a management tool focused on resource conservation and pollution prevention at the
   beginning of product concepts, has resulted in initiatives that include:
       •  Limiting production materials to recyclable and recycled thermoplastics and metals;
       •  Embossing plastic parts with recycling symbols;
       •  Marking engineering drawings with remanufacturing codes to expedite processing; and
       •  Adopting snap-together designs to facilitate assembly and disassembly processes.
•  Key asset management procedures have been incorporated into the company's current product
   delivery process (PDF).  Xerox has adopted a "focus-factory" concept that integrates new-build
   and remanufacturing lines  to  facilitate consistent  use  of  existing manufacturing  tools,
   processes, and  product  quality controls.  The percentage of remanufactured machines has
   more than doubled in the last five years.
•  Cartridge recycling processes have been created whereby customers return spent  copy and
   print cartridges and, most recently, toner containers.  The worldwide cartridge return rate for
   1995 was approximately 60%, preventing 1100 tons of materials for going to landfill.


The Recycling Process
Field returns that meet equipment remanufacture criteria follow well-established disassembly and
reassembly processes.  Data recording and damage checks are followed by the removal of external
covers, subassemblies, and parts. These pieces are sorted according to their remanufacture codeu,
cleaned, and repaired to new part standards. Repaired parts and subassemblies are then returned
to manufacturing for reassembly in second generation equipment. Parts' assemblies that fall out of
the above operation are scrapped to recover the metal and plastic content.  Customer-initiated
toner and print cartridge returns go through similar processes. Figure 1 illustrates.
         Xerox Recycling Processes
  Print    ^H   Toner
Cartridge ^H Cartridge
           Surplus Equipment
                 RECYCLE    REUSE
                                 FIGURE 1

   By incorporating environmental and remanufacturing considerations into its product delivery
   process, Xerox not only assumes extended responsibility for its products, but realizes higher
   financial returns as well. The success of ARM is largely due to positive monetary returns for both
   Xerox and its customers.  With estimated savings exceeding  several hundred million dollars in
   1995, ARM has the potential to save even more in the foreseeable future.
      Product Manufacture
          •  Xerox Corporation
      Product Return
          •  Canada Poste
          •  United Parcel Service
          •  U.S. Post Office
Dismantling, Recovery, Reuse
   •   Bayer Corporation
   •   Copco Recycling
   •   Lucent Technologies
   •   Seneca Iron & Metal
•  Achieve zero percent material disposition to landfill to minimize the impact on the environment;
   maximize resource reuse; lower production costs; and improve return on assets.
•  Attain "waste-free" factories by 1998 by achieving a 90% decrease in municipal, hazardous, and
   chemical waste; a 90% decrease in air emissions; a 50% decrease in water discharges; a 25%
   increase in purchases of post-consumer materials; and a 10% increase in energy efficiency when
   compared to each facility's baselines.

•  European product take-back proposals (Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, etc.).
•  Cost savings potential from remanufacturing & ARM.
•  Customer satisfaction and loyalty, as determined from market research.
•   Solid waste reductions — A 45% reduction between 1991 and 1995 for 17 largest sites.
•   Enhanced utilization of natural resources - Recycled content in products more than
    doubled in five years.
•   Competitive advantage — Created through remanufactured product line in Rank Xerox.
•   Cost savings — Over $200 million hi annual savings.
•   Quality — Improved product reliability for remanufactured products.

 Internal to Xerox
 •  Modification of product deli very process to incorporate asset management was achieved by
    gaining senior level commitment of resources.
 •  Requiring design teams to consider end-of-life management in product design is being
    facilitated through a remanufacturing design training program and by standardizing
    remanufacture and environmental coding processes for all machine parts.
 External to Xerox
 •  Unacceptabih'ty of remanufactured products due to "used equipment" misconception is being
    overcome through sales force education and customer communication.
 •  Ill-defined/outdated procurement standards and purchasing guidelines in the marketplace are
    being addressed through cooperative efforts with government procurement and government
    environmental organizations.

 • Harvard Business School ~ 1994 case study documents ARM and DEE at Xerox. The case
   study is used in an academic setting to discuss the viability of Xerox' waste-free objectives
   and strategies.
 • Massachusetts Institute of Technology — Currently reviewing the progress of the waste-free
   initiatives at Xerox.
 • Dr. Jack C. Azar
   Associate Director
   Environmental Products & Technology
   Xerox Corporation
   T:  (716)422-9506
   F:  (716) 422-8217
Ms. Patricia A. Calkins
Quality & Policy Deployment
Xerox Corporation
T:  (716) 422-1655
F:  (716)422-2837

  Georgia-Pacific Corporation
           Presented by:
David Kurtz, Georgia Pacific West, Inc.



1-Name and Description of Proiect-

Georgia-Pacific Corp. Recycled Urban Wood, Martell CA-

This project is an example of Georgia-Pacific Corp. efforts to better utilize different wood
products in a manner that increase their economic and environmental value added. The recovery,
processing and recycling of urban wood waste has been initiated in several G-P wood product
locations, such as Martell CA, Bancroft ONT and are in different planning and development
stages hi Georgia. The descriptiom of the Martell CA project provides an accurate view of this
type of Extended Product Responsibility projects.

This Martell CA project reflects different pressures and objectives of the G-P's Martell
particleboard  and G-P's resources division operations. The reduction of timber harvest from the
U.S. Forest Service in California has caused a reduction in the lumber production and the
residual fiber supply that results as a by-product of the lumber manufacturing process. This is the
primary fiber supply used in the production of particleboard at Martell. To augment this
shrinking wood supply source, we have turned to the post-consumer waste wood supply that has
been used for fuel in cogeneration plants in California producing steam and electricity or has
gone to the landfills.

In addition, California mandates a 50 percent reduction in solid wastes by year 2000. Local
governments  have the responsibility of achieving this mandate or be subject to penalties.
California provides some incentives for those located in recycling market development zones,
whenever such determination is made.

Both of the pressures described above reinforced Georgia Pacific's internal goals of product
stewardship and pollution prevention. Consequently, Georgia-Pacific has made agreements with
local and national recycling companies, operating in a radius of approximately 100 hundred
miles from the Martell plant, to purchase multi-specie wood recovered from the commercial
disposal or general urban solid waste. This approach has resulted in an alleviation of the
abovementioned pressures and the achievement of internal company sustainability goals. It
assures a steady raw material supply for particleboard production and adds economic and
environmental value to the final product by reducing costs and further improving its
environmental soundness.

Georgia- Pacific at Martell, has agreements with five (5) recycling and processing companies
that operate within a 100 miles. The recyclers/processors, receive this wood by allowing delivery
at their sites for a fee, by placing collection boxes or dumpsters at selected commercial locations
and by recovering wood waste for a fee. However, this wood supply is contaminated with dirt,


 plastic, metal, etc. The contaminants are hand removed and the cleaner wood waste sorted at the
 collection areas. The wood is ground to MartelFs process specifications and further removal of
 contaminants takes place. Ferrous and other magnetic metals are removed by a system of
 magnets. Finally, the ground wood is screened prior to its transportation and delivery to the
 Martell plant.

 2- Project Participants
 There are five major participants or actors in this project, all sharing responsibility for its
 success. To help ascertain the breadth of the project and identify different actors sharing
 responsibilities, we will group them in five major classes that reflect stages in the product's life
 cycle. They represent varying ranges of activities, depending upon their vertical and horizontal

 Wood Waste Producers:
               Truss, pallet, crating, packaging, wire reel manufacturers/users
               Construction and demolition debris
               Commercial wood waste (furniture)
               Cut-to-size lumber operations

 Collection system
               Dumpsters located in selected areas and hauled to processing areas
               Tipping fee system at the processing sites

 Processors used by G-P Martell
               Larson Pallet- Milpitas, CA
               L&K debris Service- Union City, CA
               Multiple Services Inc.- Lathrop &  Fresno, CA
               Stockton Wood- Stockton, CA
               Waste Management Inc. - Sacramento, CA
               Different contractors, shippers and haulers
End Users
               -G-P Martell plant- Production of particleboard.
               -Martell dedicated cogen facility supplying energy to the Martell plant and
               -pulp mill operations.
               -other industrial uses

3-Project Goals
The project addresses different goals. It meets one of the criteria for selection of EPR projects as
stated in the recommendation of the Eco-efficiency Task Force to the PCSD.lt reduces the
contribution to the solid waste entering land on a material which accounts, in the United States,
for around 7-8 % of the total solid municipal waste stream and which is recovered at a level
lower than 10 percent. It really breaks new grounds in solid waste practice and wood products

Goals of the project are,

               a) to increase available wood supply for particleboard production, cogen
                 operation and pulp production,

               b) to contribute to the G-P's internal goals of product stewardship and utilization
                 of wood wastes.

               (c) to contribute to the mandate reduction in the solid waste
                  stream; and,

               d) to add economic and environmental value to the products of the Martell
                 operation by reducing the cost of the furnish and improving on the final
                  products' environmental attributes.

4-Project Drivers
The drivers of the project are various. The project was initiated as a result of shortage of good
dry fiber for the particleboard plant as well as good fuel material for the cogen operation. Also,
as the cost of landfilling the material arose, we started looking for other ways to dispose of our
wood wastes and the potential to accommodate other disposers' waste. The state of California
mandate for solid waste reduction was another driver. Finally, G-P's internal goals for pollution
prevention and resource utilization, facilitated further justification for deploying of resources to
study and plan an expansion of the wood fiber supply with the inmediate objective- to ensure
adequate supply to the plant. They all were, and are, drivers moving this project forward.

5- Project Benefits

The recovered wood fiber adds to the overall fiber supply in California and the Northwest. This
additional supply comes at a critical time of shrinking fiber supplies due to government and
other restrictions and regulations on  timber harvest from federal forests. The timber harvest
reduction has had a direct impact  on the volume of lumber being produced and in the subsequent
reduction of fiber residuals generated from the lumber production operations. The price of the
new urban wood supply is competitive in high priced markets. However, the expensive process
of collecting, sorting and reprocessing the recovered wood could detract from the attractiveness
of the source in markets where the fiber price is  low or supplies are plentiful.

6- Project Obstacles/ Barriers
They could be categorized as technical and commercial in nature.

Technically, contamination of metal, grit, stones,  plastic, paper as well as moisture content
variability, are the most likely problems encountered. As the percent of this type of recovered
furnish increases, considerations of product performance and quality become more evident at the
present state-of- the- art level. Screening of the ground wood and paving the handling floors, are
the two single most effective techniques to control contamination.

Commercially, market conditions could drive the price to unattractive levels. At present, markets
conditions are suitable for the continuation of the project with the shared responsibility and
interest of all participants.

7- Project Reviews

No external or even integrated review of the project has been conducted. At this moment, the
project operates without government subsidies or assistance and indicates solutions based on
private sector initiatives
       David M. Kurtz
       Group Manager-Fiber Procurement
       G-P Forest Resources- Western region
       Portland OR
       phone  503-248-7282
       fax     503-248-7211
Processor Affiliate Attendee
        Patrick Wagner
        Multiple Services Inc.
        Acampo, CA
        209-367 5630
10.10.96. Noon


                                       •lw,i»~»'ij~J ,
                                 V *
                               55 >t  4- ' fcwsiY * X *


    S.C. Johnson Wax Company
             Presented by:
   Tom Benson, S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.
William Heenan, Jr., Steel Recycling Institute
   Edward Skernolis, WMX Technologies


                         Extended Product Responsibility
Case study submitted by:
                           Tom Benson

                           SC Johnson Wax
                           1525 Howe Street, M.S. 029
                           Racine, WI 53403-2236
                           Telephone:   414/260-2960
                           Fax:         414/260-0145
                           E-MAIL     tbenson@scj.com
1.     Name and Description; "America Recycles Aerosols'Vproduct stewardship

              The nearly 17,000 community recycling programs across the country typically
       collect steel cans among other recyclables. But communities have not taken the step to
       include aerosol cans in their recycling programs.  Since there are 3 billion aerosols
       produced domestically each year, SC Johnson Wax ("SCJW"), which manufactures many
       of its products in aerosol form, views this as a missed opportunity for resource
       conservation and solid waste reduction.

              In 1991 SCJW formed a partnership with the Steel Recycling Institute (SRI) to
       educate and influence consumers and federal, state and local waste management officials
       that empty aerosols can and should be recycled along with other steel cans.  An important
       need was research to conduct the necessary educational campaign. A project was initiated
       in a residential recycling program to gather data on consumer disposal to confirm that
       aerosol containers are empty just like other containers presented for recycling. Research
       was conducted with the insurance industry to address questions about perceived worker
       safety during the recycling process.  SCJW, SRI and the Chemical Specialties
       Manufacturers Association (CSMA) then developed a multi-level strategy which delivered
       educational materials responding to these concerns, formed partnerships with national,
       state and local organizations, developed a turnkey citizen education campaign to assist
       communities which accept aerosols within their recycling programs, and made hundreds of
       visits to local and state officials to educate them on environmental and economic benefits
       accruing from recycling, rather than landfilling, of aerosols.

              As a result of this partnership effort, EPA and an increasing number of state and
       local regulators have decided that recycling is the preferred means to handle aerosols. A
       growing number of communities -  more than 3,700 nationwide including Los Angeles,
       Chicago, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Houston, Boston, Sacramento and the states of
       Michigan, Illinois and Delaware - now accept aerosols in their curbside programs.

              Several other countries have emulated this effort and are successfully initiating
       programs in their countries.  For instance, in Canada in just two years nearly 150 cities
       have included aerosols in their residential recycling programs.  Germany, Australia and the
       United Kingdom have programs underway as well.

       Project Participants

              Aerosol manufacturers
           •   SC Johnson Wax
           •   Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association member companies: marketers
              and contract fillers
           •   CSMA member companies:  component and formulation material suppliers

              Steel industry/can suppliers
           •   Steel Recycling Institute
           •   Crown Cork & Seal, U.S. Can; Can Manufacturers Institute
           •   CCL Industries

              Waste Processors
           •   Private [e.g., Waste Management, Inc. (WMX)]
           •   Public [e.g., Lake Oswego, NY]

              State/Local Government
              Environmental Protection Agency
              U.S. Conference of Mayors
              Michigan Department of Agriculture
              Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
              Solid Waste Association of North America
              American Public Works  Association
              State and Local Solid Waste Managers
          •  Keep America Beautiful
          •  National Recycling Coalition

3.     Project Goals

       •  Resource conservation through reuse of steel;

       •  Waste reduction through diversion of cans from landfills, and;

       •  Enhanced public perception of aerosols.

4.     Project Drivers

       •  Consumer perception of aerosol product form;

       •  State and local government recycling goals, and;

       •  Potential landfill bans, product taxes, environmental "preferability" procurement
          guidelines, and product take-back proposals.

5.     Project Benefits

       •  Resource/energy conservation. Every ton of steel recycled saves 2,500 pounds of iron
          ore, 1,000 pounds of coal, and 40 pounds of limestone. For each pound of steel
          recycled, 5,450 BTUs of energy are conserved.

       •  Community benefits/cost savings. Adding aerosols to existing recycling programs
          reduces costs of landfilling these containers, and increases revenues from sale of
          recyclables with no cost increase.

6. Project Obstacles/Barriers

       •  Aerosol "myths. There exist considerable misunderstandings about aerosols (i.e., they
          contain CFCs, that a pump spray is "more environmental" than an aerosol, etc.) and,
          although the aerosol is the preferred packaging form for many product categories,
          consumers and others often do not view aerosols as recyclable.  SCJW, CSMA and
          SRI find it necessary to do basic education about aerosol products to overcome these
          negative perceptions.
       •  Perceived worker safety concerns. Some waste processors were concerned that
          aerosols collected in curbside programs could pose a hazard when crushed and baled
          if they contained residual product. SCJW and SRI initiated research in Houston,
          Texas to confirm that aerosol containers are almost always empty when discarded and
          just like other containers presented for recycling.  SCJW, SRI and CSMA worked with
          Factory Mutual Research Corporation (FMRC) and studied operations at processing
          facilities to evaluate flammability and other risks associated with recycling. This
          research has reaffirmed for WMX and other processors that the risks associated with
          recycling aerosols are no different than other materials found in a recycling facility.

7.     Project Reviews

       While there has been no review of the project at this time, it is important to note that
       considerable research has been conducted re-affirming the feasibility and value of including
       aerosols in the residential recycling programs throughout the nation. The most

       comprehensive research on the operational feasibility to date is the Factory Mutual
       Research Corporation's report entitled, "Recycling Aerosol Cans: A Risk Assessment."
       The most comprehensive policy document encouraging the addition of aerosols in
       residential recycling programs is "Missing A Resource? Maximize Steel Collection With
       Aerosol Recycling," U.S. Conference of Mayors and the Municipal Waste Management

8.     Project Presenters

       •  Tom Benson, Environmental Actions  Manager - U.S., North American Consumer
          Products, SCJW, and Chair, Aerosol Recycling Steering Committee, CSMA (product
          manufacturers)                                              * ,       '

       •  Bill Heenan, President, Steel Recycling Institute (upstream supplier)

       •  Ed Skernolis, Director of Regulatory  Affairs, WMX Technologies
          (downstream waste processor)

     Rochester Midland Corporation
                Presented by:
 Stephen Ashkin, Rochester Midland Corporation
   Norma Edwards, WECO Cleaning Specialists
James Foley, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Nelson Palma, U.S. General Services Administration


                                  CASE STUDY

                                     presented by:
                             Rochester Midland Corporation
                               WECO Cleaning Specialists
                           U.S. General Services Administration
                          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1. Name and Description of Project: Rochester Midland Corporation is a chemical specialty
manufacturer which competes in a very mature and competitive marketplace. Strategically, our
focus is on developing innovative new products which incorporate a tight environmental and
human safety criteria, educating customers and the broader marketplace, working closely with
product users, and developing a team approach to substantially differentiate ourselves from the
competition. Rochester Midland is implementing this strategy throughout each of our five
chemical divisions domestically, and is evaluating similar opportunities internationally.

This specific demonstration project is a result of an initial contact by the President of WECO
Cleaning Services (WECO) in their effort to address building occupant complaints. This initial
contact took place as a result of a paper presented by Rochester Midland on its Indoor Environ-
mental Program at the Building Services Contractors Association Convention and Trade Show.

To illustrate the implementation of our strategy, Rochester Midland entered into an informal
partnership with the cleaning service provider (WECO), the building owner (U.S. General
Services Administration - GSA) and the building tenants (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
- EPA). The office building is located at 290 Broadway, New York, AT and is a beautiful 3 year
old, 36 story office complex housing offices for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(Region 2) and other federal government agencies. It is important to note that while this
particular demonstration was undertaken at a GSA owned building with EPA as the tenant, that
the strategy is applicable for any building regardless of the owner or tenant.

Initial discussions, team development and planning for the project began in May, 1996, followed
by occupant interviews, cleaning product and procedural reviews. Trial of the improved process
was implemented on June 1,1996 and completed July 31,1996.  Final evaluations were
completed in August 1996.  Full implementation and continual improvement procedures are
underway. All parties view the program as an unqualified success.
2. Project Participants (Team Members^: The participants / team members in this project
include the following components of the chain-of-commerce:

             Rochester Midland Corporation - cleaning chemical and equipment supplier
             WECO Cleaning Specialists - cleaning personnel (product users)
             U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) - building owners
             U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - tenant representatives

 Furthermore, it is important to note that those representing the tenants (EPA) included several
 layers within the organization. These layers included senior managers of EPA, representatives of
 the employee Health & Safety Committee, and those individuals who were particularly affected.
 3. Project Goals: Rochester Midland set out to develop the project with all stakeholders and
 developed a project team. Through project team meetings, the following goals were identified:

       A).  Demonstrate that a focus on human health & safety and the environment would
       positively affect building occupants and could be done within cost and other performance

       B). Address the needs of those individuals adversely affected by the cleaning products
       and processes. Identify potential hazardous products and processes. Identify
       opportunities to reduce risk to occupants.

       C). Address the needs of the cleaning personnel by identifying processes that were
       potentially hazardous and to reduce those risks.  Identify training and communication
       requirements on product use, storage and disposal.

       D). Address the use of cleaning products to identify opportunities for upfront source
       reduction in terms of both quantity and toxicity, and to utilize engineering controls for
       consistent quality.

       E). Identify alternative cleaning product that met all requirements, including economics,
       efficacy and other opportunities consistent with the fundamental objectives of the tenant
       and building owner. These additional objectives include the use of products that met the
       "spirit" of Executive Order (EO) 12873 for "environmentally preferable" products
       (products and services -which have a lesser or reduced effect on human health and the
       environment -when compared to other products and services that serve the same purpose)
       and EO 12856 for pollution prevention opportunities.
4. Project Drivers: This project had several sets of drivers.  Those drivers include:.

       A). Initial complaints from building occupants.

       B).  The desire of the building service contractor (WECO) to meet occupant needs and to
       further their environmental and safety initiatives.

       C).  The needs of the building owners (GSA) to fully satisfy their tenants requirements
       for a safe, productive and complaint free indoor environment.

       D).  An opportunity for the tenant (EPA) to meet the needs of their personnel and to
       support organizational mission objectives (I.E. pollution prevention).

       E).  Further educational and communication opportunities.


       E).  Opportunity for Rochester Midland to create a new market for cleaning services, not
       just products; and to sell new, safer cleaning products.

       F).  Demonstrate Rochester Midland's leadership in the marketplace.
5. Project Benefits: The project benefits can be divided into multiple areas:

       A). Reduced exposures to highly affected individuals from the cleaning products and
       processes. In addition to the obvious health benefits to those individual, this
       improvement also resulted in improved productivity for the building occupants due to
       their reduced absenteeism.

       B). Reduction in tenant  complaints and the corresponding increase in tenant satisfaction.

       C). Reduced risks to the cleaning personnel associated with cleaning product usage, plus
       an increase in their pride and professionalism.

       D). Improved training and communication for cleaning personnel which will reduce the
       potential of worker injuries, and improved customer satisfaction which will increase the
       companies marketing opportunities.

       E). Reduction (projected at 50%) in chemical cleaning products used to clean the
       building, a significant reduction in the amount of packaging waste requiring disposal, and
       reduced air (VOCs) emissions.

       F). Demonstrated benefits in the free market, requiring no additional legislation,
       regulations, compliance  or other requirements. This project clearly demonstrates when
       extend product responsibility makes good business sense and is a winner for all affected

       G). Demonstrated that a focus on health and safety would not only result in a "greening"
       of the environment, but a "greening" of the financial bottom-line.
6. Project Obstacles/Barriers: These barriers/obstacles included:

       A). Product development. New products had to be formulated that met a tight criteria
       (Enviro CareR Criteria) for safety for product users, building occupants and the

       B). Organizational inertia.  It is difficult to implement any change, but success came only
       after the inertia was overcome at multiple levels.  These barriers included:

              * RMC's own internal competition for R&D resources
              * Contractor's relationships and familiarity with previous supplies and products
              * Building owner's established contracts and priorities (cleaning is rarely a high
                 priority for building management)
              * Tenant / building occupant to get involved with change.

       C). Product biases. The need to overcome the belief that products which are safer for the
       user and the environment are either too expensive or lack the performance/efficacy of
       traditional products.

       D). Lack of clear definitions and criteria. The general lack of agreement as to the
       definitions/attributes of "environmentally preferable" products and how to implement a
       holistic approach to improve the indoor environment.
7. Project Reviews: The success of this project is measured by a reduction in occupant
complaints. Note that complaints went down while there was an increased effort to-solicit
8. Project Presenters:  While Rochester Midland has worked extremely hard to develop,
organize and implement the demonstration of our strategy, it is clear that without the support and
ardent commitment of the building service contractor (WECO), the building owner (GSA) and
the building occupants (EPA) this project would not have been successful.
        Mr. Stephen P. Ashkin
        Vice President
        Rochester Midland Corporation
        Rochester, New York
Mrs. Norma Edwards
WECO Cleaning Specialists
Hollis, New York
        Mr. James J. Foley                   Mr. Nelson E. Palma
        Chief, Facilities & Administrative      Assistant Buildings Manager
        Management Branch (Region 2)        U.S. General Services Administration
        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  New York, NY
        New York, NY                      212/637-2970

     Safety-Kleen Corporation
             Presented by:
Bill Constantelos, Safety-Kleen Corporation


                    Developing Product Take-Back Systems
                          Through Solvent Recycling

                                F. Henry Habicht
                              Senior Vice President
                     Corporate Development and Environment
                               Safety-Kleen Corp.
                              Phone: 847-468-2008.
Safety-Kleen Corp. has been involved in Extended Product Responsibility from the  very
beginnings of the company, well before  the phrase became popular.  Our company was
founded on the concept of leasing a piece of parts washer equipment and the solvent
needed to  run it.  This leasing concept was coupled  with the periodic servicing of the
machine and exchanging clean solvent for the dirty material. The company has developed
many additional products and services on this concept.   For example, we have developed
our Oil Services systems to both supply  a recycled/re-refined  product and collect used oil
after it is dirty and no longer useful as a lubricant. The Oil Services system is described in a
separate case study.   Both systems focus on providing not  only materials,  but more
importantly, a timely service to the customers to help them deal with the used materials in
an environmentally appropriate manner.  This case study will examine the development of
Safety-Kleen's Parts Cleaner system as it applies to  the concept of Extended  Product

Minimizing waste solvent volumes

Name and Description of Project: Safety-Kleen initiated  it's enhanced product responsibility
efforts with a solvent take-back program in 1968. At that time, the company introduced the
concept of machine and solvent leasing in order to make it convenient and  safe for the
automobile repairman to do his parts cleaning. The customer would lease both the machine
and  the contained solvent, and  Safety-Kleen would  periodically return to service the
machine and exchange clean solvent for the by-now dirty material.  A schematic of the
service is shown in the attached figure.

The design for the parts cleaner itself dates back to 1954.  It was developed as one man's
answer to the safety problems associated with his  cleaning of parts in pans of gasoline at
the family's sand and gravel business.  The machine featured a solvent with an elevated

flash point, making it safer to use in the maintenance setting.  It also had a lid that would be
self-closing to snuff-out a fire in the event that one started.  The name Safety-Kleen was
used almost from the start since the machine was safe and it cleaned parts.

When  the Safety-Kleen machine's patent was purchased from the initial inventor and the
company from the  subsequent owner, relatively few machines  had been  sold  and  the
periodic service aspect was  not emphasized.  The concept of  offering a total service
including the use of equipment, solvent, and cleaning of the equipment on a regular service
interval launched this  successful  business.   The market,  distribution network,  and  the
infrastructure to support this new system were developed with a great deal of effort and
forethought  by the company founders.   It filled  a market's need.   Safety-Kleen was
expected to  show up to do the service, and we did. The quality of the service was the  key
issue which allowed the other recycling services of the system to expand.

The closed-loop recycling system was born in  1970. Safety-Kleen introduced the concept
of solvent recycling as a means of managing the  used solvent and reducing the amount of
virgin solvent  purchased and used each year.  The closed  loop refers to the fact that
Safety-Kleen delivers a volume of clean  solvent to the customer and removes the dirty
solvent which is sent to a company recycle center for recovery. The clean, recycled solvent
is then returned to the customer on the next service, closing the loop.  By 1975,  the
company was processing over 10  million gallons per year of parts cleaner solvent.  Over
90% of the spent solvent was recovered into a recycled product which was re-delivered to
the parts cleaner customers.  By 1993, customers were generating over 50 million gallons
per year of spent parts cleaner solvent from almost 500,000 units at more than 300,000
customer locations in the United States.

In 1993, the evolution of Safety-Kleen into extended product responsibility and take-back
continued.  A new parts cleaning machine was introduced that was designed to minimize
the amount of waste solvent generated, and thereby reduce the  amount of clean solvent
used.  The new service employs a premium solvent with a  higher flash point and  much
tighter  specifications on organic impurities.  In addition,  a patented  cyclonic separation
technology  that continuously removes dirt  particles from  the solvent during use was
integrated into the company's waste minimization parts cleaner - the Green Machine. The
company spent more than $2 million and  over 4000 man-hours developing and testing  the
efficiency of the new product.

With the new cyclonic parts cleaner service, customers need service less frequently and
generate less waste on an annual basis.  The solvent stays cleaner longer, extending the
life of the solvent and reducing the number of annual solvent changes.  Green Machine
customers  generate  between 50%  and 80% less waste with the same parts cleaning
capabilities. In  1995, customers generated 11 million fewer gallons of waste parts cleaner
solvent as a result of the waste minimization features of the new service. Due to the purity
of the solvent, careful use allows the solvent to remain non-hazardous even when returned
for recycling.

Project Participants:  Safety-Kleen has worked closely with our parts  cleaner customers to
develop and refine the service system.  The types of customers range from small service
stations and auto  dealerships to  a wide variety of medium to large  industrial facilities.
Customers in the Washington D.C. area include the White House Motor Pool, the CIA,
several military bases, the Smithsonian Institution, and the U.S. Mint.

Project Goals:  Back in 1968, the primary goal in  developing this service was,  obviously,
creating a system that generated profits.  This was to be done by taking advantage of small
business customers' needs for a parts cleaning system that was convenient, safe and cost
efficient. At the same time, we realized that a new system was needed to give the users a
viable alternative to pouring the dirty solvent down the drain or out in the back yard.  The
solvent take-back system  met those goals.

In 1970, providing a means to recycle the dirty solvent became a major goal.  Expenditures
for virgin solvent supplied with each service were driving up costs. This goal was met by
creating the first Safety-Kleen solvent recycle center in Elgin, Illinois, and has grown to a
total of 7 Safety-Kleen facilities recycling parts cleaner solvent.  The recycling  process
allows over 90% of each gallon of dirty solvent to be returned as clean solvent for each
future service.

Project  Drivers: There were several issues  driving the development of the initial parts
cleaner system. Safety was a key concern  of small business people  who needed to clean
parts and had concerns with open containers of solvent or gasoline.  They also wanted a
system that they could use and forget and not invest their own time and effort in maintaining
and servicing the equipment.  The main issues were safety, convenience, and reliability, all
in a cost efficient package.

 New environmental laws have also served as project drivers.  The Resource Conservation
 and Recovery Act (RCRA) brought with it the concept of "cradle to grave" management of
 wastes.  This caused businesses, especially the smaller ones, to look for a service provider
 that could give them peace of mind as to how the waste was being managed.  Later, the
 liabilities associated with  Superfund caused the users to look  for waste management
 partners who could ensure that their wastes were handled in a safe and secure manner.
 Safety-Kleen has  lived  up to this  promise, protecting its customers from  Superfund-like
 liability associated with the handling of spent solvent material.

 In 1990, Congress added pollution prevention concepts into waste management laws. The
 Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 introduced a waste management hierarchy that  placed
 "source reduction," or not producing the waste in the first place,  at the top of the ladder. If
 wastes  could not be prevented, they were to be reused, recycled, treated or disposed, in
 that preferential order.  The take-back and recycling nature of the Green Machine with its
 extended service interval provided customers with credit for pollution prevention and  source

 Project Benefits: Integrating the parts cleaner machine with a take-back solvent service has
 provided many additional  benefits.   It has significantly improved safety in most  of the
 maintenance shops in the U.S. by reducing the risk of fire from  parts cleaning operations.
The service has  conserved non-renewable oil resources  by  reducing  virgin  solvent
 purchases through an effective closed loop recycling system. Waste generation volumes
have been  reduced substantially, allowing customers  to  take  advantage  of reduced
regulations on smaller waste generators.  The system also reduces impacts on surface and
ground  waters by providing a means to appropriately manage  the solvent rather then
pouring  it into the sewer or onto the ground.  The company also benefits financially from this
system since the fully loaded cost of producing a unit of recycled solvent represents  a 30%
savings compared to producing the solvent from virgin stocks.

 Project  Obstacles/Barriers:   Development of the  original  parts  cleaner system  was
challenged by the historic lack of a nationwide distribution system  to service the machines
and recycle the solvent.  Safety-Kleen overcame this by creating  a  multi-layered distribution
system that is  able to move large volumes of materials in both bulk and container volumes
to almost any  location in the continental  U.S. and recover it,  even down to a single drum
from an isolated location.

Unfortunately, some RCRA regulations create significant storage and handling impediments
to managing recyclable wastes.  Safety-Kleen established its recycling system 16 years
before RCRA started significantly influencing the parts cleaner business (1984). Since that
time,  significant money and  effort  has been  expended  to  meet  the  regulations.   A
"contingent management" system for recyclable wastes could be much more cost-effective
while ensuring equivalent levels of environmental protection.

EPA's used oil regulations (40 CFR Part 279) have actually made it more difficult  to
promote solvent recycling. These rules make it easy for parts cleaner solvent to be mixed in
to used oils and legally  burned.   This is inconsistent  with  EPA's waste management
hierarchy,   Pollution  Prevention  Strategy, and  their  1993   Waste  Minimization  and
Combustion Strategy.  Consequently, many businesses have chosen the cheaper burning
outlet over the more environmentally preferable recycling and reuse option.

The new generation of waste  minimizing parts cleaners has  also created challenges  in
addition to the benefits.  Costs of the cyclonic Green Machine  are nearly twice that of the
original parts cleaner machine due to the higher technology employed.  In addition, the new
non-hazardous, higher flash point solvent does not always meet the parts cleaning needs  of
all customers. The company continues to explore methods of meeting these challenges.

Project Reviews:  The waste  minimizing Green  Machine has  been selected for several
awards,  including its selection by Plant Engineering magazine as one of its "Products of the
Year"  for  1994.   The machine has received the Michigan's Chamber of Commerce
Environmental Quality Award and the Wisconsin Governor's Award. The unit has also been
recognized  by the U.S. EPA as a waste minimization product in  its Waste Minimization Plan
issued in November 1994.


Providing our customers with the opportunity to participate in product take-back programs
has been  profitable for both them and  Safety-Kleen.   These programs  encourage the
conservation and  reuse of non-renewable natural resources,  provide the generators with
convenient  options to improve the environment by managing the wastes appropriately, and
meet a growing demand by our customers for "green" products and services  that can be
translated into improvements in their bottom lines.


                    Developing a Product Take-Back Program
                             Through Oil Re-refining

                                 F. Henry Habicht
  ^ _                         Senior Vice President
                     Corporate Development and Environment
                                Safety-Kleen Corp.
                               Phone: 847-468-2008.

Safety-Kleen Corp.  has been involved in Extended Product Responsibility from the very
beginnings of the company, well before the phrase became popular.  The Oil Services
program supplies re-refined lube oil products and collects used oils after they are dirty and
no longer useful as lubricants, an  extension of the product take-back concept.  The program
focuses on providing not only materials, but more importantly, a timely service  to customers
to help them deal with used materials in an environmentally appropriate manner. This case
study will examine the development of Safety-Kleen's Oil Services program as it relates to
the concept of Extended Product  Responsibility.  A separate case study has been prepared
describing the company's Parts Cleaner system.

Re-refining Used Oil

Name and Description of  Project: Safety-Kleen has developed  a used oil management
program that collects and recycles over 170 million gallons each year of used oil.  A large
percentage of this used oil is re-refined in Safety-Kleen's two re-refineries in the U.S. and
Canada, which are  the largest in North  America.  Safety-Kleen possesses  over 80% of
North America's total re-refining  capacity.   The  re-refining process produces  a base
lubricating  stock that is equal in quality to virgin base  oils and  meets all  applicable
standards  in the  industrial and vehicle markets.  Safety-Kleen has spent over $200 million
on the plants and infrastructure to be able to bring this product and service to market.

About 1.4  billion gallons of used oil is generated by industries, businesses and consumers
in the United States each year.  Currently, only  900 million gallons of used oil is collected
each  year for processing.  Of this, only  10% is re-refined by 2 U.S. re-refineries,  one of
which is owned  by  Safety-Kleen, with the remaining 800 million collected gallons being
burned as  fuel.  The other  500  million  gallons of  used  oil generated each year  is not
collected and often causes environmental damage to surface and ground waters.

Re-refining used oil helps reduce air pollution that might otherwise  be created by the
burning of used oil.  Used oils are generally burned in units with no  air pollution control
equipment so that contaminants (metals, sulfur and ash)  are  released  directly into the
atmosphere.   Re-refining captures the majority of these contaminants,  preventing their
release.   Further, re-refining  recovers a non-renewable natural  resource by  reducing
reliance on additional virgin lube oil.

Safety-Kleen, and in fact the entire re-refining industry, has faced significant challenges in
overcoming the  stigma of poor product quality.  This stigma was a hold-over from older
lower-technology processes that were unable to  respond to the changing nature of the
contaminants and additive  packages found in the modern lubricating oils.  In 1974, there
were over 150 companies in the U.S.  recycling oil into various types of lubricating products.
In 1996, there are now only 2 oil re-refineries in the U.S. producing lubricating base oils,
primarily due to the substantial capital investment required to produce the current high-
quality product.

A key step in developing the used oil product responsibility program has been gaining the
trust and confidence of the  consuming industries. This has taken significant time and effort
working with and achieving the certifications of standards-setting organizations such as the
ASTM   and  SAE.    In  addition, Safety-Kleen  has  worked  closely  with  equipment
manufacturers   such   as  the   railroads,  automobile  manufacturers,   and  hydraulics
manufacturers to gain acceptance of  the product for use in their equipment. These efforts
have allowed the re-refined lube oil product to be accepted as equivalent to virgin products,
plus it has begun to develop a market among the consuming public for a "green" motor oil.

Project Participants: Safety-Kleen Corp. has worked with many different groups to develop
and implement  this program.   The  company has  worked  diligently  with many  Federal
Government organizations  as part of the President's 1993  Executive Order  on  recycled
products to increase the amount of recycled products used within the federal system. This
includes a highly publicized event with the National Park Service on  the Capital Mall on
Earth Day, 1996, and  a closed loop system with the U.S.  Postal Service and several state
and municipal governments. In addition, over 60,000 small businesses that generate used
oil currently participate in the used oil collection program.  Major lubricant organizations,
specification writers and  retail consumers of lubricating oil products have  also played a
significant role in making the re-refined oil the accepted and trusted product that it is today.

Project Goals: The primary goal of this project was to develop an economical oil collection
and processing program that can generate revenues and profits  for the company on an
acceptable level. The program would build on the company's strengths in infrastructure and
distributions systems. The program must also be able to service the country's vast number
of small to medium sized  businesses  by providing a way to  help them  protect  the
environment in a cost efficient manner.

Creating markets and demand for the collection and re-refining program was another major
goal of this effort. First, the fact that re-refined oils were equal to virgin lubricating oils must
be established.  Then,  industrial, commercial, and retail customers must be convinced of
the quality so that they will accept the re-refined product and have the opportunity to select
it based on it's recycled content.  Finally, the public must want to participate in the program
by having their automobiles' oil changed at a facility that will have the used oil re-refined.

Project  Drivers:   Public  and government attitudes towards recycling  helped drive  the
development of this oil recycling program.   The President's 1993  Executive Order for
recycled products supported  the development of demand within the Federal  government
that has increased the visibility of the re-refined product. The public's increasing belief in
recycling non-renewable resources and supporting  energy  independence has  also  driven
the demand for the "green" products and collection services.

Consumers on an industrial, commercial and retail  level have also  been instrumental in
providing  the opportunities for this program.  Customers have expressed the need for a
used  oil collection program which they  are confident will  minimize  their potential future
CERCLA  liabilities.  Safety-Kleen has been able to meet this need  through the financial
stability and size of the company.

Project Benefits: The development of the closed loop oil collection and re-refining program
has provided numerous benefits to the company and to our customers.  Based on $18 per
barrel crude oil, production costs of a gallon of lube oil made from our re-refining process is
40% to 50%  less expensive than production from virgin crude oil  in a typical conventional
lube refinery.  It has also expanded customer acceptance of the quality and consistency of
the lube products as shown by the increasing sales of "green" motor oils, such as Safety-
Kleen's top-quality motor oil, America's Choice.  Partnerships with major retailers such as
Wal-Mart and Goodyear automotive centers have also increased the public's acceptance of
and access to re-refined oil products.

The program also has significant benefits to the nation and society as a whole.  Increasing
public awareness of the convenience and availability of used oil collection programs lessens
the impacts on surface and ground water due to improper disposal.   It also reduces the
country's dependence on foreign crude oil by not needing to create additional virgin lube
oils, saving a valuable non-renewable resource.  In addition, the relatively new re-refining
technology eliminates the significant waste disposal volumes associated with the older re-
refining technologies.

Project  Obstacles/Barriers:  Perceived quality issues of the re-refined product have been a
significant obstacle to the development of markets for the re-refined oils. The perception of
inferior  quality was due to the out-dated stigma from uneven  quality control  in early oil
recycling processes.  This led to a  lack of acceptance  by equipment manufacturers in
allowing the use of re-refined lube oils in their equipment without voiding the warranty. A
great deal of work was done with these groups to overcome the resistance of specification
writers  to acknowledging the  equivalency of the re-refined product to virgin lubricating

As  much  as the environmental movement has  created opportunities for this  program,
sections of the RCRA regulations have also provided impediments to the development and
expansion of the program. EPA's used oil regulations have incongruously placed burning of
used oil on the same preference level as re-refining, contrary to EPA's Pollution Prevention
Strategy and  its waste minimization hierarchy.


Providing our customers with the opportunity to participate in product take-back programs
has  been  profitable - for  the customers as  well  as Safety-Kleen.  These  programs
encourage  the conservation and reuse of non-renewable natural  resources,  provide
generators  with  convenient options  to  improve  the  environment  by managing wastes
appropriately, and meet a growing demand for "green" products and services.



   Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation
                    Presented by:
Jefferson Bagby, Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation




Name and Description of Project:  The Rechargeable Battery  Recycling Corporation's
(RBRC) "Charge Up to Recycle!" program for used nickel-cadmium (Ni-Cd) batteries.
RBRC is a nonprofit public service corporation dedicated to educating the public as to the
need to collect and recycle used Ni-Cd batteries.  RBRC also funds and facilitates Ni-Cd
recycling programs nationwide in the United States, and soon throughout Canada as well.

Project Participants:   The "Charge  Up to Recycle" program  is funded  by over 200
companies  worldwide that  manufacture  rechargeable products for  sale into North
America (list attached). Key players are the owners of RBRC: Energizer Power Systems,
Sanyo  Energy  (U.S.A.), Panasonic  Industrial  Company, Saft America,  and Varta
Batteries.  Other participants include INMETCO, where the batteries are recycled, and
numerous consolidation facilities and trucking firms.  Batteries are collected from all
market sectors including consumers, businesses, public agencies, institutions, etc.

Project Goals: Used Ni-Cd batteries have been identified by the U.S. EPA as a principal
contributor of the toxic heavy metal cadmium into the solid waste stream.  The "Charge
Up to Recycle!" program is  to educate the public that used Ni-Cd batteries should be
recycled, thus reducing environmental risk and conserving natural resources. All parts of
the used Ni-Cd battery are recycled and reused. No part re-enters the solid waste stream.

Project Drivers: Initial Ni-Cd collection was driven by state laws in Minnesota and New
Jersey that required industry sponsored and funded collection pilot projects.  It became
clear to rechargeable product  manufacturers that unless  a voluntary industry funded
program was established nationwide, Ni-Cd batteries would either be banned or subjected
to a prohibitive deposit.  Once the pilot programs were operational and industry members
saw they could  be successful, the RBRC program was established and received
widespread industry support.

Project Benefits:  In 1995, the first full year of the  "Charge Up to Recycle!" program
operation, over 15%  of the used Ni-Cd batteries available for recycling were recycled.
By the year 2000 we hope to attain a recycling rate exceeding 70%, with 100% collection
the ultimate goal.  In addition to protecting the environment, the  program provides
significant  subsidies to those recycling Ni-Cds.  RBRC pays for retail Ni-Cd collection
containers, for all shipping back to recycling by retailers, and all Ni-Cd recycling charges.
 For counties and municipalities, RBRC pays for the shipping back to recycling and all
Ni-Cd recycling charges. For businesses and public agencies, RBRC pays for all Ni-Cd
recycling charges. RBRC operates a toll free number where anyone can call to find out
how and where to recycle Ni-Cds. Call 1-800-8-BATTERY.

Project Obstacles/Barriers: The most significant obstacle to used Ni-Cd collection are the
hazardous waste transportation  and manifesting requirements found in RCRA.  EPA
recognized these obstacles and promulgated the Universal Waste Rule  at 40 CFR Part
273 to remedy the problem. Because Part 273 is deregulatory, each state  had to adopt the
rule before it took effect. For this reason Congress passed the "Mercury Containing and
Rechargeable Battery Management Act" in early 1995, which allowed Part 273 to take
effect immediately in all 50 U.S. states. A similar process is underway  in Canada. The
deregulatory effort in the U.S. took about five years.

The free-rider issue has also been a problem in the U.S. and Canada. Today an RBRC
recycling fee is paid on over 75% of the new Ni-Cd batteries sold into the U.S. market.
This will continue to be an ongoing problem.

Project Reviews:   Recent project reviews have been conducted by Bette Fishbein  of
INFORM, Inc., for the University of Tennessee, and by  Michael Bender, in Waste
Dynamics of the Northeast.  The "Charge Up to Recycle!" program has been endorsed by
a number of members of Congress,  including Rep. Frank Pallone, D-NJ, "This is a good
first step in limiting toxic metals  in our environment."

Project Presenters:  The project is presented  by Jefferson  C. Bagby,  RBRC  Vice-
President  &  General Counsel,  2046A Jefferson Davis  Highway,  Stafford, Virginia,
22554. Phone (540) 720-9225.

                              Stafford Square - Suits A; 2046 Jefferson Davis Highway; Stafford, Virginia 22554-7219; Phone (540) 720-3668; Fax (540) 720-9324
                              Prestige Park - Suite 300; 2233 Northwest 41« Street; Gainesville, Rorida 32606*643; Phone (352) 376*693; Fax (352) 376*658
                            "CHARGE UP TO RECYCLE!"
                                    PROGRAM FUNDING
                                             as of October 11,1996
        '  "  ;The:€6mp1aam6sia]ad brand names listed below are actively demonstrating their commitment to the
     -preservation o'f our envffbnmeiii by voluntarily funding the RBRC "Charge Up to Recycle!" program. These
     .companies are paving aTicense^i^ato^lace the RBRCISeal on their Ni-Cd powered products.  License fees
     "fbidjla.natiohwide/pupHc edueS$o&f|oeram about battery recycling.  They also fund the environmentally
     sburid£olfectipn:£ndrecycling of~tis©i;Ni-Gd batteries.
    ...Access-^fcpr'   ^%
            ^•£.,if;:->   Jr» ••;.';„ -
                                      •"•^^Cemarir •  -«,^i*KP^,= ";': ;':
               .*?.'  '-^  jS.V..";--7  _ wS^-  *?.Jt;-, •*"  >•/».»••****!.
          »*  ^^^.^s
W .   Batterf Specmme
J-" .-^6f     f   *l~  _A.V^
    ,                 .        .
     r ,/^" O»samw:Power Tools ^
    :     ?'''?'' '^

      Brandt Services, IncTBSI Batteries
      Braun Incif-  K:\'^ ' .;;; '-.-• • '',._. .
                                                         M.  .    • .
                                                         rita Co., Ltd.
      Brother International Corporation
'rinted on recycled paper with soybean inks.
           Network Communications,
           Business Communications
             Inc.;.  ' '••  ,
                 Systems, Inc
Fully Power International Limited "
Futaba CjMpCjation
Generation Electronics

  General Electric Sanyo
  Golden Power Industries Ltd.
  GP Batteries (USA)
         Gold Peak
  GSL Engineering, LTD
  Harvest Master Inc.
  Hewlett-Packard Company
  HiltL Inc.
  Hitachi Home Electronics (America), Inc.
  Hitachi Power Tools US A. Ltd.
  Hi-Watt Battery Industry Co., Ltd.'
    ~>    Nil
  HM Electronics
  Hobbico - Hobby Corporation of America
         Tower Hobbies
  Homelite (A Division of Deere & Company)
  The Hoover Company (Maytag Corporation)
  House of Batteries
  Icom America, Inc.
.  Illinois Tool Works
         TTW Ramet
;  Industrial Scientific Corporation
:  Integrated Display Technology Ltd.
:  Iota Engineering Company
  Iwatsu America, Inc.
•. Izumi Products Company
  JBRO Batteries.toc.
         JBRO Battenes
  JTECH Inc.
  John Manufacturing LTD.
  JVC Corporation (US)
  JVC Company of America
-  JVC Professional Products Company
  JVC Service & Engineering Company
  Kenwood Americas Corporation

 LG Electronics, Inc.
 Lichen Corporation
 LSM International
 Lumedyne, Inc.
 LWC Distributors, Inc.
 Mig Instrument. Inc.
 Makita Corporation of America
 Makita Corporation, Lid.
 Matsushita Electric Corporation of America
 Maxell Corporation of America
 Maxon America, Inc.
 SPM / Micro Power Electronics. A Division
 Micro Precision Inc.
 Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation
 Minolta Co., Ltd.
 Minolta Corporation
 Mils Copystar America. Inc.
 Mitsubishi Electric America. Inc. (MEA)
 Mitsubishi Consumer Electronics America
 Mitsubishi Electronics America. Inc. (MELA)
 Mitsubishi International Corporation (MIC)
 Monarch Marking Systems
 Motorola, Inc.
 Multiplier Industries Corporation
 National Custom Enterprises. Inc. (NCE)
 National Power Corporation
          National Power
          Maxell Corp.
 NEC America, Inc.
 NEC Technologies, Inc.
NESCO Battery Systems
         Ncsco Batteries
Nikko America, Inc
Nintendo of America Inc.
Norand Corporation
Norclco Consumer Products Co.
Ohm Div. Resource Electronics
Olympus America. Inc.
Omnidata International
Orion Sales, Inc.
Pcntax Corporation
Pentax Technologies Corporation
         Pcntax Pocketjei
Pcriphcx, Inc.
 Philips Consumer Electronics
 Physio-Control Corporation
 Plainview Batteries, Inc.
 Plantronics, Inc.
 Porter-Cable Corporation
 Pro Battery, Inc.
 Professional Dental Technologies, Inc.
          Pro-Den tec
 Progressive Technologies, Inc.
 Promark Electronics Division, Electronics
 Marketing Corporation
 Quadmark, Ltd.
 Recoton Corporation
 Remington Products Company
 Resistacap, Inc.
 Richey Cypress Electronics
 Rickbery Battery Industrial Co., Ltd.
 RICOH Corporation
 Rose Electronics Distributing Company, Inc.
 Royal Appliance Mfg. Co.
          Dirt Devil
 Ryobi North America, Inc.
 Ryobi Outdoor Products. Inc.
 Ryobi Motor Products Corp.
 Ryobi America Corp.
 SAFT America Inc.
         Again & Again
 Sanyo Energy (U.S.A.) Corporation
 Sanyo Fisher Service Corporation
 Sanyo Fisher (USA) Corporation
 Sanyo North America Corporation
 S-B Power Tools
 Sealand Holdings Co., LTD.
 Seiko Instruments USA Inc.
 Sharp Electronics Corporation
 The Singer Company Limited
 Snap-On Incorporated
         Sioux Tools
Southwest Electronics Energy Corporation
 SpectraLink Corporation
SR Batteries, Inc.
Stark Electronics,  Inc.
Streamlight, Inc.
 StrenuMed Inc.
 Sunbeam Corporation
 Tandy Corporation
          Radio Shack
 Teac Corporation
 Techsonic Industries, Inc.
 TechTronic Industries Co., Ltd.
 Tekcom Industries Limited
 Telecommunications Devices, Inc (TDI
 Teledyne Water Pik
 Texas Instruments Incorporated
 TNR Technical Inc.
 ToCad America be.
 Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc.
 Toshiba America. Inc.
 Trinity Products Inc
 TSA Systems, Ltd.
 Uniden America Corporation
          Sea Ranger
         West Marine
 Unique Display Inc.
 U.S. Robotics Access Corp.
          U.S. Robotics
 Varta Batteries Inc.
 Victory Battery Company
 VidPro Corp.
         AC Delco Rechargeables
 Vtech Communications Ltd.
 Wagner Spray Tech Corporation
 Wahl Clipper Corp.
 WAXCOA, Waxing Corp. Of America, Inc.
 WEN Products Inc.
 Windmere Corporation
 Xuzhou E-Tech Electronics Co., Ltd.
Yams' Electronics Factory Ltd.
Yuasa Corporation
Zenith Electronics Corporation
Zip Charge Inc.

    Interface Flooring Systems, Inc.
               Presented by:
Joan Reynolds, Interface Flooring Systems, Inc.
Graham Scott, Interface Flooring Systems, Inc.



                                     CASE STUDY
1.      Name and Description of Project:

The Evergreen™ Program, offered by Interface Flooring Systems, Inc.; LaGrange, Georgia, is an
embodiment of the "Product of Service" concept found in Paul Hawkens' book The Ecology of
Commerce, originally brought to the United States by McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry.
 Interface manufactures carpet tiles, a natural resource based product, for commercial and
institutional use. As an alternative to a conventional purchase of flooring needs, our clients have
the option to "lease" the services (functionality, color, design, aesthetics) of a modular carpet
system without taking ownership or liability for the disposition of the products at the end of their
useful life. A bundled service package is offered inclusive of design layouts, product selection
(choosing the right products for the right place), carpet, access flooring (Interface Architectural
Resources), furniture lift (Renovisions), installation (Re: Source Americas) ongoing maintenance
and ultimate removal for reclamation or recycling.

The Evergreen Program is perpetual in nature. Financial parameters break it into building blocks
of three seven-year cycles or leases.  In the first cycle, design and product selection are
established with long term objectives.  Designers are encouraged to use a Product Selection
Procedure that matches product performance to the anticipated traffic and maintenance demands.
The Product Selection Procedure begins with a traffic survey, the results of which automatically
provide a list of appropriate product lines for clients to consider.  After selection, products are
subjected to wear simulations on an Appearance Retention Tester that forecasts appearance after
5-10-15 years.  This procedure helps clients choose those products that perform and meet
expectations. The Evergreen Program encompasses a complete installation with design
allowances for periodic change-outs of track off areas (exterior access, lobby or transition from
hard surface) incorporated into the plan. In the second cycle, a new lease is engaged for areas
needing renovation such as the 20 percent high traffic aisleways (which generally receive 80
percent of the wear) and periodic change-outs of track off areas are again included.  In a third
cycle, a combination of new and existing product may be reconfigured to rejuvenate the facility.
The modular "free-lay" nature of our carpet tile lends to the flexibility of design and functional
change as needed, thereby prolonging the useful life of the carpet and utilizing less natural
resource based material and energy overall.

Under the terms of the Evergreen Program, Interface has a clear and perpetual responsibility for
the on-site condition of the carpet and its eventual and environmentally correct disposal or
re-use. Returns can be ground into a powder for injection and molding processes or can be
recycled into Interface backing structures via mixing and extrusion systems.

2.     Project Participants:

Interface Flooring Systems, Inc. and her sister companies Bentley Mills, Inc., Prince Street
Technologies Ltd., Interface Architectural Resources, Renovisions, Inc., and Re:Source
Americas are networked to provide an unprecedented synergy of flooring products and services
which are all integral to the success of this program.   Additional participants include Line
Anthem Corporation of San Diego, California, who is our financial partner on Evergreen
Programs. Carpet Maintenance Service, Inc. (Dallas, TX) and Interior Preservation, Inc.
(Oakland, NJ) are our agents through Re:Source Americas managing the carpet maintenance
programs needed. Raw material suppliers such as BASF Fibers and Dupont can provide yarn
products with partial post industrial recycled content as required. In addition, Dupont has a used
product collection network feeding a recycling plant in Chattanooga where old material is sorted,
recycled or converted into energy.  Other partners in our recycling effort include Freudenberg,
LaGrange Molding and Ogden Martin.

To date, two customizations of the Evergreen Program have been implemented with the Energy
Resource Centers of Southern California Gas and the City of San Diego.  The ERC of Southern
California Gas is one of California's first "recycled" buildings. Materials used to make the carpet
products for both of these facilities were inclusive of some recycled post-industrial waste in the
fiber and backing systems. Inquiries regarding the Evergreen Program for use in healthcare
networks and major corporate entities are increasing. We are working on several specific
opportunities in the market place today.

3.     Project Goals:

The goals of the Evergreen Program are to save non-renewable natural resources, extend our
products' useful life for the benefit of our customers.  Create a closed loop sustainable industry
standard and shoulder a "cradle to cradle" responsibility for the manufacturer, installation, use
and recycling of all our products.
4.     Project Drivers:

The driving force behind this program is the vision of our chairman and CEO, Ray Anderson for
Interface to become a sustainable corporation. He coined an acronym in 1994, PLETSUS®,
Practices LEading To SUStainability, when he challenged all of us to pioneer the way to "do the
right thing" environmentally and share the knowledge accumulated in the process with others.
Our QUEST Program (Quality Utilizing Employee Suggestions & Teamwork) internally strives
for zero waste not only in manufacturing, but in all facets of our business.  We firmly believe
"we can do well by doing good." The Evergreen Program is a step toward sustainability.
5.     Project Benefits:

The environmental benefits of the program are many, some of which are immediate and others
are long term. Our commitment to divert carpet products from already overburdened landfill
systems is the first benefit.  Interface is producing carpet products with less nylon face fiber
without compromising quality or design, and in some cases, improving it! The "less is more"
philosophy applies well. In '93, our average face weight was 25.2 ounces of nylon per square
yard.  Today, our average is 23.6 ounces per yard. At our LaGrange, GA facility this represents a
reduction of one million pounds of nylon fiber per year, and the trend is continuing. During the
same period our performance index on a scale of 1 -10 improved from an average of 6.5 to 7.8.
 Interim uses of carpet waste as a raw material for another industry's products reduces the amount
of new petroleum based resources needed in general. Ultimately, the systematic depletion of
tomorrow's natural resources for our own use should end when the technology exists to re-use
our "harvested" carpet tiles of yesteryear in the manufacture of new ones.

The potential cost savings to our customers are long term and contingent on their participation
in all three leases and interest rate variables. The "one source" service partner concept coupled
with a monthly service fee is an attractive option versus large capital expenditures for many
companies.  Budgeting for a monthly expense is easier than tying up large lines of credit or cash
flow.  Facility managers are very receptive to having the program for use on the most abused
fixture in their building, the floor. Partnering with our customer on a lease of services allows for
constant interaction on a regular basis with that customer which otherwise wouldn't necessarily
happen on a straight purchase of product only. The Evergreen Program is an  asset management

6.     Project Obstacles/Barriers:

The primary obstacle to the acceptance of the Evergreen Program is rooted in the economic
justification of the program within the current market structure. A paradigm shift from short
term disposable materiality to long term deliverable products of service must be recognized.
Clients need to be educated about the environmental responsibility and liability of product
ownership. Over a twenty-one year period it is possible to justify the economics and
environmental benefits of this program.

Additional barriers exist in the current lack of technology to break down the components of the
carpet tile after its useful life is exhausted and  "purify" the fibers  for re-use  in the  raw material
loop of subsequent carpet products. The backing system can be re-used now  but finding the
means to pelletize and extrude it in mass quantities for standard production has not been
resolved. Interim solutions are being investigated such as re-using these materials in other
industries as raw materials for their products such as automotive parts.   Waste to energy
systems can also be used with the ash residual being re-used in our backing process.

The recycling of nylon is not very well established.  Most, if not all, is  recycled from
postindustrial material. Despite the claims, very little, if any, post consumer material is being
closed loop recycled. Our big disappointment is that many of the recycling paths we follow lead
nowhere and we are fast concluding that we are probably going to have to establish the path
alone, at least for the time being.


Another hurdle is the low cost of energy. Until energy costs are higher, there is no real incentive
to reduce consumption. Within the next two years, we could manufacture closed loop recyclable
products that require far less energy and material.  Such products would be radically different
and until something, perhaps high energy costs, makes these products attractive we will have
great difficulty marketing them.

Finding progressive financial partners who embrace the perpetual theory has been difficult. We
are currently negotiating with several financial institutions to partner with us and embrace the
leasing of service concept. The standard seven year limit for a lease of this nature is too short.
As a result, the "value" for the carpet product's service is paid for in the first lease but the useful
product "life" is only partially expired. The possibility of extending the lease terms to ten years
is gaining interest and acceptance by potential financial partners. Monthly payments would be
based on ten years with an option to pay-off or refinance at the end of year seven.

7.     Project Reviews:

The Evergreen Program is starting to spark interest in many  sectors. Corporate, healthcare and
educational markets are eager to learn more about the logistics of the program. This is the direct
result of exposure through multiple medias. Ray Anderson has delivered compelling speeches on
environmental responsibility to many groups including The U.S. Green Building Council (Aug.
14,1995).  Our affiliation with environmental consultants, Bill McDonough, John  Picard and
Paul Hawken, who advise us and communicate our efforts to their clients has greatly helped
bridge the gap between manufacturer and potential consumer.  The Evergreen Program concepts
have been featured in The Green Business Letter (Oct. 1995), The Austin American Statesman
(Oct. 10, 1995; pg. e4), Floor Focus  (Jan./Feb. 1996). Green Seals's Choose Green Report (Oct.
1996) and on National Public Radio's "Marketplace", as well as CNN's "Mother Earth News"
(Sept. 22,1996)
8.     Project Presenters:

Graham Scott; Interface Flooring Systems, Inc., 1-800-336-0225, EXT. 6243

Joan Reynolds; Interface Flooring Systems, Inc., 1-800-336-0225, EXT. 6228

   Presented by:
Ginny Snyder, Nortel


 Nortel Case Study Summary for Extended Product Responsibility Workshop
           US Presidents Council on Sustainable Development

1. Name and Description of Project

Product Life Cycle Management (PLCM)
Nortel approaches its PLCM program strategically. Consistent with corporate
operating principles, the program aims to create customer value and industry
leadership. Customer value takes many shapes, including: lower lifetime
costs of product ownership through resource efficiency; partnerships with
customers to  improve their environmental performance; and value-added
recycling of products at the end of life. PLCM also strengthens strategic
alliances  with suppliers, which are of growing importance to Nortel's  overall
business strategy.

In support of its philosophy, Nortel reoriented it's corporate programs to
guide and stimulate PLCM efforts throughout the company. This new
function has fostered a philosphical change to how Nortel approaches  its
environmental responsibilities.  Instead of acting only as a steward of
regulatory action, through the PLCM project Nortel Environmental Affairs
has become a proactive business development unit active in all phases of the
corporations business.

Through the PLCM project, Nortel Environmental Affairs organizes its
activities in two connected areas: 1) Product Technology and 2) Business
Process Solutions. Both initiatives respond to internal operations
opportunities as well as those in the marketplace. In Product Technology
Development, activities focus on research and development of cutting-edge,
environmentally superior technologies and high leverage product solutions.
In Business Process Solutions, the activities focus on developing innovative
new ways of supplying and managing operations to achieve resource
efficiency throughout the supply chain. Examples of programs fostered by
this scheme include:

Lean and Clean Manufacturing Technologies
   Over the years, Nortel has made significant progress in reducing the
environmental impact of manufacturing processes, including the
elimination of CFCs and a reduction in VOC releases. Under the PLCM
program, improvements in manufacturing continue; for example, in 1996
Nortel's Research Triangle Park facility installed a new VOC-free process
technology, developed by Nortel's own process development teams.
Research and testing are also underway on lead-free solders and  alternative
circuit board coatings.

Supply Management and Chemical Use Reduction
   In an effort designed to reduce chemical use and lower costs, Nortel is
embarking on an innovative business strategy with its chemical suppliers,
designed to change the once competitive nature of the manufacturer/supplier
relationship. Instead of the supplier seeking profit by encouraging Nortel to
use more chemicals, under a "shared savings" relationship, Nortel and its
chemical supplier will work together to minimize chemical use. In  this new
relationship, the supplier is responsible not  only for supplying the needed
chemicals, but also for providing services such as chemical process expertise
and chemical management, storage and disposal for a fixed fee.  As a result,
the supplier has the incentive to help Nortel minimize chemical use by
introducing innovations, searching for  alternatives to hazardous chemicals,
suggesting more efficient chemical processes, and delivering only the quantity
of chemicals needed.

Extending Product Life Through Design
   A modular philosophy was adopted for the new Vista telephone  models,
called Power Touch in the U.S.  The new model allows the customer to
upgrade the unit without buying a new one and scrapping the old one.  The
principle driver behind the design was to create "user value" by leveraging
the customer's initial investment through a  flexible and upgradeable design.
The new model is designed in two parts — a  standard base with basic
telephony features and an upgradeable slide-in module that can add features
such as caller ID, call waiting, a larger screen size or a better graphics  display.
The base holds its design for a longer period of time, while the module can be
replaced to provide the latest features at half the cost of replacing the
telephone.  This new design minimizes product obsolescence and reduces the
volume of product headed for recycling or disposal.
New Packaging Concepts to Reduce Waste
   For Nortel, packaging was an obvious and early target for waste reduction,
as legislation worldwide focused attention on this waste stream and disposal
costs skyrocketed.  Packaging changes are springing up throughout Nortel,
leading to significant cost savings and a 10 to 15 percent reduction in
packaging volume.  For example, shipping switching products in assembled
mode, rather than packaging and shipping components separately for on-site
assembly, saves $5 million annually. Known as "plugs in place" shipping,
this method requires less packaging, and reduces installation time.  Nortel
also designed a new "clamshell" packaging system  for shipping
circuit boards that eliminates cardboard and foam waste, and is reusable. The
packaging is also designed to improve handling and storage for customers.
The clear plastic allows customers to scan product bar codes without opening
the packaging and risking damage to the product. The nesting and stacking
feature of the clamshell also saves space on the production floor.

Asset Recycling
   Nortel operates three recycling facilities in North America and one in the
United Kingdom. The reclamation operation provides Nortel divisions and
customer with a full range of asset disposal and recycling services, from
equipment test and refurbish to resale of useable components to recovery of
precious and non-precious metals and plastics. Over 90 percent of the
equipment processed at the facilities (by weight) is recovered for reuse or
recycling. The operation has a good profit margin, with approximately 85 to
90 percent of the revenues being returned to business units, and even
customers where applicable.

2. Project Participants
Nortel's PLCM project requires that the corporation team with a variety of
partners to achieve its goals.  For instance, Nortel's Chemical Strategies
Project has the corporation partnering with the Pew Charitable Trusts as a
project co-sponser and with two  environmental consultants,  the Tellus
Institute and the California Environmental Associates. This project will soon
see Nortel teaming with a chemical supplier to provide a wide range of
chemical services to a Nortel facility in an initive to reduce chemical use. In
addition, Nortel has worked with both Bell Canada and BT on its Product
Take Back program.  Teaming with a variety of outside participants, whether
suppliers, customers, government agencies, universities, etc., is clearly
required by Nortel's PLCM project and more partnering will surely take place
in the future.

3. Project Goals
The basic goal of Nortel's PLCM is to improve the environmental
performance of the corporation through changes in all stages of the product
life cycle - design, supply management, manufacturing, marketing,
distribution, and product disposal.

Nortel has developed guidance and tools to help product and system
designers integrate environmental considerations into systems of the future.
In 1995, design guidelines were made available on-line to design engineers.
Development of a set of PLCM standards for new product design is underway.
Like any Nortel standard, compliance with these standards will be required as
part of the product development process.

Over the next several years, Nortel will develop and phase in PLCM
standards as they acquire the necessary knowledge and experience to establish
appropriate standards. Standards are currently proposed for:
•    life cycle analysis, or Product Environmental Profiles;
•    hazardous material use (e.g., eliminating use of lead in manufacturing,
      brominated flame retardants in plastics, chromate metal finishes);
•    product packaging (for example, volume reduction, reusable designs);

 •     manufacturing emissions (for example, reducing VOC emissions
       which account for 50 percent of hazardous air emissions at Nortel
 •     material reuse and recyclability (for example, material selection, design
       for disassembly); and
 *     product take back.
 The first series of standards will include Product Environmental Profile,
 manufacturing emissions, and hazardous material use.

 The Product Environmental Profile standard for example, will enable design
 engineers to characterize the product, identifying environmental issues and
 potential solutions throughout the life cycle, from technological, market, and
 regulatory perspectives.  Information derived from the Product
 Environmental Profiles will also serve as a management tool to help focus
 Nortel's research and development efforts. Product Environmental Profiles
 will also be used in  marketing and customer communications.

 4. Project Drivers
 Nortel's PLCM project has been sponsored by the most senior management in
 the company who recognized the ever growing requirements of stakeholders
 for sustainable products and production processes as a continuing
 redefinition of the relationship between industry and the environment and  a
 unique opportunity for telecommunications. Nortel has recognized the
 value in this new approach to environmental protection through greater
 product responsibility. Besides customer and regulatory requirements,
 financial and business rationale often drives the integration of sustainability
 into the core business strategy and practices.  This understanding at Nortel
 has giving rise to its PLCM project.  In essence, the PLCM project has been
 driven by  Nortel's commitment to social responsibility and industry

 5. Project Benefits
 The benefits of the PLCM project are numerous. Nortel believes that the
 PLCM project will not only improve environmental oerformance  but also
 create other value for customers and themselves in terms of product and
 supply chain efficiency, enhanced customer loyalty and brand image. PLCM
 encourages Nortel to reduce material and energy use and waste, reduce
 chemical use, avoid/limit/replace/eliminate the use of hazardous substances,
 and think sustainably when designing products and processes.

 6. Project Obstacles/Barriers
The greatest barrier to Nortel's PLCM project was changing the corporate
environmental philosophy from compliance to product and process oriented
and overcoming established business practices.  The change from a
philosophy of environmental stewardship to that of an active partner in all
aspects of the corporations business was not an easy one.

7. Project Reviews
No third-party reviews of Nortel's PLCM project have been conducted as of
yet. However, Nortel is working with a third-party, the Pew Charitable Trusts
on its program to reduce chemical use through supply management.

8. Project Presenters
To be announced, however most likely Ginny Snyder, AVP for Environment,
Safety and Ergonomics, or  Murray Hamilton, Director, Business
Development for Environmental Affairs.


U.S. CAR Vehicle Recycling Partnership
               Presented by:
   Terry Culluni, General Motors Corporation


Name and Description of Project:

The Vehicle Recycling Partnership (VRP) is one of twelve consortia between Chryster, Ford and
GM under the United States Council of Automotive Research (USCAR). The VRP is a pre-
COmpetitive consortium that was established in 1991. The VRP is structured to involve the
domestic automotive manufacturers and "upstream" suppliers with the major actors in the
"downstream" vehicle recycling infrastructure in a collaborative framework.
The research facility of the VRP is the Vehicle Recycling Development Center (VRDC) which is
located in Highland Park, Michigan and operated by Automotive Dismantling Services (ADS).
The center is funded and staffed with technical personnel from Chrysler, Ford, and General
Motors. The automotive vehicle dismantling center was established in 1993 to support research
and development efforts by the domestic big three automotive manufacturers in the area of
vehicle dismantling and recycling.
Project Drivers:

The current vehicle recycling infrastructure processes 95% of all vehicles that are removed'from
service. This successful, market driven, infrastructure consists of the consumer, automotive
dismantler, the automotive shredder, materials rcprocessors and the municipal solid waste
landfill. Other actors arc the automotive manufacturer and the automotive supply chain. On
average, 75% of a vehicle fay weight is recycled. This represents the ferrous and non-ferrous
content of the vehicle. The remaining 25% of the vehicle is currently landfilled. This fraction of
the vehicle is referred to as automotive shredder residue (ASR) and is comprised primarily of
plastics, rubber, fluids, and glass.  ASR comprises 1.5% of municipal solid waste in the United
States. A main driver yf the VRP is to support and further develop economical  recycling
technologies to reduce the contribution of automotive shredder residue to municipal solid waste
landfills. This approach is designed to continue the sustainability of the market driven vehicle
recycling infrastructure while reducing the environmental impact of end of life vehicles.
Project Participants:

There are several project participants that are involved with research at the VRDC and at other
locations that support the activities of the center. The VRP works in collaboration with the main
actors in the vehicle recycling infrastructure and with the upstream supply chain thai represents
the largest contribution of material to automotive shredder residue. Formal collaborative
agreements are in place between the VRP and;

The American Plastics Council
Automotive Recyclers Association
institute of Scrap Recycling Industries

A collaborative agreement is in process with the Aluminum Association.  In addition to formal
collaborative agreements, the VRP supports vehicle recycling research at the following

University of Detroit-Mercy
Michigan Molecular Institute
Carnegie Mellon University
National Research Council of Canada
University of FIorida-Tainpa
Michigan Technological University
Georgia Institute of Technology
Michael Biddle Associates
University of Windsor
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Phillips Environmental

In addition to the above institutions, a pilot pyrotysis unit is being built at an automotive
shredder to demonstrate the viability of the technology.

The VHP also joined with the American Plastics Council in a Cooperative Research and
Development Agreement (CRADA, C9201501) with Argonne National Laboratories. This
CRADA involves the development of technologies to provide for the effective recycling of scrap
automobiles. The scope of the research includes:

•   the examination of the issues and factors which prevent total recycling of scrap vehicles

*   identification of desirable but undeveloped or unavailable technology which, if successfully
    developed and implemented, would enable recycling of currently non-recycled components
    of scrap cars,

•   development of separation technologies to recover materials and resources from automotive
    shredder residue (ASR),

•   examination of options for design modifications which cou Id provide for more effective
    disassembly of components for recycling,

•   examination of alternative materials to increase materials recycling.
Project Goals:

The VRP devdop

 To enable the efficient disassembly of components from vehicles that have value for re-use, to
 recover valuable materials for recycling, and to remove potentially harmful materials prior to
 becoming auto shredder residue.


 To reduce the total environmental impact of auto shredder residue through socially responsible,
 economically achievable solutions such as resource recovery and secondary uses.


 To develop material selection and design guidelines to facilitate re-use, recycling, or reclamation
 of materials and components from post-consumer vehicles.
The VRP established enabling technologies to guide research and devslopment efforts of the
VRP working groups.
Reduction in demand for natural resources.
Elimination or reduction of contaminants in automobile waste.
Reduction of the quantity of non-recyclable waste going to landfills.

Design for efficient assembly/disassembly
Use of materials that retain value (corrosion and damage resistant).
Efficient and environmentally sound serviceability of components.

Materials coding methods and recognition sensors.
Efficient and environmentally sound shredders, refiners, and
Development of infrastructure and markets for recycled materials.

Recovery of valuable additives, chemicals, and energy.
Development of markets for reclaimed materials.
Reduction of undesirable landfilling of automotive residue.
Project Benefits:

Benefits of the project include;

A sustainable market driven vehicle recycling infrastructure
Reduction of solid waste from end of life vehicles
Reduction of substances of concern from end of life vehicles
Potential for creation of jobs to support the expanding vehicle recycling infrastructure

Project Obstacles/Barriers:

The current vehicle recycling infrastructure is set up to recover metals. The recovery of non-
metallic materials requires a different approach than metals recovery, U is difficult to interest
the current infrastructure in materials that are unfamiliar and therefore have uncertain profit
potential.  A major issue is whether non-metallic materials arc rcmpvcd from the vehicle prior to
going to the automotive shredder or if the materials have any value after processing by the
siiredder.  The VRP supports research into both of these scenarios to determine the technological
and economic barriers to recovering these materials.
Project Eteviewss

Ouarterly project reviews are conducted with all VRP collaborators TO evaluate technical projects
ond discuss strategy for the VRP. Annual workshops are held with the international vehicle
recycling community to share technologies and discuss regional vehicle end of life policies. The
VRP recently contracted with a consultant to provide a third party view of the accomplishments
of the VRP and to assist in the development of a five year business plan.
Project Presenters:

Terry Cullum
lev Poston
CM Alternate on the VRP Management Committee
Chair of the VRP Communications Group
Chair of the American Automobile Manufacturers Vehicle Recycling
       Task Group
Telephone #: (313) 556-7826

Chair of the VRP
OM Member on the VRP Management Committee
Telephone ft (810) 947-0700

     Ford Motor Company
          Presented by:
Anthony Brooks, Ford Motor Company
Michael Patalan, Ford Motor Company


1.     Description of Project

       The Ford Motor Company take-back and recycling
from unique partnerships between Ford and its mate rial
and an automotive plastics recycler, American Commodities
automotive dismantles. Ford started its bumper rec ycling program in the U.S
program to recycle plastic bumper material into tail ight housings
recycling post-consumer bumper material back into
                                                   propam for bumpers has evolved
                                                supplier, GE Plastics, and between Ford
                                                    i, Inc., as well as a network of
                                                                   .in 1993 as a pilot
                                                           Today the program is
       Since around 1986 most Ford bumpers have been made of Xenoy resin, an engineered
plastic produced by GE Plastics. Xenoy is a blend ojf polyester and polycarbonate resins, which
is well-suited for use in bumpers because of strength and flexibility throughout the range of
conditions faced by automobiles.
       The bumper take-back and recycling prograip began with an arrangement between GE
                                                i assembly plant Ford began by using
                                                   Sable, Tempo, Topaz, Aerostat,
                                     : light hoi sings for the Ford Taurus and Mercury
                                             3 0 new tail light housings. The plastic
Plastics and Ford to test bumper recycling at its Atla ota i
material salvaged from Ford plastic bumpers from Taurus, i
Escort, and Tracer models to mold new tail 1
Sable wagons. Each recycled bumper yields about 3(
bumpers were converted into clean plastic flake, whi ch GE Plastics regenerated into pellets. The
recycled resins were molded into tail light housings
processing plant. Ford found that the tail light hot
met stringent quality and safety standards while costing.
                                             sy Ford's Sandusky, Ohio, plastics
                                                 made from recycled bumper material
                                                 less to produce.
                        t GE Plastics took post-use Ford Xenoy bumpers
       In the pilot program
and bumper shops and from automobile dismantles
Recycling Separation Technologies, Inc., of Lowell,
sent back to GE Plastics, which recompounded it an$ sold it to Ford for reuse
                       from Ford dealers
   and supplied them to a plastics recycler,
   Massachusetts. The purified regrind was
       Ford also began a partnership in 1992
recycler from Flint, Michigan. American
before approaching Ford to participate in the bumps: recycling program
developed a process for paint removal from Xenoy p If
make it applicable to the variability of post-consumer
reprocesses post-use bumpers turning them into corcpo
in new automobile parts, using proprietary technoloj ;ies to
residue and to "rejuvenate" and enhance material properties
                                       with American Commodities, Inc., a plastics
                                    Commodi'ies previously recycled plant scrap for Ford
                                                               The company had
                                                      and expanded mat process to
                                              bumpers. American Commodities
                                               •unds called Enviralloy, which Ford reuses
                                                   remove up to 99.7 percent of paint
       In order to collect bumpers for recycling American Commodities has developed a
network of 400 dismantled across the country for th s take-back program and has provided them
with a written specification on methodologies for dismantling and product identification.  The

company pays dismantlera $4.00 each for the bumpers and has 25-30 regional collection points
for transport of the bumpers to the American Comm entities recycling plant.

       The bumper recycling program currently rcc f cles bumper material into new bumpers and
is recycling approximately 1.5 million pounds of Xe noy plastic per year. Ford Is not currently
using recycled Xenoy from GE Plastics, but is rclyii ig entirely on American Commodities for its
       Ford found that greater cost savings were
bumpers, instead of tail light housings, because the
expensive than the virgin ABS material that has tr;
housings.  As of 1995 Ford began making guide
bumpers using 100 percent recycled Enviroaloy froi
began using 25 percent recycled Xenoy in new Xei
recycled material is currently being used for Contoi
planning to use recycled Xenoy at a rate of a]
parts for bumpers for all models of Ford cars.
lieved in recycling bumper material back to
 rgin Xenoy material for bumpers is more
itionally been used by Fprd for tail light
pkets (a non-crash component) for new
 [AmericanCommodities. In 1996Ford
|y bumpers for box beam applications.  The
 and Mystique bumpers. Ford is also
 ately 0.5 million pounds per year in service
       American Commodities collects and recycle! more Ford bumper material than is
currently reused by Ford. The company is currently recycling 6-8 million pounds per year and
sells the recycled material Ford does not use to otiia manufacturers. The material is sold at a 25-
30 perceirt cost savings as compared to virgin Xenoj.

2.     Project Participants

       The participants have included:

       Fprd Motor Company
       GE Plastics
       American Commodities, Inc.
       400 Automotive Dismantlers

3.     Project Goals

       Ford's Manufacturing Environmental Leadership Strategy contains the following goals
reflecting a commitment to Extended Product Rcspc nsibility: (1) "prevent pollution at the early
stages of process and product development;" (2) "re< luce or eliminate use of materials of
concern;? (3) promote and plan for recyolability;" at d (3) "obtain supplier support and
involvement"  Ford has developed Worldwide Recj cling Guidelines to increase the use of
recycled content and the recyclability of the material s used in the automobile and has decided on
an across-the-board target to achieve a minimum 25 percent post-consumer recycled content of
the plastic materials used in Ford cars.

       The Ford bumper take-back and recycling prpgram is one specific instance of Ford's
promotion of recyclability, Other Ford recycling projects include the use of more than 50

million recycled PET bottles to make parts of the frbnt grill, luggage racks, and door padding for
new vehicles and recycling approximately 1 million polypropylene battery cases per year into
splash shields for 325,000 cars.

4.     Driven for and Benefits of the Project

       The bumper recycling program was driven fi rst by Ford's commitment to recycling and
recycled content for its cars. This commitment is BE important part of Ford's environmental
strategy and has been emphasized by high-level mai agement. The pull from: a major customer,
Ford, was sufficient to interest GE Plastics hi partici paring initially. Ultimately, the profit
motive was the driver for American Commodities' f articipation in the program.

       Benefits to Ford include:

1.     Ford is saving money.  The recycled Xenoy is cheaper than virgin Xenoy and also
       cheaper than other virgin resins with similar properties that could be used for the
       applications in which Ford is using the recycled resin. Recycling of Xenoy resin is
       economically attractive, because the virgin n sin is relatively expensive. American
       Commodities sells Ford Enviralloy resin for 25-30 percent less than virgin prices. Ford
       estimates that it saves about $1 million per y jar.
2.     Ford is demonstrating its commitment to en\ ironmental protection and to its recycling
       goals, which provide corporate image and mi trketing benefits.
3.     Ford is also benefitting by demonstrating thr >ugh increased recycling that potentially
       costly take-back and recycling mandates are unnecessary in the U.S.
4.     The manufacturing and recycling processes 1 or Ford cars benefit from the reduction in the
       total numbers of plastic resins used in the cai through cascade recycling (reusing higher-
       quality materials in lower-quality applicatior s).

       The bumper recycling program at Ford repre tents approximately 125,000 bumpers that
are being diverted from the ASR landfill stream. Ac ditionally, American Commodities is
diverting approximately 300,000 more bumpers per
year. The use of recycled bumper material
replaces the equivalent in virgin resin production, reducing resource and energy use as well as
environmental releases during production.

       Project Obstacles/Barriers
       Significant barriers to implementation of the bumper recycling program have been
technical, economic, regulatory, legal, and institutio: lal. The primary technical barrier was the
difficulty in removing paint and other materials fton i the plastic material to be recovered.
Although paint removal processes have been develo; >ed, the use of recycled bumper material is
still limited in visible surface applications because of this technical problem.
       The economic barriers stem partly from this
an established infrastructure for getting the bumpers from dismantles to recyclers. The cost of
recovering and cleaning up the bumpers ultimately r lade the program less attractive for the large
virgin materials supplier, GE Plastics, which partner id with Ford to initiate the program, than for
a small plastics recycler with lower overhead, willin
dismantles,  When American Commodities offered
material as compared to virgin, GE Plastics decided
                                               jechnical barrier and partly from the lack of
                                               I to develop the recycling infrastructure with
                                               a significant price discount for recycled
                                               to place its participation in the program on
                                      bumper recycling program has been the crash
       The main regulatory barrier to the
worthiness standard that requires extensive testing o
performs as well as virgin material. For this reason,
recycled material in parts that do not absorb crash inkpacts and to utilize
content in parts that are integral to impact absorption
used in impact-absorbing parts, Ford tested five timqs as many b
compliance with the crash worthiness standard than
The potential liability associated with supplying a re
measure of safety for vehicle occupants was also a concern of GE Plastics
                                                recycled material to determine whether it
                                               Ford chose initially to utilize 100 percent
                                                                 only 25 percent recycled
                                               i, Even with the limited recycled content
                                                          lumpers to demonstrate
                                               it would normally test for virgin material.
                                               cycled material that is expected to provide a
       Finally, there were the institutional barriers t > changes in the status quo that exist in most
institutions and barriers to the types of life-cycle par nerships that are necessary for EPR to
operate in such a large, diverse industry. Ford desigi ers were concerned about any changes in
material quality that might affect the performance of the bumpers. GE Plastics was concerned
about handling potentially contaminated scrap in its
facilities.  The success of the program depends upon the willingness of auto dismantlers to
remove and clean the bumpers in a manner that facil itates recycling while being economically
attractive to the dismantler. This partnership between American Commodities and the  •
dismantlers would have been more difficult for largcjr companies, like GE or Ford, to develop
                                               clean virgin material manufacturing

       DuPont Films
        Presented by:
Len Jannaman, Jr., DuPont Films


                        SUBMITTAL OF




    The project is known as "Petretec(sm)", DuPont's name for the technology
    we are practicing at our facility in Wilmington, NC. "Petretec(sm)" is
    derived from "PET (or, polyester)  regeneration technology". Peripheral
    sites involved are Arden,  NC, and Winchester, KY.

    The  vision of the DuPont Company and the Films business calls for the
    total elimination of landfilling of PET films worldwide. My company and
    others produce over 2 billion pounds per year of PET film annually
    around the world with about 1/3 of that total coming from operations in
    North America. Thus, the first step in DuPont's strategy is to work
    directly with our customers to establish systems to recycle their in-house
    ("post-industrial") waste generated during their consumption of our film.

    However, since many of DuPont's direct customers are often "converters",
    they simply process or modify our film and sell it to others who make  the
    final products for ultimate consumption. Examples of final end uses for
    PET film include:  specialty packaging (the inside of microwave popcorn
    bags or potato chip bags with a liner having a metallic appearance);
    audio, video or computer  tapes; carrier films used in the manufacture of
    ceramic electronic parts; specialty films for the printing industry; release
    films  used for applying labels to bottles;  and common hospital  or
    industrial X-ray film.

    DuPont focuses initially on our direct customers where only about 5-10%
    of the film ends up as waste.  Then, attention turns to  others  further
    downstream in the supply chain , all the way to collecting film after its
    final intended use. With the help of several  associations,  DuPont is
    aggressively pursuing an industry-wide collaboration  to set  up  the
    systems required  to achieve our goals.  Over the next  5-10 years,  we
    envision  developing  collection facilities  to  handle even household
    consumer  goods that  can and should be recycled.  (For  instance,  we

    envision drop-off collection spots for old video cassettes at convenient
    locations in major stores.)

    This project didn't just happen.  It is the culmination of decades of
    experience within DuPont in the area of PET recycling. We already recycle
    millions of pounds of clean PET film  directly back  into  our own
    manufacturing facilities. In addition, we have been buying back over 20
    million pounds per year of used X-rays  from doctors,  hospitals, and
    government agencies to recover the silver and PET base film. However, it
    is our new technology Petretec(sm) that really moves our project forward.
    In short, Petretec(sm) extends our capability beyond that of the simple
    but severely limited mechanical recycling techniques common to others.
    Petretec(sm) is a more forgiving and more complex chemical recycling
    process  where the PET waste  is actually regenerated back  to  the
    original raw materials used to manufacture PET, creating a potentially
    infinite loop of materials traveling along the supply chain.

    The  initial intent  is  to  provide an environmentally  friendly and
    economically  self-sufficient method  for DuPont and other  PET film
    producers to reduce their own solid waste load to landfills. The potential
    is obviously still greater. By working along the entire supply chain,  we
    can regenerate up to 100 million pounds per year of waste into chemicals
    that  substitute for raw materials used to manufacture PET.  The fact
    that  the bulk of the waste that will be used  will actually be returned
    from the PET film producers' direct customers or, ultimately, the final
    consumer in the chain, is of particular importance to this program. As a
    result, DuPont has placed great emphasis on working with industry-wide
    trade associations to  develop  reverse  distribution systems to return
    waste from the end users.

    The Petretec(sm) manufacturing facilities and the technology itself are
    wholly owned by DuPont. The "suppliers" for this  effort will include
    literally hundreds of downstream customers of various PET film  and
    fiber producers.

    Other major participants will include  other PET film  producers  and
    various  trade  associations that represent those producers and their
    customers. In particular, AMPEF (The Association of Manufacturers of
    PolyEster  Film)  has  been  actively   evaluating  opportunities  for
    participation in this program in the U.S. and in Europe. We are also

    working with the International Recording Media Association and the Foil
    Stamping and Embossing Association - all groups that are comprised of
    PET film consumers.

    The goals of this project are:

      •  To provide a means to eliminate (initially) up to 100 million pounds
        per year  of  waste PET  film  that would  otherwise have  to  be
        landfilled  or incinerated. Though many  hundreds of  millions of
        pounds of PET are recycled in the US annually (example: PET soft
        drink bottles), these efforts are limited to materials that are fairly
        "clean". The latter waste stream is usually not contaminated with
        other materials in the manufacturing processes of  the  ultimate
        consumers or others along the supply chain and are, therefore, more
        easily recycled.  The Petretec(sm)  program can handle PET that
        cannot be used by most other processes because of higher allowable
        contamination levels.

      •  To capture the chemical value of the waste PET film rather than just
        the energy value that is captured if it is incinerated (or, its negative
        value if it is simply landfilled).

      •  To  reduce  the industry's dependence  on oil-derived feedstocks  by
        regenerating the waste film into raw materials of virgin quality  for
        use in the PET manufacturing process.

    The drivers for this project include:

      •  Providing opportunity  for PET  film  consumers  to  realize  the
        additional value that their products made with recycle content may
        bring in the marketplace.

      •  Providing an opportunity to increase the  growth rate  of PET film
        globally by reducing the overall cost to use/dispose  of it and by
        positioning  it  as  the  environmentally-friendly  choice   of film


    The many benefits of this project include:

      •   Municipal landfills in the U.S. will see up to 100 million pounds less
         per year of solid waste, thus extending their useful life.

      •   This project affords our customers, most of whom today landfill their
         PET  waste,  an  economically  and  environmentally  acceptable
         alternative. It also may help shield them from the increasing public
         scrutiny placed on waste generators.

      •   With regeneration in place, it is our belief that everyone in the film
         supply chain can benefit by increased growth in consumption  vs.
         alternative products that do not have similar post-use solutions.

      •   Such regeneration technology can produce raw materials  for the
         production of PET film that are  competitive with raw materials
         derived  from  traditional  processes  using virgin  oil-derived

    The main challenges facing this project - and, perhaps, any recycling
    business - are:

      •  Demonstrating the ability to handle a wide range of impurities in
        the waste stream. We feel the unique technology we are practicing
        allows us to overcome this challenge to an acceptable degree.

      •  Establishing an effective and efficient reverse distribution system to
        return waste from all participants along the PET film supply chain.
        We feel that we can overcome this barrier by working with multiple
        trade associations to leverage the entire industry's resources.

    Their have been no third-party reviews to-date of this project.


    The presenter for this workshop will be Len Jannaman, DuPont Films'
    PET Films Recycle Business Manager at 615-847-6566 (fax = 615-847-
Len Jannaman, Jr
Pet Films Recycle Business Manager & Product Steward


1002 Industrial Road
Old Hickory, TN 37138-3693
Phone = 615-847-6566
Fax = 615-847-6573

e-mail = jannamlw@ohpvax.dnet.dupont.com


Monsanto Company
(Was not presented orally)



   CASE STUDY: Monsanto Company Marketplace Product Stewardship-Crop Protection Products
   Author Thomas J. Hoogheem, P.E., Field Environmental Operations Director, Crop Protection
                              Technology, Monsanto Company

 Over the last two decades, Monsanto Company's Crop Protection business has initiated numerous
 pmgrnmc nimprf at improving The environmental
 These programs have been focused throughout the life cycle of the products. This case study describes
 efforts widertafrcn to address extended product responsibilities, in this case, stewardship programs aimed
 at the marketplace and concentrated at the customer/enduser level.
 Crop protection products, in Monsanto' s case herbicides designed to control unwanted vegetation, are
 used by customers in both cropping and noncropping markets. Unintended impacts can occur in all
 environmental media's-aii, water, and soil. Programs to minimize or reduce such impacts have been
 implemented al the product design , manufacturing, distribution, retail and enduscr stewardship levels.

 Product Design
 The reduction of potential environmental impact of our products starts at the product design phase. Focus
 areas include use rate, formulation and packaging.

 Use rate-most new products are designed to be used at application rates that arc lower than competitive
 products and or products that they replace. Known as higher unit activity chemistries, many such products
 are used at ounces/acre versus pounds/acre. Such product design allows for less and more environmentally
 friendly packaging. Examples within Monsanto include PERMIT® and MANAGE® Herbicides.

 Formulation-Significant environmental improvement has been realized in a number of products by
 changing from solvent based to a water based formulations. Such improvement is also possible when
 formulations are moved from liquid to dry. Examples within Monsanto include BULLET® and
 HARNESS XTRA ©Herbicides.
 Dry formulations offer sustainability Value via reduced applicator exposures, more accurate mixing and in.
 some cases, reduced packaging. A product tested in the early 1990's, QUIK STIK®, was a tablet form of
 Roundup Herbicide for the homeowner market The tablet allowed for minimal packaging^ accurate
 mixing, no applicator exposure and reuse of spray containers.

                     slainabilily improvement has been realized via new innovative packaging
concepts. The use of water soluble packets allow for minimal packaging and near zero product residue on
such packaging. Testing of this concept with MANAGE® Herbicide is currently underway.

'With liquid formulations, a significant move to reusable/returnable containers has occurred in both the
crop and noncrop markets. Most com preemergent products are now sold to retail in bulk and then sold to
endusers in returnable/reusable minibulk containers. This practice has eliminated hundreds of thousands
of 2 'A gallon one way containers. Monsanto products now sold in bulk to retail include LASSO®,

  A number of programs have been initiated over the last decade 10 reduce emissions and discharges from
  all Monsanto manufacturing facilities. An initiative to reduce certain air emissions by 90% has been
  achieved; similar programs with hazardous waste reduction and water discharges have also been initiated.
  In the manufacturing of glyphbsate, the active ingredient in ROUNDUP ULTRA ®Heri>icide, new
  technology has been installed that greatly reduces or in some cases eliminates most air emissions, liquid
  discharges and hazardous waste generation.

  Monsanto's extended product stewardship efforts have been extensive at the distribution/retail levels.
  Proper transportation and. storage to/from the retail level is critical to minimising potential unintended
  environmental jtnn?cfg

  Stewardship activities in transportation include extensive training of bulk transportation personnel in spill
  prevention, containment and control, satellite based tracking, and an incentive based reward program.

  At the retail/dealer level, bulk products are stored in secondary containment structures and mixed and
  loaded on impervious concrete surfaces. Custom applicators are encouraged to nave application equipment
  either cleaned in the field or on concrete rinse pads. Monsanto provides dealers training on minimizing
  cross contamination of reusable containers, complying with bulk repackaging regulations, emergency
  response procedures, and worker protection standards. Additional services include site audits and
  inspections.            •   .

 Programs aimed at the enduser level are the key to extended product stewardship with crop protection
 products. Monsanto programs focus on three general areas-1) proper application, 2) groundwater
 protection, and 3) surface water protection.

 Proper Application
 We provide directly to applicators or work with state agencies training to assure proper application of our
 products. Certification is required on a number of our products and strongly encouraged wilh all products.
 Monsanto's Field Environmental Operations Team (FEET) has trained over 150,000 customers in the last
 decade, either via Monsanto sponsored seminars or as part of state sanctioned certification training
 meetings. Training includes proper mixing, loading, equipment cleaning, drift minimization, container
 cleaning and disposal, reentry requirements, posting, protective clothing, and emergency response

 Groundwater Protection
 The protection of groundwater from pesticide contamination is a key pan of Monsanto's extended product
 responsibilities. The cause of such contamination is the focus of our programs. Point source contamination
 of drinking water wells at the fermstead level has been determined by both our and other's research to be
 caused from the mixing and loading of crop protection products next to wells that in many cases are old
 and poorly constructed. Farmers are now encouraged or required by product label  not to mix products
 •within 50 feet of airy well unless the well is surrounded by an impervious pad.
 However, because many formers had done such mixing and loading of product next to such wells, some
 have been found to be contaminated. Monsanto has responded to such situations with our WELL
 ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. This program assists farmers in determining if their well is contaminated. If
Monsanto products are found at levels above the drinking water standard established by the EPA, we
pmvi'de financial assfetance TO replncp. the n»t1  This unique to the industry program, established in 1991,

  is well known to most all state agricultural and environmental agencies and has been extremely

  Some crop lands are known to be susceptible to groundwater contamination due to their soil texture and'
  organic matter properties. HARNESS® and HARNESS XTRA® Herbicides contain a soil restriction on
  the product's label for soils with certain soil texture/organic marrer combinations. Our stewardship efforts
  to help enduser comply with this restriction have involved the use of the Global Positioning System (GPS)
  and the Geographical Information System (GIS). Using these new technologies, we have identified for
  major com growing states and counties where these soil restrictions exist. Copyrighted mapping
  technology has been sued to generate county maps that are then provided to retailers/dealers who serve
  those areas. All Monsanto sales people have also been provided such maps; now via Intranet access.
 Surface Water Protection
 The protection of rivers, streams and fofo* fa?" fo» unintended -nmnfFnf agricultural soil and nutrients is
 also a key part of Monsanto's extended product stewardship programs.

 The focal point of our efforts is Operation Greenstripe. This program works with Future Fanners of
 America (FFA) to encourage fanners to plant and maintain grassy filter strips along bodies of water. Seed
 retailers donate wildlife- compatible grass seed and Monsanto gives an educational grant of S100 per
 buffer strip to FFA chapters (up to five per chapter). More than go chapters in 14 states are participating
 this year. In many states in the Midwest, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in partnership with
 Pheasants Forever, also contribute $100 per buffer strip over the first five strips planted. This money is
 also given to the FFA chapters. The program has been underway since 1992.
 On September 25, 1996, Operation GreensLripc was named the first recipient of the National Watershed
 Award presented by the Conservation Fund aud CF Industries. The award was presented in Washington
 DC by Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Richard Rominger.

 Operation Greenstripe has also been recognized by the National Fonnn ou Nonpoinl Source Pollution and
 Renew America. Filter strips have been proven to be a key in reducing soil erosion and runoff of soil
 nutrients and inputs.

 Monsanto has also been aggressively promoting the adoption of conservation tillage practices, yet another
Extended product responsibility with Monsanto crop protection products are focused all phases of product
design, manufacture, distribution and use. Via innovation programs, initiatives in all phases, potential
unintended environmental impacts have and will continue to be reduced and/or eliminated.


           APPENDIX F

          TASK FORCE:




                             New National Opportunities Task Force:

                                       Membership List
A.D. Correll, Georgia-Pacific Corporation
Fred Krupp, Environmental Defense Fund


John Adams, Natural Resources Defense Council
D. James Baker, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce
Scott Bernstein, Center for Neighborhood Technology
Carol Browner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
David T. Buzzelli, Dow Chemical
Henry Cisneros, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Dianne Dillon-Ridgley, Zero Population Growth
Judith Espinosa, Alliance for Transportation Research
Samuel C. Johnson, S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.
Jonathan Lash, World Resources Institute
Kenneth Lay, Enron Corp.
Hazel R. O'Leary, U.S. Department of Energy
Harry Pearce, General Motors Corporation
Michele Perrault, Sierra Club
William Ruckelshaus, Browning-Ferris Industries, Lie.
Ted Strong, Columbia River Inter-tribal Fish Commission


Marcia Aronoff, Environmental Defense Fund
Frances Beinecke, Natural Resources Defense Council
Rob Bradley, Enron Corp.
John Bullard, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce
Marc Chupka, U.S. Department of Energy
Wilma Delaney, Dow Chemical
Richard Goodstein, Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.
Jeffrey Hunker, U.S. Department of Commerce
Jane Hutterly, S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.
Michael McCloskey, Sierra Club
Judith Mullins, General Motors Corporation
John Platt, Columbia River Liter-tribal Fish Commission
Susan Vogt, Georgia-Pacific Corporation
Marc Weiss, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Donna Wise, World Resources Institute
Robert Wolcott, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ben Woodhouse, Dow Chemical

Additional Task Force Members:

F.H. Brewer HT, S.C. Johnson & Son, Lie.
Maryann Froehlich, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Clare Lindsay, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Rebecca Moser, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce
Robert Roberts, Environmental Council of the States
Tim Stuart, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  .

Task Force Coordinator:

Martin A. Spitzer, ID., Ph.D.


                      Working Group on Extended Product Responsibility:

                                      Membership List
Workgroup Co-Chairs:

Chip Brewer, S.C. Johnson
Phone: 414-260-2493
Fax: 414-260-2944
 Clare Lindsay, U.S. EPA
 Phone: 703-308-7266
 Fax: 703-308-8686
 E-mail: lindsay.clare@epamail.epa.gov
Other Workgroup Members:

Marty Spitzer,PCSD
Phone: 202-408-5331
Fax: 202-408-1655
E-mail: spitzer.marty@epamail.epa.gov

Sergio Galeano, Georgia-Pacific
Phone: 404-652-4654
Fax: 404-654-4674
E-mail: sfgalean@gapac.com
Terry Cullum, General Motors
Phone: 313-556-7826
Fax: 313-556-2644

Jackie Prince-Roberts, EDF
Phone: 617-723-2996
Fax: 617-723-2999
E-mail: jackie@edf.org
 Gary Davis, University of Tennessee
 Phone: 423-974-8979
 Fax: 615-974-1838
 E-mail: gadavis@upk.edu

 Bette Fishbein, INFORM
 Phone: 212-361-2400, ext. 230
 Fax: 212-361-2412
 E-mail: inform@igc.apc.org
 (Note: Direct e-mail correspondence to Joanna
 Underwood and Bette Fishbein)

 Matthew Arnold, WRJ/MEB
 Phone: 202-638-6300
 Fax: 202-737-1510

 Kevin Mais, EDF
 Phone: 202-387-3500
 Fax: 202-234-6049
 E-mail: kevin@edf.org
Other Contacts:

Marcia Aronoff, EDF
Phone: 212-505-2100
Fax: 212-505-2375
Susan Vogt, Georgia-Pacific
Phone:  202-659-6850
Fax: 202-223-1398