Assessing the Greenhouse Gas Savings Potential of Extended Producer Responsibility for Mattresses and Boxsprings in the United States

RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS

Roland Geyer, Brandon Kuczenski, and Matthew Trujillo

Keywords: Summary end-of-life management extended producer responsibility Extended producer responsibility (EPR) legislation in the United States, which currently (EPR) only exists on the state level, now includes three mattress EPR acts, which intend to shift industrial ecology the financial and operational burden of mattress end-of-life (EOL) management away from life cycle assessment (LCA) local and state government. It is important to keep in mind, however, that the original mattresses and boxsprings objective behind EPR is to reduce the environmental life cycle impacts of products. This reuse and recycling article therefore quantifies the greenhouse gas (GHG) savings potential of mattress and boxspring recycling and reuse in the United States and also discusses labor implications Supporting information is available and mattress design issues. We find that all three acts are unlikely to generate redesign on the JIE Web site incentives, but are expected to dramatically increase mattress collection and recycling. The collection and recycling of all 35 million EOL mattress and boxspring units estimated to reach the end of their lives in the United States every year would generate in the order of 10,000 jobs and GHG savings between 1 and 1.5 million metric tonnes.

Introduction liberate firms and retailers from their individual take-back and recovery obligations, which also set off the ongoing controversy The term and concept of extended producer responsibility about individual versus collective responsibility (Lindhqvist (EPR) combines the ideas of pollution prevention, life cycle and Lifset 2003; Van Rossem et al. 2006). The first European thinking, and incentive-based environmental policy and was Union (EU)-wide environmental regulation using EPR princi- introduced just over 20 years ago (Lindhqyist and Lidgren 1990; ples was the End-of-Life Vehicle (ELV) Directive 2000/53/EC Lifset 1993). Whereas it can be applied to the entire product life from 2000, which, among other things, sets progressive recovery cycle, it is predominantly discussed and applied in the context and recycling targets. Probably the most widely discussed pro- of product end-of-life (EOL) management (Van Rossem et al. ducer responsibility regulation is the European Waste Electrical 2006). and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive 2002/96/EC from The original German Packaging Ordinance (VerpackV) 2002, which has led to e-waste regulation in a host of other from 1991 is probably the earliest environmental regulation countries. The dominant feature of the WEEE Directive is that that includes EPR principles. The ordinance requires producers it sets collection, recovery, and recycling targets for different to either take back their packaging materials or join the Duales categories of e-waste. System Deutschland (DSD), the first producer responsibility Although EPR has been widely discussed in North America organization (PRO) worldwide. The purpose of the DSD is to for as long as it has existed, it has only recently come into the

Address correspondence to: Roland Geyer, Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, UCSB, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-5131, USA. Email: [email protected]

Volume 00, Number 0 www.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jie Journal of Industrial Ecology 1 RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS focus of regulators and policy makers. One confounding fac- manufacturers, created the Mattress Recycling Council (MRC), tor in the United States has been an ongoing discussion about which will implement all three mattress EPR acts (MRC 2015). semantics, including the question of whether there are signifi- It is noteworthy that the three acts institute collective, rather cant differences between EPR, extended product responsibility, than individual, producer responsibility, allocate financial re- and product stewardship (Geyer 2004; McKerlie et al. 2006). sponsibility directly to the purchasers of mattresses, and refrain This article has no ambition to contribute to this discussion from setting any EPR system parameters, such as the fee or col- and will use the acronym EPR to denote extended producer lection, recovery, or recycling rates. Some implications of these responsibility, the most popular of the three terms. choices will be discussed below. A predecessor of the Rhode In the United States, EPR legislation is currently only Island bill supported individual producer responsibility, and a pursued at the state level. Typical product categories subject predecessor of the California bill specified financial and oper- to state-level EPR legislation are batteries, paint, electronics, ational parameters (SB 2399, SB 1118). It is also noteworthy and mercury-containing products (PSI 2013). Five years ago, that all three EPR acts essentially follow ISPA’s proposal for California adopted an EPR framework and is now coordinating federal legislation (BedTimes 2012b). its previous and new product stewardship initiatives under this EPR legislation is frequently motivated by a desire to shift framework (CIWMB 2008). One product category that has re- the financial burden of product EOL management away from cently attracted the attention of legislators in several states is local and state government. However, it is important to keep that of mattresses and boxsprings (PSI 2011; BedTimes 2012a). in mind that the original objective behind EPR is to reduce the As with upholstered furniture, mattresses and boxsprings gener- environmental life cycle impacts of products (Lindhqvist 1998). ate several waste management problems, including the issue of The design and implementation of EPR legislation should thus illegal dumping. Their bulkiness makes them difficult to handle be supported by a thorough understanding of the environmen- during waste pickup and transport, their low density makes them tal impacts and benefits of EOL product collection and recov- undesirable landfill material, and their springs have a tendency ery. Quantitative environmental assessments of mattress and to disable landfill and transfer station equipment (ISPA 2004). boxspring recycling or reuse are sparse. A rare exception is a Though the recycling of mattresses and boxsprings is techni- study by Glew and colleagues (2012), which conducted a hybrid cally feasible and straightforward, its economics is relatively greenhouse gas (GHG) life cycle assessment (LCA) of high-end poor and has not been able to create a self-sustaining recycling pocket spring mattresses from one specific UK manufacturer. infrastructure (O’Brien 2012). Most mattress recyclers in North The study is based on luxury mattresses with a retail price of America are nonprofits and rely on a US$6 to US$15 tipping several thousand dollars and therefore not directly applicable fee per mattress, owing to the fact that the market for reclaimed to mattress and boxspring recycling in the United States. materials is volatile (BedTimes 2010). Regarding mattress re- The objective of this article is to provide a robust quantifica- cycling, the EU is trailing the United States. Of the 30 million tion of the energy and GHG implications of different EOL man- mattresses estimated to reach EOL every year in the EU, 60% agement methods for mattresses and boxsprings in the United are landfilled and 40% are incinerated (BedTimes 2010; Hild- States. It also briefly discusses the labor implications of increased ing Anders 2014). In the United States, the majority of EOL collection and reprocessing, as well as some product design is- mattresses and boxsprings also end up in landfill, which has sues. It does, however, not study which exact EPR approaches prompted several state legislatures to propose EPR legislation. and mechanisms would bring about which changes in mattress As of fall 2013, there are now three U.S. states with mattress and boxspring design and EOL management. A related analysis EPR legislation. Connecticut’s Public Act No. 13-42, Rhode for California only has been conducted for, and published by, Island’s Health & Safety Code 23-90, and California’s Used the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recov- Mattress Recovery and Recycling Act (SB 254) all use fairly ery (CalRecycle 2012). different language, but are very similar in substance (PA No. 13-42 2013, Code 23-90 2013, SB254 2013). All three enact the establishment of a state-wide PRO, which is charged with Methods and Data the following: r Analytical Framework Determine the size of a flat fee to be added to the mattress The study uses both types of LCA methodology, economic price r input-output LCA (EIO-LCA) and process-based LCA, to es- Set up a collection and recycling infrastructure funded by timate the GHG emission reductions and energy savings that the fee r could be achieved through increased reuse and recycling of Establish, and periodically review and revise, performance mattresses and boxsprings. measures, such as collection and recycling targets r The cradle-to-gate GHG emissions and energy demand of Submit annual reports to a specified governmental orga- mattress and boxspring manufacturing are calculated with the nization, which oversees the operation of the PRO and U.S. national EIO-LCA model developed by Carnegie Mel- its EPR program lon University, which can be found at: www.eiolca.net. This In response, the International Sleep Products Associ- model uses the North American Industry Classification System ation (ISPA), the main industry association for mattress (NAICS), maintained by the U.S. Census Bureau, to partition

2 Journal of Industrial Ecology RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS

production. The I-O tables (IOTs) are organized by sectors according to the NAICS. The relevant 2007 NAICS Code is 337910 (Mattress Manufacturing). This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing innerspring, boxspring, and noninnerspring mattresses, including mattresses for waterbeds. Apparent U.S. consumption of products from NAICS sector 337910 in 2010 was $US6.2 billion in 2010 producer price (U.S. Census 2011a, 2011b). According to trade and industry statistics, approximately 38 million mattresses and boxsprings were sold in the United States in 2010 (Oseth 2012). It follows that the average 2010 mattress and boxspring set had a 2010 producer price of US$326. Figure 1 Analytical framework to assess greenhouse gas emissions The EIO-LCA model is based on the 2002 benchmark IOTs. reductions from mattress extended producer responsibility (shaded Between 2002 and 2010, the producer price index for NAICS boxes indicate economic input-output data, white boxes indicating Code 337910 rose from 139.7 to 176.5 (BLS 2012). A 2010 process data; dashed boxes are avoided processes). NAICS = producer price of US$326 is thus equivalent to a 2002 producer North American Industry Classification System; PU = polyurethane. price of US$258. According to the EIO-LCA model, the production of goods from sector 337910 worth US$258 measured in 2002 producer price has cradle-to-gate GHG emissions of the U.S. economy. The economic data that underlies the model 138 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents (kg CO2-eq) and is the 2002 benchmark input-output (I-O) model maintained energy requirements of 2,130 megajoules (MJ). by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (Stewart et al. 2007). Table 1 shows the nine sectors that contribute more than The 2007 benchmark I-O account was published on 18 Decem- 2% to the total GHG emissions. ber 2013 and has yet to be integrated into EIO-LCA. Energy demand and GHG emissions of mattress and Process-based LCA is necessary to estimate the energy de- boxspring material production can also be calculated using mand and GHG emissions from product EOL management. process-based LCA, which is described in detail in Interna- Generally, processes involved in product EOL management are tional Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards (ISO landfill, reverse logistics, reprocessing operations such as disas- 2006a, 2006b). An innerspring mattress consists of the inner- sembly, recycling, and refurbishment, and the production pro- spring unit, insulator pad, cushioning layers, and cover. The cesses avoided by secondary outputs from reuse and recycling core is the innerspring unit, which typically contains 250 to activities. For each modeled process, the most appropriate in- 1,000 steel coil springs. An insulator pad sits directly on top of ventory data are chosen from a wide range of public and propri- the innerspring unit to prevent the next layer, the cushioning, etary life cycle inventory (LCI) databases, including ecoinvent, from molding to the coils. The cushioning varies widely by ma- PE International, U.S. LCI, and literature. No single database terial type and thickness. Currently, the most frequently used was able to provide suitable inventories for all processes, and material is polyurethane (PU) foam, followed by cotton. Inner- all used data were checked for methodological consistency. A spring unit, insulator, and cushioning are encased by a quilted complete list of inventory data sources can be found in the cover, which can be made from a variety of materials. Today, supporting information available on the Journal’s website. The mattresses come in standard sizes, the most common of which process inventory for mattress and boxspring recycling is based are called Twin, Double, Queen, and King. The boxspring in- on primary data collection. terior is a wooden frame with wooden slats or metal springs. The environmental benefits of reuse and recycling are calcu- Similar to the mattress, the boxspring is encased by a quilted lated as the benefits from avoided landfill and avoided primary cover. production reduced by the additional impacts from reverse lo- One mattress disposal operation estimates that 125 mat- gistics and reprocessing (figure 1). In LCA methodology, this tresses of mixed sizes weigh approximately 10,000 pounds, method is typically called avoided burden approach or (conse- which translates into 36.3 kilograms (kg) per average mattress quential) system expansion. Avoided burdens can be calculated (ISPA 2004). In 2010, North America’s largest mattress re- with both the process model (as avoided processes) and the cycler, DR3, processed approximately 55,000 mattresses and EIO-LCA tool (as displaced economic activity). Avoided pro- 55,000 boxsprings, which together weighed 3,300 short tons cesses are modeled as negative energy requirements and GHG (O’Brien 2012). This translates into 54.4 kg per mattress and emissions. Displaced economic activity is modeled as negative boxspring set. economic demand. Table 2 shows the average material composition of a mattress and boxspring set processed in 2010 by DR3. The unspecified Product Description and Analysis fraction of the mattress and boxspring material composition in the table goes to landfill. The majority of this material consists We first use EIO-LCA to estimate the cradle-to-gate primary of the insulator pads, frequently made of felt, foams, fabrics, and energy demand and GHG emissions of mattress and boxspring covers, which currently have no recycling markets.

Geyeretal., EPR for Mattresses and Boxsprings in the U.S. 3 RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS

Ta b l e 1 The nine sectors with the highest GHG contributions to mattress production

NAICS code Sector name GHG emissions in kg CO2-eq (%) Energy demand in MJ

221100 Power generation and supply 44.2 (32) 538 331110 Iron and steel mills 14.5 (10) 168 325190 Other basic organic chemical manufacturing 7.2 (5) 165 484000 Truck transportation 7.1 (5) 96 211000 Oil and gas extraction 7.0 (5) 42 324110 Petroleum reﬁneries 4.4 (3) 73 111920 Cotton farming 3.5 (3) 17 325211 Plastics material and resin manufacturing 3.2 (2) 74 337910 Mattress manufacturing 2.8 (2) 116

Note: GHG = greenhouse gas; NAICS = North American Industry Classiﬁcation System; kg CO2-eq = kilograms carbon dioxide equivalents; MJ = megajoules.

Ta b l e 2 Average material composition of mattress and boxspring sets recycled by DR3 in 2010, and cradle-to-gate energy demand and GHG emissions from the ﬁve main materials

GHG intensity in Energy intensity in GHGs in kg Component Mass in kg Mass in % kg CO2-eq/kg MJ/kg CO2-eq Energy in MJ

Steel 27.2 50 2.16 21.8 58.7 593 Wood 5.44 10 –0.99 3.5 –5.4 19 Foam 5.44 10 4.74 91.8 25.8 499 Cover (toppers) 5.44 10 4.54 106 24.7 577 Cotton 2.72 5 1.52 34 4.1 92 Unspeciﬁed 8.16 15 Total 54.4 100 108 1,780

Note: GHG = greenhouse gas; kg = kilograms; kg CO2-eq = kilograms carbon dioxide equivalents; MJ = megajoules.

Table 2 multiplies the five main material fractions of a mat- data reflect the energy mix of global steel production, whereas tress and boxspring set with their GHG and primary energy the EIO-LCA data are U.S. specific. Another reason for the intensities, in order to determine the average embodied GHG discrepancy between the EIO-LCA and process-based energy emissions and primary energy. requirements is that the process-based data include feedstock The GHG and energy intensities are derived from LCI data energy, whereas the EIO-LCA data do not. In general, however, for product systems that most closely resemble those present in table 2 corroborates the EIO-LCA results, which are the data U.S. mattresses and boxsprings. The GHG emissions embodied used to estimate mattress and boxspring production impacts. in the five main material fractions of an average mattress and Approximately 3 million of 38 million mattresses and boxspring set are 108 kg CO2-eq, approximately 78% of the boxsprings sold in the United States in 2010 were imports 138 kg CO2-eq from the EIO-LCA model. The embodied pri- (Oseth 2012). The domestically produced shipments were made mary energy per average mattress and boxspring set is 1,780 up of roughly 17 million innerspring mattresses, 2 million non- MJ, or approximately 84% of the 2,130 MJ from the EIO-LCA innerspring mattresses, and 16 million boxsprings (Oseth 2012). model. The EIO-LCA model encompasses many more processes According to our previous calculations, goods from NAICS than those in table 2 and should thus be expected to yield signifi- code 337910 (Mattress Manufacturing) worth US$326 in 2010 cantly larger GHG and energy results. One important reason for producer price require 2,130 MJ of primary energy and gen- this not being the case is owing to the fact that EIO-LCA and erate cradle-to-gate GHG emissions of approximately 138 kg process-based models make different assumptions about steel CO2-eq. With an average unit having a 2010 producer price production. Steel can be made exclusively from scrap using of US$163, the cradle-to-gate GHG emissions of all 38 million electric arc furnace (EAF) technology, or predominantly from mattress and boxspring units were on the order of 2.6 million ore through the blast furnace (BF)/basic oxygen furnace (BOF) metric tonnes of CO2-eq, whereas the cradle-to-gate primary route. The BF/BOF route has more than twice the GHG emis- energy requirements were approximately 40 billion MJ. sions and energy requirements per kg of steel than the EAF route. The process-based data are based on the global pro- Product End-of-Life Management duction mix (i.e., 70% BF/BOF and 30% EAF), whereas the EIO-LCA reflects the U.S. production mix, which is approx- Currently, the most likely fate of EOL mattresses and imately 40% BF/BOF and 60% EAF. Also, the process-based boxsprings is landfill (ISPA 2004). Primary energy demand and

4 Journal of Industrial Ecology RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS

Ta b l e 3 Disposal processes avoided by mattresses and boxspring recycling or reuse

GHG in kg Energy in MJ GHGs in kg Energy in MJ Disposal processes Mass in kg CO2-eq/kg NCV/kg CO2-eq/set NCV/set

Transport of entire set to landfill 54.4 0.067 0.963 3.6 52.4 Transport of 85 wt% of set to landfill 46.24 0.067 0.963 3.1 44.5 Steel in landfill 27.2 0.012 0.305 0.3 8.3 Wood in landfill 5.44 0.085 0.308 0.5 1.7 Foam in landfill 5.44 0.089 0.314 0.5 1.7 Cover in landfill 5.44 0.089 0.314 0.5 1.7 Cotton in landfill 2.72 0.820 0.334 2.2 0.9 Remaining 15 wt% in landfill 8.16 0.089 0.314 0.7 2.6 Transportation and landfill of 85 wt% of set 7.1 58.8 Transportation and landfill of entire set 8.3 69.3

Note: kg = kilograms; GHG = greenhouse gas; kg CO2-eq = kilograms carbon dioxide equivalents; MJ = megajoules; NCV = net calorific value. Bold numbers are the sums of the numbers for rows 2 through 7 (landfill 85%), and rows 1 plus 3 through 8 (landfill entire set), respectively.

GHG emissions come from the transportation of mattresses and predominantly consist of manual labor assisted by some basic boxsprings from their pickup location to the landfill, as well as equipment, such as forklifts and balers. As a result, the en- the construction, maintenance, and operation of the landfill ergy demand and GHG emissions from mattress and boxspring itself. Additional GHG emissions come from chemical and bio- reprocessing are minimal. logical degradation processes of the mattress and boxspring ma- Table 4 only lists utility consumption. To be consistent with terials in the landfill. An estimated 69.3 MJ and 8.3 kg CO2-eq the other inventory data, capital equipment and consumables, are avoided whenever an entire set is diverted from landfill, for such as gloves and so on, are excluded. They are also likely example, through reuse (see table 3). Recycling diverts at least to be insignificant. Energy consumption data from the largest 85% of the mattress and boxspring mass from landfill (O’Brien mattress recycling facility in the United States result in 8 MJ 2012). The estimated energy and GHG savings are 58.8 MJ and of primary energy per mattress and boxspring set and 0.55 kg 7.1 kg CO2-eq, approximately 15% less than in the mattress and CO2-eq (O’Brien 2012). boxspring reuse scenario (see table 3). Reuse and recycling activities divert EOL products from Mattress and boxspring reuse and recycling requires trans- landfill and generate secondary resources (Geyer and Jackson portation as well as reprocessing of the EOL products into sec- 2004). When these secondary materials, components, and prod- ondary outputs. The energy demand and GHG emissions from ucts are used instead of new materials, components, and prod- the reverse logistics are estimated in table 4. Currently, ap- ucts, the demand for new materials, components, and products proximately three quarters of the collected EOL mattresses and is reduced. It is thus typically assumed that recycling and reuse boxsprings are first driven to a transfer station or other nearby avoids the production of equivalent amounts of competing pri- collection site in a private vehicle, and the maximum length mary resources. In mattress and boxspring recycling there are of a round trip to collect each mattress and boxspring set in a secondary markets for the steel of the innerspring unit, PU combination truck is 320 kilometers (km) (200 miles) (O’Brien foam, cover (toppers), cotton, and wood. The steel and PU 2012). Together with energy and GHG data for light-duty ve- foam generate the most significant revenue streams, whereas hicles (LDVs) and combination trucks, this results in primary the income from the cover and cotton is, at best, modest. It energy demand for reverse logistics of approximately 60 MJ appears that the wood is typically given away for free. The steel and cradle-to-gate GHG emissions of roughly 4 kg CO2-eq per scrap is used for steel making. One of the main uses of recycled mattress and boxspring set. PU foam is rebond carpet cushion, whereas a variety of uses The reprocessing at the recycling facility is limited to manual are reported for the cotton fibers (O’Brien 2012; Legget and disassembly of the mattresses and boxsprings, as well as manual Platt 2012). The net benefits of recycling are calculated as the separation and baling of the secondary material outputs (DR3 environmental burdens of the additional recycling processes 2013). Though several technologies for automated disassembly minus the environmental burdens of the avoided production exist, they do not appear to be used in actual recycling opera- processes. We assume that recycled steel, PU foam, and cotton tions. The shredding of EOL mattresses and boxsprings is dis- displace their virgin counterparts. Mechanical cotton recycling cussed in the literature, but appears to be too costly to be viable has approximately one third of the primary energy demand and in practice (ISPA 2004). Shredding would have to be followed GHG emissions of virgin cotton production (PE 2012; ecoin- by automated material separation, which is also very costly. It vent 2007). Based on this and data for mechanical recycling of is also noted that the innerspring units can jam shredders and polymers, we assume that mechanical PU foam recycling, which wear their blades quickly. We thus conclude that, for the fore- also involves some bonding, requires 40% of the primary energy seeable future, reprocessing of mattresses and boxsprings will demand and GHG emissions of primary PU foam production.

Geyeretal., EPR for Mattresses and Boxsprings in the U.S. 5 RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS

Ta b l e 4 Primary energy demand and GHG emissions from mattress and boxspring a) collection and b) reprocessing a) GHG (kg NCV/set) Reverse logistics Transportation GHG intensity Energy intensity CO2-eq/set) Energy (MJ

Private 0.75 × 8 km 0.285 4.3 MJ/km 1.7 25.8 vehicle kg CO2-eq/km Combination truck 54 kg × 320 km 0.14 2.0 MJ/t·km 2.4 34.6 kg CO2-eq/t·km Total 4.1 60.4 b) GHG intensity (kg Energy intensity GHG (kg Energy (MJ Reprocessing Utility CO2-eq/MJ) (MJ/MJ) CO2-eq/set) NCV/set)

Electricity 1.2 MJ/set 0.164 2.52 0.20 3.1 Gas/LPG 4.2 MJ/set 0.082 1.16 0.35 4.9 Total 0.55 8.0

Note: GHG = greenhouse gas; kg CO2-eq = kilograms carbon dioxide equivalents; MJ = megajoules; NCV = net caloriﬁc value; kg = kilograms; km = kilometers; t = tonnes; LPG = liqueﬁed petroleum gas.

Ta b l e 5 Net primary energy and GHG emission savings due to avoided primary production processes Net avoided Mass Net GHG savings Energy savings GHGs in kg Energy in burdens in kg in kg CO2-eq /kg in MJ NCV/kg CO2-eq /set MJ NCV/set Recycling Steel recycling 27.2 -1.51 -13.4 -41.1 -364 PU foam recycling 5.44 -2.8 -55 -15.1 -297 Cover recycling 5.44 N/A N/A -1.0 -13 Cotton recycling 2.72 -1.0 -22.7 -2.7 -61 Total recycling -59.9 -735 Component reuse Spring unit reuse 27.2 -2.16 -21.8 -58.8 -593 PU foam reuse 5.44 -4.74 -91.8 -25.6 -496 Cover recycling 5.44 N/A N/A -1.0 -13 Cotton recycling 2.72 -1 -22.7 -2.7 -61 Total component -88.1 -1,163 reuse Mattress and boxspring reuse (100% displacement) Mattress and box- 54.4 -138 -2,130 spring reuse Mattress and boxspring reuse (50% displacement) Mattress and box- 54.4 -69 -1,065 spring reuse

Note: GHG = greenhouse gas; kg = kilograms; kg CO2-eq = kilograms carbon dioxide equivalents; MJ = megajoules; NCV = net caloriﬁc value; PU = polyurethane; N/A = not applicable.

It is unclear what the recycled covers are used for. The beneﬁts savings are 735 MJ and the combined net GHG savings are of cover recycling are therefore calculated as avoided economic 59.9 kg CO2-eq (see table 5). production from the NAICS sector 32615 (foam product man- For mattresses, a viable alternative to the recycling of the ufacturing) of an amount equal to the revenue from recycled steel innerspring unit and PU foam is their reuse, given that cover sales. No recycling beneﬁt is calculated for the wood. Per they are in suitable condition. They are most likely rebuilt into mattress and boxspring unit, the combined net primary energy mattresses and therefore used instead of new innerspring units

6 Journal of Industrial Ecology RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS

Figure 2 GHG savings (in t CO2-eq) of material recycling, component reuse, and product reuse for 17.61 million mattress and boxspring sets, compared to the GHG emissions of producing and landfilling 17.6 million mattress and boxspring sets. M = million; GHG = greenhouse gas; t CO2-eq = tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. and PU foams. If we assume that such component reuse avoids erwise sleep on the floor (Agha 2008). Mattress reuse also faces the production of new components, its environmental benefits significant hygienic issues, such as bacteria, mold, mites, and are larger than those from recycling their materials. In this bed bugs (PSI 2011; ISPA 2004). The energy and GHG im- component reuse scenario, the cover, cotton, and wood are still plications of necessary chemical or heat treatments have not recycled in the same manner as in the recycling scenario. Per been included in this analysis. If the reuse of a mattress and mattress and boxspring unit, the resulting net primary energy boxspring set would indeed avoid the production of a new set, savings are 1,163 MJ and the resulting net GHG savings are as the mattress industry fears, the primary energy and GHG 88.1 kg CO2-eq. savings would be those of producing a new set, that is, on the The third and final EOL management route is the reuse of order of 2,130 MJ and 138 kg CO2-eq. If only half of the reused entire mattresses and, possibly, boxsprings, with varying degrees sets avoid the production of a new set, the energy and GHG of renovation and refurbishment. Such mattress renovation and savings would be approximately 1,065 MJ and 69 kg CO2-eq. reuse is already taking place in the United States, but the exact In other words, product reuse with 50% displacement has en- nature and extent of these activities is unknown, even though ergy and GHG benefits that are between those of recycling and ISPA suggests, in one estimate, that the market for reused mat- component reuse (see table 5). tresses has a substantial size (ISPA 2004). Manufacturers of new mattresses and boxsprings are concerned that the resale of Results used products cannibalizes the sale of new ones (ISPA 2004). However, there is little evidence of this, and some industry The net energy and GHG impact of each investigated EOL experts think that buyers of refurbished mattresses would oth- management route is calculated according to and shown in

Geyeretal., EPR for Mattresses and Boxsprings in the U.S. 7 RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS

Ta b l e 6 Energy and GHG impacts per mattress and boxspring set for the ﬁve different end-of-life management routes End-of-life management process GHG impacts Energy impacts

(kg CO2-eq/set) (MJ/set) Landfill Landfill 8 69 Material recycling Landfill 1 10 Collection & reprocessing 5 68 Net avoided production -60 -736 Total (material recycling) -54 -658 Component reuse Landfill 1 10 Collection & reprocessing 5 68 Net avoided production -88 -1,163 Total (component reuse) -82 -1,085 Mattress and boxspring reuse (100% displacement) Reverse logistics 4 60 Net avoided production -138 -2,130 Total (mattress and boxspring re- -133 -2,062 use 100% displacement) Mattress and boxspring reuse (50% displacement) Reverse logistics 4 60 Net avoided production -69 -1,065 Total (mattress and boxspring re- -64 -997 use 50% displacement)

Note: GHG = greenhouse gas; kg CO2-eq = kilograms carbon dioxide equivalents; MJ = megajoules. table 6. The maximum hypothetical nation-wide annual pri- recycling are 43% of the production and landfill burdens, that is mary energy and GHG savings are estimated by multiplying the to say, very significant. Reusing instead of recycling innerspring savings per mattress and boxspring set with the total amount of unit and PU foam increases those benefits to 62% of the mattresses and boxsprings that are disposed of each year. For the production and landfill burdens. In other words, component last ten years, the U.S. population has grown by approximately reuse offers a significant improvement over material recycling. 2.8 million each year. We estimate mattress disposals in the While the reuse of a whole unit would offset almost the entire United States by subtracting its annual population growth from production and landfill burdens if it displaced the production of the estimated 2010 sales of 38 million units, which yields 35.2 a new unit, this appears very unlikely. Assuming that only 50% million units, or 17.6 million sets. Figure 2 shows the net energy of the reused units displace new ones reduces GHG saving to and GHG emissions impacts if the studied EOL management 50% of the production and landfill burdens, which is between routes where applied to all 17.6 million sets. For illustration pur- those of material recycling and component reuse. According poses, we show the product reuse results with the assumptions to some industry experts, even 50% displacement seems highly of 100% displacement and 50% displacement. The totals for unlikely (Agha 2008). 17.6 million sets shown in figure 2 are, of course, upper limits, All this suggests that EPR measures should aim at max- given that it is unlikely that any EPR measures would achieve imizing collection rates on one hand and material recycling collection rates close to 100% and it is equally unlikely that and component reuse yields on the other. The environmental component or product reuse would be feasible for all collected benefits of product reuse hinge on its ability to displace the mattresses and boxsprings. The results can easily be adjusted to manufacturing of new products, which is likely to be limited for any given set of collection rates and recycling and reuse yields. mattresses and boxsprings. That displacement of new products Comparing the maximum benefits of the different EOL generates most of the environmental benefits creates a dilemma management routes shown in, however, yields some important for the mattress industry, since it is, of course, in its economic insights. First, the GHG benefits of mattress and boxspring interest to minimize such displacement. On the other hand,

8 Journal of Industrial Ecology RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS product reuse without displacement may still have significant An important aspect of both recycling and component reuse social value by making mattresses affordable to very low-income is the disassembly of the mattresses and boxsprings into their households. individual components. Ease of disassembly affects the costs of recycling and reuse operations as well as their yields, which, in turn, affects the revenues of the recyclers. Mattress and Analysis and Discussion boxspring producers, as well as their suppliers, should thus be Mattress Collection and Reprocessing encouraged to consider EOL disassembly in their product and component design process. Overall, it appears that mattress and The main objective of EPR is to decrease environmental boxspring disassembly is already fairly easy, but there might be impacts by increasing manufacturers’ financial and operational room for improvement, such as alternative joining and fasten- responsibility for the take-back, recycling, and final disposal of ing technologies instead of staples. This should also increase their products (Geyer 2004). In the previous section, we con- the value of the wood, whose reuse and recycling is currently cluded that mattress and boxspring recycling and component hampered by the staples. The reuse of the innerspring unit and reuse generate significant energy and GHG benefits. We also the PU foam might be facilitated by considering designs that in- learned that the vast majority of EOL or end-of-use mattresses crease the protection of those two components from in-use dam- and boxsprings are currently not collected for recycling and age that would make reuse unfeasible. The office furniture in- therefore likely to end up in landfill. The most important part dustry, which has a track record in design for disassembly, could of any EPR program for mattresses and boxsprings should there- serve as a role model (Gertsakis et al. 2002; Rossi et al. 2006). fore be to increase their EOL or end-of-use collection rate, The one mattress component that currently does not have a and the mattress PRO’s in Connecticut, Rhode Island, and secondary market is the insulator pad, which makes up a consid- California should be encouraged to set aggressive collection tar- erable part of the nonrecycled material fraction that recyclers gets. Setting minimum collection rates and recycling yields is a send to landfill. It would thus be environmentally beneficial to common part of many EPR policy measures (see, e.g., Europe’s redesign the insulator pad in a way that makes it valuable as a ELV and WEEE Directives). Though collection rates are ex- secondary material or component once the mattress reaches the tremely low in the United States, the recycling yields achieved end of its life. Overall, redesigning mattresses and boxsprings by the recyclers are already 85% or higher. We think that only for improved disassembly and recyclability should be able to product redesign would be able to push recycling yields much increase their recycling yields from currently 85% to close to higher than they already are. 100%. Redesign for component reuse might be able to increase Owing to the fact that the mattress reprocessing operations the component reuse yield, which would further increase the en- are mostly manual, their environmental impact is minute. As a ergy and GHG savings from mattress and boxspring take-back. result, the environmental impacts from mattress and boxspring Incentives from EPR programs would only be one of many collection are more than 7 times higher than those of reprocess- drivers for product redesign and new product development, ing. While the collection burdens are over an order of magni- many of which are directly related to maintaining or growing tude smaller than the avoided primary production burdens, EPR the product market and maintaining or gaining market share. programs should make sure that collection is done as efficiently These other drivers may lead to product designs that make EOL as possible. This essentially means to establish or support a management more challenging, rather than easier. One exam- collection and recycling infrastructure that uses efficient trans- ple would be the widespread diffusion of electronic devices in portation modes, achieves high utilization rates, and keeps dis- mattresses and boxsprings. tances low, especially for low-efficiency transportation modes, Not all EPR programs generate real incentives for product such as LDVs. Picking up the old mattresses and boxsprings redesign, such as financial rewards that accrue only to those when new ones are delivered by retailers would be one obvi- companies that increase the reusability or recyclability of their ous way to achieve high collection rates and efficient reverse products. EPR literature typically argues that collective pro- logistics. ducer responsibility and flat rate recycling fees, two aspects all three mattress EPR bills have in common, do not foster product Mattress Design re-design for improved EOL management (Mayers et al. 2011; Mayers 2007; Clift and France 2006). In summary, while the An additional objective of the EPR concept is to provide details of the three state-wide EPR programs are still to be de- incentives to the producers to redesign their products in or- fined in the EPR plans of the individual mattress PROs, the der to improve the operational, economic, and environmental language of the three final bills does not contain anything that performance of their EOL management. The previous section suggests that effectual redesign incentives will be created. concluded that mattress and boxspring recycling and component reuse generates significant energy and GHG benefits, while the economics are currently poor. It would therefore be ex- Labor Implications tremely valuable to identify redesign opportunities that would In 2010, North America’s largest mattress recycler processed increase the operational and economic feasibility of material approximately 55,000 mattresses and 55,000 boxsprings with a recycling and component reuse and increase the recycling and staff of 15 full-time employees (O’Brien 2012). This translates reuse yields.

Geyeretal., EPR for Mattresses and Boxsprings in the U.S. 9 RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS into one full-time employee to process approximately design incentives, the EPR programs are likely to dramatically 7,300 units, mattress or boxspring, per year. We estimate that increase EOL mattress and boxspring collection and recycling. 35.2 million units of either mattresses or boxsprings are dis- Even without product redesign, this will lead to significant en- carded in the United States every year, but less than 5% are vironmental and social benefits. The collection and recycling recycled. This means that currently fewer than 240 full-time of all 35 million EOL mattress and boxspring units estimated to employees work in mattress recycling. The dismantling of all reach the end of their lives in the United States every year would 35.2 million units would require approximately 4,800 full-time generate in the order of 10,000 jobs and GHG savings between employees. Additional jobs would be created in the industries 1 and 1.5 million metric tonnes. The analytical framework we that process the secondary outputs of the mattress recyclers, present here can be readily applied to most other products con- that is, the steel scrap, PU foam, cotton, cover (toppers), and sidered for EPR, such as paint, carpet, and batteries. However, wood. Mattress recyclers are assumed to have an indirect job the chosen impact categories should reflect the EOL concerns effect similar to material recovery facilities. Using a value of 0.6 of these products, such as toxicity in the case of e-waste. Fu- (Morris and Morawski 2011), EPR measures that lead to the ture work should also aim at generating more knowledge about collection and recycling of 35.2 million mattress and boxspring displacement dynamics, which determine the environmental units per year would generate approximately 7,700 jobs, most of benefits of EPR (see, e.g., Thomas 2003). Finally, the issue of which are entry-level positions. As we described earlier, the en- how to generate redesign incentives through EPR legislation vironmental benefits of reuse and recycling activities come from has been much debated in literature, but not yet resolved in avoided landfill and, more important, from displaced primary practice. There is thus still plenty of work to be done to bring production activities. So, though increased collection, reuse, the practice of EPR to its full theoretical potential. and recycling of mattresses and boxsprings will create jobs in those sectors, avoided landfill and primary production activities Acknowledgments could potentially reduce the number of jobs in the affected sectors. However, whereas reuse and recycling activities are very The authors thank CalRecycle for funding part of this re- labor intensive, activities such as landfill operation as well as search and Jane Oseth from ISPA for providing valuable data steel, foam, and cotton production are highly automated and and information. A special thanks goes to Robert Jaco of DR3 have very high labor productivity. We thus assume that the la- and Kevin O’Brien and Terry McDonald of the St. Vincent de bor loss from displaced economic activities owing to increased Paul Society of Lane County. Without their generous help, this collection, reuse, and recycling of mattresses and boxsprings research would not have been possible. would be negligible. References

Conclusions Agha, A. 2008. A close look at the current state of mattress recycling. Environmental News Network. www.enn.com/pollution/ It is estimated that approximately 35 million mattresses and spotlight/33796. Accessed 20 May 2014. boxsprings reach the end of their lives in the United States every BedTimes. 2010. Mattress recycling: Industry finding useful ways to year. Currently, most EOL mattresses and boxsprings are land- dispose of used beds. BedTimes Magazine, February 2010. http:// filled or dumped illegally, even though at least 85% of their mass bedtimesmagazine.com/2010/02/mattress-recycling/. Accessed 21 can be readily reprocessed into useful secondary resources. Cur- May 2014. rent reprocessing practices focus on material recycling, which is BedTimes. 2012a. ISPA continues to fight EPR bills in states. BedTimes estimated to offset approximately 43% of GHG emissions from Magazine, 26 April. http://bedtimesmagazine.com/2012/04/ispa- production and landfill of mattresses and boxsprings. Approxi- continues-to-fight-epr-bills-in-states/. Accessed 21 May 2014. mately two thirds of the GHG benefits come from the recycling BedTimes. 2012b. ISPA proposes national program for mattress recy- of the steel innerspring unit and another one quarter from the re- cling. BedTimes Magazine, 1 April. http://bedtimesmagazine.com/ cycling of the PU foam. Reusing instead of recycling innerspring 2012/04/ispa-proposes-national-program-for-mattress-recycling/. Accessed 21 May 2014. unit and PU foam would increase the offset to approximately BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). 2012. Producer price indices (PPI), two thirds of the GHG emissions from production and landfill Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), United States Department of of mattresses and boxsprings. The reuse of entire mattresses and Labor. www.bls.gov/ppi/. Accessed 20 May 2014. boxsprings faces significant hygienic issues and would also only CalRecycle. 2012. Mattress and box spring case study: The potential generate significant GHG savings if the reused products would impacts of extended producer responsibility in California on global successfully compete with new ones, which is not in the eco- greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Sacramento, CA, USA: Califor- nomic interest of original mattress and boxspring manufactur- nia Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRe- ers. The current economics of mattress and boxspring recycling cycle). www.calrecycle.ca.gov/publications/Documents/1430% are not sufficient to lead to their widespread, large-scale re- 5C20121430.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2014. covery. Three states have therefore enacted mattress EPR bills CIWMB (California Integrated Waste Management Board). 2008. that will establish mattress collection and recycling programs Overall framework for an extended producer responsibility system in California. Sacramento, CA, USA: California Integrated financed by customer-paid recycling fees. While the language Waste Management Board (CIWMB). http://calrecycle.ca.gov/ of the EPR bills does not suggest the implementation of re- EPR/Framework/Framework.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2014.

10 Journal of Industrial Ecology RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS

Clift, R. and C. France. 2006. Extended producer responsibility in the Mayers, C. K., R. Peagam, C. France, L. Basson, and R. Clift. 2011. EU: A visible march of folly. Journal of Industrial Ecology 10(4): Redesigning the camel: The European WEEE Directive. Journal 5–7. of Industrial Ecology 15(1): 4–7. Code 23-90. 2013. State of Rhode Island General Laws, Title 23 McKerlie, K., N. Knight, and B. Thorpe. 2006. Advancing extended (Health and Safety), Chapter 23-90 (Responsible Recycling, product responsibility in Canada. Journal of Cleaner Production 14: Reuse and Disposal of Mattresses). http://webserver.rilin.state. 610–628. ri.us/Statutes/TITLE23/23-90/INDEX.HTM. Accessed 20 May Morris, J. and C. Morawski. 2011. Returning to work: Understanding 2014. the domestic jobs impacts from different methods of recycling beverage DR3. 2014. Information about DR3 mattress recycling. www. containers. Culver City, CA, USA: Container Recycling Institute. mattressrecycling.us/. Accessed 23 May 2014. MRC (Mattress Recycling Council). 2015. News & information. ecoinvent. 2007. ecoinvent Database v2.2. www.ecoinvent.ch/. Ac- www.mattressrecyclingcouncil.org/. Accessed 20 May 2014. cessed 20 May 2014. O’Brien, K. 2012. Personal communication with Kevin O’Brien, Director Gertsakis, J., N. Morelli, and C. Ryan. 2002. Industrial ecology and of Business Development, St. Vincent de Paul Society of Lane extended producer responsibility. In A handbook of industrial ecol- County, Eugene, OR, USA. ogy, edited by R. U. Ayres and L. W. Ayres. Cheltenham, UK: Oseth, J. 2012. Personal communication with Jane Oseth, Membership Ser- Edward Elgar. vices Manager,International Sleep Products Associations (ISPA), Geyer, R. 2004. Environmental and economic evaluation of supply Alexandria, VA, USA. loops and their constraints. Ph.D. thesis, University of Surrey, PA No. 13-42. 2013. Connecticut Public Act No. 13-42 (House Bill Guildford, UK. No. 6437). An act concerning a mattress stewardship program. Geyer, R. and T. Jackson. 2004. Supply loops and their constraints: The www.cga.ct.gov/2013/ACT/pa/pdf/2013PA-00042-R00HB- industrial ecology of recycling and reuse. California Management 06437-PA.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2014. Review 40(2): 55–73. PE. 2012. PE databases. www.gabi-software.com/america/databases/ Glew, D., L. C. Stringer, A. A. Acquaye, and S. McQueen-Mason. gabi-databases/. Accessed 20 May 2014. 2012. How do end of life scenarios influence the environmen- PSI (Product Stewardship Institute). 2011. Mattress stewardship brief- tal impact of product supply chains? Comparing biomaterial and ing document. Boston, MA, USA: Product Stewardship Institute petrochemical products. Journal of Cleaner Production 29: 122– (PSI). 131. PSI (Product Stewardship Institute). 2013. Product Stewardship In- Hilding Anders. 2014. Europe’s bedding industry meet in Budapest. stitute (PSI). http://productstewardship.us/displaycommon.cfm? www.hildinganders.com/good-stories/good-thinking/europes- an=1&subarticlenbr=280. Accessed 20 May 2014. bedding-industry-met-in-budapest. Accessed 21 May 2014. Rossi, M., S. Charon, G. Wing, and J. Ewell. 2006. Design for the next ISO (International Organization for Standardization). 2006a. ISO generation. Journal of Industrial Ecology 10(4): 193–210. 14040: Environmental management—Life cycle assessment— SB 254. 2013. California Senate Bill No. 254. Used Mattress Recovery Principles and framework. ISO/FDIS 14040:2006(E). Geneva, and Recycling Act. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNav Switzerland: ISO. Client.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB254. Accessed 20 ISO (International Organization for Standardization). 2006b. ISO May 2014. 14044: Environmental management—Life cycle assessment— Stewart, R. L., J. B. Stone, and M. L. Streitwieser. 2007. U.S. bench- Requirements and guidelines. ISO/FDIS 14044: 2006(E). Geneva, mark input-output accounts, 2002. BEA—Survey of Current Busi- Switzerland: ISO. ness 87(10): 19–48. ISPA (International Sleep Products Associations). 2004. Used mat- Thomas, V. M. 2003. Demand and dematerialization impacts of second- tress disposal and component recycling—Opportunities and challenges. hand markets: Reuse or more use? Journal of Industrial Ecology 7(2): Alexandria, VA, USA: International Sleep Products Associations 65–78. (ISPA). U.S. Census. 2011a. 2010 annual survey of manufactures. Washington, Legget & Platt. 2012. Information. www.lpurethane.com/bonded.asp. DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Accessed 20 May 2014. U.S. Census. 2011b. U.S. international trade statistics. Washington, DC: Lifset, R. 1993. Take it back: EPR as a form of incentive-based environ- U.S. Census Bureau. mental policy. The Journal of Resource Management and Technology Van Rossem, C., N. Tojo, and T. Lindqvist. 2006. EPR: An examination 21(4): 163–175. of its impact on innovation and greening products. Report commis- Lindhqvist, T. 1998. What is extended producer responsibility? Confer- sioned by Greenpeace International, Friends of the Earth and the ence Proceeding of the International Seminar: Extended Producer European Environmental Bureau (EEB). Amsterdam, Holland: Responsibility as a Policy Instrument, 8–9 May, Lund, Sweden. Greenpeace. Lindhqvist, T. and K. Lidgren. 1990. Modeller for¨ Forl¨ angt¨ producen- tansvar, Fran˚ vaggan till graven—Sex studier av varors miljop¨ averkan˚ (pp. 7–44)[Models for extended producer responsibility, From cradle to grave – Six studies of the environmental impacts of prod- About the Authors uct]. Stockholm: Ministry of the Environment. Roland Geyer is an associate professor at the Bren School Lindhqvist, T. and R. Lifset. 2003. Can we take the concept of indi- of Environmental Science and Management, University of vidual producer responsibility from theory to practice? Journal of Industrial Ecology 7(2): 3–6. California at Santa Barbara (UCSB), Santa Barbara, CA, Mayers, C. K. 2007. Strategic, financial, and design implications of ex- USA. Brandon Kuczenski is an assistant researcher at UCSB. tended producer responsibility in Europe: A producer case study. Matthew Trujillo is quality control auditor at Scientific Certi- Journal of Industrial Ecology 11(3): 113–131. fication Systems in Emeryville, CA, USA.

Geyeretal., EPR for Mattresses and Boxsprings in the U.S. 11 RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS

Supporting Information Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article at the publisher’s web site: Supporting Information S1: This supporting information provides a table about the unit process inventory data used in this case study, as well as links to more information about the data sources.

12 Journal of Industrial Ecology