Recycling CFLs

Is a Retail-based Collection Program the Answer?

Vicki FulbrightCommunication Manager

Ecos Consultingvfulbright@ecosconsulting.com

503.525.2700 ext. 1212003 Northwest Hazardous Waste Conference

June 2, 2003

Outline

• About Ecos Consulting• Background information• Proposed Retail-based Project

– Stakeholder process, program components, budget

– Strengths– Weaknesses– Recommendations

• Conclusions

Ecos Profile• Founded 1997; 40+ employees with offices in Portland,

Oregon, Southern California, and Durango, Colorado• Market transformation coupled with resource acquisition

– Research and policy• Natural Resources Defense Council• California Energy Commission• Green Seal• The Energy Foundation

– Program design and implementation• Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance ENERGY STAR®

Residential Lighting Program• Other clients: Energy Trust of Oregon, Idaho Power, Tacoma

Power, PSE, CPUC, Nevada Power, Sierra Pacific Power Co., SMUD, MEEA

Ecos Profile cont.• Designing and implementing award-winning

programs over 130 utility territories for six years• Cost effectiveness – deliver kWh at $0.02 -

$0.04/kWh • Broad range of services • Relationships

– Retailers & manufacturers– Energy Star program drivers (EPA, DOE, NRDC)– Utility organizations & customers– National labs

• Passion for energy efficiency and the environment

Background: CFLs and Mercury

• Health hazards of mercury profound and well understood– 10% of American women have concentrations

of Hg in their blood that exceed safe levels

• Fluorescent lamps contain small amount of mercury, both linear and compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs)

• No likely near-term prospect for finding mercury’s substitute

Background cont.

• Vast majority of fluorescent lighting substitutes for less energy efficient lighting alternatives, namely incandescent lamps.

• Prevents substantial mercury emissions at coal-fired power plants, which account for about 55% of total U.S. electricity production.

Balance of Mercury Emissions Between Disposing of Fluorescent Lamps and Operating Incandescent Lamps

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Fraction of Electricity Generated from Coal

Mill

igra

ms

of

Mer

cury

(E

mitt

ed

fro

m g

en

era

tion

min

us

gra

ms

em

itte

d fr

om

lam

p d

isp

osa

l)

National Average

CFLs

T8s

Sections above the horizontal line indicate a net increase in mercury emissions from the use of fluorescent lamps

Portland, OR=24% Atlanta, GA=67Anchorage, AK=14% Cleveland, OH=93%Washington, DC=47%

Background cont.• Energy Crisis 2001: 8.5 million CFLs distributed

– 56.8% in WA– 29.2% in OR– 9.9% in ID– 4.0% in MT

• The Oregonian publishes front-page article winter 2002, Seattle Post-Intelligencer fall 2002

• Group of sponsors commission Zero Waste Alliance to facilitate the design of a pilot project to recycle CFLs from households in Oregon

Background cont.• Key program principles:

– Avoid mercury buildup– Easy access to recycling– Program that is replicable and sustainable

• Goals:– Multi-stakeholder process– Encourage sale of energy-efficient

products– Increase economic activity from recycling

Background cont.

• CFL Stakeholders Group formed– Utilities, government reps, retailers, NGOs,

consulting firms, recycling companies and associations, lamp manufacturers, NEMA and waste haulers

• Three-phase process– Phase 1: Data collection and CFL recycling

activity– Phase 2: Framework developed– Phase 3: Implementation

Background cont.

• Phase 2: – Program options presented

• Curbside• Mail-in• Increased HHW• Retail stores

– Strong lobby to look for alternative to HHW collection

The Retail-based Pilot

• Retail collection option selected– Customers drop CFLs off in bins – Selected three geographic regions

• Hillsboro• Salem• Bend

– Timetable: 18 months start to finish

The Retail-based Pilot cont.

• $72,500 budget ($85,500 including in-kind services)

• Six participating retailers/three cities• Project management• Advertising• Collateral development• Recovery rate of 20%• Transportation costs • Miscellaneous office expenses

Retail-based Pilot cont.

• In-kind support– Free CFL recycling, promotion support,

recycling hotline, advertising

• Advanced recovery fee is long-term funding strategy (impractical for pilot)

• Funding options for pilot presented– CFL Stakeholder Group participants– Solicited the Northwest Energy Efficiency

Alliance

Strengths• ZWA management of stakeholder process• Good survey of measures and recycling

options• Comprehensive reporting of progress• Pilot relies on some successful mechanisms

used to deliver CFLs to consumers– Retailer network – Coupons or other incentives where available – Utility involvement to help with program

credibility

Weaknesses

• Little success in avoiding mercury buildup– In the context of anthropogenic sources, CFLs

represent between 0.006% to .002% of gross total U.S. mercury emissions

– CFLs too narrow a focus; pilot excludes tubes (will accept if brought, but will not be advertised)

• CFLs 4 – 5 milligrams mercury• Tubes 8 – 12 milligrams mercury and larger market

penetration (more in older lamps)

Sources of Mercury Emissions in the U.S.

Other14%

Landfills0.1%

1.2%

0.7%0.4%

0.9%

Chlor-alkali5%

Com./ind. boilers18%

Res. boilers2%

Utility boilers33%

0.7%

Muni. waste incinerators19%

Medical waste incinerators10%

Haz. waste incinerators4%

Portland cement3%

Lamp breakage1%

1.2%

Pulp & paper

Other manuf.

General lab use

Other area sources

Geothermal power

Other combustionBoilers and Incinerators Account for 86% of all Mercury

Special Case of Oregon

• Only one coal-fired power plant, which uses a type of coal with lower than average mercury content and sophisticated pollution prevention technology that recovers about 25% of the mercury emissions – About 7% of the state’s electricity comes from coal

(ignores the impact of imports, a few additional percents)

• CFLs prevent the emissions of substantial quantities of greenhouse gases and other air pollutants, reduce consumer energy bills, and last far longer than incandescent alternatives, which results in less waste going into landfills

Majority of these Hg emissions would still come from linear rather than compact fluorescent lamps. Including consideration of imported coal-fired power could tip the balance between positive and negative emissions.

S o u r c e s o f M e r c u r y in O r e g o n 's S o l id W a s te S t r e a m

B lo o d P r e s s u r e C u f f s2 .0 %

M a n o m e te r s0 .5 %

F lu o r e s c e n t L a m p s1 1 %

T h e r m o s ta ts1 1 %

A u to S w itc h e s1 3 %

C o m p u te r s1 4 %

T h e r m o m e te r s1 8 %

B a t te r ie s3 0 %

Oregon cont.

Weaknesses

• Easy Access to Recycling– Unsupported assertions: retail-based program

called more convenient, but no research to support this claim

– Need thorough study of retailer attitudes

• Replicable and sustainable– No correlation made between variables (e.g.,

state regulations, urban vs. rural, etc.) and program design

• No clear leading organization designated

Range of Cost Estimates per Milligram of Mercury Reducing Measures

0.01 to 0.17 0.20 to 1.00 0.83 1.20

6.25

12.00 12.89

66.67

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

ThermometerRecycling

Auto Sw itchExchange

Linear LampRecycling

Air PollutionControl onCoal Plants

CFLRecycling

Measure

Co

st (

Cen

ts/m

g)

Retail-based pilot failed to examine effectiveness, both in the amount of mercury removed from the waste stream and the cost per bulb for recycling.

Weaknesses cont.

Recommendations• Incorporate with other mercury-containing products

(e.g., thermometers, thermostats, batteries, etc.)• Rather than a solely retail-based pilot, compare

between different types of programs (HHW facility, collection events)– OR DEQ data on fluorescent lamps available to perform

baseline • Study effective mercury reduction programs around

the country/world (Hg removed, costs, key variables, etc.)

• Keep CFLs out of incinerators• Prioritize areas with greatest need

CFL Sales and Recycling Centers

Pop. Density

1,500

8.7

0.05

Recycling Center

Permanent

Other

CFL Sales by County

100,000 to 199,998

10,000 to 99,999

1,000 to 9,999

100 to 999

1 to 99

Other Considerations• Important to consider whether recycling

regulations might deter business and household use of compact fluorescent lamps – Could be more detrimental to the environment and

public health (by discouraging energy savings) than the mercury found in the lamps

– Hassle or cost associated with a need to recycle CFLs could give tentative consumers yet another reason to switch back to incandescent lamps

– Using public utility funds to recycle CFLs may be especially problematic, since it would reduce the money available to fund the more societally beneficial activity of encouraging the products’ purchase in the first place

Conclusions

• Complex, hotly debated topic• Rethink this particular approach to

CFL recycling• More study needed on

promises/effects of labeling programs, recycling programs, legislation, etc.

• Prioritize efforts