Thank you to our funder and sponsors.

Thank you to our funder and sponsors.

http://www.govlink.org/hazwaste/

© Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.November 2008

PSI National Dialogue on Fluorescent Lighting

National Dialogue Meeting #3November 6, 2008 (Day 1)

2


Recap & Status of National Dialogue(9:15 am PST)

3


Overall Dialogue Goal: Fluorescent Lighting

Promote use of energy efficient lighting while eliminating or reducing the amount of mercury and other toxins entering the

environment during the lifecycle of fluorescent lamps.

4


Specific Dialogue Goals• Reduce environmental impact of manufacture

of fluorescent lighting.• Increase manufacture and procurement of

environmentally preferable lighting.• Maximize safe collection and recycling of

spent lamps from households and businesses.• Develop nationally-coordinated system that is

financially sustainable.5


Meeting #1: Salt Lake City, Utah• April 23-24, 2008• Multi-stakeholder participation• 24 in the room, 25 calling in• Created 3 workgroups– Infrastructure (for “small”/consumer sector)– Bans & enforcement– Financing

6


Meeting #2: Seattle, Washington• July 15-16, 2008• 37 in the room, 27 calling in• Focused on financing options• Continued workgroups

7


Workgroups• Infrastructure Workgroup– Focused on collection infrastructure for consumer sector– Commercial sector infrastructure exists and will grow with

demand

• Bans & Enforcement Workgroup– Promoting education & enforcement of existing bans– Promoting disposal bans in more states

• Financing Workgroup

8


Meeting #3: Objectives• Determine next steps to promote passage of disposal bans• Determine next steps to promote enforcement of existing

disposal bans• Consider criteria and elements of comprehensive

state/national program for fluorescent lamp recycling• Develop greater understanding of different perspectives on

financing and determine next steps• Determine next steps to develop consensus methodology for

performance goals

9


Meeting #3: Objectives, cont.• Review the state-of-knowledge on lamp breakage impacts,

and determine next steps to gather information or develop best management practices

• Determine next steps to promote voluntary retail collection & recycling of lamps

• Revisit workgroup composition & focus• Consider timing, stakeholders for Meeting #4

– Chicago, IL with funding from U.S. EPA Region 5– Tentatively scheduled for March 3-4, 2009

10


Bans & Enforcement Workgroup & Discussion

(9:30 am PST)

11


Bans & Enforcement Workgroup

Workgroup members:• Paul Abernathy, Association for Lighting & Mercury Recyclers• Linda Barr, Shayla Powell & Wendell Tomes, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency• Becky Jayne, IL Environmental Protection Agency• Mark Kohorst, National Electrical Manufacturers Association• Alex Pashley, UT Dept. of Environmental Quality• Rob Rieck, WA Dept. of Ecology

12


Workgroup Purpose

1) Encourage compliance with, and enforcement of, existing bans or other regulations

2) Pass disposal bans in more jursidictions

13


Promoting Compliance & EnforcementPress release drafted:1. Publicizes enforcement actions taken against businesses

improperly managing lamps2. Encourages building managers & others to comply with

applicable requirements3. Will highlight 2-3 examples of violations/penalties

– Looking at non-industrial sites with recognizable names

4. Quotes from ALMR, NEMA, PSI5. Websites provided to find state-by-state regulations,

recyclers, and drop-off locations for consumers

14


Promoting Compliance & EnforcementStrategy for release:• Targeting trade journals & associations nationally

– Waste News, BOMA, others?• States welcome to adapt for local release• Timing?

15


Promoting Compliance & Enforcement• Are there other steps this group can take to promote

compliance & enforcement?– At last meeting, we discussed case studies, enforcement

expert presentations/calls, but these did not become priorities for the Workgroup

– We will discuss public education in general later in this meeting, but is more specific compliance education needed (for example, for the commercial sector)?

16


Passing Disposal Bans in Additional States

• Compiled information for those interested in creating a disposal ban for fluorescent lamps– Model disposal ban language

• Draws on existing language, primarily NH (passed) and WA (draft)– Overview of mechanisms (state legislation most common)– Examples of existing disposal ban language– Examples of artwork educating about disposal bans

17


Model Disposal Ban Language• Applies to all Hg products, except FDA-approved

pharmaceutical products• Either recycle or dispose of as hazardous waste• Prohibits disposal in water, wastewater treatment, or

wastewater disposal systems• Minimum requirements for solid waste facilities to inform

customers & prevent delivery of Hg products• Options for phased-in approach (commercial sector first, then

households)

18


Passing Disposal Bans in Additional States: Next Steps

• Is there information available on the success or challenges of existing bans to add to document?

• Are there other next steps that this group should take to promote passage of more disposal bans?

19


Comprehensive State/National Program for Lighting: Criteria & Elements

(11:00 am PST)

21


Proposed Program Criteria1. Promote the use of energy efficient lighting2. Maximize safe collection and recycling3. Convenient and free recycling for the consumer4. Levels the playing field for manufacturers, retailers,

and others5. Shares responsibility (even if not fully financially)6. Ability to measure progress toward increased

recycling 7. “Cost-effective”

22


Proposed Model Program Elements1. Procurement

o Example: Require state to purchase low mercury and most efficient lighting with recycling service component

2. Collection infrastructure for consumerso Voluntary retail collectiono Convenient and comprehensive coverage (including rural)

3. Disposal bano Commercial & consumer sectors

4. Performance metrics and goals5. Public education 6. Financing system

23


Discussion questions on elements

• Should we be thinking comprehensively (e.g., Model)

• Is legislation necessary to “level the playing field” for companies involved?

• What is most useful to you?

24


Overview of Financing Options & Discussion

(1:30 pm PST)

26


Financing Options

• Focusing on consumer & possibly small commercial sectors

• There is currently no consensus• Our goal today is to further the

discussion of current concepts

27


Key Concepts – Any Solution• There is a sustainable system already in place to pay for

recycling of fluorescent lamps from the commercial sector. • A sustainable system is needed to pay for recycling of lamps

from the consumer sector. • This system should pay for collection containers, transport

and recycling of CFLs and LFLs; public education; and management and reporting.

• Increasing the cost of the product will decrease demand and should be avoided/minimized.

• Paying an end-of-life fee will discourage consumer recycling and should be avoided.

28


Financing Options• Overview of financing options (Theresa Stiner)

• Industry concept (Joe Howley)

• Industry concept – discussion • Cost internalization – discussion • Utility – discussion • Where does this leave us?

29


General Premises from Manufacturer Perspective

• National program is preferable to state-by-state• Avoid increasing cost of product (thereby discouraging

purchase and use of CFLs)• Environmental benefits of using the product are greater

than the environmental recycling concerns and are of an equal or higher importance when developing solutions.

• Convenient recycling should be free to consumers

30


Manufacturer Concept for a National Solution

• Utilities use existing mechanisms in the short-term to fund recycling programs– Offered to retailers to start voluntary recycling programs using a small

part of energy efficiency funding currently used as incentives for CFL use.

• Incorporate lamp recycling for consumers into cap-and-trade legislation for medium to long-term solution– Industry stewardship organization and/or U.S. EPA to manage program– Retailers implement voluntary collection programs– $ comes from sale of GHG emissions credits

• Legislation could be introduced w/in next year31


Financing Options• EPR discussion – pros/cons (Theresa Stiner slide 9)

• Utility discussion – pros/cons (Theresa Stiner slide 14)

32


Financing Options• Who Pays?– Manufacturers– Utilities– Retailers?

• How Much?• Short, Medium, Long-Term

• Where does this leave us?

33


Performance Metrics Options & Discussion

(3:15 pm PST)

35


Performance Metrics

36

• Establish baseline & measure progress• Make changes to program if desired impact

not achieved• Communicate achievements externally • May be required by legislation or set

administratively


37

• Tied closely to outcomes of public concern• Based on publicly available data and

defensible (and conservative) assumptions• Straightforward to explain and use• Other criteria?

* Extensive work in this area has been done by Stratos consultants as presented at the PSI Forum in June 2008.

Effective performance measures should be…


38

Collection quantities/rate

Robustness of program

Two General Approaches


Robustness of the Program• Is the program easy to use and efficient?

– % of target population aware of the program– cost/unit collected– customer satisfaction with program– population within a certain proximity of--or

average travel distance to--collection site

39


Robustness of the Program• Pros

– Those who run and use the program (and may share program goals) provide data for measurement

– Measurement requires fewer data, and data may be of higher quality (fewer assumptions required)

• Cons– Does not directly measure the intended impact of the

program (keeping lamps out of landfills/incinerators)

40


How might this work in King County?

• Awareness– Survey of residents

• Population within a certain proximity/average travel distance to collection sites

– Collection locations & population data• Quality of service

41


How do we move forward?

• Establishing an agreed-upon methodology will save time and effort

• We know collection rate data is difficult to get• Are “robustness of program” metrics acceptable

alternatives, or only complementary to actual collection data?

• Is developing a methodology a priority for this group (should it be a next step)?

– Which approach, or combination of approaches, should be used?

42

Thank you to our funder and sponsors.

Documents

Transcript of Thank you to our funder and sponsors.