thank you to our funder and sponsors.. © product stewardship institute, inc. november 2008 psi...
Post on 28-Dec-2015
219 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
© Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.November 2008
PSI National Dialogue on Fluorescent Lighting
National Dialogue Meeting #3November 6, 2008 (Day 1)
2
© Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.November 2008
Recap & Status of National Dialogue(9:15 am PST)
3
© Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.November 2008
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
© Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.November 2008
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
© Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.November 2008
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
© Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.November 2008
Meeting #2: Seattle, Washington• July 15-16, 2008• 37 in the room, 27 calling in• Focused on financing options• Continued workgroups
7
© Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.November 2008
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
© Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.November 2008
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
© Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.November 2008
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
© Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.November 2008
Bans & Enforcement Workgroup & Discussion
(9:30 am PST)
11
© Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.November 2008
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
© Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.November 2008
Workgroup Purpose
1) Encourage compliance with, and enforcement of, existing bans or other regulations
2) Pass disposal bans in more jursidictions
13
© Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.November 2008
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
© Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.November 2008
Promoting Compliance & EnforcementStrategy for release:• Targeting trade journals & associations nationally
– Waste News, BOMA, others?• States welcome to adapt for local release• Timing?
15
© Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.November 2008
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
© Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.November 2008
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
© Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.November 2008
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
© Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.November 2008
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
© Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.November 2008
Comprehensive State/National Program for Lighting: Criteria & Elements
(11:00 am PST)
21
© Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.November 2008
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
© Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.November 2008
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
© Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.November 2008
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
© Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.November 2008
© Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.November 2008
Overview of Financing Options & Discussion
(1:30 pm PST)
26
© Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.November 2008
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
© Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.November 2008
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
© Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.November 2008
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
© Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.November 2008
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
© Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.November 2008
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
© Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.November 2008
Financing Options• EPR discussion – pros/cons (Theresa Stiner slide 9)
• Utility discussion – pros/cons (Theresa Stiner slide 14)
32
© Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.November 2008
Financing Options• Who Pays?– Manufacturers– Utilities– Retailers?
• How Much?• Short, Medium, Long-Term
• Where does this leave us?
33
© Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.November 2008
Performance Metrics Options & Discussion
(3:15 pm PST)
35
© Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.November 2008
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
© Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.November 2008
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…
© Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.November 2008
38
Collection quantities/rate
Robustness of program
Two General Approaches
© Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.November 2008
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
© Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.November 2008
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
© Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.November 2008
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
© Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.November 2008
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
top related