Phase II Draft Report - Zero Wastezerowaste.org/cfl/IMAGES_A/PhaseIIDraftRpt030522.pdf · Northwest Compact Fluorescent Lamp Recycling Project – Phase II Draft Report 1 Northwest

Northwest Compact Fluorescent Lamp Recycling Project – Phase II Draft Report 1

Northwest Compact Fluorescent Lamp

Recycling Project

Phase II Draft Report CFL Stakeholders Group Process and Recommendations

Prepared by Alex Keith

5 May 2003

Project Sponsors:

Bonneville Power Administration Clark Public Utility District

Eugene Water & Electric Board Metro Regional Government

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

PacifiCorp Portland General Electric

Zero Waste Alliance

One World Trade Center 121 SW Salmon Street, Suite 210

Portland, OR 97204 T: 503-279-9383 F: 503-279-9381

www.zerowaste.org


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Zero Waste Alliance wishes to thank the following Sponsors for providing funding support for this project:

• Bonneville Power Administration • Clark Public Utility District • Eugene Water & Electric Board • Metro Regional Government • Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance • Oregon Department of Environmental Quality • PacifiCorp • Portland General Electric

We would also like to thank all of those in the Compact Fluorescent Lamp Stakeholders Group who participated and/or contributed to the project work described in this report (see Appendix 14). Without their hard work, cooperation, and collaboration, this project and its accomplishments would not have been possible.


TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 2. BACKGROUND 6 3. PROJECT PURPOSE, OBJECTIVES, PRINCIPLES 7 3.1 PURPOSE OF THE CFL RECYCLING PROJECT 7 3.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE CFL STAKEHOLDERS GROUP 7 3.3 PROJECT PRINCIPLES 8 4. PROJECT CONVENER - ZERO WASTE ALLIANCE 9 5. PROJECT ACTIVITIES 9 6. PHASE I DRAFT REPORT - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 10 7. PHASE II - SUMARY OF MEETINGS 11 7.1 GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR MEETINGS – AS PROPOSED 11 7.2 CONSENSUS PROCESS 11 8. MEETING ONE - SUMMARY 12 8.1 CURRENT SITUATION 12 8.2 RECYCLING PROGRAM OPTIONS 12 8.3 FUNDING / PAYMENT OPTIONS 13 8.4 NEXT STEPS 14 9. MEETING TWO - SUMMARY 14 9.1 PERSPECTIVES ON RECYCLING PROGRAMS 14 9.2 AIMS OF THE PILOT PROJECT 16 9.3 CONFIRMING RETAIL OPTION 16 9.4 EXPANDING THE PILOT TO INCLUDE TUBES 16 9.5 EXAMPLE RECYCLING MODELS 16 10. MEETING THREE - SUMMARY 18 10.1 LENGTH OF THE PILOT 19 10.2 ADVERTISING 19 10.3 COSTS 19 10.4 LOCATIONS 19 10.5 EXPANDING THE PROJECT TO INCLUDE TUBES 19 10.6 COUPONS 20 10.7 FUNDING 20 10.8 TRANSITION PERIOD 20 11. PILOT PROJECT OVERVIEW 20 11.1 MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 20 11.1.1 MATERIAL FLOW – PILOT PROJECT 20 11.1.2 QUANTITIES EXPECTED – PILOT PROJECT 21 11.2 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS 21


11.2.1 ANTICIPATED PROJECT COSTS – PILOT PROJECT 21 11.2.2 FUNDING SOURCES – PILOT PROJECT 22 11.2.3 FINANCIAL FLOW – PILOT PROJECT 23 11.3 MANAGEMENT OF PROJECT 23 11.3.1 STRUCTURE – PILOT PROJECT 23 11.3.2 MANAGEMENT – PILOT PROJECT 23 11.3.3 COSTS – PILOT PROJECT 24 11.3.4 MEASURING RESULTS 24 11.4 SAMPLE BUDGET ESTIMATE – PILOT PROJECT 234 11.5 SUMMARY – PILOT PROJECT 24 12. LESSONS LEARNED 25 APPENDICES 27 APPENDIX 1 CFL SALES AND PROJECTED FAILURES CALCULATIONS –

PILOT PROJECT / REGIONAL PROGRAM 28 APPENDIX 2 PROJECTED BURNOUT 2004; PERCENTAGE CFL SALES BY COUNTY –

PILOT PROJECT 29 APPENDIX 3 LOCATION DETAILS; RECYCLING AND TRANSPORT COST ESTIMATES (LOW END) –

PILOT PROJECT 29 APPENDIX 4 PROJECT COST ESTIMATES – PILOT PROJECT 29 APPENDIX 5 SAMPLE BUDGET ESTIMATE – PILOT PROJECT 30 APPENDIX 6 ESTIMATED PROJECT TIMELINE – PILOT PROJECT 32 APPENDIX 7 POTENTIAL REGIONAL PROGRAM -- OVERVIEW 33 APPENDIX 8 SAMPLE BUDGET ESTIMATE -- REGIONAL PROGRAM 37 APPENDIX 9 STORE LOCATION SCENARIOS – REGIONAL PROGRAM 38 APPENDIX 10 PROGRAM SUMMARY TABLE – REGIONAL PROGRAM 41 APPENDIX 11 ESTIMATED PROGRAM TIMELINE – REGIONAL PROGRAM 42 APPENDIX 12 IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS – PILOT PROJECT (AS OF 3/28/03) 43 APPENDIX 13 EXAMPLE RECYCLING MODELS – FLOWCHARTS 44 APPENDIX 14 CFL STAKEHOLDERS GROUP PARTICIPANTS AND/OR CONTRIBUTORS 49


During the energy crisis of 2001, more than 8 million Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs) were sold in stores and given away by electric utilities in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho for their energy savings and pollution reduction benefits. It is recognized that CFLs are safe for use in households but should be handled and managed properly at the end of their life to prevent mercury from entering the environment. Approximately 56.8% of the CFLs sold in the region are located in Washington state, 29.2% in Oregon, 9.9% in Idaho, and 4.0% in Montana. CFL sales are projected to level off at around 1 million per year from 2003. Recently, there has been significant media coverage concerning mercury in general, including a front-page article in The Oregonian during winter 2002 focusing on the hazards of mercury in CFLs. In response to the growing interest in mercury and its potential effects on the environment and human health, a group of sponsors including Portland General Electric, PacifiCorp, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Metro, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, Bonneville Power Administration, Clark Public Utility District, and Eugene Water & Electric Board commissioned the Zero Waste Alliance (ZWA) to facilitate the design of a pilot project to recycle CFLs from households in Oregon and/or Washington that would be replicable in the region. Sponsors reviewed the CFL Recycling Project proposal and identified project principles and main goals in a preliminary meeting in early 2002. Key principles included avoiding mercury buildup in the environment, allowing easy access to recycling, and setting up a recycling program that is replicable and sustainable. The technology already exists to separate the glass, phosphor powder, mercury and other materials in CFLs for recycling, but there is not yet a convenient system for bulb collection in the Northwest. Main goals from the preliminary meeting were to provide a multi-stakeholder process for designing a CFL recycling program, encourage safe use of energy efficient products, and increase economic activity from recycling. The CFL Stakeholders Group was then formed – made up of representatives from utilities, governments, retailers, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), consulting firms, recycling companies and associations, a lamp manufacturer and an industry association, and waste haulers – to support the development of a pilot project for recycling CFLs. Three meetings among the group have been held so far. The group’s aim was to develop a program that would provide households with a convenient way to recycle their burned out CFLs. A similar program in Minnesota lets residents leave CFLs at any of hundreds of retail stores in the state. Another program in Indiana accepts tubes at selected Sears stores. The CFL Recycling Project is a three-phase process. Phase I of the project included data collection and researching CFL recycling activities in other states. In Phase II the stakeholders group used the information in the Phase I report to development the framework for a pilot project. Phase III will be the implementation and operation of one or more pilot projects. In Phase II the group agreed on the retail collection option, whereby customers can drop CFLs off at bins designed for safe CFL handling located at participating retailer sites (e.g., Lowe’s, True Value). The group identified convenience, price and advertising as key factors for success, and the retail option can fulfill these elements.

The group recommended pilot programs in several geographic locations in Oregon (e.g., Hillsboro, Salem, Bend) at both large and small retailer sites. This would allow the collection method and several advertising methods to be tested to see what works for a particular area; and produce high quality data. The group recommended a pilot collection period of 12 months to gather data to confirm effectiveness

1. Executive Summary


and to obtain information to inform the implementation of a potential regional program. Approximately four months of preparation and advertising would be needed on the front end and an additional two month evaluation and reporting period would be necessary after the collection period; thus the pilot would likely span an 18-month project period. CFL pickup, transportation, and recycling will be arranged to be available when necessary for participating retailers. The group reviewed cost estimates for individual pilot projects (each costing around $50,000) in several locations, including Salem, Hillsboro and Bend. The group felt that combining pilot projects would allow for testing of multiple variables (e.g., marketing, outreach and education strategies). This approach also reduces the funding required for project management of the three pilots. Additionally, many participants in the group have offered in-kind contributions to further reduce overall project costs (see Appendix 12 for additional offers, the potential savings benefits of which have not yet been integrated into budget estimates). A combined pilot project for Salem, Hillsboro, and Bend is estimated to cost around $72,500 though a formal proposal is needed to confirm these cost estimates. It is generally recognized that CFL users will ultimately pay for a recycling program. Ideally, an upfront Advanced Recovery Fee would be collected to pay for the recycling, but unfortunately this method is not practical for a pilot project. Options for covering the pilot project expenses include funding from a) regional energy efficiency organizations such as Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, and/or/coupled with b) contributions from interested participants in the CFL Stakeholders Group. The group agreed that coupons would be an attractive part of the pilot project. It was mentioned that coupons might also be used not only to recycle lamps, but also promote the purchase of a new CFL. The coupons would be an additional cost of the project. On the topic of including fluorescent tubes from households, the group considered it best to allow retailer sites to determine whether or not to accept tubes for recycling. It was agreed that only CFL recycling would be promoted in advertising campaigns, and only tubes from residents would be accepted. The pilot projects will provide invaluable marketing data on how to encourage CFL users to buy and recycle CFLs within a potential regional program. It will also test the collection method in different size retailer stores in different geographic locations. Several participants have offered to provide in-kind contributions during the pilot (see Appendix 12), including free CFL recycling services; promotion and logo design; recycling hotline for customers; information dissemination, and advertising assistance. The details have not yet been worked out but these contributions will help reduce pilot project costs. The group recommended proceeding with a 12-month collection period (18 months total) combined pilot project, testing collection and marketing strategies in both large and small retailer sites in the cities of Salem, Hillsboro, and Bend, Oregon.

Compact fluorescent lamps have been widely promoted by electric utilities and energy efficiency advocates because they produce the same amount of light as standard incandescent bulbs while using up to 75% less energy and lasting up to ten times as long. During the energy crisis of 2001, 6.8 million CFLs were sold in stores and another 1.3 million were given away by electric utilities in Oregon, Washington and Idaho. CFLs help reduce the pollution associated with energy production, but because they also contain about 5 mg of mercury per bulb, they may introduce another environmental problem. Mercury is toxic, and once released into the environment it can accumulate in the tissues of living organisms and

2. Background


travel up the food chain where it reaches high concentrations in fish and other marine life. Proper recycling ensures the benefits of CFLs while properly managing the disadvantages. A project focusing on CFLs from households is needed to compliment the collection and recycling efforts centered on commercial sources. A CFL Stakeholders Group was formed to support the evaluation and development of programs for recycling CFLs to ensure responsible management for environmental protection. This stakeholders group was made up of representatives from utilities, governments, retailers, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), consulting firms, recycling companies and associations, a lighting manufacturer and associations, and waste haulers. A group of sponsors that includes Portland General Electric, PacifiCorp, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Metro, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, Bonneville Power Administration, Clark Public Utility District and Eugene Water & Electric Board commissioned the Zero Waste Alliance (ZWA) to lead the creation of a pilot project to recycle CFLs in Oregon that can potentially be replicated throughout the region. The group’s aim was to develop a program that would provide households with a convenient way to recycle their burned out CFLs. A similar program in Minnesota lets residents leave CFLs at any of hundreds of retail stores in the state. Another program in Indiana accepts tubes at selected Sears stores. The technology already exists to separate the glass, phosphor powder, mercury and other materials in CFLs for recycling, but there was not yet a convenient system for bulb collection in Oregon and the Northwest. This program would create a convenient way for CFL users to deposit their burned out CFLs for recycling and thereby help protect the environment.

The project sponsors and initial participants held a preliminary meeting March 12, 2002 to discuss the project proposal and purpose. A set of project principles emerged to provide a foundation for the CFL Stakeholders Group in moving forward during the Phase II consensus-based process. It was recognized early that Northwest consumers are doing the right thing by purchasing CFLs. CFLs are safe to use in the home and should be handled and managed responsibly at their end of product life. ZWA presented information on the current situation regardsing CFLs, mercury and its interaction with the environment, and case studies focusing on managing CFLs at their end of life. The proposed work plan steps for the CFL project were also outlined. After the meeting, the sponsors toured the Environmental Protective Services fluorescent light recycling facility in Brooks, Oregon. 3.1 Purpose of the CFL Recycling Project

• To provide a multi-stakeholder process for planning a state/region wide CFL recycling program model

• To evaluate alternative CFL recycling models • To encourage the safe use of energy efficient products • To increase economic activity from CFL recycling • To reduce the amounts of mercury going into landfills • To protect the environment for human and ecosystem health

3.2 Objectives of the CFL Stakeholders Group

• Agree on the concepts and goals of the pilot project and larger recycling program • Determine the optimum form for one or more pilot recycling programs • Establish scope of administration for the pilot project

3. Project Purpose, Objectives, Principles


• Select CFL collection and recycling location(s) and participants for the pilot project • Determine public input and education needed • Develop conceptual marketing approach / strategy • Develop program metrics for tracking and reporting • Determine budget and revenue estimates needed to support the pilot project • Discuss future actions for a larger program after conclusion of pilot project

3.3 Project Principles The CFL Stakeholders Group was committed to developing a pilot project in Oregon and/or Washington to test CFL collection and recycling methods with the intent that it will lead to a sustained recycling system. This was intended to be a public process that was open to additional groups that wish to join. The participants of this group agreed to the following principles to guide the design and implementation of such a system:

• Environmental Protection: Primary goal is to avoid mercury buildup in the environment associated with the use of CFLs. A specific project goal is to avoid mercury emissions during the collection, transportation and recycling of the CFLs.

• Easy Access: The recycling system should allow the public to easily recycle their CFLs by providing the most convenient recycling opportunities possible

• Low Cost: The costs of the recycling system, such as collection, transportation and recycling, should be minimized.

• Fair Cost Allocation: The costs of the recycling system should be allocated fairly so as to minimize impacts to manufacturers, retailers, waste handlers, state and local government and other involved in the collection, transportation and recycling of CFLs.

• Compliance: The recycling program must provide for compliance with all applicable regulations, such as RCRA, CERCLA, state solid waste regulations and the Universal Waste Rule.

• Education: Education and public outreach are vital components of a successful CFL recycle program. They should point out that CFLs are safe in the home and provide an overall environmental benefit, but if not handled and recycled properly can create environmental and human health impacts.

• Replicability: To the extent possible, the program will be designed so that after its implementation in Oregon, it can be easily replicated in other areas, especially in the Western United States.

• Expandability: CFLs are only one of several sources of potential mercury emissions. To the extent possible, this program should be expandable so that it may later include the collection and recycling of other mercury bearing items, including increased recycling levels for fluorescent light tubes.

• Recycling System: The participants are committed to developing a pilot project to test CFL collection and recycling methods with the intent that it will lead to a sustained recycling system.

• Sustainability: The group as a whole should design the system so that it can sustain itself without ongoing involvement.


The Zero Waste Alliance (ZWA) is a not-for-profit, non-advocacy organization that is both a forum and resource for organizations interested in zero waste strategies and technical tools, including: green chemistry, design for the environment, environmental management systems, life cycle analysis and industrial ecology. Its main services include management support, education and training, and technical assistance. ZWA can draw upon its network of universities, national laboratories, state, federal and local government resources and private consulting firms to be a resource clearinghouse for solutions to challenging problems.

The CFL Recycling Project is a three-phase process. Phase I of the project began in March 2002 and included researching the number of CFLs recently sold, the methods of recycling collection and payment, and how other fluorescent light recycling programs operate in order to identify options for the Phase II discussions. The two-month estimated time period required for completion of this phase turned out to be insufficient. The Phase I Draft Report was completed in September 10, 2002. The elements of Phase I included:

• Convene meeting of initial project participants (sponsors) • Contact CFL manufacturers • Determine legal and regulatory issues related to CFL recycling • Assess the flow of CFLs in Oregon • Evaluate existing and projected capacity for CFL recycling in Oregon • Research CFL recycling program models and estimate costs • Prepare case for expanded stakeholders engagement • Prepare Phase I report

In Phase II the stakeholders group used the information in the Phase I report as a platform in considering the costs and the program structure needed to reach consensus on the development of a CFL recycling pilot project for Oregon and/or Washington that may potentially lead to a permanent regional program. ZWA organized meetings, gathered data, prepared, distributed, and presented materials, facilitated the consensus process and involved participants in post meeting follow-up. Originally, three meetings were envisioned for Phase II, to be held within three months. The first meeting took place in late October, the second in mid-December, and the third in late February 2003. The elements of Phase II included:

• Engage CFL Stakeholders Group • Convene CFL Stakeholders Group • Hold three meetings to reach consensus on CFL recycling program and pilot project development • Prepare Phase II Report

The last of three meetings for the project was held February 27, 2003, formally ending the group’s work on Phase II as it was originally envisioned. During the last meeting, the group agreed that a transition period is needed to maintain the momentum of Phase II until development of the pilot project is

5. Project Activities

4. Project Convener – Zero Waste Alliance


completed and Phase III is scheduled to begin. The ZWA, having facilitated the project thus far, was nominated to perform the work during this transition period. As envisioned, the transition period entails the following tasks:

• Facilitate discussion and sharing of information among stakeholders as needed to support pilot

project development leading to Phase III implementation • Draft a list of potential project sponsors/funders for pilot project implementation (i.e., what each

sponsor may contribute to the project) • Assist in obtaining funds for the pilot • Conduct one additional CFL Stakeholders Group meeting, if needed, (potentially by

teleconference) to evaluate progress of the transition period and determine next steps to confirming Phase III implementation of the pilot

• Convey information on CFL recycling, retail and other contacts to the organization selected to carry out the pilot

Phase III will be the implementation and operation of one or more pilot projects. These pilot projects are scheduled to begin in late 2003 in selected areas of Oregon and/or Washington. Pilots will encompass promotion and implementation of the collection system for CFL recycling as well as public education about the need to recycle CFLs. We expect a permanent CFL recycling system to be put in place after the completion of the pilot project, depending on results. Compact fluorescent lamps contain a small amount of mercury, typically around 5mg per lamp. The mercury is either in its elemental state or combined with other elements to make forms such as methylmercury. Mercury is transported in the environment through the atmosphere and hydrological cycles. It is most frequently deposited in the soil or in bodies of water. Methylmercury is a persistent bioacumulative toxin. CFLs operate by energizing the mercury in the lamp, which then gives off ultraviolet radiation that causes phosphorus on the inside of the glass tube to glow. Fluorescent lamps require a ballast to regulate the current that the lamp receives. Materials in a CFL include glass, phosphorus, mercury, argon, plastic ballast casing and an electronic ballast circuit board. Mercury can be emitted during different stages of fluorescent lamp disposal. An EPA report on mercury emissions from fluorescent tube lamp disposal indicates the percentage of total mercury released from the following disposal options: municipal waste landfill 3.2%, recycling 3%, municipal waste incineration 17.55% and hazardous waste disposal 0.2%. (Though it is not entirely clear how mercury is released from lamps under different conditions). In Oregon CFLs are considered hazardous waste if they are generated by a business and fail the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure test and does not exceed 0.2 milligrams of mercury per liter. CFLs generated by households are not classified as hazardous waste. Over 8 million CFLs were distributed in the Northwest during 2001. These were distributed through utility coupon programs, retail sales and CFL giveaway programs. Sales in the previous 4 years ranged from 160,000 to 500,000 per year. 2.5 million CFLs were projected to be sold in 2002. Estimates for future years are that 1 million lamps will be sold per year. Currently, a large majority of household CFLs are going to municipal solid waste. Household hazardous waste collection in Oregon has been collecting less than 1,000 CFLs per year for recycling during the past

6. Phase I Draft Report – Executive Summary


year. Estimates developed for the report are that nearly 1.5 million bulbs will burn out in 2002 in the Northwest. The largest number of CFLs expected to burn out in one year is 2.5 million in 2007, and after that point it is expected to decline to reach a steady rate of 1 million burn outs per year by 2009. There are programs in Minnesota and Indiana that collect fluorescent lamps from households for recycling. These programs are the largest fluorescent lamp collection programs in the US. They both have retail store partners that collect the lamps from the public and store them until they are picked up for recycling. The program in Minnesota is funded mainly by Xcel Energy, an electric utility in the region. The program in Indiana is funded by the state and the local waste districts that participate in the program. CFL collection options outlined in the Phase I report are retail collection, curbside recycling collection, household waste collection and a mail return collection. Several payment models are also outlined to describe the transfer of funds to pay for the recycling of CFLs. Recycling costs for the CFLs in the Northwest are expected to peak in 2007. Depending upon the cost per lamp of recycling and the percentage of lamps collected the cost ranges from $250,000 to $1.5 million that year. In the long term, the recycling cost ranges from $100,000 to $700,000 per year.

Phase II consisted of a series of three CFL Stakeholders Group meetings held over the period from October 2002 to February 2003. ZWA generated and distributed a charter for the stakeholders group outlining guidelines for meetings and a description of the consensus process. 7.1 General Guidelines for Meetings – As Proposed The facilitator (Zero Waste Alliance) was a neutral and independent participant of the meetings. We requested that at face-to-face meetings, each stakeholder make it a priority to be there in person. The charter stated that if stakeholders missed a meeting, they agreed to live with any decision made by the rest of the stakeholders. Additional guidelines for the group included:

• Make every attempt to start and end meetings on time (ZWA) • Practice “active listening” – listening for understanding without judgment – so that people feel

free to voice their opinions in an honest and candid manner • Use flipcharts and handouts during our meetings to communicate and record information,

particularly key decisions and action items (ZWA) • Distribute meeting notes electronically as soon as possible after each meeting that highlight those

decisions and action items (ZWA) • Use process to stay focused on the task at hand, but remain flexible to adapt and make changes to

the meeting plan as the need arises Some thought that breaking into groups at the meeting to discuss issues and then present main points back to the group would ensure that everyone’s view was taken into account. However, the members preferred to hold open dialogues so that all participants’ views could be shared with the group as a whole. 7.2 Consensus Process Consensus means more than merely broad agreement. True consensus is less concerned with generating agreement than generating wise solutions that take into account all the relevant needs and perspectives. Once the full picture is taken into account, agreement usually follows naturally – and it is not a reluctant, conditional agreement. It is possible that the group may agree that a choice best meets the objectives even if it is not individual participants’ preferred outcome. It was decided if no consensus could be reached, that greater than 80% agreement amongst the group would equal consensus.

7. Phase II – Summary of Meetings


The first meeting of the CFL Recycling Project was held October 29, 2002. The aim of the meeting was to review the project by sharing the results of the Phase I Final Draft Report, and to begin discussion on the scope of a pilot project and regional program, and determine the optimum form for the pilot project. Basic background information was provided on the following: CFLs and mercury, the current situation regarding collection and recycling, recycling options, case studies, sales and projected failure data, and potential program and payment models. The Charter and Project Principles were also presented to provide a common platform for participants in moving forward. Brief summaries by category from the meeting discussions follow below. 8.1 Current Situation Recyclers were seeing very few CFLs and the ones they were seeing most often were from contractors and college facilities. Costs of CFL recycling are volume dependant. Some thought that concentrating the collection of CFLs would drive the cost of recycling down. Oregon’s Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) collection is not truly statewide. Washington has a more extensive collection network for its rural areas. 8.2 Recycling Program Options Some participants felt it would be better to combine several different types of pilot projects to see which worked best. Some of the main issues discussed by the group for the options are as follows:

• Curbside: There are concerns about handling, breakage and cost. A specific concern was that curbside recycling is tending toward commingling, and collecting a specific product that requires special packaging runs counter to this trend. It was also noted that increasing garbage rates to pay for collection would be difficult since the public reacts strongly against even small rate increases. Waste Management trucks would likely need to be modified for the collection of CFLs, which would cause an additional problem. Training would also make up a large part of this option since it entails frequent handling and breakage. No one spoke positively about this option and it appeared to be effectively dropped for discussion purposes.

• Mail-In: Several participants expressed support for this option initially, particularly if CFLs could

be shipped in the containers in which they are sold. The direct mailing may decrease collection costs. In some distribution programs bulbs were initially distributed in mailers. Concerns were raised about this system as well. The environmental impact of mailing each bulb individually may decrease the net environmental gain of using a CFL. Consumers could become alarmed and the end user cost could increase. CFL recycling could be combined with existing structures for recycling tubes – rather than singling CFLs out. The level of engineering in a container and potential waste of packaging was also noted. One concern was that people would need to keep a pre-paid mailer for the life of the CFL to mail it back when it burns out. It may not be likely that people will store the mailer that long and remember to send it in. Others noted that postage and recycling costs could change in between when the bulb is purchased and when it burns out. There appeared to be too many issues with mail-in to consider it as the mainstream method, but it might be considered for special cases.

• Increased Utilization of Household Hazardous Waste: HHW collection is very expensive for

most counties. It would be good to bring in outside resources to help HHW collection programs if they are utilized for CFL collection. The group felt it is worthwhile to offer other options because HHW is not convenient for most people. Others noted that it is not environmentally sound to

8. Meeting One – Summary


drive one CFL to a HHW facility for recycling. A few participants commented that most population areas have HHW and the more rural areas could hold recycling events. Others noted that this option would be good as a component of a recycling system, but is not necessarily the whole solution. It was thought that there would be a marginal cost for advertising and education that would pay off with the collection of more bulbs.

• Retail Store: Space in a retail store is often $100/square foot and using space for non-revenue-

producing purposes is a real cost to the business. Independent stores may be more open to the idea of collecting CFLs based on discussions with several local stores, and hundreds of stores in the Minnesota program feel there is a benefit from the increased foot traffic recycling brings. However, there is a landfill ban in place in Minnesota helping to drive this return of fluorescents. Some of the concerns were the cost and pickup schedule. Larger stores often require corporate approval to participate in programs. This trend was echoed by DEQ participants in their experience that smaller stores were easier to work with when running a retail paint collection program. Smaller storeowners were better able to train their employees and track the benefits of increased foot traffic. It was noted that the Oregon bottle bill began with small stores like Plaid Pantry taking back bottles, and that large stores eventually drove out smaller stores once the program gained momentum. However, CFL take-back would not be on the same scale as bottle returns.

Home Depot and Costco accounted for 40% of all CFL sales in the Northwest. Some felt that if larger retail did not participate, the burden of collection may fall onto smaller stores. An Ace Hardware owner from Minnesota noted that he benefited by receiving CFLs that had been purchased elsewhere. One recycler participating at the meeting had offered earlier to take bulbs for free from a large retailer. The retailer declined because of liability concerns. CFLs are a small part of large stores’ market. It was noted that with the other return programs, wholesalers were unwilling to sign up without corporate approval, whereas smaller independent storeowners see it as opportunity to increase foot traffic and provide a benefit to the community. Several suggested that small retailers could perhaps work for a pilot project, but that large retailer would later need to pick it up.

The group did not speak positively of the curbside recycling option and it seems to have been dropped from discussion. There seem to be a number of issues with mail-in option that make it undesirable for a mainstream method of collection – namely packaging, potential breakage, and change in recycling cost over time – though it could be useful in special cases, as could recycling "events". Increased utilization of household hazardous waste could be a part of the CFL recycling solution but it is unlikely to serve as a mainstream method because of inconvenience to people wishing to recycle burned out lamps. The retail option seemed to be the most likely option for a CFL recycling pilot project. Some felt that surveying additional retailers for their attitude regarding such a program would be useful in predicting program outcomes. 8.3 Funding / Payment Options Originally it was envisioned that a pilot project would also test a method of payment. After subsequent meetings and planning, it was decided that designing, setting-up and testing a payment method would not be practical in a pilot with a 12-month long collection period. Regardless, the discussions on some issues concerning payment options are included below:

• Up front cost: Many in the group agreed that the public will ultimately pay for CFL recycling. With an upfront fee (advanced recovery fee), CFLs would be at a comparative disadvantage for price. Since price is the largest drawback of CFLs, a further cost increase would be a further disincentive and cause fewer CFL sales. The idea of an industry association like the Rechargeable


Battery Recycling Corporation (RBRC) might work for CFL recycling. Many thought capturing the fee at the front end is advantageous because many CFL users will not want to pay an explicit end-of-life fee. The majority of the group felt that an advanced recovery fee was the best option.

• Back end fee: Some participants noted that a back end fee is an economic disincentive to

recycling because it charges explicitly for the disposal. The public would be more inclined to recycle if they paid the cost up front and did not have to pay separately at the end. Take back fees seem expensive. Perhaps environmentally aware customers will pay the fee – otherwise it seems unfair to pay for recycling since using CFLs is energy efficient. Whatever the fee, there was concern about pricing for recycling and it should get close to cost so there are no disincentives.

• Utility funded: Some in the group noted that the electric utilities receive a benefit from the energy

efficiency of CFLs and that they might be asked to fund part of the recycling. Others stated that electric utilities pass both costs and benefits to their ratepayers and are not the only party that accrues the benefits of energy efficiency. It was mentioned that a program might be fundable through an energy organization such as The Energy Trust of Oregon.

8.4 Next Steps There was a request for information about the demographics of CFL users. This would help target collection efforts and focus the educational campaign about the program. EcoNorthwest stated that they could break down their CFL distribution data/study by store and provide detailed geographic information. The group was in agreement with the principles of the pilot project. The scope of a larger recycling program for the region was not discussed in the time allotted. The scope of administration of the pilot project was touched on, though no decisions were made concerning who would implement and operate the program. It was thought that administration requirements would be better understood as participants, locations, and the recycling model of the pilot project are confirmed.

The second meeting was held December 12, 2002. The aim of the meeting was to confirm which recycling model would serve as the basis for the pilot, and further discuss financial flow models and potential funding options. Participants in CFL recycling programs from Indiana, Minnesota, and Seattle were invited to join by teleconference and give their perspective, including the basics of their program, and the benefits and challenges. Confirming or rejecting the notion to expand the pilot to include tubes was also put to the group. While the discussion on example recycling models (financial and material flow) was useful, it was later decided that establishing a funding mechanisms through advanced recovery or take back fees would not be practical considering the 12-month long collection period of the pilot. Nevertheless, all discussions are summarized below, and financial and material flow models can be found in Appendix 13. 9.1 Perspectives on Recycling Programs

• Waste District perspective of Indiana recycling program (Allen County) Stacie Perkowskie: The program was created and initiated by the Governor in 1998 with the intent to make a safer environment for kids. It has been an award-winning program and created much positive PR as an example of government (public) and private enterprise cooperating for the benefit of all. Six solid waste districts are involved, with Allen County (population 330,000, major city is Fort Wayne, IN) as the hub. The program is funded 75% by the State of Indiana, and 25% by each of the solid waste districts. They aligned with Sears as their retail partner. She

9. Meeting Two Summary


pitched the idea to Sears corporate in Chicago and they agreed. Now there are 10 Sears stores involved state wide, and the advertising has shifted from specific to Allen County to a more generic and consistent advertising campaign for all of Indiana to participate. All the advertising and promotional literature and bin signs, etc., consists of the same graphics and colors in all stores for consistency. She has had calls from several other major retailers (Home Depot, Lowe’s, Menards, etc) expressing interest and also hinting to favoritism for Sears, however upon follow-up they have all been slow to respond and did not show up for initial meeting. She has very close working relationship with Sears and all the Sears dock workers that handle the recycled bulbs.

Benefits: It is a shining example of a public-private partnership. Sears is an excellent partner because they are open 363 days a year. Sears appreciates the increase in foot traffic of shoppers as they drop off bulbs. They receive 1100 bulbs a month.

Challenges: There have been some instances of abuses – the program is targeted at consumers in Allen County. However there have been consumers coming from Ohio (20 miles away) to recycle tubes, but they usually accept those also. And there have been instances of businesses dropping off tubes from offices, so they are working to educate businesses of alternative recycling options.

• Recycler perspective of Minnesota CFL recycling program (Mercury Technologies)

Sue Yarusso: Fluorescent bulbs were banned from landfill disposal in Minnesota in 1993 – no exceptions. Customers pay an end-of-life recycling fee to the retailers when customers bring in a burned out CFL. Mercury Technologies does not receive any government money. They have developed a statewide program with hardware stores and electric utilities. There are currently 200+ hardware stores participating in the program. Retailers serve as receivers of the bulbs from the consumers, and then Mercury Technologies picks up the bulbs from the hardware stores and recycles them. The state law declares that no business can hold more than 1000 bulbs in one location without a special permit. Hence it is important to pick up the bulbs from the hardware stores before they get 1000. Retailers have the freedom to set their own rates that consumers pay for recycling. And most consumers are returning bulbs with a coupon for 50 cents redemption provided by the electric utilities. Utilities are able to cover the costs of coupons through their conservation programs.

Benefits: The program is convenient for the consumer. Local stores are used so it benefits the local economy and small businesses, and their hours of operation are more convenient than a government agency. There was some concern that expansion into Hennepin County (where the Twin Cities are located – the major population center for MN) would not be feasible, but this has not been the case. The Minnesota Household Hazardous Waste Department (by county) also collects bulbs for free from residential customers. However retail hardware stores prove to be more convenient for the majority of consumers than driving to the hazardous waste facilities. Challenges: Initially it was difficult to convince the hardware stores to dedicate floor space for this program. Also it is challenging to coordinate the timely pickup of bulbs from the stores, which number 200 around the state. Each pickup involves picking up 2 bins, one for 4 foot tubes, one for 8 foot tubes and replacing them with 2 empty bins of same size whether the bins are completely full or not.

• Large retailer perspective of Washington CFL recycling program (IKEA Seattle)

Betty Stauch: The IKEA representative was unable to call in for the meeting, though a brief description of the program was given to facilitate discussion. IKEA is a European company (with


European culture and philosophy) and are a “Natural Step1” company. They kicked off their recycling program by giving away 35,000 CFLs to customers. They have created a neatly designed kiosk that is unobtrusive and does not take too much retail floor space. CFLs are put into individual plastic bags and then into bins for transporting. They accept 4 and 8-foot tubes and CFLs, though they only sell CFLs. IKEA views this program as an additional service they can offer their customers. IKEA also has a free Christmas tree recycle program, which again correlates to their environmental ideals.

9.2 Aims of the Pilot Project The group raised several relevant issues concerning the aim of the pilot project and the need to clarify goals, for example: What is the group trying to achieve as far as volume of recycling in the pilot program? Should the pilot test rural and urban areas? What does the group want to measure? The group recognized that all participants might have varied views concerning the purpose of the pilot project but that through consensus a favorable outcome could emerge. In general it was felt that a main aim is to set up a generic model that can be applied/duplicated throughout the region. A generic model however, may not apply or work in each region without some modifications. 9.3 Confirming Retail Option The group came to a consensus that collection of CFLs through retail would be the model for the pilot. Many favored retail because it had worked in other programs in the country. Retail would offer a unique approach in the Northwest because recyclers and government are already using special events and household hazardous waste to collect CFLs. The retail option was thought to be more convenient and would reach more people than the current methods. 9.4 Expanding the Pilot to include Tubes The group agreed to expand the pilot project to collect tubes as well, though this would be an option for participating retailers. Reasons supporting this decision were as follows:

• Expandability is in-line with project principles • Recyclers are equipped to accept tubes • Tubes are a greater source of mercury • Tubes are also household generated • Accepting tubes would raise the need to recycle all fluorescents • Collection of tubes was successful in case studies

However, the group had some concerns about collecting tubes, including the additional storage space required and the unknown cost to the project. Although the project was initiated in response to the promotion of CFLs during the 2001 energy crisis, group members felt that collection of tubes was within the scope of the project and that fewer tubes would be returned than CFLs. 9.5 Example Recycling Models The group began discussions on CFL material and financial flow, though it decided later that focusing on financial flow (setting up a pay structure and method for administering the system) in the pilot would not be practical considering the relatively short 12-month collection period. If a regional program is put in place the group assumed that the consumers will ultimately be responsible for covering recycling costs through a recovery fee. The models leading that discussion are included below. The CFL material/product flow is essentially the same in each model: new CFL purchaser, CFL user at end of CFL life, collection center (retail, HHW, event, etc), transporter/recycler. The primary variation

1 The Natural Step www.naturalstep.org


from model to model is in the funding chain or financial/money flow. There are eight basic models (not including the Indiana and Minnesota models) representing various financial flows. It is important to note that the models can be varied in many ways and it is likely that a hybrid with variations may be determined to be most effective for a potential regional program. The concept of a collective fund had been briefly discussed at the meetings. Generally defined, a collective fund could represent an administrator of funds or an account made up of contributions from various project funders. Potential roles for the collective fund are included in the example models flowcharts in the next section. At the time of this writing, funding options for the project have been identified though not confirmed. An explanation of example models follows. (See Appendix 13 for flowcharts for the models) Example Model A: Solid Waste Financing (curbside)

The general public pays a tax or monthly fee (bill) to the waste hauler. The waste hauler picks up CFLs with curbside recycling. The waste hauler then transports (or funds transport of) CFLs to a recycler. The waste hauler also pays recycling costs.

Indiana Model: State grants and waste districts with participating Sears stores split collection, transport and recycling costs. CFL users drop off burned-out lamps at participating Sears stores. Waste districts manage and administer the program.

Minnesota Model: CFL users pay an end-of-life recovery fee to retailers that take-back burned out

lamps for recycling. A utility provides coupons to reduce the financial burden on CFL users. Retailers charge various prices to take back burned out lamps, and then pay recyclers for transporting and recycling the CFLs.

Example Model B: End-of-life recovery fee

Similar to the Minnesota model, the CFL user pays an end-of-life fee to the retailer. The retailer then pays the transporter/recycler; and the utility could potentially provide coupons.

Example Model C: Advanced recovery fee (ARF) In this model the CFL purchaser pays an advanced recovery fee to the retailer that is then passed on to a collective fund. The collective fund then pays the retailer for the number of actual burned out lamps returned to the store. A portion of this payment will be used by the retailer to pay transport and recycling costs; or alternatively, the collective fund could pay the retailer and transporter/recycler separately.

Example Model D: Advanced recovery fee with deposit

The CFL purchaser pays an ARF with deposit fee to the retailer. The ARF with deposit will be passed from the retailer to the collective fund. Similar to Example Model C, the collective fund pays the retailer for the number of actual burned out lamps returned to the store. The retailer will refund the deposit to the CFL user upon return of CFLs at end-of-life. A portion of the payment from the collective fund will be used by the retailer to pay CFL transport and recycling costs; or alternatively, the collective fund could pay the retailer and transporter/recycler separately.


Example Model E: Group financing of retail collection In this model, the Collective Fund supports collection of CFLs at retailer, and transport and recycling of CFLs. Funders contribute to the collective fund that administers and manages the program.

Example Model F: Group financing of retail collection with deposit The CFL purchaser pays a deposit to the retailer at the time of product purchase. The deposit is passed from the retailer to the collective fund. The collective fund pays the retailer for the number of actual burned out lamps returned to the store. The retailer will refund the deposit to the CFL user upon return of CFLs at end-of-life. Funders contribute to the collective fund that administers and manages the program. A portion of the payment from the collective fund will be used by the retailer to pay CFL transport and recycling costs; or alternatively, the collective fund could pay the retailer and transporter/recycler separately.

Example Model G: Group financing of household hazardous waste and recycling events

Funders contribute to the collective fund that administers and manages the program. The collective fund supports the increased use of household hazardous waste and recycling events, and the transport and recycling of CFLs.

Example Model H: Producer paid (Internalized fee in product price)

In this model, the producer internalizes the collection, transport and recycling costs into the price of CFLs sold to retailers. The producer then passes this internalized fee on to the collective fund that administers and manages the program.

The last of three meetings was held February 27, 2002. It is important to point out that there were many stakeholders in the group seeking various, and perhaps different, desired outcomes of the project. The multi-stakeholder process aimed to enable the group to reach agreeable outcomes through consensus, recognizing that the group as a whole benefits in different ways. Keeping this in mind when trying to define the “purpose” of the project was important. The issue of getting the biggest bang for the buck arose in the meetings. It was recognized that CFLs are not the largest source of mercury in the environment. However, the CFL Recycling Project was initiated to specifically address the end of life issues stemming from promotion and sale of over 8 million CFLs during the 2001 energy crisis. The $0.35-0.75 cost per CFL recycled seemed high compared to the low economic value of the small amount of mercury and other materials recovered. The key desire was to avoid mercury reaching the environment due to its bioaccumulative persistent and toxic properties. When one considers the overall savings from the use of CFLs compared to the recycling costs, the cost/benefit ratio is still highly favorable. The data gathered in a pilot project would provide invaluable information regarding how to encourage CFL users to buy/recycle lamps within a regional program. It was also deemed important to test the collection method in different size retailer stores in different geographic locations to determine how a potential regional program may be implemented.

10. Meeting Three Summary


10.1 Length of the Pilot The group determined that a collection period for a pilot project of 12 months (or potentially longer) would be most appropriate for gathering data necessary in implementing a regional program. Approximately four months preparation and advertising would be needed on the front end and an additional two months evaluation and reporting period would be necessary after the collection period; thus the pilot would likely span an 18-month project period. The pilot period needs to be long enough to allow for sufficient data to be collected that can provide useful information about the effectiveness of advertising and promotions. This data can be used in setting up a regional program. 12 months also allows for collection during each season. 10.2 Advertising Several options exist for advertising and depend on the geographic location of the pilots. Periodic utility bill stuffers and updates would be useful in targeting specific zip codes, as would be direct mail and local/neighborhood newspapers. Radio, TV, and newspapers would be more useful in saturating areas and could be used in cities with distinct boundaries like Bend, whereas a more targeted campaign would be required for a location like Hillsboro which is part of a larger metropolitan area. It was agreed that cooperative advertising/marketing would be used to reach CFL users. 10.3 Costs Pilot project location scenarios with costs estimates were presented to serve only as a platform for the group in starting discussions concerning specific budget line items. Up-front costs estimates for the pilot were deemed high, with the main cost being allocated to project management activities. Costs would vary depending on geographical areas, how many retailer sites participated, store locations, recovery rates, recycling costs, and breadth of advertising and promotion. The greater numbers of CFLs are in heavily populated areas. As a result, recycling costs for these areas would be higher. Several participants have offered to provide in-kind contributions during the pilot, including reduced cost or free transportation/recycling, promotion design, recycling hotline for customers, and advertising assistance. The details have not yet been worked out but these contributions are helping to move the pilot project forward. Cooperative advertising/marketing strategies would be employed in the pilot to encourage sharing of costs. 10.4 Locations The group examined the pilot location scenarios and determined that it would recommend testing a pilot in several geographic locations and at both large and small retailer sites. This would allow several advertising methods to be tested to see what works for a particular area. Testing several locations, types of stores, and varying advertising would provide better quality of data than having a pilot at only one location in one type of retailer site. 10.5 Expanding the Project Several additional considerations for expanding the project to include tubes were presented. The group reconfirmed their interest in allowing retailer sites to determine whether or not to accept tubes for recycling. It was agreed however, that only CFL recycling would be promoted in advertising campaigns. Limited space is perhaps the main reason stores may be prevented from offering to collect tubes. Customers often bring in tubes regardless when replacing burned out fixtures. Only tubes from residents would be accepted, as there are other programs for recycling tubes from commercial sources. The cost of recycling these additional tubes is expected to be much less than that of the CFLs. (In a response to the first draft of this report, one group felt that the CFL project should look to mercury collection events and/or pilot programs that include various mercury-containing product types, such as thermometers and thermostats, as a more cost-effective option in removing mercury from the waste stream.)


10.6 Coupons The group agreed that coupons would be an attractive part of the pilot project, though it was pointed out that coupons would affect project costs and may be seen as a hassle by participating retailers. It was mentioned that coupons might also be used not only to recycle lamps, but also promote the purchase of a new CFL. There have been no offers yet to cover the cost of the coupons. 10.7 Funding The group agreed that the project would benefit by one organization taking a leadership role. It was expressed that the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) might be most appropriate due to their receiving funding from utilities that are interested in testing a pilot project and potentially establishing a permanent regional program. Also, in the meeting it was recognized that currently, NEEA is in contact with some 90 utilities and 1,700 retailers in support of regional programs that make energy efficient products, such as CFLs, available in the marketplace. While a few in the group expressed that CFL recycling may be outside of NEEA’s mission, many felt that CFL recycling is in line with NEEA’s work in transforming markets because recycling demonstrates responsible end-of-life management of the products they are promoting; and thus represents an appropriate example of ‘closing the loop’. However, NEEA, although a member of the group, was not represented at the meeting and it is not known whether NEEA would adopt such a program. Further discussion with NEEA was needed to determine if and how the CFL recycling project can contribute to NEEA’s mission and work. Some also felt that the pilot model as discussed would underserve rural areas, which are also served by NEEA. The group also explored other sources of funding for the pilot, including working with government and through grant opportunities. The group expressed a desire for all interested parties to work together and contribute in exploring funding options. 10.8 Transition Period During the meeting, the group agreed that a transition period is needed to maintain the momentum of Phase II until development of the pilot project is completed and Phase III is scheduled to begin. The ZWA, having facilitated the project thus far, was nominated to perform the work during this transition period. ZWA expressed willingness in continuing through the transition period. In preparation for the third meeting, overviews of how the pilot project and regional program might be structured were distributed to the group to serve as a starting point in discussing the development of a pilot project that may lead to a permanent regional program. The structure and scope of the project, as described below, is expected to change based on proposals to be submitted by organizations interested in implementing the pilot project, if and when it is funded. 11.1 Material Considerations 11.1.1 Material Flow – Pilot Project The fundamental flow of material in a pilot project will be: from manufacturer to retailer for sale to consumers; then back to the retailer for collection and transportation to a recycling facility. A CFL purchaser uses the CFL till it burns out. At that time the CFL user takes the CFL to a retailer participating in the recycling project. The CFL user then either deposits the burnout CFL into a “Do-It-Yourself” collection bin, or gives it to a retailer employee for deposit. When the retailer collects a certain number of burned out CFLs, a recycler will make a pickup and transport the lamps to a facility for recycling. It is important that burned out CFLs are separated from early failures that are still covered under warranty, as Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance is currently running a residential lighting program with Energy

11. Pilot Project Overview


Star – a component of which emphasizes the need for consumers to return CFLs that fail prematurely to retailers for a replacement. 11.1.2 Quantities Expected – Pilot Project Total sales for the region are based on the seven-quarter period from fourth quarter 2000 to second quarter 2002. This sales data is available by county. CFL sales are projected to level off to around 1,000,000 per year from 2003. Approximately 56.8% of the CFLs sold in the region are located in Washington state, 29.2% in Oregon, 9.9% in Idaho, and 4.0% in Montana. The majority of sales throughout the region occurred in the most heavily populated counties.2 Because data is only available by county, a city population to total county population ratio was used to project burned out CFLs for each pilot location. Results of these calculations are shown in Appendices 1 and 2. 11.2 Financial Considerations 11.2.1 Anticipated Project Costs – Pilot Project To estimate pilot project costs, assumptions were made for the following: recovery rate, number of participating stores, number of project pickups per store, number of CFLs per pickup, project transport costs, project management costs, and extent of education outreach and advertising. Annual pilot project management costs and other variable and fixed costs vary based on the size of the project. In-kind contributions (some of which have already been offered; see Appendix 12) will help reduce costs of the pilots and build partnerships between organizations participating in the programs. Advertising costs will vary depending on location, number of participating retailer sites, and breadth of the campaign. Some considerations include:

• Fostering relationships among sponsors and subsponsors to promote the pilot and reduce advertising costs (e.g., cooperative advertising, sharing of logos in ads in exchange for free public relations, trade-offs, etc.);

• Retail sponsorship; inclusion of project promotion in participating retailers’ advertising; • Direct mail campaigns; • Utility bill stuffers, coupons, and newsletter updates for targeted zip code areas like in Hillsboro; • Public relations (i.e., press release distributed to media in areas hosting pilot projects); • TV, radio, public service announcements for cities like Bend with distinct boundaries; and • Uniform logo and graphics applied consistently on store signage, point-of-purchase displays and

brochures, advertising, drop off boxes, etc; • Distinct program identity, a catchy tag line, and/or potentially a project mascot or recognizable

symbol that consumers can associate with the project. The group agreed that the pilots would benefit by one organization taking a leadership role. It was expressed that the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) might be appropriate and could play one or several roles in the pilot project and/or subcontract the additional work. The group expressed a desire for all interested parties to work together and contribute in exploring funding options. The CFL Stakeholders Group thought it appropriate to put together a hybrid or combination project that tests collection in both an urban and rural location (distinct versus diffuse boundary; e.g., ‘Multnomah County, Portland’ and ‘Bend’, or ‘Eugene’ and ‘Vancouver’). The group decided the pilot should focus on testing a collection method and success of various marketing strategies, rather than on capturing the greatest number of CFLs (i.e., having a pilot in a major metropolitan area such as Portland, where

2 Source: EcoNorthwest/Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance


recovery rates and quantities are likely to be greater than in other areas). Pilot location details, including estimates of transport and recycling costs can be found in Appendix 3. Cost for the pilot project were difficult to estimate based on a wide range of variables. The estimated cost of a combined pilot project in Hillsboro, Salem and Bend is $72,500, assuming the following:

• Six participating retailer sites; • Project management and other related costs of $50,000; • Advertising costs of $16,000; • Artwork Development Cost (in-kind $4,000+); • Recovery rate of 20% at a recycling cost of $0.50 per lamp (in-kind $5,200+); • Transport costs; average pickup of 425 CFLs; 24 pickups during project; @ ~$150 per pickup (in-

kind $9,000+); • Office, travel, and telephone costs of $6,500.

Note: Management, transport and recycling, advertising, and other costs in this example are to serve

only as a starting point in facilitating discussion in estimating program costs. It is assumed that these cost estimates may change as the pilot is further developed. A formal project proposal is needed from the organization that will manage the project to more accurately estimate pilot costs.

Pilot Project Budget Estimates (* indicates in-kind contribution) Assumptions Salem Hillsboro Bend Combined With In-kind Project burnouts 2004 22,500 17,500 11,500 51,500 51,500 20% recovery of burnouts 4,500 3,500 2,300 10,300 10,300 # Retailer sites 2 2 2 6 6 # Pickups per store 5 4 3 4 4 # CFLs per pickup 450 450 400 425 425 Project Management Phase I $8,000 $8,000 $8,000 $12,000 $12,000 Project Management Phase II $8,500 $8,500 $8,500 $12,000 $12,000 Project Management Phase III $13,500 $13,500 $13,500 $20,000 $20,000 Project Management Phase IV $3,500 $3,500 $3,500 $6,000 $6,000 Total Project Management Cost $33,500 $33,500 $33,500 $50,000 $50,000 Advertising & Marketing Cost $10,000 $7,000 $5,000 $16,000 $16,000 Artwork Development Cost* $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $4,000* $0 Recycling & Transport Cost* $3,500 $2,700 $3,000 $9,000* $0 Office, Travel, Telephone Cost $3,000 $2,400 $4,500 $6,500 $6,500 Total Project Cost $52,500 $48,100 $48,500 $85,500 $72,500 The group reviewed cost estimates for individual pilot projects in several locations, including Salem, Hillsboro and Bend (see chart above). The group felt that combining pilot projects would allow for testing of multiple variables (e.g., marketing, outreach and education strategies). This approach also reduces the funding required for project management of the three pilots (see “Combined” column). Additionally, many participants in the group have offered in-kind contributions to further reduce overall project costs. The “With In-Kind” column shows two such offers (see Appendix 12 for additional offers, the potential savings benefits of which have not yet been integrated into budget estimates). A pilot project for Salem, Hillsboro, and Bend – with some of the in-kind contributions included – is estimated to cost around $72,500. 11.2.2 Funding Sources – Pilot Project The purpose of a pilot is to raise awareness of the need to recycle CFLs, test a method for collection, and evaluate the project – providing recommendations for considering or rejecting implementation of a permanent, eventually self-sustaining regional program. It is unlikely that legislation, such as a landfill ban, will be passed in the foreseeable future to support a pilot project. For these reasons, there may be minimal value in dedicating time and funding to establish a recycling fee structure for a 12 month-long program. One option for pilot funding is for interested participants in the CFL Stakeholders Group to either directly fund activities or provide in-kind contributions through a Collective Fund. Coupon incentives may aid in informing the public as to the need, and eventual cost of recycling CFLs. Utilities could include a coupon with their bills that allows a customer to return a burnout CFL at no recycling charge (free) to participating retailer sites. This acclimates users to the idea of associated


recycling fees so that later, if and when an Advanced Recovery Fee is imposed as part of a potential permanent regional program, they understand why; and the benefits of CFLs are ensured. Coupons could also be provided so that when CFL users deposit their burnout CFLs at retailers, they may purchase a new CFL at reduced cost. This would help ensure sales of new CFLs and the associated energy savings. 11.2.3 Financial Flow – Pilot Project As previously mentioned, funding for a pilot project may come from participants in the CFL Stakeholders Group. A Collective Fund may be established to cover costs of a pilot, including project management, advertising and marketing, collection, recycling, and transport costs. Additionally, stakeholders have offered to make in-kind contributions (e.g., coupons, bill stuffers, promotion design etc.). A list of in-kind contributions offered thus far can be found in Appendix 12. Pilot Project Materials and Financial Flows 11.3 Management of Project 11.3.1 Structure – Pilot Project A pilot project would likely be managed by one implementing organization, though various components of the work may be subcontracted. This organization would be in charge of the following phases:

• Phase I: Building and fostering relationships with pilot project participants and developing a promotion plan and materials

• Phase II: Organizing pilot project(s) promotion and start-up / kick-off event(s) • Phase III: Ongoing managing of pilot project(s) activities • Phase IV: Evaluating and reporting on pilot project progress and results

Each phase would include specific tasks, as described in the sample budget estimate section below. 11.3.2 Management – Pilot Project Because the pilot project may be managed by one implementing organization, oversight responsibilities may be incorporated into existing job descriptions. Management and advertising planning of a pilot in the Portland Tri-County area would require greater time commitment than a project in Bend, assuming a greater number of participating retailer sites. Extra time is needed to coordinate with stores and recyclers regarding bin placement, scheduling of pickups, placement of signage, etc. Depending on the location of the organization implementing the pilots, additional time and resources will be needed to travel to sites participating in the project.

CFL flow

$ flow

New CFL Purchaser

CFL User at end of CFL life

$

CFLRetailer Transporter/

Recycler

Collective Fund

*TBD

*Funders$

Coupon for new CFL optional; received upon deposit of burnout CFL

Advertising / Signage

CFL flow

$ flow

New CFL Purchaser


$


Recycler

Collective Fund

*TBD

*Funders$

Coupon for new CFL optional; received upon deposit of burnout CFL

Advertising / Signage


11.3.3 Costs – Pilot Project Eighteen-month project management costs, other variable and fixed costs, and advertising costs vary by pilot location. These costs decrease depending on the size of the pilot and the number of participating retailer sites. Detailed management costs estimates are presented below. Pilot project cost estimates can be found in Appendix 4. Management, transport and recycling, advertising, and other costs in the Appendices are to serve only as a starting point in facilitating discussion in estimating program costs. It is assumed that these cost estimates may change as the pilot is further developed. 11.3.4 Measuring Results While the group has not thoroughly discussed how which indicators will be used to gauge the impact of the pilot project, in terms of marketing strategies and collection logistics, it is assumed that data will be gathered throughout the pilots that can be used to report on the efficacy of the implementation. Indicators and questions that may be considered include:

• Number of CFLs collected in total and by store location by type and month • CFL sales during collection period • How do projected recovery rates compare with actual (based on projected failures)? • How do recovery levels vary by community/location? • How do marketing strategies compare by location (also in terms of number of CFLs collected)? • What factors appear to affect results?

11.4 Sample Budget Estimate – Pilot Project In the sample budget in Appendix 5, project management costs vary slightly, but are comparable by project; and would vary depending on the number of participating stores. Recycling costs can be a major cost issue for a pilot project. For example, for the Portland Tri-County area, depending on recovery rate and recycling costs per lamp, estimates for recycling range from approximately $16,000 to $87,000, whereas recycling costs for a project in Hillsboro range from $1,216 to $3,256. This illustrates how recovery rate and recycling cost can impact project costs. A pilot project may help predict recovery rates for a regional program. Advertising costs will also vary depending on locations, how many retailers participate and which media sources are used to market the project to the public. The costs in this report are to be considered as a starting point for finalizing costs of a pilot project and are subject to change based on group discussions. 11.5 Summary – Pilot Project A pilot CFL project is a first step in gauging the feasibility of a permanent, regional CFL recycling program. It is important that the millions of residential CFL burnouts currently projected are managed responsibly at their end of life to ensure that this source of mercury is captured and prevented from entering the environment. Although each lamp contains only 5mg of mercury, it only takes one gram to contaminate a 20-acre lake. Proper recycling can help prevent this threat to human and environmental health. And as household hazardous wastes facilities are not experiencing large numbers of CFL returns from households, a pilot project provides a means for raising awareness and evaluating the effectiveness of a new system for recycling CFL burnouts from residents. The pilot scenarios in this paper focus on counties that experienced high sales during 2000-2002; and the majority of the CFLs in use in the region are in the larger metropolitan areas. Collection through retailer sites provides a convenient method for return of burned out CFLs. An effective pilot project would likely expand to include fluorescent tubes generated by households, in addition to CFLs. Though the group


decided to include tubes as an option in the pilot, estimating the costs of incorporating the collection of tubes needs further group discussion. Project costs are dependent on several factors such as, CFL recovery rate, recycling costs, pilot location, number of stores participating in the project, breadth of advertising and education outreach, etc. The group has decided that the pilot will focus on collection methods and raising awareness rather than capturing the greater number of returns. This will largely dictate pilot location. One option for covering pilot cost is to have interested participants in the CFL Stakeholders Group contribute funds directly or in-kind. It is generally recognized that CFL users will ultimately pay for a recycling program. Establishing a fee structure for a 12 month-long program pilot project would not be cost effective. One approach is to offer recycling for free during a pilot and, if and when a permanent regional program is put into place, gradually introduce an Advance Recovery Fee to make the program eventually self-sustaining. However, seed money would be needed to cover this initial regional program implementation and management cost. (See Appendix 6 for estimated timeline for implementation of pilot project phases) There are lessons learned from the CFL Recycling Project and CFL Stakeholders Group process that may be useful for other organizations working to develop pilot projects or come to consensus on various issues surrounding fluorescent lamp recycling. Some of the main considerations follow:

• The consensus process was very effective in taking into account the relevant needs and perspectives of all stakeholders. In working to generate wise solutions, rather than merely agreement, all the stakeholders in the group helped shape the development of the pilot projects, and have become invested in the outcome. An attempt was made to thoroughly discuss all issues to reach consensus. On occasion, consensus was confirmed by a show of hands from participants in support of an issue. In facilitating the meetings, ZWA kept discussions on topic and within the time allotted in the agenda, but allowed the group to give feedback in an open, unconstrained manner. The meetings flowed more like a conversation amongst participants, rather than having designated specific amounts of time for participants to voice their concerns and ideas. One drawback to the style of facilitation used in the meetings is that some participants may be less inclined to openly express their thoughts. To compensate for this, participants were encouraged to give feedback on meeting minutes and draft reports; and post-meeting follow-up conversations were held. In summarizing the stance of the group, ZWA had to translate concepts from group discussions in the meetings.

• Hosting three meetings proved to be more challenging than originally envisioned. The work

required to prepare materials for meetings and facilitation was extensive, although this conserved the time commitment of the stakeholders, which is appropriate, and allowed them to focus on the most important issues at the meetings. However, as the number of interested stakeholders grew to include a much broader viewpoint, ZWA had to keep the group focused on the goals of the original founding members.

• It took longer then expected to cover all of the issues concerning the pilot project and regional

program. It was thought that the group would benefit from working in small groups at the meetings to discuss the issues and then report back to the group as a whole. However, participants

12. Lessons Learned


found it worthwhile and necessary to hold open discussions with the entire group, so that everyone could hear each other’s position.

• Meeting follow-up with stakeholders proved critical to maintaining the momentum of the project.

Frequent communications helped clarify individual comments from meetings, prepare materials and generate approaches/ideas for upcoming meetings, and keep participants engaged in the process.

• In addition to facilitation, it was necessary for ZWA to develop meeting materials, design pilot

scenarios (extrapolating from available data), and drive discussion on various pilot and regional program issues so that the group had a platform from which to begin the consensus process. To do so, ZWA drew conclusions, both implied and inferred, from group discussions at the meetings. In presenting data, it was pertinent that a distinction be made between information that served as a basis for discussion, and information that was being proposed for consideration. This distinction was not always as clear as it could have been, for example in meeting three, when cost estimates for pilots were presented to serve as a basis for discussion. There was some confusion that these cost estimates were being proposed and subject to approval from the group, which was not the case.

• The group never fully evaluated the potential regional program. Cost estimates and program

structured were developed and presented to the group (and are included in this report), though no decisions were made concerning its implementation. This is appropriate considering it is unknown whether the pilots will be successful. Many in the group felt that discussion on a potential regional program should be postponed until the pilot is recognized as an optimal model for collecting and recycling CFLs.

• It was critical that there be an entity involved to ensure a smooth transition from the project

planning phase to the pilot implementation phase. It was recommended by the group that ZWA assume this role.

• It was recommended that the group act as an Advisory Board to the organization that will finalize

and implement the pilot project. This will ensure the intent of the original stakeholders group.

Northwest Compact Fluorescent Lamp Recycling Project – Phase II Draft Report – March 31, 2003 27

Appendix 1 CFL Sales and Projected Failures Calculations – Pilot Project / Regional Program Appendix 2 Projected Burnout 2004; Percentage CFL sales by county – Pilot Project Appendix 3 Location Details; Recycling and Transport Cost Estimates (Low End) – Pilot Project Appendix 4 Project Cost Estimates – Pilot Project Appendix 5 Sample Budget Estimate – Pilot Project Appendix 6 Estimated Project Timeline – Pilot Project Appendix 7 Potential Regional Program – Overview Appendix 8 Sample Budget Estimate – Regional Program Appendix 9 Store Location Scenarios – Regional Program Appendix 10 Program Summary Table – Regional Program Appendix 11 Estimated Program Timeline – Regional Program Appendix 12 In-Kind Contributions – Pilot Project (as of 3/28/03) Appendix 13 Example Recycling Models – Flowcharts Appendix 14 CFL Stakeholders Group Participants and/or Contributors Note: Management, transport and recycling, advertising, and other costs in the Appendices were to

serve only as a starting point in facilitating discussion in estimating pilot project and regional program costs. It is assumed that these cost estimates may change as the details of the project are further developed by the organization that will implement the pilots and a formal workplan is proposed.

Appendices


Appendix 1 CFL Sales and Projected Failures Calculations – Regional Program CFL Sales and Projected Failures - Regional Program Source: EcoNorthwest/NEEA

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total 2004-2009 Number of CFLs sold by region

204,000 237,233 324,431 578,980 8,454,803 2,500,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 19,299,447 6,000,000

Total Projected CFL failures for region

25,500 55,154 95,708 168,081 1,233,417 1,555,786 1,694,282 1,809,382 2,246,578 2,420,028 2,490,170 1,248,200 999,800 16,042,086 11,214,158

Total Projected CFL failures by state 11,202,944

OR (29.2%) 7,446 16,105 27,947 49,080 360,158 454,290 494,730 528,340 656,001 706,648 727,130 364,474 291,942 4,684,289 3,274,534 WA (56.8%) 14,484 31,327 54,362 95,470 700,581 883,686 962,352 1,027,729 1,276,056 1,374,576 1,414,417 708,978 567,886 9,111,905 6,369,642 ID (9.9%) 2,525 5,460 9,475 16,640 122,108 154,023 167,734 179,129 222,411 239,583 246,527 123,572 98,980 1,588,167 1,110,202 MT (4.0%) 1,020 2,206 3,828 6,723 49,337 62,231 67,771 72,375 89,863 96,801 99,607 49,928 39,992 641,683 448,566 Total Region Recycling Cost assuming 20% @ $0.35/lamp

$1,785 $3,861 $6,700 $11,766 $86,339 $108,905 $118,600 $126,657 $157,260 $169,402 $174,312 $87,374 $69,986 $1,122,946 $784,991

OR (29.2%) $521 $1,127 $1,956 $3,436 $25,211 $31,800 $34,631 $36,984 $45,920 $49,465 $50,899 $25,513 $20,436 $327,900 $229,217 WA (56.8%) $1,014 $2,193 $3,805 $6,683 $49,041 $61,858 $67,365 $71,941 $89,324 $96,220 $99,009 $49,628 $39,752 $637,833 $445,875 ID (9.9%) $177 $382 $663 $1,165 $8,548 $10,782 $11,741 $12,539 $15,569 $16,771 $17,257 $8,650 $6,929 $111,172 $77,714 MT (4.0%) $71 $154 $268 $471 $3,454 $4,356 $4,744 $5,066 $6,290 $6,776 $6,972 $3,495 $2,799 $44,918 $31,400 Total Region Recycling Cost assuming 35% @ $0.50/lamp

$4,463 $9,652 $16,749 $29,414 $215,848 $272,263 $296,499 $316,642 $393,151 $423,505 $435,780 $218,435 $174,965 $2,807,365 $1,962,478

OR (29.2%) $1,303 $2,818 $4,891 $8,589 $63,028 $79,501 $86,578 $92,459 $114,800 $123,663 $127,248 $63,783 $51,090 $819,751 $573,043 WA (56.8%) $2,535 $5,482 $9,513 $16,707 $122,602 $154,645 $168,412 $179,853 $223,310 $240,551 $247,523 $124,071 $99,380 $1,594,583 $1,114,687 ID (9.9%) $442 $956 $1,658 $2,912 $21,369 $26,954 $29,353 $31,348 $38,922 $41,927 $43,142 $21,625 $17,322 $277,929 $194,285 MT (4.0%) $179 $386 $670 $1,177 $8,634 $10,891 $11,860 $12,666 $15,726 $16,940 $17,431 $8,737 $6,999 $112,295 $78,499 Total Region Recycling Cost assuming 50% @ $0.75/lamp

$9,563 $20,683 $35,891 $63,030 $462,531 $583,420 $635,356 $678,518 $842,467 $907,511 $933,814 $468,075 $374,925 $6,015,782 $4,205,309

OR (29.2%) $2,792 $6,039 $10,480 $18,405 $135,059 $170,359 $185,524 $198,127 $246,000 $264,993 $272,674 $136,678 $109,478 $1,756,608 $1,227,950 WA (56.8%) $5,432 $11,748 $20,386 $35,801 $262,718 $331,382 $360,882 $385,398 $478,521 $515,466 $530,406 $265,867 $212,957 $3,416,964 $2,388,616 ID (9.9%) $947 $2,048 $3,553 $6,240 $45,791 $57,759 $62,900 $67,173 $83,404 $89,844 $92,448 $46,339 $37,118 $595,562 $416,326 MT (4.0%) $383 $827 $1,436 $2,521 $18,501 $23,337 $25,414 $27,141 $33,699 $36,300 $37,353 $18,723 $14,997 $240,631 $168,212


Appendix 2 Projected Burnout 2004; Percentage CFL sales by county3 – Pilot Project

Portland Tri-Co

King Co Seattle

Multnomah Co Portland

Eugene Salem Hillsboro Vancouver Bend

2004 Projected burnouts

234,261 112,292 77,619 26,424 22,671 17,367 15,371 11,482

% Total CFL sales by county (Q2 2000 – Q4 2002)

6.2 + 5.4 + 1.4 = 13%

19.1% 5.4% 3.4% 2.7% 6.2% 2.0% 1.5%

Appendix 3 Location Details; Recycling and Transport Cost Estimates (Low End) – Pilot

Project

Portland Tri-Co

King Co Seattle



Project burnouts 2004 234,261 112,292 77,619 26,424 22,621 17,367 15,371 11,482 20% recovery 46,852 22,458 15,524 5,285 4,524 3,473 3,074 2,296

# Retailer sites (assumed) 5 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 # Pickups per store 16 14 10 5 5 7 3 4 # CFLs per pickup 586 535 517 528 452 496 512 574 Total Project transport costs

$4,000 $2,100 $1,500 $750 $750 $525 $450 $500

Recycling cost per pickup @ $0.35/lamp

$205 $187 $181 $185 $158 $174 $179 $201

Recycling cost per pickup @ $0.50/lamp

$293 $267 $259 $264 $226 $248 $256 $287

Total Project Recycling / Transport Cost @ $0.35/lamp (low end)

$20,398 $9,960 $6,933 $2,600 $2,333 $1,741 $1,526 $1,304

Total Project Recycling / Transport Cost @ $0.50/lamp

$27,426 $13,329 $9,262 $3,392 $3,012 $2,262 $1,987 $1,648

Appendix 4 Project Cost Estimates – Pilot Project

Portland Tri-Co

King Co Seattle



Phase I $8,075 $8,075 $8,075 $8,075 $8,075 $7,075 $7,075 $7,075 Phase II $8,250 $8,250 $8,250 $8,250 $8,250 $8,250 $8,250 $8,250 Phase III $23,750 $18,750 $18,750 $13,750 $13,750 $13,750 $13,750 $13,750 Phase IV $4,900 $3,600 $3,600 $3,600 $3,600 $3,600 $3,600 $3,600 Total Project Mngt Cost

$43,975 $38,675 $38,675 $33,675 $33,675 $32,675 $32,675 $32,675

Advertising & Marketing Cost

$25,000 $15,000 $15,000 $10,000 $10,000 $7,000 $6,000 $5,000

Recycling & Transport Cost

$21,398 $10,060 $6,933 $2,600 $2,525 $1,741 $1,526 $1,179

Other Costs $2,374 $5,265 $2,374 $3,294 $2,834 $2,374 $2,506 $4,608 Total Project Cost (low end)

$92,747 $69,000 $62,982 $49,569 $49,034 $43,790 $42,707 $43,462

3 Source: EcoNorthwest/Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance


Appendix 5 Sample Budget Estimate – Pilot Project Sample Option 6 Hillsboro, Oregon Hours Cost Project Management Sr Staff Staff Total Sr Staff Staff Total

Phase I: Building and fostering relationships with pilot project participants and developing a promotion plan and materials

Confirming project participants 3 20 23 $75 $50 $1,225Designing advertising and marketing strategies (assume free graphics) 4 20 24 $75 $50 $1,300Determining location of recycling bins, signage, information at retailer site 6 6 $75 $50 $300Scheduling pickups for recycling bins by recycler 4 4 $75 $50 $200Setting up telephone/web support for CFL users with questions and information requests

4 20 24 $75 $50 $1,300

Establishing protocols for distributing pilot project(s) funds 4 20 24 $75 $50 $1,300Creating a system for monitoring/measuring pilot project progress 6 20 26 $75 $50 $1,450Phase I Subtotal 21 110 131 $7,075

Phase II: Organizing pilot project(s) promotion and start-up / kick-off event(s)

Project promotion (flyers, stuffers, PR) 10 40 50 $75 $50 $2,750Implement kick-off events(s) 10 40 50 $75 $50 $2,750Collaborate with community/special interest groups 10 40 50 $75 $50 $2,750Phase II Subtotal 30 120 150 $8,250

Phase III: Ongoing managing of pilot project(s) activities Ongoing project promotion (2 days/mo) 50 200 250 $75 $50 $13,750 Flyers, stuffers, PR Store / Recycler liaison Data collection Reporting Phase III Subtotal 50 200 250 $13,750

Phase IV: Evaluating and reporting on pilot project progress and results

Evaluate project results 4 20 24 $75 $50 $1,300Prepare final project report with recommendations 4 40 44 $75 $50 $2,300Phase IV Subtotal 8 60 68 $3,600

Project Management Subtotal 109 490 599 $32,675

Advertising Advertising and Marketing $7,000 Design PSAs, TV, radio, newspaper Quarterly Flyers (1/5 residents) Stuffers, PR

Advert and Marketing Subtotal $7,000

Recycling / Transportation Recycling (assuming 20% CFL recovery rate @ $0.35/lamp) $1,216Transport (20% recovery = ~3,400 CFLs; 1 store; 500/pickup; 7 pickups @ $75 each) $525

Recycling / Transport Subtotal $1,741

Mngt/Advert/Recy/Trans Total 109 490 599 $41,416

Other Costs


Office Expenses @ $100/mo $1,800Travel 1 trips/mo for 18mo @ 60mi/trip $0.365/mi $394Telephone @ $10/mo for 18mo $180

Other Costs Subtotal $2,374

Project Total 109 490 599 $43,790


Appendix 6 Estimated Project Timeline – Pilot Project

MonthActivity

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18Phase I: Building and fostering relationships with pilot project participants and developing a promotion plan and materials

Confirming project participantsDesigning advertising and marketing strategiesDetermining location of recycling bins, signage, information at retailer site

Scheduling pickups for recycling bins by recyclerSetting up telephone/web support for CFL users with questions and information requests

Establishing protocols for distributing pilot project(s) funds

Creating a system for monitoring/measuring pilot project progress with indicators

Phase II: Organizing pilot project(s) promotion and start-up/kick-off event(s)

Project promotionHold kick-off events(s)Collaborate with community/special interest groups

Phase III: Ongoing managing of pilot project(s) activities

Ongoing project promotionStore / Recycler liaisonData collectionReporting

Phase IV: Evaluating and reporting on pilot project progress and results

Evaluate project results and reportPrepare final project report with recommendations

Estimated Pilot Project Timeline


Appendix 7 Potential Regional Program – Overview Though the group did not comprehensively discuss the scope of a potential regional program in Phase II meetings, an overview of how a regional program might be set up was distributed to the group to serve as a platform in facilitating discussions of a pilot project that may lead to a potential regional program. When considering the pilot project, it was helpful to keep in mind the overall sales, distribution and projected failures of CFLs throughout the region, as well as potential costs of recycling. 1 Material Considerations 1.1 Material Flow – Regional Program The fundamental flow of material in a regional program will be: from manufacturer to retailer for sale to consumers; then back to the retailer for collection and transportation to a recycling facility. A CFL purchaser uses the CFL till it burns out. At that time the CFL user takes the CFL to a retailer participating in the recycling project. The CFL user then either deposits the burnout CFL into a “Do-It-Yourself” collection bin, or gives it to a retailer employee for deposit. When the retailer collects a certain number of burned out CFLs, a recycler will make a pickup and transport the lamps to a facility for recycling. It is important that burned out CFLs are separated from early failures that are still covered under warranty, as Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance is currently running a residential lighting program with Energy Star – a component of which emphasizes the need for consumers to return CFLs that fail prematurely to retailers for a replacement. 1.2 Quantities Expected – Regional Program Based on pre-2003 sales data, annual CFL failures are projected to increase until 2007, at which time they peak at approximately 2,500,000; and then level off to 999,800 per year from 2009. This peak is largely due to utility promotion of CFL sales and give-away programs during the 2000-2001 energy crisis. Total CFL failures for the region for years 2004-2009 is estimated at 11,214,158.4. See the CFL Sales and Projected Failures Calculations section in Appendix1. 2 Financial Considerations 2.1 Anticipated Program Costs – Regional Program It is difficult to estimate costs of a regional on-going recycling program without knowing locations of retailer sites, how many retailer sites will participate, CFL recovery rate, recycling costs per lamp, number of pickups per store, extent of education outreach and advertising. Additionally, it is unknown at which level the program will be implemented, i.e., regional, state, local. Assumptions were made for these ‘unknowns’, including project management costs. Costs would likely be defrayed if fluorescent tubes were included in collection efforts. For the purposes of this paper, total annual regional program management costs are estimated at $110,000 for three full time employees and $100,000 for other variable and fixed costs. Ongoing advertising costs are estimated at $10,000-$25,000 per subregion (i.e., subregions for Oregon: Willamette Valley, Portland, Eastern, Coast). See Appendix 8 for potential store location scenarios. Advertising costs after the first six months are expected to decrease significantly after the initial campaign. Total 2004-2009 recycling costs estimates range from $780,000 to $4,200,000, based on recovery rates of 20% and 50% and recycling cost assumptions of $0.35 (low end) and $0.75 per lamp. See store location scenarios for the region at the end of this paper for further estimates. 4 Source: Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance


Costs of implementing a regional program up until 2007 would be more expensive than after 2007, as this is the year when the region experiences a peak in burnouts. This is the period in which recycling and transport costs would increase. Based on future sales and failure projections, program costs after 2007 should remain fairly constant. It is likely that an Advanced Recovery Fee would be introduced after 3-5 years to sustain collection and recycling efforts. The estimated annual program costs (based on CFL sales and failures projection for 2004-2009) is $640,000, assuming the following:

• Recovery rate of 20% at a recycling cost of $0.35 per lamp ($130,000), • 13 subregions participating throughout OR, WA, ID, MT, • Project management and other related costs of $210,000, • Average advertising costs of $15,000-$25,000 per subregion, ($195,000-$325,000) • Transport costs of $2,700 per subregion (Costs increase for areas outside of main transit corridors

and as recovery rate increases. It is considered that transport costs are included otherwise. ($35,000))

Note: Management, transport and recycling, advertising, and other costs in this example are to serve

only as a starting point in facilitating discussion in estimating program costs. It is assumed that these cost estimates may change as the regional program is further developed and detailed workplan is proposed.

2.2 Funding Sources – Regional Program A funding mechanism will have to be eventually established, as it is unlikely that legislation, such as a landfill ban and some kind of recovery fee requirement, will be passed in the foreseeable future to support a regional program. One option is to gradually introduce fees (Advanced Recovery) to consumers over a period of 3-5 years. During this time, seed funding would be required to promote program activities and deal with legacy products (i.e., CFLs in use and burnout stream). One option for seed funding is through energy organizations funded by utilities such as Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance and The Energy Trust of Oregon. Both organizations have strategies and programs that align well with long term CFL recycling (i.e., energy savings and new technology promotion through market transformation). Another option for partial funding is through local, state and/or regional government – depending on the size and structure of the program. Regardless of the option, ultimately, CFL users will be responsible for funding the operation of a regional program. Costs of a future regional program may be greatly reduced, if not met, through an Advanced Recovery Fee. Coupon incentives may aid in informing the public as to the need/cost of recycling CFLs. Utilities could include a coupon with their bills that allows a customer to return a burned out CFL at no recycling charge (free) to participating retailer sites. This acclimates users to the idea of associated recycling fees so that later, if and when an Advanced Recovery Fee is imposed, they understand why; and the benefits of CFLs are ensured. Additionally, when CFL users deposit their burned out CFLs at retailers, they may receive a coupon to purchase a new CFL at reduced cost, thereby promoting continued lamp sales and energy savings. 2.3 Financial Flow – Regional Program There are many options for financial flow in a regional recycling program. As previously mentioned, the user may pay an Advanced Recovery Fee (with or without a deposit) to cover collection and recycling costs. Alternatively, CFL purchasers may pay an End-of-Life Recovery Fee; or the recycling costs may be passed on to consumers via the retailer through a producer paid model.


Regardless of fee structure, the customer may also receive a coupon for purchase of a new CFL at reduced cost; or coupons from manufacturers for new lamps, the value of which equals the disposal fee. The group did not formally confirm a model for the permanent program in Phase II meetings, nor was it their aim. However, discussion of financial flow, and funding mechanisms (models) that were reviewed by the group may be useful in designing a permanent program. Results of a pilot project(s) are expected to provide useful recommendations in this area as well. 3 Management of Project 3.1 Structure – Regional Program The structure of a regional program is undetermined, though could be set-up in a number of ways. It could be structured so that local governments contract through recyclers for collection at retailer sites for individual cities/communities. Or, a new state or regional organization could be created (or an existing regional organization could be utilized) to coordinate the collection efforts for individual states and the region. Alternatively, if large retailers participate in the program and are located region-wide, they could manage the program if it suits their long term strategies. In Minnesota, where small retailers serve as collection points for burned out CFLs, one mercury recycler manages the program statewide. Should small retailer sites dominate a Pacific Northwest regional recycling effort, program activities could be community centered, with local agencies eventually directly managing the recycling program. Another option is to establish an industry backed organization dedicated to recycling CFLs, much in the way the Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation (RBRC) is dedicated to recycling rechargeable batteries. RBRC is a nonprofit public service organization supported by over 300 manufacturers. They provide collection materials and pays recycling costs. Businesses participating in the program cover shipping/transport costs. A regional program may ensure that all areas are uniformly served, whereas, community based approaches may be either more or less effective at championing recycling efforts. 3.2 Management – Regional Program Depending on the structure of a regional program, management requirements will differ. If a program is managed by a local, state or regional agency or organization, oversight responsibilities may be incorporated into existing job descriptions. This type of set-up may be difficult to coordinate on a regional level, but it may allow for greater flexibility during program implementation. Establishing a new regional organization, or several state organizations to manage a program will entail greater costs, but may allow for more consistency in implementation and equal coverage in all subregions. Alternatively, if a large retailer championed the program, implementation costs would likely decrease and greater consistency would be attained regionally, and potentially nationally. 3.3 Costs – Regional Program Annual program management costs may decrease if the program is implemented by an existing organization. Overall it is difficult to predict costs because the structure and extent of a regional program is as of yet undetermined. Additional personnel may be required to manage implementation, depending on how many retailer sites and subregions are included in a program. If a national RBRC type organization was established these costs would be borne by manufacturers.


4 Sample Budget Estimate – Regional Program In the sample budget in Appendix 7, recycling costs are a major cost for a regional recycling program. Depending on recovery rate and recycling costs per lamp, the total annual estimates for recycling range from approximately $130,000 to $700,000. A pilot project may help predict recovery rates for a regional program. Project management, fixed and variable costs are consistent despite varying recovery rates but ultimately depend on the breadth of the program. Advertising costs will also vary depending on locations, how many retailers participate and which media sources are used to market the program to the public. It is assumed that advertising costs will decrease dramatically after the initial campaign (see Appendix 8 for sample of potential store locations for the region). In the estimated budget, advertising for the 2004-2009 period is estimated at half the initial campaign costs. The estimated budget (see Appendix) is to be considered only as a starting point for estimating costs of a regional program. 5 Summary – Regional Program A regional CFL program is a logical next step consideration following a pilot project. It is important that the 11 million residential CFL burnouts projected in the coming years are managed responsibly at their end of life to ensure that this source of mercury is captured and prevented from entering the environment. A pilot project provides a means for evaluating the effectiveness of a new system for recycling CFL burnouts from residents that may lead to establishing a permanent regional program – as household hazardous wastes facilities are not experiencing significant numbers of CFL returns from households. The majority of the CFLs in use in the region are in the larger metropolitan areas. Collection through retailer sites provides a convenient method for return of burned out CFLs. An effective regional program would likely expand to include fluorescent tubes generated by households, in addition to CFLs, thereby providing greater overall benefits from the management costs. There are several options for covering regional program costs. One option is to gradually introduce fees (e.g., Advanced Recovery) over 3-5 years to cover regional program costs. Seed funding would be required to illustrate and promote the importance of recycling and use of CFLs, and to cover legacy products. Seed funding may be available through regional energy organizations promoting energy efficient products through market transformation. Local and state governments may also play a role in coordinating a regional recycling program, with CFL users ultimately supporting the program financially through a fee system. See Appendix 10 for the estimated program timeline. Program costs are difficult to determine without knowing which subregions would be included, the number of retailer sites that may participate in the program, the CFL recovery rate, or the extent of program promotion and education outreach. Modest estimates place total annual program costs at roughly $640,000 and total 2004-2009 regional program costs at $3,000,000 (costs mainly depending on recycling costs estimates and recovery rates). See Appendix 9 for a summary of estimates for the regional program.


Appendix 8 Sample Budget Estimate – Regional Program Sample Budget Estimate - Regional Program Activity Annual Cost

@ 20% recovery @ $0.35/lamp

Annual Cost @ 35%

recovery @ $0.50/lamp

Annual Cost @ 50%

recovery @ $0.75/lamp

2004-2009 Cost @ 20% recovery @ $0.35/lamp



Project Management

1 Senior Staff $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000

Phase I-IV 1 Staff $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $180,000 $180,000 $180,000

1 Staff/Clerical $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $180,000 $180,000 $180,000

Proj Mngt Total $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 $660,000 $660,000 $660,000

Advertising Per *subregion $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000

Advert Total $260,000 $260,000 $260,000 $780,000 $780,000 $780,000

Recycling $130,439 $326,098 $698,782 $782,636 $1,956,590 $4,192,693

Transport Per *subregion $2,700 $4,000 $6,000 $16,200 $24,000 $36,000

Transport Total $35,100 $52,000 $78,000 $210,600 $312,000 $468,000

Other Fixed/Variable $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000

Total $635,539 $848,098 $1,246,782 $3,033,236 $4,308,590 $6,700,693

*Subregion (e.g., Willamette Valley, Portland Metro, Coast, Eastern)


Appendix 9 Store Location Scenarios – Regional Program The following tables present potential scenarios for a regional recycling program. These tables are meant to serve only as a starting point in developing a regional program. Data pertaining to sales is available by county from the seven-quarter period from fourth quarter 2000 to second quarter 20025. Because this is the period during which the majority of sales took place for the region, counties that experienced the greatest percentage of sales were included in the scenario tables below for the year 2004. It is important to note that CFL failures in the subregions would increase up to year 2007 when projected failures peak6. Assumptions were made concerning the number of participating stores, transport costs, and number of lamps per pickup. The number of burned out CFLs per pickup was assumed to be around 1,000 (2-4 bins @ 250/500 CFLs/bin). OREGON

29.20% Sub-regions

Portland Metro Willamette Valley Coast Eastern County Washington

Multnomah Clackamas

Marion Lane Linn

Clatsop Coos

Jackson

Deschutes Umatilla

City Portland Gresham Tualatin

Oregon City Hillsboro

Salem, Eugene Lebanon, Albany

Sweet Home

Astoria, Seaside Coos Bay, Ashland

Medford

Bend Pendleton

# Projected Burnouts 2004 524,721*44.3% = 232,451 524,721*26.3% = 138,002 524,721*10.5 = 55,096 524,721*6% = 31,483 Assuming 35% Recovery 81,358 48,301 19,284 11,019 # Participating Stores 10 10 8 5 # Estimated Annual Pickups 7 5 3 3 # CFLs per Pickup per Store 1,162 966 803 735 Annual Transport Cost Recycling Cost per Pickup assuming $0.50/lamp

WASHINGTON

56.80%

Sub-regions

Olympic Northwest Southwest Central Eastern County Kitsap

Thurston Pierce

Clallam

King Snohomish Whatcom

Clark Douglas Yakima

Spokane Benton

City Seattle Olympia Tacoma

Pt. Angeles

Seattle Everett

Bellingham

Vancouver Wenatchee Yakima

Spokane Kennewick

# Projected Burnouts 2004 1,027,729* 18.2% = 187047

1,027,729* 50.1% = 514892

1,027,729* 3.6% = 36,998

1,027,729* 4.5% = 46,248

1,027,729* 12.8% = 131,549

Assuming 35% Recovery 65,466 180,212 12,949 16,187 46,042 # Participating Stores 10 15 5 5 8 # Estimated Annual Pickups 6 12 3 3 5 # CFLs per Pickup per Store 1,091 1,001 863 1,079 1,151 Annual Transport Cost Recycling Cost per Pickup assuming $0.50/lamp

5 EcoNorthwest/Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance 6 Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance


IDAHO

9.90% Sub-regions

North South County Koontenai Ada

Twin Falls Bonneville

City Coeur d’Alene Boise Twin Falls Idaho Falls

# Projected Burnouts 2004 179,129*11.9 = 21,316 179,129*75.5% = 135,242 Assuming 35% Recovery 7,461 47,335 # Participating Stores 2 8 # Estimated Annual Pickups 4 6 # CFLs per Pickup per Store 933 986 Annual Transport Cost Recycling Cost per Pickup assuming $0.50/lamp

MONTANA

4.00% Sub-regions

West East County Flathead

Missoula Yellowstone

City Kalispell Missoula

Billings

# Projected Burnouts 2004 72,375*36.5% = 26,417 72,375*23.2% = 16,791 Assuming 35% Recovery 9,246 5,877 # Participating Stores 4 2 # Estimated Annual Pickups 2 3 # CFLs per Pickup per Store 1,156 979 Annual Transport Cost Recycling Cost per Pickup assuming $0.50/lamp


Appendix 10 Program Summary Table – Regional Program

Location Regional: OR, WA, ID, MT Population OR 3,472,867; WA 5,987,973; ID 1,321,006; MT 904,433 Estimated CFLs sales Q4 2000 – Q2 2002 by state Source: EcoNorthwest/NEEA

OR 2,892,544 (29.2%) WA 5,625,897 (56.8%) ID 981,742 (9.9%) MT 400,210 (4.0%)

Retailers (potential participants)

Large: Fred Meyer, Home Depot, Lowe’s Small: Do-It-Best Hardware, Ace Hardware, True Value Hardware, A-Boy Electric

Recyclers Earth Protection Services Environmental Protective Services Total Reclaim / EcoLights Northwest

Timeframe Ongoing 2004-2009 Sample Metrics # CFLs collected by type/mo/qtr; Store; Store zip code Projected Failures 2004-2009 for region

11,180,516 1,863,419/yr average

2004-2009 Recycling Costs Recycling costs 2004-2009 assuming 20%recovery @ $0.35/lamp $782,636 $130,439/yr average

Recycling costs 2004-2009 assuming 35%recovery @ $0.50/lamp $1,956,590 $326,098/yr average

Recycling costs 2004-2009 assuming 50% recovery @ $0.75/lamp $4,192,694 $698,782/yr average

Estimated Total Annual Regional Program Cost $640,000 - $1,200,000 Estimated 2004-2009 Total Regional Program Costs $3,000,000 - $6,700,000


Appendix 11 Estimated Program Timeline – Regional Program Although it is not clear what type of implementation structure/schedule a regional program would take, the pilot project should provide lessons learned that would shape the permanent program. It is likely that a regional program would be managed similarly to a pilot project, depending on the pilot’s success; and consist of the following phases:

• Phase I: Building and fostering relationships with pilot project participants and developing a promotion plan and materials

• Phase II: Organizing pilot project(s) promotion and start-up / kick-off event(s) • Phase III: Ongoing managing of pilot project(s) activities • Phase IV: Evaluating and reporting on pilot project progress and results

These phases are represented in the timeline below for years 2005-2009, after which time a fee structure would be in place to sustain the program. A final report could provide recommendations on how to ensure that the program is sustained after the implementing organization phases out participation.

Compact Fluorescent Lamp Recycling Project

Year/Quarter

Activity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20Phase I: Building and fostering relationships with program participants and developing a promotion plan and materials

Recruit program participantsSet up telephone/web support for CFL users with questions and information Establish protocols for distributing program fundsUpdate measuring system

Phase II: Organizing program promotion and start-up/kick-off event(s)

Adapt advertising and marketing strategiesDetermine location of recycling bins, signage, information at retailerScheduling pickups for recycling bins by recyclerProgram promotionHold kick-off eventsCollaborate with community/special interest groups

Phase III: Ongoing managing of program activities

Manage day-to-day program activitiesStore / Recycler liaisonData clooectionReporting

Phase IV: Evaluating and reporting on program progress and results

Evaluate program results and reportPrepare final program report with recommendations

Estimated Permanent Regional Program Timeline

2008 20092005 2006 2007


Appendix 12 In-Kind Contributions – Pilot Project (as of 3/28/03) • Earth Protection Services Inc., has offered to provide in-kind contributions for CFL pickup,

transportation, and recycling.

• OSRAM Sylvania has offered in-kind one time promotion design and artwork development that will be applied to all signage, flyers, promotional materials, ads, etc., in the pilot project to ensure consistency. Should a permanent program ensue, such design and artwork may be applied regionally as well.

• Metro Regional Government has offered to provide in-kind, information about the pilot project

through its “Hotline” for consumers with questions regarding the recycling project. Metro can also coordinate, if necessary, with local governments to help get the message out with regards to the pilot.

• Utilities (Portland General Electric, PacifiCorp, and potentially others) have offered to

provide in-kind advertising assistance through bill stuffers and newsletter updates sent to customers in their service areas (by zip code). In Hillsboro and Bend for example, PGE and PacifiCorp can inform customers as to how and where to recycle their burned out CFLs, and potentially provide incentives (coupons) to take back CFLs and/or purchase a new one.

• Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has offered to post information about the pilot

project on its website (mercury page). Here, consumers will be able to link to useful information the CFL recycling pilot programs, local CFL recycling contacts, and where and how to recycle CFLs through retailers participating in the pilot project. DEQ has also offered to provide information about the pilot through their household hazardous waste hotline, accessible to residents throughout the state.

• Association of Oregon Recyclers (AOR) has offered to disseminate information about the pilot

project to all of its nearly 320 members (i.e., businesses, government agencies, other non-profit organizations and individuals) via newsletter and meetings. AOR supports important recycling policies and programs at the local and state levels and provides a network where recyclers can share knowledge and expertise.

• Marion County Public Works has offered to promote the pilot project through its semi-yearly

publication covering waste reduction and recycling programs and events that is disseminated to all Marion County residents.

• Oregon Environmental Council has offered to pass on information about the pilot project to its

members and broader distribution lists as appropriate.

• Retailer Sites that elect to participate in the pilot may recognize the project in their advertising, including all the logos of all those participating in the cooperative marketing strategy. (not yet confirmed)


Appendix 13 Example Recycling Models – Flowcharts

Example Model A: Solid Waste Financing (curbside) *Indiana Model

CFL flow

$ flow

New CFL Purchaser


$

CFLTransporter/

Recycler

Waste district with a participating

Sears store

Retailer

**State Grant

*Mercury reduction efforts by Governor began in 1998

**Advertising and recycling costs split between state grant and waste district with a participating Sears store

CFL flow

$ flow

New CFL PurchaserNew CFL Purchaser



$

CFLTransporter/

RecyclerTransporter/

Recycler


Sears store


Sears store

Retailer

**State Grant

Retailer

**State Grant**State Grant

*Mercury reduction efforts by Governor began in 1998

**Advertising and recycling costs split between state grant and waste district with a participating Sears store

Tax or monthly fee

CFL flow

$ flow

New CFL Purchaser


$

CFL

Waste Hauler

Transporter/Recycler

Curbside pickup

General Public

Tax or monthly fee

Tax or monthly fee

CFL flow

$ flow




$

CFL

Waste HaulerWaste Hauler



Curbside pickup

General Public

General Public


*Minnesota Model Example Model B: End-of-Life Recovery Fee

CFL flow

$ flow

New CFL Purchaser


Coupons

$

CFL

Retailer Transporter/Recycler

Utility

End-of-Life Recovery Fee

Utility invoiced by Transporter/Recycler for coupon value

Retailer pays Transporter/Recycler for recycling costs

*Minnesota state law forbids landfill disposal of CFLs and tubes containing mercury

CFL flow

$ flow




Coupons

$

CFL

RetailerRetailer Transporter/Recycler


UtilityUtility

End-of-Life Recovery FeeEnd-of-Life

Recovery Fee


Retailer pays Transporter/Recycler for recycling costs

*Minnesota state law forbids landfill disposal of CFLs and tubes containing mercury

CFL flow

$ flow

New CFL Purchaser


Coupons

$

CFLRetailer Transporter

/Recycler

Utility

End-of-Life Recovery Fee


CFL flow

$ flow




Coupons

$

CFLRetailerRetailer Transporter

/RecyclerTransporter/Recycler

UtilityUtility

End-of-Life Recovery FeeEnd-of-Life

Recovery Fee



Example Model C: Advanced Recovery Fee Example Model D: Advanced Recovery Fee with Deposit

Advanced Recovery

Fee

CFL flow

$ flow

New CFL Purchaser


$

CFLRetailer


$

Collective Fund

Advanced Recovery

Fee

Advanced Recovery

Fee

CFL flow

$ flow




$

CFLRetailerRetailer



$

Collective Fund

Collective Fund

Advanced Recovery Fee with Deposit

CFL flow

$ flow

New CFL Purchaser


$

CFLRetailer


$

Collective Fund

Refund



CFL flow

$ flow




$

CFLRetailerRetailer



$

Collective Fund

Collective Fund

Refund


Example Model E: Group Financing of Retail Collection Example Model F: Group Financing of Retail Collection with Deposit

CFL flow

$ flow

New CFL Purchaser


$


Recycler

Collective Fund

*TBD

*Funders$

CFL flow

$ flow




$

CFLRetailerRetailer Transporter/


Recycler

Collective Fund

Collective Fund

*TBD

*Funders*Funders$

CFL flow

$ flow

New CFL Purchaser


$


Recycler

Collective Fund

*TBD

*Funders$

Deposit

$

Refund

CFL flow

$ flow




$

CFLRetailerRetailer Transporter/


Recycler

Collective Fund

Collective Fund

*TBD

*Funders*Funders$

DepositDeposit

$

Refund


Example Model G: Group Financing of Household Hazardous Waste / Recycling Events Example Model H: Producer Paid (Internalized fee in product price) Others?

CFL flow

$ flow

New CFL Purchaser


$

CFL

Retailer Transporter/Recycler

Collective FundProducer

Retailer

CF potentially supports Retailer and/or Transporter/Recycler

Note: May need to be Industry-wide

CFL flow

$ flow




$

CFL

RetailerRetailer Transporter/Recycler


Collective Fund

Collective FundProducerProducer

RetailerRetailer

CF potentially supports Retailer and/or Transporter/Recycler

Note: May need to be Industry-wide

CFL flow

$ flow

New CFL Purchaser


$

CFLHHW

/Events


Collective Fund

*TBA

*Funders$

CFL flow

$ flow




$

CFLHHW

/Events

HHW

/Events



Collective Fund

Collective Fund

*TBA

*Funders*Funders$


Appendix 14 CFL Stakeholders Group Participants and/or Contributors Organization Function

A-Boy Electric, Oregon Retailer

Ace Hardware Forest Grove, Oregon Retailer

Ace Hardware Menlo Park, Oregon Retailer

Allen County, Indiana Government

Association of Oregon Recyclers Recycling Association

Bonneville Power Administration Government Utility

Cascadia Consulting Group, Washington Consulting

City of Vancouver, Washington Government

Clark County Department of Public Works, Washington Government

Clark Public Utility District, Washington Utility

Clark's True Value, Oregon Retailer

Do-It-Best Hardware (Division), Oregon Retailer

Earth Protection Services, Arizona Recycler

EcoNorthwest Consulting, Oregon Consulting

Ecos Consulting, Oregon Consulting

Energy Trust of Oregon Nonprofit

Environmental Protective Services, Oregon Recycler

Eugene Water & Electric Board, Oregon Government Utility

Fred Meyer, Oregon Retailer

Hi-School Pharmacy, Washington, Oregon Retailer

Home Depot, Oregon Retailer

Idaho Power Utility

IKEA Seattle, Washington Retailer

King County, Washington Government

Lane County Waste Management / Landfill Operation, Oregon Government

Lowe's, Oregon Retailer

Marion County Public Works, Oregon Government

Mercury Technologies, Minnesota Recycler

Metro Regional Government, Oregon Government

National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Virginia Manufacturing Association


Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, Oregon Nonprofit

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Government

Oregon Environmental Council Nonprofit

Oregon Refuse and Recycling Association Recycling / Hauler Association

PacifiCorp Utility

Portland General Electric Utility

Puget Sound Energy Utility

Sears, Washington Retailer

Seattle City Light, Washington Utility

Seattle Public Utilities, Washington Government

Snohomish Public Utility District, Washington Utility

Sylvania Manufacturer

Tacoma Power, Washington Utility

Total Reclaim / EcoLights Northwest, Washington Recycler

Uptown Hardware, Oregon Retailer

Washington Toxics Coalition Nonprofit

WashPIRG Nonprofit

Waste Management of Oregon Hauler

Woodstock Hardware, Oregon Retailer

Zero Waste Alliance Nonprofit

Documents

Phase II Draft Report - Zero Wastezerowaste.org/cfl/IMAGES_A/PhaseIIDraftRpt030522.pdf · Northwest Compact Fluorescent Lamp Recycling Project – Phase II Draft Report 1 Northwest