1 / 27

Breaking the Mercury Cycle: Collection Programs for Mercury-Added Products

This session discusses the collection programs for mercury-added products in King County, Washington, and the success of the voluntary and mandatory programs in reducing mercury waste.

stromberg
Download Presentation

Breaking the Mercury Cycle: Collection Programs for Mercury-Added Products

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Breaking the Mercury CycleSession 7: Collection Programs for Mercury-Added Products - May 2, 2002 - Boston, MA Gail Savina Communications Specialist Local Hazardous Waste Management Program in King County - www.metrokc.gov/hazwaste/ 130 Nickerson St. #100 Seattle, WA 98109 206-263-3062 gail.savina@metrokc.gov

  2. Managing Mercury Waste in King County, Washington 1991 - 2001 Local Hazardous Waste Management Program in King County www.metrokc.gov/hazwaste/ Gail Savina 206-263-3062 gail.savina@metrokc.gov

  3. King County facts • Population = 1,710,000 • Landfills solid waste • Land applies biosolids • County regulates CESQG waste

  4. Local Hazardous Waste Management Program in King County • Funded by surcharge on sewer and garbage accounts (household and commercial); $10 million/year • Sophisticated communication tools - ads, radio, print • Technical assistance visits - 30 field staff • Business recognition program: EnviroStars • Voucher rebate program

  5. Dental Project: 1991- present

  6. Background: 1991 - 1994 • Problem: mercury spikes - early ‘90’s • Findings: 1500 dentists discharge 14% of mercury entering WWTP, or 50 lb/yr. (Current estimate is 40 - 60%). • Solution:propose local rule mandating amalgam separation equipment • Upshot:strong resistance results in voluntary program to promote separators and proper management of amalgam

  7. Barriers to behavior change • Knowledge: dentists think that amalgam waste = infectious waste. • Norms: “No one else has a separator.” • Infrastructure: no haulers are willing to service dentists.

  8. Voluntary Program, 1994-2000 • Provide information - e.g. poster, ads • Work with local dental society and waste haulers • Promote EnviroStars-ceritified dentists • Work with dental supply houses, dental assistants and hygienists • Use voucher rebate money to stimulate spending • Do technical assistance visits (currently 600)

  9. Ads Ads focus on keeping dental waste out of the ‘red bag.’ This ad runs each month in the local dental journal.

  10. EnviroStars More than 50 dentists were certified by the county as EnviroStars and promoted in the media.

  11. Summary of voluntary phase • Ran 7 years • Cost ? $20,000 - $50,000/year? • Involved county staff, dental society, dental supply houses, colleges • Goal: 100 amalgam separators installed (1000 potential offices) • Goal: majority of offices use proper BMPs for scrap amalgam, chairside traps and pump filters

  12. % illegally disposed Amalgam scrap (n = 160) 27 Chairside traps (n = 172) 53 Vacuum pump filters (n = 143) 56 Amalgam waste disposal, 1999-2000

  13. Amalgam separators installed, ‘94-’00

  14. Mandatory program: 2001 - present • King County local discharge limits for mercury = 0.2 ppm • July 2000: letter to all dental offices discharging to King County WWTP Deadline: July 1, 2002 for new offices July 1, 2003 for existing offices • What it means: office must a) install amalgam separator or prove it meets limits without a separator; b) follow BMPs for amalgam waste.

  15. July - Dec 2001 • No resistance from local dental society (despite pressure from state association and ADA) • Society-sponsored dinner and trade show showcasing approved amalgam separators (Nov 01). “Sold out.” • County approved 8 amalgam separators • Purchase of amalgam separators --->

  16. Amalgam separators installed, 95-01 King Co. dental offices # officescumul. #% incr. 1995 - 1999 25 25 -- 2000 2 27 8% Jan 01 - June 01 5 32 19% Letter mailed June 01 July 01 - Dec 01 47 79 193%

  17. What did we learn? Regulations alone generate resistance. Voluntary program alone is not sufficient. In this case, the voluntary program laid groundwork for acceptance of mandated (regulated) behavior. Office visits + voucher rebates have biggest effect in persuading dentists to purchase separators. Information alone was not sufficient.

  18. Fluorescent Lamp Recycling 1999 -present

  19. Project rationale: Why lamps? • Opportunistic: State adds lamps to Universal Waste - May 2000 • Feasibility: solution to the problem exists • Demand: property managers cite lamps as one of top three wastes • Strategic: lamp initiative offers chance to build alliances

  20. Extent of problem Use figures for total lamps manufactured in US and EPA disposal estimates. Based on King County population ratios: • 3.6 - 5 million waste lamps/year • 3 million (80%) go to landfill • 147 - 330 lbs mercury from lamps go to solid waste stream each year

  21. Fluorescent lamp recycling project First step: coordinated regulatory approach Pull together a task force of those involved: Regulators - state and county Landfill operators (city and county) Waste Haulers Lighting contractors/facility managers Lamp recyclers and manufacturers Utilities

  22. Fluorescent lamp recycling project Key audiences • Electric utilities: piggyback lamp recycling onto utility lighting retrofit project • Lighting contractors • Property and facility managers • CESQGs doing retrofits

  23. Fluorescent lamp recycling project Barriers to behavior change • Habit: 90% don’t recycle lamps • Cost • Lack of knowledge • Mixed messages • Confusion about vendors • Lack of enforcement • Universal Waste Rule doesn’t automatically change behavior.

  24. Fluorescent lamp recycling project Tools • Visits • Vouchers • Web site • Outreach: articles, ads and workshops

  25. Fluorescent lamp recycling project Results: Lamps recycled by two recycling firms: 20002001% growth 4 ft 658,614 884,043 34% 8 ft 96,492 116,958 21% All 755,106 1,001,001 33%

  26. Fluorescent lamp recycling project What did we learn? Regulations alone aren’t sufficient, especially if they aren’t enforced. Office visits + voucher rebates have biggest effect in persuading small businesses to recyle lamps

  27. Fluorescent lamp recycling project Contact for lamp project: Susan McDonald Local Hazardous Waste Management Program in King County 206-263-3059 susan.mcdonald@metrokc.gov Web site: www.metrokc.gov/hazwaste/fluor

More Related