Summary Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance (OEA) and the Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board (SWMCB)
Partnering on Product Stewardship Initiatives –

Summary Report of the Activities of the Task Force on Electronics with CRTs

July 2000

This summary report is a product of the partnership between the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance (OEA), and the Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board (SWMCB). It was compiled by OEA and SWMCB staff to summarize the activities of Electronics with CRTs Task Force.

The Electronics with CRTs Task Force was co-chaired by:

Staff support was provided by:

Zack Hansen, Ramsey County
Tricia Conroy, Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance
Kathie Doty, Richardson, Richter & Associates, Inc.
Tony Hainault, Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance
Cheryl Lofrano-Zaske, Hennepin County
Anne Gelbmann, Washington County
Stacy Sullivan, Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance
Colleen Hetzel, Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance
Ahndi Fridell, SWMCB

The Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance (OEA) and the Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board (SWMCB) formed a partnership in 1999 to increase the recovery and recycling of electronic products containing Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs) in Minnesota. The OEA is an agency of the State charged with providing assistance to businesses and local governments and making policy recommendations on environmental issues for Minnesota. The SWMCB is a joint powers board comprised of County Commissioners from six twin cities metropolitan counties working jointly on solid and hazardous waste issues.

Task Force

As part of the OEA/SWMCB partnership, the OEA and the SWMCB convened a Task Force in late 1999. The OEA and SWMCB invited representatives of a number of interested parties including manufacturers, retailers, CRT processors, and companies purchasing recycled material and others. The CRT Task Force was led by Art Dunn of the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance, and Anoka County Commissioner James Kordiak, representing the Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board. The Task Force met six times between September 1999 and April 2000 (Appendix A - Task Force Meeting notes).

The OEA and the SWMCB worked jointly to establish direction for the Task Force before it was convened. The OEA/SWMCB objectives for the Task Force were as follows:

• Bring together those involved in design, production, sale, use and management of electronics with CRTs.
• Identify how to get CRTs out of the waste stream and increase the recovery and recycling of electronics with CRTs in Minnesota.
• Make recommendations for recycling and recovery goals and timelines for meeting those goals in Minnesota. Establish specific activities that need to happen to develop an effective method for handling these products, promote voluntary participation in recovery and recycling programs.
• Identify how to increase recycling and recovery of these products using alternative financing mechanisms that do not rely solely on government paying for the end-of-life management of products.
• Identify who would play what role in achieving goals of increased recycling and recovery.
• Obtain commitments to carry out activities to increase recycling and recovery of these products. Obtain manufacturer assistance in identifying barriers to getting CRTs out of the waste stream and in carrying out necessary tasks.

Summary Report

This summary report was compiled by OEA and SWMCB staff to document the activities of the Task Force. It is intended to serve as a record of Task Force activities and discussions for future OEA and SWMCB work. While it contains a number of documents developed and used by Task Force members during the Task Force process, it was produced by staff for the purpose of keeping the SWMCB and OEA leadership informed. It is not a report jointly produced by all members of the Task Force.

The OEA and SWMCB are interested in addressing the management of CRTs, most commonly found in television picture tubes or computer monitors, because increases in the numbers of theses items being discarded present a growing waste management challenge. The products contain hazardous substances and are expensive to manage under current market conditions.

In addition, both organizations have identified electronics with CRTs as priorities for action under policies that strive to increase product stewardship. Finally, there are few effective options for recycling and recovery of electronics with CRTs in Minnesota, particularly for residential generators of electronics with CRTs.

A. Increasing volume
A recent study by the National Safety Council’s Environmental Health Center found that 20.6 million computer monitors became obsolete in 1998, and that only 11 percent of those products were recycled.

The OEA and SWMCB estimate that there are presently about 3.5 million television sets, and 1.5 to 2.0 million computer monitors in homes and businesses in Minnesota. There are an estimated 900,000 units sold each year, and that figure is probably growing with each year. While many of these units are in use, many are unwanted or unusable, and all of them will one day require management at end-of-life.

B. Hazardous substances
Electronic products containing CRTs contain a significant amount of lead, and also contain smaller amounts of cadmium, mercury and other metals. Lead, cadmium and mercury are listed on the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry’s top twenty most hazardous substances (the Agency is a Division of the U.S. Department of Public Health and Human Services). A television monitor may contain between two and six pounds of lead. In 1995, the OEA estimated that the total amount of lead discarded in CRTs could be more than 900 tons, accounting for 75% of the lead still present in Minnesota mixed municipal solid waste (MSW). A US EPA study found that consumer electronics account for 9% of cadmium present in MSW. In addition, electronics with CRT contain other hazardous substances, such as brominated flame retardants, that can pose problems upon disposal.

C. Cost to manage properly
In the current market in Minnesota, it can cost from $14 to over $20 per unit to manage an electronic product with a CRT properly at the end of its’ useful life. In Hennepin County, the only county in the State to provide continual collection and recycling of electronics with CRTs for residents; costs to manage electronics nearly tripled between 1995 and 1999, as the volume of electronics with CRTs collected had increased.

As local governments struggle to provide services without raising taxes, the issue of how to ensure electronics with CRTs are managed properly at the end of their useful life is presenting a constant challenge.

In addition, several Task Force members expressed concern that the cost to manage electronics with CRTs properly has meant that many smaller businesses in the State have not been disposing of these products properly; even though they are required under federal law to do so.

D. CRTs – A priority for OEA and SWMCB
Both the OEA and the SWMCB have policy positions that expect parties other than government, such as manufacturers and retailers, to play a role in ensuring that electronics with CRTs are managed properly without relying solely on government funding.

The OEA initiated a statewide "product stewardship" effort in 1998, under which CRTs were identified as a priority product for attention. Under product stewardship, all parties involved in the design, production, sale and use of a product take responsibility for the full environmental impact of that product throughout its life. In 1999, the OEA drafted a product stewardship policy proposal for legislative consideration. Subsequently, the OEA committed to postponing the introduction of product stewardship legislation and working with manufacturers and other interested parties to accomplish the goals of legislation through voluntary measures. The formation of the CRT Task Force is the first step in the voluntary efforts. The OEA indicated that if voluntary efforts succeeded in reducing the CRTs in the waste stream without government bearing the full cost, there would be no need for legislation.

The SWMCB approved a long-range solid waste master plan in 1999, which targeted wastes containing heavy metals, including CRTs, for product stewardship initiatives. The formation of a Task Force was one of the Master Plan strategies designed to carry out the goals of the Master Plan for the metropolitan counties.

In addition to developing policy positions that identify electronics with CRTs as priorities for product stewardship action; both organizations have conducted projects to gather more information about managing electronics with CRTs and to explore options and issues surrounding the products.

In the summer and late fall of 1999, the OEA, SONY Electronics, Corp., Panasonic, Waste Management Asset Recovery Group, and the American Plastics Council (APC) established a partnership to conduct a demonstration project on electronic recycling. The project collected nearly 700 tons of electronics across the State from August through October 1999. The partners collected data on the amount and type of electronics systems collected, the costs to collect the products under different collection systems, and analyzed the material in the products and the potential for getting additional market value for the materials.

The SWMCB initiated a pilot project to test retail collection of CRTs in 1998, and worked with Target and IBM to collect TVs and computer monitors over a 2-week period. In addition, Hennepin County, a SWMCB member county, operates one of the only ongoing collections of electronics in the nation. The County has two drop-off sites for residents of their county and recycles electronics collected through curbside recycling in the City of Minneapolis. The county collection has been in place since 1992.

E. Need for more options for proper management
Today, most Minnesota residents and some Minnesota businesses, particularly in Greater Minnesota, do not have access to convenient, efficient options for reusing or recycling electronics with CRTs. Some options have been developed by cities and counties for collection of residentially-generated CRTs, though these options do not provide a range of services that is considered sufficient to ensure proper management of residentially generated CRTs throughout Minnesota (Appendix B). Most local governments do not have the resources to add collection and recycling of electronics with CRTs to the services they provide using existing taxes and fees.

A fully privatized range of options exists for business-generated CRTs that are considered sufficient to meet the needs of larger and medium-sized businesses. Minnesota is fortunate to have several private recycling firms that operate in the metropolitan area and these recyclers primarily serve the business community. In spite of the availability of these recyclers, some Task Force members expressed concern about whether small businesses are using existing recycling options.

At this time, reuse options in Minnesota vary. For CRTs that are still operational, residents can contact various agencies to donate equipment. However, non-profits such as the Salvation Army and Goodwill no longer accept computer monitors and TVs, because of the high cost of disposing of those units that are not usable.

Under federal law (RCRA), businesses must dispose of waste as hazardous waste if the waste fails a specific test (the "Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure" (TCLP) test). Nearly all color monitors and about half the black and white monitors fail a TCLP test. As a result many businesses either contract for proper management of these units at the end-of-life, or have arrangements with the vendor from which they purchase CRTs such that they are managed by that vendor at end-of-life.

The Task Force had several discussions about whether all business and institutions properly manage their discarded equipment with counties and cities reporting that they have been made aware of businesses who have not disposed of electronics with CRTs appropriately at the end of product life. In some cases, businesses discard CRTs with their mixed wastes, which are delivered to a landfill or an MSW processing facility. Enforcement efforts cannot always detect in every case when this happens

Additional representatives of all levels of government in Minnesota regularly attended and contributed to discussions in the Task Force. Also, representatives of specific interests – such as Dlubek Glass and Techniglass -- attended to discuss issues pertaining to their area of expertise.

A number of computer manufacturers (such as IBM, Dell, Sun Microsystems, Gateway and others), and other retailers of electronics with CRTs (such as Circuit City) were invited to attend and participate but they either declined or did not respond to invitations.

B. Information and background for Task Force
The Task Force process involved joint review and analysis of relevant research findings and other information to inform the Task Force about the issues surrounding the management of CRTs at end-of-life (Appendix D - Presentation Materials distributed at Task Force Meeting). The OEA and SWMCB, private recyclers, and the City of Minneapolis all provided information regarding residential and commercial collection and management activities in Minnesota, as well as in the United States and the world. The Task Force spent significant time getting a better understanding of interests and opinions of the various parties on the Task Force. In addition, the Task Force discussed the trends that could affect the rate of disposal of electronics with CRTs, such as the introduction of High Definition Television (HDTV) and the growth of home computing.

C. Task Force goals
At the first meeting, the Task Force discussed goals for electronics with CRTs activities and identified key areas that needed to be addressed. After identifying goals and key "goal" areas, the OEA and SWMCB organized the subsequent Task Force meetings to discuss each of the key goal areas.

By the third meeting of the Task Force, a vision and five goal statements received consensus support from the Task Force. The vision and goals for the Task Force were agreed to as follows:

Vision: Elimination of electronic products with CRTs from the mixed municipal solid waste stream*.

___________________________________ * Mixed Municipal Solid Waste is defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 115a.03, subd. 21 as "(a) garbage, refuse, and other solid waste from residential, commercial, industrial, and community activities that the generator of the waste aggregates for collection, except as provided in paragraph (b). (b) Mixed municipal solid waste does not include auto hulks, street sweepings, ash, construction debris, mining waste, sludges, tree and agricultural wastes, tires, lead acid batteries, motor and vehicle fluids and filters, and other materials collected, processed, and disposed of as separate waste streams, but does include source-separated compostable materials."

Overall Goal: Ensure the efficient and effective management of discarded electronic products containing CRTs, primarily through source reduction and recycling, that results in the minimization of environmental impacts.

Goal 1: Service Delivery

Minnesotans, both businesses and residents, shall have convenient access to efficient service that will allow them to recycle their discarded electronic products with CRTs more easily.

Goal 2: Markets

End markets will be in place and will provide value for material to support demand for discarded electronic products with CRTs from both greater Minnesota and the metropolitan area.

Goal 3: Financing

There will be a way to pay for increased recycling and recovery of electronic products with CRTs without relying solely on government funding.

Goal 4: Increased Awareness

Minnesota businesses, merchants and citizens will be aware that electronic products with CRTs contain hazardous materials and are a problem waste and will know how to manage them properly at the end-of-life.

Goal 5: Incentives

Minnesota will seek to develop ways to reward innovations in design and manufacturing processes of electronic products that incorporate "design for the environment," "pollution prevention," and cleaner production.

As mentioned above, the Task Force discussed each of the goal areas in subsequent Task Force meetings. The exception was the "incentives" goal, which was discussed throughout and was identified as a key outcome to be achieved during discussions in the final meeting.

D. Topics of discussion
The following sections summarize topics discussed by the Task Force including options considered.

1. Service Delivery
As mentioned previously, the options for proper management of electronics with CRTs are few in Minnesota. While the business community is largely served by the private recyclers in our State, the residential and small business generator have few options for cost effective and efficient collection and recycling.

Options. The Task Force considered the design of collection options that would provide convenient, efficient service to residents and businesses. Through a small group process, Task Force members identified an array of

services that would meet the criteria developed earlier, i.e. that a collection system will offer services that are:

• Complete
• Convenient
• Efficient
• Effective
• Reliable
• Credible
• Reasonable

The array of collection options that resulted from this group discussion is shown in Appendix E, and includes options that utilize the existing public sector infrastructure as well as new approaches to provide a greater range of options for residents. This array represents a summary of the ideas put forth when the Task Force broke into small groups to design collection systems. It was presented to the Task Force and discussed. In both the small group and full Task Force discussions, Task Force members communicated to OEA and SWMCB that there is not likely to be one option that can be applied across the State, but that there will need to be a variety of services that will meet the needs of Minnesotans in the most viable, cost effective way.

2. Market Development
The strength of the markets for the end materials of recycling, such as recycled CRT glass or the highly engineered plastics contained in electronics, play a significant role in increasing the recycling and recovery of these products. If the prices paid for these product increases, the total cost to manage electronics with CRTs properly can be reduced. With a lower cost to recycle, most of those involved in this issue agree that it would be easier to get more people to manage electronics with CRTs properly at the end of their useful life.

The Task Force reviewed issues regarding market for CRT glass and plastics. Minnesota recyclers indicated difficulties in accessing end-markets for glass-to-glass recycling, primarily due to transportation costs, given that these end markets are located in the Eastern United States. With regard to plastics recycling, industry representatives indicated that some manufacturers are working towards standardizing grades of resin used in the manufacture of electronics with CRTs, and that, over time, the potential for recycling should improve. It was noted that new speaker boxes in TVs produced by Sony are made with 100%-recycled plastic content. In spite of this, recyclers felt that plastics recycling may still be impeded by the cost of labor to separate and prepare plastics for market.

Options. Task Force members acknowledged that more use of recycled materials in new products would help to increase the price for these materials and lower the total cost of recycling. Manufacturers agreed to assist the OEA and SWMCB in assessing how much recycled CRT glass is used in new product and work to increase that amount.

In addition, Task Force members who are processors/recyclers of electronics met and discussed end markets for certain products with manufacturers and users. They worked to address how to reduce the costs for Minnesota operations.

Finally, the group discussed regulatory barriers that drive up the cost of recycling, such as the prohibition from transporting crushed CRT glass (allowing crushed CRTs glass to be transported across the country would reduce transportation costs). The OEA committed to working in Minnesota and with the U.S. EPA to reduce the regulatory barriers to increased recycling.

3. Financing
At this time, it costs from $14 to over $20 to manage electronics with CRTs at the end of their useful life. Both the SWMCB and OEA have stated positions that there must be a way to pay for the increased recycling and recovery of electronic products without relying solely on government funding. Given the ever-increasing number of electronics with CRTs and the current price to recycle, governments will not be able to offer increased collection and recycling using existing taxes and fees.

Options. The Task Force discussed both general issues for financing recycling and recovery of CRTs and specific options.

Task Force members suggested that the consumer will be the one to pay for proper end-of-life management; the issue will be who will collect payment, how it will be collected and where in the process the payment will occur. Members agreed that the financing system should be simple and that complicated schemes should be avoided. Members discussed the fact that a different approach may be needed to pay for products already "out in the system" (or "old" products) and sales of new equipment (those sold after a financing system is in place).

Members discussed a number of financing options. No consensus was reached on a financing method to use in Minnesota; members simply discussed the pros and cons of various options. Certain options presented to the Task Force were eliminated as potential financing items because Task Force members considered them unworkable under a voluntary scheme.

A discussion of financing options included analysis of the following options:

1. Generator pays for end-of-life (EOL) management at the time of disposal.
   There was discussion about the amount a generator would be willing to pay for disposal and the degree to which a fee at the end-of-life would provide a disincentive for managing electronics properly.
     
2. Consumer pays some or all of the cost of managing product at end-of-life (of old product) at the time of purchase at time of purchase.
     
3. Trade association or other business organization pays for all or some of the cost of managing product.
   Task force members representing industry stated that it was not realistic to assume a trade association or similar group would administer conduct this option because of liability concerns. Members stated that #3 was not a viable option under a voluntary approach.
     
4. Vouchers -- Retailers, manufacturers or others could pay for some or all of the costs of managing products by providing purchasers of new product a voucher for disposal of an old product.
   Members stated that this would take time and consumer education to be effective and that it would work best as an education and awareness component to help consumers learn that proper disposal is necessary. Members stated it was attractive because it could be a marketing tool and could be used in a variety of ways and involve a variety of parties (such as haulers, recyclers, non-electronics retailers) that could increase sales while increasing recycling.
     
5. Government pays for all or some of the cost of managing product using general tax revenues or service fees. (not tied to purchase or disposal of CRTs).
   Discussion of this option expanded into discussion of a variety of ways that government taxes and fees could be used to fund collection and recycling. Options discussed included a special fee on the sales of new electronic products that is similar to the tax on petroleum sales that pays for clean up of underground storage tanks (UST). Members discussed whether an "UST-type" fee would be used to manage all products or just "new" products sold after the date the fee was instituted. Members also discussed using a designated portion of the sales tax for electronics management (based an estimate of the sales tax paid at the time of purchase of electronic products).
     
6. Manufacturer pays government to cover the costs of managing product at end-of-life (fluorescent tubes model).
   Members stated that system designed to finance should be simple. There was general discussion about some members’ concern about creating a financing system that would need a new state program to administer it.
     
7. Retailer pays all or some of the cost of managing the product and arranges for recycling at the time of customers’ new product purchase.
   This system would be based on how large appliances are handled in Minnesota.
     
8. Point of purchase fee Advance Disposal Fee (ADF).
   There was discussion about the fact that retailers are not in favor of ADFs. Members discussed the merits of paying up front versus at time of disposal and the degree to which generators are willing to pay.
     
9. Manufacturers of CRTs pay into a fund. The fund could be administered by the State or by an industry association. Money collected is distributed for management of electronics. (Minnesota Waste Pesticide model).
   Manufacturers and retailers pointed out that sales of electronics are not made on a state-by-state basis so this could be a difficult model to implement. They stated that sales are made to a regional distribution center and it may be difficult and cumbersome to asses sales to any one state.
     
10. "Volume based fee" A fee could be paid by retailers and manufacturers of electronics with CRTs. (Minnesota Dry Cleaner Fee model)
    There was little discussion of this option.

4. Awareness

Task Force members identified that an important factor in increasing the number of electronics with CRTs recycled will be making Minnesota businesses and residents aware of the need to keep electronics with CRTs out of the waste stream. Residents and business have some awareness of the problems associated with disposal of CRTs, but many do not understand why this is a problem, and why there is a need to separately manage these items. Also, Task Force members discussed the fact that some businesses do not manage electronics with CRTs responsibly despite regulatory requirements to do so. The OEA and SWMCB pointed out that residents have indicated through their response to pilot collections that they would be interested in properly managing these items at end-of-life if reasonably priced and convenient options exist.

Options. A subcommittee was established in March to outline an approach for addressing the need for public education and awareness. Appendix F shows the resulting recommendation of the subcommittee, and includes methods for increasing public awareness and for evaluating the success of efforts. The subcommittee noted, however, a strong reluctance to engage in public education prior to the identification and development of good options for managing end-of-life CRTs. The concern was that extensive public education could stimulate the disposal of CRTs that are now in storage before an adequate array of collection options is available to ensure that these items are properly managed at the time of disposal.

E. Status in meeting the objectives of the Task Force

At the end of the initial Task Force activities, some of the original objectives had been met, but many went unmet. The OEA and SWMCB were pleased at the level of participation from a variety of interested parties. For example, several manufacturers, including SONY Electronics, Panasonic, Sharp and Thompson Consumer Electronics, and the national trade association for the electronics industry (Electronics Industry Alliance) attended meetings regularly even though this required traveling from outside of the state and offered significant contributions. The OEA and SWMCB believe the objective of bringing parties together and setting goals was met.

The Task Force did not result in any significant commitments by members to play a role in ensuring that electronics with CRTs would be managed properly at the end-of-life without relying solely on government funding. At the March 15 and April 26 meetings, members were asked what they were willing to commit to ensure that more electronics with CRTs were recovered and recycled. There was a very cautious voluntary approach, with the principal commitment from members being to public education. One retailer stated that he would explore collecting electronics with CRTs at his store.

Retailers and manufactures have continued to be in touch with the OEA and SWMCB since the Task Force, and have informed us that some manufacturers and retailers may be initiating collection and recycling efforts in the near future. The OEA and SWMCB will monitor these efforts and support them where appropriate.

The OEA and SWMCB believe that the Task Force was the first step in increasing product stewardship for electronics with CRTs in this State. We are optimistic that the groundwork laid at the Task Force will provide the foundation for involvement of more parties in ensuring that more products are recycled and recovered at end-of-life without relying solely on government funding.

4. Anticipated Outcomes

At the last meeting of the Task Force on April 26, the group discussed how progress would be measured, and what steps individual members of the Task Force would take to further the goals of the Task Force. Five key outcomes were discussed, and specific short-term and longer-term activities reviewed. Appendix G shows these outcomes and activities, and strategies for measuring outcomes.

 Outcomes to be accomplished include:

A. Citizens and businesses will be better informed about why CRTs must be managed separately from mixed waste, and how to manage CRTs at end-of-life.

Short Term Activities to be achieved by August 31, 2000:

1. Interested parties will agree to do baseline measurement of awareness.
2. Parties will agree to use the Task Force public awareness framework developed by the "awareness and education" small group.
3. Outreach and education among areas that have collection service will fit the public awareness framework developed by the small group.

Longer Term Activities to be achieved by 2003:

1. Public education is in place that provides clear and consistent messages; residents, businesses, haulers, and other audiences will know of options for proper disposal and report this option as convenient.
2. Government will strengthen enforcement efforts to ensure that businesses properly manage CRTs.

B. Concrete steps will be taken to strengthen markets

• Manufacturers will use post-consumer CRT glass in new products.
• Post-consumer plastics will be used in new products.
• Manufacturers will use Design for the Environment (DfE) principles in producing new products.

Short Term Activities to be achieved by August 31, 2000:

1. Manufacturers will use more post-consumer CRT glass to produce new products and manufacturers and others will provide more options for higher value use of post–consumer plastics.
2. Government will reduce regulatory barriers to recycling.
3. Government will participate in and support efforts to increase post-consumer plastics use in US.

Longer Term Activities to be achieved by 2003:

1. More post-consumer glass is routinely used in the manufacture of CRTs;
2. Post-consumer plastics from electronics with CRTs will be used in new products;
3. Products are designed and manufactured in a way that allows for more reuse and recycling of electronics with CRTs.

C. Convenient, accessible options for collection of CRTs for residents will be available (as outlined in the collection system designed by the Task Force).

Short Term Activities to be achieved by August 31, 2000:

1. At least one retailer initiative to collect and recycle CRTs from customers will be operating.
2. At least one partnership to collect and recycle CRTs from small and medium businesses will be underway in Greater Minnesota.
3. At least one manufacturer initiative to collect and recycle CRTs in partnership with a collector or a retailer is underway.
4. Plans are underway for other private sector entities to establish on-going collections for recycling.

Longer Term Activities to be achieved by 2003:
An array of services to collect and recycle CRTs is in place (as needed) that includes involvement from manufacturers and retailers, and meets the needs of Minnesota residents and businesses.

D. Businesses and institutions will make purchase decisions with product design and end-of-life management in mind; they will consider giving preference to manufacturers that provide for DfE and end-of-life recycling of CRTs.

Short Term Activities to be achieved by August 31, 2000:

1. A State purchasing contract that can be used by local government will be in place that will promote the purchase of electronic equipment that incorporates DfE and supports manufacturers who take back their equipment for proper end-of-life management.
2. Governments will work with government purchasing agents to encourage purchasing from manufacturers that have products that incorporate DfE and/or take back their equipment for proper disposal at end-of-life.

Longer Term Activities to be achieved by 2003:
Government, institutions, and businesses include DfE and recycling requirements in all purchases or leases of electronics with CRTs.

E. CRTs will be properly managed at end-of-life

• CRTs will not be disposed of in the MSW stream.
• CRTs will be managed in way that encourages source reduction and they will be recycled to the greatest extent feasible
• CRTs will not be "dumped" on non-profits that are not able to pay the cost of proper management at end-of-life.
• CRTs will be managed in a way that minimizes environmental impacts.

Short Term Activities to be achieved by August 31, 2000:
The activities identified to meet outcomes A through D in the chart above must be undertaken to achieve this final outcome.

Longer Term Activities to be achieved by 2003:
The activities identified to meet outcomes A through D in the chart above must be undertaken to achieve this final outcome.

A key responsibility for the public sector over the next year will be to monitor and measure progress so that it can be determined whether more and better options are being developed through private sector or public/private initiatives

Appendix A: Task Force Meeting Notes

(contact Richardson, Richter & Associates, Inc. at 651-222-7227 or mguardini@richarsonrichter.com for information on having this attachment sent to you)

Year	Computer Monitors (# of units)	TVs (# of units)	Tons of ALL consumer electronics	1998 Cost for ALL consumer electronics
1998	3,000	14,600	700	$500,000
1997	1,734	7,376	366	$325,000
1996	1,156	5,115	262	$320,000
1995	673	4,428	200	$180,000

• The City of Stillwater also offers curbside collection; they contract with a private company for hauling and recycling.
• Neighborhood Energy Consortium (NEC), a non-profit organization, provides information on household hazardous waste, recycling and yard waste to citizens of St. Paul. Waste electronics are collected at various locations during the community clean-ups. Residents dropping off waste electronics are charged $5 which partially covers the cost of processing by a private recycler. However, the St. Paul NEC estimates that the average weight of a television collected through the community clean-up program to be 79 pounds. Of the 11 District Councils which have reported collection data as of March 1999, waste electronics contributed 20.76 tons of the material collected at the community clean-ups in 1998. It is estimated that 60 percent of this tonnage is from CRTs.
• Carver County holds a special waste collection three times a year, once in the Spring and twice in the Fall at two different locations within the County. Residents are charged $5 per unit. In 1998, 16,481 pounds of electronics (156 units) were collected.
• Several municipalities offer collection of electronics as part of their Spring/Fall clean-up events. Some of the municipalities have a contract with a local electronics recycler for disposal and some have treated the collected electronics as waste.

(contact Richardson, Richter & Associates, Inc. at 651-222-7227 or mguardini@richarsonrichter.com for information on having this attachment sent to you)

1. Conclusion on Awareness Objective: Assume that we are starting from scratch for all audiences, and that the message is that CRTs have lead in them for a good reason, and the lead has value as a resource, but, if discarded improperly, the CRT can harm the environment.
     
2. Conclusion on Management Objective: Messages regarding disposal must be tailored to the specific audiences and be transmitted when the service is available; needs to be an incremental approach so that service outlets are there. Needs to acknowledge that proper disposal has a cost at this time.
     
3. Conclusion: Communication needs may be different depending on the system or services that are developed. For example: if residents need to pay a fee at end-of-life, the messages may be different than if it is at no charge.
     
4. Conclusion: Specific messages need to be designed and appropriate to reach the intended audience, connecting with each audience’s values, factoring in motivators for each audience, and assuring that the new information is understandable.
     
5. Conclusion: The commitment of the various entities to assist in providing public education should be tied to development of a system.
     
6. Conclusion: Some entity should take responsibility to consolidate a database on management options for business and resident so there is once source for information

1. Conclusion: An outreach effort should not go forward, on either awareness or management, until there is something for folks to do with CRTs
     
2. Conclusion: Because services are available to some audiences, the outreach can proceed in an incremental manner.
     
3. Create an approach in which parties agree to the general framework in this plan, and communicate to avoid duplication.
     
4. For each audience, identify credible sources to carry the messages; rely on a number of entities to deliver messages: retailers, manufacturers, recyclers, local business organizations, government entities.
     
5. Consider developing a generic logo and/or tagline that all will agree to use

Conclusion: A joint effort between the private sector and government should be made to establish baseline data on attitudes and behavior in the various audiences, and to measure change at specific time intervals.

  

Presented and discussed at the last Minnesota Task Force on Electronics with CRTs on April 26, 2000
Please note: "CRTs" is used as a shorthand term for "Electronics with CRTs" in this document.