United States Office of Assistance and EPA-901-R-00-002
Environmental Protection Agency Pollution Prevention September 2000
Region 1
Electronics Re-Use and Recycling Infrastructure
Development in Massachusetts
September 2000
Research conducted by the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Under the
United States Environmental Protection Agency's
Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division's
Jobs Through Recycling Program
-------
Acknowledgements
"Electronics Re-use and Recycling Infrastructure Development In Massachusetts" was prepared
under U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grant number X19911957-01 by the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection's (MADEP), Bureau of Waste Prevention.
This project was managed by Christine Beling, EPA Region 1-New England and Robin Ingenthron,
MADEP. Principal Researchers include: Patricia Dillon, Tufts University's Gordon Institute;
Lorenzo Macaluso, Dr. Bernard Morzuch, and John Pepl, University of Massachusetts at Amherst;
Barry Parker, William Waters, Product Takeback Services. In depth research data was provided
by: Richard Peloquin, Advanced Electronics; Jan Ameen, Franklin County Solid Waste District;
Peter Kopchyk, CRTR Inc.; Christopher Ryan, Metech International; Amy Peltonin, Global
Recycling Technologies, Vermont Retroworks, and the Boston University Public Management
Program.
For copies of the report, please contact EPA New England's Research Library for RCRA, One
Congress Street, Boston, MA 02112, e-mail friedman.fred@epa.gov.
-------
Electronics Reuse and Recycling Project
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Section
Page
Introduction
Page3
A. Background/Overview
Page 4
B. Task-By-Task Summary
Page 11
C. Core Measures Report
Page 17
D. Other Measures
Page 21
E. Lessons Learned
Page 21
F. Challenges Overcome
Page 24
G. The Program's Future
Page 25
H: Attachments
1. Massachusetts DEP Strategic Plan
2. Chronology
3. Product TakeBack Services Report: Television
and Monitor Repair
4. Dillon Report: Export Markets
5. Reports International Cambridge Report:
Surveys of Massachusetts Households
6. Franklin County Report: Drop-Off Results
7. University of Massachusetts Office of Waste
Management Electronics Grant Report
8. Morzuch Report: Employment Implications of
Electronics Marketing Strategies and De-
manufacturing
Page 28
Page H-1
Page H-7
Page H-9
Page H-13
Page H-21
Page H-45
Page H-51
Page H-63
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Massachusetts 1999 Jobs Through Recycling (JTR) grant has provided invaluable
assistance to recycling businesses, which, in turn, have spurred the growth of recycling markets
for used electronic equipment. Within Massachusetts alone, the JTR grant led directly to the
development of two new CRT recycling companies, the expansion of a third, and the addition of
CRTs and used electronics to the list of items accepted by several traditional recycling
collectors. The market development stimulated through the JTR grant not only allowed DEP to
plan on a reliable infrastructure for the upcoming Waste Ban on CRTs, but also created jobs.
While the Massachusetts DEP, working for EPA, was the lead organization for this
project, a team of researchers and consultants completed most of the work. Each of these
experts offered unique contributions, most of which are attached in Attachments to this report.
The JTR final report provides a comprehensive summary of specific accomplishments
and lessons learned during the course of the grant. More detail is contained in the Attachments.
The greatest value of all, however, was the actual experience of collecting, analyzing, and
marketing over 20,000 CRT containing electronic devices from a population of 1,350,000
residents. Without the consulting, exploration and recording funded by this project,
Massachusetts would not have been able to learn so much from, and capitalize upon, these
collection pilots.
In the year 2000, the Massachusetts Electronics recycling program will be expanded
again, to include over 100 municipalities and 3.5 million residents. This coverage would not
have been possible without the savings achieved through the JTR research.
-------
A. Background and Overview
Background: Used electronics are a fast-growing percentage of the municipal solid waste
stream. This percentage is expected to grow over the next decade, due to several factors:
- declining average useful life of personal computers
- approaching retirement of a "baby boom" generation
- changes from analogue to digital, high-definition television and audio standards
On the contrary, MADEP believes it is important to "shake-down" an electronics infrastructure
now, before the supply of electronics increases dramatically over the next 5-10 years. The US
Telecommunications Act of 1996 may be delayed, but the triumph of digital over analogue
transmissions is inevitable. The electronics disposal problem will get worse if no plan is put into
place to recycle these items now.
The lack of an electronics-recycling infrastructure, and the high reported costs of recycling
programs held to date (Hennepin County, MN; Union County, NJ; etc.) make this challenge
more intimidating to solid waste officials. However, Massachusetts DEP has experience in
establishing new recycling infrastructures, such as those for white goods, tires, curbside
recycling, and plastic recycling. The lessons learned from those programs are important to
undertaking infrastructure development for used electronics.
In 1989, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) banned "White
Goods" (refrigerators, washers, dryers, etc.) from disposal at solid waste facilities. One year
later, tires were banned. Plastic containers were added to the list of waste ban items in 1994.
While recycling of these items is commonplace today, each item was considered a market
pariah at the time it was banned. White goods with PCB capacitors had led to the shutdown of
several scrap metal shredders in 1989. Tires were considered completely unrecyclable. Plastic
recycling cost as much as $900 per ton in 1993.
Today, the white goods ban is enforced almost universally. Almost any service station will take
used tires for a small fee. Most residents pay those fees without thinking twice. Access to
curbside recycling (which cost three times the cost of trash recycling in 1990) has grown from
zero to seventy percent of the Massachusetts population; tip fees are now 1/3 of trash tip fees.
And after a rough start, plastic recyclables are among the most valuable commodities.
Given this experience, Massachusetts DEP has chosen not to be intimidated by initial high costs
of CRT and electronics recycling programs. Instead, the state has adopted a 5-point plan to
establish an electronics-recycling infrastructure (Attachment 1):
1. Remove HW disincentives to CRT handling
2. Research and Develop CRT recycling markets
3. Establish a statewide contract for electronics recycling
4. Establish a municipal grant program using permanent regional facilities
5. Ban CRTs from Disposal: 1/1/00
For more information, go to www.state.ma.us/dep/recycle.
The April 1, 2000, waste ban on television and computer monitor CRT disposal will drive the
collection of electronics for recycling, assuring recycling investors a steady supply of material. It
will also demand an infrastructure for CRT collection to handle that material.
-------
Meanwhile, in the short term, municipalities require some kind of market certainty in order to
undertake infrastructure development. Just as curbside recycling must be built around a
materials recovery facility, and a MRP is built on a solid paper market, this chain is as strong as
the weakest link. A comprehensive electronics infrastructure must be built around a solid CRT
market.
Currently, most TVs and computers are either disposed of with solid waste in municipal packer
trucks, or are collected separately for disposal with bulky wastes (furniture, mattresses, heavy
appliances, etc.). Haulers consider these items dangerous to their drivers, who must pick up
the bulky items and place them under hydraulic compactor blades. This means, in all
likelihood, that the effect of a waste ban will be swift and immediate. Haulers immediately
began leaving white goods, tires and auto batteries at the curb a decade ago, because they
were easily identified separate from the trash, and because they had no incentive to handle
them if they did not need to.
Alternative methods of handling need to be developed before the waste ban takes place. To
identify the least costly collection program, we looked at everyplace where used TVs and
computers are already professionally handled. Which of these methods makes markets for
electronics more accessible, more competitive, and more affordable? If TVs and monitors are
risky for trash collectors to handle, who has demonstrated the experience and willingness to
handle them?
• Some communities have established special curbside pick-ups for large "bulky" appliances
like white goods, in part to divert those items from solid waste disposal. Some of these
communities are already taking TVs in these bulky curbside collections.
• Some communities have established temporary drop-off programs for electronics recycling,
(e.g. Somerville) often during a special household hazardous waste drop-off day.
• The average TV / monitor repair shop receives hundreds of abandoned CRTs from
residents who don't want to pay the price of repair. Many also regularly shop at Thrift
Stores, or examine abandoned TV/monitors, to see whether they can be repaired or used
for parts. These repairers are experts in safe CRT handling and repair.
• Donating the unwanted appliance to charity is widespread - often in the misplaced hope that
the charity will undertake the parts and labor to repair the appliance. Schools are also
recipients of "wishful donors". These non-profits do indeed have uses for these items, but
often lack software or technical expertise to make them useful.
• Commercial computer recycling has prospered in Massachusetts. A study by the University
of Massachusetts showed 48 firms recycling or refurbishing computers from
Massachusetts^ generators. The scope of these recycling operations varies widely, from
"chop shops" seeking specific parts to resellers to precious metals recyclers.
• Moving companies are often present with a truck at the time a decision not to keep a TV is
made.
Given these alternatives to CRT and electronics collections, which method will yield the best
markets? The most vendors? The most reuse? Which collection method will create the most
jobs? The goal of this project is to match the type of collection program with the type of market
which will yield the greatest benefit to the environment and the biggest benefit to job creation.
-------
Overview
The purpose of this JTR project was to fulfill point #2 of the 5-point plan: to research and
develop end markets for residentially disposed TV's, computer monitors, and associated
devices (cpu, printer, VCRs, etc). The development of an environmentally sound and cost
effective infrastructure for end-of-life electronic equipment will be vital to the success of point #5,
the waste ban.
While collection methods were not the focus of the grant, the ways that materials are collected
can have a profound impact on the accessibility and cost of different recycling markets. Just as
markets for commingled containers differ from markets for segregated glass, plastic, aluminum
and tin, the collection methods for used electronics have a profound impact on the bidding pool.
This JTR report evaluates the marketing implications of different handling and collection
strategies.
The initial evaluation of markets was based on previous surveys of 48 commercial electronics
recyclers, and new surveys of 176 (of 326) television repair shops, 4 white goods appliance
collectors, 10 Charity/Re-Use/Thrift facilities, 2 retailers, 20 computer monitor repair shops, and
32 electronics exporters. Moving companies were not contacted directly but have been
approached by one of the charities. Our basic goal was to talk to anyone who handles other
people's used TVs or computers on a daily basis.
To make surveys and site visits more effective, the research was performed concurrently with
actual municipal electronics recycling programs. MADEP provided free recycling of CRT items
collected in bulk, initially through a county drop-off program, and later to a broad array of
residential collection methods. The first of these collections were held through one-day drop-off
programs (like those in previous Somerville, MA, and Binghamton, NY, pilots) at 3 sites in
Franklin County Massachusetts. A curbside bulky program was established in Springfield 2
months later. Collections through 2 Western Massachusetts charities soon followed.
The material collected in Franklin County and other rural Western Massachusetts programs was
processed through the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, (UMass) Office of Waste
Management. UMass in turn performed de-manufacturing time studies on computers and
"brown goods" (TVs, VCRs, stereos, etc.), sampled brands, and held two competitive bids for
recycling both electronic devices and their components. The materials collected at other
programs (charities, Springfield curbside) were compared visually to the material processed at
UMass, just as the collection processes themselves were compared.
The success of the municipal pilot programs - and the charity collection model in particular - led
to early expansion of the program in other areas of the state. In the winter and spring, municipal
collections were expanded to include several urban areas, including Springfield, Boston,
Saugus, and Pittsfield. Unlike the rural programs, these collections were not limited to one-day
programs.
Several models were evaluated on a large-scale basis. These fall into three types of handling
program:
a temporary or outdoor drop-off point (recycling center, charity, school, retailer)
a door-to-door (curbside bulky waste programs, charity door-to-door collections)
a permanent collection centers (charities, repair shops, retailers, municipality)
-------
The basic finding of these comparisons was that spreading the collections out over time allowed
the handlers to try more markets. The longer the material could be analyzed, kept dry, and
reviewed by a permanent staff person, the more potential markets could be realized. Storing it
over time is only effective, however, in a controlled, attended environment. A vendor, picking up
all the material, can of course hold this same advantage. But the more sorted the material, the
more vendors the collector has to choose from.
In particular, repair and reuse (both domestic and export) were shown to be very important
markets. These vendors are specialized and cannot typically handle all of the electronic
material. The demanufacturing program at UMass showed that the recyclers scrap prices were
fair when the labor to demanufacture is accounted for. However, the 5-10% of material, which
can be resold or repaired, can be more than ten times as valuable as the remaining scrap.
While many of the collection programs are difficult to strictly classify (Umass was both
permanent regional facility processing drop-off material, Salvation Army held curbside
collections as well as attended Permanent Centers), the following gives an overview of how
collection programs capitalized on the reuse potential described above.
Drop-Offs:
Convenient in rural areas, where
amounts are not worth separating.
110,000 residents, 53 tons after
diversion (<5%)
Temporary Drop-Offs: This market dynamic explains the
limitations of temporary drop-offs, one vendor makes
where the choice to resell, export or repair in a short time
frame. Typically, too much material is handled in too short
a time to allow even for "plug and play" (the most basic
screening, to see whether an appliance already works
when you turn it on). However, bringing in a third party
expert (e.g. a TV repair technician) can allow many of the
most valuable items to be screened for resale, repair and parts. The longer the period of time
the "temporary" drop-off is open, the more potential repair and resale markets have to succeed.
Door-to-Door Collections: This collection scheme resulted in less marketable material, but
much higher diversion rates than the other programs.
MADEP promoted this program where it was "turn-key"
(i.e. the items were already being collected separately at
the curb). Reuse and repair markets were limited, though
diversion was high and avoided disposal costs were
therefore considerable. Where charities (like Salvation
Army in Saugus) added non-working electronics to their
door-to-door programs, however, these programs failed.
The charity performed far too much work for a non-
working appliance, and enjoyed none of the municipalities' avoided disposal benefits.
Permanent Collection Centers: The charities were able to spend more time with material, to
sort it into more categories, and to maximize the value. Other private vendors can offer the
same type of "triage" for value (resale, repair, parts
salvage and scrap), though no single vendor yet has the
network of Goodwill or Salvation Army. Most vendors
have expertise in a specific area (e.g. export, scrap
processing, TV repair). Apple computer, PC, and
television experts rarely excelled in the same field.
Inviting those vendors to take from the charities seemed
to work the best.
Door-to-Door Collection:
Most convenient, with high diversion
rates. Material could not be efficiently
separated for reuse.
150,000 residents, 91 tons after
diversion (<5%)
Permanent Collection Centers:
Established collection and handling.
Material was efficiently separated or
reused.
1,320,000 residents, 289 tons after est.
35% diversion.
-------
The study benefited from the handling experience and resale infrastructure of Charities like
Salvation Army and Goodwill Industries. In many cases, these charities were able to offer
access to thousands of households on a daily or weekly basis. However, these facilities must
be guaranteed free recycling of the electronics they cannot recycle. A limit on software
licensing was a serious disincentive to resale of PCs through their thrift shops. More incentives
should also be offered for these facilities to cherry-pick items whose resale value may not
compensate the sorting labor or extended category storage space.
Employment Implications of the various markets: As for employment, the job value of scrap
electronics recycling was shown to be much higher than landfill and incineration, as previous
value-added studies would suggest. However, the relative job creation of repair and resale
markets was even higher, more decentralized, and more local to points of collection. Recycling
scrap electronics supports ten times more jobs than land filling; grading them for parts and
resale generates over 100 times more jobs than scrap recycling. Even export, which was
expected to yield low job creation (domestically - obviously there would be high repair job
creation overseas), proved to provide as many or more jobs than recycling. This was attributed
to the high requirements of inspection, sorting, and preparation for different overseas
purchasing specifications.
The report ultimately recommends prioritizing collections that can maximize the resale and
repair job markets. Maximizing recovery through existing charities, repair shops, and other
permanent centers should be the first step. Afterwards, capturing more material via bulky goods
collections will be necessary to get material out of the urban waste stream. Drop-off programs
may be most appropriate in rural areas; one-day drop-off programs may be used to attract
charities or private repairers.
In this way, the resale value of items is used to support the collection infrastructure, and is not
lost in the vast quantity of material delivered to a central processing plant. For example, if
charities set aside SVGA and VGA monitors, VCRs, and 19+ inch televisions, repair/resale
experts can formally "cherry pick" those items without adding the capacity to process the other
80% of material.
A central processing contract, like Massachusetts has for CRT recycling, can remove the risk of
speculative storage when a state sets up a large number of new collection sites. Such a
contract can be funded either through residential drop-off fees, state recycling budgets, or
special taxes. While a great deal of international discussion has been given to "product
stewardship", bottle bills and European take-back programs show that bottlers/OEMs contract
collections out to such a third party. (The bill-payer/sponsor has the greatest degree of control
over the third party processor).
Product stewardship is an important topic for the future recyclability, repairability and resells
ability of procured materials. Through the strength of government procurement, or voluntary
"blue book" guidelines, or legislation, the future marketability of electronics should be supported
by
- On-line repair/product manuals of ALL past and present durable electronics
- primary or secondary ("spare tire") software licenses (transferable with the machine)
- recycled content and/or non-toxic content guidelines
Finally, it is important to have a regulatory driver which stimulates collection but which does not
threaten the charities and small third party handlers.
-------
TONS OF CRTs RECYCLED PER MONTH -1999
70.0
60.0
Massachusetts DtP
1999 Market Services Grants
o.o
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June* Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan
1999
This chart shows the collection of television and computer equipment in
1999. All collections were paid for through a central state contract issued
by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.
Beginning in September, Massachusetts DEP began trial collections of
sorted materials from several of the Permanent Regional Collection
facilities. Diversion to domestic and foreign resale and repair markets
ranged from 0% in January 1999 to over 70% in September 1999.
-------
Massachusetts DEP Market Services Grants
1999 Report on Electronics Recycling Contract
The figures below represent tonnage paid for by DEP following delivery to the state contractor, Global
Recycling Technologies (Stoughton, MA). In addition to these figures, individual Permanent Regional
Collection facilities have documented diversion through thrift stores or salvage vendors of 20%-70%.
Total diversion through the MSG program is therefore much higher.
January - December 1999
FY99
(1*6 mo.)
FYOO
(2nd 6 mo.)
Payments
FY99
Perm. Regional Facility
# Of Pickups, source of material
FY2000 - To Date
5 Charity attended 7-day drop-off
22 Curbside /white-good collection; trailer rental
6 Town 1-day and permanent drop-offs
1 Charity attended 7-day drop-off
4 Charity attended drop-off, "drive"
14 Chanty curbside, attended drop-off
~ '• ': T ' " .
mimSmSm
6 Charity attended drop-off
KIHMIMiimii
3 Charity curbside, attended drop-off
15 Town deliveries in bulk; two 1-day
2 (Haulers, recyclers deliver to vendor)
Cost
$ 60,737
Cost
$ 58,549
1999 = 398 tons total, 78 pickups, 5.1 tons per collection
10
-------
B. Task-by task summary
The actual chronology of the tasks below is listed in Attachment 2. What follows is a summary
of each task, which serves as an introduction to the work product listed in the Appendices.
Results are described in Section C.
B1 Determine recycling opportunities through analysis of a previous survey of 48 electronics
recycling companies. Analyzed data from previous survey to assess employment and
diversion.
Prior to the JTR grant award, DEP wrote a grant proposal with UMass that was
successful in leveraging funds from the Chelsea Center for surveys of generic
electronics recycling markets and CRT glass markets. This data
(www.chelseacenter.org/techreptdesc.htmfl5) was used to supply employment
figures for recycling companies.
During the JTR research, these companies were analyzed to determine their
origins; many were re-contacted, which provided insight to how they have
learned one another's secrets; the lines continue to blur between these sorts of
companies:
Reuse (components and parts): These firms maximize value by finding
components (e.g. an Ethernet card may be worth $25 online at www.uce.com,
www.pricewatch.com, www.electronicycle.com, www.recycle.net,
www.ebay.com, etc.). The value of this work is important in keeping an
affordable infrastructure. The primary barrier to this industry playing a greater
role in consumer electronics recycling is specialization. In the past, some of
these firms leave unanswered questions about the fate of non-resalable parts.
More of these firms now have partnerships or relationships with export and scrap
businesses, and will be able to bid.
Export: While these firms were originally in the business of scrap sales
(smelting, raw materials, etc.), the Internet economy has caused these firms to
blend with Reuse above. Many foreign buyers are now purchasing lots through
US-based on-line auction houses (above), as well as through their own sites (e.g.
Singapore's http://www.interauct.com.sg/index.shtml)
Scrap: Precious metals recovery and glass recovery have the advantage of
simple accounting for materials they accept (as opposed to working or static-
damaged memory chips in re-use); they must somehow be involved in the
recycling operation if it is to
Market Niches of electronic recyclers
Descending values
Increasing volumes
Parts
Appendix B lists the 1998 research.
11
-------
B2 Determine repair opportunities through a survey of 326 television repair shops
serving Massachusetts. Prepared textual overview and provided 5 page spreadsheet of.
individual repair shop surveys, showing employment and diversion. Provide technical
assistance and follow-up to any businesses expressing further interest in the program.
Prior to surveying the Massachusetts repair industry, secondary research provided
information on the state of TV repair - and HDTV repair. A summary of this research is
provided in Attachment 3.
The intent of the survey of TV repair shops was to find if any of them might be
willing to play a role in either collection or subcontracted processing of used
televisions. The survey uncovered a widespread industry (326 shops in the
Massachusetts yellow pages) in deep stages of decline (over half expected to
close the business without reselling it in the next 5 years). While not many of
these technicians expressed an interest in competing for material in the state
contract, just 1% of their membership would double the current in-state bidders
expected.
DEP visited the trade organization's (Electronics Technicians Guild - ETG)
monthly meeting (1/99), and had follow up meetings with the president and vice
president. DEP also toured Sony Corp.'s certified warrantee repair facility, and
contacted three large appliance (white goods) collectors. As a result of this work:
• One TV repairer, Dick Peloquin of Advanced Electronics, participated in trial
collections from UMass, diverted 20% of the UMass one-day collection event
material (at a positive revenue). Following the trial, Advance Electronics
incorporated as Electronicycle and entered the business as a partner with
Envirocycle and won TV recycling from a Connecticut state contract. DEP
visited this repairer on 2 occasions to provide technical assistance and to
ensure that the materials were being handled in a way to maximize recycling
and environmental protection.
• One White Goods handler, N.E. Appliance Recovery, participated in trial
collections from 3 Permanent Regional Facilities and diverted 60% of the
material to export/repair markets at no cost to the state. Following the trial,
N.E. Appliance Recovery incorporated as CRT Recycling Inc. and entered
the business as a partner with two overseas electronics refurbishers. DEP
staff visited the site on 2 occasions to assist the business and to ensure that
materials were being handled in a way to maximize repair and recycling. A
second white goods collector announced that the company would accept
CRTs along with white goods collected, for delivery to the state vendor,
following the Springfield curbside model.
This task was also extremely important as a way to "prove" markets in foreign
countries. For materials, which are not economical to repair in the United States,
it is quite realistic that they could be repaired in a country more tolerant of
"lagging edge" technology, where labor costs are lower. For materials, which are
not technologically, sound to repair, it is doubtful that an export market has
special techniques not available in the US. By first understanding the domestic
repair market, MA DEP was able to communicate with foreign repair markets.
ATTACHMENT C
12
-------
B3 Determine repair opportunities through a survey of monitor repair shops. Prepared
analysis from interviews with ten monitor repair companies who subcontract work from
computer repair firms, showing employment and diversion.
Secondary research was performed to better understand the repair industry before a
survey was undertaken. The following links provide the best sources of understanding
of the repairability of monitors.
Notes on the Troubleshooting and Repair of Computer and Video Monitors
Written by Samuel M. Goldwasser Most recent version is available on the WWW server
http://www.repairfaq.org/. An excerpt of Mr. Goldwasser's text is shown in Table 4.2 of
Attachment 3.
There was no statewide organization or meeting of computer or monitor repairers
to introduce the survey the way ETG introduced it to TV repair members.
Computer repair facilities were numerous but were far less likely to spend time
on the telephone survey (they also seemed to be much busier, perhaps with Y2K
issues). DEP's consultant, Bill Waters, identified 10 monitor repair specialists
willing to participate. Employment per ton was quite high, though the
respondents cited some of the same lack of willingness by Americans to consider
repair of monitors, which were less than 17". Because of changing US monitors
standards, VGA monitors were not considered worth repairing domestically -
though it is technically quite feasible.
B5 Determine reuse and repair opportunities through a survey of overseas export markets.
DEP's consultant, Patricia Dillon, surveyed export markets to identify
employment and repair practices. Meanwhile, DEP posted the availability of non-
working monitors on some web-based trading services, and got numerous
respondents willing to pay for monitors FOB Massachusetts collection points.
The specifications for these markets (no screen burn, no monochrome, no
vacuum tube disturbance) reinforces that these are NOT scrap material markets,
but repair markets. UMass demanufacturing program also failed to find any
valuable scrap in the monitors they took apart.
Attachment 4 is Dillon's report on Export Markets
B1 Determine what happens now through a survey of 800 Massachusetts households.
Prepared over 100 pages in statistical analysis of behavior and demographics (Table 1
below and Attachment 5).
The attached summary shows an enormous level of detail. The survey showed
how most residents handle their non-working TVs and computers. TV ownership
was nearly universal (though a minority of households possess most of the TVs)
32% of respondents had a TV stop working in the past 5 years; of those 37%
threw it away, 20% put it in storage. 40% had a computer stop working but only
1% had ever thrown one away. Below are some excerpts of the first study:
13
-------
Of Massachusetts Households:
99% own at least 1 TV (2,275,560 households)
43% own AT LEAST 3 TVs (998,460 households) and 37% of all TVs
are in 20% of the households).
32% of all households had a TV stop working during the last 5 years
Only 21% of those had the TV professionally repaired. The rest of
households put the TV in storage (20%), threw it out (37%), or "passed it
on" (sold, donated, or gave it away) (21%
59% of households own at least 1 computer (1,356,270)
40% of those have a computer they have stopped using.
Only 16% of these had the PC repaired. The rest put the PC into storage
(33%) or "passed the buck" (sold, donated, gave it away). Only 1% threw
the obsolete PC in the trash.
Storage and passing the buck are the biggest concern. DEP expects a "wash
out" of old units over the next 10 years, due to 2 developments which will affect
the whole country: HDTV, and an impending "baby boomer tag sale" as more
Americans retire or move on. Unless an infrastructure is created to recycle these
items, the effect of the waste ban will probably be more storage.
B6 Analyze trial collections through municipal drop-off programs. Analyzed ease of
implementation, inventory of items captured at several of these collections.
In the fall of 1998, for $17,000 plus the cost of disposal, DEP funded a one-day
collection pilot in three locations in Franklin County Mass. This material was
delivered to UMass for analysis, demanufacturing time studies, brand inventory,
and other samples, to determine the most appropriate markets. The event
yielded 17 tons, and a final report, which provided DEP with a basis to pursue the
program in other areas.
While the drop-off program was successful in this rural area (which does not
have a charity program or curbside bulky collections), it was labor intensive and
failed to keep materials triaged in a way, which promoted reuse. One of the most
important findings was that large deliveries of materials from schools and
community colleges should be diverted from one-day events and delivered
directly to processing facilities.
In the spring of 1999, DEP repeated the event but first publicized that individuals
could bring in their electronic items directly to UMass. Franklin County and other
municipal officials hosted the event at UMass on two Saturdays. Dick Peloquin
of Advanced Electronics TV repair attended and diverted 20% of the televisions
for parts reuse and repair. Double handling and transportation costs were also
eliminated. While convenience to the event was less than it had been in the
previous 3 drop-offs, events can always be held later (after diverting as much as
possible).
14
-------
The original Franklin County report is presented in Attachment 6
B7 Implement trial collections through municipal curbside program. Analyzed ease of
implementation, cost of diversion and capture rate.
Under the direction of Michael Pattavina, Recycling Director for the City of
Springfield, that City became not only the first host of 2 charity partnerships
(Goodwill and Salvation Army both have processing facilities in Springfield) but
also the first curbside bulky waste collection Pilot. DEP offered to pay recycling
fees for all electronics deposited in a separate trailer, located at the local landfill.
The results of this pilot are presented in Section C.
B8 Implement trial collections through partnerships with used goods reuse non-profits
(Salvation Army, Goodwill). Analyzed ease of implementation, cost of diversion and
capture, rate.
From January to June 1999, residents were invited to bring TVs or Computers to
any of 10 permanent regional facilities in the state. Most of these facilities are
Goodwill Industry or Salvation Army facilities with their own extended collection
network. In return for accepting broken or obsolete TVs and computers, these
agencies receive free recycling of any they can't repair or resell - typically 50%
of their donation stream (See Table 9 on page 26 for a summary of results).
Collections began at 21,780 Ibs in January, and grew 40% per month (See
Figures 2 and 3 on pages 27-28 for a breakdown by month and by collection
center). In June, 104,907 Ibs. were recycled - approximately 3,500 TVs and
computers. DEP reports that its unique single-payer contract and regional, bulk
collections cut prices 40%. The charities have also diverted 20% more CRTs to
resale (to TV repair facilities as well as to consumers), which comes off the top of
the contract (See Table 10 on page 29 for an example). Most municipalities,
which do not touch the material, see an additional pure avoided disposal cost of
up to $65 per ton.
See Section C for details.
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Tons of Electronics recycled
through MADEP state program
during the JTR Research Period
I Other
(Permanent
I Curbside
JHH _ Feb
June
15
-------
B9 Implement processing tests of municipal material through de-manufacturing at the
University of Massachusetts. Analyzed through samples of material by brand, by item,
and by de-manufacturing time per item. Samples sent to repair markets at greatly
reduced cost, introduced those markets to the material being recovered from those
municipal programs.
UMass processed over 79 tons of material from July of 1998 to June of 1999
(including material generated at UMass). Through the JTR research grant,
UMass added residential materials to the de-manufacturing process, performed
time studies, sampled brand names, etc. Lorenzo Macaluso, the project
coordinator for UMass, also kept records of municipal deliveries and organized
recycling collections, not only through the central state contractor, but also
through trial repair contractors seeking to experiment with contracting or
demanufacturing.
See Attachment F: Results of UMass Electronics Processing
Beyond the research provided through the attachment, UMass provided as
successful model for the 4 Goodwill Industries hubs, 4 Salvation Army hubs, and
Amvets processing center, which were invited to participate as Permanent
Regional Facilities. The high acceptance rate (4 Goodwills, 2 Salvation Armies)
was in large part due to UMass providing a "cookie cutter" - those facilities were
not only presented with a concept and a draft agreement, but also a model
facility.
The complete report is presented in Attachment 7
B10 Analyze which markets are most accessible through each trial collection program.
Section C. presents the importance of triage to get materials to the markets,
which are most affordable, most employment intensive, or most environmentally
sound. Basically, if Apple computers are best salvaged by an Apple computer
specialist, the collection must allow time and space to sort and analyze the Apple
equipment. Stretching deliveries over time best does this, yet the material should
also be protected from theft during the meantime (while theft does reduce
volume, it's impossible to determine the environmental or employment
consequences, or to know whether the item taken was even reusable).
B11 Analyzed data to assess employment and diversion.
Dr. Bernard Morzuch of the University of Massachusetts Resource Economics
Department reviewed secondary research and the results of surveys above to
determine the employment ramifications of different asset management
techniques. The analysis shows that recycling (mainly demanufacturing through
the 48 recycling companies) does generate significantly more employment than
solid waste disposal. However, repair and reuse generates even more
employment. Even the export markets generated more domestic employment
than disposal. After a visit to a large exporter in Rhode Island (Fortune Group),
this was attributed to the careful handling, inventory, and monitoring of loads (as
opposed to pushing dirt on a pile of material at the landfill).
16
-------
Attachment 8: Academic analysis of employment ramifications of different
recycling strategies.
C. Core measures.
Four core measures are the focus of this JTR project: employment, capital investment,
capacity, and utilization. As an optional measure, MADEP compares different systems
to measure the efficiency of each to divert secondary material for disposal. Efficiency
(most items collected and recycled at least cost) of each end market was compared
based upon our estimates of the average amount of material which could be resold,
repaired, or recycled for scrap under each handling method.
These core measures are first compared across the 4 generally identified end-markets:
repair/reuse, recycling, export and disposal. Afterwards we compare the different
collection methods according to the way they emphasize these end markets.
Changes in markets
1998 -Before JTR
research
1999 -After JTR
research
Total
Tons Cost
30.4
M60.0
$15,200
$110,160
Units Unit cost
1,522
22,949
$9.99
$4.80
Recycled Est.
100%
60%-75% est.
Resale/Repair/Ex
port
0%
25-40% est
* Est. minimum 25% diversion before state contract (367.2 tons). Not all Permanent Regional Facilities weighed or
documented resale and repair weights; 2, which did, exceeded 50% diversion.
Because the cost of recycling was reduced by both collection systems (PRFs) and reuse
markets (domestic and export), the state was able to extend the grant farther. The
extension of the grant led to more tonnage and more employment for the domestic
recycling firms as well.
Employment: Details of the employment analysis can be found in Appendix E. To
estimate the employment, the tons collected through each measure were pro-rated
based on employment: ton figures calculated by Morzuch in the preceding table,
according to the percentage of the material which was feasibly diverted for repair or
export or recycling under that method. The repair employment seems high, and it may
well be exaggerated by underemployment of the TV repairers surveyed (it's doubtful
many of the repairers were earning the $35K postulated in Morzuch's analysis).
Nevertheless, some kind of exponential employment factor can be explained by the
retained value of a complete appliance: if 50 appliances per ton are repaired for a resale
value of $50 apiece, the $2500 per ton could be spent to employ people to do those
repairs.
Table: Employment comparison of electronics diversion methods
1000 tons of CRTs employs
or
or
or
or
0.04 FTE through land filling
0.07 FTE through incineration
1.9 FTEs through recycling
3.6 FTEs through export
142.9 FTEs through repair and resale
17
-------
Capital Investment: New capital investment is actually highest for recycling, lower for
repair and export (disposal requires no new investment). The most notable capital
investments made through this project - CRT glass processing at Global Recycling
Technologies ($45K), and Plastic recycling at Conigliaro Industries ($165K) - were far
larger than any investments made by repair or export firms. However, this can be
attributed to recycling being a fairly new activity. If we consider the repair investments
already made (326 TV repair shops in MA alone), and the fact that over 50% are at risk
of closure in the next 5 years, the net investment preserved through repair is
considerable.
Capital Investment
Current
326 businesses
Est. capitalization $40M
($125k / business)
48 businesses
Est. capitalization $48M
($1M/ business)
12 businesses
Est. capitalization:
$100,000 only (offices)
New
50% decline projected
3 new electronics recycling
investments in 1999;
$300.000
New emphasis on foreign
repair; no US investment
therefrom
Capacity: Capacity can be measured either as distinct markets (reuse, recycling,
export) or as a cumulatively, if different components can be sent to different (specialty)
markets. Diverting different electronics components to different specialty markets was
only possible through the Permanent Regional Facility (charity) model described below.
In this case (84% of material collected); once materials were commingled on one-day
collections or through curbside programs, the capacity to reach specialty markets is
reduced. Diverting an Apple computer is a bonus to a PC recycling firm: a foreign reuse
market for an older TV is a relief for a domestic repair firm without a sales market for the
older TV. Therefore the capacity of the market for CRTs has been increased through
the JTR grant, by using different markets to augment one another.
Capacity
1999
New
Repair
20,000 tons per year
50% decline in repair
shops projected; capacity
for 5.000 tons will be lost
(smaller businesses)
Recycling
Needed for bottom 20-60%
12,000 TRY
3 new electronics recycling
investments in 1999:
3,500 tons capacity added
Export
Fluctuates; controls
material not good enough
for domestic repair.
Most important: Mexico
does not anticipate HDTV;
China has an official 1 PC
per home policy. Potential
capacity in billions of
pounds.
Utilization The state contract utilization of different markets is also related to the
collection methods. The "one day" drop off method used in Franklin County (the first
collection program) resulted in 12 tons of material being bulked in a way, which was
difficult to triage, despite UMass PRF capabilities. The charity programs, by
18
-------
comparison, spread such a 12-ton amount over several weeks of individual donations,
allowing those facilities staff the time to segregate, test, and triage equipment.
Utilization
^iii'aS''-;;; V'i ','"'• ;'"o2'f':-^;'
••> r. ;;£.;•'. .-"'"! .=.".: T ' ^lli
Current
New
Repair
Increasing
Increasing, as a percent
of finance
Recycling
': ,'.'•'.", ,Ji. , •'"'-• -»v'-;:- ... -.'-/I i,.r?;' if Y
Increasing
Steady growth
Export v^;i:::;v-,:;,«>,;:
^li^|iiii^!iril;^>!:!
Level
Untapped potential
The way the core measures were affected by each different collection model is
compared by collection model below.
Private-Municipal partnership.
Grant period only
This model generally saved the municipalities from any organizing or handling
costs, yet the municipality benefits from avoided disposal and transportation
costs. The state benefited from an average 20% diversion through resale during
the first 6 months of the program (this diversion increased in the following 6
months, after the JTR reporting period, to as high as 60% at some facilities).
The state contractor offered a 40% price reduction over one-day collection
events because of the ease of collection a't charity loading docks (large quantities
on pallets); this discount only applied to drop-off and curbside programs whose
materials went through a permanent regional facility or consolidation point. This
model was most efficient where an existing charity (Goodwill, Salvation Army,
etc.) is already serving an area; private repairers and recyclers are now offering
the same service (collecting directly from residents for a small fee). The
population served reflects the communities, which had agreements with charities
by June of 1999 (some of these programs only began during the last month of
the reporting period, so tons per resident cannot be calculated meaningfully).
IMPORTANT: The municipality or the state MUST agree to pay recycling fees
for this model to work!
Curbside (bulky waste):
SSpffpi
«l« i •rc^Tti
vTotaf.Gost r Population
Grant period only
Repair/Resale
: Employment
Recyplingi^?
Employment
19
-------
The curbside program was only performed in one city (Springfield, MA), which was also
served by 2 charities. Since the TVs and computers were already being collected
separately in a "bulky" waste truck, the city merely had to stop before the weigh scale to
off-load the CRTs into a separate trailer (rented at $200 per month by the state
contractor, Global recycling). Some extra time was involved in handling CRTs
separately, but no overtime was involved and some of this expense would have been
offset by avoided disposal costs. No diversion to repair or resale occurred in this model,
making it easy to implement but less efficient than the charity model. This program
results in more employment (through recycling) than disposal, but less employment
through repair than the charity model above.
Drop-off:
Grant period only. TV Repairer attended and intercepted materials at the spring one-day collections
The first drop-off program in Franklin County had materials double-handled through
UMass (collection and handling employment is not considered in the core measures);
normally, however, there would be no intermediary site to examine resale and repair
alternatives. During a second set of trial drop-offs, held at the UMass facility in the
spring, a TV repair expert was invited to actually attend the event. He succeeded in
diverting 20% of the day's materials, and provided a repair/resale accounting
(Attachment 5).
Pilot collections in FY99
MSG Regional Collections - FY99
BPittsfieldGW
gChicopee LF
I Springfd GW
rj Springfd SA
B UMass
B CRT/Local
O Boston GW
rjSaugus SA
• Lowell GW
20
-------
GW = Goodwill, SA = Salvation Army
D. Other measures.
Convenience of access and participation:
The attended Permanent Regional Collection Centers (charities) not only diverted the
most material to repair and export markets, but they also offered inexpensive, "turn-key"
programs for most municipalities in the commonwealth. A municipality benefits from the
avoided disposal costs of CRTs collected through those programs, but has virtually no
labor or handling costs. Furthermore, these programs capture other materials not even
targeted through this research - clothing, shoes, bric-a-brac make up most of the
materials collected at these charities, which may see TV recycling as a "loss leader" to
attracting participants. The charities, which picked up house-to-house (curbside),
gathered far more large, console type televisions (these programs were also less happy
with the program in general, because of the extra work involved. MADEP recommends
that municipalities pay charities on a per-unit basis for door-to-door/curbside collections.
The weekly curbside program in Springfield had the highest participation rates. This is
no doubt due in large part to the fact that trucks collected TVs and monitors on trash day
- even "non-participating" CRTs were captured through this method. While diversion to
higher employment markets like repair was less feasible, the low start-up cost and the
high Participation rates make this method well worth considering wherever a municipality
has such a bulky waste collection program in place. The curbside program got far
larger, console TVs than other types of collection programs; these were initially thought
less repairable, but one export/repairer has since developed a market for them.
The one-day collection programs initially showed higher diversion than the charity
model. However, the same diversion rates were achieved in trials where charities were
promoted on a "limited time basis" (e.g. Pittsfield, where Goodwill advertised a "June
only" program, and at the one-day events held at UMass's permanent regional facility).
These programs are probably more appropriate in rural areas which do not attract the
interest of attended charity trailers, and which do not have seasonal collections of CRT
appliances. These events collected a smaller percentage of large, console items.
E. An explanation of the lessons learned.
The hierarchy of reuse, repair, recycling and disposal held true for job creation as well as
environmental policy. The ability of a collection program to triage individual appliances
to these uses was affected by the time, space and expertise available. When computers
and televisions were collected through permanent regional facilities, access to private
TV and monitor and computer repair companies increased.
Monitors, televisions, CPUs, keyboards etc. are complex, durable goods with an
extremely high added value per pound. Even one repairable or resalable item (or part)
out of ten will dramatically affect the cost of recycling. This fact alone makes their
collection and recycling different from lamps, batteries, bulbs, tires, paper, containers,
etc. For illustration, see how a 1% resale can affect the average recycling cost:
21
-------
100 TVs (50lb) recycled at a cost of 15 cents/lb = $750
99 TVs (50lb) recycled @0.15 and 1 TV resold at $75 = $667.50
A 1% rate of resale reduced cost in the above example by over 11%. Like a MRF, which
doesn't bother to separate aluminum from steel, an electronics recycler ignores
resalable parts and items at its financial peril. By salvaging the value already added to
a computer or television or its components, a company can greatly add to its
employment.
White goods (kitchen and laundry appliances) are the most similar item in the waste
stream in terms of value, retained value, parts, etc. The largest white goods specialty
processor in Massachusetts handles 125,000 tons per year of these appliances. Of
those, 40% (50,000 tons) are handled through resale of parts and complete appliances,
largely to lesser-developed countries where low labor rates and high repair skills keep
older appliances in demand.
All of the charities handling durable goods told us that at one point, usually "15 or 20
years ago", that they accepted and collected white goods appliances and performed
minor repairs. Now, many are afraid to accept them at all, and those which do insist that
they collect them from the home, plugged in, with an assurance that they are in good
working order. The 1989 Waste Ban on white goods drove too many appliances their
way, and the crack down on PCB capacitors and freon made disposal of those
appliances too expensive. But the lesson learned is that the charities cannot handle
these appliances for free. With many Massachusetts communities now paying up to $25
per appliance for disposal, it's possible that the charities could have continued what they
were doing if treated like a municipal contractor, rather than as a "free lunch" by
residents seeking disposal.
The value remaining in some percentage of computers and televisions affects the way
which electronics should be collected. Collecting these items in a packer truck might be
the most efficient method from the point of view of a municipal DPW director who has
such a packer truck standing idle (some loads delivered to UMass during the pilot were
thrown commingled onto trucks and dumped on the picking floor). However, this method
- treating electronics as wastes rather than as a commodity - makes triage of
appliances with a retained value difficult or impossible (cords are entangled, pieces
come apart, and tubes may be broken). The determination that a computer or television
is a "waste" and not a commodity should not be made by a truck driver whose
performance is judged by how quickly and efficiently he performs his route.
The "flip side" of job creation is labor cost. Examining and testing appliances for resale
and repair value is time consuming. The ability to examine items for repair and resale
was greatly enhanced when these items were collected at permanent regional facilities,
such as charitable reuse centers; the fact that more items are collected in a one-day
event can actually work to the detriment of a recycler who is trying to keep the items safe
and intact for testing.
Where one-day events are necessary, having a television or computer repair expert on-
site can reduce costs. While it is not possible to test a significant number of items on the
day of the event, such experts can identify the appliances, which are most likely to be
repairable, or resalable.
22
-------
The lessons learned during this study have already been adapted elsewhere. Three
private recycling companies have begun opening chains of "thrift stores". Charities have
approached software companies asking for relief from licensing restrictions, so that more
of the computers can be given out (helping to close the "Digital Divide"). During the
writing of this report, two additional white goods collectors contacted Mass. DEP asking
for information to add CRTs to their existing collection programs.
23
-------
F. A discussion of the challenges overcome.
The challenge reusing computers and televisions and their parts domestically and
overseas was overcome by establishing permanent regional facilities, capable of
receiving the material year-round and preparing it on loading docks for transport.
Interviews with television repair, monitor repair, and export (for repair) industries led to
new markets; this information was shared with private recycling companies who have
now all greatly increased their diversion of working and repairable televisions, monitors
and other parts. Despite this success in overcoming market challenges, we identified
several new challenges to improving the market even further.
Software License. A year ago, before the emphasis on Reuse, software was not even
considered a part of the computer waste problem. But once computers were set aside
for potential resale, the real problem became clear. Resale of computers is a moving
target, due to the rapidly changing software requirements. 486 computers, which
charities could sell at a profit 18 months ago, are now almost impossible to find software
for. Some resellers leave the old (windows 3.1) software on the salvaged computers,
without finding out whether the original owner retained the license. Proposed solution:
bulk volume purchase of software designed to run on older PCs, either through state
license or by pre-installing "spare tire" software hidden on the hard drives of new
computers. This can be accomplished either by state purchases, EPP procurement, or
licensing by OEMs. The point is to allow at least an operating system to remain with a
surplus computer, so that a new buyer is not forced to "experiment" with an expensive
license, which probably does not even fit on the hard drive.
Technical Assistance: Technical expertise in information technology is difficult to
obtain and maintain even at banks and manufacturing plants; obtaining and keeping this
expertise at a demanufacturing or recycling plant or at a charity is even more difficult.
This expertise is necessary to perform the highest environmental and employment-per-
ton activity, re-use. The savings achievable through repair and resale triage must be
offset somewhat by the need to recruit technicians. Proposed solution: Charities are
adept at leveraging funding for "job training programs." At least one New England
charity which recycles computers has already used the recycling program to win a job
training grant (the technician is hired to train, repairing is a secondary benefit. Some
"horse trading" (finding technicians who have another source of income, but who are
interested in working part time in order to find a source of parts) has also been used
successfully by Reuse centers. Rather than investing in one technician (who may know
Apple but not IBM, or who may specialize only in TVs) subcontracted hours to CRT
specialists for each device can be effective. This can also be effective for private
recyclers.
Missing Hardware: Lack of modems is another challenge in older PCs. Lack of cords
is a problem with printers. The costs of these items (about $25 per modem, $15 per
printer cord) and the cost of technician installation move the price of a donated CPU
from $0 (assuming handling is covered by a tip fee) to $50. If web browser software
costs $79 and a technician spends another $25 in time installing that software, the used
PC cannot compete with low-end machines on the market. Proposed solution: Like
automobile "chop shops", the resale market will begin to create a market for parts, which
are now thrown away or recycled. Lowering the cost of the software (above) is also
critical to make the modem investments less of a burden.
24
-------
HDTV: For televisions, HDTV transmission promises to be a long-term barrier. The
cost of new HDTV machines may be a short-term opportunity if consumers resist
replacing their TVs until HDTV prices have fallen. Over the longer term, however, this
market will implode. Proposed solution: continue investigating Mexican and South
American markets (same power supply requirements); those markets are not expected
to convert to HDTV. A healthy market already exists for export sales of "high end"
televisions (e.g. clean outs from hotels and motels); by converting to a tipping fee rather
than positive payment from the southern markets; more TVs may be economically
repairable in these countries.
Regulatory Uncertainty: At the beginning of this project, EPA Region I, EPA Region III,
Common Sense Initiative, and Mass DEP had four different regulatory interpretations of
the status of CRTs, which commonly fail EPA's TCLP test for lead. Without getting into
the particulars of RCRA, the disagreement had a chilling effect on the infrastructure, as
recyclers and reusers doubted their own status and responsibilities. Solution: While
EPA headquarters is still determining whether CRTs are a scrap metal, exempt only in
"glass to glass" operations, a universal waste, or a hazardous waste, DEP and EPA
Region I have reached an agreement. In essence, the REUSE emphasis of the
Massachusetts program is exempt, because "repairable" or "reusable" monitors and TVs
remain commodities, not wastes, until they are discarded. This agreement (on the word
"waste", not the word "hazardous") allowed the Massachusetts program to grow and
succeed during the interim.
G. An overview of the program's future.
UMass, 4 Goodwill industries, and 2 Salvation Armies have opted to continue the
program. Trial shipment to CRT specialists (TV repair, circuit board recyclers, overseas
monitor exports) has dramatically lowered the cost during the fall of 1999. However,
most of the material is still collected under state CRT recycling contract.
The central state contract achieved a 40% price reduction and a dramatic economy of
scale. The Permanent Regional Facilities have achieved as much as 50-70% no-cost
diversion (through resale, CPU sales, and sale of repairable TVs and monitors) before
that state contract comes into play. If the diverted tonnage is estimated at 50%, the cost
of recycling has been less than $150 per ton, or $3-4 per TV or computer.
Nevertheless, there are risks that the contract will be perceived as a "subsidy" over the
next year. For the long term, MA DEP must strive to bring costs low enough to be paid
willingly through user fees (like tires); otherwise, special funding devices such as
advanced disposal fees may be necessary to continue the program.
The economy of scale in the bulk contract, the organized "cherry picking" of resalable
parts and appliances (through thrift stores or subcontracted electronics specialists), and
the avoided trash handling and trash disposal costs achieved by municipalities using
charities have succeeded in bringing the average CRT cost to below $5 apiece. 79% of
Massachusetts residents said they would be willing to pay $5 per CRT to ensure it be
repaired or recycled through reuse.
Unfortunately, the charities do not accept payments at their drop-off and curbside
collection programs (many of which are staffed by "rehabilitation" clients). For this
program to work, municipalities must be willing to pay the recycling fees of leftover
-25
-------
appliances, through the existing state contract. A trial municipal charity contract is in
place between Northampton, East Longmeadow, and Longmeadow MA with the
Goodwill Industries of Springfield.
Private 3rd party collectors are beginning to play the same role as charities, using
domestic and overseas markets to maintain the value of more value added appliances.
Envirocycle of PA has now joined with Advanced Electronics (a TV repairer in
Massachusetts identified through the JTR grant). DMC of NH now exports most
monitors to overseas repair companies. Appliance Recovery Inc. of Freetown, MA has
added televisions and computers to the list of items it collects from cities and towns, and
now provides FREE collection of TVs and monitors from charity PRFs (30 day terms).
All of the parts are now in place to maintain an inexpensive, effective, turnkey
infrastructure, which will take little time or money from existing municipal recycling
resources. With an emphasis on increased diversion at all PRFs (through software,
technicians, and specialty scrap vendors) and a competitive rebid of the state contract,
MA DEP hopes to bring average costs of TVs and computers below $175 per ton. This
price would be roughly in line with average solid waste collection plus disposal (though
not necessarily a wash in any individual community). If this can be achieved, we
recommend that legislation efforts be left for other wastes, which pose more of a
dilemma than CRTs and electronics.
Table: Documented Diversion to reuse and free recycling
Data of diversion at Morgan Memorial Goodwill Industries (Boston). Eight months of
operation (some TVs and computers remain in the processing center; diversion is about
60% through scrap CPU, TV, and repairable monitor sales.
26
-------
Recycle 1999
Global Technologies
TVs
Monitors
Arlington
34
27
Boston
58
78
Newton
41
35
Other sites
140
201
Dec. 16,1999
this is what we have sent to
global technologies
Received from Sites
TVS
May-99
Jun-99
Jul-99
Aug-99
Sep-99
Oct-99
Nov-99
Dec-99
totals
Arlington
39
36
23
25
19
20
17
4
183
Boston
65
63
51
60
59
39
40
12
389
Newton
36
32
19
19
17
8
8
4
143
Total
140
131
93
104
95
67
65
20
715
this is how many TVs we
have received from the 3 sites
Monitors
May-99
Jun-99
Jul-99
Aug-99
Sep-99
Oct-99
Nov-99
Dec-99
totals
Arlington
34
27
19
10
11
19
8
7
135
Boston
44
39
29
28
49
24
26
9
248
Newton
33
22
14
9
10
8
9
2
107
Total
111
88
62
47
70
51
43
18
490
this is how many monitors
we have received from the 3
sites
27
-------
H. Attachments of all resources and documents developed during the grant.
28
-------
29
-------
H: Attachments
ATTACHMENT: 1 The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
1999 Management Plan for Electronics Recycling Infrastructure Development
Integrating Markets and Infrastructure Development
The overall approach Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has taken is to research
and develop recycling markets most likely to sustain a residential collection infrastructure. In this
section we present the reasoning behind the research products that follow.
Recommended Approach:
1 TARGET THE BULKIEST MATERIAL (CATHODE RAY TUBES)
2 ASSESS THE CURRENT MANAGEMENT METHODS FOR THE BULKIEST
MATERIAL
3 RESEARCH (AND DEVELOP) MARKETS FOR THE TARGETED ITEM
4 DEVELOP REGIONAL COLLECTION SCHEMES
5 INTEGRATE MARKETS WITH COLLECTION SCHEMES
6 RESEARCH JOB CONSEQUENCES
1 TARGET THE BULKIEST MATERIAL (CATHODE RAY TUBES)
It's possible that cell phones, mercury-switch devices, laptops, or defillabrators will be the most
valuable (financially or environmentally) items in the electronics recovery stream. However, the
largest cost of residential recycling is collection from every household. While the JTR grant does not
study transportation, we focused our research on the items, which would be at the core of a collection
system. Unless CRTs are excluded from electronics recycling, their collection will drive the cost.
It will be easier to add small items such as telephones to a system, which is already designed to capture
televisions and monitors. The need for public acceptance, understanding and participation is another
reason to target a message around obvious, bulky materials.
Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs) are the bulkiest electronics waste item, and "TVs and Computers" was a
fairly easy message to get across to the public. Collection of these durables from the majority of
households would represent the highest cost of the program (cheaper collection methods would not
capture them from the majority of residents).
2 ASSESS THE CURRENT MANAGEMENT METHODS FOR THE BULKIEST
MATERIAL
10/27/00 pageH-1
-------
H: Attachments
Paper and plastic recycling began with commercial accounts and evolved to consumer drop-off
programs, where material could be consolidated in quantities attractive to the existing infrastructure of
commercial paper recyclers. Just as curbside recycling eventually required fundamental changes from
commercial paper recycling, convenient access to collection of consumer electronics will require a
broader base of collection.
Following the same drop-off model as was first used for papers and plastics, several pilot programs
have been held nationally (Somerville, MA; Binghamton, NY; San Jose, CA; Hennepin County, MM;
Union County, NJ). The reports were very useful for the purpose of this study. Most of those pilots
used drop-off model to simulate commercial loads of material. However, a handling infrastructure
already exists for used TVs and computers. Rather than the existing asset management systems for
used the television and computers.
The handling system for durable goods like TVs and computers is complex. As durable goods, these
materials are repaired, resold, and recovered for parts. As such they are not actually "wastes" any
more than a used car is a waste. Another difference is that households deal with these items
irregularly, and tolerance for storage by the consumer is often high (except when a real estate
transaction is involved).
If we assumed that the collection infrastructure for used CRTs was going to be the same as a drop-off
program in Somerville Massachusetts, the list of markets to survey would be narrow. However, this
research took a much broader view of collection and handling. Below is a list of useful observations
about CRT management and disposal.
1. Cathode Ray Tubes represent the most difficult electronics recycling market, as well as the single most bulky
component of the electronics stream 2. CRTs are present in over 99% of Massachusetts^ homes (about 2.2 million
households).
3. CRTs are becoming "obsolete" (for that user) at a rate faster than they are being discarded. This trend could lead to a
massive cleanout due either to demographics (aging baby boomers) or HDTV technology changes in the next decade.
4. CRTs discarded in solid waste are most likely to be crushed by packer truck blades, where they are most likely to
implode, and most likely to injure workers.
5. Residents are slow to discard items for which they paid over $200.
6. Residents are slow to repair items that can be purchased new for less than $300.
7. Residents are three times more likely to buy a used TV/computer than to sell one.
8. There are 326 TV repair shops in Massachusetts.
9. There are 351 cities and towns
10. 68% of Massachusetts^ residents have their trash picked up from in front of their homes under municipal contract.
85% have trash picked up from in front of their homes (includes subscription haulers)
10/27/00 pageH-2
-------
H: Attachments
11. Consumers repair, upgrade, sell or discard CRT electronics approximately once every 5 years.
12. The number of consumers with experience with repair and resale is apparently declining.
3 RESEARCH (AND DEVELOP) MARKETS FOR THE TARGETED ITEMS
During the 1990's it has been fashionable to think that Markets must precede the collection of items.
We certainly agree that collection should follow market research, and it's a big mistake to gather CRTs
without a pre-arranged place to send them.
However, the long-term cost of new markets cannot be assessed before an economy of scale is
achieved. Forests precede paper mills. Initial pilot collection costs should not justify elaborate
legislative remedies (mandatory manufacturer take-back, etc.). While these may or may not be the best
solution, there are political limits on the number of legislative measures government will undertake,
and it is important to prioritize them.
To better assess the long-term costs, Massachusetts undertook market research concurrently with
collections. This allowed the JTR team to ask questions they may not have thought of without an
ongoing collection program. It also allowed the team to check market leads by following up with
actual sales. For example, a domestic exporter was under the impression that his Asian market would
accept monochrome monitors as well as VGA or SVGA monitors; once an actual inventory was
presented, he found he could improve his revenues and eliminate sending materials which were likely
to become waste products overseas.
• Determine the highest value of items collected (resale, repair, recycling, export)
• Determine who can actualize that value
• Determine where
• Determine how
Anyone who already handles CRTs in the community should be approached for expertise, and offered
a chance to be involved. The more local options for handling, the lower handling costs potential.
It is also important that the "cherry picking" of valuable items and parts occur within the asset
management paradigm. There are "cherry pickers" that have no knowledge or skill to manage
"residue". For a reseller of pentium chips, the "residue" could be 98% of the weight of the computer.
While these individuals can offer valuable insights to reducing the cost of the collection program, they
should be brought in "under the tent" of an overall electronics management strategy. In
Massachusetts, one company, which processed over 200 tons of material, cited absolutely no resale
10/27/00 pageH-3
-------
H: Attachments
value. If this is true, it would represent a strong need for experts who can identify which items have
resale value.
4 REGIONAL COLLECTION SCHEMES
The fastest way to come up with an economy of scale and an efficient collection mechanism is to
identify places where significant volumes of used consumer goods are being consolidated.
In order of volume collected,
1 Collection from individual homes (curbside)
2 Collection at temporary drop-offs (events)
3 Collection at permanent, attended centers
DEP consciously avoided collections at Household Hazardous Waste events. The licensed site
professionals who attend these collection days, dressed in white haz-mat suits, charge by the hour
(either directly or through their bid). Adding ANY material, which does not require a haz-mat
technician to the line of cars, is costly. If 25% more cars came in carrying pitchers of water, the cost
of handling that water would be tremendous, both in terms of hours and in the environmental costs
when the long line discourages other drivers with hazardous items.
5 INTEGRATING MARKETS WITH COLLECTION SCHEMES
Overall, the economy of scale addressed above was more quickly achieved when existing
accumulations of unwanted CRTs were targeted at charities and bulky waste collections. In rural
areas, short-term drop-off programs were necessary to maximize volumes for transport. In moderately
populated areas, month-long "TV and Computer 'Drives'"' at charities were effective.
The time, space and labor available to handle and assess material for repair and resale make a
significant difference in the market. For example, if an export market for repair of monitors has no
tolerance or ability to manager TVs, monochrome monitors, or monitors with "screen-bum", it is
necessary to have the time and space to triage the collected monitors. A one-day drop off program at
a municipal yard makes that unrealistic.
The need for "cherry picking" to occur within the management paradigm also constrains the marketing
of electronics. The curbside "bulky" collectors in Springfield, for example, cited many instances
where a TV called in by a previous truck had "disappeared" from that address when the bulky
recycling truck arrived. Presumably, someone with an interest in reuse or repair had scavenged the
item. Whether they were actually able to fix it is a mystery; also, avoided collection costs are
compromised when the scavenging is random (the truck drivers don't know whether an item is still
there until they get to it).
In order to gain their participation in the program, Salvation Army and Goodwill Industries were
offered "amnesty" for CRTs they cannot resell. The state contractor collects truckloads of palletized
10/27/00 ~ ~~ page H-4
-------
H: Attachments _^___
TVs and computers from each charity's central processing facility (as opposed to satellite thrift shops
and collection centers) and bills the DEP. The state gained a 40% price cut from the contractor, who
was able to cut trucking costs (several cities materials were consolidated at these facilities).
Resale: All of the charities had a resale/thrift market outlet for TVs and PCs they collected; UMass did
not have such an outlet. In the Boston area, Salvation Army required each item be "tested" before it
was sold - management believes that "returned" items are a cost to be avoided. The Boston Goodwill
provides plugs in the store and encourages testing by the customer, but puts almost all TVs and PCs up
for resale. Goodwill management believes that "do-it-yourself repairers and professional repairers are
part of their resale market.
Repair: Professional TV repairers should be invited to visit UMass, Goodwill and Salvation Army. In
each case, the repairer may be willing to take items from the stack for free or for a greatly reduced rate
- but only if these items are separated and kept in another floor space. Unfortunately, the "amnesty"
contract does not give the charities an incentive to pursue this extra effort.
Scrap market: Salvation Army went to some effort to separately bid collection of CPUs, and also had
staff strip the wooden consoles from large TVs (despite the "amnesty" disincentive). DEP is currently
arranging a trial collection with a vendor who takes CRTs out of console TVs and replaces them with
small dormitory refrigerators (selling the items as a "cocktail bar" for $50 apiece). Goodwill
Industries in Springfield is looking at demanufacturing, to further reduce the material sent on the state
contract.
There were several advantages to using charities, which were not directly related to markets. By
advertising the charity, government can achieve some "win-win" diversion of unrelated materials, such
as clothing, shoes and toys. The job training and social programs of the charities are, of course, the
main reason they participate in thrift and used goods/asset management processes.
Overall, the most important aspect of the charity system is the "turn-key" nature of the system in
Massachusetts. Eight permanent processing facilities (4 Goodwill Industries, 4 Salvation Army)
participated in the program, covering ever area of the state except Cape Cod (covered by a Providence,
Rhode Island charity). For marketing, this same regionalization created distinct advantages. Very few
of the 176 TV repair shops, or computer parts shops, would be willing or able to participate in direct
collections from municipalities, much less a statewide program. However, many would be interested
in purchasing source-separated items like VCRs or 19" color TVs. The Permanent Regional Facility
nature of UMass, Goodwill and Salvation Army offered an important mechanism to cherry-pick items
within the asset management paradigm.
6. RESEARCH JOB CONSEQUENCES
Finally, the Electronics Recycling Plan should take a broad view of waste management economics.
The method of waste or asset management which preserves the most jobs locally will have a
"multiplier effect" in the local economy, raising funds to help run the program. MA DEP was
10/27/00 pageH-5
-------
H: Attachments
fortunate to have Dr. Bernie Morzuch of Umass Resource Economics Department take an interest in
comparing this research and putting it to use.
10/27/00 page H-6
-------
H: Attachments
ATTACHMENT 2
Chronology of JTR Study
Spring 1998
DEP and UMass OWM use funding provided by the Chelsea Center for Recycling and Economic Development to hire 2
outside consultants. These consultants investigated computer and television recycling markets, resulting in a profile of collection
vendors and an analysis of end markets. EPA announces that JTR grant will go to Massachusetts DEP to continue investigation of these
markets, and to provide a more scholarly analysis of different market niches.
Massachusetts DEP negotiates a single-payer, bulk-rate CRT recycling contract with an existing vendor. The contract
allows a 40% price cut for aggregated materials (1,200 Ib. minimum, on pallets).
Massachusetts DEP and University of Massachusetts, Amherst, apply for a research grant through the Chelsea Center for
Recycling and Economic Development. The research consultants surveyed 48 electronics asset recovery companies doing business in
Massachusetts, and explored CRT glass end markets.
Massachusetts DEP announces a plan to ban CRTs from solid waste landfills beginning in 1999, while easing hazardous
waste restrictions on intact, source-separated (commodity) CRTs.
Massachusetts JTR proposal is accepted for funding by EPA.
Summer 1998
DEP provides funding for electronics collections to the Franklin County Solid Waste Management District. FCSWMD
held 3 Saturday one-day collection programs at recycling locations in the county. All materials from these collection events were
delivered to the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Fall 1998
JTR funding begins.
The UMass pilot demonstrates that regional consolidation reduced costs by 40%. Massachusetts contractor (Global
Recycling Technologies) leads DEP to open a grant program outside of the original Western Massachusetts / UMass region, expanding
the data available for JTR research.
Springfield, Massachusetts Department of Public Works undertakes New England's first curbside CRT recycling program.
TVs and monitors are delivered to a trailer at the landfill for recycling. Springfield performs a waste audit of all discarded CRTs
(including those set out for trash), which is used by Massachusetts DEP to refine its grant budget estimates.
Winter 1999
UMass signs contract for JTR project.
Surveys drafted of TV repair and export markets by Product Takeback Services and Dillon Associates. Surveys provided
to UMass professor Bernard Morzuch for review.
Spring 1999
DEP successfully expands the UMass pilot in "cookie cutter" fashion to six charities. Tonnage increases by 42% j)er
month in the first 6 months of 1999. Six private companies tour UMass and the other collection sites, and several urges DEP to rebid the
state contract. All were attracted to the one-stop, loading dock arrangement with charities (compared to hosting one-day drop-offs).
Final results of TV repair survey are provided to UMass Resource Economics Department.
UMass produces detailed inventories of TV types collected and documented demanufacturing time for
computers. UMass also tries cost-saving measures, made possible through the leads developed in television repair
surveys. Contacts with television repair markets bring one expert to attend a spring pilot collection at UMass. He
succeeded in diverting ten percent of residential equipment for positive resale markets. While his positive value of
10/27/00 page H-7
-------
H: Attachments
approximately $1,200 per ton includes his parts and labor, it represents a further reduction of 10% to 50% per ton - a
reduction of up to 70% from original cost projections. This TV repairer goes on to win half of the state bid for CRT recycling
in Connecticut.
To assist in the research effort, Metech Recycling of Rhode Island voluntarily provides inventory of
a one-day collection program.
Summer 1999
A seventh charity joins the collection infrastructure. DEP announces that 3rd party private recycling collectors
(e.g. current curbside white goods collectors, computer or TV repairers) will be eligible to deliver under the state grant
contract on behalf of municipal grantee clients; this opens the door to more curbside and one-day-drop-off plans.
DEP and JTR consultants tour exporting plants in Rhode Island (Fortune Group) and New Bedford MA (CRT
Recycling Inc.) DEP arranges trial collections of sorted monitors and televisions for export, reducing statewide costs for the
month by 1/3 in the fall.
Computer repair surveys begin. Site visits to Fortune Group and NE Appliance Recovery Inc.
Through Research International, Cambridge, JTR/DEP jointly fund research of 350 Massachusetts households
to ask their attitudes and practices toward TVs and computers which stopped working or which they no longer use. A follow-
up expands the survey to 800 households in September. Findings indicate a minority of residents is aware of the
charity/reuse collection network.
Morgan Memorial Goodwill Industries in Boston reports results of CRT collection program in Boston, Arlington,
and Newton. Sales of TVs through their network of stores greatly increases following the collection period, suggesting that a
significant number of CRTs are being successfully diverted. Six of the seven participating charities also reduce recycling
bills by selling CPUs for scrap value.
Success: Advanced Electronics of Spencer Massachusetts opens a TV recycling operation, Electronicycle, Inc.,
and forms partnership with Pennsylvania's Envirocycle Inc. Electronicycle takes over collections from Londonderry NH,
Somerville, MA, and some Connecticut towns.
Success: Massachusetts's DEP awards a grant of $45,000 to Global Recycling Technologies to provide in-state
processing of CRTs for glass-to-glass recycling.
Success: NE Appliance Recovery Inc., a white goods processor based in Freetown, MA, opens a TV and
monitor recycling operation, CRT Recycling Inc. and begins trial collections from permanent regional facilities. CRTR
develops a new market for heavy, wooden console televisions, creating a value-added item ($50) out of the most expensive
to recycle CRT units.
Fall 1999
Results of surveys for Export and Monitor repair are provided by Dillon Associates and Product Takeback
Services.
UMass Resource Economics Professor Bernard Morzuch begins processing data from surveys of recyclers, TV
repair, and Export companies.
Site visit to Digital Recycling of Worcester MA, an exporter of working and repairable monitors to Russia, Hong
Kong, Pakistan, etc.
Trial collections are made for export of repairable monitors and televisions from UMass and two other PRFs. The trial partner
(a white goods processor and appliance exporter, CRTR Inc) is not allowed to export CPUs, circuit boards, or monochrome,
screen burn, or vacuum damaged CRTs; diversion rate is 60%.
10/27/00 pageH-8
-------
H: Attachments
ATTACHMENT 3:
1.0 Television Repair and Monitor Repair Research
Product Takeback Services, Billerica, Mass.
The cost of recycling televisions and monitors for raw material value is high ($300 per ton in
Massachusetts). Each TV or PC resold or diverted for free can dramatically lower that cost.
Massachusetts JTR consultant focused on the existing television repair industry in Massachusetts and
the potential opportunity to develop a program with any of those vendors to repair and reuse the
televisions collected by Massachusetts^ municipalities. That study had two components: (1)
secondary research to understand the impact that HDTV would have on the industry and the waste
stream, and (2) a survey of the television repair industry to determine whether an opportunity exists to
use any of these vendors as part of a comprehensive repair and reuse program.
1.0 HDTV's impact on the industry - This investigation consisted primarily of secondary
research reviewing existing literature on HDTV and its impact on the television repair industry.
This research was followed by a small number of direct interviews with people in the television
repair industry. This investigation revealed two primary facts: first, that all television
broadcasts in the US will switch to HDTV by the year 2006, so that there is a potentiality that
all televisions in the US could be converted over to digital in a very short time creating a huge
volume of discarded televisions. Secondly, because the new televisions are currently very
expensive, the transition will probably be much slower than that. Even though all
transmissions will be in digital format, people will be able to buy converter boxes to use with
their current televisions and most Cable TV distributors will not convert right away. As a result,
several forecasts project only 20% adoption by the year 2006.
Most of the television repair shops surveyed had not yet seen a digital television and had no
immediate plans to train for its repair.
1.1 Television Repair Industry - The research involved contacting by phone each of the 326
television repair shops listed in the on-line "yellow pages" to obtain an understanding of the
current state of the industry in Massachusetts. Of those companies, 174 participated to the
survey (see results at http://www.chelseacenter.org/pdfs/TechReport5.pdf). The results of this
survey showed that this industry is in deep decline. Most of the respondents were one-person
shops with the owners having been in the industry for 30 plus years. Many of these people were
planning to retire and leave the business within 5 years.
The general commentary on these interviews was that televisions are becoming a disposable
commodity with new sets often selling for under $300, paying $100+ to repair an older television
does not make economic sense. This trend has ramifications for both the repair industry as well
as the recycling industry. If fewer televisions are being repaired, there will be lower employment
in the industry while a larger number of televisions will need to be recycled.
1.2 Television Refurbishment - A second portion of the phone survey investigated the possibility of
developing a refurbishment/reuse program for the televisions collected by the municipalities.
10/27/00 pageH-9
-------
H: Attachments
While 45% of the respondents showed some interest in this program, follow-up questions indicate
that most televisions that are older than 7 years old are not worth repairing. While good data on
the age of the televisions being collected is not yet available, preliminary indications are that the
largest volume of televisions being turned in are older than that cut-off and thus would not justify the
program. However, the value of a few repairable units (if 1 in 20 is worth $50) could make a big
difference in the average cost of the program.
TABLE C1: SECONDARY RESEARCH: TELEVISION MANUFACTURING AND REPAIR
Bill Waters, Product Takeback Services
Television Repair Industry SIC 7622-02
Included in Commerce Department's "miscellaneous repair services," where earnings in U.S. were $17,108 million in 1997,
$16,230 million in 1996, $15,733 million in 1995. (5% growth '96 to '97,3% growth '95 to '96)
Employment figures (FT equivalent and self-employed): 588,000 in 1997, up from 575K in 1996, and 593K in 1995.
13,079 television repair businesses in the U.S.A., 326 in Massachusetts
296 (91 %) of the MA locations have annual sales of less than $500,000
287 (88%) have only one to four employees
The two largest (in revenues):
$5-10 million in sales: Electronic Audio Video in Springfield
$2.5 - 5 million in sales: Nate Lions Service and Parts Center in Fall River
TV repair service offered in conjunction with many other services that span consumer electronics (audio, video), personal
computers, home appliances (washer, dryer), and other electronics (multiplexes, PC boards). Some service providers are also
retailers. Trend toward "big box" retailing (Circuit City, Good Guys) has created opportunities for small retailers and service
providers to stress service.
• Television business was in decline until this year. Philips Consumer Electronics predicts that total industry sales of digital video
products will grow from $13 billion in 1998 to $34 billion in 2002.
• 250 million TVs in U.S. homes today. Will be obsolete and replaced or need to be fitted with a digital converter. Replacement
market totals $125 billion, according to Bruce Leichtman at Yankee Group.
• LG Electronics (an HDTV manufacturer) signed a contract with Sharp of Japan to provide 2,000 digital TV chip sets that allow
analogue TV sets to receive digital signal. (August 1998)
• Many consumers are confused and not aware of options, such as a digital-ready set that can be purchased for less than $2,000.
HDTV costs $6,000 and more.
• Consumers will be able to keep watching regular TV until 2006, when analog signals are supposed to be turned off. (Experts
think this date will slip.) Even if analog is shut off, current TV sets will work with cable.
• Digital TV will be available in every home in the U.S. by May 2002, says government.
• Yankee Group predicts only 2.5% of U.S. households will have HDTV by 2002.
• When Color TV was introduced in early 1950's, it took 8 years to penetrate 10% of the market
• Flat-panel, hang on the wall plasma screens now cost $15,000 to $25,000, just for the screen. They are expected to be the
most popular TV screens of the future. Format (called 'progressive" scanning) used to create picture for plasma screen is used
on modem computer monitors and most medical imaging displays.
• "Interlace" scanning is used on current television sets. HDTV has more than one scanning standard. Some networks will
broadcast in "interlace," while others will use "progressive." Consumers may use PC's to receive their television, using an
advanced version of the "progressive" standard, (i.e. Web/TV)
• Merging of audio, visual, computing has vast implications for service businesses. Lots of knowledge required and many
vendors with whom to interface.
Additional Sources of Information on the Web:
10/27/00 page H-10
-------
H: Attachments
www.electronix.com (repair world), www.cemadty.org (Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association)
http://plop.phys.cwru.edu/repairfaq/REPAIR " '
The PTS study determined that while the advent of HDTV could potentially have a huge impact on the
volume of televisions in the waste stream, indications are that the shift will be much more gradual on
televisions which were sold in the late 1990s. Nevertheless, even with a gradual transition, there will
be a reduction in repairs and a spike in the number of televisions being disposed of. All of these
televisions will have to be recycled under the new Massachusetts waste ban unless another market
can be found to export them or to reuse them in the US.
Based upon volume, ours survey shows there is only a small opportunity to reuse the televisions
collected by Massachusetts' municipalities as the typical age of the disposed of television exceeds the
age deemed repairable by the repair shops. While the average age of the returned televisions may
go down as people switch over to HDTV, there is no certainty that people will be interested in buying
the older technology at that time. However, even a 10% repair rate would dramatically reduce the
$300 per ton cost of television recycling now paid by the state. Therefore this opportunity should
continue to be pursued as the Massachusetts' recycling programs progress.
Using TV repair as a method of reducing and adding higher value to the collection program was tried
at the UMass one-day collection events in the Spring of 1998. Advanced Electronics, Inc., of Spencer
MA, attended the event and diverted an estimated 20% of units brought in to the facility. The value
added to (salvaged from) these collections is provided in the UMass Report.
2.0 Computer Repair Survey
During the summer of 1999, a final study was begun by PTS paralleling the one performed earlier on
TV repair. This survey was directed at all of the Computer Service and Repair companies listed on-
line, and like the first study was intended to determine whether there might be an opportunity to
refurbish the computer monitors collected by the municipalities and reuse or resell them.
2.1 Survey of the Computer Repair Industry - This investigation was focused on contacting all of
the companies listed on-line under the category of Computer Repair and Services. However,
given the limited time available for the project, only a small subset of the companies was actually
contacted. However, even with this limited sample, a few conclusions could be drawn. First, this
industry is healthier than the television repair industry and is growing. Secondly, computer
monitor repair is a specialty and most computer repair companies do not do their own monitor
repair, but prefer to forward the business to other companies that specialize in monitors. Finally,
as in the television repair industry, most companies are finding that with the low cost of new
monitors today it is technically possible to repair an old monitor, but that the monitor may not be
resellable in the current strong economy. This is particularly true with the smaller monitors that
can now be purchased new for around $100.
As with the television survey one objective of the project was to determine whether some of these
companies might be interested in working with the state to refurbish some of the monitors that are
collected by the municipalities. The response to this question was mixed. While several
companies were interested in working with the state, the general feeling was that the type of
monitors likely to be collected (smaller 14" and 15" monitors), was not going to be cost effective to
10/27/00 page H-11
-------
H: Attachments
repair here in the US. A handful of these companies seemed to think that they could make a
refurbishment program work for them.
Conclusion
Given the small amount of time spent on this project, it is hard to draw any firm conclusions.
However, it does appear that there is a potential to work with some companies in this industry to
refurbish and reuse electronics collected in Massachusetts. While there may be only a dozen
companies that have monitor repair capability and are also interested in this low-end business, these
companies should be sufficient to run a test program. If this program develops and is successful,
more companies may take an interest in participating long term.
The survey and secondary research indicate that monitor repair potential exceeds its practice due to
the high standards of American buyers and the high cost of technician labor. A good indicator of
repairability of all types of televisions and monitors can be found from the Samuel M. Goldwasser
website, www.repairfaq.org.
TABLE C2: FEASIBILITY OF MARKET REPAIR
Copyright Samuel M. Goldwasser, www.repalrfaq.org
2.12) Most Common Problems
The following probably account for 95% or more of the common monitor ailments:
* Intermittent changes in color, brightness, size, or position - bad connections inside the monitor or at the cable
connection to the computer or video source.
* Ghosts, shadows, or streaks adjacent to vertical edges in the picture - problems with input signal termination
including use of cable extensions, excessively long cables, cheap or improperly made video cables, improper daisy
chaining of monitors, or problems in the video source or monitor circuitry.
* Magnetization of CRT causing color blotches or other color or distortion problems - locate and eliminate sources of
magnetic fields if relevant and degauss the CRT.
* Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) - nearby equipment (including and especially other monitors), power lines, or
electrical wiring behind walls, may produce electromagnetic fields strong enough to cause noticeable
wiggling, rippling, or other effects. Relocate the monitor or offending equipment. Shielding is difficult and expensive.
* Wiring transmitted interference - noisy AC power possibly due to other equipment using electric motors (e.g.,
vacuum cleaners), lamp dimmers or motor speed controls (shop tools), fluorescent lamps, and other high power
devices, may result in a variety of effects. The source is likely local - in your house - but could be several miles
away. Symptoms might include bars of noise moving up or down the screen or diagonally. The effects may be
barely visible as a couple of jiggling scan lines or be broad bars of salt and pepper noise, snow, or distorted video.
Plugging the monitor into another outlet or the use of a line filter may help. If possible, replace or repair the offending
device.
* Monitor not locking on one or more video scan ranges - settings of video adapter are incorrect. Use software setup
program to set these. This could also be a fault in the video source or monitor dealing with
the sync signals.
* Adjustments needed for background brightness or focus - aging CRT reduces brightness. Other components may
affect focus. Easy internal (or sometimes external) adjustments.
* Dead monitor due to power supply problems - very often the causes are simple such as bad connections, blown
fuse or other component.
10/27/00
pageH-12
-------
H: Attachments
Attachment 4: Export Markets Summary Report Prepared by Patricia Dillon
This report summarizes the results of a survey of potential export markets for used computers,
used televisions, and electronic scrap. This survey was intended to provide a glimpse at the nature of
the export market to assess the viability and desirability of exporting used equipment from
Massachusetts' emerging collection infrastructure.
The report also identifies potential export vendors, and the equipment they accept for export.
These equipment specifications provide a "first cut" at matching the Massachusetts used electronics
stream with potential vendors. More accurate assessments of the export potential of equipment
collected in Massachusetts will come from trial shipments sent to export companies. "Hands on"
assessments or equipment sorts will provide additional insights on the potential for equipment
diversion to resale markets based on age and condition of equipment and pricing.
The Survey
The search for potential exporters of used electronic equipment yielded 95 companies. The
search encompassed a variety of sources, including published export/import directories, Internet
searches, telephone directories, and networking with companies in the industry. Of these potential
export candidates, time permitted contact with sixty-seven companies, resulting in thirty-two
completed interviews, i Fourteen of these companies are currently engaged in the export business.
Exporters of Used Electronics: Who Are They?
Companies involved in the export of used electronic equipment are diverse, not unlike the
domestic market for electronics recycling. Export companies may specialize in resale of used
electronics or scrap recycling; may export a broad range of goods or only electronics; may be brokers
or actual equipment processors; and may deal exclusively with exports or a combination of US sales or
processing and exports. Table 1 summarizes the export activities of the companies surveyed.
A variety of companies provide access to export markets, for example:
• US-based or foreign used equipment brokers;
• US companies with processing facilities overseas; and
• US-based electronic and appliance recyclers with direct or indirect export connections;
US-based electronic recyclers are included in this list because they may utilize export markets for
selected material streams or products (e.g., resalable items), depending on the company policy and
customer requirements.
1 About one-third of the non-respondents were no longer in business.
10/27/00 ! page H-13
-------
H: Attachments
Some general observations of the industry, extracted from the surveys, are outlined below.
Caution should be taken in interpreting these findings, given the limited sample size. Further research
is needed to validate these "hypotheses".
• Export companies tend to specialize in either equipment resale or scrap recycling, similar to their
US counterparts.
• Televisions and computer equipment are handled by different companies. Most of the companies
handling computer and scrap electronics, for example, are reluctant to handle televisions.
Televisions are considered to have "little value" due to low metals content.
• Televisions were destined for resale markets in Central and South American, while computer
equipment for resale or material recycling was headed to Asian countries. One possible reason for
this is the existing infrastructures in these regions. China, for example, has established a metal
recycling infrastructure based on foreign imports as a means to secure base materials for
manufacturing industries. Three of the companies interviewed have Chinese metal processing
facilities, licensed by the government, that exclusively import scrap almost entirely (over 90%)
from the US. In comparison, televisions have traditionally fallen into the "appliance" category.
Televisions may be headed south as part of the used appliance industry.
• The final destination of equipment sold to exporters was often not known, with the exception of
export companies operating their own processing facilities overseas.
Table D1: Summary of Export Surveys
Company
Advantage
Computer
Exchange
(Georgia)
Allied Computer
Brokers
(MA)
Alternative
Exports
(Florida)
CMC International
(MA)
CRT Recycling
Inc.
(MA)
Corona Vision
(Texas)
Type of Business/
Service
US used computer
broker
US electronics
recycler
Exporter
Exporter/broker
US recycler -
appliances and
electronics
US monitor and
computer repair
Export/Import
Business*
Docs not routinely
export
Some equipment to
overseas reuse
markets through 3rd
party US company
New & refurbished
computer
equipment; currently
no used equipment
exports
Electronics and
other goods
Appliances &
computer monitors
Monitors and
computers through
third party vendors;
business shifted
from majority
exports to repair and
recycle
Destination
Not applicable
China
Taiwan
South &
Central
America,
Caribbean
Asia
China
(monitors)
Taiwan
Japan
Canada
Annual US Export
Volume
Not applicable
Approx. 10% of
equipment
processed
-100 containers
(electronics)
No information
No information
Employment
No information
13 employees, plus
temporary labor
No information
US 1.5 employees
US 1 1 employees
Variable
10/27/00
page H-14
-------
H: Attachments
Fortune Group
(Rl/China)
Kaytron Systems
(MA)
Lotus International
(Michigan)
Maharajha Metal
Industries
(India)
National Christina
Foundation
Odyssey Systems
(Texas)
Quality Cable &
Electronics Inc.
(Florida)
SES Ltd.
(Canada)
Sunrise Appliance
(Florida)
Ta Tsen Trading
Inc.
(Illinois/China)
Tung Tai Trading
Corp.
(California/China)
Wasan
International Co.
Ltd.
(New Zealand)
Wo Sang Metal
Shop Co. Ltd.
(Hong Kong)
US corporation
exporting to Chinese
subsidiary; some US
processing
Computer
equipment and parts
resale, serving
computer
maintenance service
companies
Manufacturer and
exporter of CRTs,
monitors and other
electronics
Indian metal
processor
International non-
profit organization
Used equipment
broker with US and
overseas markets
Exporter of cable
TV equipment
Used equipment
broker, working
with 5- 10 exporters
US appliance dealer
- new and used
equipment
US corporation
exporting to 2
company-owned
facilities in China
Non-ferrous metal
recycling, exports to
7 company-owned
facilities in China
Used computer
broker
Hong Kong
company with scrap
yards in Los
Angeles
Electronics,
telecommunications
scrap, wire & cable
No export
New cathode ray
tubes, monitors and
other electronics; no
used equipment
Import electronic
scrap
Distributes used
computer systems
world-wide
Computer hardware,
monitors
Mostly cable TV
equipment; some
TVs
Computers, office
and medical
equipment
Variety of goods,
incl. televisions,
appliances, surplus
inventory; sold ,
direct to retail stores
Metals, electronic
scrap
100% exports
Metal, electronic
scrap
100% exports
Used computers &
peripherals
Metals, electronic
scrap
China
Not applicable
Worldwide
India
Worldwide
Asia
Latin America
:
Canada
South and
Central America
China
China
New Zealand
China
40 million Ibs/year
Not applicable
No information
No information
No information
No information
No information
Not available
i
Varies
-20 million Ibs/
Annually
(All exports)
-40 million Ibs/yr
No information
No information
US -100
China - 200
No information
No information
No information
No information
No
No information
No information
No information
US 20
employees
China 250
employees
US 6
employees
China 2,000 empl.
No information
No information
1 Used equipment or scrap unless "new" equipment is specified.
10/27/00
pageH-15
-------
H: Attachments
Overview of Overseas Market Opportunities
Type of Equipment
One goal of the export surveys was to identify potential markets for reutilization of computer
equipment and televisions deemed "obsolete" by US standards. This survey found export markets
available for the following equipment:
• Color VGA and SVGA computer monitors, 14" or greater;
• Central Processing Units (CPU) with 486 or better microprocessor^
• Color televisions in working condition, and
• Electronic scrap (including 286 and 386 CPUs).
In addition, one exporter would consider taking large quantities of 386 units for markets in Europe.
These markets are not static. Available export markets will evolve as technology evolves.
Several exporters, for example, said that they currently accept 486 computers, but this may change
soon. The market for 486s is getting "weak". As more and more used Pentium's come on the second-
hand market, there is less demand for 486 units, even in less developed countries.
Access to export markets and pricing may also depend on whether the equipment is in
"guaranteed" working condition and volume. For example, some exporters only deal with large
quantities of like items; others require a minimum of a container load (for example, -40,000 pounds of
electronic scrap). Table 2 provides company-specific details, including the type of equipment accepted,
specifications, and minimum quantities.
Table D2: Equipment Specifications & Processing by Export/Import Company
Company
Allied Computer
Brokers
(MA)
Alternative Exports
(Florida)
CMC International
(MA)
Used Equipment
Specifications Min. Volume
Export through 3rd party
• CPUs
for resale: 486 or better
for recycle: 386 or less
• Monitors
VGA & SVGA color; no
black & white; working or
non-working
Not in used equipment business, but
willing to find customers if send
inventory of used computer equipment
• CPUs
for resale: 486, Pentiums;
itemized inventory; must
Container
(35,000-40,000
Ibs); mixed loads
accepted
Not applicable
40,000 Ibs; mixed
loads accepted
Processing
US Overseas
Sort
Not applicable
Sort as needed. Load
containers.
Resale (-20% or
1 of 5 units) and scrap
recycling
Not applicable
Does not own
processing facilities.
Independent import
2 There might be opportunities to export 386 computer systems through the donation program of the National Christina Foundation,
although they mostly accept 486 units. The Foundation links donors and recipients. The donor organization usually pays for
transportation, either directly or through grants.
10/27/00
pageH-16
-------
H: Attachments
CRT Recycling Inc.
(MA)
Fortune Group
(Rl/China)
Lotus International
(Michigan)
Maharajha Metal
Industries
(India)
National Christina
Foundation
Odyssey Systems
(Texas)
Quality Cable &
Electronics Inc.
(Florida)
SES Ltd.
(Canada)
guarantee working condition
• Monitors
for resale: min. 14"; mostly
SVGA, some VGA; working
condition; only equipment
coming out of service (i.e., not
stored)
o Misc. electronic scrap
• No televisions
Export to third party in China:
• Monitors
>1992, no screen burn
Computers
Monitors
Peripherals,
Printed wire boards
Mainframes
Not in used equipment business; if
large volumes could seek out potential
markets using their overseas network;
need detailed inventory of regularly
available equipment.
• Electronic scrap, including
computer, telephone, cellular
phone, PC board,
telecommunications
• Computer systems & peripherals
486, Pentium, possibly 386
• SVGA, working monitors
($13/unit)
• VGA & SVGA monitors,
untested, no screen bum
($3/unit)
• CPUs
486, low end Pentium
possibly large quantities of 386s
• No televisions
o Televisions
color; min. 19"; must
guarantee working
condition; mixed brands
accepted as long as similar in
design; buys pre- 1993
• CPUs >486
• Monitors min. 14" color SVGA
• Copiers
Can provide
warehouse
capacity until fill
container.
Min. 40,000 Ibs
Mixed loads
accepted
Not applicable
No information
Varies
20-40' container
(or 1000- 11 00
monitors per 40'
container)
50 TVs or more
per shipment
No information
Scrap recycling,
including CRT glass
and plastic recycling
Not applicable
No information.
None
None. Sold to third
party overseas.
No processing
No processing.
95% resale as is,
mostly in Canada
company checks if
equipment is
working, and does
minor repairs.
Electronic scrap
processed for
precious metals
recovery.
3rd party rebuilds
about 95% of
monitors. Guarantees
zero landfill
< 10% resale/reuse.
Manual dismantling,
sort & material
recycling, including
12 grades of plastics,
CRT glass, precious
metals. CRT glass
used in bottles
containing chemicals
for industrial use
Not applicable
No information
~92% reused as is,
repaired, or parts.
Repair, if needed,
done by recipient
organization.
Third party sells to
repair facilities
overseas.
Resale
10/27/00
pageH-17
-------
H: Attachments
Sunrise Appliance
(Florida)
Ta Tsen Trading
Inc.
(Illinois/China)
Tung Tai Trading
Corp.
(California/China)
Wasan
International Co.
Ltd.
(New Zealand)
Wo Sang Metal
Shop Co. Ltd.
(Hong Kong)
• Medical equipment
Send equipment inventory to assess
rcsalability
• Televisions
min. 19"; working condition;
large volumes, like types;
"newer the better" but does
buy 1988/89 vintage
(typically deal with hotels that pull out
large volumes of older, but working
TVs)
• . CPUs
for resale: 486, Pentium; not
cannibalized
• Monitors
for resale: min. 14"; SVGA, some
VGA brands; no screen burn
• Misc. electronic scrap
• Printers, keyboards, mainframes
• No televisions
• Electronic scrap
• No televisions
CPUs Pentium 166 or better
Monitors
Notebooks
Hard drives (min. 540MB)
CD Roms
Floppy drives (min. 1.44MB)
• Used computers & monitors
40' container
(approx. 6-700
20" televisions)
40' container
(approx. 40,000
Ibs); mixed loads
accepted
40' container
No information
No information
No processing.
Load/reload
containers. No
processing.
None.
Warehouse in San
Jose, CA.
No information
Operate scrap yards
in Los Angeles
Sold directly to retail
stores.
Processed at
company-owned
facilities. Resale as
is, some repair.
Manual disassembly
for material recycling,
including precious
metals refining, and
CRT glass and
plastics recycling.
Claim zero landfill.
Mostly material
recycling. Manual
disassembly and sort
waste streams;
recover precious
metals; sell
segregated plastics;
CRT glass to lead
smelters and road
aggregate.
No information
Used computers and
monitors shipped to
China for reuse. (No
further details.)
Pricing information was available from some companies, as summarized in Table 3. Pricing is
highly dependent on several factors, including configuration, age, and volume, so these figures should
just be used as "ballpark" estimates.
Table D3: Sample Export Pricing
Equipment
Central Processing Unit (CPU)
• .486
Price Range (US dollars)
$4.00-12.007 unit
10/27/00
page H-18
-------
H: Attachments
Pentium
Monitors
Depending on conditions, VGA or
SVGA
Electronic scrap
Televisions (working condition)
• >1993, 19" color
• older 19" color
$20.00 - 50.00/ unit
$2.00-13.00/unit
$0-.15/pound
$30 - 40/ unit
$10-20/unit
4. Advantages and Disadvantages of Exporting
Exporting has its advantages and disadvantages as summarized in Table 3. While exporting
used equipment gains access to lower labor costs and markets hungry for technology, the downside is
the potential "unknown". Equipment that is exported for resale is often sold to brokers or other
processors, and the chain of ownership is difficult to trace. Export companies themselves don't always
seem to know where the equipment goes. In many cases, pricing drives the export decision. One
indication of "reuse" is if an export company pays a "per unit" price for equipment, rather than a per
pound price. That said, it remains difficult to determine is the fate of the unusable equipment. It is for
this reason that some electronics recyclers and US electronics firms have policies prohibiting export of
used equipment. Other companies will access export markets, but only after a thorough review of
operations.
Table D4: Summary of Advantages and Disadvantages of Exporting Used Electronics
Advantages
• Access lower cost labor for labor
intensive processes such as repair
• Access to markets with higher
tolerances for older technologies
Disadvantages
Exact destination of material
sometimes unknown
"Guarantee" of equipment disposition
not always available
Distance limits oversight of equipment
processing
Long-term viability of market
10/27/00
page H-19
-------
H: Attachments
As a final test of the export market, Massachusetts DEP ran several on-line classified ads
offering working and non-working monitors and televisions for resale in other countries. Based
upon responses to these ads, MA DEP has determined that monitors and televisions are more
likely to be exported for repair than for scrap. The price per unit as well as the strict standards
against monochrome, screen burn, plastic housing damage, and glass damage would not make
sense if the ultimate use of the material was for scrap rather than for repair.
•0/27/00 pageH-20
-------
H: Attachments
ATTACHMENT 5
MADEP Survey of Massachusetts Households Electronic Equipment and Household
Chemicals Disposal Conducted by Reports International Cambridge.
I. Objectives and Methodology
A) Objectives of the Study
• Understand the current methods consumers use to dispose of cathode ray tubes (CRT's) by
discarding unwanted or broken TV's and personal computers.
• Highlight the existence of opportunities for communicating disposal alternatives to the
public.
• Determine influences upon disposal practices, including demographic characteristics such
as age and education.
• Assess consumer awareness and understanding of High Definition Television (HDTV or
DTV) to measure general expectations for future TV disposal.
• Understand current methods of discarding household appliances and electronic equipment
in general, including items such as refrigerators or stereo equipment.
B) Survey design and methodology
Method: Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing
Interviewing dates: June 14-17,1999
Sample size: Representative sample of 450 Massachusetts residents
Margin of error: ±4.6 percentage points at the midpoint of the 95% confidence
level
10/27/00 pagcH-21
-------
H: Attachments
II. Executive Summary
One-third (32%) of all respondents have had a TV in their household that
stopped working within the past five years. Nearly four in ten (37%) of these
residents report that they threw the TV away (approximately 275,000 TV's),
while one-fifth (20%) say they put the TV in storage (approximately 148,000
TV's). Older respondents (56 years of age and over), as well as those with a
high school education or less, appear slightly more likely to throw their TV away
than younger respondents and those with higher levels of education. In
addition, virtually all of those who placed a TV in storage owned their own
home. However, sample sizes among subgroups of the population are often
small (less than 30 respondents) throughout this report, and it is necessary to
use caution when interpreting these results.
A majority (60%) of Massachusetts's residents report having a personal
computer in their home. Four in ten (40%) of those who have a computer say
that they have had a computer in their home that stopped working
(approximately 548,000 computers). Most of those who stopped using a
computer for any reason other than because it was broken either gave the
computer to someone else (39%) or put it in storage (33%; approximately
160,000 computers). Very few respondents report throwing the computer away.
The vast majority (79%) or respondents report a willingness to pay a small fee
to deposit a TV or computer at a designated disposal site.
Three in ten (31%) respondents report a general awareness of charities that
accept TV's and electronic equipment, with college graduates and those 36-to-
55 years of age expressing the greatest levels of awareness. Still, one in seven
(14%) of those who express awareness of such charities cannot cite any by
10/27/00 ~ page H-22
-------
H: Attachments
name. Those who donated electronic equipment to charity most frequently say
they donated a computer (15%) or TV (13%). Upper-income respondents
($50,000 or more) are nearly twice as likely to report donating an item as those
who earn less income.
Half (53%) of respondents have had an appliance or piece of electronic
equipment professionally repaired, with residents most often stating that they
had a washer/dryer (25%) repaired, followed by a TV (13%). In contrast, only
15% sold an item through a yard sale or classified advertisement.
Three out of five (60%) of respondents are aware of HDTV, with men, college
graduates, and upper-income respondents possessing the highest levels of
awareness. One-fourth (25%) of respondents say HDTV will provide a better
quality picture. However, one-fifth (19%) of those who are generally aware of
HDTV do not recall anything specific about it.
Half (46%) of respondents have disposed of household chemicals. Those 36
years of age and older are more likely than younger respondents to report
disposing of chemicals (53% vs. 32%), and they are twice as likely to express
awareness of the proper method for disposing of such chemicals (61% vs.
29%). Those 36 years of age and older are thus more likely than younger
respondents to report disposing of the chemicals at a disposal site (71 % vs.
28%). Conversely, younger respondents (under 36 years of age) are more
likely to report disposing of them with the household trash (39% vs. 13%).
10/27/00 page H-23
-------
H: Attachments
III. Consumer Disposal of CRT Units
Understanding current CRT disposal practices among Massachusetts^
residents provides an indication of the magnitude of CRT disposal in the state,
as well as the types of disposal methods residents most frequently employ. In
addition, such an understanding can help suggest possible areas for effectively
communicating CRT disposal alternatives to consumers, including disposing of
TV's and computers at designated CRT disposal sites. Consequently, this
survey asked respondents how many TV's and computer monitors they
possess, as well as how they dispose of TV's and computers in their possession
that are either obsolete or that no longer work. The research paid particular
attention to why residents throw these items away, rather than either having
them repaired or donating them to charity. In addition, the survey assessed
consumer receptiveness to paying a small fee to properly dispose of TV's and
computers they no longer want.
-Disposal of TV's
• Half (55%) of all respondents report having either one (22%) or two (33%)
TV's in their household. Meanwhile, one-fourth (23%) have three TV's, and
one in ten (11 %) report having four TVs in their home. A lesser number
possess either five (5%) or more than five (4%) TV's.
=> Therefore, based upon these percentages, Massachusetts's
households contain and estimated 5.8 million TV's (see Table 1).
=> The average number of TV's per household is 2.5.
10/27/00 pageH-24
-------
H: Attachments
Table 1. Estimated Number of TV's in Massachusetts
Households
umber of Household,
,IX_....,'.. .' ; , ;•.; t*!.j*?"i^^_ ••/'":!— '• ......' - "*—'-^j-'-' **'y''1'*trti!fyy —: -'—^ --Mirr-'-^Li i*ir.1._'-.._!^'"T'"' '-'"*-•'
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
More than five
22
33
23
11
5
4
510,840
766,260
534,060
255,420
116,100
92,880
510,840
1,532,520
1,602,180
1,021,680
580,500
557,280
.-.-:; .•:••,:•..
*Figure (2,322,000) represents the 7996 U.S. Census estimate of the total number of households in
Massachusetts.
AAII those reporting more than five TV's in their household were counted as having six TV's.
• One-third (32%) of all respondents report that they have had a TV in their
household that stopped working within the past five years (approximately
740,000 computers).
• Among this group, nearly four in ten (37%) disposed of their TV by
throwing it away (12% of all respondents, or approximately 275,000 TV's).
=> Half (55%) of those who disposed of their TV by throwing it away
say they did not have it repaired because repairs cost too much.
In addition, one-third (32%) of those who threw their TV away
maintain that it could not be repaired. Other reasons residents
who disposed of their TV by throwing it away cite for not having it
repaired include the TV was not worth having repaired and
having it repaired was simply too much trouble.
10/27/00
page H-25
-------
H: Attachments
Respondents 56 years of age and older are more likely to say they
threw the TV away than are younger respondents (45% vs. 33%).
Similarly, those possessing a high school education or less are
more likely to report throwing their TV away than are those with
more than a high school education (46% vs. 34%). However, since
sample sizes among those who threw their TV away are small, it is
necessary to use caution when interpreting these results.
One-fifth (21%) of those who had a TV in their home that stopped working
had it professionally repaired, and a nearly identical number (20%) put the
TV in storage (6% of all respondents, or approximately 148,000 TV's). A
lesser number (9%) gave the TV to someone else.
10/27/00 page H-26
-------
H: Attachments
igure 1. Possession of TV's that Stopped
Working
In the past 5 years, has a TV of yours
ever stopped working?
No (68%)
Yes (32%)
10/27/00
page H-27
-------
H: Attachments
Figure 2. Disposal of TV's that Stopped
Working
What did you do with your TV that
stopped working?*
Other
(13%
Give to someone
else (9%)
Put in storage
(20%)
Throw it away
(37%)
Have it repaired
(21%)
•Asked of 32% who said they had a TV that
stopped working
Why didn't you have your broken
TV repaired?*
Costs too Could not be
much repaired
•Asked of 37% who threw TV away
13
Another
reason
10/27/00
page H-28
-------
H: Attachments
Disposal of Computers
• Three out of five (59%) respondents report that they have a personal
computer in their home (approximately 1.4 million Massachusetts
households).
=> As expected, upper-income respondents (83%) and college
graduates (76%) are more likely to have a personal computer in
their home than are lower-income respondents and those who
possess less than a college education.
• Two-thirds (67%) of those who have a computer in their home possess just
one computer. A far lesser number of respondents report having two (18%),
three (10%), or more than three (4%) computers in their home.
=> Consequently, based upon these findings, Massachusetts's
households possess an estimated total of approximately 2 million
computers (see Table 2).
10/27/00 page H-29
-------
H: Attachments
Table 2. Estimated Number of Computers in
Massachusetts Households
•'•rznvnyuji.;-.^™ i;::"'
iilRSt
One
Two
Three
More than
three
67
18
10
4
917,886
246,596
136,998
54,799
917,886
493,192
410,994
219,196
*Figures represent percentages of the 59% of all respondents who say they have a computer in their
home.
"The figure (1,369,980) represents the total number of households that report having a computer,
calculated as 59% of 1996 U.S. Census estimate of the total number of households in Massachusetts
(2,322,000).
AAII those reporting more than three computers in their household were counted as having four
computers.
10/27/00
page H-30
-------
H: Attachments
• Two in five (40%) of those who own a computer report that they have had a
computer in their home that they stopped using (approximately 548,000
computers).
=> Upper-income respondents (50%), as well as those with a
graduate or professional education (70%), are more likely have a
computer in their home that they stopped using than are those
who report lower income and education levels.
• Half (47%) of those who stopped using a computer say they did so because
they upgraded to a new computer. Fewer report that they stopped using a
computer because it was too old (22%), or too slow (13%). Only one in ten
stopped using a computer because it was broken (11%).*
=> Respondents who stopped using a computer for any reason other
than because it was broken (e. g. upgraded, too old) most often
say they either gave the computer to someone else (39%) or put
it in storage (33%; approximately 160,000 computers). A lesser
number either donated the computer to charity (12%) or sold it
• Regardless of whether the computer they stopped using was broken or not,
less than one percent say they threw their computer away (a total of four
respondents).
* The number of respondents who stopped using a computer because it was either too slow or broken
is small (less than 15 respondents). Thus, it is necessary to use caution when interpreting results
based upon this group of respondents.
10/27/00 : pageH-31
-------
H: Attachments
Figure 3. Ownership of Computers and
Percent with Computers that Stopped
Working
Do you have a personal computer in
your home?
No (41%)
Have you ever had a computer that
you stopped using?*
No (59%)
Yes (40%)
Not sure (1%)
•Asked of 59% who said yes
10/27/00
page H-32
-------
H: Attachments
Figure 4. Why Respondents Stopped Using
Computers
What did you do with the computer
you stopped using?*
Why did you stop using this
computer?*
Upgraded
(47%)
Give to someone else
' Put In storage
J J
' Donate to charity
Something else ,
Sell it" ' •
39%
33%
12%
.8%
7%
Too old
(22%)
•Asked of 89% who say the computer was
not broken
Broken
(11%)
Too slow
(13%)
Another
reason (7%)
•Asted of 40% who said they had a computer
that stopped worHng
What did you do with your
broken computer?*
Throw it away
Donate to chanty
25%
17%
Repair it
(self/professionally) 16%
Put in storage 8%
Sell it , • 8%
Give to someone else • 8%
•Asked of the 11% who said the
computer w as broken
10/27/00
page H-33
-------
H: Attachments
Awareness of Charities that Accept Electronic Equipment
• Three in ten (31%) of all respondents report a general awareness of charities
that accept TV's and computers. The charities respondents most frequently
mention are the Salvation Army (26%), Goodwill (20%), and educational
facilities (10%). However, one out of seven (14%) of those who say they are
aware of such charities could not name any.
=> College graduates are slightly more likely to express awareness
of charities that accept electronic equipment than are those with
less than a college education (34% vs. 26%). In addition, those
36-to-55 years of age possess a greater awareness of such
charities (43%) than do both older (26%) and younger (26%)
respondents.
Figure 5. Awareness of Charities that Accept Electronic
Are you aware of any charitable
organizations that accept old
electronic equipment?
What are the names of these charit
No (65%)
Yes (31%)
. • ' • II • > . ::••:•'.
;. j J: .; ^ :. . , . -. . . . ..... .,:•,:;.-.:.::::
Salvation Army. ; "26%
' ' ''
•Goodwill 20%
• . * .-',-• • . , . •,'-;.••-(.
Educational facilities 10%
AmVete V=796:^
Religious organizations • 4%
'. Big Brothers/Big Sisters '3%
Not sure (4%)
Equipment
Awareness of HDTV or DTV
Three out of five (60%) residents have heard of digital television.
Respondents most often say that HDTV will provide a better quality picture
10/27/00
page H-34
-------
H: Attachments
(25%), that they don't remember anything specific about HDTV (19%), and
that it is the latest technology (13%). Men, college graduates, and upper-
income respondents report the highest levels of awareness of HDTV.
Figure 6. Awareness of HDTV
Have you heard of digital television,
sometimes called HDTV or DTV?
No (37%)
What have you heard about
digital television?
Yes (60%)
k
Better quality picture
Dont remember
Latest technology
Expensive
It exists
Better than current TVs
Wave of the future
25%
. 19%
13%
10%
7%
6%
5%
Don't know (3%)
Willingness to Pay a Small Fee to Deposit TV's and Computers
• The vast majority (79%) of respondents report a willingness to pay a small
fee to deposit a TV or computer that they no longer want at a designated
disposal site. Consumer receptiveness to the idea of paying a small fee for
disposing of CRT's cuts across differing income, education, and age groups.
However, residents living in the state's 617 area code are the least receptive
to this idea (65% vs. 80% or more in all other area codes in the state).
10/27/00
page H-35
-------
H: Attachments
Figure 7. Willingness to Pay Fee for Disposing of TV's
If you had to drop your old or broken TV or
computer off at a designated disposal site, would
you be willing to pay a small fee-probably less than
$5~to cover the disposal cost?
No (16%)
Not sure (5%)
Yes (79%)
and Computers
10/27/00
page H-36
-------
H: Attachments
IV. Consumer Disposal of General
Appliances and Electronic Equipment
In addition to focusing specifically upon the disposal of TV's and computers,
understanding how residents dispose of broken or unwanted household
appliances and electronic equipment in general can help provide a clearer
picture of broad disposal practices in the state. This research focused upon
three ways residents might discard broken or unwanted items: donating the
items to charity, having the items professionally repaired, and selling the items
through yard sales or classified advertisements.
Donations to Charity
• Three in ten (31%) respondents report having donated an appliance or other
piece of electronic equipment to charity, while two-thirds (67%) have never
made such a donation.
• Among those who have made a donation, residents most frequently report
donating to charity include computers (15%), TV's (13%), refrigerators (9%),
and stereo equipment (9%). Fewer respondents mention items such as a
washer or dryer (6%), or a stove (5%).
=> Those who have not donated an appliance to charity most often
say they never had anything to donate (37%) or the appliance
was broken (22%).
• Three out of five (63%) respondents most recently donated an item to charity
within the last year. One-fourth (23%) donated an item one-to-three years
ago, while one in ten (12%) donated an item to charity more than three years
ago.
10/27/00 pageH-37
-------
H: Attachments
Two in five (41%) upper-income residents ($50,000 or more) say they
recently donated an item to charity, compared with one-fourth (23%) of those
in the middle-income category ($35,000 to $49,999) and a similar number
(26%) of those earning less than $35,000 a year.
Figure 8. Donations to Charity
Have you ever donated appliances or
electronic equipment to charity?
Why haven't you donated
any appliance or electronic
equipment to charity?
What type of appliance or
electronic equipment did
you donate to charity?
ito relatives/friends =•;?..> 5%
• '.......;•;. .-
Don't know (2%)
10/27/00
page H-38
-------
H: Attachments
Professional Repairs
• Half of all respondents (53%) say they have paid to have an appliance or
piece of electronic equipment repaired.
=> Among this group, one-fourth (25%) recently had either a washer
or a dryer repaired, while fewer respondents mention a VCR
(15%), TV (13%), or refrigerator (12%).
=> Half (48%) of all respondents had the item repaired within the
past year. Three in ten (29%) had the item repaired one-to-three
years ago, and 20% had the item repaired more than three years
ago.
Figure 9. Professional Repairs
Have you ever paid to have an
appliance or piece of electronic
equipment repaired?
No (45%)
What type of appliance or electro
equipment did you have repaired
most recently?
Yes (53%)
_,j|Kiq«tf|:. .^
flgerator
••: --i.
oven
Stereo
• '•-•'• • ••?•.-
gKSS
6%
Don't know (2%)
10/27/00
page H-39
-------
H: Attachments
Sales through Yard sales or Classified Advertisements
• Only one in seven (15%) respondents state that they recently sold an
appliance or piece of electronic equipment through a yard sale or a classified
ad, with respondents most frequently citing that they sold stereo equipment
(21%), followed by a TV (12%) or washer/dryer (9%).
=> Four in ten (40%) respondents who have sold an appliance or
piece of electronic equipment did so within the past year. Three
in ten (29%) report selling the item within the past one-to-three
years, and a similar number (28%) sold the piece of equipment
more than three years ago.
=> The primary reason residents cite for not selling anything through
a yard sale or classified ad is that they simply did not have
anything to sell (41%). In addition, respondents mention that
they did not have anything worth selling (18%) and that selling
items in this fashion is too much of a hassle (7%).
What is the primary reason
you've never sold an
appliance or piece of
electronic equipment through
a yard sale or classified ad?
Have you ever sold an appliance or
piece of electronic equipment through
a yard sale or classified ad?
What type of appliance or
electronic equipment did yo
sell most recently?
worth selling
Selling item»;;
•-... is a hassle
18%
•7%
(Other) 23%
• - •• ' '' '.' '.' ':^- ' •• •'- •
Yes
(15%)
Not sure
(1%)
Figure 10. Yard sales or Classified Ads
10/27/00
page H-40
-------
H: Attachments
V. Consumer Disposal of Household
Chemicals
Along with appliances and electronic equipment, this survey asked respondents
whether or not they have ever disposed of household chemicals, such as paint
or cleaners. The research focused upon how residents dispose of these
materials, as well as what respondents believe is the proper method for
disposing of this type of household chemicals.
• Half (46%) of all residents have disposed of partially used household
chemicals at some time. Four in ten (38%) of these respondents disposed
of chemicals in conjunction with cleaning out a storage area, while somewhat
fewer did so during a move (21%) or some other type of household project
(18%).
=> Residents 36 years of age and older are far more likely than
younger respondents to have disposed of household chemicals
(53% vs. 32%). In addition, men are more likely than women to
report disposing of household chemicals (51% vs. 43%).
• Further, the longer respondents have lived in their current home, the more
likely they are to dispose of household chemicals. Half (51 %) of those who
have lived in their current home for more than four years report disposing of
household chemicals at some time.
=> Conversely, only one third (35%) of those who have lived in their
home two-to-three years, and an identical number (35%) of those
who have lived in their home one year or less, say they have
disposed of such materials.
10/27/00 pageH-41
-------
H: Attachments
• A strong majority (65%) of those who have disposed of household chemicals
say they took them to a hazardous waste drop-off site. Nevertheless, two in
ten (19%) say they disposed of the chemicals by throwing them away in the
household trash (8% of all respondents).
=> Respondents 36 years of age and older are far more likely than
younger residents to report disposing of household chemicals at
a hazardous materials drop-off site (71% vs. 28%).
=> In contrast, younger respondents (35 years of age and younger)
are more likely to say they deposited the chemicals in the
household trash (39% vs. 13%).
• Half (54%) of all respondents are aware that the proper method for disposing
of household chemicals is to take them to a hazardous waste drop-off site.
=> Still, one-third (36%) report that they don't know the proper
method for disposing of such chemicals, while a much smaller
number (5%) believe the proper method is to throw the chemicals
out with the household trash.
• Older respondents (36 years of age and older) are more likely than younger
respondents to express awareness that the proper method for disposing of
household chemicals is to take them to a hazardous materials drop-off site
(61% vs. 29%).
• Further, respondents with a graduate or professional education display the
highest level of awareness of the proper method for disposing of household
chemicals (72%). Meanwhile, high school graduates (48%) and college
graduates who did not attend graduate or professional school (52%) exhibit
similar levels of awareness of the proper way to dispose of hazardous
household chemicals.
10/27/00 page H-42
-------
H: Attachments
Figure 11. Disposal of Household
Chemicals
Have you ever disposed of partially
used household chemicals?
No (51%)
Yes (46%)
The last time you disposed of household
chemicals, was it in conjunction with a
household project, cleaning out a storage
area, or in a move?*
Not sure (3%)
17
Cleaning
out a
storage area
A move Household Something
project else
•Asked of 46% who have disposed of chemicals
10/27/00
page H-43
-------
H: Attachments
Figure 12. How Consumers Dispose of
Chemicals and Awareness of Proper
Disposal Method
How did you dispose of household
chemicals?*
With
household
trash (19%)
As far as you know, what is the proper
way to dispose of household
chemicals?
Another
method
(13%)
Don't know
(36%)
Hazardous waste
drop-off site
(65%)
Don't know (3%)
•Asked of 46% of residents that have disposed of
household chemicals
Another
method
(5%)
Hazardous waste
drop-off site
(54%)
With household
trash (5%)
10/27/00
page H-44
-------
H: Attachments
ATTACHMENT 6
Massachusetts DEP Technical Assistance Grant
Franklin County Solid Waste Management District
Consumer Electronics Collection
October 1998
Introduction
The Franklin County Solid Waste Management District serves 21 towns in western Massachusetts with a total
population of 64,000. The District received a technical assistance grant from DEP to conduct a pilot consumer electronics
collection in order to determine the type and volume of electronics being stored in residences.
Jan Ameen, District Program Director, spent several months researching the issue of CRTs, attending a national
conference on electronics, and meeting with DEP officials and other agencies to discuss the recent hazardous waste rule
change and implementation of electronics collections.
The District scheduled a one day, 6 hour long collection for consumer electronics on Saturday, September 19th at three
sites: Shelbume DPW garage, Greenfield DPW garage, and the Erving DPW garage. In an agreement with DEP, the
electronics would be shipped, without disposal costs, to the University of Massachusetts- Amherst Intermediate Processing
Facility (IPF) where they would be quantified and demanufactured or sent for demanufacturing.
The District expected to receive 4-5 tons of electronics, but instead received 12 tons. Of the 12 tons, approximately 9
tons were from residents and 3 tons from schools. Equipment came in from 192 residents and 6 schools. Residents came
from twenty-three different towns in Franklin County. At each site 2 or 3 residents had chosen to drive over 30 minutes
from their town of residence to the collection site. Of the 1,200 pieces of equipment collected there were approximately
165 CPUs, 200 monitors, 180 televisions, 140 keyboards, 86 printers, 80 stereos, and 70 VCRs.
Collection Logistics
After selecting the date of September 19, Jan contacted the Shelbume, Greenfield, and Erving DPWs to gain permission
to use their sites for the collection. These sites were chosen for their geographic location: Shelbume would serve "West
County" towns, Greenfield would serve a large central county population, and Erving would serve the "East County" towns.
Each site had access to a telephone, bathroom, and most importantly, cover. It was important to the District to keep the
electronics secure and dry over the weekend until they were shipped to UMass the following week.
Advertising began for the collection soon after the sites were chosen. Prior to publishing a list of acceptable materials,
Jan checked with DEP and UMass for appropriate specifications. She did not want to collect items, which could be
classified as scrap metal, such as toasters and fans, or items that had little demanufacturing value, such as hair dryers and
humidifiers. A copy of the final advertisement is attached. The aim of the District was to collect electronics, which would
either fall into the CRT ban (monitors and TVs) or could contain heavy metals, such as items with circuit boards.
The District heavily advertised the event, with almost half of the total expense for the collection going to display ads.
Half-page ads ran in five area newspapers over a two-week period immediately preceding the collection for a total often
ads. The ad listed the date, sites, and times for the collection. The District decided to open each site for two hours to
minimize the number of volunteers and staff needed to operate each site. The ad also listed what was and wasn't
acceptable. Press releases were sent to newspapers, radios, and local cable stations.
10/27/00 pageH-45
-------
H: Attachments
There were several large articles in the daily newspapers regarding electronics prior the collection. DEP held a press
conference at UMass to announce the electronics-related grants. This received good media coverage. The media also
picked up the District's press releases and ran several large, prominent articles on the collection. These are attached.
In the two weeks prior the collection, Jan began calling freight and moving companies in an attempt to locate a company
to move the electronics from the sites to UMass. All of the collections were held on ground level and thus needed a pallet
jack and hydraulic lift gate to move the electronics from the ground to the floor of a truck. Jan called 5 freight companies
and 6 moving companies. None of them were able or interested in moving the electronics. Two days before the collection,
Jan learned that Ryder truck rents trucks with hydraulic lift gates. The District rented a 24-foot box truck from Ryder for
this purpose.
A component whose importance was originally overlooked was the need for a forklift truck or bucket loader with forks
at each site. Greenfield had an electric forklift, Erving had a bucket loader with forks, but Shelbume had neither. This was
a major set back at the Shelbume site.
The District was originally going to pack the electronics in gaylord boxes, but after talking with the UMass IFF, it was
decided to stack the equipment on pallets and wrap the pallets with stretch film. The pallets were attained at no cost and the
stretch film was purchased through a state contract with Grainger.
Collection Process
Pallets and stretch film were delivered to each site on the Friday preceding the collection. All pallets were placed
indoors. Four or five volunteers were present at each site. Traffic cones were laid out to direct traffic in a one-way
direction to the unloading area.
As vehicles arrived, a volunteer would conduct a brief survey with the resident. The number, type, and age of each
piece of equipment were recorded as well as the town of residence. The items were then unloaded and stacked on the
pallets. All CRTs (monitors and TVs) were stacked together. All other equipment (VCRs, printers, stereos, CPUs) was
stacked together. When the stack was approximately 4 feet high, it was wrapped in stretch film.
There were several items, which had to be turned away, such as electronic drum sets, humidifiers, fans, cameras, etc.
We accepted some items, which may not have a high demanufacturing value, such as baby monitors, satellite receivers, and
typewriters. We lacked the appropriate information to know what "extras" to accept and made the best decisions possible
on the spot. While it is impossible to list every electronic item in a "do and don't" scenario, there may be general
recommendations, such as our "circuit board" specification.
There were several businesses, which participated although we were focusing on households. Several schools also
participated. Most of the schools had very large quantities of equipment. See the attached site statistics.
The Shelbume site was very steady with 65 residents coming in the two hours. We estimate that we collected 3 tons of
electronics in Shelbume. The Greenfield site was rather chaotic and hectic with a long line of cars stretching across the
parking lot out to the street. We had 107 residents plus two large loads from Greenfield Community College. We unloaded
six cars at once for most of the time. The Erving site was exceptionally slow with only 25 residents participating. This
may have been due to the hours of operation (2-4 pm) or the location which some people had difficulty finding.
The most time-consuming aspect of this project was the four trips in two days that it took to load and unload the
electronics from each site to UMass. This was a difficult and tiring process, especially in Shelbume, which didn't have a
forklift. After several attempts using the bucket loader without forks, we were fortunate to have a forklift from a nearby
orchard come and assist us.
10/27/00 pageH-46
-------
H: Attachments
On the following Monday and Tuesday, the equipment was loaded into the rental truck and driven to the UMass IFF.
We were weighed in on their scale; both loaded and tare. We were able to back up to a loading dock where a fork truck
could drive into the truck to unload the pallets. The equipment was to be quantified by UMass at a later date.
Observations/Recommendations
1) We were woefully unprepared for the volume that we received. We were short by almost 10 pallets overall and had to
leave items on the floor to pack on Monday. Be prepared for the worse and then some.
2) It is difficult and nearly impossible to exclude businesses. We didn't specifically advertise for them or exclude them.
When they arrived we accepted their materials. We believe that they will find a way to bring their equipment, even if
excluded. Typically, businesses bring in their "waste" disguised as a household - either by using their personal vehicle or
making several trips.
3) We knew of several schools that were going to participate but we didn't know the volume they were bringing. GCC
brought in two stake body trucks of computers! We don't believe this to be the exception with schools. Many schools have
technology grants or technology coordinators who are cleaning out old computers and replacing them with new ones.
4) We were asked by several individuals at the collection sites if they could "scavenge" some units or parts. In most cases,
they were denied this request due to the impossibility of knowing which monitors/keyboards/CPUs/TVs worked and which
didn't work. It is easy to understand why they would make this request. In Greenfield, there were 27 pallets stacked 4'-5'
high with electronics, some looking relatively new. It's overwhelming to see so many "products" destined for disposal.
Incorporating a "reuse" area into a collection is an option to be explored.
5) It is imperative to have the right equipment to move the full pallets (average weight 680 Ibs.) from the ground up to
truck level. And even with the right equipment, this process is labor and time intensive. Using a facility with access to a
loading dock would have reduced the time it took to load the truck. A town could "free load" the equipment, basically
loose onto a truck and then palletize or box it at the trailer or IFF.
6) We chose to keep the equipment dry, although this was not a requirement from UMass. We have been informed that
keeping the equipment dry facilitates remanufacturing versus demanufacturing of wet equipment. Follow the specifications
of your contractor.
The following questions arose after the collection event and after discussing the pilot collection with other solid waste
managers. The District began asking itself and others these questions and hopes to locate solid answers or data prior to
undertaking additional electronics collections. These questions have been posed to various individuals in the field and
conflicting information has been given. There are many experts and their responses must be seriously considered and
evaluated. The task ahead is determining what course is best for solid waste managers to take.
1) We collected a variety of electronics, including non-CRTs, to gauge the type and volume of "electronics" being stored.
However, since the collection we are beginning to question the environmental hazards associated with all types of
electronics. What should and shouldn't we collect and why? We have been told that electronics can have lead, mercury
switches, capacitors, and lithium batteries. All of those components can be considered toxic, but what is the environmental
danger associated with them as part of electronic equipment?
Of the 1200 units we collected, 2/3 or 800 units were non-CRT electronics. A pilot in San Jose, CA had similar
percentages of CRTs to non-CRTs. Should non-CRTs be collected for their "resale value?" Or is there an environmental
risk associated with disposal of non-CRTs? Can it be quantified? Can we assume the risk is associated with all brands of a
type of electronic equipment? For example, do all microwave ovens have mercury switches, etc.?
10/27/00 ~ ~ : page H-47
-------
H: Attachments
On the other hand, what shouldn't be collected because it's not an environmental risk and it has no re-sale value? We
collected 140 keyboards, which we recently learned have no hazardous constituents. Keyboards don't take up a lot of space
on a pallet, but are they "worth" collecting?
Similar to the evolution of household hazardous waste collections, we believe that managers will soon have to come up to
speed about the types of electronics, which pose environmental risks and those that do not. Again, like HHW, it does not
make fiscal sense to pay a high cost per ton for a material, which can be handled, as solid waste.
2) We have been told that monochrome CRTs do not have lead. We don't believe the new regulations distinguish between
leaded CRTs and unleaded CRTs. Should we collect monochrome or unleaded CRTs? Are there other hazards associated
with them?
3) We asked DEP about broken CRTs and how they will be handled. DEP believes that broken CRTs will be rare and are
included as "intact" unless completely crushed. However, we know from experience that over time people bring in
unimaginable material - regardless of the advertising specs. How, then, should that one CRT run over and crushed by the
garbage truck be handled?
4) We were recently asked whether we had "depressurized" the CRTs we collected. We didn't. This question caught us by
surprise, as we have no information suggesting CRTs should be depressurized to prevent implosion. This obviously raises
the questions: should we? shouldn't we? and why or why not?
The questions posed above represent a myriad of questions we are asking ourselves and being asked by others. Electronics
are an "unknown" recyclable. There is a very steep learning curve facing Massachusetts^ solid waste managers in the
coming months. There already exists a great deal of information on electronics collections and we hope that DEP will
assist us as we decipher and digest it.
Consumer Electronics Collection: Franklin County Solid Waste Management District
SHELBURNE SITE - 9 -11 am
64 participants from 11 towns; 2 businesses; no schools; 309 items; average 4 units/ household; average age is 14 years old; estimate 3
tons total.
ITEM
CPUs
monitors
keyboards
printers
fax machine
VCRs
Households
49
58
38
37
1
15
TVs
telephones
answering
machines
radios
stereos
Other: modem,
intercom, disk
drive, baby
59
7
4
9
22
8
monitor, CD
player, copy
machine,
satellite
receiver
The two businesses brought in 18 CPUs, 19 keyboards, 19 monitors, and 6 printers.
GREENFIELD SITE -11:30-1:30
107 residents from 13 towns; 3? businesses; 4 schools; 750+ items; residents average 3.5 units each; average age for residential
electronics is 15 years old; estimate 8 tons total.
10/27/00
page H-48
-------
H: Attachments
ITEM
CPUs
monitors
keyboards
printers
fax machine
VCRs
House-
holds
99
132
93
43
0
56
TVs
telephones
answering machines
radios
stereos
hard drives
circuit boards
110
11
9
20
54
21
30
Other: floppy drives,
power supply, camera,
typewriter, voltage
regulator, tape drive,
tape player, modems,
cable box, projector
25
Businesses brought in 12 CPUs, 7 monitors, 5 keyboards, 2 printers, and 3 telephones.
Greenfield Community College brought in 31 CPUs, 54 monitors, 50 keyboards, 10 printers,
10 VCRs, 19 TVs, 12 telephones, 5 radios/stereos
Other schools brought in approximately 25 CPUs, 25 monitors, 30 keyboards, 1 VCR, 4 TVs, and 7 hard drives.
ERVINGSITE: 2-4 pm
ERVING SITE: 25 residents from 10 towns; no businesses; 2 schools; 116 items; average 2.6 units per resident; average age is 12 years
old; estimate 1 ton total.
The schools brought in 14 CPUs, 18 monitors, 13 keyboards, and 6 printers.
shelbume
TOWN
Ashfield
Buck land
Charlemont
#
participants
3
10
3
Colrain
Conway
Deerfield
Hawley
Heath
5
4
1
1
1
ITEM
CPUs
Monitors
Keyboards
Printers
fax machine
VCRs
TVs
telephones
answering
machines
radios
stereos
Other:
Households
15
10
7
6
0
1
12
0
0
5
5
0
Northfield
Shelbume
Whatcly
1
32
1
greenfield
10/27/00
page H-49
-------
H: Attachments
TOWN
Athol
Bernardston
Buckland
Deerfield
# participants
I
4
1
4
Gill
Greenfield
Leyden
Montague
Northfield
4
65
4
16
2
Shelburne
Shutesbury
Sunderland
Whately
1
1
2
1
ervmg
TOWN
Bernardston
Charlemont
ft
participants
1
1
Colrain
Deerfield
Erving
Gill
1
1
3
2
Montague
New Salem
Northfield
Orange
9
I
3
3
Expenses Incurred for Franklin County Consumer Electronics Grant
Labor 154 hours @ $20/hour
Labor 28 hours @ $15/hour
Administrative Overhead
Travel expenses
Advertising (5 local newspapers; 10 ads total)
Stretch film
Ryder truck transport to UMass
Misc. (food, photos)
Mailing to towns/ schools
Electronics Conference
TOTAL
$3080
$ 420
$2780
$2262
$ 223
$ 156
$ 309
$ 70
$ 30
$505
$9835
Expenses directly associated with collection event (4 weeks planning)
75 hours @$20/hour
Labor 28 hours @ $ 15/hour
Administrative Overhead
Travel expenses
Advertising (5 local newspapers; 10 ads total)
Stretch film
Ryder truck transport to UMass
Misc. (food, photos)
Mailing to towns/ schools
TOTAL
$ 420
$2780
$1500
$ 750
$ 70
$ 156
$ 309
$ 70
$ 30
$6085
10/27/00
page H-50
-------
H: Attachments
Attachment 7:
University of Massachusetts Office of Waste Management
Electronics Grant Report
October 28,1999
Introduction
The University of Massachusetts Office of Waste Management has been involved in electronics
recycling since 1992. A brand new 18,000 square foot facility was opened called the Intermediate
Processing Facility that provided the space to start collecting scrapped electronic equipment from
campus. The OWM's experience in electronics recycling, a large storage facility, and convenient
location for residents of western Massachusetts made it an optimal site for starting the state's
electronics recycling program.
The years of collection, sorting, and demanufacturing, combined with the new experiences of
municipal material collection has taught some valuable lessons. The following is a list of events, tasks,
and projects run by OWM under this grant period:
• Kick-off press conference Sept 20,1998
• 12 tons accepted from PCSWMD one day collection
• 2 one day drop off events hosted at IFF
• Development of MS Access Database of scrap electronics vendors
• Study of brown goods- age and time efficiency
• Over 10,000 items received, inventoried, and shipped for recycling
• Equipment sent to Advanced Electronics to assess reparability and possible resale of
various electronics
• Monitors sent to CRT Recycling for export test
• Continuous scheduling of municipal loads
• Public Relations/media time
• Serve as information source to people around the country interested in electronics recycling
One necessity for an electronics collection program is the space to store material. As with all
recyclables, there has to be enough volume collected to make recycling work. This year,
approximately 140 tons of electronic material moved through our facility taking up at least 1/3 of the
building at any given time. The IPF also has about a 400 square foot area designated to
demanufacturing. This area includes a worktable equipped with a variety of hand tools as well as an
air drill, workspace for 3-4 people and several gaylord boxes for the demanufactured components.
Before the grant period, all material went through the demanufacturing process and the broken down
components were individually bid on for recycling. Generally, bald CRT's went to one vendor while
the other components went to scrap/precious metal vendors. With electronics recycling gaining
popularity in the region, vendors are increasingly willing to take whole electronic equipment. For the
past 18 months or so, the OWM has been sending most electronics intact to its vendors. The little
demanufactured equipment leaving the facility has been due to demanufacturing tests preformed for
10/27/00 pageH-51
-------
H: Attachments
the DEP or broken down parts brought it by our the customers. The intact method of recycling is by
far preferred to demanufacturing for a few reasons. Even though students provide a relatively
inexpensive labor force, OWM cost studies have shown computer demanufacturing to be about a
break-even operation and when brown goods are added, there is a clear loss. The reduced handling
and elimination of a demanufacturing staff make sending intact electronics the best option from a cost
and facility management standpoint.
Daily Operation
Current day-to-day operation of the electronics-recycling program is running relatively smoothly. The
OWM is collecting scrap electronics from the various campus entities and separating them into two
categories: CRT bearing items and non-CRT items. Local municipalities and businesses call in
advance and make an appointment to bring material to the IFF. Towns that have a DEP Market
Services Grant are eligible to drop material off for free, all others including businesses are charged $5
per CRT item. Individual residents are encouraged to contact their DPW or town recycling coordinator
for electronics recycling. When the material arrives, the driver helps IFF staff unload and separate
into the same categories as mentioned above.
This system generally works well, but there have been some glitches that are still a challenge at times.
The inception of the IFF as a regional collection center drew a great deal of attention. Before the
announcement of this opportunity, no one knew what type of response to expect. Almost immediately
after, there was an overwhelming response. There were businesses, private residents, schools,
municipal offices, and various recycling professionals with questions and service requests for the
OWM. Some were arriving unannounced, expecting to recycle their unwanted electronics. Clear and
consistent communication with these customers has been essential to this program running smoothly.
There were several emergency or short notice staff meetings to decide on unanticipated problems for
the first several months of operation. One of the biggest challenges has been the varied interpretation
of OWM rules, media coverage reports, and DEP guidelines under the municipal grant contracts. The
DEP had a multi-angled approach to electronics recycling which included the use of this facility,
trailers at landfills, curbside collections, Goodwill and Salvation Army collections, and direct dealings
between municipalities and the state's vendor. To further confuse residents and businesses, municipal
and regional recycling coordinators/waste managers sometimes conveyed conflicting information to
the media and residents. A meeting of the DEP representative, OWM staff, and recycling coordinators
was very helpful in getting all the major players on the same page. Following this meeting, there was
less confusion on who is allowed free access to recycling, and proper procedure to get materials to the
IFF.
With consistent communication established, there were other challenges with some customers. Some
people did not understand the need for an appointment. This was especially true of the places like the
5 colleges, the town of Amherst, and local businesses who were accustomed to being able to use our
facility for a variety of recycling needs, on short or no notice. A 24 hour advanced notice is required
for a variety of reasons. Firstly, the main function of the IFF and OWM is not the electronics program.
Therefore, a major condition of the grant was the OWM's right to refuse service to outside entities for
any reason necessary to preserve normal operation. In addition, we found that the facility can fill-up
very quickly and there have been occasions where service has been refused due to a lack of space in
the facility. Well-scheduled drop-off appointments also assure that staffing is available for inventory
10/27/00 pageH-52
-------
H: Attachments
and unloading shipments. Again, clear communication and firm appointments have helped minimize
these types of problems.
Upon congregating enough material for a truckload, either the CRT or scrap metal vendors are called
respectively to pick up from the facility. The items going to the CRT recycler are generally TV's or
computer monitors but they will take any CRT containing item. Global Recycling Technologies, the
current CRT recycler has been providing good service until recently when they are taking several
weeks to respond to a call for a pick-up. The scrap vendor has been very flexible in allowing a variety
of materials to be sent to them. OWM has made a conscientious effort at keeping a minimum of
contamination in the loads (we take out excessive plastic, junk electronics or trash and bare metal).
Special items like large copiers, plotters, scientific equipment, or other odd ball unknown materials
have all been OK thus far.
Inventory
Part of the OWM's responsibilities as recipients of the grant was to inventory the materials collected.
Information on where material conies from, when it arrived, brand names, date of manufacture, and
special information specific to the type of equipment helps to characterize the electronics waste stream.
The results of this study will be useful to the DEP and the OWM in planning, marketing to vendors,
and managing material.
The inventory process is extremely time consuming. The initial basic inventory increased unloading
man-time by approximately 25%. An extra person was required to record information as equipment is
unloaded from each truck. Students and the project coordinator then spent almost 200 hours to enter
this information into an MS Excel spreadsheet. When a more detailed inventory was taken to assess
specific information from each piece, the trucks were unloaded to the facility floor and set aside for
inventory. Recording the date of manufacture, screen size or speed of CPU's, model number, and
other notes required about two minutes per item. The equipment was then ready to be separated into
the appropriate boxes for recycling. Over two thousand items were inventoried in this way and then
entered into an MS Excel spreadsheet. The process was very time consuming and was the cause of
disorganization and a general mess within the facility. It is recommended that OWM data be used
rather than repeating such an endeavor by another group in the future. A detailed report on the results
of the OWM inventory study is included later in this report.
The following are the results of the inventories taken:
Name Brand Inventory
Throughout the year, the IFF has been collecting and inventorying various electronic equipment from
the University and local municipalities. Data was collected on the origin of the material and brand
name of each piece. Below is a table representing the proportions of each brand name in a variety of
categories. The top 3 to 5 are represented for categories with less than 200 items and the top 10 are
shown for categories over 200 items. For both UMASS and municipal computer related material, IBM,
Apple and Digital consistently have the most items. UMASS did not produce enough consumer
electronics to display in a table, but the municipality's brown goods are displayed below.
10/27/00 pageH-53
-------
H: Attachments
COMPUTER EQUIPMENT:
UMASS
Total Percentage
Represented
606 CPUs
2.1% Samsung
2.5% Dell
3.2% Compaq
3.9% Leading Edge
4.5% AQ
5.3% Epson
6.6% Zenith
6.7% Apple/Mac
14.2% IBM
17.7% Digital
66.70%
58 Drives
5.2%Apurix
8.6% IBM
58.6% Apple/Mac
72.40%
399 Keyboards
4.3% Leading Edge
6.0% Apple/Mac
6.1%Zenith
7.5% Epson
9.8% unknown
19.0% IBM
20.8% Digital
55.50%
691 Monitors
Z2% Digital
27% Leading Edge
3.2% NEC
3.3% Epson
4.3% Samsung
6.2% Zenith
6.4% CTX
10.6% IBM
11. 3% Dell
13.2% Apple/Mac
63.40%
212 printers
3.3% unknown
3.3% Texas Instruments
3.8Wbng%
4.7% IBM
4.7%0kidata
6.1% NEC
6.1% Digital
6.6% Panasonic
9.4% Apple/Mac
11.3% Hewlett Packard
17.0% Epson
76%
MUNdP/L
Total Paoa leiyu
1367 CPUs
1.8%AT&T
1.9%Corpaq
27%Dgtal
3. 3% Epson
4.3%urkncvn
4.4% Leadng Edge
m4%Apple4vk:
28.7%IBM
6&6C»i
501 Dives
12%Atari
1.2%Wtetemagy
1.6% Laser
5.0%IEM
5.8%irkXMn
69.9%/ftte
84.70%
1064K^tXHds
1.3%Mtarri
1.6%Zerith
1.6% Epson
ai%GEteAEy
4.1%\A6rg
5.6%Dojtal
67%ur*nown
7.0% Leadng Edge
21.1%IEM
2Z8%ApFldM=c
74.90%
44Mixfem5
a8%Apple
ai%D3tdrcric
11.4%Zocm
27.30%
1885rVtntcrs
1.8%Arrdek
1.8%NBC
1.8%Zerith
27% Epson
27% Leadng BJgs
2 8% Wang
3.2% SamsLrg
59%Dga
2a6%IEM
23.2%^ple/Mac
6650%
673Prirters
22%Dgy
23%urkncwi
a4%Wrg
4.2%H8^ettPadord
4.9>/oCkd3ta
4.8%NB3
Si4%Pana8cnc
7.3%IHv1
14.4% Epson
2A&/ofi&eM£
74.40
10/27/00
page H-54
-------
H: Attachments
BROWN GOODS
MUNdPAL
Total Rarcertage
Ftepreserted
40 arEwering machines
10% general electric
17.5%penasoric
25%at&t
5250"/.
119 phones
42>/oatt
42/obell south
4^/osoJfvesternbell
4.2% western electric
SSP/oiriotMn
B.7%panasonc
37%Et&t
6a403/<
160 stereos
ai%emerson
aT>/osand design
a8%magT£M3<
a8% Panasonic
ae% sears
a8%irkncwn
&3P/o realistic
agyoscny
11.9%generd electric
4a5CF/
56 tape decks
S5%peresoric
7.3% general electric
7.3%apasoppB
9.1%redistic
127% sony
41.90%
938 Ws
23%qjasar
a3%srorp
a 9% panasoric
4.8% sears
5.4% sony
5.7%syrvaria
5.9% general electric
&6P/orrHgnavox
17.1%2Erith
18%rca
73PX
48tvpewTters
1Q4%bro
1Q6%ibm
20.8%dynpa
49P/<
243 vet's
Z5%saiBLr9
25% quasar
29yotoshba
25%zerith
25% sharp
29%syrvaria
a3?/ojvc
a3%erTBrscn
4.5%magiaMX
4.9%3eneral electric
7.4%fisher
8^% panasoric
9.5%irknoui
10,3% rca
6&80
Detailed Inventory
Monitors
Screen size
25.68% 12"
23.33% 14"
15.88% 13"
10.55% 9"
10.30% 10"
average = 12.1"
Average year of
manufacture
1989
Type
74.6% non-
VGA
25.4% VGA
TV's
Screen size
6.1% 17"
8.1% 12"
9.6% 13"
Average year of
manufacture
1983
10/27/00
page H-55
-------
H: Attachments
10.1% 27"
33.9% 19"
average = 18.6"
CPU's
Speed
12.7%286's
19.6%486's
29.3% 386's
61.6% unknown
Average year of
manufacture
1990
Printers
Type
92.1% dot
matrix
Average year of
manufacture
1989
Modems
Average year of
manufacture
1988
Keyboards
Average year of
manufacture
1984
Brown Goods Study
During the summer of 1999, the OWM performed a study on non-computer consumer electronic
equipment (brown goods). There were two main goals in researching the brown goods waste stream.
One was to assess the average age of material collected. The other was to analyze costs and presumed
value added by demanufacturing these materials.
For the purpose of this study, "brown goods" included such items as TV's, VCR's and stereo
equipment. The materials were from residential sources, collected at the IPF at the one-day drop off
events or delivered by local municipalities. Each item to be included in the study was weighed and
inspected for a date of manufacture and name brand. This information was noted and the dismantling
staff would then record the start time and separate each component into the following categories: A
Boards, Aluminum, CRT's, D Boards, Iron-Aluminum, Scrap metal, Transformers, Trash, Wire, and
10/27/00
page H-56
-------
H: Attachments
Yolks. When all demanufacturing was complete, the total weight from each of the categories was
calculated and recorded.
The data collected by the dismantling staff was transferred from the record sheets into an MS Excel
spreadsheet. Calculations were made for demanufacturing time, average year of manufacture,
average weight, and cost or revenue for disposal or recycling of each material.
There were mixed results in attaining the goal of an age assessment of the materials collected.
Thirty-one televisions were studied ranging from 1973 to 1989 for an average age of manufacture of
1982. These TV's were chosen at random from the supply within the IPF. A total of forty-two VCR's
were used, ranging from 1984 to 1989 and averaged to 1986. The stereo equipment did not yield any
usable information as to the year of manufacture. There were so few items that had this information
that any average calculated would not have been a fair representation of the entire load. It should
also be noted that of the 31 TV's and 42 VCR's studied; many did not contain information on date
either.
Included after this text is a spreadsheet (Chart 1) documenting the demanufactured parts of the
materials used in this study. As seen on Chart 1, when calculating straight material costs, the
demanufacturing operation creates revenue. Total revenue equals $142 and costs for recycling
CRT's and trash disposal are $119 for net revenue of $23. Had these materials gone to the landfill,
our tip fee would have been $104. Therefore, one could say that demanufacturing and recycling this
equipment was a $127 benefit to the IPF. The procedure becomes less attractive when labor costs
are factored in. The total cost to perform the demanufacturing is $407. As seen on Chart 2, all items
studied except for televisions took 3-4 minutes per pound to demanufacture. TV's take only 1 to 1.5
minutes per pound. We found similar time requirements for TV's and computer electronics in the
OWM's Scrap Electronics Project Report submitted to the Chelsea Center in June 1998. The longer
demanufacturing times for other brown goods may be due in part to the fact that our laborers were
unfamiliar with this equipment and know TV's and computers much better. Another factor is that there
tends to be a lot more small pieces in the brown goods that do not have a lot of weight. This causes
high labor costs for very little return in revenue.
The hopes of determining a reliable date of manufacture for all materials were not well met in this
study. The nature of the equipment collection may be part of the problem. Because much of the
material came from the one-day collections at the UMASS facility, most of it looked like the kind of
things that have been sitting in the basement for years. Many items were missing the parts that may
have had the date information or they simply never had such information attached. This was
especially true of the stereo equipment. These collections represented first time clean out for many
residents and as the electronics-recycling program continues, the equipment should be newer and
newer. In the "Detailed Inventory" section of this report, average age of manufacture is represented
for TV's collected after the Brown Goods Study was concluded. There was larger data set to choose
from so that is a more representative date than the Brown Goods Study TV date.
In terms of cost, most brown goods seem much less worth demanufacturing than computers or
televisions. Stereo equipment ends up having a large portion of trash (plastic, wood, etc.) and takes a
long time to take apart. VCR's are similar, but repair shops indicate a high success rate for repair and
resale so that may be the best avenue for them. TV's are most worth demanufacturing of all items
studied. A bald CRT is much less expensive to send to the recycler than a whole television. In
addition to a lower per pound charge for bald CRTs, there would be less total weight going to the
recycler. There is circuitry, wire, and a yoke that are revenue items in TV's that help offset the cost of
10/27/00 pageH-57
-------
H: Attachments
disposal of the casing. The value of demanufacturing TV's would depend heavily on the scale of an
operation.
Chart 1
pounds Price per
pound
A Boards 66 1
Aluminum
CRT's
D Boards
Iron-
aluminum
Scrap Metal
Transformers
Trash
Wire
Yolks
52
944
273
112
772
160
912
155
23
3469
0.2
-0.1
0.055
0.09
0.007
0.07
-0.028
0.15
0.05
Revenue/cost
66
10.4
-94.4
15.015
10.08
5.404
11.2
-25.08
23.25
1.15
23.019
Chart 2
Unit Type
TV
VCR
Tape Deck
Portable
radio
Turn Tables
Receivers
Average weight Average year of
(Ibs.) Manufacture
52.9
14.8
7.25
8.2
15
11.8
Average Demanufacture
time (minutes)
1982 39.5
1986 35.1
20.2
23.9
33.7
37
One Day Collections
Part of the grant agreement required the IPF to host two drop off events open to all residents of
Franklin, Hampshire, and Hamden counties on April 17 and Mayl, 1999. Any resident of these
counties could bring their unwanted electronic equipment to the facility between nine and noon.
Residents were allowed up to four CRT items and unlimited non-CRT items free, but anyone with
more than four CRT's was charged $5 for each CRT over four. This policy was implemented to
account for the possibility of businesses trying to take advantage of free CRT disposal. We also
anticipated there would be some hobbyists who repair TV's that would not technically be a business
but did not fall under the normal residential classification. The charge was directed at each of these
groups. Most people had no problem with this policy, but there were some complainers and even a
10/27/00
page H-58
-------
H: Attachments
few people who refused to give their old TV's if they had to pay. (I think some of them drove around
the block and came right back).
The collections were successful. There were just under 600 cars for the two days producing
approximately 33 tons of material. One third of all participants were from the town of Amherst.
Approximately another third of the participants came from towns directly bordering Amherst. The last
third came from a variety of locations, some as far as a 45-minute to an hour drive. About 120 gay
lords were filled and there were dozens of additional large console TV's that did not fit into the boxes.
The collection was run similar to a household hazardous waste day with 6-9 volunteer staff on site,
four OWM student employees, and three OWM employees. The volunteers were essential to
inventorying and helping unload the cars. One OWM staff member was constantly running the forklift
to remove full boxes and bring in empty ones. The steady flow of traffic kept the forklift operator busy
for the entire three-hour period. Without a skilled, experienced operator, the entire day could have
been much slower and potentially dangerous. Another OWM staff member was primarily in charge of
the onslaught of traffic. He was directing cars to one of two unloading areas and overseeing general
traffic flow. The third OWM employee was overseeing the entire site, handling "problem loads,"
helping the volunteers, and filling in any gaps throughout the day. While the volunteers were
extremely helpful to the collection, the regular OWM staff and students were essential. Their
experience and knowledge of the electronics recycling process was instrumental in handling small
questions and problems without causing major back-ups throughout the day.
At the May 1 collection, Advanced Electronics/ElectroniCycle Inc. participated in the event by "cherry
picking" potentially reusable or repairable items. They were stationed at the unloading area, taking
any items that were attractive to their business. They had three workers and a box truck that proved to
be very helpful. At the start of the collection, they were asked to be sure not to slow down the process
of efficiently moving people through the line. With this understanding, their culling ended up giving
us extra hands in unloading, saved some gaylord boxes, and lightened the workload for the forklift
operator. Advanced culled a total of 116 items weighing 33601bs. representing approximately 10% of
the items collected. 18.1% of these items were not repairable and were demanufactured and recycled.
The remaining 81.9% were repairable and went for resale. (See ElectroniCycle report attached)
IFF Management
Several factors have made the electronics project a strain on the operation of the Intermediate
Processing Facility. The unpredictable nature of incoming loads has been a consistent problem.
Especially at the start of the program, but even to this day, truckloads of electronics arrive
unannounced. This takes the time of office staff to alert outside staff of the arrival and is an unplanned
burden to the outside staff. These customers are asked to wait until someone is available to help them,
but our operation is still disrupted. Another problem is the size of loads. When making an
appointment, the customer is asked the size of the load. Invariably, the load is significantly larger than
reported or they arrive with several trucks when only one or two were expected. There seems to be a
variety of reasons for these occurrences. Sometimes the person scheduling assigns the job to a driver
and does not convey the information given them by OWM staff. Other times, the size of the load
grows from the time of the appointment to the time of delivery as people in the school or office hear a
load of electronics are going for recycling. This creates more OWM staffing problems because there
are not enough people available to handle the load so one or two people can be occupied for extended
10/27/00 pageH-59
-------
H: Attachments
periods unloading a truck. Such staffing difficulties for problem loads can also prevent handling more
than one scheduled appointment in a day. In addition, these unexpected large loads can exceed the
number of gaylord boxes we have available to house the material. When this happens, material sits on
the ground, cluttering the building and causing double handling of the equipment.
Once materials enter the building, there is potential for more problems. While there is a "no
scavenging" policy in place, it does still happen. As material is picked through, it often gets mixed in
inappropriate boxes causing staff to invest additional labor time to un-mix materials. Keeping the
different categories of materials at opposite ends of the building has helped to a certain extent, but
there is still mixing or trash placed in the electronics boxes. The sheer number of boxes is
overwhelming as well. There have been as many as one to two hundred cubic yard boxes scattered
throughout the building and an additional several dozen pallets loaded with large TV's that would not
fit in the boxes. This volume of electronics can hamper the IPF's day-to-day operation. The CRT
recycler often takes a few weeks to get here, causing further build up of material. We are now
arranging for regularly scheduled pick-ups to avoid material build up. A consistent schedule and
limiting electronics collection areas in the facility will hopefully make the building more manageable
in the future.
Materials scavenged by TV repair experts from UMass Amherst:
ADVANCED ELECTRONICS
Recycled / Reconditioned Products taken from UMass and Somerville Collection Programs 1999
Item Brand Model DOM Desc/commenUaccessorles Price Sold
AC Amana 13,700 btu-Lechmere 9.00 300.00
AC Frigidaire S17400I 10,600 btu (Lechmere $599) 250.00
AC Panasonic CW606TU1996 5800 BTU w/book/access. 150.00
BW Bentley 5" ac/dc b&w w/ac adapter 20.00
CAM Canon E65A 1991 8MM/10xzoom/w/case/light
CAM JVC GR-EZ1 VHS-C
CAM Panasonic PV-D406 VHS-C/16x zoom/4hd
CAM Sony CCD-FX730 1994 8MM/I2xzoomAv/chgr/bat
CAM Sony CCD-TR5 8MM/6xzoom
CHG Canon CA-100 6v 75.95
CHG Canon CA-200 8.5v 55.95
CHG Canon CA-900A 8.4v 65.95
CHG Hitachi CPS801C 6v 55.95
CHG Hitachi CPS801C 6v 55.95
CHG Hitachi CPS801C 6v 55.95
10/27/00 pageH-60
-------
H: Attachments
CHG
CHG
CHG
CHG
CHG
CHG
CHG
CHG
CHG
CHG
CHG
CHG
CHG
CHG
CHG
CHG
CHG
CTV
CTV
CTV
CTV
CTV
CTV
CTV
CTV
CTV
CTV
CTV
CTV
CTV
CTV
CTV
CTV
CTV
CTV
CTV
CTV
CTV
CTV
CTV
MON
MON
MON
MON
MON
MON
MON
MON
MON
MON
MON
PR!
PRI
PR]
PRI
STE
STE
STE
STE
TEQ
TEQ
TEQ
TOL
TOL
TOL
Hitachi
Hitachi
JVC
JVC
JVC
JVC
Magnavox
Panasonic
Sharp
Sharp
Sony
Sony
Sony
Sony
Sony
Sony
Zenith
GE
Goldstar
Hitachi
Magnavox
Mitsubishi
Mitsubishi
Philco
Quasar
RCA
RCA
RCA
RCA
RCA
Samsung
Samsung
Sanyo
Sanyo
Sharp
Sony
Sony
Toshiba
Toshiba
Zenith
Acerview
Dell
Gateway
Gateway
Laser
Mag
Magitronic
Pionex
Pixie
Princeton
Samsung
Epson
NEC
Panasonic
Panasonic
Phase Linear
Pioneer
Pioneer
Pioneer
Archer
Philips
Tektronix 200-1
B&D
B&D
D&D
CPS801C
CPS80IC
AA-VIOU
AA-V11U
AA-V35
AA-V3U
V80147BKOI
PV-A11
UADP-0129GEZZ
UADP-OI56GEZZ
AC-V30
AC-V30
AC-V316
AC-V500
AC-V500
AC-V60
VAC620
19GT352
CMT9322
CT2085
RJ4330
CS2015R
CS26S6R
RSOSOB
TT6298XW
E13334WH
F19201
F20514WN
FPR510WR
X20101GS
CT2750
TC9895TB
AVM1301
AVMI902
19RV69
KV13M10
KV20TS20
CF1922J
CF2655J
SM2067BT
33D
OI528LS
1572FS
1572FS
6448
DX15FG
CSV 150 IPS
TE1422
PBC1450
Ultra 15
CVM4967P
FX286
P5200
KX-P1124
KX-P2I23
1000
CT-F9191
RG-I
SA-9100
PM3215
7144
7190
7447
6v
6v
6v
6v
6v
6v
9.6v
9.6v
6v
6v
6v
6v
8.4v
8.4V
8.4v
6v
9.6
1995
1987
1989
1988
1990
1988
1986
1984
1996
1994
1989
1988
1990
1992
1992
1993
1989
1994
1989
1990
1989
1994
1992
1995
1993
1993
1992
1995
1995
1992
1996
1995
1994
amp-
anteni
50mh
scope
19"stereo w/new remote
19"mono
I9"mono
20"mono w/remote
20"sterco/AV 10/w/remote
26"stereo S/VHS AV/IO
26"mono w/new remote
20"stereo loaded(was $1000 new)
13" white cabinet/excellent
19"mono w/new remote
19"mono
19"mono
1994 20"mono w/new remote
27"stereo/Sjacks/AVIO
19"mono
13"mono
19"mono very good CRT
19" mono
I3"mono AV inputs
20"sterco AV/IO w/new remote
I9"mono
26"stereo AV/IO
20" stereo AV/IO new remote /EXC
13"
14" nice
14"
14"
13"vga
14" nice but no swivel base
13.5"
13" svga-good spare
13" Lechmere leftover
rare cond/like new
13"
wide/heavy duty/w/new ribbon
w/new ribbon
w/book/new ribbon
w/box/book/new ribbon
noise red. - sold w/ SA-9100
Cassette - sold w/SA-9100
processor - sold w/SA-9100
amp - mint condition w/box
antenna rotor & control-looks new
50mhz dual trace/w 1 new probe
scopecart (new $465.00)
3/8"VSR drill/factory refurb
3/8"VSR drill heavy duty
3X21 belt sander/factory refurb
55.95
55.95
72.95
72.95
84.95
72.95
60.95
55.95
80.95
90.95
50.95
50.95
75.95
92.95
92.95
55.95
50.95
95.00
50.00
50.00
65.00
85.00
99.00
99.00
99.00
75.00
50.00
65.00
175.00
75.00
65.00
75.00
50.00
90.00
100.00
75.00
99.00
125.00
60.00
75.00
75.00
75.00
20.00
60.00
60.00
40.00
99.00
125.00
60.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
400.00
40.00
500.00
150.00
25.00
25.00
30.00
100.00
100.00
10/27/00
page H-61
-------
H: Attachments
TOL
TOL
TOL
VCP
VCP
VCR
VCR
VCR
VCR
VCR
VCR
VCR
VCR
VCR
VCR
VCR
VCR
VCR
VCR
VCR
VCR
VCR
VCR
VCR
VCR
VCR
VCR
VCR
VCR
VCR
VCR
VCR
VCR
VCR
VCR
VCR
VCR
VCR
VCR
B&D
Dcwalt
Makita
Audio vox
JC Penney
Akai
Fisher
Fisher
Fisher
GE
GE
Goldstar
Hitachi
JVC
Magnavox
Magnavox
Magnavox
Panasonic
Panasonic
Panasonic
Philco/Mag
Quasar
RCA
Realistic
Sears
Sears
Sears
Sharp
Sharp
Sharp
Sharp
Sony
Sony
Sylvania
Symphonic
Tatung
Toshiba
Toshiba
Toshiba
7548
DW106
5007NB
AVP4000
6221
VS303
FVH7300 1990
FVH830 1985
FVH920 1986
1VCR5004
9-7215
GHV1265M
M270
HR-DI80U
VC9040
VR95IO
VR9550
PV1322
PV1535
PVI535
VR8405
VHQ560
VMT385
16-509
?
934.53370650
934.53450650
VC682U
VC683
VC6847
VC797U
SLV575
SLV585
VC8940
SV21IE
VRH8300U
M222
M6000
M7855
VS jig saw/factory rcfurb
3/8" VSR drill (I20v)
7 W" circular saw
1988
1994
1985?
2hd AC/DC
2hd AC/DC
2hd
4hd excellent
4hd
2hd dolby stereo
1984
1986
1986
199?
1985
199?
1986
1986
1984?
1985
1985
1985
1995
1986?
1984?
1988
1985?
1986
1985
1986
1986
mint
perfect
1986
1984?
199?
1985?
198?
2hd
2nd
2hd
4hd
4hd
4hd
2nd
2hd
2hd
4hd
4hd
2hd top load
4hd/hifi/cxc.
2hd w/remote
2nd
2hd
2hd dolby stereo
2hd
2hd
2hd
2hd
4hd excellent condition
2hd
1993? 2hd
? w/remote
2hd ISlch
2hd
4hd
w/remote
25.00
50.00
60.00
65.00
75.00
40.00
75.00
30.00
50.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
75.00
30.00
75.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
40.00
40.00
30.00
90.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
30.00
60.00
200.00
200.00
30.00
30.00
75.00
30.00
60.00
50.00
Advanced Electronics / Electronicycle Inc. Spencer, MA
10/27/00
page H-62
-------
H: Attachments
Attachment 8
By Professor Bernard Morzuch, University of Massachusetts Resource Economics Department
Job Benefits Of Different Markets: A Value-Added Approach
Suppose that the state must make a decision to deal with used electronic equipment through
traditional disposal methods, e.g., landfills and incineration, or through market-oriented alternatives,
e.g., recycling, repair, or export markets. How should each of these different possibilities be evaluated
in order to determine which make(s) the most economic sense?
One way that economists evaluate projects is by calculating the value that a product adds to an
economy's output as that product proceeds through its various stages of development, i.e., from its
raw-material stage to its finished-product stage. The difference between the price of the finished
product and the cost of the raw materials and processes used to get the product to its finished stage is a
measure of the value added by inputs and processes at the different stages of production.
A discarded CRT can be looked upon as a product in its raw-material stage. The state faces the
decision of dealing with tons of these items. In their final stage, something definitely becomes of
them. In this research, we are proposing four options. Option one, if it were legal, is to dispose of
them in a landfill or incinerate them. Effectively, we are using the results of this option as the basis for
comparing the results of the other options. Options two through four, as indicated above, are to
recycle them for reuse, repair them if they are in need of repair and then find a market for them, and
export them directly.
To bring these CRTs to their final stage requires resources. It costs to dispose of them, to
recycle them, to repair them, or to export them. This resource requirement or cost for each option can
be regarded as the value added due to that particular option.
• Mow is value added to be measured? One way is to calculate the quantity of items that goes to a
particular option, e.g., repair. Next, the cost to bring each item to the final stage of that option
must be specified, e.g., repair cost per item. Finally, multiply quantity times cost per unit to get
value added. Unfortunately, this procedure is difficult to apply. Each option is comprised of
many different items. Access to a cost per unit for each different item is effectively impossible
because so many heterogeneous units comprise each option.
• An alternative approach to calculating value added is to use the amount of labor required to bring
the product from its raw-material stage to its final-product stage. This particular procedure
becomes particularly convenient for the quantity of electronics (in tons) headed for each option.
If an accurate estimate can be made of the numbers of jobs (or people employed) needed to
bring a given tonnage of electronics to its final stage, e.g., repair, then this employment
represents value accruing to the economy that would otherwise be absent if this activity, e.g.,
repair, did not take place. Notice that similar calculations can be performed for the three
remaining options. The options can then be ranked according to the employment provided.
10/27/00 page H-63
-------
H: Attachments
Sources Of Information
We begin with the premise that a spent piece of electronics can be discarded or it can be
directed to one of three market outlets. Again, these three market outlets are recycling, repair, and
export. To determine if these are indeed feasible outlets for used electronics, we administered a
survey to possible participants, companies, and organizations within each option. We asked them
detailed questions on quantities and employment in that particular option. The survey was
administered in person or over the phone. Details on the recycling, repair, and export surveys follow.
Recycling Survey
In 1998 a survey was developed and administered to 48 vendors of used electronic equipment
to investigate recycling as an option for this material. Thirty-six vendors provided very complete
information on the types of material that they handled. This material included computers, CRTs,
scrap metal, circuit boards, and appliances. The vendors likewise provided information on the
disposition path of this material. They indicated whether they were involved in recycling, reselling,
extracting precious metals from, or donating this material. With the exception of circuit boards, for
which the sole disposition was extracting precious metal, the predominant activity was recycling.
The 36 vendors who responded were mostly from Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode
Island, Connecticut, and Vermont. One was from Pennsylvania and one from California. Nearly all
respondents provided complete information on tonnage handled per month and number of individuals
employed. These are the necessary ingredients for calculating value added.
One noteworthy feature about the survey was the manner in which it was conducted. It was
administered by an individual who is extremely knowledgeable about this industry. He is in the
business of coordinating efforts among transportation companies, reclamation companies, and
brokers to create a process for moving recyclables like CRTs at the lowest possible cost.
Consequently, in addition to providing information about employment and tonnage, he had the
professional background to make poignant observations about the surveyed companies' strengths,
weaknesses, and performance in electronics recycling. These observations are the basis for making
statements about the existing infrastructure in electronics recycling.
Table 1 provides a summary of five companies that specialize in electronics recycling. These
five companies were selected for presentation because of their ability to accept material, process it,
and move it out. The identity of the companies is not revealed. They are identified in Column 1 of the
table with the consecutive integers 1 through 5. Column 2 of the table shows that two of the
companies are from Massachusetts, with one each from Connecticut, New Hampshire, and
Pennsylvania. Column 4 provides monthly tonnage handled by these companies, Column 5 the
number of employees, and Column 6 yearly tonnage per employee. Figures in this column are
calculated by taking monthly tonnage in Column 4, multiplying by 12, and dividing by the number of
employees in Column 5.
Tons of CRTs handled per employee range from a low of 240 to a high of 4000. If we were
interested in a summary measure that captures a representative tonnage handled per employee, we
would want to avoid the extreme influence displayed by the first company. Thus, we would use the
median of these five observations. The median is the observation appearing in the middle, after
10/27/00 page H-64
-------
H: Attachments
arranging all of the observations from low to high. For these data, the median is 533 tons per
employee. It is this figure that will be used when making comparisons with the other alternatives.
Column 7 provides information about the degree to which these companies are developed in
the electronics recycling industry. This column suggests that outlets other than landfills and
incinerators definitely exist and are quite capable of dealing with spent CRTs and electronics
equipment. The task remains to develop this existing infrastructure further.
Repair Survey
An additional source of spent CRTs is television sets. In 1999, another market survey was
developed to evaluate whether changes in the television industry might affect the volume of
electronics equipment being disposed of in Massachusetts. More specifically, each television repair
company in the state was contacted to determine whether it would be willing to refurbish and resell
televisions through the state's electronics recycling program.
Information was obtained from 176 respondents. Of these, 58 indicated an interest in
participating in the program, 20 said maybe, 78 said no, and 18 did not respond to this question. If
"maybe" is interpreted as a positive response, half of those who responded to the question would
have an interest in participating in the program.
Particularly important information obtained from the survey was each company's volume of
televisions repaired per month and its number of employees. Those responding reported a total of
12,457 monthly television repairs. The total number of employees performing this task was 466. To
get a measure of overall yearly employment activity in this sector of the Massachusetts economy, we
began by taking the total number of monthly television repairs (12,457) and multiplying this figure by
12 to provide an estimate of yearly television repairs (149,484). Next, the total number repaired was
converted to tonnage repaired. One source suggested that approximately 40 televisions equated to
one ton; another source used 50 televisions to equal one ton. For our purposes, we used 45, the
average of 40 and 50, to equate to one ton.
The total number repaired was converted to tons repaired by dividing 149,484 by 45. The
result is 3,322 tons of televisions repaired annually. Next, we took tons repaired annually (3,322) and
divided this figure by the number of employees doing repairs (466) to get seven tons of televisions
repaired per employee. It is this figure that will be used when making comparisons with the other
alternatives.
Export Survey
In 1999, a telephone survey was administered to companies that export used electronic
equipment. The purpose was to determine the degree of interest among exporters for used
televisions, computers, parts form this equipment, CRT glass, and plastic housings. Of the three
types of surveys administered, the export survey provided the least usable information. Perhaps
because export companies are so heterogeneous regarding the types of goods with which they deal,
only one company was willing to match the number of employees uniquely associated with used
electronics. This company, located in New England, told us that it handled 2,250 tons of used
electronics annually. Eight employees were responsible for preparing this material for export. Using
just this one survey result, one employee handles on average 281 tons of used electronics (2,250/8)
to be exported each year.
10/27/00 pageH-65
-------
H: Attachments
Ordinary Methods Of Disposal
To put the results of Sections 5.2-5.4 into perspective, we begin by doing similar calculations
when the outlet for used electronics is disposal either in a landfill or by way of incineration. These
calculations will serve as a benchmark for determining whether or not the three market-on'ented
alternatives lead to more attractive employment opportunities and, consequently, higher value-added
to the state's economy than by disposal.
We came up with an average tonnage disposed per employee at landfills using OEP data. We
derived the estimate by summing total yearly tonnage for the top 17 commercial landfill facilities in the
state and dividing this result by the total number of employees at these 17 facilities. Our estimate was
approximately 23,000 tons disposed each year per employee. An alternative interpretation of this
number is that 23,000 tons of material will keep one person employed for a year in the landfill disposal
sector.
We estimated average tonnage disposed per employee at incineration facilities by summing
total yearly tonnage for the eight active combustion facilities in the state and dividing this result by the
total number of employees at these eight facilities. Our estimate was approximately 14,000 tons
disposed through incineration each year per employee. Alternatively, 14,000 tons of material per year
will keep one person employed in the incineration disposal sector.
Implementing The Survey Results
Each option - recycling, repair, export, and disposal either in landfills or by incineration -
provides information on the number of tons of electronics it takes to employ one person per year. The
results of Section 5.5 show that 23,000 tons of land filled electronics will employ one landfill worker
per year, and 14,000 tons of incinerated electronics will employ one worker at an incineration plant
per year. Section 5.2 concludes that 533 tons of recycled electronics tends to employ one worker per
year at a company that specializes in electronics recycling. Section 5.3 concludes that seven tons of
televisions in need of repair will employ one worker per year at a television repair outlet. Finally,
Section 5.4 concludes that 281 tons of used electronics will employ one worker per year in the export
industry. This information is summarized in Columns 1, 2, and 3 of Table 2.
How is this information to be used? Suppose that the recycling, repair, and export markets are
well developed in accepting, processing, and moving out used electronics equipment. Again, the
survey results presented Sections 5.2-5.4 indicate that these markets may be moving in this direction.
Also suppose, by way of example, that one ton of unwanted television sets becomes available as a
result of a special municipal collection program. Even if disposal in a landfill were legal, to what outlet
should this one-ton be dispatched? Should it be landfill or repair?
From an economic perspective, this question can be answered by noting where the
employment effects are greater. Because of the seven-tons to one-job ratio in the television repair
sector, a one-ton increase would require an additional 177th (or 0.1428 as a proportion) of a worker's
services per year if the tonnage were headed for the repair sector. Because of the 23,000-tons to
one-job ratio in the landfill sector, a one-ton increase would require an additional 1/23,000m (or 0.0004
as a proportion) of a worker's services per year if the tonnage were headed for the landfill sector.
To give these proportions additional meaning in the context of value-added, suppose that a
worker in any of the outlets for used electronics earns $35,000 per year. If an additional ton of
10/27/00 pageH-66
-------
H: Attachments
electronics is directed to the repair market, requiring O.y1428 of a repair worker's services per year,
this translates into an additional $4998.00 (= 0.1428 x $35,000) accruing to a repairperson per year.
Alternatively, this is the value-added by the repair sector, which results from making defunct
electronics usable.
If, on the other hand, the additional ton were permitted to be directed to a landfill, requiring
0.00004 of a landfill worker's services per year, this translates into an additional $1.45 (=0.00004 x
$35,000) accruing to a landfill worker per year. Comparing these two calculations, we see that value-
added to the state's economy, solely from the perspective of employment effects, is higher if the
material moves to the repair sector. Obviously, at some point the repair market becomes saturated
with used televisions. At this point the other markets would take over, e.g., recycling television CRTs
and dismantling the remainder for scrap.
Similar comparisons can be made between landfill (or incineration) and the two remaining
market outlets, i.e., repair and export. Summarized calculations to do the comparisons are presented
in Columns 4 and 5 of Table 2. For example, suppose that a special collection results in one ton of
CRTs being collected and that the choice is between incineration and recycling these units. The
additional worker time required if the outlet is recycling is 1/533rd (or 0.0018 as a proportion) of a
worker's services per year. Value-added by the recycling sector would be $63.00 (= 0.0018 x
$35,000) per year as a result of its recycling activities. If the additional ton were permitted to be
incinerated, 1/14,000th (or 0.00007 as a proportion) of an incineration worker's services per year
would be required. Handling the material with this option would result in value-added in the amount of
$2.45 (= 0.00007 x $35,000) per year. Comparing these two options, we see that employment and
value added effects are greater if this volume is dispatched to recycling rather than to incineration.
10/27/00 pageH-67
-------
H: Attachments
Table 1: Five Companies That Specialize In Electronics Recycling
Company State Specialty
1 CT Full-service 15,000 tons/mo
recycler
MA Full-service
electronics
recycling and
resale
NH Electronics
recycler
Capacity Employees
300 tons/mo
866 tons/mo
Tons per year
per employee
45
15
26
Comments
4000 Able to demanufacture and sort
incoming electronics
240 Investing in grinders and smelting
equipment in order to provide full-
service recycling of electronics
One of the most complete recycling
400 processes in New England handling
all aspects of CRT and CPU
recycling
MA
Electronics
demanu-
facturing
PA CRTs
400 tons/mo
6000 tons/mo
130
A full service recycler processing
533 CPUs and CRTs.
One of the most complete CRT
553 recycling programs in the Northeast.
Table 2: Material Handled and Value-Added Calculations Per Worker Per Year In Each Outlet
Market For
Used
Electronics
Landfill
Tons
Handled
Per
Employee
Per Year
Source
In
Text
Proportion Of Worker
Time Needed To Handle
One Additional Ton In
This Category
23,000 Section 5.5 1/23,000 = 0.00004
Value Added To
State Economy Per
Year If A Worker
Earns $35,000 Per
year
$1.45
Incineration
Recycling
Repair
14,000 Section 5.5 1/14,000 = 0.00007
533
Section 5.2
Section 5.3
1/533 = 0.0018
1/7 = 0.1428
$2.45
$63.00
$4998.00
Export
10/27/00
281
Section 5.4
1/281=0.0035
$122.50
page H-68
------- |