U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery
Electronics Waste Management in the United
States Through 2009
May 201 I
EPA530-R-II-002
-------
Prepared by ICF International
For the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery
-------
Table of Contents 3
I. Introduction 5
Background 5
Product Scope 5
2. Methodology 6
Overview and Approach 6
Data and Assumptions 7
- Product Sales Data - 7
- Product Weight Data - 8
- Sales of Electronic Products to Residential and Commercial Sectors - I 3
- Use, Storage, and Total Lifespan of Electronic Products - 14
- End-of-life Management - 18
Survey of Recyclers 20
3. Results 22
4. Discussion 28
Findings, Trends, and Comparisons 28
Limitations and Uncertainties 32
Bibliography 35
Appendix A: Definitions 38
Appendix B: Summary of Updates to the Previous Study 40
Appendix C: Sales Data Sources 43
Appendix D: Detailed Methodology for Estimating the Quantity of Electronic Products
Collected for Recycling in the United States 44
-------
BLANK PAGE
-------
Background
Consumer electronics have become increasingly
popular and culturally important over the past several
decades, changing how we communicate, entertain
ourselves, and get information — and the speed with
which we do so. As the nature, use, and number of
electronic products change over time, patterns of
sales, storage, and end-of-life management also change.
Waste managers, manufacturers, and policymakers
need reliable and current information to inform and
improve the management of used electronics. This
report updates EPA's 2008 report, Electronics Waste
Management in the United States: Approach I.
We estimate that in 2009:
• 438 million new electronic
products were sold;
• 5 million short tons of electronic
products were in storage;
• 2.37 million short tons of
electronic products were ready
for end-of-life management; and
• 25 percent of these tons were
collected for recycling.
Electronics comprise approximately one to two percent of the municipal solid waste stream but they
garner a great deal of interest for several reasons:
I. Rapid growth and change in this product sector, leading to a constant stream of new product
offerings and a wide array of used products needing appropriate management;
2. The intensive energy and diverse material inputs that go into manufacturing electronic products,
represent a high degree of embodied energy and scarce resources, many of which can be
recovered;
3.
4.
The presence of substances of concern in some electronics, particularly older products, which
merit greater consideration for safe end-of-life management; and
The opportunities for resource conservation and recovery through improved collection and
recycling of electronics.
Through a variety of initiatives, EPA has been helping to improve the design and safe recycling of
electronic products. While electronics can be safely disposed in properly managed landfills, there are
significant environmental and economic benefits to recycling: preserving scarce materials, minimizing
impacts of extractive industries, facilitating recovery of materials, and reducing the energy and resources
used in manufacturing new electronic products.
Product Scope
This report addresses consumer electronic products, from both residential and commercial/institutional
users, that were manufactured or imported for sale in the United States from 1980 through 2010. The
study encompasses the following product categories:
• Personal computers (PCs): desktop central processing units (CPUs) and portables
• Computer displays: cathode ray tube (CRT) monitors and flat-panel monitors
• Keyboards and mice
• Hard-copy devices: printers, fax machines, scanners, digital copiers, and multi-function devices
• Televisions (TVs): monochrome, cathode ray tube (CRT), flat-panel, and projection
• Mobile devices: cell phones, personal digital assistants (PDAs), smartphones, and pagers
Further description of the product categories is provided in Appendix A. Categories were chosen to
cover a broad range of electronic products that are targeted by recycling initiatives at the federal, state,
and local levels.
-------
Overview and Approach
Figure I provides a life cycle flow chart for electronic products and also identifies the stages included in
the scope of this report. The life cycle of electronic products includes: raw materials acquisition and
manufacturing, purchase and use, storage, and end-of-life management (i.e. disposal or collection for
recycling). This report models the number and weight of electronic products that are in use, storage,
and end-of-life management in a given year; extending from purchase to the point when the product is
either disposed or collected for recycling. The subsequent management and processing of electronic
products that were collected for recycling involves a different methodology which the Agency has not
yet developed. Consequently, this report does not address or attempt to quantify the portion of
electronic products collected for recycling that are subsequently exported.
Raw
materials
and
upstream
production
Product
purchase
f *\
Collected
--J
t
i Reus
/ refur
/ V
/
Use
Storage
recycling
Disposal
j Material
recovery
energy
Landfil
Upstream
production
Not modeled
Use
Storage
Electronic products sales data,
weights, and lifespans
Lifespans and
storage estimates
End-of-life
management
Share of electronic
products at end of
life that are recycled
versus disposed
End use or
disposal
Survey of
electronics
recyders'
practices
Figure I: Life-cycle flow chart for electronic products. Solid boxes refer to life cycle stages that were modeled
in this report; dashed boxes refer to stages where information was collected by recycler surveys. Gray boxes refer to stages
that were not included
Figure I also describes the data collected at each life cycle stage included in this study. We used sales
data to determine the number of electronic products entering use for a given year and weight data to
estimate the weight of these products. We applied data on the lifespan of electronic products to the
sales data to estimate the number and weight of products in use, storage, or end-of-life management for
each year. Finally, we used data on the share of electronic products that are collected for recycling or
disposed of to estimate how products are managed at their end-of-life.
An earlier EPA study of electronics life cycles distinguished between two or more phases in the "use"
stage of the life cycle, generally "first use" and "second use." (EPA 2007) "First use" indicates use by the
original purchaser of the product. When the first user no longer uses the electronic product they may
sell or give the product to another person, which is termed "second use." The current analysis makes
6
-------
no distinction between first users and subsequent users in the "use" stage. Since the ultimate goal of
this study is to model when electronic products are ready for end-of-life management, the pattern of
use before this stage makes no practical difference to the outcome.
We consider storage a separate stage, however, since the functional amount of time that an electronic
product is in use does not necessarily correlate with how long users store it when they have stopped
using it. Therefore, since assumptions about storage behavior affect when an electronics product is
ready for end-of-life management, we have found it useful to think about "use" and "storage" separately,
using the sum of both to define the total lifespan of a product.
When the owner of an electronic product decides to send it to a third party for handling and
management, the product enters the end-of-life management stage. Either the electronic product will be
disposed or it will be collected for recycling. Products collected for recycling may be reused,
refurbished, or dismantled or shredded for material recovery within the United States, or in other
countries. This report does not track or quantify exports of electronics collected for recycling.
Products that are not collected for recycling are disposed of, primarily in landfills. Combustible
components, such as plastics, may be collected and sent to waste-to-energy incinerators, which is also
not addressed in this report.
Data and Assumptions
This section presents the data sources and assumptions used to estimate the amounts of used and end-
of-life electronics. The data includes:
• Sales data for each product type by model year;
• Weight data for each product type by model year;
• Lifespans— the length of time products are used and kept in storage before being collected for
recycling or disposed—for each product type, and;
• The quantities of electronic products that are disposed or collected for recycling each year.
- Product Sales Data -
To estimate sales, we compiled the number of products shipped by model year for each type of product.
Shipment data represents manufacturer shipments of electronic products, not the actual sales of
products at retailers; we assume that shipment data is equivalent to sales data.
We used International Data Corporation (IDC) shipment data (EPA 2008; Yokes 2009) for computers,
hard-copy devices, keyboards and mice, and CRT and flat-panel PC monitors up to 2007. We projected
sales for 2008-2010 based on trends in the IDC (2006b) data and personal communications with expert,
Kathleen Yokes (2009).
The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) provided shipment data for CRT, flat-panel, projection,
and monochrome TVs through 2009 (EPA 2008; CEA 2009). We projected sales for 2010 based on the
2008 and 2009 sales trend.
Cell phone shipment estimates were taken from estimates by Fishbein (2002), IDC, and CEA; these data
were extrapolated to 2008 through 2010 assuming a nine percent annual growth rate based on sales of
mobile devices between 2004 and 2009 (CEA 2009). Mobile device sales data were the most difficult to
locate, given the large number of different product types, the rapid growth in sales over recent years,
and the wide use of these devices by both residential and commercial users. There is more uncertainty
in our projection of mobile device sales than for the other product categories, which are based on
actual sales estimates from providers that compile internally-consistent datasets.
Refer to Appendix C for a complete summary of the data sources used to estimate electronic products
sales.
-------
Figure 2 presents the number of electronic products sold in the United States by model year. Using the
sales data from the sources detailed in Appendix C, we estimate that 438 million electronic products
were sold in 2009, with a projected 440 million in electronic products sales in 2010, as shown in Table I
below.
This represents a doubling of product sales from 1997, driven by a nine-fold increase in mobile device
sales. The increase in mobile device sales has offset a slight decline in the total sales across other
categories, which are projected to drop from 215 million electronic products in 1998 to 208 million
electronic products in 2010. As a result, mobile device sales are projected to account for 53 percent of
sales across all product categories in 2010, compared to 12 percent of sales in 1998.
- Product Weight Data -
Modeling the weight of products is useful from an end-of-life management perspective because it
provides information on the flow of material through the life cycle of electronic products sold in the
United States. To convert the number of electronic products sold into tonnages sold for each model
year, we collected data on the typical weight of individual electronic products by model year, as shown
in Table 2.
Data from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) were used to develop weight
estimates for desktop CPUs, hard-copy devices, PC flat panels, and CRT TVs prior to 2008. For the
remaining categories, estimates were taken from Consumer Reports Annual and Monthly Buying Guides
(from 1984 to 1999) and online information.
We updated unit weight data for desktop CPUs, portables, multi-function devices, mobile devices, and
flat-panel TVs in the 2008, 2009, and 2010 model-years using 2008 and 2009 Consumer Reports Buying
Guides and online manufacturer specification sheets.1 For each type of product, we sampled weights
across a range of model sizes to calculate a typical weight. We were unable to calculate a sales share-
weighted average weight for each product, however, because the data on the sales share of individual
models within each type of product were not available.
Figure 3 presents the sales data for electronic products by model year in terms of product weight. Even
with an estimated 33-percent increase in unit sales compared to 2000, as mobile devices sales have
sharply increased and electronic products have become lighter, the total weight of products sold in 2010
is estimated to decrease by nearly 15 percent relative to 2000. The drop in weight is largely driven by
rapid declines in sales of CRT TVs, CRT monitors, and desktop CPUs.
1 In the updated weight data the average weight of flat-panel TVs was nearly three times larger than assumed in the
2008 report. We revised the historical trend by extrapolating the trend in average weight for popular flat panel
models in 2005 and 2009 over the period from 1998 (the first year flat-panel TVs were sold) through 2010.
8
-------
450
400
D Mobile devices
D Monochrome TVs
• Projection TVs
• Flat-panel TVs
• CRT TVs
• PCflat panels
• PC CRT monitors
• Keyboards
• Mice
• Hard-copy devices
D Portables
• Desktops
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010*
Figure 2: Sales of electronic products by model year, in number of units sold. *Resu/ts for 2010 are projected based on estimates from previous years.
-------
3,000
2,500
_. 2,000
tn
O
1,500
O
1,000
500 -ii
D Mobile devices
D Monochrome TVs
• Projection TVs
• Flat-panelTVs
• CRTTVs
• PCflat panels
• PCCRT monitors
• Keyboards
• Mice
• Hard-copy devices
• Portables
• Desktops
0
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010*
Figure 3: Sales of electronic products by model year, short tons of products sold. *Results for 2010 are projected based on estimates from previous years.
10
-------
Table I: Sales of electronic products, by product category and model year (in number of units). *Projected sales based on sales from previous years and available data
sources. See Appendix C for full listing of data sources.
Model
year
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Computers
Desktop
CPUs Portables
980,600 0
1,961,000 0
3,040,000 0
5,450,000 0
6,660,000 0
5,760,000 0
6,851,000 0
8,202,000 0
8,724,000 0
8,906,000 0
9,486,000 0
9,524,000 0
9,911,000 1,850,000
13,020,000 2,528,000
15,300,000 3,200,000
19,140,000 3,564,000
22,420,000 4,949,000
26,770,000 6,000,000
32,530,000 6,408,000
39,490,000 7,871,000
40,820,000 9,623,000
35,090,000 9,575,000
35,080,000 10,880,000
36,960,000 13,810,000
39,350,000 16,620,000
38,050,000 19,620,000
35,420,000 24,300,000
34,210,000 30,020,000
30,500,000 34,110,000
26,310,000 46,440,000
23,500,784* 40,420,000
Computer Peripherals
Hard-copy
devices Mice Keyboards
514,800 980,600 980,600
1,030,000 1,961,000 1,961,000
1,596,000 3,040,000 3,040,000
2,861,000 5,450,000 5,450,000
3,497,000 6,660,000 6,660,000
3,024,000 5,760,000 5,760,000
3,597,000 6,851,000 6,851,000
4,306,000 8,202,000 8,202,000
4,580,000 8,724,000 8,724,000
4,676,000 8,906,000 17,520,000
4,980,000 9,486,000 21,740,000
5,000,000 14,290,000 26,960,000
6,175,000 20,860,000 37,630,000
8,164,000 31,270,000 36,060,000
9,711,000 39,740,000 41,440,000
11,920,000 19,140,000 47,600,000
14,930,000 22,420,000 53,750,000
16,240,000 24,870,000 55,600,000
22,500,000 27,890,000 64,960,000
27,500,000 39,490,000 63,680,000
28,670,000 56,160,000 51,730,000
26,750,000 53,000,000 43,810,000
28,740,000 57,540,000 48,590,000
30,660,000 36,960,000 51,260,000
32,200,000 39,350,000 47,220,000
33,140,000 38,050,000 44,150,000
34,320,000 35,420,000 44,580,000
36,910,000 34,210,000 43,100,000
33,090,000* 30,500,000 38,400,000
29,510,000* 26,310,000 33,100,000
29430,000* 23,500,000 29,600,000
Computer Displays
PC CRT PC flat
monitors panels
980,600 0
1,961,000 0
3,040,000 0
5,450,000 0
6,660,000 0
5,760,000 0
6,851,000 0
8,202,000 0
8,724,000 0
8,389,000 1 ,084,000
9,398,000 882,700
10,480,000 1,500,000
13,400,000 1,727,000
17,340,000 1,840,000
18,070,000 2,795,000
22,230,000 2,967,000
23,060,000 2,266,000
26,580,000 947,100
32,580,000 1 ,468,000
36,940,000 2,830,000
37,470,000 4,770,000
27,240,000 6,598,000
23,300,000 11,650,000
15,760,000 18,050,000
13,950,000 22,670,000
7,757,000 33,000,000
3,484,000 38,560,000*
1,018,000 41,580,000*
142,400* 32,670,000*
19,510* 27,190,000*
19,700* 27,450,000*
Televisions
CRT TVs CRT TVs Flat-panel Projection Monochrome
<19" >=19" TVs TVs TVs
5,449,000 5,449,000 0 0 6,684,000
5,579,000 5,579,000 0 0 5,654,000
5,683,000 5,683,000 0 0 5,692,000
6,993,000 6,993,000 0 0 5,735,000
8,042,000 8,042,000 0 195,000 5,050,000
8,415,000 8,415,000 0 266,000 3,684,000
9,102,000 9,102,000 0 304,000 3,953,000
9,665,000 9,665,000 0 293,000 3,547,000
10,110,000 10,110,000 0 302,000 2,574,000
10,850,000 10,850,000 0 265,000 1,656,000
10,400,000 10,400,000 0 351,000 1,411,000
9,418,000 10,720,000 0 380,000 784,000
9,734,000 12,260,000 0 404,000 633,000
10,620,000 14,010,000 0 465,000 550,000
11,680,000 15,050,000 0 636,000 540,000
10,850,000 14,590,000 0 820,000 480,000
10,110,000 14,470,000 0 887,000 425,000
9,572,000 14,030,000 0 917,000 400,000
10,300,000 15,050,000 0 1,082,000 347,000
11,220,000 16,430,000 1,631 1,332,000 320,000
12,230,000 17,060,000 7,552 1,703,000 265,000
9,773,000 16,380,000 54,080 1,970,000 250,000
11,680,000 17,010,000 191,300 2,486,000 225,000
8,304,000 17,560,000 955,200 2,720,000 200,000
6,938,000 17,840,000 2,712,000 3,510,000 150,000
5,441,000 16,730,000 6,366,000 2,965,000 125,000
3,427,000 13,450,000 14,490,000 3,064,000 110,000
2,093,000 4,205,000 21,450,000 1,671,000 50,000
447,000 877,000 29,060,000 1,070,000 0
128,900 347,100 32,100,000 628,000 0
37,170* 137,400* 33,690,000* 251,200* 0
Mobile
devices
Mobile devices
0
0
0
0
35,210
105,600
401,400
795,800
1,254,000
2,113,000
2,577,000
3,366,000
5,387,000
7,873,000
12,430,000
14,500,000
16,600,000
22,200,000
30,600,000
49,300,000
72,900,000
100,100,000
122,300,000
140,000,000
142,700,000
150,000,000
165,100,000
181,900,000
198,300,000*
216,100,000*
235,600,000*
-------
Table 2: Weights of electronic products, by product category and model year (in pounds). *Weights for 2010 based on estimates from previous years.
Model
year
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010*
Computers
DCpkU°sP Potables
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
21.9
21.8
21.8
22.2 9.0
21.9 8.7
21.7 8.5
23.0 8.2
22.1 7.9
22.6 7.7
22.7 7.4
22.0 7.1
22.1 7.1
22.0 7.0
24.1 6.8
22.0 6.6
22.0 6.4
22.0 6.4
22.0 6.4
22.0 6.4
22.0 6.4
22.0 6.4
22.0 6.4
Computer Peripherals
HdaScCe°sPy Mice KeVb°ards
18.0 0.2 2.9
18.0 0.2 2.9
18.0 0.2 2.9
18.0 0.2 2.9
18.0 0.2 2.9
18.0 0.2 2.9
18.0 0.2 2.9
18.0 0.2 2.9
18.0 0.2 2.9
17.9 0.2 2.9
19.6 0.2 2.9
18.4 0.2 2.9
17.4 0.2 2.9
17.8 0.2 2.9
17.8 0.2 2.9
16.8 0.2 2.9
15.4 0.2 2.9
16.7 0.2 2.9
16.3 0.2 2.9
16.4 0.2 2.9
18.5 0.2 2.9
16.9 0.2 2.9
16.4 0.2 2.9
16.6 0.2 2.9
17.4 0.2 2.9
17.4 0.2 2.9
17.4 0.2 2.9
17.4 0.2 2.9
17.4 0.2 2.9
17.4 0.2 2.9
17.4 0.2 2.9
Computer Displays
PC CRT PC flat
monitors panels
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.5
24.5 24.6
24.6 24.6
24.8 24.6
24.9 24.6
25.0 24.6
28.9 24.6
32.7 24.6
36.6 24.6
40.4 24.6
44.3 24.6
48.1 24.6
52.0 24.6
51.6 24.6
51.3 24.6
50.9 24.6
50.5 24.6
50.5 24.6
50.5 24.6
50.5 24.6
50.5 24.6
50.5 24.6
50.5 24.6
Televisions
CRT TVs < CRT TVs Flat-panel Projection Monochrome
19" >=19" TVs TVs TVs
42.0 73.0 42.0
42.0 73.0 42.0
42.0 73.0 42.0
42.0 73.0 42.0
42.0 73.0 219.0 42.0
40.6 72.6 221.0 40.6
41.1 73.0 223.0 41.1
40.8 73.0 225.0 40.8
41.2 72.9 227.0 41.2
41.0 71.7 29.0 229.0 41.0
40.5 74.8 29.0 231.0 40.5
41.1 73.9 29.0 233.0 41.1
40.9 73.5 29.0 235.0 40.9
40.7 75.4 29.0 237.0 40.7
41.1 73.3 29.0 239.0 41.1
40.9 73.5 29.0 241.0 40.9
41.3 72.8 29.0 243.0 41.3
40.7 73.8 29.0 245.0 40.7
41.6 74.1 29.0 247.0 41.6
41.2 73.0 32.1 249.0 41.2
39.8 74.5 36.9 251.0 39.8
41.1 72.2 41.7 251.0 41.1
40.4 72.8 46.6 223.3 40.4
41.0 73.0 51.4 195.7 41.0
41.0 73.0 56.3 168.0 41.0
41.0 73.0 61.1 140.0 41.0
41.0 73.0 65.9 140.0 41.0
41.0 73.0 70.8 140.0 41.0
41.0 73.0 75.6 140.0 41.0
41.0 73.0 80.5 140.0 41.0
41.0 73.0 85.3 140.0 41.0
Mobile
devices
Mobile
devices
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
12
-------
- Sales of Electronic Products to Residential and Commercial Sectors -
For many product categories, the patterns of use, storage, and end-of-life management of electronic
products are likely similar across residential and commercial sectors. However, for desktop CPUs,
portables, hard-copy devices, and computer displays, commercial establishments follow different
patterns of use, storage, and end-of-life than residential households, as indicated in the lifespan estimates
discussed on page 14.
Consequently, it is important to distinguish between residential and commercial sales for these product
categories.
We used multiple sources to develop historical estimates of the shares of commercial and residential
computer products sold in each model year. Our estimates and the data sources we used for each
product category are shown in Table 3 below.2
Table 3: Data sources for estimates of residential and commercial electronic product sales shares,
by product category and type
Category Product Model Assumed Assumed
Type Year Commercial Share of Residential Share of
Sales (by units) Sales (by units)
Computers Desktop
CPUs
1980-1992 70%
1993-2005 Ranges from 58% to
68%
2006-2010 Ranges from 61 % to
68%
Portables 1980-1992 100%
30%
Ranges from 32% to
42%
Ranges from 32% to
39%
0%
1993-2006 Ranges from 55% to Ranges from 0% to
100% 45%
2007-2010 45%
55%
Source of Assumption
Gartner (2001)
Gartner (2001); Vokes (2009)
I DC (2009); Vokes (2009)
Assumed no residential sales of
portables.
Gartner (2001); Vokes (2009)
Based on average of 2002-2006
residential sales shares.
Hard-copy
devices
Hard-copy 1980-1992 90%
devices
1992-2010
Ranges from 40% to
90%
10%
Ranges from 10% to
60%
Assumes same residential sales
share as in 1992.
Gartner (2001) and Vokes (2009);
residential sales share for fax
machines is taken from Appliance
Magazine (2008) and Vokes (2009);
residential sales for scanners in
1997 are based on Quo et al.
(1998), and Vokes (2009) assumes
that 100% of growth in scanner
sales from 1997 is residential.
Displays PC CRT 1980-2010 Ranges from 58% to
monitors 70%
PC flat
panels
1989-1997 70%
1998-2010 Ranges from 58% to
68%
Ranges from 30% to
42%
30%
Ranges from 32% to
42%
Assumed residential sales are equal
to residential sales share for
desktop PCs
Assumption, based on residential
sales share in 1998
Assumed residential sales are equal
to residential sales share for
desktop PCs
2 The 2008 report assumed that a fixed share (62 percent) of all desktop CPUs, portables, hard-copy devices, and
computer displays are sold to the residential sector (EPA 2008). The updated data sources in Table 3 show that
the original assumption underestimated commercial sales across many product types, particularly in earlier model
years.
13
-------
- Use, Storage, and Total Lifespan of Electronic Products -
Before electronic products are sent to their end-of-life management, they are either in use or in storage.
The total lifespan of electronic products is equal to the amount of time they are in use plus the period
of time they are stored before their end-of-life management. We first developed assumptions of the
total lifespans of electronic products in order to estimate the number of electronic products at end-of-
life each year. Next, we developed assumptions of how long products remain in use before being stored
in order to estimate the number of products kept in storage each year.
Our lifespan assumptions are shown in Table 4 for residential products and in Table 5 for commercial
products. The bar graphs below each table translate this information into the average age at which each
product type is sent for their end-of-life management. These tables show the cumulative percentage of
each product type ready for end-of-life management at a given age. For example, we assume that 20
percent of mobile devices are ready for their end-of-life management when they are two years old.
When they are five years old, we assume an additional 70 percent of mobile devices are at their end-of-
life. Consequently, 20 plus 70 percent, or 90 percent of all mobile devices in a given model year have
been sent for their end-of-life management at five years of age. The remaining 10 percent are sent for
their end-of-life management five years later, resulting in 100 percent of the products sent for their end-
of-life management after ten years. This section details the data sources used to develop the lifespan
assumptions shown in Table 4 and Table 5.
First, we searched for new and updated information on product lifespans. While several sources of
lifespan data were found, none were definitive.3 The most comprehensive source we located remained
the Florida DEP's electronic products brand distribution database (2009). Although the Florida DEP
Web site was last updated in 2009, the brand distribution dataset has not been updated since 2006.
For desktop CPUs, portables, hard-copy devices, and computer displays it is likely that use, storage, and
disposal patterns are different between residential and commercial sectors. As a result, we developed
separate commercial-sector lifespan assumptions for these categories. Based on information from the
International Association of Electronics Recyclers (IAER 2006), surveys of computer reuse (Lynch 2001),
personal communications with industry experts (DuBravac 2006, Powers 2006), and assumptions about
the length of time that commercial products are held in storage, we assumed that 40 percent of
commercial computers reach their end-of-life after three years, another 40 percent after five years, and
the remaining 20 percent after seven years.
Second, we used data from literature and industry experts to develop assumptions of the period of time
that the following electronic products remain in storage before their end-of-life management:
• We assumed that residential desktop CPUs, hard-copy devices, and computer monitors are
kept in use for an average of seven years before entering storage (Matthews 2003, IAER 2006),
• Residential portables remain in use for six years on average before storage (DuBravac 2005),
• CRT TVs are kept in use for I I years before entering storage (DuBravac 2005), and
• Mouse, keyboards, flat-panel TVs, and projection TVs are not stored before their end-of-life
management.
Finally, we developed4 storage estimates for mobile devices and for commercial computers, hardcopy
devices, and computer monitors based on the following sources:
3 We compared assumptions used in the 2008 report with these other data, and came to the conclusion that, for
most products, existing assumptions were reasonable and should be kept.
4 The 2008 report did consider commercial storage of electronics products.
14
-------
We assumed that commercial desktop CPUs, portables, hard-copy devices, and computer
monitors are kept in use for three to five years, after which 20 percent are stored for up to two
additional years. We believe a two-year storage estimate is conservative, but reflects the fact
that commercial businesses are less likely than residential users to store products for long
periods of time.
This assumption is based on evidence that storage occurs in commercial institutions: twenty
percent of the participants in a 2005 survey of U.S. commercial institutions indicated they kept
PC assets that were ready for disposal (Daoud 2007). The survey results reflect the number of
companies that said they store electronic products—they do not indicate the number or
percentage of products stored.
We assumed that 20 percent of mobile devices are at their end-of-life at the end of two years,
with an additional 70 percent sent to their end-of-life management at the end of five years.
These assumptions are based on Moss (2010). We also assume that the remaining 10 percent
of mobile devices are stored up to a total of 10 years, based on estimates from Niera (2006)
and Singhal (2005) that phones can be kept in storage for up to 10 years.
-------
Table 4: Cumulative percentage of each product type sent to end-of-life management at a given age for residential products. Average life of each product type
shown in bar chart
Age
(years)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
RESIDENTIAL ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS
Computers
^P^ P°rtables
25%
50%
75%
100%
20%
35%
55%
100%
Computer Peripherals
Hard-copy Mjce Keyboards
devices
25%
50%
75%
100%
100%
100%
Computer Displays
PC CRT PC flat
monitors panels
25%
50%
75%
100%
100%
Televisions
CRT TVs < CRT TVs Flat-panel Projection Monochrome
19" >=19" TVs TVs TVs
25%
50%
75%
100%
25%
50%
75%
100%
100%
100%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Mobile
devices
20%
90%
100%
16
-------
Table 5: Cumulative percentage of each electronic product type sent to end-of-life management at a given age for commercial products. Average life of each
product type shown in bar chart
Age
(years)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
COMMERCIAL ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS
Computers
DCpkU°sP Potables
40%
80%
100%
40%
80%
100%
Computer Peripherals
HdaScCe°sPy Mice KeVb°ards
40%
80%
100%
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
Computer Displays
PC CRT PC flat
monitors panels
40%
80%
100%
40%
80%
100%
Televisions
CRT TVs < CRT TVs Flat-panel Projection Monochrome
19" >=19" TVs TVs TVs
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
Not
applicable
Mobile
devices
Mobile
devices
Not
applicable
4.6
4.6
Not applicable = We did not distinguish between residential and commercial products for these categories.
17
-------
- End-of-life Management -
Electronic products at their end-of-life are managed by one of two end-of-life management practices:
they are either collected for recycling (they may then be subsequently reused, refurbished, or recycled
for materials recovery), or disposed in landfills or waste-to-energy incinerators (see Figure I). For this
report, we updated our estimates of the number of end-of-life electronic products that are collected for
recycling to incorporate state reports on mandated electronics collection programs and results from
our survey of recyclers. The advantages of this updated approach are that it incorporates a greater
amount of hard data (from state-mandated collection programs and from electronic product recyclers),
and provides a framework for refining future estimates as better data become available. A detailed
explanation of this approach is provided in Appendix D.
First, we estimated the total quantity of electronic products collected for recycling from residential
sources. For states where data were available, we compiled reports on the quantity of electronic
products collected through state-mandated collection programs. The product types covered by
electronics recycling laws and the methods for reporting the quantity of electronic products collected
vary from state to state. In 2009, information was available from eight states representing approximately
29 percent of the U.S. population.5 Electronic products are collected through various municipality or
manufacturer sponsored programs in the other 42 states in varying amounts, but reporting is not in
place. States with low levels of collection report approximately one pound per capita; states with higher
levels of collection report three to six pounds per capita. Based on this range, we assume one pound of
electronic products collected per capita from residential sources in states that do not have electronics
recycling laws or reporting in place.
Assuming one pound collected for recycling means that states that do not have electronics recycling
laws or reporting in place collect amounts roughly equivalent to states reporting low levels of collection,
and between one third to one sixth the per-capita rate of states reporting higher levels of per-capita
collection.
To account for the quantity of electronic products collected from commercial sources, we assumed that
67 percent of the electronic products collected for recycling come from commercial sources, based on
results from the survey of recyclers.6 For states where commercial electronics were not included in
reported amounts collected (i.e., all states except California), we back-calculated total collection for
recycling from the quantity of residential products collected, assuming that commercial recycling
accounted for 67 percent of the electronic products collected.
Table 6 provides the estimated quantity of electronic products collected for recycling using this
approach and compares it to our 2008 report. The updated method in this report estimates
approximately 25 to 30 percent higher tonnage of collection for recycling. We believe the variation in
collection for recycling results primarily from improvements to the methodology in estimating the
amount of used electronics sent for recycling, rather than changes in actual hard data that accounts for
the tonnage collected for recycling. Due to the lack of robust data that is currently available, there is
still a high level of uncertainty in the actual quantity of electronics collected for recycling.
5 Data compiled from California (NERIC 2009), Delaware (NCER 2010), Maine (Maine DEP 2008), Maryland (MDE
2007), Minnesota (Minnesota PCA2009; Linnel 2009), Oregon (Oregon E-cycles 2008), Washington (Washington
MMFA20IO), Texas (Texas Campaign for the Environment 2010), and Virginia (NCER, NERC 2010; Virginia DEQ
2010). Not all states provided data for all years; Maryland provided data only in 2006 and 2007, Minnesota only in
2007 - 2009, and Washington, Oregon, Texas, and Virginia only in 2009.
6 We estimated the commercial share by multiplying the total tonnage of specified consumer electronics processed
by each recycler by the percentage of commercial recovery reported by that recycler. We then summed the
calculated commercial tonnage from all recyclers, and divided this by the total amount processed by all of the
recyclers to calculate the average commercial share. We averaged this result across 2007, 2008, and 2009 to
calculate the 67-percent share of commercial recycling.
18
-------
Table 6: Estimated quantity of electronic products collected for recycling
Estimate Used in This Report EPA 2008
Year
(short tons) (short tons)
2006 470,000 377,000
2007 551,000 414,000
Second, we estimated the quantity of each product type collected for recycling. To develop an estimate
of the number of mobile devices collected for recycling, we conducted a survey of mobile device
recyclers (see the Survey of Recyclers section). Based on the number of mobile devices collected for
recycling and the self-estimated market share of the largest of the recyclers, we estimated the total
number of mobile devices collected for recycling in 2007 through 2009 (i.e., the total recycling market).
Our calculations suggest that 8.3 million devices, or seven percent of mobile devices at end-of-life, were
collected for recycling in 2007, increasing to I 1.8 million, or an eight-percent rate of collection for
recycling, in 2009.7
We then used a growth trend in mobile devices collected from 2006 through 2008 to forecast the
survey results to 2010, based on information from mobile device manufacturers and carriers. The
estimate of the number of mobile devices collected for recycling has a high degree of uncertainty, due to
a limited dataset and a lack of knowledge about the true market shares of individual recyclers.
To estimate the number of other electronic products collected for recycling, we subtracted the
estimated quantity of mobile devices collected from the total quantity of electronic products collected
for recycling. We assumed that each product was collected in a proportion based on the average
composition across a survey of seven electronics recyclers that collect products from a representative
mix of residential and consumer sources.8 This percent breakdown is shown in Table 7.
Table 7: Types of electronic products collected, by percent of total weight collected for recycling in
2009. These data are based on a survey of recyclers that was conducted for this report (see the Survey of Recyclers
section).
Category Average composition of electronic products
collected for recycling (not including mobile devices)
Computers (desktop CPUs and portables) 26%
Computer displays (CRT and flat-panel monitors) 30%
Hard-copy devices 15%
Mice and Keyboards 1 %
iy? (CRT, flat-fiE1?1. ?n.d-Pr°J
-------
Survey of Recyclers
In an effort to collect additional data to determine what happens to electronic products collected for
recycling, we conducted a survey of electronics recyclers. Seven recyclers participated in the survey,
representing a geographically-dispersed subset of recyclers in the United States. We requested annual
data on the quantity of electronic products processed by each company in both tonnage and number of
products, for all the electronic products included in the scope of this report. On average, 93 percent of
the electronic products that these companies collect from year to year fall within the category of
"consumer electronics" as we have defined it in the introduction of this report. We did not collect
information on exports of end-of-life electronics. Companies were also asked to estimate their market
share, a percentage breakdown of how electronic products are managed, and the source (residential vs.
commercial) of the electronics. This survey was conducted during the autumn of 2009.
After products are collected for recycling and delivered to recyclers, there are three possible outcomes:
products may be reused or refurbished, recycled, or disposed. As shown in Table 8, the seven recyclers
that participated in the survey recycled close to 70 percent of the electronic products they received,
while 30 percent were reused. Only a small fraction — less than one percent of the products collected
for recycling — was ultimately disposed. While computers make up the majority of the products reused
and refurbished, the recyclers we surveyed indicated that they refurbished other types of products as
well, including TVs and hard-copy devices.
Most of the companies surveyed were not able to provide enough information on their individual
market share based on knowledge of their market, so a useful estimate of the U.S. market could not be
calculated. Some companies lacked any estimates of their market share, while others based their market
share on an estimate in an EPA document; both of these prevented the collection of sufficient data.
Table 8: Results of Electronics Recycling Survey
2007 2008 2009
Total tons of consumer electronic products collected for recycling by recyclers -,-, -,-,„ Q0 ,-_,. QC- ~Q-,
included in survey* 77'779 82'561 85'387
Average percent
Reused or refurbished 30% 32% 33%
Recycled 69% 68% 66%
Disposal <1%
* Tons collected are adjusted from survey results: one company reported only for 2008 and 2009, and the quantity reported was
much higher than for other companies, giving a misleading picture of inter-annual variability in electronics collection, so this
company's results were omitted from this table. In addition, 2009 numbers have been adjusted upward from survey results, based
on the number of months of data received for 2009 (1 2 months of data were not available in all cases).
We also conducted a second survey targeting three separate companies that specialize in managing used
and end-of-life mobile devices. From each company, we collected the annual tonnage and number of
electronic products processed for 2007 through 2009, average mobile device weight, a percentage
breakdown of how mobile devices are managed, and the sources of end-of-life mobile devices (i.e.,
residential or commercial sources). We did not collect information on exports of end-of-life mobile
devices. This survey was conducted in December of 2009 and January of 20 1 0.
The results of the survey are presented in Table 9. The survey found that mobile devices are reused
slightly more frequently than average, with 40 percent of devices collected for recycling entering reuse.
According to the recyclers, 60 percent of mobile devices were recycled and none of the products
collected for recycling were disposed.
Findings from both surveys are incorporated into the model's assumptions about their end-of-life
management.
20
-------
Table 9: Results of Mobile Devices Recycling Survey
2007 2008 2009
Total tons of mobile devices collected for recycling by recyclers included in survey * 561 924 743
Average percent
Reused or refurbished 42% 43% 38%
Recycled 58% 57% 62%
Disposal 0% 0% 0%
* Tons collected are adjusted from the survey results: 2009 numbers have been adjusted upward from survey results, based on the
number of months of data received for 2009 (12 months of data were not available in all cases).
21
-------
We used the methodology and data sources discussed in Chapter 2 to model the following aspects of
electronic waste management in the United States:
• The number of units and tonnage of electronic products that are ready for end-of-life
management by year;
• The number and tonnage of electronic products that are either collected for recycling or
disposed; and
• The number and tonnage of electronic products that are in use and in storage.
Figure 4 presents the quantity of electronic products ready for end-of-life management in each year
between 1990 and 2010. We estimate that 2.37 million short tons of electronic products were ready for
end-of-life management in 2009. This represents a 122-percent increase in the quantity of discarded
electronics from 1999.
Of the electronic products that are ready for their end-of-life management, Figure 5 presents the
quantities that are collected for recycling and the quantities sent for disposal to landfills or waste-to-
energy incinerators. We estimate that the percentage of electronic products collected for recycling has
increased from 22 percent in 2006 to 25 percent in 2009, with a 27-percent rate projected for 2010.
This would represent an increase in recycling of 179 thousand short tons from 2006.
The annual quantities from 2006 through 2010 of each electronic product ready for end-of-life
management, collected for recycling, and disposed of are presented in Tables 10, II, and 12,
respectively. Based on this information, Table I 3 calculates the rate at which individual electronic
products are collected for recycling. Computers, hard-copy devices, and computer displays have the
highest rates of collection for recycling; we estimate that 38, 34, and 29 percent of these products,
respectively, were collected for recycling in 2009, relative to the total weight of each product ready for
their end-of-life management. We estimate that mobile devices have the lowest rate of collection
(excluding keyboards and mice). The calculated rate of mobile devices collected for recycling varies
more significantly from year to year compared to other product types due to the lack of reliable data on
the quantity of mobile devices collected for recycling.
Figure 6 presents the quantity of electronic products that were still in use or in storage in 2009, of all
products sold between 1980 and 2009. In total, we estimate that five million short tons of electronic
products are in storage. See Table 14 for the full results.
22
-------
2,500
~ 2,000
c
o
o
-C
to
M—
O
to
•a 1,500
03
to
T3
C
OJ
4-J
TO
to
4-J
u
3
T3
O
1,000
500
1990
1995
2000
2005
D Mobile devices
D Monochrome TVs
• Projection TVs
• Flat-panel TVs
• CRT TVs
• PCflat panels
• PC CRT monitors
• Hard-copy devices
• Keyboards
• Mice
D Portables
• Desktops
2010*
Figure 4: Quantity of electronic products ready for end-of-life management in the United States. *Resu/ts for 2010 are projected based on estimates from previous
years.
23
-------
2,500 -
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010*
D Mobile devices - recycled
TVs- recycled
Keyboards and mice - recycled
• Hard-copy devices- recycled
Computer displays - recycled
Computers - recycled
D Mobile devices - disposed
TVs - disposed
Keyboards and mice - disposed
Ha rd-copy devices - disposed
Computer displays - disposed
Computers - disposed
Figure 5: Quantity of electronic products collected for recycling or disposed, by year. *Results for 2010 are projected based on estimates from previous years.
24
-------
Computers
Computer displays
In storage
742,309
In storage
861,766
Hard-copy devices
TVs
In storage
351,806
Mobile Devices
In storage •
9,271
Figure 6: Quantity of products in use, storage, or end-of-life management in 2009, out of all
electronic products sold between 1980 through 2009, in short tons.
25
-------
Table 10: Electronic products ready for end-of-life management from 2006 to 2010. Results are projected for 2010 based on estimates from previous years.
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Table II:
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Table 1 2:
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Computers Computer displays
units short units short
('OOOs) tons ('OOOs) tons
39,400 365,000
42,500 393,000
44,500 384,000
47,400 407,000
51,900 423,000
Products collected for
Computers
units short
('OOOs) tons
13,200 122,000
15,400 143,000
16,700 144,000
18,000 154,000
20,600 168,000
31 ,000 656,000
32,800 679,000
33,600 642,000
34,300 618,000
35,800 595,000
recycling from 2006
Computer displays
units short
('OOOs) tons
6,650 141,000
7,960 165,000
8,730 167,000
9,900 178,000
11,700 194,000
Electronic products ready for end-of-life management
Hard-copy devices Keyboards and mice TVs
units short Units short units short tons
('OOOs) tons ('OOOs) tons ('OOOs)
23,000 190,000 96,800 68,800 25,700 847,000
25,200 218,000 106,000 76,200 26,900 911,000
27,700 235,000 88,200 78,000 27,000 951,000
30,700 262,000 86,600 72,400 27,200 993,000
33,600 290,000 82,200 67,800 28,500 1,040,000
Mobile devices
units short
('OOOs) tons
100,000
118,000
134,000
141,000
152,000
16,900
18,400
19,200
18,800
19,500
Total
units short tons
('OOOs)
316,000
351,000
355,000
367,000
384,000
2,140,000
2,300,000
2,310,000
2,370,000
2,440,000
to 20 1 0. Results are projected for 2010 based on estimates from previous years.
Electronic products collected for recycling
Hard-copy devices Keyboards and mice TVs
units short units short units short
('OOOs) tons ('OOOs) tons ('OOOs) tons
8,520 70,300 6,590 4,690 3,980 131,000
9,520 82,400 7,650 5,490 4,540 154,000
9,820 83,300 6,280 5,560 4,410 156,000
10,400 89,100 7,100 5,940 4,560 166,000
11,200 97,000 7,830 6,460 4,940 181,000
Mobile devices
units short
('OOOs) tons
5,590
8,300
14,300
11,800
17,400
940
1,300
2,050
1,570
2,240
Total
units short
('OOOs) tons
44,500
53,400
60,200
61,800
73,700
470,000
551,000
558,000
595,000
649,000
Products disposed from 2006 to 20 1 0. Results are projected for 2010 based on estimates from previous years.
Computers
units short
('OOOs) tons
26,300 243,000
27,000 250,000
27,800 240,000
29,400 252,000
31,300 255,000
Computer displays
units short
('OOOs) tons
24,400 515,000
24,900 514,000
24,900 475,000
24,400 440,000
24,100 401,000
Electronic products disposed
Hard-copy devices Keyboards and mice TVs
units short units short units short
('OOOs) tons ('OOOs) tons ('OOOs) tons
14,500 120,000 90,200 64,100 21,700 716,000
15,600 135,000 98,500 70,700 22,400 757,000
17,900 152,000 81,900 72,500 22,600 796,000
20,300 173,000 79,500 66,500 22,700 827,000
22,400 193,000 74,400 61,400 23,600 864,000
Mobile devices
units short
('OOOs) tons
94,700
110,000
120,000
129,000
135,000
15,900
17,100
17,200
17,300
17,200
Total
units short tons
('OOOs)
272,000
298,000
295,000
306,000
310,000
1 ,670,000
1 ,740,000
1 ,750,000
1 ,780,000
1 ,790,000
26
-------
Table 13: Rate at which electronic products are collected for recycling relative to the total weight of each product ready for end-of-life management,
2006 to 2010. Results are projected for 2010 based on estimates from previous years.
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Note: the
variation
Table 1 4
Computers
33%
36%
38%
38%
40%
rate at which
in both actual
Computer displays
21%
24%
26%
29%
33%
mobile devices are collected
collection of mobile devices,
: Total products at end-of-life, in storage
Hard -copy devices
37%
38%
35%
34%
33%
Keyboards and mice
7%
7%
7%
8%
10%
for recycling varies more significantly from year to
as well as the quality of collection reporting.
, and in use in 2009
TVs
16%
17%
16%
17%
17%
year, compared
Mobile devices
6%
7%
11%
8%
11%
to other product types,
Total
22%
24%
24%
25%
27%
because of
, out of all products sold between 1 980 and 2009.
In use
Residential
storage
Commercial
storage
Total
storage
At end-of-
life
Computers
units short tons
('OOOs)
Computer displays Hard-copy devices Keyboards and mice
units short tons units short tons units short tons
('OOOs) ('OOOs) ('OOOs)
TVs
units short tons
('OOOs)
Mobile devices
units short
('OOOs) tons
Total
units short tons
('OOOs)
{980-2009 857,00 7,570,000 653,000 11,000,000 471,000 4,050,000 1,670,000 1,460,000 772,000 25,400,000 1,660,000 257,000 6,090,000 49,800,000
325,00 2,430,000 191,000 2,590,000 167,000 1,450,000 368,000 311,000 312,000 11,200,000 812,000 94,000 2,170,000 18,100,000
57,900 632,000 31,900 714,000 34,300 292,000
12,600 111,000 8,300 148,000 7,090 60,300
70,500 742,000 40,200 862,000 41,400 352,000
104,000 2,930,000 57,800 9,270 286,000 4,580,000
28,000 319,000
104,000 2,930,000 57,800 9,270 314,000 4,900,000
462,000 4,400,000 422,000 7,560,000 262,000 2,250,000 1,310,000 1,150,000 356,000 11,300,000 789,000 154,000 3,600,000 26,800,000
27
-------
The results presented in Chapter 3 provide a broad overview of the management of electronic products
in the United States. Below we discuss the findings, trends, and comparisons resulting from the study,
and limitations and uncertainties in the results.
Findings, Trends, and Comparisons
This report provides important insights into the electronic products market and its implications for the
management of used electronics. The following findings and trends were identified in the sale, storage,
quantity of used electronic products, and the end-of-life management of electronic products:
• In the last 10 years, the sales share of flat-panel displays has increased relative to CRT displays,
and flat-panel TVs have become larger and heavier over the same period. The model reflects
these trends, estimating that flat-panel displays now constitute a sizable and growing share of
used electronics ready for end-of-life management. Conversely, the quantity of CRT TVs is
estimated to have remained relatively constant between 2005 and 2010, and the quantity of
CRT monitors has already noticeably decreased, since CRT monitors have a shorter average
lifespan than TVs.
• On June 12, 2009, all full-power television stations in the United States began broadcasting
exclusively in a digital format. With this switch, many Americans were required to obtain either
an analog-to-digital converter box or a new digital-ready TV. The effect the digital switch had on
the volume of TVs assigned for end-of-life management has been unclear because there was no
concrete data available.
• Of the 2.44 million short tons of electronic products that we project will be ready for end-of-life
management in 2010, CRT TVs and CRT monitors constitute 43 percent by weight.
• CRT TVs and CRT monitors constitute a smaller proportion of products ready for end-of-life
management in 2010 because of the large number of cell phones and other mobile devices.
• The estimated share of electronic products collected for recycling suggests that collection for
recycling, as a percentage of total electronic products at end-of-life in each year, has increased
steadily from 22 percent in 2006 to 25 percent in 2009. We estimate that the average annual
increase in the quantity of electronic products collected for recycling was nine percent over this
time period. Extrapolating this growth rate to 2010, we estimate that 27 percent of electronic
products could be collected for recycling (by weight), although there is considerable uncertainty
in our estimate of the rate of electronics collected for recycling.
• Although our results reflect recent trends in the increasing quantities of electronic products
collected for recycling, this amount could increase further if major electronics recycling
programs that are starting in 2010 achieve the collection targets that they have recently
established. For example, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency has set a statewide goal
to collect 16,000 short tons in 2010 (roughly 2.5 pounds per capita) (Illinois EPA 2010); the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (2010) estimates it will collect between 15 and 18
million pounds in the first half of 2010 by targeting 80% of covered electronic products sold to
households and public schools (K to 12), and Indiana has set a target of collecting 60% of
covered electronic products sold to households starting in April 2010 (Recycle Indiana, 2010).
• Although they contribute less than 0.5 percent of the total weight of electronic products
collected for recycling, we estimate that mobile devices represent 20 to 25 percent of the
individual units collected for recycling based on results from the survey of recyclers and
information from mobile device manufacturers and carriers. While they are small in weight and
size, there are substantial opportunities for collecting a large number of mobile devices.
28
-------
• Of the electronic products sold from 1980 through 2009 that have not yet reached end-of-life
management, we estimate that 74 percent of monochrome TVs were in storage in 2009. Sixty-
one percent of PC CRT monitors were in storage, and 35 percent of CRT TVs. By comparison,
we estimate that seven percent of mobile devices, or 57.8 million, were stored in 2009.
• We estimate that residential households currently store five times more computer products
than are stored by commercial establishments, by weight. In total, we estimate that roughly 1.5
million short tons of computers, computer displays, and hard-copy devices were stored by
residential households in 2009, while approximately 300,000 short tons were stored by
commercial establishments.
The changes from the 2008 report are summarized in Table 15. Some differences between the results
presented in the 2008 report and the results from this analysis can be explained by the updates to sales,
storage, recycling, and weight data. However, there are a few larger discrepancies that are important to
discuss:
• This report estimates that a much larger weight of computer products were collected for
recycling in 2007 even though fewer products were collected for recycling relative to the 2008
report. In the 2008 report, the computer products category included mice and keyboards
(which have a low weight-per-unit). Additionally, the 2008 report assumed that products are
collected for recycling according to the share that they are present in their end-of-life; as a
result, keyboards and mice represented a large portion of the estimated number of products
collected for recycling.
In this analysis, however, data obtained from the survey of recyclers was used to estimate the
composition of electronic products collected for recycling. The survey showed that keyboards
and mice contribute only a small fraction (around one percent) of what is collected for recycling.
As a result, heavier items, such as desktop CPUs, TVs, computer displays, and hard-copy devices
make up most of what gets collected for recycling in our model. This explains why we predict a
lower number of electronic products collected for recycling (i.e., very few keyboards and mice
collected) and a higher weight of electronic products collected (i.e., a larger number of heavy
electronic products) than in the 2008 report.
• This report includes storage estimates for mobile devices and for the commercial sector, which
was not addressed in the 2008 report. As a result of this change, the number of devices in
storage is 34 percent greater. We believe that this change has made the analysis more robust,
since there is good evidence that some amount of storage in these sectors is common.
• This report estimates that far fewer TVs were collected for recycling in 2007 than the 2008
report did. The lower collection rate results from our assumption that TVs constitute 28
percent of the electronic products collected for recycling in this analysis, rather than 40 percent
in the 2008 report. We updated this assumption based on results from the survey of recyclers,
whereas the 2008 report simply assumed that TVs were collected for recycling according to the
share that they are present at their end-of-life.
• This report estimates that fewer mobile devices were collected for recycling in 2007 than the
2008 report. In the 2008 report, we assumed a constant collection rate of 10 percent for mobile
devices; in this report, we updated this assumption based on the quantity of devices received by
recyclers based on the recyclers survey, and extrapolated these results from the trend in
collection for recycling of mobile devices from retailer data collected from mobile device
manufacturers and carriers. This approach suggests that slightly fewer mobile devices are
collected for recycling than previously estimated. We believe that this approach provides a
more realistic estimate than the assumption used in the 2008 report.
29
-------
The percent differences shown in Table 15 are only valid relative to the same management practice for
each electronic product, and are not comparable across rows. For example, Table 15 shows that there
is a large percentage increase in collection for recycling of computer products (by weight), but only a
small percentage decrease in disposal as compared to the results for 2007 from the 2008 report. This is
because a much smaller quantity of products (by weight) are collected for recycling, so an increase in
collection for recycling produces a larger percentage change. Since a larger quantity of material is
disposed of, the same reduction in the quantity produces a much smaller percentage change.
Table 15: Percent change in the estimates of electronic products collected for recycling versus
disposal for 2007 by this report relative to the 2008 report.
Management
Practice
Ready for end-of-
life management
Collected for
recycling
Disposed of
Computer Products
units short tons
0.5% 3.3%
-15.8% 62.1%
5.5% -10.0%
TVs
units short tons
0.0% 0.0%
-28.0% -8.5%
8.6% 1.9%
Mobile Devices
units short tons
-16.0% -4.1%
-40.9% -32.5%
-13.3% -1.0%
Total
units short tons
-5.7% 1.9%
-22.1% 33.0%
-2.1% -5.1%
Note: The numbers reflect the percent change in the results of this report as compared to the 2008 report. Negative numbers mean
that the results in this report were lower than those in the 2008 report. For example, compared to the 2008 report, this report
estimates that 8.5 percent fewer short tons of TVs were collected for recycling.
Comparisons between this report and the 2008 report of the number of electronic products in 2007
ready for end-of-life management, collected for recycling, and disposed are illustrated in Figures 7, 8, and
9, respectively. Figure 10 shows the differences in the shares of electronic products in use and storage
versus in end-of-life management for computer products and TVs sold from 1980 through 2007. For
example, it illustrates that for 2007, the 2008 report estimated a higher number of computer products
were in use and storage than the estimate from this report.
400
Computer
Products
TVs
Mobile Devices
Total
30
-------
Figure 7: Comparison of electronic products ready for end-of-life management in 2007 in the 2008
report and this analysis. Note that the vertical axis is in terms of the number of units.
o
o
(N
80
70
60
~ ~S 50
Q.
'o
40
£. 30
-a
o
20
10
Computer Products
TVs
Mobile Devices
Total
Figure 8: Comparison of electronic products collected for recycling in 2007 in the 2008 report and
this analysis. Note that the vertical axis is in terms of the number of units.
350
Computer
Products
TVs
Mobile Devices
Total
31
-------
Figure 9: Comparison of electronic waste disposed in 2007 in the 2008 report and this analysis. Note
that the vertical axis is in terms of the number of units.
3,500
Readv for end-of-life
nagement
Hrtttse and storage--
Ready for end-of-life
management
This Report
2008 Report
TVs
Figure 10: Comparison of the share of electronic products in use and storage versus in end-of-life
management for all computer products and TVs sold from 1980 through to 2007.
Limitations and Uncertainties
This study was based on the best available data, but the world of electronics is one that is evolving at a
rapid pace and is often not well characterized. There were some significant data limitations, which
affected the robustness of this analysis. Important limitations and uncertainties are outlined below.
• Shipment data were used to estimate the number of electronic products sold. These data do
not describe the number of products actually sold by retailers; however shipment data are a
reasonable indicator of product sales.
• We calculated the simple-average weight for each product category across different model sizes.
This approach may either overestimate or underestimate the actual product category weight,
depending on whether smaller- or larger-sized models are sold more frequently in a product
category. A more accurate approach would be to develop weighted averages based on the sales
shares of various models within each product category; however, sufficient data was not
available to develop weighted averages for the product categories in this report.
• Mobile device weights do not include smartphones or PDAs; they currently only reflect cell
phone weights, based on data provided by Consumer Reports. Since smartphones and PDAs are
likely to be somewhat heavier than recent models of cell phones, this assumption may have
caused an underestimate in the aggregate weight of mobile devices in the model.
32
-------
• We used lifespan data based on the brand sort data from Florida DEP for the period 2004 to
2006. To the extent that used electronic products generation and management practices in
Florida five years ago differ from national practices today, these data may not be representative
of current national electronic product lifespans. At the same time, the Florida DEP data set has
been analyzed against other "waste" sorts from different states with no statistically-significant
difference found (EPA, 2008; p. II). After consulting other sources, we determined that the
Florida DEP brand sort data represents the best-available data on electronic products' lifespans.
• We have limited data on typical use, storage, and management practices in commercial
institutions. As a result, our assumptions of use and storage of commercial products have a high
degree of uncertainty. Actual use, storage, and end-of-life management practices will depend
upon the practices of individual commercial institutions and will likely vary based on available
recycling infrastructure, municipal- and state-level recycling policies, and the institution's own
internal policies.
• Our estimate of the share of electronic products collected for recycling from commercial
sources is based on the results from the survey of recyclers conducted for this report. The
accuracy of this estimate will depend upon the extent that the aggregated survey results are
representative of national electronics recycling operations.
• We have limited data on use and storage times for mobile devices. As a result, our assumptions
of use and storage of mobile devices have a high degree of uncertainty. Actual use, storage, and
end-of-life management practices will depend greatly upon the practices of individual consumers,
and commercial businesses, as well as the technical age of mobile devices.
• There were also limited data on the share of electronic products that are collected for recycling
versus disposal. We investigated several sources to help improve the accuracy of the
assumptions in the model. For example, several states mandate the collection of information on
electronics recycling, including the quantity of electronic products collected; in addition, mobile
device manufacturers and carriers that sponsor take-back programs and often publicly report
the results. The survey of electronics recyclers conducted for this study also provided an
estimate of the amounts collected for recycling.
However, due to overlaps, inconsistencies, and gaps between the sources, it was not possible to
extrapolate the data to a national level. The product types covered by electronics recycling laws
and the methods for reporting the quantity of electronic products collected vary from state to
state. Additionally, we didn't account for collection activities in states with mandated programs
that are not captured in the state's reported collection figures. Also, our results are particularly
sensitive to our assumption that one pound of electronic products is collected for recycling per
capita from residential sources in states that do not report the quantity of electronic products
collected for recycling, and the assumption that roughly 67 percent of electronic products
collected for recycling come from commercial sources.
• To estimate the share of mobile devices at end-of-life that are collected for recycling, we
extrapolated the results gathered through a survey of three large mobile device recyclers. We
believe there is considerable uncertainty in the estimated quantity of mobile devices collected
for recycling in the United States.
• The popularity of particular types of electronic products continues to evolve rapidly; for
example, touch-screen devices are increasing in popularity and are likely to affect the use,
storage, and disposal of the devices that they replace, in ways that are not yet reflected in the
model.
• We did not estimate international shipments of electronic products collected for recycling and
then exported for reuse or recycling.
33
-------
In this report, we provide a broad overview and improve the state of knowledge of how consumer
electronic products are used and managed at their end-of-life in the United States. We have identified
where considerable uncertainty exists in our model and assumptions. The updated data and model
refinements implemented in this version of the report have helped to improve on several of the
limitations encountered in the 2008 report.
Although this report provides a picture of the current situation in the United States, using the best data
available, its broad scope does not account for variations at the regional, state, and local levels that are
likely to influence the larger picture. State-level policies on the management of end-of-life electronic
products differ dramatically across the United States, and regional differences in population density
(especially between urban and rural areas), patterns of electronic products use, and the availability of
recycling services affect the available opportunities for electronics collection.
Finally, the findings of this report are limited by the availability of hard data on the use and end-of-life
management of electronic products. There is a need for improved and consistent reporting of
electronic products collection and recycling. Comprehensive, nationally-representative data on the
lifespans of electronic products, the patterns of use across residential and commercial institutions, and
the quantity of electronic products collected for recycling do not yet exist. Further research, data
gathering, and collaboration between stakeholders will be essential in developing a clearer picture of the
management of used electronics at their end-of-life in the United States in the future.
34
-------
Appliance Magazine (2008), 56th Annual Appliance Industry Forecast.
CEA (2005) U.S. Consumer Electronics Sales 1980-2004. Consumer Electronics Association,
spreadsheet developed for EPA.
CEA (2009) U.S. Consumer Electronics Sales & Forecast 2004-2009. Consumer Electronics Association
(CEA).
Consumer Reports (2007) Buying Guide 2008. Consumer Reports.
Consumer Reports (2008) Buying Guide 2009 (2009th ed.). Consumer Reports.
EPA (2007) Management of Electronic Waste in the United States: Approach Two Draft Final Report.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA530-R-07-004b.
EPA (2008) Electronics Waste Management in the United States: Approach I. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). EPA530-R-08-009.
EPA (2009) Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2008 Facts and Figures, Data Tables. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Retrieved from
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw2008data.pdf
Daoud, D. (2007) The IT Asset Disposition Market: Bracing for Upcoming Growth. IDC.
Display Search (2007) October 2007, US Shipments for North America. Display Search.
DuBravac, S. (2005) From Here to There: Facts on Product Life Cycles and Recycling. Presentation at
2005 E-Scrap North American Electronics Recycling Conference. Consumer Electronics
Association (CEA).
DuBravac S. (2006) Personal communication by phone with Shawn DuBravac of the Consumer
Electronics Association (CEA) on September I 1, 2006.
Florida DEP (2009) Florida Electronic Product Brand Distribution Project, Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP). Retrieved August 18, 2009, from
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/electronics/pages/FLBrandSort.htm
Fishbein, B. K. (2002) Waste in the Wireless World: The Challenge of Cell Phones. INFORM. Retrieved
from http://www.informinc.org/wirelesswaste.php
Guo, J. L, L H. Lapera, A. Manning, P. Nappakaokeskui, and M. Wyche (1998) Fall 1998 Report
Forecasts: The Computer Hardware Industry. Syracuse University Press.
HP (2009) When to Consider a Thin Client Solution? Retrieved from
http://www.hp.com/sbso/solutions/pc expertise/article/thinclients consider.html.
IDC (2006a) IDC Worldwide PC Forecast 2003-2010. IDC. Retrieved from
http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerld=IDC_PI7894
IDC (2006b) Worldwide Printer 2006-2010 Forecast and Analysis. Report number 203992. IDC.
Retrieved from http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerld=IDC P443I
IDC (2007) Worldwide PC Monitor Forecast and Analysis 2006-201 I. IDC.
IDC (2009) IDC Computer Subform Factor Forecast.
IAER (2006) IAER Electronics Recycling Report. International Association of Electronics Recyclers
(IAER).
35
-------
Illinois EPA (2010) "Understanding Illinois' E-waste Goal Formulas", available at
http://www.epa.state.il.us/land/electronic-waste-recycling/understanding-goal-formulas.html.
Accessed May 20, 2010.
I supply (2006) 2005 TV market data.
Johnson, J. (2009) "Tempest in a TV-pot?" Waste & Recycling News. September 14, 2009.
Linnel, J. and J. Nash (2009) Performance Measures for Electronics Recycling Programs: Howe Can We
Measure Effectiveness? Product Stewardship Institute and the National Center for Electronics
Recycling. September 21, 2009. Retrieved from
http://www.electronicsrecycling.org/public/UserDocuments/PERFORMANCE_MEASURES_WO
RKSHOP 2009 9-21-09FNLI .pptx.
Lynch (2004) Islands in the Wastestream: Baseline study of noncommercial computer reuse in the
United States, CompuMentor, Fall 2004.
Maine DEP (2008) 2006-2008 Summary by Consolidator. Maine's Household E-Waste Recycling
Program. April I Oth, 2008. Retrieved from http://www.maine.gov/dep/rwm/ewaste/pdf/06-
08totalsbyconsolidator.pdf.
MassDEP (2009) Electronics Recycling. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality. Retrieved
from http://www.mass.gov/dep/recycle/reduce/electron.htm.
Matthews, H. S., and D.H. Matthews (2003) Information Technology Products and the Environment. In
Kuehr, R. and Williams, E. (eds.) Computers and the Environment, Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 17-39.
MDE (2007) Maryland Waste Diversion Activities Report. Maryland Department of the Environment.
December 2007.
Minnesota PCA (2009) Minnesota Electronics Recycling Act. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/rcc/resources/meetings/rcc-2009/hickle-elect.pdf.
Moss, M. (2010) Personal communication between Michael Moss of Samsung and Jenny Stephenson of
USEPA, January 29, 2010.
NCER (2010) Per capita collection index (PPCI). National Center on Electronics Recycling (NCER).
Retrieved from http://www.electronicsrecycling.org/public/ContentPage.aspx?pageid=IQ7.
NCER and NERC (2010) Electronics Recycling Coordination Clearinghouse, 2009 Per Capita
Collections. Retrieved from http://www.ecycleclearinghouse.org/content.aspx?pageid=59
Neira, J., L Favret, M. Fuji, R. Miller, S. Mahdavi, and V.D. Blass (2006) End-of-Life Management of Cell
Phones in the United States. Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and Management.
Retrieved from http://www.bren.ucsb.edu/research/documents/cellphonethesis.pdf.
NERIC (2009) State Recycling Law Implementation Status. National Electronics Recycling Information
Clearinghouse. April 2009. Retrieved from
http://www.ecyclingresource.org/ContentPage.aspx? Pageld=23.
Oregon E-cycles (2008) News. Retrieved from
http://www.electronicsrecycling.org/Oregon/public/ContentPage.aspx?pageid=6.
Powers (2006) Personal communication by phone with John Powers of the International Association of
Electronics Recyclers.
Recycle Indiana (2010) "Electronic Waste Program", available at http://www.in.gov/recycle/64l I.htm.
Accessed May 20, 2010.
36
-------
Saphores, J.-D.M., H. Nixon, O.A. Ogunseitan, and A.A. Shapiro (2009) "How much e-waste is there in
US basements and attics? Results from a national survey." Journal of Environmental Management,
90, 3322-3331.
Singhal, P. (2005) Integrated Product Policy Pilot Project, Stage II Final Report: Options for Improving
Life-cycle Environmental Performance of Mobile Phones. Retrieved from
http://www.esm.ucsb.edu/academics/courses/282/Readings/Singhal-Nokia-2005b.pdf
Texas Campaign for the Environment. (2010). Making Take Back Work in Texas: First-year results of the
Computer Takeback Law and how Texas can do better. Texas Campaign for the Environment
(TCE). Retrieved from http://www.texasenvironment.org/pr_story.cfm?IID=927
Virginia DEQ. (2010). Virginia's Computer Recovery and Recycling Act (2008): Computer Manufacturers
Notifications. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. Retrieved from
http://www.deq.state.va.us/ecycling/computerManufacturersNotifications.html
Vokes, K. (2009) Personal communication with Kathleen Vokes, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington MMFA (2010) E-Cycle Washington January 2010 and YTD. Washington Materials
Management and Financing Authority. Retrieved from
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/swfa/eproductrecycle/docs/2009Collections.pdf.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (2010) "Recycling Targets, Carryover Credits and Shortfall
Fees" available at http://dnr.wi.gov/org/aw/wm/ecycle/targets.htm. Accessed May 20, 2010.
37
-------
Table A1: Key
In use
In storage
End-of-life
management
Collected for
recycling
Material
recovery
Reuse or
refurbishment
Disposal
terms used in this report
Electronic products that are still in use, either by their first owner or by a subsequent
owner to whom the first owner has given or sold the product; but excluding electronic
products that are in storage.
Electronic products that have been placed in storage; i.e., they are not in use, but have
not yet been sent for end-of-life management.
Electronic products are ready for end-of-life management when they are removed from
use or storage and sent for disposal or recycling.
The post-consumer collection or otherwise handling of electronic products for
subsequent reuse, refurbishment, and/or material recovery.
Processing disassembled pieces or shredded material into a commodity or new
product
Involves minor improvements, cleaning, and replacement of minor parts in preparation
for electronic product resale.
Landfilling electronic products or collecting combustible materials for waste-to-energy
incineration.
Table A2: Product categories included in this report
Category
Product
Type
Description
Scope of Product Type
Computers
Desktop
CPUs
Portables
Non-portable personal
computers (PCs),
excluding external
monitor
Portable, notebook,
and laptop computers
Includes "white boxes", or non-brand-name PCs
assembled by vendors that purchase
components; does not include mainframe
computers, servers, thin clients9
Includes tablets, netbooks, ultra-compact
laptops;
does not include eBook readers, smartphones
Hard-copy
devices
Hard-copy
devices
Electronic devices
used to produce or
transfer printed
documents
Includes printers, fax machines, scanners and
digital copiers, multi-function devices; does not
include stand-alone copier machines, modems,
PC upgrade components, sound cards, external
storage, and external hard drives
Keyboards
and mice
Keyboards
Mice
External keyboards for
use with PCs
External mice for use
with PCs
Includes all keyboard categories
Includes all mice categories
9 A thin client is a network computer that does not contain a hard drive disk Thin clients connect over a network
to a server where most of the data processing occurs (HP 2009).
38
-------
Computer
displays
CRT
monitors
Flat-panel
monitors
Cathode ray tube
(CRT) monitors for use
with PCs
Flat-panel monitors for
use with PCs
Includes all PC CRT monitor types
Includes all PC flat-panel types
Cathode Ray
Tube (CRT)
TVs
CRT or direct-view
televisions
Includes digital direct-view CRT TVs, portable,
table, and console, and CRT TV VCR/ DVD
combination products
Televisions
Flat-panel
TVs
Projection
TVs
Thin, flat, non-CRT
TVs, other than
projection TVs
Self-contained TVs
that project the image
onto the screen
through a series of
lenses and mirrors
Includes liquid-crystal displays (LCDs), plasma
TVs, organic light-emitting diode TVs (OLED),
and flat-panel TV combination products; does
not include handheld TVs
Includes rear projection TVs; does not include
front projection TVs
Monochrome
TVs
Black-and-white
televisions
Includes black and white TVs
Mobile Mobile Portable, handheld
devices devices wireless telephones
Includes standard wireless telephones (i.e., cell
phones), personal digital assistants (PDAs),
smartphones, pagers; does not include
handheld TVs, portable MP3 and music players
(iPods), digital cameras and camcorders
39
-------
Appendix B: Summary of Updates to the Previous
Study
This section describes the methodological changes and new data sources that have been used in this
report to update EPA (2008) Electronics Waste Management in the United States: Approach I. The main
purpose of this report was to extend the data found in the 2008 report through 2009, and to project it
into 2010.
The product scope remained the same, and—for the most part—the methodology and data sources
used in this report are the same as those in the 2008 report. However, some changes and
improvements were made and those are outlined below:
Sales Data
• Historical sales data sources remained the same for this report compared to the 2008
report. See Appendix C for details on sales data sources. For recent model years, we
updated the number of electronic products sold based on shipments of domestic and
imported electronics for sale in the United States from the following data sources:
o Desktop CPUs, portables for model years 2008 to 2010 (IDC 2006a, Yokes 2009);
o Hard-copy devices for model years 2008 to 2010 (IDC 2006b, Yokes 2009);
o PC CRT monitors for model years 2008 to 2010 (IDC 2007; Yokes 2009);
o PC flat-panel monitors for model years 2007 to 2010 (IDC 2007, Yokes 2009);
o CRT TVs, flat-panel TVs for model years 2008 and 2009 (CEA 2009);
o Projection TVs for model years 2007 to 2009 (CEA 2009);
o Monochrome TVs for model years 2007 to 2010 (CEA 2009);
o Estimated sales of mobile devices for model years 2008 to 2010.
• The 2008 report assumed a fixed, 62-percent share of electronic products are sold to the
residential sector. For this report, we updated our estimates of the shares of electronic
products sales that are residential (i.e., consumer electronic products) versus commercial
based on multiple sources from industry associations and consultants (see Table 3 for
details).
Weight Data
• We updated product weight data for all categories of electronic products through the 2009
model year, as found in Consumer Reports magazine, manufacturer specifications, and
consumer electronic product reviews.
• Historical weight data sources remained the same for all products except for flat-panel TVs.
In updating our weight data, we found that the average weight of flat-panel TVs in 2009 was
nearly three times that reported in the 2008 report, with a 2008 average weight of 75.6 Ibs.
and a 2009 average of 80.6 Ibs. The 2008 report assumed the average weight to be 29 Ibs.
Thus, to assess the historical trend in unit weights, we researched popular flat-panel models
in 2005, and found that the average weight that year was 61.2 Ibs. A linear regression for
years between 1998 and 2005 was developed based on the new data for 2005 through 2009.
We updated the model with this new trend line; the data used in the 2008 report were kept
in place through the 1998 model year, after which the trend of increasing TV weight begins.
40
-------
Storage
• The 2008 report did not include estimates of the number of commercial electronic products
in storage. We surveyed existing literature for information on commercial storage, and
updated this report to include an assumption that a certain portion of these electronic
products are stored. We assumed that commercial desktop CPUs, portables, hard-copy
devices, and computer monitors are kept in use for five years, after which 20 percent are
stored for up to two additional years.
This assumption is based on evidence that storage occurs in commercial institutions. Twenty
percent of the participants in a 2005 survey of U.S. commercial institutions indicated they
kept PC assets that were ready for disposal (Daoud 2007). The survey results reflect the
number of companies that said they store electronic products—they did not indicate the
number or percentage of electronic products stored.
• The 2008 report did not include estimates of the number of mobile devices in storage. In
this report, we assumed that 20 percent of mobile devices are at their end-of-life at the end
of two years, with an additional 70 percent sent to their end-of-life management at the end
of five years, based on Moss (2010). We also assume that the remaining 10 percent of
mobile devices are stored up to a total of 10 years, based on estimates from Niera (2006)
and Singhal (2005) that cell phones can be kept in storage for up to 10 years.
Products Ready for End-of-life Management
• Table Bl shows the percent difference in the estimated quantity of electronic products
ready for end-of-life management, for all products sold between 1980 and 2007, between
the 2008 report, and this updated report.
Our updated assumptions of the share of commercial electronic products have caused slight
changes in the quantity of computer products ready for end-of-life management. Due to our
updated storage assumptions, the number of computer products in use and storage has
increased, and the number of mobile devices ready for end-of-life management has
decreased.
Table Bl: Percent difference in estimated used electronic management practice for all products
sold between 1980 and 2007, for the results from this report, relative to the 2008 report.
Management Computer Products
Practice mits sho|1 tons
Ready for end-of- . .0/ _.-.
life management 1'1/0 3'1 /0
In use and 48 Q%
storage
TVs Mobile Devices Total
Units short tons units short tons units short tons
0.0% 0.0% -31.1% -22.6% -6.8% 1.6%
1.8%
' The percent difference couldn't be calculated due to lack of data in the 2008 report.
End-of-Ufe
• We updated our estimates of the annual quantity of electronic products at their end-of-life
that is collected for recycling rather than disposed of.
The 2008 report relied upon data from EPA's Facts and Figures report (EPA 2009) to
estimate the total amount of electronics collected for recycling. From this, the 2008 report
subtracted the quantity of mobile devices collected for recycling based on expert opinion.
Finally, it assumed that the quantity of each product that was collected for recycling was
proportional to the share that the electronic product comprised of the total number of
products ready for end-of-life management each year.
In this report, we used data from nine state-mandated electronics recycling programs,
covering up to 29 percent of the U.S. population, to estimate the quantity of electronics
products collected for recycling. For the remaining states that do not report on electronics
41
-------
recycling, we assumed that one pound of electronics products per capita are collected from
residences for recycling. We used data on the share of collection from commercial
institutions to estimate the total quantity of electronic products collected for recycling for
states that do not report collection from commercial sources. We investigated the
sensitivity of the results to our assumptions of per-capita residential collection and the share
of collection from commercial sources.
Appendix D provides a detailed description of the updated methodology. In Table B2, we have
compared the rates at which electronic products are collected for recycling used in the 2008 report to
our updated methodology.
Table B2: Comparison of this report's estimated rates at which individual electronic products are
collected for recycling and the previous estimates used in the 2008 report
Category Rate at which each product type is collected for recycling,
as a percent of the total quantity of each product ready for
end-of-life management in 2007
This Report 2008 Report
Computers (desktop CPUs and portables) 36%
Computer displays (CRT and flat-panel monitors) 24%
19%*
Hard-copy devices 38%
Mice and Keyboards 7%
TVs (CRT, flat-panel, and projection TVs) 17% 18%
Mobile devices 7% 10%
* EPA (2008) did not distinguish between the rate at which computers, computer displays, hard-copy
devices, and mice and keyboards are collected. Instead, the report assumed an average collection rate of
19 percent across these categories.
42
-------
Table Cl: Sales data sources and assumptions, by product category and type. '''Projections in sales based
on sales for previous years and available data sources.
Category Product Type
Computers Desktop CPUs
Portables
Hard-copy Hard-copy devices
devices
Keyboards and Mice
mice
Keyboards
Computer PC CRT monitors
Displays
PC flat panels
Model Year
1980-2007
2008-2009
2010*
1992-2007
2008-2010*
1980-1995
1996-2007
2008-2010*
1980-2010
1980-1989
1990-2006
2007-2010
1980-1988
1989-2003
2003-2007
2008-2010*
1989-2006
2006-2010*
Source or Assumption
IDC, as cited in the 2008 report
IDC (2006a); Vokes (2009)
Projected based on 5-year sales growth between 2004 and 2009.
IDC, as cited in the 2008 report
Projection from Vokes (2009), based on IDC (2006a) data
Assumes 1 .9 computers sold for every one hard-copy device,
on IDC data in 1980, as cited in the 2008 report
The 2008 report
Projection from Vokes (2009), based on IDC (2006b) data
Assumes sales are equal to desktop PCs; the 2008 report
Assumes sales are equal to desktop PCs
The 2008 report
based
Assumes growth rate in sales are equal to growth rate in sales of
desktop PCs
Assumes sales are equal to desktop PCs
The 2008 report
IDC data, as cited in the 2008 report
Projection from Vokes (2009), based on IDC (2007) data
The 2008 report
Projection from Vokes (2009), based on IDC (2007) data
Televisions CRT TVs
Flat-panel TVs
Projection TVs
Monochrome TVs
Mobile devices Mobile devices
1980-2007 CEA (2005), as cited in the 2008 report; assumed 50/50 split between
<19" and >=" CRT TVs between 1980 and 1990.
2007-2009 CEA (2009); split between <19" and >=19" CRT TVs based on iSuppli
(2006) and Vokes (2009)
2010* Projected based on 2008/2009 trend
1989-2007 CEA, as cited in the 2008 report
2008-2009 CEA (2009)
2010* Projected based on Display Search (2007) and Vokes (2009)
projections for 2010
1984-2006 CEA data, as cited in the 2008 report
2007-2009 CEA (2009)
2010* Projected based on Display Search (2007) and Vokes (2009)
projections for 2010
1980-2007 CEA data, as cited in the 2008 report
2007-2010 CEA (2009)
1984-1995 Projected backwards from Fishbein (2002) data based on CEA (2005),
as cited in the 2008 report
1996-2007 IDC data, as cited in the 2008 report
2008-2010* Projected based on 2004 to 2009 5-year average growth rate
calculated from CEA (2009)
43
-------
D: for
For this report, we updated our estimates of the quantity of end-of-life electronic products collected for
recycling to incorporate state reports on electronic products recycling and the results from the survey
of recyclers. Since the methodology involves a number of data sources and assumptions, we have
provided a detailed description of our approach in this appendix. The methodology used to estimate the
quantity of electronic products collected for recycling is as follows:
I. We compiled reports on the quantity of electronic products collected through state-mandated
collection programs, where data were available. Information was available from states
representing roughly 29 percent of the U.S. population in 2009 (see Table Dl). These state data
only included residential recycling, except for California, which included both residential and
commercial recycling. In addition, the types of devices allowed varied from state to state. We
did not account for collection activities occurring outside of the state-mandated collection
programs within these states.
2. For states where 2009 collection numbers were not yet available, we extrapolated per-capita
rates for 2009 based on the per-capita rates of collection in 2008 (see Table D2).
3. For the remaining states where information was unavailable, we applied an assumption of one
pound of electronic products collected per capita from residential sources. For states that do
not have electronics recycling laws or reporting in place, this assumption corresponds to a
collection rate that is roughly equivalent to the per-capita collections in states reporting low
levels of collection (i.e. Maryland, Virginia, and Texas), and between one third to one sixth the
per capita rate of states reporting higher levels of collection (i.e., Maine, Minnesota, Washington,
Oregon, and Delaware).
4. To estimate commercial recycling, we assumed that 67 percent of the products collected for
recycling come from commercial sources, based on the results from the survey of seven
recyclers. For states where the quantity of commercial electronics collected was not reported,
we back-calculated the total collection for recycling from the quantity of residential products
collected based on this 67-percent assumption.
Table Dl: Tonnages of electronic products collected for recycling, as reported in state electronics
recycling reports. * Estimated assuming a constant per
-------
Table D2: Per capita rates of electronics collection for recycling. *Assumed per
-------
Table D3: Residential Collection Rate Scenario - Estimated tonnages of electronic products
collected for recycling, and the rate of collection for recycling as a percent of total electronics ready
for end-of-life management in 2009.
Residential
Commercial
Total
2006
short tons
2007
short tons
2008
short tons
Default Scenario (i.e., residential per-capita collection rate
197,874 243,547 256,400
271,825 307,119 301,231
469,699 550,665 557,630
2009
short tons
is one Ibs)
250,719
344,576
595,295
Rate of electronics
collection for
recycling in 2009
25%
Residential Collection Rate Scenario - Upper Bound (i.e., residential per-capita collection rate of two Ibs)
Residential 325,290 369,720 386,584 360,429
Commercial 530,520 563,288 565,544 567,321
Total 855,810 933,008 952,127 927,750 39%
Residential Collection Rate Scenario - Lower Bound (i.e. residential per-capita collection rate of 0.5 Ibs)
Residential 134,165 180,460 191,308 195,864
Commercial 142,478 179,034 169,074 233,204
Total 276,643 359,494 360,382 429,067 18%
Table D4: Commercial Share of Collection Scenario - Estimated tonnages of electronic products
collected for recycling, and the rate of collection for recycling as a percent of total electronics ready
for end-of-life management in 2009.
Residential
Commercial
Total
2006
short tons
Default Scenario
197,874
271,825
469,699
2007
short tons
(i.e., commercial
243,547
307,119
550,665
2008
short tons
share of collection
256,400
301 ,231
557,630
2009
short tons
is 67 percent of total)
250,719
344,576
595,295
Rate of electronics
collection for
recycling in 2009
%
-
-
25%
Commercial Share of Collection Scenario - Upper Bound (i.e., commercial share collection is three quarters of total)
Residential 197,874 243,547 256,400 250,719
Commercial 395,381 429,468 427,470 450,962
Total 593,254 673,015 683,869 701,681 30%
Commercial Share of Collection Scenario- Lower Bound (i.e., commercial share of collection is half of total)
Residential 197,874 243,547 256,400 250,719
Commercial 140,547 177,122 167,102 231,541
Total 338,421 420,669 423,501 482,260 20%
46
-------
Table D5: Summary of the assumptions for per-capita residential collection, and the share of
electronic products collected for recycling from commercial institutions in the default case and
sensitivity analyses.
1,000,000
900,000
100,000
Pounds per-capita of residential
electronics collected for recycling
(Ibs per capita)
Share of electronics collected for
recycling from commercial institutions
Default value 1.0
High
value 2.0
Low value 0.5
67%
75%
50%
2006
2007
2008
2009
Figure Dl: Comparison of the estimated tonnages of electronic products collected for recycling
from this report with EPA (2008) Approach I -with error bars reflecting residential collection rate
scenarios. EPA (2008) data based on EPA (2009) Error bars represent the range of tonnage of electronics collected for
recycling under the high and low bounds of the Residential Collection Rate scenario.
47
-------
1,000,000
900,000
800,000
700,000
o 600,000
t
o
;§. 500,000
OJ
o 400,000
OJ
OL
300,000
200,000
100,000
2006
2007
2008
2009
Figure D2: Comparison of the estimated tonnages of electronic products collected for recycling
from this report with EPA (2008) Approach I -with error bars reflecting commercial collection
rate scenarios. EPA (2008) data based on EPA (2009) Error bars represent the range of tonnage of electronics collected
for recycling under the high and low bounds of the Commercial Collection Rate scenarios.
7. We projected the rate that electronic products would be collected for recycling in 2010 by
calculating the average growth rate in our estimates of collection for recycling between 2006
and 2008—the years for which the highest number of states reported data. Based on this trend,
the rate at which electronic products are collected for recycling will increase by nine percent, to
roughly 649 thousand short tons in 2010.
Although our results reflect recent trends in the increasing quantities of electronic products
collected for recycling, this amount could increase further if major electronics recycling
programs achieve 2010 collection targets that they have recently established. For example, the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency has set a statewide goal to collect 16,000 short tons in
2010 (roughly 2.5 pounds per capita) (Illinois EPA 2010); the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (2010) estimates that it will collect between 15 and 18 million pounds in the first half
to 2010 by targeting 80% of covered electronics products sold to households and public schools
(K to 12), and Indiana has set a target of collecting 60% of covered electronic products sold to
households starting in April 2010 (Recycle Indiana (2010).
8. To estimate the quantity of mobile devices collected for recycling, we used two pieces of
information from the survey of mobile device recyclers that was conducted for the report:
a. The number of products collected for recycling between 2007 and 2009, and
b. The self-estimated market share of the largest of the recyclers between 2007 and 2009.
48
-------
Using this data, we back-calculated the total number of mobile devices collected for recycling in
2007 through 2009 (i.e., the total recycling market). This gave us an estimate of 8.3 million
devices—or seven percent of the mobile devices at their end-of-life—collected for recycling in
2007, increasing to I 1.8 million devices, or an eight-percent rate of collection for recycling, in
2009. This estimate has a high degree of uncertainty, due to a lack of knowledge about the true
total number of mobile devices collected for recycling and the market shares of individual
recyclers.
9. Next, we used a growth trend in the collection of mobile devices for recycling from 2006 to
2008 to extrapolate the rate of collection from 2006 to 2010. We used information on the
quantity of mobile devices collected in take-back programs run by mobile device manufacturers
and carriers. Based on this data, we projected an I I -percent rate of mobile device collection for
recycling in 2010.
10. Finally, we estimated the individual rates of collection for recycling across the other product
types covered in this report:
a. First, we subtracted the quantity of mobile devices collected for recycling from the total
quantity of electronics products collected.
b. Next, we calculated the average distribution of electronic products collected for
recycling—excluding mobile devices—from the results of the survey of electronics
recyclers conducted for this report (see Table 7).
We then applied this average distribution to the amount of electronic products collected for
recycling (excluding mobile devices) in each year between 2006 and 2010 to estimate the
quantity of each product type collected for recycling. The results are shown in Table I I for each
product type.
49
------- |