A EPA/600/R-16/201 | August 2016 | www.epa.gov/research
OtrA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Preliminary Assessment of the Flow
of Used Electronics in Selected
States: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin
Prepared by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Cincinnati, OH
and
RTI International
3040 E. Comwallis Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Tl Project Number 0213199.004.008.005
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Land Remediation and Pollution Control Division
-------
August 2016
EPA/600/R-16/201
Preliminary Assessment
of the Flow of Used Electronics
in Selected States: Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota,
Ohio, and Wisconsin
August 2016
Prepared by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Cincinnati, OH
and
RTI International
3040 E. Cornwallis Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
iv
-------
August 2016
EPA/600/R-16/201
NOTICE/DISCLAIMER
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, through its Office of
Research and Development, funded and conducted the research
described herein under an approved Quality Assurance Project Plan
(Quality Assurance Identification Number L-20925). This report has
been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review and
has been approved for publication as an EPA document. Mention of
trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement
or recommendation for use.
V
-------
August 2016
EPA/600/R-16/201
CONTENTS
Section Page
Notice/Disclaimer v
Abbreviations and Acronyms 1
1. Introduction 1-1
1.1 Report Objectives and Scope 1-3
1.1 Conceptual Model of E-Waste Generation and Management 1-5
1.2 Report Organization 1-7
1.3 Quality Assurance and Data Limitations 1-7
2. E-Waste Flows and Management Programs 2-1
2.1 Collection Trends and Data Availability 2-2
2.2 Access to Collection and Recycling Sites 2-5
2.3 Costs of Manufacturer-Funded Collection 2-5
2.4 Outreach and Education (for Consumers and Manufacturers) 2-6
3. E-Waste Flow Model—A Proof-of-Concept Tool for Estimating The Flow
of Used Electronics 3-1
3.1 Background of Materials Flows Analysis Methodologies 3-1
3.2 E-Waste Flow Model Documentation 3-3
3.3 Model Structure 3-3
3.4 Modeling Methodology 3-5
3.5 Data and Assumptions 3-6
3.5.1 Product Sales 3-7
3.5.2 Product Weights 3-8
3.5.3 Product Lifetimes 3-10
3.5.4 Market Segmentation 3-11
3.6 Model Results 3-12
3.6.1 National-Level Results 3-12
3.6.2 State-Level Results 3-14
4. Discussion and Recommended Next Steps 4-1
4.1 Data Gaps and Limitations 4-3
vi
-------
August 2016
EPA/600/R-16/201
4.1.1 Limited Use of Regional Data 4-4
4.1.2 Lack of Product Sale Projections 4-4
4.1.3 Characterization of Regional Flows of E-Waste 4-4
4.1.4 Exclusion of Recycling Market Economics 4-5
4.2 Potential Institutional and Market Changes 4-5
4.3 Recommended Next Steps 4-6
References 1
Appendices
A Additional Detail on Selected State and National Programs A-l
B Supporting Data and Documentation for the Material Flows Analysis B-l
-------
August 2016
EPA/600/R-16/201
FIGURES
Number Page
Figure 1-1. Total Consumer Electronics Recovered and Discarded Between 2000
and 2013 1-2
Figure 1-2. Framework for the Management of the End of Useful Life of Used
Electronics 1-6
Figure 2-1. State-reported Actual Weight of CEDs and EEDs Collected Through
2014 2-3
Figure 2-2. State-reported Actual Weight of CEDs and EEDs Recycled Through
2014 2-4
Figure 3-1. Generic Materials Flow of Used Electronic Equipment 3-4
Figure 3-2. Percentage of Products Ready for End-of-life Management After
Each Year of Sale 3-11
Figure 3-3. eMFW Modeled Estimate of E-Waste Available for EOL Management:
1995 to 2014 3-13
Figure 3-4. Total E-Waste Disposition by Product Type 1995 to 2015 3-14
Figure 3-6. 2014 E-Waste Model Results (in Thousand mt) by Product Type and
State 3-17
Figure A-2. E-waste Collection Sites Registered Under the Illinois Electronic
Waste Management Program (as of July 2015) 12
viii
-------
August 2016
EPA/600/R-16/201
TABLES
Number Page
Table 2-1. E-waste Legislation and Implementing Programs in the Selected States 2-1
Table 3-1. Available MFA Methods to Assess E-Waste Flows 3-2
Table 3-2. Data Requirements, Data Sources, and Potential Approaches to Fill
Data Gaps in the Future 3-6
Table 3-3. U.S. Electronic Sales Data from 2008 Through 2014 (Million Units) 3-8
Table 3-4. Average Weight by Product Category in 2014 (kg) 3-9
Table 3-6. Total Disposition Weight (in mt) by Selected State in 2014 3-15
Table 4-1. Comparison of Model Results with State-reported Data 4-3
ix
-------
References
Abbreviations and Acronyms
ADR Annual District Report
CEA Consumer Electronics Agency
CED Covered electronic device
CEQ White House Council on Environmental Quality
CRT Cathode ray tube
EED Eligible electronic device
EO Executive Order
EOL End-of-life
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
eWFM e-waste flow model
GDP Gross domestic product
GSA General Services Administration
IDC International Data Corporation
IDEM Indiana Department of Environmental Management
IEPA Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
IL Illinois
IN Indiana
ITAD Information technology asset disposition
K-12 kindergarten through twelfth grade
kg Kilogram
LCD Liquid-crystal display
LED Light-emitting diode
MFA Material flows analysis
MI Michigan
MI DEQ Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
MN Minnesota
MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
mt Metric tons
N/A Not applicable
NSES National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship
OEM Original equipment manufacturer
OH Ohio
OLED Organic light-emitting diode
x
-------
PC
PDA
RCRA
RERA
RoHS
SOTF
StEP
TVs
WEEE
WI
WI DNR
Executive Summary
Personal computer
Personal digital assistant
Responsible Conservation and Recovery Act
Responsible Electronics Recycling Act
Restriction of Hazardous Substances
Sales obsolescence and transboundary flows
Solving the e-waste problem
Televisions
Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment
Wisconsin
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
ES-3
-------
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Electronic waste (e-waste) is the largest growing municipal waste stream in the United
States (GSA, 2015) with an estimated amount of 3.1 million short tons being generated in
2013 (EPA, 2015). The improper disposal of e-waste has environmental, economic, and
social impacts, both domestically and internationally. Many of the devices that end up as e-
waste contain recyclable components and valuable commodities such as plastics, glass,
precious metals, and technology metals that can be used to manufacture new products.
Environmentally, these valuable materials can offset the use of virgin materials in various
manufacturing processes and potentially prevent environmental contamination if they are
safely managed. Economically, recovery and recycling have important impacts through the
creation of jobs and end markets for the materials of value. Socially, the impacts are mostly
tied to the quality of life (e.g., human health) of individuals and communities when e-waste
is exported to areas without mechanisms to safely and effectively manage and handle the
waste. For these reasons, the need for proper end-of-life (EOL) management of these
devices, which includes opportunities for beneficial use of materials, has become
increasingly important to individual consumers, communities, policy makers, and
manufacturers.
Increases in household income, coupled with rapid technology development and falling
prices, have led to growth in the consumption of consumer electronics in the United States
over the past two decades. The rapid growth in the consumer electronics markets and
diversification in products manufactured has contributed to an equally rapid increase of
obsolete equipment and devices ready for EOL management. Our increased reliance on
electronic devices compels the need to take a long-term sustainable approach towards
electronics stewardship across their life cycle.
In 2009, the White House established the Interagency Task Force on Electronics
Stewardship. In 2011, this Task Force issued the National Strategy for Electronics
Stewardship (NSES), which outlined a strategy for achieving the goals identified in President
Barack Obama's 2009 Executive Order (EO) 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental
Energy and Economic Performance.1 The national strategy is based on the following four
goals: (1) building incentives for designing greener electronics and enhancing science,
1 EO 13514 has been revoked by 2015 EO 13693, Planning for Federal Sustainability in the
Next Decade. Although EO 13693 primarily sets specific goals for maintaining Federal
Leadership in sustainability and greenhouse gas emission reductions over the next 10 years,
it does not change the goals related to electronics stewardship established by EO 13514.
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
ES-3
-------
Executive Summary
research, and technology development in the United States; (2) ensuring that the federal
government leads by example; (3) increasing safe and effective management and handling
of used electronics in the United States; and (4) reducing harm from U.S. exports of e-
waste and improving handling of used electronics in developing countries (NSES, 2011 and
2014).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Research and Development, in
support of Goals 3 and 4 of NSES has been working to improve our understanding of the
quantity and flow of electronic devices from initial purchase to final disposition.
Understanding the pathways of used electronics from the consumer to their final disposition
would provide insight to decision makers about their impacts and support efforts to
encourage improvements in policy, technology, and beneficial use.
EPA's effort included three major activities. The first activity involved an evaluation of
information on state e-waste legislation, financing mechanisms, implementation challenges,
and available data related to collected and recycled quantities of covered electronic devices.
The second activity involved a general search for existing data, methods, and tools for
estimating the amount of electronic devices over their product life cycle. Through the first
two activities, it was determined that a comprehensive and cost-effective mechanism was
not available for tracking the flow and the reporting of used electronics and e-waste
generation (coming out of use or post-use storage) and EOL management (domestically or
elsewhere). The third activity is intended to address this information gap by developing a
conceptual input-output model to assist information organization and analysis.
This report supports the EPA Office of Research and Development's efforts to understand
the flows of used electronics and e-waste by reviewing the regulatory programs for the
selected states and identifying the key lessons learned and best practices that have
emerged since their inception. Additionally, a proof-of-concept e-waste flow model has been
developed and is presented in this report. The model is intended to provide estimates of the
quantity of e-waste generated annually at the national level, as well as for selected states.
This report documents a preliminary assessment of available data and development of the
model that can be used as a starting point to estimate domestic flows of used electronics
from generation, to collection and reuse, to final disposition.
The model is designed to produce national-, regional-, and state-level data on the annual
amount of electronic products entering EOL management. The electronics waste flow model
can estimate the amount of electronic products entering the EOL management phase based
on unit sales data in combination with estimates of years of useful life and average product
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
ES-3
-------
Executive Summary
weights. The model estimates e-waste at the state level by using the gross domestic
product as a proxy for the distribution of product sales across individual states.
The model predicted that the national-level estimate for the total e-waste amount has risen
from 680,000 metric tons (mt) to more than 2.5 million mt over the past 20 years.
Comparing the 2013 estimates from the EPA study (2015) results, the current model
estimates are 350,000 mt less, which could be attributed to updates made to product
weights and lifetimes. The combined amount of e-waste estimated by the flow model to be
entering EOL management for the six states evaluated here (i.e., Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin) represents approximately 11 percent of the nation's total
amount in 2014 (or 318,000 mt). Additionally, based on the preliminary modeling results,
the most notable contributions to new growth in the e-waste quantities ready for EOL
management over the past 10 years are flat-panel personal computers (PCs), monitors, and
flat-panel televisions. Portable PCs, which include laptops, are another growth category;
however, the emphasis on size and portability for this product category has resulted in the
relatively small contribution to total weight.
The study showed that although collection occurs within state boundaries, the recycling
process involves the transboundary movement of used electronics. Depending on the scale
of the recycling operation, the process could involve the receipt of used electronics across
state lines for processing and could be preprocessed; disassembled components could be
sold to a tertiary processor in another location. It is important to note that because of the
dynamic nature of the recycling industry and the commodities markets, the flow of e-waste
may frequently change, which requires flexible and adaptable flow tracking. The current
proof-of-concept version of the e-waste flow model provides national, regional, and state-
level e-waste estimates. These estimates are intended to assist the key stakeholders in their
understanding of electronic material flows. However, there are several recommended next
steps that are critical to continued refinement of the model. These next steps can be
categorized into three areas that include improved functionality, calibration using other data
sets, and the development of modules for evaluating transport of e-waste flows across state
and national boundaries. Completing these steps will enhance the characterization of e-
waste flows in terms of location, final disposition to landfills and incinerators, and utilization
in new products.
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
ES-3
-------
References
1. INTRODUCTION
Electronic waste (e-waste)2 is the fastest growing waste stream in the United States (GSA,
2015). Although the specific number and types of products vary significantly from person to
person and business to business, our reliance on electronic technology is not going away,
and neither are the products themselves. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
estimates that 3.1 million tons of consumer e-waste were generated in 2013, rising steadily
from 1.9 million tons produced in 2000 (EPA, 2015). Ongoing technological advancements,
and in some cases, the reduction in price, are shortening the life span of many electronic
products, contributing to the rise of e-waste generation in the United States. Although the
rate of recovery among selected consumer electronics continues to increase, today
averaging approximately 40 percent, the total amount of discarded consumer electronics is
also rising (Figure 1-1). In 2013, more than 1.8 million tons of selected consumer
electronics were discarded, ending up in landfills or incinerators (EPA, 2015a). The rate of
selected consumer electronics recovery was approximately 40 percent in 2013 (1.27 million
tons), which equates to approximately 8 pounds per person per year recovered in 2013
(EPA, 2015).
The improper management of e-waste has environmental, economic, and social impacts
domestically and internationally. Electronic components may contain heavy metals such as
lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium (Khaliq et al., 2014; Pinto, 2008; Shuey and
Taylor, 2004; Iji and Yokoyama, 1997; Ewasteguide.info, 1996), useful precious and rare
earth metals. Recovering and reusing these valuable materials can offset the use of virgin
materials in various manufacturing processes and potentially prevent environmental
contamination if they are safely managed (disposed of in a lined landfill with leachate
collection, or incinerated with the proper emission controls). Economically, recovery and
recycling have important impacts through the creation of jobs and end markets for the
materials of value. Social impacts are mostly tied to the quality of life (e.g., human health)
of individuals and communities that are affected by the improper export of e-waste to areas
without mechanisms to safely and effectively manage and handle the waste (e.g.,
developing countries).
2 The term "e-waste" is used generically throughout this report to refer to discarded
electronic devices and related materials and components that are ready for end-of-life
management.
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
1-1
-------
Section 1 — Introduction
Figure 1-1. Total Consumer Electronics Recovered and Discarded Between 2000
and 2013
45%
M 40%
SI
2000 2005 2008 2010 2011 2012 2013
Amount Recovered Amount Discarded U Percent Recovered
Sources: EPA, 2015; EPA, 2014.
Note: Amount Recovered relates to the tonnage collected for recycling or reuse. Amount Discarded
refers to the amount going to municipal solid waste landfills or waste incinerators.
With respect to used electronics, the main federal law governing solid waste, the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), only addresses cathode ray tubes (CRTs).
Individual state regulations may differ by product coverage and may ban all exports of used
electronics or e-waste from the United States. Used electronics, which are sold for to a
secondary owner, and e-waste may be exported directly from the United States to
developing countries, or it can be exported to an intermediate country that may then re-
export the product. The movement of used electronics or e-waste across national
boundaries can happen legally, or illegally.3 Regardless of whether the products are moved
legally or illegally, a comprehensive and cost-effective mechanism for tracking and reporting
used electronics and e-waste from generation in the United States to end-of-life (EOL)
management (domestically or elsewhere) is not available. Understanding the pathways of
3 In 2013, the Responsible Electronics Recycling Act (RERA) was introduced to the 113th
Congress (HR 2791, httDs://www.conaress.aov/113/bills/hr2791/BILLS-113hr2791ih.xmn.
RERA would have made it illegal to export e-waste from the United States to developing
nations. The Bill received bipartisan support, but it was not passed and was not
reintroduced to the 114th Congress.
3,500
3,000
o 2,500
¦a 2,000
c
ro
to
3
° 1,500
H
1,000
500
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
1-2
-------
Section 1 — Introduction
used electronics from the consumer to their final disposition would provide insight to
decision makers about these impacts and support efforts to encourage improvements in
policy, technology, and beneficial use.
1.1 Report Objectives and Scope
In 2009, Executive Order (EO) 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and
Economic Performance, called for federal agencies to promote electronics stewardship. The
Interagency Task Force on Electronics Stewardship was established by the General Services
Administration (GSA) to develop a National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship. This Task
Force was co-chaired by the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), EPA, and
GSA. In its current form, the Task Force is co-chaired by the Department of Energy (DOE),
EPA, and GSA. An initial report was published in 2011, entitled the National Strategy for
Electronics Stewardship (NSES; Interagency Task Force on Electronics Stewardship, 2011),
a progress report in 2014 (Interagency Task Force on Electronics Stewardship, 2014), and
an update on benchmarks in 2015 (Interagency Task Force on Electronics Stewardship,
2015).
Four goals are included in the NSES 2011 report:
Goal 1—Build incentives for design of greener electronics, and enhance science,
research, and technology development in the United States
Goal 2—Ensure that the federal government leads by example
Goal 3—Increase safe and effective management and handling of used electronics in the
United States; and
Goal 4—Reduce harm from U.S. exports of e-waste and improve safe handling of used
electronics in developing countries.
The primary objectives of this report are to inform activities to achieve Goals 3 and 4 by:
establishing an approach to gather, estimate, and provide public access to information
on quantities and movement of used electronics within the United States; and
developing a proof-of-concept method that in the future will allow the public and other
key stakeholders to access information on quantities and flows of used electronics
online.
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
1-3
-------
Section 1 — Introduction
This report documents a preliminary assessment of available data from a cluster of mid-
West states and the development of a pro of-of-concept method that can be used as a
starting point to track domestic flows of used electronics from generation to collection and
reuse to final disposition (i.e., recycling, landfilling, incineration, export). The states that
were selected for initial analysis (i.e., Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and
Wisconsin) were selected for several reasons. Most of these states codified their e-waste
legislation in the early 2000s, all within 2 to 3 years of each other; for the five states with
legislation (all except Ohio), the programs that are used to implement the laws are similar;
and all of the states have a high level of coordination, cooperation, and sharing of
information across the states; and they are in close geographic proximity.
The data presented in this report generally cover most types of used electronics and e-
waste, but only aim to quantify and propose a methodology to track the four product
categories presented in Table 1-1. These products are commonly included in state e-waste
legislation and programs and are the most commonly used products in the United States
(CTA, 2015). Tablets, although not specifically included in the scope of this report, and
smartphones are the fastest growing consumer electronics segments. Emerging electronic
devices, such as wearable fitness trackers, digital media streaming devices (e.g., Apple TV,
Roku), and in-vehicle communication devices (e.g., navigation, back-up cameras, hands-
free calling) are also growing in popularity. The Consumer Technology Association (CTA)
expects these products to catch up with traditional electronics devices (e.g., TVs, DVD
players, headphones) by 2018. As a result, they may be evaluated in future EPA efforts.
Table 1-1. Scope of Product Coverage Included in This Report
Product
Category
Type
Description
Scope of Product Type3
Televisions
CRT TVs
CRT or direct-view
TVs
¦ Includes digital direct-view CRT TVs,
portable, table, and console, and CRT TV
VCR/DVD combination products
Flat screens
Thin, flat, non-CRT
TVs other than
projection TVs
¦ Includes liquid-crystal displays (LCDs),
plasma TVs, organic light-emitting diode TVs
(OLED), and flat-panel TV combination
products
¦ Does not include handheld TVs
Mobile
phones
Mobile
phones
Portable, handheld
wireless
telephones
¦ Includes standard wireless telephones (i.e.,
cell phones) and smart phones
¦ Does not include portable MP3 and music
players (e.g., iPods) that also allow for voice
calling
(continued)
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
1-4
-------
Section 1 — Introduction
Table 1-1.
Scope of Product Coverage Included in This Report (continued)
Product
Category
Type
Description
Scope of Product Type3
Computers
Desktop
computers
Non-portable
personal
computers (PCs),
excluding the
external monitor
¦ Includes brand name, or non-brand-name
PCs assembled by vendors that purchase
individual components
¦ Does not include mainframe computers,
servers, or thin clients'3
Portables
Portable,
notebook, and
laptop computers
¦ Includes tablets, netbooks, ultra-compact
laptops
¦ Does not include eBook readers,
smartphones
Computer
displays
CRT monitors
CRT monitors for
use with PCs
¦ Includes all PC CRT monitor types
Flat-panel
monitors
Flat-panel
monitors for use
with PCs
¦ Includes all PC flat-panel types
a Similar product definitions as those used in EPA (2011) are used here to maintain consistency across
EPA efforts.
b 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; EPA, 2011)
1.1 Conceptual Model of E-Waste Generation and Management
Generally speaking, consumers of electronic devices can be categorized as residential,
commercial, governmental, or institutional. While these four consumer segments often
purchase and use similar devices, the amount of each device used and how it is managed at
the device's end of life can vary greatly between segments.
Residential consumers purchase electronics for personal use. The commonly disposed
house-hold electronic devices in recent years are cell phones, laptops, and flat-screen
televisions.
Commercial consumers are businesses and companies that provide goods or services. Most
businesses acquire a large number of electronic devices such as laptops, desktop
computers, and monitors to increase job efficiency and productivity.
Governmental consumers consist of federal, state, and local government offices.
Governmental consumers procure and use many of the same devices as commercial
consumers (e.g., laptops, desktop computers, monitors); however, governmental
consumers are often segmented into their own consumer group because of the many
restrictions that direct how governmental employees must dispose of their electronics once
they have reached their end of life. The Federal government, as a major consumer of
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
1-5
-------
Section 1 — Introduction
electronic devices, is using its purchasing power to shift to products with lower
environmental impact across their life cycle.
Institutional consumers include colleges, universities, and other nonprofit organizations.
Institutional consumers are unique because of their nonprofit status. Many nonprofit
organizations are able to acquire electronic devices for a discounted rate or by donation.
Colleges and universities may also have the ability to refurbish used electronics in-house,
pushing the end of life of many devices out further. Since institutions have some of the
same business needs as commercial consumers, devices such as desktop computers,
laptops, and monitors are often procured and used; however, colleges and institutions may
also see an increase in personal electronics (e.g., cell phones, laptops, tablets) due to their
student population.
Despite the differences in behaviors across consumer segments, the electronic products
themselves generally follow a common set of steps or phases in their life cycle. Constructing
a general conceptual framework of the consumer electronic products' life cycle from
purchase to final disposition aids in understanding the modeling approach and the design
and implementation of existing legislative and voluntary programs to collect and recycle e-
waste. This framework will serve as the basis for modeling the e-waste flows over time,
which is described in detail in Section 3 of this report. Figure 1-2 presents the high-level
conceptual framework of the four critical phases of product life cycle.
Figure 1-2. Framework for the Management of the End of Useful Life of Used
Electronics
(Optional)
Reuse
End of Useful Life
Management
Processing/
Reuse
First Use
Delivery to
collector/
recycler
Product resale
Product
purchase
Product
Reuse
Product processing
(new products,
disposal of
residual)
Disposal in
landfill and
incineration
Products enter into this framework when they are purchased, then they are used, and
eventually deemed to be at the end of their useful life for that consumer. If the electronic
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
1-6
-------
Section 1 — Introduction
device is generally in good condition or needs minimal repair to bring it to a good condition,
it may be reused. This reuse may occur informally, for example, by passing a computer to a
family member or donating the product to a school or charity. Reuse may also occur
through more formal channels, like brokers or online marketplaces for used electronics.
Parts of electronic devices, such as hard discs, are data-cleaned and sometimes reused.
Irrespective of the number of users, each product has an expected technical lifetime after
which the device is no longer usable. Obsolescence may be due to component failure, cost
prohibitive to repair, or incompatibility with newer technology including software or
supporting devices. Once deemed unusable, electronics may be sent to, sorted by, and
processed by a collector, recycler, or third party entity; disposed of in a landfill or
incinerator; or stored in the owner's household or facility to be managed at a later date.
Processing of used electronics may be partially or wholly completed domestically, while
some integrated components may be exported for further processing internationally.
Processed parts from the original device may be sold and reused in new products
manufactured around the world. Residual scrap may then be sent to a landfill or incinerator.
1.2 Report Organization
This report is written at a general level to be accessible to readers with limited knowledge of
used electronics and e-waste management and flows. Section 2 summarizes the existing
programs and state legislation aimed at collecting e-waste for recycling in lieu of landfilling.
Section 3 provides a brief summary of our findings from a review of the existing literature
on alternative methods for conducting material flows analysis (MFA) and the data
requirements for each approach. Section 3 also describes the enhanced version of EPA's e-
waste flow model (eWFM), data, and assumptions, and presents national and regional
results for selected states. The eWFM discussed in this report was enhanced with updated
product weights and product lifetimes, which in turn improve the modeling and EOL
management quantities of various electronics. Section 4 discusses key data gaps and
limitations related to the eWFM, potential institutional and market changes that may impact
the model and data inputs, and recommendations for next steps.
1.3 Quality Assurance and Data Limitations
This project involved collecting and analyzing secondary data and developing a proof-of-
concept model. The model uses sales data in combination with time series data sets which
provide average product weights and lifetimes. In addition, assumptions of market share
across major consumer segments (i.e., residential, commercial, institutional, and
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
1-7
-------
Section 1 — Introduction
educational) have been made as noted in the report to allow for a demonstration of the
proof-of-concept model. This work was conducted under an approved Quality Assurance
Project Plan. The appropriateness of the data and their intended use were assessed with
respect to the data source, the data collection timeframe, and the scale of the geographic
area that the data represent. Preference was given to data that have undergone peer or
public review (e.g., those published in government reports and peer-reviewed journals) over
data sources that typically do not receive a review (e.g., conference proceedings, trade
journal articles, personal estimates). However, where peer-reviewed data did not exist,
parameters and modeling inputs were developed from the next highest quality available
sources (e.g., grey literature, and product specification data sheets from manufacturers).
Preference was given to more recent data over older data. In this report, the sources of all
of the data and any identified limitations are presented.
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
1-8
-------
References
2. E-WASTE FLOWS AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
To date, 25 states have passed extended producer responsibility, consumer fee, or producer
education laws that mandate e-waste recycling programs. Extended producer responsibility
laws obligate manufacturers to facilitate and finance recycling of their EOL products. As an
initial step, this study evaluated a cluster of states in the mid-West to understand the
breadth of their e-waste programs. These states included Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Ohio has not codified any e-waste legislation to date, while
the other five states in this cluster have (see Table 2-1). Because these laws were codified
within a short time span of each other, the legislation and programs used to implement the
laws are similar. This also means that the states did not have sufficient time to incorporate
many lessons learned from implementing an e-waste program.
Table 2-1. E-waste Legislation and Implementing Programs in the Selected States
State
Name of
Legislation
Date
Codified
Effective
Start
Date
Program
Name
Implementing
Agency
Program Year
Start and End
Dates
IL
Electronic
Products
Recycling and
Reuse Act
9/17/2008;
amended
2011; 2015a
1/1/2010
Electronic
Waste
Recycling
Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
(IEPA)
January 1-
December 31
IN
Indiana
Electronic
Waste Law
5/13/2009;
amended in
2012
4/1/2010
Indiana E-
Cycle
Indiana Department
of Environmental
Management (IDEM)
Prior to 2012:
April 1-March 31
2012 and orr.
January 1-
December 31
MI
Electronic
Waste
Takeback
Program
12/29/2008
4/1/2010
Electronic
Waste
Takeback
Program
Michigan Department
of Environmental
Quality (MI DEQ)
October 1-
September 30
MN
Electronics
Recycling Act
5/8/2007;
amended in
2009, 2011,
and 2015b
8/1/2007
Product
Stewardship
Initiative for
Electronics
Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency
(MPCA)
July 1-June 30
OH
No legislation
WI
2009
Wisconsin Act
50
10/23/2009
1/1/2010
Wisconsin
E-Cycle
Wisconsin
Department of
Natural Resources
(WI DNR)
July 1-June 30
a The 2015 amendments to the Illinois law included numerous changes (see IEPA, 2015b).
b The 2015 amendments to the Minnesota law included several modifications (see 2015 Minnesota Session Laws,
httDs://www.revisor.mn.aov/laws/?vear=2015&tvDe=l&doctvDe=ChaDter&id=4#laws.4.106.0.
The information presented in this section is summary level and subject to change as each
legislative session opens the opportunity for amendments. For example, Illinois and
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
2-1
-------
Section 2-E-Waste Flows and Management Programs
Minnesota amended their e-waste laws in July 2015. Additional details on the e-waste
programs for each of the states in the cluster evaluated in this report are provided in
Appendix A. Details include the specific electronics covered, program registration, funding
mechanisms, and a summary of how the manufacturer recycling goals are created.
2.1 Collection Trends and Data Availability
Each state, regardless of whether legislation is in place, collects selected used electronics at
low or no cost to residential consumers. Each of the selected states tracks weights of
collected, covered or eligible electronic devices (CEDs and EEDs) to some extent. States
with legislation require manufacturers, collection sites, or both to record and report these
weights to the relevant state agency, whereas states without legislation may only track
collection events or certain collection sites. Data are available through the relevant state
agencies and may be published online on an annual basis, but by no means represent all
used electronics in the respective state. For example, commercial businesses in the
information technology asset disposition (ITAD) sector may track and manage most of the
remaining portion but are not covered under state legislation. Many original electronics
manufacturers (OEM) have take-back operations as part of their product stewardship
prog rams.
The state-reported actual weight of CEDs and EEDs collected and recycled are presented in
Figures 2-1 and 2-2 for program years that ended in 2014. Actual weights are those
exclusive of rural credits and reuse credits that the registered entities claim in their annual
reports under the state legislation. Rural and reuse credits function (in the state programs)
as an incentive to collect electronics in difficult to reach areas, while reuse credits offer an
incentive to extend the product lifetime. These credits are multiplied by the weight collected
that is from a rural area or reused. For example, if 1,000 tons of electronics were collected
from a rural area, the 1,000 tons would be multiplied by a credit, say 1.5, such that the
program weight becomes 1,500 tons. For simplicity, the years presented in these graphs
are calendar years even though the program data do not correspond directly to calendar
years (i.e., most states with legislation operate on a July to June program year). Data are
not available for each state for each year because the effective start dates for the e-waste
laws differ. Additionally, Michigan is not represented in Figure 2-2 because e-waste
collection sites are not required to register under their program, thus these data are not
available. For 2014, the actual weight collected and recycled in Indiana have not been
aggregated and presented in a publicly available report as of the date of this report. For
years 2012 and 2013, a state program report for Minnesota was not prepared and these
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
2-2
-------
Section 2-E-Waste Flows and Management Programs
values have been interpolated using the 2011 (the last year of the program report) and
2014 data (using data provided by the state to the authors of this report). Collection data
are not available for Ohio because this state does not track the quantity of electronics
collected. Unlike the other selected states, Ohio does not have a landfill ban on electronics
or e-waste legislation, thus there is no driver or specific mechanism for funding the costs
associated with tracking electronics collection at the state level. Ohio does track a portion of
the electronics recycled from collection events.
Figure 2-1. State-reported Actual Weight of CEDs and EEDs Collected Through
2014
25,000
20,000
T3
OJ
£ 15,000
o
u
i/i
Z 10,000
5,000
2008
2009
2010
2011 2012
Calendar Year
2013
2014
i Illinois
I Indiana
I Minnesota
i Wisconsin
i Michigan
Ohio
Notes: Data were obtained from annual program reports and/or the state program coordinator (IDEM
2014; IEPA 2015a; IEPA 2014; IEPA 2013; MPCA 2010; MPCA 2011; WI DNR 2014). Data for MN
were extrapolated for 2012 through 2014 because annual program data have not been published
online as of the date of this report. Data are not available for all states and all years presented
because either the state did not operate an e-waste program in that year (applies to Ohio) or data
are not collected by the state (Michigan for all years). Data for Indiana in 2014 have not been
published online as of the date of this report.
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201 2-3
-------
Section 2-E-Waste Flows and Management Programs
Figure 2-2. State-reported Actual Weight of CEDs and EEDs Recycled Through
2014
25000
20000
T3
_a;
£ 15000
u
QJ
CC
LO
£
O
10000
5000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Calendar Year
2013 2014
¦ Illinois
¦ Indiana
¦ Minnesota
¦ Wisconsin
¦ Michigan
Ohio
Notes: Data were obtained from annual program reports and/or the state program coordinator (IDEM
2014; IEPA 2015a; IEPA 2014; IEPA 2013; MI DEQ 2015; MPCA 2010; MPCA 2011; WI DNR 2014).
Data for OH were provided by the state coordinator. Data for MN were extrapolated for 2012
through 2014 because annual program data have not been published online as of the date of this
report. Data are not available for all years presented because the state did not operate an e-waste
program in that year, data were not provided by the state (applies to Ohio), or an annual report is
not publically available online as of the date of this report (Indiana for 2014). The quantities recycled
for most states go beyond the CEDs/EEDs in the state programs.
While not complete across all years, these figures show that the actual weights collected
and recycled vary by state. The year-to-year differences lie in the fact that the state
programs are driven by program year goals, which are driven by manufacturer sales of
CEDs in the previous year. Manufacturer sales are driven by supply and demand. Many
states also have program years that do not follow a typical calendar year (e.g., July 1 of 1
year through June 30 of the following year). The effects of this mid-year program start date
are evident for Wisconsin in Figure 2-1 because 2010 does not represent a true full calendar
year of collection. As more communities, retailers, and manufacturers are beginning to
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201 2-4
-------
Section 2-E-Waste Flows and Management Programs
sponsor electronics takeback programs in various states, many of which are free to the
consumer, the amount of electronic devices collected by is expected to grow. However, the
new collection mechanisms could potentially reduce the amounts collected through the
states E-Cycle programs.
2.2 Access to Collection and Recycling Sites
Electronics collection sites include permanent drop-off locations and temporary events (e.g.,
1-day events at a specified location) that cater primarily to households. Collection and
recycling sites are generally distributed across each state, with a larger number of sites in
metropolitan areas because of the higher population density. Appendix A includes maps with
locations of collectors and recyclers for each of the states in the cluster with e-waste
legislation. The legislation in the selected states does not include siting requirements (e.g.,
one collection site for every 10,000 people) for collection sites like the requirements in other
states (e.g., Washington, Oregon, New York). Several counties in each of the selected
states do not have a collection site as presented in the state maps for collection and
recycling sites in Appendix A. Recommendations from the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (IEPA) to the Illinois Governor (IEPA, 2016) about their state program include a
population density siting clause to reach both ends of the population density spectrum (very
low to very high). Michigan does not require collection sites to register under their program,
so information on the number and location of collection sites in Michigan is not readily
available. The number of collection sites varies over each of the selected states' program
years depending on the cost to maintain the site, frequency of use, current market prices,
and the site's location (rural versus urban), which impacts how often haulers will come to
the collection site to pick up material.
2.3 Costs of Manufacturer-Funded Collection
Covered entities under the state programs are required to register each year with the ruling
body to monitor the activities of manufacturers, collectors, and recyclers and to track,
validate, and enforce their goals under the directive of the selected states' e-waste
programs. The states included in this evaluation prohibit manufacturers from selling their
products, either directly or through a retailer, in their state if the manufacturer does not
register with the program. Annual registration is required as opposed to a one-time
registration process to more closely track trends in compliance and collection/recycling from
year to year, which assists the ruling body of the program in evaluating what aspects of the
program are working and which need improvement. Collection and recycling facilities in
Ohio are not required to register with any state organization, and, while still impacted by
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
2-5
-------
Section 2-E-Waste Flows and Management Programs
market fluctuations, they may be more naturally responsive to market forces of supply and
demand compared to states with legislation.
Annual registration fees and penalty fees for not meeting annual program goals are
collected from manufacturers to fund the e-waste programs implemented by the selected
states. This cost model is referred to as extended producer responsibility. States may
require a larger fee the first year followed by a lower annual fee each year thereafter. First-
year manufacturer fees for the selected states range from $2,500 to $5,000 and subsequent
annual fees range from $1,250 to $5,000. The annual registration fees are collected first,
primarily to be used towards costs of administering the electronics recycling program within
a given state. Some states allow the funds to be used for other purposes that benefit
registrants and aid them in meeting their year-to-year targets. States may also use the
program funds to provide grants for small businesses or rural areas to promote collection
and recycling.
The trend in the reduction of the weight of electronic devices will continue to be an issue in
the process of defining e-waste program goals and funding overall programs. Program goals
are weight-based and correlated to the total weight of product sales in the previous year.
Newer CEDs, however, tend to weigh less than older CEDs and the demand for recycling
older CEDs will continue to grow as, presumably, manufacturer collection/recycling goals are
based on lower weights (IDEM, 2014). Indiana, for example, considers it to be imperative to
review the Indiana E-Waste Law on a regular basis (IDEM, 2014).
2.4 Outreach and Education (for Consumers and Manufacturers)
The extent of outreach and education for consumers and manufacturers varies by state and
appears to be driven by the annual program budget and staff availability. Each state
maintains a Web site dedicated to the disposition or reuse of electronics along with
additional information on the location of collection and recycling sites. Of the selected sites,
many appear to have provided a high-level of outreach and Wisconsin has held annual e-
waste stakeholder workshops where staff from nearby state programs and other
stakeholders can come to share their experiences and learn about new developments in
technology, regulation and management options.
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
2-6
-------
References
3. E-WASTE FLOW MODEL-A PROOF-OF-CONCEPT TOOL
FOR ESTIMATING THE FLOW OF USED ELECTRONICS
3.1 Background of Materials Flows Analysis Methodologies
Material flow analysis (MFA) is a method used to understand and manage the flow of
materials as they move from place to place within a defined geographic or temporal
boundary. The results of an MFA are often used to support environmental and waste
management decision making (Brunner and Rechberger, 2004; Kiddee et al., 2013). In the
case of e-waste, where the materials move through several different consumers over a few
years to a few decades, an MFA helps to understand the pathways and the intermediate and
final destinations of the electronic devices and their components (if the components are
destined for recycling). After the material flows are understood, consumers and decision
makers can better manage the e-waste to promote beneficial use of the recyclable
components and prevent potentially toxic materials from harming the environment and
public health due to improper disposal or storage.
An MFA consists of the following components:
system boundary (temporal, spatial, or both),
processes (the number and type of processes to focus on),
¦ flows (how the products move from one process to another), and
stocks (the quantity of products that flow through the system).
We reviewed the existing literature on current approaches to conducting an MFA and
identified potential methods for calculating e-waste generation within the United States. Our
first step was a search through ScienceDirect for English-language articles published since
2000. We also completed general Web searches using Google and focused searches of
relevant Web sites, including those of the StEP (Solving the E-waste Problem) Initiative, the
EPA, and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Selected details from the
literature review are presented in Appendix B.
Through this review, we identified five methods based on the MFA concept: direct sales to
e-waste, time step, market supply, consumption and use, and sales obsolescence and
transboundary flows (Balde et al., 2014; Duan et al., 2013; EPA, 2011; UNEP, 2007). Table
3-1 briefly describes each of these methods. Based on the existing literature, the sales
obsolescence and transboundary flows (SOTF) method is the most complete method for
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
3-1
-------
Section 4. Discussion and Recommended Next Steps
tracking the flow use electronics and e-waste. As such, SOTF is the method chosen for this
analysis.
Table 3-1. Available MFA Methods to Assess E-Waste Flows
Method Name
Description
Direct Sales to E-Waste
(UNEP, 2007)
Time Step (UNEP, 2007)
Market Supply (UNEP,
2007)
Consumption and Use
(UNEP, 2007)
Sales Obsolescence and
Transboundary Flows
(Balde et al., 2014; Duan
et al., 2013; EPA, 2011;
UNEP, 2007)
A simplified methodology that assumes the quantity of e-waste
generated in a given year is equivalent to the sales in that year.
Assumes a saturated market and each sale of a new item is balanced
by an item that is disposed of.
(http://www.unep.or.ip/ietc/Publications/spc/EWasteManual Voll.pdf.)
Private and industrial stock and sales data are used to calculate the
quantity of e-waste generated. The e-waste potential during the
collection phase at time t is calculated from the difference in stock
levels of private and industrial equipment during the consumption
phase in the period between two points in time (t and t-1), plus the
sales in that period, minus the annual waste produced in that period
up to time t-1.
(http://www.unep.or.ip/ietc/Publications/spc/EWasteManual Voll.pdf.)
Relies on sales data and typical life spans of electronic devices. The
waste potential during the collection phase at time t is calculated from
sales data and information about consumption patterns.
(http://www.unep.or.ip/ietc/Publications/spc/EWasteManual Voll.pdf.)
Estimates the amount of e-waste generated using stock and average
life span data. The stock is the difference in products manufactured in
a given year and the quantity of products sold in a given year;
products that are stored in a given year are also included in the
amount of stock.
(http://www.unep.or.ip/ietc/Publications/spc/EWasteManual Voll.pdf.)
A variation of the market supply method that is used to calculate the
amount of e-waste generated, but also considers reuse, recycling,
exports, and disposal.
Assumptions regarding product life spans (including reuse), recycling,
storage, and disposal are used to reflect consumer behavior in the
disposition of the products. (http://i.unu.edu/media/ias.unu.edu-
en/news/7916/Global-E-waste-Monitor-2014-small.pdf.
http://www.weeeshare.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/ll/Quantitative-
Charachterisation-of-domestic-and-Transboundarv-Flows-of-Used-
Electronics.pdf.
http://www.unep.or.ip/ietc/Publications/spc/EWasteManual Voll.pdf.)
Depending on the method chosen, various data are needed to estimate used electronics
flows from first-time consumer use to EOL management. Before preparing an MFA, the
scope of the products to be included should be defined, and then, whether specific product
models will be defined. The minimum data requirements to model a scope of products are
¦ time period,
region (e.g., city, state, country),
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
3-2
-------
Section 4. Discussion and Recommended Next Steps
¦ type of consumer (e.g., residential, commercial, institutional),
product sales,
product weights (average or model-specific weights),
product life spans (including reuse), and
EOL management pathways (e.g., reuse, recycling, disposal, export).
The data should cover the same period and region. Additional data are required when
considering transboundary flows and particularly exports.
3.2 E-Waste Flow Model Documentation
This section of the report introduces the proof-of-concept e-waste flow model (eWFM)
developed for this study, which applies the SOTF method for tracking the flow of e-waste.
The eWFM employs a combination of top-down data sources and bottom-up assumptions to
track the generation of e-waste by state and estimate the material flows from generation to
collection. Examples of top-down data sources include national statistics on population,
gross domestic product (GDP), and retail sales. Examples of bottom-up assumptions include
average device weight per product based on the year of manufacturing, expected product
lifetimes, and market share by consumer segment. Ultimately, in the future, our objective is
to estimate material flows to the various disposition pathways (i.e., reuse, recycling, and
disposal) and the quantities of e-waste processed domestically and internationally.
The eWFM is capable of producing national-, regional-, and state-level results regarding the
amount of electronic products entering EOL management annually. Although the quality and
availability of information on the markets and consumer behavior are improving, the rate of
change in technology and market behavior is high. For this reason, the eWFM was designed
to allow end users to update key parameters and data elements easily based on better
information in the future. The model is intended to be a tool that supports end users such
as policy makers and other key stakeholders with analyzing e-waste material flows.
3.3 Model Structure
The proof-of-concept eWFM currently estimates the annual amount of e-waste entering EOL
management. Results include the number of units and corresponding tonnage by simulating
the electronic product lifecycle. The model structure follows the general framework for e-
waste generation presented in Section 1, Figure 1-2. Based on the information currently
available from the cluster of states evaluated, the model was designed in a way that reflects
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
3-3
-------
Section 4. Discussion and Recommended Next Steps
how recyclers collect information about used electronics and e-waste. Results from the
model estimate the amount of used electronics, both in terms of mass and the number of
units, entering the EOL management phase and then the final disposition (which is the
combination of recycling, landfilling, and incineration). Reuse is factored into the product
lifetime estimates in the model and as a result reuse is not modeled explicitly. The eWFM
boundary begins when the product is purchased and ends with its final disposition, as
illustrated in Figure 3-1.
Figure 3-1. Generic Materials Flow of Used Electronic Equipment
Recycled Materials
& Components
Raw Materials
E-device
Production
Proposed Boundary-
Covered
under e-
waste law
Not covered
under e-
waste law
Storage
Covered under E-Waste Law
Residential/
Small Business
Public K-12
Schools
Not Covered under E-Waste Law
-0
Commercial/
Industry
Private K-12
Schools
Colleges/
Universities
Secondary Consumer Markets
Residential/
Com
Non-
Government
Ins
| Government
E-Waste Processing
(dismantling and
recycling)
International
Within this boundary, the processes and flows are generally represented. Original
equipment manufacturers (OEMs) make the products, which are sold to retailers, and then
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
3-4
-------
Section 4. Discussion and Recommended Next Steps
purchased by consumers. Following product use, consumers generate e-waste and used
electronics. After the material is generated, it flows to one of the following places: storage
(e.g., a basement, attic, storage closet), disposal (e.g., landfill), or a collection (drop-off)
center. Materials that are gathered through an e-waste collection program are sent to a
processing (e.g., recycling) facility, are sent to another consumer for reuse, or are disposed
of. Products that are reused will eventually go through the process of collection, recycling,
reuse, or disposal. Materials collected for recycling will either be processed (dismantled,
recycled) domestically or exported. Recycled materials (e.g., metals) may be used to
manufacture a new or refurbished electronic device or another type of product, thus
completing the cycle.
The model includes several data sources and assumptions that can be used to derive
estimates of annual e-waste generation at the national, regional and state level. The current
version of the proof-of-concept model is limited in scope to three major categories of
consumer electronics: televisions, cell phones, and personal computers (PCs) and related
products. Televisions are divided into five subcategories: color cathode ray tubes (CRTs)
less than 19 inches, color CRTs greater than 19 inches, flat-panel TVs, color projection, and
monochrome. PCs and related products include desktops, portables, hard copy peripherals
(e.g., printers, scanners, fax machines), mice, keyboards, PC CRTs, and PC flat monitors.
3.4 Modeling Methodology
The model applies a sales obsolescence and transboundary flows method for estimating the
amount of e-waste. This method is a variation of the market supply method that is used to
calculate the amount of e-waste generated and that considers reuse, recycling, export, and
disposal (landfilling). The annual e-waste generation is estimated from national sales data.
Assumptions regarding product life spans (including reuse), recycling, storage, and disposal
are used to reflect consumer behavior in the disposition of used electronic devices. This
method is described by the UNEP (2007) as the Carnegie Mellon Method. Similar, but
slightly more complex, methods are applied by Balde et al. (2015) and Duan et al. (2013).
The Carnegie Mellon Method is mathematically represented by Equation 1, as follows:
e-waste (t) = YuilSalest
EQ. 1
Where:
t = Year when the product was sold
T = Year when e-waste was generated
Salest = Industry sales for year t
3 = Weibull distribution scaling factor
a = Weibull distribution shape factor.
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
3-5
-------
Section 4. Discussion and Recommended Next Steps
The current model applies Weibull distributions to characterize product lifetimes. This is an
improvement over the more common approach of discrete product lifetimes, in which a
single value represents the average expected lifetime for each product (e.g., 20 years for a
CRT TV). In contrast, the Weibull distribution is a continuous probability function that can be
used to characterize product lifetime. The primary advantage of a Weibull distribution over a
discrete product life span is the continuous nature of the distribution, which provides
greater flexibility in characterizing the number of units entering EOL management each
year. In other words, the Weibull distribution gives allowance for the possibility that
electronic products may reach end-of-life after one year or may stay in use for many years,
rather than assuming a fixed lifetime. This is why the eWFM was enhanced with the Weibull
distribution for this analysis.
The Weibull distribution function is often used in reliability and survival analysis for
estimating expected product lifetimes because of its versatility and simplicity. The two
parameters that characterize the Weibull distribution are the scale (a) and shape (3). Both
parameter values are always greater than zero. The scale parameter generally correlates
with the life span with smaller values of the scale indicating shorter lifetimes. The shape
parameter indicates the distribution of a life span; a small value equates to a larger spread
in the life span of a product.
3.5 Data and Assumptions
The eWFM estimates the amount, both in mass and number of devices, for electronic
products entering the EOL management phase annually. Estimates rely on unit sales data in
combination with estimates of years of useful life and average product weight estimates.
The model estimates e-waste at the state level using GDP per capita as a proxy for the
distribution of product sales across individual states. The model currently includes four
major consumer markets: residential, education, commercial, and institutional. Table 3-2
lists the data inputs and sources for each lettered process included in Figure 3-1 along with
the data sources the eWFM uses.
Table 3-2. Data Requirements, Data Sources, and Potential Approaches to Fill
Data Gaps in the Future
Stages of
Material Flow"
Data Requirements
Data Source/Approach to Fill Data Gaps
Generation and
Storage (A)
Sales data or market share by
consumer segment (vintage from
1980-2014)
Life span (years of first use,
years or reuse)
¦ Sales data: Use the market sales data Dresented bv
EPA (2011) for products within the scope of this
report. Conduct an Internet search for sales by
product for 2010-2014 (not included in EPA, 2011).
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
3-6
-------
Section 4. Discussion and Recommended Next Steps
Stages of
Material Flow"
Data Requirements
Data Source/Approach to Fill Data Gaps
Share of equipment entering
storage
Length of storage by consumer
segment
Trade association data or market sales data could
also be purchased in the future.
Life span: Use the Weibull distribution in the MFA;
this incorporates the life span for new and reused
products (i.e., total life span that is not broken out
by first, second, third, etc. life). Conduct an internet
search for average lifetimes of products within the
scope, compare to those used in EPA 2011 and
other literature to funnel into the Weibull
distribution data.
Storage: Use the Weibull distribution; this factors
into the total life span, thus storage is theoretically
applied. Alternatively, separate storage factors could
be applied and obtained from an internet search for
average storage times of products within the scope
of work.
Collection of
Covered
Electronic
Devices in State
Legislation (B)
Total weight collected (by product
category) in 2014
Rural and urban total weights
Product weights: Use average product weights for
product categories in EPA (2011) and those
presented in Section 3.5.2 of this report.
Weight collected: For states with existing e-waste
legislation, annual reported data for quantities
collected were reviewed to ensure that modeled
estimates included these quantities.
Collection from
Entities Not
Covered by State
Legislation (C)
Total weight collected (by product
type) in 2014
Weight collected: Subtract the quantity collected
under state programs from the amount of e-waste
generated to get the weights collected from entities
not covered under those programs.
Reused
Electronics (D)
Life expectancy of refurbished
equipment
Weight reused: Use the Weibull distribution in the
MFA; this incorporates the life span for new and
reused products. Industry surveys would also inform
the quantity of electronics that are refurbished and
sold for reuse.
Life span for reuse: Use the Weibull function, which
accounts for the total life span of a product. In other
words, there would not be a separate reuse factor.
Recycled Total weight sent to domestic
Electronics (E) recycling facilities in 2014
Total weight sent to domestic and
international downstream
vendors, or transferred to
international recycling facilities
Weight recycled: Estimating the proportion of e-
waste that is recycled will require additional effort
through Industry data collection that will inform the
composition of the used electronics stream.
Disposed Fraction of materials disposed of
Electronics (F) in a landfill or waste-to-energy
facility in 2014
Considers all consumers,
collectors, and domestic recycling
facilities
Weight disposed of: Estimating the proportion of e-
waste that is disposed of in landfills will require
additional effort through Industry data collection
that will inform the composition of the used
electronics stream.
Letters in parenthesis refer to portions of the process illustrated in Figure 3-1.
3.5.1 Product Sales
The model relies on national sales data by year and product type for 1980 through 2007
available from EPA (2011). The authors of that report used International Data Corporation
(IDC) shipment data for computers, hard copy devices, keyboards, mice, CRT, and flat-
panel computer monitors.
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
3-7
-------
Section 4. Discussion and Recommended Next Steps
The U.S. product sales data used in EPA (2011) across the time series of 1980 through
2007 are used for the electronics considered within the scope of this report. Sales data used
in the EPA (2011) report for 2008 through 2010 was extrapolated based on prior year sales
data. To supplement this information, sales data were compiled from 2011 through 2014 for
the electronics included within the scope of this report (Mearian [2014] for flat-panel TVs;
Entner [2015] for mobile phones; and Roy [2015] for tablet computers. Table 3-3 presents
the data developed for 2008 through 2014.
Table 3-3. U.S. Electronic Sales Data from 2008 Through 2014 (Million Units)
Product
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Desktops
30.5
26.3
23.5
21.9
20.3
18.7
17.9
Portables
34.1
46.4
40.4
35.5
30.6
25.7
24.5
Hard copy peripherals
33.1
29.5
29.4
26.2
23
19.8
16.6
Mice
30.5
26.3
23.5
21.9
20.3
18.7
17.9
Keyboards
38.4
33.1
29.6
27.6
25.6
23.6
22.5
PC CRTs
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
PC flat panel
32.7
27.2
27.5
25.6
23.7
21.9
20.9
Color CRTs < 19 inches
0.4
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
Color CRTs > 19 inches
0.9
0.3
0.1
0
0
0
0
Flat-panel TVs
29.1
32.1
33.7
38
37.5
34
34
Color projection TVs
1.1
0.6
0.3
0.1
0
0
0
Monochrome TVs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cell phones
198.3
216.1
235.6
213.1
190.5
168
143
Tablet computers
0
5.4
10.8
26.6
37.9
46.6
53.2
Note: Data for years 2008 through 2010 are from EPA (2011). References for years 2011 to 2014
include Mearian (2014) for flat-panel TVs; Entner (2015) for mobile phones; and Roy (2015) for
tablet computers.
Note that CRT computer monitors and TVs, projection TVs, and monochrome TVs are no longer sold in
the United States; desktop and portable computer sales have declined since 2010; and tablet
computers have emerged as a new category of computer since the EPA (2011) report, with more
than 53 million units (or approximately 30,000 metric tons [mt] assuming an average weight of 0.6
kilograms [kg] per tablet) sold in 2014.
3.5.2 Product Weights
The weight or mass of each product type is another critical parameter in the model that
provides some estimate of the amount of electronics entering EOL management each year.
Recent published estimates of electronic products weights given in Duan et al. (2013) and
Wang et al. (2013) were generally comparable with those found in EPA (2011) except for
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
3-8
-------
Section 4. Discussion and Recommended Next Steps
flat-panel TVs and monitors. Table 3-4 presents the updated average weights for each
electronic product category from 2008 through 2014.
Table 3-4. Average Weight by Product Category in 2014 (kg)
Electronic Product
Average Product Weight
Desktops
10.0
Portables
2.9
PC CRTs
14.1
PC flat panels
11.2
Keyboards
1.3
Mice
0.1
Hard copy peripherals
7.9
Color CRTs < 19 inches
18.6
Color CRTs > 19 inches
33.1
Flat-panel TVs
9.8
Color projections
63.5
Monochromes
18.6
Cell phones
0.1
With respect to flat-panel TVs, the EPA (2011) analysis used Consumer Reports Buying
Guides from 2008 and 2009 and online manufacturer specification sheets. EPA (2008)
provided an average weight of 13.2 kilograms (kg) for flat-panel TVs beginning in 1999 and
ending in 2007 (the last year with data in that report). EPA (2011) also presented a weight
13.2 kg for 1998 but found an average weight for 2008 of 34.3 kg, an average weight for
2009 of 36.6 kg, and an average weight for 2005 of 27.8 kg. A linear regression for years
between 1998 and 2005 was developed based on the new data for 2005 through 2009. The
EPA model was updated with this new trend line; the 13.2 kg value for the year 1998 noted
in the 2008 EPA report was used for all previous years up through the 1998 model year.
After 1998, the trend of increasing TV weight began. See Appendix B of this report for
additional details about the data sources used to develop these trends in product weights.
Based on a review of light-emitting diode (LED) and plasma units manufactured since 2010
to evaluate the trend in U.S. flat panel-TV weights since 2010, the average weight of flat-
panel TVs increased from 15.7 kg in 2004 to 16.7 kg in 2005, and then decreasing steadily
to 10.1 kg in 2010, and thereafter remaining at approximately 9.5 kg to 9.9 kg. For this
reason, the weights for flat-panel TVs were revised across the time series of product sales
and can be broken down into two groups. From 1998 to 2004, the average market share-
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
3-9
-------
Section 4. Discussion and Recommended Next Steps
adjusted flat-panel weight is 15.7 kg. From 2004 to 2015, we apply unique values for the
average market share-adjusted flat-panel weights falling from 16.7 kg in 2005 to 9.8 kg in
2014. Appendix B provides more detail on the calculation of average market share adjusted
flat-panel TV weights.
3.5.3 Product Lifetimes
Table 3-5 presents shape and scale parameters found in the literature for various
electronics. Additional information about Weibull distribution and its advantages are
discussed in Appendix B of this report.
Table 3-5. Weibull Distribution Characterization Parameters in Year 2005
for Various Electronic Products
Electronic Product Shape (a) Scale (P)
Desktop computer (residential) 2.1 9.6
Portable computer (residential) 1.5 5.2
Cell phone 0.7 7.6
Flat-panel TV 2.1 12.6
Source: Wang et al., 2013.
Using the shape and scale parameters, continuous distributions were developed for the
eWFM. Figure 3-2 presents these distributions by product type. Each point on the curve
represents the percentage of equipment discarded each year after its original purchase
date. Cell phones and portable computers have very short lifetimes (i.e., smaller scale
values), whereas desktop computers and flat-panel TVs tend to have longer lifetimes (i.e.,
larger scale values). Flat-panel TVs also have a large spread in their lifetimes (i.e., a large
shape parameter) compared to the other electronic products included in Table 3-5.
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
3-10
-------
Section 4. Discussion and Recommended Next Steps
Figure 3-2. Percentage of Products Ready for End-of-life Management After Each
Year of Sale
25%
C
-10%
"U
ro
01
c
ai
Q_
5%
7 V
I tr*
4 fr jS
i
0
-Desktops
- Keyboards
-Flat Panel TVs
-Color Proiection
10 15 20 25 30
Years from purchase date
-Portables Hard Copy Peripherals > Mice
-PCCRTs • PC Flat Panel • Cell Phones
¦ Monochrome > Color CRT <19" • Color CRT >19"
35
3.5.4 Market Segmentation
Allocating the distribution of electronic products across consumer segments and regions
allows the model to track product amounts more accurately. In this way the model may
serve as an analytical tool that enables policy makers to conduct uncertainty analyses and
improve model assumptions with better information as it becomes available.
As mentioned earlier in this section, the proof-of-concept model currently includes four
major consumer markets: residential, educational, commercial, and institutional. The
default distributions by product type are based on data included in EPA (2011).
State distributions of sales data within the model are currently based on the state share of
national GDP. States' share of GDP is a proxy for estimating the distribution of national
product sales data. The population is an alternative metric that can be used to estimate the
distribution of national sales across states. Barring more detailed sales data at the state
level, the decision to use GDP, population, or some other metric should be a topic of further
research to determine which explanatory variable best predicts consumer electronic
purchases.
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
3-11
-------
Section 4. Discussion and Recommended Next Steps
3.6 Model Results
This section presents the results from the current proof-of-concept model using the data
discussed earlier in this chapter. The total e-waste tonnage presented represents the
quantity of products entering EOL management each year with no additional reuse. The
number of units and the corresponding metric tons (mt) represent a heterogeneous mix of
products entering EOL management each year with some being older and some shares
being relatively newer. Hence the ratio of tonnage to number of units reflects a weighted
average of mass per unit across the age distribution of products being retired in a given
year.
3.6.1 National-Level Results
Figures 3-3 and 3-4 present the total amount of e-waste estimated by the model to be
ready for EOL management from 1995 to 2014. The total e-waste amount has risen from
680,000 mt to more than 2.5 million mt over the past 20 years. Comparing 2013 estimates
from EPA (2015) to the modeling results, the current model estimates are 350,000 mt less.
The updates made to product weights and technical lifetimes discussed in this report drive
the discrepancy between the two estimates.
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
3-12
-------
Section 4. Discussion and Recommended Next Steps
Figure 3-3. eMFW Modeled Estimate of E-Waste Available for EOL Management:
1995 to 2014
3.5
3.0
2.5
c
o
£ 2.0
2
C 1.5
o
1.0
0.5
0.0
~ A
Year
¦ eWFM Results AEPA,2013
As Figure 3-4 shows regarding eMFW model results, the most notable contributions to new
growth over the past 10 years are flat-panel PC monitors and flat-panel TVs. Portable PCs,
which includes laptops, are another growth category; however, the emphasis on size and
portability for this product category has resulted in the relatively small contribution to total
weight. Hard copy peripherals are also growing over time, possibly reflecting the decrease in
price for common equipment used with PCs such as printers and scanners. CRT TVs remain
a relatively large fraction of the total tonnage entering EOL management each year.
Conversely, CRT PC monitors should be on the decline. Finally, based on results from the
model (rather than state-level program reported data), cell phones are a very small fraction
of the total tonnage because of their relatively small weight and the well-established
programs aimed at their collection and reuse.
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
3-13
-------
Section 4. Discussion and Recommended Next Steps
Figure 3-4. Total E-Waste Disposition by Product Type 1995 to 2015
3.0
2.S
2.0
% 15
1.0
0.5
0,0
PC Flat Panel
Hard Copy Peripherals
• CellPhones
m Flat Panel TVs
¦ Monochrome TVs
r Color Projection TVs
¦ Color CRT >19" TVs
¦ Color CRT <19" TVs
B PC Flat Panel
¦ PC CRTs
¦ Mice
m Keyboards
¦ Hard Copy Peripherals
¦ Portables
¦ Desktops
199$
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 200? 2009 2011 2013 201S
Year
3.6.2 State-Level Results
Table 3-6 reports the model-estimated amount of e-waste ready for EOL management in
2014 for the six states included in this evaluation. The combined amount of e-waste
entering EOL management in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin
represents approximately 11 percent of the nation's total amount in 2014 or 318,000 mt,
Illinois, which is the fifth largest state in terms of national population and contribution to
GDP and the largest state in the cluster evaluated here, accounted for 28 percent of e-waste
among the six states. Second largest was Ohio, accounting for another 21 percent of the
total e-waste. Michigan contributed 18 percent of the waste. Indiana, Minnesota, and
Wisconsin accounted for nearly equal shares of the remaining 33 percent of e-waste
available for EOL management in 2014.
The comparison of state reported collection and model estimates is shown in Figure 3.5.
Wisconsin's E-Cycle program reports that the state collected 13,600 mt of e-waste in
program year 6 (July of 2014 through June 2015). The Wisconsin program's reported value
is approximately 30 percent of the total e-waste estimated for the state in the proof-of-
concept model. As a high-level check, this seems reasonable given that Wisconsin's E-Cycle
program is limited in coverage to the residential and kindergarten through twelfth grade (K-
12) education segments. Commercial and institutional segments of the consumer markets
would then be estimated to account for the remaining 30,400 mt of e-waste generated in
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
3-14
-------
Section 4. Discussion and Recommended Next Steps
Wisconsin. The linkage between model results and state-level program data will need to be
validated during future efforts.
Table 3-6. Total Disposition Weight (in mt) by Selected State in 2014
Products
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Total
Desktops
15,029
6,360
9,405
6,122
11,585
5,746
54,246
Portables
6,006
2,561
3,568
2,479
4,576
2,313
21,503
Hard copy peripherals
13,161
5,587
8,037
5,391
10,086
5,047
47,310
Keyboards
2,477
1,055
1,547
1,011
1,920
950
8,960
Mice
126
54
79
52
98
48
458
PC CRTs
4,529
1,914
3,143
1,810
3,618
1,719
16,733
PC flat panels
34,224
14,547
20,427
14,107
26,031
13,145
122,482
Color CRTs < 19-inch TVs
6,143
2,574
4,278
2,407
4,937
2,319
22,659
Color CRTs > 19-inch TVs
19,115
8,043
13,189
7,569
15,309
7,240
70,464
Monochrome TVs
248
102
176
94
202
92
915
Color projection TVs
7,431
3,145
4,996
2,985
5,887
2,830
27,274
Flat-panel TVs
5,552
2,352
3,374
2,267
4,244
2,124
19,913
Cell phones
1,123
485
678
467
869
435
4,056
Total E-waste disposal
115,165
48,779
72,898
46,761
89,363
44,007
416,973
Figure 3-5. Comparison of Model Results with State-reported Data
140
120
£ 100
O
I—
y
i 80
(D
~o
C 60
ro
to
o
H 40
20
0
115
¦
89
73
49
47
44
17
19
19
19
Illinois Indiana Michigan Minnesota Ohio Wisconsin
¦ 2014 Model Output ¦ 2014 State Program Collection Reports
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
3-15
-------
Section 4. Discussion and Recommended Next Steps
The current version of the model is not intended to be predictive of future product
disposition. However, the current version of the model does provide a useful tool for
estimating annual tonnage of e-waste based on a simplified number of parameters, which
can assist national and state policy makers in understanding how different policy measures
might change the levels of e-waste disposition. Adding sales forecast data to an enhanced
version of the model could allow it to predict future product disposition and may provide
additional benefits to stakeholders.
Figure 3-5 provides a graphical representation of the model-estimated e-waste amount by
state and product type reported in Table 3-6. The largest volumes of e-waste are associated
with flat-panel TVs and monitors. The sum of flat-panel TVs and computer monitors
accounts for more than 140,000 mt (33 percent) of the total weight of e-waste for 2014.
This result is surprising, given our discussions with collectors and recyclers operating in
Wisconsin that reported that flat-panel TVs and monitors accounted for less than 10 percent
of the annual amount of e-waste they received. There are at least three possible
explanations driving the discrepancy between our modeled estimates and the observed
values. One could be that the industry participants from whom we received feedback have a
waste composition that is not representative of the broader industry. Secondly, the
difference could also be that a significant percentage of the flat panel waste is associated
with commercial entities that utilize ITAD companies that process the e-waste in other
states. Finally, the product weight estimates or sales estimates used in the model may not
adequately capture the total tonnage generated each year. Future research should be aimed
at identifying the specific source of this discrepancy and making adjustments to the data in
the model, as necessary.
CRT TVs and monitors represent the second largest contributor to 2014 e-waste, accounting
for nearly 26 percent (110,000 mt) of the total e-waste. Desktop and portable PCs
represent another 20 percent of the e-waste generated or just under 76,000 mt. Hard copy
peripherals account for an additional 11 percent (47,000 mt). The remaining 10 percent of
waste is associated with cell phones, keyboards, mice, and other types of TVs.
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
3-16
-------
Section 4. Discussion and Recommended Next Steps
Figure 3-6. 2014 E-Waste Model Results by Product Type and State
Ceil Phones
Fiat Panel TVs
Color Projection TVs
MonochromeTVs I
Color CRT >19" TVs ¦
Color CRT <19" TVs
PC Fiat Panel
PC CRTs I
Mice I
Keyboards I
Hard Copy Peripherals I
Portables
Desktops
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Thousand Metric Tons
I Illinois ¦ Indiana m Michigan ¦ Minnesota ¦ Ohio ¦ Wisconsin
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
3-17
-------
References
4. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDED NEXT STEPS
Increases in household income coupled with rapid technology development and falling prices
have resulted in increased consumption of consumer electronics in the United States over
the past two decades. The rapid growth in the consumer electronics markets and
diversification in products manufactured has contributed to an equally rapid increase in the
stock of obsolete equipment and devices ready for EOL management. Embodied in the stock
of obsolete devices are toxic substances that can harm human health and the environment
if collection and processing is not managed correctly. Many of these devices also contain
recyclable components and valuable commodities such as plastics, glass, precious metals
and technology metals, and rare earth minerals that can be used to produce new products.
For these reasons, the need for proper EOL management of these devices that includes
opportunities for beneficial use of materials has become increasingly important to individual
consumers, communities, policy makers, and manufacturers.
In support of developing sustainable EOL management of electronics in the United States,
the EPA is working to improve understanding of the quantity and flow of electronic devices
from initial purchase to final disposition. This report is an initial inquiry that supports EPA's
broader efforts by reviewing a cluster sample of existing state regulatory and voluntary
programs and identifying the key lessons learned and best practices that have emerged
since their inception. Additionally, the eWFM and the MFA analysis presented in this report
provides estimates of the quantity of e-waste generated annually at the national level as
well as for the states analyzed here. Future research and modeling work are needed to
develop the model further. Specifically, improvements can be made to estimate the
movement of waste through the EOL management phase, identifying the different flow
streams of e-waste from the point of collection to its final disposition (e.g., recycled for use
in new electronic products, landfilled).
Previous national estimates of e-waste tonnage averaged nearly 2.8 million mt in 2013
(converted from the 3.1 million short tons as presented in Figure 1-1 (EPA, 2015). The
eWFM, presented in Section 4, of this report, estimates 2.5 million mt for the same year.
Comparing the model estimates with previously published estimates, there is approximately
16 percent difference which shows that the initial model provides reasonably similar levels
of e-waste tonnage compared to previous estimates. The differences are likely explained by
the enhancements we have made to the EPA approach to modeling e-waste. Utilizing a
Weibull distribution for the expected technical lifetime of electronic devices has smoothed
the timing and rate at which a specific vintage of products enters the EOL management
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
4-1
-------
Section 4. Discussion and Recommended Next Steps
phase of their life cycle. Also, updating and refining the average product weights improves
our characterization trends in decreasing size of products focused on portability such as
laptop PCs and smart phones. Finally, this analytical framework increases the resolution of
e-waste estimates from the national level to a state level. While adding this dimension to
the analytical framework does not improve or necessarily change the national estimates, it
does provide greater insight into regional e-waste flows. Estimating the amount of e-waste
processing occurring in each state provides a better understanding of the EOL management
phase and the point of final disposition. This increased resolution could assist state and local
policy makers in the design, evaluation, and improvement to e-waste management policies
and programs.
When comparing the 2014 model estimation for the selected states with state-level annual
reporting programs, we see a significant deviation in the state-reported data from the
modeled results. There is also a large volume of used electronics coming from large
organizations and corporations that are not reported in the state collection programs. Table
4-1 shows the total e-waste estimates for 2014 from the model and the program reported
amount for the selected states. As mentioned earlier, state programs vary based on their
product consumer segment coverage and as such, the state results should be considered
individually based on the specifics of each state's program. Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana,
and Michigan are capturing between 35 percent and 43 percent of the estimated annual e-
waste amount. Comparatively, Illinois and Ohio appear to be capturing less than 15 percent
of their total modeled e-waste flow estimates. The results for Illinois are particularly
surprising given that it is the fifth largest state in the country based both on population and
contribution to total GDP as well as a state with e-waste legislation. A possible explanation
for these differences could be that products purchased and originally used in one state could
be recycled in a different state. However, data currently available have insufficient detail to
confirm how much e-waste crosses state borders at this phase of EOL management.
Appendix A of this report includes a series of maps that identify the locations of collection
and recycling facilities that are registered with state programs. As can be seen, some of
these facilities are located outside of the state where the product is purchased.
Several potential factors may be driving the difference between state-reported values and
the modeled estimates. For example, in states with no formal E-Cycle programs, such as
Ohio, the amount of e-waste reported is limited to the amount that arrives at electronics
recycling sites, collection events/sites, or landfill disposal sites. A much larger proportion
may be collected through voluntary collection and recycling programs that have no
reporting requirements. Additionally, there are numerous data gaps and limitations in the
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
4-2
-------
Section 4. Discussion and Recommended Next Steps
analytical framework that make it difficult to compare the modeled estimates to state-
reported data.
This section of the report provides some discussion of the data gaps and limitations of the
analytical framework and proof-of-concept model presented in Section 3. We also discuss
the potential institutional and market changes that may impact the analytical framework
and estimates of e-waste in the future and conclude the report with a discussion of
recommended next steps.
Table 4-1. Comparison of Model Results with State-reported Data
Metric Tons (% of model
estimate)
2014 State
2014 Model Program
State Output Collection3 Products Covered Under State Program
Illinois
115,165
11,742
(10%)
Desktop computers, laptops, TVs, monitors,
printers, fax machines, scanners, computer
peripherals, MP3 players, video game consoles,
VCRs, DVD players
Indiana
48,779
17,092
(35%)
Desktop computers, laptops, TVs, monitors
Michigan
72,898
19,108b
(26%)
Desktop computers, laptops, TVs, monitors, printers
Minnesota
46,761
19,135
(41%)
Laptops, TVs, monitors, tablets, e-readers, digital
picture frames
Ohio
89,363
ll,620c
(13%)
No state program
Wisconsin
44,007
19,108
(43%)
Desktop computers, laptops, TVs, monitors,
printers, fax machines, keyboards, VCRs, DVD
players
a State programs only include residential and primary and/or secondary schools in these states. Other
consumer segments such as governmental, commercial, and institutional entities are not covered by
state programs, but are included in the modeling. Data were obtained from annual program reports
and/or the state program coordinator (IDEM 2014; IEPA 2015a; IEPA 2014; IEPA 2013; MI DEQ
2015; MPCA 2010; MPCA 2011; WI DNR 2014). Data for OH were provided by the state coordinator.
Data for MN were extrapolated for 2012 through 2014 because annual program data have not been
published online as of the date of this report.
b Michigan data are representative of CEDs and EEDs recycled by registered recyclers under
Michigan's state program. Data on collection is not available because the state program does not
cover collection sites (i.e., they are not required to track and report electronics collected).
c Ohio data are derived from Annual District Reports (ADR) for Recycling and Disposal from each Solid
Waste Management District in the state. This value is from the 2013 ADR because the 2014 report
had not been published at the time of data retrieval.
4.1 Data Gaps and Limitations
The results of the analysis presented in this report cover the major consumer electronic
products, key consumer segments, and potential pathways to final disposition. However,
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
4-3
-------
Section 4. Discussion and Recommended Next Steps
there are numerous data gaps and limitations to the current analysis framework that need
to be considered.
4.1.1 Limited Use of Regional Data
The analytical framework used in this study is flexible enough to incorporate regional
differences in all of the characteristics and model parameters. However, a lack of
comprehensive, state-specific data has led to a reliance on expert judgment or national
averages being applied uniformly to all states. Greater use of state- or region-specific data
regarding the collection and recycling tonnages, as well as the shares of e-waste processed
in state and the amount of waste transported out of state for processing, are recommended
for follow-up research. It is anticipated that follow-up research will include obtaining expert
judgment from industry, public, and private-sector experts. Incorporating more regional
data could enhance the characterization of the waste flows across state and national
boundaries by estimating the amount of e-waste at each stage in the EOL management
phase and its physical movement across state and national boundaries.
4.1.2 Lack of Product Sale Projections
The current analysis only includes historical sales. As a result, the model is incapable of
estimating future e-waste amounts. Using projected sales data or developing sales
projections would improve the value the eWFM offers to policy makers and resource
planning decision makers. These types of sales data are available for purchase from market
research organizations. While this would be relatively expensive to obtain, incorporating
projections of sales over some time horizon would allow better estimates of long-term
impacts of current markets and consumer preferences. Future effort to add this type of
functionality should consider how this additional feature impacts uncertainty for projected
estimates of e-waste.
4.1.3 Characterization of Regional Flows of E-Waste
Currently the model does not track the movements of e-waste across state and national
boundaries. Our review of state programs revealed that the state where a device is collected
for recycling does not necessarily indicate where the device will be recycled or processed
(see maps in Appendix A). Depending on the processor receiving the e-waste, the collected
devices could cross state lines for processing or could be preprocessed and disassembled
components sold to a tertiary processor in another location. Future research should
characterize the various type of processing facilities and expected destinations of the
process materials. For example, they could be transported for use in production at OEM
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
4-4
-------
Section 4. Discussion and Recommended Next Steps
facilities, or exported to an international destination for final disposition. It is very important
to note that because of the dynamic nature of the e-waste recycling and commodities
markets, the flow of e-waste may change frequently and therefore efforts to track flows
must be flexible and adaptable to the ever-changing market.
4.1.4 Exclusion of Recycling Market Economics
The analysis presented here does not account for changes in recycled-product market
prices. These changes in market prices are likely to have a significant impact on the
processors' operational decisions. This could affect the flow of e-waste to the various final
disposition channels (e.g., landfills, new products) or the timing of when the stock of
recycled material actually reaches the point of final disposition. For example, when the
prices for recycled products are low, a processor may choose to store material for an
extended time in the hopes that prices rebound in the future. Although, notably, certain
hazardous materials such as the leaded glass contained within CRT TVs is subject to RCRA
speculative accumulation requirements and cannot be stockpiled in this manner. Future
efforts therefore should consider alternative operational pathways based on various market
conditions.
4.2 Potential Institutional and Market Changes
While there remain numerous data gaps and limitations in the current analysis framework,
these modeling efforts provide valuable information on trends. The state policies and
voluntary participation in programs have been changing and continue to evolve.
To date, 25 states have passed extended producer responsibility, consumer fee, or producer
education laws that mandate e-waste recycling programs. Twenty-three states, including
those highlighted in this report, have extended producer responsibility laws, which obligate
manufacturers to facilitate and finance recycling of their EOL products. California, through
its Electronic Waste Recycling Act of 2003, instituted an advanced recycling fee. Utah only
requires manufacturers to establish and implement public education programs to inform
consumers of eligible collection and recycling programs.
The variety of program elements and requirements allow for natural test cases to draw on
the lessons learned in establishing and running an e-waste recycling program. Analyzing the
successes and challenges of these programs helps identify best practices and lessons
learned that other states can leverage to strengthen their recycling programs and increase
their collection tonnage. For example, there is a wide disparity among per capita collection
amounts across the states with programs, although this is partially explained by the
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
4-5
-------
Section 4. Discussion and Recommended Next Steps
differing scope of products. Washington and Oregon reported collecting more than 5 pounds
per capita of CEDs in 2010, whereas some states, including Texas and Virginia, collected
less than 1 pound per capita of CEDs. States are also observing large quantities of older,
heavier electronics that may not be recycled in the same program year in which they were
received because the manufacturers are meeting or exceeding their specific program year
goals (IDEM, 2014) and may, in turn, choose not to recycle beyond their program goals.
There may be shifts in how program goals are devised in the near-term to alleviate this
issue or new measures may be instituted for manufacturers to recycle these "legacy
wastes." Indiana (IDEM, 2014) and Wisconsin (WI E-Cycle Stakeholder Meetings, 2014 and
2015a) have noted cherry picking of waste, where the most valuable components in
collected materials are picked out of the used electronics while the other materials are
discarded. Illinois is considering incorporating recommended minimum coverage areas
based on population density (IEPA, 2016); Washington, Oregon, and New York have similar
population density clauses that resulted in increased collection in rural areas. None of the
selected states evaluated in this report have these type of siting clauses. Collection sites
that do not operate year-round or do not accept all CEDs or damaged CEDs may be
investigated by a select state. In Illinois, for example, these were noted as key issues to
discuss going forward (IEPA, 2016).
4.3 Recommended Next Steps
The current proof-of-concept version of the e-waste tracking tool has leveraged existing EPA
work to develop national, regional, and state-level e-waste estimates. However, there are
several recommended next steps that we see as critical to continued refinement of the
model. These next steps can be categorized into three areas that include improved
functionality, calibration using other data sets, and addition of features for evaluating
transport of flows across state and national boundaries. Completing these steps will enhance
the characterization of e-waste flows in terms of location, final disposition to landfills and
incinerators, and utilization in new products.
Improvements in functionality that will improve usability of the model for a broader set of
end users includes adding an interface to the model that allows users to quickly compare
different states or groups of states. This interface will link the state-level estimates to a
dynamic map that would visually represent the modeling results based on the parameters
specified by the user regarding year, product, and consumer segment.
Another critical next step is to calibrate the model using available estimates of e-waste
collected by state programs combined with information from major recyclers on the balance
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
4-6
-------
Section 4. Discussion and Recommended Next Steps
of e-waste not captured under the legislative programs. Most of the state programs
reviewed for this analysis focus on residential and institutional consumer segments. The
balance of e-waste is generated by the commercial sector. There are however limited
sources of published estimates from this sector. We recommend attending key stakeholder
meetings in selected states or holding industry focus groups at national e-recycler
conferences, such as the E-Scrap Conference.
More work is also needed to estimate the final disposition for e-waste once it enters the EOL
management process to model the collection and recycling processes and estimate e-waste
volumes based on their final disposition (e.g., sale as raw materials, refurbishment, disposal
in a landfill). Previous work by EPA estimates these shares by final disposition result. We
would seek to update or confirm that these estimates reflect current conditions and provide
additional information on the physical movements of e-waste across state and national
boundaries.
Estimating quantities and market value of e-waste components (e.g., plastic, circuit boards,
copper, other technology metals) is another potential output of the model that could be
developed and could support decision making with respect to beneficial use of materials.
Adding this component would require developing a database (or a method for linking to
current databases) on current market prices for the components of e-waste products. It is
important to note that adding this type of data would add significant uncertainty due to the
variation in components of manufactured electronic products and the dynamic nature of the
market.
Finally, additional work could be undertaken to better characterize the economics of
operations at EOL management processing facilities. This information would be useful for
understanding the market dynamics and operators' responses to changes in international
prices for the various fractions of e-waste, such as glass, plastic, and metals. This would
include characterizing the types of recycling facilities common throughout the industry and
include the types of equipment used in processing operations, labor requirements, cost of
operations, and potential revenue streams, based on current market prices for recycled and
refurbished electronic products. Improving our understanding of the economic drivers for
the industry could also support a more formal economic impact assessment in the future.
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
4-7
-------
References
References
Balde, C.P.; Kuehr, R.; Blumenthal, K.; Fondeur Gill, S.; Kern, M.; Micheli, P.; Magpantay,
E.; Huisman, J. 2015. E-waste Statistics: Guidelines on classification, reporting and
indicators 2015. Available at http://Lunu.edu/media/ias.unu.edu-en/proiect/2238/E-
waste-Guidelines Partnership 2015.pdf.
Balde, C.P., Wang, F., Kuehr, R., Huisman, J., 2014. The global e-waste monitor - 2014,
United Nations University, IAS - SCYCLE, Bonn, Germany. Available at
http://i .unu.edu/media/ias.unu.edu-en/news/7916/Global-E-waste-Monitor-2014-
small.pdf.
Boggio, Bob, and Clint Wheelock. 2011. Materials Footprint Reduction of Televisions and
Computer Monitors: 2004-2010. July 2011. PikeResearch. Available at:
http://apps.ce.org/documents/PikeCEAFinal.pdf.
Breivik, K.; Armitage, J. M.; Wania, F.; Jones, K. C. 2014. Tracking the Global Generation
and Exports of e-Waste. Do Existing Estimates add up? Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014,
48 (15), pp 8735-8743.
Brunner, P., Rechberger, H., 2004. Practical handbook of material flow analysis. The
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 9, 337-338.
CTA (Consumer Technology Association), 2015. Owning Innovation: CEA Study Shows Major
Shifts in the Technology We Own. Available at https://www.ce.org/News/News-
Releases/Press-Releases/2015-Press-Releases/Qwninq-Innovation-CEA-Studv-
Shows-Maior-Shifts-in.aspx.
CTA, 2011. "LCD TV Average Screen Size Keeps on Increasing." Available at:
http://imaae.slidesharecdn.com/2013alobalcesalestrendscesunveiledmediacopv-
130106160743-phpapp01/95/2013-alobal-ce-sales-trends-ces-unveiled-media-copv-
16-638.ipg?cb= 1357488527.
Duan, H., Miller, T.R., Gregory, J., Kirchain, R., Linnell, J. 2013. Quantitative
Characterization of Domestic and Transboundary Flows of Used Electronics Analysis
of Generation, Collection, and Export in the United States. Available at:
http://www.weeeshare.eu/wp-content/uploads/2Q14/ll/Ouantitative-
Charachterisation-of-domestic-and-Transboundarv-Flows-of-Used-Electronics.pdf .
Electronics TakeBack Coalition, 2012. Model State Bill - Manufacturer Takeback for E-Waste.
Available at http://www.electronicstakeback.com/wp-content/uploads/ETBC-Model-
E-Waste-Bill-Januarv-2012.pdf.
Electronics TakeBack Coalition, 2011. Ten Lessons Learned From State E-Waste Laws. May
10, 2011. Available at http://www.electronicstakeback.com/wp-
content/uploads/Lessons-Lea rned-from-State-E-waste-laws.pdf.
Entner, R., 2015. 2014 US mobile phone sales fall by 15% and handset replacement cycle
lengthens to historic high. February 10, 2015. Available at:
http://reconanalvtics.com/2015/02/2Q14-us-mobile-phone-sales-fall-bv-15-and-
handset-replacement-cvcle-lenathens-to-historic-hiah/.
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
R-l
-------
Appendix A: Additional Detail on Selected State and National Programs
EPA, 2015. Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013, Table
12. Assessing Trends in Material Generation, Recycling and Disposal in the United
States. June 2015. Available at: https://www.epa.aov/sites/production/files/2015-
09/documents/2013 advncna smm rpt.pdf.
EPA, 2014. Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States:
Tables and Figures for 2012. February 2014. Available at
https://www.epa.aov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/2012 msw fs.pdf.
EPA, 2011. Electronics Waste Management in the United States Through 2009. EPA 530-R-
11-002. Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, EPA: Washington DC. May
2011.
EPA, 2008. Electronics Waste Management in the United States: Approach 1. EPA 530-R-08-
009. Office of Solid Waste, EPA: Washington, D.C. July 2008.
ERCC (Electronics Recycling Coordination Clearinghouse), 2011. Picking up on the Need for
Best Practices: Collections. Conference presentation at the 2011 E-Scrap conference
in Orlando, Florida.
Ewasteguideinfo.com, 1996. Valuable Substances in E-Waste: Composition of a Desktop
Personal Computer Based on a typical desktop computer weighing ~27 kb. Accessed
on 4 August 2015. Available at http://ewasteauide.info.
GSA (General Services Administration), 2015. Electronics Stewardship. Available at
http://www.asa.aov/portal/content/188571.
Huisman, J., van der Maesen, M., Eijsbouts, R.J.J., Wang, F., Balde, C.P., Wielenga, C.A.,
2012. The Dutch WEEE Flows; Where do we go from here. 2011 Dutch E-waste
Quantification. Available at
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/Report Dutch WEEE Flows%202
012%2003%2015.pdf.
IDEM (Indiana Department of Environmental Management), 2014. Indiana E-Cycle 2014
Report Available at:
http://www.in.aov/idem/recvcle/files/ewaste implementation report 2014.pdf.
IEPA (Illinois Environmental Protection Agency), 2016. Electronic Products Recycling and
Reuse Act, Report to the Illinois Governor and General Assembly, E-Waste Program
Review. February 2016. Available at: http://www.epa.illinois.aov/Assets/iepa/waste-
manaaement/electronics-recvclina/2016-ewaste-proaram-review.pdf.
IEPA (Illinois Environmental Protection Agency), 2015a. Electronic Recycling 2015 Report to
Governor Rauner and the General Assembly. Available at:
http://www.epa.illinois.aov/Assets/iepa/waste-manaaement/electronics-
recvclina/2015-leaislative-report.pdf.
IEPA (Illinois Environmental Protection Agency), 2015b. Electronic Waste Recycling.
Available at http://www.epa.illinois.aov/topics/waste-manaaement/electronics-
recvclina/index.
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201 A-2
-------
Appendix A: Additional Detail on Selected State and National Programs
IEPA (Illinois Environmental Protection Agency), 2014 (May). Electronic Recycling 2014
Report to Governor Quinn and the General Assembly. Available at
http://www.epa.state.il.us/land/electronic-waste-recvclina/2014-leaislative-
report.pdf.
IEPA (Illinois Environmental Protection Agency), 2013. 2013 Legislative Report - Electronic
Recycling. Available at: http://www.epa.state.il.us/land/electronic-waste-
recvclina/2013-aeneral-assemblv-report.pdf.
Iji, M.; Yokoyama, S., 1997. Recycling of printed wiring boards with mounted electronic
components. Circuit World, 23, 10-15.
Interagency Task Force on Electronics Stewardship, 2015. 2015 National Strategy for
Electronics Stewardship Benchmarks. Available at
https://www.fedcenter.aov/ kd/Items/actions.cfm?action=Show&item id=22223&de
stination=ShowItem.
Interagency Task Force on Electronics Stewardship, 2014. Moving Sustainable Electronics
Forward: An Update to the National Strategy for Electronics Stewardship. August
2014. Available at
http://www3.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/materials/ecvcling/taskforce/docs/nses ac
complshmnts.pdf.
Interagency Task Force on Electronics Stewardship, 2011. National Strategy for Electronics
Stewardship. July 2011. Available at
https://www. fed center. gov/_kd/go.cfm?destination=ShowItem&Item_ID= 18854. Me
arian, Lucas. U.S. TV Sales Shrink Nearly 10%. Computerworld. February 10, 2014.
Available at http://www.computerworld.com/article/2487530/personal-technoloov/u-
s--tv-sales-shrink-nearlv-10-.html.
MI DEQ (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality), 2015. 2012, 2013, and 2014
Registered Manufacturers List. Available at http://www.michigan.gOv/dea/0.4561.7-
135-70153 70155 3585 4130 18096-208087-.00.html. Accessed in July 2015.
Miller, T.R., Gregory, J., Duan, H., Kirchain, R., Linnell, J. 2012. Characterizing
Transboundary Flows of Used Electronics: Summary Report. January 2012. Available
at
http://msl.mit.edu/publications/CharacterizingTransboundaryFlowsofUsedElectronics
WorkshopSummaryReport%201-2012.pdf. MPCA, 2011. 2011 Evaluation Report on
the Minnesota Electronics Recycling Act. Available at
https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/lrw-hw-lsvll.pdf.
MPCA, 2010. Evaluation Report on the Minnesota Electronics Recycling Act. Available at
https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/lrw-hw-lsvlO.pdf.
Muller, E., Schluep, M., Widmer, R., Gottschalk, F., Boni, H. 2009. Assessment of e-waste
flows: a probabilistic approach to quantify e-waste based on world ICT and
development indicators. Available at
http://www.ewasteguide.info/Mueller 2009 R09.
Khaliq, A., Rhamdani, M.A., Brooks, G., Masood, S. 2014. Metal Extraction Processes for
Electronic Waste and Existing Industrial Routes: A Review and Australian
Perspective. Resources 3: 152-179.
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
A-3
-------
Appendix A: Additional Detail on Selected State and National Programs
Kiddee, P., Naidu, R., Wong, M.H., 2013. Electronic waste management approaches: an
overview. Waste Management 33: 1237-1250.
Mearian, L., 2014. U.S. TV Sales Shrink Nearly 10%. Computerworld. February 10. Available
at http://www.computerworld.com/article/2487530/personal-technoloov/u-s--tv-
sales-shrink-nearlv-10-.html.
MRC (Michigan Recycling Coalition), 2012. Letter to Representatives Crawford and
Farrington and members of the House Regulatory Reform Committee. Dated May 23,
2012. Available at http://www.house.mi.oov/sessiondocs/2011-
2012/testimonv/Committeel9-5-23-2012-2.pdf.
NPD DisplaySearch, 2014. LCD TV Growth Improving, As Plasma and CRT TV Disappear,
According to NPD DisplaySearch. Available at
http://www.displavsearch.com/cps/rde/xcha/displavsearch/hs.xsl/140415 led tv ar
owth improving as plasma and crt tv disappear.asp.
NWPSC (Northwest Product Stewardship Council), 2010. Analysis of E-Cycle Programs in
Washington and Oregon. Available at:
http://productstewardshiP.net/PDFs/productsElectronicsEcvcleWAORReport.pdf.
Pinto, V.N., 2008. E-waste hazard: The impending challenge. Indian J. Occup. Environ. Med.
2008 Aug; 12(2): 65-70. Available at
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.aov/pmc/articles/PMC2796756/.
Pollette, C. How Refurbished Electronics Work. How Stuff Works. Available at
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/evervdav-tech/refurbished-electronic.htm.
PSI (Product Stewardship Initiative), 2011. Designing an Effective Electronics Recycling
Program: Lessons Learned from Existing State Programs. Available at
http://c. vmcdn.com/sites/www.productstewardship.us/resource/resmgr/imported/De
signing an Effective Electronics Recycling Prooram.pdf.
Roy, S., 2015. Chart of the day: How many tablet PCs have been sold in US since 2010?
Available at http://www.onlinemarketino-trends.com/2015/Q3/chart-of-dav-how-
manv-tablet-pcs-have.html.
Shuey, S.A.; Taylor, P., 2004. A Review of Pyrometallurgical Treatment of Electronic Scrap.
In Proceedings of the SME Annual Meeting, Denver, CO, USA, 23-25 February.
StEP (Solving the E-Waste Problem), 2009. White Paper: One Global Understanding of Re-
Use - Common Definitions. 05 March 2009a. Available at http://www.step-
initiative.org/files/step/ documents/StEP TF3 WPCommonDefinitions.pdf.
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), 2007. E-Waste Volume I: Inventory
Assessment Manual, Chapter 3: Guidelines for Selection of Methodology for WEEE/E-
waste Inventory. Available at
http://www.unep.or.ip/ietc/Publications/spc/EWasteManual Voll.pdf.
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
A-4
-------
Appendix A: Additional Detail on Selected State and National Programs
Wang, F., Huisman, J., Stevels, A., Balde, C.P., 2013. Enhancing e-waste estimates:
Improving data quality by multivariate Input-Output Analysis. Waste Management
33(11): 2397-2407. Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X13003073/pdfft?md5=5
0032d86a2407f24c52d8703a3e83fba&pid = l-s2.0-S0956053X13003073-main.pdf.
WI DNR, 2014. E-Cycle Wisconsin 2014 report. Available at:
http://dnr.wi.aov/files/PDF/pubs/wa/wal737.pdf.
WI E-Cycle Stakeholder Meeting, 2015a. Anecdotal evidence obtained during discussions at
the E-Cycle Stakeholder Meeting in Madison, WI (Katherine Bronstein).
WI E-Cycle Stakeholder Meeting, 2015b. E-Cycle Wisconsin Stakeholder Meeting Summary.
May 19, 2015. UW Pyle Center, Madison, Wisconsin. Available at
http://dnr.wi.aov/topic/ecvcle/documents/2015stakeholdermeetinasummarv.pdf.
WI E-Cycle Stakeholder Meeting, 2014. E-Cycle Wisconsin Stakeholder Meeting Summary.
May 7, 2014 Pyle Center, Madison. Available at
http://dnr.wi.aov/topic/ecvcle/documents/stakeholdermeetinasummarv.pdf.
Zumbuehl, D. 2006. Mass flow assessment (MFA) and assessment of recycling strategies for
cathode ray tubes (CRTs) for the Cape Metropolitan Area (CMA), South Africa.
Available at http://www.ewasteauide.info/files/Zumbuehl 2006 ETH-Empa.pdf.
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
A-5
-------
Appendix A: Additional Detail on Selected State and National Programs
Appendix A:
Additional Detail on Selected State and National Programs
This appendix provides additional details on the selected state programs as well as national
efforts that are under way related to the end-of-life (EOL) management of used electronics.
A.l Products Covered by Legislation in the Selected States
The selected states with e-waste laws and programs offer free collection and recycling of
covered electronic devices (CEDs) for households, K-12 public schools, and small
businesses. Table A-l presents the CEDs in the selected states. Two states (i.e., Michigan
and Indiana) also offer free collection and recycling for businesses, although Indiana has a
caveat that the covered business must be deemed a "small business," which they define as
employing fewer than 100 people. Michigan allows both households and businesses to
recycle their used electronics at no cost with a limit of seven items in a single day.
Table A-l. Product Coverage in the Selected States with Used Electronics
(E-waste) Laws
Televisions Monitors Computers
Flat Flat Mobile
State CRT Panel CRT Panel Portable Desktop Phones Other Devices
IL
y
y
y
y
y
y
ya
CEDs: Printers, fax machines,
scanners, mice, keyboards, MP3
players, video game consoles,
VCRs, DVD players
EEDs: Computer cables, PDAs, zip
drives
IN
y
y
y
y
y
ya
CEDs: Printers, keyboards, fax
machines, VCRs, DVD players
MI
y
y
y
y
y
y
CEDs: Printers
MN
y
y
y
y
y
ya
CEDs: Tablets, e-readers, digital
picture frames (whose displays are
9"+ diagonally)
EEDs: Keyboards, mice, fax
machines, DVD players, VCRs, any
device sold exclusively for external
use with a computer that provides
input or output from a computer
WI
y
y
y
y
y
y
EEDs: Printers, keyboards, fax
machines, DVD players, VCRs
Note: CED = covered electronic device; EED = eligible electronic device.
a The product is not a CED according to state law, but it is considered to be an EED.
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
A-l
-------
Appendix A: Additional Detail on Selected State and National Programs
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Minnesota have large scopes of CEDs within their collection
and recycling programs that include other electronic devices common in U.S. households
that are not specifically covered by the state program, such as VCRs, DVD players, printers,
and other computer peripherals. Minnesota's e-waste program also covers "any other device
sold exclusively for external use with a computer that provides input or output in or from a
computer," making its program one of the most comprehensive of those evaluated here.
The program in Illinois is the only one in the selected states that includes mobile phones
from households as a CED. The lack of coverage for mobile phones across the selected state
laws may be surprising as mobile phones are ranked third in the CTA's Most Owned Tech by
U.S. Households (CTA, 2015). However, there are numerous mobile phone EOL
management methods available to the consumer, such as selling them to a third party
vendor (e.g., Gazelle, uSell), and donating or selling them back to a retailer or
manufacturer (e.g., Verizon).
A.2 Program Registration and Funding Mechanisms
A.2.1 Program Registration
To monitor the activities of manufacturers, collectors, and recyclers and to track, validate,
and enforce their goals under the directive of each state's recycling program, most entities
participating in the state programs are required to register each year with the ruling body.
The states included in this evaluation prohibit manufacturers from selling their products,
either directly or through a retailer, in their state if the manufacturer does not register with
the program. Annual registration is required as opposed to a one-time registration to more
closely track trends in compliance and collection, which assists the ruling body of the
program in evaluating what aspects of the program are working and which need
improvement. Table A-2 indicates, by state, whether the manufacturer, collector or recycler
have to register with their respective state program. Michigan has the fewest registration
(and reporting) requirements, while Illinois has the most stringent requirements, including
requiring refurbishers to register.
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
A-2
-------
Appendix A: Additional Detail on Selected State and National Programs
Table A-2. Entities that Must Register Under the Selected State Programs
Must Register?
State
Manufacturers
Collectors
Recyclers
Refurbishers
IL
y
y
y
y
IN
y
y
y
X
MI
y
X
y
X
MN
y
y
y
X
WI
y
y
y
X
The specific manufacturer registration requirements by state are provided in Table A-3. All
states require OEMs to register, and they must report (1) the weight of CED sales in the
current or previous year, or (2) the weight of CEDs collected by the OEM in the previous
year. The enforcing agency uses these data to create a recycling goal for each OEM for the
next program year. OEMs generally report this information in their annual report. For
example, Indiana and Michigan require OEMs to provide the total weights of the CEDs
manufactured during the previous year in their annual registration. Michigan simply tasks
manufacturers with reporting the total weight of CEDs they received from their takeback
program in the previous year. Indiana requires manufacturers to estimate the weight of
CEDs sold during the previous 12 months based on sales data, whether those data are
state-specific or national sales data apportioned to the state's population.
Michigan is the only state that does not require manufacturers to disclose whether any of
their CEDs sold to households within the state exceed the maximum concentration values
established for certain hazardous substances under the Restriction of Hazardous Substances
(RoHS) Directive4 adopted by the European Union. The directive restricts the use of lead,
mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, polybrominated biphenyls, and polybrominated
diphenyl esters because high concentrations of these substances have proven to be harmful
to human health. Manufacturer disclosure of devices containing these substances can help
inform collectors and recyclers working with the manufacturer of any additional protocol
they may need to follow in order to ensure worker safety.
4 For more information about the European Union's RoHS Directive, see
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/rohs eee/index en.htm.
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
A-3
-------
Appendix A: Additional Detail on Selected State and National Programs
Table A-3. Manufacturer Registration Requirements Under the Selected States'
Programs
State
Requires
List of
Brands?
Requires Data on
Weight of CEDs?
Requires
Certification
of Compliance
With State
and Federal
Laws?
Additional Requirements
IL
Yes
No
Manufacturer's annual
report only, based on
sales records or
national sales data
Yes
Disclosure as to whether any video display
devices sold to households exceed
maximum concentration values established
for substances under the RoHS Directive
IN
Yes
Yes
An estimate (based on
sales data) of the total
weight in pounds of the
manufacturer's video
display devices sold
during the previous 12
months
Yes
Demonstration as to how the manufacturer
plans to meet their recycling goal for the
upcoming program year
Disclosure as to whether any video display
devices sold to households exceed
maximum concentration values established
for substances under the RoHS Directive
MI
Yes
Yes
The total weight of
CEDs received by the
manufacturer's
takeback program in
the previous year
No
Must provide details on how the OEM is to
educate consumers about how and where to
return CEDs with the manufacturer's label
Must detail the processes and methods used
to recycle or reuse CEDs received from
consumers
Identification of the collector(s) and
recycler(s) used by the manufacturer to
handle CEDs
MN
Yes
No
Manufacturer's annual
report only, based on
sales records or
national sales data
No
Disclosure as to whether any video display
devices sold to households exceed
maximum concentration values established
for substances under the RoHS Directive
WI
Yes
No
Manufacturer's annual
report only, based on
sales records or
national sales data
Yes
Must also include a description as to how
the manufacturer calculated the weight they
reported. Manufacturers are not required to
report these numbers until its CEDs have
been sold or offered for sale to households
or schools in the state for one full program
year.
Disclosure as to whether any video display
devices sold to households exceed
maximum concentration values established
for substances under the RoHS Directive
Table A-4 specifies the registration requirements for collectors, and Table A-5 details the
recycler requirements for the states with electronics recycling programs and legislation that
were evaluated as part of this study.
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
A-4
-------
Appendix A: Additional Detail on Selected State and National Programs
Table A-4. Collector Registration Requirements Under the Selected States'
Programs
Must Report
State
Must
Register?
Where
CEDs/EEDs
Are
Received?
Total Weight of
CEDs/EEDs
Collected
Annually?
Additional Requirements
IL
Yes
Yes
Yes
¦ A list of each recycler and refurbisher that
received CEDs and EEDs from the collector,
and the total weight they received
¦ Collectors cannot recycle or refurbish unless
they have also registered as a recycler/
refurbisher
IN
Yes
No
No
¦ N/A
MI
No
N/A
N/A
¦ N/A
MN
Yes
Yes
No
¦ Certification of compliance with applicable
state and federal legislation
WI
Yes
Yes
No
¦ Certification of compliance with applicable
state and federal legislation
¦ May not use prison labor to collect CEDs and
EEDs
Note: N/A = not applicable.
Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin require manufacturers, collectors, and recyclers to report
more detailed information, including the address of each location where they manage CEDs
and EEDs and identification of each location at which they accept CEDs and EEDs from a
residence, the locations they send the CEDs and EEDs to (and the weight of those items),
and the weight of CEDs and EEDs collected or recycled by manufacturer. This level of detail
allows for a more complete data set and understanding of the material flows. Additionally,
Illinois is the only state requiring refurbishers to register with the state's program although
the registration and reporting requirements for refurbishers are identical to those of
recyclers in the state.
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
A-5
-------
Appendix A: Additional Detail on Selected State and National Programs
Table A-5. Recycler Registration Requirements Under the Selected States'
Programs
Must Report
Where
Total Weight
CEDs/EEDs
of CEDs/EEDs
Must
Are
Collected
State
register?
Received?
Annually?
Additional Requirements
IL
Yes
Yes
Yes
¦ Must implement applicable environmental
health and safety training measures
¦ Keep an up-to-date hazardous material
management plan (details in legislation)
¦ Maintain liability insurance for accidents and
emergencies
¦ Completion of an EHS audit
¦ Use of a record-keeping program that tracks
inbound and outbound CED and EED weights
¦ Compliance with export laws
¦ May not use prison labor to recycle CEDs and
EEDs
IN
Yes
No
No
¦ N/A
MI
Yes
No
No
¦ Maintain a documented EHS management
system
¦ May not use prison labor to recycle CEDs and
EEDs
MN
Yes
Yes
No
¦ Certification of compliance with applicable
state and federal legislation
¦ May not use prison labor to recycle CEDs and
EEDs
WI
Yes
Yes
No
¦ Certification that the recycler meets all
operational requirements outlined by the rule
¦ Certification of compliance with applicable
state and federal legislation requirements
concerning storage, transportation,
processing, and exporting EEDs and materials
derived from EEDs as well as all applicable
environmental, health and safety protocol
¦ Maintain liability insurance for accidents and
emergencies as required by the rule (at least
$1,000,000 for environmental releases,
accidents, and other emergencies).
¦ May not use prison labor
A. 2.2 State Program Funding Mechanisms
Annual registration fees collected from manufacturers fund the e-waste programs
implemented by the selected states. This cost model is referred to as extended producer
responsibility. Table A-6 provides a summary of the annual registration fees charged to
manufacturers, as well as where the collected funds are deposited and what the funds can
be used for.
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
A-6
-------
Appendix A: Additional Detail on Selected State and National Programs
Table A-6. Manufacturer Fees in the Selected States with Programs
State
Registration Fee
Where is the Fee
Deposited?
Uses for Collected Fees
IL
$5,000 annually
Electronic waste
Costs to administer the
$1,250 for manufacturers selling
recycling fund
program
less than 250 CEDs in the prior
Grants ($2,000 for each
calendar year
recycling coordinator in each
Recyclers and refurbishers pay
county)
$500 annually
IN
$5,000 for the first year
Electronic waste
Costs to administer the
$2,500 annually each year
recycling fund
program
thereafter, plus a variable
Funds can be
If registration fees are in
recycling fee
transferred to and
excess of administration
Manufacturers producing less than
used by the
costs, money is prorated
100 video display devices during
Department of
back to manufacturers
the previous calendar year cannot
Environmental
be charged a fee
Management
MI
$3,000 annually
Electronic waste
Costs to administer the
If the electronic waste recycling
recycling fund
program
fund has more than $600,000 in
Pay outreach and education
any year, the department shall not
programs designed to provide
charge manufacturers a fee the
residents with information
following program year
and opportunities to recycle
electronics
MN
$2,500 annually plus a variable
Electronic waste
Costs to administer the
recycling fee
recycling fund
program
Manufacturers producing less than
Grants to counties and
100 video display devices during
private entities operating in
the previous calendar year are
rural areas
charged $1,250 annually
WI
$5,000 annually
Electronic waste
Costs to administer the
$1,250 for manufacturers that sell
recycling fund
program
at least 25 but less than 250 CEDs
during the previous calendar year
Fee waived for manufacturers
selling less than 25 CEDs
Illinois is the only state that was evaluated here that requires recyclers and refurbishers to
pay an annual fee with the submittal of their annual registration. When Illinois' program
began in 2010, recyclers were required to pay a fee of $2,000 along with their annual
registration. In 2011, the state decreased the fee to $500 for those recyclers and
refurbishers that collect less than 1,000 tons per year from registered manufacturers. From
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
A-7
-------
Appendix A: Additional Detail on Selected State and National Programs
2012 forward, the fee charged to recyclers and refurbishers increases by an inflation factor
determined by the annual Implicit Price Deflator for GDP5 for the previous program year.
The annual registration fees are primarily used to administer the electronics recycling
program within a given state. Some states allow the funds to be used for other purposes
that benefit registrants and aid them in meeting their year-to-year targets. For example, in
Indiana, money remaining in the fund at the end of the fiscal year may be used to make
loans to assist: (1) persons in establishing new recycling businesses, (2) in the expansion of
existing recycling businesses, and (3) manufacturers in retrofitting equipment necessary to
reuse or recycle secondary materials. Additionally, in Illinois, Indiana, and Minnesota,
remaining funds can be used to provide grants to program participants. Specifically, Illinois
apportions $2,000 from the fund annually to each county's recycling coordinator so that
they may boost collection and recycling operations across the state and better inform
residents in each county about the electronic recycling program. Minnesota also provides
grants but focuses on rural counties and private entities that operate in those rural areas.
As previously noted, operating collection sites in rural areas has many challenges, including
staffing, illegal dumping/drop-offs, and difficulties in collecting enough material to justify
the costs of a hauler to move the material to a processing facility.
A-3 Manufacturer Recycling Goals, Credits, and Incentives
Implementing a workable, cost-effective, and efficient collection and recycling system can
take time, so states frequently have set lower manufacturer recycling goals in the first year
that a recycler registers under the state program. As shown in Table A-7, Illinois, Indiana,
and Minnesota all have lower goals for the first year a manufacturer registers with the
program to allow the manufacturer ample time to comply. Manufacturer goals in Indiana
and Minnesota increase from 60 percent of the weight of previous year sales to 80 percent
of the weight of previous year sales after the first year, while the program in Illinois
increases over a longer period (the first year starts at 40 percent of the weight of previous
year sales and increases by up to 10 percent each year thereafter). Michigan's program is
5 An economic metric that accounts for inflation by converting output measured at current
prices into constant-dollar gross domestic product (GDP). The GDP deflator shows how
much a change in the base year's GDP relies upon changes in the price level. Changes in
consumption patterns or the introduction of new goods and services are automatically
reflected in the deflator. For more information, see
http://www.investopedia.eom/terms/a/adppricedeflator.asp.
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
A-8
-------
Appendix A: Additional Detail on Selected State and National Programs
the most lenient towards OEMs, with a nonbinding target of 60 percent of the weight of
CEDs sold during the previous year.
Table A-7. Selected State Program Goals and Collection Incentives
State
Manufacturer Recycling Goal
Subsequent
First Year Years
Penalties for
Missing recycling
Goal
Incentives for
Rural Areas?
Incentives
for Reuse?
IL
> 40% of the total
weight of electronic
devices that the
manufacturer sold in
that category during
the previous calendar
year in the state
Increases by up to
10% over
previous year's
goal for each
program year
after the first
Must pay shortfall
fee for pounds not
collected
Yes, 2x credit for
collected devices in
underserved
counties
Yes, 2x
credit
IN
> 60% of the total
weight of the
manufacturer's CEDs
sold to households as
reported in the
manufacturer's
registration for the
program year
Increases to 80%
after the first year
Must pay shortfall
fee for pounds not
collected
Yes, 1.5x credit for
rural areas; 1.6x
credit for rural
areas and recycling
within Indiana
No
MI
Nonbinding target of
60% of the total
weight of the
manufacturer's CEDs
sold in the state
during the previous
year
No change
None
No
No
MN
> 60% of the total
weight of the
manufacturer's CEDs
sold in the state
during the previous
year
Increases to 80%
after the first year
Must pay shortfall
fee for pounds not
collected
Yes, 1.5x credit
No
WI
> 80% of the total
weight of the
manufacturer's CEDs
sold in the state
during the previous
year
No change
Must pay shortfall
fee for pounds not
collected
Yes, 1.25x credit
No
All of the selected states with legislation, except for Michigan, offer incentives for collection
and recycling on behalf of manufacturers in rural areas, providing a 1.25 to 1.5 multiplier
for collected weights in areas defined as rural by state legislation. Indiana offers a baseline
multiplier of 1.5 for weights collected in rural areas, and also offers a small incentive of 1.1
times for weights that are collected and recycled in Indiana, regardless of whether they
were collected in an urban or rural county.
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
A-9
-------
Appendix A: Additional Detail on Selected State and National Programs
Illinois is the only one of the selected states to offer incentives for reuse of a collected
device. Manufacturers in the Illinois program can double the weight of any CEDs collected
and processed for reuse, and can triple any weight totals for used electronics that are
donated for reuse to a low-income or majority developmental^ disabled primary or
secondary public education institution. Illinois offers the most incentives towards
manufacturer goals, including a 2 times multiplier for weights collected free of charge in
underserved counties and a 3 times multiplier for weights collected on behalf of a
manufacturer by a facility that qualifies as a nonprofit and has a developmental^ disabled
workforce of 75 percent of the total or greater.
A.4 Collection Sites
Electronics collection sites include permanent drop-off locations and temporary events (e.g.,
1-day events at a specified location) that cater primarily to households. Consumers of great
quantities of devices (businesses, universities, government) generally fall outside the state
legislation and tend to engage in a more formal agreement with a collector, broker or
recycler, an OEM, or a business in the information technology asset disposition (ITAD)
sector.
Collection facilities are generally distributed across each state, with more in cities and
metropolitan areas because of the higher population density and resulting higher collection
volumes. While no comprehensive source exists on the challenges of used electronic
collection in rural areas, those in the state programs and especially the haulers that serve
the rural areas, acknowledge that there are hurdles in both cost and time associated with
the rural collection. None of the state laws evaluated here include requirements with respect
to the spacing of collection sites as a function of population density. Some states outside
the scope of this study (e.g., Washington, Oregon, New York) include siting requirements
(e.g., one collection point in every county and one in population centers over 10,000
people) to ensure that everyone in the state, no matter how rural their place of residence,
has access to a collection site.
Maps of the registered collection sites for Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin are
presented in Figures A-l through A-4. Note that only the sites registered with the states'
programs are presented in these maps and they do not include every type of e-waste/used
electronics drop-off site, such as Verizon and Best Buy stores. The Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources (WI DNR), unlike the other states, maintains a list of 1-day and
temporary events in addition to the permanent collection sites. These maps also identify the
counties for which there are no collection sites. Michigan's e-waste program only requires
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
A-10
-------
Appendix A: Additional Detail on Selected State and National Programs
recyclers to register, thus the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MI DEQ) does
not maintain a centralized list of collection sites.
Figure A-l. E-waste Collection Sites in Indiana (as of July 2015)
Chicago
~
Illinois
• • tT LAP0RTE ST.
Michigan
• £
• POSTER
STEUBEN
•-
DEKALB
KOSCIUSKO
• •
VMItLEY
MMI11IKNM
WABASH
CASS *IAMI •
Jf
HOHAADv
GRAM1 „ ^ r——-
* BLACKFOflD J4Y
UAAREN TIPPECANOE CLlNfOB* TIPTO* OELAMARE f~
* ' - I *
I ' | MADISON ' ^*"001-PH
FOUNTAIN
MONTGOMERV HAMILTON
. BOONt
HEN*'
VERMULION
PARKS
• HARJOK
Indianapolishancock
VlfiO
f
SHELBY«
JOHNSON %
owen honroe
• .
MftTHOUMOf
• •
BAOHN
RIPLEY
• ^
3ENNIN6S ._V*OMtO/
%
GIBSON
VANDKRftUKGM
POSFY ¦#
- ¦#
..PIKE %
- DUBOIS
, •• L?sa
ORANGE NftSHWGTW cuutK
%
%
lARftlSON
Kentucky
Qftio
e-Waste Collection Sites
• Collector
A Storage and Processor
| Collector, Storage and Processor
Counties with Collection. Processor Sites
Counties without Collection Sites
#
0 5 tO
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
A-11
-------
Appendix A: Additional Detail on Selected State and National Programs
Figure A-2. E-waste Collection Sites Registered Under the Illinois Electronic
Waste Management Program (as of July 2015)
DRAFT
Hi WE SAG* ; MCHENRY LAKE
M BOO'ii - •*##**$
DAVIESS • *° i • " _
51£PHI*154W #* * • J*
iCARROLL QG4.I *
Iowa
••
ROCK ISLAM) HENRY
MERCER
n 068 ; J-&SL
f • * WKAL8
kxi'isrjr
mnisallV •JC0Qf4
lE r $
# HADKEN
HENDERSON
Ri-- -
HMCOCX MCOONOu8h
| KNOX ^
PLT HAM
STARK jwrsHall
LASALL
# 9 - #
_J • • *
LIVINGSTON
v
kankI^ee
IROQUOIS
FULTON /^TAZEWELL.
SCHUYLER MA50N
VERMILION
BROWN" - CASS
ntXE MORGAN •
SCOTT SAMGAJ
HENARD L0GAN
DE MITT
MACON j^TT
CHAMPAIGN
Springfield %
m
INGAMON
MOULTRIE
, DOUGLAS
CHRISTIAN
CALHOUN GREENE MACOUPINI SHSLBV
JERSEY
MONTGOMERY
FAYETTE
COLES
»* %
^ISM ^ *
CUMBER LANO
EFFINGHAM
JASPER
CLARK
Missouri
Clair WASHINGTON
i JEFFERSON
e-Waste Collection Sites
• Collection Sites
Counties without Collection Sites
Counties with Coftectkxn Siies
CRAWFORD
m • • CUV LAWRENCE-
" K. cumoN* "¦"« •
WABASH
WVNE FlU^S
I MONROE* ^ • I
RANDOLPH PERRY i HAMILTON
• FRANKLIN l*
-------
Appendix A: Additional Detail on Selected State and National Programs
Figure A-3. E-waste Collection Sites Registered under E-Cycle Minnesota
(as of July 2015)
Canada
ROSEAU
LAKE Of
THE KOOOS
PENNINGTON
P01* RED LAKE
ST.
LOUIS
Lake
Superior
OTTS*
\ _ TAIL
•
•
GRANT
DOUGLAS
TRAVERSE
BIG
STEVE N5
•
•
WE
STONE
CHOW
WING
I MILL*
MORRISON | lacs
*
LAC
QUI#
STEARNS
f •
KANDIYOHI -
'.BENTON
*
/
O^fiAGO
w -r ¦
*IS%
VELLOM
MEDICINE
LYON ,
UQlCQLM
RENVILLE
REDWOOD
MCLEOD CARVER
WMtv T- SCOTT
"WASHINGTON
Paul
Wisconsin
NICOLLET SUEUR RICE
¦ r- —* M-I BROWN
*?"¥ «r»»«
• • ¦ 'TTvWHOCa #
NOBLES
JACKSON MARTIN
«A5FCA +
* STEELE OOOGI •
OUtSTED
FREEBORN MOWER
WINONA
FILLMORE HOUSTON
% #
y
e-Waste Collection Sites
Collection Site
Counties without Collection Sites
Counties with Collection Sites
0 10 20
Mite*
lowa
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
A-13
-------
Appendix A: Additional Detail on Selected State and National Programs
Figure A-4. E-waste Collection Sites Registered Under E-Cycle Wisconsin Located
in Wisconsin (as of July 2015)
DRAFT
Lake
S u p ft r i 0 t
«
DOUGLAS , BAYFIELD
Michigan
(MUM £
* • *0ft{&1
cftoix • en:
j * « • *
ISwT <
• • .
V
M.
™ t*.
• %
tAMAMO % •
• • » KtMAUMEC
• • XJTAGAXU
ItlO una ftrt A
JAttSO# *
THWEAUAU [ fUUUICMX
mu/wjju JkmtwM %
« . %• . J
* • • HR3QUETTE t,RFf"N WiBOYCkMl L 9k*
>r 1 • 3UNMU W#* V Du ^ W/cmyjn
#
# « £
. ¦# v:
e-Waste Collection Sites
Sit© Duration Type (;
• Permanent
Temporary q iq
• Ono-Day Even! '
Counties with Collection S*res
Counties without Collection Sites
Indiana
Note: The WI DNR., unlike the other states, maintains a list of 1-day and temporary events in addition
to the permanent collection sites.
A-5 Processing/Recycling Facilities
Similar to the collection sites, the recycling facilities are distributed across the states.
Electronics recyclers are required to register in all of the selected states with e-waste laws;
however, there are most likely unregistered recyclers in operation. Like the collection site
maps, counties without any e-waste processing facilities are identified in Figures A-5
through A-9. National views are presented because the materials collected are often shipped
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
A-14
-------
Appendix A: Additional Detail on Selected State and National Programs
out of state for processing. The facilities included in these maps were listed on each state's
e-waste program Web site. Additionally, many recycling facilities perform multiple
operations such as collecting materials and refurbishing material. Illinois is the only state
included in this evaluation where e-waste refurbishers are required to register under the e-
waste program; thus this information was readily available and is presented here. All other
state maps present e-waste recycling facilities only.
Figure A-5. Recycling Facilities Registered Under Michigan's E-Waste Takeback
Program Located in Michigan (as of July 2015)
* H:
1 —
*, »
i #
lUHUfl
e'Was to Rn-cyclor Si tea
ft
*
"ft; i'Uui M»cic^f"i
&
{torus wtfi R^evdwrn
¦C ¦& W
R*c Fruhn
Uir»
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
A-15
-------
Appendix A: Additional Detail on Selected State and National Programs
Figure A-6. Recycling Facilities Registered Under Michigan's E-Waste Takeback
Program Located Outside of Michigan (as of July 2015)
Electronic Waste Recycler Sites
Legend
• Recyciers
Inside of Ml
• Recyciers
Outside of Ml
Michigan
U.S. States
Source Ml DEQ
0 100 200
Miles
Michigan
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
A-16
-------
Appendix A: Additional Detail on Selected State and National Programs
Figure A-7. Recyclers Registered Under E-Cycle Minnesota Located in Minnesota
(as of July 2015)
Canada
¦ •
, KITTSON
ROSEAU
• -
LAKE OF
THE WOODS
PENNINGTON
\ P0LK RED LAKE 1
KOOCHICHING
CLEARl'.'A'
NORMAN
CLAY
\WILKIN I
ST.
LOUIS
HUBBARD
I
OTTER
TAIL
CROW
WING
AITKIN
•f-
CARLTON
GRANT DOUGLAS
¦'TRAVERSE • | ' . " " | CHHrAGO
BIG POPE STEARNS a • isanti
STONE # • >HERBURNE# ~JB
' w,?! IwNDIYoif —1 • * ANOKA —
• S"1" | # -t • WASHINGTON
LAC * WRIGHT / ,% RMSfv .
qui • -' .CHIPPEWA , MEEKER | •• ,1 fc > »
PARLE • b-. , ! . HENNEPI^fcSt. Paul
— YELLOW - . MCLE0D UIVEV~r' "
_ MEDICINE " RE _ , DAKOTA :
J m ; pine
' i MILLE 1 •
MORRISON LACS
' I'M. ^
:#W -1 ^ IKANABEC • /
/
CHISAGO
\i.ni
*
J YELLOW
MEDICINE
LYON
MCLEOD CARVER-"., V 5
RENVILLE [—1_ IS 1 DAKOTA
V. r^BLEY^SC0TT ;•
REDWOOD
NICOLLET. SUEUR
PIPESTONE WRRAY
• I •
h
BROWN
RIC£ GOOOHUE ~
• | WABASHA
I
WATONWAN BLUE STEELE
COTTONWOOD; • EARTH • 3I"LC
ROCK NOBLES
3ACKS0N MARTIN FARIBAULT FREEBORN
DODGE
COOK
LAKE
Lake
Superior
Wisconsin
• I Wlf^NA
OLMSTED
FILLMORE
MOWER
HOUSTON
e-Waste Recycler Sites
• Recycler Site
~| Counties with Recycler Sites
Counties without Recycler Sites
0 10 20
Miles
Iowa
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
A-17
-------
Appendix A: Additional Detail on Selected State and National Programs
Figure A-8. Recycling Facilities Registered Under E-Cycle Wisconsin Located
Inside of Wisconsin (as of July)
Lake
9 Superior
Minnesota
OQUGLAS BAYFIEtO
Michigan:
MASHIUJRN
» SAWYUt
AS HI AM)
CROIX • m
< . •
PjPIN J
CHIPPfUA
#
TAYLOR
#
ONEIDA
I INC01 N
• 1-AJtfH ADF
FtORFNCF /
F0HE5T L
HARINFTTi
lA^KSQN
¦ TRENPFAl IAU
HSNOHINEt
MARATHON
•
•
SHAWANO •
"S ~
•
V
PORT AM
WAUPACA ,
%
• ^0U! AG AM 11
I
BROWN
LA
^CROSSf
HON KM
* • KM) VHOOY,.^
3U«AU u" » DO • •
LAC I ¦ •
• VfcftNON •
k>wa
¦ ftlCHl AND i 1At;K
-CRAWfORD #
GRANT I0**
COLUMBIA
• •
(HOGt
fi QZA
9
CKMKSE
LAfAYETTt GRE*«
O*,
iA JfcfftwiOh * #
^®diso<1 fr
Thai worth ltAC
« • •*
• • I •#
A. k 1- ».:< ivnA *
e-Waste Recycler Sites
• Registered e-Waste Recycler
Counties wiUi Collector! Sites
Counlies witftoul Collection Sites
ft 0 to 20
Miles
Illinois
Indiana
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
A-18
-------
Appendix A: Additional Detail on Selected State and National Programs
Figure A-9. Recycling Facilities Registered Under E-Cycle Wisconsin Located
Outside of Wisconsin (as of July)
Registered Electronic Waste Recyclers
•? * wa / ( - —- •. r \
" 1 1 /' .#1 _ f? Uf'"'
• - r-—^ XaBBy .Jte j
{ wy P '! ./L -'"v '
¦ m > j ~~ ~ ' / j il in \ /
01 I Vi"~ — s ZX ;>k L ^
\ ^ j ks \ffm X. ^ s[ VA ^
^ NM j L_ j AR j" | ' SC
Vf \
Legend
• Recyclers
inside cf Wl
• Recyclers
Outside of W!
Wisconsin
1 U.S. Stales
H
1
0 100 200
Miles
Wisconsin
• V 1-f
*'C*
A.6 Annual Reports from Registered Entities and State Program
Evaluation Reports
All state electronic waste recycling programs require manufacturers to report the weight of
CEDs collected or recycled on their behalf in an annual report submitted to the state
program tasked with implementing and enforcing each state's rule. Table A-8 summarizes
the specific annual reporting requirements for the states evaluated here.
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
A-19
-------
Appendix A: Additional Detail on Selected State and National Programs
Table A-8. Reporting Requirements for Entities Subject to State E-waste Laws
State Facility Annual Reporting Requirements
IL Manufacturers:
Manufacturers are required to submit an annual report to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(IEPA) that includes the total weight in pounds of CEDs and EEDs recycled and collected or processed
for reuse (monitors, computers, printers, fax machines, scanners called out separately from other
CEDs, others are 'remaining CEDs'); the identification of all weights adjusted (e.g., items for donation
that get 3x credit); a list of each recycler, refurbisher, and collector used by the manufacturer to fulfill
their goal; and a summary of the manufacturer's consumer education program.
IN Manufacturers:
Due by June of each year. Manufacturers are required to submit a report to the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management (IDEM) that includes an estimate of the total weight in pounds of video
display devices sold to households by the manufacturer during the program year; the total weight in
pounds of CEDs the manufacturer collected from eligible entities and recycled or arranged to have
collected from eligible entities and recycled during the program year; and a count of the number of
recycling credits held, sold, or to be used by the manufacturer during the program year. Manufacturers
may not use credits to meet more than 25% of their annual goals.
Collectors:
Collectors are required to report the total weight in pounds of CEDs collected in Indiana by the
collector and a list of all recyclers to whom the collector delivered CEDs.
Recvclers:
Recyclers are obligated to submit an annual report outlining the total weight in pounds of CEDs
recycled by the recycler and taken by the recycler for final disposal during the immediately preceding
calendar year, a list of all collectors from whom the recycler received CEDs, and a certification that the
recycler has complied with the e-waste law.
MI Manufacturers:
At the beginning of each fiscal year, manufacturers are required to provide the total weight of CEDs
received by the takeback program in the previous year to the Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality (MI DEQ).
Recvclers:
Recyclers must report the total weight of CEDs recycled during the previous state fiscal year.
(continued)
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
A-20
-------
Appendix A: Additional Detail on Selected State and National Programs
Table A-8. Reporting Requirements for Entities Subject to State E-waste Laws
(continued)
State Facility Annual Reporting Requirements
MN Manufacturers:
By September of each year, manufacturers are required to submit a report to the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA) that contains the total weight of each specific model of its video display
devices sold to households during the previous program year. The manufacturer must also report the
total weight of CEDs the manufacturer collected from households and recycled or arranged to have
collected and recycled during the preceding program year. Manufacturers must separately report the
total weight of CEDs collected from households outside of the 11-county metropolitan area if they wish
to receive 1.5x credit for these counties (deemed rural). Manufacturers must also specify the number
of recycling credits they have purchased and sold during the preceding calendar year, the number of
recycling credits the manufacturer elects to use in the calculation of its variable recycling fee, and the
number of recycling credits remaining in its possession. Manufacturers cannot use credits to meet
more than 25% of their annual goal.
Collectors:
Collectors must separately report the total pounds of CEDs collected in the 11-county metropolitan
area and those counties outside of the designated metropolitan area, and a list of all recycler to whom
collectors delivered CEDs.
Recvclers:
Recyclers of CEDs are required to report the total weight of CEDs recycled during the previous
program year and must certify that they comply with all applicable EHS and financial responsibility
regulations, are licensed by all applicable government entities, use no prison labor to recycle video
display devices, and possess liability insurance of not less than $1,000,000 for environmental releases,
accidents, and other emergencies.
WI Manufacturers:
Must separately report the total weight of EEDs collected from households or schools in rural counties
and those from urban counties in a given program year. The weight is determined by adding the
weight used by households or K-12 public schools in urban counties in that program year and 1.25x
the weight used by households or K-12 public schools in rural counties in that program year.
Must report the total weight of EEDs from households and public K-12 schools that were collected by,
or delivered to the manufacturer for recycling by the manufacturer, or that were collected by, or
delivered to a registered recycler for recycling on behalf of the manufacturer during the last two
program quarters of the preceding year. Manufacturers must report separately the weight of EEDs
used by households or schools in rural counties and used by households or schools in urban counties
for the purpose of obtaining the weight adjustment/credit for collecting in rural areas.
Must also report the credits that the manufacturer has purchased during the preceding program year,
the number of credits sold during the preceding program year, the number of credits the manufacturer
elects to use in its calculation of its shortfall fees in any given program year, and the number of
available credits remaining to the manufacturer. Manufacturers may not use credits to meet more than
20% of their annual goals.
Collectors:
Must submit an annual report that details the total weight of EEDs collected in the state during the
preceding program year and the names of all registered recyclers to whom the collector delivered
EEDs. Collectors may not use prison labor to collect EEDs.
Recvclers:
Must submit an annual report that details the total weight of EEDs collected in the state for recycling
on behalf of a manufacturer during the first 6 months of the program year and the name of the
manufacturer as well as the total weight of EEDs collected in the state that the recycler received for
recycling during the first 6 months of the program year in anticipation of attributing them to a
manufacturer for the purpose of the program.
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
A-21
-------
Appendix A: Additional Detail on Selected State and National Programs
The individual annual reports are reviewed, aggregated, and analyzed by the state program
staff, who are also required to prepare a report on the previous program year to the
legislature or governor (depending on each state's rule requirements). The aggregated
reports are publicly available on the programs' Web sites. Table A-9 provides a high-level
summary of the key information included in each state's annual report. Michigan is the only
state that does not prepare an annual program evaluation report, and the remaining four
states prepare reports that are somewhat similar in content and level of detail. The unique
and more informative sections of each state's report with respect to material flows are
bolded. For example, Illinois and Wisconsin provided estimates of the total amount recycled
by product type, although the methods these quantities were assessed are not described.
Indiana reports on the quantity of electronics recycled inside and outside the state.
Minnesota includes sections on the statewide collection by source (curbside, event,
permanent location, pick-up services, and other) and on consistency between other state
programs.
Table A-9. Key Information Included in the State E-waste Program Reports
State
Program
Report
to the
Legislature
Available
State Online?
Key Information Included in State Program Report
il y
¦ Summary of the law
¦ List of CEDs and EEDs
¦ $2,000 grant recipients
¦ Summary of compliance and enforcement activities (number of
manufacturers that failed to meet program goals and/or requirements)
¦ Total pounds recycled across all program years
¦ Total pounds collected from urban and rural counties
¦ Assigned goals and amount recycled by manufacturer
¦ Total amount collected by manufacturers by CED and EED
¦ Total amount of residential e-waste collected by collection site by CED
and EED
(continued)
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
A-22
-------
Appendix A: Additional Detail on Selected State and National Programs
Table A-9. Key Information Included in the State E-waste Program Reports
(continued)
State
Program
Report
to the
Legislature
Available
State Online?
Key Information Included in State Program Report
IN
y
MI
Summary of the law
List of CEDs
Definition of covered entities
Program participation showing number of registered manufacturers and
registered brands
Geographical representation of counties with registered collection sites
Number of annual reports received and a summary of those that met
or exceeded their goal and those that did not meet their goal across
program years
Total pounds collected as reported by manufacturers and recycled at
in- and out-of-state facilities and by metropolitan and nonmetropolitan
counties
Total credits earned, used, expired, etc.
Total pounds recycled as reported by recyclers and recycled at in- and
out-of-state facilities and by metro and nonmetropolitan counties
Summary of compliance and enforcement activities and policy
recommendations
The department must submit a report (approximately 2 pages) to the
secretary of the senate and to the clerk of the House of
Representatives that assesses the adequacy of the fees and any
departmental recommendation to modify those fees
No annual report to the legislature on program evaluation is required
By April 1, 2012, the Electronic Waste Advisory Council was to have
submitted a report to the governor, the department, and the standing
committees of the legislature with jurisdiction over issues primarily
pertaining to natural resources and the environment. The report was to
evaluate the program under this part and make recommendations to
improve the recycling of CEDs; however, it appears the council never
met (MRC, 2012).
(continued)
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
A-23
-------
Appendix A: Additional Detail on Selected State and National Programs
Table A-9. Key Information Included in the State E-waste Program Reports
(continued)
State
Program
Report
to the
Legislature
Available
State Online? Key Information Included in State Program Report
MN
y
¦ Summary of the law
¦ Total pounds collected from metro and non-metro counties
¦ Total pounds recycled and credits by program year
¦ Number of registered collectors
¦ Statewide collection by source (curbside, event, permanent location,
pick-up services, and other)
¦ Recycling and transportation costs for select counties
¦ Summary of grant awardees
¦ Summary of compliance and enforcement activities
¦ Summary of MPCA activity to promote consistency with other states'
programs
¦ Recommendations for legislative consideration
WI
y
¦ Summary of the law
¦ Summary of program participation across program years for collectors,
recyclers, manufacturers, and brands
¦ Collection sites by type (for-profit, retailer, nonprofit, government, and
for-profit/government)
¦ Description of the fees charged by registered collector
¦ Total pounds recycled from urban and rural areas
¦ Percentage of weight collected by product type (TVs, computer
monitors, computers, other EEDs)
¦ Summary of compliance and enforcement activities
¦ Summary of inspection activities
¦ Compliance and outreach activities related to the disposal ban and
illegal dumping
¦ Program success and challenges
¦ Recommendations for legislative consideration
A-7 Compliance and Enforcement
Varying levels of shortfall fees and penalties are imposed on program participants
(manufacturers, collectors, recyclers, retailers) for not meeting their yearly goals, or for
violating specific requirements outlined by state e-waste laws. The most common penalties
incurred by participants are shortfall fees. When manufacturers fail to meet their recycling
goal for the current program year, they are required to pay a fee to the implementing
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
A-24
-------
Appendix A: Additional Detail on Selected State and National Programs
agency. Other penalties for violating specific articles in the program's directorate include a
manufacturer's failure to submit an annual registration, a retailer's failure to remove CEDs
of an unregistered manufacturer from their shelves in a timely manner, or a recycler's
failure to have a certain amount of liability insurance for their operations in the state.
Table A-10 outlines how the selected states calculate shortfall fees for manufacturer targets
and handle additional violations of their program code.
Table A-10. Fees and Penalties for Noncompliance with State Programs
Additional
Calculation
Penalties for
Shortfall
Method for
Rule
State Fees?
Shortfall Fee
Violations?
Penalty Amounts
IL
Yes
Non-tiered
Yes
Any person violating any provision of the
program pays $7,000 for the violation and
an additional civil penalty not to exceed
$1,000 for each day the violation
continues.
Manufacturers that do not register but are
required to do so by the program are
liable for a civil penalty not to exceed
$10,000 for the violation and an additional
civil penalty of $1,000 for each day the
violation continues.
Recyclers and refurbishers in violation of
the rule are liable for a civil penalty not to
exceed $5,000 for the violation.
A knowing violation of the landfill ban by
anyone other than a residential consumer
is a petty offense punishable by a fine of
$500. Residential consumers can be fined
a petty offense of $25 for the first
violation and $50 for subsequent
violations.
IN
Yes
Tiered
No
N/A
MI
No
N/A
No
N/A
MN
Yes
Tiered
No
N/A
WI
Yes
Tiered
Yes
¦ I
program rules may be required to forfeit
not more than $10,000 for each violation.
Any person, other than a manufacturer,
who violates the program's rules may be
required to forfeit not more than $1,000
for each violation.
Note: N/A = Not applicable.
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
A-25
-------
Appendix A: Additional Detail on Selected State and National Programs
Michigan is the only state in the selected states with an e-waste recycling program that
does not charge its registrants with any type of penalty for failing to meet numerical goals
or for violating any provisions detailed in the program legislation. This lack of fees and
penalties may be tied to its limited span of CEDs (manufacturers of computers and
manufacturers of video display devices) compared to other states.
Of the four states that charge shortfall fees (also referred to as variable recycling fees) to
manufacturers who fail to meet their program year goals, three—Minnesota, Indiana, and
Wisconsin—implement a tiered fee structure where manufacturers are charged less per
uncollected pound if their total collection is close to their target for that program year.
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
A-26
-------
Appendix B Supporting Data and Documentation for the Material Flows Analysis
Appendix B:
Supporting Data and Documentation
for the Material Flows Analysis
This appendix provides additional information on the development of the material flows
analysis (MFA). Section B-l briefly describes the five methods that have been used to
estimate used electronics flows. Section B-2 presents excerpts from a literature review
conducted in support of this report that specifically focused on methods to track used
electronics flows in the United States. Section B-3 provides specific data from this literature
that have been incorporated into the used electronics flow model discussed in Section 3 of
this report.
B.l. Overview of the Five Methods Based on the MFA Concept
There are five methods based on the MFA concept: direct sales to e-waste, time step,
market supply, consumption and use, and sales obsolescence and transboundary flows.
Table B-l presents the data requirements, advantages, and disadvantages of these
methods.
B.l.l. Direct Sales to E-Waste Method
The direct sales to e-waste method is a simplified methodology that assumes the quantity of
e-waste generated in a given year is equivalent to the sales in that year; the flows of the e-
waste past generation are not considered. This method assumes a saturated market and
that with the sale of a new item, an old similar item is disposed of. This method is
mathematically represented by Equation B-l.
e-waste generation (t) = sales (t) EQ. B-l
B.l.2. Time Step Method
The time step method uses private and industrial stock and sales data to calculate the
quantity of e-waste generated and is mathematically described by Equation B-2 (UNEP,
2009). The e-waste potential during collection phase at time t is calculated from the
difference in stock levels of private and industrial equipment during the consumption phase
in the period between two points in time (t and t-1) plus the sales in that period minus the
annual waste produced in that period up to time t-1.
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
B-l
-------
Appendix B—Supporting Data and Documentation for the Material Flows Analysis
e-waste generation (t) = [Stock(ti) - Stock(t) private + [Stock(ti) -
Stock(t)] industry + Sales(n) - e-waste (n)
EQ. B-2
Where:
Stockprivate = Number of households x saturation level of households / 100
= Population / average household size x saturation of households / 100
Stockindustry = number of work places x saturation in the industry / 100
= number of employees / number of users per appliance
Sales = the sales of the equipment considered
E-waste = the amount of e-waste produced in the period.
B.1.3. Consumption and Use Method
The consumption and use method estimates the amount of e-waste generated using stock
and average life span data. The stock is the difference in products manufactured in a given
year and the quantity of products sold in a given year; products that are stored in a given
year are also included in the amount of stock. This method is mathematically represented
by Equation B-3 (UNEP, 2007).
Stock private = number of households x saturation level of the households / 100
= Population / average size of household x saturation level of the households / 100
Stock industry = number of work places x saturation level in the industry / 100
= number of employees / number of users per appliance x saturation level in the
industry / 100
Average lifetime = the average life span of a product.
B.1.4. Market Supply Method
The market supply method uses sales data and typical life spans of electronic devices. The
waste potential during the collection phase at time t is calculated from sales data and
information about consumption patterns. Mathematically, the market supply method is
described in Equation B-4 (UNEP, 2007).
e-waste generation (t) =
[StockpTivate(t) + Stocktnciustry(t)
Average Lifetime
EQ. B-3
Where:
e-waste generation (t) = sales (t - In) + reuse (t-ls)
EQ. B-4
Where:
Sales = Sales of electronic devices in time t
In = Average life span of new items
Is = Average life span of secondhand (reused) items
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
B-2
-------
Appendix B—Supporting Data and Documentation for the Material Flows Analysis
B.1.5. Sales Obsolescence and Transboundary Flows Method
This method is a variation of the market supply method that is used to calculate the amount
of e-waste generated but also considers reuse, recycling, exports, and disposal. E-waste
generation is estimated from sales or trade data. Assumptions regarding product life spans
(including reuse), recycling, storage, and disposal are used to reflect consumer behavior in
the disposition of the products. This method is described by the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP, 2007) as the Carnegie Mellon Method.1 Similar, but slightly more
complex methods are applied by Balde et al. (2015) and Duan et al. (2013). This method is
mathematically represented by Equation B-5.
T = Year e-waste is generated
Salest = Industry sales for year t
t = Year product was sold
3 =Weibull distribution scaling factor
a = Weibull distribution shape factor
1 An equation is not shown and the Weibull distribution curve is not specifically called out by
UNEP (2007). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 2011) uses a methodology
similar to what is described by UNEP (2007) as the Carnegie Mellon method, but a specific
equation is also not presented and discrete product life spans are used instead of the
Weibull distribution.
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201 B-3
e-waste (t) = YuH Sales,
EQ. B-5
Where:
-------
Appendix B—Supporting Data and Documentation for the Material Flows Analysis
Table B-l. Available MFA Methods to Assess E-Waste Flows and Their Associated
Data Needs, Disadvantages, and Advantages
Method Name
Data Needs
Disadvantages
Advantages
Direct Sales to
E-Waste Method
(UNEP, 2007)
Time Step
Method (UNEP,
2007)
Market Supply
Method (UNEP,
2007)
Sales data for time t
Information about
domestic sales can be
obtained from
production, import,
and export statistics
Appliance stock levels
can be ascertained
from predetermined
saturation levels in
the household
Industrial stock levels
are difficult to obtain
and require
assumptions
Information about
domestic sales
required for this
calculation can be
obtained from
production and export
statistics
Average life of new
and secondhand
items; the average life
of new goods and
secondhand
appliances is different
Only suitable for a fully
saturated market where the
purchase of a product leads to
the same quantity of waste from
the old product.
Limited application in dynamic
and developing markets because
a larger portion of sales in these
markets goes toward stock and
does not initially contribute to
the amount of e-waste.
This method is unsuitable if the
temporary storage or reuse of
electronics plays a significant
role in consumer behavior.
Household saturation levels are
based on predetermined stock
levels
Industrial stock levels are
assumed in the calculations
Assumption that all the waste
electrical and electronic
equipment (WEEE)/e-waste
generated is collected and
transferred to treatment and
disposal facility
The average life to a large extent
is subjective because in most
developed countries electrical
and electronic equipment is often
replaced and disposed of before
it reaches its technical end-of-life
WEEE/e-waste are often stored
for years
Assumed that all appliances
produced in the same year will be
in line for disposal after exactly
the average life
The assumption that the average
variance in life of items of
electrical and electronic
equipment does not change very
much, whereas, in reality,
lifetimes may become shorter in
the future. Therefore, this
method is not especially useful in
the calculation of WEEE for a
dynamic market where
technology and life spans are
changing rapidly.
Suitable for carrying
out an initial,
simplified
assessment.
Very limited range of
input data required.
No historical sales
data required.
Calculations can be
carried out very
easily
Method provides good
results in a saturated
market
Necessary data need
not be very wide-
ranging
Calculations can be
carried out very
easily using a simple
formula
Sales data are
derived from official
statistics from market
research institutes or
trade organizations
and are of good
quality and available
for a large number of
products
(continued)
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
B-4
-------
Appendix B—Supporting Data and Documentation for the Material Flows Analysis
Table B-l. Available MFA Methods to Assess E-Waste Flows and Their Associated
Data Needs, Disadvantages, and Advantages (continued)
Method Name
Data Needs
Disadvantages
Advantages
Consumption
and Use Method
(UNEP, 2007)
Sales
Obsolescence
and
Transboundary
Flows Method
(Balde et al.,
2014; Duan et
al., 2013; EPA,
2011; UNEP,
2007)
Stock data
Average life spans by
product
Sales data or trade
data
Export data (new and/
or used products)
Assumptions about
the quantity of
products reused
Assumptions about
the quantity of
products stored
Assumptions about
the quantity of
products recycled
Assumptions about
the quantity of
products disposed of
in the municipal waste
stream (landfilled or
incinerated)
A product's constant mean life
span is assumed in this method
Suitable for estimating WEEE in
widely saturated markets with
no major deviations from the
mean life span, which is a
subjective variable
Assumptions are made
regarding the pathways or
material flow during reuse,
storage, recycling and
landfilling. These assumptions
are both product and country
specific and therefore demand
good knowledge of consumer
behavior and the disposal
position.
Requires a full coverage of sales
data as early as possible in the
WEEE/e-waste trade value
chain.
Particularly useful
when reliable stock
data for an appliance
are available
Allows for an
electrical and
electronic equipment
to be purchased,
reused, stored, and
recycled or landfilled
representing material
flow more precisely.
Ideal for more
extensive
examination of
individual products.
Because of the larger
amount of input data,
the calculation of
WEEE is clearly more
extensively
structured.
B.2. Excerpts from the MFA Literature Review
This section discusses various approaches to gain an understanding of the flows of used
electronics in the past decade.
B.2.1. Stakeholder Workshop Results to Characterize Transboundary
Flows of Used Electronics
A stakeholder workshop was held in 2011 to discuss various approaches to characterize
transboundary flows of used electronics as part of the efforts to compile the StEP Initiative-
and an EPA-funded report entitled Characterizing Transboundary Flows of Used Electronics
(Miller et al., 2012). A matrix of the workshop's summary results is presented in Tables B-2
and B-3. These tables break down the previously used approaches, newly proposed
approaches, and other relevant approaches to characterize flows. These tables are
comprehensive, well informed, and based on expert knowledge/opinion from stakeholders in
this field. Additional detail on the specific approaches can be found in Miller et al. (2012). In
short, the authors note that several approaches should be undertaken simultaneously to
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
B-5
-------
Appendix B—Supporting Data and Documentation for the Material Flows Analysis
comprehensively characterize flows of used electronics (Miller et al., 2012); the trade-off
between the level of effort and quality will also weigh heavily on how an MFA is carried out.
Table B-2. Summary Matrix of Effort Required and Quality of Information for
Approaches Identified Through a Stakeholder Workshop Held in 2011
(Miller et al., 2012)
Effort Required
Low
Moderate
Significant
Low
¦ Proxy Trade Data
¦ Trade Data
¦ Enforcement Data:
Mandatory Reporting
¦ Enforcement Data:
Seizures
Moderate
¦ State-Level Data
¦ Handler Surveys
¦ Expand Monitoring of
Internet Trading
¦ Mass Balance
¦ Bill of Lading Data
o
¦ Updated Trade Data
•
re
3
c
Medium-
High
¦ Bayesian Truth
Serum within
Handler Survey
¦ Collaboration with
Original Equipment
Manufacturers
(OEMs)
¦ Qualitative Case
Studies
¦ Mobile Survey of
Recyclers in
Developing
Countries
¦ Electronic Tracking
High
¦ Person in the Port
¦ Material Flow
Monitoring
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
B-6
-------
Appendix B—Supporting Data and Documentation for the Material Flows Analysis
Table B-3. Summary of Approaches: Relevance, Effort Required, and Information
Quality (Miller et al., 2012)
Qualitative
Business Financial Effort Information
Approach
Quantitative
Models Transactions Motivations
Required
Quality
Proxy Trade Data
¦/
Low
Low
aj
-C
u
(0
O
1_
Q.
Q.
Enforcement
Data: Mandatory
Reporting
¦/
Low
Medium
<
"O
CD
-C
"i~i
Enforcement
Data: Reporting
& Seizure
¦/
Low &
Moderate
Medium
(0
4-»
Handler Surveys
¦/
~ ~ ~
Moderate
Medium
UJ
>¦
1ft
Trade Data
¦/
Low
Low
3
o
">
Mass Balance
¦/
Moderate
Medium
Surveillance
from Inspections
¦/
Significant
Medium-High
5
-------
Appendix B—Supporting Data and Documentation for the Material Flows Analysis
B.2.2. Summary of Key Reports Documenting Electronics Flows Using the
MFA Concept
Most documents reviewed (specifically Breivek et al., 2014; Duan et al., 2013; Huisman et
al., 2012; Muller et al., 2009; and Zumbuehl, 2006) use the sales obsolescence and
transboundary flows method to estimate quantities of used electronics and their disposition.
This general approach includes the following steps:
¦ determine the sales of a product in a region over a period;
¦ determine an average life span, or a distribution of obsolescence rates;
¦ calculate the number of products that are predicted to become obsolete in a given
year;
¦ apply a collection fraction to estimate the collected products;
¦ determine the average weight of the product in each year; and
¦ multiply by quantity to get total estimated weight generated and collected.
Three groups of researchers/organizations have applied methodologies based on sales data
to assess the material flows for multiple product types at a regional, national, or
international scale. Table B-4 compares the scope of the products and time series
considered (which informs the complexity of the analysis) and the general methodology
used at each stage in the product's life cycle across these three research groups. The
product scope varies across the references included in Table B-4, as does the time series;
this increases the complexity of the MFA because there are more products to track, but does
not have a large effect on the methodological approach used other than increasing its
complexity.
Table B-5 presents a high-level summary of the methodology used by three key research
groups. Note that EPA (2011) does not consider exports. Duan et al. (2013) do consider
exports, but only exports of whole units (presumably for reuse). Balde et al. (2014)
quantifies the quantity of e-waste generated by country/region, and does not expand the
flows analysis to the amount recycled and exported (or imported for recycling and reuse) by
country.
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
B-8
-------
Appendix B—Supporting Data and Documentation for the Material Flows Analysis
Table B-4. Product Coverage, Geography, and Time Series Across EPA (2011),
Duan et al. (2013), and Balde et al. (2014)
Reference
Product Scope
Geography
Time
Series
EPA, 2011
¦ Personal computers: desktop central processing
units, portables
¦ Computer displays: cathode ray tube (CRT)
monitors and flat-panel monitors
¦ Computer peripherals: keyboards and mice
¦ Hard-copy devices: printers, fax machines,
scanners, digital copiers, and multifunction
devices
¦ Televisions: monochrome, CRT, flat panel and
projection
¦ Mobile devices: cell phones, personal digital
assistants (PDAs), smartphones, and pagers
¦ U.S.
1980 to
2010
Duan et
al., 2013
¦ CRT TVs (and parts)
¦ Flat-panel TVs
¦ Mobile phones
¦ Computers (laptop, desktop)
¦ CRT monitors
¦ Flat-panel monitors
¦ U.S.
¦ International
exports
2010
Balde et
al., 2014
and 2015
¦ 260 products grouped into 54 product categories
as obtained from the Harmonized Commodity
Description and Coding System
¦ Global, by
world region
1995 to
2012
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
B-9
-------
Appendix B—Supporting Data and Documentation for the Material Flows Analysis
Table B-5. Material Flows Boundaries and Processes Included in EPA, 2011; Duan et al., 2013; and Balde et al.,
2014/2015
Ref
Production/
Sales
Generation
Collection
Recycling
Reuse/
Refurbishment
Disposal
Exports
Uses the number
of products
shipped by
model year for
each type of
product
^ Assumes
shipment data
° are equivalent to
> sales data, so
o. imports are
incorporated
hi
Uses a typical weight
for each product type;
weights change over
time
Distinguishes between
residential and
commercial sales for
product categories
Uses a typical life span
by product type; life
span changes over
time
Uses data from
literature and industry
experts to determine
storage times between
residential and
commercial
Calculates total
weights collected
from residential and
commercial share
based on the life
span by product and
time spent in
storage; used data
from states with e-
waste legislation (up
to 2007)
Uses reported
data for states
with e-waste
legislation (up to
2007); for states
without
legislation,
assumes 1 pound
collected and
recycled per
capita for
residential share,
and 67% of the
quantity collected
for recycling from
commercial
sources
Uses surveys of
general e-waste
recyclers and
mobile device
recyclers informed
the percentages
reused or
refurbished
Uses surveys of
general e-waste
recyclers and
mobile device
recyclers informed
the percentage
disposed
Did not include
m
o
-------
Appendix B—Supporting Data and Documentation for the Material Flows Analysis
Table B-5. Material Flows Boundaries and Processes Included in EPA, 2011; Duan et al., 2013; and Balde et al.,
2014 / 2015 (continued)
Ref
Production/
Sales
Generation
Collection
Recycling
Reuse/
Refurbishment
Disposal
Exports
o
-------
Appendix B—Supporting Data and Documentation for the Material Flows Analysis
B.3. Supporting Data for the e-Waste Model and Results
This section presents supporting data obtained in the literature for the e-waste model
presented in Section 3 of this report.
B. 3.1 Product Sales
The U.S. product sales data used in EPA (2011) across the 1980-2010 time series were the
starting point for the electronics considered. Sales data used in the EPA (2011) report for
2008-2010 were extrapolated based on prior year sales data. To supplement this
information, sales data were compiled for 2011-2014 for the electronics included within the
scope of this report (see Table A-6). Note that CRT computer monitors and TVs, projection
TVs, and monochrome TVs are no longer sold in the United States; desktop and portable
computer sales have declined since 2010; and tablet computers have emerged as a new
category of computer since the EPA (2011) report, with more than 53 million units (or
approximately 30,000 mt assuming an average weight of 0.6 kg per tablet) sold in 2014.
Table B-6. U.S. Electronic Sales Data from 2008 to 2014 (million units)
>
E
E
c
o
?
u
a)
'o
L_
1-
a)
IA
o.
IA
a>
(A
|e
o a)
U £
"D £
1- L.
(A
¦o
L_
(A
a)
c
to
Q.
at
V
a
at
A
a
(A
>
1-
"3
c
a)
E
o
L_
£
in
a)
c
o
3
Q.
E
o
(J
0
S
IA
n
to
>_
fl
IB
O
¦Q
>
a
4-1
ro
u.
L_
o
L_
o
ro
Q.
ro
Q.
L_
o
U
o
c
£
Q.
a)
a
Year
a>
O
iq a)
a)
o
a)
10
O
Q.
X Q.
z
*
Q.
Q.
u.
U 1-
Z
u
i-
2008
30.5
34.1
33.1
30.5
38.4
0.1
32.7
0.4
0.9
29.1
1.1
0.0
198.3
0.0
2009
26.3
46.4
29.5
26.3
33.1
0.0
27.2
0.1
0.3
32.1
0.6
0.0
216.1
5.4
2010
23.5
40.4
29.4
23.5
29.6
0.0
27.5
0.0
0.1
33.7
0.3
0.0
235.6
10.8
2011
21.9
35.5
26.2
21.9
27.6
0.0
25.6
0.0
0.0
38.0
0.1
0.0
213.1
26.6
2012
20.3
30.6
23.0
20.3
25.6
0.0
23.7
0.0
0.0
37.5
0.0
0.0
190.5
37.9
2013
18.7
25.7
19.8
18.7
23.6
0.0
21.9
0.0
0.0
34.0
0.0
0.0
168.0
46.6
2014
17.9
24.5
16.6
17.9
22.5
0.0
20.9
0.0
0.0
34.0
0.0
0.0
143.0
53.2
Note: data for years 2008 through 2010 are from EPA (2011). References for years 2011-2014
include Mearian (2014) for flat-panel TVs; Entner (2015) for mobile phones; and Roy (2015) for tablet
computers.
B.3.2 Product Weights
An internet search was conducted to calculate average flat panel-TV weights in the United
States for the period 2004 to 2014. The Internet search was done to (1) evaluate the
differences between EPA (2011 and 2008) and Wang et al. (2013); and (2) evaluate the
trend in U.S. flat panel-TV weights since 2010. Calculated average flat panel-TV weights in
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
B-12
-------
Appendix B—Supporting Data and Documentation for the Material Flows Analysis
the United States increased from 15.7 kg in 2004 to 16.7 kg in 2005, and then decreased
steadily to 10.1 kg in 2010, and thereafter remained at approximately 9.5 to 9.9 kg.
Recommended values for flat panel-TV weights across the time series of product sales are
broken out into two groups:
¦ 1998 to 2004: 15.7 kg for the average market share-adjusted flat-panel weight; and
¦ 2004 to 2014: use the appropriate values for the average market share-adjusted
flat-panel weights from Table B-7.
Table B-7. Calculated Average Market-Share-Adjusted Flat Panel-TV Weights
for 2004 to 2014.
Year
LED Unit
Plasma
Average LED
Average Average
Average
Share1
Unit
Size
LED Plasma
Market Share-
Share1
(inches,
Weight Weight
Adjusted Flat
diagonal)2
(kg)3 (kg)4
Panel-TV
Weight (kg)
2004
0.81
0.19
28
6.2 56.7
15.7
2005
0.79
0.21
30
6.8 53.1
16.7
2006
0.82
0.18
33
7.7 49.9
15.4
2007
0.87
0.13
35
8.4 44.5
13.1
2008
0.88
0.12
35
8.4 43.1
12.6
2009
0.91
0.09
36
8.8 35.8
11.3
2010
0.91
0.09
35
8.4 26.8
10.1
2011
0.92
0.08
35
8.4 25.1
9.7
2012
0.94
0.06
35
8.4 23.4
9.3
2013
0.95
0.05
36
8.8 21.7
9.4
2014
0.98
0.02
38
9.6 20.0
9.8
1 U.S. plasma share and LED share are assumed to be the same as worldwide plasma ("PDP") and LED
("LCD") shares as reported by NPD DisplayResearch (2014).
2 Average LED screen size as reported by CTA (2011).
3 Calculated from the equation: Weight = 1.6723*e°-0429*size (|nches). The weight value is then multiplied
by an additional 1.12, to adjust for the market mix of TV sizes, considering that weight increases
exponentially with size.
4 Plasma TV weights for 2004 to 2010 as reported by Boggio and Wheelock (2011). Weights then
assumed to decline linearly to 20 kg in 2014.
The following strategy was devised to model flat-panel computer models across the time
series of product sales:
¦ 1989 to 2007: use the average weight of 11.2 kg (as presented in EPA, 2008);
¦ 2008 to 2013: linearly decrease the average weight from 11.2 kg to 4.1 kg in 2014;
and
¦ 2014: use an average weight of 4.1 kg.
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
B-13
-------
Appendix B—Supporting Data and Documentation for the Material Flows Analysis
B.3.3 Product Life Spans
Life span data were reviewed to determine if any changes from the life spans used by EPA
(2011) were warranted. Two approaches are used in the literature: discrete product
lifetimes and Weibull distributions. Discrete product lifetimes are one value for the life span
of each product category (e.g., 20 years for a CRT TV). The Weibull distribution is a
continuous probability function that can be used to characterize product life spans.
The primary advantage of a Weibull distribution over a discrete product life span is the
continuous nature of the distribution. Additionally, two parameters are used to characterize
the distribution—similar to how the slope and the y-intercept are used to characterize a
straight line. The two parameters that characterize the Weibull distribution are the scale and
shape. The scale parameter generally correlates with the life span; for example, smaller
values of the scale parameter equate to shorter lifetimes. The shape parameter indicates
the distribution of a life span; a small value for the shape parameter equates to a larger
spread in the life span of a product. Both parameter values are always greater than zero.
Table B-8 presents scale and shape parameters found in the literature for various electronic
products. Figure B-l shows the percentage of each piece of equipment discarded each year
after sale. Cell phones and portable computers have very short lifetimes (i.e., smaller scale
values), whereas desktop computers and flat-panel TVs tend to have longer lifetimes (i.e.,
larger scale values). Flat-panel TVs also have a large spread in their lifetimes (i.e., a large
shape parameter) compared to the other electronic products included in Table B-8.
Table B-8. Weibull Distribution Characterization Parameters in Year 2005 for
Various Electronic Products (Wang et al., 2013)
Electronic Product Shape (a) Scale (P)
Desktop computer (residential) 2.1 9.6
Portable computer (residential) 1.5 5.2
Cell phone 0.7 7.6
Flat-panel TV 2.1 12.6
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
B-14
-------
Appendix B—Supporting Data and Documentation for the Material Flows Analysis
Figure B-l. Percentage of Electronic Products Ready for End-of-Life Management
After Each Year of Sale (Wang et al., 2013)
22%
+J
£ 20%
m 18%
ra
| 16%
£ 1454
0 12%
£ 10%
£ 8%
>
"£ 6%
0J
1 4%
c
OJ
" 2%
0J
0%
Year after sale
¦ Desktops ¦ Portables ^ Cell Phones ¦ TV Flat Panel
Wang et al. (2013) and Balde et al. (2015) use Weibull distribution values for equipment
sold in 1995 and 2005. The values for the shape and scale are similar to those found in
Duan et al. (2013) for desktops and CRT monitors. However, the scale parameter
(characteristic lifetime) for portables and flat-panel monitors in Wang et al. (2013) are 5.2
years and 7.5 years, respectively, versus values of 13.28 years and 15.05 years,
respectively, in Duan et al. (2013).
Weibull distributions are not used in the methodology presented by EPA (2011 or 2008);
instead, product life spans are presented as discrete values. For example, 20 percent of
residential portable computers are estimated to reach their end-of-life in 4 years, 35
percent in 5 years, 55 percent in 6 years, and 100 percent in 7 years. However, these
discrete lifetime values can be converted into approximate Weibull distribution values. For
example, the characteristic shape and scale values for residential portable computer
lifetimes in EPA 2011 are approximately 5.2 and 6.0, respectively.
Table B-9 presents the approximate Weibull distribution values represented by the discrete
lifetime data presented in by EPA (2011) compared to Wang et al. (2013) for select
electronic devices. Converting the discrete lifetime data found by EPA (2011) to Weibull
distribution values generally yields values similar to those found in Wang et al. (2013) and
li I.J lj
-J l l ¦_!>!
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
B-15
-------
Appendix B—Supporting Data and Documentation for the Material Flows Analysis
Duan et al. (2013). In particular, the scale values are similar, indicating similar product
lifetimes. This is important, since the Wang et al. (2013) scale values are based on
European data and EPA (2011), while Duan et al. (2013) scale values are based on U.S.
data. The similarity in scale values indicates a similar length of product life for European and
U.S. electronics. However, the shape parameters tend to be higher in EPA (2011), indicating
a narrower distribution in product lifetimes. For example, EPA (2011) assumes that 100
percent of computer mice and keyboards are discarded in year five of their product
lifetimes, 100 percent of projection TVs are discarded in year eight, and 100 percent of flat-
panel TVs are discarded in year nine. For the proof-of-concept model presented here, the
Weibull distribution values reported by Wang et al. (2013) are used in preference to the
Weibull distribution values obtained from conversion of the discrete data reported by EPA
(2011). It is more realistic to assume that electronic equipment such as mice and
keyboards, projection TVs, and flat-panel TVs have a range of product lifetimes, rather than
that 100 percent of products are discarded in a particular year.
Table B-9. Comparison of Weibull Distribution Values in year 2005 between EPA
(2011) and Wang et al. (2013)
Electronic Device
Reference
Shape
Scale
Desktop computer
EPA (2011)
2.1
11
(residential)
Wang et al. (2013)
2.1
9.6
Portable computer
EPA (2011)
5.2
6.0
(residential)
Wang et al. (2013)
1.5
5.2
Cell phone
EPA (2011)
3.3
4.6
Wang et al. (2013)
0.7
7.6
Flat-panel TV
EPA (2011)
30
9.0
Wang et al. (2013)
2.1
12
Mice and keyboards
EPA (2011)
30
5
Wang et al. (2013)
1.3
5.9
Projection TV
EPA (2011)
30
8
Wang et al. (2013)
Not reported
Not reported
August 2016 EPA/600/R-16/201
B-16
------- |