Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

LED BY: Jason Linnell, National Center for Electronics Recycling Jennifer Nash, Product Stewardship Institute E-SCRAP 2009 TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22 1pm–4pm.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "LED BY: Jason Linnell, National Center for Electronics Recycling Jennifer Nash, Product Stewardship Institute E-SCRAP 2009 TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22 1pm–4pm."— Presentation transcript:

1 LED BY: Jason Linnell, National Center for Electronics Recycling Jennifer Nash, Product Stewardship Institute E-SCRAP 2009 TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22 1pm–4pm PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR ELECTRONICS RECYCLING PROGRAMS How Can We Measure Effectiveness?

2 National Center for Electronics Recycling A 501(c)(3) non-profit organization formed in 2005 Dedicated to the development and enhancement of a national infrastructure for the recycling of used electronics in the U.S. The NCER is ready to assist in the implementation of recycling programs across the country and believes that national and regional approaches offer the best way forward. Product Stewardship Institute National non-profit membership-based organization located in Boston, Massachusetts Works with state and local government agencies to partner with manufacturers, retailers, environmental groups, federal agencies, and other key stakeholders to reduce the health and environmental impacts of consumer products. Encourages product design changes and reductions in waste management costs for local governments.

3 Dialogue on effective performance measures Develop a plan to incorporate them into data and analysis Agenda Overview Overview presentations/questions Current metrics for electronics recycling Stakeholder panel Discussion

4 States With E-Waste Laws NYC Rhode Island States With Producer Responsibility Laws States With ARF (Consumer Fees) Laws States With Landfill Disposal Fee States With Disposal Ban/No E-Waste Law

5 California is the best program in the nation! OR…. * Program Year 2 ** annualized projection

6 California is (barely) the best program in the nation! BUT…

7 Major Differences: Patchwork of Products and Entities! 10 different sets of product lists 8 Sets of covered entities All 6 cover monitors, TVs, laptops + allow households Non-Scientific Adjustments to normalize (cumulative) +/– 10% desktops +/– 5% small peripherals/printers/VCRs/DVDs etc. And beyond household e-waste (choose 1): +/– 35% for covering all entities (including business) +/– 15% for covering small businesses, school districts, local governments +/– 10% for covering all small business/non-profits only

8 Minnesota is the best program in the nation!

9 How Can & Should We Measure Performance??

10 Performance Metrics Overview Jennifer Nash, PSI Effective Metrics Types of Performance Metrics Use of Performance Metrics in other Stewardship Programs

11 Motivate performance improvement Facilitate comparison and learning Demonstrate commitment to program outcomes Satisfy regulatory requirements 11

12 Motivate performance improvement Facilitate comparison and learning Demonstrate commitment to program outcomes Satisfy regulatory requirements 12

13 13 Relevant: Measure progress toward stated goals High Quality: Underlying data are credible and reliable Easy to Use: No huge investment of time and resources required Transparent & Accessible: Data and assumptions are available for public analysis and debate Widely Accepted: Enable comparison among programs Adaptable: Can be updated as more is learned

14 14 Measure manufacturers/retailers/governments investment in program capacity Convenience # of collection sites, proximity of collection sites to target population Awareness $ spent on advertising Public understanding of how to participate and why they should

15 Measure program results Amount collected relative to baseline Amount collected per capita Amount collected compared to amount available for collection (collection rate) Amount recycled compared to amount collected (recovery rate) Amount recycled compared to amount available for collection (recycling rate) Impacts of collection/recycling program on sustainability

16 16

17 17

18 18 State TRC Mercury Thermostat Collections (2007)Per Capita Return Maine Minnesota Washington Pennsylvania Connecticut California New York Colorado Arkansas Georgia

19 Refers to: Amount Collected/Amount Available for Collection Measures program effectiveness in capturing products that can harm environment and health Metric of greatest relevance for many products Denominators (and numerators) are often contested as in these examples: Mercury thermostats Batteries Fluorescent lamps

20 Manufacturers advocate measuring collections relative to base year and note steady growth in units collected Many states contend that mercury thermostats collected represent just ~5% of what is available for collection Collection rate methodology (the # of mercury thermostats available for collection) is now the focal point of policy debate Basis for ME estimate is # of buildings in state Basis of PSI estimate is # of thermostats sold for replacement Basis of manufacturers estimate for CA is web-based survey of residents

21 Soon-to-be-released Environment Canada performance metric compares units and weights of batteries collected to amounts available for collection based on historic sales data Sophisticated assumptions about battery life spans and consumer hoarding behavior Finds collection rate for Canada of 2% for primary batteries, 6% for rechargeables (2005) EC battery performance metric compares weights of batteries collected to previous years battery sales Finds collection rate of 54% in Belgium, 34% in France, 1% in Italy (2007) RBRCC proposes comparing amount collected to amount present in landfills RBRC commissioned PSI to identify best practice metrics worldwide

22 From MA to CA, metric of choice compares units collected to amounts available for collection based on historic sales data Life spans range from 5 to 15 years depending on lamp type, assumptions chosen Debate now focuses on reliability of manufacturers sales data Number of lamps collected may be more difficult to estimate than number available for collection Collection rates range from 2% (ALMR 2004, residential lamps only nationwide) to 44% (NEMA 2008, commercial & residential lamps in MA)

23 Post-collection management includes recovery and recycling rates Hot topic for EU product stewardship debates EC requires recovery rate of 75% for NiCd batteries, 65% for lead acid batteries, and 50% for all other batteries Methods for calculating these rates being developed now Sustainability metrics address lifecycle economic, environmental, and social costs and benefits of product stewardship options Fertile ground for future investigations 23

24 Performance measurement motivates program improvements and enables comparison and competition Harmonized metrics are a cornerstone of understanding program effectiveness Program capacity (convenience and awareness) and program results (amount collected compared to some reference point) are critical to robust performance assessment But the value of multiple metrics should not distract from the importance of measuring collection and recycling rates 24

25 Performance indicators need not be perfect if assumptions are explicit and broadly accepted Collections-to-sales is emerging as a metric of choice for calculating collection rates for many products Requires assumptions about product lifespan and consumer hoarding behavior EC approaches emphasize simplicity, while emerging Canadian approaches emphasize accuracy EC has proposed revising its WEEE targets from 4 kg per capita to 65% of average weight of WEEE placed on market in previous 2 years Recycling and recovery rates are next frontier of performance measurement Metrics should be adaptable as experience evolves and conditions change

26 Current Performance Metrics in State Electronics Recycling Programs Jason Linnell, NCER Types of Metrics in Legislation Results So Far What Are We Missing?

27 Minnesota: 60 then 80% of current VDD sales weight – mandatory Amount available? Wider range CEDs collected Indiana – 60% sales weight, mandatory year 3 Michigan – non-binding 60% VDD sales current year New York City - % of avg weight sold over last 3 years Challenges: Data from manufacturers/retailers/market research Units/weight of sales Do current sales reflect amount available?

28 Illinois: Baseline 2.5/capita, adjusts by increments annually based on actual TV manufacturer lbs based on market weight %, IT manufacturer lbs based on return % Oregon: Per capita by DEQ annually, adjusted by DEQ (3.3. lbs capita 2009) Each manufacturer assigned lbs by return share New Jersey – IT manufacturers receive return share in weight based on estimates first year (likely per capita) Rhode Island: RIRRC sets per capita total, return/market share by weight assignments from there, adjusted RIRRC/DEM annually (5 lbs/capita 2009)

29 Washington: retroactive collection goal set, only relative % of each manufacturer (combined in plan) by return share beforehand Hawaii: TV manufacturers collect market share, IT manufacturers results report (shame factor) New Jersey: TV manufacturers collect market share No Collection (Absolute/rate/per capita): CA, CT, ME, MD, (MI), MO, NC, OK, TX, VA What if the minimum becomes the maximum?

30 Commonalities: Emphasis on collection or convenience, rare to have both Goals for internal system, not normalized for comparison with others Mainly rely on manufacturer to report, who turns to recycler Reporting differences: who, what, and when Are these the right metrics? What will we do with the data? Reuse and Recovery usually missing

31 Strict Convenience: OR/WA: each plan 1 site per county* + 1 site per city over 10,000 NJ: DEPT must ensure 1 per county NYC: direct collection for devices 15 lbs and up Loose convenience MO, TX, WV, VA, OK No Convenience, but rural incentives MN (1.5 lbs per 1), IL, (IN) No convenience, but reliance on locals ME, CT, NC No commons standards to judge for state managers How does mailback fit in?

32 Manufacturer Program Metrics Typically a subset of corporate sustainability metrics Influenced and tracked by NGOs Example metrics (U.S. only) Amounts collected and recycled Collection convenience Percentage of historic sales Various program commitments A moving target….rapid evolution underway! Computer manufacturers were first movers on metrics

33 Computer Example A: Dell In 2007 Dell agreed to measure and report the rate of equipment returned to computer equipment sales seven years ago. Using this metric, Dell took back in 2006 over 12 percent of the electronic equipment that they had originally sold approximately seven years ago. (2007 Sustainability report, p. 66) We set, met and, in fiscal year 2009, exceeded our goal to recover 275 million pounds of materials through our takeback programs. (CR Summary Report 2009, p. 21)

34 Computer Example B: Apple We use a simple measurement proposed by Dell that assumes a seven year product lifetime… 2008, Apple recycled 30.5 million pounds of electronic waste worldwide recycling rate >38%

35 Computer Example B: Apple (cont)

36 Computer Example C: HP 2010 environmental goal: Recycle 2 billion pounds (900,000 tonnes) of electronic products and supplies by the end of 2010 (since 1987) Reuse 450 million pounds (200,000 tonnes) of electronic products by the end of 2010 (since 2003) Progress: 1,435 million pounds (650,000 tonnes) have been recycled and more than 275 million pounds (125,000 tonnes) have been reused. In total, more than 1.71 billion pounds have been recovered.

37 TV Example A: Sony First mover as TV manufacturer to initiate national voluntary program with goals in 2007 A pound for a pound as U.S. metric The long-term goal is to recycle one pound of old consumer electronics equipment for every pound of new Sony product sold. (CSR 2008)

38 TV Example A: Sony (cont) As easy to recycle as to purchase Sony and WM Recycle America are also working towards the goal of having enough drop-off locations in all 50 states so there is a recycling center within 20 miles of 95 percent of the U.S. population. (program kick-off press release August 16, 2007)

39 TV Example B: Samsung Samsung Recycling Direct (SRD) program rolled out in fall 2008 Public collection locations in all 50 states 2008 Total: 2.1 million lbs through August 1: 7.8 million lbs including pounds collected collectively in state programs: 9.2 million lbs.

40 TV Example C: Panasonic Created MRM with Sharp and Toshiba: Established a company to manage the recycling of waste electronic devices and started operations in Minnesota (Panasonic 2008 Environmental Data Book) Beginning January 15, 2009 the MRM Recycling network will provide recycling opportunities at 280 locations with at least one recycling center located in each state, making it one of the most comprehensive national recycling networks. MRM will continue to expand its program and expects to have established at least 800 drop-off locations by (http://www.mrmrecycling.com/news.htm)http://www.mrmrecycling.com/news.htm

41 Measuring Across Manufacturers No real standard metrics have evolved Dell/Apple calculation of recycling % of sales 7 years previous is closest to a common metric Competition across manufacturers to differentiate brand Value of common program metrics may become more clear to manufacturers over time

42 BREAK

43 Panel Members Garth Hickle, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Carole Cifrino, Maine Dept. of Environmental Protection Mike Watson, Dell Lorraine Kerwood, NextStep Recycling

44 What Are The Desired Metrics for Electronics Recycling Programs? What are the best metrics? Other Metrics – What is feasible and what would they tell us? What are the key challenges in harmonizing performance metrics? Is it necessary to harmonize all program elements at once, or can metrics be harmonized as a first step? Plan for follow-up action on performance measures


Download ppt "LED BY: Jason Linnell, National Center for Electronics Recycling Jennifer Nash, Product Stewardship Institute E-SCRAP 2009 TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22 1pm–4pm."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google