Data Collection Overview and Results IEEE/Summit May 8, 2006 Jason Linnell Executive Director National Center for Electronics Recycling

Presentation Overview National Center for Electronics Recycling National Center for Electronics Recycling Overview of Centralized Data Repository Overview of Centralized Data Repository –Goal, Benefits Data Gathering Activities Data Gathering Activities Trends Trends –Per Capita rates Next Steps Next Steps

National Center for Electronics Recycling Mission: coordinate initiatives targeting the recycling of end-of-life electronics in the United States and support actions to move towards a national system Mission: coordinate initiatives targeting the recycling of end-of-life electronics in the United States and support actions to move towards a national system In Polymer Technology Park in Davisville, WV In Polymer Technology Park in Davisville, WV Incorporated as non-profit in WV, 501(c)(3) Incorporated as non-profit in WV, 501(c)(3) Manufacturer-led organization – leading companies on environmental initiatives on Advisory Committee Manufacturer-led organization – leading companies on environmental initiatives on Advisory Committee –Manufacturers, approve projects –Multi-stakeholder project committees

CDR Goal Organized under the multi-stakeholder NCER Data Committee Organized under the multi-stakeholder NCER Data Committee Goal: Develop the premier open U.S. data source for electronics recycling program data and information. Goal: Develop the premier open U.S. data source for electronics recycling program data and information. Building on previous data standards development effort in 2004 Building on previous data standards development effort in 2004 –Data collection forms

CDR Benefits Local Governments and Private Collectors: evaluate your options, learn from colleagues across the country, measure your success. Local Governments and Private Collectors: evaluate your options, learn from colleagues across the country, measure your success. Recyclers: Gain national visibility, evaluate potential business opportunities, and contribute to the development of the electronics recycling industry as a whole. Recyclers: Gain national visibility, evaluate potential business opportunities, and contribute to the development of the electronics recycling industry as a whole. Stakeholders Interested in Electronics Recycling Policy: Local, state, and the federal government are considering how to handle the challenges of recycling used electronics. Effective policies must be based on a reliable data. Stakeholders Interested in Electronics Recycling Policy: Local, state, and the federal government are considering how to handle the challenges of recycling used electronics. Effective policies must be based on a reliable data.

Example Data Collection Forms

CDR status With IMTS, the NCER maintains the Centralized Data Repository of electronics recycling programs from around the United States. With IMTS, the NCER maintains the Centralized Data Repository of electronics recycling programs from around the United States. –Working on multiple fronts to gather more data Data forms can be used online, paper Data forms can be used online, paper –Also willing to work with data in whatever form

CDR Capabilities REPORTS: Pre-Programmed and available for analysis REPORTS: Pre-Programmed and available for analysis Volume Collected by Year: Total pounds of material collected, broken down by year. Volume Collected by Year: Total pounds of material collected, broken down by year. Volume Collected by State: Total pounds of material collected, broken down by state. Volume Collected by State: Total pounds of material collected, broken down by state. Volume Collected by Product Type: Total pounds of material collected, broken down by the type of electronics Volume Collected by Product Type: Total pounds of material collected, broken down by the type of electronics Units Collected by Product Type: Total number of units collected, broken down by the type of electronics Units Collected by Product Type: Total number of units collected, broken down by the type of electronics Waste per Participant: Average weight of material collected per participant Waste per Participant: Average weight of material collected per participant Total Participants by State: Total number of participants, broken down by state Total Participants by State: Total number of participants, broken down by state Average Transportation Cost Average Transportation Cost

High Level Statistics 43 Programs in Repository 3 Nationwide 40 Non-Nationwide 43 Programs in Repository 3 Nationwide 40 Non-NationwidePrograms 40,610,637 Pounds Collected 40,610,637 Pounds Collected Largest Programs Largest Programs –Massachusetts: data from 204 towns, 12.8 million lbs –Hennepin County, MN: 10.2 million lbs –California SB 20/50 not yet integrated, but available

Other Statistics Most reports/sponsors: Local governments, over half Most reports/sponsors: Local governments, over half Others: non-profits, retailers, state government aggregates, manufacturers Others: non-profits, retailers, state government aggregates, manufacturers Pounds per participant: most between lbs Pounds per participant: most between lbs

Per Capita Calculations from the CDR Massachusetts (2004) Massachusetts (2004) –2.94 lbs./capita (average for the 197 towns/cities reporting to the MA DEP) California’s first program year (2005) California’s first program year (2005) –1.79 lbs/capita Branford, CT (2004) Branford, CT (2004) –1.61 lbs./capita (CRTs only) Kirkland, WA (2004, curbside program) Kirkland, WA (2004, curbside program) –1.61lbs./capita Snohomish County, WA (2004, transfer station) Snohomish County, WA (2004, transfer station) –1.71 lbs./capita Hennepin County, MN (2004) Hennepin County, MN (2004) –3.4 lbs./capita

CDR Extension- Brand Sort Data Added in 2005 as part of Orphan Research Added in 2005 as part of Orphan Research Compiled existing studies for “National Return Share Estimates” Compiled existing studies for “National Return Share Estimates” Number of Brands: Number of Brands: –Desktops – 682; Laptops – 65; Monitors – 674; TVs brands Launching Brand Data Management System in June Launching Brand Data Management System in June –Allows sorting based on multiple scenarios/conditions (i.e. unit vs weight)

Challenges Going Forward Hard to draw conclusions from limited data Hard to draw conclusions from limited data –Not all programs have reported data –Not all data categories available for each program Getting the word out Getting the word out –Using conferences, publications, announcements –CALL FOR DATA developed Getting more recycler data without double- counting Getting more recycler data without double- counting –Protect any confidential data Minimizing burden on data reporters Minimizing burden on data reporters

Thank You! Jason Linnell NCER Phone: (304)